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
otsar
July 27, 2014 7:53 pm

I do hope his stake holders do not fumble when the starving man with the mallet shows up.
It seems that modern vampires suck the blood and life out of the populace through government grants.
I have never understood why some plants are called weeds. If we were to plant some of the original plants that are now crops they would probably be seen as weeds. If we put some modern efforts into plants that are called weeds they could become the next crops. GMO weeds could be used to increase the fertility of the soil in areas to become arable land of the future, attract and disrupt undesirable insect life cycles, etc.

Jack Smith
July 27, 2014 8:11 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
July 27, 2014 at 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.
Thanks Willis.
After reading the article I spotted several comments that remind me of the AGW debate. The author makes a credible argument with statistics with respect to GMO induced plant mutations AKA ‘superweeds’ but several comments made valid points about evolved resistance to multiple (2+) different mode of action herbicides. There is evidence that this is true because Dow AgroSciences is getting ready to market it’s latest herbicide (a combination of 2,4-D and glyphosate) called Enlist Duo. Vietnam veterans would know 2,4-D as one of the active ingredients of Agent Orange. Dow AgroScience has assured the EPA that this is a different formulation of 2,4-D so maybe this OK. I wouldn’t know enough to question the science so we will just have to wait a few years to see if any problems show up.
When I read this comment I just couldn’t help but think about how some people react to extreme weather events like equating a record hot day as proof of their faith in AGW.
Sharilyn Wood Stalling
July 20, 2013 at 10:30 pm
I gather the professor does not live in Arkansas where we are finding weeds 8 feet tall and 5 inches in diameter that have to be cut with a saw. My friend in Rogers, Arkansas isn’t even near farm land and had to cut one of them down in the nearby ditch. She had never seen such a plant and at first thought it had to be some kind of tree without the typical branches because the stem was so tough. Please stop reading, professor, and get out and walk the land. We have an agricultural disaster looming. I wonder if your university gets an endowment from Monsanto. It is sad to see the lack of common sense that is so pervasive in some intellectuals.
All the best,
Jack Smith

Crispin in Waterloo
July 27, 2014 8:34 pm

It is interesting that they estimate the ability of mankind to adapt to higher temperatures to be so low. If the risk of mankind adapting quickly, no longer seen as a skill, but. ‘risk’, was higher, there would be no impact at all from a 1 degree rise.
Is this article a spoof?
The climate regions suitable for corn, for example, are well known. If the temperature rises 1 solid degree large regions of Canada will be opened up to that crop. Similarly, Russia and Mongolia. There are Plenty of places in the world where it is still too cold to grow corn.
If Canada warmed 5 degrees it would add about a billion hectares to the arable land base. Even at 2 tons per hectare that would another 2 billion tons a year.
Is there something that Really lowers crop yields? Yes: cold.

bushbunny
July 27, 2014 10:22 pm

They have recently discovered a drug to attack virus’ and bacteria that have become resistant to antibiotics like TB and some strains of malaria.

bushbunny
July 27, 2014 10:23 pm

Prevention is better than cure. How you do it I don’t know.

July 28, 2014 1:42 am

These computer modelers should ask farmers why they grow vegetables in greenhouses. That’s how we got the name greenhouse effect though it’s a misnomer. Warm and high CO2 are good for plants. If some regions become too hot, other regions will become warm enough for agriculture such as Alaska, Greenland, Siberia, etc. Warmists only see the bad.

rogerknights
July 28, 2014 3:51 am

Regarding the giant weed of Arkansas mentioned above. If you want to uproot large weeds and bushes:
The owner of the one-man Weed Wrench company has shut his company down and no longer sells this item, in order to deprive the “illegitimate” government of his taxes. See his statement at http://www.weedwrench.com/weedwrench/ There is a used wrench exchange page on his site, at http://www.weedwrench.com/weedwrench/search_weed_wrench_listings.cfm . Perhaps this works better than one might normally expect.
(List price is $155)
It looks as though the Puller Bear (recommended by commenter Randy Paisley on your WW page at http://kk.org/cooltools/archives/1311 ) at http://www.pullerbear.com/ is an adequate alternative. The prices listed on its site for its two models are $150 & $190 Canadian. There are several positive testimonials.

John Finn
July 28, 2014 5:58 am

Henry says
All data sets are showing a downward trend from 2002, even Gistemp

None of the trends are statistically significant – not even close.

John Finn
July 28, 2014 6:06 am

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.

Sorry, db, but it’s not. The trends are not statistically significant and I know how you insist that statistical significance is important when analysing global temperature change. Well it is when it’s warming at least.

July 28, 2014 10:04 am

John Finn says:
The trends are not statistically significant…
The trends show cooling. But I suspect that if the trends showed warming, John Finn wouldn’t raise his ‘statistically significant’ objection — which is anyway just an assertion.
I am satisfied in being able to point out that global warming stopped many years ago, which debunks the endless predictions made by almost everyone in the alarmist camp. They all predicted that warming would steadily increase, but they were wrong. And they still cannot admit it.
It’s really amazing that when presented with incontrovertible evidence, most of the alarmist crowd still cannot bear to admit that global warming has stopped. That’s the difference between skeptics and alarmists: skeptics are science-oriented, while alarmists are belief-oriented.

July 28, 2014 11:10 am

John Finn says
the trends are not statistically significant
Henry says
well
let us talk about my own data sets, then
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf
especially the graph below the minima table showing 100% correlation (Rsquare= 1) on the deceleration of warming – minimum temperatures
If you had studied stats {and it is never too late to start } you would know that the probability of taking a sample and me getting such high correlations on the deceleration of warming [quadratic functions] is highly improbable IF IT WERE NOT FOR MAN MADE WARMING BEING exactly 0.000K/ANNUM.
Why would I still increase the sample[of 54 weather stations] ?
Actually, it is because you cannot get better then 100% in any kind of test.
The problem with [all the ] data sets other than mine is that they have not been properly balanced. It is not my job to rectify it. In science you only need one man to be right. We cannot have a “vote” about my work either. My work is correct. It is you [ and all those believing in man made warming] who is deluded by all your so-called climate scientists.
To put it simple (so that non-statisticians like yourselves can also understand): how many times do you want me throw the dice before you figure out that the average[!!] outcome of all results is 3.5?
If you have 11000 stations and 10000 are in the northern hemisphere, then indeed, you will not get the same as my result, neither will you ever get the correct results. Note that we are looking at the change in the speed of GLOBAL warming /cooling per annum.
You have to take note of the correct sampling technique, and getting the right information, which is critical in statistics. Otherwise you are wasting your time.
As far as I know, only my own data set is properly globally balanced.
Sorry about all those guys at BEST, NOAA, UAH, GISS etc
In my eyes their data sets are all just rubbish, just because they have not [yet] thought properly about how to get the right global balance….
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

Just an engineer
July 28, 2014 1:36 pm

goldminor says:
July 27, 2014 at 4:51 pm
“Making a plant resistant to a pesticide, which then creates a dependence on their pesticide Roundup, is questionable.”
————————————————————————————————————
Roundup is a herbicide.

goldminor
July 28, 2014 2:21 pm

Just an engineer says:
July 28, 2014 at 1:36 pm
==========================================
Good point!! lol
And I should have said “…makes the farmer dependent…”. I am not a fan of large scale agri-business. I remember well the changes that came with Safeway,s rapid emergence on the grocery scene back in the 1960s. The wonderful tasting fruit products of California soon became the great looking tasteless fruit of California. The family owned larger grocery stores still purchased most of their produce from the old family farms and larger farm associations. I would never buy fruit from a Safeway or similar outlet that sells similar grade products. I used to work in the SF produce market for some years as well as servicing restaurant accounts with their produce needs. The SF produce market still carries the best fruit products in the region, although many of the best orchards and farms are now gone.

bushbunny
July 29, 2014 10:16 pm

If good crops occur and you get a glut on the market, prices reduce. Temp, precipitation do affect agricultural and any agrarian industry. Some areas are good for growing fruit and mixed farming, while others favor annual crops. But as Willis said, Farmers are not stupid. I do not like feed lots, and favor grass fed meat, free range if possible for eggs and chickens, and pork. Yes it is a bit more expensive in some lines, but happy stock, taste nicer and are not stressed much. I suspect they don’t know, that dairy cows in Alaska got ill kept in barns. Oh they eat Moose there don’t they and road kill.

bushbunny
July 29, 2014 10:21 pm

GM crops are banned in NSW. Monstano didn’t get a foot hold here, because we saw what they did overseas. Sure their GM crops are not susceptible to round up. So what does that prove, the problem still exists. And the chance of cross fertilisation is a point that Monstano take people to court, because they don’t get any money for growing their crops. Bull – they did a lot of damage in India, with the terminator plants, will not bear seeds. Shocking use of capitalism, and monopoly.

1 4 5 6