From the “Paul Ehrlich is still spectacularly wrong” department:
Malthus Chokes on Bumper Wheat Crop
A generation after leading scientists and experts warned the world of an escalating series of horrendous famines, the crop gluts continue. The latest kick in the pants to the Malthusian doomsayers is a bumper global wheat harvest. Defying not only the Club of Rome doomsayers, but also the climate Chicken Littles who have been warning about damage from rising temperatures to world agriculture, food production is booming even as meteorologists call July 2016 the hottest month ever.
The FT reports:
Extensive planting and benign weather have forced analysts to repeatedly raise crop outlooks. The International Grains Council last week increased its global wheat production forecast to a record 743m tonnes, up 1 per cent from last year. […]
The recent US winter wheat harvest was 45m tonnes, up 21 per cent from 2015, according to the US Department of Agriculture. Merchants who have run out of room in silos are piling wheat outdoors.Storage concerns are also growing in Russia, which is this year set to become the largest wheat exporter after hauling in more than 70m tonnes. In Canada, the government anticipates the second-largest wheat crop in 25 years, of 30.5m tonnes. Australia’s imminent wheat harvest is forecast at 26.5m tonnes, the most in five years.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t problems and worries in the world, but the combination of human ingenuity and the complexity of natural systems means that science is never quite as settled as publicity seeking scare mongers want people to think.
That good news is from The American Interest
But wait, there’s more:
From Marketwatch, record low wheat prices after harvest forecasts have been bumped up:
December wheat WZ6, +1.14% fell 4 cents, or 1%, to settle at $3.88 1/4 a bushel in Chicago. Prices, based on the most-active contracts, logged their lowest settlement since August 2006 and ended around 4% lower for the month, to tally a year-to-date loss of almost 17%, according to FactSet data.
Harvest pressure here and abroad, record [crop] yields in the U.S., a record crop in Russia are all weighing on the markets,” said David Maloni, president of the American Restaurant Association Inc.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture raised its estimate on Russian wheat production for the current crop year by 7 million metric tons to 72 million metric tons, citing “[e]xcellent growing conditions throughout the country and harvest reports showing very high yields.” It said that Russia is expected to be the world’s largest wheat exporter for the first time.
Meanwhile over at the National Climatic Data Center, they see worrisome temperature in bright red colors over Russia all year, saying it was the second warmest July ever.
I’m sure some warmist somewhere will claim that the quality of the wheat harvest has suffered because of CAGW, not the quantity. ;->
…probably grew too fast and has less concentration of some vitamin or something
actually higher CO2 increases quality of antioxidants / vitamins as well as basic long chained sugars. Many many references.
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.
@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.
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.
But how do you carry the Meter Tall Soy Bean? How much do those behemoths weigh anyway?
@BryanA It would seem you’d need a Jolly Green Giant to harvest those Meter Tall Soy Beans
Forgot all about THAT Big Green Guy
Come ON guys – it’s obviously Jack in the BEAN Stalk!
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…
Should be building silos not windmills and mirrors:)
Cheers
Roger
Good one.
Good one (2)
it’s rotten wheat
No, it’s not rotten.
gnomish,
You forgot the /sarc tag for those among us that don’t know you.
heh- paul-
Who cares about the humorless? They need a support group, not a comedian.
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
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.
And if you’re going to sell it right away, you can dispense with the wrapping.
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?
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.
the banana I ate as a kid has been supplanted twice…
by fungus resistant types and they taste starchy vs the fruity I remember
It must be that bad GMO wheat.
But somewhere, somehow, a frog is dying….
A Cane Toad in Queensland at the very least. Great sport.
Reminds me of the wisdom in an old haiku:
The toad
In the road
And the steel-belted radial
Are One.
What is red and green and travels at 1000KPH?
A Cane Toad in a Blender
Actually, it’s lizards that we have worry about now.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100513/full/news.2010.241.html
My first question in all such alarms is what has been the local temperature record over the study period .
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.
It’s the Lycra lizards I hate.
got run over by an alarmist in their new escalade paid for by tax dollars.
Kermit?
If so, this could be his final song… 😉
The result of a fungus brought in on the shoe of the scientist who came to study the frog.
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?
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.
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:
Most of the time our climate is pretty doggone gorgeous. 😉
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
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
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.
But the corn is being used for bio-fuels…Bummer…
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.
I swear the corn is over 12 ft. tall this year
That’s a might big elephant.
Oh what a wonderful morning.
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.
More sunshine,more CO2,more food.
..more plants, more beef.. [nom nom]
Yes, but is it ‘gluten free?’ /sarc.
Only after it’s highly processed, at which point you can’t call it organic anymore. 🙂
Corn and soybeans, yes. Wheat, no.
BTW, gluten isn’t a joke for those of us who are intolerant.
When you eat the greens to become nationally solvent
Isn’t gluten free?
Gluten intolerance – the food industry finally got out in front of the medical profession on something, and told ’em “Shut up and get outta the way, we’re running with this one, no matter what you say!” The medical profession tries (quietly) to downplay the fad, saying that very few people are actually gluten intolerant or, even more rarely, celiacs. But the food industry slaps “gluten free” on every label they possibly can. “Just follow the money”.
Yup, the big supermarkets are all over something that gives them some extra product differentiation as a way to raise prices and margins.
As with GM food, I’m OK with that as long as clear choices are available to the consumer. Greens should be allowed to pay more for food if they want to.
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.
Rats, I was looking forward to trying solvent green.
I think you mean soylent green.
“Solvent green”, is that another name for Absinthe? 😉
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpDaUmFv_EILqbX7cUUrxGVSM5Ykwe8-vaOcbwP8hg_xi69crX
Bankrupt green. 🙂
That would be insolvent green.
The warmest July ever – with respect to a 1981-2010 base period. I guess “ever” starts way back in 1981.
Actually, no. The base period is just used to calculate anomalies. Depending on the record, “ever” can start well before the base period, e.g. the instrumental record extends back into the 18th century, and the claim of “hottest ever” often goes back to before the 1930’s, but only after “adjusting” the data to get rid of the highest temps of the 1930’s.
Yes, and anybody who thinks we can accurately measure “global” temperature to tenths of a degree today, let alone 150 years ago, is either ignorant, foolish, or dishonest.
Your list is not necessarily mutually exclusive.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
“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.
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.
Jeff Alberts
Don’t you know? WINTER IS COMING
I thought that AGW had cancelled winter.
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.
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.
“self-correcting in the long run”
Everything is self-correcting in the long run. It’s the transition period that’s the problem.
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
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.
If anybody wants to mow my pasture for me, I’ll be much obliged. Getting weary of it.
pop,
it’s called goats. get some.
good eatin’ too with slow cooking & bbq sauce.
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.
Pop,
I don’t recommend bbq donkey. Tough as leather.
joelobryan
I have eaten donkey meat. It is the second best tasting meat in the world (according to the chinese)
joe, you can try sheep as well. In addition to good eating, you can sell the wool every year.
Alex: The best being dog?
MarkW
Dragon, of course. That’s why there aren’t any.
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.
It is wonderful to come here and read good news.
Insert picture of Snoopy going “Everybody DANCE!”
Here’s to Malthus – choking on the prosperity of mankind.
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/
that was a really tacky thing to do………
Just telling it as it is…
Humble
1 : not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive. 2 : reflecting.
But this is pointless… at this point.
The point is… we (science) really have no idea where the sun is headed for SC25. Many honest science groups differ on the direction. It could be stronger than SC 24, it could ’bout the same, or SC25 could be hibernation time.
But We can assign probabilities today from what we know, but that does not mean “snake eyes” won’t show up on the actual dice. And the reality that current obs are not meeting models suggests new models are needed.
we (science) really have no idea where the sun is headed for SC25.
But we do. Lots of ideas, most of them quite wrong, but some are grounded in good physics and have shown their worth the last four cycles and in hindcast the last 9 cycles.
9 cycles is ’bout a hundred years. So We really have no clue about what the sun is about to serve us in the next cycle or 2. Maunder type? Dalton type? Maybe IGY57 super cycle?
Roll the dice.
I rest my case.
I rest my case.
You need to educate yourself a bit first.
L,
There you go with that dissing the humble thing… again.
Really at your age, you should not be so dismissive.
Yes, I read your pdf slides. Just one data point.
Curemudgeon is not an adjective I would apply easily to you.
But still…
You may have read something, but it didn’t register well enough.
And there is no need to be humbler than the situation warrants.
And it is not really up to you to comment on my character. Stick to the science, if you can.
Curmudgeon.
errrr…
Leif has a tough time reconciling himself to the fact that people don’t always agree with him.
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.
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
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?
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.
Thanks Dr Svalgaard.
Dr Leif,
I have read through all your website pdf”s that I can mine for. info and understanding the SOA solar physics.
Don’t get me wrong. I respect your adherence to dara and theory grounded in data.
it’s the shortness of our human observation of solar quantitative parameters I question rhe furure conclusions. Dr Harbaway had his share in glory. Now I jusr question your throwing stones at Archibald’s glass house when rhe sun is not outputting to models.
when rhe sun is not outputting to models
But it is. At least to ‘my’ model [which is the Babcock theory of solar activity]. The plots you show are from NOAA. When we had the sunspot prediction panel back in 2007, the panel was initially split with a high prediction [ca. 140] and a low prediction [ca. 70]. The panel could not agree, and the final result was to take a weighted mean of the low and the high values [ca. 90]. This was IMO too high, but I was overruled. Now we know that the low prediction [mostly mine] was the correct one. To summarize: the polar field precursor method introduced by me and colleagues almost 40 years ago is today recognized to be the most accurate one we have, having been correct now for four cycles. If we are correct for SC25 too, that will strongly suggest that we have finally figured out how to predict the cycle, and that the physics on which it is based actually works as advertised. But there will always be some doubt [diminishing with each correct prediction] as science is never ‘settled’, but so far, so good.
sorry for the typos. My iphone screen is too small and my eyes need stronger reading glasses.
Leif, your arrogance is off-putting when you tell others to “educate themselves.” Despite your age, you would be wise to be more humble.ni realize you have to suffer many fools here to post at WUWT, but humble is always to your benefit.
Regardless, you still need to educate yourself.
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
As I explained, the NOAA graphs are not mine, and are not even valid science, IMHO. Note the H.
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.
See earlier comment.
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).”
From an earlier comment:
“on the basis of the Babcock–Leighton scenario of the origin of the solar cycle, Schatten et al. (1978) suggested that the polar field measurements may be used to predict the amplitude of the next solar cycle. Data collected in the four subsequent solar cycles have indeed confirmed this suggestion. ”
“It is indeed remarkable that despite the very limited available experience, forecasts using the polar field method have proven to be consistently in the right range for cycles 21, 22, and 23 [and now 24]”
So we [at least some of us] do know how to predict the solar cycle. No humility needed or wanted. Success is its own reward.
Extrapolation of a generalised envelope’s amplitude undulations, for the previous 20 or so cycles’ gives a rough idea of the future cycles’ intensity range.
The method ( devised in 2003, published in 2004) proved extremely accurate for the SC24 (perhaps an ‘ incredible coincidence’).
At the time projection (SC24max ~ 80) was at the opposite end of the scale to the NASA’s estimate at the time (SC22 – the highest ever). After some investigation into it inclining plotting the equation, the NASA’s expert swiftly rejected possibility of low SC24.
The envelope extrapolation indicates that the SC25 will be well below the SC24’s peak.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN0816.gif
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
typos: including ; SC24
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
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly Samuel C Cogar & lsvalgaard
It should be noted that “nothing that human mind may consider, in its current stage of development, is certain for certain”.
Or as Bertrand Russell put it:
“One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid ….”
Mind you he was brought up by his grandmother.
‘Generalised’ usually means ‘in general’ and not every single case, but a majority of cases.
No, actually, it means “not limited to a particular area or part”, so covers all cases. But an extrapolation that fails in several cases is a sign that it was spurious to begin with.
Most of definitions I found on the web contradict your view, describing ‘it as a qualifying statement acknowledging that there are exceptions.
Oxford dictionary: “Considering or including only the main features or elements of something; not exact or detailed”.
No, it means just the opposite of what you think. Namely “Make or become more widely or generally applicable”. Or “Make a general or broad statement by inferring from specific cases”. I.e. inferring something to hold from specific examples.
In any case, your linguistic excuses just cover up the fact that your formula fails when applied before the year 1800, as well as for the years in the 1960s [the small cycle 20] which according to your formula should have been the largest cycle of all. It is not surprising that extrapolations fail when they are not based on physics.
So sayith: vukcevic
Mr. 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
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.
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.
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
Henry, that is not how the sun works.
What is your prediction for cycle 20 peaking in 1969?
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
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]
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.
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.
As the graph shows:
http://www.leif.org/research/HenryP-GN.png
“your” cycle does not fit the observations, hence must be rejected.
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.
So sayith: lsvalgaard
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
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.
or do ya
And snotty comments do not garner you any respect.
So sayith: lsvalgaard
CRICKET, CRICKET, ….. chirp chirp, ……. “Ya know, Isvalgaard, …… or do ya, …… that its quite easy to predict the “winner” of a horse race once the lead horse is past the ¾ mark and in the “home stretch””
When you cease with the arrogance of your perceived scientific intellect ….. then there will be no compelling need for me to be responding to your commentary via any per se “snotty comments”.
There is no need for you to respond to anything, snotty or not. If you can bring something of scientific value to the table, then please comment, otherwise hold your tongue.
We all have to face the consequences of guessing wrong now and then, it’s probably much easier when you can lean on your pedigree and papers. Lesser established fellows are noticably punished more than the star children of academia.
Sorry Leif, David Archibald has a long, long way to go before he is anywhere near being in the league of back-to-australopithecine vegetatively idiotic wrongness of Paul ehrlich
When you view yourself as perfect, it doesn’t matter how many errors others have made. The fact that they aren’t perfect is all that matters.
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.
Preparing the torches and sharpening the pitchforks.
You mean – preparing the knives and forks? (and tomato ketchup?)
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.
This is what they want in the long run. Starvation rather than the ovens or labour camps.
Do you SEE anyone “abandoning fossil fuels,” REALLY? I see dozens of glitzy brand-new big pickup trucks, and this is in the heart of raging blue-state watermelon mania. “The Narrative” is almost 100% a media phenomenon at this point; real people show no signs of belief in it. And after the ridiculous hype of a “killer storm” that never arrived this past weekend, fewer than EVER will believe ANYTHING they say!
With coal an nuclear power plants being decommissioned and windmills being built to replace them, it is happening now, but most don’t know it. At some point, when the electric grid is near collapse and the rolling blackouts occur, everybody will realize what has been happening and what a big mistake it was. But by then it will be too late to avoid a lot of misery and privation. Even an emergency building boom of natural gas and coal plants will take years, maybe decades to restore the system, and society, to normal. That’s if we can even prevent the collapse of our modern society that is so dependent on electricity.
I hope I don’t live to see it, but I weep for my children and grandchildren.
Ironically, the alarmists will be the first to go. In a watermelon parade there is only one sun in the sky. Only one Dear Leader can stand on the stage.
Heartening to hear we can still hold Norman Borlaug as a hero for the ages.
And can reaffirm Erlich, Hansen, Mann et al as a zero for the ages. 😉
Erhlich, Hansen, Mann, Trenberth, Karl, Schmidt, Jones, Oreskes, Overpeck… pseudoscientists who sold their integrity for a grant/paycheck. They will be forgotten by history as all liars of their ilk are.
You left out T. Karl & T. Peterson.
Oops, just Peterson.
They need to be remembered – just not the way they would like.
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.
Yes, Borlaug always worked to develop new cultivars on site.
He met the most resistance from western environmentalists after he had been to Mexico and India, which went from being importers of wheat to net exporters, and he wanted to go to Africa. They pressured his sponsors into cutting his funding. They have always worked hard to keep agriculture from advancing in Africa. Perhaps he made his comment before that episode.
You just touched on another self- exposé by the environmentalists. Borlaug’s work extended human lives, which is at cross purpose to their not- so- well hidden agendas, so they vilified him and his works.
co2 is plant food……”scientists” on the past claimed higher co2 would cause famine? AMAZING……
https://www.yahoo.com/news/future-climate-change-field-test-doesnt-earth-greener-190442141.html
“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
Quick–there must be cause for panic somewhere! I know, Hillary is still ahead in the polls 🙂
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.
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.
It’s just the tip of the snow cone, soybean yields are going to trend above average this year, corn yields look to be a bit mixed based on what I’ve seen, but still sufficient so that corn futures are still below break-even. Lots of late moisture in the upper midwest has set things up for one or two additional cuttings of alfalfa, so diary should continue to be cheap for most of the U.S., (the Califormia drought still hampers things on the west cost) … and for anyone who missed my recent posts, I’m giving away tomatoes, both beefstakes and romas, we’ve just got too many of them and the blanche-freeze production line has given way to beer tasting.
If we could just reduce the wet bulb temps, this would be the perfect summer. i’ve never had my pond stay within half-a-foot of the overflow all summer since it was built. Bless you El Nino.
My hay man just called and asked if I can take a couple of loads early–the farmers have SO MUCH HAY, they’re running out of places to store it! Bless you El Nino, seconded!
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!
Prices will probably continue downward as more of the market begins to realize how much inventory stocks will build up this year.
In all of these discussions about the “market” how come nobody mentions that monopoly is not a market place. Just go ask Cargil, Purina, and Nestle what the price of wheat is going to be next year.
You keep using that word, but I do not believe you know what it means.
There is no monopoly and none of these companies has more than a tiny influence on the price of wheat, or anything else for that matter.
mark…at least check with wikipedia before claiming that the company that controls 25% of the grain and 22% of the beef sold in the United States is a “tiny” influence in the marketplace. 100% of all the eggs used at MacDonalds pass through Cargill so they are probably almost 100% responsible for the price that you purchase an egg mcmuffin for.
I detect (in Australia at least) people seeking alternatives to wheat. Perhaps consumption should be looked at. This would impact the wheat price as well.
yup the chaps on eyre peninsula swapped to Lupins this year
they..will be doing very well pricewise
A warmer world with more rain and longer growing seasons plus extra CO2 to augment and enhance the basic process of photosynthesis – it really isn’t too difficult to figure out.
Extra CO2 will mean that areas that before were at best marginal for growing crops because of not enough moisture, can start producing regular crops.
At the risk of alienating many here, please read chapters 1-3 in ebook Gaias Limits. The rest of the chapters have to do with CAGW. There is no doubt about greening. There is serious doubt about long term net productivity given net arible land relative to projected population.
I don’t doubt that at some point we will simply not have sufficient sunlight, nor land, nòr sufficient nutrients, nor sufficient water; but elevated temperatures and CO2 do not seem to be a problem. I recall articles in the 1970s suggesting that sunshine limited the world human population to a bit over 8 billion if all aspired to the daily nutrition of those in the developed West.
I recall that such articles from the 1970’s have been shown to be wrong about just about every single thing they predicted or calculated.
If the rest of the world advanced to western levels of productivity, we could easily support a population twice our current levels.
That doesn’t even mention returning to production lands that have been allowed to go fallow because they couldn’t compete with midwestern farms.
“There is serious doubt about long term net productivity given net arible land relative to projected population.”
Wherever fossil fuels permit lifestyles well beyond subsistence it’s quite clear that their populations stabilise and even shrink due to the Net Reproduction Rate of women falling below 2. What part of that demographic trend do these Greens, who believe humans other than themselves are a pestilent intrusion on their Gaia, want to throw into reverse and why? What part of EROEI that permits this don’t these modern day Luddites understand?
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-5/the-return-of-nature
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.
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.