Climate change will cut crop yields: study

August 15, 2017
Credit: SC Department of Agriculture

Climate change will have a negative effect on key crops such as wheat, rice, and maize, according to a major scientific report out Tuesday that reviewed 70 prior studies on global warming and agriculture.

Experts analyzed previous research that used a variety of methods, from simulating how crops will react to temperature changes at the global and local scale, to statistical models based on historical weather and yield data, to artificial field warming experiments.

All these methods "suggest that increasing temperatures are likely to have a negative effect on the global yields of wheat, rice and maize," said the report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed US journal.

"Each degree Celsius increase in global mean temperature is estimated to reduce average global yields of wheat by six percent," said the report.

Rice yields would be cut by 3.2 percent, and maize by 7.4 percent for each degree of Celsius warming (almost two degrees Fahrenheit), it added.

"Estimates of did not change significantly."

These four crops are key to the survival of humanity, providing two-thirds of our caloric intake.

Changing temperatures would likely cause yields to rise in some locations, said the report.

But for the most part, the overall trend planet-wide is downward, signaling that steps are needed to adapt to the warming climate and feed an ever-expanding world population.

Explore further: Climate change will cut cereal yields, model predicts—technological advances could offset those losses

More information: Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates, Chuang Zhao, PNAS, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1701762114 , http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/08/10/1701762114

Related Stories

Could global warming's top culprit help crops?

April 18, 2016

Many scientists fear that global warming will hit staple food crops hard, with heat stress, extreme weather events and water shortages. On the other hand, higher levels of carbon dioxide—the main cause of ongoing warming—is ...

Recommended for you

The world needs to rethink the value of water

November 23, 2017

Research led by Oxford University highlights the accelerating pressure on measuring, monitoring and managing water locally and globally. A new four-part framework is proposed to value water for sustainable development to ...

'Lost' 99% of ocean microplastics to be identified with dye?

November 23, 2017

The smallest microplastics in our oceans – which go largely undetected and are potentially harmful – could be more effectively identified using an innovative and inexpensive new method, developed by researchers at the ...

82 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

aksdad
2 / 5 (25) Aug 15, 2017
These "meta studies" are popular but they have essentially zero scientific value. They don't attempt to falsify the other studies to see if their conclusions are actually correct. They don't provide experimental evidence to verify the theories. If there are errors in the original studies, they simply propagate and even compound the errors instead of correcting them. In other words, move along, nothing to see here.
dudester
4.8 / 5 (21) Aug 15, 2017
My family farms. Our yields are going down and our water use is going up to keep up with the brutally high summer temperatures. There are fewer old timey cold winters anymore to kill back weeds which sap rain year round from fallow ground requiring more herbicide use and insects which damage the crops and require more pesticide use.

Springs are not as wet as they once were but the temps are erratic with both late freezes and early heat waves. Summers are brutally hot from May to September, storms with heavy hail and strong, damaging winds are becoming more common. Fall, when the corn and milo used to get hit with a freeze by the end of September facilitating harvest by the end of October now often acts just like summer until the cool non-winter begins.

So keep your head in the sand, but if you really are some kind of dad, I grieve for your children's future, as I do for mine.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (20) Aug 15, 2017
@aks-idiotTROLL
They don't attempt to falsify the other studies to see if their conclusions are actually correct. They don't provide experimental evidence to verify the theories
i can see from the affiliations and authors alone that this comes from universities that have experimental studies in the works and they include enclosed as well as open CO2 studies (including FACE studies)

you should also recognise some of them because i referenced a lot of those studies specifically to you in the past - which you subsequently ignored because they proved CO2 wasn't the super plant food you claimed it was for all plants on earth

in point of fact, they demonstrated this clearly, effectively and had the "experimental evidence to verify the theories"
(so why did you ignore those, then?)

should have read at least the first two lines of the article, ya trolling POS
Paulw789
2 / 5 (28) Aug 15, 2017
The only thing wrong with this study is that yields are going up which means the additional CO2 is doing exactly what real science says it should be doing - increasing productivity of plants.

I imagine one can distort the numbers if one is funded to do so.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2017
Hmmm...
Looks like a few farmers might have to pull a few acres out of the soil bank program...:-)
Old_C_Code
1.6 / 5 (21) Aug 15, 2017
Nothing scientific about this BS.
Dingbone
Aug 15, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (18) Aug 16, 2017
you should also recognise some of them because i referenced a lot of those studies specifically to you in the past - which you subsequently ignored because they proved CO2 wasn't the super plant food you claimed it was for all plants on earth

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp


I see antigoracle/waterprophet sock sprawling with some of his older socks askdaddy,digbone and a few more recent ones Old_C_Code and Paylw789, withe Old C farce give a typical BS reply, the monkeys are out for another round, let's have some fun with them ! :D
unrealone1
1.7 / 5 (22) Aug 16, 2017
High CO2 Greenhouse is bad for plants?
Jurassic period plants where Jurassic..
novaman
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 16, 2017
High CO2 Greenhouse is bad for plants?
Jurassic period plants where Jurassic..

CO2 was very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.
Parsec
4.4 / 5 (14) Aug 16, 2017
The effects of changes in both temperatures and CO2 levels on plant growing seasons is both complex and sometimes contradictory. While modest increases in CO2 levels have been shown to increase growth (holding all other things equal), beyond a certain point, it inhibits growth. Very modest increases in temp can also stimulate growth, as long as sufficient water is supplied, but increases in both temp and CO2 tend to cause the stomata that regulates plants ability to control its water respiration to get stuck open, causing a loss in the plant's ability to retain water, even in the presence of plenty of it. Not only that, but all of these effects vary from species to species. Add these facts in with the kinds of extreme events expected from climate change and its obvious that anyone that expects climate change to not be destructive to crop yields is smoking stuff illegal in all 50 states.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 16, 2017
Ecology is governed by the law of the minimum (Liebig's law). The resource available in the scarcest amount limits growth. This includes (as Parsec correctly points out) the ability to retain water.

The argument that "CO2 is plant food therefore more CO2 will make plants grow more" is hoplessly naive.
Turgent
1 / 5 (13) Aug 16, 2017
Good Science

Foundation on a lot of previous work

Really like "to artificial field warming experiments". Hence testing at the temperature ranges which initiate lower crop yields.

It would be nice to see a graph of yields from low temperature zero yield to high temperature zero. Notes yields would increase some locations.

Both GMO and birth control are needed for solution.

No Climate Disaster Porn.
unrealone1
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 16, 2017
Deserts 'greening' from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world's arid regions
Increased levels of carbon dioxide have helped boost green foliage across the world's arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called carbon dioxide fertilization, according to new research.
https://www.scien...3521.htm
unrealone1
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 16, 2017
Research shows global photosynthesis on the rise
https://phys.org/...sis.html
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 16, 2017
Deserts 'greening' from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world's arid regions
Increased levels of carbon dioxide have helped boost green foliage across the world's arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called carbon dioxide fertilization, according to new research.
https://www.scien...3521.htm


Yes, and this effect is best described as ephemeral, as it is subject to a number of variables which will tend to box in the upper limit of the effect, which has already likely been reached.

It is a real effect which has to be accounted for, but is pretty much of zero significance in the context of effects upon food crop yields --if you know what I mean.

If you don't, then why are you even commenting?

Caliban
4.3 / 5 (16) Aug 16, 2017
These "meta studies" are popular but they have essentially zero scientific value. They don't attempt to falsify the other studies to see if their conclusions are actually correct. They don't provide experimental evidence to verify the theories. If there are errors in the original studies, they simply propagate and even compound the errors instead of correcting them. In other words, move along, nothing to see here.


No, sackbag.

You view this study as bogus because it contradicts your antiscience Denierside worldview --pure and simple.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (17) Aug 16, 2017
The only thing wrong with this study is that yields are going up which means the additional CO2 is doing exactly what real science says it should be doing - increasing productivity of plants.

I imagine one can distort the numbers if one is funded to do so.


Except for the glaring fact that worldwide, yields for the food crops listed in the study are decreasing, of course, which is the whole point.

Which you conveniently ignore.

Each degree Celsius increase in global mean temperature is estimated to reduce average global yields of wheat by six percent.

The yield of wheat may indeed decrease with global warming, whereas the http://farmdocdai...fig1.jpg instead. This is life.


Ditto, dingy.
Dodgy
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 17, 2017
This study is flatly contradicted by the OECD Agricultural Outlook predictions 2016-2026 - which state: "The context for this year's Outlook is record production and abundant stocks of most commodities...".

Yields for food crops are increasing everywhere. The only place where they are 'estimated' to decrease are in climate change models, which are conveniently tuned to predict decreases. They do this by assuming that plant growth is currently optimised, and that farmers will not adapt to any changing conditions by shifting production times or using different crop varieties. In reality, of course, farmers adapt to different conditions rapidly, and will take advantage of increased warmth and CO2 to increase yield.

Pity we haven't had any increased warmth for the last 20 years, of course...
HeloMenelo
4.5 / 5 (17) Aug 17, 2017
Typical BS argument from one of Antigoracle's/waterprophet Sockpuppets, always having the word "adapt" in his sensless arguments, strawman arguments that sees a narrow part of what the reality in a whole actually is does not describe the devestating effects of increase CO2 production.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (16) Aug 17, 2017
Typical BS argument from one of Antigoracle's/waterprophet Sockpuppets, always having the word "adapt" in his sensless arguments, strawman arguments that sees a narrow part of what the reality in a whole actually is does not describe the devestating effects of increase CO2 production.


Learn how to do some real world math & get off the phony oversimplistic models that have never been accurate.

If all the CO2 in the atmosphere were squeezed into a monolithic blanket across the surface of the Earth, the blanket would be 1/10" thick. In your model explain to us how such a thin blanket could hold enough heat to warm anything? But then your model needs to factor in the fact that there is no monolithic blanket of CO2, in fact the gaps in the blanket would be necessarily huge because CO2 only comprises 0.04% of atmospheric gases, but you probably didn't know any of this did you?
RealScienceMatter
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 17, 2017
Nothing needs to be explained to an antigoracle troll, There is enough maths in countless of evidece proving climate change, the evidence is everywhere, yet you're blinded by your own puppets, real emperical evidence is there, only a click away, on the other hand your strawman arguments leads to nowhere, and plenty of hot air, we're not here to entertain idiocy, we're here to expose it.
Turgent
1 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2017
Could anyone provide citation to Michael Mann's Hockey Stick paper or other public domain source where is work is fully disclosed and explained. Even a partial explanation, but only of MM.
Turgent
1 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2017
The concentration of CO2 is roughly at 400ppm. Trace gases are too small to count.

The molecular weight of CO2 is 44 grams per mole far outweighing H2O at a puny 18 grams per mole. Gravity is always trying to concentrate CO2 at ground level. Why doesn't CO2 become dissolved in the oceans at some rate? So if we held CO2 emissions to current levels when would the earth begin to cool?
Benni
1 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2017
If all the CO2 in the atmosphere were squeezed into a monolithic blanket across the surface of the Earth, the blanket would be 1/10" thick. In your model explain to us how such a thin blanket could hold enough heat to warm anything? But then your model needs to factor in the fact that there is no monolithic blanket of CO2, in fact the gaps in the blanket would be necessarily huge because CO2 only comprises 0.04% of atmospheric gases, but you probably didn't know any of this did you?
........and neither did any of these characters who have the same math problem as you:

August 17, 2017, 9:05 am 1 novaman RealScienceMatter gregie2017 thomasw2 rokolia dramputti4
Dodgy
1 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2017
"...Could anyone provide citation to Michael Mann's Hockey Stick paper or other public domain source where is work is fully disclosed and explained. Even a partial explanation, but only of MM...."

Yes - https://climateau...2003.pdf

Also - https://www.amazo...ds=steyn
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2017
@turdTROLL
Could anyone provide citation to Michael Mann's Hockey Stick paper
asked and answered, your claims directly refuted with evidence (and explained in open paper): https://phys.org/...res.html

Gravity is always trying to concentrate CO2 at ground level
see: water in atmosphere
also: Homogeneity, homosphere and heterosphere
or keyword search "thermodynamics" here: https://phys.org/...ent.html
.

just because you don't understand it doesn't mean others are equally stupid

as you've actively refused to actually read links and references in the past which directly refute your claims, then this will also be ignored by you

however others will read it and know you're a lying POS troll seeking to push a political argument over the scientific evidence

win-win for science
epic fail for you
Turgent
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2017
Dodgy

Thanks

The paper does speak to the hockey stick and identifies Mann's papers. It is surprising that the hockey stick was theorized on pre-1980 data. Everybody should read this and Mann's papers:

(1998) Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries, Nature, No. 392 or MBH98

(1999). Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations

however, Mann's are behind paywalls. For such a controversial subject its surprising he hasn't put them into the public domain.
Dodgy
1 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2017
"Experts analyzed previous research that used a variety of methods, from simulating how crops will react to temperature changes at the global and local scale, to statistical models based on historical weather and yield data, to artificial field warming experiments"

Ah, statistical models.

That's funny. Real life shows crops booming. http://timesofind...0001.cms
Turgent
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 17, 2017
---Cont---

The cited paper is dated 1998 and Mann's papers address 600 and 1000 years respectively ending at 1980, without benefit of 37 years of current data. Therefore Mann derived his hockey stick prior to 1980. Eyeballing the temp record from 1900 to1980 a hockey stick isn't visible. Therefore, Mann must have used some CO2 based algorithm to predict the hockey stick. The cited paper does point out issues in Mann's hockey stick paper MBH98, however, these can't be affirmed without Mann's papers. It seems doubtful that many have read or spoken to Mann 2nd paper on inferences, uncertainties, and limitations.

It would be really neat to see:

A track of Mann's predicted values within his confidence interval.

1. A correlation between the hockey stick and 37 years of new data.

2. Temperature data set & method of determination.

3. Temp. data before satellite inference and reanalysis
Turgent
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 17, 2017
Stumpy

You win first prize. I wanted to see who would be the first moron to come out of the woodwork sniping and name calling.

The purpose was to see how really uneducated, absence of the wisdom to know what you don't, and plain nasty you are.

I looked at your 2 citations. As before your citations show you are certifiably nuts, your citation has nothing to do with;

"Gravity is always trying to concentrate CO2 at ground level…"

This is a true statement except it isn't actuality. Brownian motion keeps the relative portions of atmospheric gases constant. So even if you go to the highest limits of the atmosphere portions are constant, except for …… helium and hydrogen. Stumpy why is that? Moron, Brownian motion kicks these lightest of gases to escape velocity.
Turgent
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 17, 2017
Cont. --- Stumpy and herd

Did you finish High School as this is learned at the very beginning of chemistry. Any relevant citation would have addressed that. Why not stop putting citations in when you know they are unrelated or when you have no idea if they are?

"SCIENCE is evidence" and "Blah, blah, blah"

Too bad I'm responding so fast as I should have waited to see how many other of your brethren would have followed.

Stumpy moron the paper cited by Dodgy was a criticism of Mann, however, I would still like to read and understand it. Would you nut case?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2017
@turdTROLL
I wanted to see who would be the first moron to come out of the woodwork sniping and name calling
1- the first moron out of the woodwork was you for repeatedly asking for data that has already been presented to you

2- it's not name calling if it's accurate, and considering you're demonstrably trolling and presenting a parroted regurgitation of already falsified comments, then it makes you even stupider
The purpose was
it demonstrated that you *literally* ignored scientific data for the sake of your own political rhetoric
so it backfires on you
I looked at your 2 citations
no
two links =/= multiple citations:
you would know that had you actually read said references
Stumpy why is that?
moron
if you had read the references and multiple citations in the links provided you would have your answer

but then again, it would also prove you're an idiot
which is why you refused to read the citations in the links

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2017
@turdTROLL the political rhetoric parrot
Stumpy moron the paper cited by Dodgy was a criticism of Mann, however, I would still like to read and understand it. Would you nut case?
read it already
i preferred to allow the data to speak for itself, including the paper i linked to you

you know, the one you still refuse to read?
Why not stop putting citations in when you know they are unrelated or when you have no idea if they are?
i have yet to put a citation that is irrelevant
you make a comment and i provided citation and evidence

just because you're too f*cking stupid to follow along with your own argument doesn't mean we are all that stupid

perhaps you need this link: http://www.readingbear.org/

let us know when you get past 5th grade literacy so we can use bigger words
if you're nice i will even include dictionary references to explain the harder words you still don't understand
Turgent
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 17, 2017
Stumpy,

Your irrelevant citation https://phys.org/...ent.html is Climate Porn and you have no idea why.

You remind me of Kluckers (KKK), the more you listen the sicker you get.
Turgent
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 17, 2017
Stumpy

"doesn't mean we are all that stupid"

I very much would like to see that.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2017
@turdTROLL the political rhetoric parrot
Your irrelevant citation https://phys.org/...ent.html is Climate Porn and you have no idea why
1- it's a link to the citation, which is spelled out in small enough words for even you to understand

2- you forgot the keyword search

3- the 83 matches will take you to the relevant points which you are still ignoring

4- it still proves you're idiotically ignoring relevant data because it directly refutes your claims

you will likely ignore it more, then post some irrelevant inane comment about how it's irrelevant because you don't understand why i linked it
You remind me of Kluckers (KKK)
surprised you didn't go straight for Godwin

nice to see you have no actual relevant refute of the science though
(still)

did you ever read that first set of studies i linked?
didn't think so

otherwise you wouldn't still be asking the same stupid questions about CO2 and Mann
LMFAO
Turgent
Aug 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2017
@turdTROLL the political rhetoric parrot
Vile little man.
calm down: we don't dislike you because you're vile or because you're little

we dislike you because you're a liar, you parrot political rhetoric that is directly refuted by the evidence, and because you can't even follow your own conversation

thank you for validating the fact that:
1- you ignored the data

1a - you're still ignoring the data

2- you understood nothing

3- you're not here to do anything but Troll and add FUD

https://isotropic...cken.pdf
Benni
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 17, 2017
@Turgent........I've had the Stump on Ignore for a long time. All you need to do is read one of his posts & you've read them all, they all sound alike. The only thing he's Captain of is his foul mouthed brigade, you know who they are by looking at who gives him 5 Star votes, Like Da Schneib, RNP, and the usual half a dozen others.
Turgent
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 17, 2017
Warning this is mature content reflecting an opinion which is neither pro nor con AGW. Temp records do indicate warming has taken place. . I am no scientist but I can read and went to school and paid attention. Scientists write lots of papers for you and your reading enjoyment. This is not latin.

Found Mann's 2 papers previously thought unavailable

Mann's first paper:

1. Initial premise "[knowledge of past] key to assessing a possible anthropogenic impact on post-industrial climate" Thought we were still in industrial period, so where does post-industrial begin?

2. Doesn't provide algorithm but does speak too much of it. Data and math gave me a headache. The derivation of data is very complex as well as the math; hence Mann's algorithm must be very complex.
Turgent
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 17, 2017
Cont.

3. Figure 5b can't tell where data ends and projection starts. If this is the hockey stick he appears to be beginning at 1900. Mann appears to make graphical projection however does not include the Medieval Warm Period. With the proxy material used to create data set it would have been easy to go to 1000 AD.

4. He is tying together a lot of phenomena which has lots of problems. His example of using inferences of global temperature patterns of 1791 and 1816 seem a stretch. HMS Beagle hadn't even sailed yet.

Mann's 2nd is much harder to understand than his 1st. Paper self-critique of his 1st paper seems more like a justification for methodology used.

1. Mann, "Though the expanded uncertainties prevent decisive conclusions for the period prior to AD 1400". Mann's quantitative analysis forward of 1400 excludes the MWP and he admits it exists and subjectively dances around it.
Turgent
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 17, 2017
Cont.

2. Figure 3(a) does track back to 1000 and the MWP isn't there.

3. He had no predetermined level of uncertainty. His proxy data does not vanish at 1400. With his rigor of statistical treatment he could gone back to 1000.

Mann provided considerable material for Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick to flail him.

Has Mann ever released his algorithm supporting his papers?
Turgent
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 17, 2017
Stumpy

It's time spew about me rather than to me.

You are "Ignore User".
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2017
@turdTROLL the political rhetoric parrot
You are "Ignore User"
you already promised this once before
Found Mann's 2 papers previously thought unavailable
funny you just now "found it" considering i linked a reference paper that included Mann's original data and references with free access (here: https://phys.org/...res.html )

yet again, you demonstrate a willingness to ignore relevant studies simply because said refute to your point is valid and contains overwhelming evidence you can't accept

not only that, but it also answers most of your above

.

as i stated before: just because you're incapable of understanding it doesn't mean we all are

i left your buddy jd a link that you should read - except i know you will not because it contains data refuting your claims, with multiple studies referenced

HeloMenelo
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 18, 2017
Whoo hoo TURDgent antigoracle sock and his spree of socks really getting shoved around in the circle jerk,
as always showing his lack of understanding in any science whatsoever, but where's your dingBone sock and whatever happened to waterprophet ??
HeloMenelo
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 18, 2017
It's funny

Stumpy

It's time spew about me rather than to me.

You are "Ignore User".

It's fu

Stumpy

It's time spew about me rather than to me.

You are "Ignore User".

It's funny how you think we care at all who or who you do not ignore, your opinions here is below worthless and your credibility is non existant. What matters is what the world sees, and the world sees idiocy talking fabricating sensless comments with himself via his own sockpuppets :D
HeloMenelo
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 18, 2017
@Turgent........I've had the Stump on Ignore for a long time. All you need to do is read one of his posts & you've read them all, they all sound alike. The only thing he's Captain of is his foul mouthed brigade, you know who they are by looking at who gives him 5 Star votes, Like Da Schneib, RNP, and the usual half a dozen others.

Talking to your own sockpuppet... again lol... Captain Stumpy is Well Respected here, exposing your stupidity and have given you countless of chances to bring forth any evidence of your ramblings, yet you can provide absolutely NONE :D i do not need to even mention Stumpy's credibility as it shines through everytime he lays his fingers onto a keyboard, as for you, talking to your own goons makes for hilarious comedy, or does the keyboard have too many buttons for you to type something that makes any sense ;)
Dodgy
1 / 5 (14) Aug 18, 2017
Turgent,

I can't see why you are so interested in examining Mann's calculations. They are already known to be incorrect, and Steyn has a court case running with Mann at the moment where Mann has been accused of fraud with respect to the hockey stick.

Though the calculations are intentionally confusing, McIntyre managed to obtain enough of the workings to show that the Principle Component Analysis calculations were designed to 'mine the data' for hockey stick sets and give them unwarranted prominence. Eventually the world authority on PCA, Prof. Ian Jolliffe, got involved in the controversy, and supported McIntyre.

You may trace references from here: https://climateau...-tamino/

The key technique that allowed Mann to obtain a flat graph rising at the end - the so-called 'hockey stick' was a modification to the 'centring' for each component series. Jolliffe is on record as saying that this makes no mathematical sense.

HeloMenelo
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 18, 2017
We can see how interested you are in talking to your own socks, i guess rolling out a neverending dumb puppet spree, creates a delusion for you to pretend to yourself you are talking to the real world, makes for hilarious comedy :D
Turgent
1 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2017
Dodgy,

Just wanted see where some have built their fortresses.

Wow, bringing something like this into court is insane. Nobody arguing the class will understand it, judge, jury, and shysters. Their eyes will glaze over. The stinking attorneys won't understand it but will rack up 1000 hrs bringing "their" expert witnesses. What a hoot. What I did for a living was sort out "Figures lie and liars figure." The more complex the easier it is to lie.

Thanks

HeloMenelo,

You are welcome to speech intelligently about this subject and provide your own argument and play nice.

You shouldn't brag about CS. You can speak for yourself in a civil manner?

Did you read any of the papers? If Algore is a purveyor of Climate Porn, where does it begin and end? Could we initiate a baseline and agree that Climate Disaster Porn does exist?

Thanks
Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2017
I just read http://www.meteo....ew17.pdf

It credentials "Michael E. Mann is distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, with appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute. He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center." If his work was ground breaking and it was 18 years ago he and his papers should have received some kind of professional recognition by this time.

It is amazing that Mann has written about 180 papers since 1993. That's 24 a year or 1 every 2 weeks. Being some prolific so be a red flag. Some are editorials, but even these are shared work. Of his 180 only 9 are exclusively his works and they are mostly trivia like book reviews. Other authors are obviously using his name as he is obviously signing off on any paper which supports his case.
Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2017
Cont.

To his credit he did put his name to "Making sense of the early 2000s warming slowdown". He does acknowledge it is the truth, however once again explanation gets so complex it is hard to sort out. This is my primary reason for skepticism when every hearing we just had the hottest year ever since 2001.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2017
@turdTROLL the political rhetoric parrot
That's 24 a year or 1 every 2 weeks. Being some prolific so be a red flag
[sic]
1- this shows a complete ignorance of what credit means (it also implies that if anyone does any work for any product, then they do not deserve to receive credit unless they're the sole participant)

2- this also demonstrated a complete ignorance of the peer review process, as well as anything higher than grade school education, along with unfamiliarity with the law

3- as you note further in your post, "Of his 180 only 9 are exclusively his" - therefore, per your delusional conclusions, must be a red flag

perhaps you didn't notice that science isn't always a singular effort?
most of the best science is collaborative (Lacis et al, Francis et al, Lenski et al, ... i can go on for decades)

so because you're incapable of comprehending the science and the evidence, you instead attack the person?

that is political rhetoric in a NUTshell
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2017
@turdTROLL the political rhetoric parrot cont'd
I just read http://www.meteo....ew17.pdf
an article is not science

why are you willing to accept any article that you like?

more to the point, why do you then refuse to accept, say, the studies presented to you proving your data is incorrect in the following thread (not an opinion article): https://phys.org/...ate.html

or here: https://phys.org/...ent.html

especially since those studies very specifically refute the claims you made, and that you are still making above?

feel free to answer... oh wait!
i don't parrot your rhetoric and i've proven you're a liar

that is why you won't answer

never mind then
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2017
Cap'n stumpified likes to promote the crappiest CC articles on the site ,, models and conjecture. Like its not just troll patrol ,it's advertising !
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 19, 2017
@snoozebrained idiot TROLL
likes to promote the crappiest CC articles on the site
if it's so crappy, why can't you actually produce any evidence refuting it's claims??

with the same level of evidence, mind you - not conjecture or belief, but studies that are validated, as the ones i pointed out

hell, you were given a chance to make an easy $30K by proving your anti-AGW message with evidence

not one person could refute the science

Not one

anywhere in the world!!

so, that tells me that idiots like you talk sh*t and parrot political rhetoric, not evidenciary scientific fact
snoosebaum
Aug 19, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
J Doug
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
"Each degree Celsius increase in global mean temperature is estimated to reduce average global yields of wheat by six percent," said the report.
One is left to wonder in amazement why these charlatans, whose only aim is to try to get the ignorant masses to believe that the essential for all life on earth trace gas, CO₂, can possibly affect the climate in a negative manner.

"In 2016, world cereal production is set to increase by 1.5%, or 38 million tonnes, to hit a new record of 2.569 billion tonnes, topping by at least 5.5 million tonnes the preceding peak of 2014," it said. "The current FAO forecast is over 3 million tonnes higher than projected in September, with most of the upward revisions concerning wheat and rice."

http://www.world-...aspx?ID={F66FAB2B-AE1E-40B6-95F7-A7F92CD9B379}&cck=1

J Doug
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
This man below, Dr. Norman Borlaug, and the work that he did made this book by Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb", who I'm sure Chuang Zhao, PNAS, agrees with, look like nothing but a fictitious novel of the worst kind. He was also one of the main opponents of the use of DDT to combat malaria. He is all heart as these quotes show:
"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
J Doug
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
How about this dud? How many of God's children has he helped to enjoy a better life? White House science czar John Holdren has predicted 1 billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020.
As WND previously reported, Holdren predicted in a 1971 textbook co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul Ehrlich that global over-population was heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.
Holdren's prediction that 1 billion people would die from a global cooling "eco-disaster" was announced in Ehrlich's 1986 book "The Machinery of Nature."
http://www.wnd.co.../112317/
J Doug
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
Dr. Norman Borlaug did more for humanity than a whole army of foaming at the mouth anthropogenic global warming alarmist such as the ones on this site who are spouting their fabricated "facts" about the earth and its climate.

For over a half century, the scientific and humanitarian achievements of Dr. Norman Borlaug (Nobel Peace Prize winner, Congressional Gold Medal Winner, and recipient of over 50 honorary Doctorate Degrees) kept starvation at bay for millions of people in third world countries. Gregg Easterbrook wrote of Borlaug "Though barely known in the country of his birth, elsewhere in the world Norman Borlaug is widely considered to be among the leading Americans of our age.
http://www.normanborlaug.org/

J Doug
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
"Each degree Celsius increase in global mean temperature is estimated to reduce average global yields of wheat by six percent," said the report. What, nothing about each ⁰F decrease in temperature?
"Benguet frost welcomed by visitors, hated by tillers" January 6th, 2014
Inquirer Northern Luzon
"FROST has blanketed sections of Atok town in Benguet province once again, but it's a seasonal phenomenon for which most vegetable farmers are prepared. Atok and other upland towns become far colder than Baguio City between December to February each year. GLADYS MAXIMO/CONTRIBUTOR
BAGUIO CITY—Old-timers in this city and tourists welcome the steady drop in temperature as it provides them with their closest version of winter in a tropical country.
http://newsinfo.i...e-losses

J Doug
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
"But for the most part, the overall trend planet-wide is downward, signaling that steps are needed to adapt to the warming climate and feed an ever-expanding world population."
The poor naive fools who put "studies" like this together need to do some reading and begin to use logical thought before they make such fools of themselves with this tripe trash that they presented here.
"Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University."
https://www.nasa....ng-earth
Turgent
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
JD

Like the MWP your temperatures are "An Inconvenient Truth."

Read: http://research.n...des.aspx

What the devil is LLNL piling on for their area of research has been H-bombs, lasers, particle physics? They must have had both arms twisted or weren't being funded unless they would get on the band wagon.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2017
so turg' what do think of those results ? the Cap'n will be jumping on you , i thought water was hard to heat
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2017
@jd/swallows the denier political rhetoric acolyte TROLL liar
"Each degree Celsius increase
1- gish-gallop of irrelevant data

2- i see you still can't actually refute those studies that prove you wrong (and an idiot)

keep up the great work proving i am correct!

.

.

@turdTROLL the political rhetoric science denying idiot parrot
their area of research has been H-bombs, lasers, particle physics
read the "about" part of their site
maybe you will learn something as it actually spells out...

Ohhhh wait! - you can't read!
sorry to embarrass you yet again
Changes in ocean heat storage are important because the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the Earth's excess heat increase that is associated with global warming.


.

.
@snoozebrained idiot TROLL
i thought water was hard to heat
you also thought goddidit

Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2017
Snoosebaum

For fun.

Melting ice is actually harder than heating water. It takes 334 kJ/kg to melt ice at 0 C and .4 kJ/kg to heat water 1 C.

Phase change Ice to liquid = 334 kJ/kg

Phase change liquid water to vapor = 2260kJ/kg

Which leads us to the Ice Age Energy Paradox.
Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2017
Snoozebaum

What about them there results?

"This study found that ocean warming estimates over a range of times and depths agree well with results from the latest generation of climate models, building confidence that the climate models are providing useful information."

Sounds like self-reinforcing porn from the Ministry for Propaganda the "State Science Institute* and Orwell's 1984.

*Atlas Suggested by Ayn Rand
snoosebaum
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2017
Turg, there was some other study here recently 'scientists had found the warm ocean water' in some patch 100 ' ? down in the N Pacific somewhere.

and its harder to heat water with a heat lamp , Anyway GW is supposed to be about a gradual increase in retained heat , not increased IR from the sun .
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2017
god did it [sic] , Cap'n has a religious faith in Phys.org news items
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2017
4.184 J of heat is required to raise temperature of 1 g of water by 1 ℃ it means that 4.184kJ of heat will be required to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1℃.

and from some website to heat 1cc of air by 1 degree c
Let's do the same calculation for air at 19oC:
Energy2 = 1.005 kJ/kg.C * 1Co * 1.208 kg/m3 * 1.0*10-6 m3 = 1.214*10-6 kJ

thats .0012 kj to heat one kilo air
how can they even talk about heating the ocean?
J Doug
1 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2017
& the lies continue. "Each degree Celsius increase in global mean temperature is estimated to reduce average global yields of wheat by six percent," said the report.
Rice yields would be cut by 3.2 percent, and maize by 7.4 percent for each degree of Celsius warming (almost two degrees Fahrenheit), it added
https://phys.org/...html#jCp
"Govt revises food grain output to record 275.68 million tonnes Aug 17, 2017, 01:30 PM ISTNEW DELHI: India's food grain production for the 2016-17 crop year is estimated at record 275.68 million tonnes. The government on Wednesday revised its previous figures upward by 2.3 million tonnes and came at the new figure which is over 4 per cent higher than the previous record production achieved in the country during 2013-14."
http://timesofind...0001.cms

Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2017
& the lies continue. "Each degree Celsius increase in global mean temperature is estimated to reduce average global yields of wheat by six percent,"[...]
https://phys.org/...html#jCp


And YOUR lies continue.

The study is GLOBAL. YOU cite a Times of India article on some INDIA ONLY, PROJECTED crop yields.

Lying AND stupid.

Now piss off, J'dumb.
J Doug
1 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2017
My, My Caliban! You are sure free with the name calling & slanderous, ignorant, lacking in valid information out burst. Why is it that uninformed folks such as yourself on these threads that follow phys.org must be so abrasive with their registration of their disagreement about someone's post?

Recall that this goon that Barack Hussein Obama got his scientific ideas from, John Holdren, had predicted 1 billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020. I'm sure that, as evidenced in your comment to me, that this ignorant dud it a hero of yours.

"Holdren's prediction that 1 billion people would die from a global cooling "eco-disaster" was announced in Ehrlich's 1986 book "The Machinery of Nature." "
http://www.wnd.co.../112317/
J Doug
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2017
Due to your inability to be able to understand the written word, I will emphases this in the following report: WORLD CEREAL PRODUCTION.
"In 2016, world cereal production is set to increase by 1.5%, or 38 million tonnes, to hit a new record of 2.569 billion tonnes, topping by at least 5.5 million tonnes the preceding peak of 2014," it said. "The current FAO forecast is over 3 million tonnes higher than projected in September, with most of the upward revisions concerning wheat and rice."

World wheat production in 2016 is expected to exceed the 2015 record by 1.2%, underpinned by output increases in India, the Russian Federation and the United States, it said.
http://www.world-...aspx?ID={F66FAB2B-AE1E-40B6-95F7-A7F92CD9B379}&cck=1

Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2017
Again, J'dumb, you display an unremarkable inability to contextualize.

Your "World Report" is ONLY a projection, ONLY for a single year's yield, and, I'm willing to predict, contains NO analysis of whether this projected yield represents an ACTUAL increase or decrease in productivity per acre in each respective geographical market over any previous time frame.

Alas, this will be difficult to confirm, since your link is a bust. What a surprise!

Put that in your Dumbpipe and have a suck.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2017
@jd the swallows multi sock denier TROLL illiterate
You are sure free with blah blah blah...
1- it wasn't name calling, it was labeling, and it's factualy accurate, as proven in multiple threads starting with your swallows sock: https://phys.org/...ent.html

and ending with your current sock above, or here: https://phys.org/...res.html

2- it wasn't slanderous (or libelous) as it's an accurate representation and label for your post and person

3- it wasn't ignorant if it's factual based upon evidence - at least he read the evidence, which you still have not

4- it can't be lacking in valid information if it's accurate

5- it wasn't an outburst if it's directly replying to your stupidity and illiterate posts

learn to read: www.readingbear.org

your latest argument: https://isotropic...cken.pdf
J Doug
1 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2017
Again, J'dumb, you display an unremarkable inability to contextualize.

Your "World Report" is ONLY a projection, ONLY for a single year's yield, and, I'm willing to predict, contains NO analysis of whether this projected yield represents an ACTUAL increase or decrease in productivity per acre in each respective geographical market over any previous time frame.

Alas, this will be difficult to confirm, since your link is a bust. What a surprise!

Put that in your Dumbpipe and have a suck.


"All these methods "suggest that increasing temperatures are likely to have a negative effect on the global yields of wheat, rice and maize," said the report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed US journal.
"Each degree Celsius increase in global mean temperature is estimated to reduce average global yields of wheat by six percent," said the report.
Changing temperatures would likely cause yields to rise in some locations, said the report."
Caliban
5 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2017
J'dumb,

Here it is again. Try to understand that these words:

Your "World Report" is ONLY a projection, ONLY for a single year's yield, and, I'm willing to predict, contains NO analysis of whether this projected yield represents an ACTUAL increase or decrease in productivity per acre in each respective geographical market over any previous time frame.


supplied the context missing from your quotemined report, with respect to the findings published in this Porg article. Now do you understand?

In any case, stick in your dumbpipe and suck till you choke.

J Doug
1 / 5 (8) Sep 01, 2017

Your "World Report" is ONLY a projection, ONLY for a single year's yield, and, I'm willing to predict, contains NO analysis of whether this projected yield represents an ACTUAL increase or decrease in productivity per acre in each respective geographical market over any previous time frame.



OK, you stupid piece of cold dog dung, where is your report? You're, if not the most ignorant then you have to be the most annoying rectal vent to visit these comments where intelligent folks state facts with links that ones can go to for validation of the contention. I have no idea what the purpose of you and your double stupid side kick, Captain Stumpy, is but it for sure makes you out to be what you are; ignorant, free from logic ass holes who believe that the trace gas, carbon dioxide, is a devil in the sky. Fornicate off, You dumb ass hole.
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2017
Monkey nuts antigoracle sockpuppet goings nuts again, hiding under his jdung sock

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.