Seeing as the "cyborg" (or is that toaster?) appears to be in the workshop for servicing of fried circuits. Thought I'd better help out a bit more. Post is here.

This is good.  One comment.  It might help to mention Lobell and Asner's other work in 2003, also cited in the IPCC WGII, after you say:

out comes a new study demonstrating once again, that global warming will generally have a very negative impact on food production

Just to give the reader the correct impression that this is continued literature over time.

It's conclusion:  (need at least the free subscription to AAAS Science)

We conclude that gradual temperature changes have had a measurable impact on crop yield trends. The slope of regression (ry ) indicates a roughly 17% relative decrease in both corn and soybean yield for each degree increase in growing season temperature. Previous modeling studies predict changes of similar magnitude for a 3° temperature increase, suggesting that the observed sensitivity is higher than previously expected (6). On the basis of this investigation, there is a clear and present need to synthesize crop yield and climate data from different areas, perhaps with more detailed information on management, to provide critically needed observational constraints to projections of both climate change and management impacts on future food production.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch14s14-2-4.html

Cyborg toaster?  Is that a reference to me? Just haven't really had anything to write about over the past few days :-)

"for every degree day over 30°C yields fell 1% (degree day = ..." => I'd move the definition right after the use of the term "degree day".

"Next the authors then calculated the likely effects on crop yields if average growing season temperatures at each site, were raised an additional 1°C. As , as shown below:"

"Under ideally managed rain-fed sites, yield declined in 65% of compared to areas where maize is currently grown"

"That hammering sound you may hear," (no comma)

Interesting study and nice post.  The concluding sentence is quite good.

""Due to the large scale and geographical extent of the trials, the study analysis represents, to date, the best understanding of how maize/corn harvests will fare in a warmer world."

=>

"Due to the large scale and geographical extent of the trials, the study analysis represents the best understanding, to date, of how maize/corn harvests will fare in a warmer world."

==================

"That hammering sound you may hear, is another nail being driven into the coffin of the argument It's not bad"

=>

"That hammering sound you may hear is another nail being driven into the coffin of the argument, It's not bad: It is that bad."

Hey, lay off the cyborg!

Anyway, looks good - let me know once you've made any changes and happy for this to go live.

Sorted. Thanks for the advice.

Dana: - are you able to convince Brother Cavil to run off a few more copies of yourself? (you can see this is going to be a running gag).

Grypo: - Thanks for that. I'm actually about to start writing up a post on Lobell's 2007 study here. 

John: - Fixed the obvious errors. When you're ready.

Oh man, a Battlestar Galactica reference?  You just out-geeked me!

Another case where I completely missed the gag - I thought Brother Cavil was a reference to Dana's alleged scientology! And I watched BSG too :-(

That's it, I'm no longer reading the forum until I've had my morning coffee!

John

Your post says 9:57 AM. And you haven't had a coffee yet. The medical implications of that don't bear thinking about. Decline of blood caffeine levels is VERY BAD!

And I missed the BSG reference as well.

Okay, John out-geeks me too.  I've never watched BSG, I had to look the name up!

Dana

Rent or buy the DVD set - only 4 seasons. Real Grown-Ups Sci Fi - with a couple of angels thrown in.