The Dairy Exporter Climate Change Great Farming Guide : Not worth the Paper it is Written On
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 09/07/2010 - 14:22
Jock Allison July 2010
The recent “Climate Change Great Farming Guide” included with the June issue of the Dairy Exporter is disappointing for a number of reasons.
Firstly the foreword by Dr Rick Pridmore states “It sets out the agreed science, which was discussed at Copenhagen in December 2009, and also discusses what the science indicates for New Zealand so you (the farmer) can consider the potential implications for your region and your farming operation”. With regard to climate change there is no such thing as “agreed science”.
There is considerable scientific debate as to the magnitude of the warming, and clearly urban heat island (UHI, or intensive population centre effects) effects from records within increasingly urban areas skew the data. Numerous peer-reviewed papers show observed longer term warming is 30 to 50% from UHI and land use change effects unrelated to actual temperature see ... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html
In addition there is debate about the contribution of human activities on any warming, as the level of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is small indeed in comparison with CO2 (or equivalent) emissions from natural sources. There is strong evidence that solar cycles are the main determinant of world temperature, with so called Greenhouse Gases having a minor effect only. Temperature records over the past 10 to 15 years indicate no significant warming .The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate models project steadily increasing warming.
Secondly, because CO2 is the “farmer’s friend”, increasing the amount in the atmosphere would be very beneficial. Doubling the CO2 levels from 385 ppm to 760 ppm is predicted to increase pasture production by about 30%, with only minor effects on the warming of the globe. This of course would be a major boost for agriculture and world food production. In fact the CO2 levels in the atmosphere stated by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be the cause of global warming (the magnitude about which we disagree) have not shown any detectable warming anyway. Anyone who can provide a single peer reviewed paper showing causality between atmospheric CO2 and increased temperature might like to claim a $US 10,000 prize offered by Professor Michael Economides, a Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering at the University of Houston. The prize has been available for the last 5 years, with no takers!!
Thirdly the climate graphs and predictions for the various regions of New Zealand within the Guide are worthless and misleading products of a computer model which has never been validated.
Of more interest perhaps is whether or not the Farming Guide could impart any useful information to the Dairy Farming public. The answer is a resounding No! Most farming businesses are of limited tenure, and climate variability is such that major changes in strategy and or management to better fit the climatic factors have probably been well thought through by others previously.
The data reviewed and the Regional Climate Maps are based on a continuation of ............
· The N & E of the North Island being 10% wetter and 5% cloudier since the late 1970s with more frequent droughts, and
· The W & S of the South Island have been about 10% wetter and 5% cloudier since the late 1970s, with some evidence that extreme daily rainfall events have increased in the west.
The period with which these observed changes have been compared isn’t specified, although it is also stated “the scenarios are not predictions – they are plausible “pictures” of future climate for NZ”. The authors are confident that temperatures are increasing on average and will continue to do so. There are however a number of qualifications and I quote three from the Guide....
p16 : Climate change scenarios for new Zealand consistently show a pattern of rainfall change that suggests wetter conditions on average in the west, and drier conditions on average in the east. However, there will still be dry years in the west and wet years in the east, as well as changing variability between years, seasonal patterns, and rainfall forecasts.
p16 : In the short term, what will matter most to dairy farmers will be changes in variability between years, changes in seasonal rainfall patterns and distribution, and changes in rainfall intensities, all of which are uncertain.
p20 : However, there is a lot more uncertainty around scenarios of rainfall change and even more so with scenarios of wind change. These caveats need to be kept in mind withthe following summary information ........... etc etc
It is incomprehensible that any farmer would take a lot of notice about climate projections in the Guide and work these into his or her farm management planning when this sort of qualification is proffered.
Fourthly, the two Case Studies of Dairy Farmers Adapting to Climate Change, at the end f the Guide, are really just the documentation of two innovative farmers changing their management to better fit with the environment in which they farm. In Southland over the past 40+ years soil conditions have always been wet. Soil compaction and pasture damage during wet periods have always been problems. The development of wintering sheds is simply an approach to these problems, and nothing to do with any “adaptation to climate change”, as is portrayed in the Guide. Thus far most farmers use run off properties rather than building sheds as has been the solution in the example put forward.
Finally there is a matter of Dairy NZ serving their farming funders. 75% + of the funding for Dairy NZ comes from farmer levy, and it is clear that..........
a) Many farmers are sceptical about climate change and any effects on their businesses, and
b) Most farmers are even more sceptical about the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS),
and thus Dairy NZ’s non critical acceptance of the political and incorrect science plus engagement in activities servicing policies based on that so called science might not be viewed by the funding providers as acceptable?
Obviously Dairy NZ obtains funding for “beating the dram” on climate change and indeed is now running MAF funded workshops for advisors on climate change issues and land management practices across the country. In these seminars the science of global warming isn’t to be discussed in detail, and the presenters would most likely follow the IPCC “party line” anyway, this being the basis for the derived MAF funding. Is the funding base of Dairy NZ comfortable about such activities when arguably there are few issues other than natural variability?
Dairy NZ should at least become more informed about climate science, and give the general farming and general public an opportunity to hear differing points of view re climate science, manmade global warming and whether New Zealand should undertake various strategies for mitigation, and or adaption to any threats or opportunities in the future. Presently any questioning of the climate change dogma on which Government Policy is based puts the questioners in the “denier” category but any engagement in discussion re principles of science is studiously avoided. Worldwide there are many many highly competent scientists who accept that the climate changes naturally and can find no evidence that anthropogenic emissions are the main cause.
If Dairy NZ took a more open and objective approach, this would really give the organisation and the industry the knowledge base required to consider responses to government policy on climate change as well as initiatives on their own farms. A series of seminars throughout the country on “Climate Change Science”, open to the public should be well attended. Speakers from both sides of the debate would be invited. Dairy NZ could engage with large numbers of their stakeholders and after listening to information from both sides of the debate all would be much better informed.
Tags:
