Glacier National Park.....climate scientists wrong AGAIN!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow! The oceans are really warming up!!

What was the old ocean temperature and what is the new ocean temperature?

Wow, have you ever heard of Google? Is your IQ in single digits? Or do you just prefer to go on lying to support a really stupid political position?

Distinct Rise in Global Ocean Temperatures Detected | Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego

Distinct Rise in Global Ocean Temperatures Detected
Comprehensive view of world oceans afforded by sensor network reveals the ongoing and steady rise of global climate system heat content

A global network of profiling floats that provides scientists the most accurate means of observing energy accumulation in the climate system has detected an increase in the temperature of the world’s oceans over a recent eight-year period.

Researchers led by Dean Roemmich, a physical oceanographer at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, found that the top 2,000 meters (6,500 feet) of the world’s oceans warmed at a rate of 0.4 to 0.6 watts per square meter (W/m 2) between 2006 and 2013. The rate translates to a warming of roughly 0.005° C (0.009° F) per year in the top 500 meters of ocean and 0.002° C (0.0036° F) per year at depths between 500 and 2,000 meters.

For perspective, Roemmich noted that the heat gain was the equivalent of adding the heat of two trillion continuously burning 100-watt light bulbs to the world’s oceans.

“The rate of ocean heat gain during the past eight years is not unusual – indeed many studies of ocean data over the past 50 years and longer have produced similar rates. What is new is that the rate and patterns of ocean heat gain are revealed over a period as short as eight years, thanks to the Argo array, that the warming signal is shown to extend to 2,000 meters and deeper, and that it is occurring predominantly in the Southern Hemisphere ocean south of 20° S,” said Roemmich.

Wow, have you ever heard of Google?

Yes.

the top 2,000 meters (6,500 feet) of the world’s oceans warmed at a rate of 0.4 to 0.6 watts per square meter (W/m 2) between 2006 and 2013. The rate translates to a warming of roughly 0.005° C (0.009° F) per year in the top 500 meters of ocean and 0.002° C (0.0036° F) per year at depths between 500 and 2,000 meters.

Wow, that's some impressive accuracy for those temperature readings.
Except those aren't temperature readings.

Thanks!

Thank you for establishing your room temperature IQ. LOL Gotta love how you deniers love to flaunt your abysmal ignorance. Now if you start at about the third grade, you might be up to speed on science in about 20 years.

Pointing out that my question about temperature readings was answered with W/m^2 makes me the dummy?

LOL!

Thanks for the laugh.

Answered easily in a 200 level physics class, or on Google. Quit being such a lazy shit and try to learn more than talking points from obese junkies on the AM radio.

When that 200 level physics class provides before and after temperatures, let me know.

 

[Old Rocks]

I did answer. Whats more some countries are on their way to do what you say can't be done.
Sweden's carbon-tax solution to climate change puts it top of the green list
Sweden just committed to having zero carbon emissions, and perfectly trolled Trump at the same time
Having said that since you seem to be incapable of answering my one question I will stop this conversation for the reason I stated the previous post.

The premis of the question is that there is such a thing as manmade global warming in the first place.

To answer it is to agree with the premis. So no, skeptics like me would not answer.

Got if Junior?

Oh shit, I asked a question.

Basing decisions on the possibility of something is the whole bases of insurance. You don't get medical insurance because you are sick, you get it because you suspect you'll get sick somewhere in the future. To draw that analogy further, what you guys are claiming is that its unnecessary to get health insurance because you only have a mild cough atm. That in the end is the premise of the question. Why is the mere chance of me being wrong a valid excuse to not want to act?

The mere chance? Your evidence that doing anything will stop anything from occurring is mere speculation.

I can statistically validate the need for health insurance. WE ALL GET SICK AND DIE.

what I cannot do is statistically validate what you claim. THERE IS NOT THE HISTORICAL LENGTH OF NON SUSPECT DATA!

Geez, really?

Getting sick isn't a 100 percent proposition, there are people who never catch anything until they die of old age. And since the predicted consequences of global warming are severe the doubt you feel about it shouldn't matter. And can I ask why you think the measuring methods being crude makes the data they provided suspect. For instance the thermometer we have used to measure temperature has been around since the Greeks, and they have been standardized since the 19th century. Why is the data they provided 100 years ago more inaccurate? The CO2 levels in the atmosphere didn't get measured back then, that's been done by getting ice cores and examining the air composition trapped in there. So what is suspect about the data?

And since the predicted consequences of global warming are severe

Higher yields, longer growing seasons, fewer winter deaths.
How much do we need to spend on windmills to prevent these severe consequences?

And you are a dickhead liar.
Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates

1. Chuang Zhaoa,1,
2. Bing Liub,c,d,e,f,1,
3. Shilong Piaoa,g,h,2,
4. Xuhui Wanga,
5. David B. Lobelli,
6. Yao Huangj,
7. Mengtian Huanga,
8. Yitong Yaoa,
9. Simona Bassuk,
10. Philippe Ciaisl,
11. Jean-Louis Durandm,
12. Joshua Elliottn,o,
13. Frank Ewertp,q,
14. Ivan A. Janssensr,
15. Tao Lis,
16. Erda Lint,
17. Qiang Liua,
18. Pierre Martreu,
19. Christoph Müllerv,
20. Shushi Penga,
21. Josep Peñuelasw,x,
22. Alex C. Ruaney,o,
23. Daniel Wallachz,
24. Tao Wangg,h,
25. Donghai Wua,
26. Zhuo Liua,
27. Yan Zhub,c,d,e,
28. Zaichun Zhua, and
29. Senthold Assengf,2

Author Affiliations

1. Edited by B. L. Turner, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and approved July 10, 2017 (received for review January 31, 2017)
   

Abstract
Wheat, rice, maize, and soybean provide two-thirds of human caloric intake. Assessing the impact of global temperature increase on production of these crops is therefore critical to maintaining global food supply, but different studies have yielded different results. Here, we investigated the impacts of temperature on yields of the four crops by compiling extensive published results from four analytical methods: global grid-based and local point-based models, statistical regressions, and field-warming experiments. Results from the different methods consistently showed negative temperature impacts on crop yield at the global scale, generally underpinned by similar impacts at country and site scales. Without CO2 fertilization, effective adaptation, and genetic improvement, each degree-Celsius increase in global mean temperature would, on average, reduce global yields of wheat by 6.0%, rice by 3.2%, maize by 7.4%, and soybean by 3.1%. Results are highly heterogeneous across crops and geographical areas, with some positive impact estimates. Multimethod analyses improved the confidence in assessments of future climate impacts on global major crops and suggest crop- and region-specific adaptation strategies to ensure food security for an increasing world population.

Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates

 

[Dale Smith]

The premis of the question is that there is such a thing as manmade global warming in the first place.

To answer it is to agree with the premis. So no, skeptics like me would not answer.

Got if Junior?

Oh shit, I asked a question.

Basing decisions on the possibility of something is the whole bases of insurance. You don't get medical insurance because you are sick, you get it because you suspect you'll get sick somewhere in the future. To draw that analogy further, what you guys are claiming is that its unnecessary to get health insurance because you only have a mild cough atm. That in the end is the premise of the question. Why is the mere chance of me being wrong a valid excuse to not want to act?

The mere chance? Your evidence that doing anything will stop anything from occurring is mere speculation.

I can statistically validate the need for health insurance. WE ALL GET SICK AND DIE.

what I cannot do is statistically validate what you claim. THERE IS NOT THE HISTORICAL LENGTH OF NON SUSPECT DATA!

Geez, really?

Getting sick isn't a 100 percent proposition, there are people who never catch anything until they die of old age. And since the predicted consequences of global warming are severe the doubt you feel about it shouldn't matter. And can I ask why you think the measuring methods being crude makes the data they provided suspect. For instance the thermometer we have used to measure temperature has been around since the Greeks, and they have been standardized since the 19th century. Why is the data they provided 100 years ago more inaccurate? The CO2 levels in the atmosphere didn't get measured back then, that's been done by getting ice cores and examining the air composition trapped in there. So what is suspect about the data?

And since the predicted consequences of global warming are severe

Higher yields, longer growing seasons, fewer winter deaths.
How much do we need to spend on windmills to prevent these severe consequences?

And you are a dickhead liar.
Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates

1. Chuang Zhaoa,1,
2. Bing Liub,c,d,e,f,1,
3. Shilong Piaoa,g,h,2,
4. Xuhui Wanga,
5. David B. Lobelli,
6. Yao Huangj,
7. Mengtian Huanga,
8. Yitong Yaoa,
9. Simona Bassuk,
10. Philippe Ciaisl,
11. Jean-Louis Durandm,
12. Joshua Elliottn,o,
13. Frank Ewertp,q,
14. Ivan A. Janssensr,
15. Tao Lis,
16. Erda Lint,
17. Qiang Liua,
18. Pierre Martreu,
19. Christoph Müllerv,
20. Shushi Penga,
21. Josep Peñuelasw,x,
22. Alex C. Ruaney,o,
23. Daniel Wallachz,
24. Tao Wangg,h,
25. Donghai Wua,
26. Zhuo Liua,
27. Yan Zhub,c,d,e,
28. Zaichun Zhua, and
29. Senthold Assengf,2

Author Affiliations

1. Edited by B. L. Turner, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and approved July 10, 2017 (received for review January 31, 2017)

Abstract
Wheat, rice, maize, and soybean provide two-thirds of human caloric intake. Assessing the impact of global temperature increase on production of these crops is therefore critical to maintaining global food supply, but different studies have yielded different results. Here, we investigated the impacts of temperature on yields of the four crops by compiling extensive published results from four analytical methods: global grid-based and local point-based models, statistical regressions, and field-warming experiments. Results from the different methods consistently showed negative temperature impacts on crop yield at the global scale, generally underpinned by similar impacts at country and site scales. Without CO2 fertilization, effective adaptation, and genetic improvement, each degree-Celsius increase in global mean temperature would, on average, reduce global yields of wheat by 6.0%, rice by 3.2%, maize by 7.4%, and soybean by 3.1%. Results are highly heterogeneous across crops and geographical areas, with some positive impact estimates. Multimethod analyses improved the confidence in assessments of future climate impacts on global major crops and suggest crop- and region-specific adaptation strategies to ensure food security for an increasing world population.

Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates

End Geoengineering

 

[Dale Smith]

The premis of the question is that there is such a thing as manmade global warming in the first place.

To answer it is to agree with the premis. So no, skeptics like me would not answer.

Got if Junior?

Oh shit, I asked a question.

Basing decisions on the possibility of something is the whole bases of insurance. You don't get medical insurance because you are sick, you get it because you suspect you'll get sick somewhere in the future. To draw that analogy further, what you guys are claiming is that its unnecessary to get health insurance because you only have a mild cough atm. That in the end is the premise of the question. Why is the mere chance of me being wrong a valid excuse to not want to act?

The mere chance? Your evidence that doing anything will stop anything from occurring is mere speculation.

I can statistically validate the need for health insurance. WE ALL GET SICK AND DIE.

what I cannot do is statistically validate what you claim. THERE IS NOT THE HISTORICAL LENGTH OF NON SUSPECT DATA!

Geez, really?

Getting sick isn't a 100 percent proposition, there are people who never catch anything until they die of old age. And since the predicted consequences of global warming are severe the doubt you feel about it shouldn't matter. And can I ask why you think the measuring methods being crude makes the data they provided suspect. For instance the thermometer we have used to measure temperature has been around since the Greeks, and they have been standardized since the 19th century. Why is the data they provided 100 years ago more inaccurate? The CO2 levels in the atmosphere didn't get measured back then, that's been done by getting ice cores and examining the air composition trapped in there. So what is suspect about the data?

And since the predicted consequences of global warming are severe

Higher yields, longer growing seasons, fewer winter deaths.
How much do we need to spend on windmills to prevent these severe consequences?

And you are a dickhead liar.
Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates

1. Chuang Zhaoa,1,
2. Bing Liub,c,d,e,f,1,
3. Shilong Piaoa,g,h,2,
4. Xuhui Wanga,
5. David B. Lobelli,
6. Yao Huangj,
7. Mengtian Huanga,
8. Yitong Yaoa,
9. Simona Bassuk,
10. Philippe Ciaisl,
11. Jean-Louis Durandm,
12. Joshua Elliottn,o,
13. Frank Ewertp,q,
14. Ivan A. Janssensr,
15. Tao Lis,
16. Erda Lint,
17. Qiang Liua,
18. Pierre Martreu,
19. Christoph Müllerv,
20. Shushi Penga,
21. Josep Peñuelasw,x,
22. Alex C. Ruaney,o,
23. Daniel Wallachz,
24. Tao Wangg,h,
25. Donghai Wua,
26. Zhuo Liua,
27. Yan Zhub,c,d,e,
28. Zaichun Zhua, and
29. Senthold Assengf,2

Author Affiliations

1. Edited by B. L. Turner, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and approved July 10, 2017 (received for review January 31, 2017)

Abstract
Wheat, rice, maize, and soybean provide two-thirds of human caloric intake. Assessing the impact of global temperature increase on production of these crops is therefore critical to maintaining global food supply, but different studies have yielded different results. Here, we investigated the impacts of temperature on yields of the four crops by compiling extensive published results from four analytical methods: global grid-based and local point-based models, statistical regressions, and field-warming experiments. Results from the different methods consistently showed negative temperature impacts on crop yield at the global scale, generally underpinned by similar impacts at country and site scales. Without CO2 fertilization, effective adaptation, and genetic improvement, each degree-Celsius increase in global mean temperature would, on average, reduce global yields of wheat by 6.0%, rice by 3.2%, maize by 7.4%, and soybean by 3.1%. Results are highly heterogeneous across crops and geographical areas, with some positive impact estimates. Multimethod analyses improved the confidence in assessments of future climate impacts on global major crops and suggest crop- and region-specific adaptation strategies to ensure food security for an increasing world population.

Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates

Geoengineering (Chemtrails) | Wake Up World

 

[Old Rocks]

Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change

1. Wolfram Schlenkera,1 and
2. Michael J. Robertsb

Author Affiliations

1. Communicated by V. Kerry Smith, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, July 1, 2009 (received for review October 13, 2008)
   

Abstract
The United States produces 41% of the world's corn and 38% of the world's soybeans. These crops comprise two of the four largest sources of caloric energy produced and are thus critical for world food supply. We pair a panel of county-level yields for these two crops, plus cotton (a warmer-weather crop), with a new fine-scale weather dataset that incorporates the whole distribution of temperatures within each day and across all days in the growing season. We find that yields increase with temperature up to 29° C for corn, 30° C for soybeans, and 32° C for cotton but that temperatures above these thresholds are very harmful. The slope of the decline above the optimum is significantly steeper than the incline below it. The same nonlinear and asymmetric relationship is found when we isolate either time-series or cross-sectional variations in temperatures and yields. This suggests limited historical adaptation of seed varieties or management practices to warmer temperatures because the cross-section includes farmers' adaptations to warmer climates and the time-series does not. Holding current growing regions fixed, area-weighted average yields are predicted to decrease by 30–46% before the end of the century under the slowest (B1) warming scenario and decrease by 63–82% under the most rapid warming scenario (A1FI) under the Hadley III model.

Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change

The absolutely idiotic insistence by the ignorant 'Conservatives' that more heat will increase the crop yield has no basis in fact.

 

[Old Rocks]

Basing decisions on the possibility of something is the whole bases of insurance. You don't get medical insurance because you are sick, you get it because you suspect you'll get sick somewhere in the future. To draw that analogy further, what you guys are claiming is that its unnecessary to get health insurance because you only have a mild cough atm. That in the end is the premise of the question. Why is the mere chance of me being wrong a valid excuse to not want to act?

The mere chance? Your evidence that doing anything will stop anything from occurring is mere speculation.

I can statistically validate the need for health insurance. WE ALL GET SICK AND DIE.

what I cannot do is statistically validate what you claim. THERE IS NOT THE HISTORICAL LENGTH OF NON SUSPECT DATA!

Geez, really?

Getting sick isn't a 100 percent proposition, there are people who never catch anything until they die of old age. And since the predicted consequences of global warming are severe the doubt you feel about it shouldn't matter. And can I ask why you think the measuring methods being crude makes the data they provided suspect. For instance the thermometer we have used to measure temperature has been around since the Greeks, and they have been standardized since the 19th century. Why is the data they provided 100 years ago more inaccurate? The CO2 levels in the atmosphere didn't get measured back then, that's been done by getting ice cores and examining the air composition trapped in there. So what is suspect about the data?

And since the predicted consequences of global warming are severe

Higher yields, longer growing seasons, fewer winter deaths.
How much do we need to spend on windmills to prevent these severe consequences?

And you are a dickhead liar.
Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates

1. Chuang Zhaoa,1,
2. Bing Liub,c,d,e,f,1,
3. Shilong Piaoa,g,h,2,
4. Xuhui Wanga,
5. David B. Lobelli,
6. Yao Huangj,
7. Mengtian Huanga,
8. Yitong Yaoa,
9. Simona Bassuk,
10. Philippe Ciaisl,
11. Jean-Louis Durandm,
12. Joshua Elliottn,o,
13. Frank Ewertp,q,
14. Ivan A. Janssensr,
15. Tao Lis,
16. Erda Lint,
17. Qiang Liua,
18. Pierre Martreu,
19. Christoph Müllerv,
20. Shushi Penga,
21. Josep Peñuelasw,x,
22. Alex C. Ruaney,o,
23. Daniel Wallachz,
24. Tao Wangg,h,
25. Donghai Wua,
26. Zhuo Liua,
27. Yan Zhub,c,d,e,
28. Zaichun Zhua, and
29. Senthold Assengf,2

Author Affiliations

1. Edited by B. L. Turner, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and approved July 10, 2017 (received for review January 31, 2017)

Abstract
Wheat, rice, maize, and soybean provide two-thirds of human caloric intake. Assessing the impact of global temperature increase on production of these crops is therefore critical to maintaining global food supply, but different studies have yielded different results. Here, we investigated the impacts of temperature on yields of the four crops by compiling extensive published results from four analytical methods: global grid-based and local point-based models, statistical regressions, and field-warming experiments. Results from the different methods consistently showed negative temperature impacts on crop yield at the global scale, generally underpinned by similar impacts at country and site scales. Without CO2 fertilization, effective adaptation, and genetic improvement, each degree-Celsius increase in global mean temperature would, on average, reduce global yields of wheat by 6.0%, rice by 3.2%, maize by 7.4%, and soybean by 3.1%. Results are highly heterogeneous across crops and geographical areas, with some positive impact estimates. Multimethod analyses improved the confidence in assessments of future climate impacts on global major crops and suggest crop- and region-specific adaptation strategies to ensure food security for an increasing world population.

Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates

End Geoengineering

Oh, where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat......................................................... LOL LOL

 

[Dale Smith]

The mere chance? Your evidence that doing anything will stop anything from occurring is mere speculation.

I can statistically validate the need for health insurance. WE ALL GET SICK AND DIE.

what I cannot do is statistically validate what you claim. THERE IS NOT THE HISTORICAL LENGTH OF NON SUSPECT DATA!

Geez, really?

Getting sick isn't a 100 percent proposition, there are people who never catch anything until they die of old age. And since the predicted consequences of global warming are severe the doubt you feel about it shouldn't matter. And can I ask why you think the measuring methods being crude makes the data they provided suspect. For instance the thermometer we have used to measure temperature has been around since the Greeks, and they have been standardized since the 19th century. Why is the data they provided 100 years ago more inaccurate? The CO2 levels in the atmosphere didn't get measured back then, that's been done by getting ice cores and examining the air composition trapped in there. So what is suspect about the data?

And since the predicted consequences of global warming are severe

Higher yields, longer growing seasons, fewer winter deaths.
How much do we need to spend on windmills to prevent these severe consequences?

And you are a dickhead liar.
Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates

1. Chuang Zhaoa,1,
2. Bing Liub,c,d,e,f,1,
3. Shilong Piaoa,g,h,2,
4. Xuhui Wanga,
5. David B. Lobelli,
6. Yao Huangj,
7. Mengtian Huanga,
8. Yitong Yaoa,
9. Simona Bassuk,
10. Philippe Ciaisl,
11. Jean-Louis Durandm,
12. Joshua Elliottn,o,
13. Frank Ewertp,q,
14. Ivan A. Janssensr,
15. Tao Lis,
16. Erda Lint,
17. Qiang Liua,
18. Pierre Martreu,
19. Christoph Müllerv,
20. Shushi Penga,
21. Josep Peñuelasw,x,
22. Alex C. Ruaney,o,
23. Daniel Wallachz,
24. Tao Wangg,h,
25. Donghai Wua,
26. Zhuo Liua,
27. Yan Zhub,c,d,e,
28. Zaichun Zhua, and
29. Senthold Assengf,2

Author Affiliations

1. Edited by B. L. Turner, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and approved July 10, 2017 (received for review January 31, 2017)

Abstract
Wheat, rice, maize, and soybean provide two-thirds of human caloric intake. Assessing the impact of global temperature increase on production of these crops is therefore critical to maintaining global food supply, but different studies have yielded different results. Here, we investigated the impacts of temperature on yields of the four crops by compiling extensive published results from four analytical methods: global grid-based and local point-based models, statistical regressions, and field-warming experiments. Results from the different methods consistently showed negative temperature impacts on crop yield at the global scale, generally underpinned by similar impacts at country and site scales. Without CO2 fertilization, effective adaptation, and genetic improvement, each degree-Celsius increase in global mean temperature would, on average, reduce global yields of wheat by 6.0%, rice by 3.2%, maize by 7.4%, and soybean by 3.1%. Results are highly heterogeneous across crops and geographical areas, with some positive impact estimates. Multimethod analyses improved the confidence in assessments of future climate impacts on global major crops and suggest crop- and region-specific adaptation strategies to ensure food security for an increasing world population.

Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates

End Geoengineering

Oh, where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat......................................................... LOL LOL

Chemtrail Forum Against Geoengineering: 'NASA Now Openly Spraying Our Skies!' – Disclose.tv

 

[Dale Smith]

The mere chance? Your evidence that doing anything will stop anything from occurring is mere speculation.

I can statistically validate the need for health insurance. WE ALL GET SICK AND DIE.

what I cannot do is statistically validate what you claim. THERE IS NOT THE HISTORICAL LENGTH OF NON SUSPECT DATA!

Geez, really?

Getting sick isn't a 100 percent proposition, there are people who never catch anything until they die of old age. And since the predicted consequences of global warming are severe the doubt you feel about it shouldn't matter. And can I ask why you think the measuring methods being crude makes the data they provided suspect. For instance the thermometer we have used to measure temperature has been around since the Greeks, and they have been standardized since the 19th century. Why is the data they provided 100 years ago more inaccurate? The CO2 levels in the atmosphere didn't get measured back then, that's been done by getting ice cores and examining the air composition trapped in there. So what is suspect about the data?

And since the predicted consequences of global warming are severe

Higher yields, longer growing seasons, fewer winter deaths.
How much do we need to spend on windmills to prevent these severe consequences?

And you are a dickhead liar.
Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates

1. Chuang Zhaoa,1,
2. Bing Liub,c,d,e,f,1,
3. Shilong Piaoa,g,h,2,
4. Xuhui Wanga,
5. David B. Lobelli,
6. Yao Huangj,
7. Mengtian Huanga,
8. Yitong Yaoa,
9. Simona Bassuk,
10. Philippe Ciaisl,
11. Jean-Louis Durandm,
12. Joshua Elliottn,o,
13. Frank Ewertp,q,
14. Ivan A. Janssensr,
15. Tao Lis,
16. Erda Lint,
17. Qiang Liua,
18. Pierre Martreu,
19. Christoph Müllerv,
20. Shushi Penga,
21. Josep Peñuelasw,x,
22. Alex C. Ruaney,o,
23. Daniel Wallachz,
24. Tao Wangg,h,
25. Donghai Wua,
26. Zhuo Liua,
27. Yan Zhub,c,d,e,
28. Zaichun Zhua, and
29. Senthold Assengf,2

Author Affiliations

1. Edited by B. L. Turner, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and approved July 10, 2017 (received for review January 31, 2017)

Abstract
Wheat, rice, maize, and soybean provide two-thirds of human caloric intake. Assessing the impact of global temperature increase on production of these crops is therefore critical to maintaining global food supply, but different studies have yielded different results. Here, we investigated the impacts of temperature on yields of the four crops by compiling extensive published results from four analytical methods: global grid-based and local point-based models, statistical regressions, and field-warming experiments. Results from the different methods consistently showed negative temperature impacts on crop yield at the global scale, generally underpinned by similar impacts at country and site scales. Without CO2 fertilization, effective adaptation, and genetic improvement, each degree-Celsius increase in global mean temperature would, on average, reduce global yields of wheat by 6.0%, rice by 3.2%, maize by 7.4%, and soybean by 3.1%. Results are highly heterogeneous across crops and geographical areas, with some positive impact estimates. Multimethod analyses improved the confidence in assessments of future climate impacts on global major crops and suggest crop- and region-specific adaptation strategies to ensure food security for an increasing world population.

Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates

End Geoengineering

Oh, where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat......................................................... LOL LOL

Pilots, Doctors, & Scientists Tell The Truth About Chemtrails/Geo-Engineering

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, keep stocked up on foil for your hats. LOL You think that something like that could be done without the knowledge of the world's scientists that study our atmosphere. LOL
People like you are beyond stupid.

 

[Dale Smith]

Well, keep stocked up on foil for your hats. LOL You think that something like that could be done without the knowledge of the world's scientists that study our atmosphere. LOL
People like you are beyond stupid.

Mainstream Scientist Exposes the Dangerous Reality of Chemtrails and Geoengineering - Waking Times

 

[Dale Smith]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmosp...r-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmosp...r-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369

Look, silly asshole, this is a thread concerning the fact that the warming will melt most of the glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2030, not a platform for you to expound on your favorite conspiracy theories.

 

[Pop23]

Why do you refuse to list the steps required to stop this manmade global warming threat? I thought it was important to you.

Fact is you refuse to answer because you know its BS.

Fact is I've spent about 12 posts now defending my standpoint when you guys have yet to spent one single post defending your standpoints that global warming is either a hoax or we can't do anything about it as you are here trying to defend. I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring. What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business. As to your impact question. A few we see now. The Extinction Crisis Global warming and its loss of habitats accompanying it is 1 of the causes. The treat to coastal cities as water levels rise and storms get more severe. Not to mention increased wildfires and droughts. Now my question.

The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

So you have no solutions to offer, only hysteria.

Typical leftist.

And they are always wrong. Always.

The left love hysteria.

Global starvation from overpopulation
Hetro HIV epidemic
Silicone breast implants
Freezing from global cooling
Drowning from global warming
Hundreds of thousands of women dying from anorexia nervosa
Smog will kill all trees
Patriot Act will kill liberty
Eating animals is like the holocaust.

What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business.

I did answer. Whats more some countries are on their way to do what you say can't be done.
Sweden's carbon-tax solution to climate change puts it top of the green list
Sweden just committed to having zero carbon emissions, and perfectly trolled Trump at the same time
Having said that since you seem to be incapable of answering my one question I will stop this conversation for the reason I stated the previous post.

I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring.

The premis of the question is that there is such a thing as manmade global warming in the first place.

To answer it is to agree with the premis. So no, skeptics like me would not answer.

Got if Junior?

Oh shit, I asked a question.

OK, dumb fuck, here is that answer. Not that you will ever bother to read any of it. After all, it is written for the intelligent layman, definitely beyond your qualifications.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

You have to love how people repeatedly post information from the leading scientists in the world, and all you flap yaps do is answer in idiotic one liners that are totally lacking in logic.

So answer the question Einstein, what was the average temperature on the earth each year for the past 300 years? And the stations responsible to determine each years average. Numbers and locations.

Oh my, you can't? Why?

Pure speculation by those wishing to look sophisticated, but can't.

 

[Weatherman2020]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmosp...r-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369

Look, silly asshole, this is a thread concerning the fact that the warming will melt most of the glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2030, not a platform for you to expound on your favorite conspiracy theories.

So all of the Blue regions in America go under the ocean. So where's the downside?

 

[Dale Smith]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmosp...r-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369

Look, silly asshole, this is a thread concerning the fact that the warming will melt most of the glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2030, not a platform for you to expound on your favorite conspiracy theories.

Look, dipshit, I understand more about this topic than your feeble mind could ever understand. I know all about the global geo-engineering program and how weather was to be used as a force multiplier for full spectrum dominance but USA.INC can use those weapons against it's own serfs...that is a fact. You are such a political infant.........soooo uninformed about technology that is so far over your head to comprehend...but I understand it.....easily. Tesla technology as it pertains to ionospheric heaters in conjunction with heavy metal nano particulate spraying........OOOPS!!! Old Fuck's mind just exploded!!!!!!

 

[MisterBeale]

Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?

How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

IOW, the establishment says we need a global world wide communist police state, and you swallow it, hook line and sinker.

Nice.

Weird how the "solutions" make it to where only the rich can afford meat, transportation and children.
They dont have any solutions to NATURAL earth evolution.
What a bunch of hucksters..

So why the lies? No, many proposals on how to cut the GHG emissions.

"Fossil Fuels"


Endless Oil?
Endless Oil?

"In the 1980s, he convinced the Swedish government and investors to drill four miles through solid granite in central Sweden. They eventually recovered 84 barrels of oil. Gold considered it a scientific success, even though the project was a commercial failure.


To prove that abiotic oil is possible, in 2002 Kutcherov superheated calcium carbonate, water and iron in a pressure chamber and then cranked it up to produce 30,000 times atmospheric pressure, simulating the conditions present in the earth’s mantle. Sure enough, about 1.5% of the material converted into hydrocarbons, according to results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Most of it was methane and other gases, but about 10% was heavier oil components."

 

[MisterBeale]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmosp...r-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369

Look, silly asshole, this is a thread concerning the fact that the warming will melt most of the glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2030, not a platform for you to expound on your favorite conspiracy theories.

Look, dipshit, I understand more about this topic than your feeble mind could ever understand. I know all about the global geo-engineering program and how weather was to be used as a force multiplier for full spectrum dominance but USA.INC can use those weapons against it's own serfs...that is a fact. You are such a political infant.........soooo uninformed about technology that is so far over your head to comprehend...but I understand it.....easily. Tesla technology as it pertains to ionospheric heaters in conjunction with heavy metal nano particulate spraying........OOOPS!!! Old Fuck's mind just exploded!!!!!!

I'm sort of curious if there is any documented link between HAARP and Chemtrails, or it is all idle speculation at this point.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL Dumb fucks string together a bunch of non connected technical sounding words and then think that they are authorities on all of science. LOL

 

[MisterBeale]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmosp...r-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369

Look, silly asshole, this is a thread concerning the fact that the warming will melt most of the glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2030, not a platform for you to expound on your favorite conspiracy theories.

As far as climate change goes? Yeah, every intelligent person knows that there are long terms variations in climate. Glaciaters grow, then they receed. The earth warms, then it cools.

I don't think anyone would doubt that.

OTH, if you want us to believe a corporate sourced conspiracy theory, like AGW, where a world wide government and establishment have everything to gain and the poor and middle class only get more poor and lose all their freedom, w/o seeing any actual proof that modern civilization is the cause instead of natural varialbility? Yeah, your establishment conspiracy theory will have to come up a little better proof than what you and they have provided so far. We all have seen how these fuckers have been acting, and they don't act like there is a crises.

OTH, the evidence for their power of weather modification is in THEIR OWN PATENTS.

IF you choose not to pay attention to what is going on, that is on you. Just because you have to think and use critical thinking, READ, and investigate to figure out the crowd sourced research and establishment agenda, doesn't mean it isn't real. Corporations and government will never lead you by the hand and take care of your best interests.

This is why our ancestors left us the First Amendment, they knew how power corrupts, and they left it up to us to bring the light of day on what was really going in your society at all times, in order to inform each other. You certainly don't leave it up to powerful corporations and trust them to inform you. The master never taught their slave how to read, so why do you think corporations would tell YOU what the truth is?

 

[Dale Smith]

Old Fucks ass is sooooo easily kicked........and it galls this troll.


Victory........