Mark Bittman and IPCC on Yield Changes

Mark Bittman writes in April 2 NYTImes about the IPCC report with the theme the effects of climate warming

"So yields of corn and wheat are down and falling while prices are going up."

From an NPR interview with an IPCC scientist, who didn't concur with the final report:

"Take crop yields, for example. The report says climate change will cause them to fall by a few percent per decade. But Tol says technological innovation will likely raise crop yields by 10 percent or more each decade.
"So it's not that crop yields are going to fall, but they're going to rise more slowly because of climate change," he says. "And then of course it doesn't sound as alarming."

From the IPCC report.

Current economic studies of climate change that include farm- and/or market-level adjustments suggest that the negative effects of climate change on agriculture probably have been overestimated by studies that do not account for adjustments that will be made. This may be caused by the ability of the agricultural production community to respond with great flexibility to a gradually changing climate. Typically, extreme weather poses a significant challenge to individual farming operations that may lack the spatial diversity and financial resources of large, integrated, corporate enterprises with production capabilities in one or more areas.

Simulation modeling using four GCM-based scenarios showed that U.S. cereal production decreases by 21-38% when farmers continue to do what they are now doing (i.e., no adaptation) (see Table 15-4). When scenarios that involve adaptation by farmers are used, decreases in cereal production are not as large and the adaptations are shown to offset the initial climate-induced reduction by 35-60% (Schimmelpfennig et al., 1996; Segerson and Dixon, 1999).

And

When autonomous agronomic adaptation is included, crop modeling assessments indicate, with medium to low confidence⁶, that climate change will lead to generally positive responses at less than a few °C warming and generally negative responses for more than a few °C in mid-latitude crop yields. 

Sailing, Sailing, Through the Arctic

I may have expressed the opinion that the vision of commercial ships sailing around Russia through the Arctic, particularly those sponsored by China, was an indicator of global warming.

Via Tom Ricks at the Best Defense, here's an interesting discussion of the practicality of this.  Bottom line, it's probably not practical for container ships, because they're limited in draft and beam, even though it can be significantly faster.

I recommend a book called The Box, on the development of containers.  This quote from the article is significant:

What is far more important than speed is reliability. Unlike the bulk shipping discussed earlier, schedule integrity is a key service-attribute for containerships. The Arctic will always suffer from periods of poor visibility and the potential for wind-driven ice, both of which can make routes with a comparatively low average transit time have a large variability around that average. More than half of all container cargo is now component-level goods—materials destined for factories for use in production processes operating on a just-in-time-type inventory-management system. That makes consistency, reliability, and schedule integrity of paramount importance. The key goal of container shipping is 99 percent on-time delivery. If this is attainable at all, it will be extraordinarily expensive using Arctic transit routes. Thus the variability in transit time that may be tolerable in bulk shipping is unacceptable for container shipping.

The Northern Sea Route and Global Warming

This article from Iceland reports the arrival of the Chinese icebreaker Xuelong which took the "Northern Sea Route" from China--i.e. going through the Arctic Ocean across the top of Russia.

Searching on "Northern Sea Route" gets this report: "Cargo shipping along the Northern Sea Route is expected to double this year. Nordic Bulk Carriers plan to transport 6-8 shipments of ore from Murmansk to China."

Climate Change Bad News for Dairy

The "standup economist" has gotten links from Prof. Mankiw and Paul Solman at the Newshour.  He's funny, but he does serious research, including this paper projecting the decreased production of dairy cows resulting from higher temperatures of climate change.

The research has been so strong that it inspired progressive students to rally in support of Holsteins, as described here.

Don't Grow Old: Nature Conservancy and Climate Change Denial

I was amused to find two age-related posts in my Grist feed: one reports that the Nature Conservancy's members are old and gray, which causes concern; the other reports that climate change deniers are old and gray, which causes pleasure.

The mantra of my household is: don't grow old.

Powerline and Climate Change

Back in the spring, the conservative blog Powerline made a big deal of the skepticism of Prof. Richard Muller about climate change. John Hinderaker's last words:

More importantly, Muller is heading up the new Berkeley Earth Temperature Study, which will review and analyze all of the data on this subject starting from scratch. Unlike the Climategate cabal in Britain and in our NASA, the Berkeley group will share its data with all comers. Keep your eye on this; it will take time–years more than months probably–but may prove to be the thread that unravels the main prop of the climate campaign.

Yesterday Kevin Drum observed the results.

Today every liberal is jumping on the bandwagon, gloating in Muller's reversal.  It's really a shame to see liberals stoop so low:  we should be better people than to gloat.

I love it.

Global Warming: Northwest Passage for Whales and Plankton

This story from MSNBC suggests that the Northwest Passage is now available not only for cargo ships, but for whales and plankton.

RMA Screws the Pooch

From Farm Policy today:

A program announcement from USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) yesterday stated that, “RMA has released ‘Climate Change Impacts on Crop Insurance,’ a study completed in May 2010.
“This report was recommended by the General Accounting Office in its 2007 report, ‘Climate Change—Financial Risks to Federal and Private Insurers in Coming Decades Are Potentially Significant.’ The GAO recommended that RMA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Insurance Program separately analyze their Agency’s potential long-term fiscal implications of climate change and report their findings to Congress.”
(FarmPolicy Note: The report does not appear to be available electronically- directions for obtaining a copy of the report can be found here).

I mean--you're announcing a study a year after it was completed and you don't have it available on line?  That's a violation of some law and/or executive order.  Of course, the fact they're studying climate change would also be illegal, if the *(*S*#E Republicans in the House of Representatives have their way.  See Chris Clayton.

I Call for Immediate Action on Global Warming

I've been mildly supportive of action to reduce the amount of global warming, and more dismissive of those who deny the science.  But I've felt no urgency until today.  Today is different.  Today is serious. Today we must act.

Today the NYTimes connects high prices for coffee to global warming. So--I can handle hotter temperatures, I can handle rising sealevels (although Old Town Alexandria is being flooded tonight, so I'm not sure how they'd feel about a .5-1 foot rise), but I cannot handle losing my coffee.

ACT NOW

From the Horse's Mouth: Michael Roberts on Climate Change

I'm too lazy today, after a visit to the dentist, to link to the NY Times article on the impact of global warming climate change (people who don't agree the globe is warming will agree the climate it is achangin')on US agriculture, but Michael Roberts clarifies the U.S. may make out like gangbusters. Sure, our corn production will be severely impacted by high temps, but because of inelasticities farmers may see crop losses more than offset by higher prices. Or they may not.

Faceless Bureaucrat Goes to the Birds, and Global Warming

Reston has a custom of bird counting, and the results are just in.   The birds which are most common here, in mid-January, are birds which don't belong here: specifically Canadian geese and American robins.  They both should be south of here, or at least that's my understanding.

A little Googling reveals I'm mistaken, as is much too often the case.  Robins (the males stick around to fight for territory in the spring, the females being wiser head south).

So Much for Global Warming?

Since I started the day, and therefore the year, in a depressed mode, let me pass on some other good news. Via John Phipps, the latest graph from NASA showing that local temperatures don't reflect reality.  And, via Treehugger, this graphic from Skeptical Science summarizes indications of a warming globe.

Climategate and On-the-Ground Reality

The anti-global warming folks have labeled the emails stolen from the East Anglia University climate research unit as "Climategate". It's well and good to enjoy the discomforture (sp?) of your adversaries.

But it's also nice to recognize realities on the ground. "Ground" is not taken literally--this is the fabled Northwest Passage from a Post feature listing unnoticed stories from 2009:

The mythic Northwest Passage still captures imaginations, but this September, two German vessels made history by becoming the first commercial ships to travel from East Asia to Western Europe via the northeast passage between Russia and the Arctic. Ice previously made the route impassable, but thanks to rising global temperatures, it's now a cakewalk

The Second Most Dangerous Place in Washington

The first most dangerous place in DC is supposedly the space between a microphone and Sen. Chuck Schumer.  If so, the second most dangerous place is the space between a new program and an ambitious bureaucrat.  An example, from Farm Policy reporting on a discussion of how carbon offsets might work:

“But the government and companies buying offsets will want proof that the carbon is being properly held in the soil.”

Yesterdays article noted that, “These verifiers confirm project eligibility, ownership of environmental attributes and ongoing project performance and inspect data such as meter readings, fuel purchases and records.

“Gustafson says crop insurance adjustors would be a good fit for this kind of work.
“‘The crop insurance agents are very good and prepared to do many of those tasks,’ he says. ‘They already work directly with producers and they monitor farm activity and programs like this to make sure that they are complying with farm program requirements, as well as specifications for the crop insurance policies.’”

I have to admit I thought FSA could do this work.

The Complexities of the Earth for Liberals

I consider myself a liberal, mostly, but the world is sometimes too complicated.  Consider today's NYTimes:

• liberals like historical preservation, but Greensburg, KS was leveled by a tornado.  The result, as they build from scratch, is highly environmental friendly town.  Lesson: there's trade-offs between history and efficiency. Technology in this case is a friend to the environment.
  
•  a judge rules USDA needed to do an environmental impact statement before approving GMO sugar beets.  But there's the claim: "Mr. Grant, who is also the chairman of the Snake River Sugar Company, a grower-owned cooperative, said easier weed control allowed farmers to reduce tillage, which in turn saved fuel and fertilizer and reduced erosion." People don't realize it takes significantly less energy per unit of output now than in 1970 for most major crops, precisely because of such advances in technology.
  
• the UN bought carbon offsets for the cost of its meeting on climate. "They offset those emissions by directing money to a power project in rural Andhra Pradesh, India, through which agricultural leftovers like rice husks and sunflower stalks are turned into electricity for the local grid." I always shudder when I hear such promotion of this use of biomass.  Don't people recognize that organic farming requires the return to the soil of organic matter, such as rice husks and sunflower stalks?  Otherwise you're mining the soil, to use a familiar idiom.
  
• an article describes a decade of stability in global temperatures and the problems it creates for  people pushing the fight against global warming. 
  

Carbon Offsets

Vilsack's testimony before House Ag is here:

"The systems we establish will need to recognize the scale of the changes needed, the capabilities of farmers and land owners involved, and the infrastructure that will be required to deliver information, manage data and resources, and maintain records and registries. In addition to bringing offsets to scale, we must also ensure that the offsets markets have high standards of environmental integrity to ensure that offsets result in real and measurable greenhouse gas reductions while bolstering efforts to conserve soil, water, and fish and wildlife resources."

The NYTimes has a post describing the concerns and back and forth between ag and EPA. One proposal, not something NRCS would like:

"Kenneth Richards, an associate professor at Indiana University, said the current bill needs language ensuring that the same project can be verified by three separate investigators. That concept, which made it into a climate bill considered briefly in the Senate last year, would cut down on inaccuracy and fraudulence surrounding measurements of carbon, he said."

I'm skeptical, but maybe there is a compromise possible, at least for policing it: Record the offsets on a GIS layer and make it publically available. Farmers get the offset payments but have to give up the secrecy now applied to their acreage uses. Because, as Professor Richards observes, NRCS isn't (at least wasn't) comfortable being a regulatory agency (witness sod/swampbuster), give FSA a role. (Cynics among you knew that was where I was headed.)

Concentrated Vegetable Feeding Operations (CVFO's)

Otherwise known as high-tech greenhouses. This LA Times story describes "energy-neutral" greenhouses, built by the Dutch in CA. (Of course the Dutch--who else believes so completely in human control over the environment, starting with reclaiming land from the ocean.)

The yields are high: 482 tons of tomatoes per acre isn't bad at all.

I'd point out the story describes an innovation which sits on a potential fault line between global warming people and foodies. On the one hand, the greenhouse complex has a low impact on the environment, creating electricity through a solar panel farm, reusing water, cutting water and fertilizer use. But there's some parallels to CAFO's, in the attempt to measure and control all the inputs and outputs. And there's certainly no locavore aspect or organic farming, at least in the romantic, living with nature branch.

Best Sentence of May 2

Today the wife is away playing so I'm getting some spring cleaning done. But this is definitely the best sentence I've read today:

"Many of us get unique subsidies for keeping our body temperature close to 98 degrees"

From John Phipps re: cap and trade/environmentalism and farming.

Saving Energy, One Woman's Experience

Liza Mundy has an article in today's Wa Post magazine on her household and her attempts to save energy. She digs into some issues, points out some of the problems in cutting energy usage (i.e. her daughter and son have very different tolerances for low temperatures), and is amazed by how little it costs to do so much. (She's thinking as a professional woman freed from the tedium of washing, ironing, etc. etc.)

The household ends by adopting some conservation measures and resolving to spend on their biggest problem--they live in an old house in Arlington, VA, which wastes heat and cooling. That's pretty much the conclusion: focus your energies on the biggest consumers, usually heat/cooling.

One Newspaper, Separate Worlds

In today's Post, Kari Lyderson has a story from the AAAS meeting, leading off:

The pace of global warming is likely to be much faster than recent predictions, because industrial greenhouse gas emissions have increased more quickly than expected and higher temperatures are triggering self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems, scientists said Saturday.

And George Will attacks Prof. Chu (Energy Secretary) and others who warn of global warming. (If I understand this post the scientists are saying the global sea ice in the Antarctic does not necessarily mean no global warming, it might be consistent with it.)