{"id":258650,"date":"2023-05-22T17:25:25","date_gmt":"2023-05-22T15:25:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=258650"},"modified":"2023-05-22T17:25:28","modified_gmt":"2023-05-22T15:25:28","slug":"wrong-wef-climate-change-is-not-threatening-lizards-wine-coffee-or-air-turbulence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=258650","title":{"rendered":"Wrong, WEF, Climate Change Is Not Threatening Lizards, Wine, Coffee or Air Turbulence"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From ClimateRealism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Linnea Lueken<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

An article posted to the World Economic Forum (WEF) blog on climate claims that climate change is having \u201cunusual effects around the world.\u201d In a short post, not all of the claimed effects can be checked, but the ones for which data is readily available suggest any climate impact is overblown if not entirely non-existent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article, \u201c8 unexpected side effects of climate change<\/a>,\u201d lists several claimed deleterious effects of climate change, but upon further examination, available data easily refutes the claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, there is a discrepancy between claims made in the article\u2019s summary and the actual claims made in the paper itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The summary\u2019s bullet points definitively state that climate change IS<\/strong> \u201cimpacting everything from the sex and size of animals to the state of wine and coffee crops,\u201d and \u201cit\u2019s also making flights a lot bumpier and lightning strikes more frequent.\u201d By contrast, the sections of the article related to these claims give no evidence that any of this actually happening. Instead, the WEF hedges its claims, by stating, the effects \u201ccould\u201d or \u201cmay\u201d be happening or might in the future. In addition, the WEF fails to examine other factors, besides climate change, possibly contributing to the changes it says are occurring, and unscientifically represents a single year\u2019s weather anomaly as if it were representative of a long-term trend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The WEF says that bearded dragons, native to Australia, are threatened by global warming because of a genetic trait where male embryos can \u201cend up developing as female if incubated in a nest at a temperature of 32\u00b0C or higher[.]\u201d This is a concern because \u201cmales could become increasingly rare as temperatures keep rising, leaving the entire species at risk of extinction.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the problems with the WEF\u2019s assertion about bearded dragons is that the environment is not a temperature-controlled incubator, and bearded dragons are able to choose where to lay their eggs. Field studies of this exact situation have been done, and while the researchers involved in one particular study, \u201cEvolving thermal thresholds explain the distribution of temperature sex reversal in an Australian dragon lizard<\/a>,\u201d assert in the abstract that the dragons were particularly susceptible to climate change, their findings failed to actually show this. Instead, their research found that sex reversal is predominantly observed in a certain part of the species\u2019 eastern range, and neither \u201cclimatic variables during the inferred incubation period nor geographic population genetic structure explain this disjunct distribution of sex reversal.\u201d The researchers concluded that genetic adaptation can \u201ccounteract\u201d the effect of high temperatures on sex reversal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The science is hardly straightforward on this topic, because life and evolution are complex. Considering the fact that crocodilians and other reptiles that also display temperature induced sex-reversal have survived through long periods of much warmer and much colder average temperatures, it is unlikely that bearded dragons are at existential risk from modern climate change. Indeed, research indicates that ancestors of the bearded dragons<\/a> themselves originated more than 250 million years ago, and that bearded dragons themselves<\/a> originated more than 40 million years ago \u2014 eras when the planet was warmer than at present<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, the WEF article claims that the quality and taste of wine is being impacted by climate change, or, at least, could be in the future. This claim is as misguided as it is unverifiable. As Climate Realism<\/em> has pointed out, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a>, for example, grape production has been rising over the past few decades of modest warming. That localized weather conditions like drought and temperature impact the flavor of wines is well known to wine producers. Vineyards are found in a variety of different climate regions around the globe, and there is no data showing that weather is becoming more unpredictable than in the past. Modest warming over the past hundred-plus years has not destroyed winemaking, but there is evidence that the range of winemaking regions has expanded<\/a> with warming. This is a benefit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WEF also claims coffee production is threatened by climate change, citing as proof, the case of Brazilian coffee producers, writing they \u201chave faced substantially lower yields of Arabica beans this year because of frosts and droughts.\u201d The WEF\u2019s worldwide predictions of coffee losses are based on computer modelled growing projects for the next 30 years.Climate Realism<\/a><\/em>has posted dozens of articles demonstrating computer models are seriously flawed and that, as a result, their projections can\u2019t be trusted. Lest one be concerned about Arabica bean production, data from Statista, shows Arabica bean production has increased by approximately 25 percent since 2005<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Crop production varies from year to year due to localized weather conditions. Farmer have recognized this fact since the agricultural revolution first occurred more than 10,000 years ago. Nothing has changed since then. Brazil\u2019s single year arabica coffee bean decline does not reflect a long-term trend indicative of climate change. In fact, Brazil\u2019s coffee production has been trending upwards during the recent period of modest warming, according to data from the\u00a0United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization<\/a>. (See Figure below)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Another assertion that the WEF makes is that air turbulence is getting worse because of climate change. However, as previously explained in\u00a0Climate Realism<\/em>\u00a0here<\/a>,\u00a0here<\/a>, and\u00a0here<\/a>, available data refutes this claim. According to a\u00a0report<\/a>\u00a0from the\u00a0International Civil Aviation Organization<\/a>, there has been no increase in the accidents or injuries due to turbulence that one would expect if air conditions were worsening. (See figure below)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

What the data shows, in fact, is that although air traffic and the number of passengers<\/a> has increased dramatically, there has been no upward trend in increasing turbulence related accidents over the past 30 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the WEF claim\u2019s \u201cclear air turbulence\u201d is already increasing, the link provided by the WEF to support this claim provides no evidence to support it. Rather than providing real world data as proof for the claim, the study relies on projections from computer model simulations. Whereas the WEF claims that wind shear is stronger in the jet stream due to climate change, other climate research indicates the exact opposite<\/a> has occurred. In either case, turbulence data shows no growing threat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The claims made by the WEF, such Alpine mountain goats body size declining, an asserted increase in lightning strike frequency, a possible increase in volcano activity in the future, and \u201clouder frogs,\u201d are either pure speculation, sometimes based on flawed computer model scenarios, or fail to account for possible confounding or contributing factors aside from long-term climate change. WEF using words like \u201cmight\u201d \u201ccould\u201d and \u201cmay,\u201d doesn\u2019t inspire the same level of confidence as saying \u201cdata shows,\u201d or \u201cX has been measured.\u201d The evidence suggests that the WEF is ignoring facts in pursuit of an agenda, because hard data fails to confirm any of the WEF\u2019s \u201cunexpected side-effects of climate change.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Linnea Lueken<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Linnea Lueken<\/a><\/blockquote>