Global warming will cut rice yields in western Japan, gov't says

Friday 30th May, 06:20 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 42 Total Comments Show All

weedkila at 10:21 PM JST - 30th May

Weed, if you want to look at the long-term, you would see that there is no way to say whether global warming peaked in 1998, since there is not enough data since then to make a long-term judgement.

I don't disagree, but there is a trend towards cooling. I'm being less hesitant than I usually would be about something so complicated because, obviously, politicians and media like to take advantage of people's emotions for their own agenda, and this is an emotional issue. I think it's important people get both sides of the story. Unfortunately, if a person gets his/her info only from the MSM then that ain't gonna happen.
sarcasm123 at 03:20 PM JST - 31st May

"I don't disagree, but there is a trend towards cooling."

Show me a graph with average temperatures over the last 100 to 200 years, and I will decide wether the trend is an increasing one or a decreasing one.

Better yet, give me the raw data and I will calculate the regression curve for you.

There is no way on earth however to fit a decreasing regression curve in the graphs I have seen so far.
weedkila at 10:39 PM JST - 31st May

I will decide wether the trend is an increasing one or a decreasing one.

You might think you can decide but your decision doesn't necessarily make you right. Can you, for instance, determine with absolute accuracy that temperature increases have been caused by CO2? How about other complex factors like the sun (or sun spots), subatomic particles, water vapour/cloud cover and so on?

Here's a page showing the solar correlation with earth's temperatures from Jan. 1850 (and that's not such a long time in the study of climatology.) References are cited at the bottom. Note figure 4 in particular. Keep in mind that there are 2 solar cycles of 11 and 200 years.

Evidence of a Significant Solar Imprint in Annual Globally Averaged Temperature Trends

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-imprint-in-annual-globally-averaged-temperature-trends-part-2/
weedkila at 12:49 AM JST - 1st June

Global warming will cut rice yields in western Japan, gov't says

Sarcasm:

Looking at this info do you see anything to worry about? The first graph shows N.Hemisphere temperatures over a 2000 year period. Note the temperatures during the medieval period were warmer than what they are now.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.html

http://www.junkscience.com/MSUTemps/WarmingProxies.html

~~~

Mean temperatures - Scroll down a little from the top and you'll see this:

Looking at the Central England Temperature record averages for common benchmarks and whole of record shows little annual difference and the monthly averages basically composed of less-cold northern winter months (greatest variance October to January) with negligible change during the northern summer (Average temp for periods: 1961-1990 / 1880-2004 / 1659-2005)

http://www.junkscience.com/MSUTemps/WarmingLook.html

A newspaper article from 1922 talking about global warming.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/changing-artic_1922.gif

PS; in 2 of the above urls you will have to add underscores as JT seems to break the links: MSU(underscore)Temps/Warming(underscore)Proxies.html ... as well as... MSU(underscore)Temps/Warming (underscore)Look.html. Also possibly between '-artic' and '1922' in the last url.
sarcasm123 at 10:13 AM JST - 3rd June

My dear weedkila, I don't for a second believe you can read what is in figure 4. I am however sure that you wish it is the temperature versus time. It is not however. This Y axis does not say "temperature". This figure is data processed for pointing out repetitive patterns.

... or how people like you first decide their conclusion and then pick up everything that even remotely fits that conclusion. Never mind if you have to change a few axis names.

As for the temperatures over the last 2000 years... where were they measured and by whom? :P
weedkila at 01:09 PM JST - 3rd June

You are actively looking to fault me rather than look at any information impartially. But that's OK, I can handle sarcasm.

This figure is data processed for pointing out repetitive patterns.

What does that tell you? Repetitive patterns! Maybe it has something to do with repetitive solar patterns and correlating temperatures on earth!?! Try reading the thing. In Part 1 of that same site that you criticised me on it says:

The representation by the IPCC of global trends over the past 100 years seems almost designed to hide the fact that during the early decades of the 20th century, well before the recent acceleration in anthropogenic CO2 emissions beginning in the middle of the 20th century, global temperature increased at rates comparable to the rate of increase at the end of the 20th century.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/evidence-of-a-significant-solar-imprint-in-annual-globally-averaged-temperature-trends-part-1/

Funny that. Because the IPCC summaries for policy makers are ...prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

As for the temperatures over the last 2000 years... where were they measured and by whom? :P

Mmm, you may have a point. Someone just randomly made up a spiky blue chart, stuck it on the net and hoped that everyone would believe it. If you look just below the chart there is a big, blue link which says: Sources, cites and data. Also on the link I posted earlier (~MSUTemps/WarmingProxies.html) it says this about the same chart:

These reconstructions have mainly used tree-ring data and other data sets of annual to decadal resolution. Lake and ocean sediments have a lower time resolution, but provide climate information at multicentennial timescales that may not be captured by tree-ring data. Here we reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the past 2,000 years by combining low-resolution proxies with tree-ring data, using a wavelet transform technique to achieve timescale-dependent processing of the data. Our reconstruction shows larger multicentennial variability than most previous multi-proxy reconstructions, but agrees well with temperatures reconstructed from borehole measurements and with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model.
sarcasm123 at 01:15 PM JST - 3rd June

"What does that tell you? Repetitive patterns! Maybe it has something to do with repetitive solar patterns and correlating temperatures on earth!?!"

Repeptitive patterns do not mean there is no possibility for an upgoing trend.

Also, I don't get why you seem to have blind fate in an article claiming nothing is happening, and 0% faith in the hundreds (?) of articles saying there is. It is wishful thinking.

Finally, I don't get how you seem to trust predictions on the temperatures up to 2000 years ago, yet do not seem to trust predictions 50 years in the future.
weedkila at 02:11 PM JST - 3rd June

Also, I don't get why you seem to have blind fate in an article claiming nothing is happening, and 0% faith in the hundreds (?) of articles saying there is. It is wishful thinking.

I have never claimed nothing is happening. Those are your words. The only thing permanent about climate change is that it is permanent. The climate has never been, nor will it ever be stable. Climate change is a fact of life and has been for billions of years. What seems to have happened is that global warming (or 'climate change' as it's now being called), has been used to further an agenda. All I am saying is watch this closely and follow the money.

As for the state of the planet, I'm as concerned about the environment as you or anybody else. Perhaps you should look at the following video on a thing called HAARP. The US military run this thing in Alaska - they freely admit it and is not a conspiracy theory. Haarp is able to heat up the ionosphere by using low frequency waves and do all sorts of weird stuff. This includes controlling the weather and the creation of earthquakes. If used in a benevolent way it could increase rice yields in Japan or anywhere else. Actually, haarp makes all the talk about the climate change moot.

10 min. version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRN0GDFH3Vs&feature=related

Full version: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5584510125747680812&hl=en

Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare ‘Climatic warfare’ has been excluded from the agenda on climate change.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=7561
weedkila at 02:17 PM JST - 3rd June

Finally, I don't get how you seem to trust predictions on the temperatures up to 2000 years ago, yet do not seem to trust predictions 50 years in the future.

Look back at my previous posts. Particularly 09:45 PM JST - 30th May
weedkila at 02:32 PM JST - 3rd June

One more thing sarcasm. I'll repeat this because you will be able to see clearly where part of the deception lies. It's called propaganda.

I don't get why you seem to have blind fate in an article claiming nothing is happening, 0% faith in the hundreds (?) of articles saying there is.

Funny that. Because the IPCC summaries for policy makers are ...prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
sarcasm123 at 03:47 PM JST - 3rd June

Oh, and this one: "You are actively looking to fault me rather than look at any information impartially."

Who started this discussion by blaming Al Gore for about everything he did in his life? What that another example of "looking at information impartially"? That an the "MSM" who popped up every few lines.

"As for the state of the planet, I'm as concerned about the environment as you or anybody else."

Then let me give you a very simple line of advice: better be safe than sorry. Risk is danger x probability, my friend. Even if you think there is just 1% change that the climate is changing abnormally fast now due to human activity, it would still be the best choice to take some action. Instead of blaming Gore, the Chinese, the "MSM", all because you just don't want to make an effort.
weedkila at 04:53 PM JST - 3rd June

it would still be the best choice to take some action.

I agree, people should be responsible for their own actions and should be guided in the right direction, but without all the lies about global destruction based on a non-existent threat of CO2. I'll say it again. We should be very careful about draconian laws and more taxes being imposed on us. This is my reason for showing you all this info on the other side of the issue. Here is one of many examples of the type of thing being talked about:

COUPLES who have more than two children should be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions, a medical expert says. The report in an Australian medical journal called for parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800. And couples who were sterilised would be eligible for carbon credits under the controversial proposal.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22899785-2,00.html

At least one leading climatology scientist has stated that this whole CO2 issue is a tax on life. If you look back through history you'll see the same thing happening again and again, ie; the non-existent threat used to achieve certain political aims.

By the way, what action are you taking to cut down on CO2? I'm not being cynical. I'd really like to know. Could you do without your computer? Or perhaps your car, if you have one? Would you be willing to pay more for public transportation or for the basics like food? (remember the production costs = carbon footprint) What do you think about proposals such as the above article on carbon taxes?

Then let me give you a very simple line of advice: better be safe than sorry.

I've never said or suggested we shouldn't look for alternative energies and cut back on resources. But let's be reasonable about it.

all because you just don't want to make an effort.

??? Fortunately, you don't know me so you can't make a judgement like that. You are simply taking the easy way out.
sarcasm123 at 05:56 PM JST - 3rd June

"Fortunately, you don't know me so you can't make a judgement like that. You are simply taking the easy way out."

I think I know you enough by now to say that the moment someone taxes you based on polution you will cry "Al Gore polutes more!". That was clear form the very beginning.

Look, a simple search on ISI Web of Knowledge for "climate change" returns over 22000 articles and almost 2000 reviews in scientific journals. The day when you or anyone else can show me that 95% of them are talking about a fictional problem I should not be worried about, I will agree with you.

Until then...
weedkila at 06:40 PM JST - 3rd June

CO2 does not equal "polution". Without CO2 there would be no life on earth. In fact, plant life, plankton and so on thrives on CO2. You are very confused.
sarcasm123 at 08:18 PM JST - 3rd June

"CO2 does not equal "polution". Without CO2 there would be no life on earth. In fact, plant life, plankton and so on thrives on CO2. You are very confused."

Well, I did not even mention the word CO2 in this thread... Who is confused?

Oh, and anything is polution when it is present in too high amounts.