Guest essay by Eric Worrall
As real world observations suggest deserts are shrinking, likely thanks to CO2 increasing drought resistance, a new model based study has presented a gloomy prediction of future widespread hunger, especially in Asia.
Third of global food production at risk from climate crisis
Food-growing areas will see drastic changes to rainfall and temperatures if global heating continues at current rate
Fiona Harvey
Environment correspondent
Sat 15 May 2021 02.28 AESTA third of global food production will be at risk by the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at their current rate, new research suggests.
Many of the world’s most important food-growing areas will see temperatures increase and rainfall patterns alter drastically if temperatures rise by about 3.7C, the forecast increase if emissions stay high.
Researchers at Aalto University in Finland have calculated that about 95% of current crop production takes place in areas they define as “safe climatic space”, or conditions where temperature, rainfall and aridity fall within certain bounds.
If temperatures were to rise by 3.7C or thereabouts by the century’s end, that safe area would shrink drastically, mostly affecting south and south-eastern Asia and Africa’s Sudano-Sahelian zone, according to a paper published in the journal One Earth on Friday.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/14/third-of-global-food-production-at-risk-from-climate-crisis
The abstract of the study;
Climate change risks pushing one-third of global food production outside the safe climatic space
Matti Kummu, Matias Heino, Maija Taka, Olli Varis, Daniel Viviroli
Open Access
Published:May 14, 2021Food production on our planet is dominantly based on agricultural practices developed during stable Holocene climatic conditions. Although it is widely accepted that climate change perturbs these conditions, no systematic understanding exists on where and how the major risks for entering unprecedented conditions may occur. Here, we address this gap by introducing the concept of safe climatic space (SCS), which incorporates the decisive climatic factors of agricultural production: precipitation, temperature, and aridity. We show that a rapid and unhalted growth of greenhouse gas emissions (SSP5–8.5) could force 31% of the global food crop and 34% of livestock production beyond the SCS by 2081–2100. The most vulnerable areas are South and Southeast Asia and Africa’s Sudano-Sahelian Zone, which have low resilience to cope with these changes. Our results underpin the importance of committing to a low-emissions scenario (SSP1–2.6), whereupon the extent of food production facing unprecedented conditions would be a fraction.
Read more: https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(21)00236-0
How do you say “I call BS” in Finnish?
Even if rainfall patterns do deteriorate in some areas, I’m pretty sure 80 years of technological advances would provide a solution, perhaps a bunch of nuclear fusion or Thorium reactor powered desalinators, or some technology we can’t even imagine at this point in time.
Of course, it is doubtful such a severe widespread deterioration in growing conditions will occur. Decades of satellite observations suggests that deserts are shrinking, so model assertions that global warming is causing deserts to grow in my opinion are highly suspect.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Grauniad’s Fiona Harvey and models! Straight into the bin then.
“…a new model based study…”
Stopped reading right there.
“Researchers at Aalto University in Finland have calculated that …”
Researchers research; mathematicians calculate. As you say … stopped reading right there. No point in commenting but worth watching out for it appearing elsewhere where comments might be acceptable!
A puter model can produce ANY outcome the programmer wants it to show! This gullible naive belief (therefore it’s a religion) that these models are right is unbelievable! Garbage in garbage out!!! Oh & when are they going to make their hive minds up, is it a climate disaster, crisis, catastrophe, armageddon, I get so confused these days? 🙁 It worries me that NASA are apparently re-entering the space race or whatever, when they got brave men to the moon & back again, using onboard computers with a mere fraction of the computing power of the average mobile phone, that my children have & use with their eyes shut!!!! Will they find anyone brave enough to trust NASA??? As said before, several years ago I confounded a Wet Office scientist I sang in the local church choir with, over a couple of beers (because I’d questioned the validity of the Copenhagen entertainment jolly & their puter models) in the local parish magazine!!! He was stopped in his tracks after I pointed out that little matter of puter programming bias!!! Even as a Chartered Structural Engineer surveying an old building, one can be mislead by anecdotal evidence if one is not careful, such evidence whilst perfectly valid & useful, must be treated with caution!!! Observation is everything!!! Yes I have a faith, but I don’t think I should believe the Archbishop of Canterbury pronouncing on global warming, when he used to be a banker who made his squillions in the stock markets, before finding the Lord!!! Sometimes I wish I lived in the US, California would be my preference & I loved San Fran, or are you guys & gals as bombarded with the neo-religion as we Brits are, it’s almost every day on some channel or other???
Alan,
Californica? For God sake man get a grip!
You haven’t been to San Fran in the last few years now, have you.
Mathematical onanism. They need to stop or they will go blind.
Have they renamed RCP-8.5 to SSCP5-8.5? As soon as I saw that they were basing it on a “high” emission model I figured it would be RCP-8.5 and fantasy.
One could perhaps use the finnish “paskapuhetta” or in the second national language swedish “skitprat”. Both mean roughly “talking shit”.
From the NOAA in Western America.
Precipitation data,
Southwest Region shows no trend since 2000 LINK
Northwest Region Shows no trend since 2000 LINK
West Region Shows no trend since 2000 LINK
Flat Trend in USA since 1990 LINK
I take the data above over another modeling construct using a Chrystal ball.
The darker the colors in this map below the more are reputed to represent drought severity.
The picture below shows drought is not a new feature of the western USA. Again, the darker the color then the more severe the drought. While the top graph depicts regional soil moisture; although current 2000-2018 average is very low, again this has occurred before.
What I find educational is that how the drought severity shifted regionally in the long tine frames mapped. For example, there was significant drought along present Oregon-California region. And Klamath County (Oregon) reports conditions are the driest in 127 years.
Whilst I find your illustrations enlightening and very useful, how exactly is a drought area in western USA relevant to an article discussing hypothetical (and far-fetched) droughts in Southern Asia and the African Sudano-Sahelian region? It might be quite nice for the Americans on the site to see somewhere near to where they live but how about putting up similar graphics for the actual regions discussed in the article? I’m sure we’d all find some graphics of those regions far more relevant to the conversation.
You can help us find those links that offer extensive data in other countries that the NOAA in America has on precipitation.
I think there’s sumpfink wronk wiff yer moovey, it ain’t not mooveing.
Or are we taking snapshots of a moment in geological time and pretend it represents cycles upon cycles upon other cyclic thingamabobs that all cycle around each other, over tens and hundreds and sixty-nine gazillion years CYCLES?
gringojay, the white color shows no drought, but does not show areas of flooding, see video feeds from the Baton Rouge area for current flooding. Drought somewhere and floods somewhere, sort of like cycles? My brother lives in Eugene, Oregon, which is “severe” drought according to the map. He has not watered the garden more than twice in the last 3 weeks, and Cascade snowpack is slightly above 100%.
WUWT international readers may not know that Eugene, Oregon is not near the Oregon and California border (& closer to the Pacific coast than it is to the eastern parts of Oregon). Eugene is not coded red (worst) in the current May 2021 illustration (map); any “garden” there is unknown to me, so I can not speak to immediate soil conditions. However, there are definitely recent reported concerns for Oregon agricultural productivity (& profitability) due to this current drought.
[International WUWT readers may also not know that the south central state of Louisiana is where Baton Rouge is situated. This is not only far from the drought stricken south western regions, but is part of a massive river drainage eco-system; it is my understanding that the mountains of the USA south west have nothing cyclic to do with flood conditions of the south central USA.]
gringojay, you miss both of the points. Eugene, Oregon is coded “severe drought” and it is not, as measured by ongoing spring rainfall and Cascade snowpack. The flooding in Baton Rouge shows what has always been true, sure there is some drought somewhere, but somewhere else is flooding. Which is the CAGW indicator? Both? Both is the Woke answer.
There seems to be confusion of drought, which is a feature of relative soil moisture deficit as a function of rain fall on particular land, as distinct from the specific nuances of riverine/snowpack hydrologic conditions.
For WuWT readers who want specific information about various Oregon locations’ soil drought status please check plantmaps.com/interactive-oregon-drought-monitor-map.php
The 114 year old Klamath irrigation system water is in bad enough straits that connected farms are being advised less water than usual is coming their way. The governor (woke as he may be) has declared a drought state of emergency; apparently the “on going spring rainfall” is not impressive enough. (And yes, my link does code Eugene drought status as currently severe.)
Most of the areas shown in red in your link ARE SEMI-ARID DESERTS!
Semi-arid deserts, such as inner California. Why would anyone expect semi-arid deserts to not have droughts? That’s why irrigation is so important to farmers in California and the southwest.
Yea, I was kinda wondering what it takes to claim there is a drought in the Mojave desert and death valley. Both of which shown to be in drought on that map.
I live in the Mojave desert near 29 Palms. My rain gauge showed 4/10’s of one inch this rainy season
If I recall my geography correctly, most of that darkest red is desert.
Another area with permanent drought, shows Greater Sydney area reservoirs at 97.2% capacity, and Melbourne Dam Levels at about 75%.Western Australia Dams 42.3% (full same as last year). I’m sure the citizens of Perth, Scotland would swap some of their rain for some of Perth WA’s sunshine.
We have had a Century of slowly but steadily rising CO2 levels and the observable fact is that deserts are shrinking an food production is rising, However none of these facts are allowed to impact in any way on these intrepid Climate Scientists and Enthusiasts in search of increased Funding.
Even if it were true that global warming is going to cause agricultural production to decline in areas closer to the equator (it’s not), it would be offset by agricultural production increasing in areas further to the north/south. Just imagine how Canada’s prairies would produce if the temperatures rose 3.7 degrees. Or the massive bump in Argentina’s agricultural yield. Global warming might cause the ‘breadbasket’ areas to move around a bit, but global greening would ensure that global food production does nothing but rise. The reality is that global warming is creating new ‘breadbaskets’ as CO2 rises and temperatures get warmer.
Plus the areas that might become productive are massively larger than the areas that might turn unproductive.
If your model doesn’t agree with observation your model is wrong. GIGO.
Ahh, but you have it the wrong way around, that should read, “If your model doesn’t agree with observation your observation is wrong!” That’s global warming science for you!
“….if temperatures were to rise by 3.7C or thereabouts by century’s end…”
What happens if it rises by 1.4C by century’s end, being the figure we are currently on track for?
All good news!
Next paper,please.
Have you noticed how they changed it from “global warming” to “global heating”. I guess “warming” isn’t scary enough.
… The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity …
Other newspeak terms in their guidebook are as follows:
#
“climate change”“climate emergency, crisis or breakdown”.#
“global warming”“global heating”.#
“biodiversity”“wildlife”.#
“fish stocks”“fish populations”.#
“climate sceptic”““climate science denier”.The old terms are not banned but journalists at the paper have got the message.
So users of the phrase “global HEATING” are in fact now global “Warming” deniers?
(have I got that right? It’s all so confusing for us ordinary English-first-language folk)
“How do you say “I call BS” in Finnish?”
I thought it was “Kamala”. Perhaps I got that wrong?
ROFL 🙂
Kutsun härkä paskaa
Posted in 2019:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/14/important-news-from-the-worlds-top-meteorologist/#comment-2795125
Interview with Petteri Taalas, Secretary General of the WMO.
[excerpt]
What would be most important now? “In Finland, as in the world, the key to solving the problem is to give up fossil energy. Abandonment of oil, coal, natural gas, and peat in Finland. That is the key.”
_____________
Sorry Petteri, but that is total härkä paska. In fact, people who say this are “full of paska”.
Go back to school and learn basic math.
I mean like, y’know dude, TOTAL härkä paska!
https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=fi&tl=en&text=h%C3%A4rk%C3%A4%20paska
Safe climatic space? Buhahahahaha!
They even gave it a TLA! That’s called meme flogging!
Whoohoo “safe space” is for snowflake campus kids who can’t stand hearing truths, wilt at debate, and get palpitations and break down sobbing if their imaginary sacred cows are gored. Total wokey doke mush.
And now we get “safe climatic space”. Climb into your bubble and choke back the tears because the weather isn’t pitch perfect for your privileged virtual fantasy world, boys and girls.
Meanwhile back in the real world farming is doing just fine — except where panic-mongering twits interfere.
As Alex Epstein says fossil fuels don’t make a naturally safe climate more dangerous; they take a naturally dangerous climate and make it safer.
I’m impressed with Alex. How many people his age (late ’30s) are climate skeptics? Very few. He once went to a climate conference at some CA college wearing a shirt that said “I love fossil fuels”. He tried to start conversations with the attendees but nobody was interested.
JZ: Alex was doubly “triggering”: loved fossil fuels and was the smartest one in the room.
But the models predict more precipitation and floods. Which is it? Drought and deserts or storms and floods? Can’t have it both ways, alarmists, or no one will take you seriously.
Per the country western song, “It’s always five o’clock somewhere”.
I say, let’s drink to that!
As I understand it, flood areas will get floodier, and drought areas will get droughtier according to the models. But I think there’s a sign error or something in the models.
.
.
I think that it was supposed to come out that drought areas would get more rain and flood areas will get less rain and normal areas will get normalier.
Everything will cancel out if we increase CO2 in the atmosphere. We’ll all be living in a Garden of Eden. They just have to fix that sign error in the models.
( 😜 and just in case 😜 😜 )
It’s cold because it warms, the way climate fuzzies think.
With hand-tuned climate models combined with a biased investigator needing publication, anything can happen. “If it bleeds it leads.”
I find especially egregious, “If temperatures were to rise by 3.7C or thereabouts by the century’s end…”
And If my arse were a gold mine and everything outta it were gold, well …
So much for “if’s” in science.
As my momma used to say: “Wish into your one hand, poop into the other, and see which carries more weight.”
Cool Momma!
I guess they clueless
https://phzoe.com/2021/02/27/surface-change/
Then the lead sentence of the Original Post is “clueless” by representing the Sahara Desert as decreasing (it refers to somebody’s already known mis-representation of an authored paper that found increasing leaf area index in the region south of the Sahara, which actual report states in English it specifically studied a non-Sahara area). The Sahara definitely has had a period in the recent 1900s where the desert (as defined by a specific maximum rainfall threshold) statistically did recede – however the Sahara desert area was increasing by 2018. [Graph below is from a recent (2018?) comprehensive Sahara report that actually delves into seasonal variation of rain as it relates to shifting Sahara Desert margins.]
Yes, the Grauniad’s editor ordered his ignorant crew of lady journos to say ‘heating’ and ‘emergency’ etc recently. He/she will have (been) retired by the time the scam is exposed and the globe is accepted as ‘cooling’. But no less a pray, however
The gender of the journos is irrelevant. Men can be stupid too.
And by the way the editor, Katharine Viner,identifies as female herself.
socialist country with inward thinking people scared of Soviet Union was my impression of Fins when I visited the country in the early 1990s
the only change is a now a socialist country full of political correct numpties trying to prove they have moved on
Eric asked:
How do you say “I call BS” in Finnish?
This is from Google Translate with added flourish.
Tämä on kullattua paskaa!
So, climate change entails warming, hospitable environments, and CO2 engenders a greening Earth. No judgement. No labels. Keep the baby. A win/win outcome.
Well, except for the pups. Donate to World Walrus Foundation. And the birds. Go green, whack a wind turbine.
“Third of global food production at risk from climate crisis”
Unfortunately, this modelling exercise is junk just like all the rest.
“New NASA Data Sheds (Sun) Light on Climate Models”
Think of it in terms of disinfectant. There’s a lot of cleaning to be done.
“Climate safe space” hahahaha, poor little climate, needs its safe space in case its feelibns get hurt!
I don’t know if temperatures will rise 3.7 degrees in 79 years, but one thing is absolutely 100% certain. Fusion-powered desalination units will still be 40 years in the future.
Intermittent wind power is fine for desalination plants already.
Water can be stored until it’s needed, unlike electricity.
How could there still be any operational bird choppers in 2100 if we stop using fossil fuels in 2050? They could never last for 50 years and can’t be built without using fossil fuel.
I’m guessing that headline was truncated and should have continued:
grow greener due to increased beneficial gases in the atmosphere and shifting distribution of humans and animals.
RCP 8.5? Anything based on that is automatically bogus.
The desperation is unrelenting. How can these people stand it. Eventually we’ll be used to RCP 8.5 and they’ll go to RCP 17. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
The only things that are growing is volume-based climate change scare pubs and scare media content. Models have become the policy-version of skynet preparing for judgement day or at least tenured retirement.
Haven’t seen writing that bad since grade school. Good grief, they style themselves “reporters”?????
Using “perturbed” instead of a more appropriate term (disturbed, muddled, etc.) is wallowing in a lack of vocabulary and running to the online thesaurus for rescue and a pat on the head.
Nincompoops all!!!!
So Sara, what did your grade school punctuation teacher have to say about inserting multiple question marks or exclamation marks?
And yet with simple direct observation we know they are not. The Earth is greening, and that pisses off the leftards and ecofreaks no end.