U.S. Crop Harvests Could Suffer with Climate Change
Future harvests of wheat, soybeans and corn could drop by 22 to 49 percent, mostly due to water stress
Shifting climate patterns in North America could hit U.S. crop production hard, possibly even halving the production of corn by the end of the century, a new study finds.
This is the latest trend of this "science", to produce prediction for which you cannot be held accountable. What else can you do when attempts of forecasting a decade ahead has failed?
For decades now, those concerned about global warming have been predicting the so-called “tipping point” — the point beyond which it’ll be too late to stave off catastrophic global warming.
It seems like every year the “tipping point” is close to being reached, and that the world must get rid of fossil fuels to save the planet. That is, until we’ve passed that deadline and the next such “tipping point” is predicted.
I distinctly remember Carl Sagan talking about CO2 emissions and global warming being an issue in the original Cosmos. So the assertion scientists all warned of an imminent new ice age is a load of shit.
I don't have a lot of experience with vampires, but I have hunted werewolves. I shot one once, but by the time I got to it, it had turned back into my neighbor's dog.
The number of devastating floods that trigger insurance payouts has more than doubled in Europe since 1980, according to new research by Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurance company.
The firm’s latest data shows there were 30 flood events requiring insurance payouts in Europe last year – up from just 12 in 1980 – and the trend is set to accelerate as warming temperatures drive up atmospheric moisture levels.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
Alfred_E._Neuman wrote:I distinctly remember Carl Sagan talking about CO2 emissions and global warming being an issue in the original Cosmos. So the assertion scientists all warned of an imminent new ice age is a load of shit.
This is the sad part of science: you have to dig to get the picture. Ask a lot of questions, do research and read published article. Here is the study from 1971 (emphasis mine):
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.
The increase in computing power to run models, along with the increase in satellite data and field experimental data to initiate and run them, along with 45 years of watching the climate...incomparable.
You are missing the point. One of the predictions mocked in the cartoon is that of the Ice Age by 2000. Newman argued this never happened. I show one study that does.
In January, 2006 — when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth — Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.” Well, the ten years passed today, we’re still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again.
In January, 2006 — when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth — Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.” Well, the ten years passed today, we’re still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again.
The point of no return is when you can't go back, when you are past the point of reversal, not when you are already there.
The quality of the data now being gathered and the computational models being run now are orders of magnitude better than before. The main result of the earlier hand wringing was to invest in the models and data so we could make better informed decisions. We should keep doing this, since the cost of getting it wrong is yuge and lots of uncertainty remains. I worry about the Trumpistas cancelling the science and sticking our collective heads in the sand.
Science was crap but imaginary massive downside risk and hysteria caused you to donate. And science is still crap but diffierent imaginary downside risk and hysteria warrants more money invested.
And the clincher is all the while nothing concrete will be done but what favors globaists. And beneficial options we used to think mainstream are forgotten.
But the enviros are decolonizing yoga and checking privilege and working for sharia.
In January, 2006 — when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth — Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.” Well, the ten years passed today, we’re still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again.
The point of no return is when you can't go back, when you are past the point of reversal, not when you are already there.
The quality of the data now being gathered and the computational models being run now are orders of magnitude better than before. The main result of the earlier hand wringing was to invest in the models and data so we could make better informed decisions. We should keep doing this, since the cost of getting it wrong is yuge and lots of uncertainty remains. I worry about the Trumpistas cancelling the science and sticking our collective heads in the sand.
This is a common fallacy assuming that more and "better" data leads to better predictions in stochastic systems. In spite of huge computer power and the wealth of various data it is impossible to predict the movement of the stock market. Models work, but only for a while. Econometrics is another example - its practitioners used to think that you just have to analyse more data for it to be reliable science. Even closer example - weather forecasting - is very unreliable past next couple of days, in spite of wealth of data, models and programs. At the end of the day the basics kick in: correlations do not equal causation, not every statistically significant p-value mean the data is sensible and so on.
If it is not possible to predict the weather for the week ahead, how reliable you reckon are predictions for the end of the century? I can certainly predict that if in ten years time dire predictions don't materialise one of the reasons cited will be "the data and models were not as good as now".
Oh Lord, one if my favorite nerd jokes is you could lay 100 economists down head to foot and still not reach a conclusion. I've watched economics appropriate all kinds of math models from physics and abuse them.
The difference between climate and weather...I think we both agree that while forecasting at few days out may be hard, come July it is going to be a lot hotter than it is now in January. If CO2 is a forcing variable, it's levels are not fluctuating wildly even as the weather does. It will have its effect. Similar with the ocean. It is a huge heat sink, unlike the atmosphere with its big fluctuations.
nafod wrote:Oh Lord, one if my favorite nerd jokes is you could lay 100 economists down head to foot and still not reach a conclusion. I've watched economics appropriate all kinds of math models from physics and abuse them.
The difference between climate and weather...I think we both agree that while forecasting at few days out may be hard, come July it is going to be a lot hotter than it is now in January. If CO2 is a forcing variable, it's levels are not fluctuating wildly even as the weather does. It will have its effect. Similar with the ocean. It is a huge heat sink, unlike the atmosphere with its big fluctuations.
The difference between climate scientists and economists is that economists aren't all dependent on the same funding source.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
nafod wrote:Oh Lord, one if my favorite nerd jokes is you could lay 100 economists down head to foot and still not reach a conclusion. I've watched economics appropriate all kinds of math models from physics and abuse them.
The difference between climate and weather...I think we both agree that while forecasting at few days out may be hard, come July it is going to be a lot hotter than it is now in January. If CO2 is a forcing variable, it's levels are not fluctuating wildly even as the weather does. It will have its effect. Similar with the ocean. It is a huge heat sink, unlike the atmosphere with its big fluctuations.
The difference between climate scientists and economists is that economists aren't all dependent on the same funding source.
They pretty much are. What large non globalist funding source exists? It is all neocon or neolib funding. And the diff btwn the two is not meaningful. Like you and your /criticism/ of Obama Care: full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
In January, 2006 — when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth — Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.” Well, the ten years passed today, we’re still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again.
The point of no return is when you can't go back, when you are past the point of reversal, not when you are already there.
The quality of the data now being gathered and the computational models being run now are orders of magnitude better than before. The main result of the earlier hand wringing was to invest in the models and data so we could make better informed decisions. We should keep doing this, since the cost of getting it wrong is yuge and lots of uncertainty remains. I worry about the Trumpistas cancelling the science and sticking our collective heads in the sand.
The quality of data is better, but does it drive Luddite Energy sources like Wind, Solar and "biomass"?
If CO2 is so awful then Nuclear power is the best bet.... One fifth of the US grid is from fission. In Ontario province it's in the high sixty percent range. The CO2 inputs for fission over the life of the reactor are probably vastly lower for KwHr than wind, solar, maybe Hydro.
Breeder reactors have been around for decades. Inertial confinement fusion or plasma fusion. Fusion energy was demonstrated in the 1940s just hasn't been scaled down enough to work in generating power.
If CO2 is the problem then nuclear power is the best answer.
Being peasants in some low energy dystopia is not necessary. It's not even desirable.
In January, 2006 — when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth — Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.” Well, the ten years passed today, we’re still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again.
The point of no return is when you can't go back, when you are past the point of reversal, not when you are already there.
The quality of the data now being gathered and the computational models being run now are orders of magnitude better than before. The main result of the earlier hand wringing was to invest in the models and data so we could make better informed decisions. We should keep doing this, since the cost of getting it wrong is yuge and lots of uncertainty remains. I worry about the Trumpistas cancelling the science and sticking our collective heads in the sand.
The quality of data is better, but does it drive Luddite Energy sources like Wind, Solar and "biomass"?
If CO2 is so awful then Nuclear power is the best bet.... One fifth of the US grid is from fission. In Ontario province it's in the high sixty percent range. The CO2 inputs for fission over the life of the reactor are probably vastly lower for KwHr than wind, solar, maybe Hydro.
Breeder reactors have been around for decades. Inertial confinement fusion or plasma fusion. Fusion energy was demonstrated in the 1940s just hasn't been scaled down enough to work in generating power.
If CO2 is the problem then nuclear power is the best answer.
Being peasants in some low energy dystopia is not necessary. It's not even desirable.
It's not about improving the environment. It's about everything else.
Why not do what both sides can agree on? Start a transition to natural gas from coal, expand solar and wind, and build some nuke plants. But which side will continue their opposition to these changes?
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.
"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex
powerlifter, re your proposal: that's what's happening, minus the nuclear. there is currently no political will to deal with the waste. one could speculate that if the concept of serious climate change was accepted, we might develop the will to get serious about the next generation of carbon-free nuclear power.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
Just saw your link. We'll know more when the NOAA adjustments (ERSSTv5) come out this year. Bates claims they will show cooling and your guy says they will show more warming.
Edit
Tl:dr the writer did a terrible job and grossly misstated what the source actually claimed.
Okay i'll pay tmw but I went through this tonight. It looks like there was a massive bump from v3 to v4 and then a 13% reduction from v4 to v5 (with v5 still above v3). And that NOAA pushed to have v4 released earlier than NOAA protocol would warrant to have maximum political impact. And that v5 is the best measure so far. But it seems to be a sig change downward and who knows where v6 is going.
I also found out that the core argument of your guy as to reproduction of results is essentially false. He claims that he and everyone else has independently verifed the findings. Well, that is not surprising given that everyone uses the same raw GHCN data (his group and one other use non-homogenized). And that Bates (the whistleblower) does claim that this data is flawed.
As always, the problem with AGW is one of data collection. At it's simplest: garbage in, garbage out.
Arctic sea ice is already sitting at a record low for this time of year and a powerful North Atlantic storm is expected to open the flood gates and send more warmth pouring into the region from the lower latitudes.
European land temperatures in the decade 2006–2015 were around 1.5 °C warmer than the pre‐industrial level, and they are projected to continue increasing by more than the global average temperature increase.
Heavy precipitation events have increased in several regions in Europe over recent decades, in particular in northern and north‐eastern Europe.
The vast majority of glaciers in the European glacial regions are in retreat.
Snow cover extent in the northern hemisphere has declined significantly since the 1920s, with most of the reductions occurring since 1980.
Earlier spring advancement is observed in many plant species, and the pollen season starts earlier and is longer.
Many species have changed their distribution range, generally northwards and uphill, and these trends are projected to continue.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.
