Guest Post by David Middleton
First it was wheat and now it’s coffee. What’s next? Bacon & eggs?
This is nothing but alarmist nonsense…
Researchers at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew and the Environment and Coffee Forest Forum in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia looked at how climate change might make some land unsuitable for Arabica plants, which are highly vulnerable to temperature change and other dangers including pests and disease.
They came up with a best-case scenario that predicts a 38 per cent reduction in land capable of yielding Arabica by 2080. The worst-case scenario puts the loss at between 90 per cent and 100 per cent.
If global climate warming change disruption is likely to wipe out such a prevalent coffee bean in a few decades, the previous few hundred years of warming should have “left a mark” on global coffee production… Right?
And they really like a carbon dioxide-rich diet…
The “how climate change might make some land unsuitable” model was built from the IPCC’s totally bogus emissions scenarios. The modeled scenarios A1B, A2A and B2A.
The models say that “business as usual” will lead to A1-type scenarios (turn Earth into Venus and wipe out coffee). The models say that drastic cuts in carbon emissions are required to stay in the B2-type scenario range.
The actual data indicate that the B2-type scenario is the worst case possibility if we keep “business as usual”.
Furthermore, HadCRUT4 shows absolutely no global warming since late 2000…
Now, if I take HadCRUT4 back to the beginning of 1997, I get this…
(Note: I built this graph back in November.)
Let’s look at the equation of the trend line:
y = 0.0048x – 9.2567
The key part of the equation is the number right before “x.” That’s what’s called the “slope” of the function. The slope is 0.0048 °C per year. This works out to about half-a-degree (0.5 °C) Celsius per century. For reference purposes, the IPCC “forecasted” 1.8 to 4.0 °C per century over the next 100 years, depending on their various socioeconomic scenarios. Here’s the real kicker… The IPCC “forecasted” 0.6 °C of warming over the next century in a scenario in which CO2 remains at the same level as it was in 2000. This is reminiscent of Hanson’s failed 1988 model. The IPCC forecast more warming in a steady-state CO2 world than has actually occurred since 1997.
Now let’s look at the “R²” value…
R² = 0.0334
R² is the “coefficient of determination.” It tells us how well the trend line fits the data. An R² of 1.0 would be a perfect fit. An R² of 0.0 would be no fit. 0.0334 is a lot closer to 0.0 than it is to 1.0. R² is related to explained variance. The linear trend line “explains” about 3.3% of the variation in the temperature data since 1997. 96.7% of the variation was due to natural climatic oscillations (quasi-periodic fluctuations, if you prefer) and stochastic variability.
The scenarios in which coffee beans *might* be threatened, “forecasted” 1.8 to 4.0 °C of warming in the 21st century based on “business as usual” carbon emissions. The actual warming since 1998 has been less than the scenario in which atmospheric CO2 levels stopped rising at the beginning of this century.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Statistics Division. Coffee bean data downloaded on Feb. 27, 2013.
Hadley Centre. HadCRUT4 tropical temperature data downloaded on February 27, 2013 from Wood for Trees.
NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. Mauna Loa CO2 data downloaded on February 27, 2013 from Wood for Trees.