But it looks to me as if corn doesn’t care. Check out U.S. corn yield. Corn seems to be doing well. I used corn yield because in the Stanford Press Release, they refer to corn yields. Some of the gains seen below are likely the result of improved seed lines.
Now have a look at US temperature for the same period:
What global warming? The last two years of annual mean temperature for the USA (2009, 2010) is about the same as it was in 1980 and 1981, and lower than many years since.This graph is from the National Climatic Data Center. You can plot it yourself here with the default base period, no trend line, and years 1980-2010.
===========================================================
From Stanford University via Eurekalert
US farmers dodge the impacts of global warming — at least for now
Global warming is likely already taking a toll on world wheat and corn production, according to a new study led by Stanford University researchers. But the United States, Canada and northern Mexico have largely escaped the trend.
“It appears as if farmers in North America got a pass on the first round of global warming,” said David Lobell, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford University. “That was surprising, given how fast we see weather has been changing in agricultural areas around the world as a whole.”
Lobell and his colleagues examined temperature and precipitation records since 1980 for major crop-growing countries in the places and times of year when crops are grown. They then used crop models to estimate what worldwide crop yields would have been had temperature and precipitation had typical fluctuations around 1980 levels.
The researchers found that global wheat production was 5.5 percent lower than it would have been had the climate remained stable, and global corn production was lower by almost 4 percent. Global rice and soybean production were not significantly affected.
The United States, which is the world’s largest producer of soybeans and corn, accounting for roughly 40 percent of global production, experienced a very slight cooling trend and no significant production impacts.
Outside of North America, most major producing countries were found to have experienced some decline in wheat and corn (or maize) yields related to the rise in global temperature. “Yields in most countries are still going up, but not as fast as we estimate they would be without climate trends,” Lobell said.
Lobell is the lead author of a paper about the research to be published May 5 online in Science Express.
Russia, India and France suffered the greatest drops in wheat production relative to what might have been with no global warming. The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil.
Total worldwide relative losses of the two crops equal the annual production of corn in Mexico and wheat in France. Together, the four crops in the study constitute approximately 75 percent of the calories that humans worldwide consume, directly or indirectly through livestock, according to research cited in the study.
“Given the relatively small temperature trends in the U.S. Corn Belt, it shouldn’t be surprising if complacency or even skepticism about global warming has set in, but this study suggests that would be misguided,” Lobell said.
Since 1950, the average global temperature has increased at a rate of roughly 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. But over the next two to three decades average global temperature is expected to rise approximately 50 percent faster than that, according to the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. With that rate of temperature change, it is unlikely that the crop-growing regions of the United States will continue to escape the rising temperatures, Lobell said.
“The climate science is still unclear about why summers in the Corn Belt haven’t been warming. But most explanations suggest that warming in the future is just as likely there as elsewhere in the world,” Lobell said.
“In other words, farmers in the Corn Belt seem to have been lucky so far.”
This is the first study to come up with a global estimate for the past 30 years of what has been happening, Lobell said.
To develop their estimates, the researchers used publicly available global data sets from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and from the University of Delaware, University of Wisconsin, and McGill University.
The researchers also estimated the economic effects of the changes in crop yield using models of commodity markets.
“We found that since 1980, the effects of climate change on crop yields have caused an increase of approximately 20 percent in global market prices,” said Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University and a coauthor of the paper in Science.
He said if the beneficial effects of higher carbon dioxide levels on crop growth are factored into the calculation, the increase drops down to 5 percent.
“Five percent sounds small until you realize that at current prices world production of these four crops are together worth nearly $1 trillion per year,” Schlenker said. “So a price increase of 5 percent implies roughly $50 billion per year more spent on food.”
Rising commodity prices have so far benefited American farmers, Lobell and Schlenker said, because they haven’t suffered the relative declines in crop yield that the rest of the world has been experiencing.
“It will be interesting to see what happens over the next decade in North America,” Lobell said. “But to me the key message is not necessarily the specifics of each country. I think the real take-home message is that climate change is not just about the future, but that it is affecting agriculture now. Accordingly, efforts to adapt agriculture such as by developing more heat- and drought-tolerant crops will have big payoffs, even today. ”
Justin Costa-Roberts, an undergraduate student at Stanford, is also a coauthor of the Science paper. David Lobell is a researcher in Stanford’s Program on Food Security and the Environment, a joint program of Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment and Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Schlenker is an assistant professor at the School of International and Public Affairs and at the Department of Economics at Columbia.
IMAGE: A combine harvester reaps, threshes and winnows its way through a field of corn at harvest time. Yields in the US, Canada and northern Mexico have yet to feel the…
To those who have been in the seat of a John Deere and not the rollaway chair in the
top of a computerized Ivory tower. Like Pamela Gray said Our Third cold spring in NE
Oregon is underway. I grew up on a wheat and Cattle operation North of La Grande.
This spring is like the cold years of the early 50’s and 60’s and-70’s. Hmm. noticed that is 30 years. We are cold not warm. My cousin’s a Potato grower. Trouble getting to the field all “spring” snow cold and wet. I’m looking for the old “Oregon Farmer” paper that my Pop kept with the Article (about 1955) that had noted “Canadian Prairie Condtions” for growing grain in NE Oregon. There were, eventually more cold tolerant varieties used. But. now we have at Oregon State, a Warmist policy that may end up screwing the Farmer as they look at something that doesn’t exist in the real world.Though, there are realists out there in academia- you have to watch how you frame the argument. “The warm/cold is cold/warm today blessed be the Profit”….
“The climate science is still unclear about why summers in the Corn Belt haven’t been warming. But most explanations suggest that warming in the future is just as likely there as elsewhere in the world,” Lobell said.
“The climate isn’t doing what we expected it would, but we just know we’re right anyways.”
Cheers Mike.
Very sweet cherry at the quarter-century scale ’86 to 2011.
“We can safely ignore the data that contradicts our conclusion because those data points were just ‘lucky'”.
WOW!
“We found that since 1980, the effects of climate change on crop yields have caused an increase of approximately 20 percent in global market prices,” said Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University and a coauthor of the paper in Science.”
I’m sure the increase in demand from a growing population (4.5 million in 1980 to 6.8 million today) has nothing at all to do with prices.
it looks more like a plan than research
I bet those models can’t predict crop yields five years from now.
These morons have everything bass ackwards.
First, the U.S. farmer is, as he’s always done, kicking the behinds of everyone else.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/cornyld.asp
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/soyyld.asp
It doesn’t have anything to do with global warming, but techniques and technology. The price increases don’t have anything to do with yields, but rather employing different uses to the crops.
We used to consider most crops as food, now much of it is fuel.
Total global crop production…..
For years 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010
Wheat Production (1000 MT) World 435,867 588,801 583,105 647,181
Corn Production (1000 MT) World 408,734 481,963 591,361 814,941
Meal, Soybean Prod. (1000 MT)World 43,940 69,229 116,075 177,816
Oilseed, Soybean Prod. (1000 MT)World62,226 104,290 175,759 260,972
Rice, Milled Prod. (1000 MT)World 269,908 351,370 399,396 450,681
(Sorry if the formatting doesn’t hold) Oh, I could and should go on, but time doesn’t permit. The point is, global crop production is sharply increasing. Not just in the U.S. but worldwide. These morons are trying to say it would be up more if it weren’t for global warming? BS total crop production is doubled in many cases compared to 1980.
You can play along at home, too! Go here…. http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdQuery.aspx
Did they not think someone could just look it up?
Everyone has “dodged the impact of global warming” because it is insignificant.
I would be curious to see what their US corn yield graph would look like had they started it in 1930……
You think the dust bowl had any effect?
If a drought and heat wave that lasted over a decade, happened naturally 80 years ago…
…they would be absolutely suicidal if it happened today
Sun Spot says:
May 6, 2011 at 6:28 am
@Mike says:
May 6, 2011 at 5:45 am
The NOAA web page is great, try a plot for 1998-2011, January and July, you get some interesting cherries. What cherries did you want us to see ??
———————
Ha, ha. Very good. How about 1895 o 2010 annual mean temp.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Co2 has been a benefit to plant growth. Corn , wheat and soy all grow about 12% more bio mass with the observed increase in CO2. This real study shows this effect in natural vegetation. Science climate is simply not science.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/03/23/global-greening-continues-did-we-cause-it/
What a load of malarkey. I think every official who writes a report, should spend six months living on a farm, where they would a) get a clue about what they are talking about and b) get some common sense knocked into them. Those of us who live in farm country, laugh at statements like this. Corn and soybean farmers in the Midwest want warm days and warm nights with a long growing season to get their crops in the bin. You will have neither food nor ethanol if the crop can’t ripen. Wheat farmers on the Great Plains of the US and Canada want good spring rains with warm summer days and no hail, to get their crops in. Two years ago, in our area, wet fall conditions moved in, and the millet crop never made it into the combine. Last fall we had a freeze on Labor Day night- a full month ahead of our normal frost day of October 10. That put a dent in home gardens and crops in the fields.
Yields continue to increase due to advances in corn genetics. But long growing seasons are needed for those advances to make any difference. Perhaps the title of the article should read:”U.S. Farmers Continue To Maintain High Yields In Spite Of Global Cooling”. Because we have dodged a bullet- that of falling yields when it is too cold and wet in the Midwest or too dry on the Plains to even have a crop.
On the Reuters graph, the legend “US corn yield growth rate slows in recent years” is falsified by the graph itself; the yield growth rate, shown in blue, is a fairly stable 2% pa over the whole period shown (1980-2010). The occasional bursts of ~4% come after dips to ~0%. If anything, the growth rate has been even more consistently reliable in recent years!
@Mike says:
May 6, 2011 at 8:45 am
I like the last 15 years 1996-2011 (annual), no trend no increase. If CO2 is the main climate forcing factor we shouldn’t see all that inconvenient natural temperature fluctuation and no trend for 15 years while CO2 exhibits a linear increase as per Mauna Loa ?
Half the comments seem to be about picking out the temperature trend from the tea leaves and entrials of questionable surface readings.
Prof. Lobell comments: “. . . given how fast we see weather has been changing in agricultural areas around the world. . .”
An amazing statement! If it were true there should not be any problem in showing this and there would not be any argument about it. The comments on this post disprove the statement. The ground station data for air temperature seems to be infused with “hot air” so I usually look at this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
For Pamela and Douglas DC:
My local area isn’t looking too good either:
April was cool in the USA-PNW. May is starting the same.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/climate/temp_graphs.php?stn=KYKM&submit=Change+Station&wfo=pdt
@ur momisugly Daniel says:
May 6, 2011 at 7:11 am
===============================
Groan, yes, we all mindlessly let Anthony discern truth for us……
Son, most of the readers here could give you a class in decadal trends. Most of us are very aware of the U.S. trends and Global. Of course, this does blow up the argument of these pinheaded researchers.
While we are on the subject of temp trends, I’m wondering if you’re aware of the temp trends globally? No, not the last couple of years, but the LAST 14 YEARS!!! http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.5/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.5/trendThe globe hasn’t warmed in almost 15 years. Oh, you don’t like that one? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.5/plot/rss/from:1997.5/trend
Ok, the globe has cooled in the last 14 years.
Of course, being true to the skeptic tradition, I checked this out myself……. Go here.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/rss-going-negative/
The reason why most chose not to comment on the lack of a linear trend line is because it wasn’t necessary to debunk this tripe passed off as research. Again, if one would include the trend line, it would further illustrate how FOS Lobell and his colleagues are.
Thanks for playing the global warming game.
@Mike says:
May 6, 2011 at 8:45 am
1895-2010 = 0.10 degF / Decade (annual) trend
1895-1935 = 0.20 degF / Decade (annual) trend, was CO2 the big climate driver during this era ??
@Sun Spot
If you want to determine a trend in a time-series, you must have a “sufficiently long” series. Otherwise, you will find any trend you wish, as many people here just discovered. What they haven’t seen yet, is that such a trend may be useless. It’s simple: as you shorten the length of the series, the trend you obtain becomes less and less meaningful. Go to the extreme: take only two consecutive years. You can choose your two favorite ones, and you get any possible trend you want. But such a trend tells you nothing in terms of climate change. When you talk about climate, with a 30-year time series you are still on the short side, but it’s already better than just taking any 10-year period, which would just barely show you a decadal trend. The reason is simple: natural variability of yearly, interannual, decadal, etc., time scales is larger than the expected trend due to CO2 increase. Notice that from year to year you can have jumps of 2 degF. Compare now that to a trend of 0.4 degF per decade (0.04 degF per year!). You will never detect such a trend unless you take a long-enough time series.
I hope this clarifies why every year does not have to be warmer than the previous one under a global warming scenario. What you actually see is a slow increase, but with a LARGE super-imposed variability.
“We found that since 1980, the effects of climate change on crop yields have caused an increase of approximately 20 percent in global market prices,” said Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University and a coauthor of the paper in Science.
++++++
So….40% of the US maize crop is being diverted to make ethanol, and prices have gone up 20%. Any connection there?? How did the article manage to avoid this rather obvious, critical component of the farming sector?
Next, the production in Mexico has been hammered hard by the dumping of subsidised maize from the US, make no mistake. Most small farmers have stopped producing altogether, and even then the articles says production is not down. Huh. Well many thousands of Mexican farmers are out of business because of the business practises of USA Inc wrecking their livelihoods.
Production of maize would be much higher if the real price dominated the market value. Africa can produce huges amounts of maize but they can’t afford to subsidise it into the global market. And why should they? It is cheaper to buy dumped over-production from the US and EU.
The claimed reduction in production in the ROW (rest of world) is far more likely to be the result of patently unfair US and EU dumping, driving farmers out of business, than changes in temperature.
The impact of cold temperatures last year was the cause of the partial failure of the wheat crops in China, India, Canada and Russia. One heat Moscow wave is not ‘global warming’. Food fails to grow when it is cold, ladies and gents.
Next: if the world actually warms, argiculture will simply shift further north into the vast unused mega-spaces in Russia and Canada.
Daniel said:
“However, if you opt for being objective, plot it and you will see a clear 0.40 degF/decade trend. What really bothers me is that except for Mike, the rest of the people here seem to have simply believed that there is no trend in this plot, just because Anthony Watts says so.”
Um the past decade has had exactly no statistically significant rise in gloabl temp (Dr. Jones) while CO2 went up 5%. In fact the troposphere is cooling, the oceans are cooling and the past three winters have been record cold winters. It is amazing what one can see when they actually look out the window. For example the tulips are just coming out now a full two months late, the leaves on the trees are just coming out now, a full two months late. Seems nature ain’t buyin the AGW BS and sorry we ain’t buyin the crap anymore either.
Here is the way I see this spin. We, as in skeptics, know real climate models do not match real world observations, temps. flatlined and decreasing, at least not warming outside historic increases. The U.S. seems to have the most temperature recorders compared to other areas of the world, though numbers fast decreasing, making it hard for Stanford to refute the data in the U.S. But the majority of the world poorer records, making it easy to say the U.S. may not be warming to any great degree, but the rest of the world is.
As a native Iowan (The Corn State), my gut feeling is the authors have never grown corn, much less even talked to a farmer who does. If they had, they’d know farming techniques and technology are continuously changing and improving. Even if the climate has changed since the ’80s, farmers weren’t “lucky” to avoid the impact -they used science and technology to do things better. People used to think no till/low till methods would never catch on because they would decrease yield too much…
Seriously, if they think a degree or two increase will devastate production, they have no clue as the the major changes that have already occurred in food production in the last few decades.
NA farmers have, for the past 15 years, enthusiastically adopted the deployment of genetically modified crops. Principally, CORN, soybeans, cotton, and canola. Now that the frivolous lawsuits have been swept away, will soon add alfalfa and sugar beets to the list. Conversely, Europe has a near total ban on genetically modified crops.
Hmmmmmm…
On this side of the Cascades, our gardens are at least a month behind, due to COLD, wet “spring.”
Pamela Gray says:
Do these people ever do field research anymore?
I’m pretty sure they don’t.