Corn Pop
Member
Extreme weather ravages agriculture yields causing harm?. 38 trilion in damages by 2049?.
Wow, the climate activists might have some competition with who can cause the most destruction.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
The demands of climate activists is unacceptable
- Thread starter MayGodHeal
- Start date
Extreme weather ravages agriculture yields causing harm?. 38 trilion in damages by 2049?.
Wow, the climate activists might have some competition with who can cause the most destruction.
Mr. Earth I request the rest of your records from day one .
Uncle J
Member
Well you could explain how the science is off....oh wait, you don't actually interact. You just throw rocks from the sideline.Mr. Earth I request the rest of your records from day one .
Waiting on Mr. Earth's records from day one .
Uncle J
Member
Do you not understand what "hottest on record" refers to? Do you understand that it doesn't mean "hottest ever"?
Uncle J
Member
First, you're not even making sense.
Second, that's $38 trillion in damage per year. We've already seen some of those costs today, in the costs to build new homes, replace vehicles, higher insurance premiums, lost productivity, etc.
Kind of hard to prove anything with incomplete records .
Uncle J
Member
What specifically are you referring to?
Uncle J
Member
That's it? Decades and decades of amassed data, plus analyses by countless scientists.....all of it can just be waved away because you saw a meme?
Um......
Are you telling me the above is not computer models ?
Uncle J
Member
That, and it's what's happening now. You haven't noticed?
Corn Pop
Member
How? . The weather can destory farmers stock and crops thats a fact, rhey have to deal with the stree and pressure of droughts and floods and all sorts, and climate activists like try to make people feel guilty for eating meat so farmers go even more broke.
Farmers have a tough life trying to feed the world so i will give respect and thanks for the food i do eat, it come from a farmer, so today is thank a farmer day. I would like to say thank you to all the famers for your hard work and being the only providers of food for the cities so more people in the world dont starve, there is enough already.
Corn Pop
Member
Its not a easy life, out in the country, long days, 7 days a week, hoping to have a good season and get a crop and no disease or some type of disaster that wipes out the stock or crop. Thats enough stress and thats there living. Thats why i stand with farmers because i know its not easy and its isolated work, all so in the end people in the cities can eat. Bus8nes is bus8ness but in the end its still the food on everyones tabkes, they are the suppliers. You dont pick on farmers.
And farmers dont set the prices, dont blame farmers for nothing, its not there fault if its expensive, they aint getting rich off it.
And farmers dont set the prices, dont blame farmers for nothing, its not there fault if its expensive, they aint getting rich off it.
Uncle J
Member
FYI, farmers grow plants too.
Corn Pop
Member
I will tell you what i find disrespectful.
Its when millions of people are literally starving to death in this world and many peoppe are hungey and some people like to say the world should eat less meat, when meat is obviously a known source of food.
Yet then turn around and claim its all the climates fault and they just trying to save the planet. Yea right, thats offensive.
I find that completely disgusting.
Its when millions of people are literally starving to death in this world and many peoppe are hungey and some people like to say the world should eat less meat, when meat is obviously a known source of food.
Yet then turn around and claim its all the climates fault and they just trying to save the planet. Yea right, thats offensive.
I find that completely disgusting.
ezrider
Member
Purposeful Stupidity!
King Dan the defender of meat, can you answer a couple of questions for us just so we understand how meat will solve hunger?
Given that the average age when beef cattle are slaughtered at is 18 to 24 months.....
1. How many people will one beef cattle feed over a two year period?
2. How many acres of land are needed to feed that same beef cattle over the two year period?
3. After two years, you get one slab of beef. But, over that same two year period, how many harvests might a farmer be able to yield given there are seasonal crops?
4. Using your answer from question #2 for raising your revered slab of meat; How many people might the same parcel of land feed and sustain over the same two year period?
And Dan, for what it's worth, I grew up on a dairy farm.
Uncle J
Member
That makes no sense at all. The people saying we should reduce meat consumption aren't referring to people in the midst of a famine. They're talking about well-off people in the developed world.
You really never picked that up?
Uncle J
Member
THE NEW FACE OF FLOODING
What the residents and rescuers of the Fowl River region faced on that day was part of a dangerous phenomenon reshaping the southern United States: Rapidly rising seas are combining with storms to generate epic floods, threatening lives, property and livelihoods.
In the Fowl River’s case, unusually high tides slowed floodwaters as they went downstream to drain. This increased the water’s depth and flooded a wide expanse — even several miles upstream. The result was deluged roads, washed out cars and damaged houses from a flood that was larger, deeper and longer-lasting due to rising seas.
These supercharged floods are one of the most pernicious impacts of an unexpected surge in sea levels across the U.S. Gulf and southeast coasts — with the ocean rising an average of 6 inches since 2010, one of the fastest such changes in the world, according to a Washington Post examination of how sea level rise is affecting the region.
The Post’s analysis found that sea levels at a tide gauge near the Fowl River rose four times faster in 2010 to 2023 than over the previous four decades...
What the residents and rescuers of the Fowl River region faced on that day was part of a dangerous phenomenon reshaping the southern United States: Rapidly rising seas are combining with storms to generate epic floods, threatening lives, property and livelihoods.
In the Fowl River’s case, unusually high tides slowed floodwaters as they went downstream to drain. This increased the water’s depth and flooded a wide expanse — even several miles upstream. The result was deluged roads, washed out cars and damaged houses from a flood that was larger, deeper and longer-lasting due to rising seas.
These supercharged floods are one of the most pernicious impacts of an unexpected surge in sea levels across the U.S. Gulf and southeast coasts — with the ocean rising an average of 6 inches since 2010, one of the fastest such changes in the world, according to a Washington Post examination of how sea level rise is affecting the region.
The Post’s analysis found that sea levels at a tide gauge near the Fowl River rose four times faster in 2010 to 2023 than over the previous four decades...
Key findings
- The ocean off the U.S. Gulf and Southern Atlantic coasts has, since 2010, risen at about triple the rate experienced during the previous 30 years. In just the Gulf of Mexico, sea levels rose at twice the global rate over the past 14 years.
- There are now more dangerous rain-driven and flash floods reported within 10 miles of the coast in the region. Their numbers increased by 42 percent from 2007 to 2022 — a total of 2,800 events, according to a Post analysis of National Weather Service data.
- The Fowl River flood was caused by intense but not record-breaking thunderstorms that collided with high tides, according to Webb’s analysis. Working together, they caused the river to spill miles inland. The higher seas of today, compared with sea levels in 1967, would have increased the volume of the flood by nearly 10 percent of the river in its normal state, the analysis showed.