Study: Global warming could yield $11.6 trillion in increased crop production

[Abraham3]

Sourcewatch is run by a progressive organization. Be that as it may, the information they posted about the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming was completely correct. They are not an objective source.

Their are objective, academically qualified sources that agree global warming may cause an increase in crop productivity. That information has already been posted. I highly doubt it would reach the magnitude the lead post suggests and there are enormous offsetting affects. But, you don't care about those, do you.

They are excellent in one post. In your next you admit they are run by the left fringe.

They are dismissed as objective judgements of political tiesr. They could still be right about tying this OP to funding from energy sources. Doesnt matter....

I didn't say there were "excellent". I said they were correct. I will admit, I was unaware of the partisanship of the organization's owners. Now I am. Paddy (and you) however, seem unwilling to admit the partisanship of the source being referenced in the lead post in this thread. Where is the peer-reviewed study that would support their contention? It doesn't exist because no such study has ever come to the noted conclusion.

 

[Old Rocks]

The AGW cultist insist that a warmer planet will be a catastrophe. We can add that to the list of everything else they are wrong about.

Study: Global warming could yield increased crop production | The Daily Caller

Could global warming be a boon to farmers? A recent study found that rising carbon dioxide concentrations bestow an additional $11.6 trillion in benefits from crop production between now and 2050.

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change found that while many studies focus on the costs of rising carbon emissions, few studies focused on whether or not more carbon in the atmosphere could be beneficial to society.

In fact, the Obama administration recently raised its social-cost-of-carbon estimate from $21 per metric ton to $35 per metric ton to the ire of global warming skeptics and Republicans. The estimate reflects how much each ton of carbon emitted costs the U.S. economy.​

Crap. Literally crap. An energy corp funded study that would never make it into a real scientific journal.

Cereal Killer: Climate Change Stunts Growth of Global Crop Yields: Scientific American

A crop-yield analysis reveals that warming temperatures have already diminished the rate of production growth for major cereal crop harvests during the past three decades



Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980

David B. Lobell1,*,
Wolfram Schlenker2,3,
Justin Costa-Roberts1

+ Author Affiliations

1Department of Environmental Earth System Science and Program on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.


2Department of Economics and School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA.


3National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, NY 10016, USA.

↵*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: dlobell@stanford.edu
Abstract

Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980

Efforts to anticipate how climate change will affect future food availability can benefit from understanding the impacts of changes to date. We found that in the cropping regions and growing seasons of most countries, with the important exception of the United States, temperature trends from 1980 to 2008 exceeded one standard deviation of historic year-to-year variability. Models that link yields of the four largest commodity crops to weather indicate that global maize and wheat production declined by 3.8 and 5.5%, respectively, relative to a counterfactual without climate trends. For soybeans and rice, winners and losers largely balanced out. Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors.

 

[bripat9643]

The AGW cultist insist that a warmer planet will be a catastrophe. We can add that to the list of everything else they are wrong about.

Study: Global warming could yield increased crop production | The Daily Caller

Could global warming be a boon to farmers? A recent study found that rising carbon dioxide concentrations bestow an additional $11.6 trillion in benefits from crop production between now and 2050.

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change found that while many studies focus on the costs of rising carbon emissions, few studies focused on whether or not more carbon in the atmosphere could be beneficial to society.

In fact, the Obama administration recently raised its social-cost-of-carbon estimate from $21 per metric ton to $35 per metric ton to the ire of global warming skeptics and Republicans. The estimate reflects how much each ton of carbon emitted costs the U.S. economy.​

Crap. Literally crap. An energy corp funded study that would never make it into a real scientific journal.

The stuff you cited is obvious crap. The Scientific American article provided no evidence to support its claims. SC is well known for being left-wing. It supports every elft-wing theory to come down the pike.

It has been well established that the Medieval Warm Period was a time of plenty in Europe. The population mushroomed and crops were bountiful.

It's hard to argue against the historical record with discredited computer models.

 

[flacaltenn]

The AGW cultist insist that a warmer planet will be a catastrophe. We can add that to the list of everything else they are wrong about.

Study: Global warming could yield increased crop production | The Daily Caller

Could global warming be a boon to farmers? A recent study found that rising carbon dioxide concentrations bestow an additional $11.6 trillion in benefits from crop production between now and 2050.

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change found that while many studies focus on the costs of rising carbon emissions, few studies focused on whether or not more carbon in the atmosphere could be beneficial to society.

In fact, the Obama administration recently raised its social-cost-of-carbon estimate from $21 per metric ton to $35 per metric ton to the ire of global warming skeptics and Republicans. The estimate reflects how much each ton of carbon emitted costs the U.S. economy.​

Crap. Literally crap. An energy corp funded study that would never make it into a real scientific journal.

Cereal Killer: Climate Change Stunts Growth of Global Crop Yields: Scientific American

A crop-yield analysis reveals that warming temperatures have already diminished the rate of production growth for major cereal crop harvests during the past three decades



Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980

David B. Lobell1,*,
Wolfram Schlenker2,3,
Justin Costa-Roberts1

+ Author Affiliations

1Department of Environmental Earth System Science and Program on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.


2Department of Economics and School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA.


3National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, NY 10016, USA.

↵*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: dlobell@stanford.edu
Abstract

Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980

Efforts to anticipate how climate change will affect future food availability can benefit from understanding the impacts of changes to date. We found that in the cropping regions and growing seasons of most countries, with the important exception of the United States, temperature trends from 1980 to 2008 exceeded one standard deviation of historic year-to-year variability. Models that link yields of the four largest commodity crops to weather indicate that global maize and wheat production declined by 3.8 and 5.5%, respectively, relative to a counterfactual without climate trends. For soybeans and rice, winners and losers largely balanced out. Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors.

Yep -- must be Global Warming.. COULDN'T BE shifts of production in those "four largest commodity crops" due to our insistence in burning CORN in our gas tanks..

Ignore those riots in Mexico for lack of basic corn meal and flour.. So that Mexican farmers had to use SUB-OPTIMUM land to try and make up the difference.

Or the price of beef and poultry SKYROCKETING because farmers are forced to cut their herds.. Or the loss of MOST of our cotton crop due to corn subsidies.

Nope --- LEAP to the conclusion that your "Department of Environmental Earth System Science and Program on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University" expects to hear from you...

These people aren't thinking --- they are spewing for profit...

 

[Foxfyre]

The AGW cultist insist that a warmer planet will be a catastrophe. We can add that to the list of everything else they are wrong about.

Study: Global warming could yield increased crop production | The Daily Caller

Could global warming be a boon to farmers? A recent study found that rising carbon dioxide concentrations bestow an additional $11.6 trillion in benefits from crop production between now and 2050.

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change found that while many studies focus on the costs of rising carbon emissions, few studies focused on whether or not more carbon in the atmosphere could be beneficial to society.

In fact, the Obama administration recently raised its social-cost-of-carbon estimate from $21 per metric ton to $35 per metric ton to the ire of global warming skeptics and Republicans. The estimate reflects how much each ton of carbon emitted costs the U.S. economy.​

Crap. Literally crap. An energy corp funded study that would never make it into a real scientific journal.

Cereal Killer: Climate Change Stunts Growth of Global Crop Yields: Scientific American

A crop-yield analysis reveals that warming temperatures have already diminished the rate of production growth for major cereal crop harvests during the past three decades



Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980

David B. Lobell1,*,
Wolfram Schlenker2,3,
Justin Costa-Roberts1

+ Author Affiliations

1Department of Environmental Earth System Science and Program on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.


2Department of Economics and School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA.


3National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, NY 10016, USA.

↵*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: dlobell@stanford.edu
Abstract

Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980

Efforts to anticipate how climate change will affect future food availability can benefit from understanding the impacts of changes to date. We found that in the cropping regions and growing seasons of most countries, with the important exception of the United States, temperature trends from 1980 to 2008 exceeded one standard deviation of historic year-to-year variability. Models that link yields of the four largest commodity crops to weather indicate that global maize and wheat production declined by 3.8 and 5.5%, respectively, relative to a counterfactual without climate trends. For soybeans and rice, winners and losers largely balanced out. Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors.

Yep -- must be Global Warming.. COULDN'T BE shifts of production in those "four largest commodity crops" due to our insistence in burning CORN in our gas tanks..

Ignore those riots in Mexico for lack of basic corn meal and flour.. So that Mexican farmers had to use SUB-OPTIMUM land to try and make up the difference.

Or the price of beef and poultry SKYROCKETING because farmers are forced to cut their herds.. Or the loss of MOST of our cotton crop due to corn subsidies.

Nope --- LEAP to the conclusion that your "Department of Environmental Earth System Science and Program on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University" expects to hear from you...

These people aren't thinking --- they are spewing for profit...

What I fear is that the whole global warming schtick is a huge scam for the purpose of:

a) Justifying ever more encompassing, intrusive, and authoritarian government control both in our own country and worldwide.

b) Increasing the personal fortunes of those paid to do the research so long as their research produces at least a suggestion that AGW is the worst scourge to threaten humankind.

c) Giving huge advantage to certain industires who are making out like bandits engaging in green energy pursuits while steadily and methodically taking personal liberty, options, choices, opportunities, and property away from the rest of us.

It is a certainty that you can't add six billion people to the planet without it having some environmental impact. But given that there has been much more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, to the advantage of the creatures and plant life living at that time, there is no reason to believe that the miniscule increase in global temperatures due to human activity is harmful to anything. And every reason to believe it is even beneficial.

Every day there is more evidence that the scare tactic by the AGW religionist is just that: a scare tactic. And that is reinforced by the AGW religionists becoming ever more funny, nuts, and frantic--you see increasingly huge cuts and pastes, more of those same tired charts and graphs from AGW religion sites, more collective effort to derail threads or direct discussions away from objective scientific evidence.

And meanwhile I don't have wonderful roasting ears often any more because I can't afford them that often. The corn is going into my gas tank where it reduces fuel efficiency and creates other problems, all for the great gods of anthropogenic global warming.

 

[daveman]

Yep. I've commented several time to the AGW Cult that Global Warming has been very good for humanity (i.e., the Medieval Warming Period).

Of course, the same people who hype AGW also opposed GMO foods such as Golden Rice, which would help improve the lives of billions of people.

You seem like a resonably intelligent young lady. Why do you make such stupid comments? Your second sentence here falls clearly under the rubrik of prejudice. I "hype" AGW and I support GMO foods and nuclear power. That makes your statement demonstrably FALSE.

Think a l-i-t-t-l-e more before you post.

So...you're claiming that EACH AND EVERY SINGLE AGW supporter agrees with you.

Your statement is demonstrably false.

But at least you acknowledge you're a cultist.

 

[Sallow]

The Daily Caller?

 

[Sallow]

Only numskulls accept Wikipedia as a credible source.

If you see someone railing about how awful Wikipedia is, you're almost certainly looking at a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy people need an excuse as to why Wikipedia won't give credence to their favorite conspiracy, so they come up with yet another conspiracy about Wikipedia.

Now, Wikipedia isn't the place for in-depth knowledge, but it's a darn good jumping off point on most any subject.

Anyone who sources The Daily Caller shouldn't be complaining about Wiki..

 

[daveman]

You seem like a resonably intelligent young lady. Why do you make such stupid comments? Your second sentence here falls clearly under the rubrik of prejudice. I "hype" AGW and I support GMO foods and nuclear power. That makes your statement demonstrably FALSE.

Think a l-i-t-t-l-e more before you post.

You are a moron.

I'd neg you, but I'd rather save my pos repping for intelligent posters.

Why don't we do a few comparisons:

1) The world population throughout the MWP vs its population today

If we had the same level of technology, medical knowledge, and agriculture techniques as the MWP, you'd have a point.

However...We don't.

You fail.

 

[Abraham3]

What I fear

I will not challenge what you do and do not fear but I will point out that without some evidence to support these charges your fears are only that.

is that the whole global warming schtick is a huge scam for the purpose of:

There is an enormous amount of evidence to challenge before you can blithely presume AGW to be "a scam". CO2 levels have been rising for the last 150 years. CO2 traps infrared energy. The temperature has been rising in near perfect correlation with the increasing CO2. The world's temperature doesn't seem to have risen much by everyday human standards; less than it swings in a normal day for almost all of us. Yet the world's ice is melting, sea level is rising and the world's plants and animals are having to change when and how they deal with their envirionments. That is an awful lot of stuff to simply wave away with the unevidenced charge of "scam".

a) Justifying ever more encompassing, intrusive, and authoritarian government control both in our own country and worldwide.

I thought I had asked you once before: What "encompassing, intrusive and authoritarian controls" do you fear global warming will justify our governments in putting into effect and who do you think is both capable of undertaking such a "scam" and able to benefit from it? Do you suspect a conspiracy of career bureaucrats? Perhaps the whole thing is actually the work of a cabal of the world's dictators. Or perhaps not.

b) Increasing the personal fortunes of those paid to do the research so long as their research produces at least a suggestion that AGW is the worst scourge to threaten humankind.

People with PhDs make good salaries - pretty much all of them. They do not, however, get rich from research grants. You're not the first person to make this mistake. Grants pay for the conduct of research. They might even cover a researcher's normal salary - ie, what he or she would have been paid by their employer while they are doing research which takes then away from their usual employment (say, teaching). Research grants do not include money intended for the researcher to simply stick in his pocket. Receiving a research grant looks great on your CV and are great for keeping your job or even asking for a raise. They do not make you rich. The idea that AGW is a fib made up by scientists trying to get rich doing climate research is an absurd one. And allow me to point out that neither you nor anyone else trying to make this argument has ever presented any evidence supporting the idea.

c) Giving huge advantage to certain industires who are making out like bandits engaging in green energy pursuits while steadily and methodically taking personal liberty, options, choices, opportunities, and property away from the rest of us.

Would any of them gain an advantage anywhere NEAR the advantage held by the oil industries for the last century? Given the developmental nature of these new technologies, are any of them GUARANTEED such advantages? Was Solyndra guaranteed an advantage? Is anyone? And you once again bring up these vague fears of a loss of liberty, without evidence of their reality or explaining how they tie in with these unnamed industries taking wholly unfair advantage in the solving of our problems.

It is a certainty that you can't add six billion people to the planet without it having some environmental impact. But given that there has been much more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, to the advantage of the creatures and plant life living at that time, there is no reason to believe that the miniscule increase in global temperatures due to human activity is harmful to anything. And every reason to believe it is even beneficial.

You do not challenge that the increase is human but you seem unaware of what that actually entails. It has gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That is a higher level than at any time in - AT LEAST - the last 800,000 years. It is higher than it has been since long before the invention of the wheel, more than 40 times further back than the earliest hints of human agriculture. I would not term that "miniscule".

As for harm, surely I do not have to list it all again. What I would like to see is some evidenced research conclusions supporting your suggestion that the warmer world will be wonderful for us all. Because that is not what I or the vast majority of the world's scientists see happening.

Every day there is more evidence that the scare tactic by the AGW religionist is just that: a scare tactic.

Then you should have no difficulty presenting some of that evidence.

And that is reinforced by the AGW religionists becoming ever more funny, nuts, and frantic--you see increasingly huge cuts and pastes, more of those same tired charts and graphs from AGW religion sites, more collective effort to derail threads or direct discussions away from objective scientific evidence.

Really? Have you watched the conversations between FlaCallTenn and IfItzMe? Do you find those funny? What charts do you find "tired"? Who, on the mainstream science side of this argument, do you believe is attempting to derail threads or direct discussions away from objective scientific evidence? For that matter, WHAT OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HAVE YOU PRESENTED?

And meanwhile I don't have wonderful roasting ears often any more because I can't afford them that often. The corn is going into my gas tank where it reduces fuel efficiency and creates other problems, all for the great gods of anthropogenic global warming.

Surely you jest. Are you really trying to tell us that you cannot find or cannot afford ears of corn because it is being used to make ethanol? Really. I had some two nights back. Six ears for $2.00. More expensive than usual, but... do you not have $2.00? Perhaps you could trade them your computer... ;-)

 

[daveman]

How about the U.S. converting those 39 million acres of ethanol-bound corn to more productive use? Like growing foods that people of the world can eat?

Bingo. And growing things that aren't killing the Gulf of Mexico.

Gulf of Mexico's Extinction-by-Ethanol - Bloomberg

The culprits behind the dead zone are many, but one deserves special attention: corn. Unlike, say, soybeans, which can grow without fertilizer, corn can't grow without it. It takes 195 pounds of fertilizer to grow an acre of corn.

And the U.S. grows a lot of corn -- more than any other country. What's more, 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop is devoted to making ethanol, which fuel companies must blend with gasoline under a congressional mandate. The Gulf dead zone is yet another reason for Congress to kill that mandate.​

Whenever I post the negative environmental impacts of the environmentalist agenda, the environuts never respond.

Hear that, enviros? Your agenda is killing the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[Abraham3]

You are a moron.

I'd neg you, but I'd rather save my pos repping for intelligent posters.

Why don't we do a few comparisons:

1) The world population throughout the MWP vs its population today

If we had the same level of technology, medical knowledge, and agriculture techniques as the MWP, you'd have a point.

However...We don't.

You fail.

Gee whillikers, Dave, why didn't you quote the rest of my post? Here, I can get it for you.

From Wikipedia's article:

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China[1] and other countries,[2][3][3][4][5][6][7] lasting from about AD 950 to 1250.[8] It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important.[9][10]

So, it looks as if the MWP came on over a period of 300 years. Now let's see how warm it got.

Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 for which data is scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1 °C and 0.2 °C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980. Proxy records from different regions show peak warmth at different times during the Medieval Warm Period, indicating the heterogeneous nature of climate at the time.[11] Temperatures in some regions appears to have matched or exceeded recent temperatures in these regions, while globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures.[8]

So, it looks like a rise of 0.7 to 0.8C over 300 years. We have experienced 0.9C rise in 150 years and most of that took place since 1979. But, very conservatively, we can say that modern warming has been taking place at twice the rate of warming during the MWP.

From the Wikipedia article on world population growth, it looks as if between 950 and 1250 AD the world had 230-330 million people. Let's split the difference and call it 280 million people. The world's current population is 7 billion. That is an increase of 25-fold. Combined with the warming rates we get

(0.9C * 7 billion)/150 years compared to (0.75C * 280 million)/300 years

or

42,000,000 to 700,000

or

60:1

Hmmm..... do you think it will be 60 times as wonderful?

So... do you think my "Hmmm..." wasn't justified?

 

[daveman]

Why don't we do a few comparisons:

1) The world population throughout the MWP vs its population today

If we had the same level of technology, medical knowledge, and agriculture techniques as the MWP, you'd have a point.

However...We don't.

You fail.

Gee whillikers, Dave, why didn't you quote the rest of my post? Here, I can get it for you.

From the Wikipedia article on world population growth, it looks as if between 950 and 1250 AD the world had 230-330 million people. Let's split the difference and call it 280 million people. The world's current population is 7 billion. That is an increase of 25-fold. Combined with the warming rates we get

(0.9C * 7 billion)/150 years compared to (0.75C * 280 million)/300 years

or

42,000,000 to 700,000

or

60:1

Hmmm..... do you think it will be 60 times as wonderful?

So... do you think my "Hmmm..." wasn't justified?

No, it wasn't.

It's funny the way you ridiculously insist you had a point.

Warmer is demonstrably better. And if you don't think it is...


What's the optimal temperature for the planet?

 

[Abraham3]

If we had the same level of technology, medical knowledge, and agriculture techniques as the MWP, you'd have a point.

However...We don't.

You fail.

Gee whillikers, Dave, why didn't you quote the rest of my post? Here, I can get it for you.

From the Wikipedia article on world population growth, it looks as if between 950 and 1250 AD the world had 230-330 million people. Let's split the difference and call it 280 million people. The world's current population is 7 billion. That is an increase of 25-fold. Combined with the warming rates we get

(0.9C * 7 billion)/150 years compared to (0.75C * 280 million)/300 years

or

42,000,000 to 700,000

or

60:1

Hmmm..... do you think it will be 60 times as wonderful?

So... do you think my "Hmmm..." wasn't justified?

No, it wasn't.

It's funny the way you ridiculously insist you had a point.

Warmer is demonstrably better. And if you don't think it is...


What's the optimal temperature for the planet?

It's funny-odd (vs funny-funny) that you have yet to exercise a single brain cell addressing my actual point. The combination of the temperatures we will reach, the rate at which we will reach then and the population who will suffer those effects, the current situation is probably only a hundred times worse than the MWP. Your contention that our technology will make everything okay is a puerile oversimplification. Our technology will do us little good staving off crop failures, restoring supplies of water for drinking and irrigation and the various unpleasant effects of our rising sea levels.

 

[Foxfyre]

What I fear

I will not challenge what you do and do not fear but I will point out that without some evidence to support these charges your fears are only that.

is that the whole global warming schtick is a huge scam for the purpose of:

There is an enormous amount of evidence to challenge before you can blithely presume AGW to be "a scam". CO2 levels have been rising for the last 150 years. CO2 traps infrared energy. The temperature has been rising in near perfect correlation with the increasing CO2. The world's temperature doesn't seem to have risen much by everyday human standards; less than it swings in a normal day for almost all of us. Yet the world's ice is melting, sea level is rising and the world's plants and animals are having to change when and how they deal with their envirionments. That is an awful lot of stuff to simply wave away with the unevidenced charge of "scam".



I thought I had asked you once before: What "encompassing, intrusive and authoritarian controls" do you fear global warming will justify our governments in putting into effect and who do you think is both capable of undertaking such a "scam" and able to benefit from it? Do you suspect a conspiracy of career bureaucrats? Perhaps the whole thing is actually the work of a cabal of the world's dictators. Or perhaps not.



People with PhDs make good salaries - pretty much all of them. They do not, however, get rich from research grants. You're not the first person to make this mistake. Grants pay for the conduct of research. They might even cover a researcher's normal salary - ie, what he or she would have been paid by their employer while they are doing research which takes then away from their usual employment (say, teaching). Research grants do not include money intended for the researcher to simply stick in his pocket. Receiving a research grant looks great on your CV and are great for keeping your job or even asking for a raise. They do not make you rich. The idea that AGW is a fib made up by scientists trying to get rich doing climate research is an absurd one. And allow me to point out that neither you nor anyone else trying to make this argument has ever presented any evidence supporting the idea.



Would any of them gain an advantage anywhere NEAR the advantage held by the oil industries for the last century? Given the developmental nature of these new technologies, are any of them GUARANTEED such advantages? Was Solyndra guaranteed an advantage? Is anyone? And you once again bring up these vague fears of a loss of liberty, without evidence of their reality or explaining how they tie in with these unnamed industries taking wholly unfair advantage in the solving of our problems.



You do not challenge that the increase is human but you seem unaware of what that actually entails. It has gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That is a higher level than at any time in - AT LEAST - the last 800,000 years. It is higher than it has been since long before the invention of the wheel, more than 40 times further back than the earliest hints of human agriculture. I would not term that "miniscule".

As for harm, surely I do not have to list it all again. What I would like to see is some evidenced research conclusions supporting your suggestion that the warmer world will be wonderful for us all. Because that is not what I or the vast majority of the world's scientists see happening.



Then you should have no difficulty presenting some of that evidence.

And that is reinforced by the AGW religionists becoming ever more funny, nuts, and frantic--you see increasingly huge cuts and pastes, more of those same tired charts and graphs from AGW religion sites, more collective effort to derail threads or direct discussions away from objective scientific evidence.

Really? Have you watched the conversations between FlaCallTenn and IfItzMe? Do you find those funny? What charts do you find "tired"? Who, on the mainstream science side of this argument, do you believe is attempting to derail threads or direct discussions away from objective scientific evidence? For that matter, WHAT OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HAVE YOU PRESENTED?

And meanwhile I don't have wonderful roasting ears often any more because I can't afford them that often. The corn is going into my gas tank where it reduces fuel efficiency and creates other problems, all for the great gods of anthropogenic global warming.

Surely you jest. Are you really trying to tell us that you cannot find or cannot afford ears of corn because it is being used to make ethanol? Really. I had some two nights back. Six ears for $2.00. More expensive than usual, but... do you not have $2.00? Perhaps you could trade them your computer... ;-)

I have provided much evidence on other AGW threads that there is ample reason to doubt the motives of the AGW religionists and those who persoally profit from the AGW religion . I won't bother to repeat that evidence here. I don't go to AGW religion sites to get my scientific information though. Your presumption that I have not done my homework though is just that - a presumption on your part.

We have also posted, with links from very credible sites, that warmer is better than cooler for almost all forms of life on Planet Earth, as well as the true harm to people that will result if the AGW religionists are able to force that religion on the rest of us.

We also have posted credible evidence of the increase in basic food staples and a great deal of that increase is due to diversion of food crops to fuels. You may not have to budget your moeny and pick and choose what you can afford. Many people, however do. And obviously higher food costs hurt the world's poor more than anybody else.

 

[skookerasbil]

Good find Bripat!!! File under MORE k00k losing!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Why don't we do a few comparisons:

1) The world population throughout the MWP vs its population today

If we had the same level of technology, medical knowledge, and agriculture techniques as the MWP, you'd have a point.

However...We don't.

You fail.

Gee whillikers, Dave, why didn't you quote the rest of my post? Here, I can get it for you.

From Wikipedia's article:

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, including in China[1] and other countries,[2][3][3][4][5][6][7] lasting from about AD 950 to 1250.[8] It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important.[9][10]

So, it looks as if the MWP came on over a period of 300 years. Now let's see how warm it got.

Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 for which data is scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1 °C and 0.2 °C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980. Proxy records from different regions show peak warmth at different times during the Medieval Warm Period, indicating the heterogeneous nature of climate at the time.[11] Temperatures in some regions appears to have matched or exceeded recent temperatures in these regions, while globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures.[8]

So, it looks like a rise of 0.7 to 0.8C over 300 years. We have experienced 0.9C rise in 150 years and most of that took place since 1979. But, very conservatively, we can say that modern warming has been taking place at twice the rate of warming during the MWP.

From the Wikipedia article on world population growth, it looks as if between 950 and 1250 AD the world had 230-330 million people. Let's split the difference and call it 280 million people. The world's current population is 7 billion. That is an increase of 25-fold. Combined with the warming rates we get

(0.9C * 7 billion)/150 years compared to (0.75C * 280 million)/300 years

or

42,000,000 to 700,000

or

60:1

Hmmm..... do you think it will be 60 times as wonderful?

So... do you think my "Hmmm..." wasn't justified?

Not really.. I'm having a hard time getting my head around a unit like

(human-degrees/year) and exactly what that means..

Is that something akin to (man-hours/donut)?

We have this thing called the seasons that produce something like (7Bill * 20degs)/0.5 yrs of that unit..
What's that? 280,000,000,000 human-degrees per year? By your calculations --- that's 6666 TIMES worse than AGW..

 

[Abraham3]

I have provided much evidence on other AGW threads that there is ample reason to doubt the motives of the AGW religionists and those who persoally profit from the AGW religion.

I'm sorry but I have seen none.

I won't bother to repeat that evidence here.

That's an awfully convenient decision. How hard would it have been to summarize some of your evidence as I did the standard AGW case? I'm sorry, but I strongly suspect that you're not bothering to repeat it here either because you have none or you know what you do have just doesn't hold water.

I don't go to AGW religion sites to get my scientific information though. Your presumption that I have not done my homework though is just that - a presumption on your part.

That, by itself doesn't mean much. I was hoping you might provide SOME evidence for SOME of your many contentions. Instead we get NONE for ANY.

We have also posted, with links from very credible sites, that warmer is better than cooler for almost all forms of life on Planet Earth, as well as the true harm to people that will result if the AGW religionists are able to force that religion on the rest of us.

I note you're now "we." I realize there are some positive effects associated with increased temperatures in some locations. But the net affect on all humanity will unquestionably be negative.

We also have posted credible evidence of the increase in basic food staples and a great deal of that increase is due to diversion of food crops to fuels. You may not have to budget your moeny and pick and choose what you can afford. Many people, however do. And obviously higher food costs hurt the world's poor more than anybody else.

Sugarcane, corn and vegetable oil are the only food crops used for ethanol production. The problem is not clear at all.

Food vs. fuel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Food vs fuel)

An ethanol fuel plant under construction, Butler County, Iowa
Food vs. fuel is the dilemma regarding the risk of diverting farmland or crops for biofuels production to the detriment of the food supply. The biofuel and food price debate involves wide-ranging views, and is a long-standing, controversial one in the literature.[1][2][3][4] There is disagreement about the significance of the issue, what is causing it, and what can or should be done to remedy the situation. This complexity and uncertainty is due to the large number of impacts and feedback loops that can positively or negatively affect the price system. Moreover, the relative strengths of these positive and negative impacts vary in the short and long terms, and involve delayed effects. The academic side of the debate is also blurred by the use of different economic models and competing forms of statistical analysis.[5]
Biofuel production has increased in recent years. Some commodities like maize (corn), sugar cane or vegetable oil can be used either as food, feed, or to make biofuels. For example, since 2006, a portion of land that was also formerly used to grow other crops in the United States is now used to grow corn for biofuels, and a larger share of corn is destined to ethanol production, reaching 25% in 2007.[6] A major debate exists on the extent to which biofuels policies contributed to high agricultural prices levels and volatility. A recent study for the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development shows that market-driven expansion of ethanol in the US increased maize prices by 21 percent in 2009, in comparison with what prices would have been had ethanol production been frozen at 2004 levels.[4] Lester R. Brown claimed that, since converting the entire grain harvest of the US would only produce 16% of its auto fuel needs, energy markets are effectively placed in competition with food markets for scarce arable land, resulting in higher food prices.[7] A lot of R&D efforts are currently being put into the production of second generation biofuels from non-food crops, crop residues and waste.[8] Second generation biofuels could hence potentially combine farming for food and fuel and moreover, electricity could be generated simultaneously, which could be beneficial for developing countries and rural areas in developed countries.[9] With global demand for biofuels on the increase due to the oil price increases taking place since 2003 and the desire to reduce oil dependency as well as reduce GHG emissions from transportation, there is also fear of the potential destruction of natural habitats by being converted into farmland.[10] Environmental groups have raised concerns about this trade-off for several years,[11][12][13][14] but now the debate reached a global scale due to the 2007–2008 world food price crisis. On the other hand, several studies do show that biofuel production can be significantly increased without increased acreage. Therefore stating that the crisis in hand relies on the food scarcity.[15][16][17]
Brazil has been considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy[18][19][20] and its government claims Brazil's sugar cane based ethanol industry has not contributed to the 2008 food crisis.[20][21] A World Bank policy research working paper released in July 2008[22] concluded that "...large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices", and also stated that "Brazil's sugar-based ethanol did not push food prices appreciably higher".[23][24] However, a 2010 study also by the World Bank concluded that their previous study may have overestimated the contribution of biofuel production, as "the effect of biofuels on food prices has not been as large as originally thought, but that the use of commodities by financial investors (the so-called "financialisation of commodities") may have been partly responsible for the 2007/08 spike."[25] A 2008 independent study by OECD also found that the impact of biofuels on food prices are much smaller.[26]

 

[daveman]

Gee whillikers, Dave, why didn't you quote the rest of my post? Here, I can get it for you.



So... do you think my "Hmmm..." wasn't justified?

No, it wasn't.

It's funny the way you ridiculously insist you had a point.

Warmer is demonstrably better. And if you don't think it is...


What's the optimal temperature for the planet?

It's funny-odd (vs funny-funny) that you have yet to exercise a single brain cell addressing my actual point. The combination of the temperatures we will reach, the rate at which we will reach then and the population who will suffer those effects, the current situation is probably only a hundred times worse than the MWP. Your contention that our technology will make everything okay is a puerile oversimplification. Our technology will do us little good staving off crop failures, restoring supplies of water for drinking and irrigation and the various unpleasant effects of our rising sea levels.

Again, you're making a flawed assumption:

That the effects from warming will be bad.

It was good in the MWP. It would be good today.

 

[mamooth]

I don't go to AGW religion sites to get my scientific information though.

Hence why you're so ignorant on the topic. If any data disagrees with you, you simply declare it to be "AGW religion", giving you an excuse to ignore it.

The rational side works the opposite way of you. We look at all the data, we address all claims head on. We debunk your pseudoscience with data, instead of by proclaiming people are evil.

And after we do that, you put your nose in the air and declare the refutation was "AGW religion". It's your all-purpose excuse.