The UA College of Science Spring Lecture Series on climate change continues tonight with a talk by David Battisti, the Tamaki Endowed Chair and professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington. Here’s what he’s going to be talking about:

By the end of the century, the season averaged growing temperature will very likely exceed the highest temperature ever recorded throughout the tropics and subtropics. By 2050, the increase in temperature alone is projected to cause a 20% reduction in the yield of all of the major grains (maize, wheat, rice and soybeans). The breadbasket countries in the midlatitudes will experience marked increases in year-to-year volatility in crop production. Increasing stresses on the major crops due to climate change, coupled with the increasing demand for food due to increasing population and development, present significant challenges to achieving global food security. This lecture explores the likely impact of climate change and volatility on food production and availability in the foreseeable future.

The lectures draw a full house to Centennial Hall, so get there ahead of the 7 p.m. start time if you want a good seat. More details here.

This article appears in Jan 28 – Feb 3, 2016.

Getting hassled by The Man Mild-mannered reporter

10 replies on “What’s Climate Change Going To Do to the Food Supply?”

  1. The rising sea waters from the melting glaciers is going to cover the earth. We will grow gills and swim to our food. Problem solved.

  2. Nothing can be done about climate change, says Marco Rubio, a “surging” Republican candidate for POTUS: “So yeah, I don’t deny it’s happening,” Rubio said. “But what we absolutely cannot say for sure is that a warming Earth is not just part of God’s plan,” Rubio explained. “God knows what He’s doing, and it pleases Him to see half of Manhattan underwater and Miami wiped out completely, then we cannot stand in His way.”

  3. Climate Change (Global Warming) is an insignificant diversion in comparison to the World Wide Religious/Ethnic Conflicts; an undeclared Religious/Ethnic World War lll! With the availability of “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, we will destroy ourselves as a Human Society over our Inherent Differences before Climate Change (Global Warming) will have any significant impact on food supply etc!

  4. I was there for the lecture; facts are pretty damning. To me, it looks like everyone had better try to get along and spend monies on reducing CO2. For sure, the 30 somethings will see food expenses and temperatures rise in their lifetimes.

  6. it’s something like under 2% of scientists who dispute man-made climate change. you’re wasting everyone’s damn time denying it, and theirs is not yours to waste.
    i’ve always wondered what we have to lose by reducing CO2 and other pollutants? hypothetically what if we’re totally wrong about man-made climate change? we get cleaner air and water? our economy shifts away from energy extracted from the ground in an incredibly dirty and impactful way to solar and wind? what exactly is the down-side, for anyone who doesn’t have a financial stake in fossil fuels and dependent technologies? try to look past the next 2 years when making opinions.

  8. 2%? I think you ought to take a look at their scientific credentials. Your 98% includes Doctors of Veterinary Medicine and Mental Health Physicians.

    Take a look at these credentialed scientists in your “2%”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    Quote-A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.”

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

    Many people have allowed themselves to confuse natural temperature fluctuations with future catastrophic events with little more than speculation. And many just hate fuel oil extracted from the ground.

    But don’t we owe each other at least a little bit of honesty?

  9. my mistake for making this simply about accepting climate change. it’s a fools game to argue this in a comments section (but I am curious about how green energy infringes on anyone’s ‘freedom’, and flat out reject the thought that some people just hate fossil fuels, as if there is no reason, just hate).

    so you feel there is reason to doubt all this, or at least the causes. what about questions like ‘what does this mean for our food supply?’ does the fact that you doubt the cause of climate change mean we shouldn’t be looking at these questions in your mind? again i fail to see a downside in planning for a warmer drier climate.

Comments are closed.