This video is a lecture given by a climate scientist at Texas Tech University. It is the kind of thing people like Tom Harris and Russell Cook would never watch because it shows, graphically, just how wrong they are. Everyone else should watch it. It is about 18 minutes long and worth it. I did not post this because it talks about Texas, but it didn't hurt, either.
What if Climate Change is Real?
Showing posts with label Agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Agriculture. Show all posts
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Friday, April 10, 2015
Despite Drought, California Does Business As Usual
Sometimes you have to wonder what is going through people's heads. Then it comes to you. Oh, yeah. It's about the short-term money.
As we know, California is under a historically bad drought and it is going to get worse before it gets better. Some day, the rain and snow will return to California and people will say, 'See! It was just a cycle.' But, this is just the beginning. Droughts like this will be hitting California more often in the future. So, it would seem to make sense you would start to change your pattern of behavior. But, that would mean taking a short-term sacrifice for the long-term gain and we are not well-programmed for that.
California's agriculture is an example. Crops are going unplanted because of a lack of water. Farmers that do have water are not planting because they can make more money selling their water than they could off the crops. Orchards are dieing due to lack of water. Fisheries are drying up. The list goes on. So, what do they do? They are growing and exporting water-intensive crops such as alfalfa and almonds. And, they are sending them overseas. It would be bad enough if they were using the crops in-state, or maybe a nearby state. That would at least keep the water in the area. Instead, they are exporting these crops to China.
I understand the issue of jobs and economy. The farmers have to make a living and the state wants to keep the jobs. No problem. But, if an industry is going to die, doesn't it make sense to make the changes when you can instead of waiting until you are forced to change? And, if you make the changes when you can, you are more likely to have the money needed. But, if you wait, your financial resources will wilt away before you make the plunge. So, by acting this way, farmers are ensuring their future failure.
And, that is climate change denial in a nutshell. I guess I should say in an almond shell.
Amazing.
As we know, California is under a historically bad drought and it is going to get worse before it gets better. Some day, the rain and snow will return to California and people will say, 'See! It was just a cycle.' But, this is just the beginning. Droughts like this will be hitting California more often in the future. So, it would seem to make sense you would start to change your pattern of behavior. But, that would mean taking a short-term sacrifice for the long-term gain and we are not well-programmed for that.
California's agriculture is an example. Crops are going unplanted because of a lack of water. Farmers that do have water are not planting because they can make more money selling their water than they could off the crops. Orchards are dieing due to lack of water. Fisheries are drying up. The list goes on. So, what do they do? They are growing and exporting water-intensive crops such as alfalfa and almonds. And, they are sending them overseas. It would be bad enough if they were using the crops in-state, or maybe a nearby state. That would at least keep the water in the area. Instead, they are exporting these crops to China.
I understand the issue of jobs and economy. The farmers have to make a living and the state wants to keep the jobs. No problem. But, if an industry is going to die, doesn't it make sense to make the changes when you can instead of waiting until you are forced to change? And, if you make the changes when you can, you are more likely to have the money needed. But, if you wait, your financial resources will wilt away before you make the plunge. So, by acting this way, farmers are ensuring their future failure.
And, that is climate change denial in a nutshell. I guess I should say in an almond shell.
Amazing.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Global Warming and Crops
Global warming denialists frequently state rising CO2 levels are good for crops because plants use CO2 to make food. This is one of those classic examples of how they omit anything that goes counter to their claim. It is true plants use CO2 during photosynthesis to make carbohydrates. But, increasing CO2 levels do not automatically translate into higher and better crop yields. What is being left out of that statement is how rising temperatures lead to other things, such as reduced crop quality, droughts, floods, storms, insects and disease and all of those things are becoming worse with global warming.
This issue was discussed this week at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). I found a particular statement to be rather frightening.
The fact is, global warming is not good for crops and we will be paying the price. Just look at the drought in California these last few years and the effect it has had on agriculture in that state.
Here are some other examples of the effects of global warming on crops:
Rising CO2 levels result in lower than expected yield increases.
Other studies indicate rising CO2 levels will result in a 2% yield reduction per decade.
Rising CO2 levels are harmful to rice, resulting in reduced crop yield.
Worldwide yields are already dropping.
Even if the yield goes up, the nutritional value will go down.
And, the forecast for American farmers is not good.
In the 50 years starting with 2000 we need to produce as much food as in the previous 500 years, and things aren't looking good.
This issue was discussed this week at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). I found a particular statement to be rather frightening.
"If you look at
production from 2000 to 2050, we basically have to produce the same
amount of food as we produced in the last 500 years"
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-climate-hampering-world-food-production.html#jCp
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-climate-hampering-world-food-production.html#jCp
"If you look at production from 2000 to 2050 we basically have to produce the same amount of food as we produced in the last 500 years."The article also pointed out how we could solve this problem if we have enough time, maybe 1000 years. But we have only 10 to 20 years.
The fact is, global warming is not good for crops and we will be paying the price. Just look at the drought in California these last few years and the effect it has had on agriculture in that state.
Here are some other examples of the effects of global warming on crops:
Rising CO2 levels result in lower than expected yield increases.
Other studies indicate rising CO2 levels will result in a 2% yield reduction per decade.
Rising CO2 levels are harmful to rice, resulting in reduced crop yield.
Worldwide yields are already dropping.
Even if the yield goes up, the nutritional value will go down.
And, the forecast for American farmers is not good.
In the 50 years starting with 2000 we need to produce as much food as in the previous 500 years, and things aren't looking good.
"If you look at
production from 2000 to 2050, we basically have to produce the same
amount of food as we produced in the last 500 years"
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-climate-hampering-world-food-production.html#jCp
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-climate-hampering-world-food-production.html#jCp
Monday, September 29, 2014
African Agriculture Vulnerable to Climate Change
The Africa Agriculture Status Report 2014 was released on September 2. One of the things it stated was that malnourishment in Africa could jump 40% by 2050 due to climate change. African farms are generally small, one-family affairs and the study finds they are more vulnerable to climate change.
Question: Where are all of the contrarians that keep saying climate change will be good for farm crops?
This is just one of many instances we have seen recently detailing how the poorer you are, the more you will suffer from climate change. And, at the same time, we see that the richer people are, the harder they work to prevent anyone from doing anything about it.
It isn't surprising that this is what is going on. After all, that is just the way the world works. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
No, what I find surprising - and disappointing - is how many people allow themselves to think these rich people are taking care of them and blindly follow along with what they are told. Why is it the rich fossil fuel people are providing the bulk of the funding used by the denier industry?
And, why do you believe them?
As is made clear by the contributing authors of this publication, one of the key sectors that is already and will increasingly be affected by climate change is agriculture. This is particularly true for agriculture in developing countries, and especially for countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Rapid and uncertain changes in rainfall patterns and temperature regimes threaten food production, increase the vulnerability of African smallholder farmers, and can result in food price shocks and increased rural poverty. As noted elsewhere in this publication, agriculture – even the low-input smallholder agriculture of sub-Saharan Africa – is both a ‘victim and a culprit’ relative to climate change.AASR 2014 - Forward
Although developing countries, especially those in Africa, are likely to bear the brunt of climate change, none of us will be immune to its impacts. It is time we acted together and be reminded that, when it comes to the devastating effects if climate change, we all swim – or sink – together. This is not the time to play the blame game.
Question: Where are all of the contrarians that keep saying climate change will be good for farm crops?
This is just one of many instances we have seen recently detailing how the poorer you are, the more you will suffer from climate change. And, at the same time, we see that the richer people are, the harder they work to prevent anyone from doing anything about it.
It isn't surprising that this is what is going on. After all, that is just the way the world works. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
No, what I find surprising - and disappointing - is how many people allow themselves to think these rich people are taking care of them and blindly follow along with what they are told. Why is it the rich fossil fuel people are providing the bulk of the funding used by the denier industry?
And, why do you believe them?
Friday, July 25, 2014
Water Supply In the Colorado River Basin
Many of the people objecting to my challenge say it should be about why we need to worry about global warming, or even about what to do. They clearly have not paid attention to what the challenge is all about.
But, they are correct in one thing, we need to discuss the effects of global warming more. Is global warming good for us? Bad for us? Or, does it even make a difference? I will be spending more time addressing this issue in the future once I am done with the challenge (come on July 31st!).
In that vein, here is a NASA news release about a study of water in the Colorado River Basin. It paints a pretty bleak picture about what is going on with water in the Southwestern U.S. Using data from the GRACE satellite, scientist have been able to identify the amount of mass the basin area has lost since 2004 and determined it has lost about 53 million acre-feet of water. That is almost twice the total volume of Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the U.S. What is really scary is that 41 million acre-feet of that amount came from ground water. Imagine you lost 75% of your income and you then started depleting your savings to maintain the same standard of living. Eventually, your savings are going to run out and you will be faced with a bad situation. That is where the Southwest is today in regards to water. The area has lost its water supply and has been relying on ground water to keep things going the same way instead of changing the way they do business. But, as they say in the new release, we don't know how much ground water there is, so we have no idea how long it will last. If it starts to run out, then there will be a very bad situation in the Southwest.
So, what does this have to do with global warming? Well, there is growing evidence the on-going drought is the result of global warming, and there is growing evidence that the effects of droughts are made worse by global warming. Basically, rainy areas will see more rain while dry areas will see less. Additionally, precipitation that falls as snow on the mountains melts slowly over time and provides water into the summer. As the temperature goes up, it gets too warm for snow and the precipitation falls as rain, which runs off and is no longer available when the dry months of summer come along. To make it worse, the higher temperatures mean there is more evaporation and the area loses even more water. None of these scenarios are good for the future of anyone depending on the water of the Colorado River Basin.
Read this article on the effects of global warming on the area. Richard Seager, a climate scientist who studies water issues at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University in New York does not believe the drought is caused by global warming, but he goes on to point out that the Southwest has suffered drought conditions in some form for 15 years, and warmer climates have resulted in winter precipitation tending to fall as rain rather than snow. With less snow melting during the spring there is a lack of water during the hot summer months.
"It all adds up across the Southwest to an increasingly stressed water system," he said. "That’s what they might as well get ready for."
But, they are correct in one thing, we need to discuss the effects of global warming more. Is global warming good for us? Bad for us? Or, does it even make a difference? I will be spending more time addressing this issue in the future once I am done with the challenge (come on July 31st!).
In that vein, here is a NASA news release about a study of water in the Colorado River Basin. It paints a pretty bleak picture about what is going on with water in the Southwestern U.S. Using data from the GRACE satellite, scientist have been able to identify the amount of mass the basin area has lost since 2004 and determined it has lost about 53 million acre-feet of water. That is almost twice the total volume of Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the U.S. What is really scary is that 41 million acre-feet of that amount came from ground water. Imagine you lost 75% of your income and you then started depleting your savings to maintain the same standard of living. Eventually, your savings are going to run out and you will be faced with a bad situation. That is where the Southwest is today in regards to water. The area has lost its water supply and has been relying on ground water to keep things going the same way instead of changing the way they do business. But, as they say in the new release, we don't know how much ground water there is, so we have no idea how long it will last. If it starts to run out, then there will be a very bad situation in the Southwest.
So, what does this have to do with global warming? Well, there is growing evidence the on-going drought is the result of global warming, and there is growing evidence that the effects of droughts are made worse by global warming. Basically, rainy areas will see more rain while dry areas will see less. Additionally, precipitation that falls as snow on the mountains melts slowly over time and provides water into the summer. As the temperature goes up, it gets too warm for snow and the precipitation falls as rain, which runs off and is no longer available when the dry months of summer come along. To make it worse, the higher temperatures mean there is more evaporation and the area loses even more water. None of these scenarios are good for the future of anyone depending on the water of the Colorado River Basin.
Read this article on the effects of global warming on the area. Richard Seager, a climate scientist who studies water issues at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University in New York does not believe the drought is caused by global warming, but he goes on to point out that the Southwest has suffered drought conditions in some form for 15 years, and warmer climates have resulted in winter precipitation tending to fall as rain rather than snow. With less snow melting during the spring there is a lack of water during the hot summer months.
"It all adds up across the Southwest to an increasingly stressed water system," he said. "That’s what they might as well get ready for."
Friday, June 13, 2014
Study Shows a Decrease in California Winter Tule Fog
Winter tule fog is a dense fog that forms on cool, still nights in California's central San Joaquin Valley. For many people, it is most well known for the frequent automobile accidents that result when people drive normal speeds with the reduced visibility. But, it has a much more important impact on agriculture.
Many of the crops grown in the valley require a long dormant season in order to produce a quality crop. Tule fog is critically important to inducing the plants to go dormant. It not only chills the plants in the winter, but it also shades them from the sunlight. Both of these actions cause the plants to go dormant. As a result, they store energy and are ready for vigorous growth in the spring time. Without the long dormant period, they won't have as much energy for growth and the crop yield will suffer. Among the crops that are dependent on this process are almonds, pistachios, cherries, apricots and peaches. As much as 95% of American production of some of these crops come from this area.
Now, a new study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters has shown that the amount of winter tule fog has decreased by as much as 46% over the last 30 years due to climate change. This is having an impact on the crop yield. Farmers are trying to deal with the problem by attempting to identify hybrids that can do well without the fog. Another idea is to relocate orchards.
Lower yields and expensive treatments mean higher prices at the supermarket for our food.
One more example of how climate change is costing us money right now.
Many of the crops grown in the valley require a long dormant season in order to produce a quality crop. Tule fog is critically important to inducing the plants to go dormant. It not only chills the plants in the winter, but it also shades them from the sunlight. Both of these actions cause the plants to go dormant. As a result, they store energy and are ready for vigorous growth in the spring time. Without the long dormant period, they won't have as much energy for growth and the crop yield will suffer. Among the crops that are dependent on this process are almonds, pistachios, cherries, apricots and peaches. As much as 95% of American production of some of these crops come from this area.
Now, a new study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters has shown that the amount of winter tule fog has decreased by as much as 46% over the last 30 years due to climate change. This is having an impact on the crop yield. Farmers are trying to deal with the problem by attempting to identify hybrids that can do well without the fog. Another idea is to relocate orchards.
Lower yields and expensive treatments mean higher prices at the supermarket for our food.
One more example of how climate change is costing us money right now.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
What about that expanded harvest?
So, to recap, deniers first said there was no global warming. Then, they said any warming was so small that we didn't need to worry about it. Then, they said it was all just a natural cycle. Now, they are saying it is actually good for us. Do you see a trend here?
One of the things they are now claiming is that global warming will increase the zone where we can grow crops and increase the length of the growing season. In this way, it is actually good for us. So, how is this turning out?
I have always been very skeptical of this claim, mainly because I grew up in agricultural areas and have always followed agriculture. I do some work in the local vineyards with some friends in this area. Growing a crop is about a lot more than planting seeds and then kicking back until harvest time. You have to worry about weeds, disease, insects, watering and weather - just to name a few things.
Droughts and heat waves have a devastating effect on crops. Just take a look at what is happening to the farms in California right now. They are having to plow their crops under because they don't have enough water. On the other hand, too much water can be just as bad. A flooding rain can wash a whole farm out in a matter of a few hours. The evidence shows that overall, droughts and floods have been about the same so far, but dry areas are getting drier and wet areas are getting wetter. So, areas with droughts are getting worse and areas with floods are also getting worse.
Another weather event that farmers fear is the hail storm. A severe hail storm can pound a crop into the dirt in just minutes.
Of course, the obvious point is it doesn't matter how long the growing season is if you don't have a crop.
And, a warmer climate will also result in better conditions for insects and diseases that destroy crops.
None of this takes into account the fact that grain crops such as corn and wheat are very sensitive to heat. The yield goes down once the temperature gets higher than a certain point.
I had all of this in mind when I read an article in the May 13 issue of Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union. Climate change, water rights, and agriculture: A case study in Idaho reports on an investigation into the effects of climate change on agriculture. Their findings?
This is just one study for one particular region, but the point is pretty clear. Just because more land is available for growing crops and the length of the growing season is longer, it doesn't mean there will be a larger harvest. Climate change will make certain things better for crops, but it will also make a lot of things worse at the same time.
Again, we see that all of us at the bottom will have to foot the bill for all of this. This time, in the form of higher food prices.
One of the things they are now claiming is that global warming will increase the zone where we can grow crops and increase the length of the growing season. In this way, it is actually good for us. So, how is this turning out?
I have always been very skeptical of this claim, mainly because I grew up in agricultural areas and have always followed agriculture. I do some work in the local vineyards with some friends in this area. Growing a crop is about a lot more than planting seeds and then kicking back until harvest time. You have to worry about weeds, disease, insects, watering and weather - just to name a few things.
Droughts and heat waves have a devastating effect on crops. Just take a look at what is happening to the farms in California right now. They are having to plow their crops under because they don't have enough water. On the other hand, too much water can be just as bad. A flooding rain can wash a whole farm out in a matter of a few hours. The evidence shows that overall, droughts and floods have been about the same so far, but dry areas are getting drier and wet areas are getting wetter. So, areas with droughts are getting worse and areas with floods are also getting worse.
Another weather event that farmers fear is the hail storm. A severe hail storm can pound a crop into the dirt in just minutes.
Of course, the obvious point is it doesn't matter how long the growing season is if you don't have a crop.
And, a warmer climate will also result in better conditions for insects and diseases that destroy crops.
None of this takes into account the fact that grain crops such as corn and wheat are very sensitive to heat. The yield goes down once the temperature gets higher than a certain point.
I had all of this in mind when I read an article in the May 13 issue of Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union. Climate change, water rights, and agriculture: A case study in Idaho reports on an investigation into the effects of climate change on agriculture. Their findings?
"They found that if climate change increases the volatility of the temperature and the water supply, irrigated agriculture in the region could face significant damages. In fact, crop revenue losses could be up to 32%."
This is just one study for one particular region, but the point is pretty clear. Just because more land is available for growing crops and the length of the growing season is longer, it doesn't mean there will be a larger harvest. Climate change will make certain things better for crops, but it will also make a lot of things worse at the same time.
Again, we see that all of us at the bottom will have to foot the bill for all of this. This time, in the form of higher food prices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)