Climate change is pushing up food prices — and worrying central banks

[Slow Learning Elf]

Typical climate crazy behavior. The can't argue science so the go right to ad hominems. That an the spurious correlations without and actual real theory to back it up.

I dare you, please do "argue science". Quote actual scientific literature. Show us how the models are flawed. I double dare you

It's simple fact. If you can state under what conditions your theory would be disproven, it not science.

LOL. Do you mean that it's "falsifiable"? In that case yes, the hypothesis that human activities are causing climate change is falsifiable, as it can be tested (and potentially proven wrong) by empirical evidence. So let's look at conditions first, i.e. how this hypothesis is falsifiable and what does the evidence show:

1. Temperature Records: If global temperatures did not show a significant long-term upward trend consistent with the rise in greenhouse gases, this would challenge the hypothesis. However, there is a well-documented rise in global average temperatures over the past century, with a significant acceleration in recent decades, correlating with increased greenhouse gas emissions.

2. Greenhouse Gas Concentrations: If increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as CO2 did not correlate with increases in global temperatures, this would also challenge the hypothesis. Well, the concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased significantly due to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. That has been show both experimentally, using logitudinal observations and using computational models.

3. Climate Models: Climate models based on human activities (e.g., fossil fuel burning) predict certain patterns of warming (e.g., more warming in the Arctic, warming in the lower atmosphere, cooling in the stratosphere). Climate models that include human influences accurately reproduce the observed warming trends, while models that only include natural factors do not. Also, the observed patterns of warming (e.g., greater warming in the Arctic, warming of the lower atmosphere, cooling of the stratosphere) match the predictions of models that include human influences.

4. Paleoclimate Data: Data from ice cores, tree rings, and other sources provide historical climate information. If these records showed that current climate changes are not unusual compared to historical natural variations, this could challenge the hypothesis. Surprise, the paleoclimate data indicate that the current rate and magnitude of warming are unprecedented in the context of the last several thousand years.

5. Attribution Studies: If attribution studies, which use statistical methods to separate human influences from natural factors, consistently found that natural factors alone could explain recent climate changes, this would challenge the hypothesis. Of course, there are numerous attribution studies out there and they have concluded that the majority of the observed global warming in recent decades is due to human activities.

TLDR: The hypothesis of human-caused climate change is falsifiable because it can be tested and potentially disproven by new data and observations. At the moment, it is well-supported by a vast body of empirical and experimental evidence, but this characteristic is fundamental to its standing as a scientific hypothesis.

If they we actually correct, they'd be telling you specific testable predictions instead of "more storms somewhere" or "there might be a drought".

Climate models are testable and have been shown to work, both on historical test and in "real life". It seems, however, that you are banned on google, just like many other residents of ET.

Typical climate crazy behavior. The can't argue science so the go right to ad hominems.

I've already seen you argue about things you don't know and it was hilarious.

 

[piezoe]

You are deluded, my friend. Reading comments like yours, I am reminded of the story of the frog that was put in hot water, and didn't realize until too late that we was being boiled. Our time to act has passed.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-is-exacerbating-inflation-worldwide/

https://www.un.org/en/desa/prices-warming-planet-inflationary-effects-climate-change

I thought the article I referenced below might interest you. As you may know, as a scientist I have been strongly critical of the quality of James Hansen's work coming from GISS [Hansen is now at Columbia]. The peer reviewed paper referenced below calls into question Hansen's assumption of positive feedback. Both Miskolczi and Hansen cannot be right. One of them is wrong. Until Miskolczi's results have been shown to be incorrect, they haven't yet, I consider Hansen's work to be fatally flawed. None of Hansen's models show any significant warming due to CO2 without built in, and arbitrary, positive feedback; yet all systems with positive feedback are inherently unstable. There are numerous other errors in Hansen's work, much of which has never been subjected to rigorous and unbiased peer review. [He eventually started sending his papers directly to the media!] . I regard the assumption a priori of positive feedback as fatal. I would suggest looking up physicist Nir Shaviv on Wiki. Shaviv's take on Hansen's work is correct in my opinion.

see:
Miskolczi, F., "The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth's Global Average Atmospheric Planck-Weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness," Energy & Environment 21(4) 2010.

Miskolczi is a Ph.D. physicist who was previously in Hansen's group at GISS. They tried to suppress publication of his research results. He left.

Here are a few quotes from the above referenced work. (I have underlined key statements) :

from the Abstract:

The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor affect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.​

from the Introduction:

It has been proposed (Hansen et al....); Ramanathan ...; Bony, et al.... that increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration causes persistent increase of the greenhouse effect, because proposed increase in absorption of surface upward radiation outweighs possible increase in emission of atmospheric radiation to space, with particular reference to water vapour feedback, which they say is positive.
​

from Pg 246:

The NOAA 61-year dataset is used to demonstrate that the global average annual infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere has been unchanged for 61 years, with a value of 1.87. It will be inferred that CO2 does not affect the Earth's climate through the greenhouse effect. * ​

from Pg. 256:

[In this article] the eventual after feedback effect of CO2 on the greenhouse-gas optical thickness is assessed directly without intervening virtual surface temperature calculations. [The method favored by the IPCC is indirect and "fraught with un-assessable risk of error, and is utterly superfluous and apparently physically misleading" according to Miskolczi.]​

from Pg. 259:

...We can safely state that the dynamic stability of the stationary value of the true greenhouse-gas optical thickness of the atmosphere is mediated mainly by the amount and distribution of the water vapor in the atmosphere , and by the surface and atmospheric temperatures.​

from the Conclusions (Pg 260-261):

The present results show an apparent warming associated with no apparent change in the absorption properties... The results show that the theoretical CO2 -induced virtual increase in true greenhouse-gas optical thickness greatly exceeds the actual empirically measured change over the 61-year data set. ... that the virtual change is about four times the actual change [in CO2 optical thickness] is strong evidence that there is a very strong dynamic compensation that stabilizes the atmospheric energy transport process against a potential perturbation by CO2 change. This means that the empirically estimated virtual feedback of water vapor effect on the greenhouse-gas optical thickness is not significantly positive, contradicting the IPCC doctrine of it being strongly positive. It is clear from these data that the increase in surface temperature shown in Figure. 9 cannot in the least be accounted for by any effect of CO2 on greenhouse-gas optical thickness, with or without positive feedback by water vapor.

_______________
*This statement will be confusing to a person without knowledge of CO2's absorption properties. CO2 is a weak absorber of IR radiation (it has only one IR active vibrational mode) and it is present in the Earths atmosphere in trace amounts ~400 molecules per every million molecules of air. Water vapor is by far the most significant greenhouse gas component of our atmosphere. Dramatic demonstrations of CO2's IR absorption property using pure CO2 and a long pathlength have appeared on You Tube. This is nothing like atmospheric CO2 concentration.​

 

[piezoe]

LOL. Both of these statements are false. The temperature rise is real and obvious. The occurrences of extreme weather events such as droughts and floods are also more common, you can look up statistics from NOAA. You don't even need to look at panel studies but simply look at the original data - some of it comes from countries that do not benefit from the climate change narrative. Similarly, you can get ample evidence that these changes are influencing food prices across multiple crops/items. All this information is right at your finger tips, but you must have been banned on Google.

You misunderstood, I was referring to CO2's affect on prices (in a light hearted way), not its affect on Earth's surface temperature. The latter also appears to be negligible by the way.

 

[piezoe]

Food inflation is driven solely by the futures price of commodities. (Don't ask me how I know, because not many people here understand the chain and cannot think that deeply).

Those commodities are now in a cycle so profoundly entrenched in price gouging, it is visibly illegal.

Of course, it will never resolve itself, because nobody knows where to go or whom to speak to to combat it.

Shrinkflation and other forms of gouging are the future!

Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[longandshort]

I thought the article I referenced below might interest you. As you may know, as a scientist I have been strongly critical of the quality of James Hansen's work coming from GISS [Hansen is now at Columbia]. The peer reviewed paper referenced below calls into question Hansen's assumption of positive feedback. Both Miskolczi and Hansen cannot be right. One of them is wrong. Until Miskolczi's results have been shown to be incorrect, they haven't yet, I consider Hansen's work to be fatally flawed. None of Hansen's models show any significant warming due to CO2 without built in, and arbitrary, positive feedback; yet all systems with positive feedback are inherently unstable. There are numerous other errors in Hansen's work, much of which has never been subjected to rigorous and unbiased peer review. [He eventually started sending his papers directly to the media!] . I regard the assumption a priori of positive feedback as fatal. I would suggest looking up physicist Nir Shaviv on Wiki. Shaviv's take on Hansen's work is correct in my opinion.

see:
Miskolczi, F., "The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth's Global Average Atmospheric Planck-Weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness," Energy & Environment 21(4) 2010.

Miskolczi is a Ph.D. physicist who was previously in Hansen's group at GISS. They tried to suppress publication of his research results. He left.

Here are a few quotes from the above referenced work. (I have underlined key statements) :

from the Abstract:

The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor affect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.​

from the Introduction:

It has been proposed (Hansen et al....); Ramanathan ...; Bony, et al.... that increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration causes persistent increase of the greenhouse effect, because proposed increase in absorption of surface upward radiation outweighs possible increase in emission of atmospheric radiation to space, with particular reference to water vapour feedback, which they say is positive.
​

from Pg 246:

The NOAA 61-year dataset is used to demonstrate that the global average annual infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere has been unchanged for 61 years, with a value of 1.87. It will be inferred that CO2 does not affect the Earth's climate through the greenhouse effect. * ​

from Pg. 256:

[In this article] the eventual after feedback effect of CO2 on the greenhouse-gas optical thickness is assessed directly without intervening virtual surface temperature calculations. [The method favored by the IPCC is indirect and "fraught with un-assessable risk of error, and is utterly superfluous and apparently physically misleading" according to Miskolczi.]​

from Pg. 259:

...We can safely state that the dynamic stability of the stationary value of the true greenhouse-gas optical thickness of the atmosphere is mediated mainly by the amount and distribution of the water vapor in the atmosphere , and by the surface and atmospheric temperatures.​

from the Conclusions (Pg 260-261):

The present results show an apparent warming associated with no apparent change in the absorption properties... The results show that the theoretical CO2 -induced virtual increase in true greenhouse-gas optical thickness greatly exceeds the actual empirically measured change over the 61-year data set. ... that the virtual change is about four times the actual change [in CO2 optical thickness] is strong evidence that there is a very strong dynamic compensation that stabilizes the atmospheric energy transport process against a potential perturbation by CO2 change. This means that the empirically estimated virtual feedback of water vapor effect on the greenhouse-gas optical thickness is not significantly positive, contradicting the IPCC doctrine of it being strongly positive. It is clear from these data that the increase in surface temperature shown in Figure. 9 cannot in the least be accounted for by any effect of CO2 on greenhouse-gas optical thickness, with or without positive feedback by water vapor.

_______________
*This statement will be confusing to a person without knowledge of CO2's absorption properties. CO2 is a weak absorber of IR radiation (it has only one IR active vibrational mode) and it is present in the Earths atmosphere in trace amounts ~400 molecules per every million molecules of air. Water vapor is by far the most significant greenhouse gas component of our atmosphere. Dramatic demonstrations of CO2's IR absorption property using pure CO2 and a long pathlength have appeared on You Tube. This is nothing like atmospheric CO2 concentration.​

Is this a joke?
(1) Miskolczi’s theory of a constant infrared optical depth has been refuted numerous times…
(2) Shaviv’s hypothesis of cosmic ray influence has also been debunked…

The dumbest thing I’ve read on this forum is @Overnight ’s post about futures being the sole driver of food inflation. Seriously did Google ban you guys?

 

[newwurldmn]

What do you think drives the futures? Supply and demand, and among those things are expectations of harvest failures and similar events. There is a reason why most commodity houses have a dedicated meteorologist on staff.

I believe that momo funds did excerbate the inflation in 2011.

 

[longandshort]

I believe that momo funds did excerbate the inflation in 2011.

Momo doesn’t exist in a vacuum though… expectations about crop yields drives speculation. The marginal flows from CTAs isn’t big enough to sustain some premia. For example, CTAs short lumber due to momo won’t be sufficient to counter new info of, say, a wildfire burning down timber. The futures curve shifts to optimize for new information.

 

[2rosy]

For all you climate change deniers I am working on a theory hoping to get published. During the pandemic people wore masks which inhibited normal breathing resulting in excess air swallowing. That swallowed air resulted in excess flatulence released into the atmosphere. End result, climate change. Still a work in progress but I don't think anyone cane refute this

 

[piezoe]

Is this a joke?
(1) Miskolczi’s theory of a constant infrared optical depth has been refuted numerous times…
(2) Shaviv’s hypothesis of cosmic ray influence has also been debunked…

The dumbest thing I’ve read on this forum is @Overnight ’s post about futures being the sole driver of food inflation. Seriously did Google ban you guys?

We will just have to disagree. Most likely sometime after both of us are dead it will be known for certain whether Miskolczi or Hansen, et al. is right, perhaps neither, regarding the role of CO2 . I won't be around to have the pleasure of saying "I told you so!".

I appreciated Overnight's important comment re commodity futures. I didn't interpret it as his having implied it was the "sole driver of food prices". It's difficult for me to envision food prices detached from where commodity futures settle.

Can you please point me to literature references for your points (1) and (2). I'd like to read them, as this topic keenly interests me.

 

[newwurldmn]

Momo doesn’t exist in a vacuum though… expectations about crop yields drives speculation. The marginal flows from CTAs isn’t big enough to sustain some premia. For example, CTAs short lumber due to momo won’t be sufficient to counter new info of, say, a wildfire burning down timber. The futures curve shifts to optimize for new information.

I would normally agree with you. In 2011, there was a surge in commodities (like chemical feedstocks) which to my knowledge was not driven by change in real demand or supply. If I recall, the rally in soft commodities is what precipitated the Arab spring as peasants rioted over the price of rice.

edit: I swore I read that a guy killed himself in Tunisia over the price of rice, but wiki is saying something else.