Fillmore County Journal

"Where Fillmore County News Comes First"

Devil’s Advocate… Climate change mythconceptions Pt. 4

by

Fillmore County Journal- Aaron Bishop

Fillmore County Journal- Aaron BishopBy Aaron Bishop

Harmony, MN

In response to Col. Gudmundson’s “Climate Crisis?” article: fillmorecountyjournal.com/climate-crisis.

Mythconception #11: “CO2 increase is helping farmers produce more… And CO2 is not a pollutant.” -Gudmundson

This common mythconception ignores the reality that bigger and faster growing crops doesn’t always equate to better quality food. Studies since 2004 have shown decreases in the nutritional value in C3 type cereal crops including soybeans, rice, wheat, barley, tomatoes, etc. Basically, there are more carbohydrates and fewer nutrients with too much CO2.

As for CO2 not being a pollutant, consider phosphorus or nitrogen. Both boost crop yields, but can also be pollutants if there’s too much of it or at the wrong time.

• www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/ionome

• www.nature.com/articles/nature13179Crop

• www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaq1012

• www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0253-3

Mythconception #12: “If the earth were warming, there would be more land available for agriculture… Then, there would be more crops produced. Not a bad thing.” -Gudmundson

That’s like saying, “Driving 100 miles per hour to get to your destination faster isn’t a bad thing!” It completely ignores the negative consequences of doing so. The measurable rate of Earth’s atmospheric warming is alarming to scientists. Although a gain of arable conditions in the northern boreal regions may be in our future, the opposite is true in other currently arable regions. To suggest it’s a good thing without considering the associated hazards is asinine. Desertification, pests, salinization, disease, or flooding can lead to loss of arable land or crop yield.

We also get food from our oceans, and increased CO2 leads to ocean acidification and biodiversity loss, less predictable weather patterns, and longer and greatly intensifying climatic events such as massive atmospheric rivers and megadroughts.

• www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26321-8

• www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification

Mythconception #13: Climate models are too “crude” with resolutions at best of around 100km by 100km on land and 10km by 10km over the ocean. “Current technology does not allow these squares to be smaller as it takes months to run a computer simulation today.” -Gudmundson

Mostly false. Regional Climate Models (RCMs) are applied to targeted geographical areas of interest or study. This allows for higher resolution model imagery that can then be added to larger, lower resolution regions. Modern day resolutions can be as clear as 1 square kilometer, or clearer still at 0.1 square kilometer. It may take months for supercomputers to run these models, but supercomputers are getting faster every year with quantum-based computer technology.

• www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/learning-support/climate-models/resolution/

• eo.ucar.edu/staff/rrussell/climate/modeling/climate_model_resolution.html

Gudmundson states: “As Nature magazine recently put it, ‘The problem is that “many important [climate] phenomena occur on scales smaller than the 100 sq. km… grid size, (such as mountains, clouds, and thunderstorms).”’”

This is a mistake on Gudmundson’s part. The Nature article said no such thing. Rather, it was supposedly a quotation from Gudmundson’s real source “Time to Ditch ‘Climate Models’?” authored by Steven F. Hayward. Visit Hayward’s article and compare Gudmunson’s words to it. It appears Gudmundson is regurgitating Hayward’s perspective (without giving credit).

• the-pipeline.org/time-to-ditch-climate-models/

Mythconception #14: “[Climate computer] models can’t predict the past.” -Gudmundson

Four of the Nature article’s authors do just that for a living. There’s even a word for it, “Hindcasting.” Not only are temperature, humidity, and weather patterns able to be hindcasted by these published models, there are even opportunities to model other historical events such as biodiversity loss or mudslide events. Models aren’t perfect (nor claimed to be), but they’re capable of generating guidelines for decision making.

Bonus mythconception: There is no devil’s advocate in today’s climate change research. -Gudmundson

The United States. Is. Not. The. Entire. World. In the borderless world of science, anyone from any country in the world can support or dismantle someone else’s published work. Including you, so go ahead and try. That’s the ultimate check and balance. I’m unsure if Gudmundson expects his readers to read the articles he references. Unfortunately, Gudmundson himself clearly didn’t in this case. It looks like the Colonel needs a Devil’s Advocate… Well, I’m back.

Cheers.

_______________________

Further reading and Sources:

Comments

  1. This writer also takes exception to the article you cited by Stan Gudmundson, however, realizing that not everyone enjoys delving into the finer details of scientific research, I would like to offer a couple of articles that I believe may be more user friendly for those not so scientifically inclined.

    First of all, this article, published by Minnesota Public Radio News in 2015, is entitled, “Climate Change in Minnesota: 23 Signs” — https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/02/02/climate-change-primer

    Secondly, this article, published by Mpls. St. Paul Magazine in 2019, provides further detail, and is entitled, “How Climate Change Will Impact Minnesota” — https://mspmag.com/arts-and-culture/climate-change-minnesota/

    I would add that even if new areas of northern Minnesota and Canada experience temperature changes more amenable to growing certain crops, there are numerous other factors that are necessary to grow crops in those new areas, such as soil quality, precipitation, and numerous other factors.

    Even though the temperatures in eastern Colorado/western Nebraska are probably not much different than in Iowa, there is a reason that wheat grows better than corn in the former, and corn grows quite nicely in the latter, which I believe to be associated with levels of precipitation.

    As extreme weather events accelerate in various regions of the country, many currently living in those increasingly unihabitable regions may conclude that relocation is their only viable option. Many will likely try to move to other regions of the country that have not yet been as adversely affected.

    Should southeastern Minnesota be fortunate enough to escape the worst of global warming for a time, how will those climate refugees be welcomed? One can only imagine.

  2. This writer also takes exception to the article you cited by Stan Gudmundson, however, realizing that not everyone enjoys delving into the finer details of scientific research, I would like to offer a couple of articles that I believe may be more user friendly for those not so scientifically inclined.

    First of all, this article, published by Minnesota Public Radio News in 2015, is entitled, “Climate Change in Minnesota: 23 Signs” — https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/02/02/climate-change-pri

    Secondly, this article, published by Mpls. St. Paul Magazine in 2019, provides further detail, and is entitled, “How Climate Change Will Impact Minnesota” — https://mspmag.com/arts-and-culture/climate-change-minnesota/

    I would add that even if new areas of northern Minnesota and Canada experience temperature changes more amenable to growing certain crops, there are numerous other factors that are necessary to grow crops in those new areas, such as soil quality, precipitation, and numerous other factors.

    Even though the temperatures in eastern Colorado/western Nebraska are probably not much different than in Iowa, there is a reason that wheat grows better than corn in the former, and corn grows quite nicely in the latter, which I believe to be associated with levels of precipitation.

    As extreme weather events accelerate in various regions of the country, many currently living in those increasingly unihabitable regions may conclude that relocation is their only viable option. Many will likely try to move to other regions of the country that have not yet been as adversely affected.

    Should southeastern Minnesota be fortunate enough to escape the worst of global warming for a time, how will those climate refugees be welcomed? One can only imagine.

    • I appreciate your additions to the reading list for those interested, and I thank you for reading.

      Cheers!