Climate change
-

Abstract:  The industrial and agricultural revolutions have profoundly transformed the world. However, an unintended consequence of these revolutions is that we are affecting the climate of Earth. I will describe the rapidly changing energy landscape, an “epidemiological” approach to assessing the risks of climate change, and its impact to international security. I will then give a perspective on mitigating these risks with science, technology and policy with emphasis on developing the lowest cost solution.

About the Speaker: Steven Chu is the William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of Physics and Molecular & Cellular Physiology at Stanford University. His research spans atomic and polymer physics, biophysics, biology, biomedicine and batteries. He shared the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for the laser cooling and trapping of atoms.

From January 2009 until April 2013, Dr. Chu was the 12th U.S. Secretary of Energy and the first scientist to hold a cabinet position since Ben Franklin. During his tenure, he began ARPA-E, the Energy Innovation Hubs, the Clean Energy Ministerial meetings, and was tasked by President Obama to assist BP in stopping the Deepwater Horizon oil leak. Prior to his cabinet post, he was director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Professor of Physics and Molecular and Cell Biology at UC Berkeley, the Theodore and Francis Geballe Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Stanford University, and head of the Quantum Electronics Research Department at AT&T Bell Laboratories.

Dr. Chu is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Academia Sinica, and is a foreign member of the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the Korean Academy of Sciences and Technology. He has been awarded 24 honorary degrees, published more than 250 scientific papers, and holds 10 patents.

Steven Chu William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of Physics and Molecular & Cellular Physiology Speaker Stanford University
Seminars
Paragraphs

In many discussions of climate change impacts in agriculture, the large magnitudes of expected impacts toward the end of the century are used to emphasize that most of the risks are to future generations. However, this perspective misses the important fact that demand growth for food is expected to be much slower after 2050 than before it, and that the next two decades represent the bulk of growth before 2050. Thus, impacts of smaller magnitude in the near-term can be as or more consequential for food prices or food security as larger magnitude impacts in the future. Here we estimate the risks that climate trends over the next 10 or 20 years could have large impacts on global yields of wheat and maize, with a focus on scenarios that would cut the expected rates of yield gains in half. We find that because of global warming, the chance of climate trends over a 20 year period causing a 10% yield loss has increased from a less than 1 in 200 chance arising from internal climate variability alone, to a 1 in 10 chance for maize and 1 in 20 chance for wheat. Estimated risks for maize are higher because of a greater geographic concentration than wheat, as well as a slightly more negative aggregate temperature sensitivity. Global warming has also greatly increased the chance of climate trends large enough to halve yield trends over a 10 year period, with a roughly 1 in 4 chance for maize and 1 in 6 chance for wheat. Estimated risks are slightly larger when using climate projections from a large ensemble of a single climate model that more fully explores internal climate variability, than a multi-model ensemble that more fully explores model uncertainty. Although scenarios of climate impacts large enough to halve yield growth rates are still fairly unlikely, they may warrant consideration by institutions potentially affected by associated changes in international food prices.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Environmental Research Letters
Authors
David Lobell
Number
7
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

According to a new study co-authored by Stanford professor David Lobell, the chance of a worldwide slowdown in agricultural yield growth in the next two decades is significantly higher due to global warming.

Lobell and co-author Claudia Tebaldi, a senior researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, set out to estimate the odds of a steep drop in global wheat and corn yield progress under several climate scenarios. The study, “Getting caught with our plants down: the risks of a global crop yield slowdown from climate trends in the next two decades” appeared in Environmental Research Letters.

Lobell said he was motivated to pursue the study based on questions posed by stakeholders and decision makers in governments and the private sector.

“I’m often asked whether climate change will threaten food supply, as if it’s a simple yes or no answer,” Lobell said. “The truth is that over a 10 or 20 year period, it depends largely on how fast the Earth warms, and we can’t predict that very precisely. So the best we can do is try to determine the odds.”

Lobell and Tebaldi calculated the chance of a 10 percent global yield loss from climate change over the next 20 years, which would represent a severe impact on food supply, enough to roughly halve the rate of yield growth.

The short time frame of the study was deliberate, Lobell said. “Many studies have looked at climate and agriculture trends over the coming 50 or 100 years. But the next two decades are when most of the global population growth, and dietary shifts driven by a growing middle class, will occur. The growth rate of food demand will be higher during this time than at any other time in the next century.”

Without human-induced global warming – in other words, in a world with only natural climate variability – the likelihood of a yield drop that large is only 1 in 200. But when the team accounted for global warming, they saw the odds jump to 1 in 10 for corn and 1 in 20 for wheat. “In this study, we did not try to estimate the most likely impacts of climate change on crops,” Lobell said. “Rather, we estimated the likelihood of a really major impact, not because we want to scare people, but because there are many people who want to be prepared for all contingencies.”

“The point of the paper is to move from hand-waving about scenarios of what could go wrong, to specific and transparent estimates of the actual odds,” Lobell said. “The odds are not very high, but they are significant and a lot bigger than they used to be. The people asking these questions are accustomed to planning for scenarios with much less than a 10 percent chance of happening, so it will be interesting to see whether this study has any effect on how they operate.”

Lobell adds that organizations working toward global food security, and related issues such as conflict prevention, are most interested in the next 20 years because their decisions rarely consider the more distant future.  “As scientists, we might prefer to work on time scales in which the answers are clearer, but we also want to be responsive to the actual concerns and questions that decision makers have.”

Lobell is associate professor of Environmental Earth System Science at Stanford and associate director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment. He is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

Contact:

David Lobell: dlobell@stanford.edu

Laura Seaman, Communications and External Relations Manager, Center on Food Security and the Environment: lseaman@stanford.edu

Hero Image
cu corn
All News button
1
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

FSE director Roz Naylor and faculty affiliate Eric Lambin contributed to a new paper on climate engineering (geoengineering) in Nature Climate Change. Geoengineering has emerged as a potential climate change mitigation strategy, with proponents suggesting that injecting sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere - in order to disperse sunlight and decrease the temperature of the lower atmosphere - could limit global warming. 

The paper cautions that the governance of geoengineering is likely to be insurmountable in cases when the technology might prove useful, whereas the technology's effectiveness may be limited in places where there is more political willingness to implement geoengineering. Further, the major potential risks of geoengineering, and the uncertainties involved, suggest that a better approach to climate mitigation is immediate global action to address the root causes of climate change.

Both authors contributed to the paper as members of the science advisory board of the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics. Roz Naylor and Eric Lambin are professors in Environmental Earth System Science at Stanford Unviersity. Naylor is also senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Woods Institute for the Environment, and Lambin is a senior fellow at the Woods Institute.

Hero Image
fluffy clouds
All News button
1
Paragraphs

Stratospheric injection of sulphate aerosols has been advocated as an emergency geoengineering measure to tackle dangerous climate change, or as a stop-gap until atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are reduced. But it may not prove to be the game-changer that some imagine.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Nature Climate Change
Authors
Eric Lambin
Rosamond L. Naylor
Paragraphs

• Adaptation should be defined strictly as actions that reduce climate change impacts.

• Many studies that claim to show adaptation benefits do not satisfy this definition.
• Three main causes of “adaptation illusions” are discussed.

A primary goal of studying climate change adaptation is to estimate the net impacts of climate change. Many potential changes in agricultural management and technology, including shifts in crop phenology and improved drought and heat tolerance, would help to improve crop productivity but do not necessarily represent true adaptations. Here the importance of retaining a strict definition of adaptation – as an action that reduces negative or enhances positive impacts of climate change – is discussed, as are common ways in which studies misinterpret the adaptation benefits of various changes. These “adaptation illusions” arise from a combination of faulty logic, model errors, and management assumptions that ignore the tendency for farmers to maximize profits for a given technology. More consistent treatment of adaptation is needed to better inform synthetic assessments of climate change impacts, and to more easily identify innovations in agriculture that are truly more effective in future climates than in current or past ones. Of course, some of the best innovations in agriculture in coming decades may have no adaptation benefits, and that makes them no less worthy of attention.

 

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Global Food Security
Authors
David Lobell
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

 

Rosamond Naylor, director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment, delivered the keynote address to The University of Vermont's Food Systems Summit in Burlington, VT on June 17-18, 2014. Naylor is the editor of The Evolving Sphere of Food Security (forthcoming, Oxford University Press), the first book of its kind to engage thought leaders from across Stanford’s campus to explore the causes and symptoms of complex topic like global hunger. She will discuss the book's insights on the ways that food security is tied to security of many other kinds: energy, water, health, climate, the environment, and national security. 

The Evolving Sphere of Food Security is available for pre-order from Oxford University Press.

Hero Image
roz high res 9 11
All News button
1
Paragraphs

Projecting the impacts of climate change on agriculture requires knowing or assuming how farmers will adapt. But empirical estimates of the effectiveness of this private adaptation are scarce and the sensitivity of impact assessments to adaptation assumptions is not well understood. Here we assess the potential effectiveness of private farmer adaptation in Europe by jointly estimating both short-run and long-run response functions using time-series and cross-sectional variation in subnational yield and profit data. The difference between the impacts of climate change projected using the short-run (limited adaptation) and long-run (substantial adaptation) response curves can be interpreted as the private adaptation potential. We find high adaptation potential for maize to future warming but large negative effects and only limited adaptation potential for wheat and barley. Overall, agricultural profits could increase slightly under climate change if farmers adapt but could decrease in many areas if there is no adaptation. Decomposing the variance in 2040 projected yields and farm profits using an ensemble of 13 climate model-runs, we find that the rate at which farmers will adapt to rising temperatures is an important source of uncertainty. 

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Nature Climate Change
Authors
Fran Moore
David Lobell
Paragraphs

A key question for climate change adaptation is whether existing cropping systems can become less sensitive to climate variations. We use a field-level dataset on maize and soybean yields in the central United States for 1995 through 2012 to examine changes in drought sensitivity. Although yields have increased in absolute value under all levels of stress for both crops, the sensitivity of maize yields to drought stress associated with high vapor pressure deficits has increased. The greater sensitivity has occurred despite cultivar improvements and increased CO2, and reflects the agronomic trend toward higher sowing densities. The results suggest that agronomic changes tend to translate improved drought tolerance of plants to higher average yields, but not to decreasing drought sensitivity of yields at the field scale. 

The full text of the articleabstract, and reprint are available via Science. 

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Science
Authors
David Lobell
Wolfram Schlenker
Subscribe to Climate change