It’s hard to keep track of all the futurist predictions whether the next several decades are going to be utopian or dystopian. Still, when it comes to global warming, we so often hear nothing but dire predictions of doom, it is refreshing that some scientists have concluded that higher temperatures could actually contribute to increased food production to feed a growing population. From the story:
A team of scientists at Rothamsted, the UK’s largest agricultural research centre, suggests that extra carbon dioxide in the air from global warming, along with better fertilisers and chemicals to protect arable crops, could hugely increase yields and reduce water consumption. “Plant breeders will probably be able to increase yields considerably in the CO2 enriched environments of the future … There is a large gap between achievable yields and those delivered … but if this is closed then there is good prospect that crop production will increase by about 50% or more by 2050 without extra land”, says the paper by Dr Keith Jaggard et al
Great! Oops, wait a minute: A different team of scientists foresee a much more dire future:
Several studies suggest farmers will be up against environmental limits by 2050, as industry and consumers compete for water. One group of US scientists suggests that feeding the 3 billion extra people could require twice as much water by then. This, says Professor Kenneth Strzepek of the University of Colorado, could mean an 18% reduction in worldwide water availability for food growing by 2050. “The combined effect of these increasing demands can be dramatic in key hotspots [like] northern Africa, India, China and parts of Europe and the western US,” he says.]
Oh, nooooo!
And the moral of the story? It’s like watching a tennis match. People of good faith can and do come to diametrically differing conclusions. Or, to paraphrase William Goldman’s observation about Hollywood, nobody really knows anything. And that means, it seems to me, that we should not give into hysteria when making public policy around environmental and climate issues.
August 17th, 2010 | 10:01 pm
Typical. Since not everyone agrees on the path forward let’s do what the cheap-labor Republicans want.
The evidence that the Earth is warming rapidly is overwhelming while evidence that this warming will benefit mankind is scarce. Based on this, you wish to stand pat.
What is the risk in the cheap-labor Republicans being wrong (which they, and you, most certainly are)? Melting ice caps, coastal flooding, weather extremes resulting in unseasonal droughts, floods and disruptions in water supply. On the other hand, what is the risk in the unlikely event that the climate scientists are wrong? Reduced dependence on foreign oil and less pollution.
You have no case.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 17th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
No, hysterics have been unable to convince us that we should dismantle our economies. But you missed the point, as usual.
August 17th, 2010 | 10:27 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Scientists Say Global Warming Could Increase Food Production » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://t.co/sJPrN8Y [...]
August 18th, 2010 | 2:30 am
Typical. Since not everyone agrees on the path forward let’s do what the cheap-labor Republicans want.
I did not know the Chines were Republicans. I guess you learn something everyday.
August 18th, 2010 | 3:42 am
One thing is absolutely certain, Global Cooling will definitely reduce the production capacity for the World’s food and will lead to widespread starvation.
Watch the state of the current solar cycle and be very concerned.
August 18th, 2010 | 6:16 am
Wesley,
On this issue, your methods are propaganda, not argument. By repeatedly headlining “hysteria” and the unsubstantiated claim that reducing CO2 emissions will “dismantle our economies” you show your unwillingness and/or inability to engage the topic.
There are not equal sides to this argument, as the scientific evidence is asymmetric. This is not a case of “People of good faith (coming to) diametrically differing conclusions.” The climate scientists are right and you are wrong. It’s like arguing that the theory of evolution is being seriously debated.
You typed, “…nobody really knows anything”, referring, it seems, to climate science and policies to mitigate CO2 emissions. You failed to make your point, as usual. Either way, we’re most likely dead in 40 years, but our grandchildren and their grandchildren will live with the results our inaction.
There is little evidence that reducing carbon emissions will “dismantle economies”, yet you claim that “hysterics” are intent on just that.
In fact, reducing CO2 emissions will harm ‘certain segments’ of the world economy, particularly the fossil fuels industry. Unabated CO2 emissions and warming will likely cause much greater and widespread damage to world economies.
Do you or the Discovery Institute have any financial interests in the fossil fuels industry?
August 18th, 2010 | 7:01 am
I spent my working life in the grain and animal feed industry in Britain. Whilst horticulture was not my area of interest, I knew of several greenhouse complexes which used waste heat from adjacent industrial processes. They also enriched the atmosphere inside the greenhouses with carbon dioxide from the boilers. I was told this gave a huge productive advantage by as much as 40% (if my memory serves me still).
So, if you think the lawn needs mowing more often than it used to, it may be actually happening and not just the feedback from joints stiffening with increasing years.
August 18th, 2010 | 10:33 am
Except the environmentalists are NOT acting in good faith.
Every single environmentalist point is a lie, on principle. Literally, they must lie on principle. Telling the truth is against their religion, it would reveal some sort of mortal weakness.
August 18th, 2010 | 12:40 pm
anon,
Rather than the blanket statement that every single point is a lie, it would be more helpful if you actually identified some lies. Since you claim every point is false it should be easy to find 5 or 6 significant falsehoods to discuss.
Edward,
You’re correct; plants need CO2 to grow. In controlled environments (where water and other nutrientsincreased CO2 caused increased plant growth.
August 18th, 2010 | 12:45 pm
final paragraph should read:
You’re correct; plants need CO2 to grow. In controlled environments (where water and other nutrients are not limited) increased CO2 caused increased plant growth. It is unknown if increasing global CO2 has the same effect since available water, nitrogen and other nutrients are likely changing as well. In the real world, the impact of atmospheric CO2 on plant growth is complex.
Mr. Smith is using this side issue as a cudgel to take another whack at scientists and science.
August 18th, 2010 | 1:06 pm
Jeffery,
You ask “cui bono” of the Discovery Institute, but do you ask “cui bono” of those most excitedly pushing a “solution” to the coming global warming, climate change, whatever catastrophe? They stand to gain leverage over practically every sector of the economy and life. Does that not concern you in the least, no matter how good their intentions are?
August 18th, 2010 | 4:45 pm
As an environmental engineer for more that 47 years I find how easy it is to fool most of the people especially the AGW and environmental fanatics. The “greenhouse gas effect” is a 200-year-old hypothesis that has never been scientifically proven with creditable experimental data!!!! Everything that is presented by the AGW group is circumstantial evidence that is being disproved daily by such thing as the corruption of the NOAA satellite data sets- 5 sets with a duration of at least a decade or more have been removed because they have very faulty data in them. This data has been the backbone of the IPCC reports thus the reports are junk science.
As it has been stated above many greenhouse operators have to add CO2 to the atmosphere of the plant factories to be sure the plants grow properly. An actively growing crop of plants can cause the CO2 levels of the factory to drop from 400 ppm to less than 100ppm over a growing day. . Thus they feed in CO2 from liquid tank trucks or as stated above from boiler exhaust.
Mann-made global warming is a hoax. List of references:
The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
from the Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, if you’re interested.
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.
“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”
After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whackos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.
The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!! The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
Web- site references:
http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
http://www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
many others are available.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein
August 18th, 2010 | 8:33 pm
JustChris,
Indeed. We should challenge the motives of all involved. What, in your opinion, motivates climate scientists to falsify data to support the theory of man-made global warming? Fame? Actually, the climate scientist who disproves man-made global warming would be the most famous of all, ever! Money? Most climate scientists make a nice but hardly extravagant living at universities and research institutes. Who are these generous benefactors unduly influencing scientific research? What monied interests stand to benefit from reducing CO2 emissions?
cleanwater,
Nearly all of your rants have been considered and dismissed. Try ClimateProgess.com and RealClimate.
August 18th, 2010 | 11:38 pm
“Nobody really knows anything.”
Sort of like knowing if people are actually acting in good faith? ;-)
August 19th, 2010 | 12:12 pm
…and, if you’re one of those quaint individuals who believes in getting both sides of a story, also go to ClimateAudit.org and climate-skeptic.com.
August 19th, 2010 | 2:25 pm
bmmg,
Yes, both sides. There is a side with more evidence and the side with little or no evidence. It’s like “two” sides to whether the Earth is flat or spherical. Or the “two” sides of the evolution debate. In all these “debates” there is a side supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and the other side. To pretend that the two sides are equal and deserve equal consideration is foolishness, not reason.
Although the scientific debates about global warming and evolution are largely over (that is not to say that new information and discoveries do not add to the theories and knowledge), both are just a major discovery from being overturned. The young researcher that overturns either theory will gain fame and fortune!
August 19th, 2010 | 5:22 pm
Jeffery, the sites I’ve cited are data-based. But, by all means, continue making yourself feel better.
August 19th, 2010 | 7:25 pm
bmmg,
By all means, read more not less.
Data-based? Climate Audit is run by Stephen McIntyre, a semi-retired mining and energy industry executive and consultant with no formal training in climate science. He has published no papers in reputable journals. McIntyre’s monomaniacal blog tends to focus on refuting the “hockey stick”.
Warren Meyer types the opinion blog known as Climate-skeptic.com. Meyer is not a climate scientist either.
By all means read both these blogs, but also visit some genuine science blogs such as RealClimate, too. For example, I regularly read Anthony Watts’ skeptics blog WUWT (where much of the “skeptic” thought passes through).
Feel better? I take no pleasure in having to explain the same damn thing over and over.
August 19th, 2010 | 11:11 pm
Are we really going to go through this circular argument about what qualifies as “reputable,” again?
August 19th, 2010 | 11:12 pm
“Data-based? Climate Audit is run by Stephen McIntyre, a semi-retired mining and energy industry executive and consultant with no formal training in climate science.”
Nice non sequitur, by the way.
August 20th, 2010 | 8:52 pm
bmmg,
As you search valiantly for non sequuntur, let me repeat that on one side of the argument you have thousands of professional climate scientists and on the other side you have a retired mining consultant (climateaudit), a viscount, a retired weatherman (WattsUpWithThat), a tobacco and oil industries lobbyist (junkscience), a public parks manager (Climate-Skeptic), a group of water-carrying conservabloggers and all Republicans (who oppose every Democratic initiative and also always support their natural constituency, the business donor class).
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that man-made CO2 is causing the Earth to warm rapidly, causing melting of ice caps, ice sheets and glaciers. This is causing the ocean levels to rise. Increased atmospheric CO2 is acidifying the oceans. The practical outcomes will be shifts in growing seasons, fauna ranges, ocean productivity, coastal flooding, droughts, shifts in fresh water availability, increased extreme weather events. This doesn’t happen overnight but worsens with time unless we start reducing CO2 emissions. World economies need to start transitioning to non-CO2 producing energy sources soon. The CBO projects that the Waxman-Markey bill would leave the US economy 1.1 to 3.4% smaller by 2050 than it otherwise would have been. This is a trivial impact.
Professional environmental economists project at most a total 3.4% impact on US GDP through 2050. Conservabloggers and Republicans claim any change in the status quo will cripple world economies.
August 22nd, 2010 | 12:02 am
Is it your hope, Jeffery, that, by questioning people’s credentials, the rest of us won’t notice that you’re not addressing their data? If people have data, and the data are accurate, then I’m not as concerned with whether the people are climatologists, meteorologists, oncologists, or Tony Orlando’s new backup singers as I am with what the data tell us.
You cited some blogs, and then so did I — not even to argue against the theory of AGW, but rather to point out that both sides have intelligent people making their case.
Your response was to question their credentials so that you could bridge to your rant about Republicans and “conservabloggers.” I repeat my 5:22 comment from Thursday. If it placates your sensibilities to consider this to be one more left-right issue, with intelligent caring people on one side and vicious, money-grubbing earth-murderers on the other, that’s fine. If you’d rather go on pretending that people like Pfr. Robert Giegengack (chair of Earth and Environmental Science, UPenn), Dr. Martin Hertzberg, and Joe Bastardi (both meteorologists) have not either questioned the idea of AGW or opined that the threat has been exaggerated, then be my guest. If you read this and choose to reply that these must be the only three names I could drop here, then do so. But then there’s no real discussion taking place.
I agree with you that we need to focus more on renewable energy, and stop thinking of wind and solar as mere “alternative” sources. As nations like China and India continue to industrialize, we need to continue reducing pollution and lessen our dependence on energy sources that are finite. If doing so will help us to control the earth’s atmosphere, then great. Not everyone who questions your posts thinks environmentalists are “whackos.” I support pro-environmental goals, and that is why I balk when the global warming issue begins knocking other environmental issues to the side.
August 22nd, 2010 | 10:28 pm
bmmg,
You may be right. Please just link to the data refuting man-made global warming in the data-based websites you’ve noted.
Just because two sides disagree doesn’t mean their arguments are equivalent. I’m sure we can find someone to defend a flat earth. Or that HIV infection does not cause AIDS. Or that biological evolution does not occur. We hear of alien abductions yearly.
You’re being more than a bit disingenuous pretending that I think no scientists (e.g., Prof. Giegengack) or weather forecasters (Bastardi, Hertzberg) disagree with the scientific consensus on man-made global warming. But the fact remains that almost all climate scientists agree that human generated CO2 causes global warming. Why? Because almost all of the data generated supports that hypothesis. Not only does the temperature record tell that story, so does arctic ice, glaciers, ocean levels, ocean temperature, ocean pH, etc. Please link to the data that refutes global warming.
Since you agree that we need to reduce fossil fuel use, does your discontent evolve from policy makers wish to move too rapidly?
If you agree that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and that the Earth is warming, then what is your specific complaint? My attitude?
August 23rd, 2010 | 6:57 am
Neither side is basing their argument completely on facts and logic.
It’s possible that an increase in atmospheric CO2 can have both positive and negative effects. It’s not always a case of “the world is coming to an end” vs. “everything just gets better and better.”
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:18 am
Joe Earth: Wisdom!
August 24th, 2010 | 8:45 pm
Joe Earth: Trite nonsense!
The sides in the argument are not equal. One side conducts research and one side does not. One side has evidence and one side does not. One side is right and one side refuses to engage. To say that the there is potential equivalence between positive and negative impacts is trite nonsense, and ignores both facts and logic.
One side has found that by every measure, surface temps, ocean temps and satellite readings, that the troposphere (lower atmosphere) is warming. That same side measures continually rising atmospheric CO2 and not surprisingly, decreasing atmospheric oxygen. The amount of CO2 measured is consistent with not only the billions of tons of CO2 we emit each year, but is also consistent, based on the greenhouse effect, with the mean global temperature increase. This side has also determined that the upper reaches of the atmosphere (the stratosphere) is cooling as the lower atmosphere retains more heat.
As a result, sea level is rising, ice sheets are melting, the ocean is being acidified, and glaciers are shrinking. These changes have been proven by teams of scientists.
The other side suggested that CO2 MAY stimulate plant growth and you consider the sides equivalent.
To equate the efforts of thousands of research scientists’ peer reviewed efforts with the efforts of a handful of ill-informed bloggers is nonsense.
bmmg… have you found the data refuting global warming yet?
August 25th, 2010 | 7:59 am
Climate change denialists… swallow your pride and just admit you are wrong on this one… ten years from now you will sheepishly look back and wonder how you believed and said such things.
One hundred years ago there were people who thought that the scientific underpinnings of biological evolution were unsound. But a century’s accumulation of overwhelming evidence has crushed that notion.
This is how a scientific and evidentiary consensus builds, by grinding down naysayers under the weight of overwhelming evidence based on sound scientific principles and the immutable laws of nature. It’s not a tennis match. The sides are not equal. The outcome is not determined by clever arguments but by clever experiments.
Here’s what will happen (and is happening). Denialists will start to change their position. A decade ago they claimed that the measurements of the surface temperature were in error. The Earth wasn’t warming at all! In fact, since a peak in 1998, the Earth was cooling! Currently, even Mr. Smith admits the Earth is warming. But is it due to man’s emissions of CO2? No! They cried. It’s all natural! It’s the sun! Mars is warming, even without SUVs or Republicans! Nowadays, the denialists fashionably trendy position is that… sniff, sniff… “Of course it’s warming due to CO2, but let’s not be hasty and destroy our economy by reducing CO2 emissions as the ‘hysterics’ want.” Well, conservative policies destroyed the economy in 2008 without a carbon tax. In ten years (if not sooner) you’ll be wondering how you could have been so ignorant (only those capable of self-reflection).
September 1st, 2010 | 12:33 pm
There has never been a century in the history of the planet where the temperature has remained exactly the same.
Century by century the planets temperature is either slowly increasing or decreasing.
What about the recent temperature record.
The planet has increased its temperature by 0.7 degrees centigrade in the last 150 years.
Is this unprecedented?
No!
What has happened in the last ten years?
The temperature has slightly decreased!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact