On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 10:56:14 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wr ote:
The Heartland Institute is a phony shill institute, and the USDA made no su ch statement about atmospheric CO2 contributing to crop yields. You're just a lying little political hack. Here's how yields are actually modeled:
formatting link
Warmer temperatures reduce yield, and add in below average precipitation an d the yields plummet. Note that CO2 as an independent variable doesn't figu re into the equation, its effects are more appropriately gauged through res ulting climate change.
ality-report.pdf
e,
rt,
to
an
%
That was for one year with abnormally cooler growing season and abnormally higher precipitation. Abnormal conditions are not usually given much weight in determining trends, except by political hacks.
Another effect you and the other ignoramus are ignoring is the dependence o f many food crops on cold. Many types of fruit and nut producers REQUIRE se veral hundred hours of HARD FREEZE prior to the growing season for producti on. The hard freeze will be doing a disappearing act in many places as the climate warms.
Here is another example of an industry in rapid decline:
formatting link
ons/0605mpl.pdf
090618
loods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for example, that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its East Co ast heartland."
ect based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational sim pleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion is not worth much.
You don't know the first thing about interpreting climate data, and you're too dumb to learn.
such statement about atmospheric CO2 contributing to crop yields. You're ju st a lying little political hack.
Ad hominem squared is your answer?
I assume the USDA forecast a record crop, and the Heartland Institute ascribed causation. You're free to disagree with the causation, not the empirical data.
NASA has been bleating that this has been the warmest year, evuh. You've posited crop yields will fall, but in real life they're better.
and the yields plummet. Note that CO2 as an independent variable doesn't fi gure into the equation, its effects are more appropriately gauged through r esulting climate change.
You're arguing the model over physical, empirical data? Really?
quality-report.pdf
ure,
port,
r to
o an
.8%
y higher precipitation. Abnormal conditions are not usually given much weig ht in determining trends, except by political hacks.
Speaking of political hacks, NASA declared 2014 the warmest year ever, yet you're denying that physical 'fact.'
formatting link
-modern-record/
So are your arguing that this administration is lying, or are you arguing that CO2 and / or warmth reduces crop yield, in a year when we had the most of both ever?
of many food crops on cold. Many types of fruit and nut producers REQUIRE several hundred hours of HARD FREEZE prior to the growing season for produc tion. The hard freeze will be doing a disappearing act in many places as th e climate warms.
tions/0605mpl.pdf
20090618
floods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for exampl e, that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its East Coast heartland."
bject based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational s impleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinion is not worth much.
o such statement about atmospheric CO2 contributing to crop yields. You're just a lying little political hack.
You want to contest the factual content of either of those claims?
The Heartland Institute seems to have been set up by the tobacco companies to lie about the health consequences of smoking. Since then it's been a lia r for hire, available to apply the same techniques to devalue other inconve nient scientific observations.
Any discussion of it's antics comes down to an "ad hominem" attack, because it's staffed by the ethically inadequate, being paid mislead the public.
Crop yields will fall - in the long term. Selective cherry picking can make almost any carefully selected short term look good.
n and the yields plummet. Note that CO2 as an independent variable doesn't figure into the equation, its effects are more appropriately gauged through resulting climate change.
So where's the physical, empirical data that you think he is ignoring?
Your enthusiasm for these rhetorical tropes isn't backed up by any obvious grasp of the real data you claim to be relying on, and when you do get push ed into finding real data it has a nasty tendency to reveal that you only s ee what you want to see.
n-quality-report.pdf
p
ord
lly higher precipitation. Abnormal conditions are not usually given much we ight in determining trends, except by political hacks.
t
in-modern-record/
st
Since it seems to have been an abnormally cool growing season that contribu ted to the record crop, you need to recognise that the distribution of warm th over the year matters, and there's no necessary contradiction between a record warm year (overall) and an abnormally cool growing season.
Rhetoric is fine, but it's casual use can reveal how you construct your arg uments - with more attention to effect than factual content.
ce of many food crops on cold. Many types of fruit and nut producers REQUIR E several hundred hours of HARD FREEZE prior to the growing season for prod uction. The hard freeze will be doing a disappearing act in many places as the climate warms.
cations/0605mpl.pdf
YI20090618
t, floods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for exam ple, that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its Eas t Coast heartland."
subject based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational simpleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinio n is not worth much.
l
're too dumb to learn.
Why should he bother? There is a recent article in Nature - Climate Change on the 27th April 2015 by E.M Fischer and R. Knutti from ETH Zurich, but it 's a bit too technical for the likes of you and John Larkin.
What proportion of your food is grown in a greenhouse?
Greenhouses are great for plants (until somebody harvests the product and e ats it) but it's a totally controlled environment, and the plants get all t he water they want. Out in the open - where most of our food is grown - giv ing the plants the right amount of water is somewhat trickier, and if the p recipitation decides to move someplace else at the wrong point in the growi ng season, no amount of extra CO2 is going to do anything for crop yields.
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 8:12:15 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote :
o such statement about atmospheric CO2 contributing to crop yields. You're just a lying little political hack.
Didn't I just get through telling you the 2014 growing season was abnormall y wet and cool? Are you saying excessive atmospheric CO2 will result in an abnormally wet and cool planet? If not, then buzz off.
There is no "they" to it, all you have is the 2014 season. Prior years were dismal, and successive years will almost certainly be dismal too. How dumb are you that you think a continental average applies to the handful of nor thern states growing soy and corn? You can't fathom a record high average n ationwide while some areas were below average? If everything was above aver age then you're working with the wrong average obviously!
n and the yields plummet. Note that CO2 as an independent variable doesn't figure into the equation, its effects are more appropriately gauged through resulting climate change.
Show me where the model is in disagreement with the date from the 2014 seas on? You can't because it isn't.
n-quality-report.pdf
lture,
report,
ear to
to
to an
17.8%
lly higher precipitation. Abnormal conditions are not usually given much we ight in determining trends, except by political hacks.
t
in-modern-record/
st
NASA is not the "administration"-man, you're dumber than a rock. Try to get it through your head that agricultural production is not uniformly distrib uted throughout North America before you look even more absurd, because tha t's the only way the reported averages would support your beliefs.
ce of many food crops on cold. Many types of fruit and nut producers REQUIR E several hundred hours of HARD FREEZE prior to the growing season for prod uction. The hard freeze will be doing a disappearing act in many places as the climate warms.
cations/0605mpl.pdf
YI20090618
t, floods, drought and pests would harm food yields and concluded, for exam ple, that cranberry production may no longer be possible by 2050 in its Eas t Coast heartland."
subject based on real science. You ignore this because you're an irrational simpleton who never learned to reason properly, consequently you're opinio n is not worth much.
l
're too dumb to learn.
I don't have a hypothesis, I have the research of the people who know how t o make scientific agricultural forecasts.
Buddy of mine said something like that. I looked around and found there are those who believe the Earth is actually alive, rivers are akin to blood vessels and so forth. I think the name for the belief is "gaia" or something like that.
The gaia concept is appealing. It assumes that Earth takes care of itself and uses various critters to do it. There are schools that think humans are part of the scheme, and other who think we are poison.
formatting link
Gaia theories may just be an attitude of optimism, "whatever happens is OK."
Earth is amazing. There may not be as sweet a planet anywhere else in the galaxy, or maybe anywhere else in the universe.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com
Not that I want to get into this shit here, but I think the entire universe is a being, and we along with all the planets n shit are simply part of it.
Of course whether we are a liver cell or a cancer cell is up for debate...
It's appealing only in a poetic sense. The proposition that Gaia is 'living' suggests regulation of its internal variables (much as human bocy temperature, tissue oxygenation, blood sugar are regulated). It doesn't, however, help the human race if Gaia 'survives'. Perhaps the global warming fever causes the human infection to go away. Or, perhaps Gaia adjusts its metabolism to absorb pollutants without harm. The 'Gaia hypothesis' doesn't predict either; neither event would refute the Gaia hypothesis. it is less than a verifiable theory, too general to be suitable for scientific investigation.
Go argue with the astrophysicists. The sun is a normal main sequence star, and they slowly get brighter as they get older.
formatting link
Technically speaking, the surface of the sun isn't getting any brighter, but the sun is getting bigger, so there's more surface to irradiate us, and more light hitting us.
The specific subject under discussion was US food crop yields, so the abnor mally wet and cool growing season isn't even US-wide, but rather confined t o the specific food-growing areas of the US involved.
Do try to keep track of context when thinking about this kind of question - it does make a difference. Snipping most of the context - including the bi t where Fred explicitly referred "to the handful of northern states growing soy and corn" - doesn't add to your credibility.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.