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…
![us_cornyld0311_sc[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/us_cornyld0311_sc1.gif?resize=640%2C432)

Yes, VERY impressive 0.12/degree rise per decade. /sarc off
Live by the trend line, die by the trend line.
What does “likey” mean in this case? Either AGW IS already taking a toll or it IS NOT. If some locales have lower production and others higher, this sounds like natural variation due to many possible causes [two of which might be warming …or cooling].
This is just another mealy mouthed, scare story “study” based on unproven models and supplemented with the usual trite conjectures in order to get more government grants.
Ludicrous academic drivel.
Can Stanford sue Lobbell for wrecking the reputation of his employer? 😉
Daniel says:
May 6, 2011 at 9:31 am
“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.”
And the funniest part is that this trend started long before mankind emitted big amounts of CO2, so CO2 can be ruled out as the major cause. Doesn’t correlate well with the temperatures anyway.
There are so many ‘fails’ going on here I can’t get my head round it all..
1. Tree Rings.
OK, so corn and wheat are not varieties of tree, but why do trees grow better(and hence a reliable guide to prehistoric temps) in the warm and corn/wheat do not…
2. If CAGW is apparently so obvious and happemning, does not the rise in corn yields mean that it is a good thing….
3. If yields are rising in spite of the CAGW theory/model that says they shouldn’t, is the theory/model not wrong…….
4. I’ve looked up the figures for wheat in the UK – yields have gone from an average of 6.3 tonnes per hectare in 1983 to 8.4 tonnes per hectare in 2009.
Were UK farmers ‘lucky’ like their US counterparts growing corn….
5. Why is it that when ‘The Model’ is at variance with ‘The Real World’, its the Real World that is at fault (or lucky) and is headed for doom and disaster…..
6. Would Diazepam help these people….
Science Magazine claims that global warming has already reduced global yields of corn, wheat, soybeans and rice.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/climate-change-already-hurting.html?ref=hp
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/05/04/science.1204531
Logic has taken a hit along with general dumbing down of science:
“Yields in most countries are still going up, but not as fast as we estimate they would be without climate trends,” Lobell said.
Yields are increasing BECAUSE OF CLIMATE TRENDS.
“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,
20% up in 30 years? or up more than it WOULD BE? How much did burning corn fuel contribute?
“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.”
Is he saying that with no increase in CO2 (a proxy for temps) and therefore without their benefits, yields would have been what?
This tells us that whatever the results of a study show it can be spun into CAGW disaster. Now, along with ‘warming is cooling’ we have ‘benefits are disbenefits’. Com’on Doc, admit it was a travesty that things got better and you were unhappy aboout it. Maybe by 2100, the benefits will be so huge that we will be unable to turn them back for a 1000 years.
Sorry, Science Now rather than Science Magazine.
The report is from Stanford.
Well, the data show pretty clearly that CO2 is not the cause of any measurable warming. But CO2 is the cause of much of the increased agricultural production.
Conclusion: CO2 is good. More is better.
Imagine the PDO (and even lower frequency oscillations) as slightly rounded off square waves input to a network with large input capacitance. Then look at the actual temperature trace. On that note:
===================================================
COOLER THAN NORMAL TEMPERATURES AND PARTLY CLOUDY SKIES ARE EXPECTED TO PREVAIL THROUGH THE WEEKEND AND INTO THE BEGINNING OF NEXT WEEK AS AN UNSEASONABLY DEEP UPPER LEVEL LOW MOVES SOUTHEASTWARD FROM THE GULF OF ALASKA INTO THE GREAT BASIN. LATEST MODEL OUTPUT CONTINUES TO INDICATE ASSOCIATED MOISTURE AND INSTABILITY WILL REMAIN LARGELY EAST OF OUR AREA…THOUGH NOT BY MUCH IN THE LATE SUNDAY AFTERNOON TO MONDAY TIME FRAME AND SO CAN`T COMPLETELY RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A FEW SHOWERS THEN…ESPECIALLY TOWARDS OUR EASTERN BORDER. THE APPROACH OF THIS SYSTEM WILL HOWEVER RAMP UP THE COASTAL MARINE LAYER…POTENTIALLY TO A DEGREE SUFFICIENT TO RESULT IN SOME COASTAL DRIZZLE TONIGHT AND SATURDAY MORNING. 850 MB TEMPS ARE PROJECTED TO COOL FROM THEIR CURRENT 14C TO 17C RANGE TO NOT MUCH ABOVE 0C BY SUNDAY AFTERNOON. AS A RESULT…EXPECT AFTERNOON HIGHS TO LARGELY BE CONFINED TO THE 70S INLAND SATURDAY AND JUST THE 60S ON SUNDAY AND MONDAY.
IN THE EXTENDED…MODELS PROJECT THE UPPER LEVEL LOW WILL WEAKEN AND MOVE EASTWARD INTO THE DESERT SOUTHWEST AND ROCKY MTNS MONDAY NIGHT AND TUESDAY…WITH A WEAK SHORT WAVE UPPER LEVEL RIDGE THEN BUILDING INTO THE WEST COAST. THIS SHOULD RESULT IN A MODEST WARMING TREND FOR US…THOUGH EVEN THEN TEMPERATURES LOOK TO REMAIN BELOW SEASONAL NORMS. TOWARDS THE LATTER PART OF NEXT WEEK…LONGER RANGE MODEL OUTPUT INDICATES RENEWED UNSEASONABLY COOL UPPER LEVEL TROUGH DEVELOPMENT OVER THE EASTERN PACIFIC AND ANOTHER COOLING TREND FOR US.
=================================================
During the latter third of the 20th century (e.g. most of my window of credible personal observation capabilities) a “normal” spring would feature lots of warmth and no rain after about mid April, in this CWA. Last year was an almost non existent spring with only a few truly warm days thrown in. This year has been the same, thus far. Only question at this point is, will it be another year without summer (which it was last year on much of the West Coast). While the ENSO is moving toward zero and is likely to be either neutral or into Nino territory by summer, it will be interesting to see if the overarching negative phase PDO counteracts that and dominates. And the $64,000 question – is there yet an even longer period oscillation than the PDO, which has “gone negative.” Perhaps the longest one.
Pete in Cumbria UK says:
May 6, 2011 at 11:15 am
“6. Would Diazepam help these people….”
=======================================
I think its gone too far for that to be effective maybe some Amisulpride…… perhaps Lithium.
“Yields in most countries are still going up, but not as fast as we estimate they would be without climate trends,”
So again, there is a model which says how much the yield could have been increasing. Compared to that model, the increase is less. Thus there is deduced a negative effect on yield from climate, compared to the model.
Basically a comparison is done of real outcome compared to theory A. This is used to state that theory B is correct. Nowhere any evidence that theory A is valid.
— Mats —
OK Mike – I will bite again.
January 1895 – 1998 Trend = 0.00 degF / Decade
January 1998 – 2011 Trend = -3.07 degF / Decade
Now I am scared.
before you trash crop yield models it might be wise to do some due diligence.
or just jump to conclusions.
start here
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4492790
2kevin says:
May 6, 2011 at 11:25 am
Science Magazine claims that global warming has already reduced global yields of corn, wheat, soybeans and rice.
Kevin, over 500 hundred studies disagree with this nonsense.
I wonder if they controlled for such factors as political upheaval, government mandates, local economic conditions, drought due to long term climate variability, thermometer error due to local development, loss of farm land to development, over-farming, cost of fuel, etc. etc. Farming is subject all kinds of issues other than weather.
No change for North American? No surprise as PDO was positive the length of their study.
France, Brazil, Russia, India? AMO was strongly negative at the beginning of their study and switched in the middle of the study to strongly positive. India may sound far off from the atlantic but a quick google I found that AMO impact monsoon season.
“They then used crop models to estimate what worldwide crop yields would have been…”
Shouldn’t this sentence have read : They then used crap models to estimate what worldwide crop yields would have been
@Daniel says:
May 6, 2011 at 9:31 am
@D. J. Hawkins says:
May 6, 2011 at 9:57 am
“DirkH says: May 6, 2011 at 11:11 am” and “RobW says: May 6, 2011 at 9:42 am” , these two gentlemen see the LACK of CO2 causality, Dan and D.J. why are you blind to the lack of CO2-ClimateChange correlation ??
That the temperature has been rising since the end of the LIA is natural (hint: 1859 was the end of a little ice age).
@Daniel
The problem with any straight line trend: no matter which way it’s trending, it’s doom. Postive trend, and the Earth melts, negative trend and the Earth freezes.
It would be interesting to cross-plot the data, corn yield vs. annual temperature, and see what the pattern was. Good chance it would be a blob with no correlation.
Rather interesting that 1998 was the warmest temperature on the graph, and also the highest corn yield on the graph.
smokey, looks like C02 does lead to an increase in the number of cherries you pick.
1. the effect of c02 on temperature is not immediate. you cannot simply compare ppm of c02 during one time period with the temp of that time period.
2. you cannot use PPM as a your units. the effect of c02 is log. you consistently make this mistake. turn the PPM of c02 into WATTs of forcing and then you’ll be on the right track.
3. C02 forcing is but ONE forcing. There are others that you have to factor out BEFORE you look for the relationship. The most important is INTERNAL FORCING, or internal variability. to factor this out and see the RESIDUAL warming ( thats the warming your looking for) you have look at time scales where the internal variability ( for example, oceanic cycles) integrates to zero. That is at least 30 years and could be as much as 60 years. we know that there are unforced cycles, ups and down of short duration and high amplitude. Those dedacal cycles are large enough to swamp the c02 signal on SHORT time scales. That’s why short time scales are meaningless. Its BECAUSE there are factors other than C02 that drive decadal rates that you need to look at several decades.
For example. one would not look at the time series after a volcano and assume that the rapid cooling there implied the sun didnt cause warming.. would you.
Finding the C02 signal involves: getting the units right. which your chart doesnt.
Accounting for the log response which your chart doesnt. and factoring out short term fluctuations that we know are non c02 related.
starzmom :
Seems to me the biggest effect that climate change has had on the corn crop is that some people have been persuaded that we should divert corn to biofuels and away from food, to protect ourselves from climate change, and that is why the food prices are going up.
Bingo! Check this out from over three years ago:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
And this from the same period:
http://www.enn.com/energy/article/30981
Neither media source is antagonistic of AGW theory to put it lightly. In fact, this very story out of Stanford is the lead story on the latter media outlet as can be seen here:
http://www.enn.com/agriculture/article/42662