We all know the story about the king who paraded with no clothes, as though everyone watching on was oblivious to the mistake. It is much the same with sources of C02, I mean C02 from factories versus C02 from natural sources. There is no definitive distinguishing feature.

Yet the experts and their nodding sycophants will claim otherwise.

The bottom line is, the processes that created the isotopic signatures found in carbon from different fossil fuels are much the same processes at work today, especially in alpine plants, even fish in the sea.

I will be discussing all of this on Thursday 19th June @ 2pm Edinburgh time with geoscientist Philip Mulholland. This will be the sixth Zoom discussion in my series Towards a New Theory of Climate Resilience. You will need to register if you want to listen in for the first hour, and then in the second hour, there will be opportunity to join the discussion.

In order to register for this single session that will be at 11pm Brisbane time, ClICK HERE.

Philip Mulholland is a geoscientist with a profile on ResearchGate, where he is noted for interests spanning botany, meteorology, geology, and geophysics. He has published important research focused on geological and geophysical topics, and also more controversial work on Earth’s energy budget.

Philip has suggested the title be: Carbon Isotopic Fractionation Processes. There are three distinct processes:

1. Kinetic fractionation in methane formation, where microbes preferentially use ¹²C, leading to very negative δ¹³C (e.g., -60.00‰ in methane seep aragonite, citing Buckman et al., 2020).

2. Equilibrium fractionation in carbonate precipitation, where inorganic processes produce less negative or positive δ¹³C (e.g., +4.17‰ to +4.86‰ in Bahamian ooids, citing Geyman et al., 2022).

3. Biological fractionation in plants, with C3 plants (-33.00‰ to -24.00‰) showing stronger fractionation than C4 (-16.00‰ to -10.00‰) or CAM plants (-28.70‰ to -11.60‰).

**********

The feature image was drawn by the AI program Grok and I’m told by Grok shows a young Philip Mulholland on the deck of a ship in the North Sea, capturing his early career in the petroleum industry … linking Philip’s hands-on work to his expertise in geoscience.

“Going Bananas” is the title of a new report by Christian Aid, which purports to demonstrate that banana crops are threatened directly by climate change (droughts, floods, heat, etc) and indirectly (the spread of fungal disease allegedly caused by climate change). Naturally, because it pushes the climate crisis narrative, the Guardian has given it some publicity. Its headlines are just what we might expect: “Climate crisis threatens the banana, the world’s most popular fruit, research shows – Fourth most important food crop in peril as Latin America and Caribbean suffer from slow-onset climate disaster”. The Guardian doesn’t hold back (does it ever?):

Rising temperatures, extreme weather and climate-related pests are pummeling banana-growing countries such as Guatemala, Costa Rica and Colombia, reducing yields and devastating rural communities across the region, according to Christian Aid’s new report, Going Bananas: How Climate Change Threatens the World’s Favourite Fruit.

It’s certainly true that the Christian Aid report does seek to create that image (the report’s cover picture shows “Amelia with her daughter Yakelin 4, standing beside their dying banana plant”. Unfortunately, they failed to crop the accompanying photograph, which seems to show a lot of healthy-looking banana plants behind them). However, a detailed read of the report doesn’t really justify the hyperbole. Real world data undermine it. The Christian Aid report produces four “case studies”, focusing on different countries.

India

We are given a selective picture of climate change:

But this Indian staple is under threat from climate impacts in the nearer term, with extreme weather events, and the longer term through increasing temperatures and changes to the monsoon season increasingly impacting the country. In India’s central belt, including banana-exporting Maharashtra, extreme rainfall events have increased threefold since around 1950, but with an overall decline in annual rainfall.

The problem is, they don’t adduce any evidence of this alleged climate change having reduced the annual banana yield. The best they can manage is this:

One study warned that banana yield reductions could be in decline by 2050 unless adaptive action is taken to help prepare growers for the coming changes. [My emphasis].

The reality is that banana yields in India have grown at an extraordinary rate, and are continuing to do just fine. Here’s a graph from Our World in Data:

Costa Rica

The report treats us to a story of ecological degredation thanks to the allegedly environmentally-unfriendly practices of big banana-growing companies, but there’s nothing to suggest that climate change is adversely affecting yields. The best they can manage here is this:

Costa Rica is vulnerable to climate impacts…Costa Rica’s banana production is expected to be among the most negatively affected by climate change of banana producers in Latin America and the Caribbean. [My emphasis].

Current reality is rather different from the picture painted by the report. Here’s the graph from Our World in Data again:

Guatemala

Christian Aid’s main point seems to be the way that multi-national companies are behaving and the ongoing poverty of the Guatemalan population. I have no problem with them drawing attention to that. They do find a couple of people who complain that banana crops are dying, but they give us no statistics, and the best they can do is this:

Heavy economic reliance on banana exports is potentially hazardous in a country that ranks 5th of countries within highest economic risk exposure to three or more climate hazards: fully 83.3% of GDP generating regions are in at-risk areas, and the country is also at notable climate change impacts risks, being in the top five countries most affected by extreme weather events, including floods and hurricanes. Guatemala is vulnerable to both low frequency high risk events, but also high frequency lower impacts risks.

Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can only continue to adversely impact Guatemala and increasing uncertainties about growing conditions that will impact the 27% of workers employed in agriculture, including bananas.

The problem is that they don’t produce any data to support the suggestion that climate change is adversely affecting banana crops in Guatemala now. Our World in Data shows a slight fall-off in the two years to 2023, but the graph basically shows massive growth in banana crops from its start date in 1961:

Tanzania

Again, we are treated to a commentary on Tanzania’s poverty, and that is well within Christian Aid’s remit. However, the best they can do with regard to climate change and bananas is this:

Tanzania’s agricultural sector is vulnerable to climate change impacts, which include increased seasonal variation in rainfall and temperatures, as well as droughts and floods. Since Tanzania’s population has increased rapidly, the number of people living below the national poverty line has been increasing, and this lack of economic resilience makes these people even more vulnerable to climate change impacts.

Meanwhile, the graph from Our World in Data would suggest that there isn’t a problem:

For the sake of completeness, here’s the graph for banana production globally:

Conclusion

Christian Aid has gone bananas. The Guardian went bananas a long time ago.