From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Joe Public
Today’s climate lie comes from Climate Brief:
Global yields of wheat are around 10% lower now than they would have been without the influence of climate change, according to a new study.
The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looks at data on climate change and growing conditions for wheat and other major crops around the world over the past 50 years.
It comes as heat and drought have this year been putting wheat supplies at risk in key grain-producing regions, including parts of Europe, China and Russia.
The study finds that increasingly hot and dry conditions negatively impacted yields of three of the five key crops examined.
Perhaps the con merchants who wrote this study might care to explain exactly at what point in the last 65 years this “climate change effect” began to click in. And why the actual trends show no sign of this so-called effect becoming progressively worse – something which the authors say is already happening:
Maybe they might also like to explain how much lower wheat yields might now be without the benefits provided by fossil fuels, including increased mechanisation, transportation and refrigeration.
Carbon Brief attempt to play the climate scare card, saying:
It comes as heat and drought have this year been putting wheat supplies at risk in key grain-producing regions, including parts of Europe, China and Russia
There are always bad harvests somewhere in the world. But according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, global wheat production will be the second highest on record, even better than last year’s near record total:
https://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en
We must always bear in mind that Carbon Brief receives more than a million pounds in funding a year from the notorious ECF, the organisation set up to channel billions from far-left US foundations to European bodies like Carbon Brief in order to spread climate misinformation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
________________________________________________________
The IPCC tells us that it’s the minimum temperatures that are rising and IPCC also tells us that in a warmer world there will be more precipitation
It’s time we all stood up and said “we will not be ruled by stupid people!”
without the influence of climate change
Sounds like a dead world.
Sounds like a crop virus made in China…..and the bees…..who is killing the bees?
Asian hornets – now spreading from the south of the UK.
Wait a minute… this Leftist, propaganda website, received £1,176,376 ($1,591,202.72 US today) in “funding” for one year? In addition to “continuing support” from their readers? From their “About Us” link, their “team” appears to consist of 19 people. A casual search shows that UK website maintenance can cost anywhere from £50 to £3,000 per month, or £36,000 per year. Subtracting that leaves £60,000 per year per “team” member, and that’s before consideration of any support from readers. That’s way above the UK median income. What do they spend the money on? Would Anthony and Charles even know what to do with that much money?
Very nicely put – shine a light on how the climate nonsense is funded! I have the impression that there is a considerable amount of transatlantic subsidy going on – my government quango breakaway funds your billionaire guilt trip, and vice versa. We know a good deal about the ideologies that float around with this funding, but the more detail about the funding we have, the better.
I hate to state this, however, every organization which depends on donations will never have “enough”.
They second they stop having a need for more funding is the second they stop receiving funding.
It is easier to have continual funding rather starting and stopping.
Therefore, they have a continual “need” which will never go away.
rhs:
Yep. The corollary to “Never waste a crisis” is “Never let a crisis end”
(even if you have lie, cheat or gaslight the entire population about a
non-existent crisis).
If the crisis ends, then YOUR existence becomes the crisis.
Carbon Brief was the source of the claim that wind power is nine times cheaper than gas. This shows the complete lack of credibility of Carbon Brief. Even among climate alarmists, Carbon Brief is regarded as an embarrassment. The default position on anything that Carbon Brief says is to assume that everything they say is a ludicrous lie and to believe the exact opposite.
And that’s with Ukraine being the mess that it is.
Polish farmers are staging protests against cheap Ukrainian grain flooding the market and EU regulations on pesticide and fertiliser usage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68337795
Ukraine doesn’t have those green regulations.
Just goes to show- the farmers are producing all the wheat that’s needed. If they could grow more, could the sell it? So the idea that cc is hurting the public by causing lower yields is wacky. Certainly America farmers could grow a lot more if the market was there.
WTF this has to do with the subject you nutter?
And finally, this chart of Under-five mortality per 1000 live births.
https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/under-five-mortality-rate-(probability-of-dying-by-age-5-per-1000-live-births)
Our world is full of good news and things that can be done to make Earth an even better place to live while Carbon Brief makes things up to complain about. And complains. And complains some more.
One begins to suspect that Carbon Brief’s ideal world is one in which all human beings are dead.
80 years ago when I was a kid, 40% of my fathers farm was dedicated to providing Horse Power energy; at the time that would have been Living Horse Power.
I always love this sort of garbage pseudo academics pump out. In the developed world you don’t plant crops that you don’t expect to make money on.
For example in Australia Wheat, Barley and Canola are planted depending on market conditions and farm soil preservation practices. The stupidity of the methodology they used in the study will totally fail to capture that.
O/T: English culture (incorporating Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) update. Surely a development for a certain Mr Vance?
Cultural Nationalism: The idea that Western culture is under threat from mass migration and that there is a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups.
Online guidance says ‘cultural nationalism’ could be a reason for referring someone for deradicalisation
“Concern about mass migration is a “terrorist ideology” that requires intervention by the Government’s anti-radicalisation Prevent programme, according to official documents…”
Concern over mass migration is terrorist ideology https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/06/06/concern-over-mass-migration-terrorist-ideology-prevent/
Wouldn’t throwing Molotov cocktails at Israel supporters be cultural appropriation? https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/boulder-terror-suspect-federal-court-charges/73-00f96ce2-4ce1-4b71-a3e2-5e4010cbbabc
I believe – traditionally – the sand people favoured boiling oil.
Hmmm? With the genocide of Palestinians they won’t have any ‘culture appropriation’ at all.
Yes all genocides begin with cowardly hiding behind civilians, hospitals and schools etc
And a warning to get out of the way.
Of course, old alliances are conveniently forgotten
https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-official-record-what-the-mufti-said-to-hitler/
Had Stalingrad fallen… but it did not.
There is genocide by the palestnians. There is no genocide of them.
If Hamas unconditionally surrendered- casualties among the Palestinians would stop. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we demanded unconditional surrender- and until that happened we carpet bombed Japan then nuked it. The population of Israel is far smaller than America- so if you compared Pearl Harbor to Oct. 7, it would be as if Mexico attacked America and killed 50K people- then what would America or any other nation do? Time for Hamas to surrender. So it’s not genocide, it’s a war brought on by Hamas.
Palestinians can never be free while Hamas exists.. period. !
I suppose they conveniently left out the positive impact on crops of a higher CO2 level. This is always something ignored by the CAGW crisis crowd.
They also ignore the fact that the earth is greener today than 50 years ago, thanks in large part due to higher CO2 levels.
They left out a bit more. Aside from being an incestuous little group all from one department at Stanford, not one of them is actually an agronomist. All they appear to be is a gang of computer modelers pushing numbers around on a screen.
I believe it. The fact that all life is dependent on CO2 is always ignored, and the fact that plant life likes a higher CO2 level is never mentioned. Without plants, all life ceases to exist.
cgh:
They know that production and yields are relentlessly rising, but also that they would villified if those facts were popularized. So they are left with pretending “it would have been higher” without actually mentioning the good news facts.
And yes, it is all model-land nonsense.
“Climate science’ and the mainstream media have earned the derision and mistrust by much of the population.
The agra-nuts vilify humus & fertilizer and fine small farmers and ranchers who don’t comply with their insane regulations. Meanwhile, my gardens look as good as Chelsea show gardens … even the weeds are thriving here in Atlanta!
And so yet once again, the Climate Realists HAVE to remind the Climatist Canuckleheads, for the umpteenth time, that WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE.
Without CO2 all life would reach Net Zero (NZ)…
But IF there was only a single variety of wheat, production in northern latitudes should increase.
Wheat in the Peace area of NE BC is vulnerable to weather – early snow. One farmer just leaves it in the field for his cattle to paw through snow to get. (He stores hay to feed them if snow gets deep, it varies as Foehn Winds melt snow in winter.)
Whereas Barley, oats, and AFAIK rye do OK.
I ask what yields are in hot climates like Africa (IF land and agriculture are good) and Brazil.
An example of varieties of grains is a new one for corn, which makes growing for feeding livestock viable in southern Alberta, corn needs ‘heat days’ – the new variety fewer.
The reality is that CO2 emissions and AGW are extremely beneficial for wheat. Here are some papers:
1. O’Leary GJ, et al. (2015). Response of wheat growth, grain yield and water use to elevated CO2 under a Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiment and modelling in a semi-arid environment. Glob Chang Biol. 21(7):2670–2686. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12830
2. Fitzgerald GJ, et al. (2016) Elevated atmospheric [CO2] can dramatically increase wheat yields in semi-arid environments and buffer against heat waves. Glob Chang Biol. 22(6):2269-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13263
3. Uddin S, et al. (2018) Elevated [CO2] mitigates the effect of surface drought by stimulating root growth to access sub-soil water. PLoS One. 13(6):e0198928. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198928
4. Taylor, C & Schlenker, W (2021). Environmental Drivers of Agricultural Productivity Growth: CO2 Fertilization of US Field Crops. National Bureau of Economic Research, no. w29320. https://doi.org/10.3386/w29320
Here’s an excerpt from the Fitzgerald et al study:
Here’s an excerpt from the Taylor & Schlenker study:
“We consistently find a large CO2 fertilization effect: a 1 ppm increase in CO2 equates to a 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% yield increase for corn, soybeans, and wheat, respectively.”
+1% per 1 ppmv is a high-end estimate. The indispensable CO2Science website indexes many other studies; most show large improvements in grain yields from elevated CO2, though less than Taylor & Schlenker’s estimate:
https://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/t/triticuma.phphttps://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/t/triticumd.phphttps://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/t/triticumdi.php
Wheat is grown from Mexico to Canada, across six growing zones (equivalent to >30°C of climate change), so a degree or two of warming won’t have much effect.
In the real world, annual crops like wheat cannot be significantly affected by a degree or two of warming, because farmers adjust their planting dates according to their local climates (soil temperatures). Additionally, elevated CO2 makes crops healthier and faster growing, through “CO2 fertilization” and improved water use efficiency and drought resilience, thanks to reduced stomatal conductance.
Among agronomists the fact that elevated CO2 is highly beneficial for crops has been settled science for over a century. (Unfortunately, the two authors of this study are not agronomists.) This article is from 1920:
Gradenwitz A. (1920). Carbonic Acid Gas to Fertilize the Air. Scientific American, 123(22), November 27, 1920, p.549. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican11271920-549
Well, somehow the three CO2Science links to lists of studies about wheat got mangled. This is what they were intended to be:
https://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/t/triticuma.php (Common wheat)
https://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/t/triticumd.php (Durum wheat)
https://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/t/triticumdi.php (Emmer wheat = Triticum dicoccoides)
CO2-driven global greening is real, measurable and ongoing. But somehow, wheat is immune from the benefit and would do better without it.
Doesn’t pass the sniff test.
If the climate scare narrative is to be kept alive and kicking (and to keep the $$$ flowing to fund it), Co2’s benefits to crop yields need to be downplayed if not killed off completely. The study’s authors of course accommodate that need.
From the study:
“[W]e estimate that climate trends have caused current global yields of wheat, maize, and barley to be 10, 4, and 13% lower than they would have otherwise been. These losses likely exceeded the benefits of CO2 increases over the same period, whereas CO2 benefits likely exceeded climate-related losses for soybean and rice.”
*******************
I will suggest here that the Trump administration seriously consider cutting off the funding for models-based scientific research if this crap is going to stop. Or, better yet, cut off the climate alarmist funding altogether. But that is just me.
It is important to note that the graph included is the correct graph for the text; it is Yield per Hectare: How much wheat is harvested from each hectare planted — this shows the combined effects of agricultural technologies, included fertilization and planting schemes and weather (climate). It is not affected by area planted, which changes every season and region by market forces.
Many articles on crop production focus on Total Production — which is always determined by supply and demand considerations which force area planted in each region.
These organizations with large funding for the sole purpose of disseminating disinformation are a plague on the world.
In other, similar breaking news:
Data
Wheat yields
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/wheat-yields
Of related interest:
Cornpreneurs Save Us From Davos Elites – by Gale Pooley
If it is cold and too wet.. wheat yields are lower.
‘We need to control humans by demanding to control the climate. So we have to come up with some narratives that will make them acquiesce to our ridiculous demands’…..
Benefits include: pesticides, fertilizer, processing, plastic packaging…
AI: “40% of energy usage in the food system being attributed to the production of fertilizers and pesticides.”
Much of the worlds fertilizer is made with natural gas!
The Haber Process:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Equilibria/Le_Chateliers_Principle/The_Haber_Process
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===
Wheat yields are usually dependent on how much nitrogen is applied to the crop…….up to 120 lbs/acre.
When and How Much Nitrogen to Apply to Wheat:
https://agcrops.osu.edu/newsletter/corn-newsletter/2023-07/when-and-how-much-nitrogen-apply-wheat
It really depends where the crop is grown. Most Australian soils are deficient in Phosphorus, so that needs to be added as well. Potassium is a limiting factor in many soils as well, hence NPK fertilisers. The other major limiting factor is available soil moisture.
Nitrogen tends to be the easiest to add without fertilisers. A rotation of wheat and cash legumes such as chick peas or faber beans (the nice Chianti is optional) can retain N levels for decades.
In addition to the potential yield limits imposed by the above factors, late frosts can inhibit head filling, and hailstorms can knock the living daylights out of a crop.