Global Average Temperature 2025

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

Here are two big problems with his arguments:

He writes:

Regarding all the articles from so called authorities that climate change is already cutting back on food production:

100% nonsense. It's the exact opposite. With crops, we can't tell how much impact is from CO2, climate/weather, genetics, fertilizers, use of pesticides/herbicides(technology).

 When you change numerous variables at the same time, like we do with crops, it's impossible to separate the impact from each one on the outcome.  

Flaw: He claims that "it's impossible to separate the impact" from CO2, climate/weather, genetics, etc. Yet, he also claims that the idea that climate change is "100% nonsense." That's inherently inconsistent logic.

He also states:

...we have 2 ways to address that with OBJECTIVE data which clearly speaks for the impact of photosynthesis by itself and for photosynthesis +climate change.

1. The impact of JUST adding CO2 and not changing anything else...

2. But other human factors impact soybeans, including climate change that we can't separate out.  

Flaw: He oversimplifies things by ignoring the variable of temperature. Omitting temperature provides him the solution he seeks. However, cherry picking in pursuit of confirming one's biases is not a valid scientific approach. 

Recent research provides a clear link between temperature and crop yields. For example, a May 31, 2024 paper in Nature Communications found:

All specifications and weather data uncover an asymmetric relationship for the US where yields are increasing in temperature for moderate temperature ranges, but sharply decrease in temperature at the upper end.

Thanks, Don

1. I felt that at a minimum that the wording wasn’t the best, possibly due to haste. I may follow up with him on that to get better clarification.

2. He did mention the effect on crop sizes from the variable of climate/wx being hard to separate out. Doesn’t that include the variable of temperature?

[donsutherland1]

12 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Thanks, Don

1. I felt that at a minimum that the wording wasn’t the best, possibly due to haste. I may follow up with him on that to get better clarification.

2. He did mention the effect on crop sizes from the variable of climate/wx being hard to separate out. Doesn’t that include the variable of temperature?

Crop sizes being "hard to separate out" is his defense for setting aside the latest scientific research demonstrating a clear link with temperature. The statistical basis is sound.

[chubbs]

18 hours ago, GaWx said:

Thanks, Charlie. Here’s Mike’s response to your reply:

 

 These people remind me of MAGA, seriously. It's complete fake climate crisis RELIGION.

 CO2 below 1,000 parts per million is a massively beneficial gas. To compare it to when CO2 was numerous times higher that this [sic] is a strawman attack (assigning a position that doesn't exist and attacking that position instead of the REAL one).

 And to keep projected CO2's increase for another 100 years and to keep insisting that the residence time for today's CO2 in the atmosphere is hundreds of years lacks critical thinking based just on how we watch it DROP during the Northern Hemisphere's growing season every year.  

 Ignoring the fact that fossils fuels are finite and will be running out well before then and the chances of us ever getting over 900 ppm, the optimal level for life/plants/crops is minuscule.

 So what if CO2 was X thousands of parts per million in the past????

 That is NOT what will be happening from CO2 increasing this time. The highest reasonable projection is still BELOW the optimal level of 900 ppm.

 Regarding all the articles from so called authorities that climate change is already cutting back on food production:

 100% nonsense. It's the exact opposite. With crops, we can't tell how much impact is from CO2, climate/weather, genetics, fertilizers, use of pesticides/herbicides(technology).

 When you change numerous variables at the same time, like we do with crops, it's impossible to separate the impact from each one on the outcome. 

 However, we have 2 ways to address that with OBJECTIVE data which clearly speaks for the impact of photosynthesis by itself and for photosynthesis +climate change.

1. The impact of JUST adding CO2 and not changing anything else:

 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 [sic] 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

 2. But other human factors impact soybeans, including climate change that we can't separate out. 

 That's ok because we have something that looks almost exclusively at the increase in CO2 and climate change as the main factors.

 Planet earth has been a huge open air experiment the past XX years. The objective results are striking. The impacts have been mostly from changes in photosynthesis and changes in the climate. 
 

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/

In addition:

Earth greening mitigates hot temperature extremes despite the effect being dampened by rising CO₂

_{https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332223005584}

_{++++++++++++++}

_{Importantly, the indisputable science tells us that increasing CO2 allows plants/crops to be more drought tolerant(not the other way around). The reason is that plants open their stomata to get CO2 and while doing so, they transpire(lose water from their roots that get it from the soil) As CO2 increases, the stomata don't need to open as wide and this REDUCES water loss from their roots. It's rock solid agronomy/plant science.} 

CO2 Enrichment Improves Plant Water-Use Efficiency

https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-dioxide/co2-increased-water-use-efficiency/

+++++++++++++++=

Despite me just PROVING the points with indisputable science above, this is what the very predictable response will be from people that posted to you previously with the same response they gave the first time:

"Those are denier sources"

   NASA's satellite study showing the greening of the planet obviously can't be put in that category but CO2 Science and Dr. Craig Idso, an elite authority on plants and the impact of CO2/climate change, has been labelled a denier. 

Never mind everything he shows is backed up with empirical data and rock solid scientific principles, which is why I use that source(as an atmospheric scientist for 44 years). If he or anybody else, including me, contradicts the mainstream view on the climate crisis.........they are discredited as deniers no matter us [sic] using 2+2=4  science to prove that 2+2 is not 5. 

Agree with Don's comment.  My problem isn't the facts he is citing, its the things he is leaving out or not aware of. I agree that CO2 is critical for plant growth and that fossil fuel reserves are finite.  However, you need to look at all of the effects of CO2 not just the beneficial ones. Crop yield is one of the most well studied areas of human activity. Its just as easy to perform a controlled experiment on temperature, water, seed variety, fertilizer, etc as CO2. There is also a large amount of real world data on crop yield. To say that we only understand CO2 impacts on agriculture and can't quantify non-CO2 impact indicates a lack of knowledge on his part. The same thing can be said about climate science in general, he doesn't seem aware of the large body of scientific work on CO2 and climate change. The beneficial and harmful impacts of CO2 are well known; as is the balance between harmful and beneficial.

There is also the tone of the response. He has proved his points with "indisputable science" while my response is "predictable" or "fake climate crisis RELIGION".  Doesn't make me look forward to future exchanges.

 

[bluewave]

We can still have expanding crop yields on a global basis and also have increasing crop failures influenced by and related to climate change on a regional level. These regional events such as Florida losing 90% of their orange production can have a big impact on the regional economy.

The risk in the coming decades is that these regional issues expand globally and eventually cut into the larger global food production. The natural world often gives us early warning signs on a smaller scale prior to large scale dislocations occurring later on.

With a warming climate we don’t really know for sure what the global temperature threshold is for widespread crop failures. 
 

Florida's citrus industry faces an existential crisis driven by climate-enhanced disasters, causing orange production to plummet over 90% in two decades to its lowest levels in over a century

. Key issues include the incurable citrus greening disease (HLB), exacerbated by rising temperatures and extreme weather, alongside devastating hurricanes, droughts, and severe urbanization. 

• Citrus Greening Crisis: A bacterial disease (HLB), spread by the Asian citrus psyllid, has infected nearly all Florida groves, resulting in small, bitter fruit and tree death.
• Climate Change Amplification: Warmer temperatures have expanded the habitat for the psyllid, while changing weather patterns have brought more intense hurricanes (e.g., Ian, Milton) and severe droughts, which destroy trees already weakened by disease.
• Production Collapse: Citrus production fell from ~300 million boxes in the early 2000s to roughly 12-20 million in the 2024–2026 seasons.
• Industry Impact: The 2024-25 season was the least productive in over 100 years. Major growers like Alico Inc. are abandoning citrus, and acreage has dropped significantly,, causing supply chains to shift to imported juice.
• Mitigation Efforts: Researchers and growers are testing antimicrobial treatments to combat greening, although these are costly and labor-intensive. 
   
• Climate change is driving severe crop failures across the Middle East, with 

  extreme droughts, rising temperatures, and water scarcity devastating agricultural production. Key staples like wheat and barley are severely affected, with reports indicating nearly 90% of rain-fed crops failed in parts of Iraq in 2022 and major, persistent losses across Syria, Morocco, and Iran. The crisis, exacerbated by desertification, is reducing yields, causing livestock losses of up to 85% in some areas, and forcing mass migration. 
  Key Impacts on Agriculture
• Widespread Crop Failure: Iraq, Syria, and Jordan are facing critical water shortages, with significant portions of rain-fed crops failing.
• Production Declines: Morocco and Algeria saw substantial drops in cereal production, with some areas facing up to 80% losses in 2023.
• Water Scarcity & Drought: The region is experiencing higher temperatures and lower rainfall, accelerating desertification and reducing arable land.
• Livestock Losses: Drought conditions have decimated grazing lands, with Syrian shepherds losing over 80% of their livestock.
• Impact on Food Security: The region is facing increased food prices and high levels of hunger, with 118 million people in Africa and the Middle East at risk of climate-related food insecurity by 2030. 
• Regional Specifics
• Iraq: Almost 90% of rain-fed crops failed in 2022, turning farmland into desert.
• Syria: Recurring droughts between 2005 and 2010 resulted in 80-85% livestock losses, and recent, continued drought has reduced wheat harvests by 40%.
• North Africa: Morocco and Algeria reported unprecedented droughts in 2023, causing a 20% drop in Morocco's agricultural output.
• Iran: A 24% decline in rainfall (2021-2022) caused severe agricultural losses. 
• Drivers of Failure
• Long-Term Aridification: Climate models show long-term drying trends, making droughts more frequent and severe.
• Temperature Increases: Regional temperatures are rising, increasing water demand for agriculture.
• Diminishing Water Sources: Water levels in the Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan rivers are dropping, reducing water for irrigation.
• Pest Infestations: Warmer temperatures are helping crop pests thrive, causing further damage. 

https://www.science.org/content/article/did-climate-change-drive-syrian-uprising

From 2007 to 2010, Syria suffered a debilitating drought that brought crop failure and livestock mortality to as much as 60% of the country and displaced up to 1.5 million people. A year later, Syria descended into chaos. A repressive regime and the spread of the 2011 Arab Spring were the overt drivers of the conflict, but some scientists argue that drought played a powerful role. Now, a new study finds that human-induced climate change has increased the likelihood of such a severe drought occurring in the region two- to threefold. The researchers examined a century of observed trends in precipitation, temperature, and sea-level pressure in the Eastern Mediterranean and noted a long-term warming trend and decreased winter rainfall in the second half of the 20th century. That drying trend is separate from the climate's natural (not human-induced) variability, they report online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. When increased greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide, are included in models, they more than double the likelihood of a severe, 3-year drought in the Fertile Crescent, they found. That agrees with the conclusion of a 2011 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study that linked increasing incidence of droughts in the Mediterranean region over the last 20 years to human-induced climate change. The link to conflicts is more uncertain, but previous teams have found that fluctuations in climate have been a statistically significant driver of social disturbances over centuries of human history, including war, famine, and migration.

Climate change-induced crop failures in Central America's "Dry Corridor" are major drivers of migration, with 

droughts and hurricanes destroying subsistence farming in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Consecutive years of failed corn and bean harvests, coupled with coffee rust, have caused acute food insecurity. Studies show that drier growing seasons directly correlate with increased migration to the U.S., as families flee poverty and hunger. 

Impact on Agriculture and Migration

• The Dry Corridor Crisis: The region, stretching from El Salvador through Honduras and Guatemala, suffers from extreme weather, including severe droughts and, paradoxically, flooding from hurricanes (e.g., Eta and Iota in 2020).
• Failed Crops: In 2018, up to 70% of subsistence crops were ruined by dry spells. By 2030, unpredictable rainfall and rising temperatures are expected to reduce maize, bean, and rice yields by up to 10-24%.
• Economic Collapse: Coffee, a primary cash crop, is severely impacted by coffee rust caused by rising temperatures and fluctuating rainfall.
• Migration Drivers: Food-insecure families are three times more likely to migrate. Many farmers are forced to move when their livelihoods are destroyed, with some studies showing a 70.7% increase in emigration to the US following abnormally dry seasons. 

Long-Term Outlook

• Regional Instability: Crop losses and increased poverty could create up to 4 million climate migrants in Mexico and Central America by midcentury.
• Uninhabitable Conditions: Some areas of the Dry Corridor could become largely uninhabitable within 20 years, forcing massive, sustained migration, notes YouTube video 72VqN4_LUIA. 

Climate change acts as a "threat multiplier" in the region, amplifying existing challenges like poverty, violence, and weak governance. 

[GaWx]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

Florida's citrus industry faces an existential crisis driven by climate-enhanced disasters, causing orange production to plummet over 90% in two decades to its lowest levels in over a century

. Key issues include the incurable citrus greening disease (HLB), exacerbated by rising temperatures and extreme weather, alongside devastating hurricanes, droughts, and severe urbanization. 

• Citrus Greening Crisis: A bacterial disease (HLB), spread by the Asian citrus psyllid, has infected nearly all Florida groves, resulting in small, bitter fruit and tree death.
• Climate Change Amplification: Warmer temperatures have expanded the habitat for the psyllid, while changing weather patterns have brought more intense hurricanes (e.g., Ian, Milton) and severe droughts, which destroy trees already weakened by disease.
• Production Collapse: Citrus production fell from ~300 million boxes in the early 2000s to roughly 12-20 million in the 2024–2026 seasons.
• Industry Impact: The 2024-25 season was the least productive in over 100 years. Major growers like Alico Inc. are abandoning citrus, and acreage has dropped significantly,, causing supply chains to shift to imported juice.
• Mitigation Efforts: Researchers and growers are testing antimicrobial treatments to combat greening, although these are costly and labor-intensive. 

 Thanks, Chris.

 I’ve followed Florida orange production closely since the late 1990s. The 2 main negative factors since then have been Citrus Greening and increased major hurricane frequency during 2004-2024. The hurricane damage was made worse by many of the groves migrating further south to S FL vs C FL being the heart of it earlier. Ironically, they moved further south because of the many devastating freezes of the late 1970s-1980s!

 This leads me to say that you left off a major positive factor related to CC: sharp drop in major freeze damage events. During the late 1970s-1980s there were many major freezes including Jan 1977, Jan 1981, Jan 1982, Dec 1983, Jan 1985, and Dec of 1989 (30% losses from this one, alone!). Since Dec of 1989, there has been nothing even close to these devastating FL orange crop freezes thanks in large part to CC, which you didn’t even mention.

As a side note, major Brazilian coffee freezes have also dropped in frequency and severity since the 1990s thanks in part to CC.

[bdgwx]

5 hours ago, chubbs said:

Agree with Don's comment.  My problem isn't the facts he is citing, its the things he is leaving out or not aware of. I agree that CO2 is critical for plant growth and that fossil fuel reserves are finite.  However, you need to look at all of the effects of CO2 not just the beneficial ones. Crop yield is one of the most well studied areas of human activity. Its just as easy to perform a controlled experiment on temperature, water, seed variety, fertilizer, etc as CO2. There is also a large amount of real world data on crop yield. To say that we only understand CO2 impacts on agriculture and can't quantify non-CO2 impact indicates a lack of knowledge on his part. The same thing can be said about climate science in general, he doesn't seem aware of the large body of scientific work on CO2 and climate change. The beneficial and harmful impacts of CO2 are well known; as is the balance between harmful and beneficial.

There is also the tone of the response. He has proved his points with "indisputable science" while my response is "predictable" or "fake climate crisis RELIGION".  Doesn't make me look forward to future exchanges.

 

Exactly. The general category of fallacy here is called the reduction fallacy. In this context (and many others of climate contrarians) it is assuming outcomes are tied to one and only one cause.

Example: Plants love CO2 therefore increases in atmospheric CO2 will necessarily result in increased crop yields.

The Problem...changes in CO2 also causes other factors (like temperature, rainfall, soil composition, etc.) to change as well. If these other factors present negative influences that more than offset the positive influence of CO2 itself then crop yields will still decline. It is the NET effect of all factors that matters.

Example: The global average temperature (GAT) does not move in lockstep with CO2 changes especially on monthly time scales therefore CO2 cannot be the cause of GAT changes.

The problem...other factors (like the ENSO cycle) influence the GAT as well especially on short time scales. It is the NET effect of all factors that drive GAT temperature changes. The jerky up-down pattern we see in the GAT is what you would expect when you superimpose the gradual increase in CO2 forcing over the long term with the stronger but transient forcing of the cyclic factors in the short term.

There are other contrarian arguments that can be categorized as reduction fallacies as well.