This sentence…
“One of the panel’s most striking new conclusions is that rising temperatures are already depressing crop yields, including those of corn and wheat. In the coming decades, farmers may not be able to grow enough food to meet the demands of the world’s growing population, it warns.”
…is in this LA Times story by babout the latest IPCC report which has so much gloom and doom in it, one of the lead authors, Dr. Richard Tol, asked his name to be taken off of it for that very reason.
Problem is, the agricultural data doesn’t match the LATimes/IPCC claim, see for yourself:
Source: USDA data at http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/ plotted by Dr. Roy Spencer.
Not only is the LATimes/IPCC claim about agriculture false for the world, but also the USA:
Source: USDA Data here compiled by Dr. Mark J. Perry at the Carpe Diem blog.
In fact, U.S. Corn Yields Have Increased Six Times Since the 1930s and Are Estimated to Double By 2030 according to Perry.
Note that temperatures in the US Corn belt aren’t rising, but models are, and as we know, the IPCC prefers model output over reality.
Source: USHCN data from NOAA, CMIP5 model data plotted by Dr. Roy Spencer
Why is it that checking such simple facts are left to bloggers and independent thinkers like Roy Spencer, instead of “professional” journalists like ?
Maybe he’s just too lazy to check facts like this? Or, is it belief mixed with incompetence?
” Mike Bromley the Kurd says: April 1, 2014 at 11:30 am
Boy, today has been a deluge of April Foolery. I wish it were actual April Foolery, but unfortunately the internet is clogged with Klimate Kooks all blathering their recited meme verses, in response to the PERFECTLY-timed IPCC release. I feel ill.”
Fixed it for you. No charge 🙂
Happy April Fools day everyone.
“…first victim of facts that don’t agree with claims.”
You mean the first victim today don’t you?
There has been an almost endless procession since the day CAGW was proclaimed “settled science”.
Im sure there is lots of money greasing the presses and TV coverage. The newscaster I watched (she’s good) never even grinned when this number 1 headline story about how we will all be cooked by Global Warming and its getting worst after the winter we have had.
re: Mumbles McGuirck says April 1, 2014 at 12:23 pm
… The Weather Channel … furiously promoting the IPCC presser and all the scare mongering over global warming. Without any sense of irony they then went directly into the blizzard warnings for an ice storm … on March 31st. Hullo??
TWC: Proven to be 1) impervious to facts; 2) resistant to logic; 3) and now, immune to the irony …
.
“…rising temperatures are already depressing crop yields…”
Barboza is deliberately spreading propaganda on this issue just like the media has done on other global-warming issues like increases in extreme weather and accelerating temperatures. None of those things are currently happening, but the average college student is convinced they are because of the persistent lies, I mean messaging, of the main-stream media. Barboza doesn’t want to fact check his reports or he is knowingly lying. Either way, it’s clear that he believes alarmism for the cause is more important than reporting facts.
WUWT says, “Why is it that checking such simple facts are left to bloggers and independent thinkers like Roy Spencer, instead of “professional” journalists like Tony Barboza?”
Protect Freedom: No Multinational Control of the Internet.
Dear President Obama and Members of Congress,
America has kept the Internet free for decades. There is no reason to trust that dictators from Russia and China will protect our freedoms. Maintain American control and protect our online liberty.
http://aclj.org/free-speech-2/dont-let-dictators-control-internet-keep-web-free
@ur momisugly Mike Maguire, April 1, 2014 at 1:07 pm: “CO2 has had the exact polar opposite effect on agriculture as stated. Indisputable benefits in the trillions.”
FYI. Here is what the IPCC WG II report says:
In addition to effects of changes in climatic conditions, there are clear effects of changes in atmospheric composition on crops. Increase of atmospheric CO2 by over 100 ppm since pre-industrial times has virtually certainly enhanced water use efficiency and yields, especially for C3 crops such as wheat and rice, although these benefits played a minor role in driving overall yield trends (Amthor, 2001; McGrath and Lobell, 2011).
Emissions of CO2 often are accompanied by ozone (O3) precursors that have driven a rise in tropospheric O3 that harms crop yields (Morgan et al., 2006; Mills et al., 2007; 7.3.2.1.2). Elevated O3 since pre-industrial times has very likely suppressed global production of major crops compared to what they would have been without O3 increases, with estimated losses of roughly 10% for wheat and soybean and 3-5% for maize and rice (Van Dingenen et al., 2009). Impacts are most severe over India and China (Van Dingenen et al., 2009, Avnery et al. 2011), but are also evident for soybean and maize in the United States (Fishman et al., 2010).
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap7_FGDall.pdf
What the IPCC report is saying, then, is that yields would have been higher were it not for “warming” and that there are a number of publications which they are relying on for this. Well, looking at the trends on the figures Anthony has included here (thanks to Roy for the work) these trends are pretty stable over the past 60 or so years. That would mean they were expecting an increase above a stable 60 year trend.
I wonder where these studies were getting their trend increase? Models perhaps?
Rocky Balboa could probably have written a more accurate piece.
These buffoons carry on like they are bitches to the cause in some intellectual prison. They are so weak and trapped by their own idiocy will offer the cause a blow job without any inducement at all let alone reflection on what they have become. What pathetic people.
Agricultural production seems to be going up at the same rate as CO2, unlike the temperature of the planet, which seems to be quite independent of CO2 levels. It looks like we could do with more CO2 to increase agricultural production to feed people. It won’t affect the temperature at all.
Lasse Hallström sums this up neatly in the movie Shipping news. In the absence of trailer I quote Robert J. Maxwell:
‘Spacey gets a job at the local newspaper. His assignment: write the shipping news, detailing which ships enter and leave port, and throw in any relevant bits of information…His career as journalist progresses, punctuated by the headlines he gradually learns to compose. An older colleague takes him to the shore, tells him to look at the horizon, and describe what he sees. “There are some mountains — and a lot of dark clouds,” ventures Spacey. “Nope: IMMINENT STORM THREATENS VILLAGE,” says his mentor. “But what if it doesn’t come?” Spacey asks. Answer: “DANGEROUS STORM SPARES VILLAGE.”‘
“One of the panel’s most striking new conclusions is that rising temperatures are already depressing crop yields, including those of corn and wheat. In the coming decades, farmers may not be able to grow enough food to meet the demands of the world’s growing population, it warns.”
These are predictions/forecasts/prophecies that can also be fulfilled by bad government policy and environmental activist attacks on agriculture and water use.
Not only that, recent history shows that agricultural reforms by authoritarian/collectivist governments in N. Korea, Cuba, Romania, Cambodia, China, Germany and Russia have been the greatest threat to agricultural output and these agricultural reforms are a known method for governments who kill their own citizens.
Another threat to Ceres are huge banks, such as Goldman Sachs, who trade in “futures” in commodities. These banks do not need to be gaming the worldwide prices of everyday items/necessities such as fruit, grains, and other foods. Commodities futures should not include food items.
The greatest danger to food supplies is from governments and the model that does not acknowledge that fact is a coverup of mass murderers in the 1900’s.
Never heard of Tony Barboza before. Hector Barbossa would get away with this by stating the professional code to be more like guidelines, not to be taken literally.
Excellent job by Anthony, Roy and the other contributors. Thanks!
where’s the primal scream icon ….. See, the models agree, CO2 is a poisonous pollutant. Even small trace amounts of CO2 ill cause irreversible climate change (i.e. too hot / too cold) with a greater certainty than less than certain. Exceeding 450 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the poles to melt, glaciers to recede, crops to fail because rain will not fall, polar bears will drown. Hmmm did I miss anything. I want to know HOW does the IPCC et al KNOW with 98% certainty that man produced CO2 will do all these things? Where is the proof the connection the clearly verifiable link that elevated amounts of CO2 will cause deserts to overtake farmland, globally? Honestly, this simple question is burning a hole in the IPCC report and causing policy to burn a hole in our collective pockets!
Slightly off topic I encountered a climate scientist out having drinks at a local establishment I frequent. We got to talking and wow she shut me down when I said the models failed to predict the last 17 yrs of flat lined global temps. First she said the models are spot on then she said there was no pause and then she said she will not speak to me about it, end of discussion. Just thought yall would appreciate that.
There you go again, addressing Climate Reality with scientific facts again. So inappropriate. Climate Reality, as everyone knows, is incontrovertible because it has been tweeted and re-tweeted so often.
FYI. Here is what the IPCC WG II report says:”
The link with the strongest correlation……………. is the one between increasing CO2 and increasing studies that speculate, postulate, theorize, estimate, model, project and forecast the harm that will occur from human emissions of CO2.
Somebody should model this correlation and the money that is generated to fund it, along with the non scientific repercussions intended vs the much lower correlation between the conclusions of the research and the authentic empirical data that represents the realm of the real world.
This paper below, though pertaining to medical studies, hits on some common elements with the widespread false climate science research results we’ve seen the last 2 decades.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124
That last post was in response to Mark’s, which just provided parts of the IPCC report for me.
Tony Barbozo also redates the beginning of AGW back to the 1800’s. I note, that there’s been a trend in this sleight of hand recently. “The science guy said it too.”
First, the IPCC is quite clear. In their most recent report, AR5, they repeatedly refer to having confidence of anthropogenic fingerprints on GW and other suspected climate change issues, since 1950.
From NASA’s Global Climate Change – Consensus Page – http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus, where the summary statements of some 18 favorable to the ACC argument are posted, we find the following statements:
I note that in introducing this “consensus site of theirs, NASA makes reference to “warming over the past century. ” That would take us back to 1914 – not late 1800’s.
American Geophysical Union – Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years
American Meteorological Society – the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced
The Geological Society of America – global climate has warmed and that human activities . . account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.
International academies: Joint statement – It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).” [recent decades certainly is not since “late 1800’s]
U.S. Global Change Research Program – “The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Tony Barboza – The Earth has warmed by about 1.5 degrees since the late 1800s because of the buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels, industrial activity
Making it up to fit their agenda as they go.
@ur momisugly Mike Maguire
That’s an interesting paper. I will read it. It applies to individual studies not reviews of the literature. But it still looks interesting. Thanks.
Corn you mean Maize. It’s not grown in very cold temperate regions. It originally came from South America, like a lot of our fruit and veggies came from. In PNG, they had gardens that grew not cereal crops but Taro and yams, that gave them what carbohydrates they needed. I have grown corn in my garden but its quicker to buy it from the supermarket.
Wheat and rice is what we need. And they need rain.
I watched a documentary last night, and it said that workers in Asia were getting killed by a dangerous snake. There they were walking in thongs and sandals why not protection with gaiters and boots. Wellington boots would also provide protection.
Don’t bother complaining to the L.A. Times. This bastion of free speech no longer accepts letters from “deniers.”