In fact I am allergic to grass pollen which is extremely common with people with allergies. Obviously grass and wheat are extremely closely related and I am allergic to wheat as well which means I am allergic to everything good in the world. I can certainly testify in an anecdotal way that the allergens seem to be getting worse or at least I can say that grasses are thriving. I think wheat is doing just fine. There are oceans of it in N. America.
In my yard, weeds grow like weeds and the plants I want to grow like weeds can barely keep up. I guess global warming is causing the weeds in my yard as well. Maybe that will come out in the next study.
What does you question have to do with the fact that global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
And which line of your code says, "When all else fails, make an ad hom against Michael Mann"?
Oh! Yeah! That is part of the denialist code.
Yeah, it sucks when the science is against you. The problem is that the cereal grains don't pollinate well as temperature increases.
http://www.gettingmoreontheground.com/20...
But that this doesn't affect ragweed so much (it's not a grass, it's related to sunflowers). Ragweed pollen season is more related to the number of frost-free days, and if you delay the first frost them you get more ragweed pollen:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science...
But you know, because the science shows that bad things are happening only demonstrates it must be a conspiracy and everyone is in on it right? I mean, because that paper demonstrated that people like you are prone to conspiracy ideation means that everything has to be a conspiracy.
Sometime, you should explain what it's like to be you, reading facts and then instantly assuming nefarious intent. How do you go about your job? Do you go over an earnings report, or look at a maintenance manual, or whatever, and instantly assume that the people who produced it are lying to you?
edit: Well, you're right. There's nothing in there precluding someone from being a paranoid delusional nutcase so Jim and you should be fine on that one. And there's a lot of stuff about fidelity to clients, so as long as people are paying you to lie you can at least claim you adhering to the code of ethics. But back to my question, why don't you ever think about these things for yourself? Triton got it completely correct, grains don't pollinate when it's warm because the female parts of the plant dry out, but the male part still produces pollen, so if the pollen season is longer but temperatures are going up, it's completely consistent that productivity goes down *and* it's worse for people with hay fever. Why does this have to be an example of malfeasance when really it only shows a simple fact about plant biology, one that you should have been able to figure out for yourself without resorting to conspiracy accusations? Do you even care anymore that you are a posting example of what Lewandowsky claims you are? Or are you too far gone for that? You reject anything I say because you don't like me, but I'm right, you're not, and that feeling you have that is making you angry is the part of your brain that is still objective is trying to tell you that you're backing the wrong side on this. Unless someone is paying you to post this drivel, in which case you should ask yourself "Would I show the questions I ask to my clients as an example of my analytical skills and reasoning?" An engineer so incompetent as to not be able to answer these questions for himself without resorting to the accusations you make wouldn't be worth much, in my opinion.
For corn, heat stress doesn't affect the emission of pollen, but it does dry out and delay the silks that the plant uses to collect the pollen and create the kernels.
So yes, it's a double edged sword. You still get the allergen, but it hurts the edible part of the crop.
Overall, the "climate" impact on C3 crops (wheat, rice, barley...) has been balanced by the fertilization of the crops by the increase of CO2.
Is there an actual honest question buried somewhere inside this 1888th deceit-based anti-science rant from you? And if gcnp hasn't correctly uncovered and answered what amounts to a dipstick stupid trick of a fake question, what the heck is the question? Speaking of "belly laughs," you doing something "professional" is almost as hilarious as an abiotic oil nutcase pretending to be a scientist.
I stopped believing in main stream media a long time ago, after a 40 min interview by the BBC in Iraq, they showed 15 seconds worth of the only sensational words I'd uttered and totally out of context.
Exactly why I find it so hard to beleive anyhting they say...
"The drop in the productivity of crop plants around the world was not caused by changes in rainfall but was because higher temperatures can cause dehydration, prevent pollination and lead to slowed photosynthesis." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/05/food-prices-global-warming
"Researchers say global warming is leading to larger plants, earlier and more robust pollination and, as a result, worsening allergies." http://www.foxreno.com/news/news/science/how-global-warming-making-allergies-worse/nW3tz/
Okay, let me take a first crack at a hypothesis which explains this.
***Plants which are a nuisance to humans like those which aggravate allergies will see increased pollination and robust growth in a warming world while at the same time plants which are beneficial to humans like agricultural crops will see decreased pollination and slowed growth in a warming world.***
Have I just about captured the essence of the explanation?
