So for lunch, I ate at an Indian buffet which always includes a selection of fried, wheat, flat breads. When I got back to the office, I noticed: Nature Climate, letters, "Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production", doi:10.1038/nclimate2470, ". . . we systematically tested 30 different wheat crop models of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project against field experiments in which growing season mean temperatures ranged from 15 °C to 32 °C, . . . Extrapolating the model ensemble temperature response indicates that warming is already slowing yield gains at a majority of wheat-growing locations. Global wheat production is estimated to fall by 6% for each °C of further temperature increase and become more variable over space and time." "Warming Will Reduce Wheat Production, Research Shows", The Guardian,"The researchers found that wheat production would fall by 6 percent for every 1°C increase in temperatures. The world is now nearly certain to warm by up to 2°C compared with pre-industrial levels, . . . " This is a summary of the paper behind the pay-wall. "Assessing climate change impacts on wheat production (a case study) ", doi: 10.1016/jssas.2013.02.002,"... this study was to simulate the effects of climate change on the maturity period, leaf area index (LAI), biomass and grain yield of wheat under future climate change for the Sistan and Baluchestan region in Iran. For this purpose, two general circulation models HadCM3 and IPCM4 under three scenarios A1B, B1 and A2 in three time periods 2020, 2050 and 2080 ...", not pay walled and regional in scope. Now I understand the word "model" is treated with a certain amount of disdain in some quarters. After all, we have multiple weather models providing a menu of winter storm and hurricane predictions. For those who require a contractual obligated answer with highly accurate predictions, the plural of model is an oxymoron . . . not to be believed. Regardless, I was amused to recall Lysenkoism from the 1930s. A politically connected theory, it was claimed that wheat could be made to adapt to a colder, shorter growing season (aka., vernalization) . . . and millions starved. Now to see warmer temperatures are postulated to affect wheat production, a major food source for billions of our fellow humans, well it was a fine after-lunch treat. Bob Wilson ps. While looking for something else, I learned the Forbes had published,"The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory" and now my lunch has turned to heartburn. It was not meant as advocacy as much as enjoying the irony of an Indian flat bread and curious articles about wheat . . . something Lysenkoism excelled in . . . as does Forbes.
There is no shortage of people who misunderstand science, but to call them all Lysenkos gets a bit tiresome. You provide links to some studies. I also did recently in the (currently quiet) agriculture thread. They could perhaps be put in two groups. Grow crops under elevated CO2 and/or temperature and you get changes in quality and yield. Not entirely for the better. There are experimental studies with 'controls' and measured results. How all that might play out in future agriculture is the second group. Climate models are used to project conditions in the places where crops are grown. Maybe accurate, maybe not. But the inaccuracy does not come from the first group. Of course it is possible that future climates in agricultural areas will generally increase yields. For me, "Pollyanna" fits this thinking better than "Lysenko". I fell for the Forbes clickbait, but there was nothing new there. Finally, enough already with publishers' paywalls. I have already explained the doors and windows in those things. Also the Nature Publishing Group is supposedly offering some sort of free access now. Somebody could check out how that works on 'public' networks.
<gerrrr>Now I'm going to have to fiddle with the paywall. I have used the private e-mail approach with some success. Bob Wilson
Well written article on Global Warming as the new Lysyenkoism. But it was a theme borrowed from Michael Crichton. Who relates Eugenics and Lysenkoism to the Global Warming movement. MichaelCrichton.com | This Essay Breaks the Law Chrichton doesnt mention it ,but I find it extremely ironic that one of the head figures in the Eugenics movement was none other than Svante Arrhenius. Father of global warming theory. Well I guess you cant be correct ANY of the time.
^^ Is that any more relevant than noting that William Shockley, father of the transistors that make your computer function, was also a head figure in the Eugenics movement?
