Global Warming be Damned: Record Corn, Soybeans, Wheat

October 14th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

For many years we have been warned that climate change is creating a “climate crisis”, with heat and drought reducing agricultural yields to the point that humanity will suffer. Every time there’s a drought, we are told that this is just one more example of human-caused climate change.

But droughts have always occurred. The question is: Are they getting worse? And, has modest warming had any effects on grain yields?

We have yet to experience anything like the Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s, or the mega-droughts the western U.S. tree ring record suggests occurred in centuries past.

And even if they do occur, how do we know they were not caused by the same natural factors that cause those previous droughts? While “global warming” must cause more precipitation overall (because there is more evaporation), whether this means increased drought conditions anywhere is pretty difficult to predict because it would require predicting an average change in weather patterns, which climate models so far have essentially no skill at.

So, here we are with yet another year (2016) experiencing either record or near-record yields in corn, soybeans, and wheat. Even La Nina, which was widely feared would cause reduced crop yields this year, did not materialize.

How can this be?

How has Climate Changed in the U.S. Corn Belt?

Let’s start with precipitation for the main growing months of June-July-August over the 12-state Corn Belt (IL, IN, IA, KS, NE, ND, SD, MO, WI, MN, MI, OH). All data come from official NOAA sources. Since 1900, if anything, there has been a slight long-term increase in growing season precipitation:


In fact, the last three years (2014-16) has seen the highest 3-yr average precip amount in the entire record.

If we examine temperature, there has been some warming in recent decades, but nothing like that predicted for the same region from the CMIP5 climate models:


That plot alone should tell you that something is wrong with the climate models. It’s not even obvious a statistically significant warming has occurred, let alone attribute it to a cause, given all of the adjustments (or lack of proper adjustments) that have been made to the surface thermometer data over the years. Note the models also cannot explain the Dust Bowl warmth of the 1930s, because the models do not mimic the natural changes in Pacific Ocean circulation which are believed to be the cause.

So, has Climate Change Not Influenced Grain Yields?

Let’s assume the temperature and precipitation observations accurately reveal what has really happened. Has climate change since 1960 impacted corn yields in the U.S.?

As part of some consulting I do for a company that monitors grain markets and growing conditions around the world, last year I quantified how year-to-year variations in U.S. corn yields depend on year-to-year changes in precipitation and temperature, over the period 1960 through 2014. I then applied that relationship to the long-term trends in precipitation and temperature.

What I found was that there might be a small long-term decrease in yields due to climate change, but it is far exceeded by technological advancements that increase yields.

In fact, based upon studies of the dependence of corn yield on CO2 fertilization, the negative climate impact is even outweighed by the CO2 fertilization effect alone. (More CO2 is well known to fertilize, as well as increase drought tolerance and make plants more efficient in their water use).

The people I know in the grain trading business do not even factor in climate change…primarily because they do not yet see evidence of it.

It might well be there…but it is so overwhelmed by other positive factors, especially improved varieties, that it cannot be observed in corn yield data. In fact, if varieties can be made more heat tolerant, it might be that there will be no climate change impact on yields.

So, once again, claims of severe agricultural impacts from climate change continue to reside in the realm of science fiction….in the future, if at all.

523 Responses to “Global Warming be Damned: Record Corn, Soybeans, Wheat”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Ulric Lyons says:

    There is a solar reason why positive North Atlantic Oscillation picked up temporarily since 2012. We are now on the down slope and will be seeing several summers with negative NAO for months on end like in 2012, until around the next sunspot maximum. That will drive the AMO strongly warm again, increasing drought episodes across the US plains.

    • David says:

      Your answer is conflated BS

      • effinayright says:

        David, this is a science blog. If you want to participate, you must offer an argument, reasoning and facts, not just an unsupported assertion.

        Otherwise you will rightly be considered a science simpleton.

  2. rob bender says:

    There may be a boom but sadly more and more people and countries world-wide dont want U.S. grain because its mostly GMO toxic monsanto food. We want real wholesome natural food.

    • pochas94 says:

      “GMO toxic monsanto food”

      Are you sure you know what you’re talking about?

        • Jeff W says:

          I’m in the grain business and will state unequivocally that GMO’s trade just as well as non-GMO’s. There’s always demand for both, doesn’t matter. GMO’s are unoficially allowed for feed in many Non-GMO countries. Feed is a big business, it plays a big part in merchandising the grains.

      • Joe says:

        Glyphosate in any amount is toxic. Monsanto’s story of feeding the world is pure bs.

        • Duster says:

          Not to defend Monsanto, but have you read actual scientific studies that claim extreme toxicity? There are all kinds of anecdotal assertions, but even the German government has been unable to find convincing evidence that glyphosate is linked to any disease. The LD50 levels for it run in the grams per kilogram. There is a profound difference between a scientific study and the anecdotes collected by lawyers to support law suits based on arguments supported by precautionary-principle based “reasoning.”

    • Cuivre says:

      If a backwards thinking, anti-science country chooses to let its people die of starvation or high domestically raised food prices, it is because of junk science propaganda and that country’s leaders. It is because of their own politics/special interests, and NOT the relative safety of the imported food. Only until the masses rise up, will these politics be cast aside to feed the country’s citizenry. There are no effect provable from GMO agricultural products that even come close to the acute death that comes from simple starvation and malnourishment. Most of the deaths in the US that I have heard about are from ORGANIC focused sources (Chipotle, various lettuce/spinach sources using crap for fertilizer) and simple food mishandling.

      • pfudnut says:

        Well said!

      • April says:

        Deaths from Chipotle? uh, no. Putting GMO’s into the feed is just a backdoor way to get then into our bodies. Glyphosate is toxic and GMO’s are loaded with them.

      • Mike says:

        +Cuivre right on! Labor saving, disease and pest resistant crops are the only chance of feeding this growing world. It’s the same fools that don’t get their kids immunized. Vaccines are responsible for the control of many infectious diseases that were once common in this country.

    • pfudnut says:

      Do you even know what GMO means? Is a Granny Smith apple different from a Red Delicious? Where did these different variety come from? Do they have the exact same DNA? If they don’t then they are GMO’d. If any variety of any organic substance has a different DNA then doesn’t it stand to reason that it is has been GMO’d? So, explain to me what GMO means.

      • Different apple varieties use virtually the same amount of water, they contain virtually the same plant toxins, if bred the natural way. Firing the DNA for toxic chemicals in a scattergun approach into plants is nothing like the same thing and producing crops that need twice as much water and still get attacked by the same pests three years on is utter madness. There is a reason people choose not to eat GMO if given a choice. They are bad for people and bad for yields and bad for the ecosystems of the planet.

        • Duster says:

          The soundest reason to avoid GMO crops is economic. DNA moves naturally between various non-interbreeding lines courtesy of viruses, bacteria, and the like, and now humans. But, GMOs are routinely patented. It constrains farmers to purchase seed from Monsanto and their competitors each year and they are not allowed to retain seed stock from season to season. Monsanto is known to sue farmers whose field crops have been accidentally contaminated by neighbors planting Monsanto’s products. Monsanto and Cargill are a good reasons to avoid GMOs. The GMOs themselves, not so much.

      • April says:

        You are trying to confuse people with hybridization vs. crossing DNA from plants and bacteria or animals or insects to manipulate the growth. Transgenic organisms (GMO”S) come from man violating a plants DNA with foreign DNA. This is wrong and science has never stopped to think “should we do this?” We have no idea what the consequence will be. We are talking about the manipulation of the natural world as we know it. SO wrong.

        • FarmBoy says:

          Climate models may miss the boat entirely, when assessing crop yields. Microclimate, essentially soil surface temperature may be the most important temperature affecting crop yields, with soil temperature determining planting times, grain sprouting date, and growing season.
          Although climate may have some effect on soil temperatures, the most important factor is radiant energy on the soil surface.
          Desert environments have near water boiling temperatures on the soil surface, “Frying eggs on the sidewalk.”.
          The soil temperature, and microenvironment at the soil surface may not have a direct relationship to atmospheric temperatures, or average atmospheric temperatures including stratospheric and trophospheric temperatures.
          Climate scientists may not be the people who should be trying to answer these questions, but rather soil scientists, and astronomers assessing changes in solar radiation, especially during the solar cycle with sunspot activity and lack thereof and also cosmic ray activity.
          It is thought the position of the solar system as it oscillates through the plane of the Milky Way galaxy, and moving through galactic and itnergalactic dust clouds are responsible for the climate changes which occurred with the ice ages, and interglacial periods.
          So we’re not seeing change in crop yields? Not surprising this year. In fact, in the North American Midwest, it probably has been just about a perfect climate for great crop yields with steady rains in moderate amounts through just about the entire crop growing period.
          So if this is climate change which is supposed to turn the earth into run away climate change or Venus like CO2 climate,
          at least this year, was just about a perfect crop growing year.

        • RAH says:


          Human kind has been practicing “manipulation of the natural world” since, well some hominid learned how to make shelter and fire. We manipulate our natural world in so many ways it’s probably impossible to count them. The use of fertilizers and insecticides. Even the use of antibiotics is a “manipulation of the natural world”. Chlorination of water is a manipulation. The residual of the chlorine it’s self is very short term but the micro flora and fauna it killed are dead forever. Agriculture and domestication of species and animal husbandry are manipulations of the natural world. The length of the list of how we have manipulated our natural world probably is so long and so complex that it could never be created. My bird feeder when it has seeds is a manipulation of the natural world.

          • PC says:

            By your definition, an elephant wallowing in a water hole to cool off is manipulation, so is it still unnatural?

        • wert says:

          “This is wrong”

          I think you should think again what “wrong” means.

          ” We have no idea what the consequence will be”

          And we have idea what the consequence is. An organism with modified properties. Just what traditional selection and hybridization does, but quicker and more efficient.

        • Duster says:

          April, you really need to read up on the real behaviour of natural populations. Transgenic organisms are not unique to human engineering. There are complete virus genomes incorporated into the genomes of “higher” animals including humans. Bacteria routinely “scavenge” and incorporate DNA fragments out of their environments, bits left when other bacteria die or are destroyed. Viruses transfer DNA elements between different Kingdoms! There are no neat boundaries, chemically, within the biosphere. We really do have ideas about what the consequences would be since the “consequences” are all around us and recorded throughout geological history.

          Every time you eat corn (maize) or a tomato or a potato or any domesticated plant product, any time you ride a horse, pet a bull dog, smile at a dachshund, or start when a Malinois in a police canine unit barks you are encountering the human use of evolution to induce specific changes in a biological population.

    • Michael van der Riet says:

      The people who slept all through science class have arrived and they’re telling us to wake up.

    • Well said Rob. Sadly those who point to studies showing no problems with GMO food forget that those who pay for the studies sell GMO foods. Here in Aberdeen Scotland back in the 1990’s the head researcher at the crop institute here, one of the top institutes in the world, was sacked on the direct orders of the British Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, for daring to show that GM potatoes caused massive deformities in baby rats. We all know now that Tony Blair was a bought and paid for member of this cabal that run the west like a plantation so it is no surprise to me to see that not only has this study been suppressed but hundreds of others also. I believe in the scientific method but we need real unvarnished results to see that method triumph not head in the sand ignore the realities of what we all must by now KNOW to be going on in “research”.

      • Eric H says:

        You speak of Pusztai’s rat experiments…Why didn’t you bother with the rebuttals?

        “Pusztai has been criticized severely for the quality of his experiments. His experiments have been attacked for their small sample sizes, the use of inappropriate statistical procedures, and the fact that a diet of raw – or even cooked – potatoes is a bad diet for rats (people too), even when supplemented with a bit of extra protein. But oddly enough, in all that has been written about these experiments, no one seems to have seen their central flaw, which was that he did not use appropriate controls. A “control” is the part of an experiment that allows the researcher to examine the consequences of just the change (in this case) or the treatment (in the case of a drug) under study. In Pusztai’s experiments, the control potatoes had a different history than the transgenic potatoes and, in particular, that history included a culture procedure that induces somaclonal variation. The likeliest source of the variation he detected – and of the differences he attributed to the fact that they contained foreign DNA – was the culture procedure itself. In order to be able to attribute the deleterious effects of the transgenic potatoes to the newly introduced gene or to some other part of the introduced DNA, he would have had to make a comparison between potatoes that had the very same history, but either had or lacked the transgenic construct. This can be done, but the study that Pusztai participated in was simply not designed for such a test.”

    • wu hu says:

      utter rhetoric you spew. ive been involved with farming for 35yrs. ive been buying grain for 4yrs, all for the international market. there is so much grain world wide , wheat corn records here and other countries , almost every 2nd year there is a new record. russia/ukraine could improve there production but there 30yrs behind. its astonishing the BS that comes out.
      and as far as GMO – the only reason this started was back 20yrs ago and the govt gave monsanto cargill etc monopolies and control of seed stocks .. farmers have been using roundup weed killer since the 50s .
      the truth is if we didnt use chemicals we then truly couldnt feed ourselves . but at this point there is a lot of grain worldwide. for instance soya beans , before the 2016 harvest , there are 16months of supply available . so basically 2 crop cycles ahead. corn is much less but still 6months . thats just usa stock .

    • John Hultquist says:

      Not much you should eat then. Here’s just one example:

      “Triticale is a combination grain of rye and durum wheat and is a grain that would not occur naturally because it is a hybrid of two different grains. It was first grown in 1875 although it was not released for commercial production until 1969.”

      For homework write a paper on Teosinte and Maize.

    • stewart orvik says:

      It’s not the “more and more people” it’s the power hungry elite who would rather millions starve than be fed as they have been with new innovations in seed grains. NO ONE, of the millions who’ve eaten these modified grains has died as a result.
      The shame is that the world gives Nobel prizes to the Dylan’s of the world, and denies Norman Borlaug, who saved millions from starvation,the recognition he so humanely deserves.

    • Duude says:

      If that be the case, you must be wondering about Germany’s Bayer buying Monsanto. We’ve seen a staggering number of science journals stating that GMO’s are NOT dangerous, and now Bayer buying Monsanto. I figure Europe will soon embrace GMOs now that the profits are in Germany.

    • John Beargrass says:

      I hear all the fear mongers talking bout the danger of GMO grains and pesticide uses. This is talk of the ignorant folks that are trolls and trying to instill fear into people. As a farmer and certified crop advisor I have a much different take on this subject. If you want “real wholesome natural food” that is Ok. The fact is without the advances in agricultural production, use of pesticides alone the agricultural output would be 1/4 of what it is today. The ignorance of people that know nothing about agriculture is indeed a problem but many are “experts” and fear mongers. Re: Meryl Streep and the alar scare. The list goes on and on. In America we have the greatest abundance of food in the world due to good farmers and production methods that wisely use pesticides and “some” GMO crops. BTW there is no GMO wheat it is primarily corn and soy beans. Travel outside the United States, go to some 3rd world countries and view their “natural” farming, then tell me how wonderful it is.

    • GMApe says:

      Try explaining the ‘risk’ of consuming GM food to a starving child’s mother somewhere in malaria-infested black Africa? Or the risks of consuming golden rice to a mother whose children are going blind due to vitamin A deficiency.

      Anyway, we’ve been eating GM tomatoes for decades.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      rob bender…”countries world-wide dont want U.S. grain because its mostly GMO toxic monsanto food”.

      Give me some scientific proof there is anything wrong with GMO food.

      There has been a similar knock on Aspertame, because it allegedly produces products in the body like formaldehyde. The detractors who produce this propaganda fail to point out that tomatoes produce more formaldehyde in the body.

      It seems there are people out there who regard everything modern with unreasonable skepticism. They knock food additives without the slightest proof they do any harm.

      Having said that, there are concerns. A well known laxative uses the same base as anti-freeze, polyethylene glycol. The FDA has sent out strong warning concerning adverse effects in the human body.

  3. Farmer Bob says:

    We just came through a drought as bad as anything in the 30’s about 2 to 5 years ago. The main effect was a shortage of grasses and feed for cattle. This resulted in too much meat at first due to the number of cattle being slaughtered to reduce herd size, and the high meat prices as the herds were rebuilt. But we can easily overproduce the 6 main commodities, so there is no shortage in this country. Since our farm technologies have advanced over the past 80 years, farmers have more tools to deal with minor changes. But the public gets over-hyped by too many do-gooder know nothings that seem to think they know how farmers should do their jobs. Meanwhile, farmers rely on the work of tens of thousands of researchers in both universities and large corporations that employ thousands of scientists. But if you are one of those that really believe the hype, well you can put your money where your mouth is and show us how to do it correctly. I’ll even rent you the ground.

    • April says:

      Have you read “Foodopoly”? No hype just facts. You are supporting an industry that manipulates and violates our food supply. You are flooding the environment with chemicals that have never been used in such a overwhelming way. You are supporting the poisoning of our water, land and food. Bayer/Monsanto want to be in control of the world’s food supply and you support this. They care nothing more than for their bottom line. Farmers should be relying on the years of experience of their forefathers not greedy corporations.

      • Hillel says:

        You’re anti-science. There are a lot of quacks out there that promote the anti-gmo narrative and they don’t know what they are talking about.

        • Henri says:

          Science today is pretty anti science in practice. The scientific method encourages critical thinking, debunking and provable, testable conclusions. And when experiments seem to indicate common results, the “science” should never become dogma. Keep on testing and proving. Allow 3rd parties to prove your science wrong, which Monsanto will not allow. Believing is the enemy of knowledge, and it’s not what you know but what you can prove. I can prove that cattle would rather starve given the choice to eat anything genetically modified. They have to be forced to eat it. Large crops don’t come because of all the new technologies and gmo varieties, but are a direct result of healthy soil. Science has become a new religion of believing. If I can prove something different than what science says, than I’m the quack and anti science? Seems like the new religion has indoctrinated the masses.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Henri…”The scientific method encourages critical thinking, debunking and provable, testable conclusions”.

            Please don’t join the faction who turn the scientific method into something obscure. Many people today think peer review is part of the scientific method and even give PR more importance.

            Peer review denies one of the basic inferences of the scientific method that it be testable by ‘anyone’. Peer review is designed to exclude anyone but so-called scientists and it is fixed by a journal publisher allowing an unidentified reviewer to discard a paper before it reaches the level of the scientific method.

            The scientific method as taught in high school science decades ago is far better than the modern abomination. Basically, you state an objective, explain your methodology, explain your equipment, acquire results and form a conclusion.

            Dead simple, yet the theory of evolution and climate models cannot meet those requirements. Peer review is not even mentioned in the scientific method.

      • wu hu says:

        agreed , but that political , bayer/monsanto/cargill all have to be broke up , and monopolies stopped , btw organic grain food is a farce . when the neighboring farmer sprays his field with roundup , do you think it stays just on his field ? liberal ideology is the weed that needs to be sprayed.

      • Fred says:

        Go into farming and do it the right way, then. And don’t complain when your apples aren’t accepted by consumers because they have sooty blotch or flyspeck on them, and don’t complain when your corn dies due to corn borer. And especially don’t complain when your produce has to be sold at a premium of twice the price of regular produce because you choose to farm like people in the 19th century. Pesticides aren’t nearly as toxic as when my grandfather grew apples in Michigan. He used the state of the art – Arsenic – as a pesticide. The real reason no one wants GMO, etc. is because 1960’s hippies wanted to farm without DDT and their fathers helped them get “organic” labeling and marketing laws passed. Now that DDT and arsenic are long gone, they’ve got to keep up a reason for why their food costs so much more.

      • Eric H says:

        Foodopoly was written by a political activist…”Wenonah Hauter is an activist, author and progressive policy advocate. She is the founder and executive director of Food & Water Watch, an organization that, under her leadership, has fundamentally transformed the national debate about hydraulic fracturing (fracking), energy and the environment”

        No hype? I seriously doubt it.

      • brian says:

        you are a fool and a danger to most americans survival you have no facts and no evidence of anything you have stated but just repeating the lies from the corrupt media and al gore

    • Mark says:

      I’ve met my local equivalent of Farmer Bob in Farmer Jim.
      You want an education go hang out with a REAL farmer, like Bob or Jim.

      No GMO, get used to eating ALOT less. Same with stopping pesticide and herbicide use.

      Fertilizing with poop (organic) ups the risk of bad things happening, especially with improper food handling.

      You want healthy food then grow your own. Try “organic” farming if you want…but let the Farmer Bob’s of the world do their jobs.

      Bet all the naysayers have never had to do any real farm work.

      • Jon says:

        I grow some things in my own garden and eat whatever is in the store. I’m not a scientist, an organic nut or receive any money from either side. I like that there is a sustainable and consistent crop from year to year.

        I’ve also noticed more food allergies in people of all ages. I think that there should be more studies to see if they tie back to the way food is processed or if GMO’s could be the cause.

        My wife has recently had bad reactions to gluten. It is worse when she eats here in the states and not as bad when we are traveling in Italy or other parts of Europe. No conclusions but just more questions.

      • Lewis says:

        I suggest that most naysayers have done little work of any type. They’ve been spoon fed most of their lives and fed propaganda in the public skools. Even as I write, my grandsons, 14, are being fed the evils of climate change and evil man.

        My current job includes educating them. Towards that end I recommend this website to them.

  4. Sam I Am says:

    I’m sure Al Gore has this figured out (or he will make something up).

  5. Jimmy Schmidt says:

    This post really makes sense to me because I have had the same experience.

    I started drinking 35 years ago as a teen. I was partying all the time, which is pretty normal where I grew up. In my twenties I got a good job so I could drink better stuff and by 30 I was a hard core alcoholic. I’ve heard from doctors and so called “scientists” that drinking a lot is bad for you, but every decade I have been drinking more than the decade before. I have gained some weight, but not too much, and otherwise I feel great. I do a lot of bowling too, and last year I had my highest average in the last 20 years. In fact, my average over the last three years is higher than it has ever been. My wife took the kids and left me, so I think I will have even more time to bowl next year and less of her complaining about my drinking, so I am expecting big things in the future. I figure I should be able to keep drinking more and more for the foreseeable future. What could go wrong? The scientists and doctors don’t know shit.

    • the trouble with your analogy is we have MILLIONS of examples (proof) of where excessive drinking eventually leads, statistically.

      But we have ZERO examples of where going from 3 CO2 parts per 10,000 part of air 70 years ago, to 4 parts (today) or 5 parts late this century eventually leads.

      • John Hultquist says:

        ” (proof) ”

        That’s cute — if it burns!

      • David Collins says:

        I would say we do have examples. Ever hear of ice cores?

        • Aaron S says:

          Ice cores above 300ppm?

        • TheLastWord says:

          Ice cores? Of course. Now, how exactly do these scientists get a thermometer inside these ice cores and go back thousands of years to get MEASURED (NOT ESTIMATED) temperature data that is as accurate as today’s measured data? What? They can’t do that? They’re actually ESTIMATING from a whole host of variables and have absolutely no way of providing proof that their ESTIMATES are even remotely accurate?

          Golly. Give me an ice core. I need to see what the temp was on Feb 12th, -35,291 BC to within 0.05 degrees C… SMH

      • Jimmy Schmidt says:

        No Roy, you only have me!! One perfectly healthy test case after 35 years and going strong. No need to worry at all.

        Of these “millions” of people you studied and know so well, how many of them smoked or did other drugs, or were overweight, or didn’t exercise, or had genetic predisposition to cancers or diabetes? How many were exposed to harmful chemicals, or suffered from stress? Most all of them I think.

        Or are you relying on the “consensus” of no-nothing PhD’s out grubbing for NIH funding to do studies on rats for all your expertise? Just because the science seems settled in the literature doesn’t mean it is correct. Look at me! I am living proof it is wrong. I think you have been blinded by the main stream media and popular press repeating the lie that drinking is bad for you. They are all paid off by the liquor lobby anyway.

        For the earth we have millions of years of observation which is more relevant to the present day earth than some fat coke sniffing whino is relevant to me.


        • No I’ve seen too many friends and relatives die from just what diseases have been associated with habits: lung disease from smoking, liver disease from alcohol. But go ahead and do all that stuff since you seem to believe it won’t hurt you. For now at least you have that freedom.

          • Jimmy Schmidt says:

            You sound exactly like the guy who says global warming is real because it was a hot summer in . Personal anecdote doesn’t refute general falsehood. You are cherry picking a particular example to try and prove your point.

        • Nate says:


          “Personal anecdote doesnt refute general falsehood”,

          I’m pretty sure your story is exactly this…

          Glad to hear you have a tougher liver than most people have.

          I assume you don’t wear seat belts either, because you have a tougher skull than most people

    • wert says:

      ” What could go wrong? The scientists and doctors dont know shit.”


    • Nate says:


      i dont understand why you spend so much time demonstrating for skeptics that the greenhouse effect (of Co2) is real, and shooting down various other common misconceptions, but then you play up the meme that the amount of CO2 is negligible, only 3-4 parts per million.

      Why? Arent you just encouraging the nuts?

  6. Jimbo says:

    Record grain crops?

    I guess we’ll be suffering with more alcohol in our gasoline now…..

  7. John Hultquist says:

    Add milk to the list of large crops.

    From the Wall Street Journal, By Kelsey Gee
    Updated Oct. 12, 2016
    [WSJ requires pay]

    Americas Dairy Farmers Dump 43 Million Gallons of Excess Milk
    “Spilled milk hits highest in decades, as prices drop and supplies bulge; putting more butter in McMuffins and cheese in tacos”

  8. Rodd says:

    Grand Solar Minimum!

    • Aaron S says:

      Why do people expect a grand minimum? The sun is not periodic enough beyond the 11yr scwabe cycle to predict the next cycle. Solar activity is a composite system comprised of multiple periods all of which are irregular in time. Next cycle could be the same as 24.

  9. Ralph Martin says:

    Good lord you anti gmo people are pathetic ignorant psychopaths. Im so tired of the anti science crowd. Being against the AGW agenda is PRO science because the science they use to “prove” agw is flawed and they cant accurately predict their next bowel movements much less the climate. They are working on a thesis where they have the answer they want they just have to frame the question to prove they are right. Anti GMO people use junk science, emotion, and conspiracy theories to prove their points. I really wish the anti gmos would just go live somewhere in the woods and leave the rest of the rational people alone.

    • stewart orvik says:

      But they wont stay in the woods, as Ted Cherwinski, or whatever the “Mad Bomber” was named, would make his bombs and mail them to his victims. BTW, it is not GMO foods that is fattening our population, it is most likely Sweet Toothed Gluttony.

      • Eric H says:

        Really Stewart? Blaming the victims of the vast corporate food conspiracy for their own girth? How dare you imply that people be responsible for their own behaviors! Why that lady buying her chubby 10 year old a 16oz bottle of Dr. Pepper at 0700 this morning at the convenience store was obviously brain washed by corporate advertising and was completely unaware of the dangers of high fructose corn syrup which is intentionally added to make the little chubbers addicted to junk food. I am a victim as well, the can of Copenhagen I was buying is highly addictive and US Tobacco hasn’t agreed to pay for my rehab. I will probably get cancer and have to end up sueing for my pain. Only if Earl Campbell hadn’t been in that Skoal commercial during my formative years…bad Earl, bad bad!

        (The previous post is complete BS and is intended to be for the enjoyment of those with a sense of humor. It is sarcasm, which can be defined with a quick Google search)

    • alessandro says:

      Such a pathetic and childish comment

  10. Alberto Zaragoza Comendador says:

    The case of corn is particularly striking because it’s a C4 plant and thus doesn’t benefit nearly as much from additional CO2 as the other 95% of plants. Nevermind – corn is going strong too.

    So even in a record-breaking hot year, and even in the 5% of crops that benefit least from additional CO2, the evidence of warming hurting yields is non-existent.

    There is also the issue that the temperatures of 2016 may be surpassed, eventually… but by then CO2 levels will be higher. In that sense the 2014-16 temperature jump acted as a massive natural experiment, essentially increasing one factor (heat) while holding others almost constant (CO2, technology). And still we didn’t see the purported damage to crops.

  11. Brad says:

    Are there Glyphosate style salt shakers.
    Just cant get enough of that stuff.
    Almost as good as msg

  12. Stephen Fuchs says:

    If grain supplies are booming, prices should come down, right?

    • Hoosierfarmer says:

      Obviously you’re unaware of grain prices as a whole as well as government manipulation of commodity markets. The CBOT (Chicago Board of Trade) price for Corn TODAY….again….TODAY….is within 20 cents of where it was in 1965. Record or near record yields are necessary to not only feed all of us but to make it somewhat profitable to farm.

      • gbaikie says:

        Are you including inflation?
        Something priced in 1965 at $1000 is worth at least $7000 in 2016 dollars.

      • David Appell says:

        Hoosierfarmer says:
        “Obviously youre unaware of grain prices as a whole as well as government manipulation of commodity markets.”

        How is government manipulating commodity markets?

        Your proof of this?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          David…”Your proof of this?”

          You want proof for everything but global warming and it’s imaginary and generalized effect, climate change. There is no such thing as a global climate corresponding to a global warming.

          There is not a shred of evidence to support the notion that humans are causing catastrophic warming or climate change. Even the pundits at the IPCC, who set out with a mandate in 1988 to find proof that we humans are causing warming, admitted in 2013 that the warming stopped in 1998.

  13. Hoosierfarmer says:

    “Farming is easy when your plow is a pencil and you’re nowhere near a cornfield.”

    -Dwight D. Eisenhower

    GMO’s have been an essential part of agriculture since the very first wheat varieties were cultivated/domesticated in Turkey thousands of years ago. Corn as well as soybeans have been so altered by humans throughout history that they have no known “wild” counterparts.

    When 50 “scientists” say GMO’s are safe it’s considered crazy and they must be bought and paid for!

    When 50 “scientists” say man made global warming is legitimate then they must be listened too!

    Science shouldn’t be political it should be quantitative and decisive. Until something is proven without question then it must remain a theory. Harmful GMO’s = Theory/Man made global warming = Theory

    • RAH says:


      Actually Man made global warming or AGW (Anthropological Global Warming) is not even a theory yet. It is a hypothesis.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Hoosierfarmer…”Science shouldnt be political…”

      Wouldn’t that be nice.

      Unfortunately, politically-based science has been with us for at least a century. Even quantum theory took an unfortunate turn in the 1930s when Neils Bohr introduced a political interpretation of the theory that proposed action at a distance (teleportation). Einstein opposed it adamantly and Schrodinger, essentially the father of the modern theory, retired rather than join the political insanity.

      In medicine, there was an outbreak of pellagra in the southern states of the US. An on-the-scene researcher reported immediately the cause seemed related to diet. He was ignored for some 30 years while others looked for a viral or bacterial cause.

      It seems we are repeating that history with the HIV/AIDS theory. The notion that HIV causes AIDS was introduced by the Reagan administration in 1983 without peer review. They took the word of Robert Gallo, a scientist who had proposed cancer is caused by a virus. He simply transferred his failed theory from cancer to HIV/AIDS and now he is a multi-millionaire.

      The scientist who discovered HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier has recently claimed that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system, leaving little doubt that AIDS is a lifestyle issue.

      Both political interference and political correctness are alive and well in science.

      • Nate says:

        Ho boy…

        What you’re talking about is something called Nobel disease:

        that sometimes turns Nobelists into nut-jobs.

        What sort of conspiracy theory sites you frequenting?

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Nate…”What sort of conspiracy theory sites you frequenting?”

          A question I have for you is why you’d cite a site run by an apparent blithering idiot.

          He slams Linus Pauling, the leading researcher in chemistry of the 20th century, the man who wrote the book on covalent bonding and introduced quantum chemistry to North America.

          Pauling became interested in vitamin C because the ‘DATA’ he reviewed had merit. One of the leading researchers of all times reviews many studies on vitamin C and claims they have merit.


          The author of the site is blatantly lying about Pauling and Montagnier. He alleges that Pauling has claimed vitamin C cures cancer and he said no such thing. He did research with Scottish surgeon Ewen Cameron in the Vale of Leven Hospital in Scotland in which they gave 10 grams of vitamin C to terminal cancer patients. Whereas they confirmed a few cases of spontaneous remission their overall conclusion was that vitamin C markedly reduces the horrible pain associated with terminal cancer.

          You should note that the National Cancer Institute is now endorsing the Pauling methodology.

          With regard to Montagnier, he has said nothing about homeopathy. He simply claimed that human immune systems would respond better to antioxidants since AIDS is caused by oxidative stress. That’s a no-brainer to anyone aware of the current science associated with optimal health.

          Here’s a one hour interview with Dr. Luc Montagnier in which he exposes many of the myths surrounding HIV. Who are you going to believe, a scientists who is credited with discovering HIV or an idiot writing a hate article about him?

          • Nate says:

            ‘With regard to Montagnier, he has said nothing about homeopathy’

            Absolutely wrong. He has published on homeopathy and the idea that DNA makes radio waves in a paper

            “Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences.”


            ‘He “stunned his colleagues … when he presented a new method for detecting viral infections that bore close parallels to the basic tenets of homeopathy. Although fellow Nobel prize winners who view homeopathy as quackery were left openly shaking their heads, Montagnier’s comments were rapidly embraced by homeopaths eager for greater credibility. ‘

            Sorry, some great scientists have a checkered history after winning the Nobel. Vitamin C was way oversold by Pauling. Shockley advocated eugenics, etc

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Nate…”Sorry, some great scientists have a checkered history after winning the Nobel. Vitamin C was way oversold by Pauling. Shockley advocated eugenics, etc”

            And you’re about as thick as two short planks. Vitamin C is an essential vitamin without which we die a slow painful death. It’s also a powerful antioxidant and it takes part twice in muscle growth. If anything, like a good researcher, Pauling undersold its benefits.

            We die without it because C is an important part of creating collagen which is part of the matrix that binds cells together. Without that matrix, organs and other structures begin to fall apart.

            As Pauling liked to point out, a 150 pound goat makes 12 grams (12,000 milligrams) of vitamin C for itself in one day while humans make none. The recommended daily allowance as prescribed by the government suggests about 75 milligrams daily. As Pauling liked to point out, the goat seems to know more than the government. I might add, and people like you.

            As far as Montagnier and homeopathy, you’re basing your opinions on some idiot writing a wiki article. You could do the same, wiki articles require no expertise. I don’t see any reference in your comments to a response from Montagnier as to the charges of homeopathy.

            But thanks for the reply. Now I have a better understanding of why you know nothing about global warming.

          • Nate says:

            Yes Gordon,

            And I have a better idea of why you do not accept the science behind the GHE.

            “HIV will not harm a healthy immune system, leaving little doubt that AIDS is a lifestyle issue”

            You will eagerly accept that a horrific, deadly disease is caused by a lifestyle, rather then a virus.

            Your idea not only defies common sense and rational logic, but would require that mountains of evidence produced by numerous independent studies, and successful treatment strategies are all wrong.

            You clearly judge science through a political lens that is extremely distorting…

  14. upcountrywater says:

    Mankind has been dreaming of Terraforming a planet.
    That dream has come to pass with more crop production records to be set in the future…
    The planet is greening all over as evidenced by satellite photos.
    More info here:
    Matt Ridley on How Fossil Fuels are Greening the Planet.

  15. Rick Kargaard says:

    It seems your comment section has degenerated into a GMO, glyphosphate argument. I may as well add some anecdotal evidence.
    I grow a large garden, which provides much of my and my friends food.
    Where I live, Alberta, I have noticed the growing season has been longer and sometimes warmer as of late. In particular, the last two seasons. Probably reinforced by el nino.
    Growing season precipitation has also been higher.
    Last year I harvested what I considered the best crop ever. However this year was even better.
    There was one anomaly this year. It was not warm enough for my corn to mature easily. Corn requires a little more heat than many crops.
    If this is a result of global warming, I say “bring it on.’

    • MichaelL says:

      I only wish Rapid Global Warming was an actual thing. Then I could have a nice palm tree farm somewhere in Alberta. And do some deep sea fishing for tuna around the Northwest Territories.
      Alas; it will not prove so.

  16. Ossqss says:

    I bet Orville Redenbacher’s margins just improved 😉

  17. justaguy says:

    Missouri is listed twice. 12 states is actually 11. Is the rest of the data correct?

    • RAH says:

      Increased use? I’m not a farmer but I know some of them. The application methods for pesticides and especially fertilizers being used now are many times more efficient than than they were even 20 years ago. And they need to be because that stuff is expensive!

      • Jack Dale says:

        Check the link. That is why I provided it.

      • Henri says:

        The intention was that gmo crops would decrease the use of chemicals, however guys in my area were applying fungicides multiple times and 2 applications to desiccate were needed. Not very efficient at all.

        • RAH says:

          Well of course. Computer technology and GPS are things that have only improved other sectors and couldn’t possibly have greatly enhanced efficiency of application of fertilizers, herbicides, etc for farmers. There couldn’t possibly be machines that actively sample and analyze the soil and then automatically apply the right amount of fertilizer in the exact places needed. There couldn’t possibly be sprayers which use technology to meter their spray so that even when the machine is turning the right amount of liquid is being applied. GPS guidance and mapping couldn’t possibly help eliminate overlap in spraying. In short the modern farmer is still doing things just the way they did 20 years ago. (extreme sarcasm intended)

    • Eric H says:

      “none of which is sustainable”….Why? Data please?

      • Jack Dale says:

        Irrigation is diverting water so rivers, like the Colorado, no longer really reach the ocean. Irrigation is also depleting aquifers and resulting in increased soil salinity.

        • Rick says:

          Are the oceans running out of water?

          • RAH says:

            No but the SW US is. The Colorado is in fact sucked dry before it reaches the Pacific. Periodically dams upstream from the Grand Canyon have to be opened to allow adequate flow to clear the river of accumulated stuff and keep it navigable for tourists. Also to provide for certain species endangered by the greatly diminished flow of that once mighty river.

            But the people of southern CA at least have an option not available to those further inland. They can desalinate which eventually is going to have to provide a significant proportion of their fresh water needs no matter how much the loony Greens and Moonbats protest. In the end the choices will be simple. Either desalinate or depopulate.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “fertilizer” ie CO2 !!

      • Jack Dale says:

        Nope N, K, and P.

        BTW dump a whole whack that on your lawn and watch it die.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Your knowledge of plant biology and PHOTOSYNTHESIS is obvious basically ZERO

        N, K, P are but a tiny amount of the amino acids required to build the plants structure.

        The OVERWHELMING requirements are H2O and CO2.

        Go back and do some basic science/biology/chemistry.. and maybe in 10-20 year you also will actually understand the basics.

        Kindergarten first for you guys.. that is FOR SURE !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Grida.. they are linked to the UNEP, aren’t they.

      Not a reliable source of ANYTHING

      Purely and absolutely agenda driven POLITICAL PROPAGANDA GARBAGE. !!

  18. barry says:

    Did anyone bother to check the IPCC projections on US crops?

    Depending on existing conditions, global warming and CO2 enrichment can have positive or negative effects on crop yields. It is believed that yield increases in mid and high latitudes are caused by positive physiological effects of CO2, longer growing season, and amelioration of the effects of cold temperature on growth. Decreases in yield could result from shortening of the growing period, reduced water availability, and/or poor vernalization.

    That’s from the 3rd Assessment report (2001). Goes on to project yield changes by percent to 2030.

    Spring Wheat……+17 to +23
    Winter Wheat…….-9 to +24

    Corn…………..+11 to +20
    Soybean…………+7 to +49

    • barry says:

      AR4, 2007

      Mid- to high-latitude crops benefit from a small amount of warming (about +2C) but plant health declines with additional warming.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Why would anyone take much notice of anything the IPCC says.

        It is POLITICAL organisation, NOT a scientific one.

        • barry says:

          IPCC projections seem to agree with what Dr Spencer has observed is the point.

          Otherwise, to what does his article refer – news reports on drought?

        • AndyG55 says:

          BULLCARP !!

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          AndyG55…”Why would anyone take much notice of anything the IPCC says”.

          Because they have a mandate to find evidence humans are causing global warming. Even with such a biased mandate, in 2013, they admitted there was no warming over the 15 year period between 1998 and 2012. They called it a warming hiatus.

          Skeptics should take notice because the experts have admitted global warming has stopped.

          • barry says:


            [IPCC] admitted there was no warming over the 15 year period between 1998 and 2012. They called it a warming hiatus.

            You’ve been corrected on this thrice. You’ve been shown all the quotes from the SPM and the body of the report. And still you make this false claim.

            Once is a mistake, twice may be forgiven, but now you are simply lying.

          • barry says:

            For example;

            You are given the actual IPCC quote here.


            And you quote that very post a few posts later in that thread, so I know you read the correct cite from the IPCC.


            You’ve been corrected more than once. Yet still you claim:

            They called it a warming hiatus.

            Sorry, that’s bulldust.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…”Youve been corrected on this thrice. Youve been shown all the quotes from the SPM and the body of the report. And still you make this false claim”.

            Barry…I have given a link to the exact IPCC quote and still you deny it. Here it is again.


            Page 6…under temperature…


            It states clearly…”including the warming hiatus since 1998″. Then it gives the actual warming which was (0.05C [0.05 to +0.15] per decade”.

            What is it about ‘warming hiatus’ you don’t understand?

            5/100ths of a degree C per decade with an error margin of -0.05 C to +0.15C, meaning it could have cooled!!!

            Now please…will you stop this foolish denial?

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            barry…one thing that has been ascertained is that you are a liar. Here’s the proof for everyone to see.

            In the link you supplied to a former article in Roy’s blog you made the following statement:

            “IPCC official comment:


            Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (19982012; 0.05 [0.05 to 0.15] C per decade), which begins with a strong El Nio, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (19512012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade).

            Summary for Policy Makers, AR5 2013”.

            You supply no citation but look at the spelling of El Nino. You have spelled it El Nio and tried to pass that off as an official IPCC source.

            Are you that desperate to prove me wrong? I have quoted from an IPCC document and I gave the link plus the page. You responded that I am wrong and referred me to a quote allegedly from the IPCC which you obviously made up.

            You’re pathetic.

    • The latest (5th) Assessment report says all crops yields decline beyond 1 deg. warming (see the info graphic, below). Of course, that ignores the continuing increase in yields due to technology.

      • barry says:

        That is not the IPCC graphic – that’s some other group’s. I’ve never heard of them before, but they seem as balanced as Greenpeace.

        The actual graphic from AR5 includes adaptation (I assume improved technology is part of that), and shows increases in corn and wheat in temperate zones. Furthermore, the trend lines are based on a range of projections, some including and some not including the CO2 fertilization effect.

        For the US, projections that include CO2 fertilization + adaptation show increased yields. See WGII Ch 7.

        Here’s a table of a few papers’ results from Ch 7 for the US.

      • David Appell says:

        Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
        “The latest (5th) Assessment report says all crops yields decline beyond 1 deg. warming (see the info graphic, below). Of course, that ignores the continuing increase in yields due to technology.

        Roy: How do you know that, considering that the globe hasn’t yet gone above 1 C of warming?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “the globe hasnt yet gone above 1C of warming?”

          Since the coldest period in the last 10,000..

          is that what you mean???

          Gees rotten, you really do know how to put your foot in your mouth, don’t you !!

          And FFS, learn how to do a basic sign, moron !!

        • David Appell says:

          Since (obviously) the beginning of the industrial era.

          Not too difficult for you, is that?

          • AndyG55 says:

            To difficult for you, that is obvious.

            Do you really DENY the existence of the LIA..

            Do you really DENY that we are just a TINY amount above the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years???

            Do you really DENY that warming since the LIA has been totally and absolutely BENEFICIAL to all mankind and the planet in general ???

            Or are you going to continue to live in you low-end sci-fant world ????

          • David Appell says:

            What is the evidence for a global LIA?

          • David Appell says:

            “Do you really DENY that warming since the LIA has been totally and absolutely BENEFICIAL to all mankind and the planet in general ???”

            Define “beneficial.”

          • AndyG55 says:

            Oh dear .. so you do DENY the LIA..

            WOW !!!!!!!!

            “Define beneficial.

            Go and live in Siberia.. then you will understand why WARMING is beneficial.

            Or stay in your Grandma’s basement where its cosy and warm thanks to fossil fuel heating.

          • barry says:

            As far as I can make out, AR5 baseline for this topic is the late 20th century, not the industrial revolution (or earlier).

            US crops generally are projected to have positive yields in the near term (to 2030), falling off if average temperature for specific localities gets 3C higher than the late 20th century, and/or if weather becomes more extreme at those localities. Regional projections have more uncertainty than global, of course. A change from previous reports is that at moderate local warming (1-2C), it’s as likely as not crops will decrease/increase at mid to high latitudes. Previous reports were more optimistic.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “US crops generally are projected ”

            Oh.. which climate model do they use?

            The real danger to world crop production is cooling.

          • David Appell says:

            Andy: Again, what is the evidence for a global LIA?

          • David Appell says:

            AndyG55 says:
            “Go and live in Siberia.. then you will understand why WARMING is beneficial.”

            How is the Sahara climate beneficial?

            If is it, why are there no major cities or societies in that desert?

            How will the Sahara benefit from become even *warmer*?

  19. MichaelL says:

    Good point. Here’s the scientific response:
    Temperature records have been ‘massaged’, and effects of urban heat retention in gradually more urbanized temp recording sites ignored by all of the climatology parasites that rely on the Climate Change hysteria to generate their funding. Arctic ice patterns are used to ‘prove’ the models: unless ice growth rises, whereupon it’s either ignored, or we’re told “…it’s very complicated…” Himalayan ice and snow predications were wholly fabricated: remember that? No; I’ll bet not.
    Meanwhile, well known climatology geniuses like Leonardo Dicaprio assert that ‘the science is settled’. As if such a thing exists. This, from the same people that believe you can ‘choose’ gender like ordering a dessert.
    Thanks, but I’ll stick with my ignorant disbelief (along with a science degree and postgraduate education ) over your pseudoscientific pontification.

    • David Appell says:

      MichaelL says:
      “Temperature records have been massaged,”

      Raw data is adjusted to remove biases. UAH does this too.

      How would you prefer to remove these biases?

      • AndyG55 says:

        No. surface data is adjusted to CREATE an AGW warming bias.

        That is a PROVEN FACT.

        Huge areas have zero measurements that are just FABRICATED.

        The global surface data sets are a FARCE. !!

        Little task for your, rotten one,

        Here is a map of August land temps

        (grey is no data.. I repeat… NO DATA….
        ….and there is one heck of a lot of grey for them to FABRICATE whatever they need to FABRICATE to tell their fantasy.)

        There are 6 yellow circles.

        Show us pictures that prove the data for these areas is from a pristine temperature site.

        A couple of those rectangles are temps from just ONE thermometer. Its a JOKE and a FARCE.

      • David Appell says:

        Andy: You again showed a complete lack of understanding for why the raw data needs to be adjusted.

        You’ve always struck me as one of the dumbest commenters on climate science.

        You’ve confirmed that, again.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And you have shown a complete lack of understanding of why the real data (50% of the world’s land surface at most) NEEDS to be “ADJUSTED” to meet the aims of the totalitarian AGW scammers.

          You have NOTHING but fantasy on your side.

          It is what you DO FOR A LIVING, FFS.

          Sci-fantasy in a LOW-END backwater journal. !!

          YOU KNOW THAT..

          and everyone else KNOWS THAT !!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          And seriously… you calling someone with 2 degrees and a PhD in science/maths/engineering dumb, when you have nothing but LOW-END journalist degree?

          Get Over Yourself, BOZO !!

        • David Appell says:

          Andy: Why does the raw data need to be adjusted?

          Say, UAH’s data?

          “Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data: How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it *must* be done,” Scott K Johnson, 1/21/16

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor rotten child-mind doesn’t understand the reality of adjustments due to KNOWN engineering issues.

            Now.. you still have a task.. once you get out of kindy….

            Show us pictures of all the thermometers for the 6 circled areas of the land data.


            Show us they are worthwhile even bothering with.

            …. or are you also going to RUN AND HIDE !!!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Show us they are worthwhile even bothering with.

            . or are you also going to RUN AND HIDE !!!”

            Appell, Appell…. Where have you run off to..

            Come on rotten-to-the-core… let’s see these surface stations.

            Tick tock

            TICK TOCK !!

            Maybe if you can find Moshpit, he can help you.

            or the Swartz !!

            Come on gays..

            Extract your digits from your **** and show us all these pristine surface stations that support your beloved surface station data. !!

  20. John Hultquist says:

    April wrote: “Farmers should be relying on the years of experience of their forefathers ” See link below for info.

    Does “forefathers” include grandparents? If so, I’ll pass.
    Mine used horses and crude equipment. They milked by hand and stored the acquired milk in a “spring house” often shared by a Rattlesnake. If you wanted milk you had to ask Sally to leave for a few minutes. Sally helped control the mice, and so was a valued member of the farm. Horses and milk-cows had to be fed all year, even when it was well below freezing. Dog too she helped bring the horses and cows in from the pasture. Meat included venison (often canned yum! -sarc-) and other game-animals. Hickory nuts were gathered and, also American Chestnuts. These were mostly gone when I was a young one killed by the fungus Cryphonectria parasitica. The huge trees still stood and made homes for Eastern Gray Squirrels with whom we shared the Hickory nuts. Occasionally the squirrels made it to the dinner table.

    Below is a link to the 3rd of three articles on corn farming. I’ve linked to this one because it has links to #1 and #2 articles.

    Historic corn farming in 3 parts

  21. bill1942 says:

    And, all will wonder why prices continue to rise!!!

  22. Prochorus says:

    Presumably Kansas was accidentally omitted. The Kansas corn crop in 2015 amounted to some 580 million bushels, the second highest in the history of the state, and about 72% greater than the Michigan crop. Summer rains are uncertain in Kansas, so the main reason for the excellent crop in 2015 was unusually good rainfall.

    • pochas94 says:

      Many studies project cooler weather beginning in a few years, and once it starts it will continue. Farmers need to be alert and adjust to cold weather tolerant strains if a cooling trend begins.

      • David Appell says:

        Which studies?

        Why will cooling “continue,” in the face of 40 Gt/yr of CO2 emissions?

        • AndyG55 says:

          CO2 has basically zero warming effect.

          Why would it have any affect on stopping the natural cooling trend that is coming?

          You truly do live in a FANTASY world.

        • David Appell says:

          AndyG55 says:
          “CO2 has basically zero warming effect.”


          How close to zero is it? What does your calculation say?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Proof that is does, in a convection controlled atmosphere.


            except in your fantasy

          • AndyG55 says:

            You want to know the REALLY GOOD THING, rotten one ?.

            The REALLY GOOD THING is that because of China, India, Turkey, Indonesia, and many, many other countries that are continuing to EXPAND their fossil fuel use

            there will CONTINUE to be an increase in atmospheric CO2 for any time in the foreseeable future.

            And there is absolutely NOTHING you or any of your fellow AGW scammers can do about it.

            So just SMILE, and be happy for the worlds plant life and food supplies . !!!


  23. Hillary Soros says:

    Yeah, but it’s all genetically-modified garbage.

  24. FMOA says:

    so weather modification has nothing to do with the drought? I see insider dealings with Monsanto you make a drought so the only crops that will grow will be GMO crops.

  25. Mark Fergerson says:

    Can we please stop bandying around GMO half-truths based on oversimplified information about genetics? It is not “unnatural” to alter a plant’s genes. Nature does it constantly. The genes black widow spiders use to make their venom was just found in a virus that isn’t even capable of infecting spiders. Other examples abound. Nature swaps genes across not just species and even orders, like suburban couples swap partners. The difference with GMOs is that we’re doing it on purpose, to improve plant characteristics and yields. I still boggle at the Golden Rice fiasco- how many “organic foods” fanatics really believe it’s better to go blind than to eat GMOs?

  26. My first reaction is (not being a globalist, liberal, or environmentalist, just a mathematician who studied statistics) that we should see prices drop to record lows. My second reaction is that these corporations should start shipping the surplus to Haiti for the relief effort and other third-world countries and take a nice fat charitable tax deduction. They may lose some income if prices drop but the legal deduction will help their bottom line.

    • David Appell says:

      What is a “globalist?”

      • AndyG55 says:

        “What is a globalist?”

        A MORON that thinks the world can be run by an unelected bunch of totalitarian cretin such as the UN or EU.

        The same totalitarian cretins that invented the AGW/Climatechange/whatever farce ..

        …. the agenda that YOU have been GULLIBLE enough to buy into !!

    • David Appell says:

      Dr. William Rice says:
      “My second reaction is that these corporations should start shipping the surplus to Haiti for the relief effort”

      Who is going to pay them to do this?

  27. David Appell says:

    Roy, here are scientists who have done real studies, not simply a blog post. What are their errors?

    For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.
    — Global scale climatecrop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002

    “We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
    — “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15

    “Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any supposed positives.” Smith et al. PNAS (2009),

    • AndyG55 says:

      Yet REAL yields just keep on climbing.

      Go figure! 😉

      • David Appell says:

        What factors does total yield depend on?

        • AndyG55 says:

          REAL yields just keep on climbing.

          Get over it, you poor little low-end sci-fant writer.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And the world biosphere is also LOVING the extra CO2.

          Why do you HATE natural plant growth so, so much, rotten Appell ???

          Is it that you are rotten to the very core?

        • AndyG55 says:

          You want to know the REALLY GOOD THING, rotten one ?.

          The REALLY GOOD THING is that because of China, India, Turkey, Indonesia, and many, many other countries that are continuing to EXPAND their fossil fuel use…

          there will CONTINUE to be an increase in atmospheric CO2 for any time in the foreseeable future.

          And there is absolutely NOTHING you or any of your fellow AGW scammers can do about it.

          So just SMILE, and be happy for the world’s plant life and food supplies . !!!

        • David Appell says:

          As usual, Andy, you didn’t address the question.

          Are yields determined by only one factor?

          Is it possible for overall yields to increase while climate change is working to suppress them?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yields have been increasing WORLD WIDE.

            The main causes being technology and extra CO2.

            GET OVER IT. !

            CO2 will CONTINUE to rise for any foreseeable future

            GET OVER IT !

            And unless the world dips into a cooling period (quite probable) then that extra atmospheric CO2 will CONTINUE to give increased yields.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Climate change IS NOT supressing increased CO2 yields.

            What a FANTASY world you live in !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            You do realise that if it did actually warm at all (apart from El Nino spikes) then VAST tracts of land in the Northern Hemisphere would be opened up for agriculture.

          • David Appell says:

            Andy: Stop ranting.

            Try to control your emotions.

            Again: does crop yield depend on more than one factor?

            If so, what are these factors?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor rotten-one.

            Cannot understand that CO2 and H2O with trace elements in a process called PHOTOSYNTHESIS, powered by THE SUN ….

            are the BUILDING BLOCKS of ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

            A stint in kindy in required for the rotten Appell.. that is for sure !!

          • David Appell says:

            Andy, if CO2 is a building block of life, why is there no life on Venus or Mars, where the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration is 96%?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Oh Dear, you poor IGNORANT worm-ridden little Appell !!

            PLEASE.. go and de-carbonise yourself..

            …for the benefit of the blogs sanity !!

            Kindy is WAY too advanced for you !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            You do realise that you have PROVEN to anyone reading this blog.. that you are a TOATLLY MORONIC, NON-EDUCATED IDIOT !

            Do you believe in unicorns?

            The tooth fairy?

            AGW is in exactly the same FANTASY realm.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Andy, if CO2 is a building block of life, why is there no life on Venus or Mars, where the atmospheres CO2 concentration is 96%?”


          • Colin Fenwick says:

            Andy, go home. You’re drunk.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor Colin.. Best you can manage?

    • An Inquirer says:

      David Appell. I am aware that there are papers that claim that the warming temperatures will negatively affect crop production. Yet, I am skeptical for three reasons. First, for every paper claiming such negative association, I believe I can find 10 papers showing positive impact from CO2. Second, in the papers showing the negative association, I saw such contortions and oblivion to reality that I have stopped reading those papers. Third, those papers tend to take tend to take global warming models and their word and ignore the disconnect between the models and reality.

      • barry says:

        There are different conclusions based on latitude and degree of warmth.

        IPCC says likely positive yields in mid to high latitudes for <1C warming above late 20th century temps (local), equivocal for 1-2C for the same latitudes, and less yield over 3C. Different for the tropics, where IPCC forecasts lower yields from even small climate change.

        But this is variable depending on crop and zone type (eg, arid, wet etc) and other stuff.

        So, yeah you can find papers with different results, but it would be meaningless if the parameters were also different.

        Most of the criticism in this thread refers to nothing at all, just vague "they said" stuff. Cheap rancour.

        • An Inquirer says:

          Barry, I think your response deals with an issue that reveals the reason for so much distrust of AGW activist warnings. According to the models, a 3 degree temperature increase would mean a decline in crop yields. Okay; according to a scenario of wins for the 49er’s, the model shows them winning the Super Bowl this year. Just because a model shows it, does not mean that it will be reality. I doubt that we will see a 3 degree increase in temperatures, so it is meaningless for activists to say that increased CO2 threatens crop production.
          I will go even further, I doubt that the models that produce the historic weather temperatures (going from raw to final) are reliable. NOAA tells me that the summer temperatures in my area have risen about 1 degree since I was a kid. Of course, I do not have a handle on the average temperature every year, but I do have a handle on the days of hot temperatures. I have been farming for 50 years, and the summer temperatures are definitely not getting warmer on our farm. In fact, they are more moderate. At the same time, I will say that they winter temperatures have not gotten colder; they are more mild.
          It is not just that I have jaded opinions on reality. We do keep records of weather. I will say that if those experts come up with an historical record so contrary to the reality of my experience, then they will have a hard time convincing me of the impending catastrophe predicted by their models.

  28. AndyG55 says:


    Roy, do you know when this page will be updated with September data?

  29. Tracy says:

    Eye know what you meen!!

  30. Tony says:

    That makes perfect sense, but climate activists want to blame white people and punish them for driving SUVs. If Al Gore’s home uses more electricity then whole towns and Dicaprio flies around on private jets pumping out a thousand times more carbon then the average American produces, that doesn’t matter.

  31. Rick V says:

    I am curious as to why you believe the examination of localized data on precipitation and agricultural production (12 US states) supports the title of your essay, “Global warming be damned,” or your conclusion. You did not examine the global data for your variables.

    I am sure you are aware that rainfall patterns are shifting and that the data supports the fact that wet areas are getting wetter and dry areas are getting drier.

    It seems likely that your data would be counter-balanced by examining global data on crop production and precipitation.

  32. R.J. says:

    The climate on earth has been in constant change since it became a planet. The shift in the north and South Pole locations and the resulting change in the angle at which the suns rays hit the van Allen belts have a huge effect on our weather. In addition to this, the sun is getting hotter every year, and is expected to explode and destroy the earth in the future. It is not clear what the effect of the nine billion humans, the most invasive species on the planet has to do with climate change. From my perspective it has become a political rationale to institute more control over the masses by the elites.

  33. R.J. says:

    In regards to GMO’s, Genetic modification of plants has been happening for centuries by humans. And since the start of the beginning of plants on this planet by nature. Recently technology has allowed us to accomplish modifications in a very rapid time frame compared to previous generations. As a Food Scientist I am aware that the pollen from these plants have been spread to non GMO fields and like it or not, is in our food chain at so many levels. I am not aware of negative effects on humans. I am much more concerned with the antibiotics and hormones used in some of our food animal industries.

  34. David Appell says:

    By the way, Roy, aome yields per capita have peaked in the last 20 years.

    For example, global wheat production per capita peaked in 1997, at 105 kg/person/yr.


    population data via FRED (Federal Reserve of St Louis)

    • AndyG55 says:

      DOH! they have learnt to balance the total production vs sales a bit better.

      Increased yields means they could easily produce more wheat if they decided it was economic to.

      • David Appell says:

        You avoided answering the question. As you always do. Historonics are so much easier.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You poor brainless child, IGNORING the self-evident.

          Fantasy is your life, isn’t it rotten-appell.

          Do you REALLY think that in today’s agriculture, they cannot approximately balance total production with possible economic sales !!!

          Are you REALLY that DUMB !!

          Yep.. your every post PROVES that you are.


          “Historonics are so much easier.” your stock in trade. !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          You want to know the REALLY GOOD THING, rotten one ?.

          The REALLY GOOD THING is that because of China, India, Turkey, Indonesia, and many, many other countries that are continuing to EXPAND their fossil fuel use

          there will CONTINUE to be an increase in atmospheric CO2 for any time in the foreseeable future.

          And there is absolutely NOTHING you or any of your fellow AGW scammers can do about it.

          So just SMILE, and be happy for the worlds plant life and food supplies . !!!

    • Lewis says:


      I would like to point out that global wheat production per capita is not a good measurement of wheat production per se. Wheat production, in this example, is being compared to human procreation and death rates. A curious thing, to say the least. Beyond that, since, according to a previous poster, we have about 2 cycles of wheat in storage, it seems the per capita amount being grown is a satisfactory amount for human needs. Other than that, if the human population is increasing, then it seems wheat production is increasing in tandem.

      What then is the problem or issue? Or is this another example of a government agency attempting to mislead – scare – the people?

      Best wishes,

    • An Inquirer says:

      Crop production per capita is not the relevant metric. Crop production per acre or per hectare is the appropriate metric for the discussion at hand.

  35. Jjs says:

    They do, free stuff isn’t what most of these countries need though. No corruption and GMO seeds would be a big first step. I just sent money to a friend in Haiti an hour ago. His banna plantation was wiped out during Williams. I’ve spent time in mainy parts of the world, leftist ideologs create great harm to all they try to rule. Gmo politics is the least of their problems and most want groups like greenpeace out of their lives. Just surviving takes up 100% of their time in the 3rd world

  36. michael hart says:

    The Appell crop is also still plentiful.

  37. ren says:

    “While the timing, extent and magnitude of the cold air is uncertain at this point, enough cold air is possible allow the first snow showers of the season around the Great Lakes and perhaps into the central and northern Appalachians,” Pastelok said.

    • David Appell says:

      Are you really saying it might snow in the last half of October in northern climes?

      OMG, when has that ever happened before????????

      Lord save us.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Lord save us.”

        You need a psychiatrist..

        you already have a religion.. AGW!

        • doctor no says:

          You know, the yellow pills – the one’s prescribed for tourette’s syndrome.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You would know all about pills.

            How do you cope with your chronic depression?

          • doctor no says:

            I am always cheered by reading posts like yours.
            They remind me that most people are more stupid than my good self.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yep, there is David, and Barry for starters..

            They are more STUPID than you… !!!!!!!

            ..and that is saying something.

            Its good that you have tickets on yourself,

            even if they are in the fantasy world.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You do know that China, India, Turkey, Indonesia, and many, many other countries that are continuing to EXPAND their fossil fuel use, don’t you

            You do know that there will CONTINUE to be an increase in atmospheric CO2 for any time in the foreseeable future.

            And you do know that there is absolutely NOTHING you or any of your fellow AGW scammers can do about it.

            So, don’t let those fact depress you too much.

            Those tablets and your drug induced fantasies will help ease your pain and desperation.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Meanwhile the normal, non-fantasy world and its biosphere will continue to flourish and grow.

          • doctor no says:

            “Meanwhile the normal, non-fantasy world and its biosphere will continue to flourish and grow.”

            Much like stupidity. It is impossible to stop it flourishing.
            Please take the pills. An overdose is in order.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yep, your STUPIDITY continues to grow and grow and grow

            I don’t know what you pretend to have a Dr in, but its NOTHING to do with science.


          • AndyG55 says:

            “An overdose is in order.”

            Not your first time for that, is it?

            More like a permanent state for you.

            “You know, the yellow pills the ones prescribed for tourettes syndrome.”

            You seem to know a awful LOT about pills, your self-indulgence shows.

  38. RAH says:

    In my little piece of the corn belt about 30 miles NE of Indianapolis it has been the wettest summer I can remember during my many years living in this area. The grass has grown like it’s spring time during all of the summer except for a short dry period during the last two weeks of July. It continues to do so. It has also be a very cool summer. The coolest we have experienced since the summer that never was due to Pinatubo.

    And obviously it is a record year for the corn belt. Not only for yield of corn and soya beans but also for the quality of the crops. :

    “USDA Forecasts Record-High Corn and Soybean Production in 2016
    WASHINGTON, August 12, 2016 Both U.S. corn and soybean growers are expected to harvest record-high crops this year, according to the Crop Production report issued today by the U.S. Department of Agricultures National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). U.S. corn production is forecast at 15.2 billion bushels, while soybean growers are expected to harvest 4.06 billion bushels in 2016….”

    BTW earlier this week I hauled a load to Ayre, MA (NW of Boston). I opted to take I-86 and I-88 instead of taking I-90 across the top of NY. Fall colors in the northern Allegheny and the Catskill mountains are just gorgeous. Probably peak in 10 days or so.

  39. In all the time I have spent on the web I have never before seen Norman Borlaug’s name mentioned. He is an even greater hero to me than Tesla, he fed the world and now no one knows or cares that he existed. It’s so good to see there are other people who know and respect his name. Surely we will all see him someday in the Hall of Heroes.

  40. rob bender says:

    Dont worry everyone. There will be plenty of climate change if hillary is elected, what with all the mushroom clouds everywhere

  41. David says:

    Stupid responses to a hoax issue.

    Antarctic temperatures have been constantlly falling ever since man arrived some 80 years ago and began recording temperatures.The molecular weight of air is 29 g/mol. The tree line is 10,000 ft above sea level and man must have oxygen masks when flying above 15,000 ft. CO2 has a molecular weight of 44 g/mol and Ozone weighs 48 g/mol. The weight of CFC4 is 79 g/mol and others such as R-11, R-12 and R-114 are 137, 121, and 171 respectively. Sulfur dioxide weighs 64 g/mol. It is impossible for CO2, low level produced O3 to flocculant 12 miles up into the atmosphere and destroy the ozone layer or anything else.

    Volcanos make most of the high level CO2, O3, CFC, Hydro Carbons and Sulfur Dioxide in the world. One volcano in Africa that has been erupting continuously for as long as man has been able to take measurements, puts off more CO2 & Sulfur Dioxoide than all cars and factories in the US every day.

  42. Alberto Zaragoza Comendador says:

    ‘Is it possible for overall yields to increase while climate change is working to suppress them?’

    No, because northern hemisphere temperatures jumped by 0.6C between 2014 and 2016 – and still we didn’t see any of the purported damages.

    Surely agricultural technology didn’t change dramatically between these two years. Neither did CO2. There was no other factor to counteract the supposedly negative effect of higher temps.

    Notice that it’s also true for:
    a) C4 plants, which don’t benefit from additional CO2 nearly as much as C3 types
    b) Tropical countries, which would presumably be the first to cross the ‘threshold’ and start suffering declining yields due to higher temps.

    The evidence for warming hurting plants and agriculture, at a global level, is non-existent. Of course SOME crops, in some countries, will be negatively effected. More crops in more countries will not.

    • barry says:

      northern hemisphere temperatures jumped by 0.6C between 2014 and 2016 and still we didnt see any of the purported damages.

      Premise isn’t right. Temps are no different to past fluctuations.

      Damages are expected for sustained average temp change of 3C, not annual fluctuations. One of the main causes of anticipated crop damage is extreme heat days, which become hotter and more frequent with higher average temps.

      Also, these are about local temps – where the crop is grown, not NH average. So let’s look at a couple of states. I chose Illinois and Iowa for corn growing, and the 3 months of summer for heat days. Here are the temp data for each since 1975.


      Annual fluctuations of summer temps can be several degrees. The trends appear to be minimal. It was no hotter in 2016 than many years prior. There was nothing out of the ordinary over the last 40 years for 2016 summer temperatures in these corn-growing states.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “One of the main causes of anticipated crop damage is extreme heat days, which become hotter and more frequent with higher average temps.”

        But as you say.

        It just ISN’T HAPPENING !!!

        • doctor no says:

          There there, calm down.
          Of course it is not happening- Everything will be all right.
          The easter bunny will bring you chocolate eggs, father christmas will bring you presents, and everybody will live happily ever after.
          Whatever you say. Just stop shouting.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Yes mr no-nothing.

          With China, India etc etc continuing to increase their CO2 output

          Everything will be OK. !!

          So… DON’T PANIC, chicken-little.

          Keep those meds going to help with your fantasies.

          Its so much fun to watch you SQUIRMING when the truth is put in front of you.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Of course it is not happening”

          Yes, everybody KNOWS that AGW/Climate-Change IS NOT HAPPENING

          Thank for the confirmation.

          Now go back to your panic room!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Unadjusted data gives a large decrease in warm days in Illinois.

          If there is going to be any problem, it will be because of cooling.

          • doctor no says:

            Make up your feeble mind!
            On one hand you cheer because increased co2 is increasing productivity.
            Then the next moment you shout it is not happening!
            Then you claim it is cooling!!

            Please, which of your split personalities are we dealing with here?
            Certainly not one with a logical mind- not even a mind!
            As I said previously, take your pills and have a good lie down.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You poor incompetent and brainless turkey.

            CO2 going up.. yippee.. increased plant production.

            Hot days, going down… AGW is NOT HAPPENING.

            The LIES of the AGW scam exposed for all to see.

            Thanks for doing that.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor mr don’t know.

            Your barista degree leaves you mentally incapable.

            Or is it the tablets you are so fond of that have sapped your brain activity.!

    • barry says:

      Here’s the link to the plotter so you can make your own choices about which state and how to divvy up monthly temps. There’s also precipitation and heating degree days for more detail.

      • Lewis says:

        What is the purpose this exercise?

        Let me state it: induce fear in the populace.

        Certainly, if it continues to warm as it has these past 20,000 years, then the seas will rise and the cities built on the coasts will be inundated.

        Also, unstated, lands to the north in Russia and Canada will become arable. The corn belt will move as will the winter wheat belt. So WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

        More CO2 means more growth for the areas still producing. In the meantime, slow land mass movement will keep weather patterns somewhat similar as today for the foreseeable future.

        Yet the AGW crowd cries out – be afraid, be very afraid – LET US – tell you – how to live your life WHILE WE continue to TAKE from you for our lazy lifestyles and TELL FARMERS how to grow organically, which most people can’t afford, but those of us who STEAL from the populace will always be able to purchase,

        In other words – LET THEM EAT CAKE!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “LET THEM EAT CAKE!”

          And thanks to the record harvests and yields of wheat and corn around the world..

          they CAN eat cake !!

        • barry says:

          What is the purpose this exercise?

          To respond to a couple of Alberto’s assertions I thought were a little off the mark.

          Dunno what you’re up to.

  43. Scott says:

    David Hula set the world record corn yields last year at an unbelievable 532 bushel per acre. The USDA estimates the national average yield was about 168 bu/acre last year. The rest of the world is about half the U.S. national average.

    Assuming Hula’s record of 532 bu/acre is the maximum yield possible (it is not), then the difference between his 532 and the 168 national average (or ~80 bu/acre for rest of world) shows how much potential there is for additional productivity gains.

    We plant somewhere close to 100 million acres of corn in the U.S. each year.

    It appears the world is going to be flooded with corn in the coming years. It already is. Grain is piled up on the ground outside bins at many elevators today. Many elevators are built on rivers and have rail spurs, so they could move grain by barge, rail or semi if there were storage available elsewhere. But there’s not. So it’s piled up on the ground and covered by tarps.

    I suspect hedge funds have figured out synthetic trades to replicate shorting farmland.

  44. AndyG55 says:

    Isn’t nature wonderful when you give it a semi-reasonable amount of CO2.

    More needed though, and thankfully China, India and many other developing countries are more than willing to provide it. 🙂

  45. AndyG55 says:

    Its good to know that locally we are doing our bit to sustain world agriculture. 🙂

  46. Reziac says:

    I’m getting blanks for the images, and when I try to view them I get this:


    You don’t have permission to access /wp-content/uploads/Corn-belt-temp-JJA-thru-2016-vs-42-CMIP5-models-1.jpg on this server.

    Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

  47. dp says:

    I think it’s pretty obvious the climate has not changed enough to affect much at all. CO2 increase, on the other hand, seems to be working a treat. Good job.

  48. Robert B says:

    “In fact, if varieties can be made more heat tolerant, it might be that there will be no climate change impact on yields.”

    Unless it gets significantly colder. (I wonder if that will be considered climate change or just consistent with The Science of AGW?)

  49. Confused_Jane says:

    Heres a good,recent post by Dr Roy Spencer looking at crop yields and rainfall since 1900.

    What makes it good? I wondered.

    An important principle behind the scientific method is supposed to be about minimizing bias by following the data. That being all the related data and not only piecemeal approaches. Spencers post is an example of the later.

    Spencers conclusion is So, once again, claims of severe agricultural impacts from climate change continue to reside in the realm of science the future, if at all.

    And yet the data he presents does not support such a view. Why? Because he offers zero data. He presents only his opinion of his own research. Thats not how science works, but it is how marketing, advertising, and biased hand waving attention seeking operates.

    Science is not based upon vapid assumptions such as Lets assume the temperature and precipitation observations accurately reveal what has really happened. Has climate change since 1960 impacted corn yields in the U.S.?

    Precipitation records amount to more than annual / seasonal rainfall numbers 300ml can fall in an hour or across several days, the latter being much better for crop yields than the former. This is obvious, and yet Spencer ignores it totally over the last few decades and the last one in particular.

    Spencer in fact acknowledges What I found was that there might be a small long-term decrease in yields due to climate change OK then, thats an admission of a likely affect.

    Is this surprising? No it isnt. It is very well known and has been for decades now.

    quote: Key Message: Impacts to Agriculture
    In the next few decades, longer growing seasons and rising carbon dioxide levels will increase yields of some crops, though those benefits will be progressively offset by extreme weather events. Though adaptation options can reduce some of the detrimental effects, in the long term, the combined stresses associated with climate change are expected to decrease agricultural productivity.

    Who knew that? I did. I have read the reports years ago. Why doesn;t Spencer? or more to the point why is he not upfront about what the previous cliamte science research has presented? Why only focus on a small part of the story and not the whole story?

    Manipulation and disinformation and influencing unknowing non-scientific readers opinions is not uncommon a thing. Its called marketing of opinions and beliefs.

    He then says BUT it is far exceeded by technological advancements that increase yields.

    OK then, BUT technological advancements that increase yields has nothing to do with Climate or the weather.

    Where is his research data that separates out the two drivers of crop yields? It is no where to be seen in this post of Spencers. Most genuine scientists and everyday academics provide their references, Spencer does not. This error does not support his conclusions it totally undermines them.

    That in itself is meaningful about him personally over time as it continually impacts upon his reputation as an academic and a credible scientist. Theres marketing and then there is the Data.

    Spencer also says .it would require predicting an average change in weather patterns, which climate models so far have essentially no skill at.

    Um, yeah. So? GCMs do not do predictions, that is not what they are designed for. They are skillful and they are useful when fit for purpose. Misusing and mis-categorizing GCMs and other climate models is not the fault of the Models but the fault of those who are misusing them.

    Only recently have models being applied to regional climate settings wiht any degree of usefulness. They are far from accurate.

    A few other basic scientific errors include his other statements:

    Every time theres a drought, we are told that this is just one more example of human-caused climate change.

    Thats not true, and

    we have been warned that climate change is creating a climate crisis, with heat and drought reducing agricultural yields to the point that humanity will suffer.

    also not true. Certainly not by 2016 so why is Spencer even talking about this?

    (More CO2 is well known to fertilize, as well as increase drought tolerance and make plants more efficient in their water use).

    Not true. Does not consider all studies and all accumulated Data today.

    The people I know in the grain trading business do not even factor in climate changeprimarily because they do not yet see evidence of it.

    Not true. Its the fallacy appeal to popularity by only considering of a minor spectrum (people he knows) of all possible participants globally iow an extremely skewed unrepresentative and biased claim. Thats is not how credible scientists operate in the real world.

    but it is so overwhelmed by other positive factors,

    ie possible potential factors that have not been proven to be valid and correct, but merely assumed and claimed. That is not how genuine scientists operate either.

    IF varieties can be made more heat tolerant, it might be that there will be no climate change impact on yields.

    That is POSSIBLY true, but as yet it is far from proven and only lightly researched to date. Spencer provides no evidence or data yet again.

    Of course IF drought resistant varieties can be forthcoming that in no way has any effect on the reality of global warming nor regional climate change impacts in the Mid-West.

    And even if they do occur, how do we know they were not caused by the same natural factors that cause those previous droughts?

    A: Climate Science research, empirical evidence, and accumulated scientific Data, thats how.

    In fact, the last three years (2014-16) has seen the highest 3-yr average precip amount in the entire record.

    So what? Climate science (IPCC etc) have never said that the mid-west SHOULD be moving into a long term drought period with less than average rainfall around 2014-2016 anyway. No models are capable of making such predictions in recent past history.

    This is known as a strawman where Spencer presents a framing of supposedly higher temps and droughts (false claims) not coming true. This is not scientific.

    the Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s was not an event purely caused by weather the seriousness of that drought and its effects was made far worse by human activities specifically cropping practices.

    From the beginning Spencer asks: The question is: Are (droughts) getting worse? And, has modest warming had any effects on grain yields?

    He does not in any way answer, let alone address those questions. I wonder why he decided to write it.

    I suspect its another example of biased hand waving attention seeking attempting to influence public opinion and the political debates.

    Its got nothing to do with science. Spencer provides zero empirical evidence that global warming is not true, nor that it cannot have a negative effect on mid-western crop yields.


    This is what genuine science by credible scientists with empirical evidence looks like:
    Published: May 24, 2016 Climate Change and Maize Yield in Iowa
    Our results suggest that even if maize were to receive all the water it needed, under the strongest climate forcing scenario yields will decline by 1020% by the end of the 21st century.


    The only thing social media and blog sites are good at is pointing people in the direction of where to view the scientific evidence for yourself.

    Everything else that goes on here and elsewhere is like an argument between the Green and Orange Christians in Nth Ireland and its total lack of theological significance to atheists, Muslims or the Mormons in Utah.

    A scientific approach always includes relevant high quality references middle-high school level debating techniques and illogical conclusions are not necessary.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Are (droughts) getting worse? And, has modest warming had any effects on grain yields?”

      No and maybe an increase especially when combined with increased CO2.

      Thousands of experiments/papers showing the huge gains on many crops because of increased CO2.

      Get rid of your confusion !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Manipulation and disinformation and influencing unknowing non-scientific readers opinions is not uncommon a thing. Its called marketing of opinions and beliefs.”

      Ahhh…. I see you have done a deep study of the AGW/climatechange literature.

      Another word is PROPAGANDA.

      And those, like you, that fall for it are … GULLIBLE.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “yields will decline by 1020% by the end of the 21st century.”


      Crystal ball gazing at its most hilarious worst. !!

      …. and decline by 1020%…well… really ??????

      Your mathematical education shining through, dearie.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “No models are capable of making such predictions in recent past history.”

      Yet the end of the century… NO PROBLEMO !!

      You truly are a very confused little puppy, aren’t you, dearie.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “will be progressively offset by extreme weather events.”

      You rant about proof.. then unthinkingly quote this sort of garbage.

      Confusion runs high in your tiny little mind, does it not !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Science is not based upon vapid assumptions”

      But “Climate science” is.

      There is zero proof that CO2 causes warming in a convection controlled atmosphere.

      That is the VAPID assumption that “climate science” is built on… and with it many other VAPID assumptions.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Oh and please, learn to use quotation marks when quoting someone else.

      That might lead to a slightly less incoherent load of verbal ranting.

      • Confused_Jane says:

        listen you phuck wit .. the wordpress website STRIPS THE QUOTATION MARKS OUT ALL BY ITSELF AS WELL AS HYPENS LIKE BETWEEN 10 & 20 %


        • AndyG55 says:


          Of course it does, dearie. !!!

          Seems your level of incompetence excels even in the simplest activities.

    • Confused_Jane says:

      418 UNUSED


    • Confused_Jane says:


  50. AndyG55 says:

    Cold is the real plant killer.

    Let’s all hope the planet doesn’t start cooling.

    • Confused_Jane says:

      “Cold is the real plant killer.”

      Says who?

      • AndyG55 says:


        Is your education that lacking ?????

        • Robert B says:

          AndyG55 – I think that she wants to see it in the abstract of a peer-reviewed paper before she will accept that frost causes the death of plants.

          • Confused_Jane says:

            Robert B, “I think that she wants to see it”

            Wow, is that what you call “thinking” is it?

            What a cunning stunt.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You can tell by the random rambling this this clown has zero science comprehension.

            Journalist or social science at best.

        • Confused_Jane says:

          AndyG55 inquires seriously – Is your education that lacking ?????

          Seriously, not nearly as lacking as yours is.

          You seem to live in a simplistic black and white, light and dark, hot and cold world?

          I do not.

        • Confused_Jane says:

          AndyG55 says:
          “You can tell by the random rambling this this clown has zero science comprehension. Journalist or social science at best.”

          WOW only took you one post before out comes the abusive insults and adhominem crap and manifold put downs.

          Do you still beat your wife too?

          Man your my hero! Not.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Ouch.. I really was on target, wasn’t I !

          • Confused_Jane says:

            AndyG55 says:
            October 17, 2016 at 12:43 AM
            Ouch.. I really was on target, wasnt I !

            Nah, only in a wet dream would you ever be on target. You’re as weak as piss and twice as dumb as I gave you credit for. My mistake.

          • AndyG55 says:


            ramble on, little child. !

            so funny to watch.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “your ”

            oh dearie,,, learn to spell, at least. !!!

            “manifold put downs”

            Yet your first post was rife with it.

            HYPOCRITE !!!

          • Robert B says:

            “WOW only took you one post before out comes the abusive insults ”

            That would be the Spoonerism “cunning stunt” that you used in your reply to me.

  51. Confused_Jane says:

    Paleoclimates, global warming, and climate change

    A physical system can have more than one stable solution. Its called hysteresis (its how the bits in a computers memory work, for example).

    Snowball Earth happened (we think) long ago when the atmosphere had radically different composition than today. It ended when greenhouse gases from volcanoes raised the temperature to the point where the snowball could no longer be maintained.

    At first, those gases could not be absorbed by the frozen surface, but after the big melt, liquid water was able to absorb much of them.

    But by that time, there was enough water vapor (the most abundant greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere to keep the temperature up as the CO2 and methane content went down.

    A new stable point was reached. We might see excursions around that point, but it would take a very strong external cooling forcing to overcome the hysteresis and return Earth to the snowball state.

    And it wasnt just atmospheric content that was different in the distant past. Solar energy output was also much lower during Snowball Earth excursions than it is today, meaning greenhouse gas levels had to rise quite high (double more times) to bring earth out of the snowball state, leaving behind the signature cap carbonate formations that punctuate snowball episodes.

    — —

    Its wet in the Murray Darling basin and southern australia recently, and crops are doing swimmingly well in the Midwest USA while “everyone knows” there is no such a thing as global warming let alone man-made global warming.

    Thank god for that hey?

    This is what climate science research looks like when properly reported in a newspaper:

    Arctic methane gas emission significantly increased since 2014 major new research
    By The Siberian Times reporter 04 October 2016

    New expedition in Laptev Sea suggests increase in the rate of underwater permafrost degradation.

    The seeping of methane from the sea floor is greater than in previous research in the same area, notably carried out between 2011 and 2014.

    The area of spread of methane mega-emissions has significantly increased in comparison with the data obtained in the period from 2011 to 2014, he said. These observations may indicate that the rate of degradation of underwater permafrost has increased.

    Detailed findings will be presented at an international conference in Tomsk on 21 to 24 November. The research enables comparison with previously obtained data on methane emissions.

    Five years ago the professor has claimed: We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across.These are methane fields on a scale not seen before. The emissions went directly into the atmosphere Earlier we found torch or fountain-like structures like this [photo]

    This is the first time that weve found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. Its amazing. Over a relatively small area, we found more than 100, but over a wider area, there should be thousands of them.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Jane…”A physical system can have more than one stable solution. Its called hysteresis (its how the bits in a computers memory work, for example)”.

      I’m afraid your a bit off with your definition of hysteresis. A perfect example of hysteresis is the effect produced by applying a magnetic field to a bar of steel. As the field increases in strength, the atoms in the steel align themselves with the field but when you remove the field, they remain aligned.

      If you had a similar effect in a computer’s main memory the memory would become static and ineffective. You are likely talking about an EEPROM, which is a particular type of computer memory designed to retain it’s data when power is removed. That’s the difference between ROM and RAM, the latter being the main memory in a computer. When the power is removed from RAM all data disappears.

      There has been suggestions in ancient atmospheres that warming lagged the CO2 concentration by 800 years. That would be a form of hysteresis but not well defined.

  52. Confused_Jane says:

    How long will the ‘stable’ enough climate last for growing crops in the midwest given what is actually occurring in the global and regional climates of today and tomorrow?

    Oh my, if ONLY more CO2 meant higher crop yields, where we all lived and operated inside independent unconnected vacuum bubbles of “reality” on this planet.

    2016 Oct – Arctic Ocean sea temps 10C above recent averages no, that couldnt be true, could it? Ive mentioned this before on unscientific blog sites like this and was laughed at (at first) becasue people are so biased and gullible and do NOT know the facts.

    The empirical data and mountains of evidence keeps pouring out endlessly in confirmations one after the other after the others.

    Unfortunately text only in danish. But look at the illustrations.

    Sea temperatures in the Arctic ocean now up to ten degrees C above 1971-2000 mean (the map).

    The meteorologist Tonboe saying he expects arctic sea ice in the summer of 2017 to be very weak.

    You dont need to be a climate scientist or meteorologist to see that coming and coming and coming. Simply look at the data and the empirical evidence is more than enough. 🙂


    — —

    Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance etc.

    For example, when people get really angry (behavior) when confronted with real facts about global warming because they and they believe AGW/CC is a giant fraud or global cooling is about to take over the whole planet (faulty cognition).

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Jane…”when people get really angry (behavior) when confronted with real facts…”

      Jane…you are describing climate alarmists. In 2013, the Mother of All Peer-Reviews, the IPCC, admitted there was no global warming between 1998 and 2012…some 15 years. They called it a warming hiatus.

      Besides the 2016 El Nino spike, there has been no further global warming. We are waiting to see what comes of the spike.

  53. Confused_Jane says:

    Psychology and global warming – pictures are worth a thousand words (at least for those with EYES that can SEE objective reality 🙂 )

    By Prof. Jerry Kroth, a psychologist using empirical evidence from Psychology and Climate Science

    Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 1979, 2003, and 2010

    The Arctic Sea Ice Minimum in 10th Sept 2016

    Jerry Kroth concludes (and he is far from alone in this view)

    “And so it is, we have a large portion of the population that is convinced that they live in a different world, they live on fantasy island, they live out an delusory world in which Denial is the largest contributing factor to their consciousness on this issue.”

    “So they have lost contact with Reality and to that extent they have an incipient collective mental illness, the same way an individual would have.”

    • AndyG55 says:

      A psychologist.. roflmao

      Who the stuff cares what they think about climate science.

      Seriously a delusional fantasy realm of science for a start.

      And obviously another ignorant member of the Arctic worrier brigade with zero comprehension of longer term trends.

      Did you or he know that for most of the first 3/4 of the current interglacial, the Arctic was often ice free in summer??

      Nope.. you probably didn’t. Some research needed, dearie.

      So thanks, you confused little girl..

      We can all enjoy the laugh. 🙂

      • Confused_Jane says:

        Some research needed, dearie. So thanks, you confused little girl..

        Gosh you’re so mature and grown up like Mister!

        Are you as handsome as you are smart too?

        Did you or he know that for most of the first 3/4 of the current interglacial, the Arctic was often ice free in summer??

        Prove it my dear knuckle headed arm dragging Neanderthal he man. 🙂

        • AndyG55 says:

          You poor ill-informed little ranter.

          Not up to me to do your research for you.

          Remain ignorant as long as you want to.

          Hint .. look up the term.. Neoglaciation.

          Or look at GISP data.

          Off you trot, little ranter.

      • Confused_Jane says:

        AndyG55 rails against the machine with – “A psychologist.. roflmao”

        That’s the #1 common response from psychopaths and pathological narcissists. Wanna know more?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Hey confused little Jan,

      Look at Indias coal desires

      Please, for your tiny amount of remaining sanity, try to come to grips with the FACT that global CO2 emissions will continue to climb and climb, regardless… or more correctly, because of the anti-CO2 agenda that you so worship.

      • Confused_Jane says:

        Hopefully AndyG55 will be entering the nursing home sooner than later.

        Let’s review the quality of his anti-social media anti-intelligent anti-human and anti-sane anti-science anti-female bigoted contributions

        Also known as “How to Win Friends and Influence People” ?

        your tiny amount of remaining sanity
        anti-CO2 agenda that you so worship.
        confused little Jan
        you could INVENT anything you wanted to
        poor ill-informed little ranter.
        Remain ignorant as long as you want to.
        Off you trot, little ranter.
        you confused little girl
        another ignorant member
        ramble on, little child. !
        oh dearie,,, learn to spell, at least!!!
        HYPOCRITE !!!
        you live in a lavender colours fantasy world.
        colours -> coloured [OH DEARIE LEARN TO SPELL AT LEAST]
        random rambling this this clown [OH DEARIE DON’T REPEAT YOURSELF]
        zero science comprehension.
        Is your education that lacking ?????
        Climate science is (based upon vapid assumptions)
        There is zero proof that CO2 causes warming
        That is the VAPID assumption that climate science is built on and with it many other VAPID assumptions.
        a deep study of the AGW/climatechange literature – is PROPAGANDA.
        And those, like you, are GULLIBLE.
        Crystal ball gazing at its most hilarious worst. !!
        . and decline by 1020%well really ??????
        Your mathematical education shining through, dearie.
        You truly are a very confused little puppy, arent you, dearie.
        You rant about proof.. then unthinkingly quote this garbage.
        Confusion runs high in your tiny little mind
        I see you are content to remain CONFUSED.
        did you even n=bother to read any of those papers.
        YOUR BIAS and GULLIBILITY to the AGW meme is shining through
        No wonder you are confused. !!!
        Its like playing with a puppy !! [YOU DON’T LIKE PUSSY?]
        your soul sort of dark icky green colour.
        Not many thoughts to read, either. a jumbled mess.

        AND THE FIRST COMMENT BY ANDYG55 WAS …. Get rid of your confusion !!

        WELL ANDYG55, THAT’S ALL VERY ENLIGHTENING – thanks so very much for sharing your wisest thoughts and for sharing with the world what kind of a man you truly are.

        Very inspirational.

        Enjoy your time in the nursing home and have a nice long trip into the nether worlds.


        • AndyG55 says:

          Go take your ADHD tablets little girl

          …. your tantrums are HILARIOUS.

          • Confused_Jane says:

            What tantrum andy?

            You’re not used to having your online verbal bullying challenged.

            AndyG55 says:
            September 16, 2016 at 8:28 am
            You really are a piece of low-class excrement,

            You’re everywhere online spewing your vile pig ignorant insulting attitudes. Your reputation extends far beyond your Hunter Valley haunts.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Still yapping like a rabid Chihuahua

            You couldn’t challenge a gnat !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            If that wasn’t a tantrum…

            I can’t wait until you have one.

            Would be absolutely hilarious.

            Are you still confused?

        • AndyG55 says:


          Your word, dearie. !

          • Confused_Jane says:

            Anything else you want to say Andy? No need to hold back.

            So don’t feel obligated to be polite or anything like that. It is only social media after all.

            Go for it. I have a tough hide. I can handle it.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I can handle it”

            Then why the vapid tantrums ?

            You are hardly one to talk about being polite.

            The words you have come out with are far worse than any I have used.

            Funny thing is that you are totally incapable of seeing your own hypocrisy.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Your initial post was probably one of the most incoherent, self-opinionated, brain-washed, anti-science rants that one would ever expect to see anywhere on the web.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Jane…”Jerry Kroth concludes (and he is far from alone in this view)…”

      Jane…sadly, the mandate of psychologists is to re-integrate people in a society that is already seriously neurotic and messed up.

      Carl Rogers, one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century, did research into the effectiveness of psychotherapy. He concluded that any type of therapy was no better that 60% effective, and some, like psychoanalysis, were no better than no therapy at all.

      One of his students, Eugene Gendlin, took it even further. He concluded that the reason some clients benefit from psychotherapy is that they are predisposed to understanding what the therapy is about.

      Psychologists are hardly people who should be talking about reality, considering their psychological models have nothing to do with reality. There is no such thing as ego, self, superego, etc., they are all models of what psychologist theorize are going on in the mind.

      The assertions of the psychologist you cite, that skeptics are in denial about global warming hence out of touch with reality, suggests strongly that the psychologist has no idea what reality might be.

      Reality in climate science is temperature data, and if you care to look at the graph on this site about temperatures from 1979 till present, you won’t see the catastrophic warming of which we skeptics are alleged to be in denial. Nor will you see the slightest bit of evidence that humans are causing the little warming there has been.

      • AndyG55 says:

        1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino

        2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.

        3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.

        4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.

        5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002

        6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990.. ie, a zero trend for 40 years through their biggest industrial expansion

        7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.

        8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979-1997, then no warming from 2001 2015

        9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower

        10. British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010

        11. Chile has been cooling since the 1940s.

        12. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982-2005, then cooling

        13. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.

        That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those regions and time periods.

        There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect.

        The ONLY warming has come from regional El Nino and ocean circulation effects such as the PDO and AMO.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          Andy…”10. British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010…”

          I live in BC and I can testify to that. And no oceans levels are rising either.

  54. K9Kill says:


  55. Albert Stienstra says:

    Al Core is only concerned about other people’s CO2 footprints, not his own. It’s funny that he admits it.

  56. AndyG55 says:

    Interesting to look at maximum temperature trends in the corn belt

    CO2 warming response is clearly visible 😉

  57. Confused_Jane says:

    Interesting to look at maximum temperature and Sea Ice TRENDS in the Arctic which directly influences the climate of North America including the Corn belt mid-west, and the entire planet’s interconnected climate system.

    Arctic Air Temperatures were 20C to 40C ABOVE normal mean during DECEMBER WINTER 2015 into 2016 – Press conference, at European Geosciences Union General Assembly 21 April 2016.

    Five of the first six months set records for the smallest monthly Arctic sea ice extent since consistent satellite records began in 1979. The six-month period from January to June was also the planet’s warmest half-year on record, with an average temperature 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the late nineteenth century.

  58. Vincent says:

    How very charming! Is this a conflict between a real woman (Jane) and a real man (Andy)? If so, you two should get married. You’d have a lot to talk about. (Wink)

  59. Confused_Jane says:

    Visual Arctic map and bar graph show how air temperatures in the Arctic compare to averages from 1979 to 2015.

    Visual Arctic maps and bar graphs show how the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover for different years and months compares to averages from 1979 to 2015. – NOTE choose SEPT in bottom right box – click PLAY > at bottom left and then wait for the maps to speed up.

    WordPress blogs are a pain in the butt – is it too much to ask some info be popped up as to why a post is not accepted – it appears to be the URLs. what is Roy Spencer afraid of – is NASA et al websites deemed offensive or something?

  60. Confused_Jane says:

    is NASA et al websites deemed offensive or something?

    YES apparently it is.

    n s i d c dot org s o a c

    temperature dot html hash tag merra-temperature

    sea-ice dot html hash tag seaice

  61. Confused_Jane says:

    PLUS this is offensive and censored too is it?

    Dwindling of Arctic’s oldest ice since 1990


    The animation presents Arctic sea ice evolution from sea ice maximum reached on 24 March 2016 to its annual minimum extent on 10 September 2016.
    on y o u t u b e

    Of course, it is also “POSSIBLE” that NASA, G I S S, N S I D C, and the European Geosciences Union are all lying about this.

    so search y o u t ub e for
    Prof J Kroth: The Coming Disaster – November 17, 2015

  62. Confused_Jane says:

    What a joke.

    If I had my way I would wipe out every single satelite and pull the plug on the internet.

    It’s is destroying humanity from the inside out.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Certainly not helping you.

      Your blood pressure must be sky-rocketing

      Go on.. pull the plug.. take everyone out of your misery.

      • Confused_Jane says:

        “Your blood pressure must be sky-rocketing”

        Are you a GP or a mystical psychic with supernatural powers?

        Why must my blood pressure be sky-rocketing. as Pauline would say “please explain” …

  63. AndyG55 says:

    Arctic sea ice doing just fine.

    Come December it will be up with the rest of the pack, and with no El Nino likely next year, the summer level will start to climb.

    • Confused_Jane says:

      look for Arctic sea ice to increase over the next several years.

      “Come December it will be up with the rest of the pack, and with no El Nino likely next year, the summer level will start to climb.”

      The mentally ill and disordered have been saying that for at least 16 years now already.

      I wish the Arctic would hurry up and get with the program.

      How do you spell idiot Andy?

      2015-2016 winter sea ice extent and volume was a record low.

      So now you;re saying the summer ice extent will bounce back to the record low maximum.

      Wow, and you wonder why “dearies” like me ask if you know how to spell IDIOT?

    • Confused_Jane says:

      “Arctic sea ice doing just fine.”

      Which proves beyond any doubt you are an IDIOT Andy

      • AndyG55 says:

        Is that the best you can manage?

        There is still one heck of a lot of sea ice up there.

        And it will definitely be up with the rest come December, no matter what sort of tantrum you throw.

        And there will be no Ell Nino next year either.

        The truth really does confuse you, doesn’t it.

      • doctor no says:

        Poor AndyG55 has forgotten to take his tablets again.
        He is in fantasy land since the the latest sea Arctic ice data shows the seasonal increase has just tanked and is heading below the 2012 value !

        Even the Antarctic sea ice is now below average.

        (look up Arctic Sea Ice News)

        • AndyG55 says:

          You can get that data now mr no-nothing !

          Arctic sea ice will be up with the rest in December.

          and there will not be an El Nino next year.

          And won’t you Arctic worriers be scurrying

          • doctor no says:

            Is that all you have?
            An assertion that it will come good by December?
            Like, when Father Christmas comes?

            How old are you? I guess you are either an embittered smart-alec teenager or else a severely disturbed elderly retiree (probably an engineer to boot).

          • AndyG55 says:

            Do you really think that Arctic sea ice won’t be in with all the pervious years come December?

            Are you really that stupid ?

            A Dr of what ? Clearly nothing to do with anything to do with science, maths or reality. !!

            Dr of delusion ???

  64. AndyG55 says:

    For those not conversant with the AMO.

    Here are Reykjavik temps graphed over the AMO

    The AMO is just dropping off its flattish top, which means a cooling Arctic over the nbext deceade or two..

    And you can see that 1979 is the very bottom of the AMO cycle, so the natural place to start if you want to show Arctic sea ice decline.

    • doctor no says:

      Stupid boy, do some proper research. For example:

      ” Net warming over Iceland occurred over all long-term records from the mid19th century to the present, consistent with observed global warming trends..”

      Int. J. Climatol. 24: 11931210 (2004)
      Published online in Wiley InterScience ( DOI: 10.1002/joc.1051

      • AndyG55 says:

        Mid 19th Century… That would be the end of the LIA.

        Thank goodness for that NATURAL warming, hey !!!!!

        Or are you going to bone-headed enough to blame CO2 for warming from the mid 19th Century ?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Net warming with a peak in the 1940’s

        Some other Arctic temps for you

      • AndyG55 says:


        You really should look at pdf’s before you reference them.

        How much egg can your face wear?

        • Confused_Jane says:

          A total nutter in fact.

          Andy, you do not have a clue WTF you’re talking about.

          Like big deal, you can post urls to “graphs”. woo hoo for you.

          Seriously, as per Kroth, you’re suffering from a delusory mental illness. You are not in touch with reality. You have zero expertise in climate science or basic common sense or logic.

          Take up gardening or go make some wooden toys for the great grand kiddies, iow something useful. You are totally out of your depth. Period!

          Because here and on the other couple of dozen websites you infest you’re a complete waste of time and space.

          The Dunning-Kruger effect is the finding that the poorest performers are the least aware of their own incompetence.

          The reason for the Dunning-Kruger effect seems to be that poor performers fail to learn from their mistakes.

          The proposed solution is that the incompetent should be directly told they are incompetent.

          Andy, sorry but, you are incompetent!

          Unfortunately the problem with the Dunning-Kruger effect is that incompetent people have probably been getting this type of feedback for years and failed to take much notice.

          Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.
          Kruger, Justin; Dunning, David
          Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 77(6), Dec 1999, 1121-1134.

          psycnet .apa .org 1999-15054-002

          • AndyG55 says:

            What an incredibly delusionary rant.

            WOW !! Failed his course did you ?

            All this REAL DATA is leaving you in a monu-MENTALLY confused state, isn’t it.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “poorest performers are the least aware of their own incompetence.”

            I see you haven’t reached that stage yet.

            Because you seriously are coming across as having major ADHD tantrum issues.

            Seek help from someone OTHER THAN Kroth, if you ever want to recover.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Andy, sorry but, you are incompetent! ”

            from someone with an F in first year psychology and deep seated self-awaremess issues…..

            …. meaningless.

          • AndyG55 says:

            It is duly noted that you have failed manifestly t come up with one single bit of REAL DATA to counter any of the data I have shown you.

            Only one of us is truly incompetent, and its not me.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Oh, and, another hilarious ranting tantrum yet again.

            You don’t disappoint.

          • AndyG55 says:

            I must say, I love your posts, Confused-One

            You epitomise all that is wrong and dumb about the AGW agenda.

            You are doing an admirable job of bringing the AGW brain-washing farce to the light of day with your gullibility.

            Please keep posting your garbage posts as long as you want to.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “You are not in touch with reality.”

            Reality comes for REAL DATA.

            Something you fail to comprehend.

            REAL DATA is your enema!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “you can post urls to graphs. woo hoo for you.”

          Sorry that you don’t have the competence to understand them

          Your problem only.

          • doctor no says:

            Your pathetic graphs are meaningless. They are unsourced and probably faked.

          • AndyG55 says:

            If you had even a base level of competency, you could find the data and verify them for yourself, just like anyone else can.

            But you haven’t, have you.

            Remain incompetent and ill-informed.. it suits you

          • AndyG55 says:

            This one here is taken out of the very pdf that you linked to.

            Are you REALLY that dumb that you can’t find it !!!


          • AndyG55 says:

            You really have NEVER done even a rudimentary bit of basic research on any of this, have you Dr Nothing.

            Just brain-washed “belief”, in a load of propaganda BS.

            GULLIBLE.. and anti-science. !!

          • doctor no says:

            “This one here is taken out of the very pdf that you linked to.”

            That is the only bit of information you have posted that is in any way genuine – and I had to show you where to find it !
            Everything else you have posted is a waste of time since you provide no references. What a waste of time.
            And yet you think you can do science! (stick to engineering).

          • doctor no says:

            11 rants in a row !
            Like a yapping dog that gets excited when the post-person passes by.
            You definitely have a problem as you cannot seem to string together a coherent message.

          • Confused_Jane says:

            — competence ???

            Where did you suddenly get THAT word from Andy?

            You operate like a poker machine. Insert words soon after out comes the same words.

            You clearly cannot think for yourself.

            Do yourself a favour and get off the computer and the internet and doing something else. You’re behaving like an out of control addict.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You two are so incredibly LAZY, INEPT, and INCOMPETENT that you are totally INCAPABLE of doing even the slightest bit of basic research for yourselves.

            It really is HILARIOUS watching you squirm and slither like a pathetic pair of sprayed cockroaches, trying DESPERATELY to avoid anything related to REAL DATA.

            Both of you would get a monumental FAIL in any subject requiring anything except parroting propaganda BS.

          • AndyG55 says:

            No-nothing… you do realise that the data from the pdf matches pretty much to the temperature data I posted of Iceland and the Arctic,

            or didn’t you notice that either.

            You remain eternally DUMB and perpetually IGNORANT. !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “11 rants in a row !
            Like a yapping dog that gets excited when the post-person passes by.”

            I don’t think the confused_one would like you talking about him/her/it in that way.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Youre behaving like an out of control addict.”

            Trying to clean up after your constant stream of dribble.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “(stick to engineering).”

            Stick to making decaf lattes for your inner city regressives.

            Anything to do with real science is WAY beyond you, that is for sure.

          • Confused_Jane says:

            YOU ARE INSANE

          • AndyG55 says:

            That’s a very short and pointless rant from you.

            Come on .. you have proven you can do far better.

  65. AndyG55 says:

    Thanks Roy for posting the full UAH table.

    Seems that down here, September 2016 was the 22nd warmest September in 38 years. Negative anomaly, too.

  66. Colin Fenwick says:

    The bar has been set very low.

  67. ren says:

    Now quickly it will grow ice in the Beaufort Sea and Baffin Bay.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Yep.. and look what is happening to the winds.

      Central sea ice will spread out instead of the compaction of the last week or so.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Also look to Hudson Bay cooling quickly, and the sea ice spreading down the east coast of Greenland.

    • Toneb says:

      “After tying for second lowest extent in September, Arctic sea ice began expanding rapidly. But that has turned around dramatically in October.”

      • AndyG55 says:

        Again.. do you know why?

        Scambot obviously only has part of a clue.

      • AndyG55 says:

        I even give you a hint just above.

      • doctor no says:

        AndyG55 reminds me of mpainter – who for quite a while pinned his hopes on the current La Nina being a monster and causing global temperatures to drop. He was sorely disappointed. (despite his efforts with a row boat and a case load of ice cubes) when it turned out to be a fizzer.
        Here we see another poor fool wishing and hoping and prayin that Arctic sea ice will suddenly recover by December. Its amazing how they shut their eyes when you show them evidence that the current (October) extents are heading into record low territory.
        Is cognitive dissonance the correct term?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your ignorance is highlighted in your every post.

          Expectation of some actual science from you.. ZERO !!

        • Confused_Jane says:

          Is cognitive dissonance the correct term?



          Furthermore Spencer’s website should be shut down by law enforcement for being an active enabler of cyber-harassment and criminal defamation.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You have NOTHING to offer to anyone

            And your childish manic tantrums are really, really funny to watch !!

            And yes, you should absolutely cease your pathetic attempts at harassment.

            You still have put forward one tiny bit of anything to counter the REAL DATA I have been posting.

            Sleep well tonight. No self-harm, please.

          • AndyG55 says:

            BTW, Your “victim” plea is hilarious.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Dr no-science..

          Have you figure out yet what has caused the slow down in sea ice growth while increasing Greenland SMB?

          Or are you STILL confused.

          oops… wrong person !!

  68. doctor no says:

    Yapping dog: “Stick to making decaf lattes for your inner city regressives.”

    As I suspected, the retired engineer is also a rural recluse, hates young people, probably lives alone, definitely supports Trump, owns a gun, should be watched closely by the FBI.

    • AndyG55 says:

      So.. still the posts totally empty of anything resembling science.

      You are living down to everybody’s expectation.

      • Confused_Jane says:

        AndyG55, you’re a total dead S H I T and a total embarrassment to all Australians.

        More than anything though is that you are a GUTLESS COWARD

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your poor little twit !!

          Your low IQ 14 year-old male intellect is shining through.

          . no wonder you are confused.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Still waiting for some sort of pathetic counter to all the REAL DATA I have put in front of you..

          So far.. Nada, NOTHING.. just empty juvenile rants.

          • Confused_Jane says:

            Andrew’s dead mother is ashamed of her son

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            Andy G55…”Still waiting for some sort of pathetic counter to all the REAL DATA I have put in front of you”.

            Don’t hold your breath mate, alarmists are trained at alarmist schools on obfuscation, denial, and ignoring real data.

            One of their leading authorities, Naomi Oreskes, who wrote a book about three dead skeptics who could not defend themselves, claimed in her book that consensus is a valid form of science.

            Oreskes is responsible for one of the studies that claims 95% of scientists agree on global warming. Her study involved yes and no answers posed to 1000 scientists.

          • AndyG55 says:


            Where is your SCIENTFIC counter to my REAL DATA?

            … or is juvenile low-level slagging the best you can manage?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Thing that is really FUNNY is that you actually thing anything you say does anything more than make me laugh.

          Your self-delusion at our own importance and intelligence is absolutely hilarious.

          Please live long so you can enjoy the massive benefits of all the extra CO2 being pumped daily into the air at an ever-increasing rate, by the developing countries, especially China and India.

          And just be GLAD that the Australian coal industry doing so much to help.

          • AndyG55 says:

            third last word first line “think”..

            You should try it about climate at some stage.

          • AndyG55 says:


            YouTube.. your selected reference.. so funny !!

            Low-level.. as usual.

            Did you see that Indonesia is planning to double their coal production and use.

            With China, India, Germany, etc (and France at the moment) a all ramping up their production, there will continue to be plenty of lovely BENEFICIAL atmospheric CO2 for many , many years to come.

            GET USED TO IT !!!

            …because there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can do about it.

            ps.. Seen the massive expansion of the Hunter Coal Rail system in recent years.. Australia doing its bit to help the world plant life

            And that silly little psychiatrist of yours… roflmao !!

  69. Gordon Robertson says:

    News flash and heads up…barry has revealed himself as misquoting IPCC sources to bolster his alarmist views. It seems alarmists are desperate to get rid of the IPCC announcement in 2013 that no significant warming occurred between 1998 and 2012. They referred to it as a warming hiatus.

    NOAA has gone to great lengths to retroactively eradicate that hiatus through smoke and mirrors statistical analyses. They did that by slashing 5000 surface stations globally and feeding data from the remaining 1500 stations into a climate model where it was interpolated and homogenized to synthesize the missing 5000 stations.

    Barry challenged me and referred me to the so-called official quote of the IPCC which he claims to be as follows:

    “IPCC official comment:


    Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (19982012; 0.05 [0.05 to 0.15] C per decade), which begins with a strong El Nio, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (19512012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade).

    Summary for Policy Makers, AR5 2013”.

    He supplied no citation to the IPCC source and he misspelled El Nino as El Nio.

    The IPCC made no such statement, the quote above is a fabrication from Barry’s mind. Be aware when dealing with this guy and check any sources he gives.

    Besides misquoting the IPCC, he has missed the point entirely. In the fabricated statement above he admits there was no significant warming over the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012 then tries to deflect from that true data with a smoke and mirrors arguement.

    • SkepticGoneWild says:


      The above quote IS directly from Summary for Policymakers (AR5), Working Group 1, on page 5, Section B.1 Atmosphere:

      “Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (19982012; 0.05 [0.05 to 0.15] C per decade), which begins with a strong El Nio, is smaller
      than the rate calculated since 1951 (19512012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade){2.4}”

      I’ll try to post the link separately.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      It appears I owe Barry an apology for calling him a liar. Here is the actual quote from page 2 of the Summary for Policymakers with the correct El Nino spelling.

      “Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (19982012; 0.05 [0.05 to 0.15] C per decade), which begins with a strong El Nio, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (19512012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade)5. {2.4}”

      Ok, Here’s what I want to know. How can anyone possibly construe that statement to mean there was no significant warming from 1998 – 2012, some 15 years. Whether it represent a long-term climate trend or not is not the issue. The issue is that the IPCC declared it a HIATUS and Barry claimed I was misrepresenting the truth and that HE (Barry Almighty) had corrected me thrice.

      Corrected what? That the IPCC stated clearly that no significant warming occurred between 1998 and 2012? It’s right there in the quote Barry supplied. Is denial so powerful that people will not ingest what they don’t want to see?

      Besides it is incorrect what the Summary is claiming, that the now 20 year hiatus is dependent on the beginning and the end. The level of the hiatus is dependent on the huge El Nino of late 1997 but the flatness has nothing to to with it.

      That’s to be expected from the Summary which is written by 50 politically appointed lead authors. They are responsible for the 2007 statement that it is 90% likely humans are causing the warming. The main report did not state that and the 50 lead authors added it over the objection of many reviewers.

  70. Thomas says:


    Gordon Robertson, stop telling lies.

    “The IPCC made no such statement, the quote above is a fabrication from Barrys mind.”


    GORDON, give up believing you’re even 1% as smart as the 30,000 genuine competent climate scientists on this planet.

    • Thomas says:

      That post was after 6 attempts to post direct quotes from the IPCC documents.

      This website is a piece of S H I T

      • AndyG55 says:

        You know what to do, then… POQ !!

        • Confused_Jane says:

          N S I D C urls testing fails

          Visual Arctic map and bar graph show how air temperatures in the Arctic compare to averages from 1979 to 2015.

          Visual Arctic maps and bar graphs show how the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover for different years and months compares to averages from 1979 to 2015. – NOTE choose SEPT in bottom right box – click PLAY > at bottom left and then wait for the maps to speed up.


          The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

          Please contact the server administrator, [email protected] and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

          More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

        • Confused_Jane says:

          Andrew is a gutless coward

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Thomas…”GORDON, give up believing youre even 1% as smart as the 30,000 genuine competent climate scientists on this planet”.

      All I did was quote directly from the proceedings of AR5, the IPCC’s 5th review in 2012. I gave a link, the page, and the heading under which you can find the quote, yet you and Barry deny it.

      Instead, Barry supplied a quote with no link while alleging it came from the IPCC. His quote had El Nino spelled as El Nio, something I doubt was an IPCC typo.

      • Confused_Jane says:

        YES, you were wrong. and that was what I was trying to show but at 20 attempts of editing it down failed.

        My BLOCKED posts were direct copy pastes from the IPCC docs and N-S-I-D-C which is OBVIOUSLY A BANNED TERM



        • Gordon Robertson says:

          confused_jane…I admitted to being wrong about the quote itself but I was not wrong about the content. I stated elsewhere in this thread that the IPCC stated in 2013 there had been a warming hiatus from 1998-2012 with insignificant warming. That means the degree of warming (5/100ths of a degree C/decade) and the error margin made it debatable whether it was a warming or a cooling.

          Barry sent me a snotty reply claiming he had corrected me thrice. His quote showed no correction only a comment from 50 lead authors in the Summary trying to cover up 15 years of no warming. It is now closer to 20 years and some people think that is significant for a hiatus.

      • Confused_Jane says:

        YES, you were wrong. and that was what I was trying to show but at 20 attempts of editing it down failed.

        My BLOCKED posts were direct copy pastes from the IPCC docs and N-S-I-D-C which is OBVIOUSLY A BANNED TERM





        Because WordPress is a shitty blog program and


        • Gordon Robertson says:

          confused_jane…”…you were wrong. and that was what I was trying to show but at 20 attempts of editing it down failed”.

          If you look at some of my recent posts I have had to break them into parts to get them past the filters. That is not about Roy banning anyone it is about filters he had to put in place due to irresponsible posters from the past.

          Roy is aware of it and if you mention it politely he will fix it on an individual basis. Why you need to rave about a conspiracy is beyond me.

        • AndyG55 says:

          and the tears fell like acid. !!


    • Gordon Robertson says:


      Absolute nonsense…and stop shouting, it’s impolite. It is most likely not the URLs being blocked as certain words accompanying them. Either that or the URL is incorrectly formatted.

      I have never had a problem posting URls on Roy’s site. I’ve had problems with certain words which Roy had to filter due to past posters.

  71. Confused_Jane says:


    http://n s i d

    • Confused_Jane says:




      • AndyG55 says:

        Cry me a river !!.

        Do you really enjoy playing the childish, far-left SJW VICTIM?

        …. because all is does is make people LAUGH.

      • AndyG55 says:

        And seriously , why do you think Roy should bother doing anything to help your continued tantrums?

        Over playing your importance (ie… zero), that is for sure.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      confused_jane…”BANNED URL REMOVE THE SPACES”

      The only space is the empty space between your ears. I have been posting on this site for years and have never had a problem with banned websites, either from pro alarmists sites or skeptic sites.

      If you want to see banned sites and commenters go to the uber-alarmist sites of realclimate, desmogblog, and skepticalscience.

      Roy is infinitely more patient with posters here than are those propagandists.

      • Confused_Jane says:

        Gordon, “Roy is infinitely more patient with posters here than are those propagandists.”

        Roy wouldn’t even read the comments here. Get real.

        Feel free to get any n s i d c sea ice website url and post it here, then tell me I am wrong using that PROOF !

        I’ll wait to see it …. LOL

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          confused…”Feel free to get any n s i d c sea ice website url and post it here…”

          I did, and it does not work. However, that does not mean Roy has banned the site. It could have something to do with the https which means the site is secure. Maybe they don’t allow their site to be copied as a link.

          Roy’s basically a good guy. He’s nothing like Gavin Schmidt of realclimate or John Cook of skepticalscience. Roy puts up with a lot, as witnessed by your exchange with Andy. You’d both be banned on other sites for the personal comments you have made.

          • Confused_Jane says:

            Gordon said – “I did, and it does not work.”

            You are correct, and that is totally phucked. Now it wasn’t the only website, ipcc docs were blocked, and others are too. https is irrelevant. Have a great day 🙂 which reminds me this site cannot even accept a damn smilie.

            There are haitians who run more professional and functional websites – what’s Roy’s excuse? too poor? underpaid at uni? no undergrads to earn brownie points?

            whatever .. these urls get banned/blocked it’s an issue. If Roy doesn’t know that already – as in YEARS AGO now – then he’s an incompetent idiot imho.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          confused…”Roy wouldnt even read the comments here. Get real”.

          He’s a busy guy and he seldom replies to comments. Have you tried emailing him and explaining your issue with the ice site?

  72. AndyG55 says:

    Looking at weather up in Arctic.

    Still some El Nino stuff hanging about, can’t last much longer

    Suggest we will see Laptev, Baffin, the Canadian island and Greenland sea start to climb.. maybe some growth in Hudson Bay as well

    Barent, Kara, Chukchi, anything above east Siberia will take a bit longer.

    • bobdroege says:

      Yes it freezes this time of year.

      Problem for you is that sea ice extent is 14K away from record low extent for the date.


      • Confused_Jane says:

        LOL “Yes it freezes this time of year.” but don’t tell Andrew he’ll have a breakdown over it.

        The Arctic Sea Ice will continue to freeze over the cooler winter period for decades to come. Even after there is no summer sea ice through August to September, it will continue to refreeze at a very “rapid” rate each autumn.

        Under -3C sea water freezes, doh! Don’t tell Andrew this. 🙂

        Meanwhile the maximum SIE has dropped ~10% and the Minimum by 45% since 1979. (i had some numbers on this but can’t find them now, but it easy enough to calculate it.)

        Wadhams reckons it will be ice free in summer at any time the next couple of years, but I think he is off with the faeries.

        I used to think it was possible to be ice free by ~2025 but now it looks more likely to be ice free in late aug – sept in 2030 +/- 2 years (all things being equal)

        No doubt if Andrew the Dunce is still alive he will still be calling that “natural variability” and that AGW/CC is a scam. Roy Spencer as well, for he wouldn’t ever change his “beliefs” – the ego couldn;t handle admitting he was wrong.

        But their time is running out, as fast as the rest of humanity’s is. (shrug)

        • AndyG55 says:

          Ignorant little child

          Still no counter the REAL DATA.

          Because you know you CANNOT.

          Even after there is no summer sea ice through August to September,’

          Oh you been listening to Wadhams have you. So hilarious.

          Still LOTS of Arctic sea ice

          and still a continued increase in CO2 emissions for many many years to come.


        • AndyG55 says:

          Did I mention that the average Arctic sea ice trend over the last 10 years since the AMO peaked has been basically ZERO

          The REAL DATA hurts you badly doesn’t it because you KNOW you have no come-back .

          You still have NOTHING but EMPTYMESS in your soul.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Going to be hilarious watching confused little petals like you as Arctic sea ice starts to climb in the next few years 🙂

          You will be even more confused than you are now.. if that is even possible.

          • bobdroege says:

            I’ll believe it when I see it.

            The good money is on the continuation of the trend since like 1980, which is down, down, down.

  73. Norman says:


    I went to your banned N S I D C site and clicked on the summer months in the graphic (June, July, August). The air temperature change over the 1980 to 2015 is very slight. Why would all the Arctic summer ice melt when the temperature of the area is basically not changing during the summer months?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      norman…”Why would all the Arctic summer ice melt when the temperature of the area is basically not changing during the summer months?”

      The presumption is that it is melting due to global warming, there’s no proof that it is. The Arctic Ocean is subject to the Arctic Oscillation, wind and ocean currents, and the AMO. It’s a very complex system and the ice could be simply breaking up due to normal summer warming and being swept into the North Atlantic where it melts.

      I was reading accounts of two different explorers who tried walking to the North Pole from the northernmost tip of Canada, on Ellesmere Island. Both of them had to make the attempt in February and March at the latest because the ice starts breaking up after that.

      One of them, Ranulph Fiennes, made it to the Pole then road the chunk of ice overlying the Pole down to Greenland, where he was picked up by a support vessel.

      • Confused_Jane says:

        “The presumption is that it is melting due to global warming, theres no proof that it is.”

        Gordon, here’s a wooden nickle to invest in a brain transplant. Your’s isn’t working real well LOL

        • AndyG55 says:

          “invest in a brain transplant.”

          You seem to have already had yours..

          The gnat you swapped with, feels he has been diddled.

    • AndyG55 says:

      The last of the El Nino warmth has just about gone.

      Have you seen what’s happening in Greenland?

      MASSIVE SMB gain on the east coast, and if you look at the chart, the gains are well above average, to say the least.

      • AndyG55 says:

        REAL DATA !!!!

      • bobdroege says:

        Round here we don’t call 1-2 inches of snow massive.

        just saying

        • AndyG55 says:

          yep 12 Gt is nothing.. of course.

          You seem nearly as confused as confused_monkey is.

          • bobdroege says:

            You know, don’t you that the SMB is just the snowfall vs runoff, which doesn’t take into account the calving of icebergs, which puts the loss at 200 Gt/yr.

            “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr”

            that’s from your cite by the way

          • AndyG55 says:

            SMB Gain last year was about 250GT.

            Do the maths.. if you can.

          • bobdroege says:

            I’ll have you know I scored a perfect 36 on the math portion of the ACT.

            Surface mass balance – calving = Total ice loss

            250 Gtons – calving = -200 Gtons

            Solving for calving gives 450 Gtons.

            Ouch, math stinks!

            That’s gonna leave a mark.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Idiot.. Your comprehension is LIMITED. !!

            The 200GT is the loss from calving etc

            note 2011,12 line Are you saying there was less loss that year

            250GT gain – 200GT calving etc = 50 GT gain this year

            Now read the stuff in that link, and try not to be such a bozo.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Some of you AGW cultists really don’t get it do you !!

            The late 1970’s was a time of VERY HIGH sea ice and high Greenland mass.

            Both are, of course , closely, but inversely, link to a cycle called the AMO, which was at its very lowest around 1979.

            The AMO cycle has been on its flatish peak since about 2007, but is just starting to drop.

            Unfortunately, Greenland mass and the Arctic sea ice will start to climb again.

            Hopefully they will not climb up to the EXTREMES of 1979, but remain at a much more beneficial lower level.

            There would be massive benefits to everyone living up in the region from actually being able to navigate the region for more than a few weeks each year.

            There are many indications that before the LIA, the region was navigable for at least part of the year, and that earlier in the Holocene, the Arctic was often ice free in summer. Imagine just how beneficial that would have been for fishing, commerce etc .

          • bobdroege says:

            You have to read and understand your own cites.

            The surface mass balance is snow minus melt and sublimation.

            It doesn’t include calving, as your cites says.

            Here is a quote from your cite

            “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

            Greenland is losing ice, not gaining it.

            There is no evidence the AMO has anything to do with the Greenland surface mass balance or the arctic ice area, extent or volume.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You didn’t bother trying to read and understand the extra links did you.

            You are speaking nonsense.

            Remain confused as long as you want. Doesn’t bother me.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Odd that you still haven’t figured out that GRACE ice mass measurements are rather suspect.

            They showed the Antarctic losing mass when it turned out it was gaining it.

            Have you been talking to that other dip that rants here.. would explain your confusion.

          • bobdroege says:

            I wasn’t referring to GRACE or Antarctica, I was just quoting parts of the article you so generously provided.

            If you don’t understand what you bring to the table, not my problem.

            Here I have a worse than they thought cite for you. Greenland is melting 20 Gtons a year faster than previously thought.


          • Nate says:


            Bob also did well on reading comprehension on his ACT. Not so sure about you though.

            The article clearly states that the Greenland net mass loss is -200 GT/y.

            No ambiguity-that’s what it says.

    • Nate says:


      The air temperature in summer has no choice but to be the temperature of ice/ocean equilibrium, i.e about 32 F. Any added heat goes into melting ice.

      Only when there is complete ice cover does it vary much-.i.e in winter. You can see that here:

      • Norman says:


        Thanks. But I still wonder where the energy is going to come from to melt the ice in the summer.

        When I go to the CERES page and make up graphs of the Arctic Circle

        I look at the Surface Net Total Flux All-Sky and make a graph from the “area mean time series” virtual button. At least from 2000 to now there is not much change in the Total radiant flux which seems to be evident in the current ice data. No sign of increased melting in the last few years.

        It is not just a matter of the temperature being held back by heat of fusion but there just does not seem to be extra energy available to do much melting (unless it comes in from an external source like a warm ocean current).

        • Norman says:


          Using the same link to the CERES tool you can make a graph of the Surface Longwave Flux Down All-Sky and make an area mean time series graph. At least from 2000 to now no evidence of any enhanced GHE at the Arctic Circle.

          From this graph it looks like CO2 was around 368 PPM in 2000 and now is over 400 PPM so it has increased around 8% in that time but it does not seem to show up in radiation graphs of the Arctic Circle.

        • Nate says:


          Ok thanks.

          I just don’t know if sky flux in arctic is most important factor for determining ice melt. Certainly heat transport from lower to higher latitudes is important (gulf stream!). But all of the lowest sea-ice years have been since 2000.