skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Climate, Agriculture, and the Dead Zone
From Patrick J. Michaels of Cato.
"Okay, here’s how much of what calls itself science works today:
1) Find a change in something
2) Say it could be caused by global warming
3) Get more funding
4) Let people ask critical questions
5) Get tenure to protect you from that criticism
Today’s textbook example comes from the Washington Post, in an article, “Large ‘dead zones’, oxygen depeleted water, likely because of climate change”.
This is bad. According to The Post, the authors of newly minted article in Global Change Biology, say,
As global temperatures warm, they will create conditions
such as rain [!], wind and sea-level rise that will cause dead zones
throughout the world to intensify and grow…
Dead zones are (sometimes) large regions of hypoxic seawater that
appear every summer. Because of their seasonality, obviously global
warming is making them worse, right? (see 2) above) Or is it due to the
fact that, on the average, humans are flushing more agricultural
nitrates into the ocean as we produce ever more food? So the nitrates
fertilize the ocean, algae bloom and die, bacteria decompose them and in
the process, water becomes hypoxic, and fish die.
The authors, Andrew Altieri and Keryn Gedan, both with Smithsonian
Institution affiliations, state there’s been quite the change in the
number of dead zones (see 1) above). There’s a whole lot of stinking
water, as according to Fears, they show that “Dead zone events have
doubled each decade since the 1950s”.
But, according to Gedan, “we just don’t know how much of this
doubling is due to climate change or nutrient runoff”. According to her,
we need more studies and “more sophisticated modelling” (see 3) above).
Math time. That means they doubled from the 50s to the 60s, increased fourfold in the 70s, etc…to the first decade of the 21st century in which they have purportedly gone up from 16-fold in the 1990s to 32-fold over the 1950s.
Speaking of decadal scales, according to Cato’s Ross McKitrick, the
“pause” in warming is now 19 years in length. So how do you get a
doubling in the dead zones (and a 32-fold increase over the 1950s)
without warming? Perhaps there’s not much of an effect from warming, and
a much bigger one from nutrient runoff.
Evidence? The doubling of dead zones in the absence of warming not
unique. From the 1960s to the 1970s, global surface temperature actually
declined.
Gedan is certainly correct that you really would need “more
sophisticated modelling” to pin the huge increase on the tiny amount of
warming since 1950, and a doubling per decade even when two decades
don’t warm. And wouldn’t the three millennia after the end of the ice age, when it was warmer (at least in our hemisphere) have been a very stinky time?
Given that dead zones maximize during the summer’s hottest temperatures, there is surely some
component from warming. But the more obvious answer is that the massive
flushing of nitrates into the world’s nearshore regions is changing a
minor (and possibly undetectable) amplification into a stinking roar.
Or, given the fact that the earth has been warmer than it is today
for about 95% of the last 100 million years, is it possible that the
world’s biota really don’t care?
If the dead zone increase is real and caused by human activity, then
there actually is some hope. There’s a real ecological problem here—the
massive dumping of nitrates into our onshore ecosystems—that can
actually be significantly reduced with relatively simple measures. On
the other hand, there is simply no way that any conceivable climate
policy will have a meaningful effect on global surface temperature."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.