Guest essay by David Archibald
There were two papers published in 2013 that, when considered together, paint a bleak picture of North American climate and agriculture for the rest of the century and beyond. Firstly from the abstract of “Multidecadal to multi-century scale collapses of Northern Hemisphere monsoons over the past millennium”1 by Asmerom et al.:
“Late Holocene climate in western North America was punctuated by periods of extended aridity called megadroughts.” And “Several megadroughts are evident, including a multicentury one, AD 1350–1650, herein referred to as Super Drought, which corresponds to the coldest period of the Little Ice Age. Synchronicity between southwestern North American, Chinese, and West African monsoon precipitation suggests the megadroughts were hemispheric in scale. Northern Hemisphere monsoon strength over the last millennium is positively correlated with Northern Hemisphere temperature and North Atlantic SST.” And “the megadroughts, including the Super Drought, coincide with solar insolation minima, suggesting that solar forcing of sea surface and atmospheric temperatures may generate variations in the strength of Northern Hemisphere monsoons.”
So droughts in North America are coincident with solar insolation minima. We already know of the cause and effect relationship between solar cycle minima and East African rainfall. West African drought has been found to be linked to Atlantic sea surface temperatures2.
With that knowledge, all we need to predict the timing of the next megadrought in North America is a long term solar activity forecast. That was also provided in 2013 by Steinhilber and Beer3. They predict a deep low in solar activity starting straight away and continuing for 150 years. This is Figure 4 from that paper:
Figure 4 from Steinhilber and Beer – Prediction of solar activity on the left axis and total solar irradiance on the right axis. M, D and G refer to the Maunder, Dalton and Gleissberg minima respectively. The lighter grey band is based on FFT (fast Fourier transformation) and the darker grey band is based on WTAR (wavelet decomposition using autoregression). As the paper demonstrates, amplitudes of solar activity are better predicted by the FFT method than by the WTAR method.
In effect, Figure 4 predicts a megadrought for North America from at least 2050 to 2200. Generations of people will experience what a Dalton Minimum is like, all their lives. In the meantime it will get colder and drier. In terms of the effect on agricultural productivity, productivity of corn production in the Corn Belt falls by 10% for each 1°C fall in annual average temperature. The Corn Belt also moves south by 144 km for each 1°C fall in annual average temperature. Soil quality declines to the south of the Corn Belt though so farms won’t be as productive. For example, one hundred years ago Alabama had four million acres planted to cotton. Today only 1.3 million acres are devoted to all agricultural crops. Unable to compete with the Corn Belt as it is now, a lot of acreage in Alabama has reverted to pasture and woodland.
A fall in annual average temperature of 2.0°C might decrease production by 20% and the southward move to poorer soils might decrease production by 10% (purely a guess, but I do have a botany major). What drought might do on top of all that is a 30% fall for a total decrease in production in the range of 50% to 60%. Two big corne states, Illinois and Indiana, had corn production falls of 30% in the 2012 drought year:
The US could then feed 600 million vegetarians instead of the current 1.2 billion vegetarians. Food that we would want to eat will become expensive with wide price swings. That is what these two papers are saying about what the future holds for us.
David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery, 2014).
References
- Asmerom, Y. et al., 2013, “Multidecadal to multi-century scale collapses of Northern Hemisphere monsoons over the past millennium” PNAS vol.110 no. 24 9651-9656
- Shanahan, T.M et al., 2009 “Atlantic Forcing of Persistent Drought in West Africa” Science, Vol. 324 no 5925 pp. 377-380
- Steinhilber, F. and Beer, J., 2013, “Prediction of solar activity for the next 500 years” Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, vol. 118, 1-7
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif,
Through ropes, catch yourself on 🙁
Leif.
I Said,
It does explain how sunspots can move from the equator to the polar regions and how they are magnetically balanced and conforming to known principles, it does not explain however, how the solar cycle begins with sunspots at the polar regions that follow these theoretical lines towards the equator and then travel from the equator to the polar regions.
Leif,
Are the timing of these “ropes” a coincidence?
There is a differential rotation on sun, cause and effect?
I am missing some of my comments
(I am sure I made them)
Might it be because I am a cyclist
and the moderator is not?
[might be because they were off-topic -mod]
might be because they were off-topic -mod
henry says
no
Sparks says:
May 16, 2014 at 8:10 pm
It does not explain however, how the solar cycle begins with sunspots at the polar regions that follow these theoretical lines towards the equator and then travel from the equator to the polar regions.
I don’t know how many times I must say this, but the theory calculates [i.e. explains] where the sunspots should occurs and they do just as calculated [i.e. explained]. The calculation is the explanation.
Leif Fig 4 is scaled to the Holocene and cuts off about 1940. For the amplitude of the latest warming see fig 3. Also on fig3 compare the width and amplitude of the current warming to the 1000 peak. Looks like we are probably now just past peak – as the drop in the neutron count for 24 v 23 would also suggest.Glad you admit the relevance of the millennial cycle – could it be that looking at Fig 3 again you might be close to agreeing with me?
Dr Norman Page says:
May 17, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Leif Fig 4 is scaled to the Holocene and cuts off about 1940.
The only relevant Figure is your Figure 4. That it ends in 1940 is irrelevant on a 1000-yr time scale.Your use of ‘admit’ is a standard cheap trick to garner some dubious relevance. My severe criticism of your speculation stands. As Feynman used to say: “the easiest person to fool is oneself” and you succeed spectacularly.
Willis, you are right. I overstated a bit. You caught me being generous. Maybe I was giving the best case scenario to prove a point (which neither camp actually has yet), which still means that the null hypothesis wins. If you cannot rule out the null hypothesis driver you cannot reject it. I think CO2 and solar parameters effect land temperatures to about the same part of a degree, give or take, and when up against intrinsic natural variation swings, are reduced to signals that cannot be “seen” with the naked eye in the intrinsic driven noisy trends.
Leif . Fig 4 is relevant for showing the occurrence of several 1000 year peaks during the Holocene. Your last point concerned the amplitude of the current peak relative to other 1000 year peaks and for that Fig 3 is obviously the most significant .Readers may wish to check the link given at Leifs post on 15/5:38pm to form their own opinions. Fig 3 shows that Leifs comment on 16/1.25 pm is incorrect because he looked only at Fig 4 and not Fig 3
lsvalgaard says:
May 17, 2014 at 11:33 am
I don’t know how many times I must say this, but the theory calculates [i.e. explains] where the sunspots should occurs and they do just as calculated [i.e. explained]. The calculation is the explanation.
Leif, The Math is correct, it however describes a magnetic toroidal feature, all I’m saying is that observed solar activity does not match the calculation, don’t misunderstand what I’m saying tho, the math works on paper from solar maximum to solar minimum, It does not fit observations from solar minimum to solar maximum, regardless of a polarity reversal the math should work both ways.
Sparks says:
May 18, 2014 at 6:03 pm
Leif, The Math is correct, it however describes a magnetic toroidal feature, all I’m saying is that observed solar activity does not match the calculation,
The Babcock model is credited with providing an excellent match between the theory and the observations, so you are incorrect in believing that there is no match.
Dr Norman Page says:
May 17, 2014 at 1:30 pm
because he looked only at Fig 4 and not Fig 3
You claimed they both show the same thing. now you are saying that they don’t. Not very impressive,
Leif Any objective reader looking at Figs 3 and 4 together can see that there is a 1000 year cycle which probably peaked in the 1st decade of this century.I’m happy to let others judge for themselves. Your problem like most of the establishment scientists is that you can’t , or simply refuse to see the wood for the trees.
lsvalgaard says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:05 pm
The Babcock model is credited with providing an excellent match between the theory and the observations, so you are incorrect in believing that there is no match.
I’ll point out your deliberate omission.
I clearly said “The math works on paper from solar maximum to solar minimum, It does not fit observations from solar minimum to solar maximum, regardless of a polarity reversal the math should work both ways.”
I do disrepair when you take my comments out of context and reply to it!
* despair 🙂
Dr Norman Page says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:26 pm
can see that there is a 1000 year cycle which probably peaked in the 1st decade of this century.
Probably? Either it peaked or it did not. I’ll say that it didn’t.
Sparks says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:29 pm
* despair 🙂
You mean that you are unable to show that the observations don’t match the theory?
If you take my comments out of context and reply to it in that form, from now on I will believe it is your intention to do so, whereby you are intentionally causing distraction deliberately. 😉
Sparks says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:37 pm
If you take my comments out of context and reply to it in that form, from now on I will believe it is your intention to do so, whereby you are intentionally causing distraction deliberately. 😉
Don’t we all say everything deliberately?
You say the theory and the observations don’t match. I point out that for more than half a century everyone in this business have agreed that the Babcock theory [although too tough in details] provides an excellent fit. Perhaps you could try to be specific about what you don’t understand.
Sparks says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:28 pm
I clearly said “The math works on paper from solar maximum to solar minimum, It does not fit observations from solar minimum to solar maximum, regardless of a polarity reversal the math should work both ways.”
The theory predicts that solar activity begins a high latitudes ant solar minimum, then as we approach solar maximum, the sunspots should appear increasingly closer to the equator. This is what is observed.
lsvalgaard says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:48 pm
The theory predicts that solar activity begins a high latitudes ant solar minimum, then as we approach solar maximum, the sunspots should appear increasingly closer to the equator. This is what is observed.
The Math does not, look again.. this is my point.
Don’t tell me that it assumed that it does!
Sparks says:
May 18, 2014 at 8:55 pm
The Math does not, look again.. this is my point.
The top plot shows the theory [published in 1960]. The bottom plot shows the data observed for twenty years after the predicted variation. http://www.leif.org/research/Babcock-vs-Observations.png
What was your point again?
You’re preaching your dogma again Leif, I’ve pointed out a fault, if you believe and ignore the fault you will resolve it with distraction, won’t you.