Cliff Mass is delusional. Climate refugees, DO NOT MOVE TO THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST! MORE LIKE PACIFIC NORTHWORST

by Ted Alvarez, Grist, July 29, 2014

Photo: Chris Tarnawski.

Many Seattle residents revere Cliff Mass as the Yoda of weather in the Northwest. On his blog and through spots in local media, this professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington helps us process our snowpocalypses and measure out Lexapro for 10 months of the year. Now he’s turning his big-weather brain to something regularly on our minds here at Grist: “As global warming takes hold later in the century, where will be the best place in the lower 48 states to escape its worst effects?”

Here’s the short answer from Cliff: 

Everyone stay where you are. Graphic by Cliff Mass.

On his blog entry, Mass goes into much more scientific detail on climate effects for the Lower 48 (complete with loads more charts). But even from this map, we can glean a few key takeaways.

• You’ll notice Mass highlighted most of the Eastern seaboard, the Gulf of Mexico, and sections of California in bright red. Areas of sea-level rise? Ohnonononono. You misunderstand completely. Those are spots where candy will grow on trees — because adaptation! Florida’s famous orange groves will evolve into chocolate orange groves and just work their way up the coast to Connecticut. Delicious!

• Take a look at all that yellow in the Southwest. Any guesses? Correct: That is precisely where state and local governments are likely to enforce three-day workweeks. And if you worry that moving to Phoenix, Los Angeles, or Austin means you’ll spend every extra-long weekend wearing spikes and riding in a rusty dune buggy on your way to bludgeon the neighbors to death over water resources, here’s a tip: Don’t!

• Orange! This DOES NOT mean this area gets more oranges (duh, pay attention; that was yellow). It does signify that every day will be Christmas. It also signifies that more Christmases will be wetter, windier, and generally more hurricane-y. P.S. I got you galoshes. (AGAIN, I know. Tee-hee!) Merry Christmas!

• Purple, purple, purple — Big Purp practically owns the map. Good thing, too, because from Montana to Maine, climate-changed citizenry will THRILL to the incredible cellphone coverage. No more dropped calls in Chicago. No more blips in Butte. Just blazing-fast downloads and crystal-clear audio, from your hot, cracked lips to your heatstroked fingertips. (Caveat: Customers will notice an increase in dropped calls from underground bunkers and heat hovels.)

• Say what about the green dots? Oh, those are flooding rivers and total shitholes.

I think the data is pretty clear, but just in case: STAY AWAY FROM THE WHITE AREAS. Yes, the Pacific Ocean will both slow down temperature rise in the Pacific Northwest and stave off heatwaves (as compared to the rest of the country). Yes, precipitation will remain high (as rain, if not snow). Sea-level rise is less likely to affect the elevated coast, true. Sure, flooding will be contained mostly in river valleys.

But be real with yourself about the negatives. These people lord over newcomers with weird cherries, fresh seafood, and nuclear coffee. The bookstores make your feet hurt. You’ll never be dry again. At least 85 of their 2,675 beers are too hoppy. They play Nirvana in the Seattle airport every. damn. day. Animals.

As someone with experience, trust me: You’re better off wherever you are — climate apocalypse be damned.

Source

• Will the Pacific Northwest be a Climate Refuge Under Global Warming?, Cliff Mass Weather Blog

Ted Alvarez is Grist's managing editor. Follow him @tedster.

http://grist.org/list/climate-refugees-do-not-move-to-the-pacific-northwest/

MIT: Climate Change a Greater Threat to Global Food Production than Previously Thought

A French farmer leaves his combine as he harvests wheat in a field. A new study found that the threat of climate change to global food production is greater than previously thought. Reuters/Pascal Rossignol.

by Maria Gallucci, International Business Times, July 28, 2014

Climate change could pose an even greater threat to global food production than previously thought, according to new research. Rising temperatures will not only damage heat-sensitive crops – they’ll also increase toxic air pollution, which will harm crops even further.

The study, out this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, is the first to explore how this interaction between warming temperatures and air pollution affects staple crops. Scientists have long known that the two can independently damage crops and reduce yields, but “nobody has looked at these two together,” Colette Heald, one of the co-authors and an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at MIT, said in a statement.

She said the findings highlight the need for stronger air-quality regulations, especially given the looming global food crisis. The world is expected to need about 50% more food than it does today by 2050, due to population growth and the increasing demand for cereal-based diets in the developing world. But warming temperatures may reduce global crop yields by about 10 percent over that same period; left unchecked, air pollution could bump that number up even higher, the authors said.

In the past decades, scientists have increasingly focused on studying the potential effects of climate change on all aspects of life, including agriculture. Last week, a separate study by U.S. researchers found that the odds of a reduction in corn and wheat production are 20 times higher than they would be without human-induced global warming. Earlier this year, a United Nations climate change report found that falling agricultural yields would hit impoverished people the hardest.

The earth sciences field in particular has seen a big shift in how researchers study the climate, with chemists, biologists and ecosystems experts collaborating more closely than in the past. “They used to not talk to each other much, but now they have to because of these kind of [climate] impacts,” Amos Tai, an assistant professor at The Chinese University of Hong Kong and co-author of the Nature Climate Change study, told the International Business Times.

For the ozone study, the MIT-affiliated researchers focused on rice, wheat, corn and soy crops, which together account for more than half of the calories that humans consume worldwide. The team observed that warmer temperatures significantly increase production of ozone, a colorless toxic gas, due to the reactions of certain chemical compounds with nitrogen oxides – greenhouse gases that come from vehicle tailpipes and power plant smokestacks.

For soybeans, the researchers found that 46% of the damage was actually caused by increased ozone levels – and not by increased heat, as had been previously thought. About 25% of wheat damage and nearly 10% of corn damage is primarily due to ozone, while the results for rice were inconclusive, according to the study.

The interaction between temperatures and pollutants varies considerably from region to region, and each crop is affected differently, the report’s authors said. Wheat in all the major production regions is more sensitive to ozone pollution than to higher temperatures, for instance. Corn and soybeans, however, are more vulnerable to high heats.

Government policies will also play a major role in determining the extent of pollution-related crop losses. Under one scenario, the researchers projected that global food production could fall by 15%, but when they accounted for large emissions decreases, that figure shrank to a 9% drop in food production. In each region, the outcome “will depend on domestic air-pollution policies,” Heald said. “An air-quality cleanup would improve crop yields.”

The United States and parts of Asia – namely South Korea and Japan – will be least affected by the ozone-climate effect, the study found. That’s because “even in the worst-case scenario, which is business-as-usual, we still expect that ozone is going to decrease in the future because of ozone regulations in these particular countries,” Tai said in the phone interview.

China and South Asia, on the other hand, will see the most ozone-related damage to wheat, rice and soybean crops because of the chronically high levels of toxic air pollution. Even corn, which is generally more vulnerable to heat than ozone, will suffer significantly from poor air quality.

Tai said the findings should serve as a wake-up call for the government planners and agricultural experts who are working to protect the world’s food supplies from global warming. Efforts to improve irrigation in sun-scorched regions, or to replace sensitive crops with more resilient varieties, could be less effective if ozone pollution keeps dirtying the air. “If you do not control your ozone, then anything that you do through climate adaptation may not realize the full potential, because ozone will just offset your benefits,” Tai said.

The study is proof that countries should invest more in renewable sources like solar and wind energy and less in pollution-intensive fossil fuels, Denise Mauzerall, a professor of environmental engineering and international affairs at Princeton University, who was not involved in the MIT research, said in a statement. “The increased use of clean energy sources that do not emit greenhouse gases or conventional air pollutants … would be doubly beneficial to global food security, as they do not contribute to either climate change or increased surface-ozone concentrations,” she said.

http://www.ibtimes.com/climate-change-greater-threat-global-food-production-previously-thought-mit-researchers-1640830

NBC reporter Miguel Almaguer connects the new high price of fighting wildfires to the economic costs of climate change

NBC Shows How to Report on the Economic Costs of Climate Change

Reporter Connects "The New Price of Fighting Fires" to Global Warming

by Denise Robbins, Media Matters for America, July 29, 2014

Climate change comes with a steep price tag for the economy, and mainstream media outlets are starting to get the message: NBC illustrated this by connecting "the new price of fighting fires" in California to global warming.

The July 29 edition of NBC's The Today Show reported on the extreme costs of fighting the dozens of wildfires currently burning in Yosemite National Park and across California, and how they are connected to climate change. The fires, taking place during Yosemite's driest year on record, have destroyed 20 homes and forced over 1,200 people to be evacuated. NBC correspondent Miguel Almaguer stated that the dozens of California wildfires are "costing big money," expanding that the state of California will spend $1 billion to fight wildfires this year. Almaguer also highlighted how global warming has had a direct impact on the fire, citing firefighters who are working on "the front lines of climate change":

MIGUEL ALMAGUER: Firefighters say this is the front lines of climate change.

FIREFIGHTER: The days are continuously longer, warmer, hotter periods during the summer, which helps dry the fuels out.

ALMAGUER: With record-setting wildfires in Washington and Oregon, 300-plus homes destroyed, this is the season of megafires. These massive blazes burning bigger, hotter, faster than ever before. In California where nearly 5,000 wildfires have burned this year, they'll spend $1 billion to fight flames. The price tag for a single retardant drop from a DC-10: $60,000.

FIREFIGHTER: It is not a cheap venture. Absolutely. It costs money to make these things happen. We are in unprecedented conditions.

ALMAGUER: The new cost of fighting fires to protect what is priceless in a season like no other. 

WATCH THE VIDEO:  http://mm4a.org/WLKUkO

The broadcast aired the same day that the White House Council of Economic Advisors released a report detailing the economic costs of not acting on climate change. The report found that the nation will suffer $150 billion in economic damages each year if we fail to prevent global temperatures from increasing two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Another recent report released by the Risky Business Project determined that a "business as usual" approach to climate change will cost the nation up to $507 billion in property damages by 2100. And the National Climate Assessment recently found that the United States is already paying an economic price for climate change. These findings illustrate why it is necessary to act on climate change as soon as possible; further delay may make the problem unavoidable. 

By connecting the economic damages from California's wildfires to climate change, NBC is leaps ahead of most media; Media Matters analyses have found that media outlets often don't connect the state's record blazes to global warming at all. Yet many scientists and federal reports have connected the Western fires to climate change due to increased average temperatures and worsening drought. Data from the National Interagency Fire Center shows how wildfires across the country have been increasing in severity and costs: 

Media should take note from NBC: catastrophic, man-made climate change is inherently an economic issue, and should be reported as such.

http://mm4a.org/WLKUkO  pic.twitter.com/gNad2B9nwd

Destruction of Great Barrier Reef okayed by climate-denier Australian government

Largest coal mine in Australia: federal government gives Carmichael go-ahead

Adani's Carmichael coal mine and rail project will dig up and transport about 60 million ton of coal a year for export, sparking fears for the Great Barrier Reef

by Oliver Milman, The Guardian, July 29, 2014

The Galilee basin in central Queensland is the subject of nine planned mining projects. Photograph: Andrew Quilty/Greenpeace/AAP

The Australian environment minister, Greg Hunt, has approved a $16.5bn resources project that will lead to the creation of the largest coal mine in Australia, and one of the largest in the world.

Hunt has imposed 36 conditions, primarily aimed at protecting groundwater, on the Carmichael coal mine and rail project, which will dig up and transport about 60m tonnes of coal a year for export.

The huge Carmichael project, overseen by the Indian mining company Adani, will consist of a network of open cut and underground mines in the Galilee Basin region of central Queensland.

This area is about seven times the size of Sydney harbour and will be the largest coal mine in Australia and possibly the world.

Coal will be taken via a new rail line to the port of Abbot Point, north of Bowen, where Adani already has approval to build a coal export terminal. Five million tonnes of seabed will be dug up and dumped within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in order to expand Abbot Point for these exports, primarily to India.

The Carmichael mine, which was given the green light by the Queensland government in May, has been fiercely opposed by environmentalists due to its potential impact upon the reef, groundwater at its site and its hefty carbon emissions.

Greenpeace has claimed coal from the mine will cause an additional 128m tonnes of carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere. By contrast, the Australian government’s proposed Direct Action climate scheme, which targets only domestic emissions, aims to reduce emissions by 131m tonnes each year.
Adani estimates the mine itself will produce about 3bn tonnes of CO2 emissions over its 60-year lifespan. This is due to “fugitive” emissions, which are released during the mining process.

The approval of the Carmichael mine is a major step in the opening of the vast, coal-rich Galilee Basin region. There are a total of nine mining projects planned for the area.

Hunt said the conditions he has imposed ensure Adani “meets the highest environmental standards and that all impacts, including cumulative impacts, are avoided, mitigated or offset.”

“The absolute strictest of conditions have been imposed to ensure the protection of the environment, with a specific focus on the protection of groundwater,” he said.

“I acknowledge the work of the previous state and federal ALP [Australian Labor Party] governments in advancing consideration of this project.”

Hunt said the project will have a value of $5bn a year over the next 60 years, adding $2.97bn to the Queensland economy a year over this period.

It is estimated the Carmichael mine will also create 2,475 construction jobs and a further 3,920 jobs once the project is operational in 2017.

Adani will be required to ensure at least 730 megalitres of water are returned to the environment every year for five years.

The company will also have to monitor the condition of groundwater, offset the impact of cleared habitat and assess the impact to threatened species. Conservationists have warned that critical habitat for the endangered black-throated finch will be bulldozed for the mine.

Greenpeace said Hunt has “laid out the red carpet for a coal company with a shocking track record to dig up the outback, dump on the Great Barrier Reef and fuel climate change.”

Adani has been fined in India for violating environmental conditions relating to a port development in Gujarat. An Indian government review found Adani’s failure to monitor groundwater for pollution was a “clear violation” of conditions. The company was also criticised for its destruction of mangroves.

Felicity Wishart, a campaigner at the Australian Marine Conservation Society, said the mine’s approval was “bad news for the Great Barrier Reef.”

She told Guardian Australia: “This is another step in the plan for increased shipping on the reef, expanded coal ports and more potential damage.

“It’s extremely disappointing that the minister is so prepared to not only put the region of the mine at risk but also to create more threats for the Great Barrier Reef.

“At full capacity, there will be a further 480 ships crossing the reef, in an area home to humpback whales, sea turtles and dugongs. And then there’s the impact of the dredging.

“The Great Barrier Reef is particularly vulnerable to climate change so we need to be doing everything we can to reduce that pressure on it. It’s very disappointing that the government is committed to policies that will increase the impacts of climate change.”

The Greens Senator Larissa Waters said: "History will look back on the Abbott government’s decision today as an act of climate criminality.

“The Carmichael coal mine is set become one of the world’s largest coal mines, producing 60m tonnes of thermal coal every year for 60 years to dramatically increase Australia’s contribution to global warming.

“There’s no guarantee Adani will be able to pay for the environmental conditions attached to the approval and with the Abbott and Newman governments slashing environment department staff, there’s no capacity to enforce them.

“Adani has a track record of non-compliance with environmental conditions in India – why take the risk with our climate and Great Barrier Reef?"

Gautam Adani, the chairman of Adani, said the project would provide a significant economic boost to Queensland.

“Adani’s commitment to nation-building in India goes hand in hand with its commitment to providing sustainable employment opportunities for local workers and suppliers, not just through our rail infrastructure, but also our longer-term investments in ports and mining," he said.

“Development of the Galilee Basin is vital for the regional and economic growth of both Queensland and Australia, and Adani’s projects play an important role in realising this growth."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/28/largest-coal-mine-in-australia-federal-government-gives-carmichael-go-ahead

David Sassoon: InsideClimate News Responds to Steve Everley of Energy in Depth

by David Sassoon, InsideClimate News, July 29, 2014

Last week an oil and gas industry public relations front group called Energy in Depth published a lengthy criticism of InsideClimate News and our partner for the past year, the Center for Public Integrity, of stories we've been publishing together about toxic air emissions from unconventional gas and oil production in Texas.

Together with the Center for Public Integrity, InsideClimate News has been publishing an investigative series of stories about toxic air emissions from unconventional gas and oil production in Texas.

We believe we've aroused the group's displeasure because our work shines an unwelcome spotlight on these toxic air emissions and the manner in which they are released, with little regulation or regard for neighboring homes and communities. As our stories point out, regulators in Texas claim that the emissions are within safe levels, even though they don't have enough data to make that assertion. Our investigations have also shown that people who believe they have been sickened by the nearby emissions are left to fend for themselves.

Energy in Depth did not dispute the evidence we presented. Instead, it published a litany of allegations charging journalistic malfeasance. Not one of the allegations touched on the substance of our reporting, which is based on interviews with more than 30 scientists and technical experts, including some who work for the industry.

Had we gotten anything wrong? No.

Did we refuse to correct any mistakes? No.

Did we in any way falsify the words or images of Steve Everley of Energy in Depth, the author of the criticisms? No.

 
Steve Everley speaks in the documentary ICN co-produced with The Weather Channel.

In fact, Mr. Everley was given full and fair opportunity to express his industry's point of view, both in the text of our articles (read them here) and in the video documentary we co-produced with The Weather Channel (watch it here).

It is not unusual for powerful industries to go on the attack to undermine unfavorable news reports. Even though Mr. Everley speaks as if he is protecting the public from misrepresentations by media with an agenda, in fact he is protecting the bottom line of the oil and gas industry, which pays his salary.

In a letter to his colleagues in 2009, the president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America said Energy in Depth was founded in order "to combat new environmental regulations, especially with regard to hydraulic fracturing. And we're seeing some outstanding results." The announcement lists the original funders—the Independent Petroleum Association of America, BP, Anadarko, Marathon, EnCana, Chevron, Talisman, Shell, American Petroleum Institute, Halliburton, Schlumberger, the Ohio Oil and Gas Association, El Paso Corporation, XTO Energy, and Occidental Petroleum—and asks other IPAA members for support because "the battle is just beginning."

Now, five years later, Energy in Depth has gone to great lengths to assert that InsideClimate News is part of what Mr. Everley calls an "anti-fracking industry." He asserts that ICN's reporters—like anyone else who might show concern for the air, the water, the Earth or its climate—are all part of the same secret conspiracy, are in it for the money, and get that money from the same nefarious places.

But no such thing as an "anti-fracking industry" exists, and Everley provides no evidence that would pass muster in an honest newsroom that it does. Instead, he manufactures an imaginary public enemy, a rival "industry," no less, that is out to do harm.

Changing the subject through the production of distractions is a kind of sleight of hand that is the specialty of well-trained public relations professionals, who in America now outnumber journalists four to one. Many are paid to protect their clients from transparent public accounting with tricks like this one.

Still, two of Mr. Everley's accusations deserve response, because they question our ethics and our integrity, and it is bad practice to leave such charges unanswered in the digital arena.

• Our reporters do not conceal their identities, nor do they employ other questionable reporting techniques, and no credible evidence exists to the contrary.
  

• InsideClimate News does not "share" any funding with special interests, and there is no evidence that we do.
  

We apply for our own funding from a wide variety of sources. Our donors, listed on our website, play absolutely no role in our editorial decisions.

This is the way non-profit journalism works, not just at InsideClimate News but all across the country. The sector has grown in recent years as a result of the financial disruptions afflicting traditional journalism. Support for environmental reporting, on life-support at most newspapers and broadcast outlets, is an especially important contribution philanthropy is making to the nation's civic health.

The best way for readers to judge our journalistic integrity and independence is to read the work we produce and examine it themselves. And the best place to start would be this page. Here readers will find the first stories in the groundbreaking investigation we're conducting in collaboration with the Center for Public Integrity and The Weather Channel on the dangers posed by toxic air emissions from unconventional oil and gas production.

insideclimatenews.org/news/20140729/insideclimate-news-responds-steve-everley-energy-depth

Peter Sinclair: For Utilities, Reality Is A Jolt!

by Peter Sinclair, Climate Denial Crock of the Week, July 28, 2014



Rebecca Smith of the Wall Street Journal has consistently been delivering the unwelcome news for electric utilities about changing times, and this morning she’s done it again.  I won’t often recommend a Murdoch paper as a resource, but do read the whole thing at the link if you can. It’s darkly comedic, for example:

Sherry Pfister, a retiree who once worked at the Palo Verde nuclear power plant 45 miles west of Phoenix, says she didn’t hesitate to lease solar panels for her home in Waddell, Ariz., and says the panels have cut her utility bill by a third.
“Why isn’t everybody doing it?” she wonders.

Turns out that growth in the economy no longer requires growth in the electricity sector.  One  CEO marvels, “It’s a new world for us.”

As the video above shows, that new world of decoupled growth and electricity began in the 1970s. 

But Utility Executives have never been hired to be forward thinking.
Perhaps that will change sometime soon..

http://climatecrocks.com/2014/07/29/for-utilities-reality-is-a-jolt/

Coastal Flooding More Frequent In U.S. Due To Sea Level Rise And Sinking Land, Study Finds

by Ryan McNeill, Reuters, Huffington Post, July 28, 2014

Flooding is increasing in frequency along much of the U.S. coast, and the rate of increase is accelerating along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts, a team of federal government scientists found in a study released Monday.
The study examined how often 45 tide gauges along the country's shore exceeded National Weather Service flood thresholds across several decades. The researchers found that the frequency of flooding increased at 41 locations. Moreover, they found that the rate of increase was accelerating at 28 of those locations. The highest rates of increase were concentrated along the mid-Atlantic coast.
"We stress that in many areas, the frequency of nuisance flooding is already on an accelerating trajectory, and many other locations will soon follow" if trends in rising sea levels continue, the scientists wrote.
The thresholds are usually associated with minor flooding, also called nuisance flooding, which can overwhelm drainage systems, cause road closures and damage infrastructure not built to withstand frequent flooding or exposure to salt water. Such flooding is one of the more recognizable effects of rising seas, as opposed to less frequent but more damaging extreme storms, such as hurricanes, the scientists said.
In the 1950s, nuisance flooding occurred once every one to five years, the study found. By 2012, the frequency had increased to about once every three months at most NOAA gauges.
These storms "are no longer really extreme," said William Sweet, a NOAA oceanographer and lead author of the study. "It takes a lesser storm to inundate similar (elevations)."
The study is the latest to examine whether minor flooding is increasing as seas rise. Reuters published the results of its own independent analysis earlier this month that found that the number of days a year that tidal waters reached or exceeded flood thresholds more than tripled in many places.
Another study, by Old Dominion University researchers Tal Ezer and Larry Atkinson, found that the U.S. East Coast is "a hotspot of accelerated flooding." They also found that flooding outside of storm events has increased in frequency and duration. The results of their study are expected to be published later this year.
Among the NOAA study's findings:
*The northeast Atlantic coast experienced a "significant increase" in nuisance flooding, largely because of the combination of rising sea levels and subsidence, whereby land sinks due to geological forces and the extraction of groundwater.
*In the southeast Atlantic, five of eight gauges "are now on an accelerating nuisance flood frequency trajectory."
*Four of the eight gauges on the Gulf coast showed accelerating increases in minor flooding.
Such flooding events "are only going to become more noticeable and much more severe in the coming decades" as the seas continue to rise, Sweet said.
The scientists warned in their report that coastal communities may face a "time horizon" when public and private infrastructure "will become increasingly compromised by tidal flooding." That time is dependent on how fast seas rise -- something scientists can't predict.
"When that day comes, these impacts are going to be accelerated," Sweet said, "and that's going to spell all sorts of issues for communities when it comes to adaptation and resilience."
(Edited by John Blanton)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/28/coastal-flooding-more-frequent_n_5627110.html

"Reductions in India's crop yield due to ozone," by S. D. Ghude et al., GRL (2014); doi: 10.1002/2014GL060930

Geophysical Research Letters, (28 July 2014); DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060930

Reductions in India's crop yield due to ozone

Sachin D. Ghude*, Chinmay Jena, D. M. Chate, G. Beig, G. G. Pfister, Rajesh Kumar and V. Ramnathan*

Abstract

This bottom-up modeling study, supported by emission inventories and crop production, simulates ozone on local to regional scales. It quantifies, for the first time, potential impact of ozone on district-wise cotton, soybeans, rice and wheat crops in India for the first decade of the 21st century. Wheat is the most impacted crop with losses of 3.5 ± 0.8 Mt, followed by rice at 2.1 ± 0.8 Mt, with the losses concentrated in central and north India. On national scale, this loss is about 12% of the cereals required every year (61.2 Mt) under the provision of recently implemented National Food Security Bill (September-2013) by Government of India. The nationally aggregated yield loss is sufficient to feed 94 million people living below poverty line in India.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060930/abstract

Threat to future global food security from climate change and ozone air pollution, Nature Climate Change,

Nature Climate Change, (27 July 2014); doi:10.1038/nclimate2317

Threat to future global food security from climate change and ozone air pollution

Amos P. K. Tai, Maria Val Martin and Colette L. Heald

Abstract

Future food production is highly vulnerable to both climate change and air pollution with implications for global food security^{1, 2, 3, 4}. Climate change adaptation and ozone regulation have been identified as important strategies to safeguard food production^{5, 6}, but little is known about how climate and ozone pollution interact to affect agriculture, nor the relative effectiveness of these two strategies for different crops and regions. Here we present an integrated analysis of the individual and combined effects of 2000–2050 climate change and ozone trends on the production of four major crops (wheat, rice, maize and soybean) worldwide based on historical observations and model projections, specifically accounting for ozone–temperature co-variation. The projections exclude the effect of rising CO₂, which has complex and potentially offsetting impacts on global food supply^{7, 8, 9, 10}. We show that warming reduces global crop production by >10% by 2050 with a potential to substantially worsen global malnutrition in all scenarios considered. Ozone trends either exacerbate or offset a substantial fraction of climate impacts depending on the scenario, suggesting the importance of air quality management in agricultural planning. Furthermore, we find that depending on region some crops are primarily sensitive to either ozone (for example, wheat) or heat (for example, maize) alone, providing a measure of relative benefits of climate adaptation versus ozone regulation for food security in different regions.

Figures First | 1-2 of 2 | Last

left

1. 

   Figure 1

2. 

   Figure 2

right

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2317.html 

Atmospheric Environment, 45(15): (May 2011); DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.02.002

Limited potential of crop management for mitigating surface ozone impacts on global food supply

Edmar Teixeira, Guenther Fischer, Harrij van Velthuizen, Rita van Dingenen, Frank Dentener, Gina Mills, Christof Walter and Frank Ewert

Abstract

Surface ozone (O₃) is a potent phytotoxic air pollutant that reduces the productivity of agricultural crops. Growing use of fossil fuel and climate change are increasing O₃ concentrations to levels that threaten food supply. Historically, farmers have successfully adapted agricultural practices to cope with changing environments. However, high O₃ concentrations are a new threat to food production and possibilities for adaptation are not well understood. We simulate the impact of ozone damage on four key crops (wheat, maize, rice and soybean) on a global scale and assess the effectiveness of adaptation of agricultural practices to minimize ozone damage. As O₃ concentrations have a strong seasonal and regional pattern, the adaptation options assessed refer to shifting crop calendars through changing sowing dates, applying irrigation and using crop varieties with different growth cycles. Results show that China, India and the United States are currently by far the most affected countries, bearing more than half of all global losses and threatened areas. Irrigation largely affects ozone exposure but local impacts depend on the seasonality of emissions and climate. Shifting crop calendars can reduce regional O₃ damage for specific crop-location combinations (e.g., up to 25% for rain-fed soybean in India) but has little implication at the global level. Considering the limited benefits of adaptation, mitigation of O₃ precursors remains the main option to secure regional and global food production.

---

Highlights

► Global modeling of surface ozone (O₃) damage for maize, wheat, rice and soybean crops. ► We evaluate benefits of adapting crop management to reduce yield losses. ► Changes in sowing date, crop variety and irrigation had little global implication.► At regional level adaptive options may be effective. ► Security of food supply may benefit more from mitigating emission of O₃ precursors.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101100118X

Global crop yield reductions due to surface ozone exposure: 2. Year 2030 potential crop production losses and economic damage under two scenarios of O3 pollution

Atmospheric Environment, 45(13): 2297-2309 (April 2011); DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.01.002

Global crop yield reductions due to surface ozone exposure: 2. Year 2030 potential crop production losses and economic damage under two scenarios of O₃ pollution

Shiri Avnery, Denise L. Mauzerall, Junfeng Liu and Larry W. Horowitz


Abstract

We examine the potential global risk of increasing surface ozone (O₃) exposure to three key staple crops (soybean, maize, and wheat) in the near future (year 2030) according to two trajectories of O₃ pollution: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC SRES) A2 and B1 storylines, which represent upper- and lower-boundary projections, respectively, of most O₃ precursor emissions in 2030. We use simulated hourly O₃ concentrations from the Model for Ozone and Related Chemical Tracers version 2.4 (MOZART-2), satellite-derived datasets of agricultural production, and field-based concentration:response relationships to calculate crop yield reductions resulting from O₃ exposure. We then calculate the associated crop production losses and their economic value. We compare our results to the estimated impact of O₃ on global agriculture in the year 2000, which we assessed in our companion paper [Avnery et al., 2011]. In the A2 scenario we find global year 2030 yield loss of wheat due to O₃ exposure ranges from 5.4 to 26% (a further reduction in yield of +1.5–10% from year 2000 values), 15–19% for soybean (reduction of +0.9–11%), and 4.4–8.7% for maize (reduction of +2.1–3.2%) depending on the metric used, with total global agricultural losses worth $17–35 billion USD₂₀₀₀ annually (an increase of +$6–17 billion in losses from 2000). Under the B1 scenario, we project less severe but still substantial reductions in yields in 2030: 4.0–17% for wheat (a further decrease in yield of +0.1–1.8% from 2000), 9.5–15% for soybean (decrease of +0.7–1.0%), and 2.5–6.0% for maize (decrease of + 0.3–0.5%), with total losses worth $12–21 billion annually (an increase of +$1–3 billion in losses from 2000). Because our analysis uses crop data from the year 2000, which likely underestimates agricultural production in 2030 due to the need to feed a population increasing from approximately 6 to 8 billion people between 2000 and 2030, our calculations of crop production and economic losses are highly conservative. Our results suggest that O₃ pollution poses a growing threat to global food security even under an optimistic scenario of future ozone precursor emissions. Further efforts to reduce surface O₃ concentrations thus provide an excellent opportunity to increase global grain yields without the environmental degradation associated with additional fertilizer application or land cultivation.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231011000070

---