More record temps

[RollingThunder]

Russia used to have 15,000 weather stations, now they have 5,000. A scientist would wonder where those other stations went.

So first it was "no weather stations" and now it is "they have 5,000"....LOLOLOLOL....I see you're maintaining your usual standards of accuracy and clarity, walleyed....LOLOLOL.

A real scientist would ask whether or not those other weather stations make any difference, given the wide dispersal of the 5,000 in use, given that there are a lot less stations used for temperature and climate data collection in the USA, and especially given the independent verification of the ground based measurements provided by the satellite measurements.

The dual state nature of Russian weather stations


***

How many of those are in Siberia? You see dear fool, the point is not that there aren't any it's that you fraudsters choose not to use them, but I'll let the Russians speak for themselves.

"Russia affected by Climategate

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

You have no idea what you're talking about, you scientifically illiterate buffoon. Your articles are just more denier cult media junk. The Institute of Economic Analysis is a free-market, far right wing 'think tank' founded by a global warming denier and connected to the fossil fuel industry funded propaganda network in America. Their so-called analysis has been comprehensively debunked.

Russian analysis confirms 20th century CRU temperatures
(excerpts)

The problem here is the IEA report does not support the claims made in the news story. I've reproduced the final graph from the report below. The red curve is the temperature trend using the 121 Russian stations that CRU has released data for, while the blue hockey stick is from a larger set of 476 stations. I've put them on top of the CRU temperatures for northern extratropics. The red and blue curves agree very well in the period after 1950, thus confirming the CRU temperatures. Well done, IEA!

The red and blue curves do diverge in the 19th century, but the one that provides more support for anthropogenic global warming is the blue hockey stick. The red curve shows warming in the 19th century before there were significant CO2 emissions, so it weakens the case that global warming is man-made. If CRU (not HAdley as claimed in the Russian news story) have "tampered" with the data, it would seem that they must have been trying to make a case against AGW.

The IEA analysis is, in any case, misguided. CRU has not released all the station data they use, so the red curve is not the CRU temperature trend for Russia at all. If you want that, all you have to do is download the gridded data and average all the grid cells in Russia. You have to wonder why the IEA did not do this.

Since Russia is a pretty fair chunk of the land north of 30 degrees north, the CRU graph above is a rough approximation of the what the CRUTEM3 trends for Russia is, and you can see that it looks like the blue curve and not the red one.



Finally, the truth about the Hadley/CRU data: “The global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming.”
And the falsehoods about the Russian Institute of Economic analysis are exposed
(excerpts)

The disinfomers — people like the Competitive Enterprise Institute – have been trumpeting yet more ass-backwards disinformation on this, spun from the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (but debunked by Tim Lambert aka Deltoid and others). Now the Met Office has buried them with a new analysis, published Friday on their website:

New evidence confirms land warming record

New analysis released today has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming. The study, carried out by ECMWF (the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) with input from the Met Office, performs a new calculation of global temperature rise. This independent analysis is based on information from a wide range of sources. It uses all available surface temperature measurements, together with data from sources such as satellites, radiosondes, ships and buoys.The new analysis estimates the warming to be higher than that shown from HadCRUT’s more limited direct observations. This is because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe over this particular period. This provides strong evidence that recent temperature change is at least as large as estimated by HadCRUT. This conclusion is in contrast to a recently released study by the Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) think tank based in Moscow. The IEA’s output is consistent with HadCRUT as they both confirm the global warming signal in this region since 1950, which we see in many other variables and has been consistently attributed to human activities.​

​

​

***

 

[Old Rocks]

My goodness, Ol' Walleyes has his conspiracy helmut on. The Russians are in on it, the Americans are in on it, the British are in on it, in fact, the only people that are not conspiring are me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee!

 

[westwall]

My goodness, Ol' Walleyes has his conspiracy helmut on. The Russians are in on it, the Americans are in on it, the British are in on it, in fact, the only people that are not conspiring are me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee!

Well you've got the conspiracy part of it correct. Climatologists are driving the car and they are losing because there aren't enough of them in high places to obliterate all of the evidence against them. For a while they ruled the roost but now that they have antagonised the real scientists out there they are losing their collective asses and will continue to do so till they are recognised as the pseudo scientific frauds they are.

 

[RollingThunder]

My goodness, Ol' Walleyes has his conspiracy helmut on. The Russians are in on it, the Americans are in on it, the British are in on it, in fact, the only people that are not conspiring are me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee!

Well you've got the conspiracy part of it correct. Climatologists are driving the car and they are losing because there aren't enough of them in high places to obliterate all of the evidence against them. For a while they ruled the roost but now that they have antagonised(sic) the real scientists out there they are losing their collective asses and will continue to do so till they are recognised(sic) as the pseudo scientific frauds they are.

That's one of the crazy delusional stories that you denier cult dingbats tell each other but it has no relation to reality. There is no evidence against AGW and the rest of the world scientific community continues to accept, support and verify the conclusions of the climate scientists. The fact that you believe otherwise is just another measure of your insanity and brainwashed ignorance.

 

[skookerasbil]

My goodness, Ol' Walleyes has his conspiracy helmut on. The Russians are in on it, the Americans are in on it, the British are in on it, in fact, the only people that are not conspiring are me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee!

Well you've got the conspiracy part of it correct. Climatologists are driving the car and they are losing because there aren't enough of them in high places to obliterate all of the evidence against them. For a while they ruled the roost but now that they have antagonised(sic) the real scientists out there they are losing their collective asses and will continue to do so till they are recognised(sic) as the pseudo scientific frauds they are.

That's one of the crazy delusional stories that you denier cult dingbats tell each other but it has no relation to reality. There is no evidence against AGW and the rest of the world scientific community continues to accept, support and verify the conclusions of the climate scientists. The fact that you believe otherwise is just another measure of your insanity and brainwashed ignorance.

How hysterical is this?

This guy is making out like deniers are a "cult" and that AGW is a slam dunk accepted by a huge majority!!!

This reminds me of the guy at the bar watching his football team getting crushed by a score of 54 - 0 and his team scores a touchdown with 1 minute to go in the game and he starts a hysterical celebration of screaming, hooting and hollering!!!



Who cares that there is a "scientific community consensus". Its not worth a hill of rat shit s0n. Its making ZERO impact on American public policy..........which is the only thing that matters unless you are one who's OCD about pissing contests. Its 2011.........might as well be sitting around having a group navel contemplation contest


It is fascinating the level of naive with these alarmist k00ks...........that they think they matter in this day and age.

Thunder..............you might as well be standing in your birthday suit in the middle of Siberia yelling, "FIRE"!!!!

 

[westwall]

My goodness, Ol' Walleyes has his conspiracy helmut on. The Russians are in on it, the Americans are in on it, the British are in on it, in fact, the only people that are not conspiring are me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee!

Well you've got the conspiracy part of it correct. Climatologists are driving the car and they are losing because there aren't enough of them in high places to obliterate all of the evidence against them. For a while they ruled the roost but now that they have antagonised(sic) the real scientists out there they are losing their collective asses and will continue to do so till they are recognised(sic) as the pseudo scientific frauds they are.

That's one of the crazy delusional stories that you denier cult dingbats tell each other but it has no relation to reality. There is no evidence against AGW and the rest of the world scientific community continues to accept, support and verify the conclusions of the climate scientists. The fact that you believe otherwise is just another measure of your insanity and brainwashed ignorance.

That's where you're wrong you dingbat alarmist libtard nitwit suckwad doofus banana squash(sorry, I couldn't control myself!) There is zero empirical evidence to support AGW. There are only computer models of proven poor quality. So poor they are unable to recreate weather that has allready occured. Try again, your insults and your "facts" are old and tired.

 

[RollingThunder]

Well you've got the conspiracy part of it correct. Climatologists are driving the car and they are losing because there aren't enough of them in high places to obliterate all of the evidence against them. For a while they ruled the roost but now that they have antagonised(sic) the real scientists out there they are losing their collective asses and will continue to do so till they are recognised(sic) as the pseudo scientific frauds they are.

That's one of the crazy delusional stories that you denier cult dingbats tell each other but it has no relation to reality. There is no evidence against AGW and the rest of the world scientific community continues to accept, support and verify the conclusions of the climate scientists. The fact that you believe otherwise is just another measure of your insanity and brainwashed ignorance.

There is zero empirical evidence to support AGW.

LOLOLOLOL. You can repeat your denier cult myths all you want but they are still total bullshit. There are mountains of empirical evidence that support AGW, as almost all of the Scientific Academies, Societies and government science organizations in the world have reported.

United States Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009 that:

Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.

Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.​

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.​

​

​

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[52]
​

​

​

There are only computer models of proven poor quality. So poor they are unable to recreate weather that has allready(sic) occured(sic).

In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.

Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figures [PPT file]

 

[westwall]

That's one of the crazy delusional stories that you denier cult dingbats tell each other but it has no relation to reality. There is no evidence against AGW and the rest of the world scientific community continues to accept, support and verify the conclusions of the climate scientists. The fact that you believe otherwise is just another measure of your insanity and brainwashed ignorance.

There is zero empirical evidence to support AGW.

LOLOLOLOL. You can repeat your denier cult myths all you want but they are still total bullshit. There are mountains of empirical evidence that support AGW, as almost all of the Scientific Academies, Societies and government science organizations in the world have reported.

United States Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009 that:

Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.

Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.​

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.​

​

​

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[52]
​

​

​

There are only computer models of proven poor quality. So poor they are unable to recreate weather that has allready(sic) occured(sic).

In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.

Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figures [PPT file]

The alarmists can make any stupid report they want to. Hansen has been manipulating the temperature record for a couple of years now and he has been caught doing it. It will be a bit of a wait but eventually congress will investigate his shenanigans and he will go off to prison.

All of their "predictions" are based on worthless computer models. The next 20 years are going to be cold so your little fantasy is over buckwheat. You clowns missed the window of opportunity the planet was providing you to ram this pseudo scientific crap down the throats of the ignorant.

Mother Nature screwed you though and cooled off before you could get your goals accomplished...so sad for you but great for the people of this planet and the planet itself...which mocks you and your ilk.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Record Events for Mon Mar 14, 2011 through Sun Mar 20, 2011

High Temperatures: 537
Low Temperatures: 11

HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View

The temp in my home town had a record three weeks ago record cold of 38 degrees.

 

[Old Rocks]

And when the temperature in my home town hits -38, it is not a record at all. In the winter, that is.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is zero empirical evidence to support AGW.

LOLOLOLOL. You can repeat your denier cult myths all you want but they are still total bullshit. There are mountains of empirical evidence that support AGW, as almost all of the Scientific Academies, Societies and government science organizations in the world have reported.

United States Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009 that:

Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.

Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.​

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.​

​

​

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[52]
​

​

​

There are only computer models of proven poor quality. So poor they are unable to recreate weather that has allready(sic) occured(sic).

In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.

Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figures [PPT file]

The alarmists can make any stupid report they want to. Hansen has been manipulating the temperature record for a couple of years now and he has been caught doing it. It will be a bit of a wait but eventually congress will investigate his shenanigans and he will go off to prison.

All of their "predictions" are based on worthless computer models. The next 20 years are going to be cold so your little fantasy is over buckwheat. You clowns missed the window of opportunity the planet was providing you to ram this pseudo scientific crap down the throats of the ignorant.

Mother Nature screwed you though and cooled off before you could get your goals accomplished...so sad for you but great for the people of this planet and the planet itself...which mocks you and your ilk.

Going to remind you of this prediction monthly, Walleyes. Kind of like your statements concerning the lack of a meltdown in the Japanese reactors. Both you and BiPolar completely zeroed out on that. Demonstrates the lack of knowledge on both your parts.

 

[westwall]

LOLOLOLOL. You can repeat your denier cult myths all you want but they are still total bullshit. There are mountains of empirical evidence that support AGW, as almost all of the Scientific Academies, Societies and government science organizations in the world have reported.

United States Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009 that:

Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.

Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.​

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.​

​

​

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[52]
​

​

​

In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.

Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figures [PPT file]

The alarmists can make any stupid report they want to. Hansen has been manipulating the temperature record for a couple of years now and he has been caught doing it. It will be a bit of a wait but eventually congress will investigate his shenanigans and he will go off to prison.

All of their "predictions" are based on worthless computer models. The next 20 years are going to be cold so your little fantasy is over buckwheat. You clowns missed the window of opportunity the planet was providing you to ram this pseudo scientific crap down the throats of the ignorant.

Mother Nature screwed you though and cooled off before you could get your goals accomplished...so sad for you but great for the people of this planet and the planet itself...which mocks you and your ilk.

Going to remind you of this prediction monthly, Walleyes. Kind of like your statements concerning the lack of a meltdown in the Japanese reactors. Both you and BiPolar completely zeroed out on that. Demonstrates the lack of knowledge on both your parts.

Where did I ever say there wasn't meltdown occuring? You nitwit, I was merely pointing out that people didn't need to panic about the radioactive cloud crossing the Pacific and killing everybody. God you are a doofus. And feel free to keep reminding us of how the record warm temps are beating us down as the grape production in CA and general food production declines due to COLD that the warmists will be erasing. They just can't erase the effects. So sad for them.

 

[RollingThunder]

There is zero empirical evidence to support AGW.

LOLOLOLOL. You can repeat your denier cult myths all you want but they are still total bullshit. There are mountains of empirical evidence that support AGW, as almost all of the Scientific Academies, Societies and government science organizations in the world have reported.

United States Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009 that:

Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.

Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.​

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.​

​

​

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[52]
​

​

​

There are only computer models of proven poor quality. So poor they are unable to recreate weather that has allready(sic) occured(sic).

In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.

Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figures [PPT file]

The alarmists can make any stupid report they want to. Hansen has been manipulating the temperature record for a couple of years now and he has been caught doing it. It will be a bit of a wait but eventually congress will investigate his shenanigans and he will go off to prison.

Wow, that's even more stunningly insane than your usual drivel and nonsense, walleyed. You have quite a collection of denier cult fantasies with no foundation in reality. Dr. Hansen work has been repeatedly verified by other researchers, he was not "caught" "manipulating the temperature records", temperature records are kept by a number of agencies and governments around the world and the different record sets kept by different organizations are in substantial agreement. If anyone goes to jail in the future, it will likely be some oil corp executives on charges of 'crimes against humanity'.

All of their "predictions" are based on worthless computer models.

You keep claiming that the computer models used in modern climate science are worthless without ever offering any evidence to back up that claim. You have no evidence to offer because there isn't any. That belief is just one of the dogmas of your cultic faith. I keep pointing out, as I did above, that the computer models actually have a good track record and have demonstrated their basic validity by accurately hindcasting the climate patterns of the 20th century. Unlike you with your phony claims, I cite actual scientific evidence and studies.

The next 20 years are going to be cold so your little fantasy is over buckwheat. You clowns missed the window of opportunity the planet was providing you to ram this pseudo scientific crap down the throats of the ignorant.

You silly denier cult dingbats are always claiming that the world is about to start cooling, any day now, but somehow every year continues to be well above the average for the last century and every decade continues to be, in turn, the warmest decade on record. Globally, the ice continues to melt at increasing rates almost everywhere, sea levels continue to rise at an increasing rate, and all of the other indicators point to a warming world. The next twenty years are going to be warmer and even warmer. It is a good bet that 2012 will be another record setting hot year.

Mother Nature screwed you though and cooled off before you could get your goals accomplished...so sad for you but great for the people of this planet and the planet itself...which mocks you and your ilk.

You are so lost in "de' nile" that the crocodiles must have already eaten your brains. What cooling, nitwit??? 2010 was tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record.

It would indeed be great for the planet and for all of us if you fruitcakes were somehow right and the world cooled off in the coming decades but alas, physics makes that impossible at this point.

And feel free to keep reminding us of how the record warm temps are beating us down as the grape production in CA and general food production declines due to COLD that the warmists will be erasing. They just can't erase the effects. So sad for them.

What "COLD", retard??? Food production worldwide is declining because of warming.


U.S. farmers dodge the impacts of global warming – at least for now, Stanford researcher says
The United States seems to have been lucky so far in largely escaping the impact of global warming on crop production. But for most major agricultural producing countries, the rising temperatures have already reduced their yields of corn and wheat compared to what they would have produced if there had been no warming, according to a new study led by Stanford researchers.

Stanford University News Service
May 4, 2011
(excerpts)

Global warming is likely already taking a toll on world wheat and corn production, according to a new study led by Stanford University researchers. But the United States, Canada and northern Mexico have largely escaped the trend. "It appears as if farmers in North America got a pass on the first round of global warming," said David Lobell, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford University. "That was surprising, given how fast we see weather has been changing in agricultural areas around the world as a whole." Russia, India and France suffered the greatest drops in wheat production relative to what might have been with no global warming. The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil.

Since 1950, the average global temperature has increased at a rate of roughly 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. But over the next two to three decades average global temperature is expected to rise approximately 50 percent faster than that, according to the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. With that rate of temperature change, it is unlikely that the crop-growing regions of the United States will continue to escape the rising temperatures, Lobell said.

 

[westwall]

LOLOLOLOL. You can repeat your denier cult myths all you want but they are still total bullshit. There are mountains of empirical evidence that support AGW, as almost all of the Scientific Academies, Societies and government science organizations in the world have reported.

United States Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009 that:

Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.

Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.​

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.​

​

​

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[52]
​

​

​

In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.

Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figures [PPT file]

The alarmists can make any stupid report they want to. Hansen has been manipulating the temperature record for a couple of years now and he has been caught doing it. It will be a bit of a wait but eventually congress will investigate his shenanigans and he will go off to prison.

Wow, that's even more stunningly insane than your usual drivel and nonsense, walleyed. You have quite a collection of denier cult fantasies with no foundation in reality. Dr. Hansen work has been repeatedly verified by other researchers, he was not "caught" "manipulating the temperature records", temperature records are kept by a number of agencies and governments around the world and the different record sets kept by different organizations are in substantial agreement. If anyone goes to jail in the future, it will likely be some oil corp executives on charges of 'crimes against humanity'.




You keep claiming that the computer models used in modern climate science are worthless without ever offering any evidence to back up that claim. You have no evidence to offer because there isn't any. That belief is just one of the dogmas of your cultic faith. I keep pointing out, as I did above, that the computer models actually have a good track record and have demonstrated their basic validity by accurately hindcasting the climate patterns of the 20th century. Unlike you with your phony claims, I cite actual scientific evidence and studies.





You silly denier cult dingbats are always claiming that the world is about to start cooling, any day now, but somehow every year continues to be well above the average for the last century and every decade continues to be, in turn, the warmest decade on record. Globally, the ice continues to melt at increasing rates almost everywhere, sea levels continue to rise at an increasing rate, and all of the other indicators point to a warming world. The next twenty years are going to be warmer and even warmer. It is a good bet that 2012 will be another record setting hot year.

Mother Nature screwed you though and cooled off before you could get your goals accomplished...so sad for you but great for the people of this planet and the planet itself...which mocks you and your ilk.

You are so lost in "de' nile" that the crocodiles must have already eaten your brains. What cooling, nitwit??? 2010 was tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record.

It would indeed be great for the planet and for all of us if you fruitcakes were somehow right and the world cooled off in the coming decades but alas, physics makes that impossible at this point.

And feel free to keep reminding us of how the record warm temps are beating us down as the grape production in CA and general food production declines due to COLD that the warmists will be erasing. They just can't erase the effects. So sad for them.

What "COLD", retard??? Food production worldwide is declining because of warming.


U.S. farmers dodge the impacts of global warming – at least for now, Stanford researcher says
The United States seems to have been lucky so far in largely escaping the impact of global warming on crop production. But for most major agricultural producing countries, the rising temperatures have already reduced their yields of corn and wheat compared to what they would have produced if there had been no warming, according to a new study led by Stanford researchers.

Stanford University News Service
May 4, 2011
(excerpts)

Global warming is likely already taking a toll on world wheat and corn production, according to a new study led by Stanford University researchers. But the United States, Canada and northern Mexico have largely escaped the trend. "It appears as if farmers in North America got a pass on the first round of global warming," said David Lobell, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford University. "That was surprising, given how fast we see weather has been changing in agricultural areas around the world as a whole." Russia, India and France suffered the greatest drops in wheat production relative to what might have been with no global warming. The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil.

Since 1950, the average global temperature has increased at a rate of roughly 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. But over the next two to three decades average global temperature is expected to rise approximately 50 percent faster than that, according to the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. With that rate of temperature change, it is unlikely that the crop-growing regions of the United States will continue to escape the rising temperatures, Lobell said.

I wonder if you actually read the story in your link? Let me share some exerpts for you....

"The United States seems to have been lucky so far in largely escaping the impact of global warming on crop production. But for most major agricultural producing countries, the rising temperatures have already reduced their yields of corn and wheat compared to what they would have produced if there had been no warming, according to a new study led by Stanford researchers."

I wonder how they came to that conclusion? I find it amazing that the most recorded area on the planet has seen no appreciable warming (defying the warming of the rest of the planet) kind of makes one wonder how the rest of the globe can warm and the US magically not warm. I wonder how the physics of that would work. I also find it interesting that they say the decline (actually there has been no decline, just the rate of food increase production has slowed) is solely do to warmthwhen we have the experience of Brazil which produces very large quantities of food while enjoying an average temperature 6 degrees warmer then the US.

"Lobell and his colleagues examined temperature and precipitation records since 1980 for major crop-growing countries in the places and times of year when crops are grown. They then used crop models to estimate what worldwide crop yields would have been had temperature and precipitation had typical fluctuations around 1980 levels."

Yep you guessed it, there are those ubiquitous computer models again.

"The researchers found that global wheat production was 5.5 percent lower than it would have been had the climate remained stable, and global corn production was lower by almost 4 percent. Global rice and soybean production were not significantly affected."

Ahh yes 5.5 percent lower then it would have been....and how exactly did they calculate that? We know they used models but what about the actual research that supports this contention?

The United States, which is the world's largest producer of soybeans and corn, accounting for roughly 40 percent of global production, experienced a very slight cooling trend and no significant production impacts.

"Outside of North America, most major producing countries were found to have experienced some decline in wheat and corn (or maize) yields related to the rise in global temperature. "Yields in most countries are still going up, but not as fast as we estimate they would be without climate trends," Lobell said."

Amazing how only the US experienced a cooling trend while the rest of the world supposedly heated up. And might there be other reasons for the decline in production? Like farmers planting other crops for economic reasons?

Russia, India and France suffered the greatest drops in wheat production relative to what might have been with no global warming. The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil.

"Total worldwide relative losses of the two crops equal the annual production of corn in Mexico and wheat in France. Together, the four crops in the study – wheat, corn, soybeans and rice – constitute approximately 75 percent of the calories that humans worldwide consume, directly or indirectly through livestock, according to research cited in the study."

This is a very telling paragraph. Alluding to Russia and India with their crop losses due to the recent blocking (which even NOAA said was not GW related) but more interesting is Brazil which is an example of not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Brazil has indeed seen a decline in food crops BECAUSE THEY ARE PLANTING SUGERCANE FOR BIOFUEL PRODUCTION. So here we have a blatant case of misinformation.

To develop their estimates, the researchers used publicly available global data sets from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and from the University of Delaware, University of Wisconsin and McGill University.

The researchers also estimated the economic effects of the changes in crop yield using models of commodity markets.

Yep, more ubiquitous computer models. I excised out a bunch of blather about while the corn belt has seemed to magically escape any warming over the last 50 years they will eventually warm up. No discusion about how this magical bubble over the corn belt was created though.


"We found that since 1980, the effects of climate change on crop yields have caused an increase of approximately 20 percent in global market prices," said Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University and a co-author of the paper in Science.

He said if the beneficial effects of higher carbon dioxide levels on crop growth are factored into the calculation, the increase drops down to 5 percent."

Interesting how inflation wasn't considered but then we're not talking about a legit scientist here are we?

I find it amazing that supposedly thinking people can read a story like this and not just instinctively rip it to shreds. What ever happened to that wonderful paradigm of "question authority".

 

[RollingThunder]

The alarmists can make any stupid report they want to. Hansen has been manipulating the temperature record for a couple of years now and he has been caught doing it. It will be a bit of a wait but eventually congress will investigate his shenanigans and he will go off to prison.

Wow, that's even more stunningly insane than your usual drivel and nonsense, walleyed. You have quite a collection of denier cult fantasies with no foundation in reality. Dr. Hansen work has been repeatedly verified by other researchers, he was not "caught" "manipulating the temperature records", temperature records are kept by a number of agencies and governments around the world and the different record sets kept by different organizations are in substantial agreement. If anyone goes to jail in the future, it will likely be some oil corp executives on charges of 'crimes against humanity'.


You keep claiming that the computer models used in modern climate science are worthless without ever offering any evidence to back up that claim. You have no evidence to offer because there isn't any. That belief is just one of the dogmas of your cultic faith. I keep pointing out, as I did above, that the computer models actually have a good track record and have demonstrated their basic validity by accurately hindcasting the climate patterns of the 20th century. Unlike you with your phony claims, I cite actual scientific evidence and studies.


You silly denier cult dingbats are always claiming that the world is about to start cooling, any day now, but somehow every year continues to be well above the average for the last century and every decade continues to be, in turn, the warmest decade on record. Globally, the ice continues to melt at increasing rates almost everywhere, sea levels continue to rise at an increasing rate, and all of the other indicators point to a warming world. The next twenty years are going to be warmer and even warmer. It is a good bet that 2012 will be another record setting hot year.


You are so lost in "de' nile" that the crocodiles must have already eaten your brains. What cooling, nitwit??? 2010 was tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record.

It would indeed be great for the planet and for all of us if you fruitcakes were somehow right and the world cooled off in the coming decades but alas, physics makes that impossible at this point.

And feel free to keep reminding us of how the record warm temps are beating us down as the grape production in CA and general food production declines due to COLD that the warmists will be erasing. They just can't erase the effects. So sad for them.

What "COLD", retard??? Food production worldwide is declining because of warming.

U.S. farmers dodge the impacts of global warming – at least for now, Stanford researcher says
The United States seems to have been lucky so far in largely escaping the impact of global warming on crop production. But for most major agricultural producing countries, the rising temperatures have already reduced their yields of corn and wheat compared to what they would have produced if there had been no warming, according to a new study led by Stanford researchers.

Stanford University News Service
May 4, 2011
(excerpts)

Global warming is likely already taking a toll on world wheat and corn production, according to a new study led by Stanford University researchers. But the United States, Canada and northern Mexico have largely escaped the trend. "It appears as if farmers in North America got a pass on the first round of global warming," said David Lobell, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford University. "That was surprising, given how fast we see weather has been changing in agricultural areas around the world as a whole." Russia, India and France suffered the greatest drops in wheat production relative to what might have been with no global warming. The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil.

Since 1950, the average global temperature has increased at a rate of roughly 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. But over the next two to three decades average global temperature is expected to rise approximately 50 percent faster than that, according to the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. With that rate of temperature change, it is unlikely that the crop-growing regions of the United States will continue to escape the rising temperatures, Lobell said.

I wonder if you actually read the story in your link?

Why yes, walleyed, I did read the article about the study by the Stanford scientists but you make it plain that you may have read it but your comprehension was piss poor. But go ahead, it's always amusing to watch one of you scientifically ignorant denier cultists try to critique the research of actual scientists by analyzing the wording of an article about their research.

Let me share some exerpts for you....

"The United States seems to have been lucky so far in largely escaping the impact of global warming on crop production. But for most major agricultural producing countries, the rising temperatures have already reduced their yields of corn and wheat compared to what they would have produced if there had been no warming, according to a new study led by Stanford researchers."

I wonder how they came to that conclusion?

I'm sure you do!!! Given how extremely ignorant about science and the scientific process you are and your general low level of intelligence, it all must be quite puzzling to you.

I find it amazing that the most recorded area on the planet has seen no appreciable warming (defying the warming of the rest of the planet) kind of makes one wonder how the rest of the globe can warm and the US magically not warm. I wonder how the physics of that would work.

The USA only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface so it's not as big a deal as you imagine. And again, I'm sure you find a lot of scientific facts that you can't comprehend very "amazing" and you must "wonder" about almost everything that you're too ignorant and dimwitted to understand.

I also find it interesting that they say the decline (actually there has been no decline, just the rate of food increase production has slowed) is solely do(sic) to warmthwhen we have the experience of Brazil which produces very large quantities of food while enjoying an average temperature 6 degrees warmer then the US.

The article makes clear that a substantially lesser amount of food is being produced in many parts of the world than the amount that would have been produced in the absence of global warming and the article (even the bit I quoted) mentions Brazil specifically.

"The researchers found that global wheat production was 5.5 percent lower than it would have been had the climate remained stable, and global corn production was lower by almost 4 percent."

"Total worldwide relative losses of the two crops equal the annual production of corn in Mexico and wheat in France."

"The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil."

"Lobell and his colleagues examined temperature and precipitation records since 1980 for major crop-growing countries in the places and times of year when crops are grown. They then used crop models to estimate what worldwide crop yields would have been had temperature and precipitation had typical fluctuations around 1980 levels."

Yep you guessed it, there are those ubiquitous computer models again.

Yep, computer modeling is a fairly ubiquitous scientific technique at this point in time and is used in a great many areas of study including crop modeling. The reason computer modeling is so widely used is that it works. Computer models have their limitations but they have demonstrated the ability to reflect real world events fairly accurately in many fields of study and application. You anti-science denier cult nitwits sneer at everything in science that you can't understand and so if a computer model is mentioned, you imagine that that is something negative that, by itself, invalidates the the rest of the research. But that is just your insanity and ignorance talking.

"The researchers found that global wheat production was 5.5 percent lower than it would have been had the climate remained stable, and global corn production was lower by almost 4 percent. Global rice and soybean production were not significantly affected."

Ahh yes 5.5 percent lower then it would have been....and how exactly did they calculate that? We know they used models but what about the actual research that supports this contention?

The United States, which is the world's largest producer of soybeans and corn, accounting for roughly 40 percent of global production, experienced a very slight cooling trend and no significant production impacts.

"Outside of North America, most major producing countries were found to have experienced some decline in wheat and corn (or maize) yields related to the rise in global temperature. "Yields in most countries are still going up, but not as fast as we estimate they would be without climate trends," Lobell said."

Amazing how only the US experienced a cooling trend while the rest of the world supposedly heated up. And might there be other reasons for the decline in production? Like farmers planting other crops for economic reasons?

Russia, India and France suffered the greatest drops in wheat production relative to what might have been with no global warming. The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil.

"Total worldwide relative losses of the two crops equal the annual production of corn in Mexico and wheat in France. Together, the four crops in the study – wheat, corn, soybeans and rice – constitute approximately 75 percent of the calories that humans worldwide consume, directly or indirectly through livestock, according to research cited in the study."

This is a very telling paragraph. Alluding to Russia and India with their crop losses due to the recent blocking (which even NOAA said was not GW related) but more interesting is Brazil which is an example of not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Brazil has indeed seen a decline in food crops BECAUSE THEY ARE PLANTING SUGERCANE FOR BIOFUEL PRODUCTION. So here we have a blatant case of misinformation.

To develop their estimates, the researchers used publicly available global data sets from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and from the University of Delaware, University of Wisconsin and McGill University.

The researchers also estimated the economic effects of the changes in crop yield using models of commodity markets.

Yep, more ubiquitous computer models. I excised out a bunch of blather about while the corn belt has seemed to magically escape any warming over the last 50 years they will eventually warm up. No discusion(sic) about how this magical bubble over the corn belt was created though.


"We found that since 1980, the effects of climate change on crop yields have caused an increase of approximately 20 percent in global market prices," said Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University and a co-author of the paper in Science.

He said if the beneficial effects of higher carbon dioxide levels on crop growth are factored into the calculation, the increase drops down to 5 percent."

Interesting how inflation wasn't considered but then we're not talking about a legit scientist here are we?

I find it amazing that supposedly thinking people can read a story like this and not just instinctively rip it to shreds. What ever happened to that wonderful paradigm of "question authority".

"how exactly did they calculate that?"....pretty much sums up your ignorance. You speculate wildly in the absence of any actual facts and without looking at the actual research paper but only going by a news release about the research and then try to imply that because you're so ignorant about how they arrive at their results then the scientists must not be "legit" scientists and they must have forgotten to consider important factors like "inflation" (which you know because the word wasn't mentioned in an article about the research...LOL).

"Alluding to Russia and India with their crop losses due to the recent blocking..."????? "Blocking"??? What are you mumbling about now, walleyedretard? Russia's crop losses last year were partly the result of wildfires that were directly linked to global warming/climate change. But this study I cited covers a longer period and is looking at trends over years.

"Brazil has indeed seen a decline in food crops BECAUSE THEY ARE PLANTING SUGERCANE FOR BIOFUEL PRODUCTION. So here we have a blatant case of misinformation."....yeah but, as usual, the blatant attempt at misinformation is yours. Brazil developed its ethanol economy decades ago and is not now currently transferring any significant amount of land from food production to sugar cane production.

Ethanol in Brazil: The World's First Sustainable Biofuels Economy
(excerpt)

Brazilians have never considered sugar a basic food staple, such as rice, wheat or corn, but rather just a food sweetener, so it does not play a key role to combat world hunger. The government, the private sector and the Brazilian press joint position defend sugarcane-based ethanol, claiming their ethanol was not the villain of the story. After the peak of the food vs. fuels debate last April to May, reports (links go directly to PDF reports) from the World Bank, OECD, and even the British NGO Oxfam did not put any blame on sugarcane ethanol for the increase of food prices, or for lack of sustainability. The World Bank report concludes that sugarcane based ethanol has not raised sugar prices significantly, as almost half the sugar cane harvested goes to sugar production and the other half to ethanol, not affecting world supply, as Brazil is the first sugar producer in the world.

 

[westwall]

Wow, that's even more stunningly insane than your usual drivel and nonsense, walleyed. You have quite a collection of denier cult fantasies with no foundation in reality. Dr. Hansen work has been repeatedly verified by other researchers, he was not "caught" "manipulating the temperature records", temperature records are kept by a number of agencies and governments around the world and the different record sets kept by different organizations are in substantial agreement. If anyone goes to jail in the future, it will likely be some oil corp executives on charges of 'crimes against humanity'.


You keep claiming that the computer models used in modern climate science are worthless without ever offering any evidence to back up that claim. You have no evidence to offer because there isn't any. That belief is just one of the dogmas of your cultic faith. I keep pointing out, as I did above, that the computer models actually have a good track record and have demonstrated their basic validity by accurately hindcasting the climate patterns of the 20th century. Unlike you with your phony claims, I cite actual scientific evidence and studies.


You silly denier cult dingbats are always claiming that the world is about to start cooling, any day now, but somehow every year continues to be well above the average for the last century and every decade continues to be, in turn, the warmest decade on record. Globally, the ice continues to melt at increasing rates almost everywhere, sea levels continue to rise at an increasing rate, and all of the other indicators point to a warming world. The next twenty years are going to be warmer and even warmer. It is a good bet that 2012 will be another record setting hot year.


You are so lost in "de' nile" that the crocodiles must have already eaten your brains. What cooling, nitwit??? 2010 was tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record.

It would indeed be great for the planet and for all of us if you fruitcakes were somehow right and the world cooled off in the coming decades but alas, physics makes that impossible at this point.



What "COLD", retard??? Food production worldwide is declining because of warming.

U.S. farmers dodge the impacts of global warming – at least for now, Stanford researcher says
The United States seems to have been lucky so far in largely escaping the impact of global warming on crop production. But for most major agricultural producing countries, the rising temperatures have already reduced their yields of corn and wheat compared to what they would have produced if there had been no warming, according to a new study led by Stanford researchers.

Stanford University News Service
May 4, 2011
(excerpts)

Global warming is likely already taking a toll on world wheat and corn production, according to a new study led by Stanford University researchers. But the United States, Canada and northern Mexico have largely escaped the trend. "It appears as if farmers in North America got a pass on the first round of global warming," said David Lobell, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford University. "That was surprising, given how fast we see weather has been changing in agricultural areas around the world as a whole." Russia, India and France suffered the greatest drops in wheat production relative to what might have been with no global warming. The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil.

Since 1950, the average global temperature has increased at a rate of roughly 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. But over the next two to three decades average global temperature is expected to rise approximately 50 percent faster than that, according to the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. With that rate of temperature change, it is unlikely that the crop-growing regions of the United States will continue to escape the rising temperatures, Lobell said.

I wonder if you actually read the story in your link?

Why yes, walleyed, I did read the article about the study by the Stanford scientists but you make it plain that you may have read it but your comprehension was piss poor. But go ahead, it's always amusing to watch one of you scientifically ignorant denier cultists try to critique the research of actual scientists by analyzing the wording of an article about their research.



I'm sure you do!!! Given how extremely ignorant about science and the scientific process you are and your general low level of intelligence, it all must be quite puzzling to you.




The USA only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface so it's not as big a deal as you imagine. And again, I'm sure you find a lot of scientific facts that you can't comprehend very "amazing" and you must "wonder" about almost everything that you're too ignorant and dimwitted to understand.




The article makes clear that a substantially lesser amount of food is being produced in many parts of the world than the amount that would have been produced in the absence of global warming and the article (even the bit I quoted) mentions Brazil specifically.

"The researchers found that global wheat production was 5.5 percent lower than it would have been had the climate remained stable, and global corn production was lower by almost 4 percent."

"Total worldwide relative losses of the two crops equal the annual production of corn in Mexico and wheat in France."

"The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil."

"Lobell and his colleagues examined temperature and precipitation records since 1980 for major crop-growing countries in the places and times of year when crops are grown. They then used crop models to estimate what worldwide crop yields would have been had temperature and precipitation had typical fluctuations around 1980 levels."

Yep you guessed it, there are those ubiquitous computer models again.

Yep, computer modeling is a fairly ubiquitous scientific technique at this point in time and is used in a great many areas of study including crop modeling. The reason computer modeling is so widely used is that it works. Computer models have their limitations but they have demonstrated the ability to reflect real world events fairly accurately in many fields of study and application. You anti-science denier cult nitwits sneer at everything in science that you can't understand and so if a computer model is mentioned, you imagine that that is something negative that, by itself, invalidates the the rest of the research. But that is just your insanity and ignorance talking.

"The researchers found that global wheat production was 5.5 percent lower than it would have been had the climate remained stable, and global corn production was lower by almost 4 percent. Global rice and soybean production were not significantly affected."

Ahh yes 5.5 percent lower then it would have been....and how exactly did they calculate that? We know they used models but what about the actual research that supports this contention?

The United States, which is the world's largest producer of soybeans and corn, accounting for roughly 40 percent of global production, experienced a very slight cooling trend and no significant production impacts.

"Outside of North America, most major producing countries were found to have experienced some decline in wheat and corn (or maize) yields related to the rise in global temperature. "Yields in most countries are still going up, but not as fast as we estimate they would be without climate trends," Lobell said."

Amazing how only the US experienced a cooling trend while the rest of the world supposedly heated up. And might there be other reasons for the decline in production? Like farmers planting other crops for economic reasons?

Russia, India and France suffered the greatest drops in wheat production relative to what might have been with no global warming. The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil.

"Total worldwide relative losses of the two crops equal the annual production of corn in Mexico and wheat in France. Together, the four crops in the study – wheat, corn, soybeans and rice – constitute approximately 75 percent of the calories that humans worldwide consume, directly or indirectly through livestock, according to research cited in the study."

This is a very telling paragraph. Alluding to Russia and India with their crop losses due to the recent blocking (which even NOAA said was not GW related) but more interesting is Brazil which is an example of not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Brazil has indeed seen a decline in food crops BECAUSE THEY ARE PLANTING SUGERCANE FOR BIOFUEL PRODUCTION. So here we have a blatant case of misinformation.

To develop their estimates, the researchers used publicly available global data sets from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and from the University of Delaware, University of Wisconsin and McGill University.

The researchers also estimated the economic effects of the changes in crop yield using models of commodity markets.

Yep, more ubiquitous computer models. I excised out a bunch of blather about while the corn belt has seemed to magically escape any warming over the last 50 years they will eventually warm up. No discusion(sic) about how this magical bubble over the corn belt was created though.


"We found that since 1980, the effects of climate change on crop yields have caused an increase of approximately 20 percent in global market prices," said Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University and a co-author of the paper in Science.

He said if the beneficial effects of higher carbon dioxide levels on crop growth are factored into the calculation, the increase drops down to 5 percent."

Interesting how inflation wasn't considered but then we're not talking about a legit scientist here are we?

I find it amazing that supposedly thinking people can read a story like this and not just instinctively rip it to shreds. What ever happened to that wonderful paradigm of "question authority".

"how exactly did they calculate that?"....pretty much sums up your ignorance. You speculate wildly in the absence of any actual facts and without looking at the actual research paper but only going by a news release about the research and then try to imply that because you're so ignorant about how they arrive at their results then the scientists must not be "legit" scientists and they must have forgotten to consider important factors like "inflation" (which you know because the word wasn't mentioned in an article about the research...LOL).

"Alluding to Russia and India with their crop losses due to the recent blocking..."????? "Blocking"??? What are you mumbling about now, walleyedretard? Russia's crop losses last year were partly the result of wildfires that were directly linked to global warming/climate change. But this study I cited covers a longer period and is looking at trends over years.

"Brazil has indeed seen a decline in food crops BECAUSE THEY ARE PLANTING SUGERCANE FOR BIOFUEL PRODUCTION. So here we have a blatant case of misinformation."....yeah but, as usual, the blatant attempt at misinformation is yours. Brazil developed its ethanol economy decades ago and is not now currently transferring any significant amount of land from food production to sugar cane production.

Ethanol in Brazil: The World's First Sustainable Biofuels Economy
(excerpt)

Brazilians have never considered sugar a basic food staple, such as rice, wheat or corn, but rather just a food sweetener, so it does not play a key role to combat world hunger. The government, the private sector and the Brazilian press joint position defend sugarcane-based ethanol, claiming their ethanol was not the villain of the story. After the peak of the food vs. fuels debate last April to May, reports (links go directly to PDF reports) from the World Bank, OECD, and even the British NGO Oxfam did not put any blame on sugarcane ethanol for the increase of food prices, or for lack of sustainability. The World Bank report concludes that sugarcane based ethanol has not raised sugar prices significantly, as almost half the sugar cane harvested goes to sugar production and the other half to ethanol, not affecting world supply, as Brazil is the first sugar producer in the world.

Well looky here. Numbnuts can't add or subtract either. Here's a primer for you moron. The planet Earth has 139,668,500 square miles of ocean. It further has 57,268,900 square miles of land. The US constitutes 3,794,083 square miles of land which the last time I checked equates out to 6.6% of the total land area. Now if you wish to remove Alaska's 586,400 square miles that drops the total down to 5.6% of the total land area.

How on earth you think that people are going to take you seriously when you can't even get a simple fact like that straight is beyond me but it certainly points out the pervasive inability to do simple math and points out your clowns' particular personality disorder.

When you can get a simple fact straight by all means come back but this is a ridiculously stupid mistake I would expect from a grade schooler.

What a complete and utter failure of the public education system. My gosh but you are an idiot!

 

[RollingThunder]

I wonder if you actually read the story in your link?

Why yes, walleyed, I did read the article about the study by the Stanford scientists but you make it plain that you may have read it but your comprehension was piss poor. But go ahead, it's always amusing to watch one of you scientifically ignorant denier cultists try to critique the research of actual scientists by analyzing the wording of an article about their research.

I'm sure you do!!! Given how extremely ignorant about science and the scientific process you are and your general low level of intelligence, it all must be quite puzzling to you.

The USA only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface so it's not as big a deal as you imagine. And again, I'm sure you find a lot of scientific facts that you can't comprehend very "amazing" and you must "wonder" about almost everything that you're too ignorant and dimwitted to understand.

The article makes clear that a substantially lesser amount of food is being produced in many parts of the world than the amount that would have been produced in the absence of global warming and the article (even the bit I quoted) mentions Brazil specifically.

"The researchers found that global wheat production was 5.5 percent lower than it would have been had the climate remained stable, and global corn production was lower by almost 4 percent."

"Total worldwide relative losses of the two crops equal the annual production of corn in Mexico and wheat in France."

"The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil."

Yep, computer modeling is a fairly ubiquitous scientific technique at this point in time and is used in a great many areas of study including crop modeling. The reason computer modeling is so widely used is that it works. Computer models have their limitations but they have demonstrated the ability to reflect real world events fairly accurately in many fields of study and application. You anti-science denier cult nitwits sneer at everything in science that you can't understand and so if a computer model is mentioned, you imagine that that is something negative that, by itself, invalidates the the rest of the research. But that is just your insanity and ignorance talking.

"The researchers found that global wheat production was 5.5 percent lower than it would have been had the climate remained stable, and global corn production was lower by almost 4 percent. Global rice and soybean production were not significantly affected."

Ahh yes 5.5 percent lower then it would have been....and how exactly did they calculate that? We know they used models but what about the actual research that supports this contention?

The United States, which is the world's largest producer of soybeans and corn, accounting for roughly 40 percent of global production, experienced a very slight cooling trend and no significant production impacts.

"Outside of North America, most major producing countries were found to have experienced some decline in wheat and corn (or maize) yields related to the rise in global temperature. "Yields in most countries are still going up, but not as fast as we estimate they would be without climate trends," Lobell said."

Amazing how only the US experienced a cooling trend while the rest of the world supposedly heated up. And might there be other reasons for the decline in production? Like farmers planting other crops for economic reasons?

Russia, India and France suffered the greatest drops in wheat production relative to what might have been with no global warming. The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil.

"Total worldwide relative losses of the two crops equal the annual production of corn in Mexico and wheat in France. Together, the four crops in the study – wheat, corn, soybeans and rice – constitute approximately 75 percent of the calories that humans worldwide consume, directly or indirectly through livestock, according to research cited in the study."

This is a very telling paragraph. Alluding to Russia and India with their crop losses due to the recent blocking (which even NOAA said was not GW related) but more interesting is Brazil which is an example of not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Brazil has indeed seen a decline in food crops BECAUSE THEY ARE PLANTING SUGERCANE FOR BIOFUEL PRODUCTION. So here we have a blatant case of misinformation.

To develop their estimates, the researchers used publicly available global data sets from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and from the University of Delaware, University of Wisconsin and McGill University.

The researchers also estimated the economic effects of the changes in crop yield using models of commodity markets.

Yep, more ubiquitous computer models. I excised out a bunch of blather about while the corn belt has seemed to magically escape any warming over the last 50 years they will eventually warm up. No discusion(sic) about how this magical bubble over the corn belt was created though.

"We found that since 1980, the effects of climate change on crop yields have caused an increase of approximately 20 percent in global market prices," said Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University and a co-author of the paper in Science.

He said if the beneficial effects of higher carbon dioxide levels on crop growth are factored into the calculation, the increase drops down to 5 percent."

Interesting how inflation wasn't considered but then we're not talking about a legit scientist here are we?

I find it amazing that supposedly thinking people can read a story like this and not just instinctively rip it to shreds. What ever happened to that wonderful paradigm of "question authority".

"how exactly did they calculate that?"....pretty much sums up your ignorance. You speculate wildly in the absence of any actual facts and without looking at the actual research paper but only going by a news release about the research and then try to imply that because you're so ignorant about how they arrive at their results then the scientists must not be "legit" scientists and they must have forgotten to consider important factors like "inflation" (which you know because the word wasn't mentioned in an article about the research...LOL).

"Alluding to Russia and India with their crop losses due to the recent blocking..."????? "Blocking"??? What are you mumbling about now, walleyedretard? Russia's crop losses last year were partly the result of wildfires that were directly linked to global warming/climate change. But this study I cited covers a longer period and is looking at trends over years.

"Brazil has indeed seen a decline in food crops BECAUSE THEY ARE PLANTING SUGERCANE FOR BIOFUEL PRODUCTION. So here we have a blatant case of misinformation."....yeah but, as usual, the blatant attempt at misinformation is yours. Brazil developed its ethanol economy decades ago and is not now currently transferring any significant amount of land from food production to sugar cane production.

Ethanol in Brazil: The World's First Sustainable Biofuels Economy
(excerpt)

Brazilians have never considered sugar a basic food staple, such as rice, wheat or corn, but rather just a food sweetener, so it does not play a key role to combat world hunger. The government, the private sector and the Brazilian press joint position defend sugarcane-based ethanol, claiming their ethanol was not the villain of the story. After the peak of the food vs. fuels debate last April to May, reports (links go directly to PDF reports) from the World Bank, OECD, and even the British NGO Oxfam did not put any blame on sugarcane ethanol for the increase of food prices, or for lack of sustainability. The World Bank report concludes that sugarcane based ethanol has not raised sugar prices significantly, as almost half the sugar cane harvested goes to sugar production and the other half to ethanol, not affecting world supply, as Brazil is the first sugar producer in the world.

Well looky here. Numbnuts can't add or subtract either. Here's a primer for you moron. The planet Earth has 139,668,500 square miles of ocean. It further has 57,268,900 square miles of land. The US constitutes 3,794,083 square miles of land which the last time I checked equates out to 6.6% of the total land area. Now if you wish to remove Alaska's 586,400 square miles that drops the total down to 5.6% of the total land area.

How on earth you think that people are going to take you seriously when you can't even get a simple fact like that straight is beyond me but it certainly points out the pervasive inability to do simple math and points out your clowns' particular personality disorder.

When you can get a simple fact straight by all means come back but this is a ridiculously stupid mistake I would expect from a grade schooler.

What a complete and utter failure of the public education system. My gosh but you are an idiot!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....ROTFLMAO.....

Hey walleyedretard, take all of those insults, multiply them by ten, and apply them to yourself.

Surface Area of the Earth
The total surface area of the Earth is 510 million square kilometers.

Surface Area of the Earth
Total surface area of earth: 510,072,000 sq km [= 316,944,046.766 sq mi]

* Total water surface area: 70.8% (361,132,000 sq km) [= 224,397,021 sq mi]
* Total land surface area: 29.2% (148,940,000 sq km) [= 92,547,025 sq mi]

Percentage Calculator

US surface area = 3,794,083 square miles
Earth surface area = 316,944,946 sq mi

3,794,083 is what percentage of 316,944,946 = 1.197%

How on earth you think that people are going to take you seriously when you can't even get a simple fact like that straight is beyond me but it certainly points out the pervasive inability to do simple math and points out your clowns' particular personality disorder.

When you can get a simple fact straight by all means come back but this is a ridiculously stupid mistake I would expect from a grade schooler.

What a complete and utter failure of the public education system. My gosh but you are an idiot!

 

[westwall]

Why yes, walleyed, I did read the article about the study by the Stanford scientists but you make it plain that you may have read it but your comprehension was piss poor. But go ahead, it's always amusing to watch one of you scientifically ignorant denier cultists try to critique the research of actual scientists by analyzing the wording of an article about their research.

I'm sure you do!!! Given how extremely ignorant about science and the scientific process you are and your general low level of intelligence, it all must be quite puzzling to you.

The USA only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface so it's not as big a deal as you imagine. And again, I'm sure you find a lot of scientific facts that you can't comprehend very "amazing" and you must "wonder" about almost everything that you're too ignorant and dimwitted to understand.

The article makes clear that a substantially lesser amount of food is being produced in many parts of the world than the amount that would have been produced in the absence of global warming and the article (even the bit I quoted) mentions Brazil specifically.

"The researchers found that global wheat production was 5.5 percent lower than it would have been had the climate remained stable, and global corn production was lower by almost 4 percent."

"Total worldwide relative losses of the two crops equal the annual production of corn in Mexico and wheat in France."

"The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil."

Yep, computer modeling is a fairly ubiquitous scientific technique at this point in time and is used in a great many areas of study including crop modeling. The reason computer modeling is so widely used is that it works. Computer models have their limitations but they have demonstrated the ability to reflect real world events fairly accurately in many fields of study and application. You anti-science denier cult nitwits sneer at everything in science that you can't understand and so if a computer model is mentioned, you imagine that that is something negative that, by itself, invalidates the the rest of the research. But that is just your insanity and ignorance talking.



"how exactly did they calculate that?"....pretty much sums up your ignorance. You speculate wildly in the absence of any actual facts and without looking at the actual research paper but only going by a news release about the research and then try to imply that because you're so ignorant about how they arrive at their results then the scientists must not be "legit" scientists and they must have forgotten to consider important factors like "inflation" (which you know because the word wasn't mentioned in an article about the research...LOL).

"Alluding to Russia and India with their crop losses due to the recent blocking..."????? "Blocking"??? What are you mumbling about now, walleyedretard? Russia's crop losses last year were partly the result of wildfires that were directly linked to global warming/climate change. But this study I cited covers a longer period and is looking at trends over years.

"Brazil has indeed seen a decline in food crops BECAUSE THEY ARE PLANTING SUGERCANE FOR BIOFUEL PRODUCTION. So here we have a blatant case of misinformation."....yeah but, as usual, the blatant attempt at misinformation is yours. Brazil developed its ethanol economy decades ago and is not now currently transferring any significant amount of land from food production to sugar cane production.

Ethanol in Brazil: The World's First Sustainable Biofuels Economy
(excerpt)

Brazilians have never considered sugar a basic food staple, such as rice, wheat or corn, but rather just a food sweetener, so it does not play a key role to combat world hunger. The government, the private sector and the Brazilian press joint position defend sugarcane-based ethanol, claiming their ethanol was not the villain of the story. After the peak of the food vs. fuels debate last April to May, reports (links go directly to PDF reports) from the World Bank, OECD, and even the British NGO Oxfam did not put any blame on sugarcane ethanol for the increase of food prices, or for lack of sustainability. The World Bank report concludes that sugarcane based ethanol has not raised sugar prices significantly, as almost half the sugar cane harvested goes to sugar production and the other half to ethanol, not affecting world supply, as Brazil is the first sugar producer in the world.

Well looky here. Numbnuts can't add or subtract either. Here's a primer for you moron. The planet Earth has 139,668,500 square miles of ocean. It further has 57,268,900 square miles of land. The US constitutes 3,794,083 square miles of land which the last time I checked equates out to 6.6% of the total land area. Now if you wish to remove Alaska's 586,400 square miles that drops the total down to 5.6% of the total land area.

How on earth you think that people are going to take you seriously when you can't even get a simple fact like that straight is beyond me but it certainly points out the pervasive inability to do simple math and points out your clowns' particular personality disorder.

When you can get a simple fact straight by all means come back but this is a ridiculously stupid mistake I would expect from a grade schooler.

What a complete and utter failure of the public education system. My gosh but you are an idiot!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....ROTFLMAO.....

Hey walleyedretard, take all of those insults, multiply them by ten, and apply them to yourself.

Surface Area of the Earth
The total surface area of the Earth is 510 million square kilometers.

Surface Area of the Earth
Total surface area of earth: 510,072,000 sq km [= 316,944,046.766 sq mi]

* Total water surface area: 70.8% (361,132,000 sq km) [= 224,397,021 sq mi]
* Total land surface area: 29.2% (148,940,000 sq km) [= 92,547,025 sq mi]

Percentage Calculator

US surface area = 3,794,083 square miles
Earth surface area = 316,944,946 sq mi

3,794,083 is what percentage of 316,944,946 = 1.197%

How on earth you think that people are going to take you seriously when you can't even get a simple fact like that straight is beyond me but it certainly points out the pervasive inability to do simple math and points out your clowns' particular personality disorder.

When you can get a simple fact straight by all means come back but this is a ridiculously stupid mistake I would expect from a grade schooler.

What a complete and utter failure of the public education system. My gosh but you are an idiot!

Yes you are an idiot, you can't even find simple facts you dipshit!





Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Earth has a surface area of 196,940,400 square miles, slightly less than a perfect ball with a diameter of 7913.5 miles .

The surface area of the seven continents and all the islands of the world is about 57 million miles, while the total area of the six habitable continents (Antarctica excluded) is around 52 million square miles.

Including Antarctica , over one fifth of the globe's land mass is under water (oceans, lakes, rivers, etc.) or ice. This leaves about 45 million square miles of exposed land.

The human population on earth has crossed six billion. If we distribute all the exposed land evenly among all mankind, 133 people would have to share one square mile. What that means is that every single person on Earth, man woman and child would have close to five acres of land for his or her use. More precisely, each person would get 209,000 square feet of land, or a square plot of land 457 feet on each side.

Not all this land can be used beneficially however. A significant portion of the Earth's exposed land is unhabitable or cannot be used for any agricultural purpose. Large portions lie in the far north. Large portions are extremely arid. Large portions are very mountainous. In sum, only about one fourth of all the land on earth, or somewhat more than 12 million square miles, is arable.

Land mass refers to the total area of a country or geographical region (which may include discontinuous pieces of land such as islands). The Earth's total land mass is 148,939,063.133 km² (57,511,026.002 square miles) which is about 29.2% of its total surface. Water covers approximately 70.8% of the Earth's surface, mostly in the form of oceans.


The World 57,308,738 Sq. Miles (148,429,000 Sq. Km) 100%
Asia (plus the Middle East) 17,212,000 Sq. Miles (44,579,000 Sq. Km) 30.0%
Africa 11,608,000 Sq. Miles (30,065,000 Sq. Km) 20.3%
North America 9,365,000 Sq. Miles (24,256,000 Sq. Km) 16.3%
South America 6,880,000 Sq. Miles (17,819,000 Sq. Km) 12.0%
Antarctica 5,100,000 Sq. Miles (13,209,000 Sq. Km) 8.9%
Europe 3,837,000 Sq. Miles (9,938,000 Sq. Km) 6.7%
Australia (plus Oceania) 2,968,000 Sq. Miles (7,687,000 Sq. Km) 5.2%


The Continents: Land Area -ZoomSchool.com

Land mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many square miles are on the Earth's surface? - Yahoo! Answers


LEARN HOW TO DO BASIC RESEARCH YOU DIPSHIT!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97rBCVtOE78]YouTube - ‪Monckton Refutes Abraham: Part 6: The Medieval Warm Period‬‏[/ame]

 

[RollingThunder]

Well looky here. Numbnuts can't add or subtract either. Here's a primer for you moron. The planet Earth has 139,668,500 square miles of ocean. It further has 57,268,900 square miles of land. The US constitutes 3,794,083 square miles of land which the last time I checked equates out to 6.6% of the total land area. Now if you wish to remove Alaska's 586,400 square miles that drops the total down to 5.6% of the total land area.

How on earth you think that people are going to take you seriously when you can't even get a simple fact like that straight is beyond me but it certainly points out the pervasive inability to do simple math and points out your clowns' particular personality disorder.

When you can get a simple fact straight by all means come back but this is a ridiculously stupid mistake I would expect from a grade schooler.

What a complete and utter failure of the public education system. My gosh but you are an idiot!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....ROTFLMAO.....

Hey walleyedretard, take all of those insults, multiply them by ten, and apply them to yourself.

Surface Area of the Earth
The total surface area of the Earth is 510 million square kilometers.

Surface Area of the Earth
Total surface area of earth: 510,072,000 sq km [= 316,944,046.766 sq mi]

* Total water surface area: 70.8% (361,132,000 sq km) [= 224,397,021 sq mi]
* Total land surface area: 29.2% (148,940,000 sq km) [= 92,547,025 sq mi]

Percentage Calculator

US surface area = 3,794,083 square miles
Earth surface area = 316,944,946 sq mi

3,794,083 is what percentage of 316,944,946 = 1.197%

How on earth you think that people are going to take you seriously when you can't even get a simple fact like that straight is beyond me but it certainly points out the pervasive inability to do simple math and points out your clowns' particular personality disorder.

When you can get a simple fact straight by all means come back but this is a ridiculously stupid mistake I would expect from a grade schooler.

What a complete and utter failure of the public education system. My gosh but you are an idiot!

Yes you are an idiot, you can't even find simple facts you dipshit!

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Earth has a surface area of 196,940,400 square miles, slightly less than a perfect ball with a diameter of 7913.5 miles .

The World 57,308,738 Sq. Miles (148,429,000 Sq. Km) 100%
Asia (plus the Middle East) 17,212,000 Sq. Miles (44,579,000 Sq. Km) 30.0%
Africa 11,608,000 Sq. Miles (30,065,000 Sq. Km) 20.3%
North America 9,365,000 Sq. Miles (24,256,000 Sq. Km) 16.3%
South America 6,880,000 Sq. Miles (17,819,000 Sq. Km) 12.0%
Antarctica 5,100,000 Sq. Miles (13,209,000 Sq. Km) 8.9%
Europe 3,837,000 Sq. Miles (9,938,000 Sq. Km) 6.7%
Australia (plus Oceania) 2,968,000 Sq. Miles (7,687,000 Sq. Km) 5.2%

The Continents: Land Area -ZoomSchool.com

Land mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many square miles are on the Earth's surface? - Yahoo! Answers


LEARN HOW TO DO BASIC RESEARCH YOU DIPSHIT!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......my god but you're retarded. You apparently can't "do basic research" well enough to find your own ass with a roadmap and a GPS.

"Yahoo Answers - Best Answer - Chosen by Asker" is your idea of solid research, eh? LOLOLOL. No, you poor deluded fool, your "answer" from some anonymous goofball is wrong. Earth does not have "a surface area of 196,940,400 square miles", it has a surface area of 316,944,046.766 sq mi, as can be easily proven.

Even one of the links you cited disproves your silly delusion. You cited: Land mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but you apparently can't read simple English. The page says: "The Earth's total land mass is 148,939,063.133 km² (57,511,026.002 square miles) which is about 29.2% of its total surface." If you calculate how much the "total surface" area is if the total land mass area of 148,939,063 km2 is 29.2% of it, it turns out to be 510,065,284. km2.

Your other link to enchantedlearning.com is a link to a page that lists some information about the land area of the continents. NOT the total surface area of the Earth. That figure is not mentioned.

Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Surface area, 510072000 km2.

What is the total surface area of Earth? - Answers.com
Surface Area of Earth: 510,065,600 km2 (see related link) of which 148,939,100 km2 (29.2 %) is land and 361,126,400 km2 (70.8 %) is water.
Surface area, 510072000 km2.

World Atlas
planet earth
Surface Area of the Planet (510,066,000 sq km)
Land Area on the Planet (148,647,000 sq km) 29.1%
Ocean Area (335,258,000 sq km)

Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, University of Hawai'i
Earth - Surface area - 510 million square km

Algebra.com
Calculate the surface area of the earth if the radius of the earth is 6400 kilometers
Surface area formula: SA = 4 x pi x R squared
SA = 4 x 3.1417 x 6400 x 6400
SA = 514,718,540.5 sq/km

Nationmaster.com - Encyclopedia - Earth
Physical characteristics
Surface area: 510,065,600 km²
148,939,100 km² land (29.2 %)
361,126,400 km² water (70.8 %)


So, walleyedretard, I guess you must have been talking to yourself when you said:
LEARN HOW TO DO BASIC RESEARCH YOU DIPSHIT!