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)

I don’t know if i’m being thick or what but I have just downloaded the minimum monthly temperature data for England from the met office site and they have data for the whole of 2011 included in the list ???????
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/datasets/
Stanford is one of the smartest dozen universities in the country–which only means they have the brains to come up with whatever results they want.
Theyhave even managed to show that increasing CO2 slows down the growth of plants.
Money, money, money. Check out grants from the US gov sometime.
Forget that. I am being thick. The column headings had jumped when I downloaded the data.
@Steve M. from TN
why is it the people continue to assume a straight line trends in everything ?, when it is pretty obvious that most climate variability is cyclic. Even something that looks like a longish term linear trend could just as easily be the ‘up’ or ‘down’ part of an even longer cycle.
eg the rise out of the LIA looks linear, but is almost certainly just part of a much longer cycle, and the very short term linear rise in ‘adjusted’ global temperature (yeah that’s a good statistic….not) between 1976 and 1996 could just as easily come from the coincidence of 2 or 3 upward sections of different cycles, plus unbanisation effects, plus some mannipulation etc etc.
So this “oh , there’s a vague and slight linear trend, so lets extrapolate out to ‘n’ years, and pretend “!!
continued…. really is an extremely bad use of statistics.
Missed the “/sarc off” switch there, eh sunshine?
“The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil.”
http://www.thebioenergysite.com/articles/contents/10-11-11Bio2.gif
http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2008/04/Brazil/images/usbrazilcornyields.gif
@Steve Shadlov
“is there yet an even longer period oscillation than the PDO, which has “gone negative.” Perhaps the longest one.”
or perhaps a medium term one?
I see climate as having many drivers, most of which have a natural, somewhat chaotic, cyclical nature. We know what some of these drivers are, and can partly guess what others might be. Problem is that the ‘noise’ in the system precludes any way of even determining which drivers have which effect and at what period of time. At the moment we can see some the the really strong drivers, such as the PDO, solar cycles etc, but ANYONE who thinks climate science is in any way “settled” probably needs to wait maybe another few generations before we have enough accurate data (NOT tree ring proxies 😉 to actually pick up some of the other more subtle cycles that may be driving the system.
“why are you blind to the lack of CO2-ClimateChange correlation ”
yes , there was a correlation between CO2 levels and the mannipulated temperature data during the period 1976ish – 1995ish. There has not been any correlation (except perhaps a negative one) since the mid 1990’s. Ya see, there is only so much data mannipulation you can do before it become blatant to even blind Goreans
‘What global warming?’
Certainly didn’t see any in my neck of the woods.
Warm ran off in the middle of the trend.
“You met another and pfffttt… you were gone”
and if you want forcing data for Ar5
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/rcps/20c3m.htm
solar is kinda interesting
http://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/met/ag/strat/forschung/SOLARIS/Input_data/CMIP5_solar_irradiance.html
all the forcings in excel
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/rcps/index.htm#Download
see 20c3m
steven mosher says:
“[snark snipped]
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…” & etc.
# # #
OK, by the numbers:
“… the effect of c02 on temperature is not
immediatemeasurable because it is too insignificant…”There, fixed it for you. You’re a model guy, I am an empiricist. I’ll take raw data and measurements over computer projections any time. As Prof Freeman Dyson puts it:
Next:
“you cannot use PPM as a your units.”
Sure I can. The IPCC does, and so does just about everyone else. Parts per million per volume is raw data, and that makes it evidence – unlike computer models. And being “on the right track” means accepting a couple of inconvenient truths: the planet has been flat to cooling over the past decade even though [harmless] CO2 continues to rise, and CO2 appears to be a function of temperature: it rises after the temperature rises, on timescales from months to millennia.
And finally, it is true that CO2 is “but one forcing.” But that is actually immaterial in the runaway global warming discussion, because the entire debate revolves around “carbon” – “carbon footprint,” “carbon credits,” taxing “carbon” through Cap & Tax, etc. The planet is making fools of the CAGW believers and their routinely debunked predictions, but that doesn’t matter, because this debate isn’t about science. It is all about taxing the air we breathe, and handing over our national sovereignty to UN kleptocrats.
Once you accept and understand that fact, everything else falls into place.
Of course, nothing but climate changed in Russia since 1980.
Update:
=====================================
THE 216-HR FORECAST FROM TODAY`S 12Z DETERMINISTIC RUN OF THE ECMWF…FOR 12Z SUNDAY MAY 15…HAS THE 540 DM 500 MB HEIGHT CONTOUR GOING THROUGH SAN FRANCISCO…ALONG WITH 500 AND 850 MB TEMPS OF -31C AND -2C RESPECTIVELY. THIS WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARY FOR THE MIDDLE OF MAY…NOT MUCH MORE THAN A MONTH SHY OF THE SUMMER SOLSTICE…AND THIS WILL LIKELY PROVE TO BE AN EXTREME SOLUTION. NONETHELESS…GENERAL CONSISTENCY IN THE BASIC IDEA OF THE LONGER RANGE MODEL OUTPUT SUGGESTS ABOVE SEASONAL NORM CHANCES OF COOL AND WET WEATHER IN THAT TIME FRAME.
=============================
On top of that, a Winter Weather Advisory has been put up for the high country.
Another year without a summer, here we come?
There is a decent chance that at least some of the “seasonal” snow pack in the high country may actually make it through to next season.
Having been in the business of designing plant “growth” chambers, CO2 is deliberately added to the chamber atmosphere. This is in addition to controlling temperature & humidity. The whole idea is to accelerate plant maturity.
Get a copy of the Sunset Garden Book.
Look at the growth season for different zones. (They have a much more detailed zone design that USGS). Look especially at Phoenix. Notice that Phoenix is one of the very few (only?) places to have a NEGATIVE growth zone in the summer. However it has growth all the rest of the year, including the dead of winter.
The bottom line is that plants want warmth. Plants NEED warmth to germinate and to grow. There is NOTHING to fear from added heat until you are HOTTER THAN PHOENIX ARIZONA. As even in Phoenix, they grow crops in the dead of winter instead of the middle of summer. Phoenix is a major grower of fruits and vegetable crops.
How hot is it in Phoenix in the Summer? Hottest I’ve personally experienced is 126F degrees.
So, until you are having summer temperatures OVER 126 F, you are net gaining productivity from any added heat. At that point, any gains in the winter have reached a limit and added heat causes summer losses without an offsetting gain in winter.
So, you gotta ask yourself, is that 126 F or 125 F? Me? I’ve plum forgotten… Well, is it punk? (With profound appologies to Dirty Harry 😉
As darned near nowhere on the planet is hotter than Phoenix, we have nothing to lose from added heat. All that will change is the timing on the crops.
Any claim to the contrary is bogus.
Flooding and more severe weather to hit next week in the US, with cold plunges and more rains. No doubt the MSM will ask “is this climate change” while the Kool Aid is spilled in effigy. The wheat crop does not look good this year, and the corn is delayed from the majority of planting. If this is another Year Without a Summer, we’ll be looking at Mackerel (poor man’s tuna).
Where’s the warmest ever now?
I spent many youthful hours on the seats of both a “Popping Johnny” and John Deere GP, about 1936 models, during the years 1940 to 1948.
Carbon Dioxide is without doubt that trace gas which, with H2O and sunlight, provides all the food we eat, and all the oxygen we breathe. And yes, the soil has to get warm before seed will germinate.
The real trend has been in far less actual science being taught in our school systems, resulting in close to terminal ignorance.
It would be terminal mass human suicide to lessen the amount of CO2 in either the atmosphere or dissoved in water. World famine would ensue.
Don’t know if anyone posted this yet….sorry if a repeat, but just noticed this now.
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Climate+change+hardly+visible+North+America/4736609/story.html
The average yield per hectare of grains increased by 62% between 1980 and 2010.
This research is ridiculous (it should have increased 67% ???)
http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/book_wote_crops.pdf
Lobell co-authored another study last year where they broke the increasing production down into various factors like fertilizer usage etc. Maybe this is where the game started.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900707/
Did they consider economics?
When prices are high more intensive farming, including going further into awkward corners and edges, is more viable. More fertilizer becomes worthwhile (including ammonia to put nitrogen into the soil), and might substitute somewhat for crop rotation to get nitrogen back *, as does more intensive weed control (whether mechanical or chemical).
Does their data accurately track crop rotation (in prime corn growing country of IA it is common to rotate corn and the legume called “soybean” to replenish nitrogen in the soil).
I don’t think there’s any global warming, but I distrust statistics for things like crops because there are so many variables.
* Especially if soybean prices are down, as they were after Brazilian production came on strong, some years after idiots in the US government restricted exports. (I speculate Japanese money went into improving land and developing growing methods in Brazil. It can take years to figure out how to grow a crop well in another location.)