No Longer Warming to Global Warming

By Kaila Ritchie

The article “Warming to Global Warming” in the Edmonton Journal provides an optimistic view on climate change. This article is chalked full of supposedly beneficial outcomes to global warming although very few points are provided with any evidence. The author argues the benefits of global warming outweigh any concerns. The author claims that "The more the temperature rises, the bigger the benefits will be (for agriculture)." The author believes that as climate temperatures continue to rise that crops will have longer growing seasons than ever before. There is no evidence given to carry this theory and is based only on the fact that because temperatures are increasing, the winter frost will occur later in the year as well as end earlier the following year. This clearly results in a long growing season. The argument implies that as the growing season increases the agriculture productivity must increase proportionally. All in all, the farming industry will be thriving from this global crisis.

Although hypothetically this is true, the growing seasons will be lengthened as temperatures begin to climb. But that does not mean that the production of crops will provide neither greater quantities nor that of higher quality. This claim was supported with no evidence nor proof, just the assumption. Without further evidence this is a very weak claim. Just because this makes sense it does not mean it is the truth. There are other complications and variables at play that are simply ignored and need to be acknowledged.

One of the main concerns to farmers brought on by climate change is drought. Farmers in hotter climates are already battling with the heat in order to keep their crops hydrated. With any rise in temperature these farmers could experience significant side effects heavily reducing crop production. A study by Jemma Gornall discusses the impact that global warming will have on agricultural productivity. She states that over time land will be lost due to rising sea levels, further limiting agricultural land. There is also concern that freshwater sources will continue to decrease at alarming speeds. In addition, precipitation rates will decrease over the stretch of the summer making it even harder for crops to survive the heat. Fresh and clean water sources such as rivers and the melting glaciers will become more and more limited, further reducing water availability for agriculture use.

This article provides more evidence disproving the argument than supporting it. This only further weakens the authors claim. As climate change continues to take effect, precipitation levels will increase. The author explains that this precipitation will appear in the winter versus during the growing season. This is only providing proof of the implications caused by global warming. This is followed by a poor attempt to recover from the issue by insuring that Canada and other developed nations will come up with new technologies to overcome the matter. But this is not a solution. There is no guarantee provided with this statement nor is it based on fact. It is just another assumption. Even if this were true, there would still be increasing numbers of under developed countries all over the world struggling to produce crops. At another point in the article the author quotes geographer David Sauchyn: that any gains that come from an increased growing season, in some years could be whipped out by a lengthy drought. By bringing forth evidence which conflicts with the argument the author is weakening the claim that global warming is beneficial for agricultural farming. Without proposing a reasonable solution the author has destabilized the argument that global warming is beneficial by jumping back and forth between views. Due to the opposing facts given, the claim is weakened.

The argument that climate change will benefit agricultural productivity is based on the theory that growing seasons will become longer. The author then jumps to the conclusion that this will provide higher crop yields which is not completely true. There are other complications preventing this from being true. The author insists that global warming is not such a terrible occurrence, that it is actually beneficial. By not providing sufficient evidence to verify this theory and then providing evidence that clashes with the theory, the conclusion can be made that this is a very weak argument. In my opinion this is an open and shut case. Global warming is one of the most pressing issues that faces our generation as well as generations to come. Therefore it is not something to be taken lightly. The author makes this argument by examination of only the immediate effects and only to our nation while ignoring the vast amount of damage that will follow. This damage will indefinitely diminish any advances in productivity for the farming industry. This being said the author of the article “Warming to Global Warming” is making and weak and ignorant argument.

References:

Gornall, J., Betts, R., Burke, E., Clark, R., Camp, J., Willett, K. and Wiltshire, A. 2010. Implications of climate change for agricultural productivity in the early twenty-first century. Royal Society B, 365:2973-2989.

(2008)Warming to global warming. Edmonton Journal, 24 Nov 2008. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=cff56e4b-5273-456c-9f31-5d3081e9aa3a. Accessed 7 Nov 2010.