Global Warming and Walnut Trees: a Case Study in Deception

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).

Photo taken December 2011 by Dr. David Deming

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
196 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Molon Labe
December 19, 2011 10:54 am

A physicist December 19, 2011 at 10:32 am
Incredible. Did you even read the original post?

A physicist
December 19, 2011 10:55 am

A physicist says: “ . . . there grows a vibrantly healthy American chestnut tree”

John F. Hultquist says: There are many such trees around the country – far removed from others and the source of blight. I grew up in western Pennsylvania where the dead Chestnuts still stood and some still suckered some nut producing shoots. Hickory trees were common and Butternut less so. University researchers and others are still trying to develop a replacement.

John, you are 100% right. My own family’s American chestnut tree was grown from a chestnut that I harvested personally, from a huge and still-healthy American chestnut tree, growing far outside its natural range, that was planted by pioneers circa 1880. Perhaps in another century or so the blight will die out, and/or resistant trees will be developed, so that the chestnut forests can return to the east.

crosspatch
December 19, 2011 10:55 am

Even if your Oklahoma trees do die, that would not be unnatural. Eastern Oklahoma is just at the edge of the tree’s natural range anyway. Dieback at the edges of a tree’s natural range is common, that is how the edge of the range is established and that edge varies over time.

Mike M
December 19, 2011 11:10 am

Interstellar Bill says: The key to all propaganda is incessant repetition …

True and this was well understood by Hitler and his minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels. Another part of the premise is that the larger the lie – the easier it is to sell it to the entire country which makes sense when you consider how information gets digested among the masses. A slight lie means that it something close but not quite the truth thus allowing the recipient to at least suspect something is not quite correct. The outrageous lie, the one with no basis in fact leaves them shocked and defenseless. They may initially thoroughly dismiss it but then, considering WHO is telling it to them find that it is much easier to just accept it with absolutely no inner guilt because they are unable to find any reason not to believe it. The underlying driver is that they do not want to appear stupid if challenged by someone else about it – IF THEY THINK EVERYONE ELSE BELIEVES IT.
That part is an exact match with the CAGW propaganda I keep hearing – “everybody knows that the consensus is”… “the debate is over”, etc. Getting doubters to think they are in a severe minority is right out of the Nazi playbook. I shudder to think how far CAGW policy would have decimated our economy and standard of living by now if there was no Internet and only newspapers (and a few government controlled radio stations) like back in 1930’s Germany.
These CAGW alarmists don’t fool me one bit and yes I do think some of them are evil.

Rob Crawford
December 19, 2011 11:13 am

According to family legend, shortly after the family moved to the farm where I grew up, we were visited by an elderly lady who claimed to have planted the “walnut” (later identified as actually butternut — close relative) tree in our front yard. When I was a kid (10-20 years after that incident), that tree was still standing, easily 60′ tall. One of its branches was supported by a heavy rope — which the tree had grown AROUND, so that the rope was now part of the fabric of the tree. That branch, BTW, supported a swing used by half the family.
That tree is still there. It survived the winters of ’76, ’77, and ’78 — the years that gave the Coming Ice Age their weight, and which saw ice standing in the family dog’s water dish — which was in the kitchen. It survived a tornado that ripped roofing off the barn and the house that flank it. It’s survived multiple droughts, and multiple “unusually wet” years. It appears to have been diminished since I was a kid — that monstrous, rope-supported branch appears to have been trimmed, and the whole tree seems shorter, as if it’s lost its top. But it’s still there. Still putting out leaves and blooms and nuts, despite being a minimum of 80 years old.
And they think a few degrees either way will destroy the entire species?!

crosspatch
December 19, 2011 11:13 am

A physicist says:
December 19, 2011 at 10:32 am
It seems to me that Dr. Deming’s conclusions could fairly be summarized as follows:
“There is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of potential effects of climate change on walnut.

In other words “we really have no idea what impact what impact climate change will have on walnut but we thought we would scare people about potential impacts anyway because it is such a trendy topic”.
The criticism is for nonsensical articles that are self-invalidating by stating right at the outset that they have no idea what they are talking about and are speculating on a scenario that may never come to pass. What is the purpose for publishing such an article? Why do so many climate articles say there is “considerable uncertainty” and then fail to quantify “considerable”?
I will tell you why. Due to the “precautionary principal” of “sustainable development” they don’t actually have to show any cause/effect. The purpose of the article is to give further justification for mitigation of “climate effects” that may never come to pass.
Under the current policies in place, one may completely fabricate a scenario out of thin air, apparently according to the “it could happen” principal and that then becomes the basis for policy. THAT is what we are objecting to. It is junk science. If there is “considerable uncertainty”, then keep the conclusion to yourself until you are more certain. There is “considerable uncertainty” that a meteor will land in my living room in the next 10 minutes and wipe out my neighborhood and destroy the environment for miles around, but it could happen. So I demand a “meteor shield” be built immediately above my house.
I am dead serious, that is exactly the level of zany thinking we are talking about here. These people aren’t scientists. They are no better than Madam Sofia and her palm reading parlor up the street. They have wasted the time and money of their learning institution and the results of their research makes them look like complete idiots. There is very little “uncertainty” of that.

Rob Crawford
December 19, 2011 11:17 am

I’m shocked to see “A Physic” chiming in, still. His peculiar mix of propaganda techniques and fallacies didn’t work on the Climage Gate II thread — why does he think it will work anywhere else?

A physicist
December 19, 2011 11:28 am

Gosh … maybe some of the posters on this topic should “tell the truth and shame the devil” … regarding whether they actually took the trouble to read the Annals of Forest Science article in question?
Frankly, to me it seemed like a terrific article — reasonable and balanced in all its conclusions, with all of its sources thoroughly documented.
Recommended! 🙂

DGH
December 19, 2011 11:32 am

A physicist…
For over 60 years the Hammon Product Company has been purchasing walnuts from home growers across the midwest. As the largest wild black walnut wholesaler, they are certainly in a position to know the the condition of the U.S. Juglans nigra crop. On November 3, 2011 they characterized the crop as “above average.”
http://www.hammonsproducts.com/page.asp?p_key=111831CF23B54278A09BB03FC50C3907

Alan Bates
December 19, 2011 11:34 am

I’ve always thought of walnut trees being a tough nut to crack (ouch).
“A woman/wife, a dog, and a walnut tree, the more you beat them the better they be.”
English, Russian … proverb late 16th century
(Please note: I do not beat my wife or my dog.
In the PC atmosphere of the UK I’m not sure if I can even beat walnut trees …)

Joe
December 19, 2011 11:35 am

A physicist says:
December 19, 2011 at 10:32 am
It seems to me that Dr. Deming’s conclusions could fairly be summarized as follows:
“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. Walnut may be at a disadvantage due to its susceptibility to drought and frost injury in current growing regions given the projected increases in temperature and extreme climatic events. Other regions that are currently considered cold for walnut growth may see increased establishment and growth depending upon the rate of temperature increase and the frequency and severity of extreme climatic events.”
Oh wait … that’s the conclusion of the article that Dr. Deming is criticizing.

===============================================================
And the point sails so far over “a physicist”s head that it achieves orbit.

Joe
December 19, 2011 11:37 am

I’m shocked to see “A Physic” chiming in, still. His peculiar mix of propaganda techniques and fallacies didn’t work on the Climage Gate II thread — why does he think it will work anywhere else?
========================================================================
The disconnect from reality and williness to show it off still has me wondering if “A Physicist” is part of “the Team”.

SteveSadlov
December 19, 2011 11:41 am

I see lots of Black Walnut orchards in the hot, hot inland areas of California.

December 19, 2011 11:54 am

The issue here is not whether walnuts are or are not going to be affected either by Global Warming or Climate Change. The issue is that it appears that University Public Relations Departments are playing fast and loose with peer-reviewed scientific papers to the point of being plainly deceptive.
Dr. Deming wrote this essay to “document in specific detail” this one instance where the public is being deceived by a press release that misrepresents, through commission and omission, statements in the underlying peer reviewed paper. Nice job, Dr. Deming.

Editor
December 19, 2011 12:02 pm

Wow, “A Physicist” is every bit as dishonest as the Perdue press release, which was criticized by Dr. Deming for systematically contradicting the research paper that it claimed to summarize. A Physicists’s reply? He >pretends that Deming was criticizing the reasearch paper:

It seems to me that Dr. Deming’s conclusions could fairly be summarized as follows:

“There is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of potential effects of climate change on walnut. …”

Oh wait … that’s the conclusion of the article that Dr. Deming is criticizing.
Whoops … it appears that the outrage being expressed here on WUWT has zero factual basis in the scientific literature.

The paragraph that A Physicist quotes is not from the criticized press release, but from the paper that Deming cites to criticize the press release. See “research results” (not the conclusion) here:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t627t525763203x8/fulltext.html
Guess we know why Physicist posts anonymously. He’s a total fraud, pretending that the paper used to criticize the press release is what was being criticized. Really, this was the entire point of Deming’s expose, and Physicist intentionally mixes it up.
Come to think of it, that could actually be good to have on his resume. The IPCC might want to bring him on as a lead author. Come on Physicist, tell us your real name. You have your share of billions to gain, and no integrity to lose.

Ged
December 19, 2011 12:23 pm

A physicist
Did you even READ the article before posting something so out of touch?
The purpose of this article is not to criticizes the scientific paper, but the Purdue press release which MISREPRESENTED the scientific paper in the extreme. We should always seek to pursue and cast down any press releases that so horrendously distort the science they are purporting to be reporting. If you are indeed a scientist, would you not agree? Would you want your research mischaracterized and sensationalized?

December 19, 2011 12:25 pm

The question of authorship of the “We must get rid of the MWP” email was extensively discussed by Steve McIntyre here:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/dealing-a-mortal-blow-to-the-mwp/
Overpeck never denies sending it. He says he doesn’t remember sending it although recalls some correspondence, but would have to dig deep to locate any message. However, if he did send it the quote was likely taken out of context.

December 19, 2011 12:25 pm

“By now, we’re all used to seeing everything imaginable either linked to, or blamed upon, global warming.”
People simply roll their eyes when (in sarcastic jest) I tell them that my wretched ingrowing toe nail is a result of AGW…… well it might as well be! everything else is…………..

thelastdemocrat
December 19, 2011 12:45 pm

Anecdotal data versus systematic observations of representative samples:
Black Swan.
If I claim that a black walnut cannot survive a drought, and you show me a black walnut that survived a drought, the one case disproves my claim.
Sure, I might have watered the walnut tree, etc., but outside of those types of confounders, you don’t need more than one observation to invalidate some claims.
If I identify one life form on Mars, then there is life on Mars.

A physicist
December 19, 2011 12:53 pm

Stephen Rasey says: Dr. Deming wrote this essay to “document in specific detail” this one instance where the public is being deceived by a press release that misrepresents, through commission and omission, statements in the underlying peer reviewed paper. Nice job, Dr. Deming.

Stephen, your assertion is factually incorrect with respect to “document in specific detail.”
Dr. Dening’s most inflammatory quoted passage is “pushed to the verge of extinction within a few decades,” and “this is the conclusion of a recent study issued by Purdue University.” Yet these two quoted passages (AFAICT) appear (1) nowhere in the literature, (2) nowhere in any Purdue press release, and (3) nowhere on any web page indexed by Google.
Neither does Dr. Deming’s WUWT post “document in specific detail” his source for these quotes.
WUWT, indeed!  🙂
On further investigation, the source of the Dr. Deming’s (mis)quote appears to be a one-page Softpedia summary which (uniquely in all the Internet!) contains the phrase:

“Rapidly expanding deforestation correlated with extreme drought could make this tree population extremely vulnerable or even push it on the verge of extinction within a few decades. Walnut forests can’t cope with a high level of humidity or dryness.”

The two taken-home lessons both are simple: (1) the Purdue scientists’ published article is scientifically sound and well worth reading, and (2) the Purdue University press release is a fair summary of this fine work.
So thank you very much for the pointer to this outstanding science, Dr. Deming!   🙂

ann r
December 19, 2011 12:53 pm

We have a very large English walnut that a local forester says is over 100 years old, at 1700 ft in the mountains in N. CA. Obviously it has survived cold, heat, drought, etc. over that time. Late frosts often keep it from producing nuts, but in a warm year it still produces..

MJW
December 19, 2011 12:55 pm

Perhaps in another century or so the blight will die out, and/or resistant trees will be developed, so that the chestnut forests can return to the east.
There’s hope for the chestnut tree. Crossbreeding with a Chinese variety has produced a tree with more resistance to Asian blight, and there’s a virus that can be used to treat infected trees. A Washington Post article has more information on this.

December 19, 2011 1:07 pm

@A physicist says: December 19, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Well, at least the criticisms of your apparent inability to read a post have struck a chord. You are now trying to attack Deming’s portrayal of the article instead of merely demonizing him for your perception of reality. Maybe in a few years, you might even be able to follow links he provided in the critique. There is hope.

A physicist
December 19, 2011 1:21 pm

Researchers from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory investigated how Earth’s plant life is likely to react over the next three centuries as Earth’s climate changes in response to rising levels of human-produced greenhouse gases. Study results are published in the journal Climatic Change.

Smokey says: NASA can see three centuries into the future?? Anyone who believes that is a credulous fool … No one on this planet can see changes in the biosphere three hundred years into the future. Get real.

Smokey, seedlings from the American chestnut tree that my sons and I planted in my front yard will (with luck) reach their maturity in that third century.
Hmmm … perhaps if you too planted some long-lived trees, then planning three centuries ahead might not seem so foolish?

Merovign
December 19, 2011 1:21 pm

This is an unimaginably foolish argument on the face of it. Are we to believe that all these species threatened by minor temperature changes evolved in the latest decades of moderate weather, or is it possible that they have survived past climate variations?
A lot of people within and outside the “climate community” seem to have some sort of severe attention deficit disorder.