Good news about climate change, or they are bad!
Source/Fuente
One study estimated that climate change will significantly increase the arable areas in the north of the planet.
Source/Fuente
Based on climate models and simulations it can be estimated that the surface of the land capable of sustaining agricultural crops will move about 1200 kilometers north of the planet throughout this century, is what you see in the image below, the lines of colors represent the advance that will have the areas that meet the minimum conditions to be able to cultivate in the open air, in green zones are marked that have boreal climate, today only 32% of these regions is cultivable, but in the year 2099 it is calculated that 75 percent of the boreal region could be suitable for agriculture and all due to changes in rainfall and an increase in temperatures.
Source/Fuente
It could be considered good news, if it were not for much of the rest of the world, will be harmed by these changes, losing much arable land if we take into account the entire planet.
upvote for me please? https://steemit.com/news/@bible.com/2sysip
If you look at their global thermal models, the science fall apart. They ignore the oceans, and assume accuracy for older data beyond the accuracy of the measuring equipment itself. They then wash the data, to get the outcome they require, prostituted science, is NOT science.
40 years ago, they used the same data, to predict a global Ice age...but there was no money in that!
I do not believe that!! today we know more about climate, than 10, 20, 30 ... years ago
I prefer to have a data ... than any data!
Logic goes far beyond our senses ... that's science!
Although science is imperfect, it is always revalued for the better and it rediscovers itself ...
You remind me of a thought of some of the greatest scientific disseminators of this world ...
I recommend you read it a little ...
If I had turned in a scientific paper, as badly done as what these people produce, I would never have made it through school. The scientific method is difficult to use, and very easy to abuse.
I make my living using data analysis to solve problems too hard for the in house engineering to solve.
When you begin any scientific analysis of any system, especially a complex system; the first step is to normalize that system,so you can actually analyze the variables under study. Show me even ONE of these models that take into account the solar input to the system, and I will accept your science. BUT there are none, because it does not support their pre-ordered conclusion. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE!
Now let's talk about control variables. Every variable should be plotted on a 3-D graph, and a process line will form. The closer to the process line a variable is, the more it affects the process itself. On most complex systems. you try to hold as many variables steady as you can, and control the variable you can easily control. Now there are some variables that are very distant from that line, and as such cause very little change to the process line. These are called outliers and are basically ignored when designing a control system. There is another type of variable, that is ignored too since it is controlled by a separate process. Carbon dioxide, is an outlier and is controlled by a different process...both! As an outlier, it already does nothing to control the process. Since the plant life on this planet uses carbon dioxide as a metabolic input. As it climbs; we gets more plants (they like Carbon Dioxide). SO, If WE remove all carbon Dioxide, we starve to death because we have killed our food supply, and our source of oxygen.
REAL SCIENCE does Not begin with the result, and back into the data!
In some points I agree, in others, you can question, and like the following strongly disagree, especially these statements of yours, "Since plant life on this planet uses carbon dioxide as a metabolic input. It goes up, we get more plants (they like carbon dioxide), so if we eliminate all the carbon dioxide, we will die of hunger because we have eliminated our food supply and our source of oxygen. " they are many affirmations and exaggerations of something so complex (that it is) that you yourself have affirmed that it is very difficult to represent.
Nature obeys laws, escalation among others, with thresholds above all for life ...
For science, what today is acceptable for tomorrow may not be, that is the essence of science, question everything ...
and the most unsolicited of your words, to question science with science, is not the way ...
Regards...
Did not intend to give you Unsolicited input, I will quit. BUT all science is questioned...by science, as this questioning is the Very Essence of Science itself.
IF we do not challenge assumptions, our maps would still show a flat Earth.
I will Not bother you any further. Be Blessed.
Totally agree with your words in your last message!
Yes, I was wrong in my previous statement! science is questioned ... by science ... and so successively in search of the truth ...
and as I said before, you have to question everything, even what we believe ... equal benefits for you and yours.
I LOVE Science, and it has made me a living for a decade on my own; so I trust it totally. Often I am tasked with fixing a process I have never have worked on before. Science is the only thing that saves me! I usually find that they do not fully understand the process they have used for years. They usually think I am crazy too, LOL.
Once I get real data, and enough of it to predict the results, I usually find a control variable they knew nothing about! I get a lot of call backs from that. Some of them no longer even ask, they just tell me to fix their problems.
But the most fun with Science is being a judge for science fairs! It doesn't pay well, But it is pure enjoyment!
Stay safe!
:)This post has received a 1.56 % upvote from @drotto thanks to: @jorgebgt.