Guest post by Dr. David Deming
The science of global warming is allegedly “settled.” The American Physical Society has declared that “global warming is occurring” and that the “evidence is incontrovertible.” According to environmentalists and advocacy organizations, unchecked global warming will lead to an environmental disaster of unprecedented proportions. Polar icecaps will melt and rising seas will inundate coastal cities. Species will become extinct. Green pastures and sylvan glades will be transformed into deserts of scorched and desiccated sand.
But the science of global warming is not settled. And there is scarcely any unambiguous scientific evidence that significant future harm will occur to either human beings or the natural environment. People have been systematically deceived by a coalition of environmentalists, governments and institutions that feed off a stream of funding for climate research. This essay documents in specific detail one example of how this deception has been promulgated.
On November 28, 2011, Purdue University issued a press release titled “Walnut trees may not be able to withstand climate change.” Subsequently, the material in the press release was recycled by various media outlets under headlines such as “Walnuts are super-sensitive to climate,” and “walnut industry may crack under climate pressure.” One writer asserted that the genus Juglans could be “pushed to the verge of extinction within a few decades,” explaining “this is the conclusion of a recent study issued by Purdue University.” Walnut trees were vulnerable because “they can’t handle low or high temperatures.”
By now, we’re all used to seeing everything imaginable either linked to, or blamed upon, global warming. The list is long and ludicrous. But I was taken aback by the claim that walnut trees were somehow especially sensitive to climate change. From personal experience, I knew walnut trees to be hardy, not fragile.
I have about half a dozen Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) trees on my property in central Oklahoma (see photo).
Oklahoma has a harsh climate. Record temperature extremes range from a low of -31 degrees F to a high of 120 degrees F. Droughts, heat waves, ice storms, hail, and high winds are common.
According to the Oklahoma State University agricultural extension, “severe weather is a fact of life in Oklahoma” with “storm-related damage a major impediment to maintaining healthy trees.” But my walnut trees thrive under these conditions. And in 2011, my Black Walnut trees survived one of the hottest and driest summers in recorded history.
During the summer of 2011, the southcentral US experienced severe heat and drought. Average statewide rainfall in Oklahoma from October 1, 2010, through July 30, 2011, was 16.7 inches, 14 inches below average. The Oklahoma Climatological Survey described this as an “one of the worst short-term droughts in state history,” the “driest on record.”
The heat in Oklahoma over the summer of 2011 was exceptional. The average temperature for Oklahoma in July of 2011 was 89.1 degrees F, “more than 7 degrees [F] above normal.” It was the hottest July on record for Oklahoma, exceeding the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s. It was also the hottest month ever recorded for any state in the conterminous US.
August of 2011 was also exceptionally hot in Oklahoma. The statewide average temperature for that month was 87.7 degrees F, 7.3 degrees above average, and the hottest August on record for the state of Oklahoma.
Altogether, the months of June, July, and August 2011 were the hottest summer Oklahoma has experienced in recorded history. My walnut trees endured months of drought and extreme heat. The thermometer on my back porch commonly registered temperatures above 105 degrees F and sometimes exceeded 110 degrees F.
Two of my walnut trees compensated for environmental stress by dropping branches. Abscission in walnut is a common response to drought. But the trees survived. And they did more than just survive. They produced a large number of walnuts (see photo).

As a scientist, I understand the difference between anecdotal data and systematic empirical investigations. It is possible that my six trees may not be typical of Juglans nigra specimens in general. According to the US Department of Agriculture’s Silvics of North America, “Black Walnut contains great genetic variation for growth and survival.” Of course, the very existence of genetic variation in Black Walnut implies that it is not a fragile plant, but a hardy tree capable of enduring and surviving environmental stress.
Contrary to what the press release from Purdue asserted, my experience in Oklahoma over the summer of 2011 suggested that walnut trees were hardy, not fragile. So I decided to do what people rarely do: I read the scientific research article upon which the press release was based. What I found was shocking. The press release issued by Purdue University was not just tendentious and misrepresentative. It was plainly deceptive.
The Purdue press release alleged that walnut trees are especially susceptible to damage from climate change. It stated that “warmer, drier summers and…climate changes would be especially troublesome–possibly fatal–for walnut trees.”
But the research paper read (page 1270) “there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of potential effects of climate change on walnut. Some studies tend to indicate walnut could be negatively impacted by climate change, while others do not.” Remarkably enough, the research paper also stated climate change could be beneficial for walnut trees. Buried in the text (page 1286) is the statement that there is “evidence suggesting walnut growth and distribution may remain stable or increase in the twenty-first century.”
The Purdue press release claimed that walnut “has an extremely narrow range.” But it doesn’t. The genus Juglansis found worldwide. The range of the species Juglans nigra alone extends over most of the eastern US. According to Silvics of North America, the natural range of the Black Walnut extends from Florida north to Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesota. Juglans nigra is found on the east coast of the US westward to the states of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.
A genus or species with a wide geographic range must have an inherent ability to withstand the climatic variations found within its range. The wider the range, the hardier the tree. If a person wanted to portray a tree as fragile or especially susceptible to climate change, they would necessarily have to describe its range as limited.
The text of the press release asserted that “almost all climate change models predict that climates will become drier.” But the text of the research paper stated (page 1285) that “in North America and northern Europe, mean annual temperature and precipitation are expected to increase.”
The Purdue press release described walnuts as being “sensitive to cold.” This is partly correct. Like many other trees, walnuts can be damaged by late spring frosts. But spring frosts are a symptom of global cooling, not global warming. And Juglans nigra is remarkably resistant to winter cold. It can withstand winter temperatures as low as -45 degrees F. It survived the Pleistocene Ice Ages. The very fact that the genus Juglans is not extinct is evidence that these trees have survived all the climatic variations and extremes that have occurred on the planet Earth since their evolutionary origin about 60 million years ago.
Purdue’s press release stated that “walnuts would have difficulty tolerating droughts.” My experience over the summer of 2011 was anecdotal, but demonstrated that at least some Black Walnut trees could shrug off droughts, even extreme ones. One reason that Juglans nigra is resistant to drought is foundSilvics of North America. The root system of Juglans nigra is described as “deep and wide spreading, with a definite taproot…[and the tree is] able to rely on the deeper soil layers for survival during times of drought.”
Critical information was omitted from the press release. The text of the research paper stated that carbon dioxide and global warming may actually prove to be beneficial for the walnut tree. But these statements were completely absent from the press release.
Carbon dioxide fertilizes trees. Trees grow faster and larger when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases. The research paper reported (p. 1280) that “a five-fold increase in CO2…generated growth increases of 70%.” The authors concluded (p. 1286) that “productivity gains associated with increased atmospheric CO2 in walnut appear to be greater than average.”
The research paper also stated (p. 1286) that global warming could benefit walnut trees by extending their range. “Milder winters may actually increase walnut establishment,” and “areas that are currently considered cold for walnut growth may see increased establishment and growth.” But the press release stated that climate change could be “fatal” for walnut trees, not beneficial.
The press release from Purdue repeatedly emphasized the economic value of walnut trees. Purdue was right. Walnuts and walnut wood are valuable. If you want people to give you money to conduct research on walnuts you have to convince them that there is a crisis at hand, and that you’re going to save them from it. You can hardly state that climate change is likely to benefit the walnut. You have to convince the public that there is some tangible benefit to be derived from the money they are giving you. So the propaganda you want politicians and the public to read is placed in a press release while the truth is buried in the scientific literature. After all, hardly anyone reads the scientific literature other than a handful of specialists.
It is not difficult to understand why people and institutions exaggerate the potential dangers of global warming and omit any mention of the probable benefits. There are billions of dollars available for climate change research. Obama’s 2011 budget allocated $2.6 billion for the “global change research program.” This stream of cash has created a monstrous industry that produces junk science that feeds demands for even more money. It is a scam.
In summary, this is a sad example of how money and ideology have corrupted contemporary science. Everything has to be tendentiously linked with climate change in order to obtain money. The public is being swindled, and the respect people have for science and scientists is being eroded. I feel especially sorry for the gullible activists who have a sincere concern for environmental quality. They’re being played for fools.
###
David Deming is associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma. His book, Black & White: Politically Incorrect Essays on Politics, Culture, Science, Religion, Energy and Environment, is available for purchase on Amazon.com.
=============================================================
I add this to Dr. Demings essay. The black walnut is common throughout California, even perrenially dry southern California. The Wikipedia entry on the tree says:
Juglans californica, the California black walnut, also called the California walnut, or the Southern California black walnut, is a large shrub or small tree (up to 30 feet tall) of the Juglandaceae (walnut) family endemic to California.
J. californica is generally found in the southern California Coast Ranges, Transverse Ranges, and Peninsular Ranges, and the Central Valley. It grows as part of mixed woodlands, and also on slopes and in valleys wherever conditions are favorable. It is threatened by development and overgrazing. Some native stands remain in urban Los Angeles in the Santa Monica Mountains and Hollywood Hills. J. californica grows in riparian woodlands, either in single species stands or mixed with California’s oaks (Quercus spp.) and cottonwoods (Populus fremontii).
It seems development is a bigger threat than drought/heat.
English Walnuts are also widely cultivated where I live, and they routinely experience 110F + temperatures in the hot summer of the Sacramento Valley.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The ruddy walnut trees I have here in France, must have doubled production this year. Is that because it is warmer, cooler, just the same, or because they felt like it?
“I feel especially sorry for the gullible activists who have a sincere concern for environmental quality. They’re being played for fools.”
Why? They’re fully equipped to seek the truth rather than aggressively reject anything that challenges their desperate belief in any half-baked drivel that damns thier own species.
If they can survive Oklahoma & Colorado, I agree they cannot be that fragile. 20 years or more ago my Grandfather thought my Mom would like a Walnut tree so he brought one from Oklahoma. I don’t know how much my Mom likes it but the squirrels don’t seem to mind.
Nuts worried about nuts due to nutty theories.
Excellent Post!
Wasn’t the all time low temp in Oklahoma just set earlier this year (February) in a town near Miami?Yes, I’m too lazy to look it up.;-)
U. of Oklahoma, huh? Don’t they have oil in OK? You must be on Exon’s payroll. Sorry, could not resist.
But seriously, very nice article. I am a scientist myself, but not in the area of climate, and I get so fed up with seeing stuff like this in the newspaper. I was glad to see the link to alarmist news stories. I am surprised that what was in the press release was the exact opposite of what the paper actually said. I expect exaggeration, but not outright misrepresentation.
Few trees are better than black walnut (like Amer sycamore) at colonizing stream-banks & floodplains, at least here in the Appalachian valleys. The nuts are picked up by flooding, float, and deposit downstream as the water recedes. The large food-reserve in the nut allows the seedling to put down a massive taproot quickly and resist washing away during the next flood.
English walnut-meat is much easier to extract, but the strong, “wild” taste of BWs is much superior IMO. Ditto for the taste of domesticated European cherries to the N Amer “wild” black cherry, which unfortunately doesn’t put out dependable yearly crops, as my 50′ specimen demonstrates.
For what it is worth, I am a physicist, and I and a fair number of my colleagues were actively offended by the APS “conclusion”. It was completely inappropriate, and besides, its statements are not true. I know a bunch of physicists who are far from convinced that CAGW is true, even as most of them are perfectly happy to concede that CO_2 is a factor in global temperature.
The physics per se is far from settled. Physics has little (that is predictive) to say about climate sensitivity. Physics has a great deal to say about the role of the Sun in climate, but much of it hasn’t yet been definitively said yet, as the research is ongoing. Even the simplest parts of the physics — the actual greenhouse trapping by atmospheric CO_2 in the ~0.03-0.04% concentration range — is open to debate because how it works depends on things like atmospheric mixing and Lorentzian broadening of the absorption lines, and because the actual trapping and feedback is impossible to measure even from satellites, so far.
Besides, physics has seen more than its share of complete revolutions in thinking. Things that were “obviously true” have been brought crashing down in the history of physics over and over again. Most physicists are iconoclasts, and truly do not believe what they are told, especially when their bullshit detectors reveal a strong vested interest underlying the published work.
I, and my colleagues, do not need the APS to tell us what to think about climate research! Any more than we need it to tell us what to think in any other arena in physics. How dare they! There is damn little science in the world that is “settled”. Gravity? Not settled. Magnetism? Not settled (do monopoles exist?). The speed of light as a true upper bound? Sure, probably, but not settled — if the neutrino result had held water, what then? If we discover some other transluminal particle, what then? The experimental evidence in all of these is far more settled than it is in climate — an openly chaotic non-equilibrium system with multiple timescales, unknown couplings, and a long history of enormous climate fluctuations, fluctuations that are far larger and longer lasting than those currently observed.
Physics more than any other science knows better than to publicly accept any conclusion, especially a conclusion as politically weighty as CAGW, supported by such ambiguous and often self-contradictory evidence.
rgb
Eisenhower’s caveat: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. “
Babsy says:
December 19, 2011 at 8:14 am
Wasn’t the all time low temp in Oklahoma just set earlier this year (February) in a town near Miami?Yes, I’m too lazy to look it up.;-)
—
True, but Nowata, OK…
a) A new All-Time State of Oklahoma Minimum Temperature Record of -31°F was set in Nowata, OK on February 10, 2011.
src: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/?n=weather-event_2011extremes#Feb
“Polar icecaps will melt and rising seas will inundate coastal cities. Species will become extinct. Green pastures and sylvan glades will be transformed into deserts of scorched and desiccated sand.”
Gee, that’s never happened before.
Black walnuts will grow just about anywhere, for any reason, but they aren’t the walnuts responsible for adding all the calories to banana splits. That would be the regia walnut. You can’t crack a black walnut with dynamite, and the fruit they come in leaves walnut stains on your sidewalk.
I’d recommend planting black walnuts all over if you have kids. When they are ready for college, you can harvest the trees and sell them, depending on the market in your area. We had a local veneer mill up in Illinois, and some big ones would go near a thousand, most for half that.
Walnuts are good for eating,furniture,gun stocks, and their natural beauty. Also, some really old trees will sell for many thousands of dollars if harvested properly and not just cut down and allowed to fall. They are messy around a house or driveways.
Dr. Deming, your post did not distinguish between wild eastern black walnut trees and cultivated (often hybridized) walnut trees; the mowed lawn in your photo tells me that yours are the latter.
Consider for example these two facts: (1) in my front yard (on the West Coast) there grows a vibrantly healthy American chestnut tree (castanea dentata), whereas (2) in the wild American chestnut trees are nearly extinct.
These two facts in no way contradict one another. Similarly, wild populations of eastern black walnuts could suffer greatly from climate change, without notable effects upon cultivated black walnuts.
Thus, the relevance of your anecdotal post to the long-term viability of wild populations of eastern black walnut trees is (AFAICT) near-zero.
My Dad and I planted a couple of hundred black walnut trees in 1970, in Southern Minnesota. We put some hay on them the first winter, and just herbicided them twice a year while they were small. No irrigation, nothing else… The ones that haven’t been cut for wood are huge. They seem to grow fine with no real problems. It does get a bit cold in Minnesota on an empty field in the winter…, and very hot and muggy in the summer…
Walnuts grow in the UK, France and Spain. Very different climates!
Robert Brown says….”There is damn little science in the world that is “settled”. It is nice to have a scientist confirm what I, a non-scientist, have believed for a long time. For several decades I have heard statements that “scientists once believed such and such but now believe this and that.” You pick the field and they have said it. To think otherwise shows how naive you are or how young you are. I wish more scientists would come out as Mr Brown has and give the public the straight scoop.
Dr. Deming, it’s not just the walnuts the nutzies are using. Now we have exaggerated claims about stoneflies: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/rare-stonefly-to-get-review-for-potential-listing/article_3df077c8-29bc-11e1-acda-001871e3ce6c.html
Both the walnut and the insect have endured much more challenging climate changes.
It’s worse than we thought.
I think you meant to say that the press release was junk and not the science, as you seem to agree with that all throught the peice.
A well-written and extremely useful article. Another vain attempt by alarmists to mislead the public bites the dust. Thank you Dr. Demming!
The most obvious sign that climate science isn’t settled is easy to spot: they’re still asking for funding.
A physicist:
“the mowed lawn in your photo tells me that yours are the latter.”
Really? How does it do that? It usually takes a horticultural expert and direct observation of the tree in question to be able to definitively tell the difference – it would be interesting to know how looking at the surrounding lawn tells you that the tree is a hybrid of any sort.
There are over 400 “natural” black walnut cultivars, found over the last century or so. This is because black walnut trees are pretty diverse, genetically. You mostly find hybrid black walnuts in tree farms and in urban and suburban neighborhoods – selected for height and nut flavor characteristics.
A physicist says:
December 19, 2011 at 8:59 am
Dr. Deming, your post did not distinguish between wild eastern black walnut trees and cultivated (often hybridized) walnut trees; the mowed lawn in your photo tells me that yours are the latter.
Some scientist you are, if you’ll draw a conclusion like that from a “mowed lawn.” I have several eastern black walnuts planted right next to my “mowed lawn.” The only reason they aren’t actually on the mowed lawn is that the black walnut is one of the messiest trees you can put in a lawn because of the nuts dropping all over the place. Plus, the walnut tree will kill a lot of other plants growing under it’s crown. It’s a lousy yard tree, in other words. (And by the way, Dr. Deming based most of his criticism on the conflicting information in the paper itself…his own experience apparently led him to check the paper to see what was up.)
My walnut trees do indeed suffer from the occasional late frost. In those years the buds die back and have to regenerate, so the early growth suffers some. But otherwise the trees are very hardy. We have an annual temperature range of -40 to +100 here in our part of Wisconsin, and I’ve yet to see a walnut tree killed by anything other than a buck rub in the wild. I’ve planted a few thousand nuts, given them no further attention, and have walnut trees sprouting all over various portions of my land. With red oaks dying of oak wilt, and the ash trees about to succumb to the ash borer, and elm trees done in by dutch elm disease, the black walnut is one of the few trees I can plant and feel reasonably comfortable that it will still be around 80 to 100 years from now, when it’s ready to be harvested. (Better to plant them when you’re young, and figure maybe they’ll put your grandchildren through college, not your children, by the way.)
As for the article, I suspect a news release of that sort does a far better job of putting you higher on the funding priority list than one that said “Walnut trees have nothing to fear from global warming.”
File under: “Whatever doesn’t kill a walnut tree probably makes it stronger.. in the long run.”