That certainly hasn't been the case in the midwest this year, nor was it in 2012, nor was it the case in the Ukraine shortly before their cessation of wheat exports triggered (according to many analysis) the arab spring protests. Having studied plant life quite a bit, I'd like to expand on the idea that CO2 increases wheat (or any) plant growth. Plants are all limited by the least available nutrient -- whether that's CO2, Nitrogen, water, or sunlight. While increasing CO2 can increase the rate of photosynthesis when it is the limiting nutrient, that is almost never the case. Water is probably the limiting nutrient in most environments, and increasing CO2 leads to the loss of the temperature differential between the arctic and the poles that drives the jet stream. That's putting huge "meanders" into the jet stream, which is why we now get stuck in extended super wet or super dry conditions that last much longer than historic norms. That's exactly why the forests where I used to be a forester (Washington state) are now dying, and that's exactly why the midwest farmers have been getting inundated this year, and is why the Atacama desert in Chile experienced unprecedented rainfall and the Amazon rainforest dried out and started burning.
If we assume that CO2 levels are the thermostat that determines our temperature (which has historically been the case) more than most other factors, we're already set to a 7 degree (c) rise above current temps (most scientists doubt humans would survive even half that). I personally don't expect any of us will be here more than 20 years as a result. The oceans -- which are far more sensitive to temperature change than terrestrial environments -- aren't doing well. Most coral reefs are either dead of visibly dying, plankton levels have already dropped 50% since the 1950's, and heat waves are killing sea life in temperate zones all over the globe. The arctic at this very moment is surrounded by peat fires -- something which is unprecedented, and methane bubbling up from the arctic seafloor suggests that this positive feedback loop (with the undoubted potential to end most higher life forms) is already in motion. Look around -- forests in Germany, California, Washington State, Sweden... wherever you look, they're dying, either directly from drought or the resulting forest fires.
I often wonder if I should bring this up or not. Is it better for a doctor to tell a dying man that he only has a few months left, or is it better to let him be surprised by the fact? I tend to come down on the side that the discomfort of foreknowledge helps one to prepare for greater discomfort later. Is it better to just let people cling to the various comforting forms of denial (we might enter a mini ice age?), or is it better to pour water on such theories. I've worked in a climate change lab, and have studied the science for decades now. While I like the idea of a drop in solar activity saving our collective fannies, I don't see it as a likely outcome. The maunder minimum -- which resulted during a period of low solar activity -- resulted in a .5 degree (c) temperature drop. We're already +1.5 degrees and climbing rapidly, so at most it might delay our trip into the oven by a few short years.
And, in accordance with the initial subject of this thread, my wife makes fantastic bread -- sourdough -- baked in our woodstove. For anyone with gluten sensitivities, this older method ("quick rise yeast" didn't come about until the late 1800s -- and makes for a less digestible product) helps to break down that molecule, and makes a damn fine bread!
