WebProNews reports:
Farming can often be a volatile business, but NASA researchers this week published a new study showing that climate data could help predict crop failures months in advance.
The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, linked temperature and soil moisture for a large segment of global rice and wheat crops. A computer simulation was then able to predict crop failures three months before they happened for around one-fifth of global crops. The computer simulation was based on temperature and rain forecasts, as well as satellite data taken from 1983 to 2006.
They are talking about “climate data.” So if you look at various climates, you will see that if you plant rice in a Köppen-Geiger BWh climate, you can reliably predict that the crop will fail.
Seems to be a pretty useless model. 3-months is a bit less than the plant-to-harvest times for major crops, so it really isn’t much help. Are you not going to plant because NASA predicts failure? Are you going to stop your usual farming activities in the middle of the season because some computer program predicts failure? These guys were doing a lot better when they were sending stuff into space. I’m not sure we need the extra cost if they are not about sending stuff into space.
“able to predict crop failures three months before they happened for around one-fifth of global crops.”
In other words, useless 80% of the time, with random chance accounting for the rest.
I question the same thing; that is why I suspect that they’ve got an able mathematician on board, or just somebody knowledeable, who advised them about that one-fifth thing. They can probably say that with confidence without risking their reputations.
Does anybody know of good data on year-to-year crop failures? Google is too contaminated with the climatist fear-mongering stuff.
Until we can predict the weather with absolute certainty, I question whether it is possible to truly predict crop failure. There is always going to be a risk factor and changes we can’t anticipate.
That reminds me of the long-range weather predictions the US weather people use, or at least did: there would be a prediction that an area had a 47% chance of having warmer-than-normal (or cooler-than-normal) temps. Well, gee, there’s pretty much a 47% chance either way, isn’t there?
Did they bring the loon Hansen out of retirement for this?
After all . . . he has been 100% wrong for 20 odd years now ! ! !
They appear to not have included CO2 in their Computer model . . . higher CO2 levels mean HIGHER YIELDS . . . the Science was in years ago . . . and after ALL . . . CO2 is Plant Food.
It will be interesting to test how likely any WAG will come true for around one-fifth of global crops. Especially if you have a total freedom to pick that one-fifth out of any number of locations.