Alberta Climate Records

[Hamloc]

I am interested in why you are insinuating that climate change proponents are wrong because of the big corn and soybean crops this year while ignoring all the other factors that influence total production besides weather. Why are you ignoring that US farmers planted near record number of acres of both corn and soybeans this past year? (Corn up by 2.5 million acres over 2020, a level not seen since 2016 and soybean acres up 4.5 million acres) More acres of a crop is expected to result in higher total production.

Why are you ignoring the impact of higher yielding new varieties that have been developed, which increases production?

Can't some of the second biggest crops also be the result of increased fertilizer use given total fertillizer use in the US has been trending upward every year?

etc etc. Here is an interesting chart to mull over if as you suggest climate change is not impacting crop production. Why is the trend line for soybean yields increasing faster under irrigation than under dryland.; unless there are other factors than weather which also affect yields.[ATTACH]9151[/ATTACH]

One year production stats does not prove anything about the impact of long term climate change, especially when you ignore all other factors which contribute to total production

Dml in 2016 the US. harvested 174.6 bushels per acre from 86.7 million acres. This year 177 bushels per acre from 85.1 million acres. So less acres in 2021 and higher yield. Funny you mention one year doesn’t make a trend. Climate alarmists point to the hot dry summer in western Canada as being the result of climate change. Personally I agree on one point, one year doesn’t make a trend.

[furrowtickler]

a video that most should understand about climate change and its driving forces over time ...
youtu.be/8_rb98g0jwU

Video is short and an interesting watch

[chuckChuck]

https://changingclimate.ca/regional-perspectives/chapter/4-0/


Chapter 4
Prairie Provinces

This chapter discusses climate change impacts and approaches to adaptation across the three Prairies Provinces.


Climate change has both direct and indirect impacts on agriculture in the Prairie provinces, resulting in both risks and opportunities (Kulshreshtha and Wheaton, 2013). Changing precipitation, temperatures, carbon dioxide levels and other variables will affect the following: crop and pasture productivity, quality and nutrient cycling; weeds, insects and diseases; and livestock production and reproductive rates (Sudmeyer et al., 2016). Projected biophysical impacts include increased water scarcity, more frequent extreme precipitation events, shifting and variable precipitation patterns, longer growing seasons, increasing heat units (i.e., a measure of crop development in relation to temperature), and more frequent and intense droughts (e.g., Bonsal et al., 2019; Kulshreshtha and Wheaton, 2013).

Certain crop yields and hay productivity may increase in the near term in response to climate factors, such as longer growing seasons and increased heat units (see Box 4.3). However, high temperatures, droughts and more variable precipitation negatively affect crop yields, particularly for canola and wheat (Qian et al., 2018; Meng et al., 2017). Increased exposure to high temperatures (e.g., over 30°C), especially at critical times, may also reduce yields of corn, soybean, canola and wheat (Schauberger et al., 2017; Meng et al., 2017).

[shtferbrains]

Have to agree again Chuck.
Looks like if we adapt as usual it will be a net benefit in our region.

[dmlfarmer]

Dml, you bring up some really good points.
But you will have to remind me, when did the narrative of the climate change alarmists go from proclaiming that agricultural production would decline precipitously, to stating that farmers would innovate and take advantage of improving conditions and continue to increase yields?
Because I must have missed that memo.
But why would you be surprised that farmers are adapting? Are you really surprised that farmers are adapting to improving conditions? When one limiting factor is eliminated, we will push the limits until the next limiting factor is reached then find a way to eliminate that one and on and on.

Starvation levels of CO2 have been a major limiting factor in recent centuries. Of course, as that input has beneficially increased, Farmers have taken advantage of that and increased fertility rates to match. Then water becomes limiting factor, so we are now applying water to more acres to reach the increased potential.
As the growing season gets longer, and heat units increase, crop varieties and species and high input production methods will and are following that trend. As you may have noticed, arable acres are not declining, in fact in spite of urban sprawl eating up productive farmland, worldwide acres under cultivation still continues to increase. And in spite of bringing in more marginal acres, yields continue their relentless increase.
I've put this challenge out before, find somewhere in the world, for some crop where production is declining not increasing to prove your theory.

AF5 it is all a matter of perspective isn't it. While you may welcome a hotter dryer climate where you live I doubt that a farmer in Swift Current, or Medicine Hat in your province feels the same way. And no question that farmers can and will adapt to any factors including climate change. But there are also real limits, like for Central Valley almond farmers in California. 80% of the worlds almonds come from this area but the prolonged drought is resulting in some farmers ripping out their almond orchids because irrigation water is too expensive or not available at all anymore. So if lack of irrigation forces you to rip out your orchid in favor of dryland crops, this is adaptation by a farmer, but at the same time it reduces the supply of almonds, inflating costs to consumers, and probably significantly reducing the profitability of the farmer. The Ogallala Aquifer is falling by 1-2 feet a year in the central plains. In Kansas it has fallen as much as 150 feet. It is the most important source of water for irrigation and towns in 8 states. I doubt they welcome a hotter, drier climate. Not if, but when this important water source can no longer supply irrigation needs, will marginal lands not currently farmed be able to replace the amount of grains grown under irrigation in these 8 states? Could the land you farm replace variety and quantity of crops that are currently grown on the deep black soils and consistant rainfall land around Edmonton lost to urban expansion today? Will it be able to in the future - Who knows.

You ask for an example of a crop where production is declining anywhere in the world. Almonds is one. Bananas are another, this one brought on by disease. Some will argue that the disease is a result of changing climate and the introduction of a new pest. I don't know. It is a chicken and egg question.
More importantly, go to Crop Yields - Our World in data https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields#how-have-crop-yields-changed-since-1960 and you will find chart after chart of crops around the world showing yield trends. All show strong increases in production in the 20th century and then leveling off in the 21st? Why? Is it slowing of innovation and new varieities? have we maxed out fertillizers/pesticide effieicency? Government regulation? Adaptation? Or is climate changing? Or a mix of all of these factors?

But the most important feature to see in all these charts is the greatly increasing variability of yeilds year to year. Variability is a huge problem and it is increasing.

Back to perspective. The supply shortages of canola, wheat etc due to the past year's growing conditions and resultant boom in prices is great for farmers who were lucky enough to get a crop. But those high prices mean little to farmers who did not have a crop to harvest and in fact hurts even more given the increase in input costs due to companies basing pricing of inputs on posted grain prices. So are high crop prices always good? Only if you have a crop to sell.

[furrowtickler]

https://changingclimate.ca/regional-perspectives/chapter/4-0/


Chapter 4
Prairie Provinces

This chapter discusses climate change impacts and approaches to adaptation across the three Prairies Provinces.


Climate change has both direct and indirect impacts on agriculture in the Prairie provinces, resulting in both risks and opportunities (Kulshreshtha and Wheaton, 2013). Changing precipitation, temperatures, carbon dioxide levels and other variables will affect the following: crop and pasture productivity, quality and nutrient cycling; weeds, insects and diseases; and livestock production and reproductive rates (Sudmeyer et al., 2016). Projected biophysical impacts include increased water scarcity, more frequent extreme precipitation events, shifting and variable precipitation patterns, longer growing seasons, increasing heat units (i.e., a measure of crop development in relation to temperature), and more frequent and intense droughts (e.g., Bonsal et al., 2019; Kulshreshtha and Wheaton, 2013).

Certain crop yields and hay productivity may increase in the near term in response to climate factors, such as longer growing seasons and increased heat units (see Box 4.3). However, high temperatures, droughts and more variable precipitation negatively affect crop yields, particularly for canola and wheat (Qian et al., 2018; Meng et al., 2017). Increased exposure to high temperatures (e.g., over 30°C), especially at critical times, may also reduce yields of corn, soybean, canola and wheat (Schauberger et al., 2017; Meng et al., 2017).

So we have one single year with more heat units than normal out of the last 5 and now all the “experts” can justify their existence lol

[dmlfarmer]

...Starvation levels of CO2 have been a major limiting factor in recent centuries....
I've put this challenge out before, find somewhere in the world, for some crop where production is declining not increasing to prove your theory.

And I will return the challenge to you. Show me one place where it has been proven that the cause of starvation were a direct result of "starvation levels of C02" as you claim" and not as the result of weather, government policy, disease, pests, or any other factor besides CO2 concentrations.

[furrowtickler]

What do greenhouses pump into them from healthy increased productivity...... CO2 right ?

[dmlfarmer]

What do greenhouses pump into them from healthy increased productivity...... CO2 right ?

your absolutely right. And in that green house temperatures are held constant and watering is increased to support the faster growth. So the question you should be asking is given it is proven that CO2 is a green house gas is if a higher temperature in nature will there be increased precipitation and will this increase (if any) be enough to offset the increased transpiration of plants. Followup question is what impact would higher temps have on weather patterns, winds, etc. Will trade winds patterns change resulting in more stationary blocks of hot or cold areas (sucking polar air further south in spring and falls for example) as have seen happen over the past decade? We live in a complex, dynamic world and change is complex. Chaos theory.

[furrowtickler]

CO2 may be a proven factor but it’s effect on global climate is way over exaggerated.
To believe that humans alone are causing climate change is very far from reality .
Did you watch that video ?
Yes reducing emissions is a good thing, but its being politicized and abused as a wealth transfer scheme from the wealthy middle class to others Meanwhile the billionaires and elite will carry on with massive emissions and huge carbon footprints unabated.

What percentage of the climate effects are actually truly from CO2 and / or from natural activity from the sun . When that answer is truly understood then maybe people will understand weather and climate patterns better and realize the sun is main driver by far , always has been , and it’s not a tiny percentage of our CO2 in the atmosphere.
I just think there needs to be a much more balanced look and what we can control and what is natural cycles . High levels of CO2 did not cause the great warming periods in history , it was the suns activity and volcanic activity both in warm periods and glaciated periods.
It’s being over looked in a dramatic fashion with the current CO2 blame game . And it’s about to cost us all dearly carbon tax’s will do nothing but increase living expenses from the vast majority while the extreme wealthy minority will be 100% unaffected .

[chuckChuck]

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/



The above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy that Earth receives (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious.

The amount of solar energy that Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

It's reasonable to assume that changes in the Sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the Sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity coupled with an increase in volcanic activity is thought to have helped trigger the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland cooled from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the Sun:

Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

If the warming were caused by a more active Sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

[farming101]

"More floods, blizzards, droughts expected as Sask. warms 3 times faster than the rest of the world: report"

https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/more-floods-blizzards-droughts-expected-as-sask-warms-3-times-faster-than-the-rest-of-the-world-report-1.5222442

"Antarctica's last 6 months were the coldest on record"
From the article-"Earth's poles have warmed faster than anywhere else,....."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/antarctica-s-last-6-months-were-the-coldest-on-record-1.5618090

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS

[chuckChuck]

So the climate scientists are all wrong? That's your only thought? LOL

[farming101]

Why do scientists go on record as saying a certain location is warming faster than anywhere else?

[chuckChuck]

Because that's what the temperature record indicates.