Now consider where the US breadbasket is located. Not in California. Not in Florida. It is in the middle states where the rains come at the right time to water the planted crops, so these lands have been worked over year after year after year. This is your richness. They do not irrigate their lands, they let the rains do it.
. A change in the climate such as an increase in temperature of just a few degrees is going to shift those clouds and they are going to rain elsewhere. Which means either smaller crop yeilds or no crops.
. I was on my uncle's farm. They were going through the forth year of drought conditions. Meaning under 25" a year. So crops are very few bushels per acre. We are talking thousands of acres.
. Right now we are not feeding the world population, so change the area where the farmer can plant and grow a crop and the soil has not been prepared for 100 years so even less crop. And there are cities and highways and parking lots in the way.
. Many things scientists can test, but doing it on a global scale has never been done and how do you fix it if you buggered it up? Just won't happen overnight. Maybe in a hundred years and maybe not. We cannot afford to be the guinea pigs in this experiment. We all will suffer for it. There is no uninhabited planet beside us that is as big as us and has water and air so we could try the experiment out on.
So we are taking a gamble. I can drive less, turn down the thermostat and whatever to help. No fuzz of my butt.
<3. The entire range of the negative scale goes down to -50% while the positive scale goes up to 100%. Thus, each red data block is a 10% change while each green data block is a 20% change creating a clear imbalance.>
That's because in parts of the world where food production could increase, it could double in some cases. But in other areas, it won't drop by more than half.
Although I find it hard to believe that food production will increase in that much of the world. The graph seems only be considering changes in temperature, and not precipitation.
They have a large bag of tricks to do these things. Putting temperatures on paleo charts and using a red color to put the emphasis there, while hiding what the proxies are doing underneath.
Michael Kelly 'I'm cutting off the last few points of the filtered curve (to keep people from seeing it trending down.)
Also, almost all of their no data places would be green. I'm surprised they didn't use black plague color instead. In this chart, that's not an insignificant area being switched from neutral to pink.
Here is the look if you make it yellow instead.
I find the whole article entertaining. This is not research. They have some academicians pondering what they think will happen in various locations if the temp rises more than it could possibly rise in that period of time. If some warmer wants to argue that the temps could really rise by 3 degrees celsius by 2050, then I have no hesistation in telling that person that they are an alarmist.
Just another case where they are taking and piece of crap, wrapping it in tinfoil and calling it a Hershey's kiss.
What entertains me about the peice is that the warmers are so easily fooled into think this garbage actually means something. "Ohhh, look at the map. See how much trouble we will be in derherp".
C,
Yeah, the droughts and the floods. The droughts and the floods that occurred in locations that have a history of having droughts and floods. Thoughout history farmers have complained about too much rain, not enough rain, and god forbid if they get the perfect amount of rain then the crop prices are too low. So I ask where is your statistical analysis accounting for multiplicity, where they show that these vents are even changing. What? Don't have any????
OK, lets play your games then. I had a cold winter so there is no global warming at all. If you know why my statement is wrong, then you should be able to figure out why yours is.
The only deception is the imaginary one you apply to everything science says.
Arguing about a relative scale is stupid; however, the fact that the “negative” area is greater in size than the “positive” area but represents only half as much total variance means that there should be greater resolution.
>>3. The entire range of the negative scale goes down to -50% while the positive scale goes up to 100%. Thus, each red data block is a 10% change while each green data block is a 20% change creating a clear imbalance.”
The graph does not create the imbalance. If you made everything either light pink or dark green, you would get the exact same imbalance – but, then, you would be biching about them doing it that way.
All that the graph shows is the approximate distribution of “better vs. worse.” You claim that it is trying to show something that it is not trying show – and then complain about “deception” because the graph does not accurately portray information that it does not portray – and does not claim to portray - at all.
Why are Deniers so confused about graphical representations of data? Graphs are not evidence – the data are the evidence. Graphs are just simple visual aids that present multidimensional relationships in a limited 2 (or maybe 3) -dimensional format. If you want to understand the evidence you need to examine the data. You cannot understand anything based only on pictures of things.
1.http://www.climateprediction.net/results...
http://zeenews.india.com/news/eco-news/t...
http://www.environmentcounts.org/blogpos...
Also, from the article that contains the graphic that you linked:
"Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, said the report was based on more than 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies. He said this document was "the most solid evidence you can get in any scientific discipline.". A cherry picked paragraph for me to quote, so I suggest that you read the entire article for yourself. Then, perhaps, you will not always seem to be so confused?
2. You are merely providing us with your observation here. Image source - http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environm... - What is your question?
3. I would like to see the text associated with the WRI (World Resources Institute - the source for the graphic being used here) graphic so that I could give a better answer to the scale being used with it. My guess is that the models showed changes within the parameters of the scale and therefore there was no reason the extend the scale further out in either direction. In other words, the models did not indicate a -75% or a -100% change in any region where the data was available while some regions were shown with a 100% change. No mystery here, Ottawa Mike. Why have your scale include a -100% change when there would be no exposures for such on the graphic?
"Why not just present clear, accurate data..." - I will guess that are still whining about the graphic? Presenting clear and accurate data would be impossible to do before the fact. What is depicted in the graphic is a possible scenario that is based on a possible 3C of warming by 2050.
"...instead of contrived graphs..." - Please expand on this thought for us. Surely you must have some sound, scientific data to support the idea that this is just a contrived graphic and for the "...(likely) designed to increase alarm?" purpose? The simple act of bringing to our attention the possible, if not very likely, scenario of a 3C warming by 2050 does not qualify as alarmist. The data itself may be alarming, but this does not make the messenger an alarmist. Take the messages that you bring to us, Ottawa Mike. You constantly bring us claims that would result in everything we know about The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics to be completely wrong. While it is alarming that we would know nothing at all about such things, I would not call you an alarmist for this message to our attention.
They seem to release the bogeyman of 3 degrees c with loads of pseudoscience to back up the original fiction. They are careful not to cry "proof" but use the term "Testament to" global warming. The truth does not need these simplistic deceptions. It is time to privatise the bbc and stop the public funding of their own deception.
The 3 degree rise by 2050 is NOT from the IPCC, but some group named CARA- The Consortium of Atlantic Research Associates.
The IPCC projection is 0.4-0.7 C total increase by 2050 (IPCC AR5 Fig 11.25a)
You can find a model to say whatever you are looking for. That's easy part. Of course, one must keep in mind that models don't mean Jack Squat. According to the models, the temperature will rise somewhere between 1 and 8 C by the end of the century. In other words, anything is possible.
The only deception here is attributing the 3 degree rise to the IPCC.
Yes, it's so hard to find objective sources like John Coleman, "Lord" Monckton, Burt Rutan and Fox News.
I wonder if you even considered that there is a fundamental asymmetry in the different directions? You can only go down to zero, but you can go all the way to infinity in the positive direction.
By the way, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't choose their scales at all--virtually all plotting programs will choose an appropriate scale algorithmically.--perhaps they left the scale exactly where the program set them.
I am really depressed is there nowhere in this world of ours where we we can get true unbiased news and reporting, the BBC is supposed to be neutral, paid by license fees not advertising, but I know from personal experience having been interviewed by them in Saddam Husain Airport, they spent 40 minutes talking to me, and televised 20 secs of sensationalism, totally out of context to what I said.
My alarmist target for this question is the BBC. This is the article in question: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26824943
They support their text regarding crops with this figure: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73873000/jpg/_73873759_warmer-world_v2.jpg
Regardless of whether the data is accurate or not, let's look at this figure from a presentation point of view:
1. The data is given for a scenario of +3C temperature change in the next 36 years. Where in scientific literature has this been predicted?
2. The scale includes 11 different data points. The middle one appears as light pink giving six blocks a red hue and only five a green one.
3. The entire range of the negative scale goes down to -50% while the positive scale goes up to 100%. Thus, each red data block is a 10% change while each green data block is a 20% change creating a clear imbalance.
Why not just present clear, accurate data instead of contrived graphs (likely) designed to increase alarm?
Can it be any more clear that the BBC is not an objective media source at least when it comes to climate change reporting?
Its a bogus news story with bogus predictions .
They have no idea the climate in 2050 0r 2030 .
Its a bluff to scare the alarmist .
Man-made Global Warming is deception, it's propaganda. There are no facts that support it. Without deception the Alarmists have nothing.
That's why they need to be deceptive.
-----------------------
Since you won't do your homework, I'll do it for you. The answer is complicated, and I'm not sure why I bother because you won't understand it. The key is in the actual WRI caption in the figure, which reads "estimated crop yields in 2050 for a 3 C warmer world." Digging into the sources for the figure you find they are two reports from the FAO. Now the FAO reports specifically do not include the effects of global warming on crop yields, but the Bruinsma report does take into account water stress. The WRI crop yield figure is almost always shown in concert with their water stress figure, which shows how different areas of the planet will be affected in 2050 by water limits assuming the planet warms following IPCC Scenario A1B. The 2100 warming for A1B is around 3 C, so the figure caption is a little confusing since it is giving the total estimated warming by 2100 (following A1B). What WRI has done is combine their water stress results with the crop yield information from FAO to come up with the projected crop yield figure, which shows what will happen by 2050 assuming the planet is on track to warm 3 C by 2100 as predicted by A1B. There's no real problem with the figure except that it's a) speculative, b) based on an assumed relationship between water stress and crop yield, and c) you don't like the implications. Try starting from the position that you don't understand the figure and want to know why it is right rather than the position that you don't understand the figure and therefore assume it must be wrong.
The US droughts are not linked to AGW. They are clearly linked to AMO and PDO. There is historical empirical data that shows the cycles.
The more AGW cultists try to claim the droughts are caused by AGW the more idiotic they appear. They have to claim all this drought and flood calamity is caused by the .8 C increase in global mean temperature since the 1800s. LOL.
I think they know they can't be honest and push their agenda so they resort to lying. It is the only explanation that makes sense. So much of that article was an ignorant journalist quoting and even stupider politician (John Kerry) and then sprinkling in some statements alleged to be from "scientists". You would have to be an idiot or a drone to think BBC is objective media. It is propaganda IMO but like all propaganda it is important to sprinkle some truth into it. If they were honest about their assessments and didn't exaggerate the threats and their own knowledge, nobody in their right mind would listen to them and frankly I can't understand why anyone in their right mind keeps listening to their lies.
A link to that page would help, but I honestly think that is more representative of a 1-2C rise There has already been some negative impact on US crop production due to the severe drought we have had the last few years
I believe the availability of "accurate data instead" would be available after the fact!
<
The UK homeopathists fully agree with you (1) and I suspect that the Flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers share that opinion.
Only those still stuck in 'denial-mode' would find any BBC reporting on the Earth Being Round, on the Effectiveness of Vaccines (2) or on Climate Change to be biased.
When you are right, you don't have to avoid debate and conceal methodologies, etc. You don't have to exaggerate and dream up scary scenarios.
While denialist just flat out lie
try reading this
http://lonelyconservative.com/2014/04/pe...
it says lying is ok to get what they want - so we have no reason to believe any "facts" they say they have
