Climactic headline shifts

Bruce Hall alerts me to this headline from Eurkekalert which reads:

 Eurekalert_headline

But the real headline behind the headline is this one, at the actual source: 

UCAR_headline

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

July 25, 2014

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.”

Wheat field in eastern Colorado
A storm looms behind wheat fields in eastern Colorado, where recurrent drought has had major impacts on agriculture over the last 15 years. (©UCAR, photo by Carlye Calvin. This image is freely available for media & nonprofit use.)

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

 

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
140 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
July 27, 2014 11:45 am

TobiasN says:
July 27, 2014 at 10:08 am

If someone really thought this they should be for an international agency that creates excess demand for food grains. Almost every year it would be turned into ethanol and sold. But if there were droughts & famines – it would just be sold.

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.

Editor
July 27, 2014 11:53 am

mjc says:
July 27, 2014 at 11:31 am

“Willis Eschenbach says:
July 27, 2014 at 8:49 am

Here’s the reality, dear boffins. Farmers change what they plant with the weather, even year by year. If it is going to be dry, or it looks like a shorter growing season because the spring is late, they plant varietals adapted to dryer weather or shorter growing-seasons, or they plant something else entirely. And of course if there is a much longer general swing in the temperature or the rainfall, they adapt to that as well.”

That’s all true…if you don’t grow GMO crops.

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.

I’m against GMO crops for two reasons, the first being I don’t believe the ‘life’ should be patentable. The second is because, for the most part, the varieties available are limited. They don’t have the number of choices to be able to follow a planting scheme based on weather. The ones out there now are pretty much ‘all purpose’ varieties that do ‘alright’ in a wide variety of conditions, but don’t really excell under any. Basically, that means if you are growing GMO corn you have 120 day corn or you have 100 day corn, and if you had a late spring and need an 85 day corn you are out of luck…just hope for a late fall. To me this makes them much less valuable, to the point of ‘why bother’ in many cases.

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.

July 27, 2014 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.

July 27, 2014 12:25 pm

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…

John Finn
July 27, 2014 12:27 pm

HenryP says:
July 27, 2014 at 12:08 pm

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.

Taphonomic
July 27, 2014 12:31 pm

The authors of this paper should google “Norman Borlaug” and then retract their paper.

Glaxx Zontar
July 27, 2014 12:35 pm

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.

July 27, 2014 12:47 pm

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.

July 27, 2014 1:22 pm

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.

goldminor
July 27, 2014 1:35 pm

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.

July 27, 2014 1:43 pm

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.

Proud Skeptic
July 27, 2014 1:49 pm

“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.”

July 27, 2014 1:54 pm

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.

July 27, 2014 2:00 pm

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.

July 27, 2014 2:03 pm

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.

July 27, 2014 2:05 pm

Edit: to my 2:03 pm, line 4.
This when there is only ONE trial over a period of 20 years.
[Fixed. -w.]

July 27, 2014 2:15 pm

@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.

There’s a speck on the flea on the tail on the frog on the bump on the log in the hole in the bottom of the sea

Read more: Sesame Street – There’s A Hole In The Bottom Of The Sea Lyrics | MetroLyrics

Randy
July 27, 2014 2:22 pm

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.

Bill Illis
July 27, 2014 2:29 pm

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.

Michael Lewis
July 27, 2014 2:34 pm

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

July 27, 2014 2:36 pm

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.

July 27, 2014 2:36 pm

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.

M Seward
July 27, 2014 2:44 pm

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!

Editor
July 27, 2014 2:44 pm

goldminor says:
July 27, 2014 at 1:35 pm

To my mind [GMOs] 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.

Sorry, but that’s an urban legend.

Myth: Monsanto sues farmers when GM seed is accidentally in their fields.
Fact: Monsanto has never sued a farmer when trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits were present in the farmer’s field as an accident or as a result of inadvertent means.
It is truly as simple as this: Monsanto has a long-standing public commitment that “it has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto’s policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.”
The misperception that Monsanto would sue a farmer if GM seed was accidentally in his field likely began with Percy Schmeiser, who was brought to court in Canada by Monsanto for illegally saving Roundup Ready® canola seed. Mr. Schmeiser claims to this day the presence of Monsanto’s technology in his fields was accidental – even though three separate court decisions, including one by the Canadian Supreme court, concluded his claims were false.
In 2012-2013, two separate courts acknowledged that Monsanto has not taken any action – or even suggested taking any action – against organic growers because of cross-pollination.
The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) and others filed a lawsuit against Monsanto in an effort to invalidate Monsanto’s patents because of alleged fears of Monsanto exercising its patent rights and suing farmers if crops were inadvertently cross-pollinated. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the case and commented:
There was no case or controversy in the matter because Monsanto had not taken any action or even suggested taking any action against any of the plaintiffs.
Monsanto had a long-standing public commitment that “it has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.”
Plaintiffs’ allegations were “unsubstantiated … given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened.”
Plaintiffs had “overstate[d] the magnitude of [Monsanto’s] patent enforcement,” noting that Monsanto’s average of roughly 13 lawsuits per year “is hardly significant when compared to the number of farms in the United States, approximately two million.”

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:

Over the past 16 years, vast plantings of transgenic crops producing insecticidal proteins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) have helped to control several major insect pests and reduce the need for insecticide sprays. Because broad-spectrum insecticides kill arthropod natural enemies that provide biological control of pests, the decrease in use of insecticide sprays associated with Bt crops could enhance biocontrol services. However, this hypothesis has not been tested in terms of long-term landscape-level impacts. On the basis of data from 1990 to 2010 at 36 sites in six provinces of northern China, we show here a marked increase in abundance of three types of generalist arthropod predators (ladybirds, lacewings and spiders) and a decreased abundance of aphid pests associated with widespread adoption of Bt cotton and reduced insecticide sprays in this crop. We also found evidence that the predators might provide additional biocontrol services spilling over from Bt cotton fields onto neighbouring crops (maize, peanut and soybean). Our work extends results from general studies evaluating ecological effects of Bt crops by demonstrating that such crops can promote biocontrol services in agricultural landscapes.

Surely you would agree that is a huge benefit, no?
w.