3rd Coldest Winter in American History

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BUnit1701

Senior member
May 1, 2013
853
1
0
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.

No, the 'tiny point' isn't the fertilizers and machinery, the tiny point is the insignificant 'problem' that supposed climate change is creating for food production.

And you seem to be missing the large picture, who cares if there are 100 more people farming rice this year, we still have (wait for it) MORE RICE!!!! Therefore, its pretty stupid to say that global warming is reducing our ability to produce food.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,389
136
No, the 'tiny point' isn't the fertilizers and machinery, the tiny point is the insignificant 'problem' that supposed climate change is creating for food production.

And you seem to be missing the large picture, who cares if there are 100 more people farming rice this year, we still have (wait for it) MORE RICE!!!! Therefore, its pretty stupid to say that global warming is reducing our ability to produce food.

Except of course that absent global warming those 100 people could have been doing something else. It is indeed pretty stupid to say that with 100 times the effort having 1.01 times the product is not a reduction in our ability to produce food.

Also, climate change is not supposed. The evidence is overwhelming. This is getting back into the religion part of climate change denial.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Also, climate change is not supposed. The evidence is overwhelming. This is getting back into the religion part of climate change denial.

The evidence is not overwhelming. Climate does change...period. What you are really referring to I believe is AGW but are using "climate change" to mask your real objective. IMHO ;)
 

BUnit1701

Senior member
May 1, 2013
853
1
0
Except of course that absent global warming those 100 people could have been doing something else. It is indeed pretty stupid to say that with 100 times the effort having 1.01 times the product is not a reduction in our ability to produce food.

Also, climate change is not supposed. The evidence is overwhelming. This is getting back into the religion part of climate change denial.

Something else like get on unemployment and wait for the check to show up?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,389
136
The evidence is not overwhelming. Climate does change...period. What you are really referring to I believe is AGW but are using "climate change" to mask your real objective. IMHO ;)

Yes, the evidence for AGW is overwhelming.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Except of course that absent global warming those 100 people could have been doing something else. It is indeed pretty stupid to say that with 100 times the effort having 1.01 times the product is not a reduction in our ability to produce food.

Also, climate change is not supposed. The evidence is overwhelming. This is getting back into the religion part of climate change denial.

Huh, what? You must be kidding. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Lets look at America. The total amount of land used for farming dropped from 1.2 billion acres in 1950 to .95 billion acres today (a 20% decrease) while total crop yields rose drastically. This reduction in farming land occurred EVEN though vast portions were turned over for non-food (ETHANOL) production! If you are really worried about food shortages why are global warming supporters ACTIVELY supporting measures that negatively impact food production?

In 1870, 70-80% of the American population was directly involved in farming, that number is now less than 2%. Remember, some of that 2% is involved in ETHANOL creation and not food creation at all.

I am aware of nothing that supports your assertions other than models created out of the vivid imaginations of one climate scientist or other. The objective evidence certainly suggests and possibly proves the exact opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/life_11.html
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,389
136
Huh, what? You must be kidding. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Lets look at America. The total amount of land used for farming dropped from 1.2 billion acres in 1950 to .95 billion acres today (a 20% decrease) while total crop yields rose drastically. This reduction in farming land occurred EVEN though vast portions were turned over for non-food (ETHANOL) production! If you are really worried about food shortages why are global warming supporters ACTIVELY supporting measures that negatively impact food production?

In 1870, 70-80% of the American population was directly involved in farming, that number is now less than 2%. Remember, some of that 2% is involved in ETHANOL creation and not food creation at all.

I am aware of nothing that supports your assertions other than models created out of the vivid imaginations of one climate scientist or other. The objective evidence certainly suggests and possibly proves the exact opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/life_11.html

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore. Your are incoherent and all over the place.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Yes, the evidence for AGW is overwhelming.

Thank you for being more precise. Always hard to discuss a topic when one side or both are not clear in their language.

I see overwhelming evidence for some minor increase in average global temperature since the end of the LIA, but no overwhelming evidence that man is the sole cause. I do see many assumptions being made around that but no one has proven that statement yet.

I would stipulate there may be some AGW occurring. The degree of which is far from known.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
The reality here is that global warming has not harmed crop production. This is one of the biggest problems with the climate change debate; people making bullshit statements unsupported by the facts.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
The reality here is that global warming has not harmed crop production. This is one of the biggest problems with the climate change debate; people making bullshit statements unsupported by the facts.

An overall warmer climate is going to be much better for crops than an overall colder climate similar to the LIA.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
The reality here is that global warming has not harmed crop production. This is one of the biggest problems with the climate change debate; people making bullshit statements unsupported by the facts.

No doubt, from our own US EPA, we have this nugget regarding corn yields. A tripling of yields in 50 years.

It infuriates me to see people fear-mongering about the collapse of agriculture contrary to ALL objective evidence that we have available. It is the fear-mongering that has completely removed my trust in the global warming "scientific" community. I do not know if I have ever seen this type of behaviour from any other group of "scientists".

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/agriculture.html
USCornYields.png


An overall warmer climate is going to be much better for crops than an overall colder climate similar to the LIA.

As will the CO2 in the atmosphere which is basically just plant food.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,389
136
No doubt, from our own US EPA, we have this nugget regarding corn yields. A tripling of yields in 50 years.

It infuriates me to see people fear-mongering about the collapse of agriculture contrary to ALL objective evidence that we have available. It is the fear-mongering that has completely removed my trust in the global warming "scientific" community. I do not know if I have ever seen this type of behaviour from any other group of "scientists".

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/agriculture.html
USCornYields.png


As will the CO2 in the atmosphere which is basically just plant food.

Nice to see you now selectively quoting the EPA, while continuing to refuse to control for technological advancement, etc. What's the point of even discussing this with someone who is so far gone?
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
Nice to see you now selectively quoting the EPA, while continuing to refuse to control for technological advancement, etc. What's the point of even discussing this with someone who is so far gone?

My point is this, IF global warming is negatively impacting food production, the effect is completely manageable and is easily superceded by other factors. This is incontestable. Food has NEVER been more plentiful than it right here and right now.

Your solution on the other hand, (a cap-and-trade system) necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Your solution forces the POOREST people in the world to divert their money from FOOD to ENERGY. Freeze to death or starve..... nice.....
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/160/4/1686

The Influence of Climate Change on Global Crop Productivity
David B. Lobell* and Sharon M. Gourdji

<snip>
Over the next few decades, CO2 trends will likely increase global yields by roughly 1.8%
per decade. At the same time, warming trends are likely to reduce global yields by roughly 1.5% per decade without effective adaptation, with a plausible range from roughly 0% to 4%. The upper end of this range is half of the expected 8% rate of gain from technological and management improvements over the next few decades.
<snip>
Growth rates in aggregate crop productivity to 2050 will continue to be mainly driven by technological and agronomic improvements, just as they have for the past century. Even in the most pessimistic scenarios, it is highly unlikely that climate change would result in a net decline in global yields. Instead, the relevant question at the global scale is how much of a headwind climate change could present in the perpetual race to keep productivity growing as fast as demand. Overall, the net effect of climate change and CO2 on global average supply of calories is likely to be fairly close to zero over the next few decades, but it could be as large as 20% to 30% of overall yield trends. Of course, this global picture hides many changes at smaller scales that could be of great relevance to food security, even if global production is maintained (Easterling et al., 2007).
 
Last edited:

BlueWolf47

Senior member
Apr 22, 2005
653
0
76
The evidence is not overwhelming. Climate does change...period. What you are really referring to I believe is AGW but are using "climate change" to mask your real objective. IMHO ;)


Climate change refers to the regional changes that will occur due to global warming. Since the majority of scientists support that the earth is warming, there is an emphasis on how this warming will change climate patterns in different parts of the world. While CO2 and warmer temperatures may cause increase flora growth, certain regions that have enjoyed decades of optimial conditons for growing food may expereince conditons that harm their agricultural industry. This could be harmful for regions that are less industrialized.

Of couse climate changes. Its the speed at which these changes now taking pace due to AGW that is a cause of concern for scientists. Even things such as the migration of new plants northward can disrupt delicate food chains. There are many species who rely on a relatively small niches to survive who may not be able to adapt to these changes.

I think food production is primarily a regional concern when referring to climate change. There will be undoubtedly areas that benefit from increase rainfall etc, but there will also be areas who experince prolonged droughts.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
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?
LOL Dude, you are just too much. In over half a century I've never seen anyone who is so absolutely certain that he and only he is not only AN expert but THE expert on literally everything, to the point that you're 100% right in every case, even when observed history proves you wrong, and therefore anyone who disagrees just isn't smart enough to understand. No way I'm buying that you honestly feel you're that much smarter than everyone else.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,389
136
LOL Dude, you are just too much. In over half a century I've never seen anyone who is so absolutely certain that he and only he is not only AN expert but THE expert on literally everything, to the point that you're 100% right in every case, even when observed history proves you wrong, and therefore anyone who disagrees just isn't smart enough to understand. No way I'm buying that you honestly feel you're that much smarter than everyone else.

lol dude.

This has nothing to do with being an expert on anything having to do with climate, this is just having a basic knowledge of how to read and interpret research of ANY TYPE. EDIT: You need to look at what other variables might be affecting the thing you're trying to measure. Stats 101.

Whenever your ideas are ridiculed you decide it has to do with a progressive conspiracy against you, someone being dishonest, etc, etc. It's never that you just said something dumb.

Every issue, every time. :)
 
Last edited:

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
So...there is less or more rice/food, and has the climate warmed or not in that time period? Really that's about all we need to know to understand if the study was useful as applied to Reality or not.
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
I don't know about global warming or not but I do know that humans are destroying the Earth. This is something we can see, we don't need studies for this. We can see species of animals being wiped out so people can live the life of luxury. We can see big creatures in Africa and elsewhere becoming extinct or almost extinct so big game hunters can proudly display their trophies. We can see oil companies destroying the oceans, lakes and rivers. We don't need studies to prove this.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
I don't know about global warming or not but I do know that humans are destroying the Earth.

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

Michael Cichton
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
One arctic blast after another. I have never experienced weather this brutal and prolonged. I am very interested to see how global warming theorists spin this one. At this point it is getting a bit embarassing for them.

global warming unstabilizes the atmosphere and leads to climate swings.

think of it more as climate change or climate unstabilization than global warming.

also if the north atlantic current gets destroyed it could bring back a cold phase of the current ice age
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

the earth will still be here but that does not mean it will be the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

the earth was still around after these happened. we might not be. or at least a lot of the current life on the earth
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
My point is this, IF global warming is negatively impacting food production, the effect is completely manageable and is easily superceded by other factors. This is incontestable. Food has NEVER been more plentiful than it right here and right now. Your solution on the other hand, (a cap-and-trade system) necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Your solution forces the POOREST people in the world to divert their money from FOOD to ENERGY. Freeze to death or starve..... nice.....

most poor people do not live in cold areas. they would have a hard time.

arctics peoples live just fine without money by the way