Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2014 - 04:15pm PT
|
rick sumner=alarmist
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2014 - 05:36pm PT
|
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2014 - 05:50pm PT
|
He can't hold a candle to the paranoid "the Earth is warming! the Earth is warming" chicken little hysterics who frequent this thread.
Say Sketch, do you consider this a denier POV, because according to climate scientists, it sure is.
Again, what are the facts proving AGW is a present danger?
Your kidding, right? We have thousands of posts that provide facts that show AWG presents a real and present danger. But what do a bunch of sc#m-sucking dirtbag climbers know. Why not ask the military?
Hmm, what does the Pentagon say about climate change?
The U.S. Department of Defense released a new report this week that says climate change poses an "immediate risk to national security."
But what the heck do they know? After all, Sketch is in the house.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2014 - 05:58pm PT
|
The quote noted the study was "widely hyped", implying media hype. Sorry you had trouble making the connection.
No, I did not make the connection because the media did not hype the report.
But I'm sure you can find a link to prove me wrong. (In other words, you can't find a link to a MSM story on the recent polar bear study. Which means you're farting around your head that's up your wazoo.)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2014 - 09:37pm PT
|
But anyone who thinks that a little warmer weather + more CO2 is going to lead to dramatic declines in world agricultural output is smoking something...
how do you know this?
did you even take the time to look at the scientific literature on the topic? or did you just make it up?
actually, it's probably made up...
we have been through this before... you don't remember the discussion because it didn't support your contention, so you disregarded the information.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2014 - 10:09pm PT
|
But anyone who thinks that a little warmer weather + more CO2 is going to lead to dramatic declines in world agricultural output is smoking something...
how do you know this?
did you even take the time to look at the scientific literature on the topic? or did you just make it up?
I didn't "make it up," I simply used some basic reasoning skills.
As a starting point, just to get your thinking cap on straight, consider what a greenhouse is used for (an actual greenhouse operates under somewhat different principles from CO2 warming, but it's an analogy that the "scientists" themselves seem to think is a good one).
Then consider what significance CO2 has to plants.
Then think about typical growing seasons: what are the significant aspect of when the growing season starts, and when it stops?
Then note that some climates actually have more than one growing season. What's the most significant aspect of those climates compared to places that only have one growing season?
Some places have really, really short growing seasons. Why?
NASA itself admits that global warming will increase the Earth's biomass. Does that have some plausible significance to agriculture?
Global warming has apparently already occurred. How have crop yields fared?
We don't need scientists to tell us the effect of little extra warming and CO2 on agriculture, it is glaring obvious. (And don't start up with the drought stuff, remember Al Gore just made that up to scare everyone--global warming is projected to increase worldwide precipitation.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2014 - 10:41pm PT
|
I didn't "make it up," I simply used some basic reasoning skills.
maybe too simple... do you have any understanding of plant physiology? how plants actually metabolize the CO2, the nutrients and the sunlight?
how they evolved to that point and under what conditions?
what the plant productivity is as a function of moisture, sunlight, CO2 concentrations, temperature?
Perhaps some basic reasoning skills might fail to account for something you have no knowledge of, and in the end be a simple example of "garbage in, garbage out"?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2014 - 10:53pm PT
|
http://biblio-climat.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/69_Lobell_Climate-Trends-and-Global-Crop-Production-Since-1980.pdf
Science 333, 616 (2011)
Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980
David B. Lobell, Wolfram Schlenker, Justin Costa-Roberts
Efforts to anticipate how climate change will affect future food availability can benefit from understanding the impacts of changes to date. We found that in the cropping regions and growing seasons of most countries, with the important exception of the United States, temperature trends from 1980 to 2008 exceeded one standard deviation of historic year-to-year variability. Models that link yields of the four largest commodity crops to weather indicate that global maize and wheat production declined by 3.8 and 5.5%, respectively, relative to a counterfactual without climate trends. For soybeans and rice, winners and losers largely balanced out. Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors.
http://www.ask-force.org/web/Yield/Ray-Recent-Patterns-Crop-Yield-Stagnation-2012.pdf
Nature Communications 3 (2012): 1293.
Recent patterns of crop yield growth and stagnation
Deepak K. Ray, Navin Ramankutty, Nathaniel D. Mueller, Paul C. West & Jonathan A. Foley
In the coming decades, continued population growth, rising meat and dairy consumption and expanding biofuel use will dramatically increase the pressure on global agriculture. Even as we face these future burdens, there have been scattered reports of yield stagnation in the world’s major cereal crops, including maize, rice and wheat. Here we study data from B2.5 million census observations across the globe extending over the period 1961–2008. We examined the trends in crop yields for four key global crops: maize, rice, wheat and soybeans. Although yields continue to increase in many areas, we find that across 24–39% of maize-, rice-, wheat- and soybean-growing areas, yields either never improve, stagnate or collapse. This result underscores the challenge of meeting increasing global agricultural demands. New investments in underperforming regions, as well as strategies to continue increasing yields in the high-performing areas, are required.
http://www.uniroma2.it/didattica/Fotosintesiamb/deposito/FACE.pdf
Science 312, 1918 (2006)
Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations
Stephen P. Long, Elizabeth A. Ainsworth, Andrew D. B. Leakey, Josef Nösberger, Donald R. Ort
Model projections suggest that although increased temperature and decreased soil moisture will act to reduce global crop yields by 2050, the direct fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) will offset these losses. The CO2 fertilization factors used in models to project future yields were derived from enclosure studies conducted approximately 20 years ago. Free-air concentration enrichment (FACE) technology has now facilitated large-scale trials of the major grain crops at elevated [CO2] under fully open-air field conditions. In those trials, elevated [CO2] enhanced yield by ~50% less than in enclosure studies. This casts serious doubt on projections that rising [CO2] will fully offset losses due to climate change.
http://imis.cimmyt.org/confluence/download/attachments/23069648/Ortiz_et_al_2008-Can_wheat_beat_the_heat-AgrEcosystEnv.pdf
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 126.1 (2008): 46-58.
Climate change: Can wheat beat the heat?
Rodomiro Ortiz, Kenneth D. Sayre, Bram Govaerts, Raj Gupta, G.V. Subbarao, Tomohiro Ban, David Hodson, John M. Dixon, J. Iván Ortiz-Monasterio, Matthew Reynolds
Climate change could strongly affect the wheat crop that accounts for 21% of food and 200 million hectares of farmland worldwide. This article reviews some of the approaches for addressing the expected effects that climate change may likely inflict on wheat in some of the most important wheat growing areas, namely germplasm adaptation, system management, and mitigation. Future climate scenarios suggest that global warming may be beneficial for the wheat crop in some regions, but could reduce productivity in zones where optimal temperatures already exist. For example, by 2050, as a result of possible climate shifts in the Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGPs) – currently part of the favorable, high potential, irrigated, low rainfall mega-environment, which accounts for 15% of global wheat production – as much as 51% of its area might be reclassified as a heat-stressed, irrigated, short-season production mega-environment. This shift would also represent a significant reduction in wheat yields, unless appropriate cultivars and crop management practices were offered to and adopted by South Asian farmers. Under the same climate scenarios, the area covered by the cool, temperate wheat mega-environment could expand as far as 65ºN in both North America and Eurasia. To adapt and mitigate the climate change effects on wheat supplies for the poor, germplasm scientists and agronomists are developing heat-tolerant wheat germplasm, as well as cultivars better adapted to conservation agriculture. Encouraging results include identifying sources of alleles for heat tolerance and their introgression into breeding populations through conventional methods and biotechnology. Likewise, agronomists and extension agents are aiming to cut CO2 emissions by reducing tillage and the burning of crop residues. Mitigation research promises to reduce emissions of nitrous oxide by using infrared sensors and the normalized differential vegetative index (NDVI) that determines the right times and correct amounts of fertilizer to apply. Wheat geneticists and physiologists are also assessing wild relatives of wheat as potential sources of genes with inhibitory effects on soil nitrification. Through the existing global and regional research-for-development networks featuring wheat, technology and knowledge can flow to allow farmers to face the risks associated with climate change.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdaarsfacpub/1350/?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fusdaarsfacpub%2F1350&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
Agron. J. (2011) 103:351–370.
Climate Impacts on Agriculture: Implications for Crop Production
J. L. Hatfield, K. J. Boote, B. A. Kimball, L. H. Ziska, R. C. Izaurralde, D. Ort, A. M. Thomson, and D. Wolfe

ABSTRACT
Changes in temperature, CO2, and precipitation under the scenarios of climate change for the next 30 yr present a challenge to crop production. This review focuses on the impact of temperature, CO2, and ozone on agronomic crops and the implications for crop production. Understanding these implications for agricultural crops is critical for developing cropping systems resilient to stresses induced by climate change. There is variation among crops in their response to CO2, temperature, and precipitation changes and, with the regional differences in predicted climate, a situation is created in which the responses will be further complicated. For example, the temperature effects on soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] could potentially cause yield reductions of 2.4% in the South but an increase of 1.7% in the Midwest. The frequency of years when temperatures exceed thresholds for damage during critical growth stages is likely to increase for some crops and regions. The increase in CO2 contributes significantly to enhanced plant growth and improved water use efficiency (WUE); however, there may be a downscaling of these positive impacts due to higher temperatures plants will experience during their growth cycle. A challenge is to understand the interactions of the changing climatic parameters because of the interactions among temperature, CO2, and precipitation on plant growth and development and also on the biotic stresses of weeds, insects, and diseases. Agronomists will have to consider the variations in temperature and precipitation as part of the production system if they are to ensure the food security required by an ever increasing population.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 06:46am PT
|
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 08:28am PT
|
Me:
I didn't "make it up," I simply used some basic reasoning skills.
Mal:
If you had basic language skills,
you'd know the comma comes after the quotation mark.
The truth:
Rule 3a. Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks.
Examples:
The sign said, "Walk." Then it said, "Don't Walk," then, "Walk," all within thirty seconds.
He yelled, "Hurry up." http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp
For anyone who actually gives a damn, my understanding is that British grammar may differ from American grammar on this point, and I have no idea which rule Canadians typically follow.
But claiming that an American made a mistake by following American grammar rules while (not whilst, while) writing on an American website is, how can I put this delicately, completely f*#king retarded.
Bruce--can you construct a psychological profile of Mal that may explain the gross deficiencies in his "thinking"? Must be reflective of the Canadian character, I reckon.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 08:31am PT
|
What happened here this week in NY?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 08:46am PT
|
I just did. He like Werner thinks in haiku.
I sure nailed your profile eh?
Why the deflection? (And you don't need to smear Werner by equating him to Mal.)
What does it say that Mal thought he was correcting my grammar, when in fact he himself was completely wrong?
If his reasoning was essentially correct, then he himself lacks "basic reasoning skills." (Note the correct order of the comma and quotation mark in the preceding sentence.)
But since he seems to lack basic reasoning skills, should we have confidence that his reasoning was correct?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 09:21am PT
|
Thanks Bruce, I just wanted you to admit that Mal's "point" was, to borrow an insult from a certain know-it-all "scientist" who likes to pipe up now and then on this thread, "dumber than dumb." I take your post as being close enough.
You appear to have been so brain-washed by these "scientists" that you have surrendered any independent thinking skills that you may have had.
The abstracts that Ed haphazardly threw together don't support the proposition that a little GW is going to cause an agricultural collapse.
As some scientists like to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The claim that slightly warmer temperatures combined with more CO2 and a little more precip is going to cause an agricultural collapse is more than an extraordinary claim, it's preposterous.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 09:45am PT
|
The abstracts that Ed haphazardly threw together don't support the proposition that a little GW is going to cause an agricultural collapse.
As some scientists like to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The claim that slightly warmer temperatures combined with more CO2 and a little more precip is going to cause an agricultural collapse is more than an extraordinary claim, it's preposterous.
I provided those particular abstracts to counter your simple minded understanding of plant physiology, actually I think you have basically no understanding of plants.
The point of the abstracts, and the articles are linked (which you haven't looked at) is basically that the plants respond in a much more complex manner to changes in the environment. In particular, the formation of germ-seed in the plants (which is the grain we harvest) depends on temperature, and more importantly, the timing of temperature changes.
You didn't know that.
So while you make a generalization of your experience taking care of your lawn (or your office plants) to large scale agriculture, (and even this may be overstating your experience), you are woefully uniformed on the matter.
But that doesn't deter you. You still insist that your point is correct, and anyway, the papers don't say it is going to be a disaster...
...however, the decrease of productivity of order 10's of percent for each 1ºC increase of temperature, at a time when the economics of agriculture depends on the annual increase of 10% productivity isn't a particularly good sign.
In addition, these estimates (as the last article I linked above discusses) are about the crop plants, the more complex interaction of agricultural productivity and weeds and pesticides point to a potential for even larger decreases in productivity.
But you didn't read the papers, so how would you know? Instead, you "make things up" that sound good to you but lack any support when they are examined in a critical manner.
As I said, you have "garbage in" for your thoughts, and the results are, quite predictably, "garbage".
(I hope I got the punctuation in the "right" place).
Finally, there is evidence (presented in the papers) that crop productivity is already declining in some regions, which seems at odds with your "impressions" that everything is going along just fine. Perhaps that claim is actually "extraordinary", maybe you can present evidence (of any kind) that your claim is true.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 09:50am PT
|
You never fail to "meet expectation" The Chief
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2014 - 10:58am PT
|
How do we know the GFS Model isn't really the GFYS Model?
A couple other bland notes:
Rule 3a. Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks.
This rule is not correct. In general, periods and commas go inside the quotes. Like all rules, there are exceptions.
And that ain't no haiku form that I know of (the cadence of 5-7-5 is normally haiku).
Carry on ...
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 11:52am PT
|
Nowhere is this more apparent than in Rule 3a in this section, a rule that has the advantage of being far simpler than Britain's and the disadvantage of being far less logical.
Why don't you just man up and apologize?
We all make mistakes. You made one in attacking my grammar, which was correct (in that instance--I'm sure you won't have to look too hard to find numerous errors in my other posts or in most other's posts).
As we can't let this die for some reason: Ed, you're still not getting it.
As I said, you have "garbage in" for your thoughts, and the results are, quite predictably, "garbage".
(I hope I got the punctuation in the "right" place).
You didn't, unless you've renounced your US citizenship :)
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2014 - 12:14pm PT
|
Man, it sure looks cold in north-eastern North America!
Why does it look so *hot* over Greenland? Isn't that where all the ice is supposed to be?
If it stays warm like that, won't the ice melt? Isn't that good, we'll get all that fresh ice water!
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 12:39pm PT
|
Man, it sure looks cold in north-eastern North America!
Why does it look so *hot* over Greenland? Isn't that where all the ice is supposed to be?
And remember boys and girls, when it's hot out, that's global warming; when it's cold out, that's global warming too because all that cold air has come from somewhere else, where it's hot now! (Believe it or not, that is all true, sort of, I think.)
Hey anyone want to play 3 card monte?--heard some "scientists" on this thread have some game!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2014 - 12:48pm PT
|
Sketch, you asked me some questions:
Really? List five climate scientists backing up your claim.
I think I'm lost, can you clarify exactly what you're looking for here?
I said your remark ("paranoid 'the Earth is warming! the Earth is warming' chicken little hysterics") wasn't in line with what most climate scientists believe. Now you want me to post quotes to back up that claim?
You mentioned facts proving AGW is a present danger. I asked for facts...
Yes, yes. You keep asking for facts.
Here, I assume you want 100% proof that climate change has been the cause of physical damage. You will not take the opinion of the DoD as fact that climate change presents an "immediate" danger, you want to see a fact that definitively says Hurricane Sandy (or the like) was caused directly by climate change.
Of course we all know this is folly. You cannot point at an event like Sandy and say it was caused solely by one condition alone, and we also know that scientists will not get lured into the trap of exclaiming such a thing. But the indications are very strong that climate change is one of the root causes of our current extreme weather events.
With regards to other more measurable facts, we seem to disagree about what is considered "fact."
You might remember you brought up the concept of "accuracy," and Ed explained in detail the accuracy of the climate models and associated reporting. Do you remember how you discounted (or better yet, ignored) his explanation?
So again I have to ask, what exactly are you looking for?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!