But there seems to be no signs of a major slowdown despite heat waves of the past 60 years.
![indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/indicator3_2013_productiongrain1.png?resize=401%2C331)
From the Institute of Physics
Heat waves could significantly reduce crop yields and threaten global food supply if climate change is not tackled and reversed.
This is according to a new study led by researchers at the University of East Anglia and published today, 20 March, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, which has, for the first time, estimated the global effects of extreme temperatures and elevated levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) on the production of maize, wheat and soybean.
Earlier studies have found that climate change is projected to reduce maize yields globally by the end of the century under a “business as usual” scenario for future emissions of greenhouse gases; however, this new study shows that the inclusion of the effects of heat waves, which have not been accounted for in previous modelling calculations, could double the losses of the crop.
Lead author of the study Delphine Deryng, from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, said: “Instances of extreme temperatures, brought about by a large increase in global mean temperature, can be detrimental to crops at any stage of their development, but in particular around anthesis—the flowering period of the plant.
“At this stage, extreme temperatures can lead to reduced pollen sterility and reduced seed set, greatly reducing the crop yield.”
The impacts on wheat and soybean are likely to be less profound, primarily because of the fertilisation effects that elevated levels of CO2 can have on these crops.
In plants, CO2 is central to the process of photosynthesis—the mechanism by which they create food from sunlight, CO2 and water. When there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, the leaves of plants can capture more of it, resulting in an overall increase in the biomass of the plant.
In addition, plants are able to manage their water use much more efficiently in these conditions, resulting in better tolerance to drought episodes. However, it is not clear whether these CO2 fertilisation effects will actually occur in the field owing to interactions with other factors.
If the CO2 fertilisation effects do occur, the researchers found that the yields of wheat and soybean are expected to increase throughout the 21st century under a “business-as-usual” scenario; however, the increases are projected to be significantly offset by the effects of heat waves, as these plants are still vulnerable to the effects of extreme temperatures.
The positive impacts on soybean yield will be offset by 25 per cent and the positive impacts on wheat will be offset by 52 per cent.
The researchers, from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (University of East Anglia, Norwich), Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (London School of Economics and Political Science, London), and Global Environmental and Climate Change Centre (McGill University, Montreal), arrived at their results using the global crop model PEGASUS to simulate crop yield responses to 72 climate change scenarios spanning the 21st century.
The study also identified particular areas where heat waves are expected to have the largest negative effects on crop yields. Some of the largest affected areas are key for crop production, for example the North American corn belt for maize. When the CO2 fertilisation effects are not taken into account, the researchers found a net decrease in yields in all three crops, intensified by extreme heat stress, for the top-five producing countries of each crop.
“Our results show that maize yields are expected to be negatively affected by climate change, while the impacts on wheat and soybean are generally positive, unless CO2 fertilisation effects have been overestimated,” continued Deryng.
“However, extreme heat stress reinforced by ‘business-as-usual’ reduces the beneficial effects considerably in these two crops. Climate mitigation policy would help reduce risks of serious negative impacts on maize worldwide and reduce risks of extreme heat stress that threaten global crop production.”
From Thursday 20 March, this paper can be downloaded from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/3/034011/article
Even if this was not a transparent bit bs, the answer the AGW hypesters offer is ridiculous:
Curb CO2, tax carbon and raise taxes.
I think this one should be filed next to, “The children in Endland won’t know what snow is” …
Zero sum thinking.
That’s funny. I don’t recall ever having to cut my grass in winter.
Dr hubert lamb of east anglia uni said in the 1970s that the global cooling then happening would cause crop failure and famine. are both right?
Och aye, the usual suspects then: but I sis like the oxymoron about reduced sterility.
Kindest Regards
“The researchers, from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (University of East Anglia, Norwich), Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (London School of Economics and Political Science, London), and Global Environmental and Climate Change Centre (McGill University, Montreal), arrived at their results using the global crop model PEGASUS to simulate crop yield responses to 72 climate change scenarios spanning the 21st century.”
Meaning it’s more GIGO. I would rather trust the real world opinions of farmers than computer simulations. But this is what we have come to expect from the UEA.
so they have modelled the “large increase in global mean temperature” then modelled the “Instances of extreme temperatures” created by this, then modelled the effects on crops. Then called the output findings “Our results show” Did they explain what “large” and “extreme” represent? Is there any reference to actual effects of these in the past.
More from the university of sod all better to think about
CO2 is plantfood
See: The response of global net primary productivity (NPP) to CO2 increasing and climate change: Evaluation of coupled model simulations Shanshan Hou et al.
“Our results show that maize yields are expected to be negatively affected by climate change, while the impacts on wheat and soybean are generally positive, unless CO2 fertilisation effects have been overestimated,” continued Deryng.
===============
So, climate change might affect the fact that 40% of the current U.S. maize production, is being converted into ethanol, at a net loss to taxpayers.
Did taxpayers also pay for this study ?
You might want to find a new field of study, cus this line of investigation is just about to play-out.
This area of Central and NE Oregon has ended up damaged due to cold, not heat. And heat, in the winter, usually comes with rain, something that dryland farmers love in the wintertime. But alas, cold comes with drought. These idiots are telling us the exact opposite of reality. Fear cold and dry, not warm and wet.
So we have increased coffe prices because coffee growers in Brazil were hit by cold, increased prices os citrus because of the Florida freeze and increased vegetable prices because California was hit by a freeze and we should be afraid of warm because?
Another paleoclimatically ignorant study that forgets drought and heatwaves mostly occur during cooler periods…
New paper predicts wheat & soybean yields will continue to improve through the 2080s from CO2 fertilization, even with IPCC exaggerated warming
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/3/034011
These CAGW grant grubbers should change the name of their climate model from the mythical horse Pegasus to the mythical turtle, Chelone, because it’s “turtles-all-the-way-down” for these clowns….
According the World Bank’s global crop yield data, US crop yields have increased almost 80% since 1980 with a considerable portion of that increase due to: CO2 fertilization, plants requiring less water due to leaf stoma shrinkage from higher CO2 levels, a slight increased global precipitation, slightly longer growing seasons due to the slight increase in global temperatures, increased arable land area in Northern latitudes due to slightly warming temperatures, etc…
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG
Where is the warming trend for the past 18 years? Where is the catastrophe? Why is CAGW still taken seriously? Why is the world still throwing $trillions down the toilet on this CAGW scam?
Man’s CO2 emissions have been a boon to the Earth’s ecology and economy and have helped save billions of humans from starvation over the years. In the process of burning fossil fuels, we’ve also created the energy necessary to drive the fastest economic expansion in human history and have managed to lift billions of people from abject poverty… Try doing that with wind turbines and solar panels… Give me a break.
In the process of burning all this fossil fuel, the US has actually managed to substantially DECREASE real air pollution by up to 90%:
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html
If you asked the average Joe on the street what’s happened to air quality in the US since 1980, I bet 80% of the people surveyed would say air quality has worsened…
I wonder why that is… (sarc off)..
Extreme heat stress is bad for crops concluded researchers, from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (University of East Anglia, Norwich), Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (London School of Economics and Political Science, London), and Global Environmental and Climate Change Centre (McGill University, Montreal), who arrived at their results using the global crop model PEGASUS to simulate crop yield responses to 72 climate change scenarios spanning the 21st century.
Extreme heat stress is bad for crops concluded “Anything is possible” after reading a copy of the Grapes of Wrath borrowed free of charge from the local library.
>”Earlier studies have found that climate change is projected to reduce maize yields globally by the end of the century under a “business as usual” scenario for future emissions of greenhouse gases; however, this new study shows that the inclusion of the effects of heat waves, which have not been accounted for in previous modelling calculations, could double the losses of the crop.”
If there were such a sustained increase in temperatures, the land base on which we could grow crops in Canada would greatly increase by several million square km, especially for long season crops like maize.
I cannot see a downside to this. With an increase in temperatures, rainfall is not expected to decline. It increases, as cold causes dryness = droughts. A frozen world is a relatively dry world. As to date the models have invariably been wrong, there seems to be nothing to worry about except a reduction in available acreage from a cooling climate which my all measures, seems to be upon us.
Claim has same value as shown in the Liar problem after:
Propositional Logic and a Liar Problem
The letters p and q, below, stand for statements which are true (T) or false (F), e.g, “1+1=2”, “the moon is made of green cheese”, etc.).
From these two elementary statements, compound statements can be constructed using five truth functions: not, and, or, ifthen, and iff. The latter is read “if and only if”.
Here are the English translations of expressions using these functions and propositions.
ifthen(p, q): ” p implies q”, or “if p then q”;
iff(p, q): “p if and only if q”, or “p is logically equivalent to q”;
or(p, q): “p or q”;
and(p, q): “p and q”;
not(p): “it is not the case that p”.
Rather than saying “It is not the case that the moon is made of green cheese” we usually say “The moon is not made of green cheese”. With the exception of not, which takes a single statement’s truth value as input, the four other truth functions require two statements’ truth values as inputs. In every case the output is either T or F. Truth tables are the “graphs” of these functions, i.e., a complete display of the output values associated with all possible input values. The truth tables for not and and are shown, below. Follow the instructions to see the truth tables of the other truth functions. Then scroll down and solve a Liar Problem. Propositional Logic and a Liar Problem, uri.edu/artsci/math/ page logic
The article Claim: Future heat wave pose threat to global food supply lack credibility due to the fallacies that’s been used as well as that the claim’s proposer forgotten that one need to prove that A ->B always leads to B -> C and that this can be used i all cases where C is involved. It’s not only bad usage of Theories of Science. Statements and models using such methods aren’t using any logic science method at all. As we said back in 1970th: Computers work from logic some programmers don’t. Bad input – bad output
In order to make this argument you must first prove your underlying assumption…that climate change as characterized within the article is real and will be as projected. This has not been proven, therefore the rest of the argument is built on shifting sand.
Maybe someone should tell these geniuses that rising CO2 is causing an 11% greening of the Earth due to increased vegitation. They should also be told that most mass crops prefer warm to cold.
Obviously they do not get out much.
I wonder if this crew of researchers have ever grown anything other than head lice?
“. . . arrived at their results using the global crop model PEGASUS . . .”
I went out today and pulled some of the straw covering my strawberries and asked them when they thought I should uncover the lot of them. I told them global warming was at hand and they should start earning their keep. The word “global” caused them to laugh uncontrollably. In unison they said we don’t give a crap about global and locally it is cold. One said, we’ve heard farmer’s across the Nation are even now deciding on the crops they will plant this spring based on forecast of coming growing conditions. Now, cover us back up and get your foot off of little Timmy.
It seems that maize (corn) and soy beans grow rather well up to about 85F.
At least at our college the biologist are still using growth chambers and actually seeing what happens and not what some model says.
Which part of no warming for 17 years are they suggesting we reverse?
This is getting like some Hollywood disaster movie. Never mind the facts as long as it makes a good scenario.
Is that why IPCC refers to it’s projections as “scenarios”.
So, did I read this right? Because the excessive heat waves that their non-working models project might cut the possible 50% increase in production to only a 25% increase, we need to reduce CO2 to make sure this doesn’t happen. Instead they actually recommend we should go for an actual 50% reduction in current yield so we can avoid the possible 50% reduction of a possible 50% increase. I would be laughing hysterically if these guys were only affecting their own future and not mine and the people I love.
Them researchers got to be dumber then a wooden fence post. I guess they grow their crops in a computer funny farm. Any real farmer would tell them that warmer is better! longer growing seasons better! Bull Scat belongs in the field. pg
It’s an uphill climb, but I do try to get my students to take time to read what they just wrote, just to see if they said what they think they said. Somebodies in UEA should have paid more attention to their grade school teachers:
…extreme temperatures can lead to reduced pollen sterility…
These claims leave one with the impression that those making them have never picked up a history book, or worse, they’re in the embrace of some delusional madness that makes them believe that modern society is immune to weather.
Anasazi – all you’ll ever need to know about people, weather, and the consequences of choosing badly where to hang your hat.
“Heat waves could significantly reduce crop yields and threaten global food supply if climate change is not tackled and reversed.”
This is just fear mongering. The negative effect is on corn. US produces 40% of the world’s corn supply and 70% of US corn goes to animal feeds, biofuel, beer and whiskey. Truthfully these scientists should say climate change threatens animal feeds, biofuel, beer and whiskey supply. But that wouldn’t be too scary. BTW the staple foods in most countries are rice and wheat.
another useless prediction to go from printer to bin.
China produces 30% of world’s corn supply and 70% of China corn is for animal feeds too. Maybe if the animals die because of climate change the vegans will rejoice.
All based on the baseless assertion that extreme heat waves will become the norm. Drivel.
UEA – enough said.
How meaningless is this study? I’ve just tried checking the parameters used for Pegasus to see if it uses increasing / changing growth areas coupled with any temperature increases. No luck on that one but going through the PNAS.org study covering ‘Global gridded crop model intercomparison’ the variations between models are quite astounding.
Maize – varies from +38% to -38%
Wheat – varies from +38% to -27%
Rice runs off the scale looking at 100%++ increase to a -19%
Soy – varies from +80%++ to -30%.
(These tables are found on page 15 of the supplementary appendix)
Spreads of output between the models are so vast as to render them meaningless.
I guess that UEA (University for Environmental Activists) which created the Pegasus model is doing its bit to keep the climate change scare alive as part of what appears to be the current and well-orchestrated release of scare stories .
Pause for thought.
Yes they are right.
But the temperature has to go up first.
Over how long?
Then how fast can crops adapt or be adapted?
Work for the Wunderkinds.
There has been no global warming for over 17 years. However since Earth is continuing to recover from an ice age it seems likely global temperatures will continue to eventually rise. Fortunately increased CO2 fertilization will help to mitigate heat sensitivity various plant species may face.
Drought stress in temperate maize germplasm during flowering season is well known.
Both temperate, and sub/tropical maize germplasms are sensitive to drought stress, less so to heat stress during it’s flowering season reducing yield.
If there is increased rainfall associated with globally increased temperatures, much of the heat and drought stress of maize will be mitigated as this is in a large part due to concomitant drought conditions during periods of elevated temperature.
Current research to identify and optimize maize germplasms for use in Sub Saharan Africa, and Asia are under way. In these areas both drought and heat stress are factors. Fortunately there has been some early success in identifying tropical and subtropical maize germplasms (Asian) that are more resistant to heat and drought stress as part of the Heat Tolerant Maize for Asia (HTMA) project. It is likely these strains can be optimized through further breeding programs to produce viable strains of maize useful in a warmer world.
Overall the likelihood of success of mitigation efforts to lower global CO2 for global climate control seem to be essentially nonexistent despite the billions of dollars and undying faith of many. On the other hand, it will be very likely heat stress tolerant, drought tolerant maize germplasms will be available to feed the world, when needed.
Reference: “Breeding for Heat Stress Tolerance in Tropical and Subtropical Maize.” at
https://scisoc.confex.com/crops/2013am/webprogram/Paper78761.html
I would have thought “reduced pollen sterility” would increase crop yields but I shall put that one down to a misquote by the interviewer.
The three real problems with this report are 1) the lack of any definition of “extreme” or a statement of the likelihood of the “extremes” being reached, 2) the fact that their projected climate scenarios still improve crop yields overall and 3) the assumption that, even if the climate does become untenable for these crops where they are now, the farming can not re-locate.
“however, this new study shows that the inclusion of the effects of heat waves, which have not been accounted for in previous modelling calculations, could double the losses of the crop.”
I just cannot get past the obtuseness of these OCD intellectuals, why do they believe everything that comes out of the backside of a computer model? The end of Humanity is truly nigh!
‘extreme temperatures can lead to reduced pollen sterility ‘
Does that make it more fecund?
Can I say speculation? Europeans of the Little Ice Age must have been positively obese with all that famine and failed crops.
Now let’s see the results after the ‘HOTTEST DECADE ON THE RECORD’ and the rapid, alarming rise in temperature since the late 1970s. It’s worse than we thought, it’s all our fault and we must act now!
Since we are allowed speculation here is some more.
And here are some recent observations after all this terrible heat.
It’s getting worse all the time and we are doomed.
Is it also possible that more warmth (as opposed to heatwaves) at higher latitudes will INCREASE global food supply? Canada? I was told that global warming would make itself mostly felt as you headed away from the tropics and towards the poles, and at night. Less frost damage?
Increased heat waves over the Alps could lead to more glacier melt.
Getting hit by a car driving at 170mph will likely kill you.
Can I have my money now?
“Our results show that maize yields are expected to be negatively affected by climate change, while the impacts on wheat and soybean are generally positive, unless CO2 fertilisation effects have been overestimated,” continued Deryng.
So what if CO2 warming effects have been overestimated? Wouldn’t that also invalidate the whole premise?
[sarc]Or did they decided not to consider that possibility because with no warming for 17 years it is obvious that the CO2 warming effects are real and fully understood?[/sarc]
Getting rid of the mindless ethanol mandate in gas entirely would make even more good to global corn supply. The Fischer–Tropsch process is always available to manufacture transportation fuel from abundant coal as needed.
‘according to a new study led by researchers at the University of East Anglia’
That is as likely to encourage you to read further as
‘according to a new study led by researchers at Disneyland ‘
So people who been show to use poor scientific practice , lose data when it suits them and spin for all their worth and who would be out of job without climate ‘doom’ make a wild claim based on a wild guess. Perhaps I have insulted the researches at Disneyland.
“global crop production” “global food supply”
There is no such thing as “global food supply.” Food supply is local to regional. A tomato in Texas is of no value to people in India. We get the same absurd claims for “global water supply.” I see it as collectivist dreams to control all.
Global climate is another collectivist invention. The earth has many climates, not one. “Global climate” means you don’t know what climate is.
There is a way to increase US corn crops.
We reap what we sow. Are the seeds of future starvation being sown now?
We all keep in mind -more or less (?)- parallel charts comparing world temperature anomalies and CO2 levels. Is the equivalent available for food production and agricultural subsidies?
The Institute of Physics you say? Got news for those physicists and aint it about time they began asking the hard questions-
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/03/finally-real-climate-science/
Hallelujah! Ring the bells and deck the halls of the AGU
(hat tip Andrew Bolt)
Woops…the APS
Brian hatch says:
March 19, 2014 at 8:08 pm
“Dr hubert lamb of east anglia uni said in the 1970s that the global cooling then happening would cause crop failure and famine. are both right?”
As average temperatures go down the growing belt narrows (in the north it moves south and in the south it moves north) and food production capabilities decline, or so the story went back then.
The reverse should be true if temperatures rise.
I forecast the influence of weather on crop yields for major producing countries for a living. This study is a biased, speculative piece of dung with zero value and an obvious objective………..which is to manipulate numbers based on a flawed theory and apply them subjectively to acquire the intended result……….which probably also includes known funding realities.
It represents the opposite of authentic science.
Interesting is that the exact opposite poses a problem for farmers in 2014. The prolonged cold/wet winter, and a projected “cold spring” for much of the grain belt poses a real and not hypothetical problem for farmers.
During the “unprecedented” warming circa 1976-2007 global crop yields hit records. These concerned scientists are chasing problems that do not exist. If I were them I would be more concerned with droughts induced by cooler weather patterns.
Mike Maguire says:
March 20, 2014 at 6:47 am
Would you have time to write up a detailed rebuttal of the original article, complete with references to authoritative sources? Reports similar to this one come out frequently and it would be nice to have all their common defects exposed and detailed in one convenient place.
Anthony would no doubt welcome it as a full post.
Ah, more BS from the University of Easy Access.
Yawn.
Even if all their assumptions are correct and if the predicted warming occurs. There are already varieties of most crops that are happier with higher temperatures and more varieties can be developed if needed.
The wide number of crop varieties optimized for different conditions is why farmers have to figure out every year what that years expected weather will be, how long the growing season will be and a host of other factors so they can decide which variety of seed to plant.
+1
In the UK press today, The Guardian headline on this work is (typically) ‘Heatwaves could threaten food crops, study warns’, whilst The Times goes with ‘Greenhouse gas rise will boost crop yield’
Always look on the bright side of life – if only the alarmists could!
Dont worry Israel will come to the rescue,
http://israel21c.org/environment/top-10-ways-israel-fights-desertification/
http://www.kkl.org.il/eng/forestry-and-ecology/afforestation-in-israel/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-20/israeli-startup-grows-super-crops.html
or we start growing African crops that can withstand droughts.
http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/NtP-Africa's-Indigenous-Crops.pdf
Too hot, cold, wet, dry … sounds like my visit to farming grandparents in the 50s.
Physicists are now in charge of agriculture? Didn’t we try this before and about 30 million people starved to death?
Those dimwits at UEA couldn’t grow a turnip if their lives depended on it. Which thankfully they don’t, because real farmers grow the dimwits’ food for them.
Heck, we have to spoon-feed the dimwits with billions of dollars or else they would shrivel up and die, so pathetic are they.
UEA spokesmorons sound like they know something (they impressively used the word “anthesis”). But in actual fact they are puddingheads.
When the most totally useless members of society are put in charge, only bad things can happen. This is particularly true in farming. If you want food to eat, then keep the Lysenkos as far away from the fields as possible.
“According the World Bank’s global crop yield data, US crop yields have increased almost 80% since 1980 . . .” SAMURAI, I agree with the gist of your comment but believe you miscalculate. According to the World Bank, U.S. cereal crop yield was 3,772 kg/ha in 1980 and 5,922 kg/ha in 2012, the last year for which data are available — a 57% increase. The U.S. yield in 2009 was 7,236 kg/ha — 91% above the 1980 yield. Impressive, but it was the high water mark. Yields declined in each of the next three years of record, and the 2012 yield was 18% smaller than the 2009 yield. Most of the reduction in 2012 was due to the worst drought in 50 years. Bad weather is not evidence of climate change but the UEA folks predict a future of bad weather (for maize yields) due to climate change. Maybe it’s time for someone to invite the UEA researchers to a Simon-Ehrlich type bet. If U.S. maize yields are higher in 2024 than in 2014, skeptics win; if maize yields are lower, UEA wins.
State corn yields as a percent of trend yield 2012
http://farmfutures.com/mdfm/Faress1/author/252/2013/2/022013cornyields.pdf
“Could”
Asteroid strike “could” eliminate life on earth.
Aliens “could” invade and conquer earth.
“Could” is a very handy word.
US crop yields are a lousy tool to judge potential productivity. Crop yield is constrained by what the market will purchase. If the market wants more of some crop, farmers grow more of it, to the limit of what the market will bear.
The corn (maize) market has been pumped up by government ethanol mandates and subsidies, so that now more farmers plant corn now, rather than other crops.
However, there is no shortage of other crops, because the market is always satiated (in this country at least, for the last 60+ years). Farmers today are inventing new crops to tickle the consumer’s fickle fancy, because the consumer has all the broccoli or grapes or tomatoes he or she wants, any day of the year!
The old days of mass starvation due to natural disasters are long gone. Mass starvation due to politics is sadly still with us.
“Would you have time to write up a detailed rebuttal of the original article, complete with references to authoritative sources? Reports similar to this one come out frequently and it would be nice to have all their common defects exposed and detailed in one convenient place”
Alan,
Thanks for the request. I just finished an article for the local paper that only addresses recent colder Winters and natural causes vs the opposite(and morphing to include snow/cold) prediction from one side a decade ago based on climate models and flawed science.
I’ve written numerous articles for the local paper and a few others in the past. If I can find the time, I will gladly put something together but it would not be right away.
Posters responding to this article have done an outstanding job at rebutting this, along with some good links/references.
I know that references are treated as Gospel but each side can find plenty of them to back up their position. Perfect example is this study. The trick is to be able to pick out “the chaff from the wheat” so to speak by using expertise gained from having a lengthy period of making actual observations in the real world vs speculation or model predictions.
However, people are going to believe whatever matches up with their belief system. Authentic scientists looking objectively don’t fit into that category but then………..their mind set will lead them to the truth independently. Anthony makes this the center of the universe for gathering information on the truth as most of us see it and probably would see it otherwise………just not with the tremendous amount of scientific ammo he shares.
An article for this site would be preaching to the choir. An article for the local paper, reaches a crowd with those that strongly oppose, agree with and hopefully some on the fence and those that are questioning why the world around them is not doing what they were told it would since the 1990’s…………..and why is it these people keeping insisting the same thing.
I’m the chess coach at 4 schools and we have teams from each school in the Scholastic Chess of Indiana Championships this Saturday and am getting them ready for the competition on Saturday, so this will probably be my last post until next week.
not sure heat will ever be a problem but waste certainly is ,
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/01/10/up_to_half_of_worlds_food_goes_to_waste_report_says.html
“In India, for instance, as much as 40 per cent of all the fruits, vegetables and food grains never make it to the market. The country wastes more grain each year than Australia produces, and more fruits and vegetables than the U.K. consumes”
And again I must note, corn (maize) is a tropical plant. Anthropological research has found that corn (maize) has been grown (by farmers) for thousands of years in the Amazon on the Equator.
It don’t get any hotter than that. Corn likes it hot. Warmer is Better for corn.
Marlo Lewis says:
March 20, 2014 at 9:02 am
***
The issue is not bushels/acre. The real issue will be total acres of a particular crop be corn, wheat, milo or barley.
Yields will always increase (to a point), how much marginal land that will be used is the question.
PS — if you want to know what the next hot farm commodity will be, don’t watch the Weather Channel, watch the Food Channel.
Thomas Malthus: wrong since 1798*.
Paul R. Ehrlich: still wrong.
Delphine Deryng: making the same, wrong predictions.
The sad thing is, this idiot gets paid to be wrong.
* In his defense, at least Malthus wasn’t an utterly loonie fascist like the modern crop of wrong-headed idiots:
“Heat waves could significantly reduce crop yields and threaten global food supply if climate change is not tackled and reversed.”
———————————-
So if we tackle and reverse climate change then heat waves can’t significantly reduce crop yields and threaten global food supply?
Wonder what the new and improved heat waves will do, instead?
cn
Originally, an acre was understood as a selion of land sized at forty perches (660 ft or 1 furlong) long and four perches (66 ft wide);[22] this may have also been understood as an approximation of the amount of land a yoke of oxen could plough in one day. – Wikipedia
Now instead of talking about land tillage in sq ft per day – we talk about acres per hour. In flat corn country – Nebraska, the Dakotas corn can be seeded in 36 row planters at 30″ spacing. Not only are we pushing the envelope on ag machinery, farmers are pushing the boundries when it comes to seeding rates. In 15 years some seeding rates have gone from 25,000 seeds/acre in 1995 to over 30,000 seeds/acre.
The real question is what is the limit?