R
RGCheek
Guest
But increased CO2 also would cause an increase in vegetation as well in areas that still get plenty of rainfall.
What areas have been proven to have become deserts due to AGW?
- Status
What areas have been proven to have become deserts due to AGW?
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Parts of Texas?
R
RGCheek
Guest
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It is possible, even likely, that increased CO2 would cause an increase in vegetation. It’s likely as well that rainfall would increase because of increased plant storage and emission of moisture. I recall reading that the optimal CO2 concentration level for plant life is 600 PPM. The present level, I believe, is about 400.
I am aware of no areas that have become deserts due to AGW or MMGW or whatever anyone wants to call it. I doubt there are any.
However, it does not seem unreasonable to me to believe that increased desertification over the last several decades caused by improper land use could cause increased atmospheric temperatures. If one holds one’s hand over bare ground on a hot day, one can feel the heat rising from it. If one holds one’s hand over heavy grass on that same day, one cannot. In fact, if one feels the grass itself, it’s cooler than the air.
I am skeptical of the MMGW claims except perhaps to the extent that mandmade desertification caused by improper land use may increase atmospheric temperatures.
Some desertification is really bad. Massive over-farming and over-grazing in a huge part of China, for example, is virtually catastrophic. Of interest nearer to hand, we tend to think of some of the nearly desert scrubland in the southwest as being naturally that way, whereas much of it was once rich grassland. It’s hard to restore land like that, but it can be done. I have seen it done.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
What has been projected and is just in the beginnings (it will take centuries and millennia for the CO2 we have already put in the atmosphere to play out in effects) is that because warmer air holds more water vapor that overall precipitation will increase.
However the pattern will not be even. Higher latitudes will be getting a great deal more precip and experience extreme precip events (deluges) more often and the lower latitudes will be getting a lot less precip than they now get, causing more intense and more frequent droughts. Such is already happening in parts of Texas and some communities have run out of water.
As for CO2 fertilization, that is helping plants to grow at this point. However, it helps C3 plants (which include a lot of weeds) to grow better than C4 plants (which include food crops). Also in some cases, as for rice, too much CO2 can cause floret sterility, so it might harm some crops.
Right now GW is harming crops in some poor, low latitude countries, but it is expected to harm mid- and higher latitude crops (America’s breadbasket) by 2050, overtaking the beneficial effects of CO2 fertilization. It is not just droughts and floods that cause harm to crops, but also heat stress during severe heat waves (remember the heat waves of 2011 and 2013 killing corn crops). And oddly enough it is GW’s increase in the minimum diurnal (night) temps that does the most harm, which also did the most harm in killing off 70,000 people during the 2003 European heat wave.
Here’s an article about how the increasing maximum diurnal temps from GW are at this point still helping rice crops, but the increasing maximum diurnal temps are harming them, cancelling each other out, but that in a few decades the warming nights and days will both be having a negative effect and reduce paddy growth:
Welch, J., J. R. Vincent, M. Auffhammer, P. F. Moya, A. Dobermann, and D. Dawe. 2010. “Rice Yields in Tropical/Subtropical Asia Exhibit Large but Opposing Sensitivities to Minimum and Maximum Temperatures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(33): 14562-14567.
continued in my next post…
L
lynnvinc
Guest
GW is a very long term problem. The harms are now just in the beginnings. US crop productivity is actually increasing a bit due to the longer growing seasons and CO2 fertilization effect, but by 2050 it is expected to greatly decrease.
Excerpts from a paper re GW and the harmful effects of CO2 on food productivity:
Increasing CO2 will not help crops as much as expected, and may even harm some crops and sea life, never mind the warming (Cline 2007: 23-26). While earlier enclosed studies showed increased growth with added CO2, recent open field studies show less increase and even a decline of some crops (Long, et al. 2006, Cruz, et al. 2007: 480). Furthermore, crops were found to be less nutritious (Högy, et al. 2009), and had greater pest damage (Hunter 2001). In the real world, crop growth is affected by many factors beyond CO2, including other nutrients, water supply, climate, extreme weather events, soil moisture, toxins expected to increase with global warming, and soil acidification from CO2 (Oh and Richter 2004). So while CO2 may moderately enhance crops up to a point, these other factors are expected to limit the potential enhancement and even lead to eventual declines. When the impact of warming is considered, a nonlinear relationship regarding crop productivity has been found for mid and high latitudes – the U.S., Canada, Europe, Russia, Japan and Northern China – with increased yields projected up to around 2050, after which the warming causes sharp decrease (Schlenker and Roberts 2009). A more recent study has found that climate change has already reduced some crops globally, despite CO2 fertilization and improved technology (Lobell, et al. 2011). As for sea life, an important human food supply, CO2-caused ocean acidification is having negative impacts on zooplankton (at the base of the food chain), shellfish, fish, and coral reefs, home to one-fourth of sealife (Rogers and Laffoley 2011; Doney, et al. 2009; Hoegh-Guldberg, et al. 2007; Munday, et al. 2010).
REFERENCES
Excerpts from a paper re GW and the harmful effects of CO2 on food productivity:
Increasing CO2 will not help crops as much as expected, and may even harm some crops and sea life, never mind the warming (Cline 2007: 23-26). While earlier enclosed studies showed increased growth with added CO2, recent open field studies show less increase and even a decline of some crops (Long, et al. 2006, Cruz, et al. 2007: 480). Furthermore, crops were found to be less nutritious (Högy, et al. 2009), and had greater pest damage (Hunter 2001). In the real world, crop growth is affected by many factors beyond CO2, including other nutrients, water supply, climate, extreme weather events, soil moisture, toxins expected to increase with global warming, and soil acidification from CO2 (Oh and Richter 2004). So while CO2 may moderately enhance crops up to a point, these other factors are expected to limit the potential enhancement and even lead to eventual declines. When the impact of warming is considered, a nonlinear relationship regarding crop productivity has been found for mid and high latitudes – the U.S., Canada, Europe, Russia, Japan and Northern China – with increased yields projected up to around 2050, after which the warming causes sharp decrease (Schlenker and Roberts 2009). A more recent study has found that climate change has already reduced some crops globally, despite CO2 fertilization and improved technology (Lobell, et al. 2011). As for sea life, an important human food supply, CO2-caused ocean acidification is having negative impacts on zooplankton (at the base of the food chain), shellfish, fish, and coral reefs, home to one-fourth of sealife (Rogers and Laffoley 2011; Doney, et al. 2009; Hoegh-Guldberg, et al. 2007; Munday, et al. 2010).
REFERENCES
- Cline, W. R. 2007. Global Warming and Agriculture. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development and the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
- Cruz, R. V., H. Harasawa, M. Lal, S. Wu, Y. Anokhin, B. Punsalmaa, Y. Honda, M. Jafari, C. Li, and N. Huu Ninh. 2007. “Asia.” Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contributions of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson (eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 469-506.
- Doney, S. C., V. J. Fabry, R. A. Feely, and J. Kleypas. 2009. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem. Annual Review of Marine Sciences 1: 169-192.
- Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P. J. Mumby, A. J. Hooten, R. S. Steneck, and E. G. P. Greenfield, C. D. Harvell, P. F. Sale, A. J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C. M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R. H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, M. E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318(5857): 1737-1742.
- Högy, P., H. Wieser, P. Köhler, K. Schwadorf , J. Breuer, J. Franzaring, R. Muntifering and A. Fangmeier. 2009. “Effects of elevated CO2 on grain yield and quality of wheat: results from a 3-year free-air CO2 enrichment experiment.” Plant Biology 11: 60-69.
- Hunter, M. D. 2001. “Effects of Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Insect-Plant Interactions.” Agricultural and Forest Entomology 3: 153-159.
- Lobell, D. B., W. Schlenker, and J. Costa-Roberts. 2011. “Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980.” Science 333(6042): 616-620.
- Long, S. P., E. A. Ainsworth, A. D. B. Leakey, J. Nösberger, D. R. Ort. 2006. “Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations.” Science 312(5782): 1918-1921.
- Munday, P. L., D. L. Dixson, M. I. McCormick, M. Meekan, M. C. O. Ferrari, and D. P. Chivers. 2010. “Replenishment of fish populations is threatened by ocean acidification.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(29):12930-12934.
- Oh, N-H., and D. D. Richter, Jr. 2004. “Soil acidification induced by elevated atmospheric CO2” Global Change Biology 10.11: 1936-1946.
- Oschlies, A., K. Schulz, U. Riebesell, and A. Schmittner. 2008. “Simulated 21st century’s in oceanic suboxia by CO2-enhanced biotic carbon export” Global Biochemical Cycles 22: 1-10.
- Rogers, A. D., and D. d’A. Laffoley. 2011. International Earth System Expert Workshop on Ocean Stresses and Impacts. Summary Report. International Program on the State of the Ocean. Oxford. stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf.
- Schlenker, W., and M. Roberts. 2009. “Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe Damages to U.S. Crop Yields under Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 106(37): 15594-15598.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
No, I would say it’s like the ‘boy who cried wolf syndrome’. The greatest harm is that the hysteria and dogmatic religious aspects to ‘Anthropogenic global warming climate change’ will undercut/destroy the credibility of enviornmentalists. As MMGW is proven to be false, as in not anywhere near as severe as it’s proponents claim, the general public will associate all claims on environmental issues with that type of wild-overstatement and hysteria. If you hang your hat on justifying change based on one issue, which is than proven to be false- it makes it harder to convince folks to change.
You can see on this thread how often proponents assume that a non-acceptance of the MMGW gospel is a rejection of ALL efforts at conservation, recycling, good stewardship etc. Which simply isn’t true.
Look, I grew up in SoCal and can remember coming in from playing at recess and it would hurt to breathe just due to the pollution in the air. There are plenty of valid reasons, which don’t rely on unproven theories to be good stewards, to reduce litter and waste. Those reasons should be promoted as the rationale for change more than MMGW.
E
estesbob
Guest
It is no coincidence that the solution proposed for the so called AGW crisis is the same radical agenda that the Left has been trying to impose on us for the last century or so. Even if AGW a was true the proposed solutions not only would do very little to mitigate it but would cause untold suffering and death due out the world.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Texas has alway been droughty, and always will be.
“Droughts have been recorded as a problem in Texas since Spaniards explored the area. Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca found a population of soil tillers near the site of present-day Presidio, where it had not rained for two years. Regarding the white man as a god, they begged him to tell the sky to rain. In 1720 a summer dry spell in Coahuila killed 3,500 of the 4,000 horses that the Marqués de Aguayo, governor of Texas, was prepared to bring to Texas. A drought in Central Texas dried up the San Gabriel River in 1756, forcing the abandonment of a settlement of missionaries and Indians. Stephen F. Austin’s first colonists also were hurt by drought. In 1822 their initial food crop of corn died from lack of moisture. Each decade since then has been marked by at least one period of severe drought.”
The article goes on to say the worst drought in recorded Texas history started in 1949 and lasted for seven years.
tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ybd01
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It has long been recognized that nothing anyone in the U.S. does to “mitigate” CO2 emissions will have any significant effect on world concentrations.
But this administration is ready, willing and able to make the populace suffer anyway.
E
estesbob
Guest
Because in the end Leonardo Decaprio will still have his Yacht, Robert Kennedy Jr his Manhattan Penthouse while the poor smuck in flyover country struggleto afford to fill his gas tank.
R
RGCheek
Guest
Like taxes, military service and preparing for short careers, this will be another burden carried mostly by the working class in the USA while the wealthy get exempted and the poor don’t have anything to contribute.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
…well connected CEOs of ‘green’ companies will get subsidies from the government, cap-and trade will create tradeable commodities so the brokerage houses can make money increasing costs with no reduction in ghg’s and the potential for corruption (Europe’s experience)…
W
weller2
Guest
Possible, but if so the effect is not permanent – the CO2 will be released back into the atmosphere as the plants die / burn.
This is why only planting trees does not cause CO2 sequestration. After the trees grow, you have to cut them down and bury underground (or use to build houses), and plant new ones. Only then you can say that you have removed carbon from circulation.
Actually they do, this is usually labelled as “land use changes”. This includes both desertification and burning of forests to make space for crops.
W
weller2
Guest
Ah yes I have high hopes for these as well.
How about we move to them now, and leave the carbon in the ground, global warming or not?
E
estesbob
Guest
Exceptthe proposed solution won’t make for better world- it will cause pain and misery and suffering for the majority of people in the world with little or no effect on Co2 levels
W
weller2
Guest
If you are having impression that the society has been going downhill since 1970s you are right – since then, we’re using more and more energy just to make energy. Since ca. 1974, fossil carbon is getting more and more expensive, so more and more money is being diverted from the rest of the economy into the energy production. The taxation/subsidization schemes just reflect that.
Renewables are not getting competitive because they became more energy efficient, but because oil became less energy efficient (=more expensive to extract), so the net energy is now on par with renewables.
peakoil.com/generalideas/eroei-a-useful-measure-or-a-distraction
W
weller2
Guest
If by solution you mean cap-and-trade then I’m in full agreement.
Fortunately, there are other ways. Unfortunately, they don’t make money for the usual suspects.
As usual, the right thing will be done only after exhausting all other possibilities.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
If you look at gasoline, for example, that’s not true.
Actually, adjusted for inflation, the price of gasoline is about what it was in 1918. A little less, actually. Since then, it has been pretty much between $2.00 and $4.00/gallon again, adjusted for inflation. When we think about what things cost to buy or produce, we always need to consider what inflation does to them.
There have been ups and downs, but development of petroleum resources in the U.S. might cause one of the “down” moves, again, adjusted for inflation. And that’s despite OPEC.
The cost of electricity has actually not quite kept up with inflation since about 1990 and probably before that as well. Obama’s pledge to artificially make utilities “skyrocket” can change that of course, and probably will.
Inflation can be a useful tool for people as well as a curse. Does anybody really doubt that a lot of wealth has been gained by many simply by “buying and holding” assets that are subject to inflationary pressures?
And I’m no expert, but for example, Germany’s recent turn from “renewables” to coal (and it’s brown coal there, perhaps the dirtiest fuel there is) for energy due to the high cost of subsidizing the former suggests that the time for “renewables” has really not arrived.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
My understanding is that Germany turned to coal due to turning away from nuclear, and that net they are not emitting more GHGs than before that turn, bec renewables are still increasing and taking up a portion of that turn way from nuke.
See - blog.rmi.org/blog_2014_07_08_opposite_energy_policies_turned_fukushima_disaster_into_a_loss_for_japan_and_a_win_for_Germany
Before the March 2011 Fukushima disaster, both Germany and Japan were nearly 30% nuclear-powered. In the next four months, Germany restored, and sped up by a year, the nuclear phaseout schedule originally agreed with industry in 2001–02…
Contrary to widespread misreportage, closing those eight reactors did not cause more fossil fuel to be burned. Whenever renewable sources run in Germany, both law and economics require them to displace costlier sources, so renewables always make fossil-fueled plants run less, though often in more complex patterns. The data confirm this: from 2010 through 2013, German nuclear output fell by 43.3 TWh, renewable output rose by 46.9 TWh, and the power sector burned almost exactly as much more coal and lignite as it burned less of the costlier gas and oil.
RE subsidies and tax-breaks for fossil fuel in the US, defined broadly, they are enormous and have masked the increasing costs of extracting these fuels:
See priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ & priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2009/09/koplowtypesofsubsidy.pdf
And these costs are not going down.
If you add in externalities (environmental and health harms) I think the true complete cost for fossil fuels would be at least 10 times higher than for alt energy.
What is the price of human life? Priceless!
- Status