There must be a Paul Ehrlich week in climate science

indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain[1]Yesterday, in Climactic headline shifts the hype factor between two headlines on crop production and climate was pointed out, noting that there was just a small increase in risk. Today we have another similar press release, claiming that climate change (plus ozone air pollution) will cause crop production to slow down. So far, there is no indication of such a thing happening, even though Paul Ehrlich claimed for years that massive famines would happen as food production slowed.

From the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Study: Climate change and air pollution will combine to curb food supplies

Ozone and higher temperatures can combine to reduce crop yields, but effects will vary by region

Many studies have shown the potential for global climate change to cut food supplies. But these studies have, for the most part, ignored the interactions between increasing temperature and air pollution — specifically ozone pollution, which is known to damage crops.

A new study involving researchers at MIT shows that these interactions can be quite significant, suggesting that policymakers need to take both warming and air pollution into account in addressing food security.

The study looked in detail at global production of four leading food crops — rice, wheat, corn, and soy — that account for more than half the calories humans consume worldwide. It predicts that effects will vary considerably from region to region, and that some of the crops are much more strongly affected by one or the other of the factors: For example, wheat is very sensitive to ozone exposure, while corn is much more adversely affected by heat.

The research was carried out by Colette Heald, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering (CEE) at MIT, former CEE postdoc Amos Tai, and Maria van Martin at Colorado State University. Their work is described this week in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Heald explains that while it’s known that both higher temperatures and ozone pollution can damage plants and reduce crop yields, “nobody has looked at these together.” And while rising temperatures are widely discussed, the impact of air quality on crops is less recognized.

The effects are likely to vary widely by region, the study predicts. In the United States, tougher air-quality regulations are expected to lead to a sharp decline in ozone pollution, mitigating its impact on crops. But in other regions, the outcome “will depend on domestic air-pollution policies,” Heald says. “An air-quality cleanup would improve crop yields.”

Overall, with all other factors being equal, warming may reduce crop yields globally by about 10 percent by 2050, the study found. But the effects of ozone pollution are more complex — some crops are more strongly affected by it than others — which suggests that pollution-control measures could play a major role in determining outcomes.

Ozone pollution can also be tricky to identify, Heald says, because its damage can resemble other plant illnesses, producing flecks on leaves and discoloration.

Potential reductions in crop yields are worrisome: The world is expected to need about 50 percent more food by 2050, the authors say, due to population growth and changing dietary trends in the developing world. So any yield reductions come against a backdrop of an overall need to increase production significantly through improved crop selections and farming methods, as well as expansion of farmland.

While heat and ozone can each damage plants independently, the factors also interact. For example, warmer temperatures significantly increase production of ozone from the reactions, in sunlight, of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. Because of these interactions, the team found that 46 percent of damage to soybean crops that had previously been attributed to heat is actually caused by increased ozone.

Under some scenarios, the researchers found that pollution-control measures could make a major dent in the expected crop reductions following climate change. For example, while global food production was projected to fall by 15 percent under one scenario, larger emissions decreases projected in an alternate scenario reduce that drop to 9 percent.

Air pollution is even more decisive in shaping undernourishment in the developing world, the researchers found: Under the more pessimistic air-quality scenario, rates of malnourishment might increase from 18 to 27 percent by 2050 — about a 50 percent jump; under the more optimistic scenario, the rate would still increase, but that increase would almost be cut in half, they found.

Agricultural production is “very sensitive to ozone pollution,” Heald says, adding that these findings “show how important it is to think about the agricultural implications of air-quality regulations. Ozone is something that we understand the causes of, and the steps that need to be taken to improve air quality.”

###

The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, the National Park Service, and the Croucher Foundation.

Written by David L. Chandler, MIT News Office

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

48 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jim
July 28, 2014 1:01 am

rogerknights says — The only survey of the scientific community was the one done of members of the AGU and AMS seven years ago by George Mason U.
ME—Do you know a link to the AGU survey? (I have the AMS survey – it found only 24% of its members agreed with the UN conclusion that man was mostly responsible for warming (or something like that ).
Thanks
JK

July 28, 2014 1:32 am

Anything is possible says:
July 27, 2014 at 8:31 pm
“You’re all going to die”, Part 6,347,891
*
Well said!

fritz
July 28, 2014 2:06 am

Nice correlation with CO2

rogerknights
July 28, 2014 2:44 am

Jim:
This George Mason Univ. poll [run for them by the Harris polling organization in 2007] http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. It did not cherry pick the respondants who gave them the answer they wanted, and it asked more sophisticated questions [than the Doran and Anderegg surveys], below:
Under its “Major Findings” are these paragraphs:
“Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
“Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest [11%] are unsure.
“Scientists still debate the dangers. A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is NOT “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
“A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)
“Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.”
IOW, 59% doubt the “catastrophic” potential of AGW. I suspect that number would be higher now, after six more flat years.

Björn
July 28, 2014 2:53 am

If a linear and second order polynominal regression curves are fitted to data for the actual tonnage of world grain production curve depicted in the picture included in this post the are visually indistinguishable from each order and the r-squared coefficient is ~ 0.985 for both regressions indicating that there is a very slight improvement achived using higher order polynoms to tell the story of past production , but the coefficient of the second order term in the quadratic curve is negative, so that regression curve is concave and that means there is a small ( possibly significant or not significant) decrease of the productinn growth rate detectable in the data. However interpreting this fact as an effect of a decelerating growth rate due to global warming and project a future trend on that is basis , is likely the most ( wilfully or not ) stupid result achievable, F.X just “adjusting” only for the sharp few years temporary drop of world wheat production that follwed the demise of the Soviet Union in the last decade of the previous century , turns the negative second order term sign to a positive one , etc. But being stupid by ignoring or omitting non-global-warming related causes has most certainly become the hallmark of CAGW crowd , so no surprise here, it just fits the now expected MO.

jim
July 28, 2014 3:28 am

rogerknights, thanks for the link.
Unfortunately it doesn’t work although several other sources cite it

Jim south lodon
July 28, 2014 4:05 am

Good news about the latest overpopulation and falling crop yields scare story
Hopefully should get the proposed remake of Logan’s Run back on track.
Ryan Gosling the director and screen writer have all pulled out the project so far.

philjourdan
July 28, 2014 4:09 am

They are getting smarter.

The effects are likely to vary widely by region,

So any problems with food production ANYWHERE will be due to AGW. But anywhere that production does not decrease is explained away. Another “God” thesis where everything is explained by their supposition.

Dougmanxx
July 28, 2014 5:54 am

“Studies” like this are simply stupid. “Crops” don’t plant themselves. Farmers do. Farmers are anything but stupid. They’ll simply adjust what they plant, if there truly is a “change in climate”. It’s why a “study” like this will never pan out in the real world, because while people don’t control the climate, we DO control what we plant. Even if these ivory tower types can’t figure that out. and did they take into account the huge swaths of newly arable land that would be available if the climate does warm? There are vast areas of Canada and Russia that would be perfect cropland with several degrees increase in average temps. It’s like they think farmers are stupid…

July 28, 2014 5:57 am

Good grief –
how many times does it take,
when reality doesn’t match prediction,
for us to realize it is the prediction that is wrong,
not the reality?

CaligulaJones
July 28, 2014 7:04 am

I was purging some old magazines a few months ago and came across one of those now quaint one-offs concerning the Millennium. Tons of predictions, etc.
Want to guess how many of them have even come close to coming true, 15 years now into the 21st century?

Resourceguy
July 28, 2014 8:16 am

Not to be confused with Thomas Gold week, the other unconventional (wrong) theorist

July 28, 2014 8:29 am

Another civil engineer (recall the recent Stanford “risk” to grain crops)! I’ve noticed that the recent alarm papers are from a different crowd (certainly civil engineers waxing strongly on climate and plant growth, and psychologists and historians authoring clisci stuff is weird) and mostly women. Am I wrong here? Gender isn’t an issue with me but I’ve noticed for some time now the changeover from the Boulder, NOAA, NCAR, UEA, etc climate gentlemen’s club of yesteryear. Are Trenberth, Mann, Jones, Briffa….on sabbatical or retired?

Taphonomic
July 28, 2014 8:58 am

I’ll see your Paul Ehrlich failed predictions and raise you Norman Borlaug real science.
These predictions always seem to overlook that Borlaug adapted plants to climates to which they were not native. Of course, if they considered that they wouldn’t have much of a prediction.

more soylent green!
July 28, 2014 9:59 am

rogerknights says:
July 27, 2014 at 7:38 pm
In ten years, much food will be produced in tanks by algae (as Solazyme is starting to do) and most of the algae’s feedstock will be sugar produced by a special bacteria using water and CO2 as its feedstock (as Proterro is starting to do).

That’s where soylent green comes from, isn’t it?

James the Elder
July 28, 2014 11:05 am

Air pollution is even more decisive in shaping undernourishment in the developing world, the researchers found: Under the more pessimistic air-quality scenario, rates of malnourishment might increase from 18 to 27 percent by 2050 — about a 50 percent jump; under the more optimistic scenario, the rate would still increase, but that increase would almost be cut in half, they found.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
First hand observation in China: The air is so bad in many places that bus drivers are literally instrument rated to get around, but the Chinese diet seems to be extraordinarily rich and plentiful and making the Chinese taller and weightier. Could cheap energy have something to do with that?

Bruce Cobb
July 28, 2014 11:05 am

They should do one on the effects of an alien invasion plus air pollution. Or better yet; aliens plus air pollution plus sharknadoes. The possibilities are endless.

Zeke
July 28, 2014 12:55 pm

Banning fungicides, fumigants, herbicides, fertilizers, and pesticides can and will disrupt agriculture and greatly lessen yield.
As usual, it is the environmental policies themselves which can fulfill the disasters prophesied by environmentalists.
Remember that organic agriculture only provides 1% of the food grown in the US. It is very similar to the “renewable” energy whirligigs, which provide 1% of the energy needed. Organic agriculture and worthless wind turbines cannot supply people with electricity and food, and both are unsustainable, in the genuine sense and meaning of the word. Both provide far, far less at far, far greater costs, and with no real reliability.

Brian H
July 28, 2014 1:46 pm

Extra CO2 will mitigate and minimize the stress of excess (!?!?!) warmth and of O3, amongst others.

BallBounces
July 28, 2014 2:30 pm

CO2 is the gas that drives climate change alarmism. But it hasn’t got the job done. So ozone is being added as an STP-type additive to give CO2 a performance boost.

Jimbo
July 28, 2014 4:10 pm

It’s always doom tomorrow. I want my global mass starvation today. Paul Ehrlich is not driving with his headlights on. India would not exist. Now they export rice. I can go on and on.

mjc
July 28, 2014 7:46 pm

” BallBounces says:
July 28, 2014 at 2:30 pm
CO2 is the gas that drives climate change alarmism. But it hasn’t got the job done. So ozone is being added as an STP-type additive to give CO2 a performance boost.”
That’s being recycled?
Wasn’t it shot down during the great Ozone Hole nonsense years ago? Ozone wasn’t a climate changer…it was either going to rot out our and all animals lungs when it was too high at ground level and give us all cancer when it wasn’t high up in the atmosphere.

rogerknights
July 29, 2014 1:01 am

more soylent green! says:
July 28, 2014 at 9:59 am
rogerknights says:
July 27, 2014 at 7:38 pm
In ten years, much food will be produced in tanks by algae (as Solazyme is starting to do) and most of the algae’s feedstock will be sugar produced by a special bacteria using water and CO2 as its feedstock (as Proterro is starting to do).
That’s where soylent green comes from, isn’t it?

Shh! Shh!