Help me understand where this global warming "fact" comes from.?

Question

Someone just answered a question concerning global warming and included this so-called fact.

"Food is going to be the problem. A 1 degree Fahrenheit average increase would take away about 10% of the food. Since we can't feed everyone on the planet now, how are we going to when theres less food."

Where does this fact come from? Doesn't using such stupid, obviously erroneous facts show how ignorant or naive you must be to be worried about global warming?

Lee h Thanks for the response but that is exactly what I am trying to understand. If the temperature goes up by 1 degree F, wouldn't that also extend the growing season in certains areas, and also allow some areas to grow things that never have. Also, more temperature means more water vapor, not less. So, it could rain more and don't tell me Al Gore knows where it will and will not rain. Therefore, it is just an outrageous claim with no basis in fact, repeated over and over for effect.

Answer 1

The fact is the earth's surface covers an area of 500 000 000 square kilometres. The earth's atmosphere is 100 km thick. This gives the displacement of the atmosphere as 50 billion cubic kilometres. The fact is scientists cannot accurately measure the average global temperature to within 1 degree fahrenheit.

Answer 2

I don't believe the global warming "fact." In fact, we only have about 150 years worth of actual temperature measurements. Over that time, the standards regarding location, shading of the measuring device, accuracy of instrumentation, etc. have changed. When looking at the history of the Earth, we only know a tiny speck's worth of temperature information with any confidence. This means that in the history of the Earth, we don't have enough statistically significant information to determine whether there is a warming trend that is caused by mankind. An inconvenient truth that I often ask is "is the sun's output considered to be constant?" If so, this is a major flaw in the warming fairy tale. With the large amount of solar activity in the past few years, the Earth has been subjected to more thermal energy than during periods of low solar activity. This would easily account for a warming trend in our atmosphere. Also, consider that 30 years ago, the same environmental groups were saying that we were headed for second ice age. Well, which is it? I would be completely willing to consider the possiblity of global warming if the studies were better published and the assumptions spelled out. Very little is passed out for public scrutiny. The only thing I hear is that "we're all going to die because we drive SUV's." I'm tired of the alarmists and I just don't buy it.

Answer 3

It is stated a little funny, and too precisely (10%). But it has a strong basis in fact.

The problem is that a temperature change like that would dramatically alter patterns of precipitation. Some dry areas would get wet, some wet areas would get dry.

We have hugely expensive irrigation systems that are designed for the present pattern of precipitation. Moving them would cost a lot of time and money.

In some poor countries low lying coastal areas are prime agricultural lands. A small rise in sea level would bring salt water intrusion during storms. They'd be in big trouble, they can hardly feed themselves as it is.

Answer 4

It's not a fact. Food production can be far greater than it is now, the problem is in transporting it to those who need it. Viable farmalnd is often not used. We CAN in fact feed everyone, especially if grazing land is used for protein crops.

I love meat, but it's very wasteful. It can be less than 5% of a diet and the person's health will increase.

Answer 5

First let me deal with the food problem. This is a result of countries such as India with a run-away population growth stemming from the old concept that "the more children, the more harvest" and as India becomes more factory-oriented, the weakness shows. A stern measure such as instituted in China must be used to curb the population. This is foremost. But it is unrelated to a reduction in food production. The important factor for the production of crops is a combination of warmth and humidity or rainfall. Plants flourish in warmth provided there is adequate water supply...i.e. the Gobi Desert where melons and roses thrive and in Israel where they too produce food under extreme conditions. It makes one wonder if both the politicians and scientists are trying to gain fame for preventing a catastrophy.Are you certain that there is indeed global warming? I realize that people have been tugging at the issue for years, but there is no substantial proof that this warming effect is not a cyclical phenomena. We have no proof about the last 50,000 years from the estimated period of the Ice Age. Counting tree rings is hardly an answer and the oldest know trees are less than 3,000 years...perhaps this situation occurs every ten thousand years. Fossils date much further back and we know that some cataclysmic event, a massive volcano or perhaps even a meteorite created so much dust that the earth was blanketed and brought about the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs. That took place about 65,000,000 years ago...just days ago, Norwegian paleontologists announced the discovery of a dinosaur 'graveyard' with the fossils of ichthyosaurs and pleisosaurs (perhaps cousins of the Loch Ness Monster) on an Island about 800 miles from the North Pole. Because both types of dinosaurs were marine (living in salt water), we then can assume they died in the water...but the 'graveyard' is now situated on a hillside some distance from the sea, but also that the water level was much higher at that time...Global Warming? Island can rise and sink because of volcanic activity but the island shows no geological suggestion that that was so. Perhaps too, this is a natural event in that as the temperature increases, so does evaporation and thusly more rain, so could it be that it is a cleansing system to remove pollutants from the atmosphere? There are many far-fetched theories and one is from Australia where scientists claim that cows are a major source of pollution. Herbivores produce methane gas as they digest grasses, fodder and such, and with the vast number of cows and other herbivores, our atmosphere is contaminated. It makes little sense as in America were vast herds of bison, and the plains of Africa still have millions of grazing animals...both past and present. The die-off of marine organisms is often linked to man-made problems...oil spills, dredging, sewage and such...i.e. the Thames River of England was so polluted years ago that no fish could exist...the environmental agency cleaned it up by stopping sewage, etc and now 10 species of fish have returned. We build dams and prevent floods and deprive vital nutrients to the sea. In Asia, DDT was introduced to protect the crops and successfully killed many species of fish and birds (most potent when used with oil as the solvent). Few people understand that a tree does many things besides provide wood, it retains soil but also transpires a substantial amount of moisture into the air...and we cut down the forests. We cover vast areas with tarmac and concrete and deaden the soil. On my last visit to Mt. Kilimanjaro, I noticed the reduction of the ice caps and glaciers but I didn't come away with any firm conviction of a drastic change. In Tibet, I visited the glacial rivers but they seemed much unchanged, and the peak of Mt. Everest seems to have the same amount of snow and ice. The only tangible proof I have found is that some of the tropical marine life in the Sea of Cortez have move further north, but that could be explained by a shifting of currents, rather than an actual change in the climate. Many scientists and indeed researchers need to 'publish or perish' to justify their tenure and make statements couched with the word 'MAY'...rather than definitive statements....that justifies grants and bequests....and now the medical community is falling guilty of the same...Japanese researchers found that drinking green tea may prolong life...etc. Take things with a very large grain of salt and don't depend on the media to be either honest or truthful.

Answer 6

there are various issues, not least of all the actual undeniable truth that there are various those who fervently declare that the age of the Earth is at maximum 7000 years, and that the cycle of warming and cooling isn't listed interior the Bible, so therefor it under no circumstances occurred. the information you're utilising (or 'being fooled into believing and accordingly dropping your soul!') calls for an attractiveness of the age of the earth being many 1000's of thousands of years basically because the visual attraction of the ambience, now to not tutor its very formation. Secondly, countless the interest that's being delivered to undergo on the problem is to connect blame or 'criminal responsibility' to exhibit advertisement hobbies, so lower back it under no circumstances occurred and it really is under no circumstances going to happen. Thirdly, the individuals you mainly are talking about have confident themselves that this phenomenon is controllable through controlling human beings. Worse nonetheless, they try to say the replace might want to be managed through truly insignificant differences in way of existence and economic structure, that's perchance the most threatening. If the condition of the ambience is everywhere close to as altered as modern-day information would state, the proposed action would basically be adequate to demolish the international economic device, pushing the industrialized international into the 0.33 international, unleashing conflict, famine and pestilence, yet not eliminating adequate greenhouse gases to make any major replace. this may basically bring about the right of the international previously international warming completes its cycle of ending the international. Fourthly, sure, you're ideal, this cycle looks to have handed off many circumstances over the infinite millennia, yet you fail to tutor that it type of feels to happen (through the fossil and stata list) mutually that international extinctions happen, the position ninety 5% of all animal and plant existence is readily eliminated. not quite the innocuous incidence you would have us believe, is it?

Answer 7

No. there right, it will cause major changes which will cause some areas to become desert and some areas will get to warm.and change crops outputs. and animals will be affected and there will be less animals to eat.it will affect so many areas and places . oceans will change there will be less fish. some areas will get flooded.I think 10% is a reasonable estimate.about how much it will affect the entire worlds food supply.It may turn out to be more then that.but we will find out.no one knows really till it happens, were as parisites on mother earths skin..I wish you the best. Peace

Answer 8

I don't have the answer, but if it's facts you want then watch the highly accredited documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," by Al Gore. It has facts galore that you can't ignore unless you're just plain stupid.

Answer 9

It seems someone's always trying to scare people.
I guess that's what floats their boat.
Kind of reminds me when I watch the news.
If only that was our only worry.

Answer 10

LoL...it came from the confused mind of a brainwashed kid!