Ext User(B0NZ0)
10-12-2007, 03:33 PM
"Roger Coppock" <rcoppock@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:df9978ee-3786-4c0a-8ab6-61e8e420e6ef@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Of course, we could all adopt Shrub's global warming plan,
> and just adapt to decreased food production by not eating.
> Or . . . we could eat Rush Limbaugh. ;-)
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=
> Global warming to impact world foodgrain production
DEJA VU.
Not once has any past scaremongering come to pass!
Neither will this drivel.
The current scaremongering will soon die a slow and painful death once
global cooling sets in.
There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to
change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline
in food production - with serious political implications for just about
every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon,
perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact
are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the
North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical
areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia -
where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the
monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate
so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In
England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two
weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the
average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a
degree - a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation.
Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded,
148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion
dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance
signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is
that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild
conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists
disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as
over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are
almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural
productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as
profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be
catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social
adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National
Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and
population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of
the present century."
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree
in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945
and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite
photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two
NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in
the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine
can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin
points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice
Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras -
and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the
way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion
to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much
of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the
Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice
and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New
York City.
[.]
"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's
Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more
sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago."
Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national
boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their
devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any
positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay
its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions
proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black
soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than
those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government
leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of
stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty
into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the
planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with
climatic change once the results become grim reality.
The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
--
Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/
Regards
Bonzo
"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo
"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences
"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen
[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen=307010&tab=r
news:df9978ee-3786-4c0a-8ab6-61e8e420e6ef@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Of course, we could all adopt Shrub's global warming plan,
> and just adapt to decreased food production by not eating.
> Or . . . we could eat Rush Limbaugh. ;-)
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=
> Global warming to impact world foodgrain production
DEJA VU.
Not once has any past scaremongering come to pass!
Neither will this drivel.
The current scaremongering will soon die a slow and painful death once
global cooling sets in.
There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to
change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline
in food production - with serious political implications for just about
every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon,
perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact
are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the
North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical
areas - parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia -
where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the
monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate
so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In
England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two
weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production
estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the
average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a
degree - a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation.
Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded,
148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion
dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance
signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is
that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild
conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists
disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as
over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are
almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural
productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as
profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be
catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social
adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National
Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and
population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of
the present century."
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree
in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945
and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite
photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow
cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two
NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in
the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine
can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin
points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice
Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras -
and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the
way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion
to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much
of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 - years when the
Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice
and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New
York City.
[.]
"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's
Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more
sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago."
Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national
boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their
devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any
positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay
its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions
proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black
soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than
those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government
leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of
stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty
into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the
planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with
climatic change once the results become grim reality.
The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
--
Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/
Regards
Bonzo
"If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual anthropogenic
CO2
contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first
floor"
D'Aleo
"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences
"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen
[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen=307010&tab=r