Talk:Climate change and agriculture

Climate Change / Global warming?

Is there any reason why this article is not called Global warming and agriculture, more in line with global warming or effects of global warming? This article should otherwise be moved, or, more precise, the redirection (that I just explored) should be reversed.. Hardern 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Balance AND distribution?

"The overall effect of climate change on agriculture will depend on the balance of these effects"

Isn't the distribution (geographical, etc.) of the effects of climate change/global warming on agriculture also a critical aspect of the discussion? We keep hearing about climate refugees, it's quite clear that some areas will be hit harder than others - shouldn't that be reflected in the header of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.104.166.92 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Too ambiguous

"Global warming would be able to modify the global distribution of water, possibly leading to several effects, both detrimental and beneficial."

What does that mean? We should not be including such meaningless statements in Wikipedia. {unsigned}

I agree, there are parts of this article that sound like POV for "don't worry about rising CO2 emissions; plants will be happy", and the section on climate modeling is far too negative about the uncertainties. It takes a pretty defeatist POV that we can't foresee or forecast anything at all about the potential impacts of climate change on plants or agriculture.Birdbrainscan 05:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Effect of agriculture on climate

I find the one way view this article presents very strange - when I first came here I was expecting something on the effects of agriculture on global warming, instead it only covers the effects of climate change on agriculture. Richard001 21:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are two different issues, really. Land use changes (deforestation in particular) are significant factors in altering climate, but the question for this page is the impact of rising CO2 plus climatic change on plants and agriculture. There is a large body of literature on this subject which this article only hints at. I'll try to pull in some relevant links and cites.Birdbrainscan 05:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A similar point was raised by Hardern above. If this article is focused on response of agriculture to 20th/21st century climate change, then should it not be named Effects of global warming on agriculture in line with some other Wikipedia articles? Notably Effects of global warming which "main article" links to this page. I think it should. Deditos 13:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree with Deditos and Richard001--"climate change and agriculture" implies treatment of their relationship; any good encyclopedia article with that title should address causes and effects regarding both terms. Cyrusc 22:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think that "climate change and agriculture" is a better article than "effects of climate change on agriculture," at least until it become large enough to necessitate a split. Cyrusc 22:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was curious about the section about the contribution of livestock on greenhouse gas production. This article states that livestock agriculture contributes 18% of greenhouse gases. This seems to come from the article "Livestock's Long Shadow". However, the EPA states that the production of greenhouse gases by agriculture as a whole is 14% . The wikipedia article on "Livestock's Long Shadow" also notes problem's in the the methodology behind the 18% number .

Potential effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide on yield

This section is too wordy and takes too long to get to the point. I've made a start at tightening it up, while also stating some basic background. But it still needs more work. I've got course readings that include several journal articles on this subject. I can try to fill in some refs from those in a future edit.Birdbrainscan 05:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I added an image that should help --Appanouki 05:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC) If the image doesn't look right, please help format it instead of just callously deleting it. Appanouki 16:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

factually incorrect

The claim that the warmest 3 years on record have been in the last 5 years (ie since 2002), is simply not true. This is an encyclopedia, if you present a fact, it must be true.

No Real Definition of Agriculture

Is it to be presumed that only people who know what Agriculture is will read this Article? Despite all the Latin Roots of the word, there isn't a real understanding of the term. If the meaning is not familiar to you, you end up finding yourself in a verbal loop where the definition includes the word "Agriculture" so u wouldn't be able 2 understand the definition if you didn't understand the word.

It's a minor thing, but I'm just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niwdog (talk • contribs) 12:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lose the IM-speak if u want ne body 2 tk u seriously, dude. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename

Should we rename this to 'global warming and agriculture' since it is not about general 'climate change' but about an effect of global warming? Brusegadi (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agricultural surfaces and climate changes

Could someone competent look at the section Agricultural surfaces and climate changes? I noticed it reading through, because of the spelling mistakes; but the some of the sources cited are at least badly presented. N p holmes (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone's removed most of the spelling mistakes, but the citations still look more than a bit off. I won't change it myself, because I'm not at home in the subject; if anyone else can do something, the unlinked New Scientist reference seems to be this[1] and doesn't seem to support the claims it's attached too. N p holmes (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. If you have any followup questions, please post them to Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation - replies to this message will not be read. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are coffee and chocolate not considered agriculture here?

• I saw these were removed without comment ...
  • Climate change pushing coffee to extinction? October 17, 2011
  • Climate Change Could Melt Chocolate Production; A new study shows that cocoa will suffer under climate change, October 3, 2011
  • Climate change: Will chocolate become a costly luxury? If temperatures continue to rise, a new report suggests, West Africa, source of half the world's chocolate, will be unfit to grow the coveted beans, September 30, 2011
• and this from this Talk Page.

108.195.138.200 (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Per consenus (2 editors have removed it, and 2-3 IPs who are clealy all the same person have added it). Also, there is a strong consensus that your random additions to talk pages should be ignored, if not removed entirely.

As for content, those articles don't add to the article; they don't fall under WP:ELNO or WP:ELYES, so consensus is what matters. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What "consensus"? I only see Special:Contributions/108.195.138.200 and Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin ... 99.181.142.87 (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

108.195.138.124 and 108.195.138.200 are you, and Special:Contributions/JamesBWatson also removed them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And why did User:JamesBWatson revert? 108.195.136.38 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to ask him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Repetitive citations

I'm thinking of changing the IPCC citations in this article. I would change the citations so that they use Template:Harvard citation no brackets as is done in effects of global warming (see User talk:J._Johnson#Canonical_IPCC_citations). The change would remove repetitive information contained in the existing IPCC citations. The change could also be applied to any other citations which contain repetitive information. I'd probably make the changes gradually, perhaps revising a few citations in each edit. Enescot (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

North America

I put a {{outdated}} tag on the North America sub-section, because it's full of disproven predictions from 2007 which said that increased CO2 would increase agricultural production without any regard to the repeatedly observed drought and wildfires. Neo Poz (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that the IPCC's and USGCRP assessments have been "disproved". Perhaps you can provide me with a source which backs up this assertion? In regards to CO2 effects on crops, the assessments were peer-reviewed for their accuracy. As the USGCRP report states, the impacts of extreme weather are only one of several factors which affect agriculture. 06:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a particular crop which you think has had an increased production? Neo Poz (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Just as an example (from checking) - the two first crops with statistics on the National Agricultural Statistics Service[2]: Barley, Dry Edible Beans. Both of these have increased in yield (both in total yield and yield per planted acreage). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree IPCC projections have been "disproved" either. Its a relatively short interval on which to base such a strong conclusion. But I have no problem describing what they projected and talking about what has happened in comparison. Kim, re your examples, its no surprise that drier-land crops went up when moister-soil crops went down. Dry beans and barley will give way to some sort of grazing roughage, I suppose, before the tumbleweed become king. There's a system here where some things benefit when its a bit , but not too much, drier and hotter. If we try to point to one thing and say good or bad, we won't hit the target, but if we can instead report on the interconnections of the systems involved, that's pure NPOV gold.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You very quickly run into WP:SYN if you do this - unless you find refs that specifically examine this (projection and comparison to what happened)... Not to mention that such a comparison is problematic if the timescales of change aren't matching [and they won't be since the USGCRP projections are longterm]- this is one of the things that sceptics often run afoul with. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If you say they projected X and look this here drought proves that X is happening that is SYNTHESIS. If you say they projected X, that's true. And then you can also say _________has been happening, because that's also true. The only time SYN becomes an issue is in whether (and how) you talk about the connection between the two.... and of course, we don't do any of this talking. If RSs are looking at _________ in context of IPCC projections, and we report their views, then its is not SYN. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis is whenever you lead the reader to make a conclusion/inference between/from two independently verifiably informations in reliable sources, when that conclusion/inference isn't described (or already reached) by another(or either of the) reliable source.

This for instance is SYN "According to A X will happen more often because of B. According to C, in 2011 X happened in an anormaly high number of instances.". Despite both sentences being true, the inference created is SYN. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

In a vast subject area where both projections have been made and events have occurred, it is possible to organize all of that material in a non-synth way, and we'll just have to disagree about that until there's a sample to take thru DR. I'd just like to encourage Neo Poz to read WP:SYN to be aware of the balance beam that must be walked, and and hope (s)he goes for it. You can try to shoot it down once it exists. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What this is leading up to, is telling a specific narrative that might be implied by reliable sources, but is not already made in these. And that kind of narrative is clear WP:SYN. Projections have been made, Events have happened - but the connection or inference of a connection, unless already established by a reliable source is not something that Wikipedia can make, since it would be editors making the connection - not secondary sources.... hence synthesis. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Since no draft text presently exists, and the question before the bar is whether the info can be presented without even implying the inference (my position), or not (your position) how about we cease repeating our different opinions, eh? I mean repetition of an argument over nonexistent evidence is sort of pointless and battlegroundish, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What would be the rationale for presenting real measured figures for, or descriptions of, crop yield changes in this article, if it is not going to relate to climate change? Draft or not, this is what is being proposed. It doesn't have anything to do with battleground attitude, but rather an attempt to stave off what might end up as being wasted work because the premise is flawed :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Go back to go, do not collect $200. If RS supported draft text shows up, about IPCC crop projections, or about recent drought impacts on harvests, or (gasp) about both, you can opine tangibly. If we can't stop handwaving over text that doesn't exist, someone might start to think there might be a POVish effort to control the story by pre-filtering proposals, instead of dealing with them once they are made. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Price of corn in North America

I've removed the following image from the article:

Price of corn in North America, in U.S. dollars per bushel, 2004-2012.

I've also removed this text: "By 2012, North American corn prices had risen to a record $8.34 per bushel in August, leaving 20 of the 211 U.S. ethanol fuel plants idle [3]." The cited source does not make any reference to climate change. Droughts can occur even in the absence of climate change. Any link between ethanol prices and climate change must be based on a reliable source. Enescot (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

I'm thinking of revising the lead section. In my opinion, there should be more specific information on the impacts of climate change on agriculture. The literature broadly shows that there may be initial benefits in high-latitude regions, but adverse effects in low-latitude regions. Higher levels of global warming would likely see reduced yields in most regions.

A second issue is that the greenhouse gas emissions data are rather old. There are more recent data available from the EDGAR database [4] and the Food and Agriculture Organization [5].

References

• International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (2009), Synthesis report, pp.47-48.
• FAO (2011), Climate change, water and food security, p.15.
• FAO (2009), Profile for Climate Change, p.3.

Enescot (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind, but there's something to be said for waiting until March, when the final version of AR5 WG2's full report is published.

eg, NYT's "Climate Change Seen Posing Risk to Food Supplies"

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Seriously outdated

The data used for the lead image itself is 14 years old. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks - I've updated the graph. Enescot (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)