Guest essay by David Archibald
This post drew attention to the similarity between the recent warm decades and the period leading up to the extremely cold year of 1740. Now let’s investigate how a 1740-type event might play out. This graph shows the average of the monthly temperatures for the years 1736 to 1739 plotted with the monthly temperatures of the year 1740:
With respect to growing conditions, the 1740 season was a month later than the average of the previous five years and the peak months of the season were 2.5°C cooler. To get a perspective on how a repeat of 1740 might affect growing conditions in the Corn Belt, Bill Fordham, advising the grain industry in the Midwest, has kindly provided an update on the current season:
==============================================================
“So far here in the center of the Midwest, the 2013 growing season is almost identical to 2009 in regards to Growing Degree Days (GDD).
In 2009 48% of the corn was planted by May 12 and 62% was planted by May 19.
In 2013 18% of the corn was planted by May 12 and 71% was planted by May 19.
In 2009, we never received a killing frost until November 5 when the low was at 28F. The Midwest had a huge crop that was wet and light test weight, but never got killed by a frost. In 2009, the total GDD accumulation from May 15 thru September 30 was 2,530 GDD.
The bulk of the corn planted in the Midwest ranges from 2,300 to 2,700 GDD (based on Fahrenheit). With the volcanoes that have been erupting in Alaska and Russia, especially with Mt Sheveluch erupting to 7.4 miles on June 26, I will be surprised if we get through the month of September in 2013 without an early killing frost. If the heat dome and high pressure ridge stays centered in the west and over Alaska until Labor Day, the clockwise rotation will pump the cold air south over the Midwest along with the ash. There are millions of acres at risk in IA and MN, that are 2-3 weeks behind normal.
After silking, it takes 24-28 days to reach the Dough Stage when kernel moisture is about 70% and about 50% of the total dry matter has accumulated in the kernel.
After silking, it takes 35-42 days to reach the Dent Stage when kernel moisture is about 55% and about 70% of the total dry matter has accumulated in the kernel.
It takes about 55-65 days after silking for a corn plant to mature and for the kernel to reach black layer, normally at 30-35% moisture.
A killing frost, <30F, will do damage whenever it occurs before black layer, the earlier the frost, the more severe the damage. A hard killing frost <28F can reduce the yield up to 25%, or more depending on the variety, even a week before black layer.
In 1974 I experienced severe loss on some late planted corn when I got rained out on May 7 and didn’t get back in to finish planting for 3 weeks. The May 7 corn yielded 190 bushels per acre and the May 28 corn yielded 90 bushels per acre, same variety.”
================================================================
Based on Bill Fordham’s experience of 1974, planting three weeks later reduced the crop yield by 50%. If the peak growth months of June, July and August are 2.5°C (4.5°F) cooler as per the CET record of 1740, that would reduce the GDD by 414.
A repeat of the climate of 1740, with a late planting and reduced heat in the three months prior to harvest can be expected to reduce crop yield by well more than 50%.
Carla says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Geomagnetic South Atlantic Anomaly and global sea level rise: A direct connection?
This crops up now and then. As we expect the South Atlantic Anomaly [SAA] to continue to grow for some centuries, a connection would predict steadily rising temperatures, thus no future cooling as everybody so fervently wants [and even claim to predict]. Hey, here is a way out for these people: if the temps don’t go down as they forecast, it is just a sign of the SAA getting bigger and swamping their [obviously correct] theory.
Just a thought question.. why is the majority of the SAA below Earths magnetic equator?
Carla says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:42 pm
Just a thought question.. why is the majority of the SAA below Earths magnetic equator?
If it were aboe [North] of the magnetic equator you would probably ask why is the majority of the SAA above Earth’s magnetic equator. The SAA is generated deep in the core where the field is hardly dipolar at all, so its location on the surface is just an accident of nature, like why does the moon and the sun have the same size in the sky?
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:47 pm
Well not exactly the case.. been playing around with another conumdrum of the same sort, relating to another magnetic equator. Which is now asking my brain if there might even be a relationship betwixt the two of them.
ANISOTROPY OF TEV COSMIC RAYS AND THE OUTER HELIOSPHERIC BOUNDARIES
P. Desiati
Wisconsin IceCube Particle Astrophysics Center (WIPAC)
Department of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
A. Lazarian
Department of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Draft version October 30, 2012
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3075v2.pdf
Page 4 Figs 1-2
Figure 2 showing the magnetic equator through the heliosphere. Also shows the excess region, deficit region for GCR propagation in the heliosphere with a relationship similar to that of Earth magnetic equatorial relationship radiation..
Page 5 of the article
.. Fig. 2 schematically shows the component of
LIMF in the plane of the figure with its draping around
the heliosphere. The full-sky global anisotropy of the 1-
10 TeV cosmic rays can be described as composed of a
broad relative excess region across the hemisphere south
of the magnetic equator (the red shaded sector in the
figure, which contains the heliotail and the downstream
direction of the LIMF), and a relative deficit region (the
blue shaded sector) north of the magnetic equator. The
cosmic ray intensity modulation in these regions cannot
be described with a dipole, since the transition between
the two regions lays approximately along the magnetic
equator (the non-colored sectors in the figure) but with
the steepest variations in directions with smaller angular
distance from the heliotail. At energies in excess of
about 100 TeV the heliospheric influence must be subdominant,
if not inexistent. Whatever the origin of the
anisotropy above 100 TeV is,…
Leif says:
Hard to say as it is not clear what you say. To make it clear, I’ll go back to your earlier comments and ask for clarification [going in small steps]:
So here it the 1st point:
July 5, 2013 at 9:11 pm; “variation of solar surface heat flux that is an order of magnitude larger than the TSI variations over the solar cycle”
‘solar surface’ means at the Earth’s surface? not the ‘Sun’s surface’.
That was corrected at 9:12 p.m.
Let me state this in a way that should be understandable. If the earth mean surface temperature varies by 0.1C, its outgoing surface radiation ought to vary by 0.55 W/m^2. Some additional energy flux may have penetrated to greater depths, but at least this much is required to account for just the surface radiation changes. TSI variations of about 1 W/m^2 over a solar cycle at the top of the atmosphere could be expected to produce about 0.18 W/m^2 variation at the earth surface after considering the effects of duty cycle, albedo and latitude. This is a factor of 3 too small to have caused the surface radiation variation accompanying a 0.1C temperature variation.
lsvalgaard says:
“But you may find a audience among all the gullible people around.”
And who might that be? The skeptics, or those who buy the most recent accepted consensus science of the day?
Carla says:
July 6, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Which is now asking my brain if there might even be a relationship betwixt the two of them.
No there is not. The sun and every magnetic planet have a magnetic equator and they are all different. The planetary magnetic equators depends on the field in the cores deep inside the planet.
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 5:18 pm
Let me state this in a way that should be understandable.
Ok, with the error out of the way, we can continue. The earth emits its thermal radiation from about 5 km altitude in the atmosphere. To maintain balance, the temperature up there must be -18C [the same temperature the surface would have if there were no atmosphere]. Because the temperature decreases with altitude by 6.6C per km, the surface must have a temperature of 15C to make the temperature at 5 km equal to the -18C. So, looking at the Earth from space, the Earth would seem to have a temperature of -18C, called the ‘radiating temperature’. The surface is warmer, like 15C. The difference is the Greenhouse effect. If we add more greenhouse gases [e.g. Water, so not to upset some people’s sensibilities, although any molecule with more than two atoms would do] the Earth would heat up, but the radiating temperature would stay the same [the same amount of heat is coming in from the Sun and must be emitted]. What happens instead is that the radiating altitude goes up [in order to reach a higher altitude where the temperature is the -18C]. Before continuing, do you understand and agree to the above?
Jim G says:
“But you may find a audience among all the gullible people around.”
And who might that be? The skeptics, or those who buy the most recent accepted consensus science of the day?
Well, which group do you belong to? Do you buy Ulrich’s claim that he can calculate exactly the temperature at any time form the position of the planets?
Jim G says:
July 6, 2013 at 5:40 pm
lsvalgaard says: “But you may find a audience among all the gullible people around.”
And who might that be? The skeptics, or those who buy the most recent accepted consensus science of the day?
———————————————————————————————————————
My bet is that Dr S is referring to the EU believers.
And Dr. S. the article above related to cosmic ray anisotropies also theorizes as to what might cause this. One of the theories relates to our slow approach to the next interstellar cloud.
How many AU has the solar system travelled since the 1600’s? What if any the relationship to the slow growth of the SAA and the slow approach to the neighboring interstellar cloud. Even though the solar magnetic cycle has be operating within its ceiling/floor range ( with some consecutive med high cycles) over the period 1600 till now, Earths magnetic field is declining.
The theory.. pgs. 1 2
ANISOTROPY OF TEV COSMIC RAYS AND THE OUTER HELIOSPHERIC BOUNDARIES
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3075v2.pdf
“”…However, the solar system
is surrounded by a highly heterogeneous Local Interstellar
Medium (LISM) (Frisch et al. 2011), that can affect
the arrival direction distribution of the cosmic rays.
The common velocity of the nearby interstellar clouds could indicate that they are part of an evolved sub-shell
of the superbubble associated to the Loop I, expanding
from the Scorpion-Centaurus Association. Various indirect
determinations of the Local Interstellar Magnetic
Field (LIMF) suggest that its direction is coherent over
scales of about 100 pc and roughly parallel to the local
surface of Loop I shell (Frisch 2010, 2011; Frisch et al.
2012a,b). The observations, therefore, could be associated
to cosmic ray diffusive streaming between colliding
nearby interstellar clouds of the expanding Loop I
shell (Schwadron et al. 2012). Since the solar system is
located almost at the edge of the so-called Local Interstellar
Cloud (LIC), a partially ionized cloudlet within
the Local Bubble, it was proposed by Amenomori et al.
(2007, 2011b) that a non-dipolar anisotropy could be generated
by the diffusion of cosmic rays through the LIMF
connecting the solar system to the interstellar medium
outside the LIC. On the other hand, the observation of
a topological change of the anisotropy pattern at an energy
in excess of about 100 TeV, where a relative deficit
is observed in the region of the sky dominated by a broad
excess at lower energies, is an indication of a phenomenological
transition in the cause of high energy cosmic rays
anisotropy. A proton in a 3 μG magnetic field has a maximum
gyro-radius Rg 80 ·ETeV AU1. Even though the
mean free path of cosmic rays in magnetized plasma can
be significantly larger (Yan & Lazarian 2008), it is reasonable
to believe that cosmic rays with energy below
about 100 TeV must be affected by the heliosphere, considering
its extension from hundreds to several thousands
AU (Pogorelov et al. 2009a,b; Izmodenov & Alexashov
2003; Izmodenov & Kallenbach 2006)…”””
Leif says:
What happens instead is that the radiating altitude goes up [in order to reach a higher altitude where the temperature is the -18C]. Before continuing, do you understand and agree to the above?
I will take your word for it on the average temperature lapse rate. I assume that you mean that adding more greenhouse gases would have the effect of raising the radiating altitude. So far, so good.
lsvalgaard says:
“Well, which group do you belong to? Do you buy Ulrich’s claim that he can calculate exactly the temperature at any time form the position of the planets?”
No, but being a skeptic puts me in no “group”. My point was that name calling ie “the gullible”, diminishes your stature and is not necessary if you have reliable observational data. In my previous comment I already noted my skepticism regarding the value of the subject of this entire article and I believe it is a waste of time to swat at mosquitoes with a sledge hammer..
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:24 pm
Bones, don’t take his word for anything. (Leif is rapidly pushing into the elitist AGW camp. Perhaps he will get invited to a White House dinner???)
They try to push that more CO2 will raise the “Effective Radiating Layer”. The ERL is a new con of the warmers. It does not work. They cannot prove where the ERL is today, or yesterday.
(Hint to sceptics: CO2 has increased last 15 years, but temps have remained flat.)
Carla says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:22 pm
How many AU has the solar system travelled since the 1600′s?
2265 AU
What if any the relationship to the slow growth of the SAA and the slow approach to the neighboring interstellar cloud.
None
Earths magnetic field is declining.
Has nothing to do with the Sun or the Interstellar medium
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:24 pm
So far, so good.
So, the Earth does not radiate as a body with temperature 289K [or 288], but always at 255K, no matter how much GHG, So based on that in S=aT^4 we get 0.38 W/m2, right?.
Jim G says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:36 pm
diminishes your stature
So be it, as that statement is strongly felt.
and is not necessary if you have reliable observational data
The issue is not about my reliable data, but about the ludicrous claim that he can calculate exactly what the temperature is at any time [past, present, and future] [and anywhere] from planetary positions. If you believe that you are very gullible in my book, and I’m not afraid of saying so in the strongest possible way, regardless of what you think thereof.
Caleb says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:45 am
Regarding the eruption of Tambora in 1815, much ado is made about the “year without a summer” that followed in 1816, however it should also be noted that there apparently was a lot of arctic ice melt, which doesn’t exactly fit the “volcanoes make it colder” idea.
Surface deposition of volcanic dust reducing the ice albedo and increasing melt. A similar process involving black carbon has caused the Arctic sea ice melt over the last decade or so.
While there are endless claims that atmospheric warming has caused the Arctic sea ice to melt, there is precious little evidence to back up these claims.
I’d add that you’d expect most sea ice melt 2 years after the volcanic eruption, when almost all of the volcanic dust has cleared from the atmosphere, and that British report was from 1817.
Leif says:
So, the Earth does not radiate as a body with temperature 289K [or 288], but always at 255K, no matter how much GHG, So based on that in S=aT^4 we get 0.38 W/m2, right?.
I thought S=5.67×10^(-8)x255^4=239.7 W/m^2. How are you getting 0.38 W/m^2?
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 7:13 pm
Leif says:
I thought S=5.67×10^(-8)x255^4=239.7 W/m^2. How are you getting 0.38 W/m^2?
As the difference between T of 255 and T of 255.1
Now, I don’t know where that 0.1 C comes from or what its meaning is.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 7:16 pm
Now, I don’t know where that 0.1 C comes from or what its meaning is.
>>>>>
Waiter, more wine please.
Leif says:
As the difference between T of 255 and T of 255.1
Now, I don’t know where that 0.1 C comes from or what its meaning is.
Well, that 0.1 C is not measured at the top of the atmosphere, but rather at (or very near) the surface of the earth. The ~ 1 W/m^2 variation in TSI over a solar cycle comes in as a variation of UV/VIS energy and is absorbed by the earth (oceans and land). After correcting for duty cycle (1/2), latitude effect (1/2) and albedo (0.7), the TSI variation that is absorbed would be 0.18 W/m^2. If the earth surface temperature varies by 0.1C over the solar cycle, its outgoing surface radiation rate will vary by 0.55 W/m^2. The absorbed TSI variation fails by a factor of three to be large enough to be the driver of this surface radiation change. So something correlated with the solar cycle is causing temperature changes larger than those that would be caused by TSI variation alone. And that is without any consideration of any other energy flux variations that might have been absorbed/discharged in the process of causing that 0.1C variation of surface temperature.
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 6:44 pm
“Has nothing to do with the Sun or the Interstellar medium”
=================
If we were to pass through a dense cloud of dark matter, would it matter ?
u.k.(us) says:
July 6, 2013 at 7:50 pm
If we were to pass through a dense cloud of dark matter, would it matter ?
Since magnetism is an electromagnetic phenomenon one might think that dark matter which does not interact with electromagnetism [that is why we can’t see it] would not matter. If the cloud is dense enough [but I don’t think there are any] it might disturb the planetary orbits, or if falling into the Sun, the energy output of the Sun [as the pressure in the core depends on the weight of all material outside of it].
At this point the discussion has drifted too far from the topic at hand that there is little justification for pursuing that particular line of inquiry.
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Well, that 0.1 C is not measured at the top of the atmosphere, but rather at (or very near) the surface of the earth.
How and by whom?
I like the line–“Since magnetism is an electromagnetic phenomenon one might think that dark matter which does not interact with electromagnetism [that is why we can’t see it] would not matter.
Amazing how something we cannot see (dark matter) is so easily “proven”….
We can’t see it, therefore it is there–LMAO!
Leif says,
bones says:
July 6, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Well, that 0.1 C is not measured at the top of the atmosphere, but rather at (or very near) the surface of the earth.
How and by whom?
Can’t find the original article by Roy Spencer on WUWT, but I copied the figure herehttp://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg580/stanrobertson/TSI-est-of-climate-sensitivity2_zpsb24da898.jpg
Note that the TSI variations at the surface are 0.17 W/m^2 p-p, and the temperature varies about 0.08 C p-p.