Agriculture on the southern plains isn't necessarily doomed, though, Hayhoe stresses. "There are techniques being developed already, such as dry-land farming, rotating crops and using waste as biofuel that will keep the economy going." Actions also can be taken at the local level to reduce the vulnerability of agriculture, she says, including using energy more efficiently and developing sounder management and development policies.
Other adaptations include switching to more heat-tolerant breeds of livestock and even away from cattle altogether, says Wayne Polley, research ecologist at the USDA's Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory. "Major changes in agricultural land use will mean changes in our eating habits and our family budgets as well."
"There are absolutely things farmers could do to deal with climate change," Cox says. "This is not a technical problem. There is a whole suite of practices that would make farming systems more resilient and able to stand up to climate change. Yet instead of making farming more resilient to the challenges, current government agricultural policy actually takes us in the opposite direction." Ending mandates for corn ethanol and once again tying crop insurance to land conservation would help reduce erosion and drainage of wetlands on farmland, he says, reducing the risk of returning Dust Bowl conditions.
The good news, Hayhoe adds, is that whatever happens, the land will still be here. "In the southern Great Plains we may have a major shift to dry-land crops. We may have to shift when we plant. But we have the option of trying different things—as opposed to, say, Bangladesh, where cropland is being lost to sea-level rise.
"We can save ourselves by wise planning," she says. "But a lot of change has been hampered because people don't want to do anything that has a 'climate change' label on it, and also because industrial, large-scale systems are resistant to changes because changes are expensive. But that's true only in the short term. Not doing anything will be way more expensive in the long term. Business as usual is not going to be a viable option 30 years from now, or even sooner."
Fifty miles south of Hayhoe's Texas Tech office, agricultural fields line an arrow-straight highway. On a dry, windy day, in circular fields created by wheeled irrigation contraptions that spin from a well in the center, water sprays onto new autumn crops. Enormous bales of recently harvested cotton stacked up at nearby gins render bits of the snowy fluff to the wind, which catch the grass along the road's edge to gather into miniature drifts. As temperatures rise and the aquifer levels fall, these iconic images of high plains agriculture may be blown away with the dust.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
38 Comments
Add Commentno problem, I'll just squat a denier's ranch - plenty of water there, a swimming pool, with the freezers, the aircon and six 50" tv sets running on never-ending nuclear, plus a few 4WDs to go to the local supermarket - pig heaven
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFear campaigns are working! The first "dust bowl" did not happen because of AGW climate change, but it's a great excuse to blame something for causing it. So, when you say that climate change has a stigma attached to it, you should rely on your former argument: land conservation and preventing the drainage of wetlands onto farmland are how to prevent "dust bowl" conditions ... not all these alarm bells for a false argument about warm air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd for your AGW argument, blame large industry for being resistant to change, not everyone else who will shoulder the cost of a carbon tax. Also, I don't see how using energy efficiently is going to help prevent "dust bowl" conditions. It sounds like there are undertones to your article that you are trying to create evidence for.
and of course those wind breaks that were put in after the first dust bowl were mostly removed during the Nixon administration when the policy was to farm fence row to fence row.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResponse to "vapur":
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, another conservative that has bought into the petroleum industry's massive disinfo campaigns. (Well proven since the '80s)
Apparently his main point is that Climate Change didn't cause the first dust bowl, so pointing out that the current droughts caused by Climate Change may cause a second dust bowl is somehow a poor argument.
I'm a news junkie & have followed our US drought problem for many years & its only going to get worse, mainly because of the higher temps & changing weather patterns caused by Climate Change. Apparently that's too complex for the WND reader.
Several other things seem to be over his head too, but hey, Global Warming is just solar flares & a scam to make Al Gore rich, right? And Obama is a communist Muslim that was born in Kenya too. Unfortunately that is the level of journalism & discourse on the Right these days.
Clearly this reader called "vapur" has a problem with everything to do with Climate Change or is a paid troll.
:(
"If the drought holds on for two or three more years, as droughts have in the past, we will have Dust Bowl conditions in the farming belt..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe've only been around for a coupe of hundred years - apparently even 'expert' practitioners don't know much about the real potential magnitude of droughts that can occur - regardless of any effects of global warming...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Pueblo_Peoples
"After approximately 1150, North America experienced significant climatic change in the form of a 300-year drought called the Great Drought. This also led to the collapse of the Tiwanaku civilization around Lake Titicaca in present-day Bolivia. The contemporary Mississippian culture also collapsed during this period. Confirming evidence is found in excavations of the western regions of the Mississippi Valley between 1150 and 1350, which show long-lasting patterns of warmer, wetter winters and cooler, drier summers."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/243212/Great-Drought
considers that drought to be of shorter duration, relying on regional tree-ring evidence:
"The region affected by the Great Drought encompassed the area that extended from what is now Oregon to southern California and east to what is now eastern Texas; dendrochronology, or tree-ring studies, indicate that it began in ad 1276 and continued through 1299."
"... The Great Drought was but one of several major periods of drought that have affected the same region in the past three millennia. Other periods of drought that have been identified are the Fairbank Drought of 500 BC and the Whitewater Drought of AD 300. Notably, all these dates appear to be related to major upheavals in the cultures of North and Central America."
Apparently these historical droughts are substantially different from the more recent droughts we've become accustomed to confidently dismissing...
You do not seem very knowledgeable about actual conditions. What has been the trend of annual rainfall? Has it been lowering at a rate to support the conclusion that there is an impending disaster? NO
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat there is evidence of is that Scientific American publishes inaccurate propaganda
Sorry warmists but either Global warming is either created by the evil humans or it is natural. Make up your minds but to use the 1930s dustbowl as yet another ridiculous piece of evidence for your CO2 only, Human caused only global warming is just plain insane. The dust bowl was caused by mismanagement of farmland not by global warming. Even if it was global warming, then you are proving global warming is natural, since this took place before the AGW could take place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAside from that insanity, the fact is there have been doubts before, worse in fact, and flooding and storm of the century, back in 1993, and everything else.
Warmists at somepoint you have to use real data and not your plugged data in prophetic computer models. Did you people actually put in your model, dust bowl created when X happens to the climate?
Agriculture is an environmnental disaster across much of the U.S.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn industry is kept alive with subsidies...often for products that are exported. We not only destroy the environment but taxpayers get to run up more debt in the process.
FYI, Nixon was very environmentally conscious. After all, he did put the EPA in place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Sorry warmists but either Global warming is either created by the evil humans or it is natural. Make up your minds ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy that same logic, forest fires are either created by evil humans or they are natural...
Yeah, like they can't be both. Why do you think you understand anything better than the average person if you are so incapable of dealing with a false dichotomy? And if you don't think you understand it better, why to you speak?
I'm not sure what your point is. In the past, naturally occurring droughts have had devastating impact; so, what does that mean about a climate shift toward dryer conditions that we are causing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry if I wasn't clear enough for you. Perhaps another quote would help:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There are absolutely things farmers could do to deal with climate change," Cox says. "This is not a technical problem. There is a whole suite of practices that would make farming systems more resilient and able to stand up to climate change."
The reference to droughts lasting a couple of years and our ability to manage their impact I think ignores the very real potential droughts of magnitudes never before experienced by industrial societies - even without man made global climate change. I'm suggesting that we (U.S.) are vastly underestimating the potential impact to our agricultural productions, just based on historical drought conditions. Can we (and the rest of the world) handle a 50 year drought in the Western U.S.?
What reliable data is anyone using to project that the US mid-west will be significantly drier in the future?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there is no such reliable data source, isn't it only scare mongering?
The fact that pretty much all of the Great Plains region has been in a catastrophic drought for what seems like years now, even with the recent, huge la Nina, seems like a good sign that the Plains are going to dry out, Robbie boy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems you are too quick to pull the trigger. Did you even read the article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the article: "The dry, windy weather that followed created one of the worst man-made ecological disasters ever."
I think the author is, rightfully so, equating similar conditional results to different man-made problems. Just a thought.
Speaking of thought. . . . . Did you have one today? . . Or are you just spouting the same BS that you are a continual viaduct for?
jct. You do realize, don't you, that 'squatting' on someone's ranch means facing some serious firepower? Besides, you sound extremely jealous in your comment #1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at actual data before reaching a conclusion. I selected Nebraska randomly and googled rainfall trend 1900 to present and found http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/live/g1551/build/g1551.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt does not support the conclusion of the American midwest being turned into a dust bowl due to human caused climate change
Really? How come, as AGW has accelerated, the midwest has gotten dryer? Also, please tell me how your data source (which, by the way, I cannot access) in any way proves that AGW does not cause droughts in the Midwest, which is EXACTLY what would be expected (Wikipedia the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko, that is pretty weak. a) Anyone paying any attention can see that the drought severity has generally spread from Texas northward, and Nebraska has not been hit as severely as Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas., b) As was explained in the article, the problem is more complex than yearly rainfall, how the precipitation is distributed throughout the year matters just as much. c) Looking at a 100-year trend obscures what has been happening in the last decade; and d) The study you chose ends with 2003 data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting that the states most affected by the current conditions are "red" states opposed to big government, etc. As conditions continue to worsen they should be having psychotic episodes when they have to go, cap in hand, to Washington. I really wish the Anti Global Warming crowd would go take some courses on climatology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, it's a pointless waste of time to continue this debate. If we follow the evidence two things become immutably clear: the climate is warming rapidly and we humans are powerless to do anything about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat does not mean that there is nothing that could be done, just that we cannot actually motivate ourselves to do it. Even at this late date we can't begin to agree on the fact of warming itself.
If we ever do come to an agreement and try to ameliorate the climate trend we will find that the self perpetuating, feedback loop is already far too advanced for our feeble and tardy efforts to have any effect.
The only question is just how far will this mass extension go? Will some species survive? Will Earth become another Mars?
I think that none of you reading this will be around to see the result, so it's just a tiresome and pointless discussion.
Well, your article from 2011 references work that was done in 2009, and looks at a century trend with a starting time in a known dry period. So, it basically says that the decades during and around the dust bowl were drier than the decades leading up to 2009. Kind of underwhelming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTexas alone lost $8 billion from drought in 2011, and you are saying nothing out of the ordinary is happening in the midwest.
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional/drought-cost-texas-close-to-8-billion-in-agricultu/nRmNt/
Meanwhile, some parts of Texas have received some relief this past year, as can be seen in these yearly animations.
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/animations.html
and drought continues in the midwest at large.
You are selecting bits and pieces of the information available to attempt to maintain your position, but the larger perspective depicts a reality that is different from your perceptions.
Anyone can go to the US Drought Monitor and see what is happening. The silly map SA put up is not the whole story. Spring was a long time back and the summer and autumn was dry. We all saw the reports. Texas is still in drought. Oklahoma is in drought. Even a large portion of Iowa is in drought. To discern a trend we will need to wait to see what the coming years bring but the southern plains and the desert southwest have already had several drought years in a row. Anthropogenic global warming is expected to expand the desert regions northward and the ongoing drought has become worrisome. Food prices are going up due to the less than expected harvest. The agriculture industry had been hoping for a larger than normal harvest due to several low years in a row. That did not happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFarmers and ranchers have historically been conservative voters and it took several years of breathing dust in the ‘30s before they started to vote Democratic. They will not change until they start to see their neighbors move away and their children die from breathing dirt.
Chris
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you suggesting that droughts happen because of additional human released CO2? You know that is wrong since weather patterns have always changed and there have always been periods of drought. They data I showed you for Nebraska showed exactly that. Please try to show any actual trend data for some location in the mid west that shows some dramatic long term decline in annual rainfall. I can not find any reflecting such a problem. All I read is propaganda claiming a potential problem and not reliable evidence of any actual problem.
Sisko continues to hold onto his evidence from annual rainfall data across entire states. He has refused to acknowledge that the temporal and geographic resolution of this data matters. Many areas experience long droughts typically have dry spells followed by deluges. That is, he pays zero attention to intraseasonal variability. For example, this last summer much of the midwest had too little rain in June and July and too much rain in August and September.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-ranchers-struggle-to-adapt-to-climate-change#comment-04
That's not what FOX "News" says.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL! It's so very amusing. The very same climate change deniers that quack themselves about how reality is some how a Communist Fascist Kenyan homosexual Marxist hoax committed by the United Nations are the very same inbred right wing Republican Christian loons that climate change is impacting the most. :)
Cramer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease, please provide any actual data to show the trend of change in the amount of rainfall in specific locations over time. Data, not the typical arm waving done by the writers at SA.
As an aside, and a bit funny. How about you try to find a climate model that can accurately predict these local changes LOL. I think we both know that can't be found.
Yes, it is interesting that these "Dust Bowl" states are mostly red states.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd they mostly receive more in Federal money than they pay in Federal taxes:
North Dakota $1.68 received per $1 paid
South Dakota $1.53 received per $1 paid
Nebraska $1.10 received per $1 paid
Kansas $1.12 received per $1 paid
Wyoming $1.11 received per $1 paid
Colorado $0.81 received per $1 paid (most blue)
Their dependence on the Federal government will only increase with climate change (that most conservatives deny).
It very ironic. And it's interesting that they will never learn.
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have already asked you to defend the significance of your data. It's not significant. It is you that is cherry picking. It is your responsibilty to provide the data to prove your own assertions. I have made no assertions -- except that your data provides no evidence that "long term sustainability of the great plains" is not threatened.
Framing the analysis as you have is in error.
Sisko always seem to frame his analysis in error.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen there's an article/comment about increased VOLATILITY of observed short-term data, Sisko closes his eyes to that volatility and only looks at long term trends (100 year datasets of rainfall in Nebraska and Colorado).
When there's an article/comment about long-term temperature and sea level TRENDS focusing on projections to the year 2100 AD, he only concentrates on volatile short-term data for the last ten years.
This is cherry picking data in an attempt to prove a gut feeling. It reminds me of George W. Bush just knowing in his gut that Iraq had WMDs, and he wasn't going to accept any information from the CIA that suggested otherwise. No, W. was not lying -- that's just how the conservative mind works (from the gut).
------
Links given by Sisko:
Sisko's use of long-term trends (when others are looking at short-term volatility):
http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/on-droughts-and-fires-past
http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/live/g1551/build/g1551.pdf
Sisko's use of short-term volatile data (when others are looking at long-term trends):
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/adding-multi-model-means-to-model-v-observations-graphs/
According to the federal govt. you are somewhat wrong about the federal aid to Nebraska. Much like Texas, Nebraska paid more in taxes than it received in aid for every year I was able to find data. Finding aggregate data is particularly difficult because federal funding is divided among dozens of programs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile Nebraska is one of the most consistently red states in the union, it is tending to become a bit more purple as urban areas such as Omaha and Lincoln drift slowly into a more Democrat oriented orbit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#18 Bird Tree writes....
Also, please tell me how your data source (which, by the way, I cannot access)....
I had no problem accessing the site in the link provided.
The new feature in all this seems to be the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe know that it's about 90% fossil water and when this is gone it's gone.
So even if ''climate change'' is a load of lies were still left with no ground water to pump !
The debate should be about how agriculture can survive without irrigation and no matter what the seed research people do you can't grow food crops without water.
A big solar powered desalination program can be put into place along the desert coastline of the southern states.
SOLAQUA.INFO .. A Direct Solar Desalination Plant was designed in response to Earth 3 2009 by a British inventor.
The design won the silver medal at The Oxford Venturefest 2010.
As this Constant Flow Direct Solar powered Plant is made up entirely of modules bolted together it can be any length.
And as many ''Flow Lines'' can be installed to produce any amount of fresh water you require.
The salt is stored as a dry product for sale to the northern states as road grit.
Everyone is a winner with this design.
The desert coastline of the southern states can become the new grain basket of the world.
Grain loves sunlight and with unlimited water will grow in abundance.
It's up to you America.....
"You do realize, don't you, that 'squatting' on someone's ranch means facing some serious firepower?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou do realize that I am not a metrosexual sushi banker
"Besides, you sound extremely jealous in your comment #1"
tut, tut, don't overcompensate.
It still amazes me that folks believe their political beliefs can trump scientific facts. Ultimately as the consequences of normal climate fluctuations combined with the destructive activities of the human race create conditions far more severe than would otherwise occur; will the facts become clear. Undoubedly those few remaining deniers will still find something besides human activity to blame. Human activity decimated wildlife populations, fish stocks in our oceans and polluted our waters. Only concerted government action has been able to reverse the consequences. Individuals will not take the smart course of action on their own. As a result the governemt will need to step in once again to protect us from the greed of individuals. The biggest obstacle will be the current Congress which in one house is dominated by those of a mindset that denies science. I stronglt recommend that anyone who thinks human activity cannot have an impact to watch the recent series about the Dust Bowl on PBS.(The channel Mitt and minions wanted to defund)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Dust bowls like the 30s" are a common occurence on the earth, along with warm periods and cold periods. These have been happening for millions of years, long before many even opened a plastic water bottle. Get used to it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTalking of red states being the ones that are effected
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisby the drought has it not ocured to anyone here that
these people live on the land , they deal with nature
everyday and they make decisions every yr that could make or break them financially based on their anticipation of crop prices and weather.
I guess some dweeb that lives in a city and doesn't deal with nature would be more inclined to think that he might have a handle on climate than a guy that lives it.
Climate is changing...get used to it but don't blame
everything that happens on global warming..it is ridiculous. We have had droughts,storms , hurricanes,
blizzards etc forever and will continue to have them.
Mans presence on the planet is definitely having and influence along with many other factors.
Why do the warmists have to believe that everything that happens is caused by mans intervention. The farmers
are no where near that egotistical.
When certain parts of the continent become depleted and the growing belt moves northward toward Canada this wil give them a chance to recover. This is what happened during climate change in the past millions and millions of years. This is ultimately a good thing even it is means moving the work force further north.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate change happens. It has been happening as long as the earth has existed. Get over it.