Climate change will reduce crop yields sooner than we thought

Mar 16, 2014
Credit: SC Department of Agriculture

A study led by the University of Leeds has shown that global warming of only 2°C will be detrimental to crops in temperate and tropical regions, with reduced yields from the 2030s onwards.

Professor Andy Challinor, from the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds and lead author of the study, said: "Our research shows that will be negatively affected by climate change much earlier than expected."

"Furthermore, the impact of climate change on crops will vary both from year-to-year and from place-to-place – with the variability becoming greater as the weather becomes increasingly erratic."

The study, published today by the journal Nature Climate Change, feeds directly into the Working Group II report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, which is due to be published at the end of March 2014.

In the study, the researchers created a new data set by combining and comparing results from 1,700 published assessments of the response that climate change will have on the yields of rice, maize and wheat.

Due to increased interest in climate change research, the new study was able to create the largest dataset to date on crop responses, with more than double the number of studies that were available for researchers to analyse for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.

In the Fourth Assessment Report, scientists had reported that regions of the world with temperate climates, such as Europe and most of North America, could withstand a couple of degrees of warming without a noticeable effect on harvests, or possibly even benefit from a bumper crop.

"As more data have become available, we've seen a shift in consensus, telling us that the impacts of climate change in temperate regions will happen sooner rather than later," said Professor Challinor.

The researchers state that we will see, on average, an increasingly negative impact of climate change on crop yields from the 2030s onwards. The impact will be greatest in the second half of the century, when decreases of over 25% will become increasingly common.

These statistics already account for minor adaptation techniques employed by farmers to mitigate the effects of , such as small adjustments in the crop variety and planting date. Later in the century, greater agricultural transformations and innovations will be needed in order to safeguard crop yields for future generations.

"Climate change means a less predictable harvest, with different countries winning and losing in different years. The overall picture remains negative, and we are now starting to see how research can support adaptation by avoiding the worse impacts," concludes Professor Challinor.

Explore further: Why growing crops for food rather than energy in the Midwest can help mitigate climate change

More information: The research paper, 'A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation', was published online by the journal Nature Climate Change on 16 March 2014: dx.doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2153

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

New research links crop disease and climate change

Feb 28, 2012

Researchers from the University of Hertfordshire have investigated links between crop disease and climate change which impact our food growth and production - affecting our food security today and for future generations. ...

Recommended for you

Feds allows logging after huge California wildfire

10 hours ago

The U.S. Forest Service has decided to allow logging on nearly 52 square miles of the Sierra Nevada burned last year in a massive California wildfire, a move contested by environmentalists.

User comments : 94

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

pupbytes4u
2.4 / 5 (25) Mar 16, 2014
I have a PhD in ecology and Biogeochemistry and know this paper is a fraud and huge pile of BS. You progressive climate money whores will soon rot in Hell. Anyone that is literate knows the Medieval Warm Period was much warmer and crop yields supported a large population and there were vineyards where you people now commit your crimes against the tax payers.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (22) Mar 16, 2014
A PhD! Ecology and biogeochemistry you say! Well good doctor, how then are you so spectacularly ignorant of climate sciences then?

Now to the article; so much for CO2 being plant food and helping to grow more food lol!
Jack Wolf
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 16, 2014
I hope they didn't base it on the USDA's "Global Warming and Agriculture" - they used the wrong and overly rosy emission scenario in that one. No wonder they undercall the timing and scale of the impacts.
Bonia
Mar 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mememine69
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 16, 2014
It isn't a crime for science to agree with only 95% certainty for 32 years however it "IS" a crime for you remaining "believers" to tell little children science has as much certainty as you do that they are doomed.
jyro
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 16, 2014
It will increase yield in Northern areas.
jyro
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2014
sulfate smog causes acid rain, bad choice for trying to improve the environment.
MR166
2.7 / 5 (20) Mar 16, 2014
Did the paper happen to mention that increased CO2 levels have increased crop yields and reduced water consumption? Did it happen to mention the greening of the desserts? Did it happen to mention that grasslands were being replaced by forests all because of increased CO2?

Of course not, that would ruin the effect of the propaganda.

maxberan
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 16, 2014
IPCC convention for impact studies is no adaptation. I don't know how many of the studies used in the meta analysis abided by the rule, probably most as that way you can achieve a scary and attention grabbing result. The nominal reason for setting the rule is that you get a cleaner comparison with mitigation costs but in most impact areas - especially agriculture - it is so far from the realities of life as to be absolutely valueless. It is totally irresponsible to promote such results as remotely realistic as a projection of the future.
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 16, 2014
@MR166, citations?
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 16, 2014
This is so much B.S. which is easily disproved with readily available empirical evidence.

California (U.S.A.) notoriously goes through cycles of excess precipitation and crushing drought, and has some of the warmest climate regions in the world. And did I happen to mention these very warm and often dry regions are some of the most productive agricultural lands in the world? Well, they are!

"The Central Valley is one of the world's most productive agricultural regions. More than 230 crops are grown there. On less than 1 percent of the total farmland in the United States, the Central Valley produces 8 percent of the nation's agricultural output by value:"

http://en.wikiped...iculture

Quit with the AGW Boogeyman scaremongering already. You're just making yourselves appear foolish.

Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (16) Mar 17, 2014
Quit with the AGW Boogeyman scaremongering already. You're just making yourselves appear foolish.
So, back to making moronic statements and broad denialist generalizations again? What exactly do you think you've proven by providing information on a tiny area of the United States in a discussion about the affects climate change will have across a broad swath of the world's temperate zones?

I'm not sure what exactly has sent you into yet another round of denialism and misrepresentation, although I suspect is has to do with the number of articles discussing different aspects of global warming, and the fact that the evidence has become even more overwhelming. I've noticed how you spin off into a frenzy of denial when that has happened previously, so I guess you're just staying true to form.

One would think the evidence would begin to cause you to question your dearly held beliefs instead of causing you to sink ever lower into your mental bunker of denial.
bertibus
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2014
Perhaps they could also have commented on the possibility of currently cold / inhospitable areas of the globe becoming more productive as they warm.
I'd expect a little more balance from a science paper.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
It will increase yield in Northern areas

It will also increase variability. And what do you suppose will happen if crops fail in equatorial/southern nations? Mass migration: that's what.

Now it doesn't take a genius to figure out what that will lead to: Northern nations will barricade themselves in. Southern nations will flood them with refugees (or just plain declare economic war by shutting down all the resource deliveries to the north.)...and then you have all the makings of a handy little world war.

Perhaps they could also have commented on the possibility of currently cold / inhospitable areas of the globe becoming more productive as they warm.

Go look at a map. Go compare areas (and respective population densities).
AkiBola
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2014
The improvement in crop yield elsewhere will more than offset any yield reductions the author is claiming. The peer review process is sorely lacking, such a simple blunder should have been caught.
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2014
The improvement in crop yield elsewhere will more than offset any yield reductions the author is claiming. The peer review process is sorely lacking, such a simple blunder should have been caught.
Well I don't know about peer review, but certainly the comments of some people stretch the bounds of common sense. Please, pray tell, where is this magical "offset" to come from? Or are you like Uba and claim that you can grow food in a desert? Or on tundra? The Canadian shield? Can't wait!
MR166
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2014
"It will also increase variability." That is 100% pure speculation brought to you by the same climate models that have so spectacularly failed. The very same climate models that cannot model the effects of water vapor and clouds on temperatures.
TegiriNenashi
2 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2014
"...In the study, the researchers created a new data set by combining and comparing results from 1,700 published assessments of the response that climate change will have on the yields of rice, maize and wheat..."

Complete lack of vision and research failure. I mean what kind of self respecting scientist would aspire to become an accountant who merely brushes over existing "assessments", summarizes them, and deduces that life would end as we know it, if planet average temperature increases by one degree?

Want to contribute to civilization progress? Then, quit moaning about climax change and study something fundamental, that can improve our life. Our life, not polar bears! Oh, that is hard science; never mind.
aksdad
2.9 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2014
From the article abstract:
Without adaptation, losses in aggregate production are expected for wheat, rice and maize in both temperate and tropical regions by 2 °C of local warming

There are lots of potential problems with their sweeping generalization, starting with the methods they used to derive their conclusions. Setting that aside, there is no reason for alarm because the production of major food crops over the last century has increased due to improvements in the plants themselves as well as cultivation, harvesting, and transportation methods. That's "adaptation". There is no reason to believe improvements won't continue.

The graphs in the article show the only major problems--without adaptation--may be with rice grown in temperate countries and wheat grown in tropical countries. The good news is that most rice is grown in the tropics and wheat in temperate climates. No problem.

http://www.nature..._F1.html
R James
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2014
Firstly, this assumes we will experience a 2 degC temperature increase. There's no data to support this assumption, other than failed climate models that don't match real data. Secondly, year to year temperature variations are much more then this, and crops are fine. I could go on, but suffice to say this report is alarmist nonsense.
aksdad
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
It should also be noted from the graphs in the study that significant problems--without any adaptation (highly unlikely)--for wheat in tropical climates and rice in temperate climates begin to occur at 3 to 5 C of temperature increase. (Most wheat is grown in temperate climates, most rice in tropical.)

http://www.nature..._F1.html

3 to 5 C of warming is not expected to happen anytime in the next two centuries...even if we experience a few more 30-year warming periods like we did in the 20th century (1910-1940, 1970-2000) which totaled about 1 C.

http://www.ncdc.n...1112.png
MR166
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
From NASA

""The two key solutions are to reduce economic inequality so as to ensure fairer distribution of resources, and to dramatically reduce resource consumption by relying on less intensive renewable resources and reducing population growth," Ahmed wrote."

http://www.thebla...ollapse/

Another agency gone bad. Now let's see, historically what other governments were in favor of wealth distribution and population control and how did that work out for humankind?
ForFreeMinds
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2014
The climate always has affected crop yields. And we'll adapt as we always have.

It appears one has to promote climate change hysteria supporting government control of us to "protect" us to get on the immoral gravy train of government funded "research" grants.

Personally, I believe government funding research, is immoral because the money is taken by force.
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
Climate change will reduce crop yields sooner than we thought

Next step, Soylent Green baby!

If your too young to have seen this movie; it's a classic.
https://www.youtu...N312hYgU

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2014
"Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide "fertilization effect" has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010."
http://www.spaced...999.html
MR166
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2014
You got 2 one votes and nothing positive Ryg. That is why I did not bother to post some links myself. Blasphemy is not treated kindly on this board.
MR166
2 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2014
Raping the earth to appease a false god.

http://sunshineho...to-drax/
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2014
Actually, in general, warmer climates mean far more arable land. It's just that it may not be in the "right places" anymore. It may be in places that don't have the infrastructure or INDUSTRY to take advantage of a better situation. Whereas in other places that do have the systems in place could see a negative shift....

Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2014
You got 2 one votes and nothing positive Ryg. That is why I did not bother to post some links myself. Blasphemy is not treated kindly on this board.
Actually, stupidity is what doesn't get treated kindly, a situation you should be well acquainted with given the comments you make here. Well, that and politically derived denialism cloaked in faux indignation, which is just another form of stupidity in any event.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2014
Actually, in general, warmer climates mean far more arable land. It's just that it may not be in the "right places" anymore. It may be in places that don't have the infrastructure or INDUSTRY to take advantage of a better situation. Whereas in other places that do have the systems in place could see a negative shift....

The general statement that it will create "far more arable land" is an exaggeration; it will overall create a bit more arable land (something like 4.4% over all {Zhang & Kai, 2011}) but the offsets from sea level rise and the shifting rainfall patterns combined with the expected increases in extreme weather events suggest that actual agricultural production will be overall lower, even with the increase (see here, for eg: http://ecosystems...t.html). Before some idiot starts mouthing about "alarmism", these are somewhat manageable problems, but they require major changes in farming practices.
barakn
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2014
Actually, in general, warmer climates mean far more arable land. It's just that it may not be in the "right places" anymore.- Modernmystic

If you look at where the bread baskets of the world are, they are actually in temperate zones. Having a cold season is an important thing when growing crops in the same area year after year. The cold kills off bacterial, fungal, and insect pests, and the fallow time allows the soil recharge nitrogen and moisture.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2014
It may be in places that don't have the infrastructure or INDUSTRY to take advantage of a better situation.


Too much land that could be efficiently farmed in not NOW because of socialist govts. Zimbabwe is classic and the Philippines and many other countries control capital imports and investments that could expand product and profit.
New Zealand demonstrated how ending govt restrictions on ag boosted production and profits.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2014
"In the slum of Antimano, women are standing in line in front of a shop. They say they don't know what's on offer, but they are queuing anyway, a sign of how worried people are that they won't get what they need.

Inside the market, the manager, Roger Escorihuela, takes me around and points out that the shelves are not bare.

There are cereals, eggs and pastas and fancy jams, but the staples that are subject to price controls — black beans, butter, corn meal, the list goes on — are missing, he says."
http://www.npr.or...-diapers
Socialism is worse than climate change, but the AGWites believe socialism will 'fix' climate change.
Vietvet
2.8 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2014
@ryggesogn2, socialism doesn't work but it only effects those suffering under it. With AGW everyone suffers.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2014
Vietvet what if the AGW claims are just a government sponsored ruse to increase central power. Let's face it if they institute a carbon tax they will also have to subsidize the poor who will be decimated by it ie socialism.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (14) Mar 19, 2014
Vietvet what if the AGW claims are just a government sponsored ruse to increase central power. Let's face it if they institute a carbon tax they will also have to subsidize the poor who will be decimated by it ie socialism.

Yea, it's a conspiracy I tells ya, a CONSPIRACY! All dem SCIENTISTS dey all be CONSPIRATORING all TOGETHER an dat! All TALKING and stuff! Making up stuffs and all dat! All dem all TEGETHER and DAT! STEALING an STUFF!
MR166
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 19, 2014
I never claimed that there was a conspiracy but I am claiming that each individual "scientist" knows the results he has to produce in order to qualify for grant monies and standing in his university. The science has been corrupted by the puppet masters. AGW is a huge trillion dollar government/industry creation and there is absolutely no money to be made disproving it's existence.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 19, 2014
@ryggesogn2, socialism doesn't work but it only effects those suffering under it. With AGW everyone suffers.

So why do AGWites want to use socialism to 'fix' the climate?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2014
And what do you suppose will happen if crops fail in equatorial/southern nations? Mass migration: that's what
Depends on whether you have somewhere to go or not.

"Mogadishu, Somalia (CNN) - Between 2010 and 2012, more than a quarter of a million people died in the famine in Somalia... Half of the 258,000 Somalis who died in the famine were children younger than 5, Philippe Lazzarini said in a statement."

Crops don't need to fail to have famine. Religion-induced overpopulation causes starvation and drives countries and tribes to attack their neighbors. We are watching the effects of this at present throughout Africa and South Asia. And we see the crushing effects on euro economies as they struggle to accommodate refugees.

"In 2010, 47.3 million people lived in the EU, who were born outside their resident country. This corresponds to 9.4% of the total EU population."
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2014
FTA:

with the variability becoming greater as the weather becomes increasingly erratic


Here's my problem with Climatologists and incidentally it's their problem with themselves. Can anyone else tell me how this statement does NOT proceed from an objective and directly dispassionate scientific stance? It sounds like he has an agenda, and he does. He's also correct about global warming, but it's obvious to anyone the man has an axe to grind...

The weather isn't going to be more "erratic" whatever the hell that's suppose to mean in this context. It's going to be less predictable from a HISTORICAL perspective...that perspective being since the science was invented less than 100 years ago. What a THIN perspective to have the hubris to call the weather "erratic".

Yes, it will be different, but there is absolutely NO objective perceptive on how the weather SHOULD be. He's talking about it like it was an errant choir boy. More science, less preaching please.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2014
"Religion-induced overpopulation causes starvation and drives countries and tribes to attack their neighbors."

So Ghost let me get this straight, religion is the root cause of the problems in Africa. Somalia's civil war was of religious origin and government had no part in this tragedy.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2014
I never claimed that there was a conspiracy but I am claiming that each individual "scientist" knows the results he has to produce in order to qualify for grant monies and standing in his university. The science has been corrupted by the puppet masters. AGW is a huge trillion dollar government/industry creation and there is absolutely no money to be made disproving it's existence.
That's a conspiracy you are describing you idiot!
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2014
"Religion-induced overpopulation causes starvation and drives countries and tribes to attack their neighbors."

So Ghost let me get this straight, religion is the root cause of the problems in Africa. Somalia's civil war was of religious origin and government had no part in this tragedy.
That's not what he said, and you are trying to put words in his mouth. You are constructing a strawman.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2014
The weather isn't going to be more "erratic" whatever the hell that's suppose to mean in this context. It's going to be less predictable from a HISTORICAL perspective
That's what "more erratic" means MM. I think weather records are more precise than you allude to in your comment, and I think that there is good evidence to support the premise that weather patterns are already becoming more erratic than they have been historically. The point is that they are expected to become even more erratic as the climate system warms.
MR166
2.2 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2014
" think weather records are more precise than you allude to in your comment, and I think that there is good evidence to support the premise that weather patterns are already becoming more erratic than they have been historically."

That is f-a-r from being a proven fact. Since the effects of all of the climate oscillations, ocean, solar and otherwise, have yet to be quantified it is impossible to know what "normal" is at any point in time.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2014
"That's a conspiracy you are describing you idiot!"

Maggnus I consider you to be much more intelligent, educated and unbiased than the average climate scientist. Therein lies the problem with climate science.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2014
I never claimed that there was a conspiracy but I am claiming that each individual "scientist" knows the results he has to produce in order to qualify for grant monies and standing in his university

@mr166
well, looks like you're claiming conspiracy to me
government sponsored ruse to increase central power
&
The science has been corrupted by the puppet masters
as all the data is not filtered through just ONE gov't, and the data is not even gov't controlled, how would they alter: actual measured temps?(http://www.livesc...warming/ )
Alter weather patterns?(http://curriculum...mations/ )
Alter the jet stream?(http://qz.com/163...n-worse/ )
alter floura/fauna responses to climate?(http://www.nature...ange.htm &
http://www.ecolog...-change/ )
etc etc
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2014
@mr166 continued...
there are FAR too many externals and too many people as well as scientists/empirical data involved for one gov't or even a global conspiracy. There is also this: all the data independently gathered from too many sources reflects the same general conclusions, which is where the consensus comes in: NOT because there is a central controlling body governing the output of data, but because all the data is showing the same general thing! (warming)
AGW is a huge trillion dollar government/industry creation and there is absolutely no money to be made disproving it's existence
this is where you are wrong. There are plenty of industrial giants pouring money into disproving it, while trying to hide it from outside eyes: see http://phys.org/n...ate.html
legitimate science does not hide its funding sources, and funding sources supporting legit science does not hide its support
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2014

this is where you are wrong. There are plenty of industrial giants pouring money into disproving it, while trying to hide it from outside eyes: see http://phys.org/n...ate.html
legitimate science does not hide its funding sources, and funding sources supporting legit science does not hide its support
Exactly, I could not have put it better!

MR166, to make the statement "I am not claiming there is a conspiracy" followed immediately, in the same paragraph, by a description of a conspiracy is idiotic. Seriously idiotic. You sound just like Scooter claiming that all climate science is a hoax because the spotted owl's habitat loss was exaggerated. It's an idiotic statement and an idiotic stand! I calls em as I sees em!
MR166
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2014
"this is where you are wrong. There are plenty of industrial giants pouring money into disproving it," Ahhh yet another urban legend. Even BP and Exxon are supporting this politically correct "science". To think that major industry does not control the left is pure ignorance.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2014
yet another urban legend

@mr166
there is conspiracy, but not by scientists
see: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
A number of analyses have shown that one major factor driving this misunderstanding and an overall lack of legislative action is a deliberate and organized effort to misdirect the public discussion and distort the public's understanding of climate change (National Research Council 2011: 35). This literature has revealed a great deal about the nature of efforts to deny and/or distort climate science. It clearly shows that a number of conservative think tanks, trade associations, and advocacy organizations are the key organizational components of a well-organized climate change counter-movement (CCCM) that has not only played a major role in confounding public understanding of climate science, but also successfully delayed meaningful government policy actions to address the issue

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2014
To think that major industry does not control the left is pure ignorance.

@mr166
I dont care about the politics, personally. Only the science
above you have proof that there are industry giants pushing to obfuscate the truth, and scientists who are pushing to define reality
your big mistake is believing too much in the politics and not enough in the empirical data which is where science puts their faith

drop the bias and examine the data from an unbiased standpoint. The data points in one direction. If you dont like the sources, provide yoru own study with your own money and resources and sources... you will come to the same conclusions, you will just waste a lot of your own money and time

skip the political bull and study the empirical data. That is the only way to address this issue (or any scientific issue, really)
MR166
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2014
The real data shows that we have warmed and experienced quite a sea level rise since the glaciers covered the northern hemisphere. We are cooler than medieval warming period and some of the 1930's but warmer than the late 70's and stable since the late 90's. What does any of that have to do with AGW? How does any of that validate the climate models that are used to predict our doom?
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2014
What does any of that have to do with AGW? How does any of that validate the climate models that are used to predict our doom?

@mr166
please provide links/support and empirical data for claims
it helps people understand EXACTLY what you are saying
if you read my links above, you will see how I covered all the bases (as best as I could)
all you are doing is adding CONJECTURE to the argument

you are making claims and not providing data for support

this is the wrong thread for that... you COULD try http://www.abovet...m/forum/ OR http://www.govern...et/forum for what you want. you will find plenty of support for your mindset/beliefs there
Vietvet
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
When MR166 provides a link to the John Birch Society YouTube channel to defend his denialism you know he his a lost cause.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2014
religion is the root cause of the problems in Africa. Somalia's civil war was of religious origin and government had no part in this tragedy
Of course. Overpopulation creates the conditions necessary for rebellion and war. And the religions which have survived to the present have done so because they were better at these things than the competition.

As pops swell the people will blame whoever is in power no matter how benevolent. The govt must respond with increasing force to maintain order.

-The proportion of children below the age of 15 in 2010 was 44.9% (of total pop)
-6.08 children born/woman (2014 est.)
-100.4 deaths/1,000 live births (2012 est.)

"Nearly all people in Somalia are Sunni Muslims. For more than 1400 years, Islam made a great part of Somali society."

"In 2011, a coordinated military operation between the Somali military and multinational forces began, which is believed to represent one of the final stages in the war's Islamist insurgency."
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 21, 2014
John Birch society is opposed to communism.
From the way Russia is acting and the way the Euros and Obama are imitating Neville Chamberlain, those opposed to socialism have been justified.
It will interesting to see how Putin responds to AGWites.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 21, 2014
"Golitsyn's overarching thesis, the so-called "grand strategy," is laid out in painstaking detail over two books: "New Lies for Old" (1984) and "The Perestroika Deception" (1985), which can be summarized as follows:

The Soviets developed a long-range strategy to defeat the West back in the late 1950s based on a Leninist strategy of strategic deception and subterfuge, replete with a planned collapse — including potentially tearing down the Berlin Wall (which Golitsyn first detailed in a 1978 memorandum embedded at the end of this post) – in combination with perestroika and glasnost, words whose true definitions were far different than those the West ascribed to them."
"history has proven that Golitsyn was shockingly accurate in the explicit predictions he laid out in "New Lies for Old." As noted in Mark Riebling's 1994 title "Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA," of the 148 falsifiable predictions Golitsyn put forth in his 1984 work, by 1993 139, or 94% were proven correct.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 21, 2014
"it's self-evident that the Russians and their Chinese, Arabic and South American allies have coalesced around socialism (or "state capitalism" if you prefer) and anti-Americanism, using strategies ranging from deception and subversion to terrorism to damage the West and counter America."
http://www.thebla...istened/
Why are so many, supposedly intelligent people supporting and defending such socialism?
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 21, 2014
@ryggeson2
This is a science site. I visit American (non) Thinker every day plus other paranoid right wing sites. I don't troll there and you shouldn't here.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2014
@Ghost argues that overpopulation is an issue.
Overpopulation creates the conditions necessary for rebellion and war.
Well that and miserable conditions.
I agree with you Ghost, overpopulation is a large component of the climate change equation. Your points about Somalia just highlights human behavior under oppressive conditions, environmental and social. Those to conditions are what the movie "Soylent Green" is about. Overpopulation, Global Warming, Desertification and Food supply collapse, have and have-nots. All of the issues you mention.

With a climate too hot to grow food and a rising population, there will be a cross over point where food will be to scarce to support the population. Famines have happened in the past, and probably will become more frequent as Anthropogenic Global warming continues it upward exponential trend.

CO2 is 400ppm now and continuing to rise. When will this madness stop?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2014
@ryggeson2
This is a science site. I visit American (non) Thinker every day plus other paranoid right wing sites. I don't troll there and you shouldn't here.

Once again, instead of addressing the issue, socialism, the socialist attacks the messenger.
Socialism affects crop yields more significantly than climate change and the socialist AGWites believe their socialist policies will 'fix' climate change, but can't support this belief with facts or science.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2014
http://dailycalle...dissent/

There are a few very pointed facts here about grants, peer review and data corruption.

""Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly," Lindzen wrote. "It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions."
jackjump
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
I don't think anyone knows what the optimum global temperature for agricultural output would be given the current land mass configuration. Obviously if we knew that temperature we would know whether an increase in temperature was moving us toward or away from it. Common sense can be applied however to give us a sense of that number. In the past the world has been much warmer and much colder. In which direction was plant life more abundant and in which direction was it less abundant? I think the answer is obvious . . . warmer times had much more vegetation than the current period (and more CO2 also), those were times that produced the coal which we now use for fuel. That implies the temperature for maximum vegetation is warmer than our current temperature and the notion that getting warmer is going to diminish agricultural output is very likely nonsense. It might move the corn and cotton belts around a bit but that's very different from claiming it will reduce output.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2014
Quit with the AGW Boogeyman scaremongering already. You're just making yourselves appear foolish.
So, back to making moronic statements and broad denialist generalizations again?
So you're saying the truth hurts?

What exactly do you think you've proven by providing information on a tiny area of the United States in a discussion about the affects climate change will have across a broad swath of the world's temperate zones?
Did you even read the article? Did you not see the part about higher temperatures and increasingly erratic weather? Well, that's exactly the kind of climate found in California's Central Valley!

Wouldn't it be great if the whole earth's climate became just like California's? Just imagine the bounty!

I'm not sure what exactly has sent you into yet another round of denialism and misrepresentation, although I suspect is has to do with the number of articles discussing different aspects of global warming, and the fact that the evidence has become even more overwhelming. I've noticed how you spin off into a frenzy of denial when that has happened previously, so I guess you're just staying true to form.
LOL. Poor Maggnus can't find logic and reason, so he resorts to ad hominem. I guess that's all he has left.

One would think the evidence would begin to cause you to question your dearly held beliefs instead of causing you to sink ever lower into your mental bunker of denial.
Oh my! The evidence! Thanks Maggnus, I nearly forgot!

Evidence:

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Global cooling for more than a dozen years!

Howhot
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2014
The Ubbatuba says;
Global cooling for more than a dozen years!


Don't hurt your brain thinking about that to much. Physics has it covered. At 400ppm and rising, the heat trapping potential of the earth is increasing in lock-step. Whatever it is you are seeing is just temporary, and certainly bogus in the long term.

kivahut
3 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2014
A link to the "study" would help us determine if it's ligit. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2014
Yeah, good point Kivahut. I've yet to see a paper in Nature Climate that says anything like "Massive cooling effect impacts Earth!, Scientist stumped!"
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2014
"Yeah, good point Kivahut. I've yet to see a paper in Nature Climate that says anything like "Massive cooling effect impacts Earth!, Scientist stumped!""

Howhot perhaps you were born yesterday and do not remember the 70's when the world was on the verge of another ice age. The only thing that is more whimsical than the weather is the predictions of the various climate charlatans err I mean scientists.
Vietvet
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2014
@MR166

In the 70's there was no PERDICATION of an ice age. There was SPECULATION not backed up by any data. I first read about it in Popular Mechanics, then Time did the cover story and the whole idea took on a life of it's own.
MR166
2 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2014
Here you go global cooling science at it's best.
http://www.popula...ism.html

Read some of the links and see what history shows about this "science"!
Vietvet
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2014
Here you go global cooling science at it's best.
http://www.popula...ism.html

Read some of the links and see what history shows about this "science"!

It's what I expected from PopTech. Not a single link to a peer-reviewed paper. Newspaper and magazine articles with a few scientist speculating. Cont.
stamlerms
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2014
The climate has ALWAYS changed and crops haven't reduced, they have only increased. If you're referring to global warming, it's not warming. Has not warmed for almost 20 years. If it was, crops would increase, provided it was cause by carbon dioxide, which is a plant food and would cause massive growth in all vegetation on the planet. Without carbon dioxide, plants could not create oxygen, and we would die. So would the plants. Global warming is a political concept, not a scientific one.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2014
Don't you think that it is just a little bit of a coincidence that the proposed solution to warming or cooling is always the same, higher taxes and more government controls?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2014
There are a few very pointed facts here about grants, peer review and data corruption
@mr166
I'm sorry... I thought you were being serious. I took time to find you relevant articles from reputable sources with links/references and studies mentioned, and you send me a virus infested link to the daily caller which in turn references the guardian?

If you are going to Troll, go to those other sites i suggested above. go tell them your unsupported conjecture. They LOVE stuff like that. you will gain many friends.
if you want to refute what I posted, use real science and skip the politics and mag-rags
Don't you ...that the proposed solution to warming or cooling is always the same, higher taxes and more government controls?
nothing personal, but I dont care, really.
it is not just apathy, but I am more focused on the science than the politics. after all, this is a science site, not a political forum
Vietvet
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 24, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
mr166 and ryggy are two peas in the pod. Anything not to the right of Attila the Hun is socialism. The thought of any government action on anything is communism in their warped world.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2014
Socialism is state control of private property.
One example is Russian annexation of Crimea and nationalization of companies.
Another example of socialism is Solyndra and the dozens of other rent seeking companies seeking plundered taxpayer's wealth.
Bastiat describes socialism well in The Law, von Mises in Socialism and Hayek in The Road to Serfdom.
Socialist takeover of Zimbabwe destroyed their agriculture, not climate. USSR was starving because of state owned farms, not climate.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2014
"Schweizer said the cronyism is not as bad in the United States, "but we are heading in the same direction," and that is evidenced by the recent green-energy boondoggles like Solyndra in which Obama administration officials are "picking winners and losers the same way" that Russia did in the 1990s. "
http://www.breitb...Russia-s
AGWites know best how to pick winners and losers, right?
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2014
"I'm sorry... I thought you were being serious. I took time to find you relevant articles from reputable sources with links/references and studies mentioned, and you send me a virus infested link to the daily caller which in turn references the guardian?"

So Stumpy, a quote from Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT is not valid because it appeared in the guardian. Your problem is that you only give credence to the articles/data that prove your chosen side of the question. Conflicting positions are totally disregarded and called invalid.

MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2014
Vietvet you are obviously a very conflicted person. Your moniker here shows how justifiably proud you are of your service to your country and I wish to thank you for that service. Yet you seem to dislike the very principles on which the constitution was written and this country was founded. Individual freedoms and limited federal government powers are the cornerstone of this republic yet you want to disparage those who seek to preserve the original intent of the founding fathers.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2014
One would think that any real Vietnam veteran would be opposed to socialism instead of defending it.
But then there are Vietnam vets who are, or were, Viet Cong.

Regarding Lindzen and the Guardian, the AGWites and 'liberals' act like the monkeys that see no evil or hear no evil.
If Nature or the NYT or NPR doesn't cover a story it must not exist. How do the 'liberals' explain how the NYT lied about Stalin's starvation of Ukraine?
""There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be."

--New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1

"Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda."
--New York Times, August 23, 1933
"And this was at a time when peasants in Ukraine were dying of starvation at the rate of 25,000 a day"
http://www.weekly...wuaz.asp
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2014
So Stumpy, a quote from Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT is not valid because it appeared in the guardian
@mr166
I see you are having comprehension issues
1-quotes are not empirical data unless you are proving someone said something
2-their claims of a quote from someone have all the same validity as my claims of a quote
3-my argument was legit, with supporting documentation, you gave me a quote from a rag with a political skew who also published a video of how dogs are confused by magic tricks...

try giving me a resource that is reputable
try linking to a study/paper with supporting evidence
if I wanted quoted from famous people, I would google it

you made a claim, now do what I did... give me links from reputable sources backing up the claim

IOW- SKIP the political BS and give me empirical data
thats why I said
it is not just apathy, but I am more focused on the science than the politics. after all, this is a science site, not a political forum

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2014
Vietvet you are obviously a very conflicted person. Your moniker here shows how justifiably proud you are of your service to your country and I wish to thank you for that service. Yet you seem to dislike the very principles on which the constitution was written and this country was founded. Individual freedoms and limited federal government powers are the cornerstone of this republic yet you want to disparage those who seek to preserve the original intent of the founding fathers.

@mr166
again... skip the political grandstanding
it is NOT the issue here... only to YOU
THIS IS A SCIENCE SITE, not a political forum

if you want to argue politics, go find a political forum
that goes for Rygg too...
why troll a science site with a political rant? the LEAST you could do is comment in a political article...
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2014
This becomes a political site when AGWites use the UN and demand POLITICAL solutions to 'save the planet' and continue to blame everything on climate change. Climate change is being blamed for making the search for a missing 777 more difficult.
And for this article, most agricultural problems are caused by socialist systems, not climate so a bit of perspective is warranted.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2014
"Anything not to the right of Attila the Hun is socialism. The thought of any government action on anything is communism in their warped world."

As Rambo once said "They drew first blood". I just made the reasons for my position more clear.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2014
AGW causes weather extremes-------yea right!

http://hockeyscht...are.html
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2014
AGW causes weather extremes-------yea right!
@mr166
try actually reading the link and watching the short video... you might just learn something

http://qz.com/163...n-worse/

but so far, given your posts, it appears that you are just TROLLING and trying to demonstrate (quite effectively) extreme ignorance as well as your conspiratorial predilections

given that the site already has plenty of TROLLS like Uba, Rygg et al, then this is my last reply to you.

I left you plenty of evidence

further posting without supporting evidence (especially from hack sites, blogs etc) only supports the fact that you are either:
grandstanding for attention (attention whoring) OR
illiterate OR
stupid OR
trolling OR
all of the above

I will leave the choice to you

bye
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2014
AGW causes weather extremes-------yea right!

http://hockeyscht...are.html
When are you going to realize that Andrew Bolt is a complete moron when it comes to issues involving climate? He gets so much wrong, its hard to know where to start.

Try this for an interesting read MR166: http://watchingth...-change/
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2014
So Captain and Maggnus let me get this straight, even tho the paper appeared in the Journal of Climate, the data presented is bogus because it was referred to in an unapproved (by you) website. You both need to stop using MotherJones.com as your source of enlightenment.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2014
So Captain and Maggnus let me get this straight, even tho the paper appeared in the Journal of Climate, the data presented is bogus because it was referred to in an unapproved (by you) website. You both need to stop using MotherJones.com as your source of enlightenment.
Oh, you think that the bastardization of a scientific study by Bolt taken from the headlines of a study discussed in the Journal Of Climate somehow makes that bastardization by Bolt somehow authoritative? Did you even bother to try and read the original paper?

You aught to try thinking for yourself and finding information on your own instead of allowing the writings of anti-scientific denialist bloggers to do your thinking for you!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2014
"University of Sussex professor Richard Tol has charged his fellow academics on the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with going apocalyptically overboard about global warming in a new report

Read more: http://dailycalle...x6oUwMIz
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2014
"University of Sussex professor Richard Tol has charged his fellow academics on the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with going apocalyptically overboard about global warming in a new report

Read more: http://dailycalle...x6oUwMIz


Bob Ward, of the London School of Economics, said: 'Prof Tol's contribution to the IPCC report has been under scrutiny because he inserted – at a very late stage, so avoiding the IPCC expert review process – a section which publicised his own work.

'The section contained a number of errors. Prof Tol has expressed extreme reluctance to correct the errors in his work and it does not surprise me that he alone among the 410 authors of this report has refused to endorse the summary.'

Read more: http://www.dailym...x6sGgKu2
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2014
Heresy can't be allowed.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2014
Heresy can't be allowed.
Denialism by any other name is still a lie.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
So Captain and Maggnus let me get this straight, even tho the paper appeared in the Journal of Climate, the data presented is bogus because it was referred to in an unapproved (by you) website. You both need to stop using MotherJones.com as your source of enlightenment.

See Maggnus comment

continually repeating an argument for the gratification of the comprehension challenged individual is notoriously dull and also irritating, as it is very clearly stated above: especially as I am of a limited time to respond lately...
Jizby
Mar 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.