Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

[NumbNut]

but hey, it's only data, which will be pointedly ignored by the alarmists.

How much has Global Warming raised temperatures near you?

Climate change has already left its mark "on all continents and across the oceans", damaging food crops, spreading disease, and melting glaciers, according to the leaked text of a blockbuster UN climate science report due out on Monday.

Government officials and scientists are gathered in Yokohama this week to wrangle over every line of a summary of the report before the final wording is released on Monday – the first update in seven years.

Nearly 500 people must sign off on the exact wording of the summary, including the 66 expert authors, 271 officials from 115 countries, and 57 observers.

But governments have already signed off on the critical finding that climate change is already having an effect, and that even a small amount of warming in the future could lead to "abrupt and irreversible changes", according to documents seen by the Guardian.

source

but hey, it's only data, which will be pointedly ignored by the (alarmist) deniers.

De-nial ain't just a river in Egypt eh...

[boomerangutang]

White House looks to regulate cow flatulence as part of climate agenda. 2:50 PM 03/28/2014

Michael Bastasch

As part of its plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is targeting the dairy industry to reduce methane emissions in their operations.

This comes despite falling methane emission levels across the economy since 1990.

The White House has proposed cutting methane emissions from the dairy industry by 25 percent by 2020. Although U.S. agriculture only accounts for about 9 percent of the countrys greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, it makes up a sizeable portion of methane emissions which is a very potent greenhouse gas.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/white-house-looks-to-regulate-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda/#ixzz2xJuVjk9G

In the same article: "Its not just the dairy industry that the Obama administration is clamping down on. The White House is looking to regulate methane emissions across the economy from agriculture to oil and gas operations."

Methane has 8 times more greenhouse effect than CO2. Each cow puts about about as much methane, per day, as a car which is running all day. Best scenario would be to wean people off cow's milk and beef. Cow's milk is fine for calves, but not so good for humans. The cow for meat business is fraught with problems, not least the large amounts of resources (land, water, anti-biotics, feed, etc) needed to raise bovines.

I just returned from a trip to the US. I already knew that nearly all Americans were fat - but the % of fat people I saw was amazing. It was rare to see anyone with a well-proportioned body. P.S. beef can take weeks to go through the gut.

[attrayant]

Not much global warming in that graph, but hey, it's only data, which will be pointedly ignored by the alarmists.

No that's not the reason it will be ignored. The reason it will be ignored is because it's an uncited graphic that doesn't seem to turn up anywhere except on denial blogs. Half an hour was all the time I'm willing to spend this morning trying to track this image to an actual data source. The image itself claims to come from the USHCN, but damned if I could find it there.

It is now official. The "warming" lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Care to provide some reasoning as to why you think controlling methane emissions is "lunatic"? And instead of getting it from The Daily Caller, why not go directly to the horse's mouth?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/03/28/strategy-cut-methane-emissions

I know that "regulate cow flatulence" makes for a great sensational headline (I'm picturing dairy farmers with hammers and corks, myself) and The Daily Caller is surely racking up page hits as a result, but now let's stifle our childish giggles and learn something. From Whitehouse dot gov:

Agriculture: In June, in partnership with the dairy industry, the USDA, EPA and DOE will jointly release a “Biogas Roadmap” outlining voluntary strategies to accelerate adoption of methane digesters and other cost-effective technologies to reduce U.S. dairy sector greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020.

Voluntary strategies? Those lunatics!

[chuckd]

<snip>

It is now official. The "warming" lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Care to provide some reasoning as to why you think controlling methane emissions is "lunatic"? And instead of getting it from The Daily Caller, why not go directly to the horse's mouth?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/03/28/strategy-cut-methane-emissions

I know that "regulate cow flatulence" makes for a great sensational headline (I'm picturing dairy farmers with hammers and corks, myself) and The Daily Caller is surely racking up page hits as a result, but now let's stifle our childish giggles and learn something. From Whitehouse dot gov:

Agriculture: In June, in partnership with the dairy industry, the USDA, EPA and DOE will jointly release a “Biogas Roadmap” outlining voluntary strategies to accelerate adoption of methane digesters and other cost-effective technologies to reduce U.S. dairy sector greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020.

Voluntary strategies? Those lunatics!

I never suggested that controlling methane is "lunatic". I said the warmists are "lunatic".

I notice you question my source but you seem to accept 'whitehouse.gov' without question. You have a strange believability level.

I have one qustion for you.

When did the USDA, EPA and DOE ever offer anything that was a "voluntary" strategy? They issue edicts and regulations only. That's how they operate.

The butt plugs are one option, but I can also imagine thousands of new government employees in gas masks running around with methane meters on the many dairy farms in the US. Little grey men in cheap suits bound with red tape.

[attrayant]

I notice you question my source but you seem to accept 'whitehouse.gov' without question. You have a strange believability level.

Your own "source" also cites Whitehouse.gov. It's okay for the Daily Caller to cite a source, but when I cite the exact same source that somehow strains belief? That's some amazing cognitive dissonance you've got there.

All I'm saying is: instead of reading the Daily Caller to get their spin on what Whitehouse.gov has published in its blog, why not go directly to the Whitehouse.gov blog and read it? I know that complex issues are easier to digest when they're delivered in candy-coated bite-sized pieces from the Daily Caller, but if you limit yourself to such rags, you're also going to end up thinking that a source said something it never actually said (like "White House looks to regulate cow flatulence").

When did the USDA, EPA and DOE ever offer anything that was a "voluntary" strategy? They issue edicts and regulations only. That's how they operate.

Irrelevant and off topic. And I don't accept your faulty premise that 'Organization X has never done Thing Y in the past, therefore they'll never do it in the future'.

[pause]

Wait - on second thought, it was pretty easy. All you have to do is search for "USDA recommends" or "USDA suggests" or "USDA advises" and you get plenty of hits, none of which carry the force of law.

[boomerangutang]

I like how the post above inserts the word 'pause' in brackets. That's probably good advise for everyone in on this discussion. Pause for a moment to consider a few 'givens.' We've got one planet. It's not very big. Our one species has already divvied up (and planted flags) over ever sq.M which is at all usable, either for residing or farming or fishing or mineral rights. The Russkies have even staked possession markers on the seabed of the Arctic Ocean, for Bob's sake. On the other side of the globe, the Russians were all ready to bore an iron pipe in to Lake Vostok, (a giant pristine lake lying under Antarctica) ...until the Brits said; 'whoa Ivan, pause a moment and think of the consequences!' Those of us reading and responding to this T.Visa thread may be getting gray and cynical, but there are many younger folks who are inheriting this planet. Let's give 'em a break. Pause.

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed. If you wish to address the topic, without directing remarks at the poster, feel free to do so. If not, then please don't post.

[3NUMBAS]

asia will be hit first

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/22/global-warming-hit-asia-hardest

quote

According to the scientists who have written the draft report, hundreds of millions of people will be affected by coastal flooding and land loss as global temperatures rise, ice caps melt and sea levels rise. "The majority of it will be in east, south-east and south Asia. Some small island states are expected to face very high impacts."

In addition, the report warns that cities also face particular problems. "Heat stress, extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, as well as drought and water scarcity, pose risks in urban areas with risks amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure and services or living in exposed areas." The report adds that this latter forecast is made with very high confidence.

Edited March 30, 2014 by 3NUMBAS

[boomerangutang]

asia will be hit first

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/22/global-warming-hit-asia-hardest

quote

According to the scientists who have written the draft report, hundreds of millions of people will be affected by coastal flooding and land loss as global temperatures rise, ice caps melt and sea levels rise. "The majority of it will be in east, south-east and south Asia. Some small island states are expected to face very high impacts."

In addition, the report warns that cities also face particular problems. "Heat stress, extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, as well as drought and water scarcity, pose risks in urban areas with risks amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure and services or living in exposed areas." The report adds that this latter forecast is made with very high confidence.

Deniers will explain that all away with a wave of their hands, as they do all other warnings (or warmings?). They'll start by saying, "No, things are actually getting colder." When that doesn't stick, they'll say, "Ok, maybe there's some warming, but it's no big deal." Then they'll add; "weather changes all the time, so what? We're coming off an ice age, so warming is to be expected." or "We need to burn fossil fuels as much as possible, because poor people need lots of electricity." etc, ad nauseum.

[boomerangutang]

You keep assuming that since temperatures in the last 30 years have all been at the top of the scale from the last 200 years, that this is significant in regards to a human altered climate. But as you know, higher global temperatures are not unprecedented, and these are not all time records.

Quite often the readings are 'all time records.' N.American, S.America, Australia, parts of Europe, Arctic, and other regions have all recorded 'all time' high temps - in recent years. Ocean temps - similar trends. Some of those regions have been taking precise measurements daily for at least 150 years.

If nothing else, just the fact that nearly all glaciers worldwide are receding and getting smaller in mass, is proof enough that there's a global warming trend. There are lakes on Greenland where there weren't lakes before.

[boomerangutang]

"13 of the 14 warmest years on record occurred this century, according to the UN. The UN's World Meteorological Organisation said that last year continued a long-term warming trend, with the hottest year ever in Australia...

2001-2010 was the warmest decade on record, the WMO noted.

The WMO reiterated its earlier finding that 2013 was the sixth warmest on record, with temperatures 0.5C above the long-term average (1961-1990). The southern hemisphere was particularly warm, its report said, with Argentina experiencing its second warmest year on record and New Zealand its third warmest. The WMO noted all seven of the lowest Arctic sea-ice extents took place in the past seven years, starting with 2007."
source

[NumbNut]

Read it and weep:-

The Hellish Monotony of 25 Years of IPCC Climate Change Warnings

The latest blockbuster United Nations report on the impacts of climate change makes dire reading, just as the first one did almost a quarter of a century ago

Entire island nations "rendered uninhabitable", millions of people to be displaced by floods and rising seas, uncertainties over global food supplies and severe impacts on human health across the world.

The news from the United Nations on the likely impacts of climate change is dire, especially for the poorest people on the planet.

Source

Yes... and we have the four major Anglophone countries either doing next to nothing thanks to Republicans in Congress blocking meaningful action (US) or actively going backwards thanks to their elected heads of state (UK, Canada, Australia).

The power of money and deliberate ignorance to commit a crime that is likely to echo for god knows how many years...

Edited March 31, 2014 by NumbNut

[canuckamuck]

You keep assuming that since temperatures in the last 30 years have all been at the top of the scale from the last 200 years, that this is significant in regards to a human altered climate. But as you know, higher global temperatures are not unprecedented, and these are not all time records.

Quite often the readings are 'all time records.' N.American, S.America, Australia, parts of Europe, Arctic, and other regions have all recorded 'all time' high temps - in recent years. Ocean temps - similar trends. Some of those regions have been taking precise measurements daily for at least 150 years.

If nothing else, just the fact that nearly all glaciers worldwide are receding and getting smaller in mass, is proof enough that there's a global warming trend. There are lakes on Greenland where there weren't lakes before.

Not all time records, as in: we know it has been hotter, but we were only able to measure it for the last 200 years or so. But we have a theoretical data base for temps going back to prehistory.

You are like a broken record with the glaciers getting smaller line. It is warmer so they get smaller. It is not evidence of anything other than warming that has been occurring from before industrialization. It is only evidence of a natural cycle which goes up and down and has a complicated relationship with the magnetosphere, Earth's orbit, sun activity, the ozone layer, the ocean, and the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide warming is a red herring At best it is a warming indicator because high C02 levels follow high temps with a bit of a lag and they fall when there is cooling. Which if you think of it proves they have no effect on warming because how can cooling reduce the agent of cooling? It can't. The alarmists say they relationship is reversed and can become irreversible. Yet the evidence is against it.

[canuckamuck]

Read it and weep:-

The Hellish Monotony of 25 Years of IPCC Climate Change Warnings

The latest blockbuster United Nations report on the impacts of climate change makes dire reading, just as the first one did almost a quarter of a century ago

Entire island nations "rendered uninhabitable", millions of people to be displaced by floods and rising seas, uncertainties over global food supplies and severe impacts on human health across the world.

The news from the United Nations on the likely impacts of climate change is dire, especially for the poorest people on the planet.

Source

Yes... and we have the four major Anglophone countries either doing next to nothing thanks to Republicans in Congress blocking meaningful action (US) or actively going backwards thanks to their elected heads of state (UK, Canada, Australia).

The power of money and deliberate ignorance to commit a crime that is likely to echo for god knows how many years...

Hellish monotony is very well stated.

25 years of being wrong, and yet ramping up the rhetoric to breathless new heights.

It is a remarkable effort.

And a tremendous waste.

[NumbNut]

Read it and weep:-

The Hellish Monotony of 25 Years of IPCC Climate Change Warnings

The latest blockbuster United Nations report on the impacts of climate change makes dire reading, just as the first one did almost a quarter of a century ago

Entire island nations "rendered uninhabitable", millions of people to be displaced by floods and rising seas, uncertainties over global food supplies and severe impacts on human health across the world.

The news from the United Nations on the likely impacts of climate change is dire, especially for the poorest people on the planet.

Source

Yes... and we have the four major Anglophone countries either doing next to nothing thanks to Republicans in Congress blocking meaningful action (US) or actively going backwards thanks to their elected heads of state (UK, Canada, Australia).

The power of money and deliberate ignorance to commit a crime that is likely to echo for god knows how many years...

Hellish monotony is very well stated.

25 years of being wrong, and yet ramping up the rhetoric to breathless new heights.

It is a remarkable effort.

And a tremendous waste.

Every time I read one of your posts I also read your sig.

Job done... no offense mate, but I just can't take you seriously.

[Gulfsailor]

You keep assuming that since temperatures in the last 30 years have all been at the top of the scale from the last 200 years, that this is significant in regards to a human altered climate. But as you know, higher global temperatures are not unprecedented, and these are not all time records.

Quite often the readings are 'all time records.' N.American, S.America, Australia, parts of Europe, Arctic, and other regions have all recorded 'all time' high temps - in recent years. Ocean temps - similar trends. Some of those regions have been taking precise measurements daily for at least 150 years.

If nothing else, just the fact that nearly all glaciers worldwide are receding and getting smaller in mass, is proof enough that there's a global warming trend. There are lakes on Greenland where there weren't lakes before.

Not all time records, as in: we know it has been hotter, but we were only able to measure it for the last 200 years or so. But we have a theoretical data base for temps going back to prehistory.

You are like a broken record with the glaciers getting smaller line. It is warmer so they get smaller. It is not evidence of anything other than warming that has been occurring from before industrialization. It is only evidence of a natural cycle which goes up and down and has a complicated relationship with the magnetosphere, Earth's orbit, sun activity, the ozone layer, the ocean, and the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide warming is a red herring At best it is a warming indicator because high C02 levels follow high temps with a bit of a lag and they fall when there is cooling. Which if you think of it proves they have no effect on warming because how can cooling reduce the agent of cooling? It can't. The alarmists say they relationship is reversed and can become irreversible. Yet the evidence is against it.

Yes, the relationship between CO2 and temperatures rising is most likely not as how some warmists would like to see it. It's all about causality. I have posted this before, but there is very strong evidence that the cause is warming and the result rising CO2, not the other way around. Then a very important question becomes; what did cause the above normal increase in temperatures in the previous century, and why did it stop/pause since late last century? The answer is most likely CFC's.

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html

So if you are worried about our climate and the effect of rising temperatures, then why not be open to new evidence that better explains it, so it can be dealt with better. Most warmists now have set their sights on CO2 as the perpetrator and refute any other suspect (natural or man made), no matter how strong the evidence.

That then makes most of them just believers, not scientists or investigators.

[canuckamuck]

Read it and weep:-

The Hellish Monotony of 25 Years of IPCC Climate Change Warnings

The latest blockbuster United Nations report on the impacts of climate change makes dire reading, just as the first one did almost a quarter of a century ago

Entire island nations "rendered uninhabitable", millions of people to be displaced by floods and rising seas, uncertainties over global food supplies and severe impacts on human health across the world.

The news from the United Nations on the likely impacts of climate change is dire, especially for the poorest people on the planet.

Source

Yes... and we have the four major Anglophone countries either doing next to nothing thanks to Republicans in Congress blocking meaningful action (US) or actively going backwards thanks to their elected heads of state (UK, Canada, Australia).

The power of money and deliberate ignorance to commit a crime that is likely to echo for god knows how many years...

Hellish monotony is very well stated.

25 years of being wrong, and yet ramping up the rhetoric to breathless new heights.

It is a remarkable effort.

And a tremendous waste.

Every time I read one of your posts I also read your sig.

Job done... no offense mate, but I just can't take you seriously.

Yes and I read your user name and marvel at your self awareness.

[NumbNut]

Read it and weep:-

The Hellish Monotony of 25 Years of IPCC Climate Change Warnings

The latest blockbuster United Nations report on the impacts of climate change makes dire reading, just as the first one did almost a quarter of a century ago

Entire island nations "rendered uninhabitable", millions of people to be displaced by floods and rising seas, uncertainties over global food supplies and severe impacts on human health across the world.

The news from the United Nations on the likely impacts of climate change is dire, especially for the poorest people on the planet.

Source

Yes... and we have the four major Anglophone countries either doing next to nothing thanks to Republicans in Congress blocking meaningful action (US) or actively going backwards thanks to their elected heads of state (UK, Canada, Australia).

The power of money and deliberate ignorance to commit a crime that is likely to echo for god knows how many years...

Hellish monotony is very well stated.

25 years of being wrong, and yet ramping up the rhetoric to breathless new heights.

It is a remarkable effort.

And a tremendous waste.

Every time I read one of your posts I also read your sig.

Job done... no offense mate, but I just can't take you seriously.

Yes and I read your user name and marvel at your self awareness.

That's the major difference between our two camps though, isn't it... I read and digest anything I come across regarding Climate Change, with what I would hope is an open mind.

It would appear that 'Open mind' is not in your vocabulary, or indeed your typical denier's vocabulary.

And I'm hoping against hope one day to read reports of a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable publication that says global warming is not what the consensus currently state it to be.

I am often wrong, I am human after all. But your good self, and all your denier mates, are NEVER wrong, are you. You know! You know beyond any reasonable doubt! You know to be a certainty what 97% of climate scientists dismiss, and have the peer reviewed process behind them to back them up!

So thank you for your astute observation regarding my self awareness, you win a biscuit.

But what does the planet win mate? A chance to recover or more of the same?

[boomerangutang]

CO2 may turn out to be less of a factor in GW than methane - particularly in what is predicted to occur. Already methane is being released in greater-than-historic amounts from thawing tundra. There are also large quantities of slushy methane at lower depths of seas. These are also believed to be being released at greater than usual amounts. If overall warming continues to increase (and even Canuckamuck admits there's increased warming) - then the amounts of methane released in to the atmosphere will increase - perhaps exponentially. Scientists assess that methane has between 8 to 20 times the 'greenhouse' effect than CO2. Too bad we, the people who are overpopulating the planet, can't harness that methane - to be used instead of fossil fuels.

Actually, to some extent, that's happening. China has a nationwide program of encouraging villages to build methane producing processors (usually they're simply sealed concrete tanks near farms and orchards). Now, if we could only harness the hot air emitted by politicians and religionists, we might solve our energy problems.

[canuckamuck]

Hellish monotony is very well stated.

25 years of being wrong, and yet ramping up the rhetoric to breathless new heights.

It is a remarkable effort.

And a tremendous waste.

Every time I read one of your posts I also read your sig.

Job done... no offense mate, but I just can't take you seriously.

Yes and I read your user name and marvel at your self awareness.

That's the major difference between our two camps though, isn't it... I read and digest anything I come across regarding Climate Change, with what I would hope is an open mind.

It would appear that 'Open mind' is not in your vocabulary, or indeed your typical denier's vocabulary.

And I'm hoping against hope one day to read reports of a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable publication that says global warming is not what the consensus currently state it to be.

I am often wrong, I am human after all. But your good self, and all your denier mates, are NEVER wrong, are you. You know! You know beyond any reasonable doubt! You know to be a certainty what 97% of climate scientists dismiss, and have the peer reviewed process behind them to back them up!

So thank you for your astute observation regarding my self awareness, you win a biscuit.

But what does the planet win mate? A chance to recover or more of the same?

No hard feelings mate, I just couldn't resist.

[NumbNut]

Every time I read one of your posts I also read your sig.

Job done... no offense mate, but I just can't take you seriously.

Yes and I read your user name and marvel at your self awareness.

That's the major difference between our two camps though, isn't it... I read and digest anything I come across regarding Climate Change, with what I would hope is an open mind.

It would appear that 'Open mind' is not in your vocabulary, or indeed your typical denier's vocabulary.

And I'm hoping against hope one day to read reports of a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable publication that says global warming is not what the consensus currently state it to be.

I am often wrong, I am human after all. But your good self, and all your denier mates, are NEVER wrong, are you. You know! You know beyond any reasonable doubt! You know to be a certainty what 97% of climate scientists dismiss, and have the peer reviewed process behind them to back them up!

So thank you for your astute observation regarding my self awareness, you win a biscuit.

But what does the planet win mate? A chance to recover or more of the same?

No hard feelings mate, I just couldn't resist.

She's right, no dramas mate. I love it!

[3NUMBAS]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/global-warming-will-push-food-prices-higher-un-climate-panel-says-1.1753306

Seth Borenstein, The Associated Press
Published Monday, March 31, 2014 5:54AM EDT

YOKOHAMA, Japan -- Global warming makes feeding the world harder and more expensive, a United Nations scientific panel said.

A warmer world will push food prices higher, trigger "hotspots of hunger" among the world's poorest people, and put the crunch on Western delights like fine wine and robust coffee, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in a 32-volume report issued Monday.

"We're facing the spectre of reduced yields in some of the key crops that feed humanity," panel chairman Rajendra Pachauri said in press conference releasing the report.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/global-warming-will-push-food-prices-higher-un-climate-panel-says-1.1753306#ixzz2xXLwDATf

[canuckamuck]

The reduced crops are because so much produce is being converted into bio-fuels. for no reason other then fear of harmless C02.

Warming would greatly increase the amount of yield in places like Russia and Canada.

[boomerangutang]

The reduced crops are because so much produce is being converted into bio-fuels. for no reason other then fear of harmless C02.

Warming would greatly increase the amount of yield in places like Russia and Canada.

bio-fuel might be a little part of the issue (of why there might be reduced crops dedicated to food). However, bigger factors are; changing micro-climates, increased pests (and their increased resistance to chemical toxins), and probably pathogens - like what knocked out the precursor to the Cavendish banana.

Just in Thailand, there are problems with its #1 crop. Putting aside the political/payment problems, there are problems growing rice in quantity: to name a few:

>>> droughts

>>> floods

>>> mono-crop need added (and ever new types of) toxic sprays

>>> farmers are very inflexible - about segueing to an alternative crop

>>> crop lands are being filled in and/or paved over

>>> not enough replenishment of soil - particularly with 2 or even 3 crops per year

>>> rice is basically starch, and nearly devoid of vitamins, particularly when its germ is taken out by processing.

A much better crop, in every way, is hemp. It's easier to grow. Grows on poor soils. Is drought resistant, has a thousand practical uses. Its seed oil is one of the healthiest known to man or beast. Even its dried stalks could be used to fuel small power plants. Members of Thailand's royal family are in favor of growing hemp, but alas, Uncle Sam insists that all its small friends, including Thailand, follow its dictates about drugs. Of course, we know hemp is not a drug, but US feds don't know that.

[3NUMBAS]

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/climate-warming-may-hit-indias-food-securiy-system-report/articleshow/33028057.cms

NEW DELHI: High levels of warming resulting from continued growth in greenhouse gas emissions may hit India's food security system with a global report warning that the impact could be "more severe" on the country' rice and maize production.

Like crops, the country's fisheries could also be negatively affected by climate change, says a report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released in Yokohama, Japan.

"Higher temperature would lead to decline in dairy production, reduced animal weight gain, stress on reproduction, increased cost of production and lower food conversion efficiency in warm regions.

"Disease incidence among livestock is expected to be exacerbated by climate change," adds the report.

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/33028057.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Edited March 31, 2014 by 3NUMBAS

[boomerangutang]

Here's a personal micro-spin on some of what may happen if clouds cloud the future of agriculture.

More clouds = less sunlight. I've grown tomatoes for home use, for decades. This year, with smoky skies blanketing northern Thailand, my tomats are very slow getting red. Similarly for mulberries. Ordinarily, with clear skies, a mulberry goes from red to black in a couple of days - or a cherry tomato goes from green to red in a few days. This season, both are very slow ripening. Readers can giggle about this mention of my little garden here, but it could be a microcosm of what may ensue for swaths of agriculture in future, if cloud cover exacerbates.

[3NUMBAS]

By Associated Press, Updated: Tuesday, April 1, 11:18 AM

YOKOHAMA, Japan — Challenges such as extreme weather, rising seas and worsening scarcity of drinking water are forcing many Asian governments to confront the changes being wrought by a warming planet even as some point to rich Western nations as major culprits.

Millions of people in the region have already been displaced by floods and droughts thought related to global warming, a United Nations scientific panel said in a report meant to guide policymakers and form the foundation for a new climate treaty due next year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/climate-change-responses-to-shape-asias-future/2014/04/01/f41db45e-b978-11e3-80de-2ff8801f27af_story.html

[NumbNut]

You know the Global Warming debate is over when even the bastions of right-wing punditry in the UK press are now conceding the issue:-

Telegraph and Mail Concede on Climate Change

Newspapers critical on climate change science tell MP's global warming is happening and humans play a role in it

One is home to some of the UK's best known commentators casting doubt on climate change science, while the other claims "climate change is on ice" and "huge uncertainties surround the science of climate change".

But both the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail have now told MPs they believe climate change is happening and humans play a role in it.

Editors at the Telegraph told the science and technology committee that "we believe that the climate is changing, that the reason for that change includes human activity, but that human ingenuity and adaptability should not be ignored in favour of economically damaging prescriptions." But they railed at being too frequently confronted with "impenetrable gobbledygook."

Source

I used the term 'debate' above very loosely too... the 'debate' has only ever been with vested interests and flat-earthers anyway, who collectively showed a complete and bordering on criminal negligence in the way they, as a collective body, spun, misdirected and in some cases straight out lied to present their illogical and false positions in any fashion that was favourable to themselves. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.

Yes... it's always been about the politics and vested interests eh, arguing that black is white and up is down. A stalling tactic that achieved what, exactly? Eventually, nothing! Certainly precious little for the planet, and for the millions of poor who will, without a shadow of doubt, pay the highest price for our belated action regarding the menace of climate change.

So as much as I'd love to rub it in the faces of the flat-earthers and the 'De-nial' (ain't a river in Egypt) crowd, both on this forum and elsewhere, now is not the time, and it will NEVER be the time.

Now is the time to come together as an entire world, not east or west, not rich or poor, not right-wing or left-wing... and agree on real targets that will achieve real change and hopefully limit the damage that we are already starting to experience and feel, in every corner of the world.

Right, I'm off for a beer(s).

Edited April 2, 2014 by NumbNut

[chuckd]

Always follow the Dollar signs. It would seem the cost of $1 Billion per day in 2012 will now be raised to $1.27 Billion per day.

Greed has no limits.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buried in UN Report: $100 Billion More Needed to Adapt to ‘Global Warming’

March 31, 2014 - 5:08 PM

By Barbara Hollingsworth

(CNSNews.com) – The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest report estimates it will cost developed nations an additional $100 billion each year to help poorer countries adapt to the devastating effects of “unequivocal” global warming, including food shortages, infrastructure breakdown, and civil violence.

But that figure was deleted from the report’s executive summary after industrialized nations, including the United States, objected to the high price tag. (See IPCC Summary.pdf)

“The $100 billion figure, though included in the 2,500-page main report, was removed from a 48-page executive summary to be read by the world’s top political leaders,” the New York Times reported. “It was among the most significant changes made as the summary underwent final review during a dayslong editing session in Yokohama [Japan]” where it was released Monday.

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/buried-un-report-100-billion-more-needed-adapt-global-warming#sthash.RYEcmOEQ.dpuf

[RickBradford]

The Telegraph's position accurately reflects what most skeptics believe, not what the rabid Green/Left has convinced itself that skeptics believe.

..... we believe that the climate is changing,...

Of course it is

... that the reason for that change includes human activity .....

Of course it does. To what extent, is the question, and the answer is Not Much

... but that human ingenuity and adaptability should not be ignored ...

Indeed. Our species' ability to adapt is one of its strongest points.

... in favour of economically damaging prescriptions."

Damaging? Try catastrophic, cataclysmic and irreversible. But trashing the economy is what the Green/Left has always been after.

Yes, the Global Warming debate is over, and not in the way you hoped.