2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years

Originally posted by Metal Brain
...That is far too low as it would not only tend to make the climate too cold"

You are making the same mistake again. CO2 levels lag behind temperatures, /

How does "CO2 levels lag behind temperatures" in many of the past temperature variations contradict that, if there is less than 150ppm CO2, that would "tend to make the climate too cold"? Explain to us exactly why, according to the logic in your mind, those two things are mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well that's a whole new level of stupid.

Ok lets take just one tiny example to completely refute your idiotic argument.

Melting ice.

It takes quite a lot of energy to melt ice, first you have to heat it to 0 C [from whatever
temp it was below that] and then you have to provide the latent heat energy required
to induce the water to phase chan ...[text shortened]... your argument is stupid.

But one example refutes your argument and that was one such example.

LOL! So why did arctic ice melt faster between 1918-1937? FAIL!

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/07/nasa-data-shows-arctic-was-warmer-in.html

Originally posted by Metal Brain
...CO2 levels of 400 PPM is a good thing. It will increase crop yields so there is more food for people to eat. Y....

Here is yet more debunk on top of the total debunk for that claim I already gave you:

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-evidence-global-wheat-production.html
"..New evidence that global warming will hurt US wheat production.."

Originally posted by humy
How does "CO2 levels lag behind temperatures" in many of the past temperature variations contradict that, if there is less than 150ppm CO2, that would "tend to make the climate too cold"? Explain to us why, according to your reasoning, those two things are mutually exclusive.

If past temperature variations contradict what I have stated show me your source of information.

You should rewrite what you wrote. You were sloppy in writing it and I'm not even sure what you were trying to say. If you are asking me how CO2 levels lag behind temperatures look up henry's law.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
If past temperature variations contradict what I have stated show me your source of information.

You should rewrite what you wrote. You were sloppy in writing it and I'm not even sure what you were trying to say. If you are asking me how CO2 levels lag behind temperatures look up henry's law.

I see: When you don't want to answer the question, just pretend to not understand.

Tell us all; why do you come to these forums?
it certainly isn't to debate.

Originally posted by humy
Here is yet more debunk on top of the total debunk for that claim I already gave you:

http://phys.org/news/2015-05-evidence-global-wheat-production.html
"..New evidence that global warming will hurt US wheat production.."

False inference. First of all it is based on the "assumption" there will be drastic warming in the future so that is not evident despite your belief it is. Secondly, even if warming does become that drastic it would not hurt wheat production, only winter wheat production. Simply plant wheat varieties in the spring instead. FAIL!

Originally posted by humy
I see: When you don't want to answer the question, just pretend to not understand.

I see: When you don't want to provide a source of information simply don't and pretend your writing is intelligible when it is not.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
[b}... if warming does become that drastic it would not hurt wheat production, only winter wheat production. .![/b]

Why would it only hurt winter wheat production?
Why wouldn't global warming cause more instances of adverse weather not only in winter but also in spring and summer and autumn thus damage any wheat crops (or any other kind of crop ) regardless of in which season of the year they were planted?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"over those time scales the Suns energy output changes"

Thank you. That is the number one denial of AGW alarmists and you just went against them. Almost all AGW alarmists say changes in the sun's output is negligible and should be discounted. Thanks for making a mockery of your own kind.

Which part of "Over those time-scales" did you not comprehend?

The sun has been around for ~4.5 billion years, and over the last ~4 billion years
has increased in brightness from ~75% of it's current luminosity to 100% present
luminosity today.

That represents a roughly 30% increase in luminosity over 4 billion years.
Or a change of 0.0075% in average luminosity per million years.

When looking at the climate 100's of millions of years ago that is potentially significant.

When looking at the climate over the last few tens of millions of years it isn't.

As for present day warming, the current solar trend is down, where the temperature trend is up,
thus it cannot be true that solar forcing is the dominant factor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#/media/File: Solar_evolution_%28English%29.svg

[remove space between /File: and Solar_evolution... damn smilies]

Originally posted by humy
Why would it only hurt winter wheat production?
Why wouldn't global warming cause more instances of adverse weather not only in winter but also in spring and summer and autumn thus damage any wheat crops (or any other kind of crop ) regardless of in which season of the year they were planted?

Read your own link. It is about winter wheat only. Nothing about that link implies all wheat would be affected. Furthermore, you can plant winter wheat strains in the spring. There is nothing limiting winter wheat varieties to fall planting.

A long time ago my father planted winter wheat and we had an unusual warming in late February. The wheat started to grow and when it froze again most of the wheat died. He had to replant the field in the spring. He decided it was not worth the risk to plant winter wheat in the fall after that and said he would only plant in the spring.

If you are going to make some point about agriculture you had better know what you are talking about. I grew up on a farm. I am likely to know a lot more about it than those of you that grew up in the city.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Read your own link. It is about winter wheat only. Nothing about that link implies all wheat would be affected.

So? Does that mean that adverse weather will not effect all wheat at any time of year it is in the ground when that adverse weather strikes?
Of course adverse weather can effect all wheat, and any other crop for that matter, regardless of when it is in the ground when that adverse weather strikes! Just because a link doesn't mention something that is obvious even to most halfwits, doesn't mean it isn't true. Your false inference is completely idiotic.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Which part of "Over those time-scales" did you not comprehend?

The sun has been around for ~4.5 billion years, and over the last ~4 billion years
has increased in brightness from ~75% of it's current luminosity to 100% present
luminosity today.

That represents a roughly 30% increase in luminosity over 4 billion years.
Or a change of 0.0075% in ...[text shortened]... evolution_%28English%29.svg

[remove space between /File: and Solar_evolution... damn smilies]

"When looking at the climate 100's of millions of years ago that is potentially significant."

No, it is not.

As for present day warming, the current solar trend is down, where the temperature trend is up.

The long term trend is down, but between 100 and 500 million years ago the temperatures swung up and down a lot so I don't see your theory as anything that shows a pattern or even anything close to one. See the graph below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.png

"thus it cannot be true that solar forcing is the dominant factor"

You don't know there are not long term fluctuations in solar output. There is a lot we do not know about the sun. If you are talking about short term cycles even that is not as predictable as you think.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

Originally posted by humy
So? Does that mean that adverse weather will not effect all wheat and at any time of year in is in the ground? Answer, no. Your inference is completely idiotic.

LOL! So your link is irrelevant but you are still too stubborn to admit you failed miserably.

You are being idiotic. Adverse weather always happens. If you are claiming we will have more adverse weather (as you have before) it is solely based on unreliable climate models that have a bad failure rate. I know you always tend to go into this perpetual circle where you refuse to admit climate models are a huge failure so I'm going to let you know ahead of time you are about to to back to your default position of denial because your cognitive dissonance will not let you accept everything you think you know has been wrong all this time.

You need to accept the facts. Denial is only going to lead you to further embarrassment. It is not a coincidence that I am doing so well here. When the facts are on your side it is easy.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"When looking at the climate 100's of millions of years ago that is potentially significant."

No, it is not.

As for present day warming, the current solar trend is down, where the temperature trend is up.

The long term trend is down, but between 100 and 500 million years ago the temperatures swung up and down a lot so I don't see your theory as ...[text shortened]... ink.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

When I was studying physics my biggest project was looking at solar variability and
Chaos theory.

And one of my best subjects was nuclear and particle physics.

So, you want to lecture me about the sun?

Originally posted by Metal Brain

So your link is irrelevant...

...to an obvious fact that you now apparently deny which is adverse weather damages crops at any time of year it strikes regardless of what sort of crop it is! Winter wheat or not! Now that's stupid. So, no, planting winter wheat in the spring will not stop adverse weather, which will happen more often from global warming, damaging it. Extreme weather events can strike at any time of the year and doesn't care about the crop variety.