In a paper published in the Biological Sciences section of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in July of 2007, Morison et al.
report that "agriculture accounts for 80-90% of all freshwater used by
humans," that "most of that is in crop production," and that "in many
areas, this water use is unsustainable." As a result, they say that
"farmers in many countries are now faced with legislative restrictions
on use of water," noting that the Chinese government "has set a target
of a reduction of 20% in water use in agriculture by the year 2020,"
such that "if food security for the region is not to be threatened,
this must be achieved without a loss in production."
So how is this global food and water crisis to be met and overcome?
In their many pages of discussion of the subject, the
four UK researchers examine the underlying relationships that connect
crop carbon uptake, growth and water loss, noting that "much effort is
being made to reduce water use by crops and produce 'more crop per
drop'." Some of the topics they examine in the course of this
discussion are designed to alter various crop characteristics that
might possibly increase their water use efficiency, such as by
genetic engineering, while others deal with crop management strategies,
such as how and when to apply irrigation water.
Taken your hydrogen-powered FreedomCAR
out for a spin lately? Nope? Well, there is plenty of time to sign up
for one, suggests a National Research Council report that pegs 2020 for
the arrival of the mass-market fuel cell vehicle.
That's the best case scenario, of course, assuming technology,
government, industry and the public all cooperate on bringing hydrogen
cars to the nation's highways.
"The use of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles can achieve large and sustained
reductions in U.S. oil consumption and CO2 emissions, but several
decades will be needed to realize these potential long-term benefits,"
says the NRC report.
CLIMATE STATEMENT "AN ORCHESTRATED LITANY OF LIES"
Veteran Wellington climate consultant, Dr Vincent Gray, expert reviewer
of all four IPCC Assessment Reports, explains why he has resigned his
longtime membership of the Royal Society of New Zealand in protest at
the inaccuracies in a report on climate change issued on 12 July by the
Society's Climate Committee.
INTRODUCTION
As
an Expert Reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
for eighteen years, that is to say, from the very beginning. I have
submitted thousands of comments to all of the Reports. My comments on
the Fourth IPCC Report, all 1,898 of them, are to be found at IPCC
(2007) and my opinions of the IPCC are in Gray (2008b)
I am
therefore very familiar with the arguments presented by the IPCC, many
of which have now been copied by the Royal Society of New Zealand, and
the responses to them.
I will first comment on the Introduction to make absolutely clear what the evidence is for climate change and anthropogenic (human-induced) causes.
The
climate has always changed and always will. No evidence whatsoever for
a human contribution to the climate is given in their following
statement.
There is a clear example to appear in the AGU publication
Geophysical Research Letters of the use of the scientific publication
process to present multi-decadal regional model forecasts as skillful
results to give to policymakers [thanks to Hans Erren for alerting us
to this paper!]. This presentation of a forecast, which is just a
hypothesis (e.g. see) illustrates the abuse of the scientific method. They do not even include all of the human climate forcings (e.g. see).
The paper is
Sterl, A., C. Severijns, H. Dijkstra, W. Hazeleger, G. J. van
Oldenborgh, M. van den Broeke, G. Burgers, B. van den Hurk, P. J. van
Leeuwen, and P. Van Velthoven (2008), When can we expect extremely high surface temperatures?,Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2008GL034071, in press
The IPCC is a single-interest organisation, whose charter presumes a
widespread human influence on climate, rather than consideration of
whether such influence may be negligible or missing altogether. Though
the IPCC's principles also state that a wide range of views is to be
sought when selecting lead authors and contributing authors, this rule
has been honored more in the breach than in the observance.
More than two-thirds of all authors of chapter 9 of the IPCC’s 2007
climate-science assessment are part of a clique whose members have
co-authored papers with each other and, we can surmise, very possibly
at times acted as peer-reviewers for each other’s work. Of the 44
contributing authors, more than half have co-authored papers with the
lead authors or coordinating lead authors of chapter 9.
Annette Saliken is a car lover. Until recently, she drove a BMW
sports car. Before that she owned a new SUV and before that she drove
another new SUV. But after she completed her master's thesis on global
warming, she sold her Beamer. Now the Kitsilano resident walks and
takes transit.
But you won't find even the teensiest mention of
this in her Cocktail Party Guide to Global Warming. With her first
book, Saliken's kept herself completely out of the picture. Instead,
she outlined the fundamentals of global warming so readers can reach
their own conclusions.
Saliken was motivated to write the guide
after hearing misinformation swirling around her at a cocktail party in
Vancouver for members of her master's of business administration grad
class from Royal Roads University. The Vancouver Island university is
home to the first MBA school in Canada offering core courses about
sustainability to teach business leaders how the environment and making
money can be complementary.
Is the scientific debate over on global warming? Not according to the American Physical Society* in this year's July's issue of Physics and Society .
"With
this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning
one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won
the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2
emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the
global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.
Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense
implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we
thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S
concerning that conclusion. This editor invited several people to
contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded ..." [Emphasis added.]
