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:

wheat-prices

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.

NCDC-YTD-201601-201607

 

0 0 vote
Article Rating
290 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
PaulH
September 5, 2016 3:20 pm

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

Latitude
Reply to  PaulH
September 5, 2016 3:24 pm

…probably grew too fast and has less concentration of some vitamin or something

Reply to  Latitude
September 5, 2016 5:12 pm

actually higher CO2 increases quality of antioxidants / vitamins as well as basic long chained sugars. Many many references.

spetzer86
Reply to  Latitude
September 5, 2016 6:22 pm

Protein: http://agfax.com/2016/07/18/wheat-record-harvest-possible-but-shortage-of-protein-big-concern-to-millers-dtn/
Basically, it grew so well the farmers underestimated the amount of fertilizer to add. Not enough nitrogen led to low protein.

Rich
Reply to  Latitude
September 5, 2016 9:41 pm

@spetzer86.
From your linked article I like this quote:
“Because there wasn’t enough heat and dry weather this growing season, the wet weather gave a boost to the crop yield, but the protein content suffered.”
So we have had the hottest months on record yet the farmers, who know best, are blaming it on the weather not being hot enough and it also being too wet… Go figure.

RWturner
Reply to  Latitude
September 6, 2016 9:46 am

Here in the bread basket of the world we have seen less and less wheat planted over the years because global output continues to climb. Other crops have been planted instead, especially corn and soy. I just saw the best soy beans I’ve ever seen yesterday, they were over a meter tall and extremely thick. The biggest problem in farming today seems to be the surplus in food and depressed food prices.

Bryan A
Reply to  Latitude
September 6, 2016 10:14 am

But how do you carry the Meter Tall Soy Bean? How much do those behemoths weigh anyway?

Rhee
Reply to  Latitude
September 6, 2016 2:17 pm

@BryanA It would seem you’d need a Jolly Green Giant to harvest those Meter Tall Soy Beans

Bryan A
Reply to  Latitude
September 6, 2016 2:32 pm

Forgot all about THAT Big Green Guy

NW sage
Reply to  Latitude
September 6, 2016 6:03 pm

Come ON guys – it’s obviously Jack in the BEAN Stalk!

poitsplace
Reply to  PaulH
September 5, 2016 5:38 pm

Maybe they’ll complain that it’s helping there to be more people…and that what we need are famine inducing crop failures to avert climate change’s famine induc…wait a second…

rogerthesurf
Reply to  PaulH
September 5, 2016 6:04 pm

Should be building silos not windmills and mirrors:)
Cheers
Roger

Mike McMillan
Reply to  rogerthesurf
September 6, 2016 4:25 am

Good one.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
September 6, 2016 8:31 am

Good one (2)

gnomish
Reply to  PaulH
September 5, 2016 7:21 pm

it’s rotten wheat

Reply to  gnomish
September 6, 2016 6:42 am

No, it’s not rotten.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  gnomish
September 6, 2016 6:55 am

gnomish,
You forgot the /sarc tag for those among us that don’t know you.

gnomish
Reply to  gnomish
September 6, 2016 10:00 am

heh- paul-
Who cares about the humorless? They need a support group, not a comedian.

Bryan A
Reply to  gnomish
September 6, 2016 10:17 am

Not necessarily rotten yet but if spread about outside for any period of time, it will be an attractor to Vermin like rats and could be the cause of a potential disease outbreak. Definitely more silos needed

Gabro
Reply to  gnomish
September 6, 2016 6:13 pm

Actually, we’ve solved the storage problem.
Nobody builds grain elevators anymore, at least in the relatively dry intermountain Pacific NW region. Farmers just pile the wheat up, wrap the pile in plastic (Big Oil!) and bring in mobile augurs to move the stuff when the owner wants to send it to market.

Gabro
Reply to  gnomish
September 6, 2016 6:14 pm

And if you’re going to sell it right away, you can dispense with the wrapping.

Santa Baby
Reply to  PaulH
September 5, 2016 8:29 pm

Paul Ehrlich is just a product of the “domination of nature” idea? He does not have to be right scientifically as long he is right politically?

Caligula Jones
Reply to  PaulH
September 6, 2016 7:15 am

Don’t laugh: I’ve heard them complain that bananas don’t taste like they used to. Of COURSE they blamed climatechangeglobalwarming, and not, as I’ve learned, aging taste buds.

embutler
Reply to  Caligula Jones
September 6, 2016 7:31 am

the banana I ate as a kid has been supplanted twice…
by fungus resistant types and they taste starchy vs the fruity I remember

oeman50
Reply to  PaulH
September 6, 2016 9:55 am

It must be that bad GMO wheat.

Latitude
September 5, 2016 3:23 pm

But somewhere, somehow, a frog is dying….

Mjw
Reply to  Latitude
September 5, 2016 3:40 pm

A Cane Toad in Queensland at the very least. Great sport.

Anna Keppa
Reply to  Mjw
September 5, 2016 9:07 pm

Reminds me of the wisdom in an old haiku:
The toad
In the road
And the steel-belted radial
Are One.

Bryan A
Reply to  Mjw
September 6, 2016 10:19 am

What is red and green and travels at 1000KPH?
A Cane Toad in a Blender

SMC
Reply to  Latitude
September 5, 2016 3:41 pm

Actually, it’s lizards that we have worry about now.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100513/full/news.2010.241.html

Reply to  SMC
September 5, 2016 4:58 pm

My first question in all such alarms is what has been the local temperature record over the study period .

SMC
Reply to  SMC
September 5, 2016 5:18 pm

At this point Bob, it doesn’t matter. The article is repeating the same over the top, ridiculous claims Watermelons have been making about [insert species here] for years.

Mjw
Reply to  SMC
September 5, 2016 7:21 pm

It’s the Lycra lizards I hate.

Reply to  Latitude
September 5, 2016 5:14 pm

got run over by an alarmist in their new escalade paid for by tax dollars.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Latitude
September 6, 2016 3:42 am

Kermit?
If so, this could be his final song… 😉

MarkW
Reply to  Latitude
September 6, 2016 7:01 am

The result of a fungus brought in on the shoe of the scientist who came to study the frog.

September 5, 2016 3:26 pm

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?

Richard M
September 5, 2016 3:27 pm

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.

4TimesAYear
Reply to  Richard M
September 5, 2016 4:28 pm

Yes – when Obama/Mcarthy started spewing “climate change is happening now” it was possibly the best thing that could have happened for us; it puts us on equal footing, because if climate change is happening now, the above photo is what it looks like – and it’s equally valid to use that as an example as any disaster. This, too:comment image
Most of the time our climate is pretty doggone gorgeous. 😉

4TimesAYear
Reply to  Richard M
September 5, 2016 4:33 pm

Whoops – apologies – this photo – I thought it was on the article but not – it’s in the twitter feed. https://twitter.com/wattsupwiththat/status/772920938576744448/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Reply to  Richard M
September 5, 2016 4:49 pm

U.S. farmers forecast to produce record corn, soybean crops
The Agriculture Department forecast U.S. corn production to total a record 15.2 billion bushels, while the soybean crop is expected to come in at a record 4.06 billion bushels. Wheat production is forecast at 2.32 billion bushels, up 13% from 2015.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-farmers-forecast-to-produce-record-corn-soybean-crops-2016-08-12
USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates …
http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/latest.pdf

Kevin Angus
Reply to  rovingbroker
September 5, 2016 6:07 pm

Surfed around and found:
http://aaes.us/wuwt/co2.jpg http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html
And
http://aaes.us/wuwt/cereal.jpg http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG
I found the raw data for the cereal but the CO2 data? I don’t have the right magic decoder ring or something. It would be a good thing to build these up and distribute one chart showing what the Evil CO2 has done to the world.

Reply to  rovingbroker
September 5, 2016 9:25 pm

But the corn is being used for bio-fuels…Bummer…

RAH
Reply to  rovingbroker
September 6, 2016 8:13 pm

The key now is for it to get dry enough. Harvest is just around the corner and the fields have to be dry enough for the farmers to get into them. Also they need the moisture content in the field corn and soybeans to drop to minimize drying costs. But this 61 year old Hoosier can’t remember a year when the corn and bean plants looked better. And driving a lot as I do I would say the corn and bean crops in all of the corn belt and even outside the corn belt in western PA and north KY are looking fantastic.

Reply to  Richard M
September 5, 2016 5:15 pm

I swear the corn is over 12 ft. tall this year

Menicholas
Reply to  Stephen Greene
September 5, 2016 5:52 pm

That’s a might big elephant.

MarkW
Reply to  Stephen Greene
September 6, 2016 7:01 am

Oh what a wonderful morning.

rw
Reply to  Richard M
September 6, 2016 10:50 am

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.

I’d like to say that this shows once again that the world will go on in spite of all the politicians and activists, but after the experience of the 20th century, I know it isn’t necessarily so, at least not on scales that we humans can relate to.

D.I.
September 5, 2016 3:33 pm

More sunshine,more CO2,more food.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  D.I.
September 5, 2016 9:27 pm

..more plants, more beef.. [nom nom]

Bob Burban
September 5, 2016 3:36 pm

Yes, but is it ‘gluten free?’ /sarc.

SMC
Reply to  Bob Burban
September 5, 2016 3:43 pm

Only after it’s highly processed, at which point you can’t call it organic anymore. 🙂

Paul of Alexandria
Reply to  Bob Burban
September 5, 2016 6:48 pm

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

gbaikie
Reply to  Paul of Alexandria
September 5, 2016 9:27 pm

When you eat the greens to become nationally solvent

brians356
Reply to  Bob Burban
September 5, 2016 10:47 pm

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”.

michael hart
Reply to  brians356
September 6, 2016 7:02 am

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.

LarryD
September 5, 2016 3:41 pm

And a Hat Tip to this weeks round-up (#239), which included this link http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG
Which plots the world cereal yield (kg/hectare) up through 2014. Not just a flash-in-the-pan, but the latest data point in an unmistakably rising trend.

Peter Miller
September 5, 2016 3:42 pm

Rats, I was looking forward to trying solvent green.

SMC
Reply to  Peter Miller
September 5, 2016 3:45 pm

I think you mean soylent green.

brians356
Reply to  SMC
September 6, 2016 12:25 pm

“Solvent green”, is that another name for Absinthe? 😉

emsnews
Reply to  Peter Miller
September 5, 2016 6:00 pm

Bankrupt green. 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  emsnews
September 6, 2016 7:19 am

That would be insolvent green.

Tom in Florida
September 5, 2016 3:45 pm

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

blcjr
Editor
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 6, 2016 3:01 am

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.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  blcjr
September 6, 2016 7:05 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  blcjr
September 6, 2016 7:21 am

Your list is not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 6, 2016 10:47 am

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.

Joel O'Bryan
September 5, 2016 3:47 pm

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.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 5, 2016 9:59 pm

“But In 3-5 more years, when the NH cold sets in”
Surely you mean if, since no one knows what’s going to happen.

joelobryan
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 5, 2016 10:19 pm

No, Jeff.
I do mean “When.” Buy your Hudson Bay blankets now and stock the firewood while you can. Plant a summer garden and can the vegetables. Your great-great grand mother knew this. Do you need to re-learn her lessons?

Editor
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 5, 2016 10:44 pm

“When” is reasonable, but “3-5 more years” is a short time and these things have a habit of not showing up exactly on time.

joelobryan
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 5, 2016 10:54 pm

Mike,
Do you need an Aesop’s grasshopper and ant fable?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper
Store for the coming winter. And by winter I do not mean the climate winter.

Alex
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 6, 2016 6:59 am

Jeff Alberts
Don’t you know? WINTER IS COMING

MarkW
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 6, 2016 9:36 am

I thought that AGW had cancelled winter.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 5, 2016 11:39 pm

The UN is well on the way to shutting down debate – especially from anyone who is not a socialist/communist. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37281738. The UN can tell outright lies, but it is not acceptable for populist politicians to tell half-lies. This unelected bureaucrat (Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein) even had to gall to slag off Nigel Farage.

sonofametman
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
September 6, 2016 11:23 am

A Hashemite prince and appointed bureaucrat complaining about politicians who manage to collect votes. “Don’t vote for them, we know what’s best for you….”
The correct Anglo-Saxon response either involves two words or two fingers.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 6, 2016 7:29 am

self-correcting in the long run
Everything is self-correcting in the long run. It’s the transition period that’s the problem.

Bubba Cow
September 5, 2016 3:55 pm

corn and soybeans in U.S. as well
go to Data and Statistics and then Data Visualization
we are indeed rich
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2016/08_12_2016.php

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Bubba Cow
September 5, 2016 4:15 pm

You got it Bubba, I’ll try and get back to you with my Bushels per acre of beans when harvest gets here. The tropical summer around St. Louis MO has made for a cornucopia season. Too bad the Cardinals aren’t having such luck. Maybe the Cubs can get to the WS.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 5, 2016 4:31 pm

If anybody wants to mow my pasture for me, I’ll be much obliged. Getting weary of it.

joelobryan
Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 5, 2016 5:03 pm

pop,
it’s called goats. get some.
good eatin’ too with slow cooking & bbq sauce.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 5, 2016 5:59 pm

Got a mini donkey and 3 quarter horses on about 3 acres, I only need to mow the weeds they don’t eat. 12-pack and a ’75 massey 165 powering a 6-foot finish mower.

joelobryan
Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 5, 2016 9:28 pm

Pop,
I don’t recommend bbq donkey. Tough as leather.

Alex
Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 6, 2016 6:31 am

joelobryan
I have eaten donkey meat. It is the second best tasting meat in the world (according to the chinese)

MarkW
Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 6, 2016 7:23 am

joe, you can try sheep as well. In addition to good eating, you can sell the wool every year.

MarkW
Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 6, 2016 7:24 am

Alex: The best being dog?

Alex
Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 6, 2016 9:00 am

MarkW
Dragon, of course. That’s why there aren’t any.

September 5, 2016 3:57 pm

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.

Reply to  Billy NZ
September 5, 2016 9:32 pm

It is wonderful to come here and read good news.
Insert picture of Snoopy going “Everybody DANCE!”

Pop Piasa
September 5, 2016 3:58 pm

Here’s to Malthus – choking on the prosperity of mankind.

September 5, 2016 4:05 pm

Paul Ehrlich is still spectacularly wrong
Could also go in the ‘David Archibald is still spectacularly wrong’ department…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/21/the-north-atlantic-ground-zero-of-global-cooling/

Latitude
Reply to  lsvalgaard
September 5, 2016 4:55 pm

that was a really tacky thing to do………

Reply to  Latitude
September 5, 2016 5:05 pm

Just telling it as it is…

joelobryan
Reply to  Latitude
September 5, 2016 10:32 pm

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.

Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 10:43 pm

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.

joelobryan
Reply to  Latitude
September 5, 2016 11:03 pm

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.

Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 11:06 pm

I rest my case.
You need to educate yourself a bit first.

joelobryan
Reply to  Latitude
September 5, 2016 11:16 pm

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…

Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 11:47 pm

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.

joelobryan
Reply to  Latitude
September 5, 2016 11:18 pm

Curmudgeon.
errrr…

MarkW
Reply to  Latitude
September 6, 2016 7:25 am

Leif has a tough time reconciling himself to the fact that people don’t always agree with him.

joelobryan
Reply to  lsvalgaard
September 5, 2016 5:43 pm

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?
consider:
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-sunspot-number.gif
and:
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-10-cm-radio-flux.gif
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.

Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 7:30 pm

You are clearly ill-informed. Our prediction of the solar cycles is based on solid physics and has been correct for the past several cycles. Educate yourself by studying: http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction-of-Solar-Cycles.pdf

G.
Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 7:30 pm

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?

Reply to  G.
September 5, 2016 7:32 pm

About ten, and they are as spread out as the more than 150 for SC24. Clearly most people don’t know yet how to do this.

G.
Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 7:55 pm

Thanks Dr Svalgaard.

joelobryan
Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 9:10 pm

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.

Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 10:12 pm

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.

joelobryan
Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 9:20 pm

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 humble.ni realize you have to suffer many fools here to post at WUWT, but humble is always to your benefit.

Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 10:13 pm

Regardless, you still need to educate yourself.

joelobryan
Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 9:43 pm

BTW Lief,
As your pdf slides admit, you have not made much progress with skill from 23 to 24 to incipient 25. Be humble. The near term SSN and F10.7 predictions to date (4 Sept) are off the mark.
Realize the sun 2016 is in No Country for Old Men.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YBqmKSAHc6w

Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 10:15 pm

As I explained, the NOAA graphs are not mine, and are not even valid science, IMHO. Note the H.

joelobryan
Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 10:03 pm

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.

Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 10:16 pm

See earlier comment.

Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 11:05 pm

From http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-6/
“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).”

Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 11:55 pm

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.

Reply to  joelobryan
September 6, 2016 12:57 am

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.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN0816.gif

Reply to  vukcevic
September 6, 2016 6:32 am

It would be very nice if a general formula valid for all times would be found to describe solar activity. Unfortunately, yours isn’t. It fails grossly during the 17th and 18th centuries and even for the more recent cycle 20 [ca. 1968]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-34.png

Reply to  joelobryan
September 6, 2016 1:38 am

typos: including ; SC24

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  joelobryan
September 6, 2016 6:12 am

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:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN0816.gif

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
September 6, 2016 6:20 am

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.

Reply to  joelobryan
September 6, 2016 8:46 am

@ 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.

Reply to  vukcevic
September 6, 2016 10:31 am

‘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.

Reply to  joelobryan
September 6, 2016 10:55 am

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”.

Reply to  vukcevic
September 6, 2016 11:16 am

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.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  joelobryan
September 7, 2016 5:07 am

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.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
September 7, 2016 8:17 am

Did ya’ll successfully predict that DRASTICALLY REDUCED Sunspot Cycles’ Amplitude that occurred about 1970 as defined on the above graph?
I [and others] did. http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Predictions%20SHINE%202006.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf
Geomagnetic activity depends on the solar magnetic field which in turn determines the size of the solar cycle. Theory indicates that geomagnetic activity at sunspot minimum should be a predictor of the sunspot maximum some 4 years later:
http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction-Using-Ap.png
So, yes, we [but not Vuk] can predict solar cycles in advance.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
September 7, 2016 10:16 am

it seems fairly easy to me to predict the strength of solar cycle 25
namely, we can see from the solar polar magnetic field strengths that double pole switches occurred in 1971 and 2014 respectively
taking into account that many reports show the gleissberg cycle at 86.5 years it follows that the previous double solar polar switch must have occurred in 1927
hence we must consider this graph for ssn
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2015/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2014/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:1972/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1972/to:2015/trend/offset:8
so it follows that sc 25 will be more or less equal to sc 16
remember my name

Reply to  HenryP
September 7, 2016 10:56 am

Henry, that is not how the sun works.
What is your prediction for cycle 20 peaking in 1969?

Reply to  lsvalgaard
September 7, 2016 11:29 am

thanks, Leif, for pointing me to the fact that I did not count the cycles properly
maybe it was the brandy…
so it follows that sc 25 will be more or less equal to sc 17
I should have known,
there is a constant difference of 8 cycles per Gleissberg

Reply to  lsvalgaard
September 7, 2016 11:56 am

the general rule is 8 solar cycles per Gleissberg
except of course when the switch [1927,1971,2014] – which seems to me is induced by some electromagnetic force – does not happen.
Could be that there were instances in the past where for some reason “the switch” did not go, triggering prolonged cooling [=very bad for crops] or prolonged warming [no problem really => more evaporation= more rain => more crops]

Reply to  HenryP
September 7, 2016 12:00 pm

So it works when it does, and not when it does not.
You see, that is usually a sign of failure of the prediction method or that the assumptions on which it is based are not valid. Vuk has the same problem.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
September 7, 2016 12:22 pm

the “gap” theory
[failure of electrical switch on the sun]
is meant to explain the difference in “your” record of ssn, or at least the one that you continuously defend as being correct, going way back, more than 100 years in time,
but it is just a theory
http://www.leif.org/research/HenryP-GN.png
Anyhow, seems to me there are enough records putting the AVERAGE gleissberg at around 87 years
e.g
here
http://iie.fing.edu.uy/simsee/biblioteca/CICLO_SOLAR_PeristykhDamon03-Gleissbergin14C.pdf
and here
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
no reason for me to find that an anomaly occurred or will occur during our life time here on earth.
Be blessed.
H.

Reply to  HenryP
September 7, 2016 12:32 pm

As the graph shows:
http://www.leif.org/research/HenryP-GN.png
“your” cycle does not fit the observations, hence must be rejected.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
September 7, 2016 12:52 pm

perhaps, for clarity, I should re-phrase my last comment:
‘no reason for me to find that an anomaly [in the Gleissberg cycle] occurred or will occur during our life time here on earth.
Be blessed.
H.’
to
Millions of daily temperature data collected by myself show me no reason to find that an anomaly [in the Gleissberg cycle] occurred or will occur during our life time here on earth.
Be blessed.
H.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  joelobryan
September 8, 2016 5:40 am

So sayith: lsvalgaard

I [and others] did. (predict) http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.pdf

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.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN0816.gif

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
September 8, 2016 6:13 am

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: http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction-of-Solar-Cycles.pdf and possibly a bit higher, as the polar fields can still grow.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
September 8, 2016 6:15 am

or do ya
And snotty comments do not garner you any respect.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  joelobryan
September 9, 2016 4:17 am

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”.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
September 9, 2016 5:43 am

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.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  lsvalgaard
September 5, 2016 6:27 pm

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.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
September 6, 2016 2:13 am

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

MarkW
Reply to  ptolemy2
September 6, 2016 7:28 am

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.

High Treason
September 5, 2016 4:12 pm

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.

Menicholas
Reply to  High Treason
September 5, 2016 5:56 pm

Preparing the torches and sharpening the pitchforks.

Reply to  Menicholas
September 6, 2016 2:15 am

You mean – preparing the knives and forks? (and tomato ketchup?)

Reply to  High Treason
September 5, 2016 9:38 pm

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.

Reply to  High Treason
September 5, 2016 10:14 pm

This is what they want in the long run. Starvation rather than the ovens or labour camps.

Goldrider
Reply to  High Treason
September 6, 2016 6:35 am

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!

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Goldrider
September 6, 2016 7:29 am

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.

Reply to  High Treason
September 8, 2016 4:03 am

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.

Robert
September 5, 2016 4:16 pm

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. 😉

joelobryan
Reply to  Robert
September 5, 2016 5:27 pm

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.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 6:35 pm

You left out T. Karl & T. Peterson.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  joelobryan
September 5, 2016 6:36 pm

Oops, just Peterson.

rw
Reply to  joelobryan
September 6, 2016 10:56 am

They need to be remembered – just not the way they would like.

yam
Reply to  Robert
September 5, 2016 6:09 pm

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]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
Borlaug may have given too much credit to the nature of the elitists.

Zeke
Reply to  yam
September 5, 2016 7:11 pm

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.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  yam
September 5, 2016 11:17 pm

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.

September 5, 2016 4:19 pm

co2 is plant food……”scientists” on the past claimed higher co2 would cause famine? AMAZING……

Jeff Hayes
Reply to  Ack
September 6, 2016 8:46 am

“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:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

September 5, 2016 4:21 pm

Quick–there must be cause for panic somewhere! I know, Hillary is still ahead in the polls 🙂

joelobryan
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 5, 2016 6:02 pm

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.

Eric Barnes
September 5, 2016 4:45 pm

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.

Mark from the Midwest
September 5, 2016 5:11 pm

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.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
September 5, 2016 6:52 pm

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.

Goldrider
Reply to  Pop Piasa
September 6, 2016 10:58 am

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!

Allencic
September 5, 2016 5:18 pm

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!

September 5, 2016 5:31 pm

Prices will probably continue downward as more of the market begins to realize how much inventory stocks will build up this year.

Reply to  Bill Illis
September 5, 2016 5:57 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  fossilsage
September 6, 2016 7:39 am

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.

Reply to  MarkW
September 6, 2016 1:32 pm

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.

Keith Minto
Reply to  Bill Illis
September 5, 2016 6:16 pm

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.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Keith Minto
September 6, 2016 5:43 am

yup the chaps on eyre peninsula swapped to Lupins this year
they..will be doing very well pricewise

Steve Case
September 5, 2016 5:33 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
September 6, 2016 7:40 am

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.

September 5, 2016 5:35 pm

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.

kevin kilty
Reply to  ristvan
September 5, 2016 5:51 pm

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.

Menicholas
Reply to  kevin kilty
September 5, 2016 6:02 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  kevin kilty
September 6, 2016 7:45 am

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.

observa
Reply to  ristvan
September 5, 2016 6:26 pm

“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?
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-5/the-return-of-nature

MarkW
Reply to  ristvan
September 6, 2016 7:43 am

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.

kevin kilty
September 5, 2016 5:43 pm

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.

commieBob
September 5, 2016 5:55 pm

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”.

Menicholas
Reply to  commieBob
September 5, 2016 6:05 pm

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.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  commieBob
September 5, 2016 6:32 pm

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.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  John Harmsworth
September 5, 2016 7:09 pm

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.

Reply to  commieBob
September 5, 2016 10:17 pm

I understand that much of Ontario had a drought this summer.

September 5, 2016 6:03 pm

It’s the CO2, stupid. CO2 is free fertilizer, all good

RockyRoad
Reply to  lenbilen
September 6, 2016 7:11 am

…and the economic value of CO2 added to our atmosphere over the past 50 years or so can be calculated at around $1.5 Trillion since that alone has added approximately 10% to worldwide foodstuff production, which is valued at about $10 Trillion.

Jeff Hayes
Reply to  RockyRoad
September 6, 2016 9:01 am

Now you’ve done it- the greens will demand a VAT instead of/in addition to a carbon tax.

Reply to  RockyRoad
September 6, 2016 11:12 am

CO2, the life-giving gas, not “Carbon Pollution”. A Limerick – and explanation.
What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?
A sinister, evil collusion?
CO2, it is clean,
Makes for growth, makes it green,
A transfer of wealth, a solution. https://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/

Poly
September 5, 2016 6:29 pm

Oh dear,
Now grains will become even cheaper and the wealthy, western, USDA Pyramid-influenced muppets will stuff themselves full of even more carbohydrates and sugars, driving up obesity, heart disease and diabetes even further;
http://www.thenoakesfoundation.org/news/blog/tim-noakes-hpcsa-deposition-part-16?news=blog

Zeke
Reply to  Poly
September 5, 2016 9:48 pm

You heard the lady. Doesn’t it bother any of you that with all that plentiful wheat someone is going to make one of these?!
http://www.scottmcbeanblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Hamburger.jpg

Zeke
Reply to  Zeke
September 5, 2016 9:54 pm
RockyRoad
Reply to  Zeke
September 6, 2016 7:12 am

Not at all.

Zeke
Reply to  RockyRoad
September 6, 2016 8:52 am

Rocky Road says, “Not at all.”
It does keep some types of people awake at night that people eat well and drive pickups, and use central air and heat in their homes.
But it really should not. Not only was it a good year for wheat, but corn seems to have done well. The corn stalks are used for silage for cattle. Isn’t it nice that the entire plant can be used.
The cattle turn the stalks of corn, forage, hay, some grain, some unsalable potatoes and apples, and they turn it into superior proteins, zinc, iodine, magnesium, calcium and Vit B12–both in the beef and in the dairy products.
But for some gloomy types of people, like environmentalists and social darwinists, who prefer an under-nourished and lowered population, this is Unsustainable. If any one has this stronghold in their mind, they need to get rid of the falsehoods they have believed, and stop hating conventional agriculture, wheat, and cattle. Stop loving street drugs and hating the protein in wheat, milk, and beef. And Jesus loves you, you were wrong about Him too. Even if it takes years to give up the gloomy lies, start now.

Reply to  Zeke
September 6, 2016 9:31 am

I also love Jesus!
that does not mean we must put our head in the sand
[as I am sure Joseph learned in prison about observing the rise and fall of the Nile…]
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/05/in-the-middle-of-the-hottest-year-ever-come-record-wheat-harvests/#comment-2293844

September 5, 2016 6:31 pm

” 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?

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  chaamjamal
September 5, 2016 6:47 pm

Environmentalism is the last socially acceptable form of racism.

John
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 5, 2016 11:11 pm

Nice shot!

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 6, 2016 2:02 am

That’s why, Walter, the enviros present benign and, as some people would think, a misty white gas, as horrible black carbon. In my youth all bogeymen that we were threatened with were black. I wonder why?
It is no accident that the zealots have chosen to represent CO2 as Carbon.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
September 6, 2016 7:17 am

And yet in nature, “Carbon” exists in only three forms: 1) diamond; 2) graphite; and 3) carbon black. None of these are very common.

RBom
September 5, 2016 6:53 pm

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

JJHMAN
September 5, 2016 6:55 pm

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?

Zeke
Reply to  JJHMAN
September 5, 2016 7:24 pm

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.

ECK
September 5, 2016 7:11 pm

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,

Andrew
September 5, 2016 7:29 pm

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?

Julian Braggins
Reply to  Andrew
September 6, 2016 2:39 am

Just in case you weren’t joking, this is a great resource. http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/references.php

AMTR
September 5, 2016 7:36 pm

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

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
September 5, 2016 7:37 pm

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

Science or Fiction
September 5, 2016 10:28 pm

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
summary:
«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.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Science or Fiction
September 5, 2016 10:33 pm

The first quotes are from an article by Time Ball here on WUWT, which I cannot link to – by some reason.

DavidS
September 5, 2016 10:58 pm

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.

Resourceguy
Reply to  DavidS
September 6, 2016 7:27 am

……and lawns and bushes

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Resourceguy
September 6, 2016 9:54 am

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 …

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Resourceguy
September 6, 2016 9:56 am

forgot to add:
perhaps Willis will do a piece on CO2 is an urban legend

DWR54
September 5, 2016 11:04 pm

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: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spmsspm-c-12-north-america.html
Not sure who the ‘Chicken Littles’ referred to are.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  DWR54
September 6, 2016 1:05 am

“… and that there would be an increased number, intensity and duration of heatwaves …”.
=====================================
That is not a rational supposition.
Human-induced global warming is supposed to have been ongoing for at least ~70 years, one would expect to see some trend now:comment image
(US heat wave index EPA).

Reply to  DWR54
September 6, 2016 2:57 am

Maybe you didn’t read the article, which specifically links to this paper…
http://www1.clermont.inra.fr/siriusquality/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/48-Nature-Clim-Change-2015.pdf
…which has been thoroughly refuted by the events of the past year and a half.

John
September 5, 2016 11:17 pm

I always found that if you want a reliable weather
forecast; ask a farmer with bunions.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  John
September 6, 2016 8:07 am

Would those be a cross between beets and onions?

September 6, 2016 12:13 am

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…

fredb
September 6, 2016 12:16 am

Africa’s 2016 crisis as 40 million battle hunger (http://tinyurl.com/gr8p9kq) – 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”.

Resourceguy
Reply to  fredb
September 6, 2016 7:29 am

When was the last time Africa was able to feed itself?

MarkW
Reply to  Resourceguy
September 6, 2016 7:51 am

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.

Reply to  MarkW
September 6, 2016 7:54 am

the drought time [here in southern Africa] seemed to have started a bit before it will hit you in USA – Canada

MarkW
Reply to  fredb
September 6, 2016 7:52 am

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.

Griff
September 6, 2016 12:34 am

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.

Reply to  Griff
September 6, 2016 2:07 am

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.

Griff
Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
September 6, 2016 3:51 am

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?

MarkW
Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
September 6, 2016 7:55 am

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.

Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
September 6, 2016 4:20 pm

@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.

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
September 6, 2016 3:28 am

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

Griff
Reply to  AndyG55
September 6, 2016 3:52 am

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.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  AndyG55
September 6, 2016 5:23 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
September 6, 2016 7:54 am

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.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Griff
September 6, 2016 8:17 am

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.

Being and Time
September 6, 2016 12:55 am

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.

joel
Reply to  Being and Time
September 6, 2016 4:46 am

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.

michael hart
Reply to  Being and Time
September 6, 2016 7:30 am

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.

sophocles
September 6, 2016 1:21 am

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.

henryp
September 6, 2016 1:51 am

The story goes that you do get bumper crops in the years preceding the big drought….

AndyG55
September 6, 2016 3:26 am

That heat blob over Russia..
where has it gone?
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2016/july/July2016_globe.png

rtj1211
September 6, 2016 4:40 am

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……

September 6, 2016 6:07 am

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.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/06/advances-in-agriculture-in-the-us-and-ar

Berényi Péter
September 6, 2016 6:19 am

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…

Reply to  Berényi Péter
September 6, 2016 7:47 am

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. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml

Resourceguy
September 6, 2016 6:21 am

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

September 6, 2016 6:46 am

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.

michael hart
Reply to  Reality check
September 6, 2016 7:37 am

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.

Mike Maguire
September 6, 2016 7:49 am

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
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProd/CropProd-08-12-2016.txt

Reply to  Mike Maguire
September 6, 2016 8:38 am

without water
which will fail to come to the great plains of America
as per historic data
your equations won’t work….

Bubba Cow
Reply to  HenryP
September 6, 2016 10:11 am

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?

Reply to  Bubba Cow
September 6, 2016 10:23 am

Hi Bubba
rainfall follows certain patterns
if it looks chaotic to begin with, you are on the right track…comment image
just break it down into the 4 [full] solar cycles
this will give you the picture
[of your area]
always remember to count 86.5 years back if you want to know where we [on earth] are wrt to the sun

Mike Maguire
September 6, 2016 7:56 am

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?

TheLastDemocrat
September 6, 2016 8:10 am

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.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 6, 2016 8:31 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 6, 2016 9:50 am

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.

Gary Hladik
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 6, 2016 11:01 am

Isaac Asimov wrote several Ehrlich-like essays on population:
http://www.asimovonline.com/oldsite/Essays/overpopulation.html
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.

Menicholas
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
September 6, 2016 6:29 pm

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.

Mike Maguire
September 6, 2016 8:22 am

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
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProd/CropProd-08-12-2016.txt
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.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Mike Maguire
September 6, 2016 8:36 am

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

BLAMMO
September 6, 2016 9:42 am

Yeah, but it’s all carbs.

Dave
September 6, 2016 11:09 am

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

Neillusion
September 6, 2016 12:25 pm

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

Barbara Skolaut
September 6, 2016 1:13 pm

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

Michael Carter
September 6, 2016 1:22 pm

“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!”

Michael Carter
Reply to  Michael Carter
September 6, 2016 1:26 pm

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.

Winchester Lever Action
Reply to  Michael Carter
September 6, 2016 3:35 pm

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.

Conodo Mose
September 6, 2016 4:08 pm

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.

Malta
September 6, 2016 4:15 pm

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.

Scott
September 6, 2016 4:39 pm

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.

Menicholas
September 6, 2016 5:56 pm

Looking for the price of WHeat thins to go down any minute now.
Wait, what did you call them?
https://youtu.be/B1Vcbm-XWtg

Leo Smith
September 6, 2016 6:06 pm

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?

Michael Carter
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 6, 2016 9:14 pm

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
Cheers
M

Reply to  Leo Smith
September 7, 2016 2:11 pm

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: http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population%20Limits.html
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.

Reply to  Leo Smith
September 8, 2016 4:40 am

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.

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 9, 2016 6:57 am

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.

Danny Mitchell
September 7, 2016 10:13 am

Looks like global warming is greatness.

September 7, 2016 2:01 pm

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!

observa
September 7, 2016 6:07 pm

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-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-says-most-humpback-whales-no-longer-endangered-210902909.html?ref=gs
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/it%E2%80%99s-official-giant-pandas-are-no-longer-endangered/ar-AAiA5je
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.

observa
September 7, 2016 6:25 pm

It’s like this-
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/790/economics/different-types-of-goods-inferior-normal-luxury/
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.

observa
September 7, 2016 6:47 pm

Time to crush and recycle the gas guzzling Rainbow Warrior now chaps and recycle the 340 tonnes of steel, etc as we won’t be needing the 30 conspicuous consumption Veblen good types on board any longer-
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/ships/the-rainbow-warrior/

observa
September 7, 2016 8:33 pm

The dismal science teaches you all about the meaning of tradeoffs and what it can cost to save Giant Pandas among other things-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-06/millions-of-chinas-children-left-behind/7816010
and can give you an acute appreciation of our ancestors sending their children down the mines instead, before we go tut tutting at such behaviour.

henryp
September 8, 2016 7:22 am

@vukcevic
Henry said
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2015/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:2014/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1927/to:1972/trend/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1972/to:2015/trend/offset:8
so it follows that sc 25 will be more or less equal to sc 17
Henry asks:
are we both on agreed on that?