Solar linked 2C downturn in Canadian prairie temperatures affecting grain yields.

Posted: October 26, 2020 by tallbloke in Agriculture, climate, Solar physics, solar system dynamics
Quiet sun [image credit: NASA]

H/t to Electroverse for the heads up on this paper detailing the effect of reduced solar activity and cyclic oceanic oscillations on Canadian agriculture. Let’s hope the policymakers see through the warming dogma in time.

Is Diminishing Solar Activity Detrimental to Canadian Prairie Agriculture?

Ray Garnett¹*, Madhav Khandekar² and Rupinder Kaur³

Abstract: During the grain growing months of May-July, the mean temperature on the Canadian prairies has cooled down by 2ºC in the last 30 years. The cooling appears to be most certainly linked to diminishing solar activity as the Sun approaches a Grand Solar Minimum in the next decade or so. This cooling has led to a reduction in Growing Degree Days (GDDs) and has also impacted the precipitation pattern. The GDDs in conjunction with mean temperature and precipitation are important parameters for the growth of various grains (wheat, barley, canola etc.) on the prairies.

In this study, we investigate the impact of declining GDDs and associated temperature and precipitation patterns on Prairie grain yields and quality. Our analysis shows that there has been a loss of about 100 GDDs over the time frame of 1985-2019. The loss in GDDs is also linked to some of the large-scale Atmosphere-Ocean parameters like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), North Pacific Index (NPI) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). Our analysis suggests grain yield and quality could be significantly impacted in the coming years as solar activity continues to diminish.

Full paper here

  1. tallbloke says:

  2. Curious George says:

    What’s the impact of Growing Degree Days on wheat production?
    Does the Dow Jones Industrial Average negatively impact GDDs?

  3. Phoenix44 says:

    Is that cooling an established fact? How does that square with claims of increasing temperatures?

  4. wilpretty says:

    ‘During the grain growing months of May-July, the mean temperature on the Canadian prairies has cooled down by 2ºC in the last 30 years.’
    There is no universal law of nature that says that temperature fluctuations will apply to all seasons of the year equally.
    If you look at the Central England temperature record for June 1880 – 2020, it shows no trend up or down.
    However in December there is a 3ºC increase over this time frame.
    Climate change is complex.

  5. hunterson7 says:

    Great article.
    Thanks for getting this posted.

  6. oldbrew says:

    Let’s hope the policymakers see through the warming dogma in time.

    They would have to believe what the data tells them, for that to happen. What are the chances?

  7. stpaulchuck says:

    total rubbish. The IPCC told me that the sun has nothing to do with climate. [* and if you believe that, there’s this bridge …*]

  8. oldbrew says:

    More climate gobbledegook…

    OCTOBER 27, 2020

    Ice loss due to warming leads to warming due to ice loss: A vicious circle
    by Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

    Decreasing ice cover in the Arctic exposes more of the darker ocean water that absorbs more energy,” says Nico Wunderling, lead author of the study. “This is referred to as albedo feedback. It’s like wearing white or black clothes in summer. If you wear dark, you heat up more easily.”
    – – –
    Try wearing a dark coat in the Arctic summer then. Low sun angle reflects some of the sunlight back off the water at high latitudes. Where’s the vicious circle?

  9. Graeme No.3 says:

    old brew:
    I still remember the old White Arabs v Black Arabs argument in the New Scientist (back when it was worth reading)**. Why did some arabs wear black robes when white robes would SURELY be cooler? Some intrepid scientists inserted thermometers under said robes and found no difference in temperature. Certainly black absorbed more IR but it also radiated more.

    **Even my Doctor’s waiting room no longer subscribes.

  10. Phoenix44 says:

    There can only be a spiral of ice loss due to ice loss if the lost ice doesn’t refreeze in the winter. So the cause of any spiral is what happens then. It’s obvious that areas of water exposed by ice melt can get cold enough to refreeze – water temperatures never get so high that sub-zero winters won’t cool them enough to freeze. If I put near boiling water in my freezer it will freeze. If at the margins they no longer do so then it’s because winter temperatures are not low enough.

    This is just unscientific garbage

  11. oldbrew says:

    Graeme: maybe there’s something in it after all…

    Polar bear fur is translucent, and only appears white because it reflects visible light. Beneath all that thick fur, their skin is jet black.

  12. oldbrew says:

    LA NIÑA likely to continue until at least the end of summer 2020–21

    The cooling forecast by the models suggest this La Niña event will be of a moderate to strong nature, though conditions are currently weaker than those observed in the 2010 event.
    — Issued 27 October 2020

    The BoM also says:
    Most models suggest La Niña will peak in December, with around half the models anticipating a strong event.

  13. ivan says:

    The BoM also says:
    Most models suggest La Niña will peak in December, with around half the models anticipating a strong event.

    Most models??? You mean they have more than one model – is that to cover themselves when most models prove to be wrong? Or is that another way of them saying ‘we don’t have a clue’.

  14. oldbrew says:

    ivan – I think they mean other climate models around the world, e.g. NOAA.

  15. ivan says:

    oldbrew, that may be so but should they really need more than one model world wide – after all isn’t the science settled?

    It must be them all saying ‘we haven’t a clue so we make a guess based on what we hope will happen’. So much for settled science.

  16. oldbrew says:

    When the models almost all show excessive warming bias for decades, something is clearly very wrong. And everyone knows, or should know, what it is i.e. incorrect radiative gas theories.

    But they never take the giant hint, presumably for financial and/or career reasons. Not scientific ones anyway.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s