Stanford claims farmers "dodged impacts of global warming" in the USA, but you have to find it first.

But it looks to me as if corn doesn’t care. Check out U.S. corn yield. Corn seems to be doing well. I used corn yield because in the Stanford Press Release, they refer to corn yields. Some of the gains seen below are likely the result of improved seed lines.

Now have a look at US temperature for the same period:

What global warming? The last two years of annual mean temperature for the USA (2009, 2010) is about the same as it was in 1980 and 1981, and lower than many years since.This graph is from the National Climatic Data Center. You can plot it yourself here with the default base period, no trend line, and years 1980-2010.

===========================================================

From Stanford University via Eurekalert

US farmers dodge the impacts of global warming — at least for now

Global warming is likely already taking a toll on world wheat and corn production, according to a new study led by Stanford University researchers. But the United States, Canada and northern Mexico have largely escaped the trend.

“It appears as if farmers in North America got a pass on the first round of global warming,” said David Lobell, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford University. “That was surprising, given how fast we see weather has been changing in agricultural areas around the world as a whole.”

Lobell and his colleagues examined temperature and precipitation records since 1980 for major crop-growing countries in the places and times of year when crops are grown. They then used crop models to estimate what worldwide crop yields would have been had temperature and precipitation had typical fluctuations around 1980 levels.

The researchers found that global wheat production was 5.5 percent lower than it would have been had the climate remained stable, and global corn production was lower by almost 4 percent. Global rice and soybean production were not significantly affected.

The United States, which is the world’s largest producer of soybeans and corn, accounting for roughly 40 percent of global production, experienced a very slight cooling trend and no significant production impacts.

A combine harvester reaps, threshes and winnows its way through a field of corn at harvest time. Yields in the US, Canada and northern Mexico have yet to feel the impact of global warming. Credit: UDSA

Outside of North America, most major producing countries were found to have experienced some decline in wheat and corn (or maize) yields related to the rise in global temperature. “Yields in most countries are still going up, but not as fast as we estimate they would be without climate trends,” Lobell said.

Lobell is the lead author of a paper about the research to be published May 5 online in Science Express.

Russia, India and France suffered the greatest drops in wheat production relative to what might have been with no global warming. The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil.

Total worldwide relative losses of the two crops equal the annual production of corn in Mexico and wheat in France. Together, the four crops in the study constitute approximately 75 percent of the calories that humans worldwide consume, directly or indirectly through livestock, according to research cited in the study.

“Given the relatively small temperature trends in the U.S. Corn Belt, it shouldn’t be surprising if complacency or even skepticism about global warming has set in, but this study suggests that would be misguided,” Lobell said.

Since 1950, the average global temperature has increased at a rate of roughly 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. But over the next two to three decades average global temperature is expected to rise approximately 50 percent faster than that, according to the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. With that rate of temperature change, it is unlikely that the crop-growing regions of the United States will continue to escape the rising temperatures, Lobell said.

“The climate science is still unclear about why summers in the Corn Belt haven’t been warming. But most explanations suggest that warming in the future is just as likely there as elsewhere in the world,” Lobell said.

“In other words, farmers in the Corn Belt seem to have been lucky so far.”

This is the first study to come up with a global estimate for the past 30 years of what has been happening, Lobell said.

To develop their estimates, the researchers used publicly available global data sets from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and from the University of Delaware, University of Wisconsin, and McGill University.

The researchers also estimated the economic effects of the changes in crop yield using models of commodity markets.

“We found that since 1980, the effects of climate change on crop yields have caused an increase of approximately 20 percent in global market prices,” said Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University and a coauthor of the paper in Science.

He said if the beneficial effects of higher carbon dioxide levels on crop growth are factored into the calculation, the increase drops down to 5 percent.

“Five percent sounds small until you realize that at current prices world production of these four crops are together worth nearly $1 trillion per year,” Schlenker said. “So a price increase of 5 percent implies roughly $50 billion per year more spent on food.”

Rising commodity prices have so far benefited American farmers, Lobell and Schlenker said, because they haven’t suffered the relative declines in crop yield that the rest of the world has been experiencing.

“It will be interesting to see what happens over the next decade in North America,” Lobell said. “But to me the key message is not necessarily the specifics of each country. I think the real take-home message is that climate change is not just about the future, but that it is affecting agriculture now. Accordingly, efforts to adapt agriculture such as by developing more heat- and drought-tolerant crops will have big payoffs, even today. ”

###

Justin Costa-Roberts, an undergraduate student at Stanford, is also a coauthor of the Science paper. David Lobell is a researcher in Stanford’s Program on Food Security and the Environment, a joint program of Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment and Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Schlenker is an assistant professor at the School of International and Public Affairs and at the Department of Economics at Columbia.

IMAGE: A combine harvester reaps, threshes and winnows its way through a field of corn at harvest time. Yields in the US, Canada and northern Mexico have yet to feel the…

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
122 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike Bromley the Kurd
May 6, 2011 3:40 am

There’s the M-word again. Let’s model it, and we can show anything, even if somehow we escaped the thing we are showing. ARRRNK! Wrong answer!

David, UK
May 6, 2011 4:00 am

“Given the relatively small temperature trends in the U.S. Corn Belt, it shouldn’t be surprising if complacency or even skepticism about global warming has set in, but this study suggests that would be misguided,” Lobell said.
You WISH, Lobell. You show your true colours. No true scientist would claim that scepticism is misguided. Only a self-interested crook would make such a ludicrous anti-scientific statement. To be against scepticism is to be against freedom of thought. You must be very disappointed by the lack of famine, disasters, general catastrophe – and the lack of warming – in the USA.

May 6, 2011 4:10 am

Stanford University:
They then used crop models to estimate what worldwide crop yields would have been had temperature and precipitation had typical fluctuations around 1980 levels.
The researchers found that global wheat production was 5.5 percent lower than it would have been had the climate remained stable, and global corn production was lower by almost 4 percent.
JK: OK, I get it:
Models predict crop yield.
Prediction does not match reality.
Therefore climate change has reduced the yeild!
Psst! Psst! Over here->->->(Look at the model’s credibility)
Stanford University:
“The climate science is still unclear about why summers in the Corn Belt haven’t been warming.
JK: Err, how about because most warming is at night, and in the cities?
Thanks
JK

Bernie Kelly
May 6, 2011 4:11 am

“Yields in most countries are still going up, but not as fast as we estimate they would be without climate trends,” Lobell said.
Yields increasing, and this is bad news?
“We found that since 1980, the effects of climate change on crop yields have caused an increase of approximately 20 percent in global market prices,” said Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University and a coauthor of the paper in Science.
Is it not more likely that global warming (hysteria) has led to food being diverted to ethanol and biodeisel production leading to increased prices?
“In other words, farmers in the Corn Belt seem to have been lucky so far.”
Or is it possible that the hypothesis is wrong?

Ari
May 6, 2011 4:15 am

Much of the corn produced in Brazil came to be planted after soybean harvest and therefore have lower productivity. No relation to AGW.

Roger Carr
May 6, 2011 4:15 am

The climate science is still unclear about why summers in the Corn Belt haven’t been warming. But most explanations suggest that warming in the future is just as likely there as elsewhere in the world,” Lobell said.
Perceptive chap. The critical word being “likely”.
…just as likely there as elsewhere…
Quite.

May 6, 2011 4:18 am

As far as I tell from a quick search on the interweb, there is a whole lot more than temperature that affects wheat production. Just like there is a whole lot more than a trace gas that affects the climate, I guess.

Eric
May 6, 2011 4:18 am

Common Tiger, we know you can spend your money better than this…

May 6, 2011 4:20 am

Ummm… “Yields in most countries are still going up, but not as fast as we estimate they would be without climate trends.” That is, had the climate remained stable. This estimation is based on what, exactly?
Oh, I see… They used crop models to estimate what worldwide crop yields would have been had temperature and precipitation had typical fluctuations around 1980 levels.
There’s that word again – models. Counter-factual virtual “reality” that is as about as real-world as “Reality” TV. And their ideal situation is also utterly unreal. Typical fluctuations around 1980 levels? Have they not even bothered to check the global temperature readings for the last century-and-a-half to see how often temperature and precipitation have hovered around any level for thirty years?

Tom Harley
May 6, 2011 4:23 am

Sounds to me, as someone who has farmed, sold machinery, dealt in livestock and more, like research from people that have not had cropping experience.
Lobell included: according to the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This immediately tells me that he doesn’t really know and has to rely on the IPCC activists.
Colder temps are more likely to reduce crop yields, as is reduced moisture availability.
In Western Australia’s ‘wheat belt’ for instance, early rainfall while still warm in the autumn, brings much larger yields than if this rain starts later during early winter, when minimum temps are often at freezing point or lower, even if there is more rainfall.
Higher temperatures during spring and summer are also preferred to boost yields and encouraging ripening. This area consistently has summer maximum temperatures in excess of 40C.
Higher temperatures are preferred, so bring the warming on, I say. It is a pity that it is not happening.

Sean
May 6, 2011 4:28 am

At first glance this study appears to be the inverse of the governments claims on jobs “saved or created” in the midst of rising unemployment. The more important issue however is, are there lessons being lost by trying to tie every change in yield to a weak global temperature trend when regional factors are really all that matter. Did they account fo how technology like GM crops affect yields or provides resistance to vagaries in the weather? Getting distracted and missing the real keys to success in improving yields does not move the ball forward.

Shevva
May 6, 2011 4:30 am

It’s Friday I’m thinking about beer :-
“Yields in most countries are still going up, but not as fast as we estimate they would be without climate trends,” – Whats a climate trend? my guess some sort of model output?
“It appears as if farmers in North America got a pass on the first round of global warming,” said David Lobell, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford University. “That was surprising, given how fast we see weather has been changing in agricultural areas around the world as a whole.” – Rounds of global warming? well if there getting the rounds in mines a tall cold one and what is the scale they are using to justify how fast is fast?

Steve Keohane
May 6, 2011 4:37 am

It’s kind of like the sea level rate of increase, someday GW may have an effect. Unfortunately for those playing this game, fudged numbers don’t affect reality. Vegetation is up on the planet some 6% allegedly due to increased CO2. These folks are saying the increased temperatures globally have reduced crop yields. So the increase of a fantasy-fraction of a degree outweighs the measurable effects of CO2 on plant life.
Here’s 180 years of Illinois corn vs. CO2. http://i52.tinypic.com/1zv51td.jpg

orson2
May 6, 2011 4:40 am

Isn’t is convenient to their framing that the good “luck” of North America includes the best kept and most continuous temperature records in the world. Meanwhile, for the areas they claim to be lagging in production increase the most, have among the worst?
Maybe it isn’t luck~

View from the Solent
May 6, 2011 4:43 am

“They then used crop models to estimate what worldwide crop yields would have been had temperature and precipitation had typical fluctuations around 1980 levels.”
No point in reading any further.

MackemX
May 6, 2011 4:44 am

“We found that since 1980, the effects of climate change on crop yields have caused an increase of approximately 20 percent in global market prices,” said Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University and a coauthor of the paper in Science.
I assume the increase in oil proces, in part fuelled by CAGW propaganda, has been factored into these price increases?
Also, is it really useful to compare actual crop yields with models of what yields might have been had the weather not changed at all? Seems very much like a piece of ill advised spin applied to an utter non-story. Far more accurate would have been a report detailing how crop yields had increased since 1980, but that kind of misses the required narrative.

polistra
May 6, 2011 5:01 am

Apparently Europe is the world and European trends are global trends.
North America is not on the world.
If that’s really the case, North America should be exempted from all agreements on “global” warming. We obviously can’t have any effect on the globe.

Frank K.
May 6, 2011 5:03 am

View from the Solent says:
May 6, 2011 at 4:43 am
“They then used crop models to estimate what worldwide crop yields would have been had temperature and precipitation had typical fluctuations around 1980 levels.”
No point in reading any further.

My thoughts exactly! Perhaps these “researchers” should get their butts on a tractor for a couple of seasons and find out what farming is really all about before they write scaremongering reports like this one…

Sundance
May 6, 2011 5:04 am

More post-normal nonsense. It reminds me of our liar politicians. They’ll spend $2 billion more than the previous but will tell you they cut $.4 billion in spending when all they really did was reduce what they ‘expected’ to spend, say from $4 billion to $3.6 billion. So what is actully a $1.6 billion increase in spending is spun by the liar politicians as a spending cut of $.4 billion. Now we have scientists “divining” what they think reality should have been (from models) and any variance is a man made fingerprint. Post-normal science at its finest.

starzmom
May 6, 2011 5:04 am

Seems to me the biggest effect that climate change has had on the corn crop is that some people have been persuaded that we should divert corn to biofuels and away from food, to protect ourselves from climate change, and that is why the food prices are going up. I’ll bet a smart researcher can make that link without resort to a model, and in no more than 2 or 3 verifiable steps. Now there is a project for you!

Jimbo
May 6, 2011 5:04 am

“Crop yields fall as temperatures rise ”
“Yields went up, but they didn’t go up as much as they might have,”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20449-crop-yields-fall-as-temperatures-rise.html

Huth
May 6, 2011 5:18 am

The main problem in the world today is not global-warming-or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it but negative thinking.

erik sloneker
May 6, 2011 5:21 am

How does one model crop yeilds when we are developing new super-hybrid breakthroughs on almost a yearly basis?
Here in the heart of the corn belt (Central Illinois) we had a hard frost on May 3rd (about the latest I can ever remember) and are still struggling with an extremely cold, wet and late spring. There’s 3 weeks left in the corn planting season and our local farmers are way behind and praying for a little global warming.

Steven Schuman
May 6, 2011 5:26 am

Come on Anthony, you can give us tougher ones than this. When I do crossword puzzles, I always pick hard ones for the challenge. Even a sixth grade science class could pick this paper apart.

Bruce Cobb
May 6, 2011 5:26 am

Another Goebel Warming fairy tale paper, ready for the dung pile of countless others. If only they could be spread over crop fields adding nutrients to the soil, thus raising crop production. But no, they would only poison the ground in the same way they poison minds of those still willing to Believe the nonsense they espouse.

1 2 3 5