I found this press release on the UC Davis website interesting, because it discusses something new to me, “winter chill”. I found it interesting. But immediately, I thought of this study on irrigation by Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
Irrigation most likely to blame for Central California warming
Given that the UC Davis researchers seem to have only looked at temperature records to establish trends, it looks like they may have missed a significant contributor to the trends – increased humidity due to irrigation. – Anthony
From UC Davis News: Warming Climate Threatens California Fruit and Nut Production
July 21, 2009
|
|
|
Winter chill, a vital climatic trigger for many tree crops, is likely to decrease by more than 50 percent during this century as global climate warms, making California no longer suitable for growing many fruit and nut crops, according to a team of researchers from the University of California, Davis, and the University of Washington.
In some parts of California’s agriculturally rich Central Valley, winter chill has already declined by nearly 30 percent, the researchers found.
“Depending on the pace of winter chill decline, the consequences for California’s fruit and nut industries could be devastating,” said Minghua Zhang, a professor of environmental and resource science at UC Davis.
Also collaborating on the study were Eike Luedeling, a postdoctoral fellow in UC Davis’ Department of Plant Sciences and UC Davis graduate Evan H. Girvetz, who is now a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Washington, Seattle. Their study appears July 22 in the online journal PLoS ONE.
The study is the first to map winter chill projections for all of California, which is home to nearly 3 million acres of fruit and nut trees that require chilling. The combined production value of these crops was $7.8 billion in 2007, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
“Our findings suggest that California’s fruit and nut industry will need to develop new tree cultivars with reduced chilling requirements and new management strategies for breaking dormancy in years of insufficient winter chill,” Luedeling said.
About winter chill
Most fruit and nut trees from nontropical locations avoid cold injury in the winter by losing their leaves in the fall and entering a dormant state that lasts through late fall and winter.
In order to break dormancy and resume growth, the trees must receive a certain amount of winter chill, traditionally expressed as the number of winter chilling hours between 32 and 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Each species or cultivar is assumed to have a specific chilling requirement, which needs to be fulfilled every winter.
Insufficient winter chill plays havoc with flowering time, which is particularly critical for trees such as walnuts and pistachios that depend on male and female flowering occurring at the same time to ensure pollination and a normal yield.
Planning for a warmer future
Fruit and nut growers commonly use established mathematical models to select tree varieties whose winter chill requirements match conditions of their local area. However, those mathematical models were calibrated based on past temperature conditions, and establishing chilling requirements may not remain valid in the future, the researchers say. Growers will need to include likely future changes in winter chill in their management decisions.
“Since orchards often remain in production for decades, it is important that growers now consider whether there will be sufficient winter chill in the future to support the same tree varieties throughout their producing lifetime,” Zhang said.
To provide accurate projections of winter chill, the researchers used hourly and daily temperature records from 1950 and 2000, as well as 18 climate scenarios projected for later in the 21st century.
They introduced the concept of “safe winter chill,” the amount of chilling that can be safely expected in 90 percent of all years. They calculated the amount of safe winter chill for each scenario and also quantified the change in area of a safe winter chill for certain crop species.
New findings
The researchers found that in all projected scenarios, the winter chill in California declined substantially over time. Their analysis in the Central Valley, where most of the state’s fruit and nut production is located, found that between 1950 and 2000, winter chill had already declined by up to 30 percent in some regions.
Using data from climate models developed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (2007), the researchers projected that winter chill will have declined from the 1950 baseline by as much as 60 percent by the middle of this century and by up to 80 percent by the end of the century.
Their findings indicate that by the year 2000, winter chill had already declined to the point that only 4 percent of the Central Valley was still suitable for growing apples, cherries and pears — all of which have high demand for winter chill.
The researchers project that by the end of the 21st century, the Central Valley might no longer be suitable for growing walnuts, pistachios, peaches, apricots, plums and cherries.
“The effects will be felt by growers of many crops, especially those who specialize in producing high-chill species and varieties,” Luedeling said. “We expect almost all tree crops to be affected by these changes, with almonds and pomegranates likely to be impacted the least because they have low winter chill requirements.”
Developing alternatives
The research team noted that growers may be able change some orchard management practices involving planting density, pruning and irrigation to alleviate the decline in winter chill. Another option would be transitioning to different tree species or varieties that do not demand as much winter chill.
There are also agricultural chemicals that can be used to partially make up for the lack of sufficient chilling in many crops, such as cherries. A better understanding of the physiological and genetic basis of plant dormancy, which is still relatively poorly understood, might point to additional strategies to manage tree dormancy, which will help growers cope with the agro-climatic challenges that lie ahead, the researchers suggested.
Funding for this study was provided by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and The Nature Conservancy.
About UC Davis
For 100 years, UC Davis has engaged in teaching, research and public service that matter to California and transform the world. Located close to the state capital, UC Davis has 31,000 students, an annual research budget that exceeds $500 million, a comprehensive health system and 13 specialized research centers. The university offers interdisciplinary graduate study and more than 100 undergraduate majors in four colleges — Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Biological Sciences, Engineering, and Letters and Science — and advanced degrees from six professional schools — Education, Law, Management, Medicine, Veterinary Medicine and the Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing.
Media contact(s):
• Minghua Zhang, Land, Air and Water Resources, (530) 752-4953, mhzhang@ucdavis.edu
• Eike Luedeling, Plant Sciences, (530) 574-3794, eluedeling@ucdavis.edu
• Pat Bailey, UC Davis News Service, (530) 752-9843, pjbailey@ucdavis.edu

Or is water management the bigger threat?
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/drought/2009-07-27-drycalifornia_N.htm
Think Life.
I admit I didn’t read your ramblings all the way through.
For USA temps see http://i44.tinypic.com/29dwsj7.gif
Now tell me that the past 50 years have seen unprecedented warming in the USA Lower 48!
Hansen was forced to correct errors with respect to 1934 & 1998 & their relative temps back in 2007. Turns out ’34 was warmer than ’98…
BUT was it? Not now! Last time I looked, they were tied. WUWT?
DaveE
To Thinklife. We haven’t had such a laugh here since Gary Strand! At least he used his real name.
ThinkLife
You babble on for miles unnecessarily.
Your entire point can be condensed to a sentence.
How dare you ordinary people question real scientists.
It may come as a shock to you but your real scientists are
just flawed people.
In my view there are two aspects to this.
Human nature and the climate.
One eternally unchanging the other eternally changing.
We have no ability to modify human nature. That debate IS over.
The debate regarding mans effect on the climate IS NOT over.
To say so is the height of arrogance. An example of the first aspect.
Well… now that I’ve had a chance to catch my breath (laughing convulsively for over an hour HAS to be bad for you, right?)…
Well, “Thinklife”… let’s sum this up: anyone who doesn’t see the world the way you do is stupid. Is that about it?
“Chocolate Jesus”? Are you serious?
Man, that post is going out to my email list… most of whom will think it was made up as a parody of a clueless git…
CodeTech (08:46:59) :
Thanks for the Chocolate Jesus quote. I would never have read all of that post without it LOL
Fine rhetoric ThinkLife and about as much science in it as you will find on RealClimate.
One thing you notice about RC is that they don’t actually publish any data, at least not before it’s been tortured sufficiently to confess 😉
DaveE.
Think Life-simply put: give a college kid a beer and a couple of Joints and they think they are H.L.Menken.
There must be consensus. There MUST be consensus. THERE MUST BE CONSENSUS!!!!!!!!!!!
yawn…….
The need for consensus in this lunatic alarmist crowd supersedes the need for the scientific method. Consensus is only good as long as it holds up. Here is a fine recent example. Gavin and Mann and the others are ever vigilant to knock down any challenge to their model of the way global warming works. Fine. This in of itself is not a criticism. Most, if not all scientists are very passionate about their work. But it goes far beyond that. What the folks at RealClimate and others try to do is shut people up, and not allow any challenge to their pet theories. The scientific method demands that it be tested, poked, and prodded, and not just buy the select few that the “consensus” approves of, but by all comers. ThinkLife, this is not acceptable to you or the so called consensus. You must be right, at the expense of both the economy and science.
This whole thing has become a circular argument anyway. We say some of the methodologies used to prove AGW are wrong, and the AGW’ers come back and say that we’re wrong because their methodologies say we’re wrong. Well, I would say there is a problem. You’re finding more and more published, peer reviewed literature that drifts from the alarmist biased studies published just a few years ago, and now the AGW’ers find themselves more and more relying on older, outdated studies to prove their point, a criticism that used to be aimed our way. The bottom line here is, the real-world measurements are, at the moment not conforming to the predicted path of the models – slowing temp rise in both surface and troposphere temps, and slowed ocean level rise in both Atlantic and Pacific Oceans with most of the recent rise occurring in the Indian Ocean. I absolutely agree it’s way too soon to start sending out e-mails saying we told you so! But it’s not nearly soon enough to confirm the world is coming to an end either.
ThinkLife (00:20:11)
Boy, you’re going to blow a gasket. I have a little trick
I use when I get frustrated with all the unenlightened
simpletons. I say to myself, “What would Sarah Palin do?”
Try it. I hope this gives you all the peace and tranquility
you deserve!
ThinkLife wrote in part (upon which I comment):
“[…]And you’re merely pissed off that we’ve caught you red-handed and are stopping you. […]”
(Who is “we”? I just see you posting. Your posse gonna’ show later? And who is “you”? Ya’ got me confused there with those pronouns. You’re not stereotyping or anything like that now, are you?)
“[…] (By the way…Did you know that the granddaughter of Eisenhower recently quit the Republican party out of disgust over its regressive policies, membership and ideologies? […]”
(Gosh, you hyper-intelligent people just get me SO confused! Now remind us slow learners again just what Eisenhower’s granddaughter has to do with AGW or anything climate-related? Thanks. Much appreciated.)
That’s a remarkable second post, ThinkLife. Both of your posts are keepers and are a great public service. Both posts should be read by parents to their children each and every day as a reminder that a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Thank you, thank you, thank you from the bottom of my heart.
My goodness, one must wonder how pistachio trees ever managed to survive the eons of history without a concerned AGW hand-wringer watching over them.
Douglas DC (10:31:26) :
“Think Life-simply put: give a college kid a beer and a couple of Joints and they think they are H.L.Menken.”
Think Life has gone very quiet. Meybe he/she is sleeping it off…
To Think Life again:
You say:
“It is addictive bullcrap (full of salt, sugar, fat, coupled with delicious pictures to lull you into a salivating trance) fed to you by marketing scientists, food scientists, mega-millionaires and those who only care about money, not people and health.”
This is just about as articulate a description of AGW as any other I’ve heard. Well done!
ThinkLife (00:20:11) : Some people are a dumbA$$ and know they are a dumbA$$. Others are a dumbA$$ and don’t know it.
Let us assume the US Davis people understand trees and know nothing about climate science.
That means that the IPCC is committing crimes against humanity by inducing the reduction of the food supply with bad data.
that note from TonyB (08:39:27) about Thomas Jefferson’s observations on “climate change” is priceless! Sounds exactly like the same type of “hard data” that AGWers argue all the time! Thanks Tony