There’s been some concern lately over climate and agriculture. In the last few days we’ve had headlines such as:
Crops under stress as temperatures fall (UK Telegraph)
Canadian Wheat Output May Fall on Dry, Cool Weather (Bloomberg)
Southeastern Missouri farmers try to overcome wet spring, soggy crops (TV4 Kansas City)
About the same time as these stories I got an email from David Archibald that talks about shifts in growing areas in the USA and the increased yields we’ve seen in the past quarter century. The concern of course is that those gains may vanish with the advent of a quiet solar cycle:
Anthony,
The attached article, dated 30th December 2008, was noted on Icecap in early January.
The prediction in it appears to have been borne out by subsequent events. Note this report of widespread frosts:
Canada frosts the most widespread in recent memory (Reuters, also source of photo above)
Your readers may benefit from having it reposted on WUWT. It is a good example of the practical application of Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory, and thus solar science to practical matters at ground level.
David
Quantifying the US Agricultural Productivity Response to Solar Cycle 24
In 2006, The National Arbor Day Foundation updated the 1990 US Department of Agriculture map of plant hardiness zones for changes in the annual average minimum temperate over the intervening sixteen years.
That map is reproduced following:
Figure 1: US Plant Hardiness Zones from http://www.arborday.org/media/graphics/2006_zones.zip
Relative to the location of the zones in the 1990 USDA map, hardiness zones have shifted northward by the following amounts relative to the latitude band:
30° N 110 km northward shift
35° N 200 km northward shift
40° N 280 km northward shift
The improvement in growing conditions resulting from this northward shift in annual average minimum temperature caused an increase in agricultural productivity. Following is a graphic of the agricultural output of a number of US states accounting for 19% of US agricultural production:
Figure 2: Agricultural Productivity of Six US States 1960 to 2004.
Productivity is calibrated against Alabama’s production in 1996.
It is apparent from the graphic that there was a step change in the rate of increase of agricultural production at about the time the USDA plant hardiness zone map was created in 1990. Over the subsequent fourteen years, agricultural production in these six states rose 34%. The USDA state productivity data is available at:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/AgProductivity/table03.xls
A proportion of the increase would have been due to the introduction of GM crops and other changes in agricultural practices. Nevertheless, the productivity growth is substantial and coincident with improved climatic conditions.
The change in plant hardiness zones over the 1990 to 2006 period is explained by solar cycle length changes. Solar Cycle 20 from 1964 to 1976 was 11.6 years long. Solar Cycle 21 was shorter than average at 10.3 years and Solar Cycle 22 from 1986 to 1996 was very short at 9.6 years long. There is a correlation between solar cycle length and temperature over the following solar cycle. In the mid-latitudes of the US north-eastern seaboard, this is 0.7° C for each year of solar cycle length.
With the cumulative change in solar cycle length between Solar Cycle 20 and Solar Cycle 22 of two years, this would have translated to a 1.4º C increase in temperature by early this decade relative to early 1970s. This is reflected in the northward shift of plant hardiness zones as mapped by The National Arbor Day Foundation.
By virtue of a lack of Solar Cycle 23 sunspots, solar minimum of the Solar Cycle 23 to 24 transition appears to have been in late 2008. This makes Solar Cycle 23 three years long than its predecessor. Consequently, using the 0.7° C per year of solar cycle length relationship, there will be a 2.1º C decline in temperature of the mid-latitudes next decade during Solar Cycle 24.
Using the calibration provided by the climate shift caused by the Solar Cycle 20 to 22 change in solar cycle length, the following shifts in climatic zones, and thus growing conditions, are estimated:
30° N 160 km southward shift
35° N 300 km southward shift
40° N 420 km southward shift
Assuming that two thirds of the productivity increase in mid-western states from 1990 to 2004 was climatically driven, then the productivity decline in this region due to Solar Cycle 24 is expected to be of the order of 30%. The total US agricultural productivity decrease would be less than that at possibly 20%, equating to the export share of US agricultural production.
David Archibald
30th December, 2008
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
anna.v 04:23:26
I would give any article that has a ”Prince Charles” handle a short shift to the outhouse. I once was witness to an accident involving 2 buses in India 254 dead and about as many injured, ( have seen as many as 5 people between the steering wheel and the drivers door, ) in India you are a farmer if you rent enough dirt to stand on, suicides in India ( for a Hindu its a 100% no no ) are more likely to be otherwise related, you can sell your body for parts and make good money, and if there was a GM program you can bet your socks that the seeds were free, farmers do not buy seeds, there is the basic problem of money. its another world out there, and the propaganda machine relies on the western ignorance.
David Archibald
: the correlation between solar cycle length and northern hemisphere temperatures involves a time-lag component – such that there was much criticism based on the longer cycle lengths since cycle 22 coinciding with still rising temperatures (Lockwood and Frohlich, 2007 Royal Society paper) – and with little change in the other solar indicators from 1950-2000 (magnetic field, flux etc) or cosmic rays – but they published too early and the time-lag kicked in during 2007-2008, when the 11 year running average for temperature first turns downward;
I suggest in my review of the available science (Chill: a reassessment of global warming theory) just published, that during the solar minimum the jetstream shifts southward and when this is extended in long minimums or Maunder type quiet sun periods, then the year-on-year effect of the shifting cloud patterns in relation to ocean heat stores causes cooling
Jack Green: – NASA’s Drew Shindell did some work on this issue of the jetstream during the Maunder Minimum -a few years ago but that line of inquiry seems to have been abandoned – does anyone know why?
Stephen Wilde:
I think you have it right – a combination of solar effects and ocean oscillations – especially the PDO – but also the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation – which appears to be 60-100 years and could now be turning from warm phase to cold phase – it is marked with precisely the weather you indicate – a shift in high pressure systems from the Azores (replaced with lows) to Iceland (replacing the lows) – this system has a long-term multidecadal period and if the AMO now turns coincident with the cool phase of the PDO, then global temperatures will drop – who knows, maybe to -0.5 of the mean at its trough around 2030 before the PDO turns upward again.
Clearly – the solar cycle and the ocean cycles are linked – but the mechanisms are complex – a bit of Shindell (UV and polar vortex) and a bit of Svensmark (cosmic rays and clouds), but with strange phase shifts as occurred in 2001 with global cloud cover – after which the oceans stopped warming (from a heat content perspective). This shift occurred at solar maximum! Global cloud cover has remained pretty constant since then, but higher than the low point that followed the decline of 5% (1983-2000).
I recently corresponded with Hadley’s modellers on this topic – they have been trying to incorporate ocean cycles into shorter term projections (to 2020) and they expect a short pause in warming – measured in relation to ocean heat content – from 2002 to 2010, and thereafter, resurgence of warming. They see the ocean cycle as dampening the power of greenhouse gases but not by much. The problem is that I think they are still working with pre-Gouretski/Koltermann/Willis/Lyman/Palmer assessments of ocean heat content – but have to confirm this.
Our government will tomorrow issue new long-term projections to 2080 – after delaying the issue of projections that were due last November. It will be interesting to see whether they have factored in any of the latest science on ocean heat storage, and the role of aerosols and clouds in global dimming (not now regarded as caused by human pollution) – I don’t expect them to give much thought to the solar magnetic theory, nor do they appear to take much heed of the jetstream patterns.
John W. (06:11:29) :
rbateman (00:59:13) :
Many nations will not accept our GM exports. To them, it’s the equivalent of cardboard.
They aren’t hungry enough.
Yet.
It is never good to generalize. What if you country, during the last 5000 years has developed the majority of world crops, from potato, tomato, corn, etc, where there are more than a thousand varieties of each of these. As I told in another post, here in Peru we have (among other thousands) a yellow potato and a PURPLE CORN out of which it is obtained a beverage and many other foods.
Can you imagine what would it happend if these hybrid seeds were planted next to a field where this rare corn grows?
These seeds can not invade the food nursery of humanity.
Please don’t panick, what is needed is to see what happened during the LIA and take the needed policies to overcome the problem.
I affirm what PoFarmer says. What I’ve been told is that average corn yield improves about 1 bushel per acre per year – going back many decades – and largely due to improved genetics. In the last 4 or 5 years that may have jumped to 2 bu per acre per year. My understanding has been that corn is much easier to cross on a field scale because the male and female parts are separated on the plant.
The corn in northern Illinois also looks terrible. It looks to me like a lot may not be knee high by the fourth of July. And that old saying has not been relevant for 40 or 50 years. Normally corn should be head high or more by the fourth of July.
All the talk of global warming will end instantly if we were to have a crop shortfall significant enough to make national news. A cooling trend is much more worrisome than any warming trend. On the morning of June 5, 1859 there was an extensive frost in Ohio Indiana and Illinois. Of course, in 1859 agriculture in the corn belt was very primitive. It would probably be fair to say that the land was still being settled. If we had a June frost in the Northern cornbelt in this day and age the repercussions would be huge.
Peter Taylor (07:38:10) :
About David Archibald
According to Ivanka Charvatova, following the barycenter theory, after Jose, Landscheidt and others, points out the following:
Moving along the disordered orbit to 2035 AD. …, which is similar to that of the second half of the nineteenth century (Fig. 3b), the Sun should develop lower solar cycles (Rmax from 65 to 140) of very variable length from 9.6 to 12.3 years). The initial development of the cycle 23, now in its third year, confirms this for the present cycle
This disordered orbit began back in 1985 and will finish about 2040.
http://www.giurfa.com/charvatova.pdf
Nature’s underwhelming obituary for Jack Eddy
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/06/sunspot_veteran_dies_at_78.html
Julian Braggins (06:39:21) :
Steven Wilde, you may be interested in this,
Michael G Mirkin included this in post at the url below, he also linked it to Birkland’s Terella experiments and the recent NASA discovery of plasma bands encircling the globe in the equatorial region which may vary with the activity of the Sun
“The Discovery Channel article wrote:In an upcoming paper, Haigh’s team provides evidence that when the sun is more active, Earth’s jet streams weaken and shift toward the poles, taking with them storm tracks and weather systems that carry heat. The result is a subtle warming around Earth’s mid-latitudes.”
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1861&start=0
O/T comment here. There aren’t too many Haighs in the world so I was interested in this comment. I had a look at the article and Joanna Haigh is an atmospheric physicist with Imperial College in London. All Haighs originated in Yorkshire in England and we were all originally Vikings with the surname ‘Hauge’ from the Stavanger area of Southwest Norway. They first arrived in England in the 9th Century. Maybe Norway was too cold then? It warmed up in the MWP though.
There are two assumptions in this article:
– that solar cycle length is driving north american temperatures
– that temperatures (actually, minimum temperatures) are driving agricultural productivity, (or at least two third of it…)
This would need to be proven.
‘rbateman (00:59:13) :
Many nations will not accept our GM exports. To them, it’s the equivalent of cardboard.’
In Europe GM is not wanted because of the ‘Frakenstein’ effect. The unwashed masses and the MSM believe it to be too big a risk. It’s not about quality.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/oct/18/gm.food
cheers David
Weather is not Climate, it’s a time-slice instance of it.
Weather belongs to Climate.
At some point, if your time-slice is large enough, the distinctions between the two blur and you cannot tell at what point your Weather slice turned into Clmate.
Clever wording will not change 1 degree or alter the path of your “Weather/Climate”.
It doesn’t suffer from oversimplification or overcomplication.
It is not necessary to link Solar Inactivity to Weather/Climate Cooling.
You don’t need to find the mechanism.
All you need to know is that they coincide.
A cooling Weather/Climate progresses along in the same noisy/erratic manner as a warming Weather/Climate.
Rather, take a hard look at how quickly things cool as as opposed to how long it takes to wam them back up.
Start with the Ice Age records.
Then check out the literary history.
Then check out the modern times.
Do they all follow the same rates?
So, when I listened to the explanation on Good Morning America this morning, the man explained that this isn’t unusual (tornado season), it’s just plain late.
The reason they ran that?
It’s becoming very obvious to the nation that things are way behind where they should be.
It’s rewarding to now see so much support for the idea that the end of observed warming was most probably due to a solar/ocean combination and a natural weather system thermostat.
It follows that the 20th Century warming phases (such as they were after stripping out UHI effects) were products of the same phenomena.
When I started banging on about such matters on various blogs over 2 years ago I met with disbelief and hostility but the real world has provided credibilty and similar ideas with useful variants are now coming to the fore from others.
It was the unusual (at the time) nature of my posts that led to an invitation to submit original material to the new climate sceptic site climaterealists.com (then known as CO2sceptics.com).
It has been an enjoyable ride despite the stress and work involved and I look forward to future developments.
Sites like this and the intelligence of the contributors are clearly a new way of progressing scientific endeavour and fortunately they have come to the fore just as the worldwide scientific establishments congealed into grant slaves of the political elites.
Now, lets find some way of measuring and monitoring the average net jet stream positions so that we can see how closely and quickly (or not) they react to net changes in the Earth’s energy budget and/or changes in ocean SSTs.
We need some proper observational science done as a replacement for the Playstation computer methods of recent years.
I see that as the key to the whole climate debate.
anna v (04:23:26) :
tallbloke (01:05:54) :
Monsanto would disagree. They have been making fat profit on the back of naturally increasing yields.
And scams?
I assumed that most of you knew what GM crops were. If I was wrong, the genetic modification in Roundup Ready corn and soybeans involves incorporating a bacterial version of an enzyme that induces tolerance to glyphosate, or Roundup, (from Agrobacterium species, strain CP4) into the plant, giving it tolerance to Roundup, a non-selective herbicide. In this way, the soybeans or corn and any weeds can be sprayed with Roundup, killing the weeds and leaving the crops. Other modifications include a natural insecticide from Bacillus Thurngensis, reduction in linolenic acid, and others. All modifications to date do not improve crop yield directly. (They are working on modifying the chloroplast in C3 plants, but that’s a ways off, and I think they are physiologically incorrect in assumed results.) The reduction in weed competition and/or insect damage should increase yields. Other modifications improve crop utility or value. The majority of yield increases is related to increased precipitation, associated with warming temperature:
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl
Adolfo Giurfa (07:45:24) :
It is never good to generalize. What if you country, during the last 5000 years has developed the majority of world crops, from potato, tomato, corn, etc, where there are more than a thousand varieties of each of these. As I told in another post, here in Peru we have (among other thousands) a yellow potato and a PURPLE CORN out of which it is obtained a beverage and many other foods.
You raise a reasonable point. But there is a difference between banning GM seeds because of the concerns you raise, and banning GM produce because of unscientific hysteria.
Ice (08:20:39) :
There are two assumptions in this article:
– that solar cycle length is driving north american temperatures
– that temperatures (actually, minimum temperatures) are driving agricultural productivity, (or at least two third of it…)
This would need to be proven.
Yes. Evidence supporting the first hypothesis is emerging as we speak (or write). If solar activity remains low, and we get an early onset of winter conditions in the Northern Hemisphere, corresponding to the prolonged winter conditions already experienced, then we have evidence for the first hypothesis.
As to the second, any farmer from the last 10,000 years could confirm to you that, yes, when he can’t plant early enough to get a full growing cycle in before freezing/frost kills the unripened crop, his family goes hungry. Consider the hypothesis “that temperatures (actually, minimum temperatures) are driving agricultural productivity” as proved by 10,000 years of human experience.
Personally, your last point seems to be trolling, and not very bright trolling at that. You should at least try to be witty and entertaining instead of thoughtlessly inane.
smallz79 (03:54:42) :
Any way, I hope someone somewhere is having a better “real” summer.
Summer in Greece is right on time, June is a bit on the higher than average heat where I am, Athens area. The average maximum for June is 29C and we have been going over for half the time. Swimming is fine since the waters are also about right.
I remember one year, when it was cool and rainy like this in North Europe, suddenly we were swarmed by unexpected tourists coming helter skelter to get some sun.
At times we get what I call “air conditioned summers”, temperatures not over 34 C and lovely north winds blowing. Maybe this will be one of those years. The islands are always comfortable , though windy.
Some years July can hit 46C for a few days, dry heat from the Sahara.
Pofarmer gave a nice summary of the effects of the current GM crops on yield (i.e. not much in the US), so increases in yield per acre can be attributed to breeding, temperature and increased CO2. Corn in particular is incredibly efficient at taking CO2 out of the air so even small increases will make a difference.
New varieties make the biggest difference , but this may also be linked to temperature. If you can get earlier planting you can use a longer season crop which often correlates to higher yield. Conversely, later planting, shorter season and lower yield. Often it is the choice of variety that determines yield and if you expect a longer growing season, you breed/plant a variety that can make the most of it.
I could go on boringly great length about investment in plant breeding, but I think the point I would like to make is that plant breeding is going to be critical to how we deal with climate change. Whatever is causing it, (not CO2, but it hardly matters as we can’t stop it happening), we will have to adapt – as we have in the past. If the increased total production in North America has been due to higher temperatures, then a fall in those temperatures is going to be very bad. North America is the world’s animal feed basket (demand for which is increasing faste than food per se as richer people eat more meat) and we are seeing mounting pressure on this from biofuels. If yields drop we will see more pressure to increase acreage either on marginal land or clearing of uncultivated land.
To those people who criticise Monsanto, at least they are investing in plant breeding – which is more than can be said for most governments.
Sorry, I’ll get down from my soap-box now.
Freak Beijing storm turns day into night
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/5656336/freak-beijing-storm-turns-day-into-night/
I wonder what the temperature was?
Mike
Crop losses to water shortage may exceed those from all other causes combined (Kramer, 1980).
Also:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/3/3/034003/ and:
Contribution of Planting Date Trends to Increased Maize Yields in the Central United States
Christopher J. Kucharik*
Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE), The Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, 1710 University Avenue, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53726
Early planting of maize (Zea mays L.) allows for longer-season hybrids to be used in cool temperate regions. Given that a multidecadal trend toward earlier planting has been occurring across the Corn Belt, it was hypothesized that this shift has supported a portion of recent yield increases. The objectives were to quantify relationships among state level monthly climate variables, maize yields, and planting dates, and to investigate whether multidecadal trends of earlier planting contributed to rising yields during 1979 to 2005 in 12 central U.S. states. Year-to-year changes (i.e., first differences) of predictor variables (monthly mean temperature and precipitation and planting date) and yields were calculated, and multiple linear regression was used to estimate the effect of planting date trends on maize yield increases. In six of the 12 states, a significant relationship (P < 0.05) existed between first differences of planting dates and yields. Multiple linear regression suggested that the management change has potentially contributed between 19 and 53% of the state level yield increases in Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Yield increases between 0.06 and 0.14 Mg ha–1 were attributed to each additional day of earlier planting, which likely reflects a gradual adoption of longer-season hybrids. Thus, if these earlier planting trends were to suddenly abate, a falloff in annual yield increases may follow in several Corn Belt states. Maize production in northern U.S. states appears to have benefited more significantly from earlier planting due to a shorter growing season in contrast to more southern locations.
Estimated yield losses this year are based on delayed planting.
TIm Clark
I think you’ve got a chicken or egg thing there with early planting. Granted earlier planting of both corn and soybeans has generally led to higher yields. But, is the earlier planting due to weather changes? Hybrid changes? or cultural practices?
My bet is a little bit of all three.
Michael Ronayne (09:47:17) :
Freak Beijing storm turns day into night
Most probably the consequence of the Kuriles island volcano:
From WUWT “Quote of the week” post
Link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/5534069/Volcanic-eruption-creates-giant-cloud-threatening-planes.html
Tim Clark (08:40:34) :
“anna v (04:23:26) :
“”tallbloke (01:05:54) :
Monsanto would disagree. They have been making fat profit on the back of naturally increasing yields.””
And scams?”
I assumed that most of you knew what GM crops were.
For scam I was talking of the lure described in the article I linked to buy GM seed with the promise of higher yiled and become bankrupt much more than if you had bought the seeds from the home providers, or even kept seeds from the previous crop, as was the traditional way.
Am I wrong that the GM crop is sterile and cannot be used to produce next year’s crop? How can that be healthy?
Personally I do not like pesticides with my food, and would prefer natural pest control or even living with pests as people have for maybe million of years. To incorporated them in the genes is terrible, imho. I have read some articles that the bee devestation in the US is due to these genetic pesticides.
This is out of topic, but monoculture, controlled by a few corporations with patents on genes is a suicidal way for humanity to go, particularly if a little ice age is in the making. It is diversity that helps survival.
Kum Dollison:
Wheat didn’t increase much. Nor did Beans. Just corn exploded.
Oh, wheat didn’t go GM. Beans? Nope. Corn went GM. It was, mostly (really, really mostly) GM Seeds.
Soybeans are heavily GM. Fewer and fewer acres conventional beans grown each year. As a plant breeder, I know that much of the increase is GM seeds, but not all.
anna v:
Am I wrong that the GM crop is sterile and cannot be used to produce next year’s crop? How can that be healthy?
Yes, you are incorrect. GM soybeans are not sterile. Soybeans are self-pollinated and seed from GM soybeans could be used for seed the next year. EULA agreements between farmers and seed companies are the reason why seed is not saved.
Modern seed corn is a hybrid, can’t save that seed anyway.
hareynolds (06:48:46) :
(b) Has anybody noticed the 10.7cm solar flux number? It just dropped to 67.
How many times must it be said that 10.7 also depends on the distance to the Sun. The reason for the low values recently is that we are approaching the point in the Earth’s orbit where we are farthest from the Sun. Has nothing to do with solar activity ‘flatlining’ or ‘dropping’. F10.7 has in fact been increasing since November of last year.
REPLY: Maybe I need to do a post on this again – Anthony
Corn needs HEAT and WATER to grow well. Planting it earlier only works if there is no frost that will kill the seedlings. Corn is very susceptible to frost.
In Texas, early planting (March 15) allows the corn to use the large amounts of soil moisture that are typically present in the early spring and to get adequate water when blooming due to the 3-4 inch rains that come once or twice in May. By June1, most corn is fully eared out and by July 1 it is ready for harvest. This year, the corn is very late as only about half the fields have bloomed so far. The harvest will likely occur in August for North Texas. This is very late.
You can also look at hay cuttings. Up until last year, Mother’s Day was the traditional first cutting. This year and last, the first cutting for warm season hay has yet to occur.
GM has not had much of an effect. GM corn has two basic varieties – herbicide resistance genes (glyphosate) and BT genes ( a naturally occurring insecticide). The first allows farmers to spray roundup on their fields after emergence and before the corn closes its canopy over the soil – thus killing the weeds that would compete with the corn for both water and nutrients. In the past, farmers had to to use mechanical means to uproot the weeds. The BT gene prevents attacks by corn root worm which gives the plant more access to water and nutrients while preventing the farmer from having to spray the fields to control it. GM is thus a cost-containment strategy and not a yield-increasing strategy. If a farmer has a weed-free field and little evidence of pests, there is no need for GM.
Yield is driven by many factors – heat and water and then nutrients, then planting care – seed bed, seed depth, plant placement, and then harvest factors.