Why Would 'Climate Migrants' Flee from Food?

Dark predictions of the future from climate alarmists warn that “climate change” will force hundreds of millions of “climate migrants” to flee from hellish conditions caused by humanity’s use of fossil fuels and its resulting CO2 production. (Those who are not quite as bold in their conviction might call it “climate-encouraged migration”.) A widely-cited 2008 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggested 200 million migrants could be displaced by 2050. The question that naturally follows is, “What specific effects of ‘climate change’ would drive this migration?” The IPCC cites rising sea-levels, agricultural land that has been salinized and desertified, and most importantly, water scarcity and food insecurity, which frequently go hand-in-hand. Indeed, severe food scarcity has driven populations to move in the past.

If we ignore non-agricultural variables such as food imports and food distribution, then food scarcity is clearly a result of low agricultural production, which can be blamed on a number of possible factors, including poor soil quality, ignorance of modern scientific farming, diseases and pests, and environmental conditions, e.g., variations in temperature and precipitation or irrigation.

The bottom-line measure of agricultural efficiency that directly depends on soil quality, farming methods, (prevention of) diseases and pests, and growing conditions is crop-yield. Crop yield is essentially the ratio of crop production per unit of land area, usually measured in metric tons per hectare or hectograms per hectare. To understand if there is potential for climate-linked migration due to food-scarcity, crop yields provide a reasonable test. Because good climate conditions are a necessary prerequisite, but not a sufficient condition, for high yields, uniformly high yields of important crops that are well-sampled geographically can effectively rule out climate-related drivers of food scarcity.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (often called the FAO for short) has kept reliable statistics on cultivation area, production, and yield for various crops, by country, from as far back as 1961. These statistics can be easily found in the FAO’s database.

The graphs displayed below show the historic crop yields, with trend lines, for important crops from a representative set of countries that could be affected by “climate change”.  Included are the historic yields of maize (corn) in Mexico, rice in India, coffee beans in Brazil and in Vietnam, sweet potatoes in Kenya, and bananas in Guatemala. You want to see the real "green movement"? This is it:

These positive yield trends are not outliers, but rather, they are typical of other crops around the world. The devil’s counterargument is that these excellent results were brought to us by scientific farming, but the counter-counterargument is, science would be irrelevant if the most important variable – climate – were not sustaining of agricultural production.

Even if we assume the climate is warming overall, the production of food crops may not be significantly impacted. According to a study on the causes of crop failure, by Yale researcher Robert Mendelsohn, annual warming may have little to do with crop failures:

Warmer average temperatures in January and April contribute to higher crop failures whereas warmer October temperatures reduce failure rates. October temperatures are a proxy for autumn harvesting conditions. Warmer temperatures in this period help to dry at least grain crops. They may also extend the growing season allowing crops to fully mature. Curiously, July temperature does not have a significant effect. Although the seasonal temperatures have a significant effect on crop failure rates, they are offsetting. Adding the effects of the three seasons together suggest that annual warming will not have a significant effect on crop failure rates.

Furthermore, nothing in the FAO’s crop yield statistics gives an indication that the trend of increasing yields will not continue for the foreseeable future. Michael Shellenberger recently summarized the FAO’s long term projections in Forbes:

Humans today produce enough food for 10 billion people, or 25% more than we need, and scientific bodies predict increases in that share, not declines.  The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) forecasts crop yields increasing 30% by 2050. And the poorest parts of the world, like sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to see increases of 80 to 90%.

He goes on to remind us that the FAO cites basic concerns, not climate, as critical to continued growth in yields:

Rates of future yield growth depend far more on whether poor nations get access to tractors, irrigation, and fertilizer than on climate change, says FAO.

If the world were on fire, as the alarmists assert, would our fields be so lush and bountiful? While it is quite possible that many people will choose to move from warmer, less developed parts of the world to cooler, more-developed ones, in the future, it almost certainly would not be because agriculture collapsed from an inhospitable Earth.

'Snowfalls Are Now Just a Thing of the Past'

That, at least, was the klimate kook konventional wisdom back in the halcyon spring of 2000. "Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries," wrote Charles Onians in The Independent, in a story that's now been memory-holed on account of, you know, snow:

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

For those of you scoring at home, the University of East Anglia was the locus of the notorious "Climategate" scandal of 2010, from which its reputation has never quite recovered. Now let's cut to the UK's near neighbors, Norway, right across the North Sea for a look at how our planet is heating up:

Northern Norway was practically buried by heavy snow over the weekend, and it’s been that way all season, according to state meteorologist Eirik Samuelsen.

While fine (but cold) weather was enjoyed in the south this past weekend, the north suffered a rather different story — official snow measurements in the northern municipality of Tromsø saw 30 cm (12 inches) settling on Sunday alone. But there were large local differences, points out Samuelsen: “Here where I live, on Kvaløya, it came in more than that. And in Breivikeidet, Tromsø it came to 47 inches [almost 4 feet] of new snow from Sunday to Monday.

“I have never experienced so much snow in one day,” says Samuelsen.

This winter has seen a myriad of snow records tumble across Norway. In Tromsø, 6.53 m (21.4 ft) of powder has fallen so far this season — not since the winter of 1999/2000 has been more snow settled. In Ystnes, Finnmark, accumulations had reached 2.8 m (9.2 ft) by April 1 — already the highest measurement at any station in Finnmark, ever, and also the highest snow depth ever measured in the lowland areas of Troms and Finnmark, as reported by kxan36news.com. In addition, two snowfall records in Karasjok were toppled, and another in the Outer Holmbukt also fell.

Furthermore, Tromsø is now just 13 cm (5.1 inches) off its all-time snowfall record which was set back in 1997 (solar minimum of cycle 23). And with a further bout of heavy snowfall expected later in the week –similar to that which fell over the past weekend– Samuelsen is expecting this season to go down as Tromsø’s snowiest ever.

Yeah, you say, but it's cold in Norway. But wait!

Total Snow Mass for Northern Hemisphere is holding incredibly high this year.

These readings (see below) are truly astonishing, coming in at more than 600 Gigatons above the 1982-2012 average. Feel free to send this chart to anyone still claiming snowfall is a thing of the past, because not only did the Northern Hemisphere witness one of its snowiest seasons on record this winter, but the snow is holding-on well into Spring.

Scientists know that the Sun (that big yellow-red ball of fire in the sky) has far more to do with the Earth's climate than cows farting into the atmosphere and plastic bags floating in alleyways for the edification of stoners. Even a highly politicized NASA, the near-useless "space agency" that hasn't done a damn thing since the last men went to the Moon via Apollo 17 at the end of 1972, nearly half a century ago, understands the role of Sun, but insists that old Sol's effect is minimal:

The Sun doesn’t always shine at perpetually the same level of brightness; it brightens and dims slightly, taking 11 years to complete one solar cycle. During each cycle, the Sun undergoes various changes in its activity and appearance. Levels of solar radiation go up or down, as does the amount of material the Sun ejects into space and the size and number of sunspots and solar flares. These changes have a variety of effects in space, in Earth’s atmosphere and on Earth’s surface.

The current solar cycle began January 4, 2008, and appears to be headed toward the lowest level of sunspot activity since accurate recordkeeping began in 1750. It’s expected to end sometime between now and late 2020. Scientists don’t yet know with confidence how strong the next solar cycle may be.

But...

According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity.

Trouble is, a lot of scientists think the IPCC is bunkum, an unscientific muddle of "models" and "projections" attached like a  malignant barnacle to the UN in a push for a huge wealth transfer from the First World (you know, the countries with actual scientists and a record of scientific discovery) to the barely literate Third World, which is also the source of the majority of planetary pollution. As the libertarian magazine, Reason, notes:

Most temperature records show that since 1998 the models and the observed average global temperature trend have parted ways. The temperatures in the models continue to rise, while the real climate has refused to warm up much during the past 15 years.

The IPCC report acknowledges that almost all of the "historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus." Not to worry, it assures us; 15-year pauses just happen, and you can't really expect the models to simulate these kind of random natural fluctuations in the climate. Once this little slow-down passes, "It is more likely than not that internal climate variability in the near-term will enhance and not counteract the surface warming expected to arise from the increasing anthropogenic forcing." In other words, when the warm-up resumes it will soar.

John Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has come to a different conclusion. Christy compared the outputs of 73 climate models for the tropical troposphere used by the IPCC in its latest report with satellite and weather balloon temperature trends since 1979 until 2030. "The tropics is so important because that is where models show the clearest and most distinct signal of greenhouse warming—so that is where the comparison should be made (rather than say for temperatures in North Dakota)," Christy explains in an email. "Plus, the key cloud and water vapor feedback processes occur in the tropics." When it comes to simulating the atmospheric temperature trends of the past 35 years, Christy found, all of the IPCC models are running hotter than the actual climate.

You don't need to tell that to the Norwegians! Meanwhile, in neighboring Sweden, Greta Thunberg was unavailable for comment.

 

IPCC vs. the IPCC

We've all read the claim that "climate scientists" are essentially unanimous in their opinion that "global warming" is one of the greatest challenges of the modern era, and that unless we get a handle on it and halt the temperature rise, we're all doomed.

Not so fast:

THANKFULLY we usually always get to hear the inconvenient and raw truth about taxpayer funded, unelected, bloated government bureaucracies when members eventually leave and are not subject to bullying and financial repercussions. Definitely no exception here… 46 enlightening statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC:

  1. Dr Robert Balling: The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
  2. Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
  3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
  4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
  5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

Read the whole thing, and enjoy each and every morsel.