Global warming kills spaghetti crop
Sigh, “The End of Pasta?” reads more like “The end of journalism”
Some days, there appears such blatant stupidity in the MSM, you wonder if there isn’t some sort of award than can be handed out for it. I think Mark Hertsgaard is deserving of such an award for this moronically mendacious missive where he manages to work the two poster children for ridiculous climate alarmism into one paragraph:
Hurricane Sandy’s recent devastation of New York and neighboring states reminded Americans of what Hurricane Katrina demonstrated in 2005: global warming makes weather more extreme, and extreme weather can be extremely dangerous. But flooding coastlines aren’t our only worry. Climate change is also imperiling the very foundation of human existence: our ability to feed ourselves.
This colossal disconnect (name a hurricane that hit the wheat belt) makes me want to call him up and scream at him. His premise is this:
But if humans want to keep eating pasta, we will have to take much more aggressive action against global warming. Pasta is made from wheat, and a large, growing body of scientific studies and real-world observations suggest that wheat will be hit especially hard as temperatures rise and storms and drought intensify in the years ahead.
Now the important thing to note here is that his piece is being advertised as “science” yet I fail to find any science in it, only unsubstantiated opinion and talking points. Here’s some science; if only Hertsgaard had bothered to check some data like I did. The data plot shows US Department of Agriculture data for corn (in case his next story claims children of the future won’t know what Doritos are) and wheat yields in bushels per acre:
You can get all the source data right here at USDA, available to most anyone with the ability to open a web browser and do a search.
So looking at the graph above, it seems there’s no obvious worry about wheat or corn disappearing any time soon. Sure, there is a downspike in 2011, due to a summer heatwave and drought in the USA. There were other downspikes of similar magnitude in the last 100 years also, so the 2011 downspike isn’t particularly unique. Despite those downspikes in yield, the trend remains upwards.
The basis of the claim for “end of pasta” by Hertsgaard is this statement:
Frank Manthey, a professor at North Dakota State University who advises the North Dakota Wheat Commission. Already, a mere 1 degree Fahrenheit of global temperature rise over the past 50 years has caused a 5.5 percent decline in wheat production.
Well, I plotted the data, both for USA temperature (using the alarmist’s favorite temperature data, Jim Hansen’s GISS data) and USA wheat production from USDA, and I call bullshit on the claim:
Data sources:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/wheat-data.aspx
Clearly, US wheat production is healthy, increasing, and shows no sign of the 5.5% decrease, and if anything it seems to indicate there is a positive effect from temperature on wheat yield. Improved farming practices and improved wheat seed stocks have helped too. If I really wanted to embarrass these two guys I could add the Keeling curve for CO2 also, and point out that crop yields increase with increases in CO2 as well.
How do people like this get a broad voice to such opinions that don’t stand up under the simplest of tests? I don’t know, but you can write them here to ask them:
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/plantsciences/people/faculty/manthey
Frank.Manthey@ndsu.edu
David Lobell
dlobell@stanford.edu
There is no contact info for Hertsgaard, so you have to complain to the editors for this dreck:
editorial@thedailybeast.com
The professor may answer, but Hertsgaard is probably a lost cause to mental mendacity, as he also believes (according to some obscure activist group)that Climate Change is killing 1000 children a day.
If that were true, don’t you think the rest of the MSM would have daily headlines about it? So far, not a peep. Apparently, fact checking is not a journalism skill Hertsgaard possesses.
UPDATE – Commenter Richard III writes:
A quick look at the this page will show how just how dangerous a little knowledge can be. There’s a lot more than a 1 degree temperature difference between south Texas and Northern Montana. It used to be that a college professor would know that. http://www.smallgrains.org/whfacts/growreg.htm
UPDATE2— I trust Anthony won’t mind me adding a little historical perspective to this. The best source for this kind of crop production and yield information is the FAO. Here is their history of wheat production and wheat yield.
![globalwheatproductionandyield[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/globalwheatproductionandyield1.jpg?quality=83)
Note that to put it mildly, Mark Hertsgaard’s pasta claims are true only in some alternate reality. In the larger sense, yield and total production are still rising. – Willis Eschenbach.
UPDATE3 – here is the source of the 5.5% claim by David Lobell of Stanford.
http://foodsecurity.stanford.edu/publications/climate_trends_and_global_crop_production_since_1980
Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980
Journal ArticleAuthors
David Lobell – Stanford University
Wolfram Schlenker – Assistant Professor in Economics at Columbia University
Justin Costa-Roberts – Stanford University
Published by
Science, May 2011
Efforts to anticipate how climate change will affect future food availability can benefit from understanding the impacts of changes to date. Here we show that in the cropping regions and growing seasons of most countries, with the important exception of the United States, temperature trends for 1980-2008 exceeded one standard deviation of historic year-to-year variability. Models that link yields of the four largest commodity crops to weather indicate that global maize and wheat production declined by 3.8% and 5.5%, respectively, compared to a counter-factual without climate trends. For soybeans and rice, winners and losers largely balanced out. Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields 16 that arose from technology, CO2 fertilization, and other factors.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A troll under its own intitiative. It does as much harm giving them the time of day except that you can’t just accept the troll declarations of fact. (Factitious is increasingly an important word for these times of junkscience and mental obsession.)
And there was I thinking the story would be about the logical end result if more and more grain gets diverted into fermentation for biofuels…
Enter modelling:
a) without AGW, food yields would be higher. Proof? Scenario A through C say so.
b) if it’s hotter, then wheat will “burn” more often in the field, therefore we’ll have less to harvest and all those who would have gotten that extra wheat will have none and will start. You don’t need a computer to understand this.
With the right outlook and grade school math, it all makes sense.
Today on the CBC radio, I heard some insurance spokesman say that with the increase in “extreme weather”, hailstorm damage was rising rapidly in Alberta. Nobody asked if the increase was related to inflation, the amount of insurance coverage in either value or area, or if, in fact, hailstorms were increasing in number or observation, including radar imaging.
You can educate ’em, but you can’t make ’em think.
Surely if/when the climate changes, the wheat belt will just move N or S to compensate, just as it always has in the past 8,000 years or so.
Just typical sloppy journalism as is now the norm from MSM.
Ah, but you didn’t factor in the number of bushels used to fuel Hertsgaard’s green ecnomy. You know, the one where you take all the food and convert it to fuel for the Prius and such. Just imagine how many millions of acres it takes to grow and refine the fuel to get all those folks to the next climate conference.
If you heard it on cbc it must be true. Like their comrades at bbc, fair and balanced like a one sided see-saw.
This man never seems to tire of proving himself a chump. I try hard not to lose all respect for some alarmists but this guy really is special.
Climate alarmism is a conclusion desperately in search of a datum.
P.S. There is a spelling mistake in the headline.
[fixed thanks -mod]
Oh Good. I can tell my brother-in-law in Saskatchewan that he can switch to wheat from barley since global warming will mean that it will be easier for him to grow wheat and his competition further south will be wiped out.
I like how these extreme alarmists ignore that if global warming is threatening the crop production in certain areas it is opening up arable land in areas which were previously unusable. The same argument has been used by other environmental lobby groups with regards to coffee and chocolate, ignoring that if these crops can’t be grown in one region they will be moved to another area where they can.
A quick look at the this page will show how just how dangerous a little knowledge can be. There’s a lot more than a 1 degree temperature difference between south Texas and Northern Montana. It used to be that a college professor would know that. http://www.smallgrains.org/whfacts/growreg.htm
What happened to CO2 in their obvious CAGW claims? I thought all this problem was caused by CO2! Or have they completely forgotten the connection between CO2 and plants, of which wheat is a prime example?
I’ve read estimates that trees are growing 30% faster than they did 50 years ago, and that wheat production is up 9-10% for the same reason (other factors contributing to the rest of the increase for wheat).
It rather makes fools of the CAGW crowd–unless their ultimate goal is to reverse CO2 increases so it adversely affects foodstuff production in an attempt to reduce world population. I believe that’s what these selfish, egotistical elites want.
Meanwhile in Canada:
“The CWB, which recently lost its monopoly over selling wheat in Canada, says production of the six major grains and oilseeds could yield 51.6 million tonnes this year — better than the five-year average by about four million tonnes.
“In the decade between 2001 and 2010 we had about 50 million tonnes only twice, so you can see … it’s a pretty substantial production,” Burnett said.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/08/22/crop-yield-wheat-canola.html
WUWT says: “So looking at the graph above, it seems there’s no obvious worry about wheat or corn disappearing any time soon.”
There is no “obvious worry” about wheat or corn yields declining dramatically soon from global warming, this is true. However, there is a less “obvious worry” about human caused destruction of our agricultural output, and that is the agreements that China has agressively been seeking from both the EU and the United States.
http://www.seeddaily.com/reports/EU_China_agree_on_ag_sustainability_999.html
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2012/02/0057.xml
What exactly is US Agricultural Sec Tom Vilsack doing signing sustainability agreements with China for our domestic policy? And, it is a FIVE YEAR PLAN, no less. (BTW I never use caps.)
These “sustainable” farming practices are no less than eliminating pest control and chemical fertilizers, as well as high yield varieties of cereals, as near as I have been able to glean. So when climate scientists, Genetically Modified food critics, water alarmists, politicians, and world banks start threatening that agriculture will suffer in the next five years, you may want to reach for your wallet, because this will be a self-fulfilling prophecy if China and the Agricultural Sustainability movement is able to freeze and reverse our agricultural technology.
Studies on projected climate change impact on agriculture I have seen say clearly that mild climate change can help production because of longer growing sessions and that CO2 it self stimulates plant growth. The concern is and always has been about the long term impact if human caused climate change continues. Pointing to recent crop data to refute this is like saying we don’t have to worry about the bridge ahead being out because the road here is free of pot holes.
I think that alarmism has become intense because it was hoped that reduced CO2 could have taken credit for the cooler global temperatures that we will probably see in the near future and that opportunity is soon running out.
Now you did it, I’m hungry now. A nice plate of Linguini with White Clam Sauce is dancing thru my mind right now… Accompanied by a nice white wine…
But no! I get to look forward to my PB&J and Chicken noodle soup for lunch.
It’s all your fault..
“Climate change is also imperiling the very foundation of human existence: our ability to feed ourselves.” True, in the sense that, to “save the planet,” our politicians have mandated that we burn our food in our vehicles rather than eat it, by having mandated adding ethanol made from corn to gasoline – and, worse, subsidizing the higher costs, which we fund with (additional) taxes.
Alas, as with any religion it is difficult to rationalize the fanatics. Global Warming Church is no difference. I had several blog conversations and see little difference in talking to them…
This person seems to be no difference, if convinced or only repeating nonsense?
He conveniently ignores the CO2 fertilisation factor in his drama – what is tested in hundreds and hundreds of studies, what we all know as common sense:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_w.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/t/triticuma.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/z/zeam.php
and pedals on potential possible temperatures from models which have no confirmation but are firm anchored in his religious beliefs.
He conveniently ignores the 16 years of no warming that invalidate the models. Is this science?
I would happily let all warmista live on their dream planet in their collective society that has their ideal world values: with 280 ppm CO2 with 1.5 to 2°C colder average temperature, with electricity generated through wind and solar and some small water where allowed. No fossil fuel, no fission, only bio-fuels.
Unfortunately it is not possible, we cannot split our universe. We have to live with all kind of bigots, so all we can try is tell the other view of science, tell there is another voice and show where the faulty science lies.
It is not that they do not know or do not see that we are right in our arguments, but they believe they are doing the right thing, they believe they are right and we are only looking for the cheap and easy way.
Pasta is usually made from Durum wheat. In North America, that means most is grown in Canada.
But, there has been no temperature increase in the prairies since about 1988, so pasta appears safe for now.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2011001/ct017-eng.htm
But, oddly, with about a 1.5 deg temperature rise from 1948 to 1988, durum wheat production has increased an order of magnitude.
http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/research-recherche/dexter/hdwb-habd/hdwb-habd-2-eng.htm#fig2
Buzzed:
At December 12, 2012 at 10:14 am you make the ‘polar bear assertion’; i.e. ‘everything is getting better but it will go wrong’.
You say
NO!
Climate changes everywhere and all the time. It always has and it always will.
When a local climate changes then farmers change their crops in that locality.
Simply, farmers lack the stupidity of warmunists.
Richard
C3 plants like wheat have much better yields at or above 380 ppmv CO2, therefore our current levels of CO2 should give us much better wheat yields.
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-10440.pdf
At 250 ppmv CO2 and below C3 plants are on the verge of starvation.
Global Warming!… You had better stay away from my pasta! You mess with it? And I’ma gonna have to kill ya!!!!
Durum Wheat, the cool northern crop used for pasta and mostly grown in Montana and North Dakota, as well as Arizona, is being contiuously improved for better yields and quality.
http://www.northern-crops.com/technical/introdurum.pdf (2 pages)
Therefore, laws and legislation outlawing certain varieties and restricting water, or causing there to be less planted acres, are the most immediate threat to pasta. This is a far greater and immediate danger to pasta than co2, a trace gas in the atmosphere which we now know is used by plants in photosynthesis to create the oils, carbohydrates, and sugars sustaining all life on the planet. – Except a few smokestack dwellers in the sea. (:
Many families in the world rely on pasta to feed a family inexpensively. WUWT’s strong language (BS) is absolutely appropriate for people who are using science and politics to destroy our cereal yields in the name of a sustainable planet.
I couldn’t resist this classic