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

 

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
140 Comments
July 27, 2014 2:45 pm

What does it take to reject a 1 in10 probability?
At an a 80% confidence
You can have 0 events in 5 and not reject a 0.40 probability.
You can have 0 events in 12 and not reject at 0.20 probability. a
It takes about 0 in 24 to reject a 0.10 probability
It takes about 0 in 40 to reject a 0.10 probability at 95% Confidence.
From: Page 522 Johnson & Leon, (Wiley 1964) originally: E. S. Pearson, “Use of Confidence or Fiducial Limits in the Case of the Binomial”, Biometrika, 1934.

Editor
July 27, 2014 2:49 pm

dbstealey says:
July 27, 2014 at 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.

Since neither side of this dispute has specified from when to when the cooling did or didn’t occur, I fear both sides lose in this one.
Regards to both sides,
w.

Lil Fella from OZ
July 27, 2014 2:51 pm

Does focussing on one place in the world make such a comment valid? I have lived in drought prone areas and listened to what the older folks said, 120 degrees for a fortnight in the 1940s. Like the wise book states, ‘there is nothing new under the sun!’

M Seward
July 27, 2014 2:51 pm

PS sarc off/
It never ceases to amaze me the utter childishness of this sort of ‘research’.
Last night, my 15yo daughter told me about some FM radio host who announced that what he loved about being an “adult” was to be able to afford top go out and buy a great big cream cake and just eat it – all of it if he chose to. So he did and stuffed his face for the duration of his show. I pointed out to her that was actually just behaving like a child. She was not amused and huffed off leaving this old fart to ponder his sudden fall from grace.
I think that about sums up what we are actually dealing with regarding CAGW and the alarmists. Attention seeking narcissists who have some phobia about the real world and have never got out of teeny bratland.
The real question is perhaps whether we would be better off if they just turned to drugs?

Editor
July 27, 2014 2:55 pm

Fernando Leanme says:
July 27, 2014 at 2:00 pm

Proud Skeptic, even if odds are low we do have to worry about potentially damaging events which have large impacts.

No, we don’t. It depends on the evidence … and for the risk in question, there is no evidence.

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.

Agreed, but:
1. You knew the risk was real, and
2. You knew the probable damage of the real risk.
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t mean that we have to worry about imaginary risks which have never been shown to be any danger or cause any actual observed damage. If I claim without a scrap of evidence that cosmic rays are going to increase and cause corn production to fall, anyone who worries about that needs to send their worrier to the shop for adjustment …
w.

Bruce Cobb
July 27, 2014 2:56 pm

What hogswallop. They can’t even decide which it is – warming or climate change, so they use both.

Kevin Kilty
July 27, 2014 3:03 pm

Back when I was farming we had one very warm season in 1988. Our yields on corn, sugar beets, and pinto beans were the highest I ever recall. With adequate water, and depending on crop, temperature increases yields.

July 27, 2014 3:06 pm

John Finn says:
You seem convinced that the world is cooling (despite lack of evidence from UAH, RSS, GISS and HadCrut)…
Sorry about the previous chart, which is one I had saved. Here is one showing cooling from 2002 until now.

richardscourtney
July 27, 2014 3:23 pm

Willis Eschenbach:
Your post at July 27, 2014 at 2:49 pm says in total

dbstealey says:
July 27, 2014 at 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.

Since neither side of this dispute has specified from when to when the cooling did or didn’t occur, I fear both sides lose in this one.
Regards to both sides,
w.

Well, perhaps and perhaps not.
The time from now back in time when the trend is negative (i.e. there is cooling) is a function of the data: it is NOT a specification. The UAH, RSS, GISS and HadCrut data sets each provides a recent period when the linear trend of the data is negative (i.e. there is cooling), but the length of the period is unique for each data set.
Importantly, the confidence of the trend is pertinent, and 95% confidens conventional for climate data. At 95% confidence it is not possible to say that any of the data sets has a recent negative trend because the range of possible trends includes both positive and negative values.
So, the data does not indicate whether or not neither, either or both of them “loses this one”.
Richard

rogerknights
July 27, 2014 3:24 pm

Jack Smith says:
July 27, 2014 at 7:51 am
I’m a little more concerned about ‘superweeds’ and their effect on our dependance on industrial scale monoculture farming. In the US we already have up to 70 million acres of U.S. farmland had glyphosate resistant weeds in 2013. It seems this will be a reoccurring problem as natural plant evolution quickly adapts. Google ‘superweeds’ for more info.
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/midwestern-farmers-wage-war-against-superweeds/article_e84e6049-ac33-562a-aa54-e9a564af8e6b.html

I’ve just read on the Internet (somewhere) that scientists are preparing to counter these weeds, and invasive species, with genetically modified versions that are less harmful (or sterile, or all one sex) that will interbreed with the harmful species. Of course, these will need to be tested first on an island. (But still, some greenies will object.)

rogerknights
July 27, 2014 3:32 pm

In the future, algae-based food-oil production, using sugar as a feedstock, will reduce the acreage needed to get an equivalent yield. For instance, Solazyme claims it can produce certain palm oils from Brazilian sugarcane that takes up 1/7th the acreage of palm-oil trees in SE Asia.
And there are companies (e.g., Proterro) that are producing sugar artificially on a small scale, from water, sunlight, and CO2.

rogerknights
July 27, 2014 3:34 pm

PS: Proterro also include a a special bacteria (patented) in its mix.

Ole Sole
July 27, 2014 4:09 pm

Walter J Horsting….
Maybe this paper does factor in the solar cycle, only they cannot burst the bubble should the cooling not take take place: still a need to get the message across – just in case.
I would say the twenty year period is significant in relation to SC 24 and 25 – maybe the other boys in Boulder – http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/scrc/research/ have had the penny drop.

u.k.(us)
July 27, 2014 4:25 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
July 27, 2014 at 11:53 am
… repeat after me, “Farmers are not stupid.”
=============
============
I was searching for something else….but this will have to do, enjoy.
“Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.”
― Rudyard Kipling
“I always prefer to believe the best of everybody; it saves so much trouble”
― Rudyard Kipling
“A woman’s guess is much more accurate than a man’s certainty.”
― Rudyard Kipling, Plain Tales from the Hills
“We’re all islands shouting lies to each other across seas of misunderstanding.”
― Rudyard Kipling, The Light That Failed

n.n
July 27, 2014 4:33 pm

Journalistic license or chaotic career paths. Too many missed their calling in writing melodramas.

July 27, 2014 4:51 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
July 27, 2014 at 2:44 pm
===================================
In light of what you post then I would revise my thoughts some what on this issue. I still have reservations regarding gmo products though. Some of the efforts make good sense. Implanting a gene that produces vitamin A in a food crop as a benefit for 3rd world nations makes sense. Making a plant resistant to a pesticide, which then creates a dependence on their pesticide Roundup, is questionable. As mentioned above by another, superweeds and natural resistance to the gmo changes are potentially a problem. I do not easily trust the claims from large institutions that all is well and the public can rest easy. Think of GM as a recent example of ‘trust us’, or the discussion which we engage in against government approved and verified cagw theory. So with gmo I will remain very sceptical.

Richard M
July 27, 2014 5:04 pm

We all know that Stanford has received over $100 million in funding from Exxon. This must be big oil funded propaganda and cannot be trusted. /sarc

rogerknights
July 27, 2014 5:42 pm

John Finn says:
July 27, 2014 at 12:27 pm
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.

I mostly made money on my Intrade temperature bets, betting against warmists in a futures market medium. (I mostly lost on my Arctic ice bets.) I wish Intrade hadn’t gone bust.

ch
July 27, 2014 5:43 pm

Cold is hot, an increase is a decrease. Welcome to Alice in Wonderland.

Jack Smith
July 27, 2014 6:39 pm

rogerknights says:
July 27, 2014 at 3:24 pm
As the linked article quoted another scientist saying this is a classic Red Queen syndrome. As we introduce new counter measures natural evolution just adapts with new resistant species. The real problem is massive monoculture farming practices leaves us vulnerable to a variety of risks like superweeds, resistant pests and unstable soil biology. I’m not against GMO crops I just think we tend to downplay these negative aspects when we tout the benefits of modern industrial agricultural practices. I did notice there was at least one farming technique that was highly effective against superweeds; deep tilling and expanded crop rotation schedules. Deep tilling breaks the germination cycle of invasive herbicide resistant plants but it also has the downside of increased erosion, loss of carbon and nitrogen, and higher nutrient demand. I guess I’m looking for a economically viable alternative to monoculture farming.

Scott
July 27, 2014 6:53 pm

Well researched BS from an impeccable source, saying what the funding wanted said. Who can argue with it. The old saying of BS baffles brains comes to mind.
But really, there are 100’s of research articles like this, trying to put another nail in the deniers coffin.

July 27, 2014 6:58 pm

Corn and soybean prices are down currently due to high production.

Editor
July 27, 2014 6:59 pm

Jack Smith says:
July 27, 2014 at 6:39 pm

The real problem is massive monoculture farming practices leaves us vulnerable to a variety of risks like superweeds, resistant pests and unstable soil biology.

Thanks for the interesting comment, Jack. Intensive monoculture has been practiced in the West for over a century now without catastrophe or large-scale crop failure and hunger. And while we certainly have resistant pests and resistant species on the farms, we have a lot of resistant species that we try to kill—mosquitoes, MRSA, malaria, rats, the list is not limited to farming. Most organisms will adapt and evolve to avoid being killed. In all cases we do the same thing—try to kill them in new and different ways.
Now, this is obviously not ideal … but then we can’t just throw up our hands and say “Malaria has become resistant to chloroquine, so let’s give up medicine”, or “Pests have become resistant to pesticides, so let’s give up intensive farming”.
So while I certainly agree with you that a viable alternative to monoculture would be a fine thing, it would not mean the end of dealing with resistant pests and plants. That problem will be with us a long, long time.
Finally, unstable soil biology is generally a result of improper tillage practices and is not necessarily related to monoculture. If it were and it were a serious problem, we’d all have starved long ago.
Best regards,
w.

July 27, 2014 7:02 pm

Making a plant resistant to a pesticide, which then creates a dependence on their pesticide Roundup, is questionable.
Making a plant resistant to a pesticide does not make the plant dependent on the pesticide. It only makes the pesticide more useful.

Editor
July 27, 2014 7:06 pm

There is an excellent article on so-called “superweeds” from the University of Wyoming Plant Science department here. Short version is that while there are herbicide resistant weeds, there’s no evidence that their emergence has anything to do with GMO crops. Worth a read.
Best to all,
w.