From the University of Leeds, the Met Office Hadley Centre and University of Exeter via Eurekalert. No mention of the blueberry crop though.
Crop failures set to increase under climate change
Large-scale crop failures like the one that caused the recent Russian wheat crisis are likely to become more common under climate change due to an increased frequency of extreme weather events, a new study shows.
However, the worst effects of these events on agriculture could be mitigated by improved farming and the development of new crops, according to the research by the University of Leeds, the Met Office Hadley Centre and University of Exeter.
The unpredictability of the weather is one of the biggest challenges faced by farmers struggling to adapt to a changing climate. Some areas of the world are becoming hotter and drier, and more intense monsoon rains carry a risk of flooding and crop damage.
A summer of drought and wildfires has dramatically hit harvests across Russia this year, leading the government to place a ban on wheat exports. This led to a dramatic rise prices on the international commodity markets which is likely to have a knock-on effect in higher prices of consumer goods.
But the authors of the new study, which appears in Environmental Research Letters, argue that adaptation to climate change be possible through a combination of new crops that are more tolerant to heat and water stress, and socio-economic measures such as greater investment.
Lead author Dr Andy Challinor, from the University of Leeds School of Earth and Environment, said: “Due to the importance of international trade crop failure is an issue that affects everyone on the planet, not just those in crop-growing regions.
“More extreme weather events are expected to occur in the coming years due to climate change and we have shown that these events are likely to lead to more crop failures. What we need to do now is think about the solutions.
“It is highly unlikely that we will find a single intervention that is a ‘silver bullet’ for protecting crops from failure. What we need is an approach that combines building up crop tolerance to heath and water stress with socio-economic interventions.”
The team studied spring wheat crops in North East China. They used a climate model to make weather projections up to the year 2099 and then looked at the effect on crop yields. In parallel they looked at socioeconomic factors to determine how well farmers were able to adapt to drought.
While the study only looked at crops in China, the authors say this methodology can be applied to many of the other major crop-growing regions around the globe.
Study co-author Dr Evan Fraser, also of the University of Leeds, said: “It appears that more developed countries with a higher GDP tend to evolve more advanced coping mechanisms for extreme events. In China this is happening organically as the economy is growing quickly, but poorer regions such as Africa are likely to require more in the way of aid for such development.
“What is becoming clear is that we need to adopt a holistic approach: new crops for a changing climate and better farming practices that can only come about under more favourable socio-economic conditions.”
The team will now expand their research to look at other crops in different regions and they will look more closely at the reasons why increased GDP appears to protect against drought.
The research was funded by the Natural Environmental Research Council EQUIP programme and the Economic and Social Research Council Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy.
For more information
A copy of the paper, ‘Increased crop failure due to climate change: assessing adaptation options using models and socio-economic data for wheat in China,’ is available to download here. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034012
Dr Andy Challinor is available for interview. Please contact Hannah Isom in the University of Leeds press office on 0113 343 4031 or email h.isom@leeds.ac.uk.
Notes to editors
The 2008 Research Assessment Exercise showed the University of Leeds to be the UK’s eighth biggest research powerhouse. The university is one of the largest higher education institutions in the UK and a member of the Russell Group of research-intensive universities. The university’s vision is to secure a place among the world’s top 50 by 2015.
The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (http://www.cccep.ac.uk/) was established in 2008 to advance public and private action on climate change through rigorous, innovative research. The Centre is hosted jointly by the University of Leeds and the London School of Economics and Political Science. It is funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (http://www.esrc.ac.uk/) and Munich Re (http://www.munichre.com/).
Contact: Hannah Isom
44-113-343-5764
Kevin says:
October 8, 2010 at 12:17 am
*sigh* Remember the good old days, before climate change, when every crop on the face of the Earth received exactly the right amount of sunshine and rain for maximum production?
Man, I miss those times.
~~~~~~~~~
Anthony, the thread can be closed now. Kevin wins it, hands down!
REPLY: Yeah that’s a keeper. – Anthony
This is just one of many issues from monoculture in farming. The more consumers buy organic variety, the more farms can afford to diversify their crops. The more diverse, the better they can thrive during climate hiccups and shifts.
I guess the other solution is to stop climates from changing, but we need to figure out how to be gods first, and we’d still have to deal with other issues from monoculture, such as disease.
Unfortunately, there is some truth to this one as the multidecadal Atlantic and Pacific Oscillations have turned to cooling, and the current sunspot cycle is also expected to be a relative bust.
But let’s not panic over it–we keep finding ways to enhance crops and I daresay we will be all right.
The wildlife will not fare as well, unless biologists start telling the truth about the real effects of weather and other things, and concentrate of what humans can really do to increase biodiversity. There is plenty to do, but Mother nature is somewhat harder to lie to than Politicians.
The Jet stream over the past decades (since 1980’s) had been moving North until recent few years when it suddenly moved much closer to the equator (like pre 1970’s). This shows evidence that the cause of warming climate mainly by this moving jet stream and therefore different consistent weather patterns had very little to do with AGW. Therefore weather patterns with the jet stream are responsible for how crops fair and are not supported by the claims of this paper from the MetO.
The planet shows when jet stream is closer to the equator more severe weather events occur because more regions have cooler Arctic air mixing with warmer tropical air. During the time when the globe was warming severe events have been reducing because less areas are affected by this instable border of polar and tropical air masses. When the planet more or less confirms cooling with the jet stream push further South, these severe events will increase and not down to AGW. So this paper has it the wrong way round and I am confident it doesn’t match reality. If the paper concluded with a jet stream further South and cooling planet, will likely increase severe weather events, then I would agree.
Further reasoning is because during a warming planet observed, the temperature difference between the poles and the tropics are smaller compared with cooling one. This increases the stability of the weather and climate.
Last PDO cold shift , we had NW Wheat farmers contemplating “Canadian North
Prairie conditions-in the inland NW US! My Pop, had toplant Barley just have a
cash crop in the early 1950’s. This planning for AGW is gong to bite us in the arse…
What is their uncertainty? Seems like it is too difficult to determine, so they just don’t do it.
(2) The dependence of crop failure rates on future climate, and the inherent uncertainty in prediction of future climates, implies a need for end-to-end analyses of the cascade of uncertainty from climate to crop production. Through understanding this causal chain of uncertainty, key observations needed to constrain ensemble simulations may be found. If such analyses can be conducted
from a decision-making perspective—rather than being motivated purely for the sake of understanding, they may permit the development of risk-based, targeted adaptation plans. Efforts to take a decision-based approached have increased in recent years (see e.g. [47], http://www.equip.leeds.ac.uk).
From the equip.leeds site – 5. Further understanding of the cascade of uncertainty from climate to impacts and its relationship to model error and climate predictability. Uncertainty in climate simulation, model error and the predictability of climate have implications for the predictability of climate impacts. Furthermore, non-linearities in the response of impacts variables (e.g. crop failure resulting from a few days of elevated temperature during flowering) necessitate understanding of a broad range of non-climatic uncertainties (e.g. when the crop flowers, the likelihood of high temperatures during this period and the impact of those temperatures). By increasing our understanding of this cascade of uncertainty, the situations in which climate models can produce useful information, and those in which they cannot, will be identified. Thus the situations in which uncertainty prevents skilful forecasts of climate impacts will be identified.
Back in the early 70’s the pea crop in and around Pendleton was destroyed by too much heat and Sun at the wrong time and too little rain and Sun at the right time. Two years ago the pumpkin crop was destroyed by two much rain/sleet/snow/clouds at the wrong time and too much frost/freeze/ice/clouds at the wrong time. Back in the dust bowl era, we had similar events. We survive it better now due to crop protection from freeze, and better use of irrigation.
Now give me my grant to I can say that in a journal.
The paper was funded by The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy chaired by (Lord???) Nicholas Stern who, in turn, employs Bob “Attack Dog” Ward as his PR man.
Definitely much worse than we thought!
How does this kind of scientist ever get published?
I went back through the list of his contributions to science and found this gem from back in 2004:
“Design and optimisation of a large-area process-based model for annual crops”
Apparently, Challinor thinks he has developed a model that can predict the effects of global climate disruption, and he is building a career by running this model for various crops and regions, and predicting catastrophe. If, however, you look at the abstract from the early work he waxes tautological:
“Agreement between observed and modelled yield was variable, with correlation coefficients of 0.74, 0.42 and 0, respectively. Skill was highest where the climate signal was greatest…”
Knowing that “climate signal” means drought, heat waves or flooding, this learned individual has discovered that bad weather hurts crop yields. Really? Who’d a thunk it?
Hungry people start revolutions . Let´s hope it´s not getting colder.
Robert
Pseudo science.
Like Russia never had droughts before??
From Wikipedia (who I don’t trust, but blast it, they’re convenient):
Post 1900 Droughts and Famines
The Golubev and Dronin report gives the following table of the major droughts in Russia.[1] (I added the emphasis)
* Central: 1920, 1924, 1936, 1946, 1972, 1979, 1981, 1984.
* Southern: 1901, 1906, 1921, 1939, 1948, 1951, 1957, 1975, 1995.
* Eastern: 1911, 1931, 1963, 1965, 1991.
However, the worst effects of these events on agriculture could be mitigated by Watts Up With That Farm Weather?
hint… hint… to any potential sponsers reading this!
“Larry says:
October 8, 2010 at 7:54 am”
No, you are wrong. I mentioned mechanisation, since WW2, which has introduced the practice of “mono-culture” farming on an industrial scale. Farming practices like this did not exist much before WW2, farming was more granular. It’s a well established fact that prior to WW2 farming practices were more diverse, there was more biodiversity in a single field, more crop rotation etc etc.
I don’t know where you live however, I have never lived anywhere where flushing toilets discharge directly on farmland. Most sewer systems are “closed” until the effluent is captured, stored and treated before discharging into rivers/seas etc.
But I agree with you, we should be focusing on real pollution issues and proper land and water management.
It’s already been mentioned by another postie that the new Labor Govn’t here in Australia is about to inflict massive damage to Australia, the Australian people and Australian growers with their plans to “manage” the Murray-Darling river system. I am pretty sure this along with the introduction of a carbon tax will be the end of Labor. Unfortunately any opposition party won’t have the guts to back out these rediculous policies.
Time for a fight I reckon.
And the beat goes on……..
When will these psychotic wankers realise you cannot fight nature.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-10/08/c_13547872.htm
regards
They are modifying the weather by spraying chemtrails
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38339416/Case-Orange-10052010