A decreasing surplus leads to higher prices, not lower.

That’s why the supply-demand curve is called a law, not a theory.

Mark

I think the latter half (as well as the first half) of this thread has actually been quite interesting and informative. Although strictly speaking it is not a GW subject, the discussion of the Tilman (and the refuting of its conclusions by Willis) has been quite illuminating with some good links tht are well worth following. Perhaps as I’ve seen you do with other threads it would be a good idea to pull most of it out onto a separate thread. Dano is clearly a troll and if possible shouldn’t be fed quite so often but having said that it’s surprising just what useful stuff can come out of a troll feeding session.

KevinUK

No, Dave got the meaning I wanted. It was bad wording on my part.

Apologies, but still a very bad tactic, particularly given that those you defend don’t have degrees in statistical signal analysis. I.e., it works both ways, but note that none of us care about the other direction. It does not matter that Mann does not have a degree as such, it only matters that his use of the statistics is incorrect.

Mark

BTW I’m confident that you will find that there has been declining per capita production of copper and virtually every other commodity over the past 35 years. There have also been no shortages of copper and other commodities, which have had mostly poor markets for a generation. In the last year or so, there has been a dramatic change in commodity prices. It pains me to think of all the potential business opportunities that have been created in the last couple of years, while I’ve been amusing myself with climate.

Long-term commodity forecasting is a tricky business and something that I’ve done in a younger incarnation. I say this to reassure you that it’s something I know about and a few linkies here and there from you prove nothing to me. There are lots of interesting issues but I’d prefer that you discuss them in another forum.

OK, let’s recap the assertions I’m looking for backing on:

1. That Dano was incorrect in stating ag production growth rates are slowing (plz, no quibbling over whether I hurried a post and was unclear – look at the entirety).

Well recently in post #333 I quoted you as follows…

and I’ve shown multiple times that production rates are decreasing, as indeed your first (nice) chart shows wrt world grain production (the others are hi-value products in niche markets). My concern is the lack of progress in halting the decline, as stated in my b-quote in #244…The rates are decreasing, as in b-quote in 244…

As stated in #333 and elsewhere, there is a huge difference between your claims of “production rates are decreasing” versus the “production growth rates are slowing” you quoted to support your claim – a distinction you’ve failed to make repeatedly.

A decrease in production rate means less production than the previous year. A slowing in production growth rate means more production than the previous year, just not as much increase in production as there was one year further back. HTH.

3. That Dano should take care to avoid making ridiculous or nonsensical claims.

Start with your post of #307:
Willis says:

First, and most important, is that “low and falling cereal prices” means one thing, and one thing only “¢’‚¬? an abundance of cereal grains on the world market. The price is low because we’re producing an excess, which of course drives the prices down.

Dano responds:

Yes. The surpluses are getting less and less, as traditionally stocks were kept higher.

A decreasing surplus leads to higher prices, not lower.

These were both covered in post #333. If you had bothered to read it, it would have likely saved you the time of typing most of #343.

HTH.

Dano, [in addition to] the ever-present obnoxious and condescending tone[, will]:

(1) …make sweeping statements without any evidence.

Please provide an example.

(2) Asked for evidence, he will spout “linkies”, without attempting to summarise what such links are supposed to show.

This is incorrect. Please provide an example with context.

(3) The “linkies” are often to multiple page documents you are supposed to wade through in search of whatever point it is that he is supposedly making.

Presumably this is for the trendline. Do you have another example to show your ‘other’?

(4) Often the “linkies” don’t support or even contradict the point that you imagine he might be trying to make.

OK, I call BS. Back your claim.

(5) If you try to sound him out on the above, he will refer you to “linkie” at (2). Rinse, lather, repeat.

OK, I call BS. Back your claim with evidence. Be prepared to defend your choice.

(6) Ask a direct question and he will ignore it.

If it’s not germane I will, or if it’s a distractor, or if 9 guys are on me. So what. Who cares.

(7) Make an argument contrary to his (changeable) position and he will congratulate you on your blinding insight and ask you to let him know when your paper is published in Science or Nature.

OK, I call BS. Back your claim with evidence showing my position is changeable. My position is the one that backs the scientific evidence. If your blinding insight is so wonderful, publish it.

Let’s see it. Back your claim.

Best,

D

OK, let’s recap the assertions I’m looking for backing on:

1. That Dano was incorrect in stating ag production growth rates are slowing (plz, no quibbling over whether I hurried a post and was unclear – look at the entirety).

The rate of production increase is slowing, is it not? The b-quote that is bandied about here, sez, decadally, the rate has slowed. I plotted the trendlines and gave the equations in 290 (to match the quote).

If this is incorrect, someone say so, as we need to notify USDA and FAO and some academics that they need to issue corrections to their publications.

2. That the Tilman et al. is ‘alarmist’.

No one has provided scholarship that has different forecasts.

Now, willis has assiduously taken current numbers and tried to argue that the numbers mean all is fine; I have no problem with this technique and I am willing to further discuss the issue, but the remainder of the high dudgeon is based on market stuff and I’m looking for some sort of number – alas, still to no avail.

Is there a different number for future NPK/fert application and resultant eutrophication?

3. That Dano should take care to avoid making ridiculous or nonsensical claims.

The two claims that I have made are 1. and 2. (1. being: a) a citation and b) interpretation of a graph). Has anyone shown that:

1. The slope for 1990-2000 is steeper/same as 1980-1990 (what the guy said in the b-quote),
2. Other papers/R&D show less alarmist numbers for 2050?

Thank you so much.

Best,

D