Guest post by David Archibald
I will be giving a lecture in Washington in early June on my way through to the Bahamas. Following are the slides that pertain to the agricultural impact of the current de Vries cycle event – the Eddy Minimum.
The stippled line is the current Canadian wheat-growing area. The heavy black line is what that would shrink to if temperature fell by one degree Celsius. Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory applied to the temperature records of the northeastern US derive a temperature decline of 2.0 degrees Celsius to the latitude of the US-Canadian border. It therefore follows that Canadian agriculture will be back to trapping beavers by the end of this decade, as it was in the 17th century.
Many years ago, in the time before global warming corrupted most branches of science, researchers looked at the consequences of warming and cooling. Newman in 1980 was such a researcher. This is a figure he provided of where the US Corn Belt would shift to with one degree of warming, the dashed line, and one degree of cooling, the solid line. The current corn growing area is shaded. His calculation of 144 km per degree C is in line with my estimate of a 300 km shift southward in growing conditions.
And corn is a big business in the United States:
The large amount of ethanol production is a good thing in that it provides a buffer of capacity in the climatic event under way. The mandated ethanol requirement has brought the future forward.
Archeological records tell it that it has happened before. The map in the following graphic shows how Indian maize growing moved south in response to the onset of the Little Ice Age (Reiley 1979).
But it can get worse than the standard de Vries cycle climate response. That can be overprinted by a major volcanic eruption:
Mt Pinatubo erupted in 1991 and 1992 averaged 0.5 degrees C cooler as a consequence. The Dalton Minimum’s major volcanic eruption was Mt Tambora:
My generation has known a warm, giving Sun, but the next will suffer a Sun that is less giving, and the Earth will be less fruitful.
The Australian Prime Minister spoke recently of the benefits of reading Bible stories. The Bible story that all governments should be paying particular attention to is the one in Genesis about the seven years of fat followed by the seven years of lean. Otherwise another Biblical character will make his appearance – the Third Horseman of the Apocalypse, Famine.
References
Newman, J. E. (1980). Climate change impacts on the growing season of the North American Corn Belt. Biometeorology, 7 (2), 128-142.
Riley, T. J., and Friemuth, G. (1979). Field systems and frost drainage in the prehistoric agriculture of the Upper Great Lakes. American Antiquity, 44 (2), 271-285.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“What is a threat to society in general is if policy be based on bad science”
Virtually every scientific theory since day 1 has ultimately been shown to be incorrect. This should tell us that huge uncertainty exists in any scientific announcement, no matter how convinced the scientists of the day are in the correctness of their theories.
Every theory can be right sometimes due to chance. A stopped clock is right twice a day. A prediction in 1915 or 1975 that temperatures would rise could make one famous. The same prediction in 1945 or 2005 could have an opposite result. This suggests that chance plays a much bigger role that science recognizes. The right theory at the right time becomes popular, even if hugely mistaken. A drowning man will grab onto anything. World wars and revolutions have resulted along with millions of deaths.
Most “doom and gloom” forecasts follow the same formula. They look at a recent trend and make a straight line projection into the future. It is of course nonsensical because it cannot be true. Every action creates a reaction. Such trends cannot persist in the natural world.
A more reasoned approach is to consider that the natural world moves in cycles, often much longer than human lifetimes. We know this is true for daily and annual cycles, but we have a hard time recognizing this when a cycle takes decades to repeat. Instead we assume that the trend we are seeing will continue unchanged on to infinity.
The idea that since we cannot understand what drives the longer cycles of nature they cannot exists is a fallacy of logic. As an earlier post mentioned, a river does not follow a straight course. It meanders in a pattern that defies long-term prediction. Why should climate be any different?
Our local river has shifted 150 feet west in the past 50 years. Projecting this into the future, it will continue moving west and climb over a mountain. A more reasoned analysis might be that eventually the river will shift east and return to its old course. Why should climate be any different?
ferd berple says:
May 13, 2011 at 8:30 am
“What is a threat to society in general is if policy be based on bad science”
Virtually every scientific theory since day 1 has ultimately been shown to be incorrect.
No, this is wrong. The theories, once founded on sound science, are extended and improved, not shown to be incorrect. The Earth is round, rotates, goes around the Sun, fossils are of great age, Newtonian gravity works fine to rather high level of accuracy, etc., etc.
And if you were correct, there would be even less reason to base policy on FCL, as it will ultimately be shown to be incorrect. The difference with reality is that FCL is already shown to be incorrect.
These cold seasons crop up now and again, like 1708/9 winter, no large eruptions then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Frost_of_1709
and surprisingly warm for 2yrs before and afterwards too.
Hi Ulric, how’s tricks?
Got to love the rider on that wiki page:
“Modern climate models do not appear to be entirely effective for explaining the climate of 1709”
– had me barrel-laughing here.
Thanks for that.
“No, this is wrong. The theories, once founded on sound science, are extended and improved, not shown to be incorrect.”
If the theories were correct there would be no need to extend or improve them.
Newton’s gravity is not scientifically sound. Newton certainly recognized this. He understood that action at a distance was a problem, yet his theory of gravity is quite accurate even though it describes what many consider an impossible universe.
The value of science is in its ability to make valid predictions. Regardless of whether the science is sound or not. Something that science today seems to have forgotten, by insisting that a theory must also have a mechanism. By this requirement, Newton must be rejected.
By the same token, we have modern theories that are built on “sound science” that are completely hopeless at providing any predictive value beyond chance. They satisy the mathematics, they provide a mechanism, but they have no predictive skill. They should be rejected by science for what they are. Theories without value.
However, these theories are not rejected because they in fact have great value. They attract grant money. This is the value of modern scienctific theories.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 13, 2011 at 8:23 am
We have come to the point where exposure of dishonesty is seen as an insult…
A bit like your finger accidentally hitting F5 for 7 min more than 250 (recorded) times, (every 2.6 sec on average).
My formula has not changed, my presentation may be sloppy, but it is not dishonest. In my distorted view of the world, dishonesty is to on purpose using wrong part (without reading what was written: blue periodicity , red amplitude) in order to discredit.
Here it is again so you can repeat your innuendo.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7.htm
and this version to show you why and where you are so purposefully wrong http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
and this little gem which will be around for years to come.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
making your prediction business irelevant.
Now what you say about that ‘dodgy finger’ and F5 on your keyboard:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/WEB-Page%20attack.htm
Perhaps you would whish to offer a bit more ‘honest’ explanation, considering your security software developing skills ( mentioned in many references on the net, some very odd).
Was it a little software routine you directed at my web site, I think they are known as DoS ?
Come on, honesty is best policy, accidentally hitting F5 for 7 minutes and more than 250 hits; hey people reading these posts are not fools.
Bruce Cobb says:
May 13, 2011 at 7:09 am
I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that ideas about solar influence on climate get attacked. Plate tectonics got off to a similarly rocky start.
Since you and “others” seem so convinced by the FCL “ideas”, could you explain them for me. I realise that they think there is a link between solar cycle length and temperature but I can’t say I’m exactly sure what they are proposing.
Here’s your chance, Bruce – convince me.
Ulric Lyons & Henry Galt
I am just completing paper (available on line in month or so), providing what I would consider a ‘down to earth’ explanation for period 1660-1750, one of if not the largest climate oscillations ever recorded.
“Newton’s gravity is not scientifically sound.”
It most certainly is sound AS FAR AS IT GOES.
Newton never pretended to know WHY his theory was true.
It was true and it always will be true.
Einstein took it a step further but even he knew not WHY his theories were true and never pretended otherwise.
Otherwise, Fred, your post is perfectly true. Predictive ability is the only source of value.
I said elsewhere that the surface air pressure distribution around the Earth appears to be influenced by the level of solar activity.
On that basis poleward/zonal jetstreams occur more often and more persistently when the sun is active. Equatorward/meridional jetstreams occur more often and more persistently when the sun is less active.
Not always, not inevitably, but overall on average that is the case. I have ideas why that is so and have expressed them elsewhere but SO FAR AS IT GOES that is sound and correct and the uncertainties as to the precise mechanism are irrelevant because there is predictive value.
Current climate models on the other hand……
And as far our friend Leif is concerned I value him greatly as a solar expert but regret that he is not as open minded as I would have hoped in relation to Earthly phenomena.
Sorry, ferd not Fred.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 13, 2011 at 8:23 am
vukcevic says:
May 13, 2011 at 4:27 am
When the ideas can’t be demolished a salvo followed by crescendo of insults is due.
We have come to the point where exposure of dishonesty is seen as an insult…
Well try this:
I said:
“What we get is a variable mix of wavelengths and particles which seem to have a variable effect on atmospheric chemistry.”
then Leif Svalgaard said:
“The particles [unvarying chemistry] follow the radiation except deliver six orders of magnitude less energy, so radiation is the driver, if anything.”
but Leif must have known about:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4763v1.pdf
and:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008/fulltext
Yet he insults me as follows:
“Yes, we know already that anything whatsoever is taken by you as support for your approach… I have never seen you point to something that was not in support of your approach.”
So who exactly has failed to point to something not in support of his approach ?
“Leif Svalgaard says:
May 12, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Bruce Cobb says:
May 12, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Others, not so much.
Willful ignorance is a poor excuse. What is yours?”
Getting a little ad hominem if you ask me. I have grown to expect more from one as professional as you Leif. I certainly find this kind of comment below the standards of this site. Purely my opinion.
I think it is a foregone conclusion that at some point the demand from billions of people will collide with a reduced production capacity. We’ve had doubly good luck leading to 6 billions plus people. Firstly, the mere fact of the Holocene allowed “Civilization” to develop. Secondly, for the past ~150 years we’ve had the unlikely combination of a relatively warm period against the backdrop of the already relatively warm Holocene, at the same time as having an apex in terms of Civilization’s level of general development. Scientific management and a highly benign environment have allowed Humanity to flourish. All good things eventually come to an end. Civilization is innately losing its recipe, due to the undermining of discipline and an increasingly slothful attitude on the part of the masses in the Industrialized World – a sort of orgy of hedonism and low general attainment levels. Meanwhile, even with AGW (assuming it even exists at all as a GHG main effect and not as an expanded/merged UHI issue), I think any sane scientist must conclude that not only will the post LIA optimum end innately at some point but the Holocene itself may be wrapping up.
In a strange way, people like Erlich may end up being sort of right, in that starvation will take hold. However it won’t be the scenario envisaged during the 1960s and 70s but one that more resembles classic “Ages of Migration” witnessed in the past.
Actually as a physical analogy, the meander of a river is a very good example of the way climate variability probably works
Larry
vukcevic says:
May 13, 2011 at 10:05 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 13, 2011 at 8:23 am
We have come to the point where exposure of dishonesty is seen as an insult…
A bit like your finger accidentally hitting F5 for 7 min more than 250 (recorded) times, (every 2.6 sec on average).
Now what you say about that ‘dodgy finger’ and F5 on your keyboard:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/WEB-Page%20attack.htm
Wow. Just… Wow.
vukcevic says:
May 13, 2011 at 10:05 am
Come on, honesty is best policy, accidentally hitting F5 for 7 minutes and more than 250 hits; hey people reading these posts are not fools.
As I already explained at length [but which you seem to deliberately omit], that was not accidental. If was to show you that F5 works perfectly well, just hold it down [in spite of you claiming that this was not possible and that I was showing ‘economicy with accuracy’] and is a nice tool to catch people trying to hide something.
Of course, your attempt of covering up your bad behavior by falsely claiming a worse behavior, may hit home with the ‘usual suspects: ‘wow, just, wow’.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 13, 2011 at 11:52 am
“The particles [unvarying chemistry] follow the radiation except deliver six orders of magnitude less energy, so radiation is the driver, if anything.”
but Leif must have known about: […]
As far as I can see, your two links are talking about radiation [not particles], so they claim radiation is the driver, as I said.
Yet he insults me as follows:
“Yes, we know already that anything whatsoever is taken by you as support for your approach… I have never seen you point to something that was not in support of your approach.”
But it is true, isn’t it?
So who exactly has failed to point to something not in support of his approach ?
I have already argued at WUWT why those reconstructions are failures. And that my money was on Schrijver.
vukcevic says:
May 13, 2011 at 10:05 am
My formula has not changed, my presentation may be sloppy, but it is not dishonest. In my distorted view of the world, dishonesty is to on purpose using wrong part
As you yourself lament, you were not allowed to change the 2003 paper later, using an adjusted formula, so you resorted to paste the old formula onto a new graph [using the newer formula] as you have already admitted. This seems to fit dishonesty in your ‘disstorted’ view. I presume you pasted the the formula on purpose.
“In a strange way, people like Erlich may end up being sort of right, in that starvation will take hold.”
It certainly will if we try and feed the 21st century legally handcuffed to 19th century technology.
Your science is OK.
Your moral pronouncements are phoney.
Neither yours or my ISP would be delighted with your actions.
You have not explained anything, such practices, specially if deliberate are bordering on illegal. Blocking someone’s website from a third party without a legal warrant interferes with freedom of communications!
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/WEB-Page%20attack.htm
6 Jul 2009 …Leif Svalgaard (16:46:54) “a thief thinks that everybody steals”. wattsupwiththat.com/…/ncar-solar-cycle-linked-to-global-climate/
Explains your attitude.
Googling ‘IBM Svalgaard’ came with someone that I hope is not a close relative of yours:
‘Stracka and Svalgaard adopted the cloak-and-dagger routine for fear of IBM retaliation, the lawsuit states’
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 13, 2011 at 1:02 pm
vukcevic says:
May 13, 2011 at 10:05 am
Come on, honesty is best policy, accidentally hitting F5 for 7 minutes and more than 250 hits; hey people reading these posts are not fools.
As I already explained at length [but which you seem to deliberately omit], that was not accidental.
…..
falsely claiming a worse behavior, may hit home with the ‘usual suspects: ‘wow, just, wow’.
Come on Leif. Apologise to Vuk for the DoS attack on his site and we can all move on. I’m a mod here, I can see everyone’s IP address. You are bang to rights, so just man up and deal with it.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 13, 2011 at 1:25 pm
As you yourself lament, you were not allowed to change the 2003 paper later, using an adjusted formula, so you resorted to paste the old formula onto a new graph [using the newer formula] as you have already admitted. This seems to fit dishonesty in your ‘disstorted’ view. I presume you pasted the the formula on purpose.
You are talking absolute rubbish or being dishonest:
On your graphs
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png
which you so thoroughly analyse, you deliberately choose wrong formula (in blue letters and blue line) which is nothing to do with projected peak of SC24 (as cycles 1900-1925 amply demonstrate) as explained to you dozen times.
Formula extrapolating peak value is highlighted in red letters and red line, as the more important one (red colour being visually more striking).
However you still choose to do what suits your aim, even if well aware you are wrong, to build a case of supposed dishonesty.
If you are seriously interested in the subject and go to your graphs
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-9.png
you would see that red formula in graph 2 & 3 is so hopelessly wrong, that would never graph anything resembling as shown. It was correct in graph 1 and when I finally corrected in graph 4.
And again graph 5 and 6 are NOTHING TO DO WITH PROJECTED PEAK VALUES, they are periodicity graphs, determining frequency of oscillation.
Of course you know all of that, but chosen to build up an acusation on deliberately chosen wrong premise.
As you well know, that would never get trough court of law.
But your grudge is not against my solar formula, it is putting you out of prediction business with this:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
take a good look, it is going to be around for years.
One thing which is still beyond understanding is why man of your age and science stature, would chose to sacrifice his birthday (which should be spent with family and friends) to spend the day building a case full of falsehoods, which in reality doesn’t matter much anyway, if you do think that basic principle behind my formulae is meaningless.
@Tom roche says:
May 13, 2011 at 2:27 am
“The 1740s in Europe experienced this on a wide scale, famine followed.
It certainly puts the Ethanol program in a new light, a buffer for the future, brillint strategy. Suberb article.”
Animal feed cornflakes, brillint ㋡
Leif said:
“As far as I can see, your two links are talking about radiation [not particles], so they claim radiation is the driver, as I said.”
You claimed radiation was the driver AND that it was unable to exert a top down effect. The two links describe and discuss the top down effect.
“But it is true, isn’t it?”
No, If a phenomenon does not fit I have always accepted it and adjusted my scenario accordingly. I have previously accepted some of your contentions and as a consequence was directed to chemical mechanisms in the atmosphere rather than radiative physics. However I do not accept models and reconstructions as evidence of anything. I accept only ongoing events observed with the best modern equipment.
“I have already argued at WUWT why those reconstructions are failures. And that my money was on Schrijver.”
Then you should have referred back to those points in the thread concerned. In any event you presented your opinion as a generally accepted fact whereas it is not.
I’m in agreement with tallbloke as regards the problems involved in confronting your non solar pronouncements.
tallbloke says:
May 13, 2011 at 1:40 pm
…..
Thanks tallbloke.
Time to move on regardless….