Climactic headline shifts

Bruce Hall alerts me to this headline from Eurkekalert which reads:

 Eurekalert_headline

But the real headline behind the headline is this one, at the actual source: 

UCAR_headline

Hmm, “estimate risk” and “increases risk” are bit far apart, and the article even talks that headline down:

Climate experts estimate risk of rapid crop slowdown

July 25, 2014

BOULDER – The world faces a small but substantially increased risk over the next two decades of a major slowdown in the growth of global crop yields because of climate change, new research finds.

The authors, from Stanford University and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, say the odds of a major production slowdown of wheat and corn, even with a warming climate, are not very high. But the risk is about 20 times more significant than it would be without global warming, and it may require planning by organizations that are affected by international food availability and price.

“Climate change has substantially increased the prospect that crop production will fail to keep up with rising demand in the next 20 years,” said NCAR scientist Claudia Tebaldi, a co-author of the study.

Stanford professor David Lobell said he wanted to study the potential impact of climate change on agriculture in the next two decades because of questions he has received from stakeholders and decision makers in governments and the private sector.

“I’m often asked whether climate change will threaten food supply, as if it’s a simple yes or no answer,” Lobell said. “The truth is that over a 10- or 20-year period, it depends largely on how fast the Earth warms, and we can’t predict the pace of warming very precisely. So the best we can do is try to determine the odds.”

Wheat field in eastern Colorado
A storm looms behind wheat fields in eastern Colorado, where recurrent drought has had major impacts on agriculture over the last 15 years. (©UCAR, photo by Carlye Calvin. This image is freely available for media & nonprofit use.)

Lobell and Tebaldi used computer models of global climate, as well as data about weather and crops, to calculate the chances that climatic trends would have a negative effect of 10 percent on yields in the next 20 years. This would have a major impact on food supply. Yields would continue to increase but the slowdown would effectively cut the projected rate of increase by about half at the same time that demand is projected to grow sharply.

They found that the likelihood of natural climate shifts causing such a slowdown over the next 20 years is only 1 in 200. But when the authors accounted for human-induced global warming, they found that the odds jumped to 1 in 10 for corn and 1 in 20 for wheat.

The study appears in this month’s issue of Environmental Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), which is NCAR’s sponsor, and by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

More crops needed worldwide

Global yields of crops such as corn and wheat have typically increased by about 1-2 percent per year in recent decades, and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization projects that global production of major crops will increase by 13 percent per decade through 2030—likely the fastest rate of increase during the coming century. However, global demand for crops is also expected to rise rapidly during the next two decades because of population growth, greater per-capita food consumption, and increasing use of biofuels.

Lobell and Tebaldi set out to estimate the odds that climate change could interfere with the ability of crop producers to keep up with demand. Whereas other climate research had looked at the crop impacts that were most likely, Lobell and Tebaldi decided to focus on the less likely but potentially more dangerous scenario that climate change would reduce yield growth by 10 percent or more.

The researchers used simulations available from an NCAR-based climate model (developed by teams of scientists with support from NSF and DOE), as well as several other models, to provide trends in temperature and precipitation over the next two decades for crop-intensive regions under a scenario of increasing carbon dioxide. They also used the same model simulations without human-caused increases in carbon dioxide to assess the same trends in a natural climate.

In addition, they ran statistical analyses to estimate the impacts of changes in temperature and precipitation on wheat and corn yields in various regions of the globe and during specific times of the year that coincide with the most important times of the growing seasons for those two crops.

The authors quantified the extent to which warming temperatures would correlate with reduced yields. For example, an increase of 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) would slow corn yields by 7 percent and wheat yields by 6 percent. Depending on the crop-growing region, the odds of such a temperature increase in the next 20 years were about 30 to 40 percent in simulations that included increases in carbon dioxide. In contrast, such temperature increases had a much lower chance of occurring in stimulations that included only natural variability, not human-induced climate change.

Although society could offset the climate impacts by planting wheat and corn in cooler regions, such planting shifts to date have not occurred quickly enough to offset warmer temperatures, the study warned. The authors also found little evidence that other adaptation strategies, such as changes in crop varieties or growing practices would totally offset the impact of warming temperatures.

“Although further study may prove otherwise, we do not anticipate adaptation being fast enough to significantly alter the near-term risks estimated in this paper,” they wrote.

“We can’t predict whether a major slowdown in crop growth will actually happen, and the odds are still fairly low,” said Tebaldi. “But climate change has increased the odds to the point that organizations concerned with food security or global stability need to be aware of this risk.”

About the article

Title: Getting caught with our plants down: the risks of a global crop yield slowdown from climate trends in the next two decades

Authors: David B. Lobell and Claudia Tebaldi

Publication: Environmental Research Letters doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/7/074003

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

140 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DHR
July 27, 2014 6:52 am

Did the study include the effects of increased CO2 on plant growth?

JimS
July 27, 2014 6:52 am

Warming temperatures = longer growing season = less risk of frost = stupid alarmist climate models.

tmitsss
July 27, 2014 6:56 am

Leona Marahall Libby says “I told you”

Rod Everson
July 27, 2014 6:57 am

I would really like to know how many tax dollars were spent on this “modeling” effort. In fact, it should be a requirement of all tax-financed research that the published paper include the amount of taxpayer funding in the write up of the article.

Leonard Weinstein
July 27, 2014 7:01 am

There are numerous indications that a flat to cooling trend rather than warming trend will dominate this period. This along with increasing CO2 should result in increase rather than decrease in these crops compared to their baseline. However, if the cooling is too severe, problems can occur for exactly the opposite reason stated by this study. This narrow minded, one sided, and biased study, using falsified model data is a disgrace to science.

July 27, 2014 7:01 am

” In contrast, such temperature increases had a much lower chance of occurring in stimulations that included only natural variability, not human-induced climate change.”
I didn’t realize corn and wheat could read political propaganda. How else would a corn plant know why it is warmer?

Joe I.
July 27, 2014 7:04 am

Let me see…they were using the same climate models that have been wildly inaccurate when compared to actual readings. How about the effect of 1 degree of global cooling? Then you would see some crop failures of monumental proportions. Don’t confuse this cabal sucking at the taxpayer tit, though. They NEED the money. And the narrative.

urederra
July 27, 2014 7:06 am

Yields would continue to increase but the slowdown would effectively cut the projected rate of increase by about half at the same time that demand is projected to grow sharply.

So, Yields would increase but not as much as the rate of increase we had so far.
Even if it is due to “climate change”, whatever that means. It does not seeem scary at all.
Anyway, the usual model output spiced with a large amount of propaganda. DId they say that higher CO2 levels, anthropogenic or not, renders higher crop yields? Can you foresee biological breakthroughts that provide better seeds? Are they using computer output from climate models as data to feed their computer model? Are they taking into account that climate models are failing miserably?

July 27, 2014 7:14 am

they are completely clueless but perhaps by accident they got it [the prediction] right
i.e. more droughts at the >40 latitude
due to global cooling
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

July 27, 2014 7:15 am

Stupid is as stupid does…
    “..reduce yield growth..”
that’s like saying AGW will
    “…reduce the yield of Moore’s law…”
Both Moore’s law and crop yield increases represent huge amounts of highly talented and skilled work and investment,
I view that person would have to be
    a really clueless, uninvolved drone to say either of these.
As the financial community CYA’s
    “Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns”

poitsplace
July 27, 2014 7:15 am

I’m sure a lot of people would complain, but I find it refreshing that they were clear about what exactly their models said. It doesn’t say yields will decrease, it plainly states that they’ll likely continue to increase.
There have been so many studies I’ve read that claimed negative yields, only to find out that for ALL SCENARIOS by the IPCC the study’s data indicates yields would increase, and that’s without factoring in CO2 fertilization and CO2 induced drought resistance. Of course, what one has to wonder about all of these studies is how many model runs showed increased yield rates or failed to factor in things like CO2 fertilization/drought resistance.

Steve Keohane
July 27, 2014 7:15 am

We really do need to see the funding for this crap, paper by paper.

McComberBoy
July 27, 2014 7:17 am

“Yields would continue to increase but the slowdown would effectively cut the projected rate of increase by about half at the same time that demand is projected to grow sharply.”
Since when is “cut the projected rate of increase” the same as a slow down? It sounds as if those who are supping at the government trough have learned to speak the language of Washington. Only in government have we traditionally heard about decreases in increases being called cuts.
And cudos to DHR above. What about the increases in plant growth due to rising CO2? How do they figure into the decrease in the increase?
Wow. So much bovine pucky. But then again such things are known to increase the increase if applied to crops in sufficient quantity.

July 27, 2014 7:18 am

Joel O’Bryan:
At July 27, 2014 at 7:01 am you ask

I didn’t realize corn and wheat could read political propaganda. How else wo.uld a corn plant know why it is warmer?

The article explains that they don’t need to when it says

However, global demand for crops is also expected to rise rapidly during the next two decades because of population growth, greater per-capita food consumption, and increasing use of biofuels.

Farmers will produce the most profitable crops. Behind all the waffle, the article is a warning that biofuels crops will displace food crops if rising temperatures induce governments to subsidise and/or to mandate use of biofuels.
The article is right for reasons I explained here.
Richard

mjc
July 27, 2014 7:25 am

” urederra says:
July 27, 2014 at 7:06 am
Yields would continue to increase but the slowdown would effectively cut the projected rate of increase by about half at the same time that demand is projected to grow sharply.
So, Yields would increase but not as much as the rate of increase we had so far.
Even if it is due to “climate change”, whatever that means. It does not seeem scary at all.”
So they are now using ‘Government Math’…that’s where a decrease in the rate of increase becomes a cut. Which being based on such well grounded things as projections and models makes it so, no matter what reality does.

dipchip
July 27, 2014 7:26 am

I love it when people attempt to predict the second derivative when the first is beyond their ability.

Say what?
July 27, 2014 7:26 am

As usual, this camp can’t pass up a splashy headline at the expense of an objective examination of a potential challenge. So what about the positive effect of slightly warming climate on expansion of available growing areas in northerly latitudes? Yield isn’t the only parameter in the supply equation, and they have apparently ignored the other major part of this story.

Dave
July 27, 2014 7:34 am

I stopped reading at “based on climate models”.

Paul Coppin
July 27, 2014 7:35 am

Seriously, do physicists sleep through their undergrad intro biology classes? The article is both misleading and confusing because the terminology is wrong. So are they talking about, what, production slowing down, or yields slowing down, due to climate change? These are two very different things. Yields and production are not the same thing. Production is economic-political, yield is biological. Do they even know what they are talking about? Yes, feeding the world will get incrementally more difficult, not due to climate change, but supply and demand. Yes, the issue could occur due to the politics of climate change, but not because of climate change. The far bigger threat to future food production lies not with supposed climate change, but the accelerating removal of arable land from agricultural production.

Mushroom George
July 27, 2014 7:40 am

As CO2 increases, photosynthesis increases, and a plant’s water use decreases. Those of us who grow plants indoors under hot, high power lamps also know that the ideal growth temperature also increases.
At 1,400 ppm CO2 plants can grow up to 50% faster, the same amount of water grows nearly twice as many plants and the fastest growth occurs at a temperature about 5 degrees higher than normal. Maximum heat tolerance goes up about 5F as well.

July 27, 2014 7:42 am

“Climate experts estimate risk of rapid crop slowdown”
Are these the very same climate ‘experts’ who, all those years ago, prophesied global warming?

Catcracking
July 27, 2014 7:42 am

Richard,
Agree with your comments. Saved your link for future reading.
This comment is telling:
“Yields would continue to increase but the slowdown would effectively cut the projected rate of increase by about half at the same time that demand is projected to grow sharply.”
Give these “Dudes” some taxpayers money and they will say anything to get even more $$$. Science and credible analysis is optional.
Lastly what is the Dept of Energy doing subsidizing such foolish propaganda. No wonder they have not provided any significant breakthrough to develop new energy sources in commercial quantities.

Editor
July 27, 2014 7:43 am

> But the risk is about 20 times more significant than it would be without global warming,
My apologies for not reading the article very closely (it doesn’t deserve better), but it seems to me the risk without global warming should be zero. Twenty times zero certainly supports the claim “the odds of a major production slowdown of wheat and corn, even with a warming climate, are not very high.”
Awesome news!

David Chappell
July 27, 2014 7:44 am

Joel O’Bryan says: “How else would a corn plant know why it is warmer?”
Maybe it’s been genetically modified to be politically aware…

Grant
July 27, 2014 7:49 am

Isn’t about 40% of the corn grown in the US used to make ethanol? Grow for food instead of fuel.
Problem solved

1 2 3 6
Verified by MonsterInsights