Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I keep reading that increasing temperatures will cause decreasing yields of our food crops, resulting in widespread hunger … for example, the IPCC says:
Declines in yields and crop suitability are projected under higher temperatures, especially in tropical and semi-tropical regions. Heat stress reduces fruit set and speeds up development of annual vegetables, resulting in yield losses, impaired product quality, and increasing food loss and waste. … All models project an increase in the risk of hunger, with the median projection of an increase in the population at risk of insufficient energy intake by 6%, 14%, and 12% in 2050 for SSPs 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
But having grown up with farmers, this seemed improbable to me. Farmers are constantly modifying planting and harvest times, seed depth, irrigation schedules, and crop and varietal choices based on the weather in order to maximize yields. And they are very successful at it.
So I looked at the change in yields over time. I also included the change in airborne CO2 concentrations over the same period.

Figure 1. Percentage change in yields, ten major food crops, along with the percentage change in CO2.
Yields have been increasing, in fits and starts, despite increasing temperatures over the period of that record.
Today I realized that there was another way I could look at this. I figured that I could take a look at standardized crop yield by country versus the average temperature of the country, to see if the country’s temperature affected yield. Figure 2 shows the result for five different crops.

Figure 2. Yield versus temperature by country, 2020. All yield values are standardized to a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. The dotted vertical line is at 18°C.
What I noticed when I plotted this up was that the yields fall into two groups—one for warm countries and one for cold countries. It was also obvious that the yields in the warmer countries were all lower.
So … why would this be? Well, my first thought was that it represented the difference between industrialized and non-industrialized nations. Farmers in industrialized nations have more fertilizer, tractors, detailed weather forecasts, refrigeration, machinery for plowing, seeding, weeding, harvesting, and the like. As a result, we’d expect industrialized nations to have higher yields. So to see which countries were where, I plotted up the temperatures, and divided them into those warmer and colder than 18°C.

Figure 3. Average temperatures, 2000 – 2020
Hmmm … almost all of the industrialized countries have an average temperature less than 18°C.
To close out the loop, I looked at the trends within each group of countries, those above and below 18°C. Here is that result.

Figure 4. As in Figure 3, but including the trend lines for each country group, above and below 18°C.
It turns out that within each group, the yields in the warmer countries are no better or worse than the yields in the cooler countries. And as a result, the claim that warming temperatures will cause widespread hunger is not supported by this analysis.
Onwards, ever onwards,
w.
PS: Although I can and am happy to defend my own words, I can’t defend your interpretation of my words. So I politely request that you quote the exact words you are discussing, so we can all be clear on your subject matter.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Eschenbach’s cons are easy to spot. A faked chart here, false equivalence there, and of course plenty of lying through omission. In this case, the latter two are on robust display. While improved irrigation and fertilization has been increasing yields for many decades, GMOs have been the primary driver of increased yields around the world for the past 20 years. Plants aren’t magically thriving by way of increased temperatures and CO2 levels, in spite of how Deniers and shills are trying to spin it.
https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2018/02/gmo-crops-increasing-yield-20-years-progress-ahead/
Yeah?
NASA says the whole Earth is greening due to improved levels of CO2.
Sorry, I should have credited those “Deniers and Shills” at NASA.
Actually, NASA says the majority of the “greening” is due to human agriculture in India and China. You need a new trope to use as a dodge.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows
It really is amazing how stupid Barry is. It was pointed out to him how this article doesn’t actually say what he wants it to say, the last time he drug out this piece of propaganda.
Barry, I don’t usually respond to your ilk. But here you have made not one, but TWO egregious errors showing your ignorance or worse.
Directly from the NASA report I referenced: “The effect stems mainly from ambitious tree planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries.”
And here’s a list of the current major GMO crops in the US: https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/gmo-crops-animal-food-and-beyond
No Barry, the article you cited states that –
But you say that –
Either you don’t read or comprehend your own sources, or you aren’t very good at numbers, are you mate?
Anyway, as far as greening goes –
I’ll see your India and China, and raise you Europe, South America, Sub-Sahara Africa, North America, Oceania, Australia.
(And what about all that agriculture going on in the Arctic Circle landmasses?)
Science deniers like Barry just can’t accept the fact that rising levels of CO2 increase the rate of photosynthesis and growth in plants.
Barry isn’t interested in accepting anything. He’s told what to believe, and like a true believer, that’s all he needs.
—
As usual, Barry completely ignores the actual science.
The fact that plants grow bigger and healthier in the presence of more CO2 has been known for decades.
So much hatred, complete lack of science, no attempt to understand anything other than the paid narrative.
Definitely a climate alarmist.
The Deniers love to point to greenhouses as some proof that an overabundance of CO2 is an amazing boon for plants, while failing to mention the fact that this accelerated growth also requires unnatural levels of soil nutrients, water, and carefully controlled temperatures. Your argument represents false equivalence.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/correction-plants-will-not-flourish-as-the-world-warms/?fbclid=IwAR1g1WSHd-8X3OrFl5_7IhFVSWXqJdKz8O4L-cqyFpiOd-osLvaunQmnjg4
And…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/sep/19/new-study-undercuts-favorite-climate-myth-more-co2-is-good-for-plants?fbclid=IwAR2W0acD9c_qSVPnQXepwl2rtETAKhJVfI_Ok0UqfNim_lzCTJY_LgG9yx4
And…
“The ramifications of climate change on human health are vast: agriculture, nutrition, diets, and health as a whole are all negatively affected.” http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/131228/filename/131439.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2zMatvVT5sRexWbYVh7YVdcOt0CIVyBoPsZPLfF3cof96PZbFOvM68n8A
And…
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/?fbclid=IwAR23o1Pk7Xy83CCvqmhftQADHsqIJlzY-c6gnBvDXRtQrAA5-b0qmlYn89k
Shall I continue?
A nugget of valuable agreement from a scientist quoted in one of your links Barry –
Barry Anthony March 7, 2022 3:02 pm
Barry, I was brought up in part on what in my house was called “The Captain’s Code”. “The Captain” was my great-grandfather, a riverboat captain.
Part of his code was:
Now, you’re fortunate that this isn’t the 1860s, so I don’t kill people for falsely claiming that I’m lying.
I will, however, accurately describe you as slimier than pond scum to falsely accuse me of lying. I tell the truth as best I know it, always.
Sometimes wrong, rarely uncertain, and NEVER lying—that’s me to a T.
And no, I did NOT say that plants are “magically thriving by way of increased temperatures and CO2 levels” or anything remotely like that, which is why I ask people to quote the exact words you’re discussing. That’s just the voices in your head. You should ignore them, they’re not your friends.
What I said was that farmers are good at conforming their plants and farming methods to whatever the weather throws at them, whether it’s in the developed world with irrigation and harvesters and GMOs, or in the developing world where there are few of those things.
Finally, regarding GMOs, the FAO says that there are ~ 1,370 million hectares dedicated to crops, of which only 190 million hectares are GMO crops. That’s only 14%, and it’s mostly in the developed world.
So your claim that “GMOs have been the primary driver of increased yields around the world for the past 20 years” just reveals that in your rush to stand on your tiptoes in your failed attempt to bite my ankles, you are not doing your homework …
How about you dial your hatred way down and act like, you know, a civilized human being? Is that too much to ask?
w.
PS—For those interested in more of the Captain’s Code, see Rules Of Thumb For Life …
I’m in no way surprised that your veiled threats are so clumsily couched. But I will say this, Willis: Across all the countless such threats I’ve received from the shills, frauds, and liars pushing the Denier narrative, I’ve received exactly one over the years that convinced me that physically confronting the individual responsible was warranted under self defense. That individual will never repeat such activity.
Just to be clear: We all know what you’re doing.
We’ve all seen the sophomoric attempts at pseudo science. We’ve all seen the amateurish snark, “No, I’m not a scientist, but…” We’ve all seen the charts that, as per your claim, somehow debunk the work of REAL scientists. We’ve all seen your refusal to provide all materials necessary to reproduce those charts.
We know what you’re doing.
We know that the extent of your academic and professional qualifications to critique the work of REAL climate science researchers consists of an undergrad in Psych and, if memory serves, a certificate in massage therapy. (By all means correct me if I’m wrong.) Has ANYTHING you’ve put forth on the topic ever appeared under peer review in a credible journal?
All but the most cognitively compromised participating in these threads understand these considerations, even if they refuse to admit it. Frankly, to insinuate that any scientific advocate would require any assistance at all to, “bite your ankles,” demonstrates a level of posturing that beggars the imagination. (Perhaps swimming in such a small pond as WUWT to the adulation of a handful of educationally underserved has instilled such a disturbingly inflated sense of worth?)
We know what you’re doing.
[I believe there is value in allowing your brain-dead, knuckle-draggin bile, lack of comprehension, and rabid ideological rantings on this site, but I have to admit, it’s not a slam dunk of a choice. You make it hard-cr]
Barry is a product of our time. I pointed out at an AGU dinner 10 years or so ago that everything that could be predicted about climate change has been predicted, droughts, torrential rains, earthquakes, heat, stronger storms, weaker storms, etc.. This has created a situation where no matter what happens, it is easy to search the literature and find out that the event was predicted. Therefore climate scientists are nailing it! This is exactly the logic Barry’s handlers use when feeding him his responses.
The playing field is prepared. Everything that can be predicted has been predicted. It doesn’t matter if there are a hundred years of studies pointing out enhanced growth under CO2 as well as massive amounts of current observational evidence. As long as somebody crams 2-4 studies into the literature about why CO2 enhancement might not be viable, those several studies can be cited ad infinitum to refute reality.
What Charles said …
w.
I love the “we”, as though you’ve been appointed spokes-dick for the teeming masses …
Next, you say:
Gosh, an ad hominem argument. How original.
However, you’re right about my credentials. I have no qualifications at all, details here … which makes no difference at all. The beauty of science is that either my ideas are right or not, regardless of my qualification.
Barry, they have this cool thing called “Google Scholar” which would prevent you from looking like a vindictive fool … or not, since you have to be smart enough to use it first.
Give it up. You’re up against the First Law of Holes.
w.
PS—One reason I gave up writing for the journals is that Michael Mann gamed the pal-review system to steal an idea of mine and publish it as his own … see “Michael Mann, Smooth Operator” for details.
So, just to be clear, you in fact DON’T have any research on the topic of climate science appearing under peer review in a credible journal. And yet, mysteriously, you’ve suggested your layman’s level of understanding in the field and an appearance alongside categoric frauds like Legates and Soon represents validation.
You couldn’t have done a better job supporting my argument.
The prosecution rests.
“So, just to be clear, you in fact DON’T have any research on the topic of climate science appearing under peer review in a credible journal.”
Funny how this is not a criteria for anything. Just ask Steve Jobs or Bill Gates!
False equivalence. Neither one ever attempted to push bunk while claiming they’re successfully contradicting climate scientists. Or any scientists, for that matter.
Talk about a false equivalence.
Both of these fella’s contradicted IBM, Dec, and HP’s meme that personal computers could never challenge their dominance in mainframes and mini-computers. They put out all kinds of literature stating this. Even Bell Labs didn’t get into personal computers because they didn’t think they would ever amount to anything.
Jobs and Gates *did* successfully contradict all the computer experts who stated that their work was bunk.
All you are doing here is using the argumentative fallacy of Argument by Dismissal. Poor. Very poor.
What you don’t know is, a lot of science is based on laymens knowledge and their work.
The work they did, because of interest or what ever later led to science.
Take archaeology, ichthyology, entomology and other branches.
More you are interested, deeper you dig, more you learn and know. Often more than a respective scientist nowadays.
Many scientist won’t accept it but it’s fact.
The father of my grandfatherid is an example.
He worked with stones, no idea how to name the no more existant job, but just of interest, he became specialist in night moths, puplished expertises in respective monthlies that has been founded by laymen (!).
Two species or so have got his name as he declared the one and the other as different species because of some differences in appearance, diet and behaviour.
Laymean, not scientist with degree !
Later he punlished 3 books of the research in several nothern regions, 2 of his sons were part of the team.
They later started trips and research in South-Americas rain forests, one later studied entomology.
My grandfather was to young for all that.
who in Pete’s name is “we”?
Have you gotten banned from Facebook yet for libel in your posts? Posting here isn’t going to help your cause.
You really know how to sweet talk a guy, don’t you!
If rising temperature reduces plant growth explain the tropical jungles of earth.
Lettuce doesnt do well in tbe tropics. Not because it grows slower. Rather the slugs and snails grow faster.
There is a lot more to growing crops than temperature. The great deserts of the earth are almost all the result of air circulation not temperature.
Sunlight, liquid water, these drive plant life. not temperature.
And while we are at it. Explain why a naked human without fire cannot survive outside the tropical jungles. We die of exposure.
Explain how global warming is going to kill one of the best heat adapted mamals on the planet (and one of the worst cold adapted mamals). Without fire we can barely survive outside the tropics even today.
“Naked and Afraid” doesn’t do much outside the tropics. I wonder why?
What if the rising temperatures transform our cultures so we all act tropical?
Late, I know, but tomatoes don’t set fruit much if the nighttime temperature drops below 55°F. If you have more than about 3 plants, that is hard to control.
Over 90°F in the day will also cause blossom drop, but existing growth can go on, and spray and shade can help.
I’m more inclined toward tomatoes than I am to Cassava. Just saying.
Recently I stumbled on this report:
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/04/climate-change-has-cost-7-years-ag-productivity-growth
that spins the kind of yield results you show as warming actually hurting productivity.
Although the report (and the underlying paper) are worded somewhat confusingly, it appears that the work is based on the underlying assumption that productivity growth should be exponential.
The linear trends you show result in the percentage increase each year decreasing, as the “denominator” keeps increasing, while the “numerator” remains constant. They blame this decreasing trend on warming.
Yeah, I’d read that a couple months ago. I stopped about here:
They’ve combined faulty econometric models with faulty climate models to simulate an alternate universe where temperatures didn’t warm over the last six decades. Yeah, that’s totally legit.
Unfortunately, what the faulty models don’t include is … farmers. My favorite lines are:
and
So it seems if you populate a modelworld with mechanical farmers, modeled temperature could lead to modeled yield decreases …
This is why I work to draw conclusions from actual data … I know far too much about computers to trust their models.
Finally, your point is also well taken. Linear growth is a decreasing growth as a percentage.
My bottom line? I put more trust in farmers than in ivory tower modelers.
w.
According to Garland Farms plant farming is the major cause of the Climate Change
Here is a page from DeKalb showing some of the types of seed corn offered. There are other breakdowns for more detailed soil types too. Not an easy task to decide which one to use based on how and where you farm and based on weather forcasts. Simply deciding on 100 day vs 120 day maturity is a factor.
DEKALB Corn Seed Finder (dekalbasgrowdeltapine.com)
Willis et al, some years back I read a discussion on a temperature line in the Northern Hemisphere that marks the border between growing one and two crops per year. Above that the line soil is too cold to grow a second crop. The Paper then described the area that was made available from each 1*C increase in average temperature. Each 1*C increase could feed another 300-500 million people, and as you say no real decrease of loss of production in the rest of the world. Anyone see it or can reproduce it?
I suspect that the “higher temperatures give lower yields” result comes from a simple error, although I could be wrong. The obvious approach is to look at yields in some location and see if they are lower in years when temperature happens to be a little above average. Very likely they will be, since the farmers will have chosen crop varieties optimized for their current environment. That tells us nothing about what happens to yields when average temperature rises slowly enough for farmers to adjust crop variety (and other variables) to the new conditions.
There is a very simple test of whether that is what is happening. In years when temperature is a little below average, is yield higher or lower? If yield decreases with increasing temperature it should be higher. If yield decreases with deviation from the average the farmer is adjust to, it should be lower.
Have any of the people claiming that yields fall with increasing temperature published enough of their results so one can tell?