Agricultural and Economic Effects of US Drought

In the wake of the hottest year on record for the contiguous US:

Figure 1 – NOAA Graph showing year-to-date average US temperatures from 1895-2012.

Plus extensive moderate and worse drought conditions across the US agricultural region heading into early 2013:

Figure 2 – US Drought Monitor map of drought conditions as of the 8th of January.

The US Department of Agriculture released estimates for 2013 crops.  The larger picture isn’t pretty, as the link explains.  Due to climatological as well as global market pressures, crop prices have risen leading up to 2013.  We can expect those prices to rise further in 2013, especially if there is limited or nonexistent drought relief.  Consider the following:

Corn prices are 3x what the average price from 1988-2006.

Soybean prices are more than 2X their average price from 1988-2006.

Wheat prices are more than 2X their average price from 1988-2006.

If nothing else, we will likely see a great deal of price volatility in crop prices in 2013.  But any further price increases will pinch most of our bank accounts more so than they already are.  This is another downstream effect of climate change and the lack of a national climate policy.  Moreover, how are farmers supposed to stay afloat if they never take climate change effects (record high temperatures and widespread drought) into account?  As elected officials in D.C. continue to think there is not enough political capital in return for climate change action, crop prices double and triple, impacting every person in the country.  We need to remove the politicization surrounding the issue.

Climate Change News & Information 5/28/08

Climate change has been documented on continental scales, according to a new study published in a recent issue of Nature.

In the study in this week’s journal Nature, Rosenzweig and her colleagues compiled data on about 28,800 plant and animal systems and 829 physical systems, all of which showed documented changes over the past few decades.

The study found that 95% of the observed physical changes, and 90% of the biological changes, are consistent with warming temperatures.

But what would a climate change article be without a ridiculous quote by a denyer in the blind pursuit of a “he-said she-said” story? Never fear, USA Today proudly demonstrates its lack of journalistic integrity:

Michaels says that there has been no warming since 1997 and that a recent study, also published in Nature, found that global warming isn’t likely to get started again for at least another 10 years.

That would be Pat Michaels, who works at the Cato Institute, a right-wing “think-tank”. Cato’s funding is similar to other ideological propaganda outfits like Heartland and Independence: plenty of Big Energy money goes in, climate change opinions come out. Rosenzweig and her colleagues worked on over 29,000 systems to come to their conclusion. What kind of dataset can the Cato folks point to to back up their claim? Good luck finding it. What is the real story on warming trends? See the next piece of information below.

*****