<p>Yes. current climate change will most likely increase the amount of cultivable lands on Earth. However, it will at a high social cost and <strong>at the expense of biodiversity</strong>, and I can't emphasize enough the paramount importance of biodiversity for the heath of ecosystems and human food safety.</p>

<p>Consider also that similarly to mining, where the value of a deposit is related not only to the total amount of mineral but also to its concentration, we have to consider also how intensive is the food production allowed by a piece of land. In this regard, climate change can lead to the loss of highly productive areas, compensated only by the gain of large expanses of nutrient poor soils in the tundra.</p>

<p>You should also consider the social impacts of the degradation of current cultivation lands and the economic costs of moving food production pole-wards.</p>

<p>To answer this question with some degree of certainty is extraordinarily complex, because we don't know how exactly climate will change, but several studies have addressed this problem. A good example is <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1466-822x.2002.00294.x" rel="noreferrer">The global distribution of cultivable lands: current patterns and sensitivity to possible climate change</a>. There they point that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>We estimate that climate change, as simulated by global climate
  models, will expand cropland suitability by an additional 16%, mainly
  in the Northern Hemisphere high latitudes. However, the tropics
  (mainly Africa, northern South America, Mexico and Central America and
  Oceania) will experience a small decrease in suitability due to
  climate change.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Figure 4 of the paper shows the current "land suitability index" worldwide.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/YmMgb.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/YmMgb.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>You can see how the north of America and Eurasia show large expanses (although quite exaggerated by the map projection) of land not suitable for cultivation due to the cold temperatures.
This data can be downloaded <a href="https://nelson.wisc.edu/sage/data-and-models/atlas/maps.php?datasetid=19&amp;includerelatedlinks=1&amp;dataset=19" rel="noreferrer">here</a>, and I've used it to plot the following figure that shows the mean cultivation suitability index as a function of latitude. It is also plotted the land area as a function of latitude as derived from <a href="https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/global.html" rel="noreferrer">ETOPO</a>:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/UkDPh.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/UkDPh.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>As you can see, pole-wards of 56° there is a significant amount of land of which none is suitable for cultivation. However, it is clear that temperature is not the whole picture, and aridity around 25° of latitude can significantly drop cultivation suitability.</p>

<p>I found interesting to see that the left (equator-wards) side of the main peak in cultivation suitability currently at 37° lies at a latitude with a lot of land, so if that end is lost to aridity, the gain of land on its (right) pole-wards end will be smaller due to the downwards trends of land area towards the pole. Nevertheless, as I mentioned, models suggest climate change will increase the overall land surface suitable for agriculture.</p>

<p>Another study: <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26321-8" rel="noreferrer">Northward shift of the agricultural climate zone under 21st-century global climate change</a>. Focus on temperature and shows in Fig. 1 how the line that divides temperature regime suitable from cultivation of cereals will migrate northwards under the projected climate change:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/gWVXQ.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/gWVXQ.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>However, they highlight the challenges for cultivation in high latitudes, which present a much more dramatic seasonal contrast that traditional crop lands:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>By 2099, roughly 76% of the boreal region might reach
  crop feasible conditions, compared to the current 32%. The leading
  edge of the feasible conditions will shift northwards. <strong>However, most of the
  newly gained areas are associated with highly seasonal and monthly
  variations in climatic water balances</strong>, a critical component of any
  future land-use and management decisions.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>[the cite above was edited for simplification and context]</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-31T21:07:33.190Z
i just want to add,climate change means dryer dry and wetter wet so even if it is possible to grow food the crop will fail more often.in2018 we had a very dry summer in the entire north europe,scandinavia where hard hit we had to put down lots of livestock because of lack of food for the winter.
trond hansen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-31T21:09:00.210Z
australia do have this problem almost every year now.
trond hansen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-07T14:15:10.820Z
The bottom line is: We'll lose good land to gain more poor land. Also, note this boreal land is actually lacking the infrastructure to be useful/habitable even if temperatures raises
jean
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-31T20:04:02.920Z
2019-01-31T20:41:43.813Z
2019-01-31T20:41:43.813Z
Camilo Rada
<p>I think a large portion of the earth's land is unusable from being too cold and land that is too hot does not have enough water and dries out which could be fixed by diverging water to those areas.</p>

<p>Then there is the sea levels rising so some land will be underwater but that will be an insignificant amount compared to the amount of new usable land, not to mention we could reshape land in those areas to prevent it from being underwater.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-30T17:10:59.663Z
Could use some clarification: Unusable for what purpose? There is a great deal of land in areas that are too cold to grow crops, for example -- but that land may be rocky, lacking in topsoil, or otherwise unsuitable for agriculture even if it were warmer.
jeffronicus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-30T19:20:09.757Z
the amount of land will stay the same minus what is lost to the sea,the type of use will change.
trond hansen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-30T19:36:55.053Z
Think on earth as a closed system, it means as temperature roses energy increases. Distribuition of those energies is not uniform and once a while they concentrate in a point in time and place. We call it storms, typhoons, etc. That means extremes of climates (dry, rain, hot, cold) and extreme events (twists, storms, hurricanes, floods, blizards) will be more frequent. How do you think those events will affect land usage on the long term?
jean
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-30T21:47:27.873Z
I think temperature is the primary factor for whether crops can be grown to be farmed. We can transform most land to be farmable as long as the temperature is correct for crops to be grown. Also in general a lot of land is far too cold to be inhabited comfortably and raising the temperature by a few degrees doesn't seem bad. https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/965021/Climate-change-effect-global-warming-farming-land Apparently we can get a lot more farmable land.
Matthew Liu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-30T23:33:31.947Z
@MatthewLiu The publication cited there, "Northward shift of the agricultural climate zone under 21st-century global climate change," says 955,000 square kilometers of boreal land might have enough growing degree days (GDD) to support cereal production by 2099, assuming a host of issues are addressed. There are currently about 31 million km2 of arable land on earth now.
jeffronicus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-31T17:48:07.340Z
@MatthewLiu Think again. Soil+sun+rain are the determinant for failure/success of crops. Taking land from previous sea bed mean it's too salty, from tundra it's nutrient poor (lack of life for ages), also high latitude means less sun overall. Global warming means more trouble for today high agricultural regions. We ill lost much more crops than we can get, it's a lose-lose situation really
jean
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-31T19:54:34.177Z
Also foget about tabloids, find the real thing, like this: Read and try to figure out the true history https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26321-8
jean
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-01T19:36:34.640Z
Related?: [Will global warming lead to agriculture in the Arctic?](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/12207/will-global-warming-lead-to-agriculture-in-the-arctic/12211#12211) In my Answer there I point out that there is some northern agriculture in a narrow corridor in Alberta, but the rest of northern Canada is not suitable due to soil conditions.
Keith McClary
<climate-change><climate><geography><gis>
Would more or less land be usable if global temperatures rose?
Matthew Liu
# Would more or less land be usable if global temperatures rose?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-01-30)

I think a large portion of the earth's land is unusable from being too cold and land that is too hot does not have enough water and dries out which could be fixed by diverging water to those areas.

Then there is the sea levels rising so some land will be underwater but that will be an insignificant amount compared to the amount of new usable land, not to mention we could reshape land in those areas to prevent it from being underwater.

**Tags:** climate-change, climate, geography, gis

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Could use some clarification: Unusable for what purpose? There is a great deal of land in areas that are too cold to grow crops, for example -- but that land may be rocky, lacking in topsoil, or otherwise unsuitable for agriculture even if it were warmer.  
> **username_2**: the amount of land will stay the same minus what is lost to the sea,the type of use will change.  
> **username_3**: Think on earth as a closed system, it means as temperature roses energy increases. Distribuition of those energies is not uniform and once a while they concentrate in a point in time and place. We call it storms, typhoons, etc. That means extremes of climates (dry, rain, hot, cold) and extreme events (twists, storms, hurricanes, floods, blizards) will be more frequent. How do you think those events will affect land usage on the long term?  
> **username_0**: I think temperature is the primary factor for whether crops can be grown to be farmed. We can transform most land to be farmable as long as the temperature is correct for crops to be grown. Also in general a lot of land is far too cold to be inhabited comfortably and raising the temperature by a few degrees doesn't seem bad. https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/965021/Climate-change-effect-global-warming-farming-land Apparently we can get a lot more farmable land.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 The publication cited there, "Northward shift of the agricultural climate zone under 21st-century global climate change," says 955,000 square kilometers of boreal land might have enough growing degree days (GDD) to support cereal production by 2099, assuming a host of issues are addressed. There are currently about 31 million km2 of arable land on earth now.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 Think again. Soil+sun+rain are the determinant for failure/success of crops. Taking land from previous sea bed mean it's too salty, from tundra it's nutrient poor (lack of life for ages), also high latitude means less sun overall. Global warming means more trouble for today high agricultural regions. We ill lost much more crops than we can get, it's a lose-lose situation really  
> **username_3**: Also foget about tabloids, find the real thing, like this: Read and try to figure out the true history https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26321-8  
> **username_4**: Related?: [Will global warming lead to agriculture in the Arctic?](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/12207/will-global-warming-lead-to-agriculture-in-the-arctic/12211#12211) In my Answer there I point out that there is some northern agriculture in a narrow corridor in Alberta, but the rest of northern Canada is not suitable due to soil conditions.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2019-01-31. Score: 8 | Accepted answer

Yes. current climate change will most likely increase the amount of cultivable lands on Earth. However, it will at a high social cost and **at the expense of biodiversity**, and I can't emphasize enough the paramount importance of biodiversity for the heath of ecosystems and human food safety.

Consider also that similarly to mining, where the value of a deposit is related not only to the total amount of mineral but also to its concentration, we have to consider also how intensive is the food production allowed by a piece of land. In this regard, climate change can lead to the loss of highly productive areas, compensated only by the gain of large expanses of nutrient poor soils in the tundra.

You should also consider the social impacts of the degradation of current cultivation lands and the economic costs of moving food production pole-wards.

To answer this question with some degree of certainty is extraordinarily complex, because we don't know how exactly climate will change, but several studies have addressed this problem. A good example is [The global distribution of cultivable lands: current patterns and sensitivity to possible climate change](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1466-822x.2002.00294.x). There they point that:

> We estimate that climate change, as simulated by global climate
> models, will expand cropland suitability by an additional 16%, mainly
> in the Northern Hemisphere high latitudes. However, the tropics
> (mainly Africa, northern South America, Mexico and Central America and
> Oceania) will experience a small decrease in suitability due to
> climate change.

Figure 4 of the paper shows the current "land suitability index" worldwide.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/YmMgb.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/YmMgb.png)

You can see how the north of America and Eurasia show large expanses (although quite exaggerated by the map projection) of land not suitable for cultivation due to the cold temperatures.
This data can be downloaded [here](https://nelson.wisc.edu/sage/data-and-models/atlas/maps.php?datasetid=19&includerelatedlinks=1&dataset=19), and I've used it to plot the following figure that shows the mean cultivation suitability index as a function of latitude. It is also plotted the land area as a function of latitude as derived from [ETOPO](https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/global.html):

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/UkDPh.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/UkDPh.png)

As you can see, pole-wards of 56° there is a significant amount of land of which none is suitable for cultivation. However, it is clear that temperature is not the whole picture, and aridity around 25° of latitude can significantly drop cultivation suitability.

I found interesting to see that the left (equator-wards) side of the main peak in cultivation suitability currently at 37° lies at a latitude with a lot of land, so if that end is lost to aridity, the gain of land on its (right) pole-wards end will be smaller due to the downwards trends of land area towards the pole. Nevertheless, as I mentioned, models suggest climate change will increase the overall land surface suitable for agriculture.

Another study: [Northward shift of the agricultural climate zone under 21st-century global climate change](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-26321-8). Focus on temperature and shows in Fig. 1 how the line that divides temperature regime suitable from cultivation of cereals will migrate northwards under the projected climate change:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/gWVXQ.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/gWVXQ.png)

However, they highlight the challenges for cultivation in high latitudes, which present a much more dramatic seasonal contrast that traditional crop lands:

> By 2099, roughly 76% of the boreal region might reach
> crop feasible conditions, compared to the current 32%. The leading
> edge of the feasible conditions will shift northwards. **However, most of the
> newly gained areas are associated with highly seasonal and monthly
> variations in climatic water balances**, a critical component of any
> future land-use and management decisions.

[the cite above was edited for simplification and context]

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: i just want to add,climate change means dryer dry and wetter wet so even if it is possible to grow food the crop will fail more often.in2018 we had a very dry summer in the entire north europe,scandinavia where hard hit we had to put down lots of livestock because of lack of food for the winter.  
> **username_2**: australia do have this problem almost every year now.  
> **username_3**: The bottom line is: We'll lose good land to gain more poor land. Also, note this boreal land is actually lacking the infrastructure to be useful/habitable even if temperatures raises  

---

