America’s Corn Belt is making its own weather

[C C]

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/...wn-weather

EXCERPT: . . . The Corn Belt stretches from the panhandle of Texas up to North Dakota and east to Ohio. The amount of corn harvested in this region annually has increased by 400% since 1950, from 2 billion to 10 billion bushels. [...] To see if this increase in crops has influenced the region’s unusual weather, researchers [...] used computers to model five different 30-year climate simulations, based on data from 1980 to 2001. [...] When researchers ran the numbers for the Corn Belt, the global model fell short of reality [...] Other climate simulations that use sea surface temperature variation didn’t match observed changes, either. Those simulations matched historical data until 1970; after that, the simulations predicted temperatures to keep increasing, rather than decreasing as they did in reality. [...] “The [influence] of agriculture intensification is really an independent problem from greenhouse gas emissions,” says Ross Alter [...]

But how does agriculture cause increased rainfall and decreased temperatures? The team suspects it has to do with photosynthesis, which leads to more water vapor in the air....

MORE: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/...wn-weather

[Syne]

"Decreasing as they did in reality"? Have people actually started admitting this?

[Magical Realist]

"Decreasing as they did in reality"? Have people actually started admitting this?

You DO know the difference between local climate and global climate don't you?

[Syne]

"Other climate simulations that use sea surface temperature variation didn’t match observed changes, either. Those simulations matched historical data until 1970; after that, the simulations predicted temperatures to keep increasing, rather than decreasing as they did in reality. "

So the seas are local to the middle of the country?

[Magical Realist]

So the seas are local to the middle of the country?

So the local climate changes didn't match the global climate changes. That's the premise of the article isn't it? That agriculture is effecting the local climate contra the trends of the global climate..It means nothing in terms of global warming.

[Syne]

Maybe try reading it yourself.

"The team then compared its results to historical global simulations from the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), an international program for the coordination of global climate research sponsored by the International Council for Science, the World Meteorological Organization, and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. The WCRP’s model takes into account greenhouse gas emissions and other natural and humanmade influences, but it does not consider agricultural land use. When researchers ran the numbers for the Corn Belt, the global model fell short of reality: It predicted both temperature and humidity to increase slightly, and rainfall to increase by 4%–none of which matches the observed changes."

[Magical Realist]

the global model fell short of reality

Right..the global model of rising temps fell short of the reality of local climate change.. What don't you understand about that? Hence the thesis that agriculture causes the local climate to cool over time.

“The [influence] of agriculture intensification is really an independent problem from greenhouse gas emissions,” says Ross Alter, lead author of the study and now a meteorologist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Hanover, New Hampshire. In fact, Alter says, heavy agriculture likely counteracted rising temperatures and increased drought regionally that might have otherwise resulted from increasing greenhouse gas emissions. One other place that shows a similar drop in temperatures, he notes, is eastern China, where intensive agriculture is widespread.

[Syne]

Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. You keep saying "local", which does appear anywhere in that article.

So once again, you just see what you want to see.

[Magical Realist]

Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. You keep saying "local", which does appear anywhere in that article.

So once again, you just see what you want to see.

It says regional which is synonymous with local.

"This is the first time anyone has examined regional climate change in the central United States by directly comparing the influence of greenhouse gas emissions to agriculture....

In fact, Alter says, heavy agriculture likely counteracted rising temperatures and increased drought regionally that might have otherwise resulted from increasing greenhouse gas emissions."

[Syne]

"The WCRP’s [World Climate Research Programme] model takes into account greenhouse gas emissions and other natural and humanmade influences, but it does not consider agricultural land use. When researchers ran the numbers for the Corn Belt, the global model fell short of reality
...
“This squares with a lot of other evidence,” says Peter Huybers, a climate scientist at Harvard University, who calls the new study convincing. But he warns that such benefits may not last if greenhouse gas emissions eventually overpower the mitigating effect of agriculture."

The global climate model is off because it does not account for agriculture, which is a "mitigating effect" to greenhouse gas emissions. I guess you're free to believe that regional climate is somehow isolated from the global system. Magical thinking, but you're prerogative.