Yeah, like they can do anything about it. Here’s an idea. How about more CO2 and less grain use for ethanol and other biofuels?
CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
Experts from 6 continents are set to produce policy recommendations for boosting food production in face of harsher climates, increasing populations, scarce resources
COPENHAGEN (11 March 2011) — Recent droughts and floods have contributed to increases in food prices. These are pushing millions more people into poverty and hunger, and are contributing to political instability and civil unrest. Climate change is predicted to increase these threats to food security and stability. Responding to this, the world’s largest agriculture research consortium today announced the creation of a new Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change.
Chaired by the United Kingdom’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, the Commission will in the next ten months seek to build international consensus on a clear set of policy actions to help global agriculture adapt to climate change, achieve food security and reduce poverty and greenhouse gas emissions.
There is a rich body of scientific evidence for sustainable agriculture approaches that can increase production of food, fibre and fuel, help decrease poverty and benefit the environment, but agreement is needed on how best to put these approaches into action at scale. Evidence also shows that climate change, with population growth and pressures on natural resources, is set to produce food shortages and biodiversity loss worldwide unless action is taken now.
“Extreme weather like the droughts in Russia, China and Brazil and the flooding in Pakistan and Australia have contributed to a level of food price volatility we haven’t seen since the oil crisis of 40 years ago,” Beddington said. “Unfortunately, this could be just a taste of things to come because in the next few decades the build-up of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere could greatly increase risk of droughts, flooding, pest infestation and water scarcity for agriculture systems already under tremendous stress.”
The Commission brings together senior natural and social scientists working in agriculture, climate, food and nutrition, economics, and natural resources from Australia, Brazil, Bangladesh, China, Ethiopia, France, Kenya, India, Mexico, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States and Vietnam.
“I think policymakers are eager for a clear set of recommendations supported by a strong scientific consensus for achieving food security in a world where weather extremes seem to becoming more and more common,” said Dr. Mohammed Asaduzzaman, Research Director of the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies and the Commission’s Deputy Chair. “This Commission is confronting a problem not just of the future but, for places like Bangladesh, a problem of the present. We already are seeing major changes in growing conditions caused by higher temperatures and loss of productive lands to rising sea levels.”
Today, scientists are increasingly concerned that more extreme weather events, especially drought and floods will impede the growth in food production required to avert hunger and political instability as the global population increases to nine billion people by 2050. Even an increase in global mean temperatures of only two degrees Celsius—the low end of current estimates—could significantly reduce crop and livestock yields. Supporting these concerns has been the weather-induced crop losses that contributed to high food prices this year and in 2008.
The World Bank reported in February that the recent rise in food prices—which included a doubling of wheat prices and a 73 percent increase in maize prices—already has pushed an extra 44 million people into poverty. World Bank President Robert Zoellick said food prices have been an “aggravating factor” in the political turmoil in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere in the Middle East and that their destabilizing effect “could become more serious.”
The Commission has been set up by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security program (CCAFS) – a 10-year effort launched by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) – with support from the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development.
“Our ability to deal with the effects of climate change on food security, in both the developed and developing world, will largely determine whether our future is one marked by stability or perpetual food shocks,” said Dr Bruce Campbell, Director of CCAFS. “But there are so many perspectives on the best way for farmers to adapt to climate change—and for farmers to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as well—that we have ended up sort of paralyzed by a lack of clear choices.”
The Commission will synthesize existing research to clearly articulate scientific findings on the potential impact of climate change on food security globally and regionally. The Commission will then produce a set of specific policy actions for dealing with these challenges.
The Commission’s findings will be primarily directed to international policy, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Rio+20 Earth Summit, and the Group of 20 (G20) industrialized and developing countries.
The Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change is identifying what policy changes and actions are needed now to help the world achieve sustainable agriculture that contributes to food security and poverty reduction, and helps respond to climate change adaptation and mitigation goals. The Commission is an initiative of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), with additional support from the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development.
Full list of Commissioners
Biographical details are available at http://ccafs.cgiar.org/content/commission/commissioners
- Professor Sir John Beddington, CMG FRS Chief Scientist, Government Office for Science, United Kingdom (Commission Chair)
- Dr Mohammed Asaduzzaman, Research Director, Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, Bangladesh
- Dr Adrian Fernández Bremauntz, Senior Consultant, ClimateWorks Foundation, Mexico
- Dr Megan Clark, FTSE, GAICD, Chief Executive Officer, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia
- Dr Marion Guillou, President, Institut Scientifique de Recherche Agronomique (INRA), France
- Professor Molly Jahn, Laboratory of Genetics and Department of Agronomy and Special Advisor to the Chancellor and Provost for Sustainability Sciences, the University of Madison-Wisconsin, USA
- Professor Lin Erda, Director of the Research Centre of Agriculture and Climate Change, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China
- Professor Tekalign Mamo, State Minister and Minister’s Advisor, Ministry of Agriculture, Ethiopia
- Dr Nguyen Van Bo, President, Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Science, Vietnam
- Dr Carlos A Nobre, Director of the Center for Earth System Science, National Institute for Space Research (INPE), Brazil
- Professor Bob Scholes, Fellow, Natural Resources and the Environment, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), South Africa
- Dr Rita Sharma, Secretary, National Advisory Council (Prime Minister’s Office), India
- Professor Judi Wakhungu, Executive Director, African Center for Technology Studies (ACTS), Kenya
Key facts on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change from the CCAFS program:
- A 4-degree rise in temperatures will have profound effects on farming, cutting down both the range of potential adaptation options and the efficacy of those options. Different crop models give different estimates, but ensembles of models suggest average yield drops of 19% for maize and 47% for beans, and much more frequent crop failures. (Source: Thornton et. al. 2010 – http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/117.full)
- The first half of the 21st century is likely to see increases in food prices, and increasing demand driven by population and income growth. Even without climate change, prices could rise by 10% (for rice) to 54% (for maize) by 2050. With climate change, price increases more or less double, ranging from 31% for rice in the optimistic scenario to 100% for maize in the baseline scenario. (Nelson et. al. 2010 – http://www.ifpri.org/publication/food-security-farming-and-climate-change-2050)
- Climate change provides a massive and urgent incentive to intensify efforts to disseminate the fruits of past research, to adapt it to farmer contexts in different developing countries, and to put in place the necessary policies and incentives. The benefits of adopting many of the existing technologies could be sufficient to override the immediate negative impacts of climate change. Key messages from the major Foresight project on the Future of Global Food and Farming, lead by Professor Sir John Beddington:
- Addressing climate change and achieving sustainability in the global food system need to be recognised as dual imperatives.
- Ambitious, and in some case legally binding, targets for reducing emissions have been set, which cannot be achieved without the food system playing an important part.
There is a clear case for substantially integrating and improving considerations of agriculture and food production in negotiations on global emissions reductions.
The program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) is a strategic partnership of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP). CCAFS brings together the world’s best researchers in agricultural science, development research, climate science, and Earth System science, to identify and address the most important interactions, synergies and tradeoffs between climate change, agriculture and food security. For more information, visit www.ccafs.cgiar.org.
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is a global partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for sustainable development with the funders of this work. The funders include developing and industrialized country governments, foundations, and international and regional organizations. The work they support is carried out by 15 members of the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers, in close collaboration with hundreds of partner organizations, including national and regional research institutes, civil society organizations, academia, and the private sector. www.cgiar.org – http://cgiarconsortium.cgxchange.org.
The Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) was established in 2001 to promote cooperation for the integrated study of the Earth system, the changes that are occurring to the system and the implications of these changes for global sustainability. Bringing together global environmental change researchers worldwide, the ESSP comprises four international global environmental change research programmes: DIVERSITAS; the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP); the International Geosphere–Biosphere Programme (IGBP); and the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). http://www.essp.org/
The Global Donor Platform for Rural Development is a network of 34 bilateral and multilateral donors, international financing institutions, intergovernmental organisations and development agencies.
Members share a common vision that agriculture and rural development is central to poverty reduction, and a conviction that sustainable and efficient development requires a coordinated global approach.
The Platform was created in 2003 to increase and improve the quality of development assistance in agriculture and rural development. www.donorplatform.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@davidmhoffer says: “More CO2! Yes, that’s known to improve crop yields.”
Only in the narrowest sense. Crops also need H2O. Climate change has been been linked to an increase in droughts and is projected to greatly increase the risk of severe droughts. Higher night time temperatures have reduced rice yields. Rising sea levels will likely disrupt rice production in areas like the Mekong Delta. The productivity of the world’s oceans and lakes may drop from higher temperatures, less turnover and increased acidity.
Every course of action or inaction comes with a complex set of trade offs, risks and uncertainties. But, it is foolish to ignore science when you don’t like what it says.
Mike says:
“Only in the narrowest sense.”
Every link you posted was only a prediction. Based on the abysmal predictive failures of computer models in general and the CO2=CAGW crowd in particular, anyone who believes those links is a sucker.
BBC: Rice yields ‘to fall’ under global warming Pure conjecture. Links with “Sustainable” in the article are coming from far left field; they have a totalitarian objective that you fell for.
Only a fool claims that CO2 doesn’t enhance plant growth. A few examples:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
You linked to political propaganda sites that are pushing an agenda. I provided science-based links. I think you might get traction at the realclimate echo chamber. But not here. Unlike the globaloney blogs realclimate and climate progress, this is the internet’s “Best Science” site, so you’re not going to make any headway pushing your “sustainable,” “robust” politics. Who are you trying to kid?
Douglas says:
March 11, 2011 at 6:22 pm
“So according to you Mr Gates, the precautionary principle must be invoked even when there is no reason to invoke it. Therein lies madness.”
____
I’ve never been a proponent of invoking “the precautionary principle” as reflected in advocating any specific environmental law, regulation, taxation, or technology in trying to fight AGW. I specifically am more concerned about technological fixes (i.e. altering the ocean chemistry, seeding the atmosphere with sulfur etc.) to said problem, as those could not only be costly, but could have a range of unintended consequences.
Smokey says:
March 12, 2011 at 10:55 am
Only a fool claims that CO2 doesn’t enhance plant growth. A few examples:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
You linked to political propaganda sites that are pushing an agenda. I provided science-based links. I think you might get traction at the realclimate echo chamber. But not here. Unlike the globaloney blogs realclimate and climate progress, this is the internet’s “Best Science” site, so you’re not going to make any headway pushing your “sustainable,” “robust” politics. Who are you trying to kid?
Who is being fooled is debatable. A lot of peer reviewed articles have been written about the impact of CO2 and the resulting climate change , on crop yields. In the short term there may be some gains in some areas, but in most cases the increase in temperature and problems with drought, excessive rain and nutrient limitations will overwhelm the effects of increased CO2.
http://royalsociety.org/General_WF.aspx?pageid=7317&terms=
Your first link shows increase growth of an evergreen tree in a greenhouse What happens to a mature tree under field conditions, after the effects of CO2 on climate change is different as we know. Look at the case of lodgepole pines in the American West, which are being decimated because of milder winters creating a plague of pinebark beetles.
Your remaining links do not look at the frequency of occurrence of extreme events, enhanced weed growth, and increases in insect pests, all of which create the detrimental effects ofclimate change on crop yields. If temperatures exceed certain maximum values, some crops are wiped out. This happened to wheat in the Russian heat wave.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/28/how-global-warming-will-hurt-crops
Smokey: I will present evidence that you are in denial.
1. On the BCC story you read only the headline. The first sentence states: “Scientists found that over the last 25 years, the growth in yields has fallen by 10-20% in some locations, as night-time temperatures have risen.” It goes on like that. Only someone in denial stops reading when they find what they wanted to find.
2. Your second link is an interesting poster about CO2 ONLY. That is not the issue. It is the other effects of GHG that are at issue. You are blind to this. That is what denial does to a person’s mind.
3. Your third link seems confirms that dryness reduces yield more that CO2 increases it.
4. Same as 2. The issue is not CO2 per sa. It is the overall impact of climate change.
5. CO2Science is a politically motivated site with connections to the Western Fuels Association, the Summit Power Group and ExxonMobel. But, more importantly, the data sheet you linked to only shows that CO2 can enhance plant growth. That is not the issue. I never said CO2 cannot enhance plant growth.
My first link goes to a NASA study about current plant growth. The second to an University Corporation for Atmospheric Research study that links to the peer reviewed article. The third to the BBC which discusses several research projects about current and possible future rice yields. The forth is to the International Rice Research Institute. Maybe it is a left wing front group, but I don’t see any obvious evidence for that. Their report should be evaluated on it merits. The fifth was to a UN report posted on an advocacy’s group site. You can go to the UN report itself. It is not peer reviewed science – it is a technical report, and should be read as such. But do read it. Think it about. There may be flaws in it as in any source. But I have presented a fairly board range of sources making the case that climate change is likely now negatively affecting food production and is very likely to do even more so in the coming decades. For your part, you focus on the wrong question: the effect of CO2 in isolation from climate change and ocean acidification. Are you just playing a shell game or are you in denial?
This not what it seems, rather it is more desperate maneuvering to emplace substitute polices for the failed agreements at copencun. Note that they imprudently mention that the last time food prices weresimilarly volatile was during the 1974 oil crisis! Exactly! We are going into self inflicted fuel crisis, both in shuttng down abundant fuel sources and burning food for fuel.
You still refuse to understand agriculture, and that only 2% of the global grain crop is used for ethanol, and you expect me to keep believing you on the climate? I have believed you for a long time, but now that you show that you are unteachable and agenda-driven, I’m going to be skeptical of this site, as well.
Mike says:
March 12, 2011 at 2:36 pm
But I have presented a fairly board range of sources making the case that climate change is likely now negatively affecting food production and is very likely to do even more so in the coming decades.
Except for one little thing, Mike. History. It tells us all we need to know and whatever computer modeled nonsense you present can’t change one simple fact. The warmer it has been, the more varied and prosperous the biological element has been.
It’s really quite simple, too. Although there is a limit, in general, the more energy in the system, the better the system performs. We’re not even close to that limit as history informs us. Even a cave man should be able to understand this simple equation.
Steve says:
March 12, 2011 at 5:28 pm
You still refuse to understand agriculture, and that only 2% of the global grain crop is used for ethanol, and you expect me to keep believing you on the climate? I have believed you for a long time, but now that you show that you are unteachable and agenda-driven, I’m going to be skeptical of this site, as well.
Steve, you should be skeptical of most things. Many of us here agree that AGW has big problems, though we don’t all agree on the details.
While many here refuse to understand the complex ethanol situation, the objections are based on a pretty simple premise. Using an inefficient source for fuel is not a good long term plan. There are also much better sources of bio-fuels that corn.
In the US I view ethanol as an acceptable short term solution that has had the side effect of reducing foreign imports, increasing GDP and creating a bio-fuel infrastructure. Now, we need to take advantage of that and move to better sources. I hope that the change-over can be smooth and 10 years from now we’ll all be able to agree it has worked out for the best.
Steve: You should be skeptical of a source – mainstream or blog – until it demonstrates that it is open minded and either is not agenda-driven or at least open about its agenda.
Richard M says: March 13, 2011 at 9:08 am “History. It tells us all we need to know …. The warmer it has been, the more varied and prosperous the biological element has been.”
Current ecological systems – including something we call agriculture – are adapted to current climate conditions. If those conditions change abruptly life will adapt but this may take many thousands of years. So, we may wish to think about how to slow the changes we are causing as well as how we might adapt.
Also, biological diversity depends on more than warmth. The Sahara Desert is warm but a tad bit dry. Further, I never trust someone whose argument is simply “history says I am right.”
Mike says:
“…I have presented a fairly board (sic) range of sources making the case that climate change is likely now negatively affecting food production…”
Mike, look again at the links I posted showing the ramp-up in ag production. This is not an artefact, it is empirical evidence, and it tracks the increase in CO2. The U of Illinois link in its “Key Findings” states:
Furthermore, in the CO2 Science link, only the plants beginning with P were listed. You can search for rice if you like. But rice is a grass, and I notice that Kentucky Bluegrass increased by 113.9%. The other links all show real world results from increased CO2. Now, let’s deconstruct the links you posted:
Your link directly contradict decades of AGW warnings that claimed floods due to more precipitation from increased water vapor would result from global warming. Contrary to those predictions, global relative and absolute humidity is decreasing. If it were not for moving the goal posts and reversing their predictions, the alarmist crowd woudn’t have much to say, would they?
Your first link is nothing but climate alarmism, and it promotes Bill Nye the Pseudo-Science Guy. The “studies” it cites are nothing but grant trolling. You will note that each of my links shows empirical [real world] experiments. That kind of evidence trumps any “peer reviewed papers” and computer climate models.
Your second and third links are nothing but crystal ball gazing:
Drought may threaten much of globe within decades
Rice yields ‘to fall’ under global warming
Your link on rice reads exactly like one would expect from a George Soros-funded propaganda organization. It is laughable in its anti-science. Arm-waving about “what if” projections destroys any credibility. Let me repeat: all of my citations were real world experiments showing substantial agricultural productivity due to increased CO2.
Your final link is titled:
Share the World’s Resources/sustainable economics to end global poverty
Don’t shovel that horse manure around here – unless you’re willing to let us “share” your bank account. The corrupt UN is always playing the class envy card, and I know a scam when I see one. “Sharing” the West’s resources is code for “We intend to take what you worked for.”
As for “sustainable,” it is government policies that have kept a large fraction of the globe impoverished. Want proof? North vs South Korea. Same people, same geography, same culture, just different government policies. South Korea is “sustainable” because it has a free market. North Korea is not sustainable because it is dependent on China for food.
To summarize: none of your links are based on anything credible. They are CAGW propaganda, which you have obviously fallen for. It would be better for you if you simply looked at the real world results of the numerous reproducable, testable experiments that I posted, instead of swallowing the Big Lie of CAGW. Quit being one of the mindless lemmings like eadler, and think for yorself for a change.
Smokey is not intellectually capable of distinguishing the direct effect of CO2 on plant growth from the net impact of current and likely future climate change. Nothing I or anyone can say will change that.
Warmer winters tends to be wet and don’t last very long. Warm and wet short Winters means greater food production with an early spring start to growth. Colder winters tend to be dry and long. Cold and dry means less food production and a late spring start to growth. This is easy to substantiate. My own uncle added sprinkler irrigation to a crop of alfalfa on top of a rocky hill and increased its yield from one to three cuttings per season. This was easily done as we had very warm winters and early springs back in the 60’s. In the 70’s it was cold and dry, so much so that even cool weather crops like peas hardly stood a chance against the dried up cold weather and didn’t grow tall enough to reach the blades of pea harvesters. In 1973, pea fields were simply plowed under instead of harvested. Unless you had tweasers on your harvester.
These past 4 years we have gotten colder each Winter, especially late in the Winter season. A neighbor has been trying to grow spring wheat on similar land to that my uncle used in the 60’s. His crop of wheat freezes out every spring, as it will again this year I reckon. And everyone has struggled to get three alfalfa cuttings off fully irrigated land. The crop starts to grow too late in Spring and the Fall freeze up is coming too early to get three cuttings.
Our time of high yield agriculture production will be substantially curtailed not by CO2-warmed weather or any other cause of warmed weather, but by cold, long Winters, late Springs, and early Fall freezes. Anybody with a lick of sense will know this.
I actually enjoyed Mike’s comment above. Mike states that I am not “intellectually capable of distinguishing the direct effect of CO2 on plant growth from the net impact of current and likely future climate change.”
Well then, let’s deconstruct Mike’s comment, OK? OK:
In order to counter Mike’s propaganda links, I posted real world, testable, reproducible evidence showing that more CO2 is beneficial to plants.
The direct effect of CO2 on plant growth is thoroughly documented in the literature. No credible scientist disputes the fact that increased CO2 is beneficial to plant growth. Owners of greenhouses would certainly not waste money on CO2 enhancement if it didn’t get results. And I know CO2 is beneficial from personal experience: for many years I raised tropical fish in tanks up to 125 gallons. At one point I added a CO2 injection system for the plants. The result was explosive plant growth. And the fish thrived.
Anyone arguing that CO2 is not good for plants has an agenda that requires them to lie to promote it. Name a scientist who states unequivocally that CO2 is bad for plants.
Mike’s links are implausible “what if” scenarios. They are not empirical evidence, they are simply bogus CAGW propaganda disguised as science.
But what do I know, I’m not ‘intellectually capable.’☺
Smokey,
What you’re talking about is the way it USED to be in the past. Don’t you realize that THIS TIME IT’S DIFFERENT?
The evidence just keeps coming in.
Heat Damages Colombia Coffee, Raising Prices
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/science/earth/10coffee.html
But in the last few years, coffee yields have plummeted here and in many of Latin America’s other premier coffee regions as a result of rising temperatures and more intense and unpredictable rains, phenomena that many scientists link partly to global warming.
Coffee plants require the right mix of temperature, rainfall and spells of dryness for beans to ripen properly and maintain their taste. Coffee pests thrive in the warmer, wetter weather.
Mike,
You can’t believe everything you read, particularly the in NY Times.
Global temperatures have risen by only 0.7°C over the past 150 years. No reasonable person would believe that minuscule blip is going to impair the coffee crop.
And speaking of regions is meaningless. The
hypothesisconjecture is that CO2 will trigger runaway global warming. Regions are always naturally changing; CO2, being global, has nothing to do with it.Hey, maybe Tony is right. Maybe this time it’s different.
[/sarc]
0.7C is a global average temperature increase. The increase has not been uniform. The increase has been much larger in the Arctic and lower in the Antarctic. Sea surface temperature rise has been less than that over land. The impact of higher temperatures, increased droughts and flooding on agriculture is an empirical fact. (Connecting this to GHG emissions is less certain and does involve modeling studies. However, no one has come up with a plausible model in which increasing CO2 does not lead to global waring and climate change.)
You are free to ignore the evidence. You are free to ignore science. You are free to rationalize to your heart’s content. But don’t get upset if others find you foolish.
Mike: ‘Further, I never trust someone whose argument is simply “history says I am right.”’
So, as long as you have computer models you’ll believe that over historical facts?
It’s a lack of critical thinking capabilities that lead people to accept wild guesses based on limited information over historic facts. Think for yourself, Mike.
Richard: You did not cite any facts. You just asserted history was on your side. I have cited empirical work and computer modeling studies. Computer models have their limitations to be sure, but why ignore such a powerful tool?
Some good news for U.S. wheat!
With climate change predicted to alter precipitation and raise temperatures in North American grain-growing regions by 3 to 4 degrees Celsius (about 5 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, crops in the future will face dramatically different growing conditions than they do today.
But a new study shows that over the last century and a half, North American wheat crops spread into regions with even wider temperature and precipitation differences than will arise over the next century. This analysis suggests it will be possible to adapt to new wheat-growing conditions.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/wheat-climate-change-agriculture-101227.html
——————————————————————–
But things don’t look as good for other crops.
Yields of three of the most important crops produced in the United States – corn, soybeans and cotton – are predicted to fall off a cliff if temperatures rise due to climate change.
In a paper published online this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, North Carolina State University agricultural and resource economist Dr. Michael Roberts and Dr. Wolfram Schlenker, an assistant professor of economics at Columbia University, predict that U.S. crop yields could decrease by 30 to 46 percent over the next century under slow global warming scenarios, and by a devastating 63 to 82 percent under the most rapid global warming scenarios. The warming scenarios used in the study – called Hadley III models – were devised by the United Kingdom’s weather service.
http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/crop-yields-could-wilt-heat/
——————————————————————
And the world wide outlook for wheat is less optimistic.
Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) — Global warming may help raise the price of crops including corn, wheat and rice by at least two- thirds by 2050, a study by the International Food Policy Research Institute showed.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-01/climate-change-may-lift-wheat-corn-prices-by-2050-study-says.html
——————————————————-
Note: These are modeling studies and do come with significant uncertainties. But, that is not a reason to ignore them. We need to take many types of evidence into account in planning for our future as best we can. It makes sense to consider different possible future scenarios and to take actions now to minimize future risks. Of course the economic impacts of mitigation efforts also need to be taken into account. But ignoring what you don’t like is not wise.
Very true. Which is why RealClimate is the place to avoid. Close-minded, censoring opposing views, and spouting nonsense constantly. If this site were run like RC, your posts would never see the light of day. Same goes for Open Mind, and many others.
So, Mike. If you believe CAGW is here, and also believe in the Precautionary Principle, why are you still using a computer? Shouldn’t you be living in a cave with no modern conveniences?
Well, given what I’m hearing, I’d say we’re in bad shape. We’ve clearly seen that COLDER = LOWER crop yield. And now I hear that WARMER = LOWER crop yield.
Either way we’re screwed. Better get the Soylent Corporation on the job before it’s too late.