Effects of climate change on agriculture in tropic

[Coelacanth]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[XOVER]

Over at Weather Underground, Jeff Masters sets forth with specificity why he thinks 2010-2011 involves the most extreme weather since 1816: The Link

As for me, I think the science deniers have sufficiently muddled the crystal clear science to the point where they have "won." The arrow is loosed, it cannot be recalled, the world is hellbent on increasing co2 emissions, and the climate be damned.

Therefore, live for today and be as happy as you can.

 

[mop]

xover…that is a terrible argument that is absurd. so now that we have changed the moniker to "climate change" then extreme weather really does satisfy us that the overall theory is true? really? come on man, you are smarter than that. since 1998 we have not had a new year that is unarguably warmer (although we have had a couple of "ties"), but if the earth is warming due to CO2 then we should see the records correspond, no?

 

[XOVER]

Please, mop, one thing that scientists do really well is measure things. Things like temperature. Measuring temperature is just no big deal for the scientific community.

My god, scientists can slow the movement of substances like liquid nitrogen to the very verge of absolute zero, and they can very accurately measure the temperature as the matter exhibits quantum effects such as superconductivity and superfluidity.

Throughout the 20th century, scientists have measured the climate warming up by about 0.74 °C, and there's just no reasonable science to the contrary. This warming is not a "hypothesis" or a "theory". It was a scientifically measured temperature increase.

Further, objective, unarguable climate measurements project warming in the 21st century of 1.1 to 6.4 °C. It's increasingly looking like the warming will be much more than 1.1 °C. Scientists really can accurately measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from year-to-year -- no difficult feat.

But hey, like I say, the deniers can go ahead and celebrate. The denialists have "won." From my reading of the politics, nothing is going to stop or even slow down man-made CO2 emissions. Man-made contributions to global warming will increase, up and up, year after year.

The likely consequences of such warming are also coming into focus. A scientific consensus of the result of climate warming is swiftly developing. Descriptors like "climate change," "weird climate," "extreme climate", and others are, not surprisingly, entering the vernacular. For anyone who cares to read about that developing scientific consensus, it is not hard to find the science.

My impression is that GT WT, JohnnyM, and others, think there's still time to make a "difference." For the sake of my children, I hope they are right. For the sake of my children, I hope the denialists are right.

As for me, my analysis is simply to enjoy the party of life for as long as I can. The arrow is loosed.

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

Actually XOVER, you are wrong on many accounts, but I will limit my critique to just a few points. First of all, while we have measured temperatures for 150 years, the scope of those measurements and the quality control has been poor in both placement and precision. Having said that, I do realize we have ways to account for that and this is why I grant that the earth has indeed warmed and I don't even argue with the amount. My issue isn't with the warming of the earth (i think the melting of the Arctic suggests warming for instance as well as melting of many glaciers).

But where you really went out on a shaky limb is here:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[froghorn4]

I believe the phrase that applies here is: "Post hoc ergo propter hoc." Simply translated, it means: "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." That is the hole that science has yet to fill. Until they can, the doubters (rightfully so) will remain.

 

[GT WT]

As an educated individual, capable in both English and Latin, Foghorn4 is aware that when the correlation coefficient equals 0, the regression coefficient must equal zero.

 

[froghorn4]

We are getting dangerously close to the edge of my knowledge in this area. So, here's my bottom line. All properly defined correlations are dependent on their properly defined variables. Yes, man produces a ton of CO2. Yes, data seems to show that temperatures are rising at some rate. But, has science properly defined that man's production of CO2 is causing this apparent rise in temperature? No. They have yet to PROVE that they are applying the proper variables. I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm simply saying that they haven't done the work to PROVE that they are right. An irrefutable connection has not been made. Until, they do, I will maintain a responsible degree of skepticism. Those working in this area would be wise to do the same lest they risk allowing some level of bias to influence their efforts.

 

[GT WT]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

Anyone who believes is an idiot......anyone who doesn't believe is an idiot........I suppose that makes me and everyone else on Earth an idiot?

WE'RE DOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Dionysus]

At least they’re getting laid.