SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CleanTechnica reports
The "flash drought" that came out of nowhere this summer in the US High Plains, afflicting Montana and the Dakotas the worst, has already destroyed more than half of this year's wheat crop, going by some recent field surveys. Considering that the region is now one of the top wheat-growing regions in the world, the damage is very notable.
These so-called flash droughts are expected to become considerably more common over the coming decades as the climate continues warming and weather patterns continue changing.
[...] Something that's interesting to note here is that 2011, only 6 years back, was actually one of the wettest years on record in eastern Montana. Those sorts of rapid swings between extreme precipitation and flooding on the one hand, and extreme flash droughts on the other, are only going to become more common from here on out. Eventually, most of the agriculture in the region will have to cease.
Grist calls this a Cereal Killer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:35PM (13 children)
TFS speweth the following malarky:
a) No one has and idea what the future will bring in terms of climate in this region. All manner of possibilities are open.
b) There is no, repeat, zero, indication that "most of the agriculture in the region will have to cease", eventually or otherwise.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:37PM
Damnit, I read my post several times and missed this anyway. A few minutes of editing opportunity would be so welcome.... sigh.
* no one has
andany idea...(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:10PM (7 children)
Oklahoma was going through an extended wet cycle, which made crop raising there quite productive. Then the Dust Bowl suddenly happened, returning the region back to the longer cycle "norm", where it is now.
farmers and ranchers usually can absorb a "big hit" every once in awhile. Part of their conservatism is driven by this. But it doesnt take too many big hit events in a row to push them over the edge. Depending on what they produce, they may or may not have much safety net (crop insurance, etc) available, espeslcially as USDA adjusts their subsidy programs...
big hit = {spring blizzards during calving or lambing season, locusts, hail storms, etc. the usual "biblical plague" stuff}
Just sayin'...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:09PM (5 children)
Agreed. But the land isn't gone, even if the farmer goes belly up. The bank or state will just sell the land to another farmer, who will pick up again where the other left off when the climate becomes more clement. And so it goes.
I've lived in this area for a very long time - NE Montana - and I've watched the circumstances, comings and goings for decades. The farmers (and ranchers) are quite flexible as to what they'll plant, raise, etc., as the climate goes through its fits and starts. Plus, a lot of the area is irrigated; we have huge water reserves that are not sourced locally (Fort Peck lake [wikipedia.org], for instance.) I know many of these people; I'm all too familiar with their varying circumstances. They like to talk about them. There are many jokes about that... but I'll spare you. :)
Frankly, the most worrisome threats to the area right now are the rumblings from the Trump administration that the region's Amtrak and airport passenger subsidies will be cut, basically eliminating ease of access to and from the area. Just like telephone service, these things address basic needs of the area, particularly as it's so isolated from the rest of the country. Making it even more difficult to live up here isn't prudent. We do supply a lot of goodness to the rest of the country. The basic financial picture of these services aren't enough to base such decisions upon. Because those won't be the only consequences. That's what people up here are really worried about.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 10 2017, @11:39PM (1 child)
If you're up around Jordan or Wolf Point I'm surprised anybody does any ranching or farming these days when the crazy lucrative work at the Bakken Formation is so near by.
(As an aside, it's notable that there's such a relative abundance of Montanans on Soylent.)
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fyngyrz on Friday August 11 2017, @02:22PM
The Bakken is a shadow of its former self. The bunkhouses sit empty, many of the wells have been capped, etc.
The Bakken only existed because oil prices had risen. Unless/until they rise again, it's a done deal.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @11:51PM (2 children)
Well, I advocate eliminating agricultural subsidies. That would be even worse for the region, but better (through both cheaper food prices and less federal level spending) for everywhere else in the US which is a lot bigger. So I have no problem eliminating these lesser subsidies. My view is that this isn't about food production protection (the US produces a considerable surplus of food and IMHO would continue to do so even in the pure absence of agricultural subsidies) but rather about lifestyle protection. And I don't see enough value in this agrarian lifestyle to justify the infrastructure that the region is not willing to build or purchase itself.
Further, Amtrak is grotesquely inefficient, due in large part to supporting routes like the above that don't have economic use.
This sort of thing is how you buy votes to build the current corrupt mess in the US. I would not single out agriculture, Amtrak, or Montana as being particularly egregious (though some parts of agriculture are among the worst examples of corruption, harmful spending, and misguided policies out there). But I think there's going to have to be a lot of spending cuts across the board, including stuff like what you mention above, in order to have a stable future.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday August 11 2017, @02:04PM (1 child)
OK, if agriculture and ranching and food production in general aren't important enough for you, how about the missile fields [wikipedia.org] the infrastructure in Montana also serves? Oil production in the Bakken Formation, which is almost as much in NE Montana [wikipedia.org] as in NW North Dakota? Those things are manly and important enough to care about, aren't they?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 11 2017, @08:30PM
None of that stuff is dependent on Amtrak or airport subsidies. But yes, I don't consider them important enough. If the local economy can't find enough money to pay for its own airport service from oil production and such, then it probably shouldn't have that airport service. I don't mind if you choose to live in the middle of nowhere. But if you do, man up and accept that you don't deserve shiny services from the federal government just like no one else deserves such services for all the stuff they do or the places they live.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:09PM
Don't worry. Next year will be better.
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:40PM
To be fair, the quote is taken verbatim from TFA. So it's the article, not the submitter, who's at fault.
But, yeah. [Citation Needed] on this claim.
It doesn't inspire confidence in the article that the quote you reference is in a paragraph immediately following one that actually IS a quote from a real meterologist. If you miss the close quote, the colloquial style seems designed to make you think the author's opinion is being attributed to the scientist. It's punctuated accurately, so it's not per se deceptive. But it's hard for me personally reading this to believe that there isn't a deliberate attempt to try to pass off opinion as fact here.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday August 10 2017, @10:23PM (2 children)
Sorry, but it was quite predictable that the yearly weather would start going into more extreme cycles even before the global warming thing started kicking in. You see, our parents and grand-parents were living during this thing called the "little climatic optimum", characterized by weather that wasn't erratic, and we were have been leaving that since roughly (there aren't any smooth boundaries here, one period grades into another) the start of the 1950's, perhaps a bit sooner. (Note that the dust storms happened *during* the little climatic optimum. Weather is never that reliable. There was also the "year without a summer", which was directly tied into a volcano.)
So even without global warming we should be expecting more erratic weather. This makes it a bit harder to say that any particular event of bad weather is due to global warming...but measurements show it is indeed happening to compound things. When the polar ice pack melts, that's not because of leaving the little climatic optimum, that's because the arctic has gotten warmer. However, weather being weather, and things not be distributed evenly, global warming has also, or appears to have also, lead to episodes of unusually cold weather...of course, usually we can't be sure that any one case isn't due to leaving the little climatic optimum, or even just due to the chaotic nature of weather.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday August 11 2017, @02:41PM
So? The two points I made are still correct, and TFS is still stupid. No one can predict the weather, or the climate. Saying "it's going to change" is both obvious and not helpful. Saying "it's going to change more" may well be true, but doesn't make it any easier to predict the weather or the climate. And there's still no indication whatsoever that agriculture (or ranching) in the area "will have to cease."
TFS, and apparently, TFA as well (I didn't read it, I'm usually in traditionalist mode, especially when TFS is as full of absurdity as this one), are full of fecal matter as to these points.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13 2017, @12:06AM
No, that period was around the year 900 AD to 1300 AD. [britannica.com]