From MIT: Intensive agriculture influences U.S. regional summer climate, study finds
An increase in corn and soybean production in the Midwest may have led to cooler, wetter summers there.
Scientists agree that changes in land use such as deforestation, and not just greenhouse gas emissions, can play a significant role altering the world’s climate systems. Now, a new study by researchers at MIT and Dartmouth College reveals how another type of land use, intensive agriculture, can impact regional climate.
The researchers show that in the last half of the 20th century, the midwestern U.S. went through an intensification of agricultural practices that led to dramatic increases in production of corn and soybeans. And, over the same period in that region, summers were significantly cooler and had greater rainfall than during the previous half-century. This effect, with regional cooling in a time of overall global warming, may have masked part of the warming effect that would have occurred over that period, and the new finding could help to refine global climate models by incorporating such regional effects.
The findings are being published this week in Geophysical Research Letters, in a paper by Ross Alter, a recent MIT postdoc; Elfatih Eltahir, the Breene M. Kerr Professor of Hydrology and Climate; and two others.
The team showed that there was a strong correlation, in both space and time, between the intensification of agriculture in the Midwest, the decrease in observed average daytime temperatures in the summer, and an increase in the observed local rainfall. In addition to this circumstantial evidence, they identified a mechanism that explains the association, suggesting that there was indeed a cause-and-effect link between the changes in vegetation and the climatic effects.
Eltahir explains that plants “breathe” in the carbon dioxide they require for photosynthesis by opening tiny pores, called stoma, but each time they do this they also lose moisture to the atmosphere. With the combination of improved seeds, fertilizers, and other practices, between 1950 and 2009 the annual yield of corn in the Midwest increased about fourfold and that of soybeans doubled. These changes were associated with denser plants with more leaf mass, which thus increased the amount of moisture released into the atmosphere. That extra moisture served to both cool the air and increase the amount of rainfall, the researchers suggest.
“For some time, we’ve been interested in how changes in land use can influence climate,” Eltahir says. “It’s an independent problem from carbon dioxide emissions,” which have been more intensively studied.
Eltahir, Alter, and their co-authors noticed that records showed that over the course of the 20th century, “there were substantial changes in regional patterns of temperature and rainfall. A region in the Midwest got colder, which was a surprise,” Eltahir says. Because weather records in the U.S are quite extensive, there is “a robust dataset that shows significant changes in temperature and precipitation” in the region.
Over the last half of the century, average summertime rainfall increased by about 15 percent compared to the previous half-century, and average summer temperatures decreased by about half a degree Celsius. The effects are “significant, but small,” Eltahir says.
By introducing into a regional U.S. climate model a factor to account for the more intensive agriculture that has made the Midwest one of the world’s most productive agricultural areas, the researchers found, “the models show a small increase in precipitation, a drop in temperature, and an increase in atmospheric humidity,” Eltahir says — exactly what the climate records actually show.
That distinctive “fingerprint,” he says, strongly suggests a causative association. “During the 20th century, the midwestern U.S. experienced regional climate change that’s more consistent with what we’d expect from land-use changes as opposed to other forcings,” he says.
This finding in no way contradicts the overall pattern of global warming, Eltahir stresses. But in order to refine the models and improve the accuracy of climate predictions, “we need to understand some of these regional and local processes taking place in the background.”
Unlike land-use changes such as deforestation, which can reduce the absorption of carbon dioxide by trees that can help to ameliorate emissions of the gas, the changes in this case did not reflect any significant increase in the area under cultivation, but rather a dramatic increase in yields from existing farmland. “The area of crops did not expand by a whole lot over that time, but crop production increased substantially, leading to large increases in crop yield,” Alter explains.
The findings suggest the possibility that at least on a small-scale regional or local level, intensification of agriculture on existing farmland could be a way of doing some local geoengineering to at least slightly lessen the impacts of global warming, Eltahir says. A recent paper from another group in Switzerland suggests just that.
But the findings could also portend some negative impacts because the kind of intensification of agricultural yields achieved in the Midwest are unlikely to be repeated, and some of global warming’s effects may “have been masked by these regional or local effects. But this was a 20th-century phenomenon, and we don’t expect anything similar in the 21st century,” Eltahir says. So warming in that region in the future “will not have the benefit of these regional moderators.”
“This is a really important, excellent study,” says Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research scientist at CIRES, at the University of Colorado at Boulder, who was not involved in this work. “The leadership of the climate science community has not yet accepted that human land management is at least as important on regional and local climate as the addition of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by human activities.”
Pielke adds that “Professor Eltahir has been one of the pioneers in the improvement of our knowledge on this scientifically and societally important issue.” This paper “is a significant contribution on this subject.”
The research team also included recent MIT graduate Hunter Douglas ’16 and Jonathan Winter at Dartmouth College. Lead author Alter, who carried out this research as an MIT postdoc, is now a research meteorologist for the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, part of the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The work was supported by a cooperative agreement between the Masdar Institute and MIT, and by USDA-NIFA.



What was growing on these lands before crops? Interesting that the researchers overlooked the fact that vast tracts of forested land were cleared to make room for crops. Such a omission kind of detracts from the story. Seems all the was changed were the trees for corn or prairies for wheat.
Yup! Sounds like guesswork to me. They don’t really know what was going on when the land was in its natural state. They assume “climate change” and infer from there regardless of any evidence that points elsewhere.
You are right but it will help them say it is worse than we thought.
Wait a minute, the prairie grasses are only active and green for awhile but those great corn leaves are watered and kept green for a long time. This is sort of evaporative cooling, like the old swamp coolers. Who would of thought of this feedback? I say feed them CO2 and keep them watered. Also I like corn.
Damn right, Ron.
And I also like corn, either on the cob or on the hoof. Hoof part with processing according to the dotted lines on the cow figure. Also popped, watching the house of climate cards teetering.
Not all corn is irrigated.
Bingo!
Most corn across the corn belt is not irrigated.
When flying over the Midwest and West, one can easily spot what is and is not irrigated.
Ok Mark W and A TheoK, consider leaf density of corn, some albeit unirrigated, versus natural prairie grass, still a lot more evaporative cooling with the corn.
Ron, if what is being transpirated is greater than what is falling from the sky, agriculture won’t continue for long.
In most of the area corn is not irrigated. Corn is also a C4 warm season grass as are most prarie grasses.
I have been searching for articles on non-irrigated corn in the midwest and not finding any. There is pre-plant irrigation, irrigation schedules for maximum corn yield, and minimum irrigations schedules for areas with reduced aquifer production. Nowhere can I find a totally non-irrigated corn article. Now, I am non a farmer and maybe some corn is produced this way. OK, corn is a grass. Have you walked through original tall-prairie grass and compared it to walking through a corn field? I have both. The leaf density, the producer of transpiration (evaporative cooling!) is dramatically different for these two grass end-members. I still like this article and corn and cows with dotted lines on their sides.
In 2012, U.S. farmers irrigated 56 million acres, or 6 percent of all farmland.
https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/Farms_and_Farmland/Highlights_Farms_and_Farmland.pdf
In Illinois, it is even less, much less.
Got a big BS for you there gator69. I read the reference and “farmland” includes ranches, treeland and others. Look at the plot “Irrigated Acres as Percent of Farmland by County” and you see the entire midwest is +40%. Now on to the big question: What’s this about 69 and gators?
Ron, you need to learn how to read maps. How much forest green do you see in the Midwest?
Sorry, but there is nowhere near 40% irrigation in the Midwest. The figures I came across were outdated, but did not even come close to 5%. I lived and worked in Illinois for decades, and the vast majority of farmland there does not have irrigation equipment.
Dad was a Gators fan, and I own a 1969 GS 400 convertible. Just where is your mind? 😉
Gator69, great car. However, still BS on the irrigation issue. Try http://www.cropmetrics.com and read state-by-state irrigation acres. Impressive numbers and almost all pumped from aquifers locally. By the way, I have been reading/making/buying/selling maps since 1967, say for 50 years. The basic issue here is whether the high leaf density of corn produces more transpiration (evaporative cooling) than original prairie grasses. I’m sticking with corn.
You sent me to a sales site for an irrigation company?
Ron, you have issues. Again…
In 2012, U.S. farmers irrigated 56 million acres, or 6 percent of all farmland.
https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/Farms_and_Farmland/Highlights_Farms_and_Farmland.pdf
Yes, 56 million acres is a big number, but is a small percentage.
And the map clearly shows that in the Midwest, most of the counties are less than 1% irrigated. The Midwest usually receives sufficient rainfall to grow corn and soybesns without irrigation. Get over it.
PS – As part of my Remote Sensing degree, I had to take (and pass) cartography classes. Take another look at that map Ron.
What was growing before crops? More crops. In my area of Wisconsin there were actually more crops in 1937 than today. I can tell this from aerial photos, they photographed the whole state. Very few frees in my area back in 1937, all cropland. More trees today.
https://maps.sco.wisc.edu/WHAIFinder/
Wasn’t that the Great Plains of buffalo and grassland?
rocketscientist, just look at this:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~fridolph/graphics/gloveg2.gif
You are spreading alternative facts.
IOWA is not all of “The Midwest”. West of the Mississippi was prairie, while the east was forests. So while you might have a point on the Iowa part of the “land use” question, it is not indicative of the land us changes in “the Midwest” as a whole.
Your points, especially regarding Iowa, are correct or roughly correct; but, prairies were prairies and started as one moved west away from the Alleghany mountains.
Both sides of the Mississippi River North of Louisiana were prairie.
One needs to remember, that the natives regularly burned the prairies to keep it mostly grasslands. Trees grew along streams, gullies, river edges, etc.
Once one starts traveling through America’s West, a key landmark identifying where man lives, are trees.
Man plants trees as wind breaks, shade, wood sources and even landscaping.
In America’s arid West, when man abandons a property, the dies from lack of water; yet, stand for decades marking where man failed to stay, but planted trees.
And here one east of Mississippi more prairie than forrest:
Illinois
http://wwx.inhs.illinois.edu/files/9913/4316/4899/state.pdf
growing…..they started with the dust bowl…of course it got cooler and wetter
Agreed Latitude!
• Cherry picked start period.
• Short time frame. Ignores centuries of grass lands. Ignores farming since the 18th century.
• Use of meaningless words, without explicit detail; e.g. “intensive agriculture”, “intensification of agriculture”
• Gross assumptions; e.g. agriculture=cooling=precipitation increases.
• “The area of crops did not expand by a whole lot over that time, but crop production increased substantially, leading to large increases in crop yield”.
Oh, wait it’s now ‘greater crop yields=cooling=precipitation increases…
• Verified via models… Yeah, sure. It’s called confirmation bias! ERDC needs to seriously review this research and test assumptions.
• Yet another excuse.
Then ya gotta love their “in order to refine the models and improve the accuracy of climate predictions, “we need to understand some of these regional and local processes taking place in the background.”
• In other words, fudge factors to properly “adjust” cooler rural temperatures.
Look at the Currier & Ives print of the Great Planes Prairie Fire as an example of those set annually by the Indians – till we stopped it.
Native Americans set many fires, and for many different reasons…
On the hunt, Indian men used numerous small fires to direct herds of deer into smaller and smaller circles, making them easier to kill.
https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Fire_During_the_Pre-Colonial_Era_Uses_of
I’m sure none of those fires ever got away from them.
Gator, search Currier & Ives print of Great Plains Prairie Fire.
Looks to me like they were out of control or at least Very Large.
Guess I should have added sarc tag…
I discussed these issues [urban-heat-island and rural-cold-island effects] in my book “Climate Change: Myths & Realities” of 2008 at pages 103 to 123 under ecological changes. Also on several occasions highlighted the role of these in global surface measurements based temperature data, wherein met net work is concentrated in urban areas [and thus over emphasising the warming] and sparse and unevenly distributed rural met network in rural areas [and thus under emphasising the colder temperature conditions]. However, satellite data over comes this imbalance in global temperature.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
What was growing there? Tall grass prairie, of which there are a few remnants left, and shortgrass prairie, a few remnants lefts, also, as well as native species of wildflowers such as rattlesnake master, prairie smoke and liatris that most farmers consider to be weeds. There were forested areas, which also have remnants left, as well as savannahs of various species of oaks and maples.
Some species of grasses such as turkeyfoot can grow to six feet in height.
AGW believers clutching at straws.
Does this mean we have to pay corn farmers twice, once for growing the ethanol scam and again for direct climate modulating efforts? The non-lobbyists want to know and the non-voters in the Iowa caucuses.
There is a major effort to show that Corn Ethanol has lower and lower emissions and much greater global warming benefits than previously thought. Early on, in the 2005 time frame, many thought that the life cycle CO2 benefits of corn ethanol were actually negative. Over the years, the desire to increase ethanol production led many to reassess the LCA of ethanol and now many believe that there is a 50% reduction in GHG emissions relative to conventional gasoline. In the past, Land Use Change (LUC) was considered negative as much CO2 was released from the soil when the land was cultivated, and there is also a lot of N2O emissions from fertilizer use.
This new study will give ammunition to those that want to claim LUC is actually beneficial and we should grow (and therefore use) more ethanol.
However, from the engine point of view, EtOH is not a good fuel and it has no actual benefits to regulated emissions in vehicles equipped with catalyst converters. Contrary to all those that claim many benefits for EtOH use!
Lower emission in what manner? Lower energy density (energy density per unit volume) of E85 ethanol means 1.5 gallons must be combusted to produce the equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline. That correlates into 1.5 times as much CO2 created to produce the same amount of energy.
Ethanol simply has less energy density than oil and the ROI for ethanol does not justify its expansion as a biofuel.
So remove the subsidies and let them have at it!
I’ve read that ethanol cleans engines and lines of gunk, and helps them last two years longer on average.
ALL of my small engine mechanics and operators swear the exact opposite: If you want a small engine (2-stroke, lawnmower, cart, buggy, or even chainsaw or blower) to last more than 1-1/2 seasons, use ONLY straight ethanol-free gas. NOTHING else!
Sounds like you are saying the data didn’t change, just the motivation of those compiling and interpreting the data.
“ALL of my small engine mechanics and operators swear the exact opposite: If you want a small engine (2-stroke, lawnmower, cart, buggy, or even chainsaw or blower) to last more than 1-1/2 seasons, use ONLY straight ethanol-free gas. NOTHING else!”
I should have specified that I was speaking of 4-stroke auto engines. In 2-stroke engines, I believe the weak point is the hoses, which become brittle because of ethanol. An alternative to gasoline plus 2-cycle oil are special formulations of other hydrocarbons now widely sold in hardware stores, at an expensive price.
Does this mean we can counteract the effects of global warming by increasing our use of intensive agriculture?
Correlation is causation! 😉
As someone who worked in those corn and soybean fields in Illinois, I can assure everyone here that those crops DO NOT cool ANYTHING. Those fields were ALWAYS much watmer than the surrounding areas.
The above study is pure BS.
Actually I have similar experiences, but the difference is people measure relative heat, not temperature. The temperature in the corn fields is lower, but the humidity is high and therefore the total enthalpy (amount of heat) is higher then the surrounding areas. As a human we only can “feel” whether heat is flowing into our bodies (feels warm) or out (feels cold). A 80 °F day with low humidity feels far more comfortable than a humid day with the same temperature. Likewise a foggy 50 °F day will feel quite chilling.
Add to this the almost total lack of wind movement at ground level in the high corn and it will feel hugely oppressive.
All that water evaporating is absorbing heat from the air thereby cooling it, but if the humidity doesn’t get transported away the “heat” will not be going anywhere. But, of course we know the humidity is being transported up into the fluffy cloud forming where the thermal tops out above the field.
Do thermometers also “feel” warmer? Because ours showed definitively warmer temps in cultivated fields.
I was a climatlogy student before it was cool. 😉
Nope thermometers only measure temperature. Could the areal % of ground cover on the cultivated field have had the effect of local surface albedo decrease and hence greater solar energy absorption?
See my post below. Cultivated crops raise temps.
A fifty degree day with little are no moisture is cold, far colder that a foggy day. This desert dweller learned that after moving from a damp climate(Northern Minnesota) to a less damp climate(western North Dakota) to a dry climate(Mesa AZ.) There is little heat in dry and the heat you have is sucked out of you fast. I take care of a patch of grass here in Mesa my development has a small dog park. It not unusual to have frost or ice from the sprinklers in December/January even though the ambient air temperature as measured did not drop below 40. If there even a hint of humidity in the air that does not happen, also with humidity in the air the temperature drop is not as fast when the sun goes down.
Probably feels hotter because more humidity and no shade.
Nope.
“Using maps and data from hundreds of satellite images, the researchers calculated the temperature, the amount of water given off and how much light was reflected rather than absorbed for each of the different types of vegetation. They found that compared to land cultivated with other annual crops, sugarcane reduced the local air temperature by an average of 0.93 degrees Celsius (1.67 F).
But compared to the natural vegetation of the Cerrado – mainly grass and shrubs – the sugarcane fields warmed the ambient air by 1.55 C (2.79 F).”
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/april/sugarcane-climate-change-042211.html
Can’t speak to the Upper Midwest portion of the study area, but Kansas and Oklahoma were primarily tall grass prairie prior to human agriculture.
This is a fire dependent ecosystem. We have cedar infestations in Kansas over the last 90 years as humans have built roads and plowed fields that act as firebreaks.
I suspect that the wheat crops in Kansas act similarly to the preexisting prairie, because they are both grasses.
The strongest effect in the study appears to closely match the corn belt.
Not familiar with “cedar infestations”. Are cedar trees infesting the prairies, or insects are infesting the non-native cedar trees?
Red cedars used to be burned off with the prarie/savannah fires. They are fast growing and birds spread the cone seeds. We have red cedar infestations in places in SW Wisconsin. On my farm, I chain saw them down every few years although has really only been a problem on the eastern edge of one pasture. Dunno why.
My dairy farm in SW Wisconsin (the Uplands along the lower Wisconsin River) was all burr oak savanna (prairie with occasional burr oaks), also fire dependent. Was settled well before 1900. All the hardwood forests that exist there now on the untillable hillsides are because of farmland fire suppresssion. Provable by dendrochronology of non burr oak species like hickory, red, white, and black oaks, and hard maple. Biggest trees of those species are <150 years old when logged. Those ‘man made’ forests in the uplands, not crop intensification, changed the region’s microclimate. OTH, all of Illinois south of Chicago was tall grass prairie, now just corn, soy, and some alfalfa/oats. Chicagoland was more oak savanna and is now just suburbs as far as the eye can see.
Come on Rud, you can tell us what the climate was like before you settled it by taking some tree ring from Those oaks and interpreting them for us. Guaranteed accuracy to 0.1 of a degree. We can’t wait for your report
Tonyb
Tony I said dendrochronology, not treemometers like Mann uses. Appreciated your joke. Our local area was settled ~ 1850-1880 after the 1840s Blackhawk wars west of Madison—we have a hiking/biking trail from Madison to Dodgeville (about 40 miles) called Military Trail. Was originally the trail used to move troops west during the Blackhawk wars. Nearest Indian effigy mound from Mississippi culture is only about 5 mils from the farm down along Otter creek, named because it had river otters before they were all trapped out for fur. Also, the nearest town to the farm, Avoca, was founded as a little provisioning stop for the spring rafters relying on the snow melt to float rafts of white pine logs from northern Wisconsin down the Wisconsin river then down the Mississippi to St. Louis for lumber milling ‘to build the west’. Most dont know lumber company Weyerhauser was founded in northern Wisconsin by Germans, and only later moved operations to the Pacific northwest. Much of their old logged area is now national forest or Menominee Indian reservation with beautiful white pine regrowth. We have written regional weather records going back well before 1900 thanks to U. Wisconsin Madison, founded in 1848. So don’t need treemometers. We don’t have a long history, but it is an interesting one.
Highest regards from this side of the pond to yours.
Would love to see a comprehensive study of the massive changes that have taken place over which trees are growing where and when they were introduced. Had been told since a kid (60 years ago) that all of the oaks on the NE were planted there to support the shipbuilding, that the oaks in the south were cut down to build ships and then replaced with faster growing pines. No thought whatsoever about the birds, bees, mammals, reptiles, etc that depended on the trees for their livelihood. These changes had to affect weather, water sheds, subterranean water level, and many other things. And the present breed of “Environmentalists” are only concerned with maintaining the present status quo.
It looks like the tree farmers had no input into this model/lobby campaign study. Tisk
I must have missed it. What do the black dots represent?
I had to look at the actual journal article to find out what the black dots means. They indicate statistical significance at or greater than the 95th percentile, correlating precipitation and temperature.
“…Scientists agree that changes in land use such as deforestation, and not just greenhouse gas emissions, can play a significant role altering the world’s climate systems…”
Whoa whoa whoa! They’ve always dismissed the idea that these impacts were “significant” and claimed they were almost inconsequential. Pielke Sr nailed it.
“…This effect, with regional cooling in a time of overall global warming, may have masked part of the warming effect that would have occurred over that period…”
Oh, so now I see why scientists would now be on the “land use impact” bandwagon.
So much for “the science is settled”.
I’m an old farm boy (grew up there). Haven’t looked at the paper’s details, but we used to judge corn growth as proper if “knee high by the 4th of July”. So April and/or May are basically black ‘dirt’, June is small young plants, July is half-grown corn, and A/S/O is full-grown corn. Then frost hits – harvest is done by November (all average years). The thermal budget relating to CO2, H2O, temp modification, albedo etc. varies greatly over short time periods. Their premise makes some sense (if really measured) for a few months. Then the areas studied turn white and frozen for several months and everything stops. If they are right, they should see short-term changes in effects that vary each year (season). If this is all just models the variability will be smoothed out, but should be apparent in wider standard deviations, which make it difficult to get significance.
IN/IL/IA were tall grass prairies where a man on horseback was barely visible before it was ploughed up. That should have done the same thing.
Great point. And in SW Wisconsin on my farm, summer temps do not correlate at all with stage of corn growth. They do with weather fronts depending on from south, west, or north wind orientation. South means 80’s, humid, Tstorms. West means hot 90s and dry. North means cool (high 70s) and usually dry.
Indiana was actually heavily forested in the Central and Southern regions.
Now, a new study by researchers at MIT and Dartmouth College reveals how another type of land use, intensive agriculture, can impact regional climate.
And they had to go to university to figure that one out?
“This finding in no way contradicts the overall pattern of global warming, Eltahir stresses.”
The genuflection to the alter of CAGW.
If you add up all the papers you seen here that suggest alternate climate drivers and then make that sort of disclaim, it makes you wonder if the combination of all those doesn’t explain why CO2 has not proved the models right.
Just too much else going on all through history for the magic molecule to be really felt for all its robust [sarc] photon absorption/re-emission.
Yup there has been an overall pattern of global warming since the end of the LIA. Last Thames ice fair was 1814. But there cannot have been any AGW until after 1950 (not enough delta CO2 per AR4 WG1 SPM fig 4). Worse, it cooled from 1950 to ~1975. Worst, except for the now cooled 2015-16 El Nino blip, it hasn’t warmed this century except by Karlization or Mearsation. Yet this century comprises about 35% of the entire increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958 (Keeling curve). The big attribution bust.
“…The researchers show that in the last half of the 20th century, the midwestern U.S. went through an intensification of agricultural practices that led to dramatic increases in production of corn and soybeans. And, over the same period in that region, summers were significantly cooler and had greater rainfall than during the previous half-century…”
Summers got significantly cooler? Higher rainfall was due to land use changes and not global warming? Lots of folks need to see this memo, such as some of the following…
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21072016/sizzling-midwest-heat-wave-future-climate-change-global-warming-noaa
Sizzling Midwest Previews a Hotter Future Climate
https://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/regional_information/midwestern-states.html#.WoM_E2cwuUk
“…The results from the analysis are clear: Hot summer weather and heat waves have been increasing in cities in the nation’s heartland over the last six decades on average…”
http://midwestenergynews.com/digests/dd-study-finds-midwest-summers-getting-hotter-stickier/
Study finds Midwest summers getting hotter, stickier
https://thinkprogress.org/the-impact-of-climate-change-on-the-midwest-more-heat-more-droughts-more-floods-fewer-crops-af7b033f1a7c/
The Impact Of Climate Change On The Midwest: More Heat, More Droughts, More Floods, Fewer Crops
Thanks for the UHI driven alarmism.
Gator, you didn’t get his point. He was demonstrating how the quote conflicts with the alarmist meme.
I don’t think there is any evidence whatsoever that shows climate cultists recognize and shift their thinking after falling into contradiction.
Simple question: CAN humans cause climate change? — just not in the way advertised?
Yes, regionally on land. Land use change (more/less forest), UHI, pollution (aerosols). Probably not globally since 71% of the Earths surface is water where humans aren’t.
Micro-climate vs. regional climate vs. global climate.
The first two seem reasonable. The third, … not so much.
Of course the obligatory, assumption that this finding is masking the warming that should have taken place.
This comes from a study by Muller of BEST from 2016
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3b2c9539614011b51577cccaa0f88e77
The cooling in the US predates this current round of changes in agriculture, but could of course have been extended or intensified by it
tonyb
They are trying to explain this:
http://oi67.tinypic.com/10er3ps.jpg
And they are ignoring all the agriculture in California
Yup, this paper is just another major yawner, chalk it up to the publish or perish and all changes are due to man department.
I’d love to know how they would explain the dramatic climate shift in North America during the 16th century.
“Using maps and data from hundreds of satellite images, the researchers calculated the temperature, the amount of water given off and how much light was reflected rather than absorbed for each of the different types of vegetation. They found that compared to land cultivated with other annual crops, sugarcane reduced the local air temperature by an average of 0.93 degrees Celsius (1.67 F).
But compared to the natural vegetation of the Cerrado – mainly grass and shrubs – the sugarcane fields warmed the ambient air by 1.55 C (2.79 F).”
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/april/sugarcane-climate-change-042211.html
Woopsy!
I have worked diligently over my 40 year career to remove SO2 from the combustion gases generated by coal fired power plants. We have done such a great job that there is now areas of sulfur depletion in the soil of some of the farmland in the mid-west and south-east. This causes less crop production due the lack of this nutrient. Many farmers are now purchasing gypsum that is generated by removal of the SO2 from the coal fired power plants to apply to the soil to restore previous production levels.
Some observations and discussion:
Does this mean that global warming may have been accelerated due to the removal of SO2 from the emissions of coal fired power plants?
Should we now reduce the amount of SO2 being removed from the combustion gasses of coal fired power plants? The original design removal efficiencies was 70%. The states and EPA have ratcheted the removal efficiency up to 95 and even 98%. Even those systems that operated at the original 70% removal are now forced to remove greater than 90%. The EPA and by inference the States are always ratcheting up the removal efficiency of “pollutants”. After all if something is bad the more you remove is good, right?
There have not been any studies conducted by the EPA or anyone that I can find that analyzed that last sentence of the preceding paragraph. Is there a limit of diminishing returns and even is there a limit to actually causing harm.
Lets look at the example of SO2. Coal fired plants remove SO2 by using a reagent (limestone), power to remove (fan and pumping), and power to convert to gypsum (pump, filtration, blower, conveyance). If the gypsum is returned to the soil via fertilizing efforts by the farmer the cost of transportation including fuel usage has to be added to the production costs of the gypsum. All this to replenish soils that are lacking SO2 due to removal of SO2 from coal fired power plants.
If the coal fired power plants were allowed to emit more SO2 or to put it another way lessen the removal efficiency from 95% to say 85% the positive impacts would be obvious. Less reagent, less power consumed, less transportation costs. All this would take is some slight adjustments to the processes at the coal fired plants to reduce the removal efficiency.
If the EPA was truly concerned about all areas of environmental stewardship these type of situations should be addressed.
Another example is particulate control. The removal efficiencies of the devices to remove particulates is 99.8% and above. Would lowering the removal efficiency have a benefit?
Great post (-:
I’m fine with removal of all the crap from coal smoke. Take a trip to China some time. They need to do something. I’m also fine with CO2 emissions – increased CO2 is generally beneficial.
Thanks Steve, You state the issue that confuses those that are not familiar with the issues of emissions from coal fired power plants. As you state “the crap from the smoke stack” needs to be reduced but those pollutants are mixed in with the CO2 to become pollution as 1 entity.
Therefore you get statements like “even if CO2 emissions turn out not to be an issue you have still reduced pollution from the plant if you removed CO2”. All pollutants are bad with one cure. And of course that is not the case.
It irritates me when you see pictures of coal fired power plants with those ominous pulsing white and grey plumes being emitted from the stacks and cooling towers. The article that follows will be about pollution etc. Those ominous plumes are an indication that the gas being emitted is clean. The plumes are moisture laden plumes. The gasses have been scrubbed and this results in those plumes. Not only that but the plumes from cooling towers is all moisture laden air.
GWG,
As a chemist whose family with young children once lived 150 yards from the chimney of a copper smelter with no SO2 reduction, I agree with every one of your sentences. My first graduate job was with CSIRO in plant nutrition, where sulphur needs were part of normal considerations.
Not all people like the powerful smell of SO2 in the air, but in the domestic gardening scene over the years I have often seen how plants love sulphur, how they are commonly starved of it.
But, you realise that your suggestions to liberate some atmospheric SO2 are completely contrary to current perceived wisdom. I will not live to see such common sense applied.
In some ways I am reminded of “diseases of the rich” like polio, whose risk is said to increase in families raising children in near-sterile conditions rather than amid the muck and mystery of children doing what children love.
We need a modern society in which people can do what they love to do, rather than what they are told to do by an increasing army of control freaks.
Geoff
I know it’s just Wikipedia, but:
Rain follows the plow is the conventional name for a now-discredited theory of climatology that was popular throughout the American West and Australia during the late 19th century. The phrase was employed as a summation of the theory by Charles Dana Wilber:
God speed the plow…. By this wonderful provision, which is only man’s mastery over nature, the clouds are dispensing copious rains … [the plow] is the instrument which separates civilization from savagery; and converts a desert into a farm or garden…. To be more concise, Rain follows the plow.[1]
The basic premise of the theory was that human habitation and agriculture through homesteading effected a permanent change in the climate of arid and semi-arid regions, making these regions more humid. The theory was widely promoted in the 1870s as a justification for the settlement of the Great Plains, a region previously known as the “Great American Desert”. It was also used to justify the expansion of wheat growing on marginal land in South Australia during the same period.[2]
According to the theory, increased human settlement in the region and cultivation of soil would result in an increased rainfall over time, rendering the land more fertile and lush as the population increased. As later historical records of rainfall indicated, the theory was based on faulty evidence arising from brief climatological fluctuations that happened to coincide with settlement, an example of the logical fallacy that correlation means causation. The theory was later refuted by climatologists and is now definitively regarded as pure superstition.
You beat me to it, I was going to site the old “Rain follows the plow” meme. It seems the American Midwest was in the midst of one of its periodic droughts in the early 19th Century as people began to move in to and farm the area. The drought came to an end and people associated that with their actions. Similar Midwestern droughts occurred in the 1930s and 1950s, and the meme was discredited.
Now days, the gradual warming of the atmosphere as we recover from the Little Ice Age is coincident with the rise of CO2 and and with industrialization. The same mental fallacy ensues that our actions have caused the rise in carbon dioxide and also the shift in climate. However, the temperature rise is not keeping pace with the CO2 levels (of which human contributions are only a small portion). Soon they will have to admit they got sucker punched again.
What I find laughable is the contention that this will improve the ability of global climate models (GCMs) to simulate local changes in precip. The dirty, dark secret is that GCMs don’t DO regional climate. They all disagree with each other on a regional scale, so no one publishes those results. This study really isn’t going to help with what is a fundamental flaw in the models.
Common cause and effect error. The plow follows the rain, not the other way around….just like most of the comments above.
The only reason for this is that it gives a basis for another adjustment at apply to the temperature record. Making it Worse Than We Thought.
My BS meter has gone off the scale with this claim. To me this sounds like their trying to explain away some unwelcome cooling. What’s far more likely is there has been a changes to the weather patterning over this area. Which has lead to a increase in cloud cover during the summer months. lf the weather stations across this area have kept sunshine records, then l would be checking them to see if there is a decline in total sunshine hours during the summer months over the years.
This paragraph of the article needs some modifications to be more accurate
Eltahir explains that plants “breathe” in the carbon dioxide they require for photosynthesis by opening tiny pores, called stoma, but each time they do this they also lose moisture to the atmosphere. However, the slight increase in Carbon Dioxide Levels since the 1950’s has caused a reduction in the size of the Stoma and decreased the overall amount of evaporation from plant leaves. With the combination of improved seeds, fertilizers, and other practices, including the fertilization effect of enhanced Carbon Dioxide levels (approx 25% increase from 300ppm to 375ppm)(currently 400+ppm) between 1950 and 2009 the annual yield of corn in the Midwest increased about fourfold and that of soybeans doubled. These changes were associated with denser plants with more leaf mass, which thus increased the amount of moisture released into the atmosphere though was offset by decreased stoma size acting to decrease overall evaporation. That possible extra moisture served to both cool the air and increase the amount of rainfall, the researchers suggest.
Never once in the article is the Benefit of the Carbon Dioxide Fertilization effect or its potential feedback on evaporation from decreasing stoma size mentioned. Also something different seems to be happening in North Eastern Colorado where Crop Yields went up but rain decreased and temperatures increased
[I think I fixed it the way you had intended it to be. -mod]
Drats, one of my Embolden Brackets was miss-typed
Much Better..Thanks
Fly over Eastern Colorado and admire all the big “circles”. The Ogallala is dropping rapidly.
Wouldn’t there have been a similar situation when most of the same areas were open prairies and planes?
I suspect that over-tillage of the soil had something to do with previously dryer/hotter conditions, especially when the crop plantings were less dense and herbicides were used. I remember being able to walk easily between rows in the 70’s where it is nearly impossible in my crops these days due to the advances in equipt.
Forgot to mention zero-tillage methods in use everywhere now. That gives the annual weeds that grew after harvest some time to work in spring before we burn it off (with glyphosate) to drill in seed. Midwest cropland generates much lest dust from tillage than when I was a kid. Martha would say”It’s a good thing”.
This, of course, supports UHI contentions and station location as a probable cause (leaving aside data adjustments) of global temperature increase.
One can’t have it both ways: If agricultural sprawl reduces temperature, urban sprawl must increase it.
On a summer evening around dusk, the hottest zones are where my gravel road runs, around my house, my barn, outbuildings and dry lot. In the fields and pastures it cools much quicker.
Sometimes there is a 10-F difference between the south and north faces of my house, the north side is at the edge of a large stand of timber. UHI is a very substantial factor even in rural settings. Probably accounts for most of what people tell themselves is global.
Infrastructural heat retention and dissipation. Should be a good branch of architecture/engineering for a budding young scholar.
We have also increase the surface area where we live add to the heat retention. An average house add nearly 200% more surface area, a multistory building far more than that. Each of those surfaces store heat. You can also add in most building materials hold heat much better than vegetation and we do eliminate a lot of vegetation. Yes we do change the local climate and that where we make or climate measurements, yet we only occupy 3% of the world, due to those facts I believe somehow our measured change and our actuality impact are worlds apart.
amazing to find a cooling effect within the much larger warming effect. It’s not like our cows don’t fart.
So they’re going to ignore the physics of LWIR emissions by water vapor whose warming effects are 75x that of CO2 and instead suggest that regional transpiration caused cooling?
As far as this quote:
… this is simply wrong. Measuring temperature, whether locally, regionally, or globally, involves recording a given temperature at that location and at that point in time. Aggregated on the whole, it is disingenuous to claim it would’ve been warmer without the commensurate increase in agriculture given (a) the reason above as well as (b) the false narrative of assuming what any given temperature at any given time ought to be.