Stanford research shows importance of European farmers adapting to climate change
New Stanford research reveals that farmers in Europe will see crop yields affected as global temperatures rise, but that adaptation can help slow the decline for some crops.
A newly published Stanford study indicates European wheat yields will drop more than 20 percent by 2040 due to global warming.
A new Stanford study finds that due to an average 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit of warming expected by 2040, yields of wheat and barley across Europe will drop more than 20 percent.
New Stanford research reveals that farmers in Europe will see crop yields affected as global temperatures rise, but that adaptation can help slow the decline for some crops.
For corn, the anticipated loss is roughly 10 percent, the research shows. Farmers of these crops have already seen yield growth slow down since 1980 as temperatures have risen, though other policy and economic factors have also played a role.
“The results clearly showed that modest amounts of climate change can have a big impact on yields of several crops in Europe,” said Stanford doctoral student Frances Moore, who conducted the research with David Lobell, an associate professor of environmental Earth system science.
Moore, a student in the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, described the results as somewhat surprising because Europe is fairly cool. “So you might think it would benefit from moderate amounts of warming,” she said. “Our next step was to actually measure the potential of European farmers to adapt to these impacts.”
Moore and Lobell analyzed yield and profit records from thousands of farms between 1989 and 2009. These originated in the European Union’s annual Farmer Accountancy Data Network survey. Combining detailed climate records with the farm data, they were able to understand how yields and profits have changed over time. By comparing yields in warmer and cooler parts of Europe, they could predict how adaptation may help European farmers in the coming decades. Their research is detailed in the latest issue of the journal Nature Climate Change.
“By adaptation, we mean a range of options based on existing technologies, such as switching varieties of a crop, installing irrigation or growing a different crop, one better suited to warmer temperatures,” said Lobell, the associate director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford. “These things have been talked about for a long time, but the novelty of this study was using past data to quantify the actual potential of adaptation to reduce climate change impacts. We find that in some cases adaptation could substantially reduce impacts, but in other cases the potential may be very limited with current technologies.”
According to the analysis, corn has the highest adaptation potential. Moore and Lobell predict that corn farmers can reduce yield losses by as much as 87 percent through long-term adaptation.
As Moore pointed out, three key areas of uncertainty make it difficult to predict the future of crop yields in Europe. Most scientists focus on the uncertainty around future climate conditions, but the Stanford team found that the biggest issues are often how quickly farmers in Europe will adapt to climate change (adaptation uncertainty) and how crop yields will respond to climate change (response uncertainty).
In future research, Moore and Lobell hope to focus on measuring how quickly farmers are adapting to changing temperatures.
“This paper has shown that crops in Europe are sensitive to warming and that adaptation can be important in reducing that impact,” Moore said. “The next question is how quickly farmers will use the available options for adapting. Europe has already seen a lot of warming, so we should expect to already see adaptation if farmers are quick to respond to climate signals.”
Laura Seaman is the communications and external relations manager for Stanford’s Center on Food Security and the Environment, a joint program of Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.
===============================================================
I don’t know about European yield numbers, but in the United States, so far such claims of yield reduction have not come to pass. The trend is still upwards.
And, temperatures don’t seem to have much effect on corn yields above:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Stanford is making claims completely at odds with known historical facts. My bet is on the factual data, not Stanford’s make believe theories.
The power of faith to blind the authors of these reports is amazing. Faith, properly applied, helps people do good. When one looks at the quality of the studies and actions the climate obsessed produce, the clearer it is that they are not applying faith in a good way.
Just another liberal American university, spewing lies and brainwashing students.
“A new Stanford study finds that due to an average 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit of warming expected by 2040”
Its not expected by me, or the IPCC. So, who expects such a rise in only 25 years?
“that due to an average 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit of warming expected by 2040”
consistent with no temp rise for over a decade
Perfect example of “science”…..build on someone’s else’s work….and don’t check to see if their work is accurate at all
Yeah, they better get a new combine harvester.
This sounds ludicrous to believe that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a decline in crop yields! Sofar, increased co2 has resulted in add’l greening of the planet, so why would these crops be any different?
“though other policy and economic factors have also played a role.”
duh. ya think? well, maybe only 99.999% of the role. But let’s not spoil the grant-seeking effort….
“For corn, the anticipated loss is roughly 10 percent, the research shows.”
What are we talking about here? The American term for maize is CORN; to most of the rest of the Western world, corn is a generalized term for small grains such as wheat and rye. Corn (maize) thrives in warm temperatures and the rain that usually follows those conditions — at least in temperate climates like the American Midwest and Western Europe. However, since the countries of Western Europe are generally at higher latitudes than the American corn belt, they don’t grow a lot of maize because the temperatures aren’t as favorable as the American corn belt.
Do wheat crops respond to real temperature changes only, or do they also respond to adjusted temperature changes and/or modeled temperature changes?
I had to do a triple-take on that last graph of US Corn Belt Temperatures, June/July/August, 1900-2013. It was an intersection of two subsets. I first read the chart as that 1932 peak was 1998 and the scale was years, not decades. It is an example of scale invariance of fractals.
First off, are those the USHCN anomaly temps post GISS adjustment? And they still show 1930s with a huge summer spike?!
2. This is the first time I’ve seen the 1992-1993 crash in temps. I suspect something artificial in the data collection/processing rather than in the climate. Either that or some US Government law that changed farming practices in the early 1990s.
3. The 42 CIMP5 Model Average: Is this an equivalent subset? Corn Belt USA, June/July/Aug?
4. To be fair, the temperature profile on this chart should also have accompanying lines for
Yield / acre.
Planted acres.
Irrigated acres.
The USHCN temperature profile above might be heavily influenced by the rise in irrigation. It would be interesting to see relative humidity anomaly along with the temperature anomaly.
Stanford University? Since when are they experts in the corn belt?
Any chance that someone at Iowa State peer reviewed it?
UK temps have been dropping over the passed decade and they expect us to believe that over the next 26 years, we’re going to see a 3.5F increase?
Excuse my ignorance, and please inform me… 42 cmip5?
In that graph there is obviously a projection into future years. But since the line goes back to circa 1905, I suspect that this model at some point was an observation, and became a projection. Can someone tell me when that happened?
This is utter garbage. I’m ashamed to be associated with Stanford, to which alma mater I’ve quit donating. Climate “scientists” have become no better than lying Creation “scientists”. Worse, since the CACA swine are feeding at the public trough instead of off private donations & can influence policy.
This study yet again shows how execrably pal review works.
lol
What ever Europe is expecting, it won’t be in Fahrenheit.
“Combining detailed climate records with …”
“… somewhat surprising because Europe is fairly cool.”
“… already seen yield growth slow down since 1980 as temperatures have risen,”
“… between 1989 and 2009.”
“… an average 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit of warming expected by 2040,”
They want $32 to determine exactly why this puppy just peed on the floor. No deal.
As others have noted – who expects 3.5 F rise by 2040?
Also, the average high temperature in July in Kansas, our biggest wheat growing state, is 32 – 34 C; the average high temperature in July in France, Europe’s biggest wheat growing country, is 24 – 26 C. So according to Stanford, Kansas cannot grow wheat?
michael hart says:
May 22, 2014 at 8:24 am
But it sounds scarier in F.
don’t worry it’s raining cats and dogs since the first of May and the farmers are happy
So many obvious details left out here. Like planting time. If it’s warmer, and you know it’s warmer, it will change when you plant. It may also change your timing for irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides, etc.
And they only looked at harvests based on temp, not on CO2 levels. What’s the impact there?
I see this as a sound start toward processing data. The conclusions presented are wholly unwarranted.
@ur momisugly michael hart
The Fahrenheit/Celsius and the Maize versus Corn (@ur momisugly G P Hanner) word usage suggests, maybe, the authors were trying to write for an American audience. Folks from Stanford likely think their country’s residents are not accustomed to highfalutin terminology. They call the interior of North America “fly over country” and believe paved roads and television are rare.
I have realized, especially in the light of all of these latest claims, that you can very easily substitute the words “The Will of God” in place of the words “Climate Change” or “Global Warming”, and the statements have exactly the same amount of credibility and predictive power.
Example: “A newly published Stanford study indicates European wheat yields will drop more than 20 percent by 2040 due to the Will of God.”
See how that works? Who can disprove that????
The farmers in Europe adapted to climate change during the LIA by switching the root crops that would not rot as easily as grains. I am sure they can figure it out again on their own.
I wonder what crop yields Stanford is referring to? What nations were included in this study. For many nations in Europe, land being farmed has actually gone down. Farming and grazing lands in Greece and Italy have dropped mainly due to the aging of their farmers. In 2004 the average age of an Italian farmer was 61 years.
Additionally, consumption of certain European products (such as beer and wine) has dropped during the last 20 years. Therefore, the demand for barley, grapes and hops are dropping. The median age for Europe is now over 41. Forty years ago it was 26. The elderly consume less food than the young. Again, this causes to demand for farm products to drop. And EU nations enjoy some of the highest farm subsidies on earth. Many farms simple do not exist anymore, while other lands have gone over to industrial farms.
I seriously doubt that absolute crop yields have dropped in Europe. The growing seasons are longer, and there is little signs of significant droughts in most of the growing regions of Europe. Again, it would be nice for an independent source to analyze the data Stanford is using.