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.



I suppose there could be something to “regional climate change”, but as with global climate, there are way too many variables to pinpoint what effect man might have. In the end, I suspect it’s just more of counting how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. The earth couldn’t care less, and neither should we.
It was the Bison here in the Midwest first. Even though they seem to be able to breed with cattle, they’re actually closer to Goats. Big Badass Goats. These BBG’s were here for thousands of years and anytime there was a drought, that sea of BBG’s would eat the forest. There wasn’t anything but patches of grass here and there until we slaughtered them. Now we have trees in the Midwest. I love trees.
🙂
Hmmmmwhat?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefalo
Bovidae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovidae
They are they’re own breed but, I still call them goats.
Fire was what primary control the woody plants from growing on the plains, in drought the roots burned out. Buffalo did occupy the woods also, but the plains buffalo’s north and south migration was the larges single animal migration that we know of during the reign of mammals. The migration patterns of the species before mammals is unknown to us.
So basically, with more intensive growth rates from more fertilizer and irrigation, more of the sun’s energy went into photosynthesis to make hydrocarbons and therefore less went into making heat.
This same effect is occurring right now on a global scale with the increase of CO2 intensifying gross primary productivity, greening the entire planet = the higher percentage of solar energy going into growing plants is reducing the amount to cause heating.
But then … in a natural setting you’d get that energy right back out as heat via respiration when the additional animal life eats the additional plant life. That part of the equation isn’t happening in the Midwest, it doesn’t get eaten there – it gets shipped out and eaten elsewhere. So I guess the real cause of the cooling is pesticides plus trucks and railroads?
Another massive blow to ‘Settled Science”. CO2 not only makes the plants grow faster and better, but it also releases water to cool the Planet. Hang on to your Grants and Funding.
Hello educated idiots that published this study, man only occupies 3% of the surface of earth. Do you really think we have much effect. Of course “climate scientist” forget this fact, also since most thermometers exist in that 3% so when the rest of the world does not agree with the increase of temperature they assume the measurement that are going down are wrong. Add in due to UHI they adjust the non conforming measurements up, and make up measurements for where we have no thermometers the infill that data with their WAG, add in again their schlock work leads to were most of the time they manage to loss 40% of the measurements where we do have thermometers. so then again they infill that data. and yet I suppose to panic when they announce that the last year was the “warmest ever” somehow my BS meter is on full alert. Add in they only use the temperature reading and no humidity that in the air, they really have no clue what and how much heat is really there. Here is a case the in reality so called “climate scientist” are really keystone cops. To bad the LCDs that exist in out media and political class believe their adult bovine fetal mater. Add in it adding at least 20% to my electrical bill and to my tax bill yes I am not very happy with this stupidty.
“the rain follows the plow”…. really the opposite.
corn/soybeans makes record harvests and cools/humidifies the farmland??
how bout the climate of the farmland has turned to cool/ humid,
leading to record crops??
Correct. Hot and dry doesn’t grow corn worth a damn.
Aflatoxin was a huge problem in the Midwest in 1983 and 1988. The heat and dryness ruined a lot of the crop. Commercial purchasers performed very rapid tests of incoming corn haulers, and armed guards escorted the drivers of trucks off the premises if their load failed the test. The WSJ reported that the drivers who had been turned away then delivered the corn to barges headed for New Orleans, where they were loaded on freighters bound for foreign ports. The USDA tested the corn, but it took 6 weeks to get the results, and by that time the corn was long gone.
And I wonder about the “factor” that accounted for the density of the foliage. This single factor managed to force the model to increase humidity, lower temperatures, and increased precipitation. And this was taken as collaborating the hypothesis. I seem to recall that water vapor is a potent GHG, plants consume a lot of CO2 during the growing season, and all of this works in a very complicated fashion. But despite all this complexity, the models still behave as simple linear projections of CO2 concentration, based on Pat Frank’s work. I prefer the MIT model that led to the butterfly effect. That at least has a logical foundation. And who knows, if a butterfly can (theoretically) modify weather, how about those ten of thousands of commercial airliners seeding the stratosphere with their own, very pronounced, vortices?
So did they use the Karlized adjusted temperatures or the homogenized bogus temperatures, or the actual station temperatures as recorded during the actual period?
The first two get adjusted every time a new entry arrives at the database – causing past measurements to invariably go down, while the last one is probably closer to reality. There could plausibly be an intensive agriculture/temperature decrease correlation with evaporation as the likely causation mechanism, but I wouldn’t trust most temperature databases to find it.
Roger Pielke Snr has been making the very strong point that land use changes are the biggest impact on local climate. This goes beyond urban heat islands and is particularly important with regard to agriculture. North America has experienced two major land use changes over the last 100 years (give or take). The first one is a massive re-forestation of areas previously logged out in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, much of it on the eastern part of the continent, but continuing into the west. The second one is the intensification of annual crops, mostly taking place in the mid-west and the prairies.
That these land use changes have an impact on local air temperatures (by whatever mechanism is your favourite) is a bear defecting in the forest kind of issue. It is so obvious that many have tried to ignore it when talking about global temperatures. What has been forgotten is that all temperatures are local; That is, any global temperature is made up of many thousands of local readings. To dismiss local temperature changes as an ‘anomaly’ is to forget what a global average really is.
I grew up on the northern plains during a time were agriculture practices believed that a blacken field in the fall was desirable. when those fields had a bit of black peak out the snow, the snow would be gone in days. The native prairie would be weeks behind. and since I was only twenty miles from the northern forest I learned the forest could be over a month behind the farms fields thaw.
>>
North America has experienced two major land use changes over the last 100 years (give or take).
<<
I think you will find that Native Americans used fire to convert forests to grasslands long before the Europeans arrived. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_use_of_fire)
Jim
… is a bear defecting in the forest…
I had heard that climate change was altering animal behavior, but I had not heard about these bears who are abandoning their countries.
Has any study measured an increase of clouds due to corn putting more humidity into the surrounding air than the natural vegetation? Low thick clouds can act as a cooling process and the storms they produce can mix the upper colder troposphere air downwards. This can explain both the cooler temps and increased rain during the last 100 years of Illinois. Any thoughts on this idea?
“…over the same period in that region, summers were significantly cooler and had greater rainfall than during the previous half-century.”
Wait, thought this area was warming?
Be interesting to see if current summer temp trends for that area show warming, then I’d like to know what data source they are using.
So therefore CO2 is not the Lacis control knob?
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3117385
Just a thought/observation. Every time (ok, overgeneralization) you see a map like this, it always seems to be presented as “cooler than normal” or something similar, indicating that everything is getting warmer and cooling is an aberration. Let’s turn it around. What if the “cooling” is closer to normal, and the warm spots are the aberration.
Correlation does not prove causation, but take a look at the summer temperature map. Note the warmer temperatures in the northeast. Note also that they correlate with the Washington-Baltimore corridor and on to New York City. Note the two hot spots to the west of, and north and south of, Lake Ontario. They correlate with Toronto (to the north) and Niagra Falls/Buffalo to the south.
The hot spot in western Kentucky appears to correlate with Owensboro, though I’m not familiar with that part of the country to guess why Owensboro might be a hot spot (peculiarly enough, Louisville seems to be a cold spot).
This was just a cursory review, and much of the western US is cut off, but at a quick glance it really looks like the hot spots are the anomalies due to urban heat islands.
Just a thought.
As a follow-up, the thought occurred to me that this might be comparing apples to reindeer. To the extent there may be any relatively undisturbed tall or short grass prairies left, they should probably compare less farmed to more farmed. for woodland areas, they should probably compare more pristine woodlands to areas that have been logged and converted to farmland. I think including all the temperature data, even those from urban/developed areas, skews the results and may lead to misleading conclusions.
Final thought. Maybe I should have read further before I started looking at the maps. It seems that some of my thoughts have already been addressed. 🙂
Sorry, that was not the final thought. There’s a lot of discussion about urban heat islands, but what about “non-urban cool islands.” looking at the map again, I noticed that there is cooling trend along the border in the south-central Virginia/north-central North Carolina area. This also correlates with the Roanoke River and two large reservoirs, Kerr Lake and Lake Gaston, that extend along the VA/NC border in this area. I’m curious whether the construction and filling of these reservoirs may have contributed to the cooling trend in this area.
That is all.
Since more than a decade, I was discussing this issue. Included in my book of 2008 “Climate Change: Myths & Realities” under section Ecological Changes [pages 103-123]. In my latest book “Climate Change and its Impacts: Ground Realities” of 2016, on page 51 presented a brief note referring the above book.
The main component of human activity is ecological changes, not associated with greenhouse effect [more details can be seen from Reddy, 2008]. Ecological changes are associated with changes in land use & land cover and water use & water cover. They include urban-heat-island effects and rural-cold-island effects. —- Changes in agriculture [dry-land to wetland], water resources development, reforestation, etc will bring down the global temperature if it is added; but in reality the met network was and is sparse in such areas and thus the effect is under reported in averaging of temperature. — However, satellites and balloons data takes these into account”.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Ok, one more. I was born and raised in VA, but both my parents came from PA. I’ve lived most of my life in VA, but spent a lot of time in PA on vacation when I was little. There’s another cool spot on the south central NY/north central PA border. This is an upland area, though mostly rural and agricultural. There are vineyards and wineries in the finger lakes region. This area also appears to correlate with the confluence of the Chemung and Susquehanna rivers along the NY/PA border and, coincidentally enough, with the general area of the Marcellus shale that is being fracked for gas in PA, and being prevented from being fracked for gas in NY (and I don’t want a lecture on whether I spelled “fracked right).
I think they really need to look at an weed out other potential causes for these anomalies before they start making conclusions.
Phil R, here in rural west MD, the highest summer temp has not reached 90F (highest is 89F) in 3 out of the last 4 summers. I know good rainfalls amounts have alot to do w/this — evaporative cooling.
Don’t forget that before German farmers the Great Plains were geoengineered by the Plains Indians, who burned the forests in order to encourage the growth of buffalo herds.
Not just the central farm belt. All plant life is enriched by CO2 fertilisation and due to enhanced water uptake and transpiration exerts a negative feedback on CO2 supposed “sensitivity” in regard to warming, which could be close to zero.
“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”
I read a little piece by the WMO that flagged up that they thought micro- climates had changed but not the climate at large.
I remember papers by John Christy
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3627.1
addressed in prior WUWT posts, argued that irrigating the California central valley resulted in warmer nights and cooler days- thanks to plant transpiration- with an overall net warming. Why the difference with current midwest results?
My guess is that one difference with the midwest, which supposedly showed overall COOLING, is that before irrigation, the California central valley was dryer, closer to being desert. Deserts get very hot during the day, and quickly lose their heat at night. Irrigation and planting crops in a desert could result in cooler days thanks to plant transpiration, and less cold nights, thanks to that ground cover.
In contrast, the midwest already had grassy plain groundcover- reducing heat loss from the ground at night, but also get an additional transpiration cooling effect thanks to the additional leaves of corn compared to prairie grass.
Look at the increase in avg summer temps — you can see the megalopolis from Norfolk, Va up thru DC & Baltimore & on up Rt 95 to New York and beyond. You want your urban heat-island effect? There’s your urban heat-island effect.
Beng135,
Yes, that’s the point I made above. Even with just a cursory look at the temperature map, not only do warmer areas correlate with urban areas (cities), but there are several cooler areas that seem to correlate with known surface features, such as reservoirs, rivers, and even areas of shale gas production (e,g, north central Pennsylvania). I wonder if they tried to identify and correct for possible correlations with known surface features before they did their data interpretation.
Yeah, they prb’ly COOLED the urban areas! Didn’t do quite enough, tho. 🙂
Maybe all those wind turbines in Iowa and Illinois are sucking the energy out of the air causing temps to fall consequently more precipitation.
Let me see now. “… average summer temperatures decreased by about half a degree Celsius. The effects are “significant, but small,””
Right. Half a degree Celsius of cooling is small. Half a degree of warming, on the other hand, is monstrous and must be stopped.
I have been pounding this idea in association with the greening of the planet for quite awhile and haven’t been able to attract much discussion. The Greening has resulted in 18% expansion of Of “green cover” in 35 years (I began when 14% expansion of forest cover was announced ~5 years ago by Nasa). This is not only an exponential development, a huge sequestration of ‘carbon’ but also an endothermic (cooling) process. It completely took the climate people by surprise. Indeed after some making it out to be negative, silence fell on this elephant in the science parlour. This amounts to some 500 billion new trees (there were 3 trillion trees on the planet ) with an average age of ~15yrs and they sequester 25kg of C/yr – almost 190GT of carbon. Imagine the heat of 190Gt of anthracite being burned as a measure of the heat sequestered! Moreover, dare I say It, it makes fossil fuels renewable and sustainable.
How about a credit to fossil fuel producers for out put of renewable, sustainable energy?