In the middle of the "hottest year ever" come record wheat harvests

From the “Paul Ehrlich is still spectacularly wrong” department:

Malthus Chokes on Bumper Wheat Crop

A generation after leading scientists and experts warned the world of an escalating series of horrendous famines, the crop gluts continue. The latest kick in the pants to the Malthusian doomsayers is a bumper global wheat harvest. Defying not only the Club of Rome doomsayers, but also the climate Chicken Littles who have been warning about damage from rising temperatures to world agriculture, food production is booming even as meteorologists call July 2016 the hottest month ever.

The FT reports:

Extensive planting and benign weather have forced analysts to repeatedly raise crop outlooks. The International Grains Council last week increased its global wheat production forecast to a record 743m tonnes, up 1 per cent from last year. […]

The recent US winter wheat harvest was 45m tonnes, up 21 per cent from 2015, according to the US Department of Agriculture. Merchants who have run out of room in silos are piling wheat outdoors.Storage concerns are also growing in Russia, which is this year set to become the largest wheat exporter after hauling in more than 70m tonnes. In Canada, the government anticipates the second-largest wheat crop in 25 years, of 30.5m tonnes. Australia’s imminent wheat harvest is forecast at 26.5m tonnes, the most in five years.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t problems and worries in the world, but the combination of human ingenuity and the complexity of natural systems means that science is never quite as settled as publicity seeking scare mongers want people to think.

That good news is from The American Interest

But wait, there’s more:

From Marketwatch, record low wheat prices after harvest forecasts have been bumped up:


December wheat WZ6, +1.14% fell 4 cents, or 1%, to settle at $3.88 1/4 a bushel in Chicago. Prices, based on the most-active contracts, logged their lowest settlement since August 2006 and ended around 4% lower for the month, to tally a year-to-date loss of almost 17%, according to FactSet data.

Harvest pressure here and abroad, record [crop] yields in the U.S., a record crop in Russia are all weighing on the markets,” said David Maloni, president of the American Restaurant Association Inc.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture raised its estimate on Russian wheat production for the current crop year by 7 million metric tons to 72 million metric tons, citing “[e]xcellent growing conditions throughout the country and harvest reports showing very high yields.” It said that Russia is expected to be the world’s largest wheat exporter for the first time.

Meanwhile over at the National Climatic Data Center, they see worrisome temperature in bright red colors over Russia all year, saying it was the second warmest July ever.



290 thoughts on “In the middle of the "hottest year ever" come record wheat harvests

  1. I’m sure some warmist somewhere will claim that the quality of the wheat harvest has suffered because of CAGW, not the quantity. ;->

  2. Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Record coffee crops, record rice crops, record general grain crops and now record wheat harvest – all in “The Hottest Year Evah” !?
    Surely the experts are right when they constantly scare us that “global warming” will bring pestilence, drought, social unrest, global upheaval and food shortages?
    Or is it all meant to scare us into belief, and in the real world ~0.9C temp rise over past 150 years, combined with technology and innovation provided by fossil fuel energy efficiency, is not such a catastrophic thing?

  3. About 10 days ago I drove through the middle of the corn belt and both the corn and soybeans are looking very good. More records with these crops are also very possible.

    • Corn and soybeans, yes. Wheat, no.
      BTW, gluten isn’t a joke for those of us who are intolerant.

    • Isn’t gluten free?
      Gluten intolerance – the food industry finally got out in front of the medical profession on something, and told ’em “Shut up and get outta the way, we’re running with this one, no matter what you say!” The medical profession tries (quietly) to downplay the fad, saying that very few people are actually gluten intolerant or, even more rarely, celiacs. But the food industry slaps “gluten free” on every label they possibly can. “Just follow the money”.

      • Yup, the big supermarkets are all over something that gives them some extra product differentiation as a way to raise prices and margins.
        As with GM food, I’m OK with that as long as clear choices are available to the consumer. Greens should be allowed to pay more for food if they want to.

  4. The warmest July ever – with respect to a 1981-2010 base period. I guess “ever” starts way back in 1981.

    • Actually, no. The base period is just used to calculate anomalies. Depending on the record, “ever” can start well before the base period, e.g. the instrumental record extends back into the 18th century, and the claim of “hottest ever” often goes back to before the 1930’s, but only after “adjusting” the data to get rid of the highest temps of the 1930’s.

      • Yes, and anybody who thinks we can accurately measure “global” temperature to tenths of a degree today, let alone 150 years ago, is either ignorant, foolish, or dishonest.

    • That chart you see at the top of the post is a MODELED chart,with large areas of made up data which are always warmer than average. There is little data in most of Africa, yet that have almost all of it in shade of warm.
      Satellite data is much better.

  5. Efficient Farmers are getting the shaft now by the low prices. But the market is brutal and self-correcting in the long run.
    But In 3-5 more years, when the NH cold sets in and Russian harvests fail (like they did in the 70’s new Ice Age), things will be different. But NASA/GISS and NOAA/NCDC will make sure to erase that cold from the “official” anomaly and then blame crop failures on their “hottest year evah” propaganda while the truth is hidden in the west by a complicit media. Internet blogs like WUWT and other skeptic web sites will have been shutdown by then under orders from the UN, which will have global control of internet domain name resolutions.
    History will record, these are the good old days. cheap gas, jump in the car and go on an affordable long trip, go to the store and buy fruit and vegetables from the other side of the world in your supermarket.
    What will happen: Too many men, acting as cowards, stood by and did nothing while the Obama-Socialist-Communists lied their ass-off and spent us and our children into debtors poverty with loans from China and the promise of green energy.

  6. I travel to Western Australia for wheat,barley and canola harvest on a friend’s farm. Have received pics of the crops,which looks like they are going to have the best crops ever. Harvests of grapes and kiwi fruit in New Zealand this year are at an all time high.

      • Humble
        1 : not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive. 2 : reflecting.
        But this is pointless… at this point.
        The point is… we (science) really have no idea where the sun is headed for SC25. Many honest science groups differ on the direction. It could be stronger than SC 24, it could ’bout the same, or SC25 could be hibernation time.
        But We can assign probabilities today from what we know, but that does not mean “snake eyes” won’t show up on the actual dice. And the reality that current obs are not meeting models suggests new models are needed.

        • we (science) really have no idea where the sun is headed for SC25.
          But we do. Lots of ideas, most of them quite wrong, but some are grounded in good physics and have shown their worth the last four cycles and in hindcast the last 9 cycles.

      • 9 cycles is ’bout a hundred years. So We really have no clue about what the sun is about to serve us in the next cycle or 2. Maunder type? Dalton type? Maybe IGY57 super cycle?
        Roll the dice.
        I rest my case.

      • L,
        There you go with that dissing the humble thing… again.
        Really at your age, you should not be so dismissive.
        Yes, I read your pdf slides. Just one data point.
        Curemudgeon is not an adjective I would apply easily to you.
        But still…

        • You may have read something, but it didn’t register well enough.
          And there is no need to be humbler than the situation warrants.
          And it is not really up to you to comment on my character. Stick to the science, if you can.

    • Dr Leif,
      Are you ready to join the kind Dr Hathaway in the dustbin of failed SC prognosticators?
      SC24 did not “perform” as the good Dave predicted. You were lucky (blind squirrel theory) with SC24. Now You predict SC25 as strong (or maybe slightly higher) than SC24 based on N-S magnetic strength to date.
      So I ask you, what about the current solar state is meeting predictions?
      Not exactly behaving to predictions. And the divergence widens.
      Science and ignorance of the experts and all that Feynman “drivel.”
      Me thinks you will prove the good Dr Feynman correct.

      • On this topic, for SC24 I believe there were around 105 predictions made. Does anyone know how many have been made for SC25 so far?

      • Dr Leif,
        I have read through all your website pdf”s that I can mine for. info and understanding the SOA solar physics.
        Don’t get me wrong. I respect your adherence to dara and theory grounded in data.
        it’s the shortness of our human observation of solar quantitative parameters I question rhe furure conclusions. Dr Harbaway had his share in glory. Now I jusr question your throwing stones at Archibald’s glass house when rhe sun is not outputting to models.

        • when rhe sun is not outputting to models
          But it is. At least to ‘my’ model [which is the Babcock theory of solar activity]. The plots you show are from NOAA. When we had the sunspot prediction panel back in 2007, the panel was initially split with a high prediction [ca. 140] and a low prediction [ca. 70]. The panel could not agree, and the final result was to take a weighted mean of the low and the high values [ca. 90]. This was IMO too high, but I was overruled. Now we know that the low prediction [mostly mine] was the correct one. To summarize: the polar field precursor method introduced by me and colleagues almost 40 years ago is today recognized to be the most accurate one we have, having been correct now for four cycles. If we are correct for SC25 too, that will strongly suggest that we have finally figured out how to predict the cycle, and that the physics on which it is based actually works as advertised. But there will always be some doubt [diminishing with each correct prediction] as science is never ‘settled’, but so far, so good.

      • sorry for the typos. My iphone screen is too small and my eyes need stronger reading glasses.
        Leif, your arrogance is off-putting when you tell others to “educate themselves.” Despite your age, you would be wise to be more realize you have to suffer many fools here to post at WUWT, but humble is always to your benefit.

      • Furthermore Dr Svalgaard,
        You arrogantly posted a pdf slide presentation. But you failed to address to the question that is staring you in the face.
        SC24 closeout (or incipient SC24 if you prefer) is not performing on GSN or F10.7 to models. Why the heck do you really think that polar N-S magnetics now predicts anything?
        I can accept a “we are in unknown territory answer.”
        An answer that “SC25 will just as strong or stronger than SC24” is pure BS speculation handwaving.

      • From
        “2.2 Polar precursors
        Direct measurements of the magnetic field in the polar areas of the Sun have been available from Wilcox Observatory since 1976 (Svalgaard et al., 1978; Hoeksema, 1995). Even before a significant amount of data had been available for statistical analysis, solely on the basis of the Babcock–Leighton scenario of the origin of the solar cycle, Schatten et al. (1978) suggested that the polar field measurements may be used to predict the amplitude of the next solar cycle. Data collected in the four subsequent solar cycles have indeed confirmed this suggestion. As it was originally motivated by theoretical considerations, this polar field precursor method might also be a considered a model-based prediction technique. […]
        The shortness of the available direct measurement series represents a difficulty when it comes to finding empirical correlations to solar activity. This problem can to some extent be circumvented by the use of proxy data. For instance, Obridko and Shelting (2008) use Hα synoptic maps to reconstruct the polar field strength at the source surface back to 1915. Spherical harmonic expansions of global photospheric magnetic measurements can also be used to deduce the field strength near the poles. The use of such proxy techniques permits a forecast with a sufficiently restricted error bar to be made, despite the shortness of the direct polar field data set. The polar fields reach their maximal amplitude near minima of the sunspot cycle. In its most commonly used form, the polar field precursor method employs the value of the polar magnetic field strength (typically, the absolute value of the mean field strength poleward of 55 degree latitudes, averaged for the two hemispheres) at the time of sunspot minimum. It is indeed remarkable that despite the very limited available experience, forecasts using the polar field method have proven to be consistently in the right range for cycles 21, 22, and 23 (Schatten and Sofia, 1987; Schatten et al., 1996).”

      • From an earlier comment:
        “on the basis of the Babcock–Leighton scenario of the origin of the solar cycle, Schatten et al. (1978) suggested that the polar field measurements may be used to predict the amplitude of the next solar cycle. Data collected in the four subsequent solar cycles have indeed confirmed this suggestion. ”
        “It is indeed remarkable that despite the very limited available experience, forecasts using the polar field method have proven to be consistently in the right range for cycles 21, 22, and 23 [and now 24]”
        So we [at least some of us] do know how to predict the solar cycle. No humility needed or wanted. Success is its own reward.

      • Extrapolation of a generalised envelope’s amplitude undulations, for the previous 20 or so cycles’ gives a rough idea of the future cycles’ intensity range.
        The method ( devised in 2003, published in 2004) proved extremely accurate for the SC24 (perhaps an ‘ incredible coincidence’).
        At the time projection (SC24max ~ 80) was at the opposite end of the scale to the NASA’s estimate at the time (SC22 – the highest ever). After some investigation into it inclining plotting the equation, the NASA’s expert swiftly rejected possibility of low SC24.
        The envelope extrapolation indicates that the SC25 will be well below the SC24’s peak.

      • Given the fact that no one is capable of accurately predicting the “length-in-years” of the next Solar Cycle ## ……. or even the current SC ##, whichever one it might be at the time, …… thus it is asinine to claim that one is capable of accurately predicting what that Nuclear Furnace at the center of our Solar System is going to be doing during the next 5 or 35 years.
        And one look-see at the following PROXY graph of Sunspot Cycles’ Amplitudes should impress (record) that FACT in the DNA of a few of the viewer’s brain neurons, ….. to wit:

        • claim that one is capable of accurately predicting what that Nuclear Furnace at the center of our Solar System is going to be doing during the next 5 or 35 years.
          Solar activity is not generated in the Nuclear Furnace but nearer the surface of the sun, and we have successfully predicted the last four cycles.

      • @ Samuel C Cogar
        Mr. Cogar
        Thank you for your observation and comment
        You talk about prediction, there is no such word in my comment, I said:
        ” Extrapolation of a generalised envelope’s amplitude undulations ”.
        There is a difference between extrapolation and prediction.
        Extrapolation = extension of a graph, curve, or range of values by inferring unknown values from trends in the known data.
        Prediction = estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future.
        Hope that above helps.
        @ lsvalgaard
        Thank you for your observation and comment
        Dr. Svalgaard I said :
        ” Extrapolation of a generalised envelope’s amplitude undulations ”.
        ‘Generalised’ usually means ‘in general’ and not every single case, but a majority of cases.
        Hope that above helps too.
        @ Samuel C Cogar & lsvalgaard
        It should be noted that “nothing that human mind may consider, in its current stage of development, is certain for certain”.
        Or as Bertrand Russell put it:
        “One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid ….”
        Mind you he was brought up by his grandmother.

        • ‘Generalised’ usually means ‘in general’ and not every single case, but a majority of cases.
          No, actually, it means “not limited to a particular area or part”, so covers all cases. But an extrapolation that fails in several cases is a sign that it was spurious to begin with.

      • Most of definitions I found on the web contradict your view, describing ‘it as a qualifying statement acknowledging that there are exceptions.
        Oxford dictionary: “Considering or including only the main features or elements of something; not exact or detailed”.

        • No, it means just the opposite of what you think. Namely “Make or become more widely or generally applicable”. Or “Make a general or broad statement by inferring from specific cases”. I.e. inferring something to hold from specific examples.
          In any case, your linguistic excuses just cover up the fact that your formula fails when applied before the year 1800, as well as for the years in the 1960s [the small cycle 20] which according to your formula should have been the largest cycle of all. It is not surprising that extrapolations fail when they are not based on physics.

      • So sayith: vukcevic

        Mr. Cogar
        Thank you for your observation and comment
        You talk about prediction, there is no such word in my comment, I said:
        Extrapolation of a generalised envelope’s amplitude undulations, for the previous 20 or so cycles
        There is a difference between extrapolation and prediction

        Mr. vukcevic,
        Given your above, do you truly believe you should be giving me a “lesson” in verbiage usage?
        Isn’t it kinda “basackward” for one to be claiming “extrapolating in reverse”?
        So sayith: lsvalgaard

        Solar activity is not generated in the Nuclear Furnace but nearer the surface of the sun, and we have successfully predicted the last four cycles.

        Mr. Isvalgaard,
        Did ya’ll successfully predict that DRASTICALLY REDUCED Sunspot Cycles’ Amplitude that occurred about 1970 as defined on the above graph?
        HUH, HUH, HUH? And if not, just what the ell went wrong with ya’lls “predicting powers”?
        Mr. vukcevic, Mr. Isvalgaard, …… ya’ll really need to start thinking and talking actual, factual science ……. instead of “blowing smoke” at me in a futile attempt to impress me with your brilliance.
        Cheers, Sam Cogar, the ole “computer dinosaur”, …. AB Degree, Physical and Biological Sciences, GSC, 1962.

      • So sayith: lsvalgaard

        I [and others] did. (predict)

        Mr. Isvalgaard,
        Did ya’ll predict that DRASTICALLY REDUCED Sunspot Cycles’ Amplitude that occurred about 1970 as defined on the above graph (reposted below) …… prior to the beginning of that Solar Cycle, ….. say PRIOR to 1965?
        Or did ya’ll wait until post-1965 to make your prediction?
        Prove your “predicting powers” by predicting right now, this week, …. the maximum Sunspot Cycles’ Amplitude for the post-2020 SC.
        Ya know, Isvalgaard, …… or do ya, …… that its quite easy to predict the “winner” of a horse race once the lead horse(s) are past the ¾ mark and in the “home stretch” ….. than it is to predict the “winner” of a horse race several hours before the race has even begun.
        So TESTIFY, gimme your “prediction” for the max amplitude of the post-2020 SC.

        • Or did ya’ll wait until post-1965 to make your prediction?
          Prior to 1978 I was not in sunspot prediction business as also our knowledge of the sun back then was not good enough for this. We have learned something since then, e.g. to measure the polar fields. But since the solar cycle is a physical phenomenon, post-diction [i.e. predicting the past from observations of the past] is a validation of the technique. If the postdiction turns out right, then there is a good chance that the method works in the future [which it turned out to do]. If the postdiction was wrong, the method does not work and cannot be used for the future.
          Prove your “predicting powers” by predicting right now, this week, …. the maximum Sunspot Cycles’ Amplitude for the post-2020 SC.
          It is a bit too early for that as we need to be a year or two further along in the current cycle for a good prediction of the next cycle as we need the polar fields to stabilize. But we can already say that the next cycle will not be smaller than the current cycle: and possibly a bit higher, as the polar fields can still grow.

      • So sayith: lsvalgaard

        quoting SamC: “Prove your “predicting powers” by predicting right now, this week, …. the maximum Sunspot Cycles’ Amplitude for the post-2020 SC.
        It is a bit too early for that as we need to be a year or two further along in the current cycle for a good prediction of the next cycle as we need the polar fields to stabilize.

        CRICKET, CRICKET, ….. chirp chirp, ……. “Ya know, Isvalgaard, …… or do ya, …… that its quite easy to predict the “winner” of a horse race once the lead horse is past the ¾ mark and in the “home stretch”
        When you cease with the arrogance of your perceived scientific intellect ….. then there will be no compelling need for me to be responding to your commentary via any per se “snotty comments”.

        • There is no need for you to respond to anything, snotty or not. If you can bring something of scientific value to the table, then please comment, otherwise hold your tongue.

    • We all have to face the consequences of guessing wrong now and then, it’s probably much easier when you can lean on your pedigree and papers. Lesser established fellows are noticably punished more than the star children of academia.

    • Sorry Leif, David Archibald has a long, long way to go before he is anywhere near being in the league of back-to-australopithecine vegetatively idiotic wrongness of Paul ehrlich

      • When you view yourself as perfect, it doesn’t matter how many errors others have made. The fact that they aren’t perfect is all that matters.

  7. What the brainless greenies are too unsophisticated to see is that abandoning the use of fossil fuels will quite rapidly return human technology to the stone age, an era that supported around 7 million rather than 7 billion humans. A 99.9% human free world. How many of the chardonnay- sipping, tantrum chucking diaper soiling greenies would be among that lucky or ultra tough one in a thousand that could survive?
    I suspect these useful idiots would become someone’s dinner rather quickly. As the society collapses, all the PC contraints will be out the door. Those that know who were the PC brigade/ alrmists that caused the collapse will be in very deep trouble.

    • With respect to greenies and survival, I’m reminded of “I don’t have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun YOU.” I fear that they would have no trouble out-surviving ME, so I’d rather not see the experiment run, if you don’t mind. For what it’s worth, “By share of population, the largest empire was the Achaemenid Empire, better known as the Persian Empire, which accounted for approximately 49.4 million of the world’s 112.4 million people in around 480 BC”. They weren’t using fossil fuels, and they weren’t exactly stone age either. A catastrophe, it would be; there is no need to exaggerate.

    • Do you SEE anyone “abandoning fossil fuels,” REALLY? I see dozens of glitzy brand-new big pickup trucks, and this is in the heart of raging blue-state watermelon mania. “The Narrative” is almost 100% a media phenomenon at this point; real people show no signs of belief in it. And after the ridiculous hype of a “killer storm” that never arrived this past weekend, fewer than EVER will believe ANYTHING they say!

      • With coal an nuclear power plants being decommissioned and windmills being built to replace them, it is happening now, but most don’t know it. At some point, when the electric grid is near collapse and the rolling blackouts occur, everybody will realize what has been happening and what a big mistake it was. But by then it will be too late to avoid a lot of misery and privation. Even an emergency building boom of natural gas and coal plants will take years, maybe decades to restore the system, and society, to normal. That’s if we can even prevent the collapse of our modern society that is so dependent on electricity.
        I hope I don’t live to see it, but I weep for my children and grandchildren.

    • Ironically, the alarmists will be the first to go. In a watermelon parade there is only one sun in the sky. Only one Dear Leader can stand on the stage.

  8. Heartening to hear we can still hold Norman Borlaug as a hero for the ages.
    And can reaffirm Erlich, Hansen, Mann et al as a zero for the ages. 😉

    • Erhlich, Hansen, Mann, Trenberth, Karl, Schmidt, Jones, Oreskes, Overpeck… pseudoscientists who sold their integrity for a grant/paycheck. They will be forgotten by history as all liars of their ilk are.

    • Of environmental lobbyists he stated, “some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They’ve never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they’d be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things”.[42]
      Borlaug may have given too much credit to the nature of the elitists.

      • Yes, Borlaug always worked to develop new cultivars on site.
        He met the most resistance from western environmentalists after he had been to Mexico and India, which went from being importers of wheat to net exporters, and he wanted to go to Africa. They pressured his sponsors into cutting his funding. They have always worked hard to keep agriculture from advancing in Africa. Perhaps he made his comment before that episode.

      • You just touched on another self- exposé by the environmentalists. Borlaug’s work extended human lives, which is at cross purpose to their not- so- well hidden agendas, so they vilified him and his works.

      • “On ground outside Stanford’s campus, scientists tended 132 different plots of flowers and grass, each with thousands of plants on them. Some of them got 275 extra parts per million of carbon dioxide in addition to what’s already in the air, which was about 370 parts per million when the experiment started and is now more than 400. Others got an additional 3.6 degrees of heat (2 degrees Celsius), or more water, or more nitrogen.
        Only the extra nitrogen — a byproduct of diesel engines and ammonia used as fertilizer — made plants greener.
        Field, whose study appears Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, theorizes that there’s a limit to how much carbon dioxide plants can use.”
        This seems like they were trying to isolate variables to see what individual effects would be for altered values, not trying to create a future environment. Does _any_ GCC prediction call for higher nitrogen levels? From diesel exhaust? Did they try any plots with elevated co2, temps and water, or just the co2, temps and drier conditions the warmists have always predicted? I want to see this paper when it is published, to see what their methodology was, and how they collected data, and to see if they had any reasoning for their results at variance with the “overwhelming consensus” of other researchers:

    • Brexit stay was ahead in the polls until they went leave in the ladt week.
      Don’t trust the pollsters. They are adrift in a sea of social media change where fewer have landline phones.

  9. Another problem for the profits of doom is that Hi temps are *falling*. It’s the lows that are causing the increase in the cheese wizz temps they put out. Biggest scientific fraud of all time.

  10. It’s just the tip of the snow cone, soybean yields are going to trend above average this year, corn yields look to be a bit mixed based on what I’ve seen, but still sufficient so that corn futures are still below break-even. Lots of late moisture in the upper midwest has set things up for one or two additional cuttings of alfalfa, so diary should continue to be cheap for most of the U.S., (the Califormia drought still hampers things on the west cost) … and for anyone who missed my recent posts, I’m giving away tomatoes, both beefstakes and romas, we’ve just got too many of them and the blanche-freeze production line has given way to beer tasting.

    • If we could just reduce the wet bulb temps, this would be the perfect summer. i’ve never had my pond stay within half-a-foot of the overflow all summer since it was built. Bless you El Nino.

      • My hay man just called and asked if I can take a couple of loads early–the farmers have SO MUCH HAY, they’re running out of places to store it! Bless you El Nino, seconded!

  11. I know I’m supposed to be starving to death or going extinct by now but in fact, I’m eating too well and want to lose ten pounds. Curse you global warming!

    • In all of these discussions about the “market” how come nobody mentions that monopoly is not a market place. Just go ask Cargil, Purina, and Nestle what the price of wheat is going to be next year.

      • You keep using that word, but I do not believe you know what it means.
        There is no monopoly and none of these companies has more than a tiny influence on the price of wheat, or anything else for that matter.

        • mark…at least check with wikipedia before claiming that the company that controls 25% of the grain and 22% of the beef sold in the United States is a “tiny” influence in the marketplace. 100% of all the eggs used at MacDonalds pass through Cargill so they are probably almost 100% responsible for the price that you purchase an egg mcmuffin for.

    • I detect (in Australia at least) people seeking alternatives to wheat. Perhaps consumption should be looked at. This would impact the wheat price as well.

  12. A warmer world with more rain and longer growing seasons plus extra CO2 to augment and enhance the basic process of photosynthesis – it really isn’t too difficult to figure out.

    • Extra CO2 will mean that areas that before were at best marginal for growing crops because of not enough moisture, can start producing regular crops.

  13. At the risk of alienating many here, please read chapters 1-3 in ebook Gaias Limits. The rest of the chapters have to do with CAGW. There is no doubt about greening. There is serious doubt about long term net productivity given net arible land relative to projected population.

    • I don’t doubt that at some point we will simply not have sufficient sunlight, nor land, nòr sufficient nutrients, nor sufficient water; but elevated temperatures and CO2 do not seem to be a problem. I recall articles in the 1970s suggesting that sunshine limited the world human population to a bit over 8 billion if all aspired to the daily nutrition of those in the developed West.

      • I recall that such articles from the 1970’s have been shown to be wrong about just about every single thing they predicted or calculated.

      • If the rest of the world advanced to western levels of productivity, we could easily support a population twice our current levels.
        That doesn’t even mention returning to production lands that have been allowed to go fallow because they couldn’t compete with midwestern farms.

    • “There is serious doubt about long term net productivity given net arible land relative to projected population.”
      Wherever fossil fuels permit lifestyles well beyond subsistence it’s quite clear that their populations stabilise and even shrink due to the Net Reproduction Rate of women falling below 2. What part of that demographic trend do these Greens, who believe humans other than themselves are a pestilent intrusion on their Gaia, want to throw into reverse and why? What part of EROEI that permits this don’t these modern day Luddites understand?

    • The UN only projects a couple billion more people. The UN is, as always, significantly over estimates future populations for reasons I have spelled out before.
      Most of the world is way below western productivity levels and with improved technology will over time rise up to that level.
      The western productivity levels are still increasing as technologies improve.
      There are a number of techniques waiting in the wings for crop prices to rice sufficiently to make them economical, such as hydroponic.

  14. I was a partner in a large farming and ranching operation during the 1980s. We had spectacular crops of all sorts in 1988. So long as there is adequate water for irrigation, and CO2 aids that issue, then higher temperatures lead to increased yields. Of course one can over do it, but a couple of hundred degree days over a growing season is fine. I also recall the sugar connect of beets and protein content of corn were elevated.

  15. I recently took a drive through southern Ontario (Canadian province) with my lovely wife the farm girl. She confirmed my observation that the corn was indeed not as high as an elephant’s eye.

    The same tour reported an estimated yield of 149 bpa for the province’s corn crop, which would be down sharply from the record 170.6 bpa achieved in 2015 and below the 153. 5 bpa estimated by Statistics Canada. There is no question the hot, dry weather experienced this summer during reproductive stages of the crop hurt crop potential, but the question is to what degree? DTN contributor and southern Ontario farmer Phil Shaw is sticking to his 145 bpa estimate for the crop. link

    Folks have commented that crop yields have increased over the years. Here are some statistics on grain in western Canada. The spring wheat yield in Alberta has more than doubled between 1964 and 2012. Very impressive.
    On the other hand, back in 1993 western Canada was in the grip of a drought. link Ontario farmers were shipping feed west to help their drought stricken brothers. There were alarmists predicting more drought for Saskatchewan. In the intervening two decades that hasn’t come to pass.
    Farming has always had ups and downs. That’s not going to change. Anyone who tries to read too much into one or two good years or bad years doesn’t know much.

    As the farmer who won the lottery said when asked what he was going to do with his winnings “Keep farming until it’s all gone”.

    • I agree.
      We should instead pay attention to the long term graphs of crop yields.
      Every one I have seen continues the pattern of moving from the bottom left to the top right.
      That is what is important.
      This year’s yields look to be ensuring that trend continues at the present time.

    • Saskatchewan here, Bob. We have not had a seriously dry year for about 20 years. We are expecting very high yields and good quality this year as harvest is underway. If anything, it’s too wet! We have a number of lakes that have been growing the last few years and swallowing farmland. It hasn’t been this wet for 50 years.

      • Fascinating that most of nature displays cycles that exceed the average human lifespan, yet we want to zip climate into a 3 decade span. That’s about as far a middle aged human can remember with much clarity. There is a need to redefine climate as opposed to weather.

  16. ” also the climate Chicken Littles who have been warning about damage from rising temperatures to world agriculture”
    Those chicken littles include ivory tower giants like Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University who says that AGW will reduce agro yields and kill off the poor countries. To hedge that bet he also proposed that the solution to AGW is for the rich countries to pay the undeveloped countries to stay undeveloped. We can’t have all those billiyuns and billiyuns of asians and africans all running refrigerators and driving cars can we?

  17. For such a despicable, reprehensible example of Homo sapiens sapiens, Paul Ehrlich deserves to stand head and shoulders and more below the ground.

  18. My copy of “The Limits to Growth” doesn’t seem to be contradicted by the increase in wheat production. Can someone here point me to the error?

    • The increases in yield for crops since the ’40’s has not required more land. The yields are up to five times as much per acre.

  19. We used to own wheat land in ND. Predicted the wheat boom. Sold it, minus the mineral rights. Now reaping our reward in gas and oil. Still great wheat producing surface land though,

  20. If only there had been some way to anticipate that CO2 could lead to faster plant growth. But I guess there’s no peer reviewed science anywhere that could have been reported on?

  21. The abundance of “global warming pundits” demonstrate a sad truth about the human species – stupidity is the norm, not the exception.

  22. In the crop production system, three important factors play important role, namely relative water stress, relative energy stress and relative nutrient stress. The relative growth or yield follow inverted “Z” shape with these three relative stresses. The relative growth or yield varies highly in the slant zone. In the low slope [start and end] present relatively very little change in relative growth or yield – see my article in Elsevier’s, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 77 (1995):113-120 –. If water and nutrient stresses are not affecting the crop growth, the energy stress plays the major role. Temperature plays the role of water needs of the atmosphere, expressed by evaporation. If there is no water stress condition, temperature role is insignificant.
    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  23. The influence from the doomsayers in Club of Rome on world politics is frightening:
    “John Holdren was a very active part of the Club of Rome and carried Strong’s climate message into the White House as Obama’s science advisor. The message of undermining developed industrialized nations like the US and redistributing their wealth to developing nations oppressed by US imperialism suited Obama’s belief. He took up Strong’s deliberately orchestrated false story for his legacy. He will find out that you cannot create a legacy – history decides.
    Vaclav Klaus was the only world leader to explain what was going on. He knew about totalitarian control and destruction. As he explained at the New York Heartland Climate Conference, we have just escaped 70 years of communism why the hell would you want to go back to that? He summarized the situation in a brief book titled, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, subtitled What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?.”
    Obama Is Correct, Climate Change Is Biggest Threat, But Only Because Official IPCC Climate Science Is Completely Wrong
    The influence by Club of Rome and “The limits to growth” on United Nations is very evident in this recent
    «Graham Turner’s comparison of 30 years of historical data and scenarios presented in the Limits to Growth was provided as an example to illustrate that business-as-usual will result in an economic collapse by 2030.»
    2013 Economic and Social Council Integration Meeting (13 May 2013)
    “Achieving sustainable development: Integrating the social, economic and environmental dimensions”
    United Nations is far out of line with their charter and should be reined in before it makes to much damage.

  24. I do remember Joe Bastardi saying on one of his Saturday summaries that there would be a garden of Eden summer for parts of the US. Whatever sort of summer it was, it appears the crops liked it.

      • I believe I mow my ~1 acre lawn twice as frequently now compared to perhaps 10 years ago. Of course I am fertilizing it with benign CO2 when I run that tractor …
        My apples here in Vermont are just spectacular, which the deer and the bear will enjoy …

  25. The 4th IPCC report (2007) ‘Future Impacts’ assessment for North America forecast the following re agriculture:
    “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.”
    It also forecast that warming in the western mountains would reduce snowpack and stress water resources, that there would be an extended period of high fire risk and large increases in area burned, and that there would be an increased number, intensity and duration of heatwaves:
    Not sure who the ‘Chicken Littles’ referred to are.

  26. The climatastrophists hymn sheet is increasingly one of “it may look good today, but just wait until tomorrow”.
    Their longed-for day of disaster is awaited in faith and hope, an messianic apocalypse that
    “slouches toward Bethlehem to be born”
    This is so for an increasingly list of things:
    – Antarctic sea ice
    – Antarctic sea temperatures
    – Hurricanes
    – Southern Hemisphere temperatures
    – Snowpack
    – Agricultural production
    – Greening of the planet (actual plants, not the political kind of green vegetables)
    – etc…

  27. Africa’s 2016 crisis as 40 million battle hunger ( – sorry, this article’s attitude is worrying: headlining bumper crops in one location to infer there’s no problems is like saying “it rained at my house so there’s no one has drought”.

      • When Zimbabwe was still called Rhodesia, it not only fed itself, but fed most of it’s neighbors as well.
        Since Mugabe and the advent of socialism/communism, it’s a basket case.

    • The claim was that global warming was going to reduce global food production.
      The article shows that global food production continues to increase.
      Nobody ever claimed that there would never be bad harvests.

  28. but surely Ehrlich was right?
    If US, European and Chinese populations had continued to grow at the rates of the early 1960s, we would be facing disaster today…
    The pill and intensification of agriculture prevented that – but if the trend had continued, we’d have been in trouble.

    • The Pill made no difference whatsoever. Plot birthrates against time and there is no perceptible change when the Pill was introduced, not to levels, not to slops, nothing. Birthrates in the Anglosphere started declining in the last quarter of the 19th century, and with the exception of the Baby Boom just kept on going down. The introduction of the Pill meant not the introduction of effective contraception but the substitution of one form for another. Condoms were a man’s problem and a barrier to germs. The Pill was a woman’s problem. Men and germs rejoiced, that is all. I keep hearing that it was rising wealth and women’s access to information about family planning that made the difference; I wasn’t there, I dunno. But I *can* read a graph.

      • Richard
        I use ‘the pill’ as shorthand for ‘improved contraception and family planning’.
        Has not the average number of children per mother dropped in the developed world?

      • Not matter your excuses, you are still wrong. As has been shown over and over and over again. It is wealth that reduces birth rates. Nothing else matters.

      • @Griff: a lot of people say “the Pill did it” and literally mean the Pill. I’ve even heard apparently sane people saying “human nature changed in the 1960s because of the Pill”. The thing is that the birthrate in the West began a downwards trend in the late 19th century which had people in the 1930s panicking about the decline. With the tolerably well understood exception of the WWII era, the rate has kept on heading down remarkably steadily. Saying the Pill did it (whatever you really mean by that) is like saying CO2 is responsible for global warming (conveniently forgetting the 1st half of the 20th century). If you want to understand what was happening, looking in the 1960s (which is where mention of the Pill directs you) is seriously misleading. Family planning clinics were established (against opposition) in many Western countries by the late 19th century. “In the 1840s, advertisements for condoms began to appear in British newspapers.” — Wikipedia, “History of Condoms”.
        I see the narrative about the Pill and the narrative about CO2 as similar in many ways. Both exalt the power of human beings to overcome Nature, and both specifically exalt the mid-to-late 20th century as especially powerful, while at the same time both of them call for a reduction in human growth, or even actual human numbers. (“One tiger to a hill”, human beings are too *dangerous* to have in great numbers.) Both of them carefully close their eyes to what was happening in the 19th century. I could probably spin this into an article in a humanities journal if I had the stomach for it.
        Global warming did not start in the 20th century.
        The decline in birth rate did not start in the 20th century.
        We are not yet gods or demons.

      They would just have grown more crops.
      Gees Griff.. you really are a person of very little brain !!

      • A specific development – the so called green revolution – did deliver more crops.
        But though we have an increasing world population, the increase could have been far worse, then we’d have been in trouble.

      • Griff: If you are going to argue that Ehrlich was right, you have to do so based on what he actually predicted, which is that millions were going to starve and there was absolutely nothing we could do about it. His argument was if we didn’t immediately reduce population drastically, starvation would do it for us. Wrong and wrong:

        Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.

        “the next ten years” was 30+ years ago.
        Your observation “if population had kept rising at the rate of the early 60’s we would be facing disaster today” is not what Ehrlich predicted. The “if” never happened and that mostly had nothing to do with Ehrlich’s writings. It is just as valid to say that if agriculture productivity had continued to advance at the initial rates of the Green Revolution the whole planet would be obese. It didn’t and we aren’t. Productivity increased enough to overmatch population increases (exactly the opposite of what Ehrlich predicted) and that is sufficient for the time being.
        IMHO, the worldwide agricultural gains since the 60’s have a lot to do with the fall of Communist collective agriculture practices. Come to think of it, maybe Ehrlich was right in a limited way — if you only look at Communist societies we
        are doomed. Zimbabwe and Venezuela being more recent examples.

    • Not even close to being correct.
      Ehrlich claimed that there was nothing anyone could do to prevent the disasters he was predicting.
      BTW, the pill had absolutely nothing to do with the decrease in the birth rate.

    • Griff,
      Talk about completely missing the point of Ehrlich’s writings. Are you being intentionally obtuse? His entire thesis was that human populations were going to outstrip all planetary resources. His primary prediction, upon which all the others were based, was that population would continue to increase in a non-linear fashion. All experienced demographers at the time said he was wrong, but he got the attention of the popular press and sold a lot of books. But his primary prediction about population increases was wildly wrong, so he gets no credit for the secondary dependent predictions either.

  29. To paraphrase Aristotle, one summer does not a permanent surplus make. It was just several years ago that global wheat stocks fell to their lowest levels in modern history, precipitating sharp price increases throughout the Maghreb and adding fuel to the inaptly named Arab Spring. Nothing about this year’s harvest invalidates the basic Malthusian concept. There is always a limit to what can be done within the constraints of current circumstances. Sometimes those limits can be extended, and sometimes they can’t. But to paint a single bumper crop as a triumph of “human ingenuity” that decisively overthrows the “doomsayers” once and for all, is really quite ridiculous. There were, no doubt, bumper crops in ancient Sumer and Egypt. There was plenty of “human ingenuity” on display in their cleverly devised irrigation systems. Did such things mean the permanent removal of famine from the human experience? No, of course not. It just means that the next famine would have a different cause.
    One such cause that we may have reason to worry about in the present instance is the fragility of the global logistical system. Wheat sitting around in silos feeds nobody. Russian wheat exports do not feed Egyptian peasants without trains, trucks, and ships. The world’s 7th-largest freight carrier, Hanjin, just went bankrupt last week, so these things do happen. Whenever the next famine appears it will be the result of bumping up against a “limit” which was in retrospect foreseeable but was rather poorly foreseen due to the people involved being too busy congratulating themselves over their recent successes.

    • You can do better than that.
      Talk about the destruction of the natural habitat. Soil exhaustion.
      Now would be a good time to bring up the Dust Bowl. As you recall, the Dust Bowl was caused by trying to grow wheat in the Great American Desert. As you recall, the American govt paid hefty subsidies to encourage this because during the war (First world war) Western Europe could not continue to import wheat from Russia. So, the thick sod was overturned by the plow over the strong objection of the “Cattlemen’s Association”, and the rest is history.
      For those who think, this will raise several questions. What? Western Europe can’t feed itself? Nope. What? Russia was a big wheat exporter before WW I and Communism? Yep. What? So, things haven’t really changed since 1914? Nope. What? You mean the climate change scare is a scam? Yep.

    • Wheat sitting around in silos feeds nobody. Russian wheat exports do not feed Egyptian peasants without trains, trucks, and ship.

      Perhaps the Egyptians might buy Russian wheat by agreeing to not blow up Russian airliners over Sinai?
      OK, flippancy aside, it is still just a problem of global politics and economics, not a problem of global warming.

  30. Whenever there is an increased yield in a type of food, so follows an increased population of the animal(s) which flourish on that food.
    I won’t be surprised to see plagues of mice in the near future.

  31. Far more topical on this subject is whether rogue organisations are using weather engineering to destroy harvests in specific parts of the globe.
    If destroying the agricultural crop for millions of people isn’t genocide, I don’t know what is in moral terms.
    Please write an article examining rigorously whether any USA interests engage in such matters, along with whether any other nation states, global multinationals or other ‘transnational organisations’ engage in such despicable and evil behaviour……

  32. Advances in Agriculture in America and Around the World
    Last week, Case IH, a manufacturer of agricultural equipment, unveiled a prototype of a farm tractor that can plant, monitor crops, and harvest without a driver. In the future, “autonomous vehicles” could complete the process of mechanization of American farming, thereby further increasing U.S. agricultural productivity.
    [ … ]
    Globally, adoption of American farming techniques could increase agricultural productivity so much that a landmass the size of India could be returned to nature—without compromising food supply to our apparently “peaking” global population.

  33. Defying not only the Club of Rome doomsayers, but also the climate Chicken Littles who have been warning about damage from rising temperatures to world agriculture, food production is booming

    It is. But just wait for the next supervolcano eruption and the ensuing cold. Then low level of global food reserves, introduced by the advent of JIT inventory management (and food-fuel conversion), entails famine. Not a warmunista worry, but still…

    • winter is coming
      not from a volcano
      it comes from the sun.
      just wait a little more
      2016.5-86.5 (Gleissberg) = 1930
      just a few more years…..
      The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West.

  34. Add wheat harvests to the list of official unmentionables and pass along to CNN for the silent treatment.

  35. Fascinating, this is. I had no idea that prior to global warming, it never rained too much, the summers were always just the right warmth for growing whatever grain was needed, winters were mild and no one lacked for anything. It was so perfect that nothing evolved—there was no competition for resources, so all the creatures of the earth lived together in perfect harmony and stasis. Then came the nasty global warming and things just became intolerable and not survivable.

    • I call it the Cider-with-Rosie syndrome (after the book by Laurie Lee). Everybody just knows the summers and the environment were perfect when we were children.

  36. The EPA can rule that CO2 is pollution and the governments can invent a term for those that refuse to accept “the science is settled” “debate is over” but us “deniers” seem to be seeing things quite a bit more clearly when it comes to the effects of CO2 on life.
    More record crop yields of course is something we’ve predicted, while alarmists stated otherwise. The record crop yields are not coming “in spite of” the huge beneficial increase in CO2 and slight beneficial increase in global temperatures but BECAUSE OF IT.
    They can control the beliefs of many, make silly agreements, rules/laws and put what is thought to be the best equations into global climate models to project the weather/climate out to the year 2100 based on a speculative theory but there is one thing that they will never be able to do………….repeal the irrefutable law of photosynthesis:
    6CO2 + 6H2O+Sunlight Energy —————–> C6H12O6 + 6O2
    CO2 = carbon dioxide(known to some as “pollution”)
    H2O = water
    Light energy is required
    C6H12O6 = glucose
    O2 = oxygen

      • since the world was poisoned with its oxygen atmosphere, that equation has always worked and is the source of all life here and with 70% water world, how can that fail?

  37. One of the more amusing items related to the “Exon knew” scandal, was/is the question of “what were the damages?”
    If Exon really did know that we would be experiencing the best weather/climate and growing conditions in the last 1,000 years(since the Medieval Warm Period) like we have the past 4 decades, should they be held accountable…………….by compensating unprepared farmers/producers with more storage bins and silos for all the record crops?

  38. When my firstborn was ready to get his first immunizations, I took te immunization scare seriously, and read a bunch of studies. It was quickly apparent that immunizations don’t cause autism.
    I then thought: well, I sorted through the hype without too much trouble. I will investigate original-data articles on the man-made global warming. –It really did not take long to figure out it was an attempt just to grab power and money from all of us little guys.
    So, I then saw something about “overpopulation.” I thought: how much food do we need? So, I took a population estimate of 9 billion, and considered how many calories would be needed for a year if each were on a 2,000-cal/day diet for that year. Lots of zeroes in all of that maths.
    -I then figured out how many cobs of corn in a bushel, and figured out how many calories in a cob. So, I had a figure for calories per bushel of corn. I then figured out United States corn production, in bushels, per year. For a couple recent years. By this simple effort, I figured out U.S. corn production in a typical year would supply one-third of a 2,000 calorie per day diet for a year to each of 9 billion people.
    –This is not even looking at wheat, oats, soybean, legumes, vegetables, etc.
    So, as far as calories are concerned, we are not starving due to over-population, and will not anytime soon.
    I then used google maps to figure out my lot size in my suburban neighborhood, and translated that into square miles (well, a fraction thereof). I multiplied that by the 9 billion people. I then looked up the area of Texas in square miles. I subtracted out some portion, realizing not every square inch is suitable for a residence. The rivers, for example.
    All 9 billion of us could have a suburban sized lot and all live in Texas. Thus, no worries . Plenty of space for us all.
    Regarding “over-population” the only reasonable limit I see is potable water. But if we really test the limits of potable water, I believe that our current desalinization technology will all of a sudden look really interesting, and will propagate drastically and quickly. So, yet another solution looking for a problem.

    • I’ve done much the same research as you and come to the same conclusions. In the context of this thread I’d just like to add that we have enough food in the world right now to feed everyone. Hunger today is a function of geopolitics and social bigotry. Hunger will end when people stop trying to tell others how to live and creating tyrannical governments to enforce their views.

    • If we were to ever start running out of food, which we aren’t. We could free up vast amounts of food for all of us by simply reducing how much meat each of us ate.
      PS: No government programs would be necessary for this to happen. As food became scarcer, the price of grain would go up. Naturally the price of meat fed by grain would also go up. This would result in people eating less meat because they couldn’t afford it.
      PPS: This would also free up some of the land that is being used to raise cattle, pigs, chickens, whatever. Additionally, that ground is currently well fertilized.
      PPPS: This doesn’t include those animals currently being raised on land that isn’t suitable for farming, but is suitable for grazing.

    • Isaac Asimov wrote several Ehrlich-like essays on population:
      In one of them, “The End”, he did a rough calculation that the Earth could support up to 40 trillion people, provided there was no other animal life and the only plant life was edible algae. On this world, the ultimate limit on population was incoming sunlight, which was necessary for agriculture.

    • I think you will find that similar math applies to water.
      The rain that fell on Louisiana during the recent flood was enough to supply the water needs for everyone on earth for an entire year, and then some.
      The only problems are uneven distribution, lack of adequate storage, and no good way to transport it from where it is plentiful to where there is not enough.

  39. More record crop yields of course is something we’ve predicted, while alarmists stated otherwise. The record crop yields are not coming “in spite of” the huge beneficial increase in CO2 and slight beneficial increase in global temperatures but BECAUSE OF IT.
    They can control the beliefs of many, make silly agreements, rules/laws and put what is thought to be the best equations into global climate models to project the weather/climate out to the year 2100 based on a speculative theory but there is one thing that they will never be able to do………….repeal the irrefutable law of photosynthesis:
    6CO2 + 6H2O+Sunlight Energy —————–> C6H12O6 + 6O2
    CO2 = carbon dioxide(known to some as “pollution”)
    H2O = water
    Light energy is required
    C6H12O6 = glucose
    O2 = oxygen
    I greatly dislike my reference to “we” and “they” in the above. It may be accurate to some degree but I wish this hadn’t turned into a sort of war, with each side cheering when evidence appears to support “them” and seeking out evidence that supports “their” side(us, so to speak) and contradicts the other side(them).
    Authentic science and the truth cannot be legislated or imposed and takes only one form. Objective scientists should align only with that and not search for ammo to defeat those that disagree with them.

    • “There is only a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.” – Arthur C. Clarke.

  40. Wow, carbon dioxide and hot weather make plants grow faster! Who would have guessed that, aside from anyone who’s ever used a greenhouse.

  41. I think it capital ignorance to write an article and give meaningless or obscure facts without explaining them or at least putting them into some context for the reader/intended audience. There are simple basic rules of the trade for writing articles, especially info pieces, yet the badly written drivel that gets printed is mountainous. Those guilty of such crimes against the mind should lose digits. Didn’t see anyone else complaining…wheat, bread, cost of a loaf, cost of basic ingredients?
    So, for all those who did not put their hands up to ask the question….
    One bushel of wheat yields approximately 42 pounds of white flour OR 60 pounds of whole-wheat flour = 60Ib grain. Rough calcs follow…
    $3.88 per 1/4 bushel. $15.52 per bushel. ($1 = €0.89 & 1kg = 2.204Ib)
    $15.52 / 40Ib = $38.8 / 100Ib = $00.388 / Ib
    $855.15 / 1000kg = 85.5 $cent / Kg = 76.1 €cent/Kg
    Or $3.93 fine ground wheat.
    Assume 1 bushel = 40Ib white flour
    So Kg white wheat flour costs €00.761. (Brown wholewheat costs around 60c/Kg)
    800g white loaf takes, typically, 500g white flour = €00.38

  42. “Paul Ehrlich is still spectacularly wrong”
    When was Ehrlich ever right, at all (spectacularly or otherwise)?

  43. “The recent US winter wheat harvest was 45m tonnes, up 21 per cent ”
    That’s a whopping big increase. I would be looking at the rainfall records for the US wheat belt. The only likely influence temperature could have over this is maybe a late spring in 2015
    Meantime I am saying, ” Its water guys!”

    • Remembering that ‘Winter harvest’ means: planted in the spring, grown over summer. It probably should have read ‘Autumn Harvest’ Maybe they harvest late over there.

      • Actually Winter Wheat Harvest is harvested in June from a crop planted in Sep/Oct of the prior year, sprouted, then goes dormant over winter in the cold. If it were planted in Spring it would be just wheat not winter wheat.

  44. My wheat harvest of soft white winter wheat completed one week ago (winter wheat that was planted one year ago on Sept. 10 2015) in Washington State USA this year gave the highest yield I have ever experienced without irrigation of 94 bushels per acre (2.82 tons per acre) which includes comparing results during the years that my father and grandfather operating. Test results of quality of my wheat crop this year were also spectacular with wheat rating #1 in test weight and ranking in the upper 95% of falling numbers test scores. The crop was so large that the straw or the plant debris that remains presents a problem for the usual conventional tillage that I practice.The wheat price ($4.03 per bushel or 6.7 cents per pound) however is insufficient to support operating a wheat growing operation as a person cannot afford the costs required to stay in business while expecting to also earn a living too. The answer in the plant debris is not no or low till practices since those present other disadvantages of their own.

  45. Been proven that increased CO2 level result in more rapid and greater plant growth. I don’t know if we have had enough CO2 increase to help grow larger crops but I suspect it has had an effect. We shouldn’t be surprized that the earth system is self balancing. More CO2 means more plants, more plants means less CO2, the only people who can’t see how well earth works are those who want to tax the commoners into submission.

  46. I’ve been thinking for the past 2-3 years that the next financial crisis may be in the ag sector. Land prices skyrocketed when corn was $8/bu and soybeans were $15. People who bought land at inflated prices and need $8 corn and $15 beans to service the debt are underwater now that grain prices are half those prices. I just don’t know the dollar amount of the loans underwritten at peak land/grain prices or how large that is relative to the entire financial/mortgage sector so that it would create a crisis. In other words, it may be a problem, but manageable, so most of the general public may never be made aware of the problem.

  47. To those that sneer at Malthus, I have a simple question: Do you think the world can support an infinite population?
    If not, what is the limit, and how close are we?

    • Leo, good question. While we may dispute AGW there is no case for denial of the massive human footprint on Earth. There has to be consequences e.g. marine population change. International waters are still the Wild West.
      The world has not even admitted the existence of the 500 KG tiger in the room to which we are firmly attached on the tail: economics. No democratic Government will promote policies that don’t promote economic growth. So far no system has been found that includes growth without an ever increasing birth rate, or immigration of young people. Countries like Germany, Japan, and Italy are in near panic over the median age of their population: too few tax payers and too many superannuation recipients. It gets worse in the near future
      We are not in control of the climate or current economics that need population growth. Clearly, somewhere down the track the tiger will turn and severely maul us, if not devour us completely.
      Just my view

    • Leo Said “Do you think the world can support an infinite population?”
      This is a rather silly formulation of the real question.
      The slightly better question is: can the global population continue to increase at exponential rates.
      And the answer is, of course, no. Nothing continues to grow forever at exponential rates.
      An even better question would be: When will our earth no longer be able to support exponential human population growth?
      This general question has been pondered for eons.
      There’s a succinct discussion here:
      One thing is for sure… a warmer, wetter climate with more CO2 in the air and longer growing seasons will support more population than a colder dryer climate with less CO2 in the air and shorter growing seasons.
      If/when the earth drops out of this interglacial period of plenty into another glacial period, things will get very difficult for billions of people.

    • Who says we have to stay on this rock ? What do you suppose the limit is to growth in in this solar system ? The only limits are the ones in your mind.
      More people today enjoy better health, wealth, and quality of life than even the richest of kings could ever dream of in the past. The future is unlimited.

    • I sneer at Malthus.
      Can the planet support an infinite population? No.
      What is the limit, and how close are we?
      Malthus was circa 1800. He saw this logical necessity then, and assumed we could not be too far off.
      The current belief, that the population problem can confidently be discerned with “modern” science, that we will “overload,” and “crash,” the planet / our ecology, got its legs circa 1900. Those fear-mongers assumed we could not be too far off.
      Soon after, the classist Eugenics movement was able to co-opt the planetary-crash hypothesis and fuel their planet-wide efforts to suppress the birth of lower class people, especially people who are brown or black, with the apparent support of “science.”
      Soon after, Margaret Sanger was spotted in India, and in Japan. Sadly, wherever Ms. Marple happened to visit or vacation, a death was sure to have occurred. And, sadly, wherever Margaret Sanger happened to show up, the governmental and or science establishment of the country began forcing population reduction goals.
      They used “science” as their cover. But these countries had a leading goal of buddying up to the wealthy Anglosphere.
      In the atomic age, Harrison Brown and others made us blinkingly perceive the end of humanity as a very real thing. Realizing they had some duty to reign in the nukelar monster, they stretched their wings and decided to embrace the “planetary ecological crash” as a twin cause celebre. Using “science.” –Surely, we must listen to intellectual overlord Brown, since he held the power of life and death in his bomb?
      I believe we are very far from “planetary overload.” I think all of this fear-based hand-wringing is a mish mosh of mis-founded good intentions, knee-jerk unscientific reaction disguised as good science, opportunistic classists and racists fearing that the hand that rocks the cradle rocks the world, and Marxists wanting to control society form the top-down by replacing the Family and God as they decide who gets to reproduce, as well as controlling who does what job, what the wage will be, etc.
      It makes no sense for us to kill ourselves off to avoid the spectre of – a massive kill of us by nature.
      Wha? Rather than using abortion and population goals to avert some unknown crisis, why don’t we just carry on until there really is a problem? –I am sure some plague will decrease our population when we hit some unsustainability level.
      But we are far from that. Very far. The material of our existence is here on the planet, whether that carbon, nitrogen, etc., is in the form of a human, or latent in soil, or in the form of ants, or whatever, It is just matter and energy cycling through the environment.

  48. According to precip. data published by Alley from GISP2 Ice Core data, warmer = wetter. Strong correlation.
    A warmer climate with a longer growing season and wetter weather in addition to more free fertilizer in the air (CO2) should mean record crops. Et voila!

  49. It’s important that we don’t continue to allow these doomsdayers to continually groom our children into believing our natural world is going to Hell in a handbasket when it’s not true-
    Endangered species and shrinking natural habitat occur wherever there are subsistence human conditions due to a lack of non-human energy and associated economic development. Compare China and Giant Pandas with Africa and Rhino, Gorillas, etc and you can see the bleeding obvious, just like the West’s higher valuation placed on the environment before them.

  50. It’s like this-
    The environment is a luxury good if you’re at subsistence level but as Chinese find they can afford more Pandas with development and concerns about air quality, etc like the West has. OTOH some Westerners need to be careful they’re not overly indulging themselves in Veblen goods with environmental seeming rather than doing and wasting the great gifts they’ve been given on conspicuous consumption.

Comments are closed.