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
Many nations will not accept our GM exports. To them, it’s the equivalent of cardboard.
Cardboard or hunger. Tough decision.
Great to see this thread. ‘cos plants don’t lie, don’t have to skew research to keep their funding, or whatever. And agricultural stats (like the aforementioned milk solids kg/ha) are both ubiquitous and heavily relied on by folks with skin in the game, like banksters.
As that old geezer Leonard Cohen sang (‘Anthem’)
There is a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in.
And this particular crack – plants’ response to their environment – may well prove to be the very one that the light shines through. Hopefully, in time to prevent too many blood (well, ok, your tax dollars) sacrifices on the Holy Altar of AGW.
The Weather Channel seems to avoid talking about cooler weather. If they do mention it they sometimes remind us that cooler temps are temporary and that global warming is here for the long run.
From the front page of The Weather Channel web site today they are talking about the heat only in ~1/4 of the US while not mentioning the long standing unseasonable cold in ~3/4 of the US :
http://www.weather.com/?from=gn_logo_welcome
“Many nations will not accept our GM exports. To them, it’s the equivalent of cardboard.
They aren’t hungry enough.
Yet.”
A few years ago the Zambian population was certainly hungry enough, they were eating grass and soil because of the failure of the rains and the subsequent failure of the maize crop.
The US Government (not Monsanto) offered huge quantities of milling maize and seed maize for just about free. Fortunately a young Zambian agronomist checked just what was being offered.
It was a poisoned chalice.
The seed being offered was sterile, it had the so-called suicide gene. Anyone growing this crop could not save seed for the next year. Unfortunately, this is how almost all farming in Zambia works. The farmer saves seed from this year’s crop for next year. The bright agronomist spotted that, by accepting the sterile seed almost all of Zambia’s maize seed for the forthcoming year would have to be purchased. There are very, very few Zambian subsistence farmers who can afford to buy seed maize.
The Zambian Government decided to accept the US aid only if all of the maize was ground to maize flour (mealie meal, the Zambian staple food) in order to avert this problem.
The US Government declined to accept this condition of acceptance by an almost starving Third World country.
I emphasise “Government”, not a commercial company. There was no “Frankenstein” hysteria in Zambia about anything GM. The only block was the refusal by the Zambian Government to import maize seed which was infertile; this was completely at odds with the normal farming methods in the country and, if it had been allowed, would have paved the way to devastating famine.
Draw your own conclusions.
Jared (15:38:37) : Denver has yet to hit 80 in June. That is a record…
Haven’t you heard from The Weather Channel Jared? Regardless of this being a first since records were kept this is only temporary and global warming is with us for decades and centuries.
The seed being offered was sterile, it had the so-called suicide gene. ]
This is the first I’ve ever heard of any “suicide gene” except perhaps, experimentally in cotton. More than likely it was simply hybrid seed.
A new report from the White House on “Climate Change”.
One of thier predictions “For example, warming trends in coming decades are expected to reduce the lobster catch in the waters of the Northeast, increase the intensity of hurricanes in the Southeast and accelerate drought in the Southwest, it said.”
They apparently were not informed of the Sporer Minimum 1420 to 1570 (some say 1450 to 1550). , and the 3 MegaDroughts of the 14th, 15th & 16th Centuries.
Tree-ring reconstructed megadroughts
over North America since A.D. 1300
David W. Stahle & Falko K. Fye &
Edward R. Cook & R. Daniel Griffin
What warming trends?
I don’t see any warming trends.
I see definate signs of cooling trends, and a Deep Solar Minimum forming.
Isn’t this just lovely. Blame everything on warming trends.
Open the window and get some fresh air.
I will recant one thing from that article. I don’t think the month of solar minimum is in yet. Solar Cycle 23 could end up being 14 years long. In the absence of sunspots, it will be put in the middle of the F 10.7 quiet period. Another year of cooling means another 0.7 degrees C off mid-latitude temperatures.
I have updated solar activity graphs and they are posted on Warwick Hughes at:http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=224
I now think we are in for a Maunder Minimum rerun. The Sun is bleeding magnetic flux in a transition to a lower ground state. We don’t know yet which solar cycle ahead us will pull us out of that lower ground state, so that length can’t be predicted yet.
The inflection point in the Ap Index and the IMF is June 2008. In the fullness of time we will find out if the ocean cooling accelerated from that date.
Since the productivity graphs are for total farm output, you have to consider not only increases in yield per acre but increases in acres under tillage. This brings the ethanol boondoggle into the picture, as it was developing in the same time period as the accelerated growth in productivity. By the time ethanol peaked, crop rotation, which was pretty much the norm of farming practice, at least in the MN, IA, WS area I had occasion to observe, had virtually disappeared. Add in the effect of new seeds, and the growth enhancement of higher CO2 in the atmosphere and the contribution provided by climate variation starts to look less significant. Ethanol can also account for the anomaly of falling futures prices in the face of grim crop forecasts, since the whole industry is on life support throughout the Upper Midwest, which will mean a greatly diminished market come harvest time. Biodiesel isn’t doing much better, which will be a drag on the soybean price.
Weed control not only affects the yield per acre, but the total profit since once harvested and taken to the elevator to be sold, the price received can be greatly affected if the foreign matter is high, especially for soybeans. Even if two plots of soybeans had identical yields, if one had a high level of weed infestation the total revenue generated would be reduced.
Pofarmer (12:43:56) :
The farmer has to pay a “tech fee” if he or she elects to plant saved seed.
Actually, you can’t save GM seed at all. You sign a contract to that effect when you buy it, and it is enforced.
the tech fee is enforced.YES… A local seed cleaner was cleaning RR soybeans for years and seelling a few on the side as well. They caught him and fined the business around $120,000.00. It went into local High school scholar ship fund.
My apricots are a disaster, ZERO yield, a complete loss this year. My apples are 5 – 10% yield. My apple trees are already turning – it starts with the small leaves which never reached maturity every year – these started turning and falling two weeks ago. Now I am seeing the first large leaves. The few apples are about cherry sized and still fully green. They may never make it.
I’ve also noticed many of the (non native) birches found in landscaped, irrigated areas here are starting to turn.
They are sooooooo confused.
Anna V.:
Right you are — thank you kindly.
Harold
The jet stream in the Western US has been looped under it, holding a sizeable low that has produced much thunder, lightning, rain & hail. In a previous thread, we had a link to the forecast that has June cooler than normal for the West. Of course, their forecast models are all brown spots from July 2009 onwards. Reminds me of the Met Office getting the UK’s longrange forecasts upside down.
Gotta keep plugging in those coins to feed the Lucky AGW Slot model.
One-eyed bandit.
SteveSadlov (18:31:16) :
What locale are you in?
Tim Clark (09:53:39) :
The only reason my post is original is that the people who should be doing it – the USDA and the state universities – are way behind.
As Al Gore would say, taking liberties from Dilbert, “Stupid plants. Don’t they know it is getting warmer?”
rbateman (08:30:13) : “Weather is not Climate, . . .”
Historically climate was a pattern of weather. Look at the descriptions. Such as hot dry summers and cool wet winters or an alternative of wet summer and dry winter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification
A change in climate ought to mean a change in pattern and not just a fraction of a degree of temperature change without a change in pattern of all the things explained in the link above.
Leif Svalgaard (10:26:18) : the 10.7cm solar flux
This is one of several issues that appear in comments about once each week. Perhaps we could make a list and have it appear on the right side of the posts — there could be a 25 cent fine for anyone repeating these things, much like an office that has a fine if one swears. Every so often we could vote on where or to whom the accumulated cash goes. It might add up rapidly.
Mike D. (15:05:21) : “That squishy statistic . . .”
Such things as growing degree days are, at best, indicators and should be recognized as only giving an idea as to what is going on out in the fields, orchards, and vineyards. Daytime temps above the high 80s do not do wine grapes any good and where such temperatures are expected the growers often place misters among the vines. The evaporation lowers the temp and the vines keep growing.
I guess my point is you have generalized beyond the data.
John F. Hultquist (23:18:26) :
In the absence of sunspots, the F 10.7 is the remaining indicator of where we are in the solar cycle. A reading of 67 is only 2.5 or so above the theoretical minimum, and adjusted for aphelion/perihelion may be at the minimum. It would be more pertinent to have that little box quote the raw and the distance adjusted number. A reading of 67 means things are very flat no matter how much it is adjusted.
Dr Svalgaard, thanks for the reference to the polar fields.
Stephen Brown
The conclusion I draw if your story is true is that the seed being offered was GM,which is why it was a suicide gene.I do see a lot of holes in your story.If Zambia was not in a drought,why wouldn’t the UN provide seeds to the farmers?Looking up Zambia leads me to believe irrigation was the main problem.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Water_profile_of_Zambia
This lady is very wise in my opinion,but it will never happen.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1647433
David Archibald (00:14:21) :
A reading of 67 is only 2.5 or so above the theoretical minimum, and adjusted for aphelion/perihelion may be at the minimum.
There is no theoretical minimum. F10.7 is a measure of the temperature and density of the corona and those do not have theoretical minima [except the trivial one: zero]. Right now we are close to aphelion and the adjustment goes in the direction of a larger number. The ’67’ should be adjusted to 70.5 and is up from the value of 65 that was recorded at the minimum back in early December 2008.
Ice (10:38:31) :
To John W.
As for the first point, i would appreciate it if you could provide me with some references about the established links between North Am. (regional) temperatures and solar cycle length.
That hypothesis is discussed on multiple threads here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Including this one.
As for the second point, there are an awful lot of other factors that can affect trends in agricultural productivity …
however i find it hard to believe that temperatures are THE major driver of this recent increase in crop yields ….
Many factors affect agricultural yield. However, your original point only addressed one: “that temperatures (actually, minimum temperatures) are driving agricultural productivity, (or at least two third of it…).”
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. A growing season shortened due to prolonged winter conditions early in the year, and early onset of winter condition later in the year, will result in lower yields. Any farmer from the last 10,000 years could explain that to you. That is the reason current agricultural forecasts for the entire Northern Hemisphere are dismal – as in 15% to 25% lower than normal.
Or were you simply having trouble staying with the thread of the discussion point you raised?
to john W.
I was talking about papers in scientific journals, not blog posts.
“Or were you simply having trouble staying with the thread of the discussion point you raised?”
I have no trouble. I’m perfectly fine with the notion of temperature-limited plant cycle lengths, and thereby limited crop yield. I’m simply saying there could be other reasons explaining the increase in american crop yields over recent decades (after 1990). I’m ready to believe that positive trends in t° could be one of the main reasons why crop yields increased in northern USA (Minnesota, for instance). I doubt it is the only one, and i doubt it is the case everywhere (Georgia, Mississipi, etc.). And BTW, what about the increase before 1990 ? and what about the increase in yields in Europe ? in other parts of the world ? T°-driven everywhere ?
Just like you i could say “more CO2 is good for crops. Any plant physiologist can explain that to you. Atmospheric CO2 has increased. Consequently, the increase in yields must result from the increase in CO2”. This is not proving anything.
Your point about yield forecast is irrelevant. Weather conditions can perfectly drive interannual variability in yields, in terms of anomalies, without driving the underlying positive trend.
As I said, sorting out the factors explaining that trend (technology, climate, environment…)is not straightforward. Any agroclimatologist could explain that to you.
Stephen Wilde (08:31:40) :
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.
Stephen,
You make a very good point here and I agree.
But we also need honest government.
We are now ruled by spin doctors who lie and cheet us into poverty.
Proper science and monitoring won’t change that.
This is a political and educational problem.