Bruce Hall alerts me to this headline from Eurkekalert which reads:
But the real headline behind the headline is this one, at the actual source:
Hmm, “estimate risk” and “increases risk” are bit far apart, and the article even talks that headline down:
Climate experts estimate risk of rapid crop slowdown
BOULDER – The world faces a small but substantially increased risk over the next two decades of a major slowdown in the growth of global crop yields because of climate change, new research finds.
The authors, from Stanford University and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, say the odds of a major production slowdown of wheat and corn, even with a warming climate, are not very high. But the risk is about 20 times more significant than it would be without global warming, and it may require planning by organizations that are affected by international food availability and price.
“Climate change has substantially increased the prospect that crop production will fail to keep up with rising demand in the next 20 years,” said NCAR scientist Claudia Tebaldi, a co-author of the study.
Stanford professor David Lobell said he wanted to study the potential impact of climate change on agriculture in the next two decades because of questions he has received from stakeholders and decision makers in governments and the private sector.
“I’m often asked whether climate change will threaten food supply, as if it’s a simple yes or no answer,” Lobell said. “The truth is that over a 10- or 20-year period, it depends largely on how fast the Earth warms, and we can’t predict the pace of warming very precisely. So the best we can do is try to determine the odds.”

Lobell and Tebaldi used computer models of global climate, as well as data about weather and crops, to calculate the chances that climatic trends would have a negative effect of 10 percent on yields in the next 20 years. This would have a major impact on food supply. Yields would continue to increase but the slowdown would effectively cut the projected rate of increase by about half at the same time that demand is projected to grow sharply.
They found that the likelihood of natural climate shifts causing such a slowdown over the next 20 years is only 1 in 200. But when the authors accounted for human-induced global warming, they found that the odds jumped to 1 in 10 for corn and 1 in 20 for wheat.
The study appears in this month’s issue of Environmental Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), which is NCAR’s sponsor, and by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
More crops needed worldwide
Global yields of crops such as corn and wheat have typically increased by about 1-2 percent per year in recent decades, and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization projects that global production of major crops will increase by 13 percent per decade through 2030—likely the fastest rate of increase during the coming century. However, global demand for crops is also expected to rise rapidly during the next two decades because of population growth, greater per-capita food consumption, and increasing use of biofuels.
Lobell and Tebaldi set out to estimate the odds that climate change could interfere with the ability of crop producers to keep up with demand. Whereas other climate research had looked at the crop impacts that were most likely, Lobell and Tebaldi decided to focus on the less likely but potentially more dangerous scenario that climate change would reduce yield growth by 10 percent or more.
The researchers used simulations available from an NCAR-based climate model (developed by teams of scientists with support from NSF and DOE), as well as several other models, to provide trends in temperature and precipitation over the next two decades for crop-intensive regions under a scenario of increasing carbon dioxide. They also used the same model simulations without human-caused increases in carbon dioxide to assess the same trends in a natural climate.
In addition, they ran statistical analyses to estimate the impacts of changes in temperature and precipitation on wheat and corn yields in various regions of the globe and during specific times of the year that coincide with the most important times of the growing seasons for those two crops.
The authors quantified the extent to which warming temperatures would correlate with reduced yields. For example, an increase of 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) would slow corn yields by 7 percent and wheat yields by 6 percent. Depending on the crop-growing region, the odds of such a temperature increase in the next 20 years were about 30 to 40 percent in simulations that included increases in carbon dioxide. In contrast, such temperature increases had a much lower chance of occurring in stimulations that included only natural variability, not human-induced climate change.
Although society could offset the climate impacts by planting wheat and corn in cooler regions, such planting shifts to date have not occurred quickly enough to offset warmer temperatures, the study warned. The authors also found little evidence that other adaptation strategies, such as changes in crop varieties or growing practices would totally offset the impact of warming temperatures.
“Although further study may prove otherwise, we do not anticipate adaptation being fast enough to significantly alter the near-term risks estimated in this paper,” they wrote.
“We can’t predict whether a major slowdown in crop growth will actually happen, and the odds are still fairly low,” said Tebaldi. “But climate change has increased the odds to the point that organizations concerned with food security or global stability need to be aware of this risk.”
About the article
Title: Getting caught with our plants down: the risks of a global crop yield slowdown from climate trends in the next two decades
Authors: David B. Lobell and Claudia Tebaldi
Publication: Environmental Research Letters – doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/7/074003


TobiasN says:
July 27, 2014 at 10:08 am
Actually, such a system already exists, but it doesn’t turn grains into ethanol, thankfully. It turns them into meat. When there is a bumper crop, we don’t throw it away. We feed it to cattle, chickens and pigs. And in lean times, they get less grain.
The system has worked amazingly well for centuries, and it’s one reason why the claims that we could feed more people if we were all vegans are illusory.
w.
mjc says:
July 27, 2014 at 11:31 am
Say what? Farmers can just as easily switch GMO varieties, or plant GMO wheat instead of GMO corn, or not plant GMO crops at all. As I said before … farmers aren’t stupid.
Oh, I see. Farmers use GMO crops because they’re too dumb to realize that they are crippling themselves because the varietals are limited … again, say what? Do you truly think that some guy whose shortest season GMO varietal is a 100 day corn, he’ll just throw up his hands if the growing season is shorter than that and say “I’m out of luck”?
Perhaps you might benefit from a year or two on the farm yourself. If GMO seeds become uneconomical to plant, because of weather or for any other reason, said farmers just pick a non-GMO seed and plant that … repeat after me, “Farmers are not stupid.”
w.
mjc: “I’m against GMO crops for two reasons, the first being I don’t believe the ‘life’ should be patentable.”
Although I have reservations about what subject matter is eligible for patenting, I’ve never understood that particular objection. I usually just assume it’s a visceral reaction expressed without any real analysis. But I’d be interested if someone could explain the reasoning, if any, behind such a position.
ARNO ARAK
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/27/climactic-headline-shifts/#comment-1695584
HENRY SAID
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/27/climactic-headline-shifts/#comment-1695513
University science departments have been known to say that they can get any result you want, for a fee. Even so, this one is amazing. They managed to spin things so marvellously that they made it look like a risk of fewer crops if the temperature rises from 12C to 13C or from 57F to 59F.
You may not be farmers, but many of you have lawns. Corn and wheat are grasses. What does your lawn grass do when the temperature rises from 57F to 59F?
We have managed to get the pause across to alarmists. I think we need to get the current average temperature across to both alarmists and the public at large.
This site is full of highly intelligent people (yes, there are idiots and average people posting here, but 5-10% compared to most posts in yahoo or Grauniad, etc etc) I have noticed that the general public only comprehends 1 or 2 things at a time. So we have to emphasize this.
But even that won’t really do much good. The real fear is carbon dioxide levels harming human health. The opposite is true–we probably owe much of our increased longevity to rising carbon dioxide. If we ever get THAT across, it will be the end of the fear, and we might even be able to return science to the eager search for truth, wherever the results might lead.
Hmmmm, while writing this, I had the germ of an idea. I never understood why other people like Coca Cola and other sodas, because I happen to hate them. I think people benefit from the carbon dioxide. If I can come up with products and/or ads for products that contain the CO2 without the sugar or worse (all alternatives are worse and more fattening than sugar), we might be able to show greater vitality. Then CO2 lovers would be given a real boost in personal bodily power, and that result might communicate very effectively indeed…
Henry
You seem convinced that the world is cooling (despite lack of evidence from UAH, RSS, GISS and HadCrut) and you seem convinced that this cooling will continue. Here’s an idea how you can make a bit of cash. Go and challenge James Annan to a bet on future global temperature change.
Let’s see if you have the guts. Annan has challenged many prominent sceptics to a bet but none has been prepared to take him on apart from a couple of Russians. At present, the Russians look as though they are going to lose $10,000.
The authors of this paper should google “Norman Borlaug” and then retract their paper.
I could never count the number of times in the last 30 years I have read a headline with a ” warning of some catastrophe in 20 years” when nothing ever comes of it. Main stream media report it as if it is a new unheard of concept. When oh when will some talking head finally question any or all previous claims? It always reminds me of some religious belief for the end of times, never happens but they just forecast a new date. Like the boy who cried wolf, news stories like this one are not news but are, as in this story, science fiction.
John Finn says
You seem convinced that the world is cooling (despite lack of evidence from UAH, RSS, GISS and HadCrut)
Henry says
All data sets are showing a downward trend from 2002, even Gistemp
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2015/trend
UAH is an outlier and we know it has quality issues; we are waiting for an update [so that it will get closer to RSS]
That is still excluding my own 3 data sets that show cooling from 2000.
In addition my results on the deceleration of minimum temperatures suggests that man made warming is about 0.000K/annum
in other words: nothing.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
See last table below the minima table.
You can bet on that.
I am a religious man. I do not bet.
John Finn says:
You seem convinced that the world is cooling (despite lack of evidence from UAH, RSS, GISS and HadCrut)…
Sorry, John, per your own sources, the planet is cooling now.
Joe Born says:
July 27, 2014 at 12:05 pm
mjc: “I’m against GMO crops for two reasons, the first being I don’t believe the ‘life’ should be patentable.”
Although I have reservations about what subject matter is eligible for patenting, I’ve never understood that particular objection. I usually just assume it’s a visceral reaction expressed without any real analysis. But I’d be interested if someone could explain the reasoning, if any, behind such a position.
=========================================================================
To my mind this gives a company too much control over food production. If your neighbor,s gmo crop cross pollinates your crop. Then you lose the right to use any seed from your crop without paying the gmo company. You have also lost your strain from your original crop. This gives all power to the gmo seeds being produced, and will stunt the choice of natural varieties. So far most legislation has been favoring gmo because there is a lot of money passing between hands. The small guy gets nothing, no protection. I am against that.
These papers should be written with better descriptions of the model’s transient climate sensitivity parameter, an explicit statement describing the assumed attribution of global warming over the last century to anthropogenic causes, exhibits showing how the model predictions do versus real data over the last 50 years, and the assumed concentration pathways used in the model forecast runs.
Or they can all use the same results but place the climate model information in an appendix. I like to focus on the greenhouse gas concentration pathways they use, and these can be quite surreal in the long term projections used by the IPCC.
They particularly cheat with methane. They get the crowd to focus on co2 then they play with the methane curves to achieve their TARGET forcings, in other words, even if the models were fine they still have to put them on methane steroids to get the temperature to rise to the scary levels they want to have.
“We can’t predict whether a major slowdown in crop growth will actually happen, and the odds are still fairly low,” said Tebaldi. “But climate change has increased the odds to the point that organizations concerned with food security or global stability need to be aware of this risk.”
This is about as close to meaningless as a sentence can get. “We can’t predict”…then why are you writing this…and even more important…why would people read it? “the odds are still fairly low”…then why give it a second thought? “But climate change has increased the odds to the point that organizations concerned with food security or global stability need to be aware of this risk.”…couple anything with climate change and people will listen, I guess. Not me.
“need to be aware of this risk.” is shorthand for “give us money to study this.”
J. Finn would you describe the nature of this bet? I’ve made tons if money betting against Texas A&M engineers who had an illogical attachment to their football team, and would give lots of points when they played weaklings from Austin and Lubbock Texas. If your friend crafted the bet to sucker punch those Russians more power to him. But he ain’t about to fool wiser minds. And I bet the bet was rigged…it’s just another one of those items we see in the media like Mann’s “false hope” article or the famous cooked 97% paper.
Proud Skeptic, even if odds are low we do have to worry about potentially damaging events which have large impacts. Before retirement I had a job which involved giving management the assurance that we were not about to kill anybody within our plants and operating sites. And I assure you I didn’t find a 5 % risk to be acceptable.
Nothing like a prediction that CANNOT be tested and falsified.
They are predicting that the 1:100 odds of a decline in the growth rate will be 1:10 odds with global warming.
This when there is only one trial over a period of 20 years.
One trial that cannot be replicated, nor even the same decision repeated at some other time or place. Therefore, odds have no meaning, much less an untestable increase in the odds.
Me? I’d guess that the second derivative of the yield curve is already slightly negative, and if not a better than 50% probability the second derivative of the yield curve would be negative. The law of diminishing returns argues for it.
In fact, if we have staved off the law of diminishing returns for so long, it may well be the increase in CO2 that has played apart in increasing yields.
Edit: to my 2:03 pm, line 4.
This when there is only ONE trial over a period of 20 years.
[Fixed. -w.]
@Fernando Leanme at 2:00 pm
I had a job which involved giving management the assurance that we were not about to kill anybody within our plants and operating sites.
Fernando, we are not talking about anything remotely same.
What is being discussed here is equivalent to saying that the mean number of workhours between lost time accidents has been increasing at 5000 workhours/year and there is a 1 in 10 chance it will increase at only 4000 workhours/year in 20 years. Every year it will get safer, but there is a 1:10 chance it won’t get safer quite as fast as it has been.
Read more: Sesame Street – There’s A Hole In The Bottom Of The Sea Lyrics | MetroLyrics
Honestly as a back yard plant breeder I would make the case that the world could likely have much better producing corn if it was warmer. Corn is of course from mexico, where it is very warm. If you look at their older varieties, the best producing before modern breeding were from the warmest areas, and were MASSIVE plants. It was in the US large amounts of capitol were invested in superior breeding. I have to wonder if the same level of breeding was focused on the varieties (genetics) that excel in the hottest areas, if the corn from the hottest regions would again be the best producing.. Breeding for this with the level of capitol that built the corn varieties of the US has simply never been done. Atleast as far as Ive found when looking for evidence of it, they simply have smaller projects, and less capitol.
The higher CO2 goes, the more crop yield there is going to be, and the more you will have to cut your grass and build storage for the produce from your backyard garden.
That is what the study should have said.
I’ve been driving around Germany this week and have have observed 3 crops at farms, which are providing farmers a certain return in this period of global warming and will save the planet at the same time. They are wind farms, and in much larger quantity, solar panel farms and in largest quantity, maize corn farms for improving fuel and reducing somebody’s carbom emissions /sarc
I observed the same combination in France last year.
You see a bit of other cereal (already harvested), hay – but no livestock, some vegetables, vines and fruit, but otherwise, only the 3 above crops.
It is truly sickening thinking about the waste of money and effort
Stephen, here’s a quote from the comment I was responding
“This is about as close to meaningless as a sentence can get. “We can’t predict”…then why are you writing this…and even more important…why would people read it? “the odds are still fairly low”…”
We are in full agreement. However this comment by proud skeptic did seem to link a low probability to the decision not to even bother with a potential risk at all. If I run an outfit with 100 million workers the decreasing trend does merit study. My concern was to point out that a blanket statement about dismissing risk wouldn’t be optimal. As I pointed out in previous occasions in these cases I would need to see their models, how they perform versus real data (their tuning), and what pathways they are fed. I got the impression these agricultural researchers probably don’t worry much about the climate model issues. They are too specialized. However, although their work does have some deficiencies I would just ask them to dig a bit deeper over the next ten years.
goldminor: “If your neighbor,s gmo crop cross pollinates your crop. Then you lose the right to use any seed from your crop without paying the gmo company. You have also lost your strain from your original crop.”
Thanks. Yes, I’ve heard that one, and I understand it. But it’s a practical problem concerning the range of enforcement, not a distinction based on whether the subject matter is life or not. It’s the general objection against patenting life that I don’t understand.
When they create and run a mathematical model of a global warming Mobius strip what else would you expect them to report? I wish my clients would pay me to do this sort of stuff but my professional ethics say that I have to obey the laws of physics. Its not fair!
goldminor says:
July 27, 2014 at 1:35 pm
Sorry, but that’s an urban legend.
To date, the use of e.g. GMO cotton has resulted in very large reductions in pesticide use worldwide, leading to improved farmer health and environmental health. A study in Nature magazine says:
Surely you would agree that is a huge benefit, no?
w.