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.
Sparks says:
May 20, 2014 at 10:07 pm
Theories evolve and improve, facts are not built on theory. 🙂
If your theory does not agree with the observations, your theory is wrong, regardless of how much you love it.
lsvalgaard says:
May 20, 2014 at 10:21 pm
If your theory does not agree with the observations, your theory is wrong, regardless of how much you love it.
What theory? have you elevated my correction to a theory?
Theories are notions with banner unfurled
Data is observations of the world
Both can be wrong! When data is indirect
They use theories too, and should thus be suspect
When people record, or translate, or observe
Occasions are frequent for data to swerve
When hypotheses disagree with what you see
Check the notion and data both. Don’t you agree?
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Sparks says:
May 20, 2014 at 10:33 pm
What theory? have you elevated my correction to a theory?
What correction? None of what you say makes any sense, so there is really nothing to discuss.
lsvalgaard says:
May 20, 2014 at 11:11 pm
“What correction?”
Would you like me to remind you? scroll up!
Leif,
Fact.
The Strength of sunspot activity is dependent on how quickly the north/south polar field interacts with itself at the equator.
Keith DeHavelle
I think you’re full of it.
Sparks says:
May 21, 2014 at 12:17 am
Fact.
The Strength of sunspot activity is dependent on how quickly the north/south polar field interacts with itself at the equator.
Nonsense
@Sparks,
That sounds somewhat insulting
(It’s only a suspicion)
If so, it’s rather odd, resulting
From my defending your position.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
What is suppressing the sunspots from forming?
What is suppressing the rush? to the poles?
Where is the magnetic flux?
What is happening now that wasn’t before or what is not happening now?
What is necessary to form new magnetic flux?
Has rotation slowed down, hemispherically, polar, equator regions?
How big can galactic magnetic flux tubes get? What becomes of galactic magnetic flux?
wow my fingers got away on me…
Carla says:
May 21, 2014 at 5:04 pm
What is suppressing the sunspots from forming?
What is suppressing the rush? to the poles?
Where is the magnetic flux?…
All of these are interesting questions under active research,
How big can galactic magnetic flux tubes get? What becomes of galactic magnetic flux?
The solar wind prevents the galactic magnetic field from interfering with the solar system
@Keith. DeHavelle
No Insult intended, being in a rush for work I forgot to add a tag 🙂
@sparks
note my comments to you from here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/17/the-tip-of-the-gleissberg/#comment-1642086
Leif,
If the suns polar field reversal is slower and less sunspots are produced then there is obviously a very clear relationship between the timing of the polar field reversal and sunspot activity, If you give some consideration to my “correction” that the correct sequence of events are that the Polar field reversal drives the differential rotation between the polar regions and the equator and produces sunspot activity, we can then move on and build a very precise model which accurately simulates the suns behavior.
I’ve already begun writing a program (similar in precision to planetarium software) for testing the timing of the polar field reversal and its role in shaping magnetic and spot activity.
I’ve mentioned before that I noticed when the sun has very weak or no sunspot activity during a polar field reversal because the reversal itself is slower, I’ve noticed that there is also another possibility, a slowing down of the polar field reversal may result in no reversal for a extended period, this extended period with no polar field reversal does not appear to have a limit, during extended periods of no polar field reversal there maybe periods of very slow moving polar field reversal producing very weak spot activity and even rare possibility of partial polar field reversals.
Clearly such a process is a mechanism for a solar-system wide reduction in solar energy and an excellent mechanism for driving Ice ages and interglacial periods.
Sparks says:
May 22, 2014 at 1:12 pm
the correct sequence of events are that the Polar field reversal drives the differential rotation between the polar regions
you have all this backwards and therefore your ideas are invalid and don’t need to be considered any further. What drives what is something called the ‘plasma beta’ which is the ratio of gas pressure to magnetic pressure. If beta is greater than one, the gas moves the magnetic field around. If beta is less that one, the magnetic field drives the gas. In the photosphere and below, beta is larger than one so the differential rotation determines the magnetic field [not as you claim the other way around], see e.,g. http://www.vega00.com/2011/03/what-is-plasma-beta.html
Leif,
[The ‘plasma beta’ the ratio of gas pressure to magnetic pressure. If beta is greater than one, the gas moves the magnetic field around.]
This is correct with what I have said, bar the sequence of causality, the polar field reversal begins the interaction between the ratio of gas pressure to magnetic strength, which ‘distorts the polar magnetic field at the equator, when the polar magnetic field is at either geographic polar region it is ‘at rest’ and the strength of the polar field does not interact with the direction the ‘gas’ (or ‘matter’) is moving in. it is only when the polar field reversal is underway that this process takes place.
Sparks says:
May 22, 2014 at 5:06 pm
This is correct with what I have said, bar the sequence of causality, the polar field reversal begins the interaction between the ratio of gas pressure to magnetic strength,
No, the polar field reversal does not influence the gas pressure. As I said you have causality reversed. Or worse, as the ‘process’ you describe does not take place, no matter the direction of causality.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 22, 2014 at 7:43 pm
“the polar field reversal does not influence the gas pressure.”
Gas pressure does not influence the polar field reversal. Do you remember all your own wise words that you would lecture me with “your theory is wrong, regardless of how much you love it” have a look into that sometime yourself. 🙂
Leif,
My argument is not backward!
Sparks says:
May 22, 2014 at 8:51 pm
My argument is not backward!
It is un-physical, contrary to observations, and perhaps best described as ‘not even wrong’..
. Leif Svalgaard says:
May 22, 2014 at 9:09 pm
“It is un-physical, contrary to observations, and perhaps best described as ‘not even wrong’..”
It is based on physical observation, and best described as correct or if you prefer frigging awesome!
Sparks says:
May 22, 2014 at 9:56 pm
frigging awful!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Leif,
The “Wikipedia” actually is awful.
Did you know Encarta 95 had no Irish inverters listed lol
*inventors or inverters, Encarta 95 sucked! 😉
Leif,
Are you promoting the “Kruger effect” as a form of oppression? are you trying to put me man?