Warmer nights, cereal output may fall

Warmer nights, cereal output may fall

There are 86 comments on the South Asian Media Net story from Apr 12, 2010, titled Warmer nights, cereal output may fall. In it, South Asian Media Net reports that:

NEW DELHI: In an ominous sign of climate change hitting home, India has seen accelerated warming in the past few decades and the temperature-rise pattern is now increasingly in line with global warming trends.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at South Asian Media Net.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#46 Apr 16, 2010
There's nothing wrong with 350, 400 or even 1000ppmv CO2, it feeds our planet. There's been more CO2 in the past, and there will be more in the future. It's been warmer before and it will be warmer again.

Welcome to climate. In the real world, man does not control nature.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#47 Apr 16, 2010
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with 350, 400 or even 1000ppmv CO2, it feeds our planet. There's been more CO2 in the past, and there will be more in the future. It's been warmer before and it will be warmer again.
Welcome to climate. In the real world, man does not control nature.
Each of the few times Earth has seen 1000 ppm CO2, most life has died.

In the prehuman past, extended basalt eruptions triggered the carbon release cycle. Now we're doing it...and we have been at it for millennia, although slowly until now.

http://www.physorg.com/news190561417.html
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#48 Apr 16, 2010
Northie wrote:
Each of the few times Earth has seen 1000 ppm CO2, most life has died.
Then we need to build up atmospheric CO2 more quickly.
Or do we?
CO2 causes cooling?
http://nov55.com/clng.html
OK, so we need to reduce atmospheric CO2 fast!

Er, but, this sounds healthier:
The paper concludes,“CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/two-peer-reviewed...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#49 Apr 16, 2010
Brian_G wrote:
There's nothing wrong with 350, 400 or even 1000ppmv CO2,
Not per se, no. But the constant change does cause climate instability and the warmer world is not as productive.
Brian_G wrote:
it feeds our planet.
Plants are well adapted to the 180ppm to 280ppm that was 'natural' prior to our interference. In fact, they have 'stomata' used to reduce and limit the CO2 that they use even at 280ppm.
Brian_G wrote:
There's been more CO2 in the past, and there will be more in the future.
Not to say that this is a good thing. Volcanoes and earthquakes have happened in the past too. And most people don't welcome them or in this case, assist them!
Brian_G wrote:
It's been warmer before and it will be warmer again.
Welcome to climate. In the real world, man does not control nature.
But he sure can influence it. Control is a bit too restrictive a term. By increasing GHGs by 40%, man has certainly changed the balance significantly and that is indisputable.
Laughing At Wannabes

Sacramento, CA

#50 Apr 16, 2010
It's far from indisputable as stated by Kevin Trenberth, organized criminal government employee.

In the most damaging email of all released by the whistleblower who showed what really was being talked about by the inner core of government employee criminal conspirators,

he admitted they had no earthly idea why the temperatures are, what they are, "and it's a travesty" they can't say what is influencing weather hence climate.
Laughing At Wannabes

Sacramento, CA

#51 Apr 17, 2010
Trenberth referred to the fallacious "Global Energy Budget" he had championed as "nowhere near being understood."

He said C.E.R.E.S. Satellite information showing "there should be more warming" wasn't showing any...

and decried what it meant to their movement: that "our observation system is inadequate."

What that means is what he had thought: "one of the world's smartest men" was radiation being trapped in the atmosphere

was actually the sign, of what men with many years' more experience combined than he,

who were like he, atmospheric radiation specialists,

had told him: situation normal.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#52 Apr 17, 2010
The, "observation system is inadequate?"
Climate science itself is totally inadequate.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#53 Apr 17, 2010
We have a short history of satellite observations, far to short to put into context. We can't forecast climate change. We can't mitigate or control climate change. There is no evidence, otherwise.

N. is wrong that high CO2 periods means most life dies. On the contrary, the CO2 in fossil fuel came from such a period. CO2 is all about a better world.

LessHype is right that there have been more earthquakes in the past and we can't mitigate or control them, either.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#54 Apr 17, 2010
Brian_G wrote:
We have a short history of satellite observations, far to short to put into context. We can't forecast climate change. We can't mitigate or control climate change. There is no evidence, otherwise.
The issue is to forecast and reduce AGW, which will then lower the rate of climate change. And since AGW is a straight forward physics, it is fairly predictable.
Brian_G wrote:
N. is wrong that high CO2 periods means most life dies.
High CO2 levels and high temperatures are quite well connected with major extinction events, often caused by asteroid strikes triggering flood basalt volcanic activity but also connected to simple gas eruptions such as the PETM.
Brian_G wrote:
On the contrary, the CO2 in fossil fuel came from such a period.
They came from a period in which plant and algae activity had little competition from animal life and so sequestered massive amounts of the CO2 by burial. For plants, this was partly due to the development of lignin to which the primitive insect life had no counter. This occurred when land life was limited to insects and plants so there were no species TO drive to extinction. Not a rational argument,but in keeping with BGs total ignorance of paleology (or any other science).
Brian_G wrote:
CO2 is all about a better world.
LessHype is right that there have been more earthquakes in the past and we can't mitigate or control them, either.
I did not say anything about the frequency of earthquakes. I said that having happened in the past does not put them in the 'desirable' category. THey are still a disaster, just like AGW.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#55 Apr 17, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
This occurred when land life was limited to insects and plants so there were no species TO drive to extinction.
So insects and plants are not species?
I guess you know where that gem is going?
Laughing At Wannabes

Sacramento, CA

#56 Apr 17, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue is to forecast and reduce AGW, which will then lower the rate of climate change. And since AGW is a straight forward physics, it is fairly predictable.

I did not say anything about the frequency of earthquakes. I said that having happened in the past does not put them in the 'desirable' category. THey are still a disaster, just like AGW.
It is fairly predictable which is why no one in any business directly pertaining to plying the atmosphere with radiation ever touched it with a ten foot pole.
And it is a disaster
Ask now in hiding and internationally humiliated, fearful of indictment AGW scam artist Phil Jones.

It's nothing BUT a disaster and because it never was anything BUT that: a disaster waiting to happen for the government employee criminals who were scamming it,

about a dozen or so people who work for Germany, Great Britain, and the United States' governments, keep the blinds cracked so they can see subpoena process servers coming up the sidewalk.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#57 Apr 17, 2010
Man does not control or direct climate. The global climate is not warming significantly, because of man made greenhouse gases. CO2 is a good friend to man and climate, a partner since the invention of fire.

Climate models are bright new things, they will never replace experimentation.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#58 Apr 17, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
LessHype is merely quoting the world's experts--you know, those experts you refuse to read?--and their answer is the same: 280 ppm was the atmosphere's baseline CO2 share for quite some time before mankind began pumping all available carbon out of the ground and into the air:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/...
Quoting what experts? The only people who he considered he considers experts are those who he agrees with. Other experts who disagree and have thier own evidence to the contary are dismissed as nothing by LHMF while those who who advance his personal beliefs are lauded even when they have a history of being less than toally accurate or even truthfulness. Even when the historical evidence proves that his beliefs are completelty wrong.

Whatever paints humanity in the worse light is evidence and any and everything that is positive is wrong because it has to be wrong.

It is less that people like Earthling and myself refuse to read but the fact that people like LHMF and yourself refuse to look at anything that does not support your belief system.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#60 Apr 17, 2010
Tina, LessFact quotes those who he considers to be experts in a field of science, the surface of which has just been scratched.
Mankind doesn't yet know exactly what's going on on the surface of the planet, he hasn't fully explored the deep oceans, so how can he be expected to know what climate is likely to do?
Talk about trying to run before being able to walk, he spends a fortune exploring outer space.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#62 Apr 18, 2010
Earthling wrote:
<quoted text>So insects and plants are not species?
I guess you know where that gem is going?
They certainly did not leave much of a fossil record so you cannot say whether the Carboniferous CO2 levels led to a 'mass extinction' or not. Since the claim was that the Carboniferous had high CO2 but no mass extinction, the point is valid. There were no masses to extinct. ;-)
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#63 Apr 18, 2010
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting what experts? The only people who he considered he considers experts are those who he agrees with.
Stuff and nonsense. The scientific status of the leading climatologists and their CVs are in no way tied to my opinions. In fact, my understanding is a consequence OF the science.
Earthling

Hellín, Spain

#64 Apr 18, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
They certainly did not leave much of a fossil record so you cannot say whether the Carboniferous CO2 levels led to a 'mass extinction' or not. Since the claim was that the Carboniferous had high CO2 but no mass extinction, the point is valid. There were no masses to extinct. ;-)
Wriggle, twist, squirm, wriggle, twist, squirm, squirm as much as you like, your comment was:
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
This occurred when land life was limited to insects and plants so there were no species TO drive to extinction.
Basically claiming that, "insects and plants" are not species.
The list of your faux pas gets longer and longer, it's now almost too long for one post.

You're better off sticking to hypotheses and ad hominem attacks, because facts are certainly not your forte.
YouHelpFixIt

Nottingham, MD

#67 Apr 15, 2014
Jim the Hoax Denier

Hempstead, TX

#68 Apr 16, 2014
YouHelpFixIt wrote:
http://www.indexmundi.com/fact s/india/cereal-production
Another failed prediction.
Don't provide factual data to a hoaxer. It only triggers their violent tendencies knowing that their little brains can't comprehend the truth behind the anthropoglobalclimategenicwarm ingchange hoax.

Since: Dec 06

Charlie's

#69 Apr 17, 2014
Brian_G wrote:
Man does not control or direct climate.
Mankind doesn't control itself, anyways
Brian_G wrote:
The global climate is not warming significantly, because of man made greenhouse gases. CO2 is a good friend to man and climate, a partner since the invention of fire.
We'll see if the sea rise is a good friend to man

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr IB DaMann 54,491
Poll Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 2 hr litesong 2,295
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 3 hr ritedownthemiddle 6,804
Global Cooling 6 hr IBdaMann 151
News Obama Undermines His Climate Strategy With More... 19 hr IBdaMann 2
COP21 Paris 2015 (Feb '15) Thu IB DaMann 3
litesong Prayers (Feb '15) Thu IB DaMann 21
More from around the web