Keeping temperatures from rising beyond the Paris agreement’s ambitious target will require unprecedented social changes.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ipcc-report_us_5bba177be4b0876eda9ef1d7
mojo. you just made Mike's "waste material" list.
I think I've been on Mike's list for a long time, Carl.
Funny Carl!
Actually, I have a Relevant Radio interview at 4:15 pm to prepare for to discuss Michael, then talk about this report.......then I'll comment more.
I am very glad that mojo brought this up, so I can address it with authentic science.
The UN created IPCC that authored this report is doing nothing more but rehashing their old reports based on simulations of the atmosphere for the next 100 years that have all been too warm vs the real world.
Instead of adjusting for their errors and discussing the many benefits, their approach is to exaggerate even more to try to increase the alarmisms in order to push more people to fall for their fruadulent scheme.
Yeah, there has been warming(less than predicted 20 years ago). We were told 20 years ago that if we didn't act it would be too late because of a "tipping point" Now, they are telling us we only have another 12 years to go and instead of +2.0 C being the tipping point, since the warming slowed down, they say the new tipping point is +1.5 deg. C.
So lets judge them based on their track record.
*Warming has only been 50% of that predicted. September 2018 was the coolest September in 10 years
*Arctic ice did not all melt as predicted. It bottomed in 2012.
*Crops are not being adversely effected. World food production has been soaring higher, not in spite of, but because of climate change and the increase in CO2.
*Global drought did not increase............it's decreased. The planet has been greening up.
*Sea levels have not accelerated much higher(just slightly higher). They are still increasing at just over an inch/decade.
*Hurricanes/typhoons have not increased or become stronger. The reporting of this has increased but its fake news.
*Global precipitation has increased with the warmer atmosphere. This is expected.
*Heat waves have increased a bit, this is expected. Keep in mind that cold kills 20 times more people than heat.
*Wild fires have increased..............partly because of the benefits to plants from increasing CO2 causing more fuel to be available.
*Overall, the benefits outweigh the negatives for life by a 20 to 1 margin. However, for humans, it's not as great. Humans that live along the coastlines might see slightly higher ocean levels and probably a few hurricanes that are slightly stronger and produce around 5% more rain.
*Tornadoes are setting an all time record.............for the least amount recorded
Consider this:
If CO2 levels were taken back down from the current 405 parts per million to 280 ppm and the global temperature cooled by 1 deg. C........the levels before the Industrial Revolution, 1 billion people on this planet would starve to death within 3 years.
Why is that?
World food production would drop by over 25% and there would not be enough food to feed 7.6 billion people.
Prices for all crops would triple in order to ration the short supplies. Corn for ethanol would be abolished.
The law of photosynthesis has not been repealed or altered by one group.
Sunshine +H2O +CO2 + Minerals = O2 +Food(sugars)
Not
Sunshine +H2O +Pollution + Minerals = O2 +Food(sugars)
*CO2 is a beneficial gas in most realms of science...........biology, agronomy, botony, zoology, climate science..........etc.
The only field that defines CO2 as pollution(at ambient atmospheric levels) is................politics!
without global warming yields would fall by 25%
the trend in yields has been very consistent for the last 150 years from what I have seen
"without global warming yields would fall by 25%" "the trend in yields has been very consistent for the last 150 years from what I have seen"
Update:
OK, I see now that you actually changed the topic/title and you were not making a statement but were asking a question. I will devote an entire post below to show you the empirical data that proves the increase in CO2 is increasing crops yields.
Question: Will you look at the indisputable proof and acknowledge it as proof?
However, my position is that the increase in CO2, which really accelerated after 1960 is the main contributor to the increase in yields. In addition, the best weather and climate in the last 1,000 years...............since the Midieval Warm Period that was at least this warm has also been a big plus.
Keeling Curve (1958-present)
You can see here, that the increase in CO2 has also been pretty consistent and these were the years when the yields accelerated higher by the greatest amounts in many crops.
Let's take soybeans for instance. Yields have doubled in the last 30 years:
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/soyyld.php
There obviously are other contributing factors with genetics and farming technology but the +CO2 and weather have been a big plus.
With Corn, it's a different picture because of the introduction of nitrogen fertilizer causing corn yields to triple real fast and nothing to do with CO2 or weather during that initial tripling. However, recent decades have featured a steady increase, along with a steady increase in CO2 and beneficial weather.
http://crazyeddiethemotie.blogspot.com/2014/10/corn-questions-from-food-inc-worksheet.html
This is the best answer to frey's question earlier.
Here is irrefutable evidence using empirical data to show that the increase in CO2 is causing a huge increase in crop yields/world food production.
We can separate the CO2 effect out from other factors effecting crops and plants with many thousands of studies that hold everything else constant, except CO2.
Observing and documenting the results of experiments with elevated CO2 levels, tell us what increasing CO2 does to many hundreds of plants.
Here's how to access the empirical evidence/data from the site that has more of it than any other. Please go to this link:
http://www.co2science.org/data/data.php
Go to plant growth data base:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
Go to plant dry weight(biomass):
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php
Pick the name of a plant, any plant(or tree) and go to it based on its starting letter. Let's pick soybeans. Go to the letter S,http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_s.php
Then scroll down and hit soybeans. This is what you get:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/g/glycinem.php
Glycine max (L.) Merr. [Soybean]
Statistics
| 300 ppm | 600 ppm | 900 ppm | |
| Number of Results | 238 | 25 | 3 |
| Arithmetic Mean | 48.3% | 71.2% | 61% |
| Standard Error | 2.4% | 7.9 | 11.3% |
This tells us that there were 238 studies with the CO2 elevated by 300 ppm. The mean increase in plant biomass was 48.3% from all those studies.
The individual studies are listed below that.
In the earlier post above that showed soybean yields since 1988 doubling while CO2 increased by 80 ppm, we have strong corroborating evidence.
Next question please
Here is another piece of powerful corroborating evidence that the increase in CO2 is increasing crop yields. Crop yields are effected by technology and other factors that help boost them in addition to the CO2 and climate.
However, the rest of the plant world on this planet is not:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
"An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."
In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa
From mojo's article:
"Under President Donald Trump, the United States ― the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita ― is shredding every major policy to reduce its carbon footprint. The U.S. has also stopped giving money to a fund that helps poorer countries invest in clean energy and adapt to a warming world."
1. The US has cut its CO2 emissions more than any other country over the last decade.......without a Climate Accord.
2. China now emits double the CO2 emissions as the US does here in 2018 and the Climate Accord allows them to continue to increase their CO2 emissions until the year 2030.
3. The Green Climate Fund is a big joke. What do the poor countries need to adapt to when the last 40 years have featured the best weather and climate since the Mideival Warm Period, 1000 years ago.........the last time that it was this warm.
Status of Pledges and Contributions made to the Green ClimateFund
Note that the Obama pledge is 30% of the entire worlds pledge to the Green ClimateFund..............why wouldn't the entire world be upset that the US withdrew?
Also note: China is not on the list of countries pledging money.
The tan colored bar below was the US contribution under Obama. The blue bars are the rest of the world and of course many countries did not contribute at all........instead they get our money.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is evidence that the IPCC is a corrupt entity............created by the UN as the worlds climate authority, they rewrote climate history to get rid of previous, well documented warming to exaggerate current warming for political agenda.
15 years ago, when I started telling people this happened they thought it was crazy. It seemed ludicrous that a political organization could hijack climate science to get control of power, money and energy policies.
The Climate Accord proves that it happened.
Keep in mind that all the countries in the world follow the IPCC and most of the climate scientists work for the governments.
the 1990 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm Period was much warmer than the late 19th century.
But in the 2001 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm period disappeared and became much cooler than the late 20th century.
More powerful corroborating evidence that the UN and IPCC hijacked climate science when they completely wiped out the well documented Medieval Warm Period in their reports.
Over 100 studies from the Medieval Warm Period, most of which show the planet was this warm or warmer 1,000 years ago. It was also this warm 2,000 years ago during the Roman Warm Period and also just over 3,000 years ago, during the Minoan Warm period.
Medieval Warm Period Project:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
| MWP-CWP Qualitative Temperature Differentials - CO2Science www.co2science.org Figure Description: The distribution of Level 2 Studies that allow one to determine whether peak Medieval Warm Period temperatures were warmer than (red), equivalent ... |
List of scientists whose work is sited:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/scientists.php
List of research institutions with work sited:
That is some very detailed work Mike... keep fighting the good fight.
TRUTH
Glad you like is SS!
Here's more from a post of 2 months ago that shows the exact same thing........TRUTH!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/10741/
So how does an entity like the UN or IPCC get away with blatantly distorting the truth on this topic?
How many people have weather and climate records in front of them to verify this stuff?
How many people have the compelling data from thousands of studies on the effects of CO2?
How many people understand computer simulations of the climate for the next 100 years(global climate models)?
How many people have read and understand the Climate Accord?
Those are the people that understand what's actually going on..............and many of them are on board with it because it fits with their political agenda.
Those that are not, are called climate deniers and flat earthers to discredit them.
Hmmmm. Pretty funny to read my massive data base of authentic empirical data/information and think that I am what's been labelled as a science or climate denier by one side because I supposedly don't use authentic science to base my opinions on.
Here's another qualified denier's take on today's report:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36904/uh-oh-environmentalists-un-climate-change-group-hank-berrien
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/04/roger-pielke-jr-my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic/
So with all of that evidence can you tell me why China, Russia, and the E-U seem to have lower to much lower trend line yield results?
also soybeans are a bad measure they have only truly been a significant crop since about 1950 before that they were an after thought.
your own chart shows that corn yields stayed flat for the first couple hundred years of the industrial revolution all the while the use of fossil fuels exploded. couple that with the fact that China the worlds biggest emitter of CO2 can not come close to the trend line yields that the US is doing.
I am not a true believer in blaming mankind solely for rising temps I also do not think the things we are doing on this planet are without consequences.
but I believe farming practices, fert, chemicals, and seed technology all play a larger role in yield trends than CO2 does. and I am nowhere close to believing that taking CO2 levels back to where they were 70 years ago is going to drop yields by 50 bpa in corn.
... i JUST REALIZED THAT i AM GOING TO HAVE TO BLOW THE DUST OFF OF MY RUSTY FILES....
hYDROGEN fUEL sOURCE
I don't know what else to tell you frey.
The 238 studies on soybeans with elevated CO2 levels and an increase of biomass of 48.3% says it all.
Bringing up other countries having lower yields or that soybeans weren't grown much before 1950 has zero to do with anything relevant to that:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/g/glycinem.php
But each plant/crop is different:
Corn is only benefiting by around half as much as soybeans:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/z/zeam.php
Wheat is in the middle:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/t/triticuma.php
Cotton is even higher than soybeans, which is expected. Woody stemmed plants benefit the most from increasing CO2. That's not one or 2 studies..........but the empirical data from 43 separate objective scientific studies on just cotton.
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/g/gossypiumh.php
Gossypium hirsutum L. [Cotton]
Statistics
| 300 ppm | 600 ppm | 900 ppm | |
| Number of Results | 43 | 1 | |
| Arithmetic Mean | 56.5% | 27% | |
| Standard Error | 7.5% | 0 |
frey,
After seeing all the data/evidence, it really is silly to have any other view.
Here's rice with 281 studies:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/o/oryzas.php
Barley with 76 studies:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/h/hordeumv.php
Again, CO2 isn't causing the entire increase in yields or even most of it, farming technology is causing 75% of it. The other 25% is from the increase in CO2 and the best weather/climate for growing crops in the last 1,000 years.............the last time that it was this warm.
It seems impossible that this could be possible because we have been taught that CO2 is pollution and is harmful. That only applies in politics.
"I am nowhere close to believing that taking CO2 levels back to where they were 70 years ago is going to drop yields by 50 bpa in corn."
I don't believe that either. My original point was to was to take CO2 down to where it was 150 years ago....when CO2 levels were around 280ppm vs todays 405 ppm.
Corn yields, which are effected less by CO2 than soybeans would probably only drop around 15% in that case, more like 27 bu/acre.
If they were taken down to CO2 levels from 70 years ago, as you indicated, then corn yields would drop by something like 20 bushels/acre.
The effect on beans of CO2 is almost double that of corn because soybeans are a C3 plant and corn is a C4. C3 plants benefit much more. Bean yields would drop over 30% if we went back to levels of 150 years ago.
https://biologydictionary.net/c3-c4-cam-plants/
| Plant Characteristic | C3 Pathway | C4 Pathway | CAM Pathway |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photorespiration Rate | High | Low / Negligible | Very Low / Negligible |
| Leaf Anatomy | Typical | Kranz | Xeromorphic |
| Typical Environments | All | Tropical, elevated daytime temperatures, drought | Dry, arid |
| Stoma Open During the Day? | Yes | Yes | No |
| Number of Steps in Pathway | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| First Molecule Produced in Pathway | 3-phophoglyceric acid | Malic acid or aspartic acid | Mal |
"I also do not think the things we are doing on this planet are without consequences."
Agree!
I am an environmentalist. I strongly believe in conserving natural resources, cutting real pollution and developing renewable energy sources that make good sense. I am very much in favor of helping the poor and developing countries.
We can only address and effectively manage those issues if we use the truth about them to make smart decisions.
I'm providing some truth about CO2. Not my truth. I can't alter the law of photosynthesis or how it effect plants. The data is the truth.
Why is the data about the truth being hidden? Because it would contradict the narrative being sold............CO2 is pollution and causing catastrophic climate change.
Nobody can contradict the authentic data provided in this thread without distorting the truth and I can show it with the empirical data every time.
it seems many make the case that co2 levels may have been higher than today's levels at the start of the Industrial Revolution.
I do find it interesting that nobody seems to agree with were co2 levels were 300 yrs ago, let alone a a 10,000 years ago.
"it seems many make the case that co2 levels may have been higher than today's levels at the start of the Industrial Revolution."
Good one (-:
No need to respond to that comment with data.
Great article, Mike. Have to agree, one of the best things Trump has done so far, although denuclearization of the Korean peninsula is a close second.