World's Farmers Feel The Effects Of A Hotter Planet

[grapeman]

Selective info. Five investigations uncovered no basis for the accusations. The peeps that made the false accusations never got past it either. Misinterpreted reads of e-mails, nothing more.

IMO, you'd do better attempting to discount the investigations that exonerated the accused, not the stale accusations that were rebuked.

Your arguments are cyclical. When you run out of excuses they come back around a second and third time. In the old days, h3ad led your and others' every post to water but you're convinced a sidewalk perspective rules.

90% of your arguments discount science but you'll throw out a layman pretending to use science to discount science even further.

I'm sure you're a great grape grower and I hope your micro climate doesn't suffer. IMO, your perspective is just as micro.

Show me 1 investigation that was not done "in house".

LOL

 

[mad librettist]

Keyword "amateur"

That puts me in your camp, grapeman, despite your feelings that staring at that little omphalos of yours gives you valid information about the world. My dad used to suck you people dry working for a major pesticide producer. Marketing to farmers is easy. You just paint a rosy picture of unlimited yields, and avoid talking about how much the next product will cost to replace the old product they are selling you that is supposed to be the product to top all products.

professional grape grower - that does not make you elite.

amateur bullshitter.


Like a mechanic trying to pass himself off as an engineer.

 

[krunchbubble]

No, I'm not a troll. I'm just a guy with more experience growing crops then you will ever have in your lifetime..... or several of your lifetimes.

So I can say with certainty, contrary to your ignorance, that another degree or so of heat and a bit more CO2 will never reduce a farmer's crop. Ever. The exception being trees & vines needing chilling hours during winter, which if we ever experience GW would mean that certain crops may need to move to a higher elevation. I grow those types of crops. Over the last 40 years, we have NOT experienced any drop in the required chilling hours.

I'm seen as a joke? Ha.

Aside from the fact that I know more about this then you ever will, you and your ilk have been demoted over the last several years into the minority of clear thinking americans.

How does that sit with you? LOL

BTW Disco, I am not admitting that there is GW, I'm just addressing fallacy of the OP's premise and trying to stay on topic.

Not to burst your intellectual bubble, but you do know that "modeling and scenarios" are only as good as the assumptions and constants used. I now point you to the emails from M. Mann, admitting to the need to change the constants because the models did not show the warming desired.

But that might just be over your head.

Keyword "amateur"

Show me 1 investigation that was not done "in house".

LOL

damn dude, why do you always have to be such a dick?

you used to be a cool guy a long time ago. but for the last 6 months, every post i see from you is negative, derogatory, condescending and belittling.....

wtf is your problem? you have such a negative attitude. why are you here, just to be a dick to people?

 

[mad librettist]

Heres the issue with people for global warming....they are simply hearing and reading things from the mainstream media, im not saying its all bullshit but come on.

sorry, but the message I get from MAINSTREAM media is that there is still a debate.

If I read media created for critical thinkers, there is only comment on the curious inability of Americans to be convinced by anything but high gas prices.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Wow the sun looks unusually large and extra bright today. Maybe just the time of year. Or is it the beginning of the rapture lol.

Funny how so many people can be fooled by computer models with guestimates used to predict such things.

I predict in a few months no-one will give 2 fucks about C02.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Show me 1 investigation that was not done "in house".

LOL

You're right, you don't have to consider the evidence if you don't want to.

For the record, I meant to quote this post, not rep it.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Wow the sun looks unusually large and extra bright today. Maybe just the time of year. Or is it the beginning of the rapture lol.

Funny how so many people can be fooled by computer models with guestimates used to predict such things.

Computer models are only part of the process. We have history that shows x levels of warming gasses producing y temps.

Climate change isn't static across the globe. Part of what these scientists are doing is establishing correlation between C02 levels and global temperatures.

They don't have crystal balls to predict future temps but they don't have to. They have climate data and future estimates of man-made C02 release. That's what you call scientific observation.

It's not the scientists that created the bogeyman debate over climate change. That crap started when ideas began to emerge on how to deal with it.

No surprise, we'll deal with climate change just like we've dealt with other harmful substances, (with the same players trying to keep it from happening.) We'll regulate the use of warming gasses and their disposal.

Nothing new here unless one feels everything under the sun is a government plan to screw us. Quite the contrary, government usually gets involved when business has already screwed us... repeatedly.

 

[CLOWD11]

No, I'm not a troll. I'm just a guy with more experience growing crops then you will ever have in your lifetime..... or several of your lifetimes.

Nothing beats a knowall jackass!

So I can say with certainty, contrary to your ignorance, that another degree or so of heat and a bit more CO2 will never reduce a farmer's crop. Ever.

Complete opposite of what we are being warned about. Simpletons like you dont understand the impact of only 1 or 2 degree increases in temp.

The exception being trees & vines needing chilling hours during winter, which if we ever experience GW would mean that certain crops may need to move to a higher elevation. I grow those types of crops. Over the last 40 years, we have NOT experienced any drop in the required chilling hours.

Well you must know more than every single climate scientist put together. How does that feel?
You do understand that min temps are rising at twice the rate of max temps?

I'm seen as a joke? Ha.

The more you add, the funnier this thread becomes.

Aside from the fact that I know more about this then you ever will, you and your ilk have been demoted over the last several years into the minority of clear thinking americans.
How does that sit with you? LOL

Dont lump me in with you dumb arse yanky deniers. I think you will find your in the minority now.

BTW Disco, I am not admitting that there is GW, I'm just addressing fallacy of the OP's premise and trying to stay on topic.

No your a troll. You deny evidence and claim to know more than the scientists. Your a troll or incredibly thick.

well cloud(that's how you spell it properly by the way)

Thanks for that, i was wondering why it looked funny.
When i signed up i tried to use cloud9, but was taken, then clowd9, also, so i went up two levels, sorry for confusing people like you.

clearly you know little of how models and scenarios work for this science and i will not repeat grapeman....stop riding discos pole and mind your manners...

Because i believe in the use of models, I "clearly" know little about them?
Didnt realise i had to understand something to believe it. Everytime i make a phone call, i dont understand the protocol for the exchanges invovled, does that make the phone call fake?

you contribute nothing more than biased info from biased sources

If you call the IPCC and NOAA biased then you are deluded along with grapeman.

i have not linked to any blogger named anybody or any source of my info so stop assuming you know everything about me

I dont know ANYTHING about you and plan on leaving it that way.

you are no scientist you are just going along with the hype and thats all it is

Correct! Im no scientist. Never will be. At least im not pretending like your buddy.

 

[mad librettist]

So I can say with certainty, contrary to your ignorance, that another degree or so of heat and a bit more CO2 will never reduce a farmer's crop. Ever. The exception being trees & vines needing chilling hours during winter, which if we ever experience GW would mean that certain crops may need to move to a higher elevation.

well now i finally agree with grapeman.

Think about it - we can always just go higher. Mountains on this planet just go up and up, and there is unlimited space.

Also, with all the newly endangered species also trying to find higher elevation to avoid extinction, we will have plenty of meat.

 

[mad librettist]

this is from a journal extract, re: increased co2 levels and tree growth. Pretty much destroys the "greening earth" religion followed by Rush, Sean, and Grapeman:

The CO2 effect size metric we used was the log-transformed ratio of elevated compared to ambient response means weighted by the inverse of the variance of the log ratio. Variation in effect size among studies was partitioned according to the presence of interacting stress factors, length of CO2 exposure, functional group status, pot size, and type of CO2 exposure facility. Both total biomass (W T) and net CO2 assimilation (A) increased significantly at about twice ambient CO2, regardless of growth conditions. Low soil nutrient availability reduced the CO2 stimulation of W T by half, from +31% under optimal conditions to +16%, while low light increased the response to +52%. We found no significant shifts in biomass allocation under high CO2. Interacting stress factors had no effect on the magnitude of responses of A to CO2, although plants grown in growth chambers had significantly lower responses (+19%) than those grown in greenhouses or in open-top chambers (+54%). We found no consistent evidence for photosynthetic acclimation to CO2 enrichment except in trees grown in pots <0.5 l (−36%) and no significant CO2 effect on stomatal conductance. Both leaf dark respiration and leaf nitrogen were significantly reduced under elevated CO2 (−18% and −16% respectively, data expressed on a leaf mass basis), while leaf starch content increased significantly except in low nutrient grown gymnosperms. Our results provide robust, statistically defensible estimates of elevated CO2 effect sizes against which new results may be compared or for use in forest and climate model parameterization.

 

[mad librettist]

1969:

2003:

animated time lapse


from NASA:

Seasons of Change: Evidence of Arctic Warming Grows

SYNOPSIS:

Experts have long regarded Earth's polar regions as early indicators for global climate change. But until the last few years, wide ranging, comprehensive research about overall polar conditions has been challenging to conduct. Now a more than twenty-year record of space based measurements has been analyzed by researchers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Based on their findings, evidence of a warming planet continues to grow.

 

[mad librettist]

More from NASA, the lying liars who faked so many moon landings and space flights in cahoots with the russian, as part of a conspiracy to install a muslim president and single-payor universal health care.

Space based observation facilitate a kind of thoroughness that ground based observations cannot realistically approach. Based on 20 years of data collected by infrared measurements, surface warming trends in The Arctic are eight times greater than trends over the past 100 years, suggesting a rapid acceleration in warming. According to this study, the sea ice melt season has increased by 10 to 17 days per decade.

The readings are not uniform, however. While average temperatures are increasing throughout The Arctic, there are several places where there appear to be cooling trends. Greenland is a good example; the data there suggest a mild decrease in average temperatures through the time period being analyzed.

The data used to create these images were collected by the AVHRR instruments onboard the NOAA POES satellites.

The prediction of stronger continental storms and more lightning in a warmer climate is a natural consequence of the tendency of land surfaces to warm more than oceans and for the freezing level to rise with warming to an altitude where lightning-producing updrafts are stronger. These features of global warming are common to all models, but this is the first climate model to explore the ramifications of the warming for thunderstorms.

The Goddard Institute for Space Studies is a leading center in the study of Earth’s past, present and future climates.



Leslie McCarthy
Goddard Institute for Space Studies

 

[elmanito]

The exception being trees & vines needing chilling hours during winter, which if we ever experience GW would mean that certain crops may need to move to a higher elevation.

I hope those crops can stand against a higher UV conc.

There are some other factors which can cause climate change like space weather.

http://www.joyfirepublishing.com/Joyfire_Extreme_Spaceweather.php

Namaste

 

[mad librettist]

Some basic science

 

[mad librettist]

...Perhaps most alarming of all is the result of an extended study by NASA's GISS. Using a sophisticated model, their researchers projected temperature rises by the year 2085 for the eastern U.S. For comparison, using this model they produced an estimate for the year 1993 (right map) which was closely matched by reality

 

[mad librettist]

The reason for showing the above two illustrations is just to call attention to the complexities involved in the physics of the atmosphere. Various processes and interactions are involved in heating up the atmosphere. Changes in both short-term and long-term temperatures depend not only on adding a single heat-absorbing gas but on other factors that either exacerbate or mitigate the thermal state of the Earth's air.

 

[mad librettist]

The Effects of Carbon Dioxide on Warming
This next diagram shows the absorbing bands associated with water and carbon dioxide, the two princpal "contaminants" in the atmosphere besides the primary constituents nitrogen and oxygen. The total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere remains essentially constant although the distribution (locations) at any one time do vary. The amount of carbon dioxide added or subtracted through natural processes (controlled mainly by vegetation) is seasonal but the overall level as annualized is fairly constant.

In almost all discussions of global warming caused by CO2, the plots used to demonstrate this effect show temperature versus time (years). This results in two kinds of plots: 1) one that shows variations (ups and downs) over long periods; and 2) one that shows a steady increase in recent years. This is pertinent information but a third plot would be equally informative: one that simply shows how temperature increases with concentration (the amount of CO2 in a fixed volume). This is a straightforward type of measurement in Physics. Yet the writer had great difficulty in finding such a plot after searching through hundreds of images on Google. The one shown below consists of measurements made on a mixture of Nitrogen and Oxygen (in atmospheric proportions) containing also variable amounts of CO2-gas in a chamber that was subjected to thermal radiation; the three plots refer to different rates of allowed temperature increases:

The irrefutable message from this plot: experimentally, it is clearly demonstrated that the addition of increasing amounts of CO2 to an otherwise constant atmosphere causes a systematic rise in gas temperature. The ranges shown in the above plot are pertinent to levels that might be attained in the future if carbon dioxide emissions are not curbed.

 

[mad librettist]

This may be a very important graph bearing on the arguments for and against global warming. The graph shows a temperature maximum about 130,000 years ago, with a steady decline thereafter until a rapid rise beginning about 15,000 years ago. This rise resembles the same increase leading to the 130,000 peak. The question that must be asked: Is this just a repeat in the normal cycle associated with Pleistocene glaciation? The follow-up question: Is there any strong evidence that the more rapid temperature rise of the last 50 years (or, going back to the Industrial Revolution) is abnormal? The closest to the truth may be that there is now a temperature spike added to a trend that has natural causes related to glacial processes.

 

[mad librettist]

Lets now discuss the role of acidification in terms of feedback mechanisms. A rise in CO2 leads to a rise in acidity. If this is, in itself, a good thing, then this outcome is positive. Some organisms do flourish more when the seawater is more acidic than usual. Other organisms, however, are adversely affected if they make their protective shells out of carbonate of Ca and/or Mg; this is a negative feedback condition if the shells are more likely to dissolve if the acidity increase is too much. The mechanism: increased acidity increases H+ ions, and more bicarbonate ions, at the expense of decreasing carbonate ions (which can impede shell production in corals, oysters, foraminifera, etc.)

Add to the picture this situation: On land particularly, increased photosynthesis leads to more CO2 being extracted from the atmosphere, which should impede ocean acidification. However, many land animals release CO2 through respiration, partially restoring the balance; land plants also release CO2 when they decay. In the oceans some organisms at depth "respire" as a metabolic process making deeper ocean waters more acidic; these do not depend on photosynthesis for energy or bodily production. But most shallow water plant organisms (algae, diatoms, etc.) use penetrating sunlight to photosynthesize the CO2 into organic molecules (starting from sugars). These organisms are the "primary producers" in the oceans and are the central base that establishes and controls the food chain.


The main point alluded to in the above paragraphs is just that changes in CO 2 introduce a variety of positive and negative feedback mechanisms. Some consequences involve loss of hard parts in organisms - this is negative. Other consequences can lead to certain organisms increasing in numbers - this is positive. But the bottom line is this: While certain plants and animals may thrive if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to increase, corals and other ocean dwellers are more at risk for maintenance or even survival if/when the CO2 levels lead to dangerous pH levels.

 

[ronbo51]

I live and work in a college town that hosts a major research and engineering university. I have worked for several dozen professors and people with terminal degrees and my conclusion is that most of these men and women with doctorates are some of the dumbest people on the planet. If shit were to go bad they would be the first to go. Completely inept, no skills, terrible thought and problem solving abilities. Take them out of the classroom and they are thumbsuckers. I have lost all respect for academia. They are largely rabid idealogues who have shallow understanding of their beliefs and cannot function in the real world. That is why colleges and universities are setup the way they are: To give these incompetent child-adults a chance at a nice life to reward them for never leaving school. I will never believe anything that these politically motivated, socially isolated lightweights have to say about anything. It has been a huge mistake to equate education with competence. I know hundreds of tradesmen, business owners, hustlers and achievers who I would proudly stand with before I ever threw my lot in with people who entered school at age 6 and never had the courage to leave and actually DO something.