Make Hay With Corn In Heat Wave Of 2012 - Forbes
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationÂ’s forecast for July calls for continued hot and dry and that is resulting falling corn crop forecasts. Even though the USDA continues to forecast a total yield of 14.8 billion bushels of corn, private sector firms such as Allendale, Inc. see the crop looking more like 12.9 billion bushels if the bad weather continues.
That potential corn supply problem is compounded by two things. First, the USDA reported that corn stockpiles as of June 1 fell 48% from March 1 to 3.15 billion bushels, the lowest level since 2004. Second, the demand for corn continues to grow due to a combination of exports, livestock feed and ethanol production according to the National Corn Growers Association.
These things happen Ray.......go check what the dust storms of the 30's did to crops in middle America. People improvised. Life went on like always. Last I checked, burgers were plentiful in all the decades since.
Imagine the level of hysteria in this forum if there were a similar dust bowl in 2013 or 2015? Need I state the obvious? The warmers sit around waiting for this stuff to pop up on the internet so they can roll it out as further evidence to support their preconceptions. Im not saying they're engineering it..........Im saying they simply believe all this stuff is part of a irreversible trend and are stupidfied by every single weather anomoly.
Id say with 100% certainty that warming is happening just like it has in the past..........but this idea that it is due to Co2 is beyond laughable folks. Emerging folklore made up by some brilliant money chasers......the consumate definition of entrepreneur. And what is most compelling? That every single hard core AGW alarmist detests these brilliant people now living in the lap of luxury, compliments of a complex, enormous hoax that they knew enough hysterical types would buy into hook line and stinker.
.
For me............I cant be so incredibly idealist. How do I feel when I see, like th is past week, 100 million dollar of public monies blowing up in another green ruse while my state government has been forced to cut 3 millions dollar of Medicaid funding to my autistic clients. Every program of mine has lost a vehicle for transportation. My guys get out into the community less....I cant give rasies to my staff who make $11/hour which leads to abuse due to the quality of person I can afford to hire..............and meanwhile, while I see 100 million dollars vanish in a heartbeat over a ******* fake solar company!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I live in the real world s0ns while the k00ks dabble in fantasy science on the internet. You far left guys dont know the real world, hence, your world view.
So ask yourself? Who are the really well intentioned among us??
As Ive said for 35 years, people on the far left have no understanding that there are necessary tradeoffs in pursuit of their utopian k00k visions. They live in here warning about emerging human sufferring while I LIVE it today and every day. Assholes dont realize that public policy decisions are Never, never ever a zero sum game ( and the mental case notion that it is solved by mega-taxing the wealthy). Assholes...........
.............and k00ks. The vision of these morons leads to massive human sufferring my friends, right in front of their faces and the attitude is "meh".
WTF is somebody doing, letting a MORON minister to the developmentally disabled? When you let a DDD cop an attitude, at some job he shouldn't ever have, look what happens! Sucksassandballs comes right over to USMB and posts shit, while running a posse, of DDDs, who post shit, where scientific review ought to issue, for people, who want to LEARN.
What you learned, suck, is how NOT to learn. You brought that over here, for DaveDDD and Pig Shitz and bigretardedqueenofcalinkey and old numbnuts to play with:
Oh my, here we go again. Another cretin repeating that idiocy. What rock did you crawl out from under back in them thar hills, bro?
The majority, by about a 6 to 1 margin, of scientists in the '70's were predicting warming, not an ice age.
Funny how the media focus was on cooling, then, huh?
WHAT media focus was on cooling, DaveDDD? You didn't notice media focus since Leonardo da Vinci predicted climate change disasters? Media focus was on WARMING, until you come up with a link and a paste, which indicates otherwise, but since you are a DDD, following your media daddy, sucksassandballs, you didn't read, remember, learn, and think.
Sucksassandballs shouldn't be around fucktards at USMB, just because some other DDDs over in New York state have him trying to think, with an old piece of dog shit in a dented skull. And then there's the meth he seems to like, which doesn't do him much good. Here's a short article, about global warming:
History of the greenhouse effect and global warming
Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.
After the discoveries of Arrhenius and Chamberlin the topic was forgotten for a very long time. At that time it was thought than human influences were insignificant compared to natural forces, such as solar activity and ocean circulation. It was also believed that the oceans were such great carbon sinks that they would automatically cancel out our pollution. Water vapor was seen as a much more influential greenhouse gas.
In the 1940's there were developments in infrared spectroscopy for measuring long-wave radiation. At that time it was proven that increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulted in more absorption of infrared radiation. It was also discovered that water vapor absorbed totally different types of radiation than carbon dioxide. Gilbert Plass summarized these results in 1955. He concluded that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would intercept infrared radiation that is otherwise lost to space, warming the earth.
The argument that the oceans would absorb most carbon dioxide was still intact. However, in the 1950's evidence was found that carbon dioxide has an atmospheric lifetime of approximately 10 years. Moreover, it was not yet known what would happen to a carbon dioxide molecule after it would eventually dissolve in the ocean. Perhaps the carbon dioxide holding capacity of oceans was limited, or carbon dioxide could be transferred back to the atmosphere after some time. Research showed that the ocean could never be the complete sink for all atmospheric CO2. It is thought that only nearly a third of anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed by oceans.
In the late 1950's and early 1960's Charles Keeling used the most modern technologies available to produce concentration curves for atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica and Mauna Loa. These curves have become one of the major icons of global warming. The curves showed a downward trend of global annual temperature from the 1940's to the 1970's. At the same time ocean sediment research showed that there had been no less than 32 cold-warm cycles in the last 2,5 million years, rather than only 4. Therefore, fear began to develop that a new ice age might be near. The media and many scientists ignored scientific data of the 1950's and 1960's in favor of global cooling.
Read more:
History of the greenhouse effect and global warming
----------------------
READ, fucktards. You can't change your autism or your other types of DDD, by hanging around, together, with your heads up each others' assholes, so you try to get some kind of rolling shove, at people who can think. You need to learn, from us.
Meanwhile, what this article refers to, re global cooling are ASSHOLES, who wouldn't notice Svante Arrhenius or any other 19th Century guy, who noticed and studied the commonly accepted GREENHOUSE EFFECT, which involves the atmospheric tendencies, of molecules, like CO2, H2O, and CH4, with three atoms, or more.
You notice we can't find any links, to the ASSHOLES, of the 1970s, to whom DaveDDD refers, since those ASSHOLES have been discredited, but DaveDDD still thinks they are the shit.
NO:
In 1988 it was finally acknowledged that climate was warmer than any period since 1880. The greenhouse effect theory was named and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was founded by the United Nations Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Organization. This organization tries to predict the impact of the greenhouse effect according to existing climate models and literature information. The Panel consists of more than 2500 scientific and technical experts from more than 60 countries all over the world. The scientists are from widely divergent research fields including climatology, ecology, economics, medicine, and oceanography. The IPCC is referred to as the largest peer-reviewed scientific cooperation project in history. The IPCC released climate change reports in 1992 and 1996, and the latest revised version in 2001.
Read more:
History of the greenhouse effect and global warming
But ASSHOLES weren't done, yet, even though warming was starting to be accompanied, by CLIMATE CHANGE:
In the 1990's scientists started to question the greenhouse effect theory, because of major uncertainties in the data sets and model outcomes. They protested the basis of the theory, which was data of global annual mean temperatures. They believed that the measurements were not carried out correctly and that data from oceans was missing. Cooling trends were not explained by the global warming data and satellites showed completely different temperature records from the initial ones. The idea began to grow that global warming models had overestimated the warming trend of the past 100 years. This caused the IPCC to review their initial data on global warming, but this did not make them reconsider whether the trend actually exists. We now know that 1998 was globally the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, 2003, 2001 and 1997. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1990.
The climate records of the IPCC are still contested by many other scientists, causing new research and frequent responses to skeptics by the IPCC. This global warming discussion is still continuing today and data is constantly checked and renewed. Models are also updated and adjusted to new discoveries and new theory.
So far not many measures have been taken to do something about climate change. This is largely caused by the major uncertainties still surrounding the theory. But climate change is also a global problem that is hard to solve by single countries. Therefore in 1998 the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan. It requires participating countries to reduce their anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) by at least 5% below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012. The Kyoto Protocol was eventually signed in Bonn in 2001 by 186 countries. Several countries such as the United States and Australia have retreated.
Read more:
History of the greenhouse effect and global warming
--------------------
Meanwhile, climate change is starting to become evident, as more numerous and severe droughts, desertification, wildfires, storms, floods, sea level rise, and oceanic acidification and anoxia.
Link to your 1970s retards, DaveDDD. They aren't in the media business, anymore.
