World's Farmers Feel The Effects Of A Hotter Planet

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Heres some proof for you Clowd11.

Piers Corbyn accurately predicts the weather by studying the effects of the solar wind and the moon on our planet.

Note that i say accurate as in consistently proven right...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oovxB2EiLQs

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Heres another if you are biased against Alex Jones

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEmUS7PAWFw&feature=fvwrel

 

[maryj315]

What is most puzzling to me is the scientist skeptics demonize would be the very same people that would prove GW has no correlation with our use of fossil fuels?

Mj

 

[CLOWD11]

Heres some proof for you Clowd11.

Piers Corbyn accurately predicts the weather by studying the effects of the solar wind and the moon on our planet.

Note that i say accurate as in consistently proven right...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oovxB2EiLQs

Is he continually predicting warmer temps?

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml
The above website doesnt predict/guess. It states facts that others here cannot despute though they try. It underpins the argument about GW.
Piers Corbyn sells snake oil and you buy it by the gallons dude. Solar fkn rays have not contributed to our warming atmosphere, lets blame anything except what is actually going on huh.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Piers Corbyn owns weatheraction.com

He accurately predicts the weather and did so with the Russian heatwave and consequent bush fires and the Pakistan floods. Also the extreme cold winter North America and Europe just went through.

He was mocked. Not any longer.

He isnt selling snake oil as his business revolves around accuracy.

Without the earths magnetosphere protecting us the suns rays would have fried everything on the surface. To say solar fkn rays have not contributed to our warming atmosphere is an impossible statement and a classic example of double-speak.

The GISS data is flawed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ofr28H4t-A

 

[grapeman]

Piers Corbyn owns weatheraction.com

He accurately predicts the weather and did so with the Russian heatwave and consequent bush fires and the Pakistan floods. Also the extreme cold winter North America and Europe just went through.

He was mocked. Not any longer.

He isnt selling snake oil as his business revolves around accuracy.

Without the earths magnetosphere protecting us the suns rays would have fried everything on the surface. To say solar fkn rays have not contributed to our warming atmosphere is an impossible statement and a classic example of double-speak.

The GISS data is flawed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ofr28H4t-A

You cannot make a point. This crowd truly believes that the mock show over the last 20 years was actually science. when you point out the flaws and therefore the LACK of science, they cannot hear you.

They question nothing yet think they have high IQ's. They read the same emails from M. Mann, wherein he admits to skewing data results and they do not blieve he really meant whet he plainly said.

How do you argue with closed minded sub-par intelligence that thinks thermometers in and on city streets give accurate temps that are not skewed higher due to pavement? How do you argue with temp data that is constantly rounded up or collected via one data collector in a city for 1200 square mile when proponents do not see the BAD science in such behavior? How do you argue with GW causes droughts and causes floods, heat or cold all in the same region, depending on the current weather? Their pat response is always the science is settled and gw is caused by man. Very low IQ.

 

[mad librettist]

Without the earths magnetosphere protecting us the suns rays would have fried everything on the surface. To say solar fkn rays have not contributed to our warming atmosphere is an impossible statement and a classic example of double-speak.

no one is claiming that the heat on earth is not coming from the sun, the earth's heat source (above ground).

I never understood this little game. Of course the sun heats the earth. The greenhouse effect, which keeps you and me alive, btw, is nonetheless still real.

 

[mad librettist]

You cannot make a point.

well no one will accuse you of the same Grapeman. You've made point after point after point on this thread. Ok, you are just aping your favorite tak show hosts, but you sure can talk.

It's the "objective evidence" thing you seem to have a problem with.

 

[M.J. Budsworth]

its okay bentom i had a stick up my ass yesterday...i shouldnt have attacked you

disco biscuit...i never said big oil had evidence co2 doesnt harm atmosphere...and like i said i dont like or trust big oil.... and forgive me for bein an ass had a real bad day yesterday

but what i dont understand is all combustion regardless of fossil fuel oil or veggie oil creates co2...we humans breathe out co2 and fart methane gas and plants breathe in co2.....and co2 levels arent rising fast enough for those plants to not be able to suck up excess IMO....and thats just that my opinion...and i remember learning somewhere that higher temps allow more intake of co2 by plants... so as co2 levels rise and temps rise whose to say the plants wont have our back and take care of that nasty co2?

Im not a scientist or anything but this co2 nonsense is not making any logical sense to me just my two cents though

im honestly just trying to get some good discussion going

 

[igrowone]

but what i dont understand is all combustion regardless of fossil fuel oil or veggie oil creates co2...we humans breathe out co2 and fart methane gas and plants breathe in co2.....and co2 levels arent rising fast enough for those plants to not be able to suck up excess IMO....and thats just that my opinion...and i remember learning somewhere that higher temps allow more intake of co2 by plants... so as co2 levels rise and temps rise whose to say the plants wont have our back and take care of that nasty co2?

Im not a scientist or anything but this co2 nonsense is not making any logical sense to me just my two cents though

im honestly just trying to get some good discussion going

this is actually true, increased co2 should increase plant growth rates(to some extent) and lower co2 rise(again, to some extent)
so far, the co2 rates are rising faster than plants can absorb
but last i saw, the rate of c02 rise is somewhat lower than can be currently accounted for by known processes

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

You cannot make a point. This crowd truly believes that the mock show over the last 20 years was actually science. when you point out the flaws and therefore the LACK of science, they cannot hear you.

In other words, when you want science make sure it's grape science.

They question nothing yet think they have high IQ's. They read the same emails from M. Mann, wherein he admits to skewing data results and they do not blieve he really meant whet he plainly said.

Yep, we've read your posts. You never made it past the the accusational phase.

How do you argue with closed minded sub-par intelligence that thinks thermometers in and on city streets give accurate temps that are not skewed higher due to pavement?

I like the pic of the "temp station" with the propane tank and burner photo-shopped into the frame (directly beneath the thermometer.)

How do you argue with temp data that is constantly rounded up or collected via one data collector in a city for 1200 square mile when proponents do not see the BAD science in such behavior? How do you argue with GW causes droughts and causes floods, heat or cold all in the same region, depending on the current weather? Their pat response is always the science is settled and gw is caused by man. Very low IQ.

When do you plan to cite your assertions? You either fell asleep for three years or you ignored every subsequent investigation that's contrary to your posts.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

its okay bentom i had a stick up my ass yesterday...i shouldnt have attacked you

disco biscuit...i never said big oil had evidence co2 doesnt harm atmosphere...and like i said i dont like or trust big oil.... and forgive me for bein an ass had a real bad day yesterday

but what i dont understand is all combustion regardless of fossil fuel oil or veggie oil creates co2...we humans breathe out co2 and fart methane gas and plants breathe in co2.....and co2 levels arent rising fast enough for those plants to not be able to suck up excess IMO....and thats just that my opinion...and i remember learning somewhere that higher temps allow more intake of co2 by plants... so as co2 levels rise and temps rise whose to say the plants wont have our back and take care of that nasty co2?

Im not a scientist or anything but this co2 nonsense is not making any logical sense to me just my two cents though

im honestly just trying to get some good discussion going

For the record, I'm no scientist either. You're right, plants absorb C02. In the meantime, atmospheric C02 (and other warming gasses) are disrupting weather patterns. The evidence is most prevalent at the poles.

Weather patterns not only affect the natural food chain, they affect our ability to farm. West Texas ranches are killing cattle due to drought and Louisiana is flooding farmland to spare cities. Whether it's anomaly or something more is subject to scrutiny.

Man largely settles the globe according to weather patterns and food supply. Lack of rain (or too much, too soon) is disrupting the natural food supply chain. Add the fact that disrupted weather patterns mean some areas will no longer be capable of sustaining crops.

Some see a candle burning at both ends and others assume we have a big ass candle to burn incessantly.

We've all heard the sage advice of moderation. C02 is necessary for life but too much disrupts the natural system we've become accustomed for ~10,000 years. The old adage that too much of a good thing may kill you is actually applicable in this case.

 

[M.J. Budsworth]

just because the establishment says something is a danger does not mean it is

because if thats the case marijuana is a danger and we should all stay away...there is the jobs of dea agents and leo and lawyers and justice department ppl at stake if there is no longer a war on mj for them....and we all know that plenty of docs and scientists were paid to say bad things about mj

im all about caring for the planet but not at the cost of humans...i refuse to believe we are a disease...what we do thats bad for the environment can be fixed by us and its all politics nobody pushing this gw thing does anything about it short of saying hey lets trade carbon tax credits or just put more regs on the industries that actually stand to pull our god forsaken world out of this horrible economic mess...there are so many other important issues the weather should be our last concern

the scientists who say global warming is real are paid by the same people who stand to benefit i.e. government for taxes and regs
so what im asking is how do you know this science is legit....because scientists say so?

the same scientists who say mercury amalgum fillings are safe for your mouth...that aspartame is safe to use as a sweetener....that drinking fluoride water helps teeth when its only proven to help teeth with topical application such as toothpaste

what grape was desperately trying to tell all the followers of GW just dont believe everything you are told...and im not trying to assume everyone but me is dumb but have some common sense scientists are paid for they are not non profit and they have a stake in global warming too...thats plenty of money to just sit around and analyze air and temps and come up with theories...
we have always had crazy weather everywhere and it goes in cycles we just here about the earthquakes floods and tsunamis that have been happening for thousands of years because of the information age and being able to see whats happening around the world as soon as it happens

 

[mad librettist]

and co2 levels arent rising fast enough for those plants to not be able to suck up excess IMO....and thats just that my opinion...and i remember learning somewhere that higher temps allow more intake of co2 by plants... so as co2 levels rise and temps rise whose to say the plants wont have our back and take care of that nasty co2?

It is NOT that simple. Under high CO2 conditions our forests do not simply go into overdrive and use up the carbon.

You also are missing the point of "old" carbon vs. "new" carbon. If the molecule was taken from the air to make a plant, and you burn it, it is released, for a net gain of 0.

As for methane, it is a BIG deal and it is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. A huge amount of it is being released in rice and beef production. If CO2 from the air is released as methane, there is a net INCREASE in greenhouse effect, even if the carbon came from the air as CO2.

Another huge source of methane is - global warming. By increasing the greenhouse effect we are melting permafrost, which contains a whole lot of trapped methane. doh!


And a bit more science here - the animals responsible for the methane in cow farts and rice paddies are called archea. For a long time they were thought to be bacteria, but it turns out they are their own Kingdom.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

MJB, I think you're being seduced by the corporate angle.

The science suggests we should reduce carbon emissions. Why attempt to make the argument absolute? We have a switch but we also have a volume. Turning something down doesn't suggest turning it off.

 

[M.J. Budsworth]

i just dont see the problem with farms maybe in those two places but around here everything is fine.........could it just be an excuse for the coming inflation of food price due to quantitave easing by the fed...we are already seeing food costs rising but its not due to global warming its just shitty economic policy and they need as many good excuses as they can get....

the world is going to shit the last thing i am going to worry about is global warming...if the third world nations die off its nobodys fault but the governments that had an interest in keeping those third world nations so poor...follow the money because the people that control it are very selfish and dont give a dam about anyone let alone global warming they just look at it and say how can i use this to my advantage

and last time i checked the people in the government are covered in any sort of disaster scenario which leaves the peons to fend for themselves

 

[M.J. Budsworth]

what corporate angle and mad lib you are not a scientist you are reading those things and you have no clue if thats true or not...

there could be a whole other angle to this then u realize...like i said weather hasnt changed here we still have long cold winters and short hot summers....where is this danger? i dont see it..what about the scientists and who they are paid by.. there is no non profit global warming research no one works for free...why does no one address this issue?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

lol

 

[mad librettist]

as a proud canuck I think I know what methane coming off of long frozen ground smells like.

As a thinking person, I can accept that all those cool pics in Nat Geo are not just very good looking fakes, and that I don't live in the matrix.

thanks for playing.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

IMO i could give a shit less about GW because at the end of the day not me not you not anyone on this site is going to ever live a petroleum free lifestyle whether you like it or not. But dont mind me bill oreilly sent me to pee in all the liberals cheerios. P.S. stop bitching about the planet as if you actually care enough to get off your ass and do something about it. And i dont want to hear anyone say "i care i volunteer to jerk off baby seals born with blue balls every tuesday afternoon" cuz its bs and you know it

I'm getting a little bit of mixed signals from you.

i recycle i like to do it....i encourage others to do so...i dont litter or drive suvs...i have a four cylinder manny and thats all i can afford or maybe id drive a prius..and i know you think im sum dumb redneck who hates the earth but this is not true, i do my own little part but beleive you me if there was something real and feasible for me to make the world a better place i would do it....just trying to get people to see all but one side of the fence

I think you are working against your purpose.

There are as many real and feasible things for you to do to make the world a better place as there are scientific articles to confirm global warming.

It's simply the will to acknowledge them that you're lacking.