Did I find a Global Warming Lie?

>>Did I find a Global Warming Lie?<<

No.

Edit: Let me help out a bit more...

>>Or, did we magically find the exact right temperature to grow crops at the exact time the internet gained prominence in the mid 1990s? Wow, what a coincidence....<<

I think you're confused. Humans *moved* to where the climate was best suited for growing crops. If the climate of the whole planet changes (warmer or cooler), the places best suited for growing crops will *move*, not expand... Most likely, the arable lands will shrink as they shift.

You also have to consider that right now, growing crops is very water dependent and fresh water supplies are a limited resource. Anything that creates a greater demand for water is not a good thing.

_

What a pointless article. I can think of a thousand reasons why the detonation of nuclear weapons would be bad. I don't need a NASA climate model to tell me that. National Geographic used to be a favorite of mine. It has turned into a rag. Probably reflective of who runs and I don't know and don't really care.

And I think I do get the point of your question. I can't come to call it a lie. It just seems that for climate both for a warmer and cooler trend can have a variety of effects and since there are no absolutes, Anybody can give at least some likelyhood of something bad (or good) happening either way. And while it seem counter-intuitive, I suppose one could attribute a factor that could happen for either type of trend. with the number of variables, you could just come up with different reasons and perhaps different effects for different reasons. In other words, all tools are available to somebody who wants to blame something on the climate one way or the other. The reason this can go on is because is very difficult to actually disprove any such type of claim. Sure it can be argued but to shoot it down definitively is very unlikely. So he who shouts loudest and longest tends have an edge.

I suppose it just depends on what sort of message you want to send and how badly you want to send it and how much funding you have to back you up and how many friends you have in certain places to help you, etc.

No you did not find a lie. You apparently did not understand, what you read. The NG article explains what has long been accepted as a credible threat, the possibility of a nuclear winter following a massive nuclear war. That could cause a blanket of soot and very fine dust a hundred miles up that would prevent enough heat from the sun to have any summer. Which would reduce the production of food. Now the mistake is that green house gasses would allow heat from the sun to come through but prevent heat from escaping. Not true. But if it was there would be cooler summers and days, but warmer nights and winters. With a longer growing period in many places we could have two or more crops a year.

From what I got from your question, and the answers, you really were just looking for someone to moderately agree with you. While Jim Z is correct that climate changes from decade to decade, this period of heating has been elevated by what seems to be human activity.

Crops are not able to grow if the temperature is too cold or too hot. There needs to be water and if the temperature is too hot, the water will evaporate.

Also, I'm assuming the heat they are talking about is in the form of energy. I understand you are skeptical of global warming, but it is not just about the change of climate. There are so many other factors and evidence that can be seen.

No, that's authentic, and guy-made. That video is unquestionably common as a biased attitude. yet I do agree that we could beware for ulterior motives, as an occasion, great enterprise leaping onto the 'biodiesel' bandwagon. Many hundreds of scientists international agree those conclusions. whether some hundred could be have been given to sign papers asserting otherwise, they are nonetheless a tiny minority of the experts worried. after all, what's to lose via taking a proactive suggestions-set? If the worriers are incorrect, our offspring nonetheless get to stay in a miles less polluted and extra useful international. If the subject is authentic, the substitute would be catastrophically speedier than maximum existence can adapt to. appearing now must be able to stay away from our toddlers/grandchildren dying in plenty after a grim existence of conflict, squalor and famine.

In the past, the Earth has supported more life when it was warmer, since the longer the growing season and the more sunshine, the more plants can produce to provide food for animals.

Look, if you're not willing to go a BIT further in learning about our climate, it's not worth it. Of course there's an optimal temperature, and of course if it get's too cold, it's not good, and if it get's too hot, it's not good.

You DON'T just need more heat to grow more crops, it doesn't matter what your common sense says to you.

Your last sentence shows you're really not convinced at all and just searching for anything to counter the 'global warming lie'. Let me tell you - it's not a lie, it's real, and consequences have already begun. There's enough scientific evidence for that. And don't tell me anything about a conspiracy involving nearly all scientists who deal with the climate and the planet's atmosphere, because that's just ridiculous.

Ok, now - if I've been too aggressive, I'm sorry. I don't want to attack you, I just grow so very tired of hearing about the 'global warming lie' sometimes.

Edit: Well, you obviously suck at asking a question.

"According to the common theory and that from the Nat Geo article, the Earth will not be able to grow as many crops if it cools for a few months... Right? BUT From the common AGW theory, the world will not be able to grow as many crops if the Earth warms."

Yes - well? It's both right, as I already said. It's not a contradiction, both statements are perfectly clear - WHAT are you on about? Of course the plants we're growing are at their optimal temperature now - otherwise we wouldn't be growing them, would we? Think logical yourself, young man.

The global warming / climate change has been a giant hoax on the (only) American people. Do you think that Chia changed their light bulbs? Climate changes are caused primarily by the sun's activity. We couldn't change the climate if we wanted to. Huge storms on the sun create more heat in various parts of the world and cold is the absence of normal sun heat. The earth's rotation and distance from the sun is also a contributer. Volcanos are the principal source of air polution. Earthquakes can change miles of furtile or desolate land. We can't do anything about any of those so take advantage of the good weather and put up with the bad.

So, you're trying to say that if cold climates are unsuitable for growing crops, hot climates must be suitable. That's tantamount to saying that it's ok to put your can of pop into the oven because it will explode if you put it in the freezer.

Think about it - if you identify one extreme, does that *really* mean that the other one doesn't exist? Saying something will be damaged if it becomes too cold is in no way contradicting a statement that it will also be damaged if it becomes too hot.

>>>Its interesting that I now have 3 comments and not one understood what I was asking. Very good guys.

Unless you'd like to clarify for us, am I mistaken in thinking that your point was that a warmer climate will lead to increased crop growth? Or, perhaps your point is that "colder climates ruin agricultural output" and "hotter climates ruin agricultural output" are contradictions.

In the first case, you're right up to a certain point. There is a range in which agriculture is sustainable and theoretically more or less an ideal temperature. These studies support that notion that warming might be beneficial to some agriculture, at least in the short term:

http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~vecy/LitSurvey/Mendels...

http://www.wwf.dk/dk/Service/Bibliotek/Natur+i+Gr%...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-...

BUT, there are other adverse effects on agriculture that arise due to warmer climates as well.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/08127...

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/27/9971.full.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/940.ful...

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/37/14724.full.pdf

It is likely that future warming will have more adverse effects on agriculture than beneficial, such as due to changes in precipitation patterns.

In the second case, I think I already explained that the two statements are not contradictory. Would you like other analogies? Can't live on Pluto or in a volcano. Can't put a computer through liquid nitrogen or fire. Can't remove all the water from your body, or drink your heart out. There is a range of tolerance for every system.

If you wanted to ask which would have a larger, more harmful impact, I would have to first ask you what sort of temperature increase in either direction we'd be expecting. Other factors would have to be taken into account too, such as potential ocean acidification, though my guess would be that focusing only on temperature, a colder climate would be the most drastic. I don't know of any studies that compare the two.

Careful how much water you drink though.

Edit: Sorry, didn't see you new post.

The two are not opposites, are not contradictory. One points out that if temperatures fall too low, then crop yield will fall, and the other points out that if temperatures rise too high, crop yield will still fall. Think of being at the top of a hill - you go foreword, you go down, and if you go backwards, you go down. Applying that concept, there are strong indications that we're at the top of the climatic "hill," perhaps slightly off a bit, but that does not change the fact that if you go too far in either direction, you're going to go down.

>>>Those who pretend that plants are evolved for a very narrow temperature range and ignorant IMO.

Nobody is pretending jim. I'm actually citing sources (see those blue words?).

What, too, of: the crop die offs that often occur because of these swings? the manipulation of the growing process of plants outside of natural evolutionary means?

Would you care to cite any sources jim, or are you just going to keep resorting to your favorite "religious" cop-out?

Did you find a lie?

I don't know. A lie is something that is purposefully fabricated.

These people, as well as nearly all the previous answers, may simply be ignorant.

Plants, particularly those in temperate N. America will nearly always do worse in colder rather than warmer climates. Those who pretend that plants are evolved for a very narrow temperature range and ignorant IMO. They are so eager to beleive AGW no matter what, they foresake the commonsense that most 3rd graders have and suggest warming is necessarily a bad thing.

It is evidence that alarmists are not rational and are in fact AGW religious fanatics. It is either that or they are ignorant of basic biology.

In fact, climates vary significantly year to year and decade to decade and plants and animals are adapted to this natural variation. Why such simple concepts are beyond alarmists is a mystery to me.