Rice production has nearly doubled, despite global warming. Source ChatGPT.com.

Global rice production has nearly doubled over 50 years despite climate change

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… rising atmospheric CO2 was the primary environmental factor contributing to increased rice production by enhancing photosynthesis and improving water-use efficiency …”

Global rice production has nearly doubled over 50 years despite climate change

by Lois Yoksoulian, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
edited by Stephanie Baum, reviewed by Robert Egan

Global rice production nearly doubled between the 1960s and the 2010s, despite the negative impacts of climate change, according to a new study from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. The study found that management decisions—including expanded irrigation and increased nutrient inputs—played a central role in sustaining rice production and offsetting climate-related losses. The results suggest that future food security will depend not only on environmental conditions but also on how rice production systems are managed and adapted to changing conditions.

The study by climate, meteorology and atmospheric sciences professor Atul Jain and former graduate student Tzu-Shun Lin, combined observations and process-based modeling to examine the factors that shaped global rice production over the past half-century. The researchers evaluated how environmental change and agricultural management together influenced rice production across regions and over time. The results are published in the journal Scientific Reports.

The study also demonstrates that climate change is the only factor in the analysis that reduced rice production, lowering global production by an estimated 7% between 2006 and 2015 because of warming temperatures, heat stress and water shortages. In contrast, rising atmospheric CO2 was the primary environmental factor contributing to increased rice production by enhancing photosynthesis and improving water-use efficiency. Together, these findings illustrate the complex and sometimes opposing ways in which environmental changes influence agricultural production.

Read more: https://phys.org/news/2026-06-global-rice-production-years-climate.html

The abstract of the study;

Management practices and elevated atmospheric CO2levels helped to sustain a high level of global rice production

Scientific Reports (2026) Cite this article

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Abstract

Rice is a staple agricultural resource for over half the global population. Using the data-modeling methods, which account for major biophysical processes and all major environmental and management factors, our study shows that rice production for 2006–2015 has increased by almost 2-fold since the 1960s, despite growing concerns about climate change and other extreme climate event risks. Management practices through the expansion of irrigated and non-irrigated cropping harvested areas and the increased rates of N fertilizer and manure application have helped to maintain higher production rates since the 1960s. The global production of rice for the decade 2006–2015 was 713 million tons per year, with South and Southeast Asia by far the largest rice-producing region, and China (24%), India (22%), and Thailand (9%) being the top three producers. Multiple cropping increases overall production, with the highest rice yield in season one due to a longer growing period and favorable conditions, while yields decline in the subsequent seasons. The results show that global transplanted rice yields are 25% higher than direct-seeded rice yields. Accounting for the effects of management factors, the total production increased by 76%. The expansion of rice-planting areas was the primary management contributing factor (52%), with the expansion of irrigated planted areas contributing 39% and rainfed 13%. Other management practices that helped increase production include N fertilizer and manure (24%). Our results also reveal that environmental factors increased productivity by 24% in the recent decade, with rising atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing productivity by 30% and N deposition by 1%. In contrast, climate change reduced production by 7%. These findings highlight the critical role of management practices, especially the expansion of irrigated areas and fertilizer use, in driving recent increases in rice production. Accounting for these factors is crucial for accurate projections and effective rice cultivation planning.

Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-55973-0

An interesting contrast – the study abstract (admittedly in draft) mentions CO2 fertilisation in the title, but you have to read down to the 4th paragraph in the phys.org article to learn CO2 played a significant role. Almost like phys.org are reluctant to tell their audience CO2 can do anything good.

So how much further could yields increase? Likely quite a lot.

Commercial greenhouses elevate CO2 levels to over twice the atmospheric CO2 to stimulate growth. As we burn the remaining fossil fuel reserves over the coming 2-3 centuries, CO2 fertilisation will continue to drive yields up, even without the benefits of future agricultural science.

The only question is, what will our descendants do to keep CO2 levels elevated, once the fossil fuel runs out?

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.9 12 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
37 Comments
June 11, 2026 10:18 am

[Ctrl-F search on “methane” comes up <0/0> Google AI says, “Rice cultivation accounts for approximately 8% to 12% of global anthropogenic methane emissions.” Looks like someone is trying to hide/ignore data they don’t like.

IPCC AR6 says methane is 82.5 times more powerful than CO₂ at trapping heat. </sarc>

Reply to  Steve Case
June 11, 2026 11:49 am

At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of methane in dry air is currently 1.94 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has mass 1,290 g and contains a mere 3.8 milligrams of methane at STP.

Some natural sources of methane are swamps, bogs, fens, and wetlands; wild ruminate animals; rotting dead plants; seeps from the ocean floors, and termites especially African termites.

Some sources of methane due to activities of man are oil and nat. gas operations, leaky nat. gas pipelines, coal mining, garbage dumps, sanitary land fills, composting of plants and animal wastes , sewage plants, domestic animals such cattle and cows and rice cultivation.

Despite all these sources of methane, the concentration of methane in the air remains quite low. Lightning discharges (Mother Nature’s spark plug) initiates the combustion of methane along the path of the discharges. There is no propagation of combustion due the low concentration of methane. There are many millions of lighting discharges every day. Discharges of lightning generate ozone which readily oxidize methane to water and carbon dioxide.

Jet planes with their large engines are flying incinerators for methane. All combustion processes using ambient air burn up methane. Wild fires burn up methane. Back yard barbeques burnup methane.

Methane is slightly soluble in cold water. One liter of cold water can hold up to 33 ml of methane. Methane that dissolves in cold polar water slowly diffuses to the ocean floor where under high pressure it form a solid clathrate known as methane ice. There are vast deposit of methane ice on the oceans floors.

The claim that methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is based a theoretical analysis of its IR absorption spectrum. However, methane has no strong absorption bands in the thermal emission spectrum of the earth’s surface.

Based on all of the above we do not have to worry about the emissions of methane from all sources.

Bryan A
Reply to  Harold Pierce
June 11, 2026 12:21 pm

Fortunately Methane (CH4) has a short resident time in atmosphere and oxidizes rather quickly in the environment becoming beneficial gasses for agriculture… CO2 and H2O

ferdberple
June 11, 2026 10:19 am

nearly doubled over 50 years despite climate change

Why “despite”?. Why not “because of”?

People today are much better off than they were before climate change, thus climate change must be good.

WARNING: Food contains carbon.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  ferdberple
June 11, 2026 11:05 am

” In contrast, climate change reduced production by 7%.”

Says who? The study’s model? Why would the rice plants dislike slightly warmer temperatures?

The study’s authors and Phys.org seem to be treating the model output as if it is fact. I am not a scientist, but I have to ask if they should be treating the model output as though it is fact? Based on everything I have learned here at WUWT about models, I will suggest that they should not.

Phys.org treat their readers as though they are complete idiots. It should consider itself lucky if has any subscribers at all.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 11, 2026 12:16 pm

“Phys.org” has gone full “Scientific American”.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
June 11, 2026 2:29 pm

Li n ??

😉

Scissor
Reply to  ferdberple
June 11, 2026 1:22 pm

Excellent warning!

June 11, 2026 10:39 am

The authors confuse natural climate change with human-caused climate change.

There is no evidence establishing that humans are causing the climate to change and, therefore, all the changes we see must be assumed to be caused by Mother Nature, until proven otherwise.

Assuming the changes are caused by humans, as these authors do, is not supported by the facts.

F. Leghorn
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 11, 2026 12:17 pm

They don’t have facts. The have “SWAGs”

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  F. Leghorn
June 11, 2026 2:41 pm

“SWILs”

Scientific Wild Idiotic Lying

swil in the trough ?

F. Leghorn
June 11, 2026 12:13 pm

“Offsetting climate related losses” They can’t see how dumb they are. What “losses”? Do they think there would have been larger increases with less CO2 in the air?

Bryan A
June 11, 2026 12:16 pm

What will our descendants do to maintain CO2 levels? Might be the next glaciation will occur by then adding additional problems into the mix.
They could always import it from Venus or Mars.🤔😆

Scissor
Reply to  Bryan A
June 11, 2026 1:27 pm

Strong acids, like HNO3, H2SO4, liberate CO2 from carbonate, think White Cliffs of Dover.

Bryan A
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 11, 2026 4:21 pm

Yep… they’ll use free Wind and Solar… Oh, wait…

Mr.
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 11, 2026 5:46 pm

Well thanks Eric.
You’ve just given me the motivation to cryovac myself for a couple of hundred years.
I’d do that to avoid Bowen’s blackouts.
(be careful opening my cask – it may be a little sloppy and stinky inside 🙁 )

Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 11, 2026 8:58 pm

I think the climate alarmists should invest in space-based wind turbines
{/sarc}

Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 12, 2026 4:18 am

The Chinese are going to build space-based solar sooner than that. Their aim is to build a demonstration project in orbit by 2030.

What is the U.S. doing in this arena? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 12, 2026 7:18 am

Is that for power or a weapon?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 12, 2026 7:40 am

Space based solar was considered decades ago.
Aside from the cost of getting it up and running as well as maintenance and repair, the risk factors come into play.

It would not take much of an errant space rock to know out the whole system.

The energy would be “beamed” to earth using microwaves. These are hazards to air vehicles. Yes routes can be established but the planet’s rotation is not perfect and orbits are not perfect. In addition, solar wind and EM field pressure effects will have to be dealt with to keep the position precise.

Birds, etc., will not get Air Traffic Control planned routes. Instead of eagle dicers we will have eagle nukers (think microwave oven or the California solar condenser system).

The understanding of the effect of high intensity microwaves on atmospheric physics is still evolving.

The beam pattern will not be a fixed column. Meaning the receiving target will be lit but so will access to that facility. Funny how people get cooked in microwave EM fields as discovered in WWII.

The microwaves will also impact any wiring connected to transport the electricity. Significant shielding would be needed for the wires and for access.

The size of the SV panels needed to proved a useable amount of terra based electricity will mean the orbits of these systems will have to be outside of the normal satellite orbits. Satellites crossing through the beam will be destroyed. Look to terrestrial SV farms for an idea of how large.

Plus side, not weather dependent. However, to be successful the systems would have to be in geosynchronous orbits, meaning the day-night issue so common with earth based SV is not solved.

So, there will be space based solar, but like today it is only used in space based systems.

Scissor
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 11, 2026 6:14 pm

It’s a good thing the activation energy for N2 + O2 + H2O to HNO3 is high because its enthalpy of formation is favorable, if I’m remembering correctly.

Heat also liberates CO2 from carbonates, think cement. We could grind and collect coral and drop it in the craters of active volcanoes.

Scissor
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 11, 2026 6:31 pm

We could chuck some into Kilauea right now for a pilot study. If it doesn’t work, we can always find some virgins.

Yooper
Reply to  Scissor
June 12, 2026 4:40 am

Where?

Bryan A
Reply to  Yooper
June 12, 2026 5:37 am

Certainly not among the Democrats!

June 11, 2026 12:18 pm

Story tip!
GHG emissions will cause extreme rainfall, and cause UK properties to sink!
But when I look at the study, the modelers used IPCC RCP8.5.

Millions of homes in London, Essex and Kent at risk of sinking as climate crisis worsens
Analysis pinpoints areas most vulnerable to hotter, drier weather causing ground to shrink and drag foundations down
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/11/millions-homes-london-essex-and-kent-sinking-climate-crisis-subsidence

Latest research emphasises climate-related subsidence risk to millions of British homes
New data from BGS highlights the projected future impact of warmer, drier summers and underlines the need for mitigation measures in susceptible regions.
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/news/latest-research-emphasises-climate-related-subsidence-risk-to-millions-of-british-homes/

Denis
June 11, 2026 12:41 pm

“…offsetting climate-related losses.”

The study period was 2006 to 2015. During that time, global temperature increased by 0.19C, global relative humidity and global cloud cover changed by precisely 0%, and global precipitation also changed by precisely 0 millimeters/month. So just what are these offsetting climate-related changes leading to less of an increase in rice production?

Bob
June 11, 2026 4:17 pm

Is it asking too much for these knuckleheads to speak about their real concern? Their real concern is added CO2 into the atmosphere. Some say the added CO2 will cause catastrophic runaway global warming. No one has come close to proving that. But if they talked about added CO2 causing catastrophic runaway global warming then they couldn’t use things like cold storms to prop up their cause. A little honesty would go a long way.

Edward Katz
June 11, 2026 5:35 pm

Another reminder that even where weather/climate factors adversely affect agricultural outputs, humans don’t just sit around wringing their hands or drastically reducing fossil fuel use. There’s too much money at stake for agri-businesses and crop science companies not to take action that will solve or at least alleviate the problem.

KlimaSkeptic
June 11, 2026 5:53 pm

Quote: “The only question is, what will our descendants do to keep CO2 levels elevated, once the fossil fuel runs out?” I don’t think they have too much to worry. Burning of fossil fuels has little to no effect on CO2 concentrations. The CO2 in the atmosphere is mostly natural in origin. it comes from out-gassing from the slightly warming oceans, a little bit from volcanoes, and also from tectonic processes or widespread mantle degassing. Check here:
https://notrickszone.com/2026/06/10/new-study-significant-co2-fluxes-from-non-volcanic-sources-are-largely-neglected-in-carbon-budgets/
I think it is about time the wanna be “expert” journalists and armchair scientists stopped pushing this silliness about the urban myth, that humans are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. The irony of course is, that even if humans did increase the CO2 concentrations, why should anyone give a rat’s ar$e, since CO2 is NOT controlling Earth’s temperatures to any meaningful degree.

June 11, 2026 9:56 pm

despite the negative impacts of climate change

What negatives?

Malcolm Chapman
June 12, 2026 6:42 am

The last sentence of the abstract:

‘Accounting for these factors is crucial for accurate projections and effective rice cultivation planning’

Authors of journal articles like this have to pretend that their work is useful, and they frequently reach for the adjective ‘crucial’. ‘Crucial’ sounds important, and doesn’t in itself go either forwards or backwards in time or causation, which means no responsibilities are assumed, other than the usual implicit plea for further funding.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Malcolm Chapman
June 12, 2026 7:42 am

Critical accounting for factors can mean the factors are assigned a zero weight.

John XB
June 12, 2026 8:14 am

Global rice production has nearly doubled over 50 years despite climate change”

Despite or because?