From: Richard Black
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 7:01 AM
To: Anthony Watts
Subject: RE: Your article on rice yields
Dear Anthony,
Thanks for your email. You are correct – I am mistaken – a correction will be made to the news story shortly.
Best regards,
Richard Black
…my letter follows
From: Anthony Watts
Sent: 11 August 2010 00:51
To: Richard Black; Richard Black-Internet
Subject: Your article on rice yields
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Black,
I’m writing as a courtesy to advise you that I believe your article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10918591
Which says “Yields have fallen by 10-20% over the last 25 years in some locations.”
…is in error.
The actual press release says ”Rising temperatures during the past 25 years have already cut the yield growth rate by 10-20 percent in several locations.”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/uoc–htt080610.php
It is not the gross yield that has supposedly fallen, but the rate of increase in the yield.
Further, I have a graph from the International Rice Research Institute which supports this and demonstrates that gross rice yields are still increasing in Asia:
http://beta.irri.org/test/j15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=393&Itemid=100104
I think it’s just a simple interpretive error on how you read the press release, but it does have large consequences for how the story is interpreted by readers. Here in Northern California, one of the largest rice growing areas of the world, a call to our local Rice Association confirmed this. A correction might be in order.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards,
Anthony Watts
=============================================
See these related WUWT stories:
Rice yields, CO2 and temperature – you write the article
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Pushing up prices for the world’s hungry…”
Quite. Simple though – there are just too many people in some places.
Careful, careful, that might be too many RICH westerners in ‘some places’, consuming at the expense of the world’s poor..
Care to give up, your ‘life’ for the benefit of others Jimmy?!
thought not………..
You are aware of how awful, your statement came across.?
The BBC may have corrected the first sentence, but not I suspect the headline, and the conclusion is still domesday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10918591
“Rice yields ‘to fall’ under global warming”
‘A study published at the begining of last year concluded that half of the world’s population could face a climate-induced food crisis by 2100, with the most extreme summers of the last century becoming routine towards the end of this century.’
well i got nowhere with the bbc lie about “both poles melting fast” , its still there , goto bbc site , then science and nature , then frozen planet , at the foot of the article the lie is still there ,, bbc ignored my objection and my MP climate minister Chris Huhme claimed he could not find the link and that the BBC were “nothing to do with government”….
OK, it looks like the BBC are not going to change the title of their story. And other media are copying the original wrong BBC story.
You can all help here. Copy the following line into a Google search:
rice yields to fall
and then click on any link that disputes the rice yields story, especially those with a WUWT link.
Don’t leave it all to me! I got it to page two of the Google results.
Let’s get it to result #2 of page one, right next to the BBC story that is wrong, where it will stay for months.
Richard Black has posted on his blog, a sort of apology, but insists the headline is correct, because of ‘projections’ of rice yield. !!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/08/as_several_of_you_pointed.html#comments
Fantasy Climate Joke: BBC internal memo:
BBC journalists salaries ‘to increase’ due to the recession
ie ‘post normal’ spin/journalism,
The real story, the rate of increase in Percentage salary cuts for BBC environmental journalists have gone up. 😉
————-
The headline is misleading,
Rice Yields ‘to fall’ under Global Warming
(presumably left out the man made bit, as a bit of spin as well)
It implies that rice yield has fallen, now in the REAL world, perhaps forcing prices up for the world’s poorest people.
Food prices has risen due to catastrophic man made global warming alarmism.
Well done BBC…
As Richard Black says above:
“Projections may not turn into reality, of course – but there it is. ”
Real world story ever higher rice production, but let’s have a story about projections that promote an CAGW alarmist agenda, at he BBC, instead.
I’ve stuck a Journalism Warning Label on the BBC article:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2wrhyr9.jpg
Tom Scott noted that newspapers put warning labels on content that involves “sex, violence or strong language,” but have no such warning labels for “sloppy journalism and other questionable content.” So he made them. He’s put together a printable document of journalism warning labels.
Journalism Warning Labels:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100813/11285210619.shtml
” Henry chance says:
August 12, 2010 at 7:33 am
It is theoretically impossible for the growth in yields double every 12 years.”
Well, I don’t know what you mean by “theoretically”, but are you familiar with the ‘Rule of 72’? It is an accountant’s rule of thumb: to determine how many compounding periods it will take for an investment to double, or the rate required to double it in a known period, divide the known number into 72.
Thus, to double in 12 years requires an annual compounding increase of 72/12 = 6%.
It seems that the yield increases come in spurts, as new varietals are developed, etc. So it’s pretty hard to know what’s in the pipeline and what will work.
Well done people.
A Google search for [rice yields to fall] now has the BBC story at search result #1 and two rebuttals of the story at results #2 and #3:
http://i33.tinypic.com/qnvaeq.jpg
Richard Black, your name is there and it’s your fault.
Please correct your stories properly in future, including the headlines.
Better still, don’t make mistakes in the first place.