Tom Nelson observes some interesting and inconvenient data to rebut The Guardian’s Susanne Goldenberg and Paul Krugman of the New York Times: For warmists trying to convince us that carbon dioxide causes lower US corn yields, an *extremely* inconvenient graph
[Warmist Suzanne Goldenberg] …because of a brutal combination of triple-digit (40C) temperatures and prolonged drought. Scientists see both as evidence of climate change.
The Burning Land – NYTimes.com
[Warmist Paul Krugman] I’ve been searching for something useful to say about the epic heat wave and drought afflicting U.S. agriculture…
Yet with so much of the American political spectrum in fierce denial over the issue, there is no prospect whatsoever of getting action.
But the data says otherwise Ms. Goldenberg and Mr. Krugman. Have a look for yourself, one year, one drought, does not a trend make. But Krugman is relying upon the heated hyperbolic opinion of Joe Romm, so I suppose we can understand how he was taken in.
CARPE DIEM: Corn Yields Have Increased Six Times Since 1940
Roger Pielke Jr. pulls out his handy BS button for this one, citing Krugmans passage:
In yesterday’s NYT Paul Krugman writes:
==============================================================
[R]eally extreme high temperatures, the kind of thing that used to happen very rarely in the past, have now become fairly common. Think of it as rolling two sixes, which happens less than 3 percent of the time with fair dice, but more often when the dice are loaded. And this rising incidence of extreme events, reflecting the same variability of weather that can obscure the reality of climate change, means that the costs of climate change aren’t a distant prospect, decades in the future. On the contrary, they’re already here, even though so far global temperatures are only about 1 degree Fahrenheit above their historical norms, a small fraction of their eventual rise if we don’t act.
The great Midwestern drought is a case in point. This drought has already sent corn prices to their highest level ever. If it continues, it could cause a global food crisis, because the U.S. heartland is still the world’s breadbasket. And yes, the drought is linked to climate change: such events have happened before, but they’re much more likely now than they used to be.
Now, maybe this drought will break in time to avoid the worst. But there will be more events like this. Joseph Romm, the influential climate blogger, has coined the term “Dust-Bowlification” for the prospect of extended periods of extreme drought in formerly productive agricultural areas. He has been arguing for some time that this phenomenon, with its disastrous effects on food security, is likely to be the leading edge of damage from climate change, taking place over the next few decades; the drowning of Florida by rising sea levels and all that will come later.
And here it comes.
=========================================================
Pielke Jr. writes:
Instead of looking at the musings of a “climate blogger” (as entertaining as that may be) like Krugman does, let’s instead look at scientific research that has examined trends in US droughts. A crazy idea, I know. Fortunately, scientists have examined empirical data on the frequency and severity of drought on climate time scales.
Here is Andreadis and Lettenmaier (2006) in GRL (PDF):
[D]roughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, less severe, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century.
Read Pielke Jr.’s full post here, and don’t forget to get a look at his great book, The Climate Fix
Obvious evidence of human meddling! Nature has been subjugated by the jack booted thugs of Big Energy! /sarc
In the UK drought used to mean 14 days without any rain. Now it means water shortage.
US corn yield graph – sure looks like a hockey stick to me! All due to CO2 no doubt?
The digging of wells, and irrigation of crops dates back to the stone age. The Romans were experts at moving water to where it was needed.
That must be the first stupid, ignorant and badly misinformed thing Krugman has ever said, right?
I like Krugman’s “one degree F above the historical norm” I do not think that the climate has a historical norm.
If Ms. Goldenberg and Mr. Krugman are so worried about shrinking corn crops and the resulting worldwide famine, then they should be fighting against the EPA’s mandated ethanol gasoline blends.
Krugman always has the conclusion before he even attempts to look at the evidence. Further, he is lazy and tends crib the work of other ideologues.
One of the reasons that that crop yield exploded when it did, was the combine !!!
Then let them plant agave and drill baby drill.
Hybridization (GM) is why corn yields have increased.
Once again, the corn starch used to make ethanol is not consumed by humans. Nor can farmers in these regions grow something that they lack the machinery for, and lack transportation to market for. What is raised around here is animal feed, and renewable feedstock for industrial processes, such as ethanol, biodiesel, plastics,fructose, etc.
So the impact on global food is unmeasurably small. The price of meat will go down, then up, because ranchers will have to slaughter their herds if they can’t afford the feed prices, which will first glut the market, and then create scarcity. Ethanol production will go down because it won’t be profitable.
If you are worried about food, you need to look at the global rice and wheat crops, which are generally speaking, not raised in the Midwest.
Dr M.H.Nederlof, geologist says:
July 23, 2012 at 9:16 am
“I like Krugman’s “one degree F above the historical norm” I do not think that the climate has a historical norm.”
He meant “hysterical” norm.
Why let reality intrude on the telling of a fairy tale?
Of course this one from the “Big Book of Climate Fables” is so oft-told and awful I wouldn’t mind if it was interrupted by projectile vomiting or explosive diarrhea.
But enough about McKibben’s and Romm’s writing styles…
The huge increases in agricultural productivity are generally attributed to technological advancements. This is no doubt true, but is it possible that some fraction of the increase is due to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Seems like it would make a good story for a reporter /hint/
Corn yields have increased largely as a result of the continuing development of hybrid seeds, and since roughly 1990 greater planting density. There is some indication that the increased density has had the effect of moderating temperatures: the increased density gets the ground covered sooner and more thoroughly, intercepting more sunlight.
Whatever the reason, 100 degree temperatures are not nearly as common as they used to be in Iowa, the current extreme temperatures are notable because it has been so long since they last occurred.
Why do people listen to this guy at all again? I saw this yesterday, and couldn’t even get through the whole thing.
Interesting. One wonders how much redefinition of terms is going on around here.
If this trend continues (and don’t they always), Manhattan will be submerged under 300 feet of corn by the end of the century!
If Krugman is only capable of reading fiction perhaps he might try “The Grapes of Wrath”.
All well and good, but what i’d really like to see is some letters to the editor. Where are the letters? Where are the op-eds? I see nothing from the opposition in the NYT’s. Of course it’s possible they refuse to publish skeptical letters. And it’s very likely they do not and will not accept skeptical op-eds. But I get the feeling no one’s trying. Krugman needs to be taken to task.
I’ve sent perhaps a dozen letters over the years, and they’ve not printed any of them. BUt I’m nobody.
Just keep the $1 trillion annual deficits going on the problem and it will get better, right Dr. Krugman? Of course Greece is much closer to solving this problem than anyone else.
“Krugman always has the conclusion before he even attempts to look at the evidence. Further, he is lazy and tends crib the work of other ideologues.” – Pat
I’ve also noticed that he tends to be less than familiar with the counter arguments in any given situation. When he tries to rebut his critics, missing the point by a country mile is the norm with Krugman.
Adjusting for inflation, corn prices are not at record high levels. Corn is currently around $8 per bushel. In terms of 2012 dollars, the average price of corn was over $10 per bushel from 1973 through 1976, and over $13 per bushel in 1974. The annual average price of Corn was below $7 (adjusted to 2012 dollars) in only 4 years between 1960 and 1981.
Price of corn from a University of Illinois website for the annual average price of corn received by Illinois farmers.
CPI from US Dept of Labor.
Enhanced CO2 enables corn, and other plants, to better withstand drought.
Wasn’t the Little Ice Age a time of extensive North American droughts?