Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming will increases grain production



Page 2 of 2<12
28-01-2019 19:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
littleendian wrote:
Yes, water in the atmosphere is the biggest player in the greenhouse gas game. However, it is very volatile and varies strongly. CO2 is a more "consistent" player in that game, albeit its effect being smaller than water vapor, its effect still being significant. Of course changing average temperatures through CO2 will have an effect on water in the atmosphere.


Nope. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. You are again ignoring science. See the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2019 19:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
littleendian wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Floods and droughts, and all of the other doomsday prophecies, are fortune-cookie predictions.

No, they are a very real scenario under present climate change:
...deleted Holy Link...

Define 'climate change'. A meaningless buzzword is not a scenario at all.
littleendian wrote:
I know you guys are really not fond of those damn scientists and their conclusions. I've heard nothing so far that makes me think that these doubts are founded on real issues in the science. I suspect it is because you are resisting being inconvenienced by lifestyle changes.

So you now openly deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No, you can't just discard theories of science, dude.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2019 19:40
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever notice how the IPCC avoids water vapor, and quickly changes the subject when it comes into play? I truly believe that it plays a very key role in regulating the temperature down here on the surface. I guess here in Florida, we tend to notice the humidity, more than the northern folks. Another effect of our warm climate, is the storms. Fortunately, during our 'rainy' season and hurricane season, the storms don't usually last long. When we do get the bad storms though, the clouds darken the sky pretty good, most definitely feels like a cooler climate too. Sure, a rather small area, compared to the entire planet, but most of the planet it covered with water, and with sufficient heat, it can become water vapor, and clouds. Seems like CO2 can't do much, if there is no infrared to get it excited, and do it's evil work. Water evaporating also carries off heat from the surface, heat rises, so does the water vapor.

We really haven't had a chance to observe everything the atmosphere does, because it hasn't happened in our existence. It's entirely possible there are other cooling mechanism, some much more powerful than man-made CO2, since we the planet gets brutally cold occasionally, for long periods of time. I really don't see a few degrees increase as an issue to argue about, and I've seen some mighty hot days. A few hundred parts per million is a none issue as well, since there are a lot of volume in the atmosphere, it's not contained either, it expands and contracts.


Water vapor does indeed absorb infrared light just like CO2 does. There is a lot more of it too. However, absorption of surface infrared light does not warm the Earth.

It actually cools the surface.


When are you going to give up passing out stupidities? Not only is there about a world wide average humidity of about 2% all the time but it absorbs almost entirely across the Infrared spectrum whereas CO2 only absorbs in three very narrow bands which are at the very bottom of the Sun's emissions and at the very top of the Earth's emission and hence there is very little energy there.

In case you are unaware of it - the way in which heat is absorbed and moved through either radiation or conduction cools the surfaces from which the heat is extracted.

Is there anything at all that you understand?
28-01-2019 20:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11753)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever notice how the IPCC avoids water vapor, and quickly changes the subject when it comes into play? I truly believe that it plays a very key role in regulating the temperature down here on the surface. I guess here in Florida, we tend to notice the humidity, more than the northern folks. Another effect of our warm climate, is the storms. Fortunately, during our 'rainy' season and hurricane season, the storms don't usually last long. When we do get the bad storms though, the clouds darken the sky pretty good, most definitely feels like a cooler climate too. Sure, a rather small area, compared to the entire planet, but most of the planet it covered with water, and with sufficient heat, it can become water vapor, and clouds. Seems like CO2 can't do much, if there is no infrared to get it excited, and do it's evil work. Water evaporating also carries off heat from the surface, heat rises, so does the water vapor.

We really haven't had a chance to observe everything the atmosphere does, because it hasn't happened in our existence. It's entirely possible there are other cooling mechanism, some much more powerful than man-made CO2, since we the planet gets brutally cold occasionally, for long periods of time. I really don't see a few degrees increase as an issue to argue about, and I've seen some mighty hot days. A few hundred parts per million is a none issue as well, since there are a lot of volume in the atmosphere, it's not contained either, it expands and contracts.


Water vapor does indeed absorb infrared light just like CO2 does. There is a lot more of it too. However, absorption of surface infrared light does not warm the Earth.

It actually cools the surface.


When are you going to give up passing out stupidities?

Inversion fallacy. I should ask you that question.
Wake wrote:
Not only is there about a world wide average humidity of about 2% all the time but it absorbs almost entirely across the Infrared spectrum
No, it does not. Not even close.
Wake wrote:
whereas CO2 only absorbs in three very narrow bands
Which are different than the narrow bands for water.
Wake wrote:
which are at the very bottom of the Sun's emissions

WRONG. The Sun emits light all the way down into the radio bands.
Wake wrote:
and at the very top of the Earth's emission

WRONG. Earth emits many different frequencies of infrared light.
Wake wrote:
and hence there is very little energy there.

Most of the Sun's energy is infrared, Wake.
Wake wrote:
In case you are unaware of it - the way in which heat is absorbed and moved through either radiation or conduction cools the surfaces from which the heat is extracted.

Try English next time. Absorption is does not cool anything, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Is there anything at all that you understand?

Bulverism fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
28-01-2019 23:36
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1742)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever notice how the IPCC avoids water vapor, and quickly changes the subject when it comes into play? I truly believe that it plays a very key role in regulating the temperature down here on the surface. I guess here in Florida, we tend to notice the humidity, more than the northern folks. Another effect of our warm climate, is the storms. Fortunately, during our 'rainy' season and hurricane season, the storms don't usually last long. When we do get the bad storms though, the clouds darken the sky pretty good, most definitely feels like a cooler climate too. Sure, a rather small area, compared to the entire planet, but most of the planet it covered with water, and with sufficient heat, it can become water vapor, and clouds. Seems like CO2 can't do much, if there is no infrared to get it excited, and do it's evil work. Water evaporating also carries off heat from the surface, heat rises, so does the water vapor.

We really haven't had a chance to observe everything the atmosphere does, because it hasn't happened in our existence. It's entirely possible there are other cooling mechanism, some much more powerful than man-made CO2, since we the planet gets brutally cold occasionally, for long periods of time. I really don't see a few degrees increase as an issue to argue about, and I've seen some mighty hot days. A few hundred parts per million is a none issue as well, since there are a lot of volume in the atmosphere, it's not contained either, it expands and contracts.


Water vapor does indeed absorb infrared light just like CO2 does. There is a lot more of it too. However, absorption of surface infrared light does not warm the Earth.

It actually cools the surface.


When are you going to give up passing out stupidities? Not only is there about a world wide average humidity of about 2% all the time but it absorbs almost entirely across the Infrared spectrum whereas CO2 only absorbs in three very narrow bands which are at the very bottom of the Sun's emissions and at the very top of the Earth's emission and hence there is very little energy there.

In case you are unaware of it - the way in which heat is absorbed and moved through either radiation or conduction cools the surfaces from which the heat is extracted.

Is there anything at all that you understand?


I don't think molecules work like heat sponges. Heat spreads out, dissipates. Where stuff can't move around, everything would eventually reach the same temperature. The gasses can move, and heat rises, surface heat, would be dissipated upward. The only warming could come from an energy source, like the Sun. For water to evaporate, it needs some heat. More heat, more vapor, the estimate is between 0% to 4%, but suspect it can go higher, if there is sufficient heat. Think around 4% is where it's blocking out much of the solar source. How come H2O isn't the bad guy here, if it's wide spectrum, and does the same as man-made CO2, and can be a thousand times more of it. CO2 would be only left with the scraps, of what H2O didn't grab up. And this isn't a science fiction story...
13-02-2020 19:01
CzarnyZajaczek
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
* most of production growth is due to technological advances
* Ukraine is in economical transition, so there is sharp increase in production, while earlier for quite long period production was nearly stalled
* Russia seems to partially transition too to more modern (at least economical) standards, so there is expected increase too
* for small global warming, crop area (corn) increases significantly, but the more north the less light received and lines of constant latitude are shorter so there is smaller area for each shift of agriculture toward poles (further north than half of Canada or 65 deg North you will have significantly smaller land area) of each new shift so further warming is expected to give rapidly diminishing increases of production
* further global warming will soon start to impair significantly any crop production in equatorial zone
* global warming is correlated with increased evaporation and increase of water vapor content in atmosphere (it is btw one of main amplifying mechanism of global warming), increased vapor is correlated with higher altitude of tropopause, higher altitude of tropopause causes more frequent and more severe hailstorms, which are devastating for agriculture
* further global warming starting from current level may cause high increase of frequency and severity of droughts, floods and heatwaves which also are devastating for food production

It seems that we are already at level (or even have passed) when any further global warming will lead to more negative effects for food production than positive, even if some small warming starting from preindustrial level was mostly positive. Looking at Brazil and how quickly they cut out forests to produce more food due to world production not meeting world demand, it seems that we already reached that level few years ago...

Also I wouldn't ignore increased risk (hailstorms, droughts, floods and heatwaves) when it comes to food production. It is different type of risk than economic risk where is possible printing money to bailout economy or energetic risk were is possible to quickly blow out whole mountain to supply additional coal - there is no any emergency solution in case if food production fails in multiple regions of the world at the same time (it isn't possible to quickly print food or dig it from earth if there is shortage).


Greasemonkey script to filter out denialists on this forum: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/there-are-some-paid-climate-deniers-in-this-forum-to-spread-false-information-ignore-them-d6-e2989-s80.php#post_52483
13-02-2020 20:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote: * for small global warming, crop area (corn) increases significantly, but the more north the less light received and lines of constant latitude are shorter so there is smaller area for each shift of agriculture toward poles (further north than half of Canada or 65 deg North you will have significantly smaller land area) of each new shift so further warming is expected to give rapidly diminishing increases of production
* further global warming will soon start to impair significantly any crop production in equatorial zone
* global warming is correlated with increased evaporation and increase of water vapor content in atmosphere (it is btw one of main amplifying mechanism of global warming), increased vapor is correlated with higher altitude of tropopause, higher altitude of tropopause causes more frequent and more severe hailstorms, which are devastating for agriculture
* further global warming starting from current level may cause high increase of frequency and severity of droughts, floods and heatwaves which also are devastating for food production

It seems that we are already at level (or even have passed) when any further global warming will lead to more negative effects for food production than positive, even if some small warming starting from preindustrial level was mostly positive. Looking at Brazil and how quickly they cut out forests to produce more food due to world production not meeting world demand, it seems that we already reached that level few years ago...

Also I wouldn't ignore increased risk (hailstorms, droughts, floods and heatwaves) when it comes to food production. It is different type of risk than economic risk where is possible printing money to bailout economy or energetic risk were is possible to quickly blow out whole mountain to supply additional coal - there is no any emergency solution in case if food production fails in multiple regions of the world at the same time (it isn't possible to quickly print food or dig it from earth if there is shortage).



Good news! The Global Warming problem has been solved and all negative effects that were going to happen have thankfully been averted.

Now we can fix our attention onto other issues. Personally, I'm going to celebrate with some rum&coke first.

Congratulations everyone!


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
14-02-2020 00:04
CzarnyZajaczek
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:but the more north the less light received and lines of constant latitude are shorter so there is smaller area for each shift of agriculture toward poles (further north than half of Canada or 65 deg North you will have significantly smaller land area) of each new shift so further warming is expected to give rapidly diminishing increases of production


Correction: further from equator than 70 deg (both hemispheres) there is smaller area for each shift of agriculture toward poles.

Currently agriculture seems to end in Canada somewhere at 60 deg North (on south hemisphere there is no land at this latitude), so without correction for atmosphere:
* at 60 deg latitude land receives 50% of sunlight per area due to angle
* at 70 deg latitude land receives 34% of sunlight per area due to angle
with correction for atmospheric absorbtion (aerosols, clouds etc.) it will be even less toward poles since Sun is always low above horizon and light has much longer path through atmosphere before it reaches surface
14-02-2020 02:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6253)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
* at 60 deg latitude land receives 50% of sunlight per area due to angle
* at 70 deg latitude land receives 34% of sunlight per area due to angle


That's not how it works.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
15-02-2020 02:26
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1742)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
* most of production growth is due to technological advances
* Ukraine is in economical transition, so there is sharp increase in production, while earlier for quite long period production was nearly stalled
* Russia seems to partially transition too to more modern (at least economical) standards, so there is expected increase too
* for small global warming, crop area (corn) increases significantly, but the more north the less light received and lines of constant latitude are shorter so there is smaller area for each shift of agriculture toward poles (further north than half of Canada or 65 deg North you will have significantly smaller land area) of each new shift so further warming is expected to give rapidly diminishing increases of production
* further global warming will soon start to impair significantly any crop production in equatorial zone
* global warming is correlated with increased evaporation and increase of water vapor content in atmosphere (it is btw one of main amplifying mechanism of global warming), increased vapor is correlated with higher altitude of tropopause, higher altitude of tropopause causes more frequent and more severe hailstorms, which are devastating for agriculture
* further global warming starting from current level may cause high increase of frequency and severity of droughts, floods and heatwaves which also are devastating for food production

It seems that we are already at level (or even have passed) when any further global warming will lead to more negative effects for food production than positive, even if some small warming starting from preindustrial level was mostly positive. Looking at Brazil and how quickly they cut out forests to produce more food due to world production not meeting world demand, it seems that we already reached that level few years ago...

Also I wouldn't ignore increased risk (hailstorms, droughts, floods and heatwaves) when it comes to food production. It is different type of risk than economic risk where is possible printing money to bailout economy or energetic risk were is possible to quickly blow out whole mountain to supply additional coal - there is no any emergency solution in case if food production fails in multiple regions of the world at the same time (it isn't possible to quickly print food or dig it from earth if there is shortage).


Is it possible to have a drought and flooding at the same time?

CO2 really is a magic molecule... It warms the earth, but it also makes plants grow faster, strong, healthier.

What hail? It thought CO2 was melting all ice on the planet. Would the hail melt, long before it got close enough to our precious food plants?

Everything depends on plants, one way or another, for food. I wouldn't have ribeye steak, if cattle didn't graze. What do Canadians eat, if they aren't growing crops? Perhaps you aren't familiar with the far north... The grows some of the largest animals up up that way, which don't seem to have much trouble finding food. They main problem, is people, who hate them, save all year, just travel up there and murder a couple. Mostly to take selfie with the corpse.

I really don't get all the hype and urgency. Migration happens, because things change. It's been that way, well likely before man stood and walk on his hind legs. If the land your standing on, doesn't provide what you need to survive, you move on, until you find what you need. The 'tipping point', 'point of no return', is just ten years away. Well, unless they reset the countdown clock again, for the third or fourth time. But the apocalyptic prophecies aren't expected to be fulfilled, for hundreds of years from now, or when ever they stop resetting the clock. Most birds, animals, and other critters, do their seasonal migrations in a month or two. We've got several hundred years to find places that better suit our wants and needs. If you just can't stand the though of giving up you beachfront property, learn swim. If you farm, and one type of crop isn't doing so well, plant something else.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Global warming will increases grain production:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
There is no evidence CO2 increases temperature128-06-2019 05:22
There is no scientific basis doubling CO2 concentration increases temperature.312-03-2019 13:23
The reason I don't believe the hypothesis doubling CO2 increases temp by 1 C is704-02-2019 21:02
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact