Remember me
▼ Content

climate change affects crops


climate change affects crops14-09-2016 20:52
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/12/climate-change-is-really-bad-for-wheat-which-is-really-bad-for-us/?utm_campaign=2fff895223-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Daily%20Carbon%20Briefing&utm_term=.9bcec08c2329

something to think about.
15-09-2016 16:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
spot wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/12/climate-change-is-really-bad-for-wheat-which-is-really-bad-for-us/?utm_campaign=2fff895223-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Daily%20Carbon%20Briefing&utm_term=.9bcec08c2329

something to think about.

Climate has never changed as far as anyone knows.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2016 16:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Are you serious? You know of no data that suggests that the Earth was warmer or cooler than it is today, at any point? Have you heard of an "ice age"?
15-09-2016 16:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Are you serious? You know of no data that suggests that the Earth was warmer or cooler than it is today, at any point? Have you heard of an "ice age"?

Wait! That's weather. Don't you know anything? "Climate" is not weather.

Yes, the weather has changed.

"Climate" has never been observed to change by anyone, ever.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2016 16:44
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Are you serious? You know of no data that suggests that the Earth was warmer or cooler than it is today, at any point? Have you heard of an "ice age"?

Wait! That's weather. Don't you know anything? "Climate" is not weather.

Yes, the weather has changed.

"Climate" has never been observed to change by anyone, ever.


.


So the little graph in the top left corner of this forum means what?

15-09-2016 16:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
spot wrote:So the little graph in the top left corner of this forum means what?

They had to shrink it to fit.




Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2016 20:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Are you serious? You know of no data that suggests that the Earth was warmer or cooler than it is today, at any point? Have you heard of an "ice age"?


What was the actual measured temperature of the globe during the last ice age?

I'm not talking about conjecture here. I am talking about the actual measured temperature.


The Parrot Killer
15-09-2016 20:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
"You weren't there! How can you tell!"

This is suspiciously similar to fundamentalists' arguments. (Unless I am misinterpreting your post.)

The Ice Age was colder than normal. This is pretty much established fact - errors in measurement are unlikely to all point toward the same conclusion when thousands of measurements are made, and using different ways of measuring.

For now, climate is mostly used to mean "average temperature of the Earth." It means more. I do not have the time to write more.
15-09-2016 21:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
Into the Night wrote: What was the actual measured temperature of the globe during the last ice age?

I'm not talking about conjecture here. I am talking about the actual measured temperature.


jwoodward48 wrote:This is suspiciously similar to fundamentalists' arguments. (Unless I am misinterpreting your post.)

It appeared to be a question. I'm dying to know what caused the "fundamentalist!" reflex. Did you just not LIKE the question?

It sounded like a completely valid question. I'll echo it. "What was the actual measured temperature of the globe during the last ice age?"

@ Into the Night: Great question! I was wondering that myself and perhaps jwoodward48 will tell me, thanks to you raising the issue.

jwoodward48 wrote: The Ice Age was colder than normal.

Around the entire globe or just in a particular region, with it being a bit warmer elsewhere?

jwoodward48 wrote:For now, climate is mostly used to mean "average temperature of the Earth." It means more. I do not have the time to write more.

I'll wait until you have time to write the exact definition of "Climate"


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2016 22:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
jwoodward48 wrote:
"You weren't there! How can you tell!"

This is suspiciously similar to fundamentalists' arguments. (Unless I am misinterpreting your post.)

I am not a fundamentalist, but I have argued with them. When they are using this particular argument, they are RIGHT. It's their conclusion that is wrong. They don't even understand the bible they quote so often.

I have warned you before, do not turn to attempts to use ad hominems to get your point across if you wish to be treated with any respect. That means do not mock, do not call people fundies or anything else, do not belittle them on anything.

Our level of conversation just went downhill a bit. It's harsh to say it, but you did it first. Only you can bring it back.

jwoodward48 wrote:
The Ice Age was colder than normal. This is pretty much established fact - errors in measurement are unlikely to all point toward the same conclusion when thousands of measurements are made, and using different ways of measuring.

Both you can I can agree on this point. I will accept this fact. Be cautious when using this word 'fact'. A fact is not what you are trying to to use it as.

jwoodward48 wrote:
For now, climate is mostly used to mean "average temperature of the Earth." It means more. I do not have the time to write more.


The word 'climate' actually is defined pretty much the same way in any dictionary. It always comes down to something like 'weather over a long time'. The problem is the concept of 'a long time'.

Weather is something you can quantify. You measure temperature, rainfall, the amount (and often the thickness) of cloud cover, the height of the lowest clouds, and humidity and pressure.

Time is something you can quantify. We have seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, etc.

'A long time' is not something you can quantify.

When you apply 'a long time' to weather, you now have something that can't be quantified anymore. Climate is not quantifiable.

To measure a change, you must first compare two quantities.

How do you measure the quantity of something that is not quantifiable?

This is why the term 'climate change' is a non-sense phrase. It literally doesn't mean anything. You can't measure change in something that is not quantifiable.

To describe a 'climate change' between now and some unspecified ice age, what you are really trying to say is the weather was different. Climate cannot change because you can't quantify any change.

The term 'Climate Change' is a term created by the media and is attached to the Global Warming argument. This is why it particularly irks someone like IBdaMann when people use this phrase.

It irks me too. It is an attempt by the Church of Global Warming to whitewash itself.

Until now I have refrained from using this term of religion with you. You asked for respect. I gave it. In return I was shown less respect than I gave you. You have mocked me, you have called me names. I now have no problem using this terminology with you.

A circular argument is the argument of Faith. This is why I refer to the Global Warming argument as the Church of Global Warming, and why IBDaMann refers to it simply as a wacky religion.

Faith IS a valid starting point for reasoning. You should always remember, though, that you started with Faith. The instant you do so, you have left the realm of science.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-09-2016 22:32
16-09-2016 00:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I am sorry. I should have realized that use of an argument by stupid people does not make the argument itself, nor any others who use it, stupid.

A minor detail was similar to fundamentalists, and like a troll, I jumped on it. "Your hair is brown! So is a fundamentalist's!" (Yeah, self-mocking is fun.) I will try to be more rational and less results-driven (results of "make the opposition look bad", that is) in the future.

Our discussions have been good, and I've learned a lot. I hope to be able to continue them.
16-09-2016 02:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I am sorry. I should have realized that use of an argument by stupid people does not make the argument itself, nor any others who use it, stupid.

A minor detail was similar to fundamentalists, and like a troll, I jumped on it. "Your hair is brown! So is a fundamentalist's!" (Yeah, self-mocking is fun.) I will try to be more rational and less results-driven (results of "make the opposition look bad", that is) in the future.

Our discussions have been good, and I've learned a lot. I hope to be able to continue them.


I'm glad you learned something here. I am glad you are at least willing to research this stuff. There is a lot of it, and there is a lot of noise. That's the Internet for you!


Apology accepted. I will refrain from religious references for you again. I hope that this little trip downward at least enlightened you to why I use the references in the first place.

Let us continue from a better starting point.


As I see it, we have established several things.

First, that light and thermal energy are not the same thing. Also that one can change to the other at any time through use limits imposed by Planck's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

We have also established, that to create the effect of warming the surface, you must somehow impose a magick mirror in the sky of some sort that limits energy flow in only one direction.

To a degree we have established that the surface is warmed by the absorption of primarily infrared light. We also have agreed that the surface emits light, according to S-B, in the infrared range.

We have agreed that CO2 can absorb IR light, and that the effect of this absorption is conversion to thermal energy. We also have agreed that CO2, along with the rest of the mass of the Earth emits light the same the surface does, according to S-B.

We also have agreed, upon occasion, that photons are not equal, according to Planck's law.

Good progress has been made so far. There is a lot we agree on with this stuff.

Do I have this reasonably accurate?


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2016 04:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Mostly, yeah. (The following are arranged by paragraph. No quotes because I'm on my phone.)

1. Entirely correct. I made some errors in which I conflated light and heat, but AFAIK we always agreed that the two were related but different.

2. The "magick mirror" is indeed one way of heating the Earth, but I've been pondering some other ways that asymmetry might be induced. I haven't posted them yet because I want to post quality discussion, and half-baked ideas are anything but.

3. Entirely correct. I had a misconception about which wavelengths heated the Earth most, aided by a misapplication of Planck's Law or SB. (Can't recall which.) You helped to clear that up, thanks, and we are now in agreement.

4. Correct, although my aforementioned pondering exploits the variety of heat dissipation methods other than radiation. (By which I mean just conduction, but in a cool-sounding way.) Other important points are that CO2 radiates heat in a random direction, and at a different wavelength compared to the Earth. These may or may not matter in the grand scheme of everything.

5. Indeed. I did express doubts, though, that the individual energies of photons mattered when we were looking at overall energy flow.

I largely agree that we agree.
16-09-2016 06:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Mostly, yeah. (The following are arranged by paragraph. No quotes because I'm on my phone.)

1. Entirely correct. I made some errors in which I conflated light and heat, but AFAIK we always agreed that the two were related but different.

2. The "magick mirror" is indeed one way of heating the Earth, but I've been pondering some other ways that asymmetry might be induced. I haven't posted them yet because I want to post quality discussion, and half-baked ideas are anything but.

3. Entirely correct. I had a misconception about which wavelengths heated the Earth most, aided by a misapplication of Planck's Law or SB. (Can't recall which.) You helped to clear that up, thanks, and we are now in agreement.

4. Correct, although my aforementioned pondering exploits the variety of heat dissipation methods other than radiation. (By which I mean just conduction, but in a cool-sounding way.) Other important points are that CO2 radiates heat in a random direction, and at a different wavelength compared to the Earth. These may or may not matter in the grand scheme of everything.

5. Indeed. I did express doubts, though, that the individual energies of photons mattered when we were looking at overall energy flow.

I largely agree that we agree.


Regarding 4. CO2 radiates photons in random directions. Heat is warmed CO2 is conducted away in all directions at once. Photons, which have a frequency, are not heat. Heat has no frequency.

Photon energy difference makes a BIG difference. Planck's law helps describe how big the difference is here along with the S-B law.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2016 06:04
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ugh, you're right. I did it again. I meant that the photon which is carrying off what used to be thermal energy has a different wavelength compared to the original photon that was absorbed by the molecule and converted to thermal energy.

Sure, there's this big difference, but how exactly is it affecting the macroscopic energy flows?
16-09-2016 06:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
jwoodward48 wrote:Sure, there's this big difference, but how exactly is it affecting the macroscopic energy flows?

If only we had some sort of Stefan-Boltzmann equation we could answer that question, ...alas ...


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-09-2016 07:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
How does SB, which concerns the total energy emitted, answer the question of "what links individual photonic energies and overall energy flow?"?

It's a reasonable question. I'd like a reasonable answer, not your normal "SB is a miracle law, it solves every problem" snake oil. Believe it or not, the SB equation is not the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
18-09-2016 04:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
jwoodward48 wrote:
How does SB, which concerns the total energy emitted, answer the question of "what links individual photonic energies and overall energy flow?"?

Stefan-Boltzmann does not directly address this because you are talking about photons and quantum mechanics.

Planck's law addresses this. If you are using quantum mechanics to get down to the nuts and bolts then bring in Planck's law.

Stefan-Boltzmann is classic physics and is a much simpler way of avoiding unnecessary convolution.

Stefan-Boltzmann can be derived from Planck's.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-09-2016 04:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That does not describe how inflow/outflow energy models should be influenced by the number of photons in which their energy is carried. Photons aren't conserved. Energy is.
18-09-2016 09:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
jwoodward48 wrote:
That does not describe how inflow/outflow energy models should be influenced by the number of photons in which their energy is carried. Photons aren't conserved. Energy is.


Photons are not the only form of energy.

My question asked of another now is on your table as well.

Do you believe that the temperature of oxygen is the same as the temperature of carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air?

How about nitrogen?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 18-09-2016 09:20
18-09-2016 09:49
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Temperature describes the entire parcel of air, but sure, I'll overlook that detail.

Yes to all.
18-09-2016 10:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Temperature describes the entire parcel of air, but sure, I'll overlook that detail.

Yes to all.


Are you aware, that because of S-B, all these substances emitting the same color light at the same intensity?


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 11:44
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
...How could you say that? Gases do not act as black bodies, or even gray bodies. They have emission and absorption spectra that differ greatly from the black body radiation curves. It's why different gases produce different colors in gas lamps, even at the same temperature.

Are you actually claiming that emission spectra for mixed gases can be completely accurately modeled by Planck's Law? (S-B doesn't care what wavelength the emission is, just how much, AFAIK.)
18-09-2016 23:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
jwoodward48 wrote:
...How could you say that? Gases do not act as black bodies, or even gray bodies. They have emission and absorption spectra that differ greatly from the black body radiation curves. It's why different gases produce different colors in gas lamps, even at the same temperature.

Are you actually claiming that emission spectra for mixed gases can be completely accurately modeled by Planck's Law? (S-B doesn't care what wavelength the emission is, just how much, AFAIK.)


Are you actually suggesting that only carbon dioxide emits IR?

If that's true then how does the Earth cool at all?

How do we keep electronics cool with fans? By blowing carbon dioxide across the components?


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 23:41
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Planck's Law works on things like the Earth's surface. It does not work on gases. Stop straw manning me.

What do computer fans have to do with anything? That's conduction. In the end, all energy entering or escaping the Earth is in the form of radiation. How can you conduct in the vacuum of space?
18-09-2016 23:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Quantum theory predicts and measurements confirm that simple, diatomic gases like oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to IR radiation. They neither absorb nor emit IR radiation. This is basic, uncontested (by rational people) science.
19-09-2016 00:01
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Along with many things, this link explains why CO2 absorbs infrared light and O2 doesn't.

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html




Join the debate climate change affects crops:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate change is creating toxic crops and poisoning some of world's poorest people, scientists warn022-03-2019 17:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact