There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[Phil1111 910]

14 minutes ago, DJL said:

Because you can only find these "global food production increases outweighs downsides of global warming" narratives almost exclusively in the denier new media and it's very much agenda driven.  Then you attempt to muddy the water by misrepresenting the very point that the article you posted is making that the US and the Midwest took steps to prevent dust bowls which is why we're better situated and in the future may use high tech soil monitoring and robotic soil sampling.

That article made no claim that we should now be in the midst of a dust bowl.

Climate change is already affecting global food production -- unequally

The world's top 10 crops -- barley, cassava, maize, oil palm, rapeseed, rice, sorghum, soybean, sugarcane and wheat -- supply a combined 83 percent of all calories produced on cropland. Yields have long been projected to decrease in future climate conditions. Now, new research shows climate change has already affected production of these key energy sources -- and some regions and countries are faring far worse than others.

Anti-science propagandists like to cherry pick certain narrow slices of information. Long term and broad study data sets. Results in the statistical accuracy to defeat pseudo-science from the sources some deniers like to follow.

[brenthutch 383]

“For example, scientists completed extreme event attribution studies after Hurricane Harvey soaked Texas in 2017 with record-breaking rains of more than 60 inches in some places. They concluded that global warming worsened the flooding and made a Harvey-sized storm at least three times more likely.”

Its called HARKing, and is junk science.

[DJL 232]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Its called HARKing, and is junk science.

Great, now every time someone shows you an actual case of the effects of global warming you're going to say it's HARKing?

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Climate change is already affecting global food production -- unequally

The world's top 10 crops -- barley, cassava, maize, oil palm, rapeseed, rice, sorghum, soybean, sugarcane and wheat -- supply a combined 83 percent of all calories produced on cropland. Yields have long been projected to decrease 

Yet they increase, globally, year after year.

Edited March 10, 2020 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 383]

38 minutes ago, DJL said:

Great, now every time someone shows you an actual case of the effects of global warming you're going to say it's HARKing?

The original hypothesis was that we would have stronger hurricanes and more of them. That hasn’t happened, they did NOT predict slower moving storms until after it happened.  just like the Polar Vortex, So, yes that is HARKing, and is junk science.

Edited March 10, 2020 by brenthutch

[DJL 232]

36 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The original hypothesis was that we would have stronger hurricanes and more of them. That hasn’t happened, they did NOT predict slower moving storms until after it happened.  So, yes that is HARKing, and is junk science.

What's specifically are they "HARKing"?  What you're saying is their record of observations.  They seem to be very clear that they learned things from this.

Edited March 10, 2020 by DJL

[brenthutch 383]

Harvey caused extensive flooding because it got stuck between two high pressure systems and stalled, it had nothing to do with climate change.  
 

“Hurricanes are circular structures with winds that spiral counterclockwise, but they are steered by larger wind patterns in the greater atmosphere that push them in one direction. In Harvey’s case, a big high-pressure system over the southeastern U.S. is trying to push the storm in one direction, but a big high pressure system over the southwestern U.S. is trying to push the storm in the opposite direction. “The systems have equal strength and are cancelling each other out,” leaving Harvey stranded, Masters says. “It’s highly unusual to have two highs on either side of a hurricane of equal strength.” The only other time Masters recalls that happening to a huge storm system was Hurricane Mitch in 1998, which struck Central America”

Edited March 10, 2020 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,398]

2 hours ago, DJL said:

Great, now every time someone shows you an actual case of the effects of global warming you're going to say it's HARKing?

It's a clever approach.

2004: The AGW theory is WRONG.  The only problem with global warming is - get this - it's NOT GETTING WARMER!  Warming stopped in 1998.  There aren't going to be any disasters like they say in their theory.

2020: Well of course there were disasters, but they are wrong.  That's because they are creating hypotheses about the disasters after the results are known!  No one doubts it is warming, but no one can take an AGW theory seriously that they made up, like, yesterday.

[Phil1111 910]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Yet they increase, globally, year after year.

Because you cherry pick data at the expense of the facts on global warming. Cereal crops are primarily grown in the extremes of latitude. Cereal crops are slightly over 1/2 of total caloric intake for people overall.

BUT from your own source:"The effects of changes in climate on crop yields are likely to vary greatly from region to region across the globe. The results of the scenarios tested in this study indicate that the effects on crop yields in mid- and high-latitude regions appear to be positive or less adverse than those in low-latitude regions, provided the potentially beneficial direct physiological effects of CO2 on crop growth can be fully realized...

In all climate change scenarios, relative productivity of agriculture changes in favour of developed countries, with implications on resource allocation ... As a result, net imports of cereals into developing countries increase in all scenarios, on the order of 20 to 50% compared to trade in the reference scenario. ... The largest negative changes would occur in developing countries, averaging around -10%. This loss of production in developing countries, together with rising agricultural prices, is likely to increase the number of people at risk of hunger, in the order of 5 to 15 % in the less severe climate scenarios, and ~50% in the UKMO based projections ... Although some countries in the temperate zone may reap some benefits from climate change, many countries in the tropical and subtropical zones appear to be more vulnerable. Particular hazards are the possibly increased flooding of low-lying areas, the increased frequency and severity of droughts in semi-arid areas, and potential decreases in attainable crop yields. It happens that the latter countries tend to be the poorest and the least able to make the necessary economic adjustments. "

[wmw999 2,121]

You have far more patience than I do 

Wendy P. 

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Because you cherry pick data at the expense of the facts on global warming. Cereal crops are primarily grown in the extremes of latitude. Cereal crops are slightly over 1/2 of total caloric intake for people overall.

BUT from your own source:"The effects of changes in climate on crop yields are likely to vary greatly from region to region across the globe. The results of the scenarios tested in this study indicate that the effects on crop yields in mid- and high-latitude regions appear to be positive or less adverse than those in low-latitude regions, provided the potentially beneficial direct physiological effects of CO2 on crop growth can be fully realized...

In all climate change scenarios, relative productivity of agriculture changes in favour of developed countries, with implications on resource allocation ... As a result, net imports of cereals into developing countries increase in all scenarios, on the order of 20 to 50% compared to trade in the reference scenario. ... The largest negative changes would occur in developing countries, averaging around -10%. This loss of production in developing countries, together with rising agricultural prices, is likely to increase the number of people at risk of hunger, in the order of 5 to 15 % in the less severe climate scenarios, and ~50% in the UKMO based projections ... Although some countries in the temperate zone may reap some benefits from climate change, many countries in the tropical and subtropical zones appear to be more vulnerable. Particular hazards are the possibly increased flooding of low-lying areas, the increased frequency and severity of droughts in semi-arid areas, and potential decreases in attainable crop yields. It happens that the latter countries tend to be the poorest and the least able to make the necessary economic adjustments. "

You speak in terms of “might” “may” “could” “projected” "likely", I am talking about what is actually happening.  India, which is hardly in the temperate zone is reporting record production 

https://www.ibef.org/industry/agriculture-india.aspx

Edited March 10, 2020 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,299]

19 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You speak in terms of “might” “may” “could” “projected”, I am talking about what is actually happening.  India, which is hardly in the temperate zone is reporting record production 

https://www.ibef.org/industry/agriculture-india.aspx

I appreciate your efforts as ever, and I won't speak for others, but they may be wasted on me because I don't think I could be any more baffled. Besides, shouldn't you be out looking for a job? Or did you pony up to buy Skydive Cash Cow?

[brenthutch 383]

The owner is testing the market for about 2X what it is worth.  

Edited March 10, 2020 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,122]

56 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The owner is testing the market for about 2X what it is worth.  

Fine corporate speak. I deal with this language daily. What you are saying is that you cannot afford it.

[brenthutch 383]

Not at 2X actual value
five tandem rigs (I know it says four but he doesn’t know) three student rigs and two Cessnas?  What would you pay?

[gowlerk 1,911]

33 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Not at 2X actual value
five tandem rigs (I know it says four but he doesn’t know) three student rigs and two Cessnas?  What would you pay?

I agree, a DZ is worth only what you can sell it's hard assets for.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Not at 2X actual value
five tandem rigs (I know it says four but he doesn’t know) three student rigs and two Cessnas?  What would you pay?

Zip. That's not a a business, that's a hobby. Moreover it's a federally funded public airport. $100K later and you have all of that crap and a new business next door. Tell him to suck it and offer half.

[gowlerk 1,911]

12 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

That's not a a business, that's a hobby.

About the same size as the hobby DZ I have a share in. Our assets are probably worth 200K Canadian. Which is $150K USD.

[BIGUN 1,053]

11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Not at 2X actual value
five tandem rigs (I know it says four but he doesn’t know) three student rigs and two Cessnas?  What would you pay?

Safe to assume s/he's using a revenue method to sell the business rather than a profit multiplier?

[Phil1111 910]

French ski resort goes bust as climate change threatens European ski industry

"Only high-altitude resorts above 1,500 metres can still rely on getting enough snow for skiing, compared with 1,200 metres in 1960... An average of two to three French resorts are being driven out of business every year, with many operators struggling to adapt to increasingly mild winters."

    Climate change is taking a toll on the $20 billion winter sports industry — and swanky ski homes could lose value    

"The amount of snow in the western United States has seen an average drop of 41 percent since the early 1980s, according to research just published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

As a result, the snow season shrunk by 34 days.

Home values in mountain towns like Vail and Aspen are some of the highest in the nation, and those values are at risk. By 2050, home values near ski resorts could drop by at least 15 percent due to warmer winters, according to a study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin. At lower elevation ski areas, such as in Utah, Idaho, Nevada and parts of California, they could fall as much as 55 percent. "

[DJL 232]

50 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

French ski resort goes bust as climate change threatens European ski industry

"Only high-altitude resorts above 1,500 metres can still rely on getting enough snow for skiing, compared with 1,200 metres in 1960... An average of two to three French resorts are being driven out of business every year, with many operators struggling to adapt to increasingly mild winters."

As I understand it it's HARKing to hypothesize that they're going out of business after they already know they're not making any money.

50 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

    Climate change is taking a toll on the $20 billion winter sports industry — and swanky ski homes could lose value    

"The amount of snow in the western United States has seen an average drop of 41 percent since the early 1980s, according to research just published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

As a result, the snow season shrunk by 34 days.

Home values in mountain towns like Vail and Aspen are some of the highest in the nation, and those values are at risk. By 2050, home values near ski resorts could drop by at least 15 percent due to warmer winters, according to a study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin. At lower elevation ski areas, such as in Utah, Idaho, Nevada and parts of California, they could fall as much as 55 percent. "

So what you're saying is that the golf and mountain bike sectors will see growth.  I don't know why mountain greening is an issue.

 

Ok, got all my snark in before 11AM EST today.

Edited March 11, 2020 by DJL

[turtlespeed 212]

On 3/10/2020 at 2:19 PM, brenthutch said:

The original hypothesis was that we would have stronger hurricanes and more of them.

Question:  How would you have explained it away if there was an increase?

Or would you have believed them after that?

 

[brenthutch 383]

Of course I would have.  It is very simple really, one has a theory, one makes projections/predictions based on that theory and then it is compared to observation.  If it doesn't agree with observation, it is WRONG. (to paraphrase RF)  AGW theory predicted: more and stronger hurricanes, more tornadoes, growing deserts, less food, and fewer polar bears.  What we got was: no change in hurricanes, FEWER tornadoes, SHRINKING deserts, MORE food and MORE polar bears. Instead of going back to the drawing board and learning from their mistakes, instead they change their predictions AFTER a particular event occured (polar vortex, and slower hurricanes to give a few examples)  

[JoeWeber 2,299]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

If it doesn't agree with observation, it is WRONG.

That works if you think your wife is fucking around but other things have less precise time frames.

[billvon 2,398]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Of course I would have.  It is very simple really, one has a theory, one makes projections/predictions based on that theory and then it is compared to observation.  If it doesn't agree with observation, it is WRONG. 

Exactly.  For example, if you ever see a paraglider gain altitude, gravity is WRONG.