Alberta Climate Records

[furrowtickler]

a video that most should understand about climate change and its driving forces over time ...

https://youtu.be/8_rb98g0jwU

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So A5 where is this declining temperature trend in the continental US that you speak of? Take a look at the map from NOAA.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/new-us-climate-normals-are-here-what-do-they-tell-us-about-climate-change

The new U.S. Climate Normals are here. What do they tell us about climate change?

A warmer normal

The U.S. Climate Normals collection has 10 versions: 1901-1930, 1911-1940 and so on through 1991-2020. In the image below, we’ve compared the U.S. annual average temperature during each Normals period to the 20th-century average (1901-2000). The influence of long-term global warming is obvious: The earliest map in the series has the most widespread and darkest blues, and the most recent map has the most widespread and darkest reds.

[ATTACH]9148[/ATTACH]

Why do you resort to these strawman arguments whenever you are losing a debate? Have you ever had this tactic succeed in distracting your opponent?
Where did I make any claims about the continental US?
Out of the blue you started making claims about Fargo ND weather. Not sure why, you made it sound like you were responding to someone or some claim, but I checked back through the thread and you were the first one to mention Fargo, trying to distract from your original losing argument. So I looked at the chart you provided of Fargo. It clearly is in a downtrend in recent decades.

As for the 30 year maps you keep posting. I've asked you this before, and you haven't answered, yet you keep posting these maps again, ignorant what they indicate.

Can you explain why the first few maps indicate a warming trend, then switch to a cooliong trend, then switch back to a warming trend? If rising manmade CO2 is the main factor affecting temperature, then how does steadily increasing CO2 explain the cyclical warming and cooling indicated in your maps?

[chuckChuck]

Les Henry in his article cited Fargo North Dakota as evidence that all the climate changes are good and there is no downsde.

Temperatures in July he said were largely unchanged which maybe is true. But if you look at May June July that is simply not the case. the average is rising significantly.

Not only that Climate Alberta's site clearly shows temperature and evapotranspiration increases for southern Alberta and much of the province. That means less moisture for forages and crops.

Read the whole article from NOAA that explains the maps they included in the article.

The new U.S. Climate Normals are here. What do they tell us about climate change?
May 4, 2021

Every 10 years, NOAA releases an analysis of U.S. weather of the past three decades that calculates average values for temperature, rainfall and other conditions.

That time has come again.

Known as the U.S. Climate Normals, these 30-year averages — now spanning 1991-2020 — represent the new “normals” of our changing climate. They are calculated using climate observations collected at local weather stations across the country and are corrected for bad or missing values and any changes to the weather station over time before becoming part of the climate record.

Simply stated: The Normals are the basis for judging how daily, monthly and annual climate conditions compare to what’s normal for a specific location in today’s climate.

For the past decade, the Normals have been based on weather observations from 1981 to 2010. In early May, climate experts at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) issued an updated collection based on the weather occurring from 1991 to 2020. The data set reflects a “new normal” that takes the most recent 30 years of climate change-influenced weather and climate conditions into account. (More: See our Climate Normals Explainer.)

A warmer normal

The U.S. Climate Normals collection has 10 versions: 1901-1930, 1911-1940 and so on through 1991-2020. In the image below, we’ve compared the U.S. annual average temperature during each Normals period to the 20th-century average (1901-2000). The influence of long-term global warming is obvious: The earliest map in the series has the most widespread and darkest blues, and the most recent map has the most widespread and darkest reds.

A wetter normal?

In the collection of precipitation maps, few places exhibit a precipitation trend that is either steadily wetter or steadily drier than the 20th-century average. Instead, drier areas and wetter areas shift back and forth without an obvious pattern.
Normal annual U.S. precipitation as a percent of the 20th-century average for each U.S. Climate Normals period from 1901-1930 (upper left) to 1991-2020 (lower right). Places where the normal annual precipitation was 12.5 percent or more below the 20th-century average are darkest brown; places where normal annual precipitation was 12.5 percent or more wetter than the 20th-century average are darkest green. Maps by NOAA Climate.gov, based on analysis by Jared Rennie, North Carolina Institute for Climate
Normal annual U.S. precipitation as a percent of the 20th-century average for each U.S. Climate Normals period from 1901-1930 (upper left) to 1991-2020 (lower right). Places where the normal annual precipitation was 12.5 percent or more below the 20th-century average are darkest brown; places where normal annual precipitation was 12.5 percent or more wetter than the 20th-century average are darkest green. Maps by NOAA Climate.gov, based on analysis by Jared Rennie, North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies/NCEI. (NOAA Climate.gov)


And yet, it’s probably not a coincidence that the last four maps in the series — the 1961-1990, 1971-2000, 1981-2010 and 1991-2020 Normals — are nationally the four wettest-looking maps in the collection. At least some of that wetness relative to the 20th-century average is linked to the overall climate warming and “wetting” of the atmosphere that’s occurred as rising temperatures cause more water to evaporate from the ocean and land surface.

What used to be normal

The 1991-2020 Normals tell us what is normal in today’s climate. NOAA scientists conduct other analyses that tell us about what used to be normal.

For example, In NOAA’s monthly and annual climate monitoring reports, temperature averages and precipitation totals are ranked in the climate record dating to 1895; U.S. and global climate conditions are compared to the 20th-century average.
Visualizing climate is easier now than ever

NCEI has a collection of maps showing both recent and long-term trends in temperature and precipitation. You can also create a custom graph showing monthly, seasonal or yearly climate conditions for any region, state and many cities that shows the long-term trend.

The Normals might be shifting, but NOAA scientists and forecasters aren’t losing track of climate change.

[dmlfarmer]

I am curious I thought climate change proponents are always predicting reduced yields and food shortages? Yesterday’s USDA Wasde report has U.S. farmers producing the second biggest corn crop ever and the second biggest soybean crop ever. Hmmm this doesn’t point to a food shortage. While Canada’s production was down in the U.S. it was up.

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.

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

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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.

[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.