Eric Swanson wrote:
James Annan wrote:
> After all, we cannot simply assume that future generations are richer,
> or more adaptable.
Well if we do not get richer rapidly and keep on increasing GHG
emissions then the rate of climate change will tail off substantially in
any case... (and certainly will not accelerate, which is the assumption
underlying Stern).
I conclude that neither climate change nor energy costs are going to
prevent crop yields increasing for the foreseeable future over any
reasonably broad scales and would happily bet on that proposition. Any
takers?
Is your bet to be based on crop yields or total crop production? If
it's the latter, then there may be some unforseen bumps in the road.
I don't think it makes much odds, but yield seems most logical.
So much for the fresh produce from the Central Valley until the next
crop comes in. the freeze also hit Arizona as well, which is another
area of citrus production. This reminds me of the freezes in the early
1980's, which destroyed much of Florida's citrus crop, killing the
trees as well. Similar impacts were felt in Texas. We've had late
freezes in my area over the past few years as well. A couple of years
ago, the trees were fully leafed and a hard freeze killed almost all
the foliage. It looked like the Fall colors had returned, only it was
May.
If you are relying on extreme cold to keep yields down then ISTM you are
clutching at straws, since the future reduction in cold extremes over
most of the globe is just about as robust as the increase in hot ones
(although this attracts a lot less attention).
Also, some models have suggested that the American Great Plains
will experience more frequent drought, which will cut into the
production of corn and wheat.
I've already noted here that the US National Assessment of the Potential
Consequences of Climate Variability and Change explicitly predicts
increased yields to a degree that will be harmful to farmers through
depressing prices!
I might take your bet, except that your "foreseeable future" is likely
to be longer than mine.
Of course there will be local and short-term bumps in the road, but I'm
thinking about the (inter)national scale over 30 years, like for global
warming itself. It's got to be a long enough time scale to actually see
the predicted effects over natural variability.
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
