3rd Coldest Winter in American History

[fskimospy]

Um, there is absolutely no evidence to support that the sea level rise rate is increasing, it is steady at less than 5mm/year. Adapting to this extremely modest and steady rise given 21st technology does not seem too problematic given that there are cities and countries that have dealt effectively with these types of issues for centuries.

Fear-mongering aside, the productivity of crop lands increases every year, the total harvest increases yearly and the amount of land used for farming decreases every year. Based on objective evidence of the last century, global warming has been an UNPRECENDENTED boon to agriculture. Of course technology is largely responsible for that, but increased CO2 in the atmosphere certainly played a role.

I simply do not buy that a person who's speciality is predicting climate change would have expertise in quantifying what climate change would do to agriculture. This is especially relevant when looking at the historical record. Who can really believe that a warming climate creates less arable land? That is a belief unbacked by ANY documented FACTS or EVIDENCE, it literally DEFIES all known FACTS and EVIDENCE. It is a religion. The mental gymnastics required to get there are as breathtaking as they are unscientific and speculative.

Oh crap I just remembered that you were the one from the other global warming denialist thread. We already went over all this stuff there. Needless to say, I find it rich that someone who so furiously denies the overwhelming conclusions of the best science available has the gall to say someone else ignores evidence.

 

[boomerang]

DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE MAKING EMBARRASSING STATEMENTS.

He never said "will be"

What he said was a quote from a U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski who works with the US navy to help research the arctic ice levels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI

http://fora.tv/2009/12/14/COP15_Gore_and_Store_Report_on_Arctics_Melting_Ice

Here is the quote. Now read carefully because its important.

Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," says Gore


What next your going to tell me All Gore Said he Invented the internet agian?

I'm going to type this real slow so hopefully you can follow it. That's the title of the article. I didn't make up those words. You guys sure need a lot of hand-holding.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm going to type this real slow so hopefully you can follow it. That's the title of the article. I didn't make up those words. You guys sure need a lot of hand-holding.

Wait, is your defense 'I didn't bother to read the article I was linking'?

lol.

 

[shadow9d9]

Oh my god... please stop commenting about something that you CLEARLY don't understand whatsoever. It just makes you look like an ignorant jackass.

 

[shadow9d9]

I'm going to type this real slow so hopefully you can follow it. That's the title of the article. I didn't make up those words. You guys sure need a lot of hand-holding.

How often are article titles accurate? If you can't bother to spare the time to read an article that you are commenting on, then don't bother making the comment.

 

[bshole]

Oh crap I just remembered that you were the one from the other global warming denialist thread.

Um that actually is not a valid counter argument to any of my points.

You are a smart person Eski, are you going to deny the meteoric rise of crop production in the last century? What objective evidence do you have that global warming has harmed crop production thus far? If it has not harmed crop production in the last century, what objective evidence do you have that it would harm crop production in the future? The only evidence I am aware of are the random unproven and un-falsifiable speculations of pseudo-scientists.

 

[fskimospy]

Um that actually is not a valid counter argument to any of my points.

You are a smart person Eski, are you going to deny the meteoric rise of crop production in the last century? What objective evidence do you have that global warming has harmed crop production thus far? If it has not harmed crop production in the last century, what objective evidence do you have that it would harm crop production in the future? The only evidence I am aware of are the random unproven and un-falsifiable speculations of pseudo-scientists.

http://repository.ias.ac.in/38089/1/38089.pdf

So are you willing to abandon your religion yet?

 

[boomerang]

How often are article titles accurate? If you can't bother to spare the time to read an article that you are commenting on, then don't bother making the comment.

Hey zippy, don't for one second think you could ever control what I post. I will post and comment on whatever I wish here.

 

[ivwshane]

Hey zippy, don't for one second think you could ever control what I post. I will post and comment on whatever I wish here.

God forbid he help you to restrain yourself from looking like a complete fucking idiot every time you post!

No, instead you go ahead and keep fucking that chicken!

Lol!

 

[shadow9d9]

Hey zippy, don't for one second think you could ever control what I post. I will post and comment on whatever I wish here.

That is the response you chose? Sad.

You can comment and look like an uneducated buffoon whenever you'd like. You have the right to look like an ignorant moron. I would never try to stop that.

It was simply a suggestion so you don't come across looking like a fool because you thought you should comment on something that you couldn't even bother to read.

 

[bshole]

http://repository.ias.ac.in/38089/1/38089.pdf

So are you willing to abandon your religion yet?

Rolling on the floor laughing my effin ass off. The VERY first line of that article and I quote:

The impact of projected global warming on crop yields has been evaluated by indirect methods using simulation models.

You literally can't make this shit up. Never mind walking outside and witnessing the banner crops that increase each year! To hell with that.... lets go with a "model" created by somebody who has gone full-in on the "global warming will destroy everything meme".

The model models what is in the researchers head. It proves NOTHING other than the researchers interpretation of reality. Proof occurs when and if his predictions come true. Proof is NOT the prediction itself.

 

[fskimospy]

Rolling on the floor laughing my effin ass off. The VERY first line of that article and I quote:



You literally can't make this shit up. Never mind walking outside and witnessing the banner crops that increase each year! To hell with that.... lets go with a "model" created by somebody who has gone full-in on the "global warming will destroy everything meme". The model models what is in the researchers head. It proves NOTHING other than the researchers interpretation of reality. Proof occurs when and if his predictions come true. Proof is NOT the prediction itself.

Lol. Why am I not surprised.

It's a religion for you. Inconvenient information must be ignored at all costs.

 

[boomerang]

That is the response you chose? Sad.

You can comment and look like an uneducated buffoon whenever you'd like. You have the right to look like an ignorant moron. I would never try to stop that.

It was simply a suggestion so you don't come across looking like a fool because you thought you should comment on something that you couldn't even bother to read.

Save it zippy. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

 

[bshole]

Lol. Why am I not surprised.

It's a religion for you. Inconvenient information must be ignored at all costs.

That prediction was made a decade ago. Somebody forgot to tell the rice growers. Better redo that model, it is already off target and it gets worse every year. So your take is that a blind prediction is science? No evidence required?

You want to see an interesting chart? Here is CO2 vs Rice production. Gee that almost seems scientific and not speculation. CO2 is plant food. As CO2 becomes more plentiful, we expect more plant growth and greater yields. Voila, looking at the data, that is exactly what we see!

See the image
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017eea6c98ad970d-pi

 

[werepossum]

Lol. Why am I not surprised.

It's a religion for you. Inconvenient information must be ignored at all costs.

So just to recap:
1. In 2004, scientists predict lower rice productivity due to models.
2. Ten years later, history demonstrates higher rice productivity.
3. If you believe observed history rather than the models, it can only be because denying the models is your religion and therefore it is their predictions which are inconvenient information, not the actual observed history of results counter to the models' prediction.

Gotcha.

 

[shadow9d9]

Save it zippy. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

Run brave sir robin!

 

[fskimospy]

So just to recap:
1. In 2004, scientists predict lower rice productivity due to models.
2. Ten years later, history demonstrates higher rice productivity.
3. If you believe observed history rather than the models, it can only be because denying the models is your religion and therefore it is their predictions which are inconvenient information, not the actual observed history of results counter to the models' prediction.

Gotcha.

Nope. You should probably read and understand what I linked before commenting.

Is that really too much to ask?

 

[werepossum]

Nope. You should probably read and understand what I linked before commenting.

Is that really too much to ask?

I read it and understood it; it was neither long, nor confusing, nor particularly technical. However, since the time of that publication rice yields are up, not down. For most of us, reality trumps science. If you choose to believe in models, experiments and science's predictions even when observation tells you otherwise, I'd suggest that falls more in the realm of religious faith than does accepting observed reality.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I am very interested to see how global warming theorists spin this one.

Softball question.

You don't evaluate global warming based on a single year or even a handful of years. Rather, you examine it by looking at the overall trend over a great many years.

 

[fskimospy]

I read it and understood it; it was neither long, nor confusing, nor particularly technical. However, since the time of that publication rice yields are up, not down. For most of us, reality trumps science. If you choose to believe in models, experiments and science's predictions even when observation tells you otherwise, I'd suggest that falls more in the realm of religious faith than does accepting observed reality.

Clearly not. Maybe you can list all the things that might affect rice yields and see if there are more than just temperature. You might even want to look to see if research talks about things other than temperature or if studies try to hold other factors constant while accounting for that.

Sometimes you should take the help you're given, huh?

 

[Jaskalas]

Softball question.

You don't evaluate global warming based on a single year or even a handful of years. Rather, you examine it by looking at the overall trend over a great many years.

A second chance to /thread this topic. First was the global map, now your logical / truthful point.

I recommend closing the topic before it's fully engulfed in the over arching Climate Change meta topic. There will be a lot of rehash over many pages but little to no substance. Herein lay dead ends.

 

[Bowfinger]

Ah, I see. We have Discussion Club for the serious discussions. Why not go there? You are frequently dismayed with what goes on here. Some thoughtful introspection might help you figure out why you repeatedly expose yourself to partisan drones here. The answer to your dilemma is but one click away at DC.

I was going to suggest you go to Free Republic so that you'd no longer have the dilemma of facing facts that contradict your faith, but your own words are a much better response:

Hey zippy, don't for one second think you could ever control what I post. I will post and comment on whatever I wish here.

Goose, meet gander.

 

[BUnit1701]

Clearly not. Maybe you can list all the things that might affect rice yields and see if there are more than just temperature. You might even want to look to see if research talks about things other than temperature or if studies try to hold other factors constant while accounting for that.

Sometimes you should take the help you're given, huh?

Ahh, arguing the tiniest point so you never have to be wrong.

'Well sure, because they use fertilizer and dead chicken feet, they offset the loss from heating, but its still there!!!1!'

 

[fskimospy]

Ahh, arguing the tiniest point so you never have to be wrong.

'Well sure, because they use fertilizer and dead chicken feet, they offset the loss from heating, but its still there!!!1!'

If you think the impact of fertilizers, machinery, and improved farming techniques are the 'tiniest points' then I suggest you go look at crop yields in the 20th century. The paper does what bshole's hilariously inept .gif does not, which is examine temperatures in an environment that controls for other factors.

As an example of how dumb that .gif was, by its logic imagine there is a single person farming last year. Next yaer global warming decreases the amount of rice farmed by an individual by 99% but for other reasons 100 extra people decide to start farming rice. By that chart, you would see an increase. Now tell me, does that sound like a smart way to look at the issue?

This is one of the biggest problems with the climate change debate; people don't actually look at the science or understand it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Clearly not. Maybe you can list all the things that might affect rice yields and see if there are more than just temperature. You might even want to look to see if research talks about things other than temperature or if studies try to hold other factors constant while accounting for that.

Sometimes you should take the help you're given, huh?

You were asked to provide evidence that global warming has harmed crop production. In response you provided an incredibly lame paper from 2004 that clearly has little to no credibility in hindsight. Is this the best example you have?