Every once in awhile you see something in the “it’s worse than we thought” meme that deserves some clarification for those that want to look at all the data, rather than those who want to push gloom and doom. A recent tweet by Bill McKibben thoughtlessly retweeting a statement by the Master of Disaster, Weather Underground’s Dr. Jeff Masters, got me digging to see just how true it was. Here’s the tweet:
OK, we are used to weepy Bill regurgitating Tweeting without thinking on a daily basis, but the response from one his unthinking followers was a true Harold Camping moment.
Dear Ms. Andrea Angulo, the answer is: we’ve done nothing wrong, because this isn’t the worst USA drought by any measure nor did we cause it (it was a natural weather oscillation the NAO, and stop following weepy Bill and look for yourself rather than being a flock member).
Jeff Masters’ claim doesn’t hold up when you look at all the data, and it is a claim of his own invention that not even NOAA said anything about. Let’s look at Masters claim:
He cites this graphic and PR from the U.S. Drought Monitor, big mistake, because they have a documented tendency to exaggerate. Here’s the current map:
But Masters didn’t really bother to visualize all the drought data he cited, preferring instead to simply make a pronouncement, which is then unthinkingly parroted by folks like McKibben. I took the CONUS drought area data Masters linked to in the article from:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/sotc/drought/2012/11/uspctarea-wetdry-mod.txt
And plotted it, noting the years Masters referred to:
Not so scary now, is it? But it becomes even less scary when you don’t cherry pick the data you want, but instead look at all the drought data available to you. Quite frankly, since Masters holds a PhD. in meteorology, you’d think he’d know to look at the most widely accepted metric, the Palmer Drought Severity index (PDSI) also available from NOAA.
Negative values are dry (in yellow) positive values are wet (in green) Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?parameter=pdsi&month=11&year=2012&filter=ytd&state=110&div=0
(Note: the 2012 value is a slim yellow line to -4 on the right axis)
Using the Year-to-Date average Palmer Drought Severity Index, 2012 is just another blip compared to others in the last century, and hardly rates a mention. But that doesn’t fit Masters and McKibben’s ongoing gloom and doom meme, so they don’t want to look at it or show it to their followers. But wait, there’s more.
From Sheffield et al 2012, plotting the Palmer Drought Severity Index globally over the past 60 years they show little change in drought severity, and certainly no response to “global warming”.
a, PDSI_Th (blue line) and PDSI_PM (red line). b, Area in drought (PDSI <−3.0) for the PDSI_Th (blue line) and PDSI_PM (red line). The shading represents the range derived from uncertainties in precipitation.
From their abstract:
Here we show that the previously reported increase in global drought is overestimated because the PDSI uses a simplified model of potential evaporation that responds only to changes in temperature and thus responds incorrectly to global warming in recent decades. More realistic calculations, based on the underlying physical principles that take into account changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed, suggest that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.
So even the PDSI may have errors, making it overestimate drought severity, and it isn’t just one paper saying this. Martin Hoerling of NOAA says:
Hoerling et al. in Journal of Climate: Is a Transition to Semi-Permanent Drought Conditions Imminent in the U.S. Great Plains?
“We conclude that projections of acute and chronic PDSI decline in the 21st Century are likely an exaggerated indicator for future Great Plains drought severity.”
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels, in his previous WUWT opinion piece, noted that NASA GISS Dr. James Hansen is making a claim that global temperatures are driving U.S drought, and did a scatterplot to gauge correlation between Hansen’s own GISS temperature data (GISTEMP) and the U.S. Palmer Drought Severity Index with annual data through 2011:
Annual PDSI -vs- Annual Global GISTEMP – Source: Dr. Pat Michaels
There’s no correlation: zero, zip, nada. If there were, you’d see the dots align along a diagonal line, there’s not even a hint of that. Of course doom and gloom proponents like Masters and McKibben might say “… but, but, but, 2012 was a terrible drought”. Yes, it was, it is, but we’ve seen worse in the past.
One final note, about the real worry of drought in the USA; effects on the food supply.
![CornYieldDep_US[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/cornyielddep_us1.gif)
Note how 2012 compares to drought years of 1934, 1936, and 1988. It is certainly no outlier.
And, the trend for yield continues upward, with 2012 not even coming close to some of the worst years for production.
![CornYieldTrend_US[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/cornyieldtrend_us1.gif)
Source: http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/YieldTrends.html
Agricultural science trumps a drought year. That’s a hockey stick we can all believe in.
Call me a “doubting Thomas” as to overwrought claims by Masters and McKibben, but the fact is that the 2012 drought isn’t as bad as they would have you believe and won’t show you these other data because they don’t fit their business model.
Regarding corn, recall what Bill McKibben once wrote wept:
Those damned shriveled ears of corn. I’ve done everything I can think of, and millions of people around the world have joined us at 350.org in the most international campaign there ever was.
Everything that is, but look at the data.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
mpainter says:
December 30, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Yes, this is really true.
During times of moisture stress, which 2012 provided, the benifit of the higher levels of CO2 started to stand out.
The yields confirmed testing that was done via controlled labs and small open field research.
The variable present today, that was not present when the yield models were created, is the higher level of CO2. This is establshed science, as far as the yield reaction to available water sources.
C4 plants: soybeans, potatoe, pinto beans etc showed a very strong yield response in 2012.
I noticed that immediately, but I suspect most people didn’t. A NOTE pointing out 2012’s skinny down-column should be added to the head post.
Five bucks says that Anthony’s mate McGibbon won’t be publishing a “global warming caused drought” scare article at the end of 2013. The odds appear to be about 20 to 1 in favour of a ‘normal’ year for rainfall in 2013.
The problem is that almost everywhere in the world is subject to periods of higher and lower rainfall. And you might not believe this, but this also used to happen with equal frequency before the age of “global warming.”
Hot, cold, wet, dry windy, normal, whatever – there is always some idiot who says that “global warming” is the cause.
Hmm. Wondering where all the extra precip is in N Alaska from the autumn open Arctic Ocean? Not supposed to be a drought there…
andrewmharding says:
December 30, 2012 at 11:50 am
////////////////////////////////////////////////
You can bet your bottom dollar that the position with off-shore wind will be significantly worse than on shore wind because of the harsh environment which will play havoc with machinery and the difficulties with maintenance.
I envisage that the position with off-shore wind will probably be at least 3 times as bad as that with onshore wind. That means that if on shore wind is poroving to have only half the estimated financial viability, off-shore wind is likely to have only one sixth of the estimated financial viability.
Will the politicians take note? Not much chance!
Greater drought? The 30 yr (1980-2010) avg annual precip here in somewhat rain-shadowed western MD has risen from 36-37 inches to over 40 inches. That’s significant. What’s interesting is that it’s a return to the precip levels of ~1900 after drying out during the ’20s to the ’70s. The late ’50s to 1970 drought was worse here than the ’30s. I have childhood memories of chronically burnt lawns & sweltering summer temps from the mid-60s.
Mechanization has outstripped seed variety, fertilization, etc progress by leaps and bounds and still does. The cost of fuel has been the primary driver. Want to be a small acreage farmer carving out fingers of wheat fields on rocky out-crop ground, or bring an old abandoned field back to production? Forget it. Combines used to be able to navigate such torcherous fields (I know of this personally, we had some). Not any more. Combine cutting heads have grown so wide they can’t navigate tight spots anymore.
Want to plow, disk, and seed? Can’t do it anymore with more than one fuel-expensive pass and expect to earn a profit. So large tractors pull the entire process with one pass and wider swaths, once again preventing smaller fields from being productive. Can’t navigate the tight space.
Need to fertilize your field? Forget it unless you own, rent, or hire equipment and/or operators to come in with wide-boomed sprayer arms to take care of your growing needs with as few passes as possible around your field. You want to spend money fertilizing a smaller field? You can but it will cost you so much money there will not be any profit in it.
But these large giants didn’t even like dealing with the square corners of square and rectangular fields. So where did you find large flat stretches of land that could be shaped into fields these behemoths like to be in? On dry flat plains. How do you get water there? From large rivers piped into circle irrigation systems. A few decades ago, productive fields bloomed into being almost overnight in places no one thought would ever grow water-thirsty corn plants. Large, wide equipment systems like to run in circles. The high desert plains were just waiting to be carved into those crop circles. The perfect marriage happened all over the country-side. Overall production went through the roof. And it all happened in a heart beat.
Fuel is the driving factor. If you want agriculture jobs back while keeping food prices low and production high, bring the price of fuel down. Won’t happen while governmental helicopter parents are in charge of country after country after country.
And yet the panic-striken like McKibben continue to believe the “unprecedented _______” narrative. One wonders what they believe the mechanism to be. Clearly it isn’t global warming, as it isn’t actually occurring at present.
Don’t they realize their arguments are now actually weakening the relationship between AGW and catastrophe?
Matthew W says:
December 30, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Mechanization is a huge part of that….
If you have 100 bushels per acre without fertilizer and hybrid seed corn and then triple that with scientific advances, great.
But if you still had to pick the corn by hand which was still being done in the early 20th century, you physically just can’t gather the crop without mechanization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think you are under estimating human ingenuity. Commercial fertilizer and machinery came in at about the same time. It was during the 1800’s that the USA went from hand labor to horse draw machinery and really made the major advances that freed people from the drudgery of farm labor.
You can see in the 19th century the labor in farming was cut by ten fold. (I have friends who work the land with horses and mules to this day)
Doubting Thomases? How can you doubt global warming when you see mass protests against it like the one pictured here:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=486524881386257&set=a.277076448997769.64757.100000862497501&type=1
😕
MJM
Peak Warming Man says: December 30, 2012 at 11:22 pm
SAID HANRAHAN by John O’Brien
================================
Thanks for that. It made me chuckle.
JamesD says: December 30, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Corn prices keep dropping like a rock
=========================
We’ll all be rooned!
Pamela Gray says: December 31, 2012 at 8:23 am
==============================
Interesting insights into the current aspects of mechanization, fuel, and irrigation in agriculture.
Big farming means big change in agronomy.
Camburn says:
December 30, 2012 at 8:01 pm
I am going to correct this for you.
Concerning Ag Production during the 2012 drought.
1. The
C4C3 plants, wheat and soybeans, both had yields outside of the normally used yield models. There was not enough stored soil moisture, plus precipitation, to produce the yields recorded.a. The result of this is that mainstream Ag Universities are now re-evaluating their yield models.
b. It is very apparent that the higher CO2 levels resulted in fewer open stoma, which resulted in less evaportransportation by the plants. Instead, they were able to put available water sources into yield.
2. Corn, a
c3C4 plant, did not show the response as plainly as the C3 plants, but there was most deff a yield response, verses the yield models used for decades.The above are facts. Another reason that CO2 is a good thing in the atmosphere.
Corn is a C4 plant. C4 is a recent plant modification due to CO2 starvation (and drought) CAM is the other photosynthesis pathway.
C3 plants have the advantage if CO2 is high and there is decent water. When CO2 is low and the climate dries as happened during the last glaciation, grasslands (C4) take over forested (C3) areas. This is a very active field of investigation.
michaeljmcfadden says: December 31, 2012 at 9:30 am
Doubting Thomases? How can you doubt global warming when you see mass protests against it like the one pictured here:
===============================
ha ha ha- very good!
Gail Combs says:
December 31, 2012 at 9:38 am
Thank you for the fix Gail.
Pamela Gray says: December 31, 2012 at 8:23 am
“…Want to be a small acreage farmer carving out fingers of wheat fields on rocky out-crop ground, or bring an old abandoned field back to production? Forget it. Combines used to be able to navigate such torcherous fields (I know of this personally, we had some). Not any more. Combine cutting heads have grown so wide they can’t navigate tight spots anymore….”
Ha ha, just buy Chinese equipment: here is a rough/wet field one:
http://cjnongji.en.made-in-china.com/product/DbIJGZHgHlWi/China-Combine-Harvester-4LYZ-2-0-.html
and another:
http://qdangelina.en.made-in-china.com/product/BMcnVesrfXUW/China-4YZ-3-Corn-Combine-Harvester.html
I’ve seen hundreds and hundreds of little harvesters moving with the harvest on the highways in the harvest season there – tiny, one car width, simply (and roughly!) built … (very common to see them stopped and under repair by the roadside)… but they do the job in those little fields.
Mind you, the fields are very rapidly getting bigger. I was at first a bit surprised to see in western China near Urumqi (Xinjiang Province) the occasional John Deere in the paddock. (not the very big ones, though!). Make no mistake these guys love American equipment and if they can afford it thats what they buy, (especially visible in the intensive animal industries).
“during December of 1939, 62.1% of the U.S. was in drought, the only year with more of the U.S. in drought was 1934.”
seriously, anyone looking at significant digits there? i find it hard to believe that anyone in 1939 could calculate accurately whether 62.1% or 62.2% or 62.3% of the land of the U.S. was in drought. its laughable.
OK, our local climate science questioner (I won’t say denier) referenced you so I looked. When I see pages and pages of science criticism, a lot rude and crude, I get skeptical. Where is the balance? Is it just Buzzed, grasshopper and a couple of others?
Oh, I see one way to unbalance, in your comment:
[Labeling other commenters “deniers” gets your entire comment deleted. — mod.]
Of course on all those PhDs: “Can we finally for once call these “DR’s” what they are? Quacks comes to mind.” And “these morons”, Is perfectly all right. And “Never assume that a PhD indicates intelligence. Burke’s Law.” Fits in, but ;” Never assume that lack of a PhD indicates intelligence. Burke’s Law.” wouldn’t.
I did get somethings out of an impressive amount of commentary and links, but it was a lot of work.
RA Brown says: January 1, 2013 at 1:12 pm
various incomprehensible things
================================
are you a grad student?
RA Brown says:
January 1, 2013 at 1:12 pm
OK, our local climate science questioner (I won’t say denier) referenced you so I looked. When I see pages and pages of science criticism, a lot rude and crude, I get skeptical. Where is the balance?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
After several years of illogic and bafflegab passing as peer-reviewed science you start getting a bit numb and snarky.
Scott Armstrong, “Bafflegab Pays” (professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania)
RA Brown says: January 1, 2013 at 1:12 pm
“…..I get skeptical. Where is the balance?…”
Just as an exercise (and please report back) please go to Skeptical Science and take a questioning viewpoint. Be very polite, and be sure to include scientific references.
….and see how long you last there. (Hint, your post above would have been deleted immediately, without any explanation)
I believe people should only be referred to by their honorific degree type title IF the title is directly relevant to their expertise in the discussion that they’re engaging in. A prime example of the abuse of its use takes place in the “war on smoking” where “Dr. Stanton Glantz” weighs in and is cited as such quite often with medical area opinions without ever a mention that his only real claim to the doctorate is in mechanical engineering.
In the area of climate change discussions the issue might not be as big a problem: you don’t often have people with doctorates in meteorology or history or such being cited as “Dr.” while making pronouncements about the health effects of climate change. Still, if a “Dr. Storm” wrote an article about fracking causing climate change and his/her doctorate was in something like Fine Art Appreciation … well, I’d say that might be some cause for real complaint!
– MJM