We’ve been told repeatedly that global warming has no upside. It’s all hellish temperatures and/or high water according to some. But, according to this USA Today -Weather Channel story, there is an upside in USA crop production.
They go on to say:
“Plant seed companies are making more productive, short-season varieties,” he said. “It’s both climate change but also technology change.”
Brad Rippey, a U.S. Department of Agriculture meteorologist, said warming temperatures have made a big difference for crops such as corn and soybeans.
…
For example, data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service show that in 1980, about 210,000 soybean acres were planted in North Dakota. That has gradually increased to more than 3 million acres in recent years.
Complete story here
Nothing is permanent except change – Heraclitus
Genesis 41:1
This type of choppy narrative is the current recipe for a climate or weather related story: here the AP throws so many quotes and statistics together that they will make your head spin.
Huh? A 7% increase in “average” US rainfall in 50 years … what about the rainfall changes where the soybeans and corn are being grown in the Dakotas? That’s what the story is about!
Still, not sure how this directly translates to the current situation. The storm tracks are quite variable from year-to-year and from week-to-week.
So, what does this have to do with the Dakotas: how has the temperature changed there? The article is half over and no mention of the local changes, yet.
Ugh.
Increasing frequency of torrential rains? What is the definition of torrential? Also, 1958 is a year that’s popping up quite often — we must have some data prior to that? Ah, yes, look up above in the article:
So, where is the rigorous meteorological / climate peer-reviewed study that actually figures this out? Is it weather related or technologically based — as discussed in the article? Regardless, this article mashes together a bunch of extraneous statistics on global temperatures, US trends, and provides anecdotes in place of actual data in the region in question.
Putting aside “global warming” etc, couldn’t this increase be as a result in changes in farming practices, sush as fertilisers and peticides in much more use in the modern age?
🙂 With this increase of vegetation-enhancing CO2 gas and its side effect of causing more rainfall, we may yet see a tipping point towards a global explosion in the global biomass, the return of the dinosaurs and the T-rexes gobbling up all human beings on planet earth. Its worse than we thought.
That’s a fine crop of hornswoggle they have growing there…
Ryan Maue sums it up nicely in just one word…
Ugh.
Warmer, wetter. Fertilizer, pesticides, hybrids.
Sure.
Pay no attention to that
manhugely increased CO2 behind the curtain.Darn I hate it when I mess up the html.
Soybeans are used to make biodiesel……. Although the $1.00 a gallon tax credit expired, lobbies are hard at work to get it back. ND farmers profited from this credit, hence the push to expand soybean production. See here:
http://www.ndsoybean.org/overview6.html
This has nothing to do with climate. Yes it’s been raining more in ND, raining dollars that is :).
The article is mostly glittery puff, written by folk who don’t know a whole lot about farming or the cyclic nature of the seasons that govern every farmer’s life.
Most farmers I know are aware that if they work extremely hard doing something that can be quite boring and tedious they will enjoy some good seasons and maybe a brilliant season from time to time. What they won’t do is chop and change chasing trends; farmers who do that go broke quite rapidly.
CO2 is a great plant growth aid – one of the negative feedbacks on changes in its aerial concentration.
So can anyone estimate how much biomass we have added via the burning of fossil fuels, and how that compares with, say, the biomass of humanity itself?
As opposed to the growing season moving southwards, and a colder/drier climate with less C02 requiring more water/plant.
For the farmer (who cannot move his location) that would mean a shorter growing season, lower yield/acre and higher water costs (provided that irrigation water is available). Otherwise, if enough natural water does not support the crop reaching harvest, failure is the result.
Untimely precipitation, late start to growing season, early frosts not included.
“To make a real difference on global warming, our energy efficiency would need to increase by between 4% and 6%, something that seems close to absurd”.
Putting this blatant promotion of the GW doctrine aside, you can’t compare US energy use with a country like Denmark.
Why?
1. The size of the country
A. Higher power grid transport losses
B. Americans drive more miles because of the bigger distances
C. Bigger country, more energy needed for distribution.
D. In the US cities have been build in deserts (hot) and cold area’s
Much energy is needed to pump water, cool or heat buildings.
The US has a huge mining industry, a massive farming and agriculture (feeding the world) and the the biggest army in the world.
Despite these “set backs” the US is in the top 3 of energy efficient nations.
And the Green environmental/political establishment wants to destroy this “amazing example of civilization” based on lousy computer models and totally disturbed world views.
It’s time for a reset.
It is the large pattern that matter the most.
Recent droughts stifled growth of terrestrial vegetation
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/62396/title/Worldwide_slowdown_in_plant__carbon_uptake
@Frosty
Genesis 41:1 After two whole years, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing by the Nile…
I’m sorry my dear, cool friend, but I haven’t the faintest idea of to what you might be alluding.
Please could you go the whole hog and put me out of my misery by being plainly forthcoming.
If we are to play some form of biblical ping pong, I’m going to have to go and find some ammo!
Regards
N.
I have no training in agronomy,merely a BSc, but it occurs to me that if agricultural innovation develops faster than natural cycles we are in grave danger of seeing a repeat of the dust bowl crises that hit the prairies in the early to middle decades of the 20th century. Then farmers were encouraged to buy, plough and plant vast acreages without fully understanding the long term meteorological cycles on the plains. Eventually, wheat was modified to make best use of the climate there, but not before a great deal of hardship and heartbreak for those involved in pushing the farming frontiers.
If we are on the verge of rapid cooling, do the ND soy farmers have an exit strategy? Will the US Govt be ready to help out given their preoccupation with Catastrophic Climate Change/Disturbance/Oscillation/Wobble* ?
* delete where not applicable.
Mike:
The drought issue is common in a cooling world which we have been experiencing since 1998 or earlier and will get worse with additional cooling through this portion of the cycle.
According to statistical data in nationmaster.com the cereal yield (kg/ha) for the US has more than doubled between 1965 and 2005. Worldwide cereal yield has also nearly doubled in that same time period. The data is available for every year from about 1961 to 2005. It would be interesting to see how well that data correlates with the atmospheric CO2 data.
When I see a story like this, I am reminded of the Plant Hardiness Zone Maps. The hardiness zones are indications of annual minimum temperature range (winter), but they give a good first indication of the general shift in growing conditions as you move between the states.
We are told that a 2 °C temperature shift would cause gloom and doom and disruption of crops. Compare that to the 5 °F (2.8 °C) bands in the map.
It has always seemed to me that such a temperature change would have the effect of moving Iowa-Nebraska growing conditions (think lots of corn and soybeans) up into the Dakotas and Minnesota. The USA Today article seems to be saying that. And what about the impact of ‘warmer’ on Iowa – Nebraska? Well the next warmer temperature band covers much of Ohio – Indiana – Illinois, also prime areas for corn and soybeans.
For the areas discussed in the USA Today article, see link to Plant Hardiness maps at – The 2003 US National Arboretum “Web Version” of the 1990 USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map
http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/hzm-nm1.html
Note: This publication is not copyrighted, and permission to reproduce all or any part of it is not required.
And just to show that these zones reflect the growing season (not just winter), you can compare to the American Horticultural Society Plant Heat-Zone Map, where they show a map of “Average Number of Days per Year Above 86 degF (30 degC) “. The map is in the link to Downloadable Heat-Zone Map pdf
This link is to their web site
http://www.ahs.org/publications/heat_zone_map.htm
Note the copyright and limitations to use (I presume posting a link to their web site is acceptable without obtaining written consent)
“The AHS Heat-Zone map is a copyrighted document that is wholly owned by the American Horticultural Society. Any reference to, reproduction of, or attempt to code plants using the map’s information without written consent by AHS is a violation of the copyright.”
Dave (grew up in Iowa)
Mike @ur momisugly October 12, 2010 at 5:27 am
was not able to connect to your terrestrial vegetation link
The server at http://www.sciencenews.org is taking too long to respond.
“Alex the skeptic says:
🙂 With this increase of vegetation-enhancing CO2 gas and its side effect of causing more rainfall, we may yet see a tipping point towards a global explosion in the global biomass, the return of the dinosaurs and the T-rexes gobbling up all human beings on planet earth. Its worse than we thought.”
Would this be Gaia coming up with a solution for the over population of humans? lol
Now cooling:
from yesterday here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/11/with-a-rapid-onset-the-strongest-la-nina-since-1955-56/
I fear cold more than warm. Far more. We are cooling…
I tried to find some supportive publications from the University of Illinois agricultural science folks, but apparently they don’t publish what they talk about around the water cooler = Illinois will be a net agricultural winner in a warmer, wetter world with more CO2.
I guess it’s hard to get money for researching & publishing alternative views to CAGW doctrine. *shhhhh!* You’ll risk your tenure! Cowards!
Mike says:
October 12, 2010 at 5:27 am
It is the large pattern that matter the most.
Recent droughts stifled growth of terrestrial vegetation
Mike, quick….run for it! Your shadow’s almost caught you!