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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
196 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fredrick Lightfoot
December 20, 2011 1:31 am

“A Physicist” goes nuclear,
it appears that workplace hazards for “A Physicist” are on the rise,. It has been reported that “Nuclear Physicist syndrome ” ( over exposure to subject material ) shows delusions of grandeur, inventive fantasy, and a abnormal degree of ignorance, and a non Physicist repertoire, when observing a colleague with any of the above, please report same to the nearest Psychiatrist .

A physicist
December 20, 2011 2:08 am

There’s good news for all WUWT readers who love trees, and want to know more about the science of forests and climate change. Namely, the Society of American Foresters (SAF) has placed online the 2011 SAF Task Force report “Managing Forests because Carbon Matters”, as a special supplement to the SAF’s flagship publication, the Journal of Forestry.
Please let me commend to WUWT folks especially the Task Force Report Section 3: Climate-Forest Interactions. It was mighty interesting (for me) to find that the Purdue science and press release, that has aroused so much passion here on WUWT, is in very reasonable accord with the national and global trends that the SAF Task Force document summarizes as follows (omitting the extensive references that the SAF provides):

Climate–Forest Interactions
Climate change will bring disturbances that affect tree mortality and forest regeneration. Drought and species range shifts are mentioned as critical processes associated with climate change, but in western North America two processes dominate the discussion: wildfire and bark beetle outbreaks: … Researchers predict at least a doubling of the area burned annually for western forests under moderate climate change scenarios. … Massive and ongoing mountain pine beetle outbreaks have dramatically increased in the past 10 years as a result of climate change. … These effects are not limited to western North America: climate change–related mortality driven by water stress affects forests globally.

Judging by the SAF Task Force Report, it sure seems to me that what the Purdue scientists are saying, about walnut trees specifically, pretty accurately reflects the consensus opinion of America’s professional foresters, regarding climate change and forests in general.
By the way, the SAF Task Force includes plenty of industry-employed scientists. Given that the consensus opinion of these hard-working, experienced, expert forestry folks is that climate change is a mighty serious issue for America’s forests … hmmm … maybe WUWT’s rational skeptics ought to be … well … convinced of it, eh?

Ryan
December 20, 2011 2:32 am

The thing is that when they come out with this kind of stuff which flies in the face of what even a part-time gardener can appreciate is WRONG, they expose their arrogance in believing the “man in the street” knows nothing and at the same time shred their credibility.
Basically they come across as nutty.

LazyTeenager
December 20, 2011 2:34 am

David says
This stream of cash has created a monstrous industry that produces junk science that feeds demands for even more money. It is a scam.
————-
Seems to be a bit if double think here.
David reports favorably on a research paper on the walnut. And then claims all that science is junk.
Maybe David is having a senior’s moment and confusing the press release with the actual research.
Or maybe he is straining really really hard to find some way to build a chariot for his political message.

Henry Galt
December 20, 2011 2:44 am

A physicist appears to be digging a latrine. They have a regulation depth.

John Marshall
December 20, 2011 2:45 am

Nice crop of nuts. You obviously do not have any squirrels. My walnut trees produce nuts every year but the squirrels take them before they fall.
i am afraid that research from many areas purport to prove a climate problem when the reader knows of no such problem. Ocean acidification is one are that has produced a forest of papers all ‘proving’ that more atmospheric CO2 will kill molluscs and corals when the fossil record shows that at times of high atmospheric CO2 these thrived.

Chris Wright
December 20, 2011 3:55 am

Edmond says:
December 19, 2011 at 10:17 pm
This is false. Global warming can cause greater turbulence in weather patterns leading to both warming and cooling spells greater than what is expected on average. Heat is energy, and more energy equals greater variance in temperature, both warmer and colder….
.
Storms and weather in general are driven by temperature differences, so a warmer world will not automatically be more stormy or more variable. Most likely the opposite is true.
Most global warming tends to occur in night and winter temperatures, and also towards the poles. All of this leads to smaller temperature differences which would probably lead to more stable and less stormy conditions.
.
Many temperature records going back thousands of years clearly show more short-term variation during the cold periods compared to the warm. During the Little Ice Age there were a number of storms in Europe that each killed around 100,000 people, and one monster storm may have killed 400,000 (from H.H.Lamb). Compared to that we are fortunate to live in a warmer world that is far less stormy. And, as we know, the overall intensity of hurricanes globally has been falling over recent decades.
Chris

Chris Wright
December 20, 2011 4:01 am

Another point about the Little Ice Age….
During the LIA there were many dramatic and devastating weather events, for example hail storms that killed all unprotected animals. Because these events were too extreme to be natural, many innocent people were accused of the crime of “weather cooking” and subsequently executed. Some sceptics had the courage to point out that this was irrational nonsense. But they had to be very careful, otherwise they too would be accused of working for the Devil.
Fortunately, since then we have evolved….or have we?
Chris

David
December 20, 2011 4:15 am

Edmound states…”But spring frosts are a symptom of global cooling, not global warming.” This is false. Global warming can cause greater turbulence in weather patterns leading to both warming and cooling spells greater than what is expected on average. Heat is energy, and more energy equals greater variance in temperature, both warmer and colder.”
———————————————————————————————————
Edmound, this is mere suppostion on your part. CAGW expects less change in humid areas (to much overlapping H2O) and progressively more warming as one moves poleward to areas of the globe with less water vapor, thus likely limiting extreme weather events due to a lessening of the interaction between heat and cool. However both thoughts are merely speculative and thus far unobserved in reality. However the author is quite correct, in a CAGW world of on average warmer temp, there would be less frost as the early am time is predicted to be warmer as then GHG plays a greater percentage of the overal temp due to the fact that the sun is not then a factor in the temperature. (possibly there is no temp difference, just the bottom of the temp curve is less steep and slightly later) At any rate, observations are not supporting yur presentation.
——————————————————————————————————
Edound cont… (my comments in brackets within Edmounds statement)
Regardless, the writer has a poor understanding of science. He jumps to obvious conclusions through simple observance without taking into consideration the complexities of the world around him… (No, actually he commented that his anecdotal statements needed far more support within the scientific literature, which he gave) …For example, he draws the conclusion that walnut trees are hardy because they have “survived the Pleistocene Ice Ages.” What the writer fails to understand is that large sections of North America were able to support walnut tress even during the Pleistocene Ice Ages, most likely his very own state of Oklahoma… (Edmound, there is no contention here, your statement supports the authors writing????) He also may fail to understand that ice ages occur over thousands of years, encroaching and receding slowly, not suddenly, allowing a species like the Black Walnut to survive beyond the reaches of glacier impact ( Actually science indicates that we may enter and exit ice ages exceedingly fast, they just last many thousands of years.)
As to your other comments regarding the authors particular trees , just not my area of expertise so I will only comment that the author backed up his “own story” with the literature quite well, weather abscission includes shedding branches as well as trees is not germain to the purpose of the article, as such your comments in this regard are not cogent.

A physicist
December 20, 2011 4:29 am

Ryan says: The thing is that when they come out with this kind of stuff which flies in the face of what even a part-time gardener can appreciate is WRONG, they expose their arrogance in believing the “man in the street” knows nothing and at the same time shred their credibility. Basically they come across as nutty.

Please let me break it to you gently, Ryan: America’s amateur gardeners (including me!) definitely do appreciate that climate change is real:

“Climate change is having an undeniable influence on gardening because it is altering the traditional range and garden adaptability of plants,” says American Horticultural Society (AHS) Executive Director Tom Underwood. “The AHS will make it a priority to stay informed on this issue and help increase awareness of how gardeners and the plant industry can play an important role in slowing the pace of climate change.”

Nowadays, American citizens who are passionate about their gardening, fishing, hunting, hiking, kayaking, farming, etc. all have zero doubt that climate change is right here, right now. Because for all who have “eyes to see”, the effects of climate change are very plainly seen.

David
December 20, 2011 4:36 am

A physicist says:
December 20, 2011 at 2:08 am
A Phys, please just stop. you never anwered requests, directly made to you, which showed how the actual paper differed dramatically from the extreme press release, so you entered troll territory. Now you bring in an unrelated generalization about bark beattles. ( may I suggest you look within the archives of WUWT so that you have a chance to read both sides of the issue), as this is old territory to most, but a chance for you to actually learn. ( a snowballs chance in a CAGW world perhaps, but a chance to actually learn you have)

December 20, 2011 5:03 am

Agreed, not onlly walnuts, many others are ruined. so we must do something to stop CC. unfortunately we are not agreed yet on the root cause of the CC.

December 20, 2011 5:19 am

A physicist says:
December 19, 2011 at 5:01 pm

Lucy Skywalker says: Deming cherrypicks an extreme example, deliberately and openly, to help make a point that is relevant to his thesis.
Lucy, cherry-picking extreme examples is the practice of politics and demagoguery, not science and skepticism.
To my mind both the article and the press release were commendably even-handed, as (IMHO) anyone who reads them side-by-side will agree.
As for web sites that “cherrypick extreme examples” (in Lucy’s phrase) … well, such web sites scarcely ever contribute anything substantial to science or skepticism, eh?

Ha. You yourself have done here the very thing you are complaining of. And you’ve done it all along. Hoist by your own petard. You’ve cherry picked me – as well as the article – by omitting salient facts that keep the balance ie my discussion of the context in which this “cherrypick” of Deming appeared. I don’t think you want to understand the difference between minor cherrypicks that heighten the point to make it more visible in the context of a storyline (Deming), and key cherrypicks that are used to arrive at a false scientific conclusion (eg Mann’s Hockey Stick statistics).

A physicist
December 20, 2011 5:19 am

David, there is no way a 400-word press release can cover all the material in a 12,000 word scientific review. Both the Purdue article and the Purdue press release are in reasonable accord with the often-stated consensus opinion of America’s foresters and gardeners (a consensus that has been thoroughly documented in my posts): climate change is already exerting major and often harmful effects upon America’s plant life.
In light of that sobering reality, which is plainly evident to every serious forester and gardener, aren’t WUWT’s quibbles about press releases a pretty weak form of skepticism?

December 20, 2011 5:24 am

@A Physicist
Never in all my 63 years have I come across anyone who can so stubbornly resist seeing the point that has been made by so many people as to the error of the statements you made.
You definitely deserve an accolade for the ultimate in obtuseness.

December 20, 2011 5:27 am

MJW says:
December 19, 2011 at 3:40 pm
A physicist: Smokey, to speak plainly, Dr. Deming’s assertion “I was taken aback by the claim that walnut trees were somehow especially sensitive to climate change” refers to a claim that appears nowhere in the Purdue scientific article or in the press release associated to it.
How can you possibly say that, given the first three paragraphs of the press release?

Because he is a troll? His comments have no basis in fact, reality or subject matter. They are just amusing to see how cowards like to conduct their misinformation campaign.

December 20, 2011 5:51 am

Here in the Mid-Atlantic states, not only are black walnuts hardy, they’re damned-near indestructible. You can often cut them down to just a stump, only to have them come back the next year to start all over again.
They are also one of the messiest trees you can find, and a bitch to grow other plants under – you have to do your research to find juglone-tolerant plants.
Fabulous wood, though.

A physicist
December 20, 2011 5:55 am

There appear to be some serious gardeners here, and to these people I commend the organization Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BCGI), which is a world-wide coalition of more than 700 botanical gardens.
Frankly, it is inexplicable to me that any brand of climate skepticism that calls itself “serious” can ignore the consensus opinion of organizations like the BGCI (and the American Horticultural Society, the Society of American Foresters, etc.), namely, that climate change is real and already is seriously impacting plant life around the world.

December 20, 2011 6:06 am

a physicist says:
“…climate change is real and already is seriously impacting plant life around the world.”
Nonsense. And let me point out several things wrong with that one little sentence.
First, ‘climate change’ is natural. It happens continuously, and it impacts plant life no more or less than usual. In fact, the past couple of centuries have been especially benign, despite the red faced, spittle-flecked, wild eyed arm waving of the alarmist cult. ‘a physicist’ improbably claims that ‘climate change’ is ‘seriously impacting’ plant life around the world. How can that be, when the global temperature has risen only ≈0.7°C over the past 150 years?? Will a change of 0.7°C ‘seriously impact’ plant life? Only in the fevered imagination of a climate cultist.

Theo Goodwin
December 20, 2011 6:13 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:…
Whoops … it appears that the outrage being expressed here on WUWT has zero factual basis in the scientific literature.”
You have managed to increase your ideological bias from a glowing ember to a raging fire. Dr. Deming did not criticize the article but praised it as good science. Dr. Deming criticized the press release. The outrage is directed toward the press release, those who wrote it, and those who signed off on its publication.

Theo Goodwin
December 20, 2011 6:33 am

A physicist says:
December 20, 2011 at 5:19 am
“David, there is no way a 400-word press release can cover all the material in a 12,000 word scientific review.”
The writers of the press release lied about the content of the scientific article. That is the topic under discussion. You refuse to address it. Are you one of those hype artists who write press releases? I know that such hype artists are ubiquitous in academia.

December 20, 2011 6:36 am

A Physist says: “Frankly, it is inexplicable to me that any brand of climate skepticism that calls itself “serious” can ignore the consensus opinion of organizations like the BGCI (and the American Horticultural Society, the Society of American Foresters, etc.), namely, that climate change is real and already is seriously impacting plant life around the world.”
You and they are correct it is wonderful that as glaciers retreat more land is available for plants to grow. As the warmth moves north Canada etc can grow more grain to feed the worlds hungry. The fruit trees we grow will grow farther north giving folks access to vitamins to help survival. It is serious to know that your fellow man can be fed better and live longer because of the impact climate change has on plants.
Good job A Physist.

Pamela Gray
December 20, 2011 6:42 am

If you want to study the canary in the mine, study cool weather row crops. Any amount of change one way or the other freezes these sensitive plants or dries them up before peas can be produced. The production of peas in NE Oregon is cyclical and matches trends, not on CO2 but on the oceanic/atmospheric teleconnection that produces long term trends in …wait for it… weather.

Edmond
December 20, 2011 8:30 am

Chris Wright says:
December 20, 2011 at 3:55 am
“And, as we know, the overall intensity of hurricanes globally has been falling over recent decades.”
That is not true at all.
What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Edmond
December 20, 2011 8:34 am

mkelly says:
December 20, 2011 at 6:36 am
“You and they are correct it is wonderful that as glaciers retreat more land is available for plants to grow. As the warmth moves north Canada etc can grow more grain to feed the worlds hungry. The fruit trees we grow will grow farther north giving folks access to vitamins to help survival. It is serious to know that your fellow man can be fed better and live longer because of the impact climate change has on plants.”
In the magical world of fantasy, this is called wishful thinking. Unfortunately, trees cannot uproot themselves and move with the climate at which the speed of change is possibly or could be occurring.