Discussion:
Commie-Driven Bloomberg Notices That Farms Keep Having Record Crop Yields, But Omits CO2's Outsized Role
(too old to reply)
AlleyCat
2024-08-28 15:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Maybe YOU can explain why we're growing RECORD crops, but it's not the CO2?

Bloomberg Notices That Farms Keep Having Record Crop Yields, But Omits CO2's Out-sized Role

Human Progress excerpted a paywalled article from Bloomberg discussing the fact that major crops are expected
to continue to set records in the 2024/2025 crop year.

This good news is not unexpected for anyone who understands agronomy and botany or who regularly reads
Climate Realism.

It reflects the long-term trend for most crops during the period of modest warming and increased atmospheric
carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations.

Sadly, Bloomberg's story ignores the proven and significant role rising CO2 levels are playing in improved
crop yields and production.

Human Progress writes:

Compared with a decade ago, the world will harvest in 2024-25 about 10% more wheat, about 15% more corn,
nearly 30% more soybeans, and about 10% more rice. Except for corn, all the other three key food commodities
will enjoy a record high production.

he US Department of Agriculture said it anticipates American farmers will reap record yields for two key
food commodities: on average, 183.1 bushels per acre of corn, and 53.2 bushels per acre of soybeans...

Two decades ago, US corn farmers were harvesting about 150 bushels per acre; in the mid-1980s, the number
was closer to 110 bushels.

This good news further confirms what Climate Realism has long pointed out.

Modestly warmer weather and higher CO2 levels are good for plants in general, leading to a net greening of
the earth and boosting yields and production of crops.

The most recent data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) shows that globally the yield and
production of cereal crops (the crop segment that makes up the majority of the calorie intake each day, often
referred to as staple foods, like rice, wheat, rye, oats, barley, millet, and maize) have increased
dramatically over the recent period slight warming.

Between 1990 and 2022, the most recent year for which the FAO has data:

Cereal yields have increased nearly 52 percent, with the most recent record for yield set in 2022; and
Cereal production grew by approximately 57 percent. (see the chart, below)

Source: FAOSTAT (August 25, 2024)

Unfortunately, Bloomberg downplays or ignores entirely the role that warming and rising CO2 have played in
record crop yields and production, attributing the record-setting crop production to expanded irrigation and
better technologies like improved combines and tractors.

Although improved technologies and wider access to them have undoubtedly contributed to the increase in crop
production, research thoroughly demonstrates that so have CO2 increases.

Indeed, higher CO2 levels may have been the most significant factor driving crop increases in recent decades.

As has been discussed in more than 200 articles on Climate Realism, what is true of global cereal production
is true for most crops, like fruits, legumes, tubers, and vegetables in most countries around the world.

Yields have set records repeatedly during the recent period of climate change, food security has increased,
and hunger and malnutrition have fallen.

Agronomy and Botany explain why crop production and yields have increased amidst global warming, and the same
sciences explain why the world should likely expect crop production gains to continue.

Modest warming has brought slightly higher rainfall totals and a modestly longer growing season with fewer
crop-killing late-season frosts.

In addition, crops benefit from higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, which any greenhouse operator
will tell you is plant fertilizer, contributing to plants growing larger, faster, and using water more
efficiently.

Thousands of real-world field and greenhouse experiments summarized at CO2 Science document the beneficial
effect of higher CO2 concentrations on plant growth and crop production.

Even NASA has acknowledged this point, writing:

Studies have shown that higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide affect crops in two important
ways: they boost crop yields by increasing the rate of photosynthesis, which spurs growth, and they reduce
the amount of water crops lose through transpiration. Plants transpire through their leaves, which contain
tiny pores called stomata that open and collect carbon dioxide molecules for photosynthesis. During that
process, they release water vapor. As carbon dioxide concentrations increase, the pores don't open as wide,
resulting in lower levels of transpiration by plants and thus increased water-use efficiency.

Specifically, research cited in the journal Environmental Economics and Policy Studies found:

atellite-based studies have yielded compelling evidence of stronger general growth effects than were
anticipated in the 1990s. Zhu et al (2016) published a comprehensive study on greening and human activity
from 1982 to 2009. The ratio of land areas that became greener, as opposed to browner, was approximately 9 to
1. The increase in atmospheric CO2 was just under 15% over the interval but was found to be responsible for
approximately 70% of the observed greening, followed by the deposition of airborne nitrogen compounds (9%)
from the combustion of coal and deflation of nitrate-containing agricultural fertilizers, lengthening growing
seasons (8%), and land cover changes (4%), mainly reforestation of regions such as southeastern North
America.

It is refreshing to see a major media outlet, like Bloomberg, publish some good news about crop production
amid the near-constant drumbeat of false "climate change-induced crop failure" stories put out by the
mainstream media.

One can only speculate why its writers ignored the firmly established roles that modest warming and more CO2
have played over the decades and continue to play in the increase in food production.

http://archive.today/2020.02.04-181350/https:/link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10018-020-00263-w
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-biological-impacts/
http://co2science.org/
http://www.co2science.org/
https://archive.ph/2024.08.27-151128/https:/www.nasa.gov/technology/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-
will-help-and-hurt-crops/#selection-4999.0-4999.266
https://climatechangedispatch.com/another-report-confirms-co2-is-greening-the-earth-improving-crops/
https://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-expert-neither-climate-nor-climate-change-causes-fuels-or-
influences-weather/
https://climatechangedispatch.com/cnbc-claims-climate-change-hurting-cambodias-crops-its-not/
https://climatechangedispatch.com/ignore-the-climate-crisis-hype-humanity-is-thriving-thanks-to-fossil-fuels/
https://climatechangedispatch.com/media-fail-iowa-crops-setting-records-not-failing-amid-modest-warming/
https://climatechangedispatch.com/msn-pushes-rice-sugar-tomato-apocalypse-as-crops-set-records/
https://climatechangedispatch.com/study-past-global-greening-reacted-quickly-to-more-co2-in-the-air/
https://climatechangedispatch.com/wapo-pushes-phony-claim-that-climate-change-harming-african-crops/
https://climatechangedispatch.com/who-is-spearheading-the-global-war-on-agriculture-and-nutrition/
https://climatechangedispatch.com/wired-promotes-ipccs-phony-crop-disaster-as-harvests-set-records/
https://climaterealism.com/category/climate-change-impacts/crop-production/
https://humanprogress.org/a-break-in-the-weather-good-news-from-the-worlds-farms/
Loading Image...
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-08-14/food-costs-are-falling-as-farmers-help-slay-the-
inflation-dragon
https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#compare

=====

August:

Snow In Wyoming And Colorado

August Snow Has U.S. Resorts Planning For Winter

Rare Snow And Century-Old Cold Records Fall In California

Rare August Chill Breaks Decades-Old Records

Rare August Snow For The Sierra Nevada

The Atlantic's Rapid Cooling

Heavy Snow Hits New Zealand's South Island

Record Summer Chills Sweep The Great Lakes, Northeast, and Southern Canada

Where Are The Hurricanes? Another Crushing Defeat For Team Climate Change

Antarctica Registers -75.5C (-103.9F), Sea Ice Surges

Winter Far From Over In New Zealand

Historical "Heatwave Days" Show No Trend

Researchers Pumped Extra CO2 Into A Forest, And Biodiversity Thrived

Low Temperature Records Fall In U.S.

Frosts Persist In South America, Impacting Coffee Prices

Island Nations Like Tuvalu: Growing, Not Sinking

Record Cold Sweeps Brazil

Antarctica Back Below -70C (-94F)

Summer Snowfall at Khardungla Pass

Polar Bear And Arctic Sea Ice Lies Persist

Polar Fronts To Hit South America

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Gains 1 Million Km2 In A Week

Frigid Winter Forecast For NH

Vast Cold Wave About To Sweep The U.S.
Greek Study Challenges CO2-Temperature Causality
Arctic Shipping Season Is Shortening
Rapid Antarctic Sea Ice Growth
Heavy Snow Hits New Zealand
Too Many Polar Bears In Greenland
British Farmers Paid To NOT Produce Food
Record July Cold Hits Scotland
Summer To Quit Early This Year
Remarkable Summer Gains On The Greenland Ice Sheet
Arctic Sea Ice Extent: No Cause For Alarm
$78 Trillion To Fight The Hoax of 'Climate Crisis'
Alan
2024-08-28 19:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
Maybe YOU can explain why we're growing RECORD crops, but it's not the CO2?
Bloomberg Notices That Farms Keep Having Record Crop Yields, But Omits CO2's Out-sized Role
So....

...you want to simultaneously argue that man's contribution to CO2
cannot be large enough to have any impact on global warming...

...but somehow CAN be large enough to have a large influence on crop yields?

Do you not see the dissonance, there?
JTEM
2024-08-28 19:41:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by AlleyCat
Maybe YOU can explain why we're growing RECORD crops, but it's not the CO2?
Bloomberg Notices That Farms Keep Having Record Crop Yields, But Omits
CO2's Out-sized Role
So....
...you want to simultaneously argue that man's contribution to CO2
cannot be large enough to have any impact on global warming...
Nobody anywhere every denied that CO2 has an impact on plants.
Post by Alan
...but somehow CAN be large enough to have a large influence on crop yields?
CO2 is pumped into greenhouses -- thus becoming a "Greenhouse Gas" --
because plants breath it in.

Oh; and you are a raging jackass.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Alan
2024-08-28 19:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by Alan
Post by AlleyCat
Maybe YOU can explain why we're growing RECORD crops, but it's not the CO2?
Bloomberg Notices That Farms Keep Having Record Crop Yields, But
Omits CO2's Out-sized Role
So....
...you want to simultaneously argue that man's contribution to CO2
cannot be large enough to have any impact on global warming...
Nobody anywhere every denied that CO2 has an impact on plants.
It's about the SIZE of the impact, Loser-1.
Post by JTEM
Post by Alan
...but somehow CAN be large enough to have a large influence on crop yields?
CO2 is pumped into greenhouses -- thus becoming a "Greenhouse Gas" --
because plants breath it in.
So then your implication that it was atmospheric CO2 that was resulting
in your alleged "record yields".


Got it.
JTEM
2024-08-28 20:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by JTEM
Nobody anywhere every denied that CO2 has an impact on plants.
It's about the SIZE of the impact, Loser-1.
Speaking of losers, you shit out a non sequitur. You actually
thought -- and maybe it's wrong to apply the word "thought"
to you but, there it is -- that plants can't thrive in CO2
unless CO2 is killing all the polar bears from heat stroke...

And that's a non sequitur. You are retarded.
Post by Alan
Post by JTEM
CO2 is pumped into greenhouses -- thus becoming a "Greenhouse Gas" --
because plants breath it in.
So then your implication that it was atmospheric CO2 that was resulting
in your alleged "record yields".
It was what you were actually respond to, and would know already if
you had any reading comprehension & retention.

Seriously. you just paraded your lack of reading comprehension and
believe that this supports you... "I have no reading comprehension
so I must know a lot!"

You are retarded. Yes you are.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Alan
2024-08-28 20:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by Alan
Post by JTEM
Nobody anywhere every denied that CO2 has an impact on plants.
It's about the SIZE of the impact, Loser-1.
Speaking of losers, you shit out a non sequitur. You actually
thought -- and maybe it's wrong to apply the word "thought"
to you but, there it is -- that plants can't thrive in CO2
unless CO2 is killing all the polar bears from heat stroke...
And that's a non sequitur. You are retarded.
No. That is not what I said or even implied.
Post by JTEM
Post by Alan
Post by JTEM
CO2 is pumped into greenhouses -- thus becoming a "Greenhouse Gas" --
because plants breath it in.
So then your implication that it was atmospheric CO2 that was
resulting in your alleged "record yields".
add 'was wrong' to my statement.
JTEM
2024-08-28 21:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by JTEM
Speaking of losers, you shit out a non sequitur. You actually
thought -- and maybe it's wrong to apply the word "thought"
to you but, there it is -- that plants can't thrive in CO2
unless CO2 is killing all the polar bears from heat stroke...
And that's a non sequitur. You are retarded.
No. That is not what I said or even implied.
And here I quote your idiocy:

"So....

...you want to simultaneously argue that man's contribution to CO2
cannot be large enough to have any impact on global warming...

...but somehow CAN be large enough to have a large influence on crop
yields?"

You're either a very bad liar or a very retarded 'tard.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Alan
2024-08-28 22:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by Alan
Post by JTEM
Speaking of losers, you shit out a non sequitur. You actually
thought -- and maybe it's wrong to apply the word "thought"
to you but, there it is -- that plants can't thrive in CO2
unless CO2 is killing all the polar bears from heat stroke...
And that's a non sequitur. You are retarded.
No. That is not what I said or even implied.
"So....
...you want to simultaneously argue that man's contribution to CO2
cannot be large enough to have any impact on global warming...
...but somehow CAN be large enough to have a large influence on crop
yields?"
You're either a very bad liar or a very retarded 'tard.
And what is the non sequitur precisely.

The OP was suggesting that the increase in atmospheric CO2 could have a
large effect on crop yields...

...while he has always denied that the increase in atmospheric CO2 could
have a large effect on temperature...

...because it's only a small percentage.
JTEM
2024-08-28 22:51:49 UTC
Permalink
And
I am not responsible for your inability to comprehend even
your own words.

You are a waste product. The media has shit you out like
yesterday's burrito.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Alan
2024-08-29 00:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
And
I am not responsible for your inability to comprehend even
your own words.
I understand my own words fine.

And also I understand that you can't actually articulate what you claim
is this "non sequitur".
JTEM
2024-08-29 07:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
I understand
No. No you do not, not even as a sick joke. Here, I'll quote
your idiocy again:

"So....

...you want to simultaneously argue that man's contribution to CO2
cannot be large enough to have any impact on global warming...

...but somehow CAN be large enough to have a large influence on crop
yields?"

Yes, you drool soaked retard, you honestly did "Argue" that there
can't possibly be enough CO2 to benefit plants will producing your
precious Gwobull Warbling.

I'm laughing at you!
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Alan
2024-08-29 07:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by Alan
I understand
No. No you do not, not even as a sick joke. Here, I'll quote
"So....
...you want to simultaneously argue that man's contribution to CO2
cannot be large enough to have any impact on global warming...
...but somehow CAN be large enough to have a large influence on crop
yields?"
Yes, you drool soaked retard, you honestly did "Argue" that there
can't possibly be enough CO2 to benefit plants will producing your
precious Gwobull Warbling.
I'm laughing at you!
No, you ignoramus.

I argued about the size of the CHANGES CO2 could make.

How can you argue that manmade CO2 emissions can only make a small
DIFFERENCE to global warming...

...while arguing that that same amount can make a large DIFFERENCE to
crop yields?

Do you get it yet?
JTEM
2024-08-29 10:48:34 UTC
Permalink
No
Pussy.

You won't even own up to your own stated position!

Lol! Pussy.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Alan
2024-08-29 17:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
No
Pussy.
You won't even own up to your own stated position!
Says the "man" who has to snip it to look like he's saying something.
JTEM
2024-08-29 17:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Says
Pussy. I'm laughing at you!
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Alan
2024-08-29 20:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Says
Pussy. I'm laughing at you!
You're running.
JTEM
2024-08-29 20:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
You're
You're a pussy. You won't even stand by your own position!
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Alan
2024-09-03 01:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by JTEM
You're
You're a pussy. You won't even stand by your own position!
Says the guy who first clipped it rather than address it.

Governor Swill
2024-08-29 19:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
You're either a very bad liar or a very retarded 'tard.
You've just described yourself.

Fifth grade science: When plants die, all the carbon they took up is released
back into the environment.

Security blanket
<https://www.gocomics.com/johndeering/2024/08/16>


--
"Of all the things that I hated about my childhood, nothing
compared to the revolving door of father figures." -- JD Vance

#NEVERtrump
Governor Swill
2024-08-29 00:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by Alan
...you want to simultaneously argue that man's contribution to CO2
cannot be large enough to have any impact on global warming...
Nobody anywhere every denied that CO2 has an impact on plants.
But you *have* denied that it's had any effect on climate.

And no, Alan, he doesn't see the dissonance.


--
"Of all the things that I hated about my childhood, nothing
compared to the revolving door of father figures." -- JD Vance

#NEVERtrump
Chris Ahlstrom
2024-08-28 21:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan
Post by AlleyCat
Maybe YOU can explain why we're growing RECORD crops, but it's not the CO2?
Bloomberg Notices That Farms Keep Having Record Crop Yields, But Omits CO2's Out-sized Role
So....
...you want to simultaneously argue that man's contribution to CO2
cannot be large enough to have any impact on global warming...
...but somehow CAN be large enough to have a large influence on crop yields?
Do you not see the dissonance, there?
I couldn't get past the "Commie driven Bloomberg". LMAO. These wrong-wingers
are thick as shit, soft as a sneakerful.
--
Just to have it is enough.
Charlie Glock
2024-08-28 23:26:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Alan
Post by AlleyCat
Maybe YOU can explain why we're growing RECORD crops, but it's not the CO2?
Bloomberg Notices That Farms Keep Having Record Crop Yields, But Omits CO2's Out-sized Role
So....
...you want to simultaneously argue that man's contribution to CO2
cannot be large enough to have any impact on global warming...
...but somehow CAN be large enough to have a large influence on crop yields?
Do you not see the dissonance, there?
I couldn't get past the "Commie driven Bloomberg". LMAO. These wrong-wingers
are thick as shit, soft as a sneakerful.
Please tell us more.
You seem to be well versed in the subject of shit.
--
Charlie Glock
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms"
- Thomas Jefferson 1776
Governor Swill
2024-08-29 09:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie Glock
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Alan
Post by AlleyCat
Maybe YOU can explain why we're growing RECORD crops, but it's not the CO2?
Bloomberg Notices That Farms Keep Having Record Crop Yields, But Omits CO2's Out-sized Role
So....
...you want to simultaneously argue that man's contribution to CO2
cannot be large enough to have any impact on global warming...
...but somehow CAN be large enough to have a large influence on crop yields?
Do you not see the dissonance, there?
I couldn't get past the "Commie driven Bloomberg". LMAO. These wrong-wingers
are thick as shit, soft as a sneakerful.
Please tell us more.
You seem to be well versed in the subject of shit.
Especially when it comes to you RINOs, which it so often does.


And they complained BIDEN is the old feeb?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AN5XCe1PFU4
(deranged Trump word salad on mifepristone)

--
"Of all the things that I hated about my childhood, nothing
compared to the revolving door of father figures." -- JD Vance

#NEVERtrump
Siri Cruise
2024-08-29 04:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
Bloomberg Notices That Farms Keep Having Record Crop Yields, But Omits CO2's Out-sized Role
Unless you bury harvested crops deep underground in abandonned
mines, the sugars will be turned back into carbon dioxide within a
year or so. This does not offset the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel.

And you're still a classroom clown.
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
JTEM
2024-08-29 07:09:30 UTC
Permalink
Unless you bury harvested crops deep underground in abandonned mines,
the sugars will be turned back into carbon dioxide within a year or so.
That's absolute bullshit.

One reason why wheat was even domesticated in the first place was
because it'll last years so long as you keep it dry. Stick it in
an air tight container though and we're talking a decade or longer.

Rice is another one...
This does not offset the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel.
Who gives a shit? If man-made Gwobull Warbling were even real it
would be a good thing. The planet is inside of an ice age. We're
inside of a glacial/interglacial cycle. We probably don't have
anything to worry about, least not until the next VEI8 volcano,
and then mile tall glaciers will start wiping most of North
America and northern Europe clean...

The planet is cooler now than during the last interglacial, when
Neanderthals ruled the world. Not a lot of coal plants back then,
but still warmer. And the interglacial before that; it was warmer
too.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Chris Ahlstrom
2024-08-29 09:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Unless you bury harvested crops deep underground in abandonned mines,
the sugars will be turned back into carbon dioxide within a year or so.
That's absolute bullshit.
One reason why wheat was even domesticated in the first place was
because it'll last years so long as you keep it dry. Stick it in
an air tight container though and we're talking a decade or longer.
Rice is another one...
This does not offset the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel.
Who gives a shit? If man-made Gwobull Warbling were even real it
would be a good thing. The planet is inside of an ice age. We're
inside of a glacial/interglacial cycle. We probably don't have
anything to worry about, least not until the next VEI8 volcano,
and then mile tall glaciers will start wiping most of North
America and northern Europe clean...
The planet is cooler now than during the last interglacial, when
Neanderthals ruled the world. Not a lot of coal plants back then,
but still warmer. And the interglacial before that; it was warmer
too.
Wow. Just wow.
--
You will be recognized and honored as a community leader.
JTEM
2024-08-29 10:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by JTEM
The planet is cooler now than during the last interglacial, when
Neanderthals ruled the world. Not a lot of coal plants back then,
but still warmer. And the interglacial before that; it was warmer
too.
Wow. Just wow.
Yeah, it's called "Climate Science." How much of it did you Google
for confirmation? The glacial/interglacial cycle? Here's something
else for you:

The Quaternary Period

THAT is the ice age, the one we are inside of, the one with this
glacial/interglacial cycle...

THIS interglacial is the Holocene. The previous one was the Eemian.

The Eemian was warmer, and it ended roughly 130,000 years before
the industrial revolution...

You don't have to go back anywhere near that far though. It's been
easily warmer many times within the Holocene, even if the Holocene
on the whole is colder than the Eemian.

It's even been warmer during historical times... the Roman Warm
Period, for example, and the later Medieval Warm Period.

The Holocene is overdue to end, btw. When it ends the next
glacial period starts...
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Siri Cruise
2024-08-29 14:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
The Holocene is overdue to end, btw. When it ends the next
glacial period starts...
Going green means no more sending young adults to south asia.
'They pretend it's chore, to ship us off to war.'
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
JTEM
2024-08-29 17:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by JTEM
The Holocene is overdue to end, btw. When it ends the next
glacial period starts...
Going green means no more sending young adults to south asia.
Only if we surrender it all to China, because they're sending
young adults!

You have a child's view of the world... thinking if you cover
your eyes nobody can see you.

What we don't burn, someone else will.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Siri Cruise
2024-08-29 14:49:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by JTEM
Unless you bury harvested crops deep underground in abandonned mines,
the sugars will be turned back into carbon dioxide within a year or so.
That's absolute bullshit.
One reason why wheat was even domesticated in the first place was
because it'll last years so long as you keep it dry. Stick it in
an air tight container though and we're talking a decade or longer.
Rice is another one...
This does not offset the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel.
Who gives a shit? If man-made Gwobull Warbling were even real it
would be a good thing. The planet is inside of an ice age. We're
inside of a glacial/interglacial cycle. We probably don't have
anything to worry about, least not until the next VEI8 volcano,
and then mile tall glaciers will start wiping most of North
America and northern Europe clean...
The planet is cooler now than during the last interglacial, when
Neanderthals ruled the world. Not a lot of coal plants back then,
but still warmer. And the interglacial before that; it was warmer
too.
Wow. Just wow.
I like fighting global warming because that can reduce wars (to
control oil) and make our world cleaner (coal burning). I do not
pretend to understand the science; I understand the politics, and
that is reason enough.
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
JTEM
2024-08-29 17:43:17 UTC
Permalink
I like fighting global warming because that can reduce wars (to control
oil)
Wrong. All you're doing is surrender a larger & larger share to
China and other nations, who are going to burn it anyways.
and make our world cleaner (coal burning).
China is burning more coal than the entire rest of the planet
combined. We could cut out 100% of our coal and there will still
be more coal burning than there was a decade ago... and growing.

India is just on the rise now. Not only is their energy demand
and production growing but the percentage generated by coal is
on the rise.

100% of all of humanity outside of china can die and China all
by itself would still be producing 12x the amount of CO2 that
the fairy tales claim for your Gwobull Warbling started in the
first place.

Wait. China actually surpassed 12x in 2022. It's grown since
then.

There is NOTHING in the Gwobull Warbling gospels that is true,
NOTHING that maps to the make-pretend problem or the make-pretend
goals.

Nothing.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Siri Cruise
2024-08-29 14:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Post by Siri Cruise
This does not offset the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel.
Who gives a shit?
I give a shit when you lie.

The sugar/carbon dioxide is only one carbon cycle, but if this is
the one you want to talk about, be honest. Coal was from when
plants produced sugar faster than it could be consumed and was
instead buried and removed from the biosphere.
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
JTEM
2024-08-29 17:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
I give a shit when you lie.
You're retarded. What you said is not just false but stupid.

Anyone can Google it!
Post by Siri Cruise
The sugar/carbon dioxide is only one carbon cycle, but if this is the
one you want to talk about
Why?

Google: carbon soil

Nothing you're saying is based on reality.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
Governor Swill
2024-08-29 20:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by JTEM
Unless you bury harvested crops deep underground in abandonned mines,
the sugars will be turned back into carbon dioxide within a year or so.
That's absolute bullshit.
No, it's not. It's fifth grade science. When the plants die, they decompose
into their constituent elements most of which are taken up by other organisms
which, in their turn, die and decompose releasing their carbon into the
environment.

The carboniferous period was over 300m years ago before Pangea. It was rich
with life.

The Techys ocean which laid over much of current Middle East and western Asia
was rich with plant life. As this sea was drained by tectonic uplift, the water
was replaced by ground. The dead layers of plants and animals were buried under
layers of sedimentary sand and silt in an oxygen free environment, not unlike
modern peat bogs. Peat, as you may know, is buried plant material that never
oxidized and so is carbon rich. It is still dug up and dried and serves as an
important energy source in the British Isles.

Time and pressure acted on this peat to form coal beds and petroleum soaked
porous rock.

We are essentially bringing up from underground, millions of years of carbon and
spewing it into today's atmosphere and oceans.

I don't think there is all that much we can about this process given current
technologies, but we can try to mitigate against it as well as adapt to it.
Humanity will, slowly at first, migrate northward and the north pole will become
the center of human civilization rather than an icy wilderness.

Global warming will open up shipping inside the Arctic circle, half of which
Russia owns. The Arctic is known to be rich in petroleum.

The carboniferous period.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous>

The Tethys Ocean:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethys_Ocean>

See also:
Petroleum formation, "Over millions of years, the remains of these animals and
plants were covered by layers of sand, silt, and rock. Heat and pressure from
these layers turned the remains into what we now call crude oil or petroleum.
The word petroleum means rock oil or oil from the earth."
<https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/>


The future is bright
<https://www.gocomics.com/patoliphant/2014/08/14>



--
"Of all the things that I hated about my childhood, nothing
compared to the revolving door of father figures." -- JD Vance

#NEVERtrump
Ryan
2024-08-29 16:58:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
Maybe YOU can explain why we're growing RECORD crops, but it's not the CO2?
IT's the sun.
Loading...