Early winter weather puts U.S. safe-haven corn planting in doubt

But but but

The ice in my cocktail has not melted yet so there can’t be any global warming!

 

Marble Bar hit 121 on 11 January 1905 and again on 3 January 1922.

 

The time zones have moved. We drove past a peach tree in bloom in someone's yard. This is January . The trees will get a frost and not produce peaches. Just south of us is peach country. If this becomes common a lot of money will be lost. People could blame the cold for the loss of peaches but the real problem is the warm winter causing the trees to break dormancy.

 

400 ppm is 0.04%. It is also 2e17 kg and provides a cross sectional density of 400 kg/m^2.

Which principals from molecular physics, quantum mechanics, and optics lead you to believe that 400 kg/m^2 is insignificant?

Which doom and gloom predictions are you talking about?

Predictions from the scientific consensus from 30 years ago have done quite well.

 

If 400 ppm is so dangerous, splain this to me Lucy. During the Ordovician period they were 10 to 15 times that high and yet we had glacial conditions.
"CO2 levels during the late Ordovician were thought to be much greater than 3000 ppm which was problematic as the Earth experienced glacial conditions at this time. The CO2 data covering the late Ordovician is sparse with one data point in the CO2 proxy record close to this period - it has a value of 5600 ppm."

 

That was 500 million years ago. During this time the Sun was only 95% of it's currently luminosity (Gough 1981). That is a radiative forcing relative to today of 0.05 * 340 W/m2 = -17 W/m2. The radiative forcing of CO2 at 5800 ppm vs 410 ppm is 5.35 * ln(5800/410) = +14 W/m2 (Arrhenius 1896). This is a net radiative forcing of -3 W/m2 relative to today. This amount of radiative forcing is similar to what caused glaciations over the last 1 million years since CO2 levels drop to about 180 ppm which represents 5.35 * ln(180/410) = -2.4 W/m2.

Also, my name isn't Lucy and I recommend you cut the the arrogant Dunning/Kruger act, take the plunge down the right side of Mount Stupid, learn something, and stop pretending like you're so much smarter than all of the worlds leading experts.

Oh, and I'll pose the same question to you...

Which principals from molecular physics, quantum mechanics, and optics lead you to believe that 400 kg/m^2 is insignificant?

and...

If CO2 was so insignificant then how was the Earth able to get much warmer than it is today with the Sun being 5% dimmer?

 

Lucy why did you duck the question? How is forcing jobs away from a country with strong emission standards (America) and to countries with no emission standards (China and India) going to help? When you do it, throw in a bunch of irrelevant equations so you can pretend to be intelligent.

 

You asked how high CO2 levels could still lead to glaciations 500 million years ago. I gave you the answer that the scientific consensus provides. I'll repeat my questions to you for a 2nd time.

Which principals from molecular physics, quantum mechanics, and optics lead you to believe that 400 kg/m^2 is insignificant?

and...

If CO2 was so insignificant then how was the Earth able to get much warmer than it is today with the Sun being 5% dimmer?

It won't.

Do I need to remind you that it was you that made the initial engagement in a debate about the science of climate change in post #280? Regardless my questions are spot on relevant to the science of how CO2 participates in modulating the climate. I'll ignore the fact that a discussion of jobs and how it relates to emissions while being a worthy line of discourse isn't very relevant to the science of CO2 and how it causing warming...for now.

 

It won't.

If it won't help, why should we do it?

 

We shouldn't. Exporting CO2 emissions isn't a solution.

That's moot to the issue of your denial of the science that definitively says the Earth is going to experience a positive radiative forcing due to anthroprogenic release of carbon into the atmosphere.

I'll repeat my questions to you for a 3rd time.

Which principals from molecular physics, quantum mechanics, and optics lead you to believe that 400 kg/m^2 is insignificant?

and...

If CO2 was so insignificant then how was the Earth able to get much warmer than it is today with the Sun being 5% dimmer?

 

It don't bother me. It is the latest fad for you global alarmist. First, global freezing, next global warming, now climate change. It doesn't take an Einstein to see you people don't have a clue. You jump from one doomsday scenario to the next. I don't buy into your fears. However, if you think man made CO2 is a problem, only one thing will lessen it. That is less men. I would expect someone as worried as you to take steps to alleviate that. Get all your buds together and quit breathing. We'll dedicate a coal burning pyre to you for saving the earth.

 

If it happens in January, most likely, it will get really cold again, it will bloom again as if nothing had happened. There is usually more than one shot. I've seen it lots of times. Say you move from zone 7 to 8, it would happen more often, so like I used to live in 7, now it is 8, but we used to live in 7 and moved to 8, it happened more often, 8 is kind of big. Now if zone 8 becomes zone 9, those trees my aunt gave us will not only bloom but produce fruit, but peaches meant for a cooler zone that need the cold, no. I live in around 9, but I live on the coast so it gets colder, but if it keeps going we may be in 10; coconuts, I would like a coconut.

 

I'm sorry, but this isn't correct either. Global cooling is an idea born out of denial and is the largely the result of a single person...Reid Bryson. Scientists never thought global cooling was a near term future pathway for Earth. In fact, while Reid Bryson was busy promoting pseudoscience real scientists were already shifting gears from the cause of the warming to the effects that it would have in the climate system.

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

There are other options. We could expedite the transition from a fossil fuel based economic development model to one that uses other energy sources. Even if you think this morally objectionable it's going to happen whether you like it or not because fossil fuels are a finite resource that will run out. We could also scrub CO2 from the atmosphere.

I have no interest in reducing the number of people. Just remember...this was your idea so don't turn around and try to pin YOUR draconian ideas on me.

Besides, I actually want to increase Earth's carrying capacity for humans; not decrease it. But a decrease will be the result if humanity doesn't address the problem.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for answer to my questions.

 

The Red China Communists are buying American soybeans again because they do not wish to starve.

Unlike Mao, Xi has to deal with a middle class. Starving middle class people is not an option, and so Xi must buy soy.

The Washington Examiner reported, "China has agreed to resume purchases of U.S. soybeans following talks Thursday between President Trump and Beijing's top trade negotiator, Vice Premier Liu He. It will start off by purchasing 5 million metric tons."

Remember when the Fake News Boys were telling us last year that American farmers were badly hurt by Red China's retaliatory tariffs in this trade war?

The Washington Post sniggered on April 5, 2018, "They voted for Donald Trump. Now soybean farmers could get slammed by the trade war he started."

Lies. Always with the lies.

 

Very few scientists say it is getting dangerous. There are only a few media darlings saying that. Whether current warming is bad or good is all over the place for actual scientists. You may be watching too much TV.