Currently, there is 0% of the Cornbelt/Midwest with drought. There is no place even slightly dry there or east of the Rockies, other than in TX and coastal SC.
I am pretty sure that this has never happened since records have been kept.
And we are being told that climate change is increasing drought.
Mike, would you PLEASE stop debating global warming with rational thought! :)
Global drought is NOT increasing. The planet is greening up.
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.
We are not headed towards a climate crisis, the planet is headed for another climate optimum, like the one we had when it was warmer than this 5,000+ years ago.
The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP. It has also been known by many other names, such as Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Megathermal, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Hypsithermal, and Mid-Holocene Warm Period.
Out of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for conditions warmer than now at 120 sites. At 16 sites, where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than now.
"Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right, but the recent warming is only seen in the inset."
metmike: This and the increase in CO2 has been responsible for 25% of the increase in crop yields and world food production...........and lower prices, especially in soybeans which use the C3 pathway for photosynthesis unlike corn which uses C4(and benefits much more from extra nitrogen fertilizer)
and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding
The effect of CO2 concentration on photosynthetic rate at constant temperature is shown below for C3 and C4 crops.
I understand and accept the CO2 and plant growth connection, but what about the other effects ?
Sea level rise ?
Ocean acidification ?
Hurricanes affected by warmer oceans ?
Increased rainfall due to a warmer, wetter atmosphere ?
These are the ones I can think of off hand.
"Sea level rise ?" Been increasing at the same rate 1 inch/decade...........around 1 foot/century for the past 150 years.
"Ocean acidification ?" Horse manure. The oceans will never become acidic.
"Hurricanes affected by warmer oceans ?" No increase in hurricanes yet. Theoretically, it makes sense that this could happen though.
"Increased rainfall due to a warmer, wetter atmosphere ?" Yep, the atmosphere can hold 5-6% more moisture at +1 deg C from a century ago..................so let's cool the atmosphere back down 1 deg with CO2 levels to where they were to have less rains/flooding............despite the consequences of it increasing global drought and crop failures. If we did that, crop yields would plunge 25% resulting in 1 billion people on this planet starving within 3 years and food prices tripling to ration the shortage of food. So is the additional flooding worth it?
"These are the ones I can think of off hand."
Here's another one that you forgot:
Increased intensity of wildfires: Yep, thats what happens when plants and trees grow much faster, there is more fuel for the fires. Again, would we want to give wildfires less fuel and have less flooding in order to give up benefits that are at least 10 times greater?
Violent tornadoes have plunged too from man made climate change. Do we want those to go back up?
I understand where you are coming from mcfarmer. You have heard all those bad things non stop for 20 years because the gate keepers have controlled the narrative using global climate models based on a speculative(busted) theory.
20+ years have gone by.............and now we have enough data to judge that theory and compare it to the predictions. That's what I've been doing here. You and anybody else are encouraged to show data that shows something different.
I'm glad that we know each other well enough for you to understand who I am and not the "climate change denier" or out to sabotage the efforts of those trying to save the planet as we are made out to be. The reason they use that name calling and discrediting tactics is they won't debate us on the science.
I am somebody that lives, with constant actions, for making the world a better place while shedding the light of truth on the darkness of deception in realms of my expertise.
The climate crisis charade is as dark as it gets for this atmospheric scientist of 37 years!
I am also in that 97% consensus of climate scientists that agree on climate change.
How can that be?
I believe that half, possibly more of the warming could have been caused by humans.
Oh, didn't they tell you?
Those of us that think the warming has been beneficial got included in that number in one study and they changed the verbiage/meaning a bit to suggest that the 97% number, are those climate scientists that think we are headed towards a climate crisis. This has been used as a marketing scheme to sell climate change snake oil to all the non climate scientists...................which is basically everybody.
"Ocean acidification ?" Horse manure. The oceans will never become acidic. ”
I guess I should have been more exact in my language. By acidification I mean a reduction in pH, not necessarily an acid state.
Surely the absorption of CO2 by the ocean water would lower the pH from the current level ?
"Surely the absorption of CO2 by the ocean water would lower the pH from the current level ?"
Yes, it will mcfarmer.
So we also hear that this will lead to catastrophic impacts to life in the oceans........those based on extreme, almost impossible plunges in PH from current levels.
Fortunately, we have hundreds of experiments/studies and can use these, as well as reasonable ranges of how low the PH could possibly get to go by.............readily available with a comprehensive analysis/discussion and conclusion at this site below. You will be surprised to find out that many studies found decreasing PH to benefit life in the reasonable range to which it might drop.......so the idea of climate change disaster for sea life is still.........hogwash:
Then, in what could be considered a compromise between the IPCC and what the work of Tans (2009) suggests, we present in Figure 11 the portions of the graphs that extend significantly beyond the upper pH reduction limit of Tans' analysis and that end where "the warped world of the IPCC" begins.
Figure 11. Same as Figure 9, but truncated at the pH value defining the beginning of "the warped world of the IPCC."
The most striking feature of Figure 11 is the great preponderance of data located in positive territory, which suggests that, on the whole, marine organisms likely will not be harmed to any significant degree by the expected decline in oceanic pH. If anything, in fact, the results suggest that the world's marine life may actually slightly benefit from the pH decline, which latter possibility is further borne out by the scatter plot of all the experimental data pertaining to all life characteristic categories over the same pH decline range, as shown below in Figure 12.
life characteristic categories over the same pH decline range, as shown below in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Percent change in the five measured life characteristics (calcification, metabolism, growth, fertility and survival) vs. decline of seawater pH from its present (control treatment) value to ending values extending up to the beginning pH value of "the warped world of the IPCC" for all individual data points falling within this pH decline range.
"The results we have depicted in the figures above suggest something very different from the doomsday predictions of the climate alarmists who claim we are in "the last decades of coral reefs on this planet for at least the next ... million plus years, unless we do something very soon to reduce CO2 emissions," or who declare that "reefs are starting to crumble and disappear," that "we may lose those ecosystems within 20 or 30 years," and that "we've got the last decade in which we can do something about this problem." Clearly, the promoting of such scenarios is not supported by the vast bulk of pertinent experimental data.
Two other important phenomena that give us reason to believe the predicted decline in oceanic pH will have little to no lasting negative effects on marine life are the abilities of essentially all forms of life to adapt and evolve. Of those experiments in our database that report the length of time the organisms were subjected to reduced pH levels, for example, the median value was only four days. And many of the experiments were conducted over periods of only a few hours, which is much too short a time for organisms to adapt (or evolve) to successfully cope with new environmental conditions (see, for example, the many pertinent Journal Reviews we have archived under the general heading of Evolution in our Subject Index). And when one allows for such phenomena, the possibility of marine life experiencing a negative response to ocean acidification becomes even less likely.
In conclusion, claims of impending marine species extinctions driven by increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration do not appear to be founded in empirical reality, based on the experimental findings we have analyzed above.
For more information on this subject, please see the many reviews we have written on this subject that are archived under the headings of Calcification, Marine Biota, and Ocean Acidification in our Subject Index."
Here's the quinnessentenial example of what people are doing to get these insane predictions using computer simulations that are completely out of touch with observations, empirical data and the real world.
The 2nd graph below is from the mid-troposphere, where the increased CO2 should show a "hot spot" signature.
What we have now is massive flooding from Nebraska to Wisconsin
There seems to be some concern that the national news is ignoring it
I can't find the picture of a farmer with 50 acres covered by ice, but this memorial for James Wllke is pretty intense
The current ElNino enhanced southern jet stream is going to get very active again the week after this one.
Rains could get heavy and be widespread. This would put an even stronger kabash on thoughts of early planting in the Cornbelt.......which everybody already knew was not likely and it's a month too early for this to be a major concern but should feed speculation of the long lived wet pattern presenting significant issues for th2019 growing season.
if the market starts worrying that we have similarities to 1993, with the massive funds shorts right now.......a record in corn.....we could trigger some major short covering.
The recent strength could have had some ties to this.
I'm a thorough believer in climate change. The scientific evidence says it is true. Just not man-made climate change, based on computer models, that are used to gain more grant money, per the politician's request.
Not only am I derived from IOWA.....
...dude.... the climate changes every 5
minutes here ... oh ; I BELIEVE...
not like others...
(*note to self *) .... Vector Bundles And F Theory
It all depends on where one cares or dares to look.
"It all depends on where one cares or dares to look"
You nailed that one cliff!!!
Since global drought has NOT increased, objective people recognize that when looking at the big picture.
People who WANT TO believe in catastrophic climate change, look at every drought, instead of being like all the past droughts that have always existed with similar intensities and geographic ranges............as being droughts caused by humans and climate change.
Just like every hurricane and other extreme events............which have all happened before.
Even extreme cold is now caused by global warming.
Try that theory out in your house this Summer. When the temperature outside really warms up, turn on the house heating/warming system and see if any rooms cool off (-:
When the planet warms up.............there is less cold for extreme cold. Stretching it so far into that realm destroys any shred of credibility the speculative theory might have in a mind that might have been believing but has basic critical thinking.
The map below is the drought index in 1934. Even though this drought lasted for almost a decade, it was not permanent climate change and more of a weather phenomena. Human's poor farming stategies in those days did make things worse.
Can you imagine if we had this going on today?
It would absolutely be seen as the affects of human caused climate change............and I do believe there has been man made climate change, which is why the Cornbelt and your crops have been treated to the longest stretch of drought free conditions in recorded history.
Only 1 major, widespread drought in the Cornbelt from 1988 to 2019(2012).......over 3 decades, when the average historically was over 1/decade(if you throw out the 1930's as an aberration.
Instead of having the average 3 major droughts in the Cornbelt over the last 30 years, during (so called catastrophic) human caused climate change, there has only been 1.........along with the increasing CO2 causing yields to go up 25% from atmospheric fertilization because of the proven law of photosynthesis.
The graph shows the proportion of the planet in drought, by intensity, 1982-2012. The graph comes from a paper in a new Nature publication called Scientific Data and is open access.