World's Farmers Feel The Effects Of A Hotter Planet

[n2doc]

by RICHARD HARRIS

May 7, 2011
Scientists have long predicted that — eventually — temperatures and altered rainfall caused by global climate change will take a toll on four of the most important crops in the world: rice, wheat soy and corn.

Now, as world grain prices hover near record highs, a new study finds that the effects are already starting to be felt.

"For two crops, maize (corn) and wheat, there has actually been a decline in yields, if you account for the trend in climate — especially the warming trend that we've observed over the last 30 years," says Wolfram Schlenker, who teaches environmental economics at Columbia University. He's a co-author of the study, along with David Lobell and Justin Costa-Roberts at Stanford University.

The scientists looked specifically at places where there are warming trends, and sure enough, they found these staple crops weren't doing quite as well.

more

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/07/135952277/worlds-farmers-feel-the-effects-of-a-hotter-planet

[Trajan]

1. We have always looked at growing regions as 'belts' ...

It is presumed that the most northerly regions of those belts are still as productive, because they are now closer to the center of the belt instead of the edge ... This would imply that the southerly regions have become unsuitable for farming those crops, but that the belt now slips northward, making areas that were previous ABOVE the belt to now be arable and conducive to farming that crop ....

In other words ... The farmland lost in the south will become farmland gained in the north, with a 'near' net zero impact on the overall arable area available .... ('Near' net zero = having to shift farm resources northward).

Not saying this is a boon ... Just that it is more of a shift than a complete loss .... right ?

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I don't think it's that simple.

Climate change tends to be more chaotic than the process you describe. Jet streams move, ocean currents change, desertification happens in certain areas as a result of these changes, storm patterns change, more floods, the seas rise as the ice caps melt…

[Trajan]

3. Understood .... but even at the time scale of 'natural events' ...

There will be give and take on both sides of the boundary ...

Just as you say .. Not that simple, but not that great of change, either ....

[GliderGuider]

4. The time scale of natural events these days tends to be "Faster Than Expected"...

And the events tend to be more extreme and widespread than expected as well. I'm not expecting the changes to be benign over the next decade. We're already growing our food in the areas best suited to it. Shifting a growing belt north isn't helpful if it shifts out of an area with good soil and water and into, say, the Canadian tundra...

[Trajan]

5. To say that the corn belt is arriving in the Canadian tundra anytime soon ...

Is a bit of a stretch ....

First it has to hit Northern Minnesota ....

[GliderGuider]

6. No, but the wheat belt in southern Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta is moving too.

And it doesn't have very far to go. I'm Canadian, so I'm sensitive to the issue. The land in the north of those provinces isn't nearly as suited to agriculture as it is in the south.

The big issue for the world food supply, though, isn't going to be shifting hardiness zones. It's going to be shifting rainfall patterns. With a couple of failed monsoons and a couple of large-scale floods in other places the whole world will be in trouble. This is already showing signs of happening.

[pscot]

7. But the Russian wheat belt

has certainly been feeling the effects of GW, as have Poland and Ukraine. Drought and fires have done a lot of damage to crop yield across northern Europe.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Is there anyplace where crops are booming, over previous production?

Usually there is a response somewhere else in the system, when something happens, like rainfall patterns shifting, introducing a drought in one location, and increased rainfall in another.

Those here in the PWN, getting drenched, and even snowed upon deep into May, can thank the poor buggers in Texas, where all but 2 counties were on fire 1 month ago due to decreased precipitation.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. But still, you are at most, suggesting displacement.

If there is to be a net loss of cropland, that is what we need to show. Most people could give a shit if the farmland in XYZ location won't be as productive year over year for the next 10 years until it is completely worthless as cropland, as long as food is still produced cheap somewhere.