Home/Blog
Today the USDA released its forecast for corn and soybean yields and production for the 2018 growing season. It is expected that corn yields (bushels per acre) in the U.S. will experience their third consecutive record year, with an average of 178.4 bu/ac:
The last time there were three consecutive record high yield years was over 30 years ago: 1985-86-87.
Soybean production is expected to be at a record high, and with a near-record in yield:
Clearly, the widely expected decline in U.S. agricultural production due to global warming has yet to materialize, as improved varieties and farming practices continue to push yields ever higher. Not only are the trends upward (as seen in the above charts), it appears both corn and soybean yields will have actually experienced 5 consecutive years over and above those upward trends.
Make Agriculture Great Again.
Now if only the farmers can find buyers for these record yields.
Maybe then they wouldn’t have to accept government welfare.
Wow, this might be the one time i’ve ever actually agreed with you, David. Bravo!
It is not government welfare. They are transfer payments from one group of taxpayers to another. Along the way, government agents skim off the top, costing the taxpayers untold millions.
In the meantime, without the transfer payments, prices would fluctuate more, supplies would be less reliable etc.
But in all, I’d take less government.
And to address you David: If government offers, people take. Except you, I’m sure.
“Clearly, the widely expected decline in U.S. agricultural production due to global warming has yet to materialize, as improved varieties and farming practices continue to push yields ever higher.”
Does this mean that corn yields have thrived despite rising temperatures and drier soils? No! (Therefore, I think the statement is rather misleading.)
For example, in Iowa, the nations largest corn producer, Maximum temps in July have been falling and precip has been on the rise:
July Tmax: – 0.2 F. / decade
July Precipitation: + 0.05″ / decade
(Climate at a glance)
*******
Here is an interesting, related article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/america-s-corn-belt-making-its-own-weather
This article matches both my experience and the experience of fellow farmers throughout the Midwest.
It is not via faulty memory that we say that we have fewer heat waves and increased rainfall. We have records to show it, and weather stations agree. Also, the rainfall has been more gentle than in decades past, so we need to reject the hysteria that rainfall is now coming in torrents. We have less erosion now.
To be more complete, we can point out that winters also have become more mild.
And one bit of modesty: we have more than tripled corn yield in my years of farming; yes, improved techniques and better seed selection have helped; but there has been a noticeable contribution via increased CO2 levels in the air.
This will not be the case if global cooling sets in.
Soybean tariffs making Brazil Great Again:
https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-editors/editorial-meet-the-winners-of-the-trade-war
I like to see official numbers for corn and soybean yields. However, the sentence “The last time there were three consecutive record high yield years was over 30 years ago: 1985-86-87” introduces a totally artificial measure that reminds me of alarmist tactics. They invent artificial measures all the time, but we should not follow them.
If if if if if.
That’s about the only word Salvatore knows, despite at least eight years of failure.
The word “cooling” makes David Appell see red.
Just Salvatore’s unjustified use of it, and the fact that he’s been wrong for at least 8 years but refuses to learn a single thing from it.
Judgemental, much?
Must be a consequence of your 16 hours of journalism studies. Oh, the stress!
Cheers.
Salvatore says it’s going down, David sides with those saying it’s going way way up.
So far, they’re both wrong. It’s true, Salvatore doesn’t have millions of dollars worth of computer models – all failing every year. But he has his never ending belief that we are going into a cooling phase. So far, he isn’t right, but so far the models aren’t either. And when you think about it, the models are really the foundation of the global warming religion. So until either side proves themselves correct, I’m willing to give old Salvatore a little more time. Now David, have yourself a nice big meal – complements of our highly productive farmers.
Roy of all people should understand what is a function of several variables.
But time and time again he fails at this when it comes to crops.
“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
He also fails to ban David Appell.
Until you can cite as much science as I do….
“Until you can cite as much science as I do.” – David Appell
LOLOL
Wow! Just Wow!
I suspect that the researchers in that study go through computer gymnastics to come to that conclusion. It just does not match any reality that we can see.
“Clearly, the widely expected decline in U.S. agricultural production due to global warming..”
Huh?
I don’t think there is such a thing as a “widely expected decline”.
The literature on this topic seems to be equivocal about the effects. For example:
“As future forecasts are made about the impacts of global
climate change on agriculture, we stress the importance of
identifying the biological processes or management options
that are most likely to be impacted. Previous assessments have
stated that mid- and high-latitude corn and soybean growers
may ultimately benefit from warming temperatures, but we
argue that warming outside of the core of the growing season
will be most beneficial to supporting higher yields”
C J Kucharik and S P Serbin, Environ. Res. Lett. 3 (2008) 034003
“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
(but don’t look)
D,
Same authors as IPCC? What a surprise!
Cheers.
Which of the authors worked on IPCC publications?
C,
Why should I tell you if you are too lazy to look for yourself?
Go on – demonstrate the courage of your convictions. Declare that I’m in error, and show facts to back up your declaration.
Or keep trolling with puerile attempts at gotchas. Up to you.
Cheers.
Definition of a “gotcha”:
Every time Mike Flynn is demonstrated to be a fool.
M,
That would be precisely zero times, would it?
Carry on.
Cheers.
Zero?
I think you (and only you) forever keep complaining of “gotchas”.
You tell me the total.
M,
Oh dear! You seem reduced to misrepresentation. When have I ever complained about a gotcha? I may have pointed out, from time to time, that the composer appeared to be stupid and ignorant, inviting ridicule rather than acclamation.
Why should I complain?
Feel free to appear as ridiculous as you like. With sufficient effort, you might be able to rise to the level of bumbling buffoons like Schmidt (posing as a climate scientist), Mann (posing as a Nobel Laureate), Trenberth (what do I need to say), and the rest of the ragtag crew of second raters!
Off you go now, maybe you can find some less ludicrous authority to whom you can appeal!
Cheers.
Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth seem to get under your skin.
Your continual references to them betray your irritation.
Pity, they are far more qualified and intelligent than you.
But then, so is every first year university science student!
M,
Why would the cavortings of a bumbling pack of self styled experts “get under my skin”?
Are you completely mad, or just pretending? Maybe you coukd provide some evidence that the collective IQ of the persons you refer to exceeds mine. Your personal opinions don’t count, of course.
You might provide evidence to show that Michael Mann is not suffering from delusional psychosis. This condition might explain Mann’s inability to decide whether he was a Nobel Prize winner or not. What is your excuse?
Your mind reading abilities need a spot of attention.
Cheers.
Funny how Mann claims to be a tree expert, when he has no degrees in biology, dendrology, botany, or anything related to trees. And then there is his embarrassing hockey stick graph, where he continues to refuse to release information that would allow anyone to test his results. And he continues to refuse to release public emails regarding his climate related work. He sued to prevent their release. So much for open and honest science.
And Schmidt? He’s a mathematician, and has never taken a science course. We already know 1+1=2. What the hell is Schmidt doing as head of NASA GISS? Wow! You would think they would choose somebody with a science degree, like Astrophysics maybe? Wow! What a concept! So underqualified!
Trenberth is a science phony. He made the claim years ago at a news conference that there was a definitive link between global warming and hurricanes, when the current science said there was none.
You are picking from the bottom of the barrel, Myki Mouse. Of course, the bottom of the barrel is all there is.
SGW, here is a simple task for you.
Name me 3 denialist experts including
1. their qualifications
2. three of their peer-reviewed publications on climate change
I bet you can’t do it.
SkepticGoneWild says:
Funny how Mann claims to be a tree expert, when he has no degrees in biology, dendrology, botany, or anything related to trees.
So wrong.
Mann (et al) took the work of the tree dendrochronologists and used it (among other proxies) to reconstruct past temperatures. Their advance was mathematical, not anything to do with trees.
myki…”Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth seem to get under your skin”.
They are all irritants as opposed to scientists.
“…not anything to do with trees.” – DavidA says:
August 10, 2018 at 5:22 PM
Yeah, nothing to do with science, either.
“Their [Mann, et al] advance was mathematical,…” – (ibid)
And they weren’t any good at that, either.
EM>”Here we have shown, in the case of
MBH98, that a standardization step (that the authors did
not even consider sufficiently important to disclose at the
time of their study) significantly affected the resulting PC
series. Indeed, the effect of the transformation is so strong
that a hockey-stick shaped PC1 is nearly always generated
from (trendless) red noise with the persistence properties of
the North American tree ring network.”
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf
See also here…
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/hockey-stick-retrospective.pdf
New, maybe David will do his talent, and show why that’s all wrong by citing some “science?”
Oops, meant to include this in my last.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqzcA7SsqSA
It addresses Michel Mann’s limited, and seemingly defective, science skill set. No wonder he’s such an angry fellow.
“Roy of all people should understand what is a function of several variables.”
Roy’s post is specific to the U.S.. Summertime highs in the corn belt, an important variable, have been decreasing…..good for crops. Precipitation has been increasing….good for crops. Winters are getting warmer (not sure if that matters).
Snape wrote:
U.S.. Summertime highs in the corn belt, an important variable, have been decreasing….
Do you have data on that?
I find that, in Iowa, the average June-July-August temperature has a trend of +0.17 F/decade over the last 20 years, +0.16 F/decade over the last 30 years.
(NO.AA data)
Also, warmer in spring and autumn makes the growing season longer…..likely a big benefit. Especially in the northern regions.
“We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
— “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/06/1415181112
Are you refuting Dr. Spencer’s post where he shows specific numbers of increases?
@ D.A. …then why doesn’t this site show a decline from 2000 to 2017? …https://www.statista.com/statistics/190356/wheat-yield-per-harvested-acre-in-the-us-from-2000/
“Summertime”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vi8W93aJG_U
The Satchmo/Ella version is hard to beat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnXLVTi_m_M
The jet stream in the Atlantic continue to hinder the formation of hurricanes.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=atl&product=wv-mid
Surface analysis – Daily
https://weather.gc.ca/data/saisons/images/[email protected]@sd_000.png
Thank you, Roy.
“Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future,” according to Yogi Berra. Regardless …
Climate Alarmists made predictions. Predictions did not materialize. So, they found the “missing heat” buried deep in the ocean.
Climate alarmists have made predictions. Hot, dry weather and extreme events will decrease crop yields. See website below, from 2014 (just before that unbroken chain of year on year increases).
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/03/claim-u-s-corn-yields-are-increasingly-vulnerable-to-hot-dry-weather-data-corn-yield-trend-positive/
We find, “He predicted that at current levels of temperature sensitivity, crops could lose 15 percent of their yield within 50 years, or as much as 30 percent if crops continue the trend of becoming more sensitive over time.”
So my humble prediction:
First, our alarmist friends will find some reason why crop yields continue to increase.
Second, our alarmist friends will furthermore explain that, in only a few more years, the offsetting, positive effect will disappear, and the crop yield decline will accelerate and make up for lost time.
Just like that missing heat in the ocean.
Bart T
From your link:
“The data clearly indicate that drought stress for corn and soy comes partly from low rain, but even more so from hot and dry air. Plants have to trade water to get carbon from the air to grow, and the terms of that trade become much less favorable when its hot, said Lobell, also the lead author for a chapter in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, which details a consensus view on the current state and fate of the worlds climate.”
As I mentioned upthread, the high yields we see do not contradict this claim, because the air in the corn belt has NOT been getting hotter and drier. Just the opposite.
Corn is a C4 plant. More atmospheric CO2 will not help it.
How wrong can you be !!!
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/z/zeam.php
Not.
“Maize (or corn) is a common C4 plant.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_carbon_fixation
Snape says:
…the air in the corn belt has NOT been getting hotter and drier. Just the opposite.
The 30-yr trend of average state temperature for Iowa is +0.40 F/decade.
For precipitation, the 30-yr trend is +1.9 inches/decade.
Data from the organization that must not be named.
Snape:
Thank you, I understand.
Is there any corn-producing area of the world where we have been getting hotter and drier air, which has reduced corn yield?
In my (rather cursory) internet searching, I see that Brazil, Russia, India, and China all report increasing yields over the last 20+ years.
Thanks again.
More than one factor determines yields.
Unless you try to separate them (by, for example, multiple linear regression), you will never uncover the significance of the different factors.
Roy prefers to ignore this fact.
test
Freeman Dyson said that we would be crazy to try to do something about increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere because the benefits far outweigh the harm.
I think I’ll take Dyson’s advice over snape’s, Myki’s, DavidA’s, and the rest of you global warming fanatics any place, anytime!
Corn is a C4 plant, so it isn’t carbon limited. So are sugar cane, millet, and sorghum.
WRONG AGAIN !!
Sugar
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/s/saccharumo.php
Sorghum
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/s/sorghumb.php
So many varieties of millet..
but many of the Panicum and other “millets” respond well to extra atmospheric CO2
“[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.”
– Freeman Dyson, Yale Environment 360, June 4, 2009
http://e360.yale.edu/features/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment
(emphasis mine)
but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.
Freeman Dyson, Yale Environment 360, June 4, 2009
Just to reiterate David’s post. I’m not sure he read that part.
Freeman Dyson isn’t a climate expert, though many people try to quote him as such.
So that means he doesn’t really get an opinion on climate models, which he’s admitted he doesn’t know much of anything about. If his criticisms are rejected, probably they should be. Extremely, if it’s called for.
My quote were social observations. A physics major wouldn’t be trained to understand – way over your head I expect.
Unfortunately corn and soybeans are two of the most heavily GMO crops that have been modified to be resistant to Glyphosate (aka Roundup). Glyphosate has been suspected as a carcinogen by the WHO.
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/who-report-links-weed-killer-ingredient-cancer-risk-n327826
A landmark case was just won against Monsanto and Roundup on August 10
https://www.inquisitr.com/5024947/roundup-cancer-trial-sees-monsanto-having-to-pay-out-289-million-in-compensation-to-terminal-cancer-victim/
There are about 4000 other cases in the works.
To each their own, but I would not use Roundup and avoid GMOs as much as possible.
I fully agree with you. The modification went in the wrong direction.
Where bees are killed, people should not eat.
Junk science. Glyphosate is not a cancer threat.
Glyphosate has been a huge boon to no-till agriculture.
Interesting – the radical environmentalists don’t like tilling the soil, because it depletes the soil (in numerous ways) so along comes glyphosate and GMO seeds to work with it. No-till is a great boon. But the radicals don’t like that either.
It seems all they want is to starve the people to death. I suggest they show us how.
Lewis guignard says:
It seems all they want is to starve the people to death.
What an uninformed opinion. (Also, dumb.) Stop taking your news from extreme right-wing commenters only too anxious to tell you what to think.
Uninformed. No. Very well informed. Tell me how the left wing environmental wackos recommend the agriculture be practiced in order to sustain the billions occupying Earth. Organic? What a joke.
And I suggest you get your head out of the mud.
Bart says:
Junk science. Glyphosate is not a cancer threat.
The EU thinks it’s dangerous. What do you know that they do not?
Dr. Spenser’s Blog Readers, I’ve written a post to address the Social Media Censorship I wanted to share with you.
Comprehensive Climate Change Debating Points and Graphics; Bring It Social Media Giants. This is Your Opportunity to Do Society Some Real Good
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/comprehensive-climate-change-debating-points-and-graphics-bring-it-social-media-giants-this-is-your-opportunity-to-do-society-some-real-good/
I agree with what is recorded below:
“Believe it or not, the real impact CO2 has on the atmosphere is to COOL it. That isnt a TYPO, CO2 actually has worked to COOL the atmosphere, and the above graphic proves it. The Greenhouse Gas Effect is measured by the amount of outgoing Long Wave IR measured in W/M^2. The Blue in the above graphic represents more energy leaving the atmosphere or a greater outgoing flux. The amount of Blue exceeds the amount of Red, so CO2 has actually worked to COOL the layer of the atmosphere where we can isolate the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere, the water vapor free Stratosphere. Even if the Stratosphere did warm over that period, there certainly is not a linear trend to the stratosphere, either warming or cooling.”
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/comprehensive-climate-change-debating-points-and-graphics-bring-it-social-media-giants-this-is-your-opportunity-to-do-society-some-real-good/
“Believe it or not, the real impact CO2 has on the atmosphere is to COOL it. That isnt a TYPO, CO2 actually has worked to COOL the atmosphere, and the above graphic proves it”
What a shame he won’t submit his work to be published and reviewed by experts, and is so shy he can’t even write under his real name.
It is published. The address is there for you to see.
ANYONE can go and read it and try to refute it.
If they are capable.!
You obviously don’t feel you have that capability.
Off you go…… or not.
Blog comments or posts aren’t science. They aren’t even CLOSE.
Nice that you finally admit it David.
So your blog and your posts here aren’t science.
You’re such a funny guy. Have you tried getting a job as a stand up comic.
Dr Roy Spencer has refuted the claim, that CO2 is only cooling the atmosphere.
Actually, CO2 is warming the lower Atmosphere, but cooling the upper atmosphere. It is the main emitter of surplus energy into the space.
In the lower atmospere it absorbing IR radiation and heating the surrounding atmospheric molecules by instant collision.
David Appell
I wrote this as an afterthought, and should have stessed the part about northern regions,
“Also, warmer in spring and autumn makes the growing season longer..likely a big benefit. Especially in the northern regions.”
******
“”Canada is one of the few countries where climate change may create some opportunities for growing crops in northern latitudes,” said Rod Bonnett, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, a lobby group representing 200,000 farmers.”
https://globalnews.ca/news/3765838/canada-climate-change-farmland/amp/
Given a peer reviewed scientist and someone from public relations, I think I’ll go with the scientist.
The peer reviewed science:
“Fig. 1 implies that warming temperatures
have potentially off-setting effects, as they reduce exposure to
freezing temperatures while simultaneously increasing exposure
to extreme heat. To evaluate which effect dominates, we predict
yield impacts for a range of uniform temperature changes across
the entire Fall−Spring growing season (Fig. 2). All scenarios
suggest that warming is associated with net yield reductions,
implying that the detrimental effect of extreme heat is larger
than the beneficial effect of freeze reduction….”
— “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/06/1415181112
It should be noted that these bumper crops are coming despite late planting in many areas in the northern region of the corn belt due to soil temperatures being too low and germination and thus emergence was delayed in other areas up to two weeks due to a dry spell after planting.
Even with those factors delaying planting and emergence in some areas the old saw about “knee high by the 4th of July” became history long ago. It’s more like tassel by the 4th of July these days.
Some of this yield is also coming at the expense of unsustainable withdrawal of water from the Ogallala aquifer.
David this truck driver has been living in and passing by fields and noting their conditions for quite awhile. I have not seen a year when the corn and soybean plants looked better than this year. That goes for the whole corn belt.
Those in the plains states outside corn belt have been pumping for irrigation out of that aquifer for decades including back when the quacks and hacks were warning of a coming ice age in the 70’s. (The USDA defines the corn belt as consisting of five states: OH, IN, IL, IA, MO)
It’s depletion is not a new story or recently emerging concern. The funny thing is that if flooding rains resulted in the aquifer being recharged to some degree you would be out there defending any quacks and hacks that claimed that it was due to climate change. If the opposite occurred and we had another severe drought like the dust bowl you would be saying ‘see that’s caused by climate change’.
David’s reading left wing knee jerk publications. Don’t argue with him.
David Appell says, “Given a peer reviewed scientist and someone from public relations, I think Ill go with the scientist.”
*******
Why do you assume the two are at odds???
Scientist: Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,.
Public relations guy: “Canada is one of the few countries where climate change may create some opportunities for growing crops in northern latitudes,
*****
Are you aware that Canada is not part of the US, and that the word “crops” refers to corn, soy beans, potatoes, etc.,…… and not just wheat?
Snape says:
Why do you assume the two are at odds???
Funny.
—
I didn’t see a speck of scientific evidence in your globalnews.ca article. Did you?
David
What’s funny? How are the two in disagreement?
The study you linked does not cover agriculture in Canada. The public relations comment does not refer to wheat yields in the US. Why do need to go with one or the other?
***
BTW, Summertime highs are not the same as the daily average. Are you not aware? In Iowa, June – August maxima is – 0.1 F / decade
And did you read this article?
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/america-s-corn-belt-making-its-own-weather
And that’s all corn cares about?
“The United Statess Corn Belt is making its own weather”
Yet another anthropogenic influence.
However, the end of that Science article doesn’t sound promising:
“This squares with a lot of other evidence, says Peter Huybers, a climate scientist at Harvard University, who calls the new study convincing. But he warns that such benefits may not last if greenhouse gas emissions eventually overpower the mitigating effect of agriculture.
“Alter agrees, and says its unlikely that the large increases in U.S. crop production during the 20th century will continue. Other scientists have voiced concern that agricultural production could soon be reaching its limit in many parts of the world.
“Food production is arguably what were more concerned about with climate change, Mueller says. And understanding how agriculture and climate will continue to affect one another is crucial for developing projections for both climate and agricultural yields. Its not just greenhouse gasses that we need to be thinking about.””
Snape
This maybe old news to you being it was published in 2014. Anyway to quote this article,
“At the peak of the growing season, says NASA, the Midwest U.S. corn belt is the most productive place on Earth—there’s more photosynthesis going on here than even in the Amazon.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/under-summer-sun-midwest-corn-belt-most-biologically-productive-place-earth-180950460
Canada extends to the arctic circle. You think agriculture there could not benefit from warmer temps?
Here’s just one of many studies:
https://www.ualberta.ca/science/science-news/2017/november/barley-crops-climate-change
Is thawed tundra able to grow crops?
Does it have sufficient nutrients?
(I really don’t know.)
Will northern Canada (boreal, now) be dry enough for crops?
(I have read that thawed tundra will release a lot of carbon — about as much carbon as plants will uptake. They cancel.)
Snape,
Some years back Canada and Russia were two major opponents of the AGW agenda. Both realized that a warming world would benefit the agriculture of their countries.
How about answering a question, instead of avoiding them ala Flynn or Huffman?
“Why do you assume the two are at odds???”
Me:
“Canada extends to the arctic circle. You think agriculture there could not benefit from warmer temps?”
That question was poorly phrased. I did not mean to suggest that tundra will be farmable anytime soon.
Should be:
“Canada is a large, generally cold country that extends all the way to the arctic circle. With this in mind, why do you think agriculture in parts of Canada could not benefit from warmer temps?”
Sadly, rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere failed to raise the global temperatures. We need the polar temperatures to rise by 18 degrees Centigrade to get back to the balmy conditions that existed 55 million years ago during the Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (aka the PETM). Alligators in Spitzbergen!
While rising CO2 disappoints when it comes to “Global Warming” it has delivered some other benefits such as the greening of the planet, increased drought resistance for many plant species and increased crop yields. Instead of rejoicing in all this good news Alarmists keep having hissy fits over an imaginary problem. For the rest of us:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/benefits-of-co2.pdf
gallopingcamel:
adding to that is that every species on earth today has its ancestry passing through or emanating from that Eocene period so could benefit from some warming especially for the sharks and fish which were frozen alive last Northern winter.
It seems this age of the adjustocene has bred new hominids – pachydermus thermo-adjustus dementus. We have some colourful players here. Micky Topolino Mannus, the hypocritical, hypersensitive pachyderm suffering delusional episodes believing climate is characterized by single weather events judging by his vociferous proclamations. He can’t even get this right as Joe Bastardi on occasions has even had to correct him suggesting he go learn some meteorology.
An essential trait is feigned super-sensitivity clothing the thickest pachyderm walking the earth. This does create humour like Mickey’s denial that he referred to Judith Curry as a denier despite his documents calling her such. He defines his science as his personal feeling of being right and that proofs are only for geometry and alcohol.
Many of these pachyderms believe they are ordained to save the world from the excesses of mundane humans. In truth these are modern day Crusaders for the Cause; Don Quixote eat your heart out. But boy can they act and sell their toxic brew creating a world of fake science.
Nice comment. Amen to all that.
To all those that say this is due to technology… and not global warming. I say without fossil fuels that cause global warming we would not have the technology for better corn growth. So Fossil fuels could cause global warming, but they also have caused a enormous increase in technology and science. And cutting them out could cause harmful effects to future technology and science.
How to stop CO2 production during the solar minimum? Can not. Whats more, this CO2 will cool the troposphere!
Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following reaction:
n + 14/7N→ 14/6C + p
The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
The rate of 14C production can be modelled[12] [13] and is between 16,400 and 18,800 atoms 14C m^−2 s^−1, which agrees with the global carbon budget that can be used to backtrack, but attempts to directly measure the production rate in situ were not very successful. Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux caused by the heliospheric modulation (solar wind and solar magnetic field), and due to variations in the Earths magnetic field.
The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
You make a big mistake by not appreciating the role of the stratosphere in climate change. The increase in GCR causes an increase in ionization in the lower stratosphere, depending on the geomagnetic field. This leads to a local temperature increase in the lower stratosphere at high latitudes. It will increase stratospheric intrusions in winter and spring periods.
Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
Total ozone in the southern hemisphere.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00969/ii4m04q8lrop.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
GCR radiation is almost at the level of 2009.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
Noctilucent clouds form when summertime wisps of water vapor rise to the top of the atmosphere and wrap themselves around specks of meteor smoke. Mesospheric winds assemble the resulting ice crystals into NLCs. In 2017 a heat wave in the mesosphere melted those crystals, causing a brief “noctilucent blackout.” Could something similar, but opposite, be happening now? Perhaps a cold spell in the mesosphere is extending the season. Another possibility is the solar cycle. Previous studies have shown that NLCs sometimes intensify during solar minimum. Solar minimum conditions are in effect now as the sun has been without spots for 30 of the past 31 days.
LATE-SEASON SURGE IN NOCTILUCENT CLOUDS: Noctilucent clouds (NLCs) are behaving strangely. Normally, NLCs begin to dim in late July, then fade away completely as August unfolds. It is their seasonal pattern. This year, though, the night-shining clouds are surging as July comes to an end. “We had a mind-blowing display of noctilucent clouds display on July 26th,” reports Kairo Kiitsak, who sends this picture from Simuna, Estonia:
http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=28&month=07&year=2018
Influence of geomagnetic activity on mesopause temperature over Yakutia
Galina Gavrilyeva and Petr Ammosov
Yu. G. Shafer Institute for Cosmophysical Research and Aeronomy SB RAS, 677098, Yakutsk, Russian Federation
Received: 13 Jun 2017 Discussion started: 04 Oct 2017 Revised: 29 Jan 2018 Accepted: 31 Jan 2018 Published: 08 Mar 2018
Abstract. The long-term temperature changes of the mesopause region at the hydroxyl molecule OH (6-2) nighttime height and its connection with the geomagnetic activity during the 23rd and beginning of the 24th solar cycles are presented. Measurements were conducted with an infrared digital spectrograph at the Maimaga station (63N, 129.5E). The hydroxyl rotational temperature (TOH) is assumed to be equal to the neutral atmosphere temperature at the altitude of ∼ 87km. The average temperatures obtained for the period 1999 to 2015 are considered. The season of observations starts at the beginning of August and lasts until the middle of May. The maximum of the seasonally averaged temperatures is delayed by 2 years relative to the maximum of the solar radio emission flux (wavelength of 10.7cm), and correlates with a change in geomagnetic activity (Ap index). Temperature grouping in accordance with the geomagnetic activity level showed that in years with high activity (Ap>8), the mesopause temperature from October to February is about 10K higher than in years with low activity (Ap<=8). Cross-correlation analysis showed no temporal shift between geomagnetic activity and temperature. The correlation coefficient is equal to 0.51 at the 95% level.
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/3363/2018/
From IPCC AR4, WGII, SPM part C.’Current Knowledge about future impacts: North America’.
“Moderate climate change in the early decades of the century is projected to increase aggregate yields of rain-fed agriculture by 5-20%, but with important variability among regions. Major challenges are projected for crops that are near the warm end of their suitable range or which depend on highly utilised water resources. ** D [14.4]”
Also:-
“Warming in western mountains is projected to cause decreased snowpack, more winter flooding, and reduced summer flows, exacerbating competition for over-allocated water resources…
Disturbances from pests, diseases and fire are projected to have increasing impacts on forests, with an extended period of high fire risk and large increases in area burned…
Cities that currently experience heatwaves are expected to be further challenged by an increased number, intensity and duration of heatwaves during the course of the century, with potential for adverse health impacts. Elderly populations are most at risk….”
That’s not bad forecasting!
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spmsspm-c-12-north-america.html
TFN
TFN,
Like all fortune selling hucksters, completely useless prognostication.
I predict a fair coin will come down heads or tails, and I predict the probability of either outcome as 0.5!
True, but completely useless.
I assume your point is that the pseudoscience of climatology has produced nothing of benefit to man nor beast. If so, you have made your point.
Cheers.
“…climate change scenarios suggest that the 2012 outcomes will soon be the new normal”
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18659
Quick. Quick.
Borrow all you can. Mortgage yourself to the hilt.
Invest in corn futures, and leverage yourself to the maximum!
Make a fortune. What could possibly go wrong?
Cheers,
In four days, the temperature will drop over Hudson Bay and the Great Lakes.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00969/i5awze3a4q3o.png
Roy wrote (in the headline):
“Make Agriculture Great Again”
Roy, when was agriculture last great, and why hasn’t it been great between then and now?
David,
Such a typical comment from you. Are you really that obtuse or is your head really stuck in the mud.
L,
David has tantrums – in the form of uncontrollable gotchas.
He is really that obtuse, but his head appears firmly embedded in his anus – or possibly that of someone like Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann.
In a figurative sense, of course.
Cheers.
Suddenly it struck me. The Keeling curve ([CO2] vs time) continues relentlessly upward yet the temperature does not. The correlation is close to nil.
Finally we have something that correlates with the Keeling curve.
Corn yield and soybean production correlates (R=0.90) with [CO2].
Plus wheat yields look healthy as well over the previous 17 years. …https://www.statista.com/statistics/190356/wheat-yield-per-harvested-acre-in-the-us-from-2000/
Thank you, I’ve recently been searching for info about this topic for
a long time and yours is the best I have discovered till now.
However, what about the conclusion? Are you sure about the source?
You will also find that the science fiction that Ghesquire has always been obsessed with actually has options to attract colors, and the combination with science fiction also coincides with the show.
Wow, incredible blog layout! How long have you been blogging for?
you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your web site is wonderful,
as well as the content!
Very well presented. Every quote was awesome and thanks for sharing the content. Keep sharing and keep motivating others.
PARAMAX LX-2800 (giá bán lẻ đề xuất: 10.590.000 đ/ cặp)