CULTIVATING CALAMITY: Climate change may disrupt agricultural stability, experts caution.
Image: co.water.usgs.gov
Every nation -- developed and otherwise -- is dependent upon a stable agricultural sector, and climate change threatens that stability, a panel of experts said yesterday.
World population is expected to swell by 50 percent by 2050. This alone is a challenge for the world's supply of vital grains, said Gerald Nelson, an agricultural economist and fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute. But then you have to tack on the impacts of climate change.
The price of major grains like rice and wheat were already projected to also increase by roughly 50 percent by 2050, Nelson said. With the added environmental stresses expected of climate change, prices could instead double, according to IFPRI.
Global agriculture, he said, could adapt to climate change for about $7 billion annually, with most of the resources being devoted to research, new irrigation techniques and training small farmers for rises in sea level.
Agricultural management directly affects how the three major greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide -- are cycled through the environment. According to United Nations Environment Programme, "Agriculture, deforestation and other forms of land use account for nearly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions."
The four-member panel was organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science with support, the host noted, from Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Panelists stressed the need for funding aimed at mitigating the damage to agricultural resources around the world potentially affected by climate change.
Accelerating cycles of drought and rain
Climate variability has already affected rains, droughts and temperatures in several parts of the United States, said Cynthia Rosenzweig, a senior research scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "We are already seeing climate change."
"We are seeing the expansion of drying," said Rosenzweig, as she brought up a slide showing precipitation measurements across the United States. The measurements, comparing values from 1958 through 2008, showed significant reductions in rainfall across large portions of the Northwest and Southeast. Idaho, Washington, Montana, Georgia and Florida had some of the most drastic changes in rainfall on the map.
However, the opposite is not good either, she said, adding that increased soil moisture in some areas could potentially harbor insects and other pests. And, in general, "crops do not like to have their feet wet."
Aside from concerns about rainfall, local temperature is also extremely important for crop performance.
The reproductive development in many important grains is a process sensitive to temperature, said Paul Gepts, a professor of agronomy at the University of California, Davis.
Some plants need cold winters
One of the potential side effects of climate change is a trend toward milder winters in some regions. Vital plants, Gepts said, require a cold winter in order to properly develop their seeds for the next season.
Rosenzweig agreed. Heat waves, at odd times of the year, affect the proper development of proteins within corn kernels, she said. "It is like scrambling eggs."
Gepts also presented a number of well-known strategies for mitigating some of the possible economic effects of climate change on agriculture. Aside from breeding plants to be more drought-, heat- and pest-resistant, he also suggested varying the types of crops maintained on a particular site on the basis of environmental suitability.
See what we're tweeting about
56 Comments
Add CommentNothing new here. I guess we'll just have to see how bad it gets and hopefully force the fossil fuel companies to switch the fuel they provide to us, thus reducing future degredation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey keep telling us that weather events do not disprove climate change - that is whenever we have a cold spell or winter storm. However, now we learn that "climate variability has already affected rains, droughts and temperatures in several parts of the United States". So, which is it? Or does the veracity of the evidence depend on the conclusion which would be drawn?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood. Let em find out the hard way that jesus isnt' gonna save em from the consequences of their actions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSoccerdad, the number of things you have to not know about to make the statements you do is incredibly large.
Soccerdad - I am always amazed when I see comments like this. How cold it is in New England or England this winter can be affected by regional variations. That the entire global temperature has risen and the ocean temperature is GLOBAL. The author was not trying to say that changes in rainfall in the southeast prove climate change but that climate change will change rain patterns in many places and that these changes will affect food production.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf they were truly concerned with feeding a hungry world the focus would have been on plant diseases like the UG99 wheat rust, the costs of converting agriculture food production into fuel production and the need for GM crops that can grow in saline soils and require less water. How can one talk about US grain production and precipitation and pick a time period that leaves out the Dust Bowl?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's interesting, of course, but a distraction from the real problem, namely a fifty percent increase in world population in the next forty years, and continued accelerating increases thereafter. We are out of the lag phase and well into the log phase of the population S-curve, and yet NOBODY wants to talk about that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe laws of nature apply to us just as much as they do to bacterial colonies and rabbit populations, and at some point our numbers will collide with the carrying capacity of the planet, and a lot of people will die, one way or another.
And as hotblack says, "Jesus isn't gonna save 'em from the consequences of their actions".
It is good to see an article addressing the critical balance between nutrient production and population, but according to the information on the U.S. Census' 2009 forecast, illustrated at:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopgraph.php
I calculate the population increase from now to 2050 to be closer to 35% than the 50% growth referenced in the article.
That aside, presuming that temperature and CO2 will continue to increase, rainfall and crop yields are unlikely to continue recent improvements.
Then there is not only the increased demand for crops from increased population but likely the continued increasing occupation of productive agricultural land by people. Then there's the recent agricultural trend of increasing crop irrigation from non renewable ancient reservoirs. Not to mention the increasing water requirements for direct human consumption.
Then there's the depletion of seafood populations. Combined with potentially decreasing crop yields for the many reasons mentioned plus increasing demand for irrigation from diminishing water supplies, the increasing population will find it difficult to feed itself.
All of which have historically led to war. Not to mention pestilence and disease.
Given the outlook for decreasing availability of food and water, I recommend we figure the least painful method of significantly reducing our population, before it's most painfully done for us.
Soccerdad, you just don't get it and it always pains me to read your comments. Global warming will have a variety of overall effects, all depending on the region involved. Some areas will report droughts while others report floods; some will experience intense hurricanes, while others will be struck with whiteout snowstorms. Read a book, figure it out, get back to us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo all those who are criticizing my post - look again at the headline. It claims climate change is already disrupting agriculture. Just how it is doing that is beyond me as so far even the claims of warming that already has occurred are barely discernable. I am simply pointing out the absurdity of that statement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Soccerdad, you just don't get it and it always pains me to read your comments."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI second that motion.
JTDwyer comments actually addressed the correct issue. The real problem is the out of control human population growth. Stopping that increase should be the focus of discussion far more than any other environmental concern. The reason it is not is predominately religious, or superstition depending in your perspective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know about you, but the agriculture in my area is really starting to take a hit. Corn crop yields are way down compared to 6 or 7 years ago, but again everyone will have a different experience based on region. With this past decade being the hottest on record I don't understand how you can't possibly see what's right in front of your face.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven this quote from the article :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Global agriculture, he said, could adapt to climate change for about $7 billion annually, with most of the resources being devoted to research, new irrigation techniques and training small farmers for rises in sea level."
There is as such no case that can be made to change our energy infrastructure based on agriculture.
The panel should also understand that war and unrest are also caused by collapsing an economy. And that without a robust economy no adaptation is possible. It also seems a bit disingenuous not to acknowledge the massive increases in agriculture production per unit farmed over this warming period. Wheat production in Mexico and Asia as an example has increased ten fold per hectare as a result of the work of Norman Borlaug- the father of the Green Agriculture revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
US Corn production was 29 bushels per acre in 1900, 37 bushels in 1951 and 130 bushels per acre in 2004. Where is the downward trend in food production?
Borlaug did more to end the curse of starvation than any man in history. Borlaug is the reason Ehrlich's and Holdren's doomsday warnings were so spectacularly wrong. Borlaug recently passed away in quiet obscurity and Holdren is our Nation's science advisor. Go figure.
And the new breakthroughs in salt sensitive rice cultivars will change the world for the better again.
And if you are concerned with increasing population- nothing seems to curtail population growth like increasing wealth.
Given the article’s quote (below) there seems no reason to do anything about climate change based on agriculture:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Global agriculture, he said, could adapt to climate change for about $7 billion annually, with most of the resources being devoted to research, new irrigation techniques and training small farmers for rises in sea level."
Wheat production per unit has increased ten fold since 1950. US corn production per acre has increased from 30 bushels per acre in 1900 to 130 bushels per acre in 2004. Where is this downturn in agriculture output.
Norman Borlaug the father of the green agriculture revolution did more to end the scourge of starvation than anyone in history and the man responsible for making Ehrlich and Holdren’s prediction for late 20th century mass starvation look so foolish. Borlaug recently died in quiet obscurity while Holdren is our Nation’s Science Advisor. Perhaps government attracts the preachers of apocalypse.
The panel should also be aware that collapsing and declining economic conditions also lead to war and given that agriculture is not a significant problem by the panels own assessment- we should worry far more about the economic risks of unproven, incapable and costly energy replacements.
Soccerdad if you are interested in the topic of Climate Change, in particular GW then your really should do some research and read the science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt all points to exactly what is happening now. And basically means were toast as a global civilization in the near future.
Global Warming is definitely affecting agriculture here in the corn belt [Iowa and Illinois]. It has rained an extra 2 feet in the last 2.5 years, delaying harvest and washing away seeds. The actual temperatures here have been lower because of the rain and cloud cover. That is caused by the warmer ocean evaporating more water. Globally, warming has been 1.4 degrees F over 2 centuries. That is fast warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNote that a small percentage of crop loss is sufficient to cause a run on the grocery stores and a collapse of civilization if a society is already on the edge.
Soccerdad may be working for a coal company. Ignore him.
Pat Moffitt : Borlaug did more to increase the human population than whatever, and in so doing, he increased the suffering. If the gains in production had gone to increasing wealth and the education of girls so as to not increase population, you would have a point, but they didn't. Borlaug just made the ultimate catastrophe worse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsteroid miner- good to know if your life is on the line you won't ask for help in order to reduce global population- or is that death sentence only for other people?. I'm not sure how not starving is more suffering than starving. So Borlaug by preventing the world from mass starvation and a famine so great that Ehrlich said the UK would cease to exist by 2000- Borlaugh made the problem that didn't happen worse. Borlaug not only allowed for the production of more food and at less cost on less land - he saved huge amounts of wild lands in Asia from agriculture development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou haven't done much work on the Holocene if you think 1.4F over 2 centuries is fast warming- The GISP ice cores at the end of the Younger Dryas saw temperature spike 14F in just a few years and nearly 30F over a 40 or 50 year period.
And since the global warming models cannot see down to the regional area I'm not sure how you can make a claim that global warming is disrupting farming. By the way what caused the Dust Bowl in the 30s. And why has grain production increased per unit acre nearly five fold over the last hundred years. And why do you discount the steady 2.5 to 3% yearly growth in yield efficiency. And please look at what we are about to do with salt tolerant rice crops.
If you want the world to die- pick another cause- even this post says global adaptation for agriculture as a result of warming is but $7Bn per year.
Asteroid Miner- that extra rain must have been good for Iowa crops as 2009 saw the largest corn crop in State history- a whopping 186 bushels per acre! And this despite the early and late freezing problems. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2009/1015hurburghelmore.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo warm? Global Warming
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo dry? Global Warming
Too wet? Global Warming
Too variable? Global Warming
Crop yields down? Global Warming
I guess with this criteria, you guys are always right.
Too slow? Soccerdad. A first year geology class would really do you well. Enough said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGervster- You claim that corn production is way down. Perhaps you would like to comment on the record 2009 Iowa corn crop as cited earlier. Or the projection for a second straight year of record US corn and soybean crops. Or the international concern of the burgeoning world grain SURPLUS http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703438604575314833883953898.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGladly. First, please read the whole page of comments before posting. Repetition drives me insane.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondly, I clamed corn yields are down in my region. As mentioned again and again in the comments, every region will be different. Because of the size of the Earth and complexity of weather patterns, global warming does not necessarily mean the same effects on a local scale (hence why it's called global and not local warming). Every region will experience varying shifts in local climate as the world once again approaches a balance.
Thridly, production and yields are not the same thing. That article makes no mention to yields of regular everyday crops. It's a no brainer that GMO's will have higher yields than regular crops - if they didn't we wouldnt use them. The fact of the matter is that we ramped up agriculture production in anticipation of a food crisis, not that everyday crops are producing higher yields. Big difference.
*claimed*
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgervster - you claimed corn yields are down in your region as evidence of the effects of global warming. Then you go into a disclaimer (weather may vary - check local listings) to explain away the high yields in Iowa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo matter what the effect, it's always attributable to global warming I guess.
Gervster you did not say every day crops- you said corn. In fact grains in general are up world wide. I cited the fact that there is actually a worldwide problem of too much grain. So where is your evidence that things are getting worse from climate change. If grains are up worldwide but indeed down in your town- that's weather not climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd don't be disingenous- the figures given you were in bushels per acre. So whether we did or did not put more land in production is irrelevant. In fact putting more land in production generally means less desirable acreage-- and yet the yield in 2009 was still an Iowa record.
And stick to yield so we can make comparisons. I do anticipate your citations for your claim of a decline in foodstocks over the last 6 to 7 years.
So answer me this if the climate is such that we are producing record yields of rice, corn, soybeans, etc and lets say okra is down- do we change the world to protect okra or be happy that what we eat most often is becoming more plentiful and lower in cost?
Hot topic, finally some good discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSoccerdad - That's the point, you're arguing in my favour. I suppose I should be a bit more specific though, in saying it's attributable to man made climate change. Better?
Pat - Definitely a noteworthy point. However, it is not the climate that is producing these record yields, it's the genetically modified crops. Unfortunately, since GM crops are relatively new, the data you presented is very biased in the sense that it doesn't distinguish them separately. It's just common knowledge that all crops have optimal conditions, and anything outside those boundaries have overall negative effects. Hopefully this will suffice:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17680-climate-tipping-point-defined-for-us-crop-yields.html
More specifically "overall, the results suggest that yields of maize, cotton and soybean drop by roughly 0.6 per cent for each "degree-day" spent above 29 �C." With this past decade being the hottest on record - well you know where I'm going with this.
Just went back to read your article again (I must admit I only skimmed over it initially) and did find mention of GM crops. In fact, it suggests at the bottom that the main cause of the increased production is - surprise surprise - GM crops! Too funny.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGervster- you made a blanket claim that corn was down in your area-you made no claim as to GM or non GM- I ask you again- back it up. I'll give you some help.
Lets go back in time before GM and look at Iowa corn yield -bushels per acre during the period of climate change:
1940 - < 50 bu/A
196o- ~ 60 bu/A
1980- ~100 by/A
1990- ~125 bu/A
(Iowa Crop Improvement Association and National Agricultural Statistics Service(Data: Iowa Crop Improvement Association and National Agricultural Statistic)
And perhaps we should look at the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council findings:
Since 1895 there has been a 1F rise in Statewide average temperature and most of this happened before 1920. (the increase is seen in Winter and Spring rather than summer) Since 1920 there is no apparent temperature trend. The temperatures seen in this decade mirrors those seen in the 1930s and the 1940s. (The 1930s were the hottest period of record. And only one monthly temperature high (April) has been set for the State since 1950. So your claims of recent extremes seems not to hold up) The period of record drought is 19.1 inches in 1910- how do you think corn did that year and the paleo record shows far more extreme droughts? What caused them?
So please show me the climate signal in Iowa and how crops have recently suffered.
Gervster- used the wrong citation for the temperature data. Here corrected. Annual statewide average temperature history for Iowa, 1895-2008 (top), 1920-2008 (bottom) (available from the National Climatic Data Center http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/ia.html).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, I guess NASA is wrong then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html
"In the past three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.36 degrees F (0.2 degrees C) per decade. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) since 1880. "
This has become a war of data siting - lame.
@Soccerdad, we know your agenda. You employ every fallacy in the book to try and promote your distorted view of the world as some unique perspective on a problem that thousands of experts just can't seem to figure out. Of course you've done no actual research, but why would you? You aren't interested in the truth. You've found a worldview you like so all you have to do is change the facts so they agree with your prejudices. But understand we know who you are and what you stand for; ignorance, paranoia and irrationalism. The world will sink under the burden of mental dead weights such as yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGervster- You claimed your area (not the world) had seen record heat and reduced corn crops. When data was presented to you that corn has not suffered you contradict yourself and claim unspecified crops - again without foundation. Then you claim GM caused the corn increase. I then show a steady increase in corn over the last 60 years including periods before any GM corn. And you continue to fail to support your claim that corn in your area as the result of temperature induced by climate change has suffered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou try to avoid backing up your claim by giving me the temperature rise globally. But back to "this is lame." Show how climate change has reduced the crops in your area in support of YOUR claim.
Asteroid Miner- High yield farming was disparaged by you. Perhaps you should read the new study out of Stanford “Greenhouse Gas Mitigation by Agricultural Intensification,” Jennifer Burney, Steven J. Davis and David B. Lobell, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0914216107; 2010. High yield farming has reduced global CO2 emissions by 600 billion tons, saved countless wild areas from having to be tilled, significantly reduced soil loss and it resulting environmental impact and allowed the poor to eat. Organic farming cannot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSoccerdad:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven though it is hard to point to this or that event in the weather or amphibian extinctions, or crop creap, or boreal forest migration, or tropical disease increases in formerly temperate climactic areas, or glacier shrinkage over decades; taken all together with global average temperature increases, a pretty cogent picture is emerging that is worth taking seriously. Things are changing. Even if the warming is barely discernable, it IS discernable. The question of whether we are causing the change is, of course, the next part of the debate.
Haha - no pat. I said corn crops are down in my region. When presented with bogus data showing that corn production was up, I said normal corn in my region was still down. And then pointed you back to your article where it clearly shows that production is up because of GM crops. Thanks for that, by the way. You may not see the effect now using global data because this is a recent evolution of agriculture so obviously numbers are skewed. That being said, it's not rocket science - when it gets too hot past a critical point, things don't grow. This decade has been hotter than ever. Connect the dots.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey soccerdad, I don't get it either. One of the things that the very slight increase of the trace gas carbon dioxide (.000385 of the atmosphere by weight) does is fertilize plants so that they produce more. In fact, they even produce more with a little less water, which we know by measuring stomatal conductance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut is there really going to be less water? Washington state was mentioned and we are drowning in rain this Spring. Droughts come and go, they always have. I find the explanation of "climate change" to be disingenuous when it doesn't say warming or cooling, because both warming or cooling can cause local drought. Warmer causes more water to enter the atmosphere where it ultimately precipitates out. Cooler can cause the worst drought conditions because the water doesn't get into clouds in the first place.
Don't let the anthropogenic global warming zealots have it both ways. Yes, a trace amount of gas is increasing, but correlation is not causation unless you rule out every other possible factor, then that leaves only the suspect factor, which must be it.
But don't believe for an instant that every other possible factor was considered and ruled out. That is why AGW is the greatest scientific blunder of the last 400 years and nothing but a self-perpetuating academic funding and promotion machine.
Gervster--You made a claim and seem to be doing everything but back it up. Here is your claim:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I don't know about you, but the agriculture in my area is really starting to take a hit. Corn crop yields are way down compared to 6 or 7 years ago, but again everyone will have a different experience based on region. With this past decade being the hottest on record I don't understand how you can't possibly see what's right in front of your face."
It may surprise you that "HAHA" is generally inadequate as evidence to support a claim. I showed that 2009 was a record corn yield. You then amended your claim and said your claim was based on non GM crops. I therefore cited the continuing increase in yield for corn in Iowa that has been steady since 1940-no GM over this period. I showed you data that the 1930s were the hottest period for this area and that there has been no temperature trend of note since 1920.
Here is how you can back up your claim if you are unfamiliar with the idea that claims must be supported. Show that corn--ANY CORN- in YOUR REGION has suffered relative to the last seven years. (not in the future but as you claim over a 6-7 year period) Show as you claim that this was caused by record heat. Show that this record heat is different than the heat seen in the 1930's and is a climate change signal. Present evidence for what has happened in just your region (not the world)- evidence that you claim is "right in front of your face" or withdraw your claim.
Oh my. I wasn't aware I had to write a report here. I think what's happened here is you have realized your article supports what I'm saying and are now frantically searching for a way to discredit my claims. I'd rather not ravage the internet looking for proof, seeing as you've already done it for me. Need a diagram? Geesh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090824182533.htm
http://www.treehugger.com/nonlinear-relationship-between-corn-yield-and-temperature-image.jpg
http://image.tutorvista.com/content/nutrition/temperature-versus-rate-of-photosynthesis.jpeg
The last one's laid out for you real plain and simple. Now..
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
I may not be able to round up all the farmers in the area and jot down their yields from the past 7 years - just living here is proof enough - but I'll be damned if you still don't get it from here on out. This is grade 10 stuff man.
Gervster- No- grade 10 stuff is making a claim that record heat in your area has caused substantial declines in corn yield as the result of record heat and getting upset when you are asked for evidence. Obviously you took some papers you did not understand that projected some FUTURE impact and felt the need to say it has already happened. You think that "just living here" is sufficient "proof". Well perhaps we just disagree as to what constitutes evidence (a scientist would be careful throwing around the word proof- it has a specific meaning in math and the sciences)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you had made a claim that globally temperatures are rising and that some research says that (non GM) corn may be affected as temperatures rise over 30C- that would have been supportable. But you made a claim that it has already happened in your area as a result of record heat attributable to climate change- which is not supportable. I have shown that for Iowa the record period of heat was prior to 1950, and there has been no new summer monthly high temperature (max) record in decades (this is not necessarily inconsistent with the GISS data) And nothing but increasing corn yields- GM and nonGM for 50 years.
Your science daily link cites possible crop declines in the FUTURE.Your tree hugger is an unsupported link to a corn yield as a function of max T, your photovista is unsupported not dealing with corn and your GISS data is global temperatures. None of it shows YOUR AREA as claimed is suffering record heat. None of this is relevant unless you show that your area is suffering from an abnormal period of days above 30C which you have not.
One point you may have missed. The Temp rise in GISS data shows an increase in temperatures that are driven by increasing night time temperatures as well as non summer periods. Summers are not getting especially hotter in terms of max T. And it is only by increased maximum temps -not average- that crops may possibly be impacted.
@Mike Cook
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Hey soccerdad, I don't get it either. One of the things that the very slight increase of the trace gas carbon dioxide (.000385 of the atmosphere by weight) does is fertilize plants so that they produce more. In fact, they even produce more with a little less water, which we know by measuring stomatal conductance."
Liebig's Law of the Minimum. Perhaps you should learn a little more botany before spouting off fossil industry talking points? And no not every plant benefits from increased CO2 levels.
"Don't let the anthropogenic global warming zealots have it both ways. Yes, a trace amount of gas is increasing, but correlation is not causation unless you rule out every other possible factor, then that leaves only the suspect factor, which must be it."
Perhaps one day you will learn that for over 150 years people have known that CO2 is a green house gas. A gas that helps us to not have the temperature regime of the moon.
"But don't believe for an instant that every other possible factor was considered and ruled out. That is why AGW is the greatest scientific blunder of the last 400 years and nothing but a self-perpetuating academic funding and promotion machine."
This propaganda brought to you by Exxon-Mobil
Oh don't get me wrong Pat, nobody is upset here - it's all in good fun. The sites quoted that project future declines is just to make sure you realize the only reason you are seeing record yields is because of GM crops, not climate as you claim. Unforunately, we really do not keep good records here, so you'll have to bare with me while we work with NASA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=5&sat=4&sst=0&type=trends&mean_gen=05&year1=2002&year2=2010&base1=2002&base2=2010&radius=1200&pol=reg
Check out Eastern Canada. Surface temperatures have significantly increased since 2002, especially with respect to the rest of North America. I really think this has gone on long enough, and my case has been made. Temperatures have increased in my area, and whether or not you choose to believe it, local agriculture has suffered. What's your background?
Proofs? Pfft. Engineers don't need them, we just use them.
I like fossil fuel industry talking points. There is every indication that the people who work for private industry have their heads on us straight if not straighter than the hysterical self-promoting mad mob that has taken over academia and the lush employment fields of government service.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biggest handicap science has is the sociology of science, as physicist Lee Smolin complains in his new book THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS. The basic problem is that speciality sub-fields within a general heading like chemistry or biology are becoming so specialized that the researchers in the focused sub-field have to take it for granted that a lot of the general, over-arching assumptions coming down from those who supposedly have the big picture of what is relevant, timely, and true have gotten it right.
In actuality, Smolin says, whole hungry packs of sub-specialists go off very intently studying tangents and take it on faith alone that very general principles they were taught about their field at university were actually rigidly proven.
Actually, it is only the case sometimes that everybody thinks they were rigorously proven as nobody even examines the fundamental assumptions anymore because that isn't the sexy research front and not only is such doubting of the fundamentals frowned upon, it will earn the young scientist no research cash and no laurels, only scorn because he or she threatens to make everyone else look like a fool.
Assumption number one in climate science is that the admitted green house gas carbon dioxide is the only factor which could have caused the measured warming from 1850 or so to the present. All other possible factors, don't you know, have been rigorously explored and ruled out!
There is a world of difference between claiming that the butterfly which flaps its wings in Arkansas in June could be the cause of a thundershower in Marseilles in late August, and saying that you have PROVED that the butterfly caused it by ruling out all other possible climate influences.
Carbon dioxide is certainly a greenhouse gas but it is only .000385 of the atmosphere by weight and there are a lot of other potential causes of climate change and most of them are not fully understood.
Correlation is not causation. Pretty women pedestrians can certainly cause distracted male drivers to get in accidents. There were three pretty women in sun dressed on the sidewalk when Johnny Q. teenager rear-ended a car stopped at a red light. Johnny Q. was going 85 mph, talking on his cell phone, and eating a bacon cheeseburger.
@ Mike Cook,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this9/10 0f your post is just you randomly talking. But you do make a few outrageous claims.
"I like fossil fuel industry talking points. There is every indication that the people who work for private industry have their heads on us straight if not straighter than the hysterical self-promoting mad mob that has taken over academia and the lush employment fields of government service."
Unsupported allegation and claim. I see no reason to trust the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry. They have consistently lied and misled the public. They have every interest to do so because well, you know, they have trillions of dollars at stake.
That you think that the CEO of a multibillion dollar industry is less corruptible than a geophysics professor at a university just beggars belief at the depth of your gullibility.
"Assumption number one in climate science is that the admitted green house gas carbon dioxide is the only factor which could have caused the measured warming from 1850 or so to the present."
You just do not read anything other than that does comes straight out a fossil fuel propaganda web site do you? You truly do find the business interests more trustworthy than a century and a half of science. Pretty sad really.
The science is OBSERVABLE. No assumption is being made here. CO2 captures heat and re-radiates it. No an assumption but an OBSERVATION. The Earth has warmed consistently since 1980. Not an assumption but a OBSERVATION. Other factors have been ruled out such as the sun. Are you even aware that there are multiple ways for that attribution to be falsified? Again not an assumption but an OBSERVATION.
"Carbon dioxide is certainly a greenhouse gas but it is only .000385 of the atmosphere by weight and there are a lot of other potential causes of climate change and most of them are not fully understood."
Argument from Incredulity and from Ignorance in one sentence. Congratulations on the Logic Fail.
"Correlation is not causation."
Which part of OBSERVATION do you fail to understand?
Gervster- So you have no corn records and you have "no good temperature records" for your area but you know for a fact that corn collapsed from climate change in 2009. And that's your idea of engineering? You just know?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you claim this corn collapse happened in 2009? Here is what the USDA said about the 2009 corn crop-"Despite late planting and slower than normal crop development (because of cold), corn benefited from abundant moisture and a virtual absence of heat stress" So 2009 was a great year for corn because there was no heat stress! USDA Global Crop Production Review 2009. Notice they didn't say minimal or within tolerance- they said no heat stress. And you claimed corn collapsed because of heat stress. Hmmmmm?
And for some reason you are now jumping to eastern Canada--- (which is not the center of the corn growing world) probably because you thought you could take advantage of the GISS annual temperature anomaly). But you should have known average temperature is irrelevant to corn production. Here is what Grains Canada says about 2009 "Due to a cooler and wetter 2009 summer in Ontario, the canola was not exposed to heat stress." Got that- 2009 was a cooler and wetter summer." If you had looked at the GISS monthly data you would have known that.
It is the days over 30c (during pollination) and how this number impacts the overall growing season (GDD score) that influences corn production. A yearly increase in temperature means nothing to corn. Record heat in January or February does not influence corn in July. If you had looked at the GISS monthly data you would have known that.
And please tell me your not an engineer- given you think data or formula unimportant and claim "just knowing" an acceptable substitute.
Come on- tell the truth- you really wanted to prove your point and just made up that story about witnessing a corn collapse.
Trent1492 at 12:08 PM on 06/23/10
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Assumption number one in climate science is that the admitted green house gas carbon dioxide is the only factor which could have caused the measured warming from 1850 or so to the present."
That is not what IPCC or climate science says. IPCC says that CO2 is "very likely" the cause of only the most recent warming-post 1970. (Phil Jones in his House testimony said since the 1950s ). And no climate scientist says it is the only climate or forcing factor.
"The Earth has warmed consistently since 1980"
Not according to Phil Jones testimony at the Climategate inquiry . http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm. When asked "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming" He answered "Yes" Jones also admitted that the warming of 4 other periods 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were not statistically significantly different from each other.
You said no assumptions are being made with respect to climate forcing that they are observable. Again not what either the IPCC or Jones testimony says. Jones testified anthropogenic factors are responsible for the majority of the warming since 1950 because of "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing." Hardly observable. Hardly complete. He assumes CO2 because he doesn't see solar or volcanic- note the lack of empirical evidence and the fact he avoids the issue of ocean cycle, cloud cover etc.
One of the biggest assumptions for AGW is that the MWP was regional. If the MWP was global everything falls apart. Jones testified: "Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented." Jones admits there is much evidence in the northern hemisphere for the MWP but that there have been few studies in the southern hemisphere. So one great big assumption that it did not occur in the south.
AGW requires CO2 to create a series of positive feedbacks and IPCC says our understanding of these forcing agents are medium to low. (albedo, solar irradiance, aerosols etc)
And why did Gore fire Dr. Happer from DOE in 1993 for questioning the role of CO2? Perhaps to send a message to the academic community?
Pat Moffit quotes Mike Cook thinking it is me: Assumption number one in climate science is that the admitted green house gas carbon dioxide is the only factor which could have caused the measured warming from 1850 or so to the present."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPat Moffit:That is not what IPCC or climate science says. IPCC says that CO2 is "very likely" the cause of only the most recent warming-post 1970.
That is not what I say either. However since you brought up what the IPCC says, I say let us take a look. At what the phrase "very likely" means. The IPCC has a particular definition for some words and phrases. If you go to the AR4 Synthesis Report on page 27 we find those terms defined:
<snip>
Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%;
extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%.
<snip>
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
So in other words the IPCC has confidence of 90% or greater that the warming is attributable to humanity.
Trent 1492 says: The Earth has warmed consistently since 1980
Pat Moffit Says: Not according to Phil Jones testimony at the Climategate inquiry.
A. The link you gave is not from the House of Commons inquiry but from a interview with the BBC.
B. Here is what Phil Jones says more fully:
<snip>Answer B. Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. <snip>
So, yes, he does say that warming has occurred since 1995 but that to get "statistical significance" you need longer periods.
But hold it. What else does he say in the INTERVIEW?
E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
So Phil Jones is no Denier.
Continued on next post.
Pat Moffit says: You said no assumptions are being made with respect to climate forcing that they are observable. Again not what either the IPCC or Jones testimony says. Jones testified anthropogenic factors are responsible for the majority of the warming since 1950 because of "The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing." Hardly observable. Hardly complete. He assumes CO2 because he doesn't see solar or volcanic- note the lack of empirical evidence and the fact he avoids the issue of ocean cycle, cloud cover etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again let us take a look at what Phil Jones says more fully:
<snip>D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.
This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period. <snip>
So a fuller quote from Phil Jones reveals that since solar activity is flat and volcanoes are cooling factors that we should expect a cooling global temperature. Obviously he has already said that the global temperature has warmed since the 1950's.
But hold it there is more!
<snip>H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D. <snip>
So Mr. Moffit since it is glaringly visible to everyone that you have lied about Phil Jones has said. I have a question for you: Why lie in the Age of Google? I can see what Phil Jones actually said as well as anyone else with a Internet connection.
Post Continued on next post.
Peter Moffit Says: One of the biggest assumptions for AGW is that the MWP was regional. If the MWP was global everything falls apart. Jones testified: "Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented." Jones admits there is much evidence in the northern hemisphere for the MWP but that there have been few studies in the southern hemisphere. So one great big assumption that it did not occur in the south.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat in the above now leads you to conclude that:
A. The MWP was global.
B. That if the MWP was global that it was warmer than now or it will be?
Phil Jones says none of those things. Your own quotes do not support your conclusions.
Or that I live in eastern Quebec...? And no - I don't claim that 2009 was a bad year. I simply note it has been a rough 6-7 years because well, it has been. We may not be corn central, but a lot of local farmers rely on their production for various practices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're so ignorant to the fact that maybe Quebec farmers have been seeking aid in the form of compensation for a downturn in crops due to climate change. Climate change is affecting everyone differently, accept it - deal with it. I'm merely pointing out that it's there, and can be seen all around the globe, not just "corn capital".
http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/projdb/pdf/147_e.pdf
And yes I am an engineer, and I never once mentioned data or formulae - those are all too familiar. On the other hand, proofs - us conventional (ie. mech, chem, civil etc.) engineers really don't care for them. We think practically. And when we can visually see something is wrong, we don't wait 10 years for a report before fixing the problem. Again, what's your background?
Gervster- You have finally provided a specific -Quebec. What do you mean you did not claim 2009 was a bad year. You said "I don't know about you, but the agriculture in my area is really starting to take a hit. Corn crop yields are way down compared to 6 or 7 years ago...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI sure hope it is southern Quebec because the rest of Quebec is TOO COLD for corn. http://www.ontariocorn.org/growing /grainltr.html. The citation also says there was a large net loss of corn production in Quebec because acreage was rotated to soy beans in 2008.
So the US corn region had a distinct absence in corn heat stress in 2009, Ontario had a "cooler and wetter summer" without heat stress. But you claim for an area for which there are no corn production numbers and no good temperature data that a supposed collapse of corn occurred that did not happen anywhere else in the northern hemisphere corn's growing region. Don't you find it odd to claim a corn collapse from heat stress for an area at the extreme maximum northern extent (cold limited) for corn. And that all the southern and surrounding areas showed a remarkable lack of summer heat stress? Or how given the vast majority of the northern hemisphere's corn producing region showed no heat stress- you claim that your area without records suffered from heat stress--- not due to weather but climate change.
In answer to your question I started, owned and operated a multi-discipline environmental services business including engineering, laboratory, impact studies, turnkey construction and infrastructure facility management. Sold to a multinational JV and then operated their international business for 5 years before retiring. Also expert witness, and member of a White House advisory group on environmental technology . Acceptable?
Trent-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are correct I did think it was you that made some of those claims- my error. I will take your recent comments and post replies to specifics as my time permits today.
You seem to believe that the fossil fuel companies are not to be trusted because they have trillions of dollars at stake and somehow that scientists and global warming proponents are less ethically challenged and therefore more trustable. Lets start with people are people and scientists are people. There are good and bad on both sides and no filter that allows more in one than the other. The green energy companies and other rent seekers will also stand to make trillions from climate change by forcing us to spend more money then we spend now. Carbon traders like Al Gore have already made billions by trading something that used to be free. Government agencies expand in power with global warming. Government agencies offer scientists billions in research grant not to study but to prove the government’s appeal for broader power. A scientist that does not toe the global warming line risks grant funding and tenure. Government fires “denier” scientists in an attempt show “right thinking”. (Happer and Krug are good examples) Or academic societies to protect their gov grants shun or blacklist scientsts like Dr Thompson. NGOs generate billions from the fear in donations and are able to spread their ideology. And the whole thing is managed by the UN. The same UN that has turned a repeated blind eye to Africa’s genocide, stole money from the food for oil program and nominates tyrants to human rights commissions. Media has no incentive not to sell the most alarmist news.So lets just stick with what we know and don’t know without ascribing motive—because incentives are on both sides. You can make no case that the pro-AGW movement operates with purity of motive. And I make no case for the fossil fuel industry or any other industry.
You might also find interesting the history of the Nat’l Academies. The idea for its creation from Louis Agassiz as a means to pack a quasi-governmental agencies with anti Darwin scientists. (I think it was Dana that blew up Agassiz's plan) . Also interesting that the Darwin wars in the late 19th century were fought on both sides by trying to pack universities with team players, threatening funding, endowments and careers. Some things never change.
This is never going to end, I see.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly, I do understand that that should read over* the past 6-7 years, I appologize. Good catch. Secondly, I live here, and have lived here for over 15 years - have somet rust. Non-GM crops have suffered with increased temperatures, and weather anomalies. This year alone has been especially bad with the warmest and driest winter on record nationwide, and our spring clocking in at 33% less precipitation in eastern Canada. As if that's not enough, we've set two record breaking temperature days in May alone.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Wacky+spring+weather+warmest+record+Canada/3136667/story.html
"In Quebec, corn output dropped 23% in 2008 as both harvested area and yields declined."
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/22-007-x/2008011/hi-fs-eng.htm
And yes, that will suffice. Thanks for asking me too :) Finishing my combined master studies in Environmental Engineering with energy focus and MBA focus natural resources.
Gervster- Agreed enough- best wishes to your degree completion and future endeavors! Regards, Pat
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks Pat, until we meet again - perhaps on better terms. What was that company called anyways, seems interesting. Looking to do some graduate work in coastal hydraulics on the east coast, Canada of course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo lets take IPCCs claim that more than half of the most recent warming (50 to 60 years) has been the result of increasing anthro CO2 orchestrating a series of positive feedbacks by other forcing agents. My comments are a reaction to my sense that you believe this assumption is empirically based. I disagree. CO2 as a GHG forcing has associated empirical evidence. That CO2 is the primary driver of climate working through a series of positive reinforcement however contains a significant number of untested assumptions. This was the purpose for my inclusion of IPCCs admission that understanding of many of the most important climate forcings and mechanisms are medium to low. We also know from the ice core records that temperature precedes CO2. We know as temperatures warm and ice recedes that oceans outgas stored CO2 and more land reenters the carbon cycle. I have not seen the empirical evidence that CO2 drives this process rather than follows some other process as a result of increasing temperature. And your falsification by subtraction has hardly been subjected to empirical rigor or indeed falsified all the possible forcing. My point in referencing Jones comments We simply can’t because as IPCC said our understanding of many of these agents is med- low. We also know that CO2 in history was much larger in the earth’s past and an uncontrolled positive feedback did not happen. So what was the negative feedback that prevented this?
The IPCC version of the climate system assumes the MWP did not exist globally at a temperature above our current temperature. If the MWP did exist at higher temperatures then our current warming is within the range of natural variability and the case for anthropogenic CO2 is seriously undermined. Jones agrees with this. Jones says while the northern hemisphere has clear evidence for a warmer MWP there are too few studies to draw a conclusion that it was global. So lets stop here- we don’t know about the MWP and as such we don’t know whether current warming is within the range of natural variability. Phil Jones does not disagree (And I never tried to say Phil Jones is a denier- nor did I attempt to say he does not believe into his very soul the correctness of his opinions on the subject. Only that assumptions are involved in his opinion.
Opinion- albeit scientific opinion –and not empirical evidence was used to form the IPCC "consensus" on climate change. In fact- claiming a 90%+ accuracy (very likely) using expert opinion appears disingenuous. (And comments that I sought to mislead are over the top