Soren wrote on Dec 15
th, 2010 at 2:35pm:
Yeah, guud wan. Who ya gonna believe? Your East Anglia computer simulation or your lying eyes looking at actual experiments? Well, the computer, of course! It's a peer reviewed computer.
And that Freud sketch - unsurprisingly irrelevant to any part of the discussion.
Soren, I don't think you're being deliberately obtuse here, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
The agronomy experiment was looking at one variable - the CO2 content - Ok? The CO2 level approximates what it will be in 2050 based on a particular emission scenario.
It does not give indications of trends in seasonal temperatures or rainfall by 2050. If you are trying to imply that the agronomy experiment was ever designed to do that, then you are sadly deluded.
Now it's true that we could irrigate a greater proportion of our wheat. We already apply fertiliser, so the nutrient levels are less of a concern. The main variable is temperature, and if the average temperature shifts, it implies that the maximum temperatures shifts too. What happens when you get an extended hot period, is that the yields drop enormously. It becomes academic whether you can get increased yields due to the CO2 content or not. It's not an important consideration in the scheme of things.
Here's a link to one effect of heat stress:
http://www.ypct.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8047:heat-st... Quote:When a high temperature event occurs at the very sensitive stage of development there’s a window of two to three weeks around flowering when the maximum damage will occur.
“The other factor which will affect heat stress is how much water is in the soil profile. If there’s plenty of water in the soil profile the plant can keep its leaves 2 to 4 degrees Celsius lower than the air temperature, but if there’s not enough water in the soil profile the leaves can be up to 4C higher than the air temperature.
Apart from that, you're looking at just one crop in one corner of the globe.
Let me get this straight - Nobody is claiming that
absolutely all the effects of global warming will be detrimental. On the
balance, they will be, but a few areas of human enterprise will benefit according to the forecasts presented in the last synthesis report, at least on the short to medium term.
The Freud sketch was a comment on your apparent inability to discern the difference between agronomists and atmospheric physicists.
You'll have to be more specific about the East Anglia University simulation. Which one do you mean? You're not harping on about dendrochronology data again are you?
- or do you mean HADCRUT3 ? If you can't specify what you mean, how am I supposed to comment on it?