Home/BlogGlobal warming be damned — full speed ahead on the Maize Train.
Kentucky Corn Growers Association
In fact, the last four growing seasons (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017) had higher yields than any previous years. The last time that happened was in 1964.
And compared to 1964, the U.S. is producing nearly three times as much corn per acre as we did back then.
There is no indication of a slowdown in the long-term upward trends in corn yields. While the 176.6 bpa U.S. average for 2017 is a huge increase compared to just 50 years ago, the latest winner for the highest yield produced by a single farmer has risen again to over 542 bpa, which is fully three times the U.S. average yield.
While the global warmmongers continue to wring their hands over rising temperatures hurting yields (the Corn Belt growing season has indeed warmed slightly since 1960), improved varieties and the “global greening” benefits of more atmospheric CO2 have more than offset any negative weather effects — if those even exist.
Globally, upward trends in all grain yields have been experienced in recent decades. Of course, droughts and floods cause regional crop failures almost every year. That is normal and expected. But there has been no global average increase in these events over the last century.
In his latest movie, Al Gore claimed just the opposite for wheat yields in China. While I hesitate to call him a liar, since I don’t know where he got his information — Gore was just plain wrong.
The sky is not falling. Life on Earth depends upon CO2, even though there is so little of it — now 4 parts per 10,000 of the atmosphere, compared to 3 parts a century ago. No matter how much we emit, nature gobbles up 50% of it.
Most of the evidence suggests that life is now breathing more freely than any time in human history, thanks to our CO2 emissions.
Of all the factors that correlate with crop yields: technology, pesticides, fertilizer, hybrids, climate, you’ve decided one is most important. Good science Roy.
Just countering the 97% of the noise claiming CO2 alone will destroy agriculture. See how it works both ways, Nate?
Instead, you choose to change the subject. Yes, I’m aware of the other factors. I’ve been talking to people in the corn business for the last 8 years. I’m just pointing out the predictions have, as yet, no signs of being right.
I wonder how many Americans are aware of that?
Come on. “People in the corn business” — farmers and agro people?
— aren’t going to know the details of how plants respond to CO2 and all its attendant effects.
It’s curious that a geophysicist doesn’t get to write about Arctic breakouts but a meteorologist knows all about advanced plant science.
David, I find your comment extremely ignorant. I am tempted to say it is highly insulting, but maybe it is more ignorant than insulting. On my farm, over the last 40 years, I have increased corn yields from 60 bushels to over 190 bushels an acre. I make it my business to know what is causing the increase, and what I can do to help it. My livelihood depends upon my ability to do that. I have read over a hundred scientific articles on the issue of corn yields and CO2. Yes, I can congratulate myself on some practices that have helped. However, there is no doubt that at least 15 to 20% of current production has come from increased CO2 levels.
I do not pick and choose which ones I read based on my position ahead of time. I probably would go bankrupt if I did that.
NO name: Prove to me your increase is due to CO2.
DA…”NO name: Prove to me your increase is due to CO2.”
There’s no way of proving anything to you, David, nothing satisfies you.
If Isaac Newton was still alive and tuned into this blog claiming f = ma, you’d demand peer review and an independent paper. If he returned with it, you’d slam him as a Creationist for believing in God.
You lack the ability to do your own science to see if f = ma makes sense, and you have the global warming religion. Debating with you is akin to debating Jehovah Witness door-to-door proselytizers.
You are a catastrophic warming proselytizer.
Re: “farmers and agro people arent going to know the details of how plants respond to CO2 and all its attendant effects”; farmers and agro people have degrees in Agriculture, horticulture and other things. Now of course, one can indulge in ‘Aggie joke’s and such-like disparaging of Ag qualifications, but the real bottom of the barrel are the Climate Science degrees.
So I would say ‘farmers and agro people’ know very well how plants respond to CO2.
There is widespread use of CO2-enriched greenhouses where the CO2 concentration within the greenhouses’ internal atmosphere can be up to 1500ppm.
Check out the wiki . . .
“The possibility of using carbon dioxide enrichment in greenhouse cultivation to enhance plant growth has been known for nearly 100 years. After the development of equipment for the controlled serial enrichment of carbon dioxide, the technique was established on a broad scale in the Netherlands. Secondary metabolites, e.g., cardiac glycosides in Digitalis lanata, are produced in higher amounts by greenhouse cultivation at enhanced temperature and at enhanced carbon dioxide concentration. Commercial greenhouses are now frequently located near appropriate industrial facilities for mutual benefit. For example, Cornerways Nursery in the UK is strategically placed near a major sugar refinery, consuming both waste heat and CO2 from the refinery which would otherwise be vented to atmosphere.”
If enhanced CO2 didn’t bring significant benefits, these farmers wouldn’t do it.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
“Im just pointing out the predictions have, as yet, no signs of being right.”
Which predictions are those, specifically?
Mr. Appell,
Really? You undermine your credibility by asking such questions. You are so unfamiliar with discussions in climate change that you need to ask?? Really?
Here is one without a second of looking:
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-climate-crop-yields.html
TIAPT: That article says
“Climate change will cut crop yields: study,” 8/5/17
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-climate-crop-yields.html
Proves my point. Thanks.
PS: Are you aware that Phys.org is basically press releases.
Dr. Spencer
You wrote, “In his latest movie, Al Gore claimed just the opposite for wheat yields in China. While I hesitate to call him a liar, since I dont know where he got his information…..”
Doesn’t the book version list his sources?
This is lovely.
Come on. People in the corn business farmers and agro people?
arent going to know the details of how plants respond to CO2 and all its attendant effects.
People in the corn business are much more interested in corn, experienced with corn, and in the end, might well beat a theoretical person like you in growing corn with and without CO2. Keep that in mind when giving opinions on rednecks.
but I thought that there was no global warming noticeable.
you seem to be saying that in one part of the globe warming is noticeable and is good. is this true where farmers cannot afford to increase water an nitrogen input.
Dr Spencer, I appreciate you providing the “other side” of the Global Warming argument.
Propaganda is not necessarily lies. It is often only one side being promoted. (I could compile highlights from a basketball game that would imply a team that got crushed had destroyed the opposing team.)
The GW promoters never seem to be held accountable for their predictions not coming true. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Bob
Here’s the problem Roy, you are selling patent medicine, and judging by the comments, there are plenty of buyers.
I suggest this site co2science.org if one is really interested in the effects of CO2 on plants
Yes, so long as you understand that this site has a political agenda, and is funded by fossil fuel industry.
@Nate
Again Nate like most warmers just say things without evidence assuming the masses believe him. Maybe some do. But there are many others like myself that know that claims without evidence are simply silly statements by silly people. Not to be believed.
Dr. Spencer quotes evidence.
Justfactsdaily.com quotes and shows EVIDENCE not silly fables.
Such as..
Yes this site has an agenda, the science of CO2. All sites have an agenda. Do you have any hard data on its funding.
If science was its only agenda, then you would not see cherry picking of ONLY papers that support the twin narratives of
CO2 is beneficial
Global warming is not significant.
Idso admits on the site some funding from Exxon, and the rest of its funding is kept confidential.
Idso has been involved with Coal industry ad campaigns. See below.
funded by fossil fuel industry
Now I’m really fed up with this particular conspiracy theory. ‘Fossil fuel industry’ is an imaginary entity having superpowers like funding reaally biig moneyy! They bought already our host but I have so far only taken the tainted money to pass it on to the holy Greenpeace.
Cal: CO2 Science satisfies their funders. The writers there sold out their souls long ago.
CO2Sciences leader Sherwood Idso was part of an ad campaign by the coal industry to discredit climate change science:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/08/business/pro-coal-ad-campaign-disputes-warming-idea.html
The ad was misleading in that it pointed out that selected areas were cooling, which is not contradicting global warming.
Look, this is just the first thing I found. Idso has many more affiliations with the fossil fuel industry.
CO2science Craig Idso, is a prominent member and author of publications for the Heartland Institute, a well known political advocacy group suppported by large donations from the fossil fuel industry
Craig Idso coauthored a book for Heartland, that was sent for free to thousands of science educators and others, including me.
The National Science Teachers Association called this book ‘Propaganda’. I would agree.
The http://static.nsta.org/pdfs/HeartlandLetter.pdf
When you can’t argue the data, attack the source.
Practiced very well I see, Nate!
Sources matter a great deal, my friend. Particularly with complex data must be interpreted and explained.
Does it matter where you get your news? Huffpost or Breitbart?
My recommendation, get science from science journals.
BTW, the data in the Heartland book can be argued point by point. It is highly cherry picked and misleading. It is designed specifically to be a propaganda document.
Another article describing the book https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/climate-change-skeptic-group-seeks-to-influence-200000-teachers/
So Al Gore’s movies and books are not propaganda?
I suppose if the information supports your belief its facts, but if it contradict its propaganda?
Again, My recommendation, get science from science journals, not from Al Gore either.
Aha our first troll of the day, and the first commenter on this thread too! Good work! The early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
How about a team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in 8 countries?
“Carbon Dioxide fertilization explains 70% of the greening effect”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Its possible that it helps crop production. Just not demonstrated yet.
From the article:
nitrogen is often in short enough supply that its the primary controller of how much biomass is produced in an ecosystem, he says. If nitrogen is limited, the benefit of the CO2 increase is limited
Depends on the crop. Legumes fix nitrogen better with elevated CO2.
Vegetables become more water efficient/drought resistant.
Grains, it’s unclear. Seems to be slight increase in productivity.
Roy, more and more I see you avoiding complexity and research science for quick, cheap posts like this, without depth. They keep your base happy, but at the expense of communicating the actual science.
For the Nth time, more than one factor determines crop yields. Is that really so hard to understand?
Most scientists experts in plant science do not think that CO2 is a net benefit for most crops. Because it leads to higher temperatures and climate change. Moreover, plant growth isnt carbon-limited, its almost always limited by nitrogen availability.
Heres a good article just published for you to ignore:
“Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants?” Annie Sneed, Scientific American 1/23/18
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/
“Even with the benefit of CO2 fertilization, when you start getting up to 1 to 2 degrees of warming, you see negative effects,” she [Frances Moore, an assistant professor of environmental science and policy at the University of California, Davis] says. “There are a lot of different pathways by which temperature can negatively affect crop yield: soil moisture deficit [or] heat directly damaging the plants and interfering with their reproductive process.” On top of all that, Moore points out increased CO2 also benefits weeds that compete with farm plants.
“We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,” notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. “[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zincand grains [also] lose protein.”
—
There are many articles on this subject. Just two more:
“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
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002
“…The results consistently indicate that rising temperatures will lead to reductions in crop yields. An increase of 1C would be more severe for global maize yield (7.4% decrease) than for rice (3.2% decrease), and decreases in maize yield in the United States would be twice those seen in India (10.3 and 5.2%, respectively). Although this work points to worrying consequences of a warming world, it remains very difficult to predict the cumulative impact of multiple factors related to climate change, such as elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and precipitation….”
“Crop yields expected to fall as temperatures rise,” Emily Morris, Science
08 Sep 2017: Vol. 357, Issue 6355, pp. 1012-1013
DOI: 10.1126/science.357.6355.1012-f
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6355/1012.6
David
That may be true, but it doesn’t excuse the BS from Al Gore: “In China, we have already seen a decrease in wheat and corn yields of 5 percent in the past three decades.”
Totally false… look it up.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159061
What I see there is quite mixed bag-some decreases and some increases, depending on the crop and region.
Nate
I don’t see anything to justify his claim. Especially with regard to climate change.
From the same study (for the period 1980 – 2010):
” Wheat yields increased on 13.8 m. ha (58.2% of the total harvest area), but stagnated on around 3.8 m. ha (15.8% of the harvest area). ”
Also see this:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2015-04-29/china-wheat-yields-improve-fivefold/6430896
Snape: How could yields of any crop stagnate when atmospheric CO2 is increasing every year?
David
“….more than one factor determines crop yields. Is that really so hard to understand?”
Snape, you admitted exactly what I was hoping you would.
Gods sake it is agriculture! It is always mixed-bag-some by crop, by year and by region. It is the overall productivity which solves things, and that has been growing well despite mongering for the last 50 to 300 years.
For corn:
Yields increased on a smaller proportion of the maize area (17.7% of harvest area, 5.3 m. ha), while yields have stagnated on over 54% (16.3 m. ha).
Nate
“Totally false” may have been too strong, but don’t you think his statement is very misleading? An honest account of the situation would have been edited out of his book:
“Over the past three decades, some areas in China have seen an increase in wheat and corn yields, others have seen a decrease. Neither trend has been definitively linked to climate change.”
Snape: How could yields of any crop be decreasing anywhere when atmospheric CO2 is increasing every year?
David
“….more than one factor determines crop yields. Is that really so hard to understand?”
Snape, that’s exactly what I was looking for — your admission that more than one factor determines crop yields.
Q.E.D.
David
You wanted me to admit to something I never disagreed with.
Is it a comprehension problem? A reasoning problem? Something’s off.
Snape:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/u-s-corn-yield-a-new-record-again/#comment-283718
David
No need to repost our conversation. I’m already convinced you’re an imbecile (are you just trying to add emphasis?).
I proved my point.
Your only reply was an ad hominem insult.
David
More than one factor determines crop yields. That’s obvious and I never disagreed. Infact, it’s part of why I think Al Gore’s claim is so misleading.
So for you to then say I “admitted it” is the logic of an idiot. Ad hominem or not.
Snape, I’m interested in the science. I don’t give a rip what Al Gore says about any of it.
davie, where is there any evidence you’re “interested in science”?
All I’ve ever seen from you is pseudoscience.
David
Interesting. Not much science from Mike Flynn, but obviously you DO give a rip what he says (as evidenced by hundreds of comments).
Snape: My “no rip” comment pertained to Gore — see?
I am correcting Flynn’s duplicitous lies. Some of us care about the truth. Flynn is a shameless liar who has been caught in his lies, and then tries to lie all the more. I’m making sure everyone is well aware of that.
David,
You cant actually dispute what I say based on fact, can you?
You could always try, just for the amusement of curious onlookers, I suppose. Now that youve discovered that the word denier doesnt have the same effect as it used to, I can see why you use the word liar. Just as emotive, I guess – but it has one minor drawback.
Nature doesnt give a fig for your opinions!
Call me a liar all you like. My care factor remains zero.
There is still no GHE. You cant even provide a testable GHE hypothesis – just ramble on about insulation, overcoats, blankets and so on – none of which provide any heat at all.
A giant pile of insulation in a store yard, is no hotter than a pile of CO2 cylinders, or bricks, if all are covered with snow! No heating. No GHE. Just more Warmist fools trying to replace fact with their bizarre fantasies.
Go for the gotcha, David, if you want!
Cheers.
“A giant pile of insulation in a store yard, is no hotter than a pile of CO2 cylinders, or bricks, if all are covered with snow!”
More straw men from the straw man specialist.
Flyn, you have already admitted there is a GHE. Who do you think you’re fooling??
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
Nonsense. You are quick to “correct” BS from one side of this debate but never the other. There is plenty coming from both sides but you only correct the one. Are you getting paid to do this?
What science am I not providing?
David, do you plan to denounce Dr. Roy Spencer to the Great Inquisitor like you did to Prof. Judith Curry?
Where did I do that?
David lives in the world of models and speculation. Roy lives in the real world.
‘Roy lives in the real world.’
You mean the one where no actual evidence is needed?
Let me show you how to lower your cholesterol with one weird trick.
I mean the one where it is hard to argue that global food supplies are in jeopardy when we are seeing bumper year after bumper year for crop yields.
Roy showed no evidence that CO2 is responsible for the increases. But he talked about it as if he had.
Maybe CO2 is responsible for auto efficiency increases. Or for faster computers. They seem to be correlated.
I will give you that Roy probably shouldn’t imply that increases in CO2 are the reason for increasing crop yields.
But my take away is that there seems to be no correlation between increased CO2 and a decrease in crop yields, as a decrease in crops simply isn’t happening.
As Roy wrote, “Globally, upward trends in all grain yields have been experienced in recent decades.”
I do see where you are coming from, but my point is that despite scientists predicting climate change-induced food crises, we are having record yields.
More than once, I have seen people on social media claiming our children will experience food wars. I know, they are not scientists, but this claim gets thrown around a lot in the public.
P.S. I would be careful about pointing out that correlation does not always mean causation, like rising CO2 and faster computers. That is Roy’s main point when it comes to CO2 and the increase in global temperature.
WSS: I really thought everyone would understand what I meant by “more than one factor determines crop yields,” but clearly I was wrong.
If you’re not willing to read Lobell & Field, or the Sci Am article, I’m not interested in what you have to say.
He never said it, and it’s not the point. AGW cult members have been saying CO2 will decrease crop yields, along with a lot of other malarkey about lowered nutrition, etc. There is no evidence whatsoever of it. Just a load of scaremongering.
Bart says:
“He never said it, and its not the point. AGW cult members have been saying CO2 will decrease crop yields”
Every scientist I’ve ever read agrees there is a CO2 fertilization factor.
But the complexity of the situation clearly escapes you. Many factors determine yields. Plants are nitrogen-limited, not carbon-limited. CO2 fertilization seems to taper off at some point (such as in the Duke loblolly pine open-air CO2 experiments, FACE). Plants grown under higher CO2 are less nutritious. CO2 causes higher temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns.
There are no plants on Venus. So clearly CO2 isn’t the only piece of the story.
You are rationalizing what you want to be true.
You utterly failed to address my comment. Clearly complexities overwhelm you.
Lets all just admit that with the available data it is impossible to determine how much effect either CO2 or temperature are having on crop yields.
There are just too many other factors contributing.
Certainly in Asia and Africa the ramp up of modern farming techniques has to be the dominant factor.
BTW, in the US, corn production per acre has been growing since the 1930s, with the most rapid growth in the 1950s. This is been attributed to nitrogen fertilizer, advanced hybrids, and industrialized farming.
Yes. And just in case anyone missed it here is a quote from CO2SCIENCE.ORG regarding the change of glaciers in Antarctica…
“The most recent work in this regard comes from the scientific team of Fountain et al. (2017), who analyzed changes in glacier extent along the western Ross Sea in Antarctica over the past 60 years. More specifically, using digital scans of paper maps based on aerial imagery acquired by the U.S. Geological Survey, along with modern-day satellite imagery from a variety of platforms, the authors digitized a total of 49 maps and images from which they calculated changes in the terminus positions, ice speed, calving rates and ice front advance and retreat rates from 34 glaciers in this region over the period 1955-2015.
In discussing their findings, Fountain et al. report that “no significant spatial or temporal patterns of terminus position, flow speed, or calving emerged, implying that the conditions associated with ice tongue stability are unchanged,” at least over the past six decades. However, they also report that “the net change for all the glaciers, weighted by glacier width at the grounding line, has been [one of] advance” (emphasis added) with an average rate of increase of +12 88 m yr-1 (see Figure 1 below).
In pointing out the significance of the above findings, it is important to note that, over a period of time in which the bulk of the modern rise in atmospheric CO2 has occurred, not only have the majority of glaciers from this large region of Antarctica not retreated, they have collectively grown! This stark reality stands in direct contrast to climate-alarmist predictions for this region; and it reveals that if there is any canary in the coal mine to be seen, it is in the failure of global warming predictions/theory to match real-world observations. What will it take for climate alarmists to concede this fact?”
Press4truth!
From the abstract of that paper:
“The stability of these glaciers over the past half century contrasts sharply with the rapidly shrinking glaciers of the Antarctic Peninsula and suggests that no significant climate change, as manifest in glacier change, has reached this region of Antarctica.”
You see, CO2science.org will cherry pick results that fit their narrative, and only show you those.
But the bigger picture is lacking.
“From the abstract of that paper:
“The stability of these glaciers over the past half century contrasts sharply with the rapidly shrinking glaciers of the Antarctic Peninsula and suggests that no significant climate change, as manifest in glacier change, has reached this region of Antarctica.”
You see, CO2science.org will cherry pick results that fit their narrative, and only show you those.
But the bigger picture is lacking.”
Yeah – from you. Want to advise what %age is growing vs shrinking?
Thought not…
Im not doing the research, so I would have to do some work to find out. You could do it as well.
The problem is when you let a biased source cherry pick and do the work for you, you are likely to get a biased view.
I didn’t know there was anyone still around who read CO2 Science.
Ever try to contact them to ask questions?
Just looked now..
From the first paper:
“If each additional ppm of CO2 results in ∼0.1% yield increase for C3 crops (a yield increase of 17% for a concentration increase from the current 380 ppm to the frequently studied 550 ppm) [23, 24], then the ∼35 ppm increase since 1981 corresponds to a roughly 3.5% yield increase, about the same as the 3% decrease in wheat yield due to climate trends over this period”
So increased CO2 has indeed enhanced wheat yields, although the effect is small if the authors’ estimate of temperature-related damages is correct.
Notice that this happened when the temperature-to-CO2 relation was at its highest. Either the period before 1980 or the one since 2005 (when the paper’s analysis ends) had slower warming in absolute terms, and much slower when compared with the increase in atmospheric CO2. So the fertilization effect will be bigger (in comparison with the temperature effect) outside the period they analyzed. In fact, if indeed a 1ppm increase leads to 0.1% higher yields, then going from 400ppm to 800ppm would increase yields by 40%; for temperature-related effects to offset this, they’d have to reduce yields by 28.6%.
Put other way, assume TCR is 1.5C per doubling of CO2. The actual TCR from historical temperature data seems a bit lower, but by emitting CO2 we typically emit methane as a byproduct so we have to include part of the methane forcing as well, leading to an “effective” TCR higher than what would be estimated from CO2 alone. For this 1.5C warming to offset the fertilization effect, the decline in yields per C would have to be 28.6 / 1.5 = 19%. That’s far higher than any estimate I’ve seen (most suggest about 6% decline per C). The warming would probably be higher than 1.5C in the land areas of the northern hemisphere, but not three times higher, which is what offsetting the fertilization effect would require.
The second link doesn’t appear to lead to the actual paper – googling the DOI I couldn’t find it. But the description of the text suggests that the negative effect is linked to temperatures, not to temperatures + CO2.
Pretty much every paper claiming damages on agriculture from warming is like this. They look at changes in temperature from one day to the next, one year to the next, or something similar; over such short periods the CO2 fertilization effect (and changes in agricultural technology) can be ignored. They find that the slope of the regression between warming and yields is negative, i.e. warming appears to reduce yields. What doesn’t get into the press release is that, if warming is caused by CO2, then what matters is the combined effect of fertilization + warming. And that net effect is positive.
(not to mention that farmers can adapt over the decades that a 1C warming would take!)
Apart from the first link, one can simply look at the world in the last 3-4 years. Temperatures jumped about 0.3C from 2014 to 2017, while CO2 remained almost constant (about 8ppm increase). And in the land areas of the northern hemisphere the warming was stronger. But did yields decline during this jump in temperature? No.
Are US yields a function only of CO2 and US average temperature? Or do other factors matter?
Other factors matter too. But the CO2 influence involves basically two factors: fertilization and climate effect. (Temperature changes in turn cause changes in precipitation or whatever, that’s I call it “climate” effect. But scientists use temperature changes to designate different “types” of climate).
The link you posted suggests the fertilization effect was bigger than the climate effect even during the period with the fastest warming (a period which had slower CO2 growth than the last decade or two). Basic math around climate sensitivity and common sense suggest likewise.
The world didn’t change agricultural practices (much) between 2014 and 2017. The fact that a sudden jump in temperatures did not lead to a decline in yields is evidence that whatever negative effect of temperature on yields exists has probably been overestimated.
But again, the conclusion that temperature alone has a negative effect does not really mean anything. Farmers have migrated and adapted over the centuries in order to plant crops where they grow best, and generally any deviation from the mean, whether cooling or warming, will hurt yields. The questions are:
a) Whether farmers can adapt. Obviously they can and do, therefore the “damages” caused by 0.3C warming over 20 years won’t be anywhere near the damages caused by the same warming over a single year or month.
b) Whether the temperature-induced damage is bigger than the fertilization-induced benefit to crops. At least in terms of production (tons of produce), fertilization seems to matter much more.
How do we know that not all of the increase in yields since 1980 or thereabouts is due to improved agricultural technology? Apart from the reasons above, there is global greening. Last time I checked farmers did not use genetically modified seeds or fertilizer in order to enhance the growth of forests (or bushes or whatever), but forests worldwide are growing. Virtually the only factor that can explain increased photosynthesis globally is CO2. Warming may have made the global plant ecosystem smaller than it would otherwise have been, but this effect has been more than offset by fertilization. And yes, more photosynthesis = more production of whatever the plants produce.
(“Globally” here doesn’t just mean the global average – increased photosynthesis is seen in pretty much all of the planet’s land regions. Or even the water, if you count plankton).
“The world didnt change agricultural practices (much) between 2014 and 2017.”
I doubt that. I suspect there was even more adoption of GMOs.
LOL! Quoting Scientific American! Next thing you’ll be quoting David Avocado Wolfe to prove that vaccines kill you.
Dr Spencer the 2 blogs you have so far have so many holes one doesn’t know where to start. These people would stand out in the rain and complain they were getting wet
Regards
Harry Cummings
What?
Are you attempting to make sense Harry? Your comment makes no sense.
And the anti-human climate alarmist rush to decry what amounts to an unequivocal benefit to us all.
We can only hope that these inhuman monstrosities will fail to prevent this level of crop production to spread worldwide.
If the past is to repeat itself, they will only manage to slow down progress, nonetheless needlessly causing the deaths of tens of millions of human beings. The scope of the tragedy is overwhelming.
It is indeed utterly disheartening but we push on. If the past is also to repeat itself, humanity will eventually prevail, as it has, despite their murderous, homicidal ways.
‘decry what amounts to an unequivocal benefit’.
Thats the point of my post, the ‘benefit’ is equivocal at most.
Only an anti-human climate alarmist would make the claim that increase crop yield per acre is an “equivocal” benefit.
Meanwhile, and in case there is any doubt whatsoever, another anti-human climate alarmist proposes “Atmosphere Cancer” as an alternative to the, by anti-human standards, not-at-all misleading term “climate change” as placeholder for AGW:
https://nordic.businessinsider.com/why-marketer-seth-godin-thinks-storytelling–not-science–will-solve-climate-change–/
As a normal, rational human notes:
“This has got to be one of the most insensitive climate ideas ever proposed. A few days ago I attended a living wake for a friend who has terminal cancer a final sendoff for someone who probably only has a few weeks to live. To suggest harnessing the pain and loss of a disease like cancer to promote their pathetic political cause is execrable.”
No cruelty is too extreme for the anti-human climate alarmist.
“make the claim that increase crop yield per acre is an equivocal benefit.”
This is where critical thinking is a useful skill. Roy showed no evidence that CO2 is responsible for the increases. But he talked about it as he had. And you bought it.
I have seen a plot correlating number of pirates with global temperature. I guess you will think that is an unequivocal result as well.
“Roy showed no evidence that CO2 is responsible for the increases.”
He did. He provided a link for you.
“But he talked about it as he had.”
He wrote:
…”improved varieties and the global greening benefits of more atmospheric CO2 have more than offset any negative weather effects if those even exist.”
He did not say CO2 was solely responsible, but he linked to a study which showed it was beneficial.
You are arguing straw men and ranting to no effect.
Bart says:
“He did. He provided a link for you.”
Aren’t you supposed to be some kind of math person? How is it you don’t understand the nature of proof?
Many factors determine yield. How do you know the recent increases were due to CO2, and not to the application of more fertilizer? More use of genetic technology? More favorable weather (temperature; precipitation; longer growing season)? Changes in government subsidies? Better farming techniques?
“More favorable weather…”
I thought you were arguing the weather was getting worse.
“Many factors determine yield.”
And, Dr. Spencer alluded to other factors.
None of this matters. The claim was that AGW would harm crops. It hasn’t, and there is no indication it will, or would, if it were occurring, for which there is no compelling evidence that it is.
The burden of proof is on you.
“Alluding” isn’t proof of anything.
Bart says:
“The claim was that AGW would harm crops.”
And the science shows that, for several crops, it is.
Bart, do you know what a strawman is? Showing that Roys argument is poor because it is correlation = causation, is very relevant here. Just look at the comments, people interpret his post as ‘unequivocal’ that co2 is a benefit. Hardly.
Yes, Nate. A straw man is precisely what you have erected in your argument. It is not based on anything Dr. Spencer wrote, but apparently on how you perceive others will “interpret” what he wrote.
If I erected a straw man, then why does Roy agree he is producing ‘noise’:
“Just countering the 97% of the noise claiming CO2 alone will destroy agriculture. See how it works both ways, Nate?”
Millions of people die each year from hunger.
The anti-human climate alarmists want to talk about… graphs of pirates.
Yes, there are many problems in the world.
Wouldnt it be best to accurately determine the causes of these problems?
For Laura:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s69hR4Ttq7o&itct=CBIQpDAYAiITCLb6uq2c_tgCFQ_yfgodotkP6DIGcmVsbWZ1SJ7Vh4L8n52_Kg%3D%3D
You have to forgive young snake. He’s only 12.
For the anti-human climate alarmists:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3513429/An-infants-5-month-life-points-hungers-spread-Yemen.html
Repeating as yield champion in the no-till/strip-till irrigated category was David Hula of Charles City, Virginia. His yield of 542.27040 bushels per acre (bpa) is a new world record, according to NCGA.
That’s impressive.
However, it probably has no nutritional value and will have to be used to make cardboard for Amazon Prime shipments.
I’ve ordered strawberry and onion plants for this spring. It will be a shame that these tasty things have no nutrients in them.
I’ll let you know.
Foolish Warmist are still plying their deny, divert, and confuse tactics. Sad.
Ask any foolish Warmist whether they want to condemn all animal life on the planet to death, and you may well get the usual foolish Watmist blank look.
Ask them what the optimum, or even minimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere to ensure the continued existence of humanity, and you will get a similar vacant look.
CO2 is plant food. Without plants we all die.
As the human population increases, it requires more food. More CO2 is required in the production of photosynthetic plant material.
Foolish Warmists, either intentionally or negligently, (it matters not which to the dying), want to condemn ever increasing numbers of people to lingering death from starvation, by progressively lowering the amount of CO2 plant food available to the plants.
Immoral fools, caring only for themselves. More CO2 (certainly up to 1200 ppm, if not more), is unequivocally beneficial to humanity. Only death-dealing foolish Warmists are likely to claim otherwise. The IMFs Christine Lagarde is convinced well all be boiled, fried, roasted or toasted, by allowing plants to grow in greater quantity. He solution is to starve everyone to death. Some solution!
There is no GHE. CO2 is the gas of life, for photosynthetic plants. More CO2 good. Less CO2 bad.
Now watch the foolish Warmists work themselves into a perfect lather, with irrelevancies intended to deny, divert, and confuse. Potlids, cancer, 97%, peer reviewed papers, calorific values – nothing is too irrelevant for a foolish Warmist, trying to avoid acknowledging that without CO2 in the atmosphere, were all dead.
Cheers.
“The atmosphere is an insulator.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
It is also a radiator, and your argument is a spherical cow.
Bart says:
“It is also a radiator….”
Wrap insulation around your house.
What is its effect?
It will keep it warmer in winter, and cooler in summer. But, this is an inappropriate analogy for a large number of reasons.
Why is it inappropriate?
BTW, insulation doesn’t keep your house cooler in the summer unless you’re running air conditioning.
It doesn’t keep it warmer in the winter unless you are running the heat. So, what’s your point?
It does keep it warmer in the winter, even without running the heat.
All objects radiate. Insulation means less of that radiation escapes the house.
PS: Ever done any winter camping?
Is it warmer to sleep without a tent, or in one?
Without a space blanket, or underneath one?
“It does keep it warmer in the winter, even without running the heat.”
No. Insulation does not produce heat. The heat has to come from somewhere else.
There is no furnace heat. We haven’t specified if there are windows or not, but that is moot if the insulation is opaque since it is, as you specified, wrapped around the house. We haven’t even specified if, at the specific latitude, there is even sunlight during any part of the day.
This is why it is a silly and inappropriate analogy. There are a host of conditions that have to be built in before arriving at the conclusion you want, and those conditions take us farther and farther away from having any relationship to the problem at hand.
Bart says:
“Insulation does not produce heat.”
Never said that it did.
PS: Again, ever done any winter camping?
Is it warmer to sleep without a tent, or in one?
Without a space blanket, or underneath one?
Before you change the subject, you must first admit you were wrong about the other.
What “other?”
Unless you start replying in coherent and meaningful sentences, I’m going to ignore anything more you write.
An artful dodge…
“The greenhouse effect shifts the planets surface temperature toward the photospheric temperature by reducing the rate at which the planet loses energy at a given surface temperature. The way that works is really no different from the way adding fiberglass *INSULATION* or low-emissivity windows to your home increases its temperature without requiring more energy input from the furnace. The temperature of your house is intermediate between the temperature of the flame in your furnace and the temperature of the outdoors, and adding insulation shifts it toward the former by reducing the rate at which the house loses energy to the outdoors.” (emphasis mine).
– Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
He is right for a dry planet. Clouds can’t be neglected.
1) Clouds don’t cancel out the greenhouse effect (obviously).
2) the science is looking more and more like the cloud feedback is positive:
Dessler, A.E., A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192546, 1523-1527, 2010.
Dessler, A.E., Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000-2010 and comparisons to climate models, J. Climate, 26, 333-342, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1, 2013.
Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback,
Amy C. Clement et al, Science 24 July 2009: Vol. 325 no. 5939 pp. 460-464
DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255.
Zhou, C., M.D. Zelinka, A.E. Dessler, P. Yang, An analysis of the short-term cloud feedback using MODIS data, J. Climate, 26, 4803-4815, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00547.1, 2013.
Dessler, A.E., Cloud variations and the Earths energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L19701, doi: 10.1029/2011GL049236, 2011.
Dessler is a joke.
You of all people aren’t qualified to judge him.
Actually, I am. Scatterplots to diagnose feedback. Unreal.
No, you’re not. You’ve provided no rebuttals here at all, just words.
Am so.
Still no rebuttals. You only make declarative statements, with no evidence behind then.
Read the papers. Look for the scatterplots. Amateurish stuff.
And still no rebuttal.
Read it again.
Your responses are, at best, 3 word sentences.
No, I don’t see any rebuttals. Just your usual laziness.
Here are the first two sentences of davie’s hilarious link:
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22 1017 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800,000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
Somebody doesn’t understand radiative physics and thermodynamics.
(It’s going to be a great year in climate comedy.)
You are an incredible bore.
dT = dQ/mc
Given: dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.
m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg
c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume).
=> dT = 760,000 K
Q.E.D.
You are into incredible pseudoscience.
Sun at 5800K can NOT heat something to 800,000K.
But, your inability to comprehend is hilarious.
It clearly can if, as the thought experiment assumes, the Earth undergoes no heat loss:
In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22e17 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.
Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature, Physics Today 64, 33-38.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
David Appell,
No it cant, you blithering fool. If Pierrehumbert agrees , hes just as silly as you.
Foolish Warmists confuse power with temperature all the time. No how many zillion Watts of power are being radiated by all the ice in the known universe, you cant use it to heat even a teaspoon of water!
Maybe you could try a scheme envisaged by many foolish Warmists – concentrate the heat. Surely, they say, if you concentrate the 300 W/m2 from a m2 of ice into a square centimetre, it will heat something – it is now 10,000 times more intense.
Yeah, right. Foolish Warmists using foolish Warmest physics! The GHE supporters should have actually attended their physics lectures, paid attention, stayed awake, and made some effort to understand.
Cooling is heating, weather is the result of climate, CO2 is evil . . . all the product of delusional minds. Possibly intelligent, but certainly delusional.
Jeez!
Cheers.
“The atmosphere is an insulator.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
Sadly, the huge corn crop in the US is driven by the CO2 reduction religion – the ethanol fuel mandate. It is enriching farmers, while making food more expensive (it caused tortilla riots in Mexico when this first really got going).
Increased CO2 was shown to (not surprisingly) increase growth in plants by Idso.
The CO2 fertilization effect was known long before Idso (all of them). The relevant question is how it works in real environments, when all other factors are considered, not just in greenhouses or laboratories.
davie: “The relevant question is how it works in real environments, when all other factors are considered, not just in greenhouses or laboratories.”
Maybe that was what you missed in Dr. Roy’s post, above.
John, please tell me how the huge corn crop or the ethanol fuel mandate is enriching farmers. I’m a farmer and for the last three years, I see us farmers struggling to stay above break even.
Even NASA agrees we Dr. Spencer, claiming CO2 fertilization is responsible for 70% of the response
Please see:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
That’s the figure for the global greening effect, not agricultural crops.
Your flagrant desperation is hilarious.
g,
For a really good laugh, look at some of the NASA sites – in many places, some foolish Warmist is claiming the Greenhouse Effect is how a real greenhouse works. Not even a basic grasp on reality!
In another place, the Greenhouse Effect is supposed to be a blanket around the Earth!
NASA must have more than its fair share of foolish Warmists. They cant quite say what the Greenhouse Effect is, or propose any hypothesis to somehow explain why normal physics are insufficient, but keep on with this mad insistence that CO2 and H2O (H2O being another essential for plant growth), are somehow evil, as are the people that use natural processes to produce them.
Insanity piled on delusion.
Cheers.
Here is a great description of the GHE:
“The atmosphere is an insulator.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
Why so much confusion? Hasn’t it been established with certainty that increased CO2 levels increase the biomass of the Earth and help to green the planet, on average.
To quote from the following NASA report:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops
“Elevated carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere may increase water-use efficiency in crops and considerably mitigate yield losses due to climate change, according to a new NASA study.”
However, if NASA is firmly convinced that increased CO2 levels are the cause of the current warming, and that the warming itself (whatever the true cause might be) has negative consequences, then NASA can only have the opinion that the benefits of increased CO2 levels, due to increased plant growth, will only offset or mitigate some of the other damage due to the presence of increased CO2 levels.
If one holds the view that the current warming is probably due to a combination of natural causes plus mankind’s activities in general, such as the extensive urbanization world-wide, which results in the Urban Heat Island effect, and extensive deforestation for agricultural purposes, which rationally must have at least some effect on the climate, then mankind’s emissions of CO2 are all positive, excluding the associated ‘real’ pollutants from fossil fuels which affect people’s health.
I’ve long been of the view that the justifications for a move towards renewable energy sources are the benefits of a cleaner atmosphere without particulate carbon and toxic chemicals, and the benefits of long-term energy security for the future, as fossil fuel reserves are gradually depleted.
Those countries that are prepared to continue using fossil fuels, but in the cleanest manner that modern technology allows, such as the new Ultra-Supercritical coal-fired power stations with state-of-the-art emission controls, might gain an economic advantage.
Unfortunately, pollution can cross borders.
Citizens in Japan might feel the need to wear masks, not because Japan is producing smog, but because the smog is blowing over from China. Likewise, at certain times of the year, inhabitants of Singapore receive pollution which blows over from Indonesia where annual burn-off continues to take place for agriculture.
Yes, CO2 (so far, at least) leads to greening (in some places).
That means more weeds, right? (Most plants are “weeds.”) How are they good for agriculture?
Wow, that was quite a leap to make that connection.
David Appell wrote –
“BTW, insulation doesnt keep your house cooler in the summer unless youre running air conditioning.
He completely neglected to mention, in the finest foolish Warmest tradition, that insulation doesnt keep your house warmer unless you have an internal source of heat.
In any case, insulation keeps your house or anything else cooler, if interposed between it and the Sun.
More CO2, more insulation, less insolation reaching the surface. Hence, much higher temperatures on the Moons surface, compared with Earth.
Still no GHE. CO2 good. No CO2 – very, very, very, bad!!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“He completely neglected to mention, in the finest foolish Warmest tradition, that insulation doesnt keep your house warmer unless you have an internal source of heat.”
For the Earth, and a house, that’s the Sun (of course).
Stating that “the atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2” is all that’s needed to understand the Earth’s greenhouse effect.
You’ve had it right all along.
David Appell,
Are you more, or less, delusional, than you were yesterday?
You have convinced yourself that the Sun is inside the Earth (that is what internal means).
Maybe youre using the foolish Warmist definition of external, which in Warmese is translated to internal. On Davidworld, cooling means warming, climate creates weather, Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, and Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize, similar to the one you awarded yourself, no doubt.
In the real world, there is no Greenhouse Effect. Squirm, wriggle, and twist all you like. It doesnt exist. Inserting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will not raise the temperature of the thermometer.
Anybody who believes in global warming due to CO2 is in the grip of delusional psychosis. Or maybe just trying to humour someone who is!
Time for more silly and irrelevant gotchas, doncha think?
Cheers.
“The atmosphere is an insulator,” as you wrote long ago. It lets sunlight in, but then “CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2” for outgoing radiation.
That’s a very good description of the GHE. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
David,
NASA says in one place that the atmosphere acts like a blanket around the Earth. Unfortunately, some Warmist fool or other goes on to claim that this is the Greenhouse Effect, contradicting what other NASA foolish Warmists say elsewhere.
They are obviously as deluded as you are. No GHE, no global warming. Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface will not raise the temperature of the thermometer, will it?
Are you silly enough to claim that it will?
Neither you nor I can unambiguously describe an effect which doesnt exist. I appreciate your toadying up to me, but I remain unimpressed by your flattery. Thanks anyway.
Ask some more stupid and irrelevant gotchas if you wish. Ill refuse to respond, most likely. Feel free to try anyway.
Cheers.
MF, you (not NASA) wrote
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
We all know what happens when you insulate something.
Amazing that there are some complaining about increased food production. If it aint broke, don’t fix it. Continue with the success story. I love CO2; the earth has greened by about 20% in the last 40 years.
If I listen to these bleeding hearts I would need write to the major supermarket chains and demand they stop buying produce from the greenhouse operators. Most of them introduce CO2 to a level of about 1000ppm and according to these pundits their produce must be less nutritional for me. Damn producers they just don’t understand how much it worries me!
As for protein some foods do actually require a lower protein flour. Try making pastry and cakes with a +12% protein content flour. Unless doing strenuous work we don’t need more than about 30gms of protein per day.
The problem areas of the world are due to insufficient reasonable food and not the minor change which may occur. Add a dried bean or chic pea to 100g rice; sure to fix any deficit. For other areas like the US/Oz it may be beneficial; less nutrients would acts like a diet food! Now that is bad for the weight loss industry.
I love CO2; double the concentration for great gardens and perfect health.
Roy:
Here are US corn yields from 1866-2016:
https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/yieldtrends.html
See especially the second graph, which shows departures from the linear trend:
https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/images/CornYieldDep_US.gif
How can there ever be an annual departure < 0%, when atmospheric CO2 has been increasing every year?
It’s called drought. You might want to look it up. It has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.
Also, as atmospheric CO2 is increasing exponentially:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/01/20/is-co2-still-accelerating/
why are US corn yields only increasing linearly?
https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/yieldtrends.html
David Appell,
You asked –
“Also, as atmospheric CO2 is increasing exponentially:
why are US corn yields only increasing linearly?
I give up. Why?
Cheers.
I note David uses a blogger to support his argument despite rubbishing others doing the same thing – double standards again?
If one looks at the data since 1993 – (the same length of time as the satellites measuring sea level), then the trend is linear
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1993/to:2017/every/plot/esrl-co2/from:1993/to:2017/trend
And the corn yields have near quadrupled since 1960 when CO2 hasn’t even doubled. Even if CO2 was only responsible for 10% of the improvement, that is a massive benefit.
David says,
How can there ever be an annual departure < 0%, when atmospheric CO2 has been increasing every year?
Also, as atmospheric CO2 is increasing exponentially: …why are US corn yields only increasing linearly?
If I am understanding your logic of your last two comments than global temperatures have no relationship to CO2. I would have to respectfully disagree. I think there is clear evidence that warmer temperatures result in the release of more CO2 from the ocean then if it were cooler. As far as increasing CO2 results in an increase in global temperatures, I have yet to see the evidence that it is significant. With all this extra biomass CO2 may be creating would that not reduce temperatures by converting more energy from the sun?
I think mans impact on global temperature are more correlated to urbanization and deforestation.
By the way, I finally got to read the link on the cost externalities of Oil/Gas industry. In general good information, however, they did mention that their scope of work did not include the positive side of Oil/Gas (they even admitted that it was huge) and the document needed refining before making any policy recommendations.
billybob says:
“If I am understanding your logic of your last two comments than global temperatures have no relationship to CO2.”
No, you didn’t understand at all.
Yes, the logic did seem fleeting.
You simply did not understand what I wrote. Sorry.
I have often found WFT to be presenting bad data. I no longer trust them. Sorry.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/05/wood-for-trees-you-cant-trust-it.html
What problems do you find with Tamino’s analysis that shows an acceleration in atmospheric CO2?
Chris: The blogger Tamino (= Grant Foster; lives in Maine) is also a published scientist of some frequently cited papers, like with Stefan Rahmstorf. For example
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta
David,
I hope you are not falling into the trap of appealing to authority – next thing youll be claiming that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or that Michael Mann received a Nobel Prize because hes a great scientist.
Thousands of papers have been published by foolish Warmists. One foolish Warmist even went so far as to suggest that the peer review system should be changed to a pal review system to ensure that dissenting papers not be published.
As to Rahmstorf, he may or may not be suffering from a delusional psychosis regarding the GHE. He gets around the fact of the missing testable GHE hypothesis by ignoring it completely.
He wrote –
“The additional 125 ppm CO2 have a heating effect of 2 watts per square meter of earth surface, due to the well-known greenhouse effect enough to raise the global temperature by around 1 C until the present.’
This man may be a physicist, but is deluded. The 2 watts per square meter pales into insignificance by comparison with the 300 watts per square meter emitted by ice, doesnt it? Thats 150 times Rahmstorfs flight of fancy, and it wont raise anythings temperature above the freezing level of water!
No CO2 heating effect. No GHE. Just more delusional foolish Warmist wishful thinking.
If you want to appeal to authority, you might as well appeal to me. It seems Im smarter than Rahmstorf in regard to the heating properties of CO2. There arent any. No GHE, even.
Off you go, David. Write up some more gotchas. Find some more words with which to attempt some gratuitous insults. You know I generally decline to take offence, but they may work with someone else. Who knows?
Cheers.
“The 2 watts per square meter pales into insignificance by comparison with the 300 watts per square meter emitted by ice, doesnt it?”
The first is downward (and an increase since many decades ago).
The second is upward.
David,
You have just created the new Warmist fool physics.
Point ice downwards, it heats. Point it upwards, it cools.
Point it sideways, and the stupid burns brightly.
Maybe you need more sleep.
Cheers.
You failed to understand.
More GHGs mean there is more downward IR.
Less ice changes the albedo of the sea surface, meaning it absorbs more sunlight.
I know who Grant Foster is. He is a proven liar
https://judithcurry.com/2014/01/27/early-20th-century-arctic-warming/
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/tamino-grant-foster-is-back-at-his-old-tricksthat-everyone-but-his-followers-can-see-through/
https://climateaudit.org/2010/07/27/taminos-trick-mann-bites-bulldog/
The fact that you use him rather than a neutral data source shows your total lack of judgement.
And the corn yields have near quadrupled since 1960 when CO2 hasnt even doubled. Even if CO2 was only responsible for 10% of the improvement, that is a massive benefit.
‘Even if’ is right. We just have no clue if the percentage is 0, 30%, -20%, or what?
You have an effect, such as crime rates decreasing since the 90s, and what is the cause when many are involved? Is it the reduction of leaded gasoline use, as some have argued? Difficult to prove.
Great low in the Atlantic, it will allow the flow of air from the north to all of North America.
La Nina does not give up.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Enso-index-map.png
Short term gains from CO2 do not exclude longer term losses. We know 5 Million years ago (during significant global warmth) todays “crop belt” was more xeric (many papers about miocene savannah and mediterranean climate). However, I do not know total global vegetation, and it could be mid latitude losses are overcompensated by higher latitude gains.
AaronS,
One problem might be assumptions that CO2 has any predictable effect on weather, and hence climate, or even that high temperatures are even correlated to dry conditions.
For example, the tropics comprise terrain from arid deserts to lush rain forest, and pretty much everything in between.
On the other, the driest continent is Antarctica, which is very cold.
There does seem to be quite a bit of science behind the theory that plants tend to flourish when supplied with adequate things like CO2, water, and sunlight (plus other things).
On the other hand, plants tend to die if deprived of either CO2, water, or sunlight.
Maybe you could explain how short term gains in crop production could morph into long term losses, ceteris paribus, of course. Reducing the amount of CO2 plant food in the present would not guarantee future gains, so I dont see the point of starving now, hoping things might improve in the future, based on wishful thinking or religion.
You may be right, but just saying something may occur in the future is a bit thin on supporting science. Would you mind expanding your thoughts, in case I misunderstood?
Cheers.
I agree that the idea the Earth will return to warm Earth conditions from doubling CO2 has significant uncertainty. However, I am from the “grain belt” in Indiana. I have studied the warm Earth conditions some and the geologic evidence is that the region becomes xeric if heated. It could be the analogy is flawed, but this empirical data in the paper below is supported by models and other sites that support arid conditions. However, I am cautious using any analogy to literally and accept uncertainty that 1. The Earth will return to Pliocene/ L. Miocene like conditions, or 2. That the xeric climate relates to exclusively to warming (could be ocean circulation changes from tectonics). That said this is the best evidence we have. So if the Earth warms then the modern grain belt will likely become more xeric.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223638609_Late_Neogene_paleoclimate_and_paleoenvironment_reconstructions_from_the_Pipe_Creek_Sinkhole_Indiana_USA
What is the evidence it’s due to changes in “ocean circulation?”
The ocean is warming strongly and at record highs. Why?
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/01/ocean-heat-content-reaches-record-levels.html
Dave,
Haugue and Tiddleman 2004 (Something like that in a rush). When the Isthmus of Panama closed at 4 to 7 Ma because of tectonics and sea level drop the global currents changed. This set up the NADW which increased moisture in the north. This led to Ice and global cooling from albedo. Long story short the site is post circulation, but not quit long enough to establish full northern glaciation. Its not the perfect analogy. Pliocene is better than L miocene.
Mike Flyn says:
“Maybe you could explain how short term gains in crop production could morph into long term losses, ceteris paribus, of course.”
Higher temperatures.
Changes in precipitation.
Increase in weeds.
Increase in insects.
David Appell,
The miracle of CO2!
You assert that higher temperatures cause short term gains in crop production and simultaneously, long term losses. Grand. The miracle of CO2 in action!
You assert likewise for precipitation – precipitation now is good, in the future causes precisely opposite results!
A weed is just plant you dont like. Are you dense? Trying to deny, divert and confuse, are you?
So an increase in insects in the short term is good, but in the long term is bad. What a Wally you are, David. A gain in crop production is measurable – its a gain. Its what you have after the insects, the rain, the tractor repairs, the blight – whatever. Its a comparison with the production in a previous period. Its similar to an increase in temperature – if the number has increased, the temperature has risen, no matter what you would like to think.
So you have explained nothing. In the usual fashion of the Warmist fool, you appear to have made some some exceptionally silly and illogical statements. As usual, you invoke the supposed magic of CO2.
Maybe you could try again if you wish. An explanation is usually considered to be more than two-word unsupported assertions – in the real world, at least.
Still no GHE. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis. Explanation? Delusional psychosis!
Cheers.
Dummy. You’ve already said there is a GHE, and now expect that repeating the negative like a 2nd grader will prove the opposite.
We need a better class of “skeptics.”
David,
Who are these skeptics to whom you refer?
Maybe you could name someone – just one – who is blindly unaware that the weather (and hence its average, climate) changes from moment to moment?
No? No-one? I thought so.
Maybe your new mot du jour is skeptic. Have the words liar and denier not created a testable GHE hypothesis for you? Maybe words such as dummy and skeptic might help, do you think?
There is no GHE. Although I appreciate your sucking up to me by claiming that Im the GHE authority, there is nothing to be authoritative about. There is no GHE.
CO2 raises the temperature of nothing, until it can be shown otherwise by reproducible experiment. I believe you may have said that the GHE cannot be shown to exist experimentally, because its too big, too complicated, or some other Warmist foolishness. Therefore, your contention remains speculation.
I assign a value of precisely zero value to your speculations, of course. They appear to have no utility whatsoever.
Cheers.
Now you say there is no GHE. Earlier you said there was, at least twice.
Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
David,
You appear confused, which seems quite normal for you.
Has your mental stability improved, or are you continuing to suffer from delusional thinking?
Is there some magic effect which you imagine emanates from using the word lying?
Do you think I really care what delusional words you utter, or how many times you repeat them.
There is no GHE, nor testable GHE hypothesis. Whether your delusional thinking allows you to accept facts is unknown to me.
Press on David. Maybe someone will be influenced by your use of words and attempted trick questions. Maybe a foolish Warmist publication might choose to offer you payment for writing Wamist propaganda, although that boat may have sailed.
The US Government has cancelled grants to more supposed climate researchers recently, causing some howls of outrage. Apparently, some researchers are faced with the prospect of having to work for a living – shock! horror!
Maybe you could offer your services gratis, assisting with job applications, rather than grant applications!
Good luck!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn wrote:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.””
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
David,
Your delusional thinking might have the better of you.
Pray tell, how does reducing the amount of radiation reaching the surface result in increased temperatures? Is this the stated position of foolish Warmists?
If true, this would be a most wondrous thing. One could produce the hottest surface by reducing the amount of radiation reaching the to a minimum!
Unfortunately, this doesnt work. At night, in conditions of minimum sunlight, the surface becomes cooler, not hotter. The Moon demonstrates the extremes of temperature which can be achieved in the absence of GHGs – well in excess of anything on Earth.
I cannot distinguish whether you are merely a foolish Warmist, or a Warmist fool. Can you provide some guidance? Of course, I wouldnt expect anything form you, that you dont want to provide, or which you consider might make you appear foolish.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation…being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
David,
Your point escapes me, and presumably others. What are you arguing about? Ive stated a fact.
You accept this, and keep confirming it. Is this some sort of Manntra you are performing?
Good luck if you can achieve salvation through repetition. Its a new one on me.
Cheers.
MF, you know exactly what my point is.
DA…
Are you saying more C02= more heat = more weeds = more oxygen = more and bigger insects? That Carboniferous Period can be quite alarming. Sorry for my sarcasm but your comment on the increase in weeds and insects is quite funny.
David Titley, Penn State University, ex-Admiral: “Plants do better, but so do weeds. There are ag thresholds, what about water cycle, there are huge issues of ag in a changing climate.”
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2015/12/senate-hearing-live-blog.html
“Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects,”
Jorge A. Zavala et al, PNAS, 51295133, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800568105
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/13/5129.full
“Crop Pests Spreading North with Global Warming: Fungi and insects migrate toward the poles at up to 7 kilometers per year,”
— Eliot Barford and Nature magazine, September 2, 2013
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/crop-pests-spreading-north-climate-change/
David,
And yet you agree that extra CO2 increases crop yields!
Presumably increase means increase – more than before.
Have you some foolish Warmist redefinition of increase – possibly it really means decrease? Just like cooling is really warming, climate creates weather, and CO2 has magical heating properties!
Warmist fool – maybe you can create a testable GHE hypothesis. First, you need to define the GHE. If you want to say the Greenhouse Effect is a synonym for insulator, youre too late. Why use two words where one is sufficient? Besides, scientists know what insulators do, and how they work. Nobody can say what the Greenhouse Effect is, in any unambiguous scientific way.
Thats the nature of Warmist fools – no wonder the money supply for climate research is rapidly diminishing!
Cheers.
La Nina looks very good.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomp.1.29.2018.gif
It is nice to see this! So delayed after mega el nino. Different than 97 98.
The SOI index is also high.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/
Utterly irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
More ren blog pollution.
David,
Thank you so much for your foolish Warmist assertion. Is it based on the magic of CO2, or just an off the cuff ad hominem attack?
Do you think that the blog author might be allowed to exercise some freedom to allow such posts as he thinks appropriate?
He allows comments from the likes of me and you. Are you really offering your services as the arbiter of what comments may or may not appear? Is the freelance journalism work a little slow at the moment?
I dont expect you to make any cogent replies, of course. Feel free to surprise me – theres always a first time, eh?
Cheers.
Are you serious, Appell? That may be the most ignorant question Ive ever seen from a so-called researcher.
A) What question?
B) I’m not a “researcher.”
And the dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi gets is getting bigger every year.
Yes. Almost no one here cares at all.
Green plants do two types of photosynthesis, colloquially known as C3 and C4.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation
C3 plants absorb CO2 and light during the day and use them to build sugar and starch. The rate of synthesis is usually light or CO2 limited. They lose a lot of water by day and burn sugar wastefully in hot weather by a process known as photorespiration.
C4 plants like corn(also known as maize or Zea Mays) take up CO2 24 hours a day and store it until light is available for photosynthesis. They lose less water, no material is wasted in photorespiration and they are more tolerant of high temperatures. They are limited by the amount of light available, but not by the amount of CO2.
Let me emphasize that.
CORN YIELDS ARE NOT LIMITED OR AFFECTED BY THE AMOUNT OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
Thus Dr Spencer’s claim that increased corn yields are due to increased CO2 is mistaken.
E,
You wrote –
“CORN YIELDS ARE NOT LIMITED OR AFFECTED BY THE AMOUNT OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE. ”
All caps even. Must you therefore be uttering fact, rather than supposition?
Are you sure? Can you actually grow corn in a CO2 free environment? Maybe the miracle of CO2 is that it can be a plant food without actually being there!
For plants to perform photosynthesis they require light energy from the sun, water and carbon dioxide (plus other things, of course).
Are you sure you are not just shouting more Warmist foolishness from your Fortress of Silliness?
Still no GHE, is there. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis. Thats a bit of hurdle to get over, isnt it?
As to your last assertion, you might like to provide a reason for increased corn yields that can be shown not to involve increased CO2. You seem a bit short on fact, but long on stridency!
Cheers.
MF, this is a vacuous reply.
Can you focus on, and rebut, EM’s specific claims?
David,
Thank you for your insightful comment (thats sarcasm, in case you thought I was serious).
As to your pointless demand, no.
Cheers.
We are not having any problems with corn production.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-corn-yields-in-the-united-states-1866-2014
These are fables for children. Monsters under the bed. It’s the sort of crap used to stir up the villagers against witches, or the polity against the Joos.
Please. It’s 2018. Can’t we move past these silly paeans to mob panic? Can’t we grow up, and demand facts instead of scare mongering?
At what temperature increase do corn yields decline?
At what temperature decline?
Bart, also a good question. But mine first.
They’re both entirely hypothetical. But, the answer is: there is a lot more downside to a temperature decline. Indeed, there is no apparent negative impact of a very minor increase such as we have seen over the past century.
Prove your claims, with data and evidence.
1) But, the answer is: there is a lot more downside to a temperature decline.
2) Indeed, there is no apparent negative impact of a very minor increase such as we have seen over the past century.
Lobell and Field, among others, disagree with your #2.
Have you read them yet?
We are not having any problems with corn production.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-corn-yields-in-the-united-states-1866-2014
That graph proves nothing about corn yields’ dependence on temperature.
PS: Your graph is US-only. Warming is global.
David,
What has temperature to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Do you claim there is some quantifiable yet-to-be-discovered Greenhouse Effect involving some magical heating property of CO2?
Maybe you could consider sticking to to the subject under discussion. Or maybe not. Your choice – look like a Warmist fool all you like. I wont mind.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“What has temperature to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?”
because
“The atmosphere is an insulator.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
entropic…” CORN YIELDS ARE NOT LIMITED OR AFFECTED BY THE AMOUNT OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
Thus Dr Spencers claim that increased corn yields are due to increased CO2 is mistaken”.
*********
We await breathlessly for your proof.
Reading this thread has been seriously hilarious. Has really no one bother to Google “Pumping CO2 into green houses to increase yield” It is scientific fact that if you pump CO2 into green houses you increase yield up to 1800ppm of CO2, over 4 times the current value of 400ppm. It only increases about 2-3 ppm per year.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
Here is another site
https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide
This site has a cool graph showing upto 1800ppm
https://www.hydrofarm.com/resources/articles/co2_enrichment.php
This product wouldn’t exist if wasn’t the case
http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp
Nor would these
https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/41003521-co2-calculator-for-grow-room-or-indoor-greenhouse
It’s a fact. It’s settled. Increasing CO2 increased yield. Now for those “other factors”, of technology, science, fertilizer,… how many of those other factors would exist without human industrialization? almost none. Technology needs power, which currently produces a lot of CO2, Fertilizer produces GHGs… Learning happens so much faster because of technology and transportation. Agriculture accounts for 1/3 of all GHGs. So I ask this question how big would the yield be without producing GHG’s, very very small. So While CO2 doesn’t cause technology increase, technology increase has cause a lot of CO2.
Now if you still think I am wrong, maybe I am. Let’s say you are right. Lets say CO2 doesn’t increase yields, and you can increase yields without increasing GHGs. By the use of technology and other factors. If that is the case, The article by DR Spencer above shows us that humans are able to adapt quickly to climate change and still increase yields.
I don’t think I am wrong. And all this above proves the fearmongering. No one bothered to google. Others above continue to insists they are right, and never admit they are wrong. The insistence of being right with glaring errors is why I am very skeptical of climate change.
DuncanBelem says:
“It is scientific fact that if you pump CO2 into green houses you increase yield up to 1800ppm of CO2, over 4 times the current value of 400ppm.”
Everyone knows this. Seriously hilarious.
The real world isn’t a well controlled greenhouse, which control temperature, precipitation, soil moisture, nutrition and more.
We’re talking about the real world here, not your pretend world.
I think DA is a bit confused who living in the pretend world
Regards
HC
Can’t rebut my evidence, Harry?
David,
One cannot rebut evidence, that doesnt exist except on Davidworld. The magic of CO2 no doubt works on Davidworld.
In the world of reality, no-one has managed to record a testable GHE hypothesis, therefore the non-existent doesnt need rebuttal. Like unicorns or phlogiston, the GHE is conspicuous by its absence!
Cheers.
You gave the best statement of the GHE – “the atmosphere is an insulator.”
Why are you denying what everyone can read?
David,
Claiming the GHE exists doesnt make it true. If you claim that the greenhouse effect is not an effect at all, but is foolish Warmist redefinition of an insulator, then bully for you. About the best that can be expected from Warmist fool, I suppose.
Are we now required to call all insulators GHEs instead? Nah, I think Ill pass.
Off you go, David. Let me know when the first dictionary changes the definition of insulator to GHE. I dont believe Ill hold my breath while Im waiting.
Cheers.
HaHa, Dr Spencer’s example is real world. Again you can’t admit wrong, even though evidence is glaring. Most scientific experiments aren’t “real world”, but a subset of the real world. every scientist knows that. You add and subtract factors to determine correlation. And the evidence is clear that CO2 is strong factor, and can and does increase yield. Prove to me that you knew this before I wrote it. Again failure to admit wrong makes me more skeptical. So CO2 can increase yield? is it the Other factors, “temperature, precipitation, soil moisture, nutrition” that decrease it outside of the green house, but at the same time these other factors, of “weather, and temperature”, and not CO2, increase yield in DR Spencer’s example. Seriously….. It’s back to Climate change causes everything, and so does weather and temperature, and CO2 can’t cause anything good to happen, except in a green house controlled environment.
You also forgot to address my other comments above about other factors of technology… and this question “How big would the yield be without producing GHGs?”
Be careful David You are being schooled be someone who knows little about climate science
What is the effect of CO2 when it is not isolated — when all other factors are taken into account, such as temperature changes, hydrological changes, soil changes, etc?
David Appell,
Ill bite. What is the effect? Id love to hear you espouse some Warmist foolishness, if you wouldnt mind.
It might avoid the possibility that could be accused of trying to pose a stupid foolish Warmist gotcha.
Cheers.
I’ll reply when you stop it with the personal insults. (They make your arguments look weak.)
David,
Awww, jeez, David.
Are you insulted being called a Warmist fool? Or is it more foolish Warmist?
Here I am, just trying my best to give you the opportunity to fend of possible accusations of posing foolish Warmist gotchas, and this is the thanks I get!
No problem – maybe you are a sensitive new age guy. Easily offended by having to face facts. Maybe you could choose to associate with Warmist fools. I could suggest a few, if you dont know any.
Feel free to let me know if you need assistance. No need to thank me – its my pleasure.
Cheers.
Your real problem is simply that you are not intellectually challenging. You write the same insipid things time after time. You arent capable of providing challenging arguments.
David,
I dont have problems.
You may be as intellectually challenging as you wish. In the dialect of the Warmist fool, that might really mean be as stunningly stupid as you wish.
Maybe you can explain how CO2 creates heat from nothing. That might be enough of a challenge!
How hard can it be? How much CO2 would I need to boil a litre of water? Can I re-use the CO2? When will it run out of heat?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
David,
According to Gavin Schmidt (undistinguished mathematician, self proclaimed climate scientist) supposed Greenhouse gases (note – greenhouse) are well mixed throughout the atmosphere.
The present blog discussion seems to refer to CO2, rather than temperature, precipitation, soil moisture and more.
I deleted your silly inclusion of nutrition, because thats precisely the role of CO2 in the photosynthetic cycle (whether Warmest fools accept it or not).
As to well controlled, what has that to do with anything? Rahmstorf and his ilk claim that the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements are accurate enough for them. So global CO2 levels are also known if the CO2 is well mixed globally in the atmosphere.
So what is the support for your speculation that increased CO2 levels, ceteris paribus, do not result in increased plant life?
Are you just trying to deny fact, divert the conversation to one more to your liking, or just confuse the issue by introducing irrelevancies, and speculation masquerading as fact?
Others might find this seriously hilarious. Not me. You deserve compassion rather than condemnation, if indeed, you are acting under the compulsion of a mental affliction – possibly a delusional condition, which prevents you from accepting reality. You wouldnt be aware of this, and might even believe that believe that people regard you as other than an object of derision.
You dont need to thank me. Im here to help you if I can.
Cheers.
Demands, demands!
Have you considered doing your own research, rather than demanding answers from people you claim have no knowledge?
David,
I just asked if you felt like backing up your bizarre assertions. You respond with foolish Warmist gotchas (in my humble opinion, of course. Please feel free to ignore it if you wish).
Youre free to believe in whatever you like. Its your fantasy. You may rule Davidworld with an iron fist, worshipped by Schmidt, Mann, Rahmstorf, Pierrehumbert, and any other climate clowns you desire. You may award yourself any number of Nobel Prizes and PhDs, and appoint Hillary Clinton to be President.
I wish you well, if such be the case.
There is still no testable GHE hypothesis in the real world.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“The atmosphere is an insulator….”
June 18, 2017, 3:34 am
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
And what does insulation do?
David,
More gotcha.
However, in case others might think Im being churlish, Ill lower my standards temporarily, and respond.
You asked –
“And what does insulation do?
As it seems you are unable or unwilling to enter the question you posed into Google.
I have done it for you, this one time. I have taken pity on your obvious intellectual lack.
The first answer that came up in response to your question was –
“Insulation doesn’t “heat” an area, it simply slows down heat movement through building materials. Since heat will always move to a colder source, in cold climates, insulation slows the heat from leaving the house and in hot climates insulation slows down the hot outside air from entering the cool inside.
I trust this answers your gotcha. If you need a course on how to use a search engine to find information on the internet, dont bother asking me. The answer is no.
Cheers
Gotcha?
I’m simply quoting you. I can understand how that would upset you.
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?
Insulation doesnt heat an area, it simply slows down heat movement through building materials. Since heat will always move to a colder source, in cold climates, insulation slows the heat from leaving the house and in hot climates insulation slows down the hot outside air from entering the cool inside.
Can’t cite your source?
http://articles.extension.org/pages/43167/what-does-insulation-do-how-does-it-make-my-house-warmer
Actually that statement is wrong — insulation doesn’t just “slow” heat flow, it blocks part of it.
In a house, it leads to warmer temperatures.
So what does it do when the atmosphere is an insulator?
Again, the GHGs in the atmosphere are insulators, but they are also radiators. The net impact is nonlinear, and not guaranteed even to be monotonic with concentration, depending as it does upon the state of the entire system.
David,
Maybe you couldnt bring yourself to read the part that said –
in hot climates insulation slows down the hot outside air from entering the cool inside.
Warmist fool. Not my fault if you choose not to comprehend.
Trying to change fact by asserting nonsense, and substituting scientific reality with your fantasy wont do you any good.
No more responses to your foolish gotchas. You dont believe the answers provided. Maybe you could consult the foolish Warmist Pierrehumbert – you quoted him your support once. Not good enough for you now?
Oh well, thats delusional life for you.
Fell free to attempt a gratuitous insult or two, if it makes you feel better.
Cheers.
Bart says:
“Again, the GHGs in the atmosphere are insulators, but they are also radiators.”
Never said they weren’t.
“The net impact is nonlinear,”
and what is the “net impact” — say, for atmospheric CO2?
“…and not guaranteed even to be monotonic with concentration, depending as it does upon the state of the entire system.”
Never said otherwise.
What does the science and evidence find?
Bart,
I see you are next in line for David Appells attempt at trying to bend you to his will with an endless series of irrelevant and generally pointless gotchas.
Maybe he suffers from an obsessive comulsive fixation. Or maybe not – I cant read his mind. Maybe theres not much there to read, I wouldnt know.
All joking aside, good luck.
Cheers.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-282118
“Temperature is a primary factor affecting the rate of plant development. Warmer temperatures expected with climate change and the potential for more extreme temperature events will impact plant productivity…. The major impact of warmer temperatures was during the reproductive stage of development and in all cases grain yield in maize was significantly reduced by as much as 80-90% from a normal temperature regime. Temperature effects are increased by water deficits and excess soil water demonstrating that understanding the interaction of temperature and water will be needed to develop more effective adaptation strategies to offset the impacts of greater temperature extreme events associated with a changing climate.”
— Jerry L. Hatfield and John H. Prueger, “Temperature extremes: Effect on plant growth and development,” Weather and Climate Extremes 10 (2015) 410.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094715300116
How big would those yields be if humans stopped GHG production tomorrow? No tractors, No fertilizer, No Coal/ NG power, No transportation except cars driven by solar power. I say human industrialization is the biggest factor.
Please read the paper before making a lot of unwarranted accusations.
David,
Nice try. If you can get someone to waste their time reading an irrelevant paper, maybe they will forget all the Warmist foolishness you have promulgated so far.
It might work. You are a shining example of the fact that we are not all entirely in touch with reality. There may well be other Warmist fools such as yourself.
Cheers
Not surprised you’re going to keep you head in the sand. It’s clearly where you feel most comfortable.
David,
If youd pointed out where the paper referred to the effect of CO2 on plant growth, you never know, I might have read it.
It seemed more likely that you were attempting to deny, divert and confuse, so I didnt.
Are you really as thick as you seem, or are you just pretending?
Cheers.
Also What is the major reason plants are grown in a green house? Hint “Green house” to increase temperature.
What do greenhouses do when the temperature in them gets too high?
David,
Deny divert and confuse much?
What has CO2 to do with temperature? Blathering on like the average Warmist fool attempting to deny, divert and confuse might not be as convincing as you would wish.
Just a thought. Im here to help.
Cheers.
Can’t you at least come up with some new arguments? You’re incredibly boring, especially in light of your earlier claims.
Re: temperature –
“The atmosphere is an insulator.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
David,
No. What doesnt exist, doesnt exist – no amount of complaint will miraculously create a testable GHE hypothesis.
Im incredibly glad you are bored – I never get bored myself, but if I did, id probably find something to do.
To each his own. If you choose to be bored, Im not sure why its my fault. Maybe you suffer form a mental defect?
Cheers.
So you were lying before?
All three times?
David,
Whats the relevance? Are you quite mad?
The world wonders – I dont.
Cheers.
I think you accidentally said the truth, and later regretted it, and realize your inconsistencies are embarrassing, and are now desperately trying to put the cork back in the bottle.
That’s what I think.
David,
I dont care what you think – Im surprised you havent realised that yet. Oh well.
I decline to be embarrassed, but waste your time trying if it makes you happy.
Maybe you could provide a testable GHE hypothesis, rather than complaining that Im the GHE expert, but wont do the work that neither you nor any other Warmist fool can perform
Tough, David. Desperation seems to be characteristic of Warmist fools like Ben Santer.
If it suits you to believe you can read my mind, go ahead. My care factor remains at zero.
Cheers.
That’s always your lame fallback position — “I don’t care what you think” — when you clearly do, because you’re sure to reply to me everytime.
Mike Flynn says:
“Maybe you could provide a testable GHE hypothesis….”
H: The atmosphere is an insulator.
A: “The atmosphere is an insulator.” – Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
David,
I might perhaps point out that your testable GHE hypothesis doesnt actually seem to contain the acronym GHE, nor anything resembling greenhouse or effect. There doesnt even seem to be any reference to any hypothesis, but Im not surprised, of course.
Is this some wondrous Warmist foolishness, where you state something as fact by just pretending it exists?
There is no GHE. No luminiferous aether, either.
Cheers.
You are extremely trite and boring. You’ve already admitted to the GHE, yet still, like a dumb bot, you say there isn’t one.
And you say the same dumb thing over and over again, without any variation. In some way you think this is convincing.
You’re really too much of a bot to reply to anymore.
David,
I suppose dumb and bot are a change from denier, liar, dummy, and all the rest.
At least youve moved on a bit
Although you cant actually state what the Greenhouse Effect is, or does, you have cleverly ignored that step in the scientific method, and apparently gone on to propose a GHE hyp. (Whatever that is – hypotenuse, perhaps?), which states that the atmosphere acts like an insulator.
After the howls of laughter subside, somebody might point out that quite apart from the fact you havent actually stated anything new, youve overlooked the major hurdle that you havent actually defined the effect, presently unexplained and previously not described, that your hypothesis relates to.
Maybe you forgot to describe the GHE, in your excitement as you discovered that insulators exist.
Maybe the rest of the Warmist fools might adopt your hypothesis (or maybe hypotenuse), but I think they are cunning enough to want to avoid the howls of laughter and snorts of derision.
You are obviously made of sterner stuff, and I wish you well.
Cheers.
GHE = when a planets Atmosphere acts as an insulator.
David,
Youll have to do better than that. You need something that describes a phenomena, not just state the blindingly obvious, in some Appellesque shorthand.
If you could perhaps describe an atmosphere which does not possess insulating properties, it might help. All atmospheres possess insulating properties, nothing new there!
None provide any additional heat to the surface, which is not provided by the Sun. That is just stupid – the product of some foolish Warmist fantasy.
Increasing the amount of insulation between the Sun and the surface lowers the temperature of a thermometer on the surface. It doesnt make it hotter, does it?
Press on, David. Maybe you can do whats never been done, and you can win whats never been won. Maybe.
Cheers.
Does the insulation in a house reduce the temperature inside the house?
David,
Another stupid gotcha.
You dont believe the Australian Government telling you it does. You wont believe me, I guess.
Warmist fool. Wallow in your delusion, if you find it less threatening than facts!
Cheers.
Ever afraid to answer questions. Goodbye.
Oh so it isn’t the CO2 it’s the temperature that causes decrease in yields… Not what people said at the beginning of this thread.
I find it hard to believe that plants thriving at the current temperature would die off at an average temperature 1-2 degrees C hotter. I sure thought plants are a little bit more resilient than that. but hey you never know will see what happens it the coming years.
DuncanBelem:
Are you able to grasp that CO2 is causing an increase in yields while temperature is causing a decrease in yields?
“I find it hard to believe that plants thriving at the current temperature would die off at an average temperature 1-2 degrees C hotter.”
What does the evidence say?
David,
Are you able to grasp that you just wrote that CO2 is causing an increase in yields?
Is this the tactic of attempting to prove that Dr Spencer is wrong by agreeing with what he wrote?
What brilliance! Game, set, and match!
Now all you have to is come up with a testable GHE hypothesis, and youd win the tournament. Uh, oh. You just lost, I think.
Cheers.
GHE Hyp: The atmosphere acts like an insulator.
A: “The atmosphere is an insulator.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
David,
I agree,
I hope you are not going to say something breathlessly stupid, such as increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer, will raise the temperature of the thermometer!
Thats the sort of thing that only a Warmist fool would say, isnt it?
Off you go, now. No magical CO2 heating. There is no GHE. The atmosphere is an insulator, and prevents the surface from getting as hot as the Moon, or as cold as the Moon – and a jolly good thing too!
Glad you agree.
Cheers.
What did you mean when you said the atmosphere is an insulator?
David,
Just how dumb are you?
No wonder you get bored. You ask yourself a question, and get bored waiting for an answer. Then when you get one, you ask yourself whether its fact or fantasy. More boredom waiting for an answer, I suppose.
Why do you choose to be bored? I dont.
Cheers.
Why wont you answer a specific question about what you meant when you said the atmosphere is an insulator?
David Appelly,
Why should I do your work for you? if you cant be bothered looking up the definition of an insulator, why should I help?
It might be quicker to look up the definition in a dictionary yourself, rather than complain about my refusal to play your silly games. Suit yourself. If you dont like the definition you find, just claim its wrong, and substitute your own.
Still wont create a testable GHE hypothesis, I fear. Might make you appear more demented than you actually are, but of course I dont care that much. I feel sorry for you, but your decisions are your own.
Cheers.
I never denied the CO2 fertilization effect. Youre a lousy reader.
David,
It seems you said CO2 is causing an increase in yields. Why does that make me a lousy reader? Did you forget what you wrote, and decide to paraphrase it for some odd reason?
Or just more Appell sloppiness – blaming me for your mistakes! I dont mind, if it makes you happy.
Cheers.
You are boring me.
David,
If you choose to be bored, and blaming me helps to alleviate your boredom, be my guest.
Cheers.
Yes, Im bored. Youre boring. No new arguments, no attempt to Discuss your inconsistencies, nothing at all. You simply refuse to engage in a scientific argument. I found many deniers do the same
On the second of February the frost will reach the Gulf of Mexico.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/4l93lcbqlqeg.png
I now quote Dr Roy Spencer” While the global warmmongers continue to wring their hands over rising temperatures hurting yields (the Corn Belt growing season has indeed warmed slightly since 1960), improved varieties and the global greening benefits of more atmospheric CO2 have more than offset any negative weather effects if those even exist.” The quote that made everyone angry and say it’s other factors and not CO2, though he was probably right, and sure there are other factors, but CO2 was definitely one of them. Sure I can see it is possible for CO2 to increase yields, and temperature to decrease yield, but that has yet to be case in the real world. Most farms are in a controlled environment, like a green house. We try to have ideal soil conditions, ideal watering, though temperature is harder to control, it is still possible to lower temperature though evaporation, granted you aren’t in a drought. It doesn’t take to much water to lower the temperature a couple degrees C. So you water your plants a little more or change your watering time to the afternoon. But If we really care about crop growth, the last thing we should do is forgo industrialization, just to stop GHG.
Youre not honestly discussing the situation.
How much of the increase is due to more CO2? Show your evidence.
How much is due to higher temperatures? Show your evidence.
How much is it to to more and better fertilizers . Show your evidence.
How much is due to the new technologies? Show your evid nice.
How much is due to ffarmers taking Unproductive land out of service and instead accepting government subsidies? Show your evidence.
Ps : Come on. Very little corn is grown in a greenhouse.
Re Read what I wrote. I say “most farms are grown in a controlled environment”. I didn’t say every farm is grown in a green house, I said like a green house.
But still several factors go into determining yields. You cannot attribute it all to CO2 unless you do the analysis. (See Lobell and Field 2007, link above).
What is your evidence that temperatures have not decreased yields? Just because yields have not decreased is not evidence of that.
David Appelly,
You wrote –
CO2 is causing an increase in yields
I believe that was Dr Spencers thought too.
Why the furious outburst of gotchas?
Demands for evidence? Who cares? You agree that CO2 is causing an increase in yields. End os story. Why would anybody be bothered showing evidence to you? In another Warmist fools words – youd only try to find fault with it. Its irrelevant anyway isnt it?
One might as well ask that you show evidence that Michael Mann is not suffering from delusional psychosis – or you, for that matter. Irrelevant.
CO2 is causing an increase in yields, as you say. Agreed. No more argument. Well done, David.
Cheers.
Is high temperature a problem for plants in Australia? No, only periods of drought.
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/eucalyptus-trees-cope-fine-with-extreme-heatwaves-defy-climate-models/
http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap/rainfall/totals/3month/colour/latest.gif
NASA has revised its sea level data for October 2017 on its official website.I dont know what that means？
Probably not a lot.
It can take months for tide guage or temperature data from remote locations to reach them and be added to the dataset. The final figure based on full data can differ from the initial calculation.
Do you have more detail?
A month ago NASA released the sea level in October 2017, and then the data disappeared a few days ago, and now that data is back up, and then it’s about 2mm higher than the previous release.
No different from UAH, whose monthly temperatures often change from month-to-month (even under the same version).
The sea level has increased in the western tropical Pacific.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wksl_anm.gif
Temperature drop in the east of the US.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/8jwntwk3tjq7.png
The current polar vortex pattern in the lower stratosphere.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00957/bqj0r0uupxwf.png
BTW:
A number of records for the Earths climate were set in 2017:
It was the warmest year on record for ocean heat content, which increased markedly between 2016 and 2017
It was the second or third warmest year on record for surface temperature depending on the dataset used and the warmest year without the influence of an El Nio event.
It saw record lows in sea ice extent and volume in the Arctic both at the beginning and end of the year
It also saw record-low Antarctic sea ice for much of the year
professorP,
You have just stated it has been hotter in the recent past, at least once or twice! Cooler than before, is it?
I suppose youll invoke the magic of the average, now. Go for it.
The is no GHE. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis!
How sad is that?
Cheers.
Sorry, Mike, for simply reporting facts.
They obviously make you uncomfortable.
professorP,
Warmist fool!
Why should I be uncomfortable with you telling me it has been hotter in the past, which makes it cooler now?
Are you completely woolly-headed, or dont you even bother reading what you write?
Thats as silly as Gavin Schmidt (Warmist fool or foolish Warmist – take your pick), proclaiming hottest year EVAH!, and then assigning a probably of 38% to the event – AFTER IT HAPPENED, according to him. Gavin doesnt seem to realise that facts are facts, regardless of the likelihood.
Even further, 38% probability is not generally accepted as making an occurrence even more likely than not. It means that there is a 0.62 probability that it wouldnt happen!
People like these are the ones you look up to?
Thank you for wasting your time expressing sorrow for me. I really dont care – your opinion means as much to me as mine means to you, I suppose.
Cheers.
Mike, please calm down.
These are simple facts/observations/measurements.
These are what determine the correctness or otherwise of hypotheses.
An intelligent person does not get angry with them.
professorP
I hope you do mind if I choose to ignore your witless suggestion. You might ask if I am already calm rather than leaping to the usual foolish Warmist conclusion that I am not. If you choose, of course.
You dont have a GHE (neither does anyone else, of course), because there is no GHE to hypotheses about.
Your mind reading are of the usual Warmist fool variety, it might seem. I dont get angry, although you might claim you know better than me.
Your simple facts/observations/measurements are completely irrelevant, arent they? What hypothesis do you believe they support? None at all?
That would be usual for Warmist fools. Fantasy over fact, as usual.
Cheers.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Usually I am a biologist among physicists here and and have to do my research to separate sense from nonsense.
Now we are on a subject within my professional competence and the rest of you are writing nonsense faster than I can correct it. Frustrating, but most entertaining.
A few points.
Corn yields depend on three main climate variables;the number of Growing Degree Days, the number of Extreme Degree Days and the amount of water.
GDDs are days when the temperature favours growth. EDDs are days when it is too hot or cold. Water comes from rainfall or irrigation and extra irrigation can turn a hot EDD into a GDD if you have enough water available.
Because corn is a C4 plant it can store CO2 at night and photosynthesis it by day. In the field C4 plants are not affected by changes in atmospheric CO2 and there is no point giving them extra CO2 in a greenhouse.
C4 plants are heat and drought tolerant, optimised for hotter, drier climates.
C3 plants absorb CO2 by day through pores in the leaves as they photosynthesise. The same pores allow water to evaporate. In hot and/or dry conditions the pores close to conserve water but that limits how much CO2 they can take up.
C3 plants do best in wet temperate climates, but do not cope well with heat or drought.They do benefit from extra CO2 in greenhouses, but in the field other climate changes tend to cancel out any benefit.
What climate change?
Do deserts in California bloom when they get rain?
E,
CO2 is plant food, pure and simple. Not plant poison.
You havent said more food produces fewer plants. Only a Warmist fool would complain about increased crop yields, in general.
You claim to be a biologist, so please provide some professional fact based expertise, to the effect that current levels of CO2 are reducing crop yields, if you feel like it.
And of course you cant, because there is no more evidence supporting your efforts to deny, divert and confuse, than there is to support any foolish Warmist claiming that there is any rigorous and unambiguous definition of the nonsensical foolish Warmist GHE.
There is no GHE hypothesis for the excellent reason that nobody can actually describe the GHE in any useful fashion.
Your sciency sounding talk about C4 plants quite overlooks the fact that in order to store CO2 at night, it must absorb it during the day. None available during the day, the plant stores none at night. The plant dies.
Experimentally, doubling CO2 levels results in increased growth of 10 to 20% at a minimum – less than C3 plants, but still an increase , although I wouldnt be surprised if Warmist fools claim an increase is really a decrease. Whilst you are trying to pretend that C4 plants do not respond to additional CO2 (food) with increased growth rates in the field, this is simply not true.
Crop yields have increased. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased. Do you agree?
You dont make any claim to be a physicist. Your apparent crop yield denial seems to say you are lacking in expertise in this field as well.
Cheers.
While I do agree with the rest of your post how could above quote be true ?
Essentially all ( 97 %) terrestrial biomass is still on C3 carbon fixation mode and there is a distinct measurable greening of the planet. So it seems hardly possible that the “climate changes” tend to cancel the benefit of increased CO2 in atmosphere. At least not yet, globally. (through this might perhaps turn out to be the case in future)
It seems to me that Spencer’s point is also nothing else than this one.
More than half of our emissions are very kindly absorbed by the ocean and biosphere and do not act in atmosphere to warm the planet. From a scientific point view this is just a matter of Le Chatelier’s principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier%27s_principle
Please let’s not exaggerate the possible adverse impacts of anthropic CO2 and give ammunition to all those ridiculous idiots who deny GHE and anthropic origin of CO2 increase in atmosphere.
Anyway nobody can make us to reduce seriously the consumption of fossil fuel without killing millions of people. Just another inconvenient fact.
There is not yet any technical solution in terms of renewable energy sources and since you’re a biologist I’m happy, as a physicist, to tell you that in my opinion the solution is perhaps rather in biology, namely a change in agricultural practices, favoring photosynthesis over rotting by all means, growing back the forests, reducing our population etc.
gammacrux
I like reading your posts and agree with your points. I hope you keep posting.
Thanks, Norman.
And hopefully you and me are not the only ones to think along these lines.
“More than half of our emissions are very kindly absorbed by the ocean and biosphere and do not act in atmosphere to warm the planet.”
Almost all of our emissions are absorbed. The ambient level is determined by long term temperature dynamics.
It’s as plain as the nose on Jimmy Durante’s face: the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly:
https://tinyurl.com/yd5syg5j
No, only about ha.lf of hu.m..an em.iss.i..ons are a.b_sor.b_ed.
CO2 goes basically like a sinuosoid over the year. The T anomaly does not.
bart…”Its as plain as the nose on Jimmy Durantes face:”
Stop da music!!!!
gamma: Don’t forget that almost ALL plants are “weeds,” not crops. So more CO2 means more weeds, relatively, which will require still more herbicides. That will also mean more insects.
The papers I cited above show that temperature — with CO2 held fixed — decreases yields for most crops. So at some point the yield increase from CO2 is going to plateau and then turn downward, because higher CO2 means higher temperatures.
“Crop Pests Spreading North with Global Warming: Fungi and insects migrate toward the poles at up to 7 kilometers per year,”
— Eliot Barford and Nature magazine, September 2, 2013
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/crop-pests-spreading-north-climate-change/
—
Elevated CO2 (or low O2) atmospheric concentrations decrease rates of photorespiration and initially enhance rates of photosynthesis and growth by as much as 35% in most plants (C3 plants). This enhancement, however, diminishes over time (days to years), a phenomenon known as CO2 acclimation. Most studies suggest a strong link between CO2 acclimation and plant nitrogen status. Nitrogen is the mineral element that organisms require in greatest quantity.
Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis, Arnold J. Bloom et al, Science, 14 May 2010, Vol. 328, Issue 5980, pp. 899-903. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/899.abstract
David,
Dont forget that crop yields have increased. I have typed that very slowly for you.
Do you understand?
Crop yields have increased – read it slowly, it might sink in.
You have a pathologic compulsive condition, it seems. You cannot help but attempt yo deny, divert, and confuse, can you?
Again. Crop yields have increased.
Cheers.
gammacrux says:
“Anyway nobody can make us to reduce seriously the consumption of fossil fuel without killing millions of people. Just another inconvenient fact.”
America is an extremely rich country. There is no reason why we aren’t rich enough to pay for clean energy. You are. I am. Dr Spencer is.
I buy 100% green electricity from my power company, and 100% carbon offsets from my natural gas company. In the last year these have cost an extra $3.86 per month, an extra 6.1%.
If I can do it, almost all Americans can do the same. No excuses.
David,
America must be rich. Whats the national debt? Eighteen trillion? Twenty trillion?
Just because youre thick, doesnt mean everybody has to be, does it?
Cheers.
David Appell
I am siding with gammacrux on this issue about energy. You may be able to get 100% renewable in your location but if you research the issue on a bigger scale.
Here is Oregon’s energy consumption. You have a good source of hydroelectric. Coal still produces over 33% of Oregon electricity needs. Wind and solar are almost nonexistent.
http://www.oregon.gov/energy/energy-oregon/Pages/Electricity-Mix-in-Oregon.aspx
Here is what gammacrux is talking about. Renewable energy makes up 15% of the US electricity. Hydroelectric is fairly reliable but wind is incredibly unreliable as a source of consistent power.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Our Nation will not be functional on renewables for a long time and building more windmills will not help unless one can find a viable storage system. Late summer months are notorious for low wind conditions. Spring and Fall have lots of wind energy available.
But Norman, we are hardly even trying with renewable energy, and now Trump wants to reduce clean energy research by 70%. We are still not pricing pollution into fossil fuels. If we were, renewable energy would be at parity or below. we are hardly even trying with renewable energy, and now Trump wants to reduce clean energy research by 70%. We are still not pricing the cost of pollution into fossil fuels. If we were, renewable energy would be at parity or below. By the way, bids for a wind farm in Colorado just recently came in below two cents per kilowatt hour. Electric cars cost about half what a gasoline car does over their lifetimes. Weve given up on nuclear energy as a bridge to a truly sustainable future. Fleet miles per gallon has plateaued for years. For more jobs are being created in wind and solar, but Trump thinks we should bring back filthy coal. That is beyond stupid. We arent even trying to go renewable.
By the way, Oregons last coal plant will be phased out by 2020. Some coal power will still come from out of state, but Oregon has a relatively low carbon footprint. Every state has to use what they have, even if its nuclear. We arent going renewable because it doesnt work, but because fossil fuel corps have purchased our government and our politicians are highly corrupt. But then, not much of anything gets done in the United States anymore.
DA
Germany is trying to do it very seriously and the result is up to now a failure. Their emissions not only have not been reduced but they have actually augmented. There are many obvious reasons for this, in particular there is the unsolved intermittence and storage problem as Norman pointed out. Moreover the poorest fraction of the population can hardly afford and deal with drastically increased electricity bills.
In France the grid is very low in CO2 emissions but it’s nuclear energy.
And to expect an effect on climate it’s obviously the total global emissions that are relevant, not just Germany, France or even the US ones.
Is it reasonable to contend the idea that renewables can essentially power the whole world economy when even a small country such as Germany does not succeed in this respect ?
David,
What pollution is not being priced into fossil fuel use?
I beg to differ. Look at any coal fired electricity producing plant. Millions have been spent on pollution abatement.
Automobiles have $1000’s of pollution abatement equipment.
The list goes on.
If you’re talking about CO2 not being priced into it, that is a curious point. C02 is not a pollutant.
I advocate we use more nuclear for industrial needs and solar collectors on homes etc.
Your energy economics are really bad. All green energy produced is used. Green Energy accounts for 12 percent of all energy consumed. If we all bought 100% green energy, as you suggest it couldn’t be done. If everyone decided to purchase 100% green energy then it would be rationed such that we each would only get 12%.
gamma…”Anyway nobody can make us to reduce seriously the consumption of fossil fuel without killing millions of people. Just another inconvenient fact”.
I dare say most eco-alarmists would disagree with you. They’d say, “Heck with the people”.
There’s also the problem that any leader who tried to stop the flow of fossil fuels would likely be assassinated.
All Trump has to do to win the next election, and possibly become the first king of the US is to promise to slice fuel prices in half.
I’d vote for him and I’m not even a Yank.
Amazon has a great rainy season.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=samer1×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Sorry. Amazon rainforest has a great rainy season.
Dr. Spencer,
Also recently came upon research indicating CO2 increases nitrogen fixing in legumes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5603704/
Also, seeds of plants grown in elevated CO2 generally germinate earlier and more successfully. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.12691/full
The attribution of a portion of increased crop yields arising from higher atmospheric CO2 levels is based on the same type of science as the attribution of lower atmospheric warming to CO2.
Laboratory experimentation that shows CO2 enhances plant growth is unassailable as is results showing that CO2 can absorb and reradiate some longwave radiation.
It is in the observation that the difference is apparent.
Although there are many reasons for crop enhancement, including rising warmth, the increase in yields has been linear and steady, showing a real correlation to CO2 enrichment. The correlation of increasing temperature to CO2 increase is not nearly as robust and could be described as coincidental at best.
If you argue that CO2 causes warming, you can not intelligently argue that crop growth is not enhanced by the same mechanism.
The correlation of increasing temperature to CO2 increase is not nearly as robust and could be described as coincidental at best.
For this, you don’t get to be taken seriously.
If you argue that CO2 causes warming, you can not intelligently argue that crop growth is not enhanced by the same mechanism.
No one is doing that.
I am amazed at how many people here simply cannot grasp that yield is a function of more than one variable.
David,
And I am amazed at the number of David Appells who simply cannot grasp that yields are increasing, global warming notwithstanding!
I know, I know. You want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and exterminate all animal life life on Earth, including humans!
Or at least starve countless millions by capping the amount of CO2 available for plant life.
Good luck with that, David. I hope you fail. Given your demonstrated abilities, I reckon Im on a winner.
Cheers.
If David truly believed, we already wouldn’t be seeing his writings.
But he doesn’t. He comes here because his own blog attracts no one.
Probably prohibits anyone from writing who doesn’t kneel and kiss his hand.
Golly gosh!
“Nearly half of US military sites are threatened by wild weather linked to climate change, according to a new Pentagon study whose findings run contrary to White House views on global warming.
Drought, wind and flooding that occurs due to reasons other than storms topped the list of natural disasters that endanger 1,700 military sites worldwide, from large bases to outposts, said the US Department of Defense (DoD).”
The Pentagon are now part of the warmist conspiracy!
pofessorP,
Indeed they are. Well, driven by foolish Warmists, if you must.
Confusing weather with climate, as Warmist fools do whenever it suits them.
Maybe you are unaware that climate is the average of weather, calculated after the fact.
Climate does not produce weather, despite the beliefs of foolish Warmists in the Pentagon.
As to the wonderful forecasting abilities based on computer models, and the entire US military –
“The USS Little Rock is trapped in ice near Montreal and could be there for the next four months as it waits for the ice to melt.
Oh well, the Navy has plenty of spare ships. Whats one stuck in unforeseen ice? At least it wont be available to collide with merchant ships, run aground, break down at sea, or any of the many things that happen from time to time, whether the Pentagon commands them to or not.
An appeal to authority in the form of the DoD is likely to be met with laughter by anyone looking at the actual performance, as against their high opinion of themselves.
Apparently, the Pentagon as a whole cannot bring itself to accept orders from its Commander in Chief, who has stated that so called climate change is no longer to be considered a National Security threat. No doubt you would support a military coup! Apparently, some military officers only believe accepting orders from politically correct commanders.
And of course, the military would no doubt like to determine who should be Commander in Chief! Interesting times indeed.
Climate wars, anyone?
Cheers.
Golly gosh!
It seems everybody is in on the conspiracy except Mike and the Commander in Chief!
What intellects!
They deserve each other.
professorP,
Golly gosh!
Cant actually find any facts to back your foolish Warmishness?
Maybe you dont want to accept that the President happens to be Commander in Chief.
Dont like him or me? Hard cheese. No GHE. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis!
Hillary Clinton is not the US President, nor is Barack Obama. Maybe you have to accept that change is the only constant. The pendulum swings, and swings again.
I accept what I cannot change. You?
Cheers.
Mike…”Hillary Clinton is not the US President, nor is Barack Obama”.
Lucky for her with the amount of dirt being dragged up on her recently. Obama too. He has recently been linked to a Muslim extremist.
“Cant actually find any facts to back your foolish Warmishness?”
Hang on, when I present you with facts you get angry!
“Maybe you dont want to accept that the President happens to be Commander in Chief.”
Huh?. Why would I think otherwise? You are not making sense.
“Dont like him or me? Hard cheese. ”
I did’nt say I did’nt like either of you. Only that you deserve each other.
“Hillary Clinton is not the US President, nor is Barack Obama. Maybe you have to accept that change is the only constant. ”
Huh? What does Hilary have to do with this?
Seriously, you are becoming incoherent.
“I accept what I cannot change.”
Maybe you should accept that you are losing it.
professorP,
I dont get angry, or annoyed, or insulted, or offended. Whats the point?
You wrote –
The Pentagon are now part of the warmist conspiracy!
You wrote it, not me.
You quoted wild weather linked to climate change, which would be difficult, as climate is merely the average of weather. The climate cant be shown to have changed until you have computed an average, and compared it to a previous one. So climate change may or may not result from wild weather (whatever that is supposed to be).
You go on to write –
It seems everybody is in on the conspiracy except Mike and the Commander in Chief!
What intellects!
They deserve each other.
Maybe you are just jealous? The US President is apparently a stable genius, but you have facts to support your assertion that he and I deserve each other, have you? You cant even explain what you mean! What, precisely, is my intellect? But thanks for asserting that I am a stable genius, if thats what you were implying. Flattery will get you nowhere.
Just another Warmist fool trying to deny, divert, and confuse.
Cheers.
And, in 1974, the CIA released a detailed study on the perils of incipient Global Cooling.
http://www.governmentattic.org/18docs/CIAclimateResearchIntellProbs_1974.pdf
“The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 13251337, 2008
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
You’ve totally missed the point. The one who calls himself professorP said we should believe the Department of Defense report. Well, here is a CIA report in a similar vein. If we believe the one, we have to believe the other. Yet, they contradict one another, so there is an impasse.
A 1965 report to the Johnson Administration had a chapter on CO2s potential to cause warming:
Restoring the Quality of Our Environment, Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel, Presidents Science Advisory Committee (1965), pp. 111-133.
https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/PSAC,%201965,%20Restoring%20the%20Quality%20of%20Our%20Environment.pdf
J.S. Sawyer, “Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect,” Nature 239, 23-26 (1 Sept 1972).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v239/n5366/abs/239023a0.html
Abstract: “In spite of the enormous mass of the atmosphere and the very large energies involved in the weather systems which produce our climate, it is being realized that human activities are approaching a scale at which they cannot be completely ignored as possible contributors to climate and climatic change.”
“Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action,” National Academy of Sciences (1975).
– page 43: “[changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to CO2 excess] could, however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5C between now and the end of the century.”
https://ia801806.us.archive.org/7/items/understandingcli00unit/understandingcli00unit.pdf
“The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the Climate of a General Circulation Model,” Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, vol 32 no 1 pp 3-15 (1975).
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Greenhouse-effect/more/Manabe-Wetherald-1975.pdf
DA…”The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the Climate…”
Lindzen did his own calculations and reckoned a 0.4C warming as an upper bounds.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
page 7 of 15:
“Contrary to the iconic statement of the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers, this is only on the order of a third of the observed trend at the surface, and suggests a warming of about 0.4 over a century. It should be added that this is a bound more than an estimate”.
Edward Teller, at a November 1959 conference on the centennial of the American oil industry at Columbia University in New York City, via The Guardian, 1/1/2018:
“Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect [….] It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming
David,
And he is a Warmist fool, just as yourself. Neither he nor you ever managed to define the GHE, much less manage to develop any hypothesis relating to it. No surprise there!
All sorts of eminent scienctists have believed all sorts of bizarre things which proved to be wrong!
Follow the Warmist fools – see where they lead you. Down the path of delusion, not the Yellow Brick Road!
Have nice journey David.
Cheers.
DA…”It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York”.
We’ve seen the calculations, now where’s the melting icecaps and the submerging New York? The only ice cap is in Antarctica, where it’s getting cooler, not warmer.
“The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and its Influence on Temperature,” G. S. Callendar, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society v64 Issue 275 pp 223-240 (April 1938).
https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qjcallender38.pdf
DA…”The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and its Influence on Temperature, G. S. Callendar….”
Speaking of corn…
From the article:
“If the whole surface of the earth is considered as a unit upon which a certain amount of heat falls each day, it is obvious that the mean temperature will depend upon the rate at which this heat can escape by radiation, because no other type of heat exchange is possible”.
***********
Slight [sarc /off] misunderstanding here by Callendar, heat does not ‘fall’ or ‘escape by radiation’. Here again, an alarmist source has misunderstood the difference between heat and electromagnetic radiation. Heat must obey the 2nd law, meaning under such conditions it can only be transferred from a hotter surface to a cooler surface.
Callendar is presuming heat falls from the sky and warms the surface then escapes from the surface as a heat flow. Heat doesn’t go anywhere via radiation, it decreases in the hotter body and increases in the cooler body, an APPARENT transfer. Heat transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface disobeys the 2nd law.
Furthermore, Callendar presumed that heat cannot be transferred by conduction and convection, which Lindzen has shown is a major mode of heat transport between surface and atmosphere.
The UAH records over the past 39 years have proved heat is not being transferred from the atmosphere to the surface as per AGW. If that had been the case it would be a lot hotter by now, especially from Callendar’s now.
All the same, he seemed to be a regular chap. He admitted any heating should be beneficial to the planet, especially getting rid of those nasty glaciers. I think Roy is trying to agree with the former.
I mean what good are glaciers? They are riddled with man-eating crevasses, which have claimed more than a few mountaineers. You can’t even see the crevasses half the time because they become in-filled with snow. A hiker or mountaineer steps unsuspectingly on the snow, and whoosh, he/she is gone.
During the Little Ice Age, a glacier near Chamonix, France, extended across a valley and wiped out a village. Nasty things, better to have them melt away. Never saw a glacier I liked. That’s exactly what they have been doing since the end of the LIA, circa 1850. Oddly enough, some are blaming the melting on a trace gas in the atmosphere.
Callendar did not mention the LIA at all, although he referred to ancient ice ages. Wonder how it escaped him that a recent significant mini ice age cooled the planet 1C to 2C. He blamed the warming since the late 1800s on CO2.
ps. I did get Callendar’s point that he was talking about solar incoming energy. However, he later talks about sky-radiation and claims the same thing.
profp…”Nearly half of US military sites are threatened by wild weather linked to climate change, according to a new Pentagon study whose findings run contrary to White House views on global warming”.
You really need to keep up with politics in the US. The Pentagon was enabled by the uber-alarmist Obama administration, the same admin who hand-cuffed their army personal in the fight against ISIS.
Obama and his politically-correct, bleeding hearts, took the stance that any terrorist captured had to be released within 72 hours if adequate proof could not be supplied in that time. Adequate proof was NOT considered catching a terrorist in the act of planting a bomb. Known terrorists who were seen involved in terrorists acts were often let go.
Under Trump, all that has changed and ISIS is all but decimated in the middle-East. A general in the area could not believe how quickly they had gained the upper hand once they were allowed to act like a real army.
Hopefully, Trumps anti-climate nonsense will prevail as well.
ps. I forgot. Under Obama, air strikes were not allowed against fleeing ISIS or Taliban terrorists. The other day I read an article in which 150 of the them were taken out by an air strike.
The ban was instituted when the US and NATO ended their combat role in Afghanistan in 2014. Then Obama lifted the ban in June 2016 when the Afghanistan military asked for air support.
DA…”Then Obama lifted the ban in June 2016 when the Afghanistan military asked for air support”.
Don’t think so, he was just exposed posing with a militant Muslim leader and fawning all over him. They’re his buddies over there.
http://www.newsweek.com/nation-islam-barack-obama-791832
Under whose reign was Bin Laden captured and fed to the fishes ?
Corn Yields Under Higher Temperatures,
Figure 18.3, p 421
U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2014 National Climate Assessment
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report
DA…you still at it, still trying to prove Roy wrong by scouring up red-herring arguments from the Net?
From earlier:
“DA…”NO name: Prove to me your increase is due to CO2.”
There’s no way of proving anything to you, David, nothing satisfies you.
If Isaac Newton was still alive and tuned into this blog claiming f = ma, you’d demand peer review and an independent paper. If he returned with it, you’d slam him as a Creationist for believing in God.
You lack the ability to do your own science to see if f = ma makes sense, and you have the global warming religion. Debating with you is akin to debating Jehovah Witness door-to-door proselytizers.
You are a catastrophic warming proselytizer”.
In general F does not equal ma, Gordon.
David,
Whats the relevance of your comment to increased crop yields? None at all?
Why am I not surprised?
No answers required. You dont need to thank me. Im here to help.
Cheers.
DA…”In general F does not equal ma, Gordon”.
Close enough for me, David. Keeps my weight in range when
f = mg.
Nope. Newton said F=dp/dt. Launch a rocket using F=ma and you will not end up where you want to (and will have wildly misjudged the amount of fuel required).
David,
Prove it. You claim you can communicate with dead people.
You can converse with Newton in English, or Latin, Greek or Hebrew. Probably a few others, but I expect you are not fluent in Syriac.
After youve spoken with Newton, let us know. To be honest, I do not believe you can,
Cheers.
Gordon, thats an interesting way to avoid having to prove anything just claim it wont be accepted and youre totally off the hook!
David Appell,
Prove it!
See how easy it is to be completely witless? Just ask stupid gotchas, and act injured when people wont cooperate with your foolish Warmist game plan.
Cheers.
Great point Roy -thanks for keeping the ‘heat’ on the Al Gore agenda spew. This planet is so dynamic…and is teaching us exactly just how dynamic it is every year. We have no laboratory that comes close to mirroring this wonderful marble. So, we have to rely on it’s history and our ever improving science to try to guess what will be. And every year or so we have to adjust things (typically in the opposite direction of the political agenda driven spew once the facts come out). As we continue to pull out of our most recent ice age it is so easy for some to put the blame on good old human existence… when it couldn’t be further from fact. I always wonder if those that whistle such a tune can articulate if CO2 produced by humans is chemically different than CO2 produced naturally?
David Appell seems to be having difficulty garnering support for his foolish Warmist plan to wipe out humanity by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Maybe he could be renamed to David Deathwish!
Or does he just want to condemn the population to a slow lingering death from malnutriotn, as he or some other Warmist fool sits in the Tower Of Ignorance, sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere, while playing with Gavin Schmidts big red CO2 knob.
Warmist fools! More CO2 good – less CO2 bad. No testable GHE hypothesis because there is no GHE!
Davids living depends on pushing propaganda for other Warmist fools, so its not surprising that he is unlikely to abandon his position.
No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should – I wish David the best of luck in his resistance.
Cheers.
DA…re your link on Callandar article….this is the part I liked best:
“In conclusion it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove bene?cial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important at the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905). In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely”.
Is that not what Roy is trying to say in this blog article? And he is being supported by an author most alarmists lean on for their propaganda, including you.
Gordon,
Warmist fools have used Svante Arrhenius as an authority, with which to beat non-believers around the ears, in the past.
Not so much these days, after they realised Arrhenius said –
By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” (p63)
Whoops! Warmist fools have to discard Arrhenius!
All part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
Calendar was a steam engineer. That means he wasnt a plant scientist. Note his emphasis was on northern climates and northern crops, and Like Arrhenius he paid no attention to anyone who lived in the tropics. Today 3 billion people live in the tropics. Do you think they and their plants want more heat? No. But clearly Canada has enough room to take one or 2 billion of them.
David,
What is your point?
CO2 causes precisely no increase in thermometer temperatures, so your silly gotcha is just another attempt to deny, divert, and confuse.
Your silly foolish Warmist nonsense is about as stupid as asking if cold people want more cold!
Crop yields have apparently increased, which obviously occurs after all the negatives you can think of!
Tut! Tut!
Have you considered buying a new tangent? The one youve been flying off at, seems a bit worn out.
Press on. Still no testable GHE hypothesis, because theres no GHE.
Maybe you could claim that insulating a thermometer from the heat of the Sun will make the thermometer hotter!
You might need to invent some magical process to support such a mad idea, but maybe some Warmist fools might believe you.
Cheers.
ren…”Do deserts in California bloom when they get rain?”
Ask and ye shall find:
https://www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520496783/california-deserts-in-super-bloom-thanks-to-a-wet-winter
David Appell referred to filthy coal.
Not in America years ago, it seems. Railroad advertisement –
“Says Phoebe Snow
about to go
upon a trip to Buffalo
“My gown stays white
from morn till night
Upon the Road of Anthracite
David might accuse the railroad of lying, or maybe coal was cleaner then.
What this has to do with increased crop yields, I have no idea. I didnt start it. I may have fallen victim to the foolish Warmist deny, divert, and confuse.
Cheers.
A great alpine snowstorm begins.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00957/6niez3ipgn7f.png
Snowstorm in Davos. Beautiful views.
https://www.davos.ch/en/davos-klosters/news/live-cams/livecams-davos-klosters/
Lets’s cut the crap:
“Australias wheat yields more than trebled during the first 90 years of the 20th century but have stalled since 1990. In research published today in Global Change Biology, we show that rising temperatures and reduced rainfall, in line with global climate change, are responsible for the shortfall.”
http://theconversation.com/changing-climate-has-stalled-australian-wheat-yields-study-71411
Lets cut the crap (from your link) –
We can also separate the individual impacts of rainfall decline, temperature rise and more CO₂ in the atmosphere (all else being equal, rising atmospheric CO₂ means more plant growth).
Thanks for providing facts to support Dr Spencer.
I suppose you might be inclined to say that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface will make the thermometer hotter, but you would appear to be imitating a Warmist fool, if you did!
And of course, if you try to invoke the magic of the GHE, real scientists might laugh at you, because you cant even describe it, much less dream up a testable GHE hypothesis. Not surprising, as the GHE is completely non-existent!
Maybe you could try to adopt the worn out foolish Warmist tactics of deny, divert, and confuse. How well do you think that might work?
Cheers.
Mike, you continually provide examples of how to “deny, divert, and confuse.”.
Either that or you don’t understand the point of the article.
Why do facts annoy you so much?
ProfessorP
Maybe you are confused, or even extremely confused?.
The point of your linked article “Changing climate has stalled Australian wheat yields: study is presumably related to its title.
The title of Dr Spencers post was –
Global warming be damned full speed ahead on the Maize Train.
Kentucky Corn Growers Association
The numbers are in from USDA, and 2017 saw a new record in average corn yield, with 176.6 bushels per acre.
There does not seem a lot of relevance, unless you dont realise the US and Australia are different countries, maize and wheat are different crops, and stalled does not mean decreased.
It is natural for a Warmist fool to exhibit such bizarre confusion.
To compound the error, your linked article says –
We can also separate the individual impacts of rainfall decline, temperature rise and more CO₂ in the atmosphere (all else being equal, rising atmospheric CO₂ means more plant growth).
You dont seem to be aware that I decline to get annoyed, but you can imagine that I do so, if it makes you happy.
Your mind reading abilities are sorely lacking – as is usually the case with Warmist fools who try to tell others what they are thinking.
Press on. If you disagree with the facts presented by Dr Spencer, maybe you could provide some evidence that he is wrong. When I become aware of new facts, I change my opinion. What do you do?
You provide no evidence at all that you a neither a foolish Warmest, nor a Warmist fool. Rather, the opposite!
Cheers.
I love it when good news causes global warming, Chicken Little freaks to foam at the mouth.
“Advanced”?
In Swaziland they teach that stuff in primary school. Whither the USA?
Warm wether better crops go figure
Wow, that rising CO2 increases plant growth ought not be controversial: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004.html
I find it strange that some argue otherwise, even when it is broadly accepted that ~25% of emitted CO2 dissolves in the oceans and ~25% is taken up by plants (leaving ~50% in the atmosphere). That argument sounds a lot like political advocacy to me.
This is a topic which is close to my heart… Thank
you! Where are your contact details though?
Des femmes vulgaires de tl-ralit, voil qui.
I believe that is one of the most vital information for me.
And i’m happy reading your article. However should commentary on few common things, The site taste
is ideal, the articles is truly excellent : D. Excellent job, cheers
Hello everybody. I’m rather new to 3d printing and I have many questions on the subject, so I hope you won’t get mad at me for asking here at least couple of them. I think even before I’ll get seriously into sculpting I should focus on the software I’m going to use, and that’s what I’d like to ask you about. Mainly, should I look for the most simple/crudest software I can find or would it be better to look for something more complicated? I’m worried that I’ll get some undesirable habits while working with less complex software. Currently I am using some online software called SelfCAD (I didn’t have to download anything). I’ve read some good opinions about it, but maybe you could share yours as well? The second question is about the program as well: should I look for software that will allow me design and slice it in it, or should I use a separate software for each of them? The one I’m suing allows me to do both i it. Does it even make a difference? Surprisingly, I couldn’t find the answer to that, as it seems like most blogs and sites want to focus on the very basics (like what is 3d printing and so on), and while the answers to those questions are fine, it seems like no one wants to go into the details (it looks like some of them even plagiarise each other! I swear I’ve found the same answers to the same questions on at least 3 different websites) but I’m getting off-topic… The last question is about 3d pens. Would it be possible to somehow convert whatever I draw with a 3d pen to a 3d model in a software? For example, if I’ll draw a dog with 3d pen, would it be possible to get its outline in a software? I’m not sure how that could even work, but the very idea sounds appealing to me. Anyway, I think I’ll stop here just in case no one will ever answer me and all of this writing will go to waste. I apologise that I’m using your content to ask questions, but I hope you can relate and assist a beginner like me. Anyway, thank you for posting. I did learn something from this and that’s always appreciated. Thank you, and I hope to hear back from you very soon 🙂
Wow, wonderful weblog structure! How lengthy have
you ever been blogging for? you make blogging glance easy.
The overall glance of your website is wonderful, let
alone the content material!
wohnmobil umbau,crafter wohnmobil umbau,bulli umbau zum wohnmobil,transporter wohnmobil umbau,man kat wohnmobil umbau,vw t5 umbau wohnmobil,t4 umbau
wohnmobil,crafter umbau wohnmobil,vw t4 wohnmobil umbau,vw
t4 umbau wohnmobil,unimog wohnmobil umbau,reisebus umbau wohnmobil,
mercedes sprinter umbau wohnmobil,transporter umbau wohnmobil,bus umbau wohnmobil,sprinter wohnmobil umbau,umbau wohnmobil,lkw umbau zum wohnmobil,dacia wohnmobil umbau,umbau lkw zum wohnmobil,omnibus umbau wohnmobil,vw bus umbau wohnmobil,feuerwehr umbau wohnmobil,sprinter umbau zum wohnmobil,ape umbau wohnmobil,t4
wohnmobil umbau,unimog umbau wohnmobil,magirus deutz wohnmobil umbau,lkw wohnmobil umbau,lkw umbau
wohnmobil,land rover defender wohnmobil umbau,t5 multivan umbau wohnmobil,sprinter umbau wohnmobil,vw caddy umbau wohnmobil,t5 umbau wohnmobil,mercedes sprinter wohnmobil umbau,ford transit wohnmobil umbau,bus umbau zum wohnmobil,land rover defender umbau wohnmobil,vw bus umbau
zum wohnmobil,kastenwagen umbau wohnmobil,dacia logan wohnmobil umbau,umbau
t5 zum wohnmobil,reisebus wohnmobil umbau,defender umbau wohnmobil,caddy
umbau wohnmobil,vito umbau wohnmobil,umbau kastenwagen zum wohnmobil,bus wohnmobil umbau,citroen berlingo umbau wohnmobil,vw crafter wohnmobil umbau,viano umbau wohnmobil,barkas wohnmobil umbau,atego wohnmobil umbau,ford transit custom wohnmobil umbau,vw t5 transporter umbau wohnmobil,transporter umbau zum
wohnmobil,wohnmobil umbau kosten,umbau transporter wohnmobil,bus umbau wohnmobil kaufen,citroen jumper wohnmobil umbau,man wohnmobil umbau,umbau transporter zum wohnmobil,mercedes
vito umbau wohnmobil,umbau sprinter wohnmobil,land rover umbau wohnmobil,umbau transporter zum
wohnmobil forum,transporter umbau wohnmobil kosten,t4 multivan wohnmobil umbau,vw bus wohnmobil
umbau,umbau zum wohnmobil,t4 transporter umbau wohnmobil,
mercedes benz sprinter wohnmobil umbau,vw t5 multivan umbau
wohnmobil,vw t3 umbau wohnmobil,defender wohnmobil
umbau,t4 caravelle umbau wohnmobil,toyota hiace wohnmobil umbau,umbau kastenwagen wohnmobil,mercedes
umbau wohnmobil,opel vivaro umbau wohnmobil,vw bus t4 umbau wohnmobil,
vw transporter wohnmobil umbau,vw transporter umbau wohnmobil,t5 transporter umbau wohnmobil,bus umbau wohnmobil fhrerschein,vw
lt 35 wohnmobil umbau,mercedes sprinter wohnmobil umbau konfigirator,vw t5 caravelle umbau wohnmobil,umbau vw t6 wohnmobil,smart fortwo umbau wohnmobil,wohnmobil umbau berlin,land rover discovery wohnmobil umbau,scudo umbau wohnmobil,t4 wohnmobil
umbau tv,sprinter wohnmobil,mercedes sprinter wohnmobil,wohnmobil sprinter,wohnmobil
mercedes sprinter,mercedes sprinter wohnmobil westfalia,mercedes sprinter
2018 wohnmobil,mercedes sprinter 4×4 wohnmobil,
sprinter allrad wohnmobil,mercedes sprinter 4×4 wohnmobil
gebraucht,sprinter 4×4 wohnmobil,sprinter wohnmobil selbstausbau,mercedes benz sprinter wohnmobil ausbau,wohnmobil mb sprinter,mercedes benz wohnmobil sprinter,mercedes benz sprinter wohnmobil,sprinter wohnmobil gebraucht,sprinter forum wohnmobil,wohnmobil sprinter 412,sprinter ausbau zum
wohn https://sprinter-teile.net/de/25-achsaufhangung-radfuhrung
detsk topnky
Feel free to visit my web blog :: Ochrana osobnch dajov https://pupava-shop.com/content/2-ochrana-osobnych-udajov
Hey there! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to
give a quick shout out and tell you I genuinely enjoy reading through your blog
posts. Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that deal with the same subjects?
Thanks a lot!
Wonderful blog! I found it while surfing around on Yahoo News.
Do you have any suggestions on how to get listed in Yahoo News?
I’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to get
there! Cheers
Heya i am for the first time here. I found this board and I find
It really helpful & it helped me out much. I hope to offer
something again and help others like you helped me.
This requires a subscription service, the price of which relies on the number of pages
you print per 30 days.
Using cloud-primarily based managed print software program to arrange printing controls and
rules that scale back waste so that you pay
much less.
Kho_ng th_i gian ny, b_n th__ng c xu h__ng khp kn v_i nh_ng ng__i xung quanh.
Nh_ c my h_y ti li_u m nhi_u lo_i gi_y t_ khng c_n thi_t ___c
tiu h_y m_t cch nhanh chng h_n.
Pretty! This has been a really wonderful article. Many thanks for providing these details.
I quite like looking through an article that will make men and women think.
Also, thanks for allowing for me to comment!
Highly energetic post, I liked that bit. Will there be a part 2?
Trn m_t bn ___c ph_ m_t l_p s_n PU ch_ng tr_y x__c t_t,
_m m_c, bng __p theo th_i gian.
B_i n c th_ __m nhi_m ___c nhi_u cng vi_c h_n, gip cho ng__i
s_ d_ng d_ dng ti_p c_n s_ d_ng thnh
th_o cc ch_c n_ng trn cng m_t chi_c my.
Bonjour,
Also visit my ѡebsite cole game design