Gizmodo: US Wheat Crop Devastated… Because Climate Change

Guest “Gizmodo must be Latin for ‘dumb as a shoe'” by David Middleton

EARTHER
EXTREME WEATHER
The U.S. Wheat Crop Is in Trouble
Spring wheat could see some of its lowest wheat yields in decades due to widespread drought and heat.

Molly Taft
Yesterday 12:10PM

Wheat farmers across the country are facing lower yields as 98% of the country’s wheat crop is in areas experiencing drought.

In the Northern Plains, the Department of Agriculture said Monday that farmers were projected to harvest their smallest crop of spring wheat—crops planted in the spring and harvested in the autumn—in 33 years. 

[…]

The Pacific Northwest saw ground temperatures rise to 145 degrees Fahrenheit (63 degrees Celsius) during the heat wave worsened by climate change earlier this month, with the worst readings in the parts of Washington and Oregon where wheat is grown.

[…]

This summer’s wheat woes are a look into how crop yields may start to sputter more regularly, even as agriculture makes technological advancements. Ortiz-Bobea coauthored a study published in Nature Climate Change earlier this year that found that climate change has already made global farming productivity 21% lower than it could have been—the equivalent of making no improvements in productivity for seven years.

[…]

“This is going to become more frequent,” he said. “Climate change is already slowing down productivity at a global scale. It’s already happening but we don’t see it because this is a bad year compared to the previous one. We’re comparing today versus yesterday because we’re not thinking about what could have been.

Molly Taft

Writing about climate change, renewable energy, and Big Oil/Big Gas/Big Everything for Earther. Formerly of the Center for Public Integrity & Nexus Media News. I’m very tall & have a very short dog.

Gizmodo

US Wheat Production has actually been declining since 1981… Largely due to the fact that world wheat production has skyrocketed, reducing demand for US exports.

Wheat data in plots including 2021 are mid-year numbers.

US Wheat Production Peaked in 1981 (Peak Wheat)

Figure 1. US Wheat: Harvested acreage, yield and production (USDA).

US Wheat Exports Peaked in 1981 (Peak Exports)

Figure 2. US Wheat: Production, exports and year-ending stocks (USDA).

World Wheat Production Has Nearly Doubled Since 1981

Figure 3. World and US wheat production (USDA).

Wheat Appears to Like Warmer Weather

Figure 4. World wheat production likes global warming (USDA and Wood For Trees). Yes… I managed to misspell “weather” in the chart title… I’ll fix it tomorrow morning when I get back to the office.

Wheat Appears to Like Plant Food

Figure 5. Wheat + Plant Food = More Wheat (USDA & Wood For Trees)

If Not For Climate Change…

This summer’s wheat woes are a look into how crop yields may start to sputter more regularly, even as agriculture makes technological advancements. Ortiz-Bobea coauthored a study published in Nature Climate Change earlier this year that found that climate change has already made global farming productivity 21% lower than it could have been—the equivalent of making no improvements in productivity for seven years.

Gizmodo
Figure 6. “Climate change has already made global farming productivity 21% lower than it could have been…”Really? (Our World in Data)

Mr. Data Likes to Laugh at Gizmodo and Earther Articles

David Middleton

Writing about climate change, reliable energy, Gizmodo articles and geology for Watts Up With That? Currently part the Climate Wrecking Industry. I’m fairly short & we have 10 very short dogs... Although the Corgis think they are legless German Shepherds.

4.9 31 votes
Article Rating
163 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scissor
July 14, 2021 6:05 pm

Fig. 4 typo, Wheat Appears to Like Warmer Wetaher.

(Fixed!) SUNMOD

Last edited 2 months ago by Sunsettommy
Bryan A
Reply to  David Middleton
July 15, 2021 6:29 am

It looks like the only thing, up to 2018 dataset, affecting total wheat harvest (the decline since 1981) is the fact that, per figure 1, harvested acreage has more than halved from 80.60 million acres in 1981 to less than 39 million acres in 2018. Despite the reduction in harvested acreage the production still increases linearly

Reply to  David Middleton
July 15, 2021 8:15 am

That would most likely corn for the subsidized ethanol program
Russia seems to be doing very well with their wheat exports.

John Tillman
Reply to  Scissor
July 14, 2021 6:38 pm

USDA July outlook cuts spring wheat forecast from June estimate, but still far from a crop failure:

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/101641/whs-21g.pdf?v=928.2#:~:text=Wheat%20Tightens%20Supply%20Outlook%20for,in%20forecast%202021%2F22%20production.

Worse for durum than for other varieties.

Reply to  John Tillman
July 14, 2021 10:29 pm

Durum wheat production is forecast at 37.2 million bushels, down 46 percent from 2020. Based on July 1 conditions, yields are expected to average 25.8 bushels per harvested acre, down 15.6 bushels from 2020. Area expected to be harvested for grain or seed totals 1.44 million acres, unchanged from the Acreage report released on June 30, 2021, but down 13 percent from 2020.

Other spring wheat production for grain is forecast at 345 million bushels, down 41 percent from last year. Based on July 1 conditions, yields are expected to average 30.7 bushels per harvested acre, down 17.9 bushels from 2020.

If realized, this would be the lowest yield since 2002 for the United States. Area harvested for grain or seed is expected to total 11.2 million acres, unchanged from the Acreage report released on June 30, 2021, but 7 percent below 2020. Of the total production, 305 million bushels are Hard Red Spring wheat, down 42 percent from 2020.”

Keep in mind that Spring wheat is not near harvest. USDA is generally negative on crop forecasts tending to underestimate crop yields.

Durum wheat acreage is down 13% from 2020 and that affects the total yield. It is likely the land is planted in other crops.

Nothing wrong with buying larger bags of flour and stocking up on noodles and frozen pasta.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  ATheoK
July 15, 2021 4:45 am

Lots of farmers here in east central Kansas planted rye instead of winter wheat in order to help the soil. Wheat prices just didn’t justify doing anything else. Have to see what wheat futures do before making any predictions for next year. The hard red winter wheat crop here did just fine in east central Kansas.

Mason
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 15, 2021 5:31 am

We started moving to alfalfa a few years ago and milo. I remember an article about wheat not handling higher temperatures put out by the Pottsdam Institute that said wheat could not germinate above 90 F or something, obviously not an actual ag school.

Farmerphil
July 14, 2021 6:10 pm

Huge advance’s in modern wheat breeding science has been a major factor in increased yields.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Farmerphil
July 15, 2021 7:19 am

YES!

Progress in breeding and farming technology. That must be the main factor behind the growth of the productin of wheat (and other cereal crops). That and, of course, the introduction of modern production technology in underdevelopped countries.

Streetcred
July 14, 2021 6:12 pm

Molly Taft
Writing about climate change, renewable energy, and Big Oil/Big Gas/Big Everything for Earther. Formerly of the Center for Public Integrity & Nexus Media News. I’m very tall & have a very short IQ.”

There, fixed that.

Tom Halla
July 14, 2021 6:13 pm

I inherited my mother’s corgi, which was dominant enough to intimidate my Golden Retriever, which was more than a foot taller and 65 pounds heavier.

Tom Halla
Reply to  David Middleton
July 14, 2021 6:37 pm

Considering that Corgis were bred to herd cattle, that sort of personality is appropriate.

otsar
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 14, 2021 7:39 pm

Hoof biters?

road dog
Reply to  otsar
July 14, 2021 11:22 pm

Low riders.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 15, 2021 6:50 am

Queen Elizabeth has Corgis.

Judging by her flock, obviously not as good at herding as advertised.

road dog
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 14, 2021 11:21 pm

The last male Corgi I had (he was a big one) chased me across the yard on Thanksgiving Day, in pursuit of a drumstick.

Tom in Florida
July 14, 2021 6:17 pm

Oh great. Now Griff has ANOTHER thing to get paranoid over. Of course Griff will only read the headline as his worries will take over faster than his suspected climate change.

Johne Morton
July 14, 2021 6:18 pm

So global wheat production is actually up? Darn, I thought we would have to switch to Bison Ribeyes and stuff made from sugar. By the way, eastern Colorado, my home state, is in great shape right now. D0 on the drought monitor.

Scissor
Reply to  Johne Morton
July 14, 2021 6:59 pm

Unusual that the Rockies are keeping the dry air to the West. I’ve never seen the wild grasses so high and still green. In fact, I just went over the nearest ditch and the water was running high and fast. Usually it’s dry by the end of June.

OldRetiredGuy
July 14, 2021 6:20 pm

Just back from central Kansas, where my brothers, and the other area farmers, just finished a very good harvest. This in spite of excessive rain at times, and a late frost. The Dakotas were having some drought problems, though that may have recently changed. Drove up from far south Texas, and the biggest problem is too much rain. My recollections of wheat production don’t include much from the NW. Canada has massive spring wheat production near the US border – not sure what’s happening with rainfall up there.

Interesting comment from one of my Kansas farming brothers on absorption of CO2. He commented the US corn crop absorbed as much CO2 as the rain forest. All this gets rolled over into the soil every year. Interested to read others viewpoints on that.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  OldRetiredGuy
July 14, 2021 7:38 pm

In wheat production, Washington State ranks third or fourth among U.S. states, (depending on which website you read). Kansas and North Dakota rank first and second respectively.

Observer
Reply to  OldRetiredGuy
July 14, 2021 8:17 pm

Most of that CO2 will be released back into the atmosphere when the corn is eaten.

My understanding is that once “the rain forest” is established, it doesn’t sequester very much carbon at all.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Observer
July 15, 2021 3:41 am

If you assume that the stalks will go to animal fodder, but there’s a certain amount plowed under.

a_scientist
Reply to  Observer
July 15, 2021 7:12 am

YYes, the carbon will be oxidized when eaten by humans (HFCS) or livestock.

The rest is likely burned as fuel when blended with gasoline in cars.

Dave Fair
Reply to  OldRetiredGuy
July 14, 2021 9:42 pm

Yeah, those ignorant farmers. Molly can teach them a thing or two.

Robert of Texas
July 14, 2021 6:21 pm

They need to be comparing the yield per acre over identical areas if they want to try to see if there is a detrimental weather effect.

Pauleta
Reply to  Robert of Texas
July 14, 2021 6:32 pm

You expect “journos” have a brain? Logic thinking?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Robert of Texas
July 14, 2021 11:47 pm

And only change one variable, so same variety every year.

rah
July 14, 2021 6:42 pm

Must find a climate disaster. Anyone seen a climate disaster lately? Nobody? Well, I guess I will just have to make one up! Well here we go! The US isn’t producing as much wheat as it once did. There is my disaster! Never mind that global Cereal Grain production has been growing every year! The rubes that read this stuff and believe it don’t care about facts like that.

Last edited 2 months ago by rah
alexei
Reply to  rah
July 14, 2021 7:07 pm

Piling on the agony, Yahoo just reproduced this new disaster to come from USA TODAY, reprinted from Nature Climate Change courtesy of guess who? NASA. Apparently, “the moon’s orbital wobble will cause flooding on every coast in the USA, no less.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/moons-wobble-2030s-cause-decade-231205266.html

Scissor
Reply to  rah
July 14, 2021 7:08 pm

It was raining cats and dogs in El Paso.

David
Reply to  rah
July 18, 2021 5:53 am

The one thing nobody is talking about is China’s crops. They are under water probably not ding well

otsar
July 14, 2021 6:54 pm

Jimmy Carter can be thanked for destroying the US wheat export market with the wheat embargo to Russia in 1980. With that move the US became an unreliable source for wheat. He also destroyed some wheat farmers.

rah
Reply to  otsar
July 14, 2021 7:04 pm

Lots of the land that used to produce wheat now produces soybeans.

otsar
Reply to  rah
July 14, 2021 7:34 pm

Soy beans don,t do as well, or not at all where dry wheat farming in practiced. Dry farmed wheat needs 10-18,” soybeans 18-20″ of water. The biggest danger to farmers appears to be loose cannon politicians, more than anything to do with weather or climate.

Old Retired Guy
Reply to  otsar
July 14, 2021 8:38 pm

While you’re right, the economics and new soybean and corn varieties has resulted in wheat losing acreage in Central Kansas. Something I never saw growing up.

rah
Reply to  otsar
July 15, 2021 4:58 am

I know of what I speak first hand,

I used to run a small company that provided and installed ceramic abrasion resistant linings far various industries. Believe it or not, soybean husks are quite abrasive and so the large elevators and processors were a primary customer. We spent weeks in S, Dakota installing linings in the spouts (that is what they call the chutes that handle solid product in that industry) in elevators that once handled wheat but were filling their huge silos primarily with soybeans.

Mason
Reply to  otsar
July 15, 2021 5:37 am

That is why some irrigate. But if you are going to irrigate, why not plant corn?

rah
Reply to  Mason
July 15, 2021 11:51 am

Lots of Farmers here in Indiana alternate between corn and soybeans.

dk_
Reply to  rah
July 15, 2021 12:51 am

…And/or canola, sunflower, alfalfa, flax, sometimes sugar beets. Depends on soil, irrigation, the markets, the farmer, weather (not climate) and luck.

I love to, and often do, blame little Jimmy for just about everything, but the USDA and lopsided subsidies destroyed wheat farming through overspecialization and market manipulation. Carter just knocked ’em all in the head when other people’s money ran out.

DrEd
Reply to  dk_
July 15, 2021 9:25 am

“I’m from the gub’mint, and I’m here to help you.”

Capn Mike
Reply to  otsar
July 14, 2021 7:26 pm

Yeah, but PEANUTS???

PCman999
Reply to  otsar
July 14, 2021 7:36 pm

Actually you can blame the Russians for invading Afghanistan for the embargo. So it’s the communists fault.

Dave Fair
Reply to  PCman999
July 14, 2021 9:46 pm

Yeah. It was the French failure in Vietnam that got us involved. Then it was the Soviet’s failure that got us into Afghanistan. We will never learn.

Mason
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 15, 2021 5:39 am

True for Viet Nam. We helped the Afghans get rid of the Soviets. 9/11 got us back in.

July 14, 2021 7:06 pm

The correlation of CO2 and World Wheat Crop productivity under the Heading “Wheat Appears to Like Plant Food” is absolutely stunning and perfect. It puts any attempts by Warmistas to correlate CO2 and World Temperature into a very unfavourable light. Get that CO2 out there.

joe belford
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
July 14, 2021 9:09 pm

Correlation is not causation.

Dave Fair
Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 9:47 pm

Only when it is politically unfavorable.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 11:02 pm

Except there is no question about the correlation between increased CO2 concentration and greater plant growth. That’s why greenhouse growers pump CO2 into their glass houses … and not to make them hotter.

Mike
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 14, 2021 11:19 pm

I think that little detail may have slipped passed joe

MarkW
Reply to  Mike
July 15, 2021 7:51 am

Pretty much everything slips past joe. Both of them.

Rich Davis
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 3:55 am

If you applied that maxim to the rest of your mythology, bats, you’d have nothing left to annoy us. But I guess that grasping the irony is too much for your greentarded mind.

Joao Martins
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 7:32 am

You are right!

Actually, causation of yield by CO2 has been established long ago, not with “models” but with empirical, experimental plant physiology!

And the graphic illustrates very well (through a very good correlation) that this physiological causation can be observed not only in the laboratory, not only in experimental fields, but that we can see its expression at the world scale!

Wrong target, belford! Next time, do your Plant Physiology 101 before starting to post…

Last edited 2 months ago by Joao Martins
MarkW
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 7:51 am

The fact that all plants grow better when more CO2 is present in the atmosphere is well documented, using actual science.

H.R.
July 14, 2021 7:18 pm

I live in the Eastern Midwest and our farmers (I’m surrounded! I’m in the outer ‘burbs where there are more farms than neighborhoods. That will change eventually.) have brought in a good wheat crop.

Those doing corn this year are sitting pretty. It’s chest high or higher here in mid-July. The saying “knee high by the 4th” (July) has been well surpassed.

The beans (soy beans) are in the ground and looking really good.

I my neck of the woods, wheat, corn, and soy beans are in for very good yields this year. Records? We’ll just have to wait and see. Every year doesn’t have to be a record. The farmers just need a good yield. Wheat and corn are looking good for that. Beans? Wait and see.

Abolition Man
Reply to  H.R.
July 14, 2021 11:07 pm

H. R.,
Shouldn’t that be the mid Midwest, or the mid Mids? I think the east and west cancel each other out!
I may not know beans about farming, but I hope the corn and wheat crops prosper; I need lots of bread and bacon for BLAT sandwiches! That’s a BLT with my homegrown tomatoes and some avocado added to make it more nutridelicious! And yes, my tomatoes are very happy with their extra CO2 ration and the nice balance of heat and moisture the summer monsoon has brung!

dk_
Reply to  Abolition Man
July 15, 2021 12:17 am

Cornfusing, ain’t ‘er?
Sometimes East in this context means East of the Missouri/Mississipi, but usage of Midwest is funny. I live not far from a part of a street that is listed on maps almost everywhere as East Northwest Parkway, that is incidentally on the South side of town.

H.R.
Reply to  dk_
July 15, 2021 3:05 am

You got it, dk_. I’m not smack in the middle of the Midwest. I’m not in the Western portion of the Midwest. I’m in the Eastern part of the Midwest.

But as far a the Climarati Elites are concerned, I’m in flyover country and they don’t want to be bothered with the finer details. To them, flyover country is like those old, old maps with big blank spaces on them labeled Unknown. There be Dragons here.

dk_
Reply to  H.R.
July 15, 2021 11:59 pm

Wun er dem places dat b’gins wit a vowel.

TonyG
Reply to  H.R.
July 15, 2021 9:46 am

I was harvesting corn by 4th of July.

gringojay
July 14, 2021 7:28 pm

Original Post (O.P.) is a flawed presentation. The crucial issue of USA wheat farmer’s yields relates to wheat grain yield per area planted – which can definitely be negatively impacted by either, or both, drought and unfavorable high temperature at key times of the crop.

O.P. ignores water & temperature’s well understood agronomic parameters by only highlighting and graphing total wheat yields, and not once elucidates that (total yield) is distinct from yield per unit area. This comment makes no issue, nor opines, of whether there is a climate change pattern or essentially weather variability involved in USA wheat farming water and temperature environment(s).

gringojay
Reply to  gringojay
July 14, 2021 10:19 pm

In the USA it was 1956/1957 when all kinds of wheat combined began to yield over 20 bushels/acre; it was 1969/1970 when all USA wheat combined began to yield over 30 bushels/acre; and it was 1998/1999 when all kind of USA wheat combined began to yield over 40 bushels/acre.

Since that last yield pattern of over 40 bushels of USA total wheat began there were, to date, only 2 periods when it’s yield was less than 40 bushels/acre – 2002/2003 & 2006/2007. While there were 2 periods, to date, when the total USA wheat yield was greater than 50 bushels/acre – 2016/2017 & 2019/2020.

Data culled from USDA records available on-line going back into the late 1880s. And the more modern era data also included the acreage of wheat planted in each year set, as well as the resultant acreage ending up being actually harvested. The data also elaborates individually the same parameters for each of the assorted kinds of USA grown wheat for different years – too extensive for me to break down in this comment.

gringojay
Reply to  gringojay
July 14, 2021 11:31 pm

Source on-line is “Wheat Data” consisting of “3 Data Sets” (3 pdfs = Wheat-Data-Recent, Wheat-Data-All Years, and Historical Data) on website of Economic Research Service ( ers.usda.gov ). My above abbreviated synopsis of yield/acre is from “all years” pdf.

PCman999
July 14, 2021 7:38 pm

Excellent smackdown of the climate propaganda liars. They have no shame.

dk_
July 14, 2021 7:43 pm

Farmers in the U.S. have more to worry about nationwide from greentards and nuvo-trotskyites than from drought.

But Gizmodo is only wrong to hysterically blame it on climate change. USDA Farm Journal Ag-web reports low yield, too. https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/wheat/spring-wheat-crop-quality-tumbles-some-farmers-abandon-fields. Rather than being abnormal, this is offten what happens in a bad crop year for one crop, and well within normal historic variation. This is why farming is risky, especially to centrally planned agricultural economies, which is the alternative offered by greentards and trotskyites.

Many of those drought areas (map) in Central California and in the Northern plains states are served by great irrigation projects that have been shut down or hampered by eco-activism, lawfare, and priveleged idiots with more regard for nearly extinct (or sometimes fictional) species than for their fellow humans.

If you want a commercially paid biased review of software, computer hardware, or IT, then go to Gizmodo. On any other subject it is a source of only ignorant, biased opinion, unencumbered by facts or the thought process.

Minor update: USDA reports across the entire Midwest winter wheat harvest is a little behind, and will remain so due to heavy rain. Kansas is experiencing a bumper crop, so far.

Next week, Gizmodo can panic about too much rain — still within normal historical range.

Last edited 2 months ago by dk_
WXcycles
July 14, 2021 8:05 pm

Fig 6 is hilarious … terrified of a productive healthy world.

Got to wonder why Gizmodo is trying so hard to make-up lies to fan confirmation-biases?

Oh … the answer was in the question.

joe belford
July 14, 2021 8:05 pm

Figure 5 is bogus. Posting it is evidence you don’t know the difference between correlation and causation. Like the figure doesn’t show how much land was in production.

No wonder gizmodo has more traffic than this site.

MarkW
Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 8:24 pm

Since you are so convinced the figure is bogus, why don’t exercise a few of your moribund brain cells and look up the data to prove it.
Unless of course actually proving your claims is beyond your meager mental powers.

joe belford
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2021 8:41 pm

Dear MarkW, anyone with more than your one brain cell knows that the more land you cultivate with wheat, the greater the number of bushels of wheat you get at harvest time. Figure 5 does not indicate the number of hectares in production. If you plant 5 hectares you get more wheat than if you pant 1 hectares.

So please view figure 5 and exercise your solitary brain cell, then tell us how much land was cultivated in 1970 versus 2010.

Editor
Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 9:09 pm

Ha ha, you didn’t answer his question, maybe you don’t really know after all.

joe belford
Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 14, 2021 9:18 pm

LOL Tommy, Mark is a big boy, let him respond.
.
PS, can you tell us how many hectares were planted in 1970/2010 as depicted in Figure 5? If you can, then we’ll know if the increase in wheat production was due to CO2 or to the amount of land cultivated.

Last edited 2 months ago by joe belford
Mike
Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 10:47 pm

”If you can, then we’ll know if the increase in wheat production was due to CO2 or to the amount of land cultivated.”

What is it about tons per hectare that you don’t understand?
We KNOW that some of the increase will be due to co2 increase and the rest probably added N P K and H20 and possibly the very slightly higher temps.

Last edited 2 months ago by Mike
joe belford
Reply to  Mike
July 15, 2021 4:52 am

Recheck the dimension of the y-axis on figure 5

Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 10:47 pm

Pure sophistry with logical fallacy red herrings spread like fertilizer.

Arable land is arable land.
Given the growth of cities, arable land has declined.
Yet, so few countries actually tracked arable land or misreported arable land back in the 1970s, your demand is ridiculous on the face. That data is unavailable and/or unreliable.

Wheat production however has been tracked, well except for the countries who consider their harvests secret.

Figure 5 is based upon wheat production. Not not your red herring arable land.
Your demand to know arable land utilization back in the 1970s utterly specious.
You however are welcome to find and try to verify arable land. It does not matter to the article above or to comments in this thread.

gringojay
Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 10:48 pm

@joe belford – in the 1970s, all throughout the 1980s and 1990s until 1998/1999 USA wheat yielded on average over 30 bushels/acre; whereas in 1998/199, all through the 2000s to 2015 USA wheat yield averaged over 40 bushels/acre (except for 2002/2003 & 2006/2007). I posted this data earlier under my own comment thread above.

So you are on the right track. Using just your 1970 & 2010 mentioned years: if a year of wheat area (acre) harvested in 1970 was compared to a year of the same area (acre) of wheat harvested in 2010 the data point would show more wheat production/acre in 2010 – this supports your premise. [And, since 2010 wheat yield is greater than it was in 1970, farmers can (plant) harvest proportionately less wheat in 2010 than in 1970 yet none-the-less get the same yield, or greater, on proportionately less land.]

Last edited 2 months ago by gringojay
Editor
Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 11:03 pm

You make a lot of noises about it, but fail to back it up, thus you are into babbling zone.

Still no answer from about it either, while you insulted him about it.

You are looking really small in my view.

joe belford
Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 15, 2021 4:54 am

So, you can’t tell from figure 5 how much land was cultivated.

Abolition Man
Reply to  David Middleton
July 15, 2021 11:28 am

David,
Ol’ Joe is starting to give trollish retards a bad name!
I’m beginning to believe we need think of his ilk as toadstools. Like a mushroom, kept completely in the dark and fed a steady diet of manure (BS;) but exceedingly poisonous and potentially fatal if contacted or consumed!

Rich Davis
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 4:04 am

Time to take your pills, bats.

Bryan A
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 2:27 pm

The answer is in figure 1
In 1970 43 million acres were planted
In 1981 80.60 million acres were planted
In 2018 39 million acres were planted
If you want figures per hectare, divide by 2.47

So, even though 2018 saw less than half the planted acres of 1970 the harvested tonnage more than doubled from 1.5 m to 3.5 m per hectare

Last edited 2 months ago by Bryan A
Rich Davis
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 4:02 am

Bats, you dolt! You’re the one who made the claim. You’re the one to back it up. This is not like when you’re hungry, so you just yell up from the basement, “Ma! Make me my chicken nuggets and apple slices!”

Last edited 2 months ago by Rich Davis
joe belford
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 15, 2021 4:55 am

Figure 5 is bogus, total wheat production depends on a lot more than the atmospheric concentration of CO2

Bryan A
Reply to  David Middleton
July 15, 2021 2:18 pm

But but but CO2 increases HAVE harmed Wheat Crop output.
In the Leftist drivel ecotard narrative, CO2 increases have lead to an increase in Non-Wheat crop planting, thereby diminishing wheat harvests so we they can flatten CO2 output and thereby stabilize the climate.

Joao Martins
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 7:43 am

Don’t be stupid, belford! Just take a look some inches below, at FIG. 6 (figure SIX) and you will have an answer… if your single cell brain is not overwhelmed by the amount of thinking necessary.

Last edited 2 months ago by Joao Martins
MarkW
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 7:55 am

I see that joe has admitted that he is incapable of doing independent research. Instead he just spews ever more insults.
Typical liberal.

DrEd
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 9:35 am

Hey, dummy, do you understand WTF yield means? Look at Fig 1 and Fig 5 and fig it out.

DrEd
Reply to  DrEd
July 15, 2021 9:37 am

Fi1 1 and Fig 6

Mason
Reply to  MarkW
July 15, 2021 5:47 am

joe, since you want causation, you might want to go back to high school and learn a little about CO2s impact on plant growth. There is direct causation not some obscure theory from a wacko ethereal scientist nearly 200 years ago.

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  Mason
July 15, 2021 8:14 am

CO2 DOES have a direct, causative impact on plant growth. However, that has nothing to do with figure 5.

Mike
Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 10:40 pm

Does this help you out joe?
Tonnes per hectare is UP world wide.

wheat.JPG
Last edited 2 months ago by Mike
joe belford
Reply to  Mike
July 15, 2021 4:56 am

Figure 5 does not show tons per hectare, it’s showing bushels .

TonyG
Reply to  David Middleton
July 15, 2021 9:52 am

I’m beginning to think joe can’t count above 5. He’s really fixated on that one chart.

MarkW
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 7:59 am

I’m guessing that joe’s last remaining neuron has given up the ghost.
There is a simple, linear relationship that allows one to convert bushels to tons.
But then thinking is not what joe wants to do.

Joao Martins
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 7:39 am

belford, see my other post:

“Actually, causation of yield by CO2 has been established long ago, not with “models” but with empirical, experimental plant physiology!
And the graphic illustrates very well (through a very good correlation) that this physiological causation can be observed not only in the laboratory, not only in experimental fields, but that we can see its expression at the world scale!
Wrong target, belford! Next time, do your Plant Physiology 101 before starting to post…”

It is not the author who does not know a difference, it is YOU who does not know the difference between opinion and fact, right and wrong, false and true, superstition and science.

I repeat my advice: Next time, do your Plant Physiology 101 before starting to post!

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 8:12 am

Joe is right. Figure 5 says nothing, and leaves an erroneous impression.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
July 15, 2021 11:15 am

…so, everytime the result of a calculation is presented, there must be shown the multiplication table that everyone has learned (?) in primary school?…

Rory Forbes
July 14, 2021 8:23 pm

Molly Taft would likely do better discussing something she does understand … and that certainly ain’t climate. Perhaps she’d do better with needle work or home cooking.

Peta of Newark
July 14, 2021 8:30 pm

Wow. Just unbelievable.

I’m sorry peeps, I am soooo sorry but if this essay doesn’t demonstrate the incredible power of Magical Thinking. will-full self-imposed ignorance and blindness, nothing does.
and you rave about Joe Biden

Fig 1 and a bit of search is all you need.

Fig 1 tells us a per acre yield of circa 40 bushels.
Barely over one tonne per acre. (##)

Why Do You Bother? To describe that as:

  • A Joke
  • Desperation
  • Scraping the barrel
  • Naked greed

doesn’t even come close.

You are soooo busy looking at the sky, watching (cherry picked & rising) trend lines = things that would see a Warmist laughed out-of-court around here.
And while doing so, haven’t noticed, don’t want to see/notice, that there is now nothing under your feet. You are marching off a cliff-edge while counting mosquitoes above your head.

One day coming very soon, your wheat farmers are gonna visit their haha fields and find completely NOTHING there.
Perfectly nothing bar a big cloud, rapidly fading, of red coloured dust in the sky.

Climate Change has everything and nothing to do with it.
The wheat and all other arable farmers changed the climate – exactly by doing what they do…
Do you see now what the other trend lines are showing you?
i.e The Exact opposite of what you Magically Think they are showing you.

Your arable farmers are creating a desert and climate is simply doing what climate does.
Do Not Pass The Buck onto Ma Nature for your own greed and stupidity.

Over to you, search ‘wheat’

One of the first things you’ll find is this:
Quote:”Believe it or not, it’s illegal to grow wheat at home. … Commercial wheat operations are often very traumatic to otherwise fertile land because they rely heavily on commercial pesticides and fertilizers for production.20 Oct 2013

(Not my emphasis – mine would be very traumatic to otherwise fertile land)

You will also find you need a seed rate of about 40 to 50kg per acre, of treated seed which will be 3 or 4 times the price of what you grow and sell.
Bang goes 20% of your crop just for seed. Is this Roundup Ready seed? Nicely explains the next bit, the grotesque over-use of fert.
(There are NO Free Lunches out there)

You will also find that wheat likes its fertiliser, Google says:
Nitrogen: 100kg per acre
Phosphorus 150kg per acre
Potash 40kg per acre

Make it easy, call that to be, in total, 300kg per acre at what cost, 1st guesstimate says £300 per tonne for fert.
Do you get £100 per tonne for the crop,?
Wow again, you’ve blown £110 per tonne (£20 on seed and another £90 on fert) so what’s left?
Minus £10 already before pesticides. machinery and labour

Never mind the money – mind The Dirt instead.
How can you be so blind to the disaster staring you right in the face – if only you looked down for an instant instead of up

It is entirely obvious why you (like to) grow corn (maize)
It is a ‘new’ crop for your soil/dirt and as such, has a little way to go before before it hits its limiting nutrient.
The same will happen to it soon tho. It will hit its Liebig Limit and then what?

The End is a whole lot closer than anyone wants to imagine – this essay tells it Loud and Clear.
ty

## If UK farmers get less than 4 tonnes per acre, they d!e of embarrassment and or bankruptcy.

Last edited 2 months ago by Peta of Newark
WXcycles
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 14, 2021 9:15 pm

What don’t you understand about a continuously rising wheat harvest?

And a rising everything else harvest as well?

AndyHce
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 14, 2021 11:19 pm

How is it that farming business is continuing if it is continually losing money?
I don’t know any of the costs or returns but I do know that the general result of costs exceeding returns, often for only one year, is losing the farm.

I do think that having a bad year, vis a vis, poor crop yield, while bad for the farmer, is not in the least a new thing.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 14, 2021 11:46 pm

Quote:”Believe it or not, it’s illegal to grow wheat at home.”

Wrong.

Yes, part of the premise for passing the legislation was soil conservation, but implementation and the court cases were about regulating commerce.

That is, the government has the right to limit crops to prevent price fluctuations.

Nothing about who can grow what crop.

Nor is the government heavily invested in controlling the price of wheat or corn these days.

Many crops require adequate fertilizer. Much of which is controlled by use of crop rotation and the plowing of plant detritus and stalks back into the ground. Land testing allows farmers to identify nutrition and mineral levels so they can add supplements.

Fig 1 tells us a per acre yield of circa 40 bushels.”

Apparently you missed that this is a global chart and that wheat yields were under twenty bushels of wheat per acre up to the 1960s.

Improved crop practices, irrigation, harvest equipment and CO₂ have increased those global averages almost every year.

“Winter wheat production … United States yield is forecast at 53.6 bushels per acre, up 0.4 bushel from last month and up 2.7 bushels from last year’s average yield of 50.9 bushels per acre.

Durum wheat production … yields are expected to average 25.8 bushels per harvested acre, down 15.6 bushels from 2020.

Other spring wheat production … yields are expected to average 30.7 bushels per harvested acre, down 17.9 bushels from 2020.

Your bizarre ignorant rant about farmers destroying their land is seriously deranged. Stop believing things Mother Jones prints.

Then there is your equally bizarre rant about 1 ton of wheat per acre.
A) Different wheats, and there are many, weigh differently.

B) According to “Our world in Data”, America gets 3.2 tons per hectare. England gets 7.75 tons per hectare, Ireland gets 8.74 tons per hectare.
Nowhere do they define critical aspects regarding the wheat; e.g. variety and dryness levels.

England’s damp climate likely prevents full drying before harvest and further drying is required after harvest or they get ergot infested wheat.

Each hectare is equivalent to 2.47 acres.
In America , that 1.3 tons per acre. In England that is 3.13 tons per acre before additional drying.

## If UK farmers get less than 4 tonnes per acre, they d!e of embarrassment and or bankruptcy.”

Since UK’s farmers do not get over 4 tons of wheat per acre, they must all be dead of embarrassment or no longer farmers, per your own specious claims and insults.

Last edited 2 months ago by ATheoK
MarkW
Reply to  ATheoK
July 15, 2021 8:02 am

That is, the government has the right to limit crops to prevent price fluctuations.

Governments have the power to limit crops. Preventing price fluctuations is the excuse.

There’s a big difference between having the power, and having the right.

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  ATheoK
July 15, 2021 8:18 am

tons are not the same at tonnes. That said, 4 tonnes is approximately 4.4 (short) tons, so it makes it worse.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 15, 2021 4:26 am

I get that this is your obsession, but if there were anything to it, where are the dust bowls today? And how, if fertilizer is constantly applied is the process not sustainable? You’ve heard of hydroponics I assume?

MarkW
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 15, 2021 8:03 am

Peta has this belief that deserts aren’t caused by a lack of rain, but rather repeated fires that destroyed the soil.

Mason
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 15, 2021 5:56 am

What planet do you live on? Having grown up on a wheat farm and still owning it today, nearly everything you say is some total fantasy.

Lutz
July 14, 2021 8:41 pm

Maybe a comparison how much land is now used up for the production of ethanol would be useful. A lot of grain may have switched over as the returns wouldbe better.

joe belford
July 14, 2021 8:46 pm

Any/everyone that says “CO2 is plant food” needs to understand the definition of an autotroph.
..
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/autotroph/
..
If CO2 was plant food, then a plant would not need sunlight, because it would get it’s “food” from the atmosphere.
..
If you think that CO2 is “food” for a plant then you would have to admit that H2O is “food” for animals.

Why does a potato store starch in it’s roots, and not CO2?

Last edited 2 months ago by joe belford
WXcycles
Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 9:11 pm

Remove 100% of the CO2 … see what happens to said potato plant.

Same as what occurs if I remove 100% of your oxygen supply.

Last edited 2 months ago by WXcycles
mikebartnz
Reply to  WXcycles
July 14, 2021 11:20 pm

Remove 100% of Co2 and basically all life on earth will be dead before then. At 150ppm you might as well put your head between your knees………

Editor
Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 9:12 pm

Does that mean you no longer will say CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas? after all it isn’t really a true greenhouse gas at all.

LOL.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 9:31 pm

As you point out, plants are autotrophs. They don’t consume “food” in the normal sense, they produce food from simple ingredients.
Just as a factory must be metaphorically “fed” raw materials in order to produce gizmos, so a plant needs raw materials in order to produce food.
CO2 is a raw material that plants “consume”. It is a metaphorical plant food.

Last edited 2 months ago by Steve Reddish
Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 9:47 pm

6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O

Dave Fair
Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 10:00 pm

If a steak was human food, then a human would not need grains, because he would get his “food” from the prairie.

AndyHce
Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 11:24 pm

While I’ve always though that calling CO2 plant “food” is strange, that doesn’t change the facts of its importance to plants. I just assumed the label “food” was used because too many people are so ignorant of how things actually work that using some less familiar, but more correct noun would confuse the general public.

Rich Davis
Reply to  AndyHce
July 15, 2021 4:35 am

Don’t play into his sophistry. CO2 is a necessary and limiting input to plant growth. Pedantic quibbling over a distinction between a raw material or “food”, or “fertilizer” is just a distraction tactic that bats is trying to employ to deny that agriculture is booming, and the earth is greening due to our contribution to the life-giving carbon cycle.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  joe belford
July 14, 2021 11:32 pm

If CO2 was plant food, then a plant would not need sunlight, because it would get it’s “food” from the atmosphere.

That doesn’t follow. Just because an organism needs one thing, doesn’t exclude its need for other things as well.

If you think that CO2 is “food” for a plant then you would have to admit that H2O is “food” for animals.

Why? All living things need water.

Why does a potato store starch in it’s roots, and not CO2?

Why organisms store energy in various locations has numerous answers. Your question is non sequitur. You might as well ask why a camel has a hump.

You’ve created a straw man by misusing the word “food”, then ask questions that don’t reflect the point you’re trying to make … that plants make their own food. If you knew more you would ask such silly questions and act like such an ass.

Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 12:04 am

Apparently joe takes ignorance to new levels.

e.g. potato starch, “Chemical Formula: C₆H₁₀O₅”

That is, potato starch is a complex molecule of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen stored in molecules easily utilized by the plant. Meaning the plant does store co₂, only in a form that the plant can easily use.

Which is what chlorophyll does, it uses CO₂ and builds complex sugars and starches for the plant’s use.

Look up how carbon dioxide was discovered!

Last edited 2 months ago by ATheoK
Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 12:08 am

Comprehension. Not your strong point, is it?

Mason
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 5:58 am

Are you really that dense?

MarkW
Reply to  Mason
July 15, 2021 8:08 am

Was that a rhetorical question?

Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 6:08 am

joe belford, would you prefer the term precious air fertilizer? That’s what Scientific American called anthropogenic CO2 emissions, back in 1920. According to the dictionary, the term “plant food” is a synonym for “fertilizer,” and according to this 1920 Scientific American article, anthropogenic CO2 is “precious air fertilizer.”

Gradenwitz A. Carbonic Acid Gas to Fertilize the Air. Scientific American, November 27, 1920. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican11271920-549comment image
         (Like “precious air fertilizer,” “atmospheric carbonic acid” is another term for CO2.)

All life on Earth is carbon-based, and, as you can learn from the lead paragraph of that article, all of the carbon in photosynthetic plants comes from CO2 in the air. CO2 is the fundamental building block of hydrocarbons which is usually in shortest supply. (Hydrocarbons include the starch that you asked about.)

You asked about potatoes. As it happens, the benefits of elevated CO2 for potatoes have been studied for more than a century, and, in fact, they were one of the crops studied in the research reported by the aforementioned Scientific American article. Here’s an illustration from that article:
comment image

The potatoes on the right were grown in ambient (“unfertilized”) air. The potatoes on the left were grown under the same conditions, except with extra CO2 supplied, which the researchers obtained from the exhaust of a nearby blast furnace (“fertilized air”).

The beneficial effects of elevated CO2 for crops like potatoes have enormous practical consequences. One of them is that they make famines less likely. These photos were taken in India, which used to be periodically stricken by horrific famines.
 comment image 

I don’t really care very much what you call that CO2: carbon dioxide, atmospheric carbonic acid, plant food, or “precious air fertilizer,” as long as it’s truthful. Just don’t pretend that it isn’t good for plants, and just don’t call it “carbon pollution.”

Last edited 2 months ago by Dave Burton
MarkW
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 8:05 am

Obviously, corn is not a food for people, because people also need water and air. (Not to mention protein and various other nutrients.

Additionally, why do people store fat in their cells, and not corn?

Is it possible for joe to make himself look any dumber?

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
July 15, 2021 9:36 am

I’m certain that he will manage it any time now

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
July 15, 2021 11:02 am

I’m becoming convinced that joe is a fake account who posts here with the express purpose of making CAGW believers look bad.

TonyG
Reply to  joe belford
July 15, 2021 9:54 am

“If CO2 was plant food, then a plant would not need sunlight, because it would get it’s “food” from the atmosphere.”

That has got to be one of the most ignorant comments I’ve seen on this site, and I’ve seen a lot. Your understanding of basic botanical facts appears to be comparable to a typical 3-year-olds’, that is: zero.

July 14, 2021 9:04 pm

Buck Fiden.
He’s not in charge of anything except which flavor of jello the WH cafeteria serves him.

I find getting away with my 2 dogs difficult. I can’t imagine 10 dogs.
But then these days, I don’t go anywhere without my dogs.
For some reason, folks give me wide pass when I’m walking my two Malinois.
A big P/U Truck and an RV trailer sees to that.

Last edited 2 months ago by joelobryan
Dave Fair
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 14, 2021 10:03 pm

Our Malinois saved my wife and daughter from a group of hard-cases at a freeway rest stop. Great breed.

Terry
July 14, 2021 9:26 pm

Well that’s the end of eating grains I reckon. No point anymore in reducing our carbon footprint. Pedal to the metal boys, we’re all gonna die very soon anyway.

July 14, 2021 10:18 pm

USDA issues weekly crop reports throughout the growing season.

1) USDA tends to be very negative until harvest time. At harvest time, USDA ends up increasing their estimates until they match actual harvest yields.

As of July 12th, 2021:

Winter Wheat Production Up 4 Percent from June

Forecast Durum Wheat Production Down 46 Percent from 2020

Other Spring Wheat Production Down 41 Percent from 2020″

Reduced yield estimates are because of the wet spring conditions over the Midwest wheat growing areas.
Estimates are based upon a few field inspections and local reports. Reality comes later as wheat matures, ripens and is harvested.

Winter wheat is planted during autumn and harvested earlier in the year. Durum and other Spring wheats are planted in Spring and harvested later in the year.

Yes, flooded acreage does hamper/harm plantings. It’s called weather!

July 14, 2021 10:32 pm

Here’s a paper about how elevated CO2 (“eCO2”) benefits wheat:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26929390

BillJ
July 14, 2021 10:47 pm

David completely missed the obvious:

Ortiz-Bobea coauthored a study published in Nature Climate Change earlier this year that found that climate change has already made global farming productivity 21% lower than it could have been—the equivalent of making no improvements in productivity for seven years.”

That makes it seem like farming productivity IS down. It’s not. That’s stating farming productivity is down from what it would have been without climate change. All based on models, of course.

Do we need 21% more productivity? Doesn’t seem like it to me and of course there’s absolutely no way to prove farming productivity truly is down by 21% whether it’s due to climate change or anything else.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  BillJ
July 14, 2021 11:44 pm

We can never know what might have been had history followed a different path, even in relatively minor ways. Edward Lorenz provided us with a wonderful new theory explaining that. Modeling alternate outcomes is meaningless … even pointless, except as an entertainment. “Could have been” … reminds me of Marlon Brando’s cry; in On the Waterfront … “I coulda been a contenda … “. This isn’t science. It’s no better than a circus performance.

H.R.
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 15, 2021 3:47 am

Excellent, Rory.

My life would have been completely different if I had been born as the son of an Indian Rajah. Come to think of it, my life would have been completely different if I had been born as anyone else but me. (Now if only I had bought McDonald’s stock in the ’50s… )
😁

Rory Forbes
Reply to  H.R.
July 15, 2021 9:28 am

Now if only I had bought McDonald’s stock in the ’50s…

That’s the perfect example for the futility of the “shoulda, coulda, mighta” qualifiers so often found in climate related papers and media coverage.

Beating our chests and tearing our hair over a vaguely possible outcome from a broad spectrum of other possible, often beneficial outcomes is a fools game that leads to madness.

Anthony Banton
July 15, 2021 2:29 am

Wheat production increases over the last several decades are due to many factors Mr Middleton and not just climate:

file:///C:/Users/Tony/Downloads/ipts%20jrc%2095950%20web.pdf

“According to French farmers’ opinion, the most important wheat yield determinants at national level are seasonal weather and soil quality; while Hungarians pointed climate change and seasonal weather. At the farm level, the high prices of inputs and the low wheat market prices are considered the most constraining factors in both countries. Wheat yields are positively correlated to higher agro-chemicals use in Hungary and to additional days of labour in France. The adoption of precision farming provides 7-12% higher yields in both countries, while yield gains from conservation agriculture and IPM are found in partial adopters. In both countries, the most frequently adopted innovation to increase wheat yields and grains’ quality are new wheat varieties”.

https://eos.com/blog/crop-yield-increase

For centuries, farmers have pondered over and worked on the issue of increasing crop yields. Some of the solutions found were efficient and some were not. Today, in addition to the valuable experience of previous generations of farmers, the agriculture industry can also benefit from the achievements of modern science and technology. Let’s now look at the main ways for the farmers to increase crop yields and see how previous experience and advanced technology can be effectively combined to improve agrarians’ performance.

https://www.farmprogress.com/equipment/eight-major-factors-have-changed-agriculture-last-50-years

With 50 years of change farmers can now produce more food and fiber on fewer acres and with fewer nutrient inputs. “Corn yields in 1950 averaged 40 bushels per acre,” says Travis Miller, associate department head, Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University. “More recently, average corn yield was more than 160 bushels. Soybeans increased from 22 bushels in 1950 to 40-plus bushels in 1980.”
Miller took the opportunity to reminisce a bit during the grain session of the 50thAnnual Blackland Income Growth Conference recently in Waco.
“I’ve never done this research before,” he admitted, “but it is fascinating,” to look at the changes in agriculture that have paralleled the history of the B.I.G Conference.
Miller said some of the key advancements include: Pest management through genetically modified plants; institution of integrated pest management programs; plant breeding that allows high plant populations; precision planting equipment; better fertilizer formulations and application equipment; global positioning system agriculture; larger, faster and more efficient tractors and combines; mapping plant genomes that allows more rapid breeding; rapid and more accurate soil testing; and semi-dwarf wheat varieties.”.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  David Middleton
July 15, 2021 4:30 am

Global Warming + More CO2 + Fossil Fuels + GMO = More Food”

I wasn’t aware that the IPCC (or anyone else) were saying that any evidence was yet discernible.

Up to a certain point maybe.
Then
“Fertilizing” CO2 will be no good without water or with to much water.
And below some other climate impacts on wheat growth….

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190724084543.htm

“Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) are rising, which experts predict could produce more droughts and hotter temperatures. Although these weather changes would negatively impact many plants’ growth, the increased CO2 availability might actually be advantageous because plants use the greenhouse gas to make food by photosynthesis. Now, researchers reporting in ACS’ Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry say that a much higher CO2 level could increase wheat yield but slightly reduce its nutritional quality.”

and
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18317-8

 We estimate temperature impacts on yields in extensive regression models, finding that extreme heat drives wheat yield losses, with an additional 24 h of exposure to temperatures above 30 °C associated with a 12.5% yield reduction. Results from a uniform warming scenario of +1 °C show an average wheat yield reduction of 8.5%, which increases to 18.4% and 28.5% under +2 and +3 °C scenarios. “

And not least …
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252067

Our results indicate that an increase in temperature during the winter and spring lowers yield and increases crop abandonment. According to [39], high temperatures during the winter can stimulate wheat to grow so that the subsequent low temperatures in the spring will injure the crop. Li et al. [42] find warm temperatures during the winter stop hardening early, setting the crop for further damage when cold temperatures set in during spring. Extreme heat damage is most common during grain filling when the kernels are shriveled and prematurely ripe [39]. High temperature hastens the decline in photosynthesis and leaf area, decreases shoot and grain mass, weight and sugar content of kernels, and reduces water-use efficiency [43]. O’Leary et al. [44] shows that temperature impacts were more significant at warmer temperatures than at colder temperatures. Increased heat stress causes crop failure resulting in leaf senescence [45], and the shorting of the grain filling period [36]. Lobell et al. [46] found a temperature above 34°C to accelerate wheat senescence grown in northern India. This implies that the effects of temperature change would be spatially different across locations due to variations in soil characteristics and weather conditions across counties.”

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 15, 2021 8:12 am

What is it about trolls and their need to attack claims that were never made?

Anthony Banton
Reply to  MarkW
July 15, 2021 9:37 am

Mr Middleton has claimed theta there is no evidence of climate affecting temp.
I googled quite a bit and found none.
I accept I was wrong.

However I do note that Mr Ariel Ortiz-Bobeais not a climate scientist … which is what I was researching.

https://dyson.cornell.edu/faculty-research/faculty/ao332/

Regardless I gave science from his profession that supports his opinion.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 21, 2021 9:20 am

Anthony Banton wrote, “‘Fertilizing’ CO2 will be no good without water…”

First, and most obviously, elevated CO2 (“eCO2”) does not cause droughts. There is no scientific basis for that claim. In fact, drought incidence has been trending down, slightly:

https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata20141comment image

What’s more, elevated CO2 is even more beneficial for drought-stressed crops that for crops grown under ideal weather conditions. Here’s a paper about how elevated CO2 (“eCO2”) benefits wheat:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26929390comment image

It is well-established that eCO2 makes crops more water-efficient and drought resilient:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192310003163
Excerpt:

“There have been many studies on the interaction of CO2 and water on plant growth. Under elevated CO2, less water is used to produce each unit of dry matter by reducing stomatal conductance.”

The world is literally getting greener, largely thanks to anthropogenically elevated atmospheric CO2 levels. Here’s a map:

https://sealevel.info/greening_earth_spatial_patterns_Myneni.htmlcomment image

Here’s a National Geographic article, about how even the “Sahara” desert (really the Sahel) is greening:

https://www.sealevel.info/Owen2009_Sahara_Desert_Greening-atGeo30639457.htmlcomment image

Excerpt:

Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.

The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan. … “Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass,” he said. “Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back… The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable.”

Here’s another article about it, in New Scientist:

https://www.sealevel.info/Pearce2002_Africans_go_back_to_the_land_as_plants_reclaim_the_desert-New_Scientist.html

The New Scientist article mentions dramatic improvements in yields of sorghum and millet, both of which are C4 crops. They are often grown in semi-arid regions, because of their low water requirements and high drought-resistance — which is greatly enhanced by eCO2, as this study reports:

https://phys.org/news/2015-11-high-co2-sorghum-drought-seeds.html

Claims that global warming will reduce crop yields are crackpot nonsense. To find a result in which warmer temperatures cause significant crop damage, you either have to use unvalidated junk science models, or wildly unrealistic tests (like the Jasper Ridge wild grass study), or else assume that farmers are too stupid to adjust their planting dates (like PNAS’s Zhao 2017 did).

A 1°C temperature change moves isotherms only about 60 miles, as you can see in this growing zone map:
comment image

It is equivalent to about a 500 foot change in elevation.

Farmers can typically compensate for that much warming by planting about six days earlier as you can see from the temperature stats.
comment image

Compare a 60-mile isotherm shift to the ranges over which major crops are cultivated. For example, wheat is grown from Texas & Louisiana to North Dakota & Canada. Here’s a map:
comment image

Fretting over a potential growing zone shift of 60 miles is just plain silly.

More CO2 = less famine, for two well-established reasons.

1. “CO2 fertilization” directly increases crop yields. More food = less starvation.

2. eCO2 makes crops more water-efficient and drought-resilient. It mitigates drought impacts — and droughts used to be the #1 cause of famines.
comment image

Rising CO2 level is one of the important reasons that large scale famines are fading from memory. It is almost impossible to overstate the importance of that welcome change.

Famine used to be a scourge comparable to war & disease. Compare:

● Covid-19 has killed about 0.053% of the world population, so far. (That might double or triple, before it is over.)

● The1918 flu pandemic killed an estimated 2% of world population.

● WWII killed about 2.7% of world population.

● The global drought & famine of 1876-78 killed about 3.7% of world population.

When I was a child, horrific famines were often in the news, in places like Bangladesh, but Bangladesh and India now have food surpluses, every year — and eCO2 is one of the reasons.

Ewin Barnett
July 15, 2021 4:21 am

Don’t neglect the economic distortion caused by biofuel mandates. Roughly one third of the entire US corn harvest, and thus land devoted to growing corn, is used to make ethanol for blending into motor vehicle fuel.

Rich Davis
July 15, 2021 4:47 am

Gizmodo must be Latin for ‘dumb as a shoe‘

I think it’s closer to “in the form of a goo” but there you go insulting shoes again. 😜

Tim Gorman
July 15, 2021 6:06 am

This report seems to have been done by someone living on the coast, far away from reality.

The primary wheat crop in the central plains is winter wheat, much of it hard red winter wheat. Spring planted wheat has been supplanted by corn and soybeans because of the higher profit margin. Nothing to do with climate and everything to do with profit.

buggs
July 15, 2021 9:53 am

We are in a drought in the northern great prairies, no question of that. What isn’t being brought up however is that there hasn’t been a significant drought in said region in roughly thirty years. Prior to that there was a solid drought pretty much every decade. So now that we’ve returned to normal in terms of actually having a drought it’s climate change? Take a look at the history of droughts in the Canadian prairies and you’ll find this isn’t unusual or exceptional.

Steve Z
July 15, 2021 3:50 pm

Does anybody really believe that ground temperatures in the Pacific Northwest hit 145 F or 63 C? Did anyone really stick a thermometer into the ground and measure that? For anyone who believes that, I’ll sell them a bridge over the Puget Sound that hasn’t been built yet!

%d bloggers like this: