Global Warming to Endanger Breakfast by 2080!!!

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?

I downloaded the latest HadCRUT4 temperature and Mauna Loa CO2 data from Wood for Trees and global coffee bean production from FAOSTAT and it appears that coffee bean trees like warmer temperatures…

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.

Data Sources:

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

61 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Latitude
February 27, 2013 3:34 pm

but but but…it only works if you scare everyone…next it will be chocolate

blogagog
February 27, 2013 3:41 pm

Hmm, I dunno. You make a good argument, but just in case, for the sake of coffee, we should probably follow the robot named Bender’s advice and kill all humans.
Or we could go with another idea. I’m not particular.

jerry
February 27, 2013 4:57 pm

Latitude says:
February 27, 2013 at 3:34 pm
but but but…it only works if you scare everyone…next it will be chocolate
they’ve already gone there
http://www.alternet.org/story/148834/global_warming_could_lead_to_vast_chocolate_shortage
in fact it’ll be so bad that ‘Maybe in twenty years time, much of America’s cocoa wealth will be placed behind the heavily-guarded walls of some secure military facility for safe keeping. Fort Chocs, perhaps? ‘

TomRude
February 27, 2013 7:20 pm

Typical CBC stuff: the Media Party always takes the alarmist, iconic stuff to brainwash and condition the populace and pave the way for their politicians.

Greg Cavanagh
February 27, 2013 9:19 pm

When Australia was founded, the new colonists planted their crops at the usual time each year for Australia as they did back in England. They nearly starved the colony until they figured out that you plant a crop for the season, not the same month as you did on the other side of the globe.
When I first heard that in school, I didn’t want to believe it was possible farmers could be so stupid. But I’m beginning to truly understand the stupidity of the humans as a species.
A world run by these people is a scary proposition.
Yep, “The stupid, it burns”.

Patrick
February 27, 2013 10:34 pm

“jimshu says:
February 27, 2013 at 12:57 pm”
I’ve travelled to Ethiopia many times. My wife is Ethiopian, she and I married there. There is plenty of growing land available there, one major problem is however that where most people live land resources are tight. By far the biggest problems facing the people in Ethiopia is 1; Introduced Eucalyptus trees sucking up ground water. 2; Food afforability. 3; Govn’t/Corporate corruption. 4; People being forced off their ntive lands.

johnmarshall
February 28, 2013 2:03 am

So climate change might render some land unsuitable for growing coffee——- but might render presently unsuitable land suitable.
These people have just done Alarmist 101.

George Lawson
February 28, 2013 2:56 am

jimshu says:
February 27, 2013 at 12:57 pm
I’m disappointed to see the scathing reception to this research.
I’m disappointed that in spite of all the research which proves that global warming isn’t happening, you take this silly research seriously.

February 28, 2013 6:00 am

These geography guys should stay away from scientific research (geography is an anachronism like alchemy – we have handily finished the job of “graphing” the earth but we don’;t seem to know how to give old geography a decent burial). I have had only a few minutes to consider how I would design an experiment to test this hypoth….er conjecture. Does coffee die when we move it 100m lower in altitude or 100-200km further south? They could have taken what they thought the temp was going to be in 2080 and planted….Do I have to finish this on a site like WUWT?
I’d be prepared to contribute to a fund that would follow up on such bonehead science. Maybe, if there is a Starbucks within such climate variations in coffee country, we could fund Steve McIntyre to go for coffee, complete the research in a day using a camera and a thermometer and return for supper. I believe Starbucks might sponsor such work … well, maybe not – even Kool Aid drinkers go to Starbucks.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/11/new-isotope-based-temperature-reconstruction-using-mcintyres-starbucks-hypothesis-tree-core-samples/
Wouldn’t it be something – “A Starbucks expedition has been launched to follow-up on recent research done by ….” It would strike terror into the hearts of the conjecturists and most likely force scientists to go back to empirical real science.

higley7
February 28, 2013 10:45 am

Would not climate change make some land not useful for coffee growing while making other land suitable, making it simply an alteration in the range?

Lars P.
February 28, 2013 1:56 pm

Now please not my coffee! These “§$%&%&/ skeptics ruin my morning coffee!
That one went far too far, we got to stop being skeptical, please, please think at the coffe!!!
Now turn off those lights and be brave sitting in the cold and darkness, a cup of coffee in the morning is worth, I beg you.
Best case scenario – lose of 38%!
Worse case scenario lose of 90-100%
This is so laughable that it pains.
jimshu says:
February 27, 2013 at 12:57 pm

jimshu, the models are based on climatological models which are proven to have the rate of warming in the atmosphere wrong.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/klotzbach-et-al-revisited-a-reply-by-john-christy/
if you go on Bob Tisdale site you see how the models evaluate again and again wrongly the sea level temperatures
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/28/cmip5-model-data-comparison-satellite-era-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies/
so we have modeling based on modeling based on iterative modeling already proven wrong. It is as wrong as it can go.
With more CO2 in the atmosphere you will have more coffee not less
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/c/coffeaa.php
with 300 more ppm you get 175% coffee.
And this is not models, it is experimental data.