Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Farmers are having record year crop productions, which doesn't fit with your bull shit either.What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.
Why wouldn't they? At least in the U.S. where we aren't feeling the affects of climate change quite as severely as other parts of the world. But, why wait?
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/66560/WP119_FINAL.pdf
According to the most recent IPCC report, changes in climates over the last 30 years
have already reduced global agricultural production in the range 1-5 % per decade
globally, with particularly negative effects for tropical cereal crops such as maize and
rice (Porter et al., 2014). In addition, there is now mounting evidence suggesting that
even at low (+2 ºC) levels of warming, agricultural productivity is likely to decline
across the globe, but particularly across tropical areas (Challinor et al., 2014). This
Working Paper provides an overview of projected climate change impacts on crop
production and suitability across Africa, using a combination of literature review,
models and new data analysis
I believe that's from 2013, we already know that crop productions are being threatened and have already been affected by climate change. But, you wouldn't bother to look into it anyway, so what is the point of having this debate with you when one of your boneheaded ideas is to bring the bible into it that you did in another post.
There are other factors lol...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
India's is due to new kind of corn. Evidence is everywhere but RW "news". OP is fact.There are other factors lol...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Such as?
Where is the evidence that global warming is harming agricultural production?
Farmers are having record year crop productions, which doesn't fit with your bull shit either.What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.
Why wouldn't they? At least in the U.S. where we aren't feeling the affects of climate change quite as severely as other parts of the world. But, why wait?
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/66560/WP119_FINAL.pdf
According to the most recent IPCC report, changes in climates over the last 30 years
have already reduced global agricultural production in the range 1-5 % per decade
globally, with particularly negative effects for tropical cereal crops such as maize and
rice (Porter et al., 2014). In addition, there is now mounting evidence suggesting that
even at low (+2 ºC) levels of warming, agricultural productivity is likely to decline
across the globe, but particularly across tropical areas (Challinor et al., 2014). This
Working Paper provides an overview of projected climate change impacts on crop
production and suitability across Africa, using a combination of literature review,
models and new data analysis
I believe that's from 2013, we already know that crop productions are being threatened and have already been affected by climate change. But, you wouldn't bother to look into it anyway, so what is the point of having this debate with you when one of your boneheaded ideas is to bring the bible into it that you did in another post.
The first obvious problem with your claim is that agricultural production has increased by leaps and bounds in the last several decades. India can now feed itself, and that wasn't true 20 years ago. Starvation has been drastically reduced. It only occurs now because of civil war or a communist dictatorship.
Warmer temperatures are good for agriculture. So are higher CO2 levels. I have no idea what these claims of reduced output are based on, but they aren't based on the actual levels of output.
Look at the following graphs and then explain how global warming is reducing agricultural output:
Farmers are having record year crop productions, which doesn't fit with your bull shit either.What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.
Why wouldn't they? At least in the U.S. where we aren't feeling the affects of climate change quite as severely as other parts of the world. But, why wait?
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/66560/WP119_FINAL.pdf
According to the most recent IPCC report, changes in climates over the last 30 years
have already reduced global agricultural production in the range 1-5 % per decade
globally, with particularly negative effects for tropical cereal crops such as maize and
rice (Porter et al., 2014). In addition, there is now mounting evidence suggesting that
even at low (+2 ºC) levels of warming, agricultural productivity is likely to decline
across the globe, but particularly across tropical areas (Challinor et al., 2014). This
Working Paper provides an overview of projected climate change impacts on crop
production and suitability across Africa, using a combination of literature review,
models and new data analysis
I believe that's from 2013, we already know that crop productions are being threatened and have already been affected by climate change. But, you wouldn't bother to look into it anyway, so what is the point of having this debate with you when one of your boneheaded ideas is to bring the bible into it that you did in another post.
The first obvious problem with your claim is that agricultural production has increased by leaps and bounds in the last several decades. India can now feed itself, and that wasn't true 20 years ago. Starvation has been drastically reduced. It only occurs now because of civil war or a communist dictatorship.
Warmer temperatures are good for agriculture. So are higher CO2 levels. I have no idea what these claims of reduced output are based on, but they aren't based on the actual levels of output.
Look at the following graphs and then explain how global warming is reducing agricultural output:
Somebody didn't read my link.
from your link:
"The team then compiled how much corn, wheat, rice and soybeans were grown in every country in 2008. They compared those figures with projections of how much of each crop could have been grown had global temperatures not risen since 1980."So it's based on bogus temperature data and "projections" (science fiction, in other words). Since when do warmer temperatures cause crop yields to go down?
Farmers are having record year crop productions, which doesn't fit with your bull shit either.What's the point of debating this anymore? The right does not accept the evidence.
Why wouldn't they? At least in the U.S. where we aren't feeling the affects of climate change quite as severely as other parts of the world. But, why wait?
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/66560/WP119_FINAL.pdf
According to the most recent IPCC report, changes in climates over the last 30 years
have already reduced global agricultural production in the range 1-5 % per decade
globally, with particularly negative effects for tropical cereal crops such as maize and
rice (Porter et al., 2014). In addition, there is now mounting evidence suggesting that
even at low (+2 ºC) levels of warming, agricultural productivity is likely to decline
across the globe, but particularly across tropical areas (Challinor et al., 2014). This
Working Paper provides an overview of projected climate change impacts on crop
production and suitability across Africa, using a combination of literature review,
models and new data analysis
I believe that's from 2013, we already know that crop productions are being threatened and have already been affected by climate change. But, you wouldn't bother to look into it anyway, so what is the point of having this debate with you when one of your boneheaded ideas is to bring the bible into it that you did in another post.
The first obvious problem with your claim is that agricultural production has increased by leaps and bounds in the last several decades. India can now feed itself, and that wasn't true 20 years ago. Starvation has been drastically reduced. It only occurs now because of civil war or a communist dictatorship.
Warmer temperatures are good for agriculture. So are higher CO2 levels. I have no idea what these claims of reduced output are based on, but they aren't based on the actual levels of output.
Look at the following graphs and then explain how global warming is reducing agricultural output:
Somebody didn't read my link.
Your link is bullshit. You obviously can't read a graph that shows world crop production increases year after year after year.
and that made the entire planet dangerous. adding 1.6 degrees F to our temperatures is like a frkn hydrogen bomb going off!!!!!!The Summer of 2015 was one of the nicest Summers the NYC area had in some time.
Mild temps and low humidity through out most of the Summer.....Nice!
from your link:
"The team then compiled how much corn, wheat, rice and soybeans were grown in every country in 2008. They compared those figures with projections of how much of each crop could have been grown had global temperatures not risen since 1980."So it's based on bogus temperature data and "projections" (science fiction, in other words). Since when do warmer temperatures cause crop yields to go down?
Why is it bogus?
Farmers are having record year crop productions, which doesn't fit with your bull shit either.
Why wouldn't they? At least in the U.S. where we aren't feeling the affects of climate change quite as severely as other parts of the world. But, why wait?
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/66560/WP119_FINAL.pdf
According to the most recent IPCC report, changes in climates over the last 30 years
have already reduced global agricultural production in the range 1-5 % per decade
globally, with particularly negative effects for tropical cereal crops such as maize and
rice (Porter et al., 2014). In addition, there is now mounting evidence suggesting that
even at low (+2 ºC) levels of warming, agricultural productivity is likely to decline
across the globe, but particularly across tropical areas (Challinor et al., 2014). This
Working Paper provides an overview of projected climate change impacts on crop
production and suitability across Africa, using a combination of literature review,
models and new data analysis
I believe that's from 2013, we already know that crop productions are being threatened and have already been affected by climate change. But, you wouldn't bother to look into it anyway, so what is the point of having this debate with you when one of your boneheaded ideas is to bring the bible into it that you did in another post.
The first obvious problem with your claim is that agricultural production has increased by leaps and bounds in the last several decades. India can now feed itself, and that wasn't true 20 years ago. Starvation has been drastically reduced. It only occurs now because of civil war or a communist dictatorship.
Warmer temperatures are good for agriculture. So are higher CO2 levels. I have no idea what these claims of reduced output are based on, but they aren't based on the actual levels of output.
Look at the following graphs and then explain how global warming is reducing agricultural output:
Somebody didn't read my link.
Your link is bullshit. You obviously can't read a graph that shows world crop production increases year after year after year.
This was already explained to you.
100 bushel wheat, 25 ton sugarbeets, 350-400 sack potatoes. 30 sack beans.
from your link:
"The team then compiled how much corn, wheat, rice and soybeans were grown in every country in 2008. They compared those figures with projections of how much of each crop could have been grown had global temperatures not risen since 1980."So it's based on bogus temperature data and "projections" (science fiction, in other words). Since when do warmer temperatures cause crop yields to go down?
Why is it bogus?
There is no empirical data to support the claims. It's all based on "projections" of dubious credibility. First off, the temperature records have been shown to be less than accurate or credible. Second, they are only looking at selected countries. When you look at total crop production, what do you see? You see steady increases year-by-year.
Why wouldn't they? At least in the U.S. where we aren't feeling the affects of climate change quite as severely as other parts of the world. But, why wait?
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/66560/WP119_FINAL.pdf
According to the most recent IPCC report, changes in climates over the last 30 years
have already reduced global agricultural production in the range 1-5 % per decade
globally, with particularly negative effects for tropical cereal crops such as maize and
rice (Porter et al., 2014). In addition, there is now mounting evidence suggesting that
even at low (+2 ºC) levels of warming, agricultural productivity is likely to decline
across the globe, but particularly across tropical areas (Challinor et al., 2014). This
Working Paper provides an overview of projected climate change impacts on crop
production and suitability across Africa, using a combination of literature review,
models and new data analysis
I believe that's from 2013, we already know that crop productions are being threatened and have already been affected by climate change. But, you wouldn't bother to look into it anyway, so what is the point of having this debate with you when one of your boneheaded ideas is to bring the bible into it that you did in another post.
The first obvious problem with your claim is that agricultural production has increased by leaps and bounds in the last several decades. India can now feed itself, and that wasn't true 20 years ago. Starvation has been drastically reduced. It only occurs now because of civil war or a communist dictatorship.
Warmer temperatures are good for agriculture. So are higher CO2 levels. I have no idea what these claims of reduced output are based on, but they aren't based on the actual levels of output.
Look at the following graphs and then explain how global warming is reducing agricultural output:
Somebody didn't read my link.
Your link is bullshit. You obviously can't read a graph that shows world crop production increases year after year after year.
This was already explained to you.
What part of my graph didn't you understand? Where is the evidence of reduced crop production in those graphs?
from your link:
"The team then compiled how much corn, wheat, rice and soybeans were grown in every country in 2008. They compared those figures with projections of how much of each crop could have been grown had global temperatures not risen since 1980."So it's based on bogus temperature data and "projections" (science fiction, in other words). Since when do warmer temperatures cause crop yields to go down?
Why is it bogus?
There is no empirical data to support the claims. It's all based on "projections" of dubious credibility. First off, the temperature records have been shown to be less than accurate or credible. Second, they are only looking at selected countries. When you look at total crop production, what do you see? You see steady increases year-by-year.
Nobody said there weren't increases in crop production. You're really missing the point
