When somebody is down on their luck they are fair game for getting a cheap swipe. Drought continues [in Australia] and so the rural community are in the gunsights. It is the farmer’s environmentally unfriendly land management practices that are contributing to global warming, so it is said . It might never rain again! Repent and implement green-friendly practices (shoot the stock and plant native trees) and all will be well!
The drought is continuing despite the earlier predictions that a La Nina is with us and should have brought good winter rains. Obviously man-made global warming.
Unfortunately folklore highlights the 1982-83 El Nino when Malcolm Fraser called an early election during a drought, he lost the election to Bob Hawke and immediately the drought broke with good late autumn and winter rains. Bob Hawke was thenceforth recognised as having divine qualities.
The truth is rather more prosaic. El Nino droughts often break in autumn as they are followed by a rapidly developing La Nina, but not always. If the break does not come in autumn then the next likely period is late spring after the equinox. The current La Nina commenced as a rather weak event but is gathering strength. The Climate Prediction Center in Washington is backing its development. There has been a very active summer monsoon over Asia reflecting the benefits of the La Nina event. A late spring break for Australia after the equinox remains a good prospect.
Rather than further scaring the rural communities with fairy-tales about man-made global warming our communitiy leaders would do better to acquaint themselves with useful knowledge about climate and its prospects and reassure the farmers and their families that climate is only following a well-worn cycle. It would seem that government assistance is available as support and the prospects for rain are not hopeless. Life on the land is tough and survival depends on optimism grounded in fact, not pessimism enhanced by fairy stories.
Bill Kininmonth
Jennifer Marohasy took this photograph yesterday (September 26, 2007), it was one of many failed winter wheat crops that she saw north of Dubbo in central western New South Wales
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
For a scholar of history Kininmonth is quite forgetful.
Pitching 1982/83 as some “classic archetypal” El Nino event is a big mistake. Why not come a bit more recently to 1991-95 where El Nino or “warm” events ran back to back.
1982 despite being severe is the sort of event you would expect producers to manage through. It finished.
Some El Ninos break with deluge in autumn but some don’t. El Nino and La Nina patterns are quite variable in spatial impact and intensity.
Farmers in SE Australia are not in this drought position from one event – moreover a 5-6 multi-year drought sequence where even the non El Nino neutral years didn’t deliver.
So there have been more El Nino since 1976 than La Ninas (which the IPCC reports are equivocal about) and there has been changes in Antarctic circulation which have links to greenhouse and ozone depletion.
Of course we also know that Burdekin didn’t seem to flow for 20 years in the 1700s. “Natural variability?”. But the Burdekin is also a long way from SE Australia.
If this “well worn” climate cycle is soooo predictable how come we haven’t predicted it and all the changes we’ve observed in recent decades.
We’re only just beginning to work out what we don’t know.
Let’s hope it rains soon and heaps. Let’s hope the La Nina delivers some.
But that doesn’t mean it’s over either. The answer to that is how long till the next drought.
And even if it does rain, it doesn’t rain dollars and the economic impact will run for a decade.
In recent weeks 1.1 billion dollars have been offered from Federal coffers to mitigate the cumulative and ongoing impacts of a multi-year drought sequence. On top of billions already spent on this drought.
Australian farmers have now had billions in drought assistance since the 1980s – at some stage the question of support will be replaced with restructuring and/or retreat.
So it’s pretty nonsensical to talk about kicking people when they’re down when big licks of money are being provided for support.
If this drought a result of global warming, natural variation, or a mixture of both? We don’t really know. But many on the land have to make a risk assessment. “Dunno” is not a good answer when you’re facing the choice between reinverstment and getting out.
But ask yourself if global warming was having an impact in rainfall what do you think it would look like? And how many changed droughts sequences would you need to decide something had changed (fundamentally). Surprising that more are not at least somewhat curious.
So instead of promoting “fairy stories” abour “fairy stories” and “prosaic truths” – how about some fullsome disclosure pros and cons.
And coincidentally this new paper is most interesting
Weakening of the Walker Circulation and apparent dominance of El
Nino both reach record levels, but has ENSO really changed?
Scott B. Power 1 and Ian N. Smith 2
Received 21 May 2007; revised 30 July 2007; accepted 10 August 2007; published 20 September 2007.
[1] Changes in El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and
the Walker Circulation can be routinely monitored using the
Southern Oscillation Index (SOI). Here we show that the
lowest 30-year average value of the June–December SOI
just occurred (i.e. in 1977–2006), and that this coincided
with the highest recorded value in mean sea-level pressure
at Darwin, the weakest equatorial surface wind-stresses and
the highest tropical sea-surface temperatures on record. We
also document what appears to be a concurrent period of
unprecedented El Nino dominance. However, our results,
together with results from climate models forced with
increasing greenhouse gas levels, suggest that the recent
apparent dominance might instead reflect a shift to a lower
mean SOI value. It seems that global warming now needs to
be taken into account in both the formulation of ENSO
indices and in the evaluation and exploitation of statistical
links between ENSO and climate variability over the globe.
This could very well lead to the development of more accurate
seasonal-to-interannual climate forecasts. Citation: Power,
S. B., and I. N. Smith (2007), Weakening of the Walker Circulation
and apparent dominance of El Nino both reach record levels, but
has ENSO really changed?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L18702,
doi:10.1029/2007GL030854.
The authors of the paper apparently forget that the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976 was caused by a reduction in cold water upwelling and hence put the Pacific into a warmer state. That this made it biased towards El Nino events is seen from the mean SOI of the 25 years prior to 1976 being +1.97 but for the 25 years after 1976 -2.88.
Walker Circulation strengthens under the Southern Oscillation (SO) moves towards La Nina conditions and weakens when the SO moves towards El Nino. This means that the reported weakening of the Walker Circulation should be no surprise to anyone.
There is no need for any climate models, forced with greenhouse gases or not, to explain the situation.
From the GRL paper it shows how off the pace the lead post is – indeed Power and Smith appear to be calling an impact on Australia of the current warming from greenhouse causes. A new Pacific mena state. Arrived at from observations, statistical analysis and modelling.
A new definition of what is an El Nino is now required.
A BoM press release is here http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20070925.shtml
From the paper’s conclusions
“This simple interpretation
gives a result that is consistent with modelling results:
global warming weakens the Walker Circulation and warms
the tropical Pacific Ocean, but has little impact on tropical
ENSO-driven variability about the new mean-state [Meehl
et al., 2007]. While plausible, further research is needed to
help quantify the extent to which global warming has in fact
driven the unprecedented recent decline in the 30-year
average value of the SOI.
[20] Global warming has very likely driven changes in
mean rainfall, temperature, stream-flow and other important
climatic variables [Hegerl et al., 2007; Alley et al., 2007;
Meehl et al., 2007] in many countries. ENSO events are
responsible for some of the variability about these means in
some locations, so climatic conditions experienced during
ENSO events have very likely changed.”
Didn’t you read my post Luke?
The change is explained perfectly well by the Great Pacific Climate Shift. You don’t need the output of incomplete and inaccurate climate models to tell you what’s happening.
I like the speculation which claims to be fact – “Global warming has very likely driven changes…”. It seems right on par with the IPCC’s subjective assessment of its own poorly supported claims.
Just a few years ago David Jones and Blair Trewin, both of the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre, authored a paper in which they showed that Australia’s maximum and minimum temperatures were greatly influenced by the ENSO. The same paper cited several papers which showed links between ENSO and rainfall in Australia.
Now it seems that the CSIRO and BoM are using models of dubious accuracy in an attempt to claim that man-made warming is the cause. Don’t these guys know that output from a complex computer is not proof unless they can show that every climate factor is fully understood and properly accounted for in the processing?
Hmmm interesting John – do you have a published paper to support that.
Also can you explain how the Walker circulation can avoid slowing down given that the water holding capacity of air goes up exponentially in temperature but evaporation goes up linearly – that is why you have to slow down the circulation. If you don’t slow the circulation down the atmosphere will complete drain itself of water within a matter of weeks!
Perhaps there was a few real world observations and statistical analyses also involved – do you have some science John or just rhetoric?
Sounds like the typical serving of non-factual non-supported denialist pseudo-scientific bullshit to me?
“Now it seems that the CSIRO and BoM are using models of dubious accuracy in an attempt to claim that man-made warming is the cause” you say …
“it seems” does it – or are you saying they do. Which is it?
John I’d suggest if you have observations, statistical analyses for support, a viable hypothesis, a plausible mechanism and independent modelled support you have a good quality science story.
Of course for true disbelievers – there will never be enough evidence EVER to persuade you of global warming. And we can have a long-winded conversation about what is “absolute truth”.
Indeed the paper I introduced doesn’t absolutely need modelling to make it’s point.
Again from the conclusions we see two interlinked pieces of evidence and uncertainties explicitly addressed.
“The SOI, Darwin MSLP, NINO3, and the equatorial
zonal wind-stress all reached record values in 1977–2006.
Statistical tests show that the recent values are unlikely to
have come from the same ‘‘population’’ as the earlier
values. The Walker Circulation tends to weaken in climate
models forced with increasing greenhouse gases [Tanaka et
al., 2004; Vecchi et al., 2006; Meehl et al., 2007]. As global
warming has accelerated in recent decades [Alley et al.,
2007] its effects could reasonably be expected to be most
clearly evident in the most recent decades.
[18] On the other hand, there is currently no consensus
amongst climate models concerning change in the behaviour
of ENSO in response to global warming [Cane, 2005;
Collins et al., 2005; Guilyardi, 2006; Nyenzi and Lefale,
2006; Philip and van Oldenborgh, 2006; van Oldenborgh et
al., 2005; Zelle et al., 2005; Meehl et al., 2007]. Yet if
ENSO events are defined as years in which the magnitude
of the June–December SOI exceeds 5 then El Nin˜o events
appear to have been more dominant in 1977–2006 than in
any other 30 year period on record.”
The paper is compelling, scientific, doesn’t say “we’re all going to die”. Uncertainties are left.
But if you’re sitting out there in drought land – you might be considering your position – do you take Kininmonth’s “she’ll be right” or do you try to draw up some pros and cons about climate variation and climate change. No decision is a vote for the past set of probabilities which may be no guide for the future.
I confirmed for myself that ENSO has gone awal. Graphing the average SOI over a 5 year rolling average shows it “stepped” down into a predominately negative pattern around the mid 70’s, and has stayed there. Fortunately the drop in rainfall (for the tablelands of NSW at least) hasn’t been as great as the drop in SOI, and is not unlike the rainfall of the 1st half of the 20th century. But back then the SOI wasn’t so negative, so there has been a significant change in the behaviour of ENSO compared to the last 100 years. Unfortunately, late winter and spring daytime temperatures are now quite a bit higher than they used to be, increasing the probability of crop failure at critical times. The outlook for this spring in central NSW is not looking good with computer models showing dry westerlies will continue for the next 3 weeks. I really hope a break comes soon.
Luke – What I mention is nothing new. Why don’t you try reading almost any book that discusses the El Nino Southern Oscillation. When you’ve done that take a look at the Southern Oscillation Index at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soihtm1.shtml. Once you have those figures you should be able to work it all out for yourself.
I’d like to think that it might slow your unsubstantiated claims on these blog pages but somehow I doubt it.
Errr – still waiting for a paper/book reference on the “Great Climate Shift” – surely it must be at your fingertips – such an important paper too.
Just after some substantiation not obfuscation from you.
>Just a few years ago David Jones and Blair Trewin, both of the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre, authored a paper in which they showed that Australia’s maximum and minimum temperatures were greatly influenced by the ENSO. The same paper cited several papers which showed links between ENSO and rainfall in Australia.
That we did (John) but the relationship is such that minimum temperatures are cooler and maximum temperatures warmer during El Nino events. These effects largely cancel out.
El Nino does not explain Australia’s warming trend, nor does it explain global warming.
At a more complex level, the fact that heat is mixing down in the oceans with global warming tells you that the warming is coming from the atmosphere (the greenhouse gases) rather than the oceans (“El Nino”).
>Just a few years ago David Jones and Blair Trewin, both of the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Climate Centre, authored a paper in which they showed that Australia’s maximum and minimum temperatures were greatly influenced by the ENSO. The same paper cited several papers which showed links between ENSO and rainfall in Australia.
That we did (John) but the relationship is such that minimum temperatures are cooler and maximum temperatures warmer during El Nino events. These effects largely cancel out.
El Nino does not explain Australia’s warming trend, nor does it explain global warming.
At a more complex level, the fact that heat is mixing down in the oceans with global warming tells you that the warming is coming from the atmosphere (the greenhouse gases) rather than the oceans (“El Nino”).
Not enough resources into the production systems that will need to dominate the landscape in the future. These systems will need to be drought hardy and preferably legume based because all inputs are likely to hyperinflate further into the future.
There’s a few farmers trying to drive change with little or no governmental support and human resourcing. Millions of dollars were invested in the oil mallee industry and there is still not one grower who has recouped a net profit and more importantly not a sceric of food has been produced or is ever likely to be produced out of the system. Very little has been contributed to the Australian native sandalwood industry yet it has surpassed the growth of the mallee industry, is food productive and some growers turned in gross margins in 2006 up to $8000/ha on 250mm of rain! There will be growers this year that will surpass that gross margin on less rainfall …
Bill
would you like to make a prediction on when the drought will break, if this is a well worn cycle?
Luke, what is it about “Why don’t you try reading almost any book that discusses the El Nino Southern Oscillation” that you don’t understand?
Try asking David about it if you want to be lazy. I notice he’s not refuted it in his comments.
He also seems to think that my major reason for mentioning his paper was temperature when it fact it was its numerous references to rainfall and ENSO, rainfall being the subject of the subject of this thread.
Perhaps if he responds again in stereo it will be beneficial to you.
Well John your inability to deliver a single published paper on a classic Lavoisier myth tells me all I need to know.
If you notice he’s also telling you the oceans are warming atmosphere down not the other way. The warming signal is penetrating the oceans. He’s refuted your climate shift yarn totally.
What is your problem with reading a book, Luke? Is it too difficult?
Lavoisier myth? Shows how little you know.
Here’s a list I made at home without having to resort to a book.
The Significance of the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift in the Climatology of Alaska.
By: Hartmann, Brian; Wendler, Gerd.
Journal of Climate, Nov2005, Vol. 18 Issue 22, p4824-4839,
16p, 11 charts, 6 graphs, 1 map; (AN 19883088)
Tropical Pacific 1976–77 Climate Shift in a Linear, Wind-Driven Model.
By: Karspeck, Alicia R.; Cane, Mark A.. Journal of Physical Oceanography,
Aug2002, Vol. 32 Issue 8, p2350, 11p; (AN 7122682)
Did the Thermocline Deepen in the California Current after the 1976/77 Climate Regime Shift?
By: Hey-Jin Kim; Miller, Arthur J..
Journal of Physical Oceanography, Jun2007, Vol. 37 Issue 6, p1733-1739,
The 1976/77 North Pacific Climate Regime Shift: The Role of Subtropical Ocean Adjustment and Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Feedbacks.
By: Lixin Wu; Dong Eun Lee; Zhengyu Liu.
Journal of Climate, Dec2005, Vol. 18 Issue 23, p5125-5140,
or
Abrupt Shift in Subsurface Temperatures in the Tropical Pacific Associated with Changes in El Nino
by Thomas P. Guilderson and Daniel P. Schrag
Science 281, 240 (1998)
which has the abstract…
Radiocarbon (14C) content of surface waters inferred from a coral record from the Galapagos Islands increased abruptly during the upwelling season (July through September) after the El NinÄo event of 1976. Sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) associated with the upwelling season also shifted after 1976. The synchroneity of the shift in both 14C and SST implies that the vertical thermal structure of the eastern tropical Pacific changed in 1976. This change may be responsible for the increase in frequency and intensity of El Nino events since 1976.
Do you still doubt that the 1976 climate shift occurred? Do you still doubt that it moved the Pacific slightly towards El Nino? Do you still question what impact this has on Walker and Hadley Cell circulations?
If you still have doubts, go and find a book.
Now was that so hard. So what drives what – what’s your driver for an oceanic change and why does the temperature signal appear to be propogating downwards into the ocean. El Nino is an interlinked system with the atmospheric circulation and the thermocline working together. So if you have a major oceanic change why does the system flip out of EL Nino and how does La Nina form.
Yes I doubt heaps actually. Correlation isn’t cause and effect.
Luke,
“Yes I doubt heaps actually. Correlation isn’t cause and effect.”
So by that statement you don’t believe in AGW!
Err nope – and I’ve said so before. That’s why denialists do dumb plots like 20th century temperature against CO2. You don’t get a good correlation without factoring in solar and aerosol forcing. Which is what you’d expect.
Correlation may be cause and effect – but it may also not. You also need good mechanistic understanding. In modern climatology then your moddel is tested to see if reproduces obsrved real world behaviours. It’s a loop – a bit of basic stats is nowhere near good enough.
Now above John could have easily explained himself – most of the papers cited relate to PDO activity. Wish he had said as much earlier.
But we also know that global sea surface temperatures have increased. The latest paper under discussion also compares the recent period with a variety of PDO regimes in the prior period.
Although there are several patterns of behavior, the most significant one seems to be in regime shifts between “warm” and “cool” patterns which last 20 to 30 years.
1750: PDO displays an unusually strong oscillation.
1905: After a strong swing, PDO changed to a “warm” phase.
1946: PDO changed to a “cool” phase.
1977: PDO changed to a “warm” phase.
1998: PDO index showed several years of “cool” values, but has not remained in that pattern.
The John’s carbon 14 paper is a bit more interesting.
IPO (~PDO) modulates El Nino and La Nina impact in Australia – but there is no reason there cannot be a PDO/IPO signal and also greenhouse signal.
It seem as if nobody contributing to this thread understand how Australian agriculture works in the drought prone areas of Australia.
During the drought in Queensland in the late 1990’s, I was working with one cattle producer who ran up a debit of about 7 million dollars to the banks. In the year that the drought broke, they reduced their debt by about 2 million dollars. In one good year.
The dollars offered for relief by the government is very small in comparison, but it is crucial.
Food is a national strategic issue. There is a saying in defence that the country that controls the food supply controls the world. The corollary is that if a country gives up its capacity to feed its people, it lends itself to being vulnerable to a hostile takeover.
It is critical to national food security that the federal government maintains our food security, whatever it costs. There is no upper limit on cost in this case.
Furthermore, the contribution of agricultural exports to our balance of payments far exceeds the drought assistance on offer by the govt, in fact it is relatively peanuts. If our agricultural system fails, we will be in very serious economic trouble.
PP
Pirate Pete – I might agree but there are many in the current government that would take an entirely economic rationalist line and say “no subsidies”. 100% self reliance. The current support is for 1 in 20 events beyond normal management. The problem is that since 1991 many places have had 200 years worth of support.
Also “drought prone” itself is a very incorrect assumption – any area has a range of climate. You can’t wish a semi-arid zone into a high rainfall zone. You need to manage the variation and median rainfall set by the location.
And do we endlessly support southern Australian agriculture when perhaps we should move to northern Australia. You need to to know when to support, when to invest and when to retreat !
Sinking endless money is not a good solution. Interesting analysis on debt reduction but many producers drought feed and get into big trouble when droughts don’t break and markets collapse.
Landholders need off farm income, income equalisation methods and a way of improving the decisions on flows of money on tax year boundaries.
That may be the case Luke but who will take the risk to produce food, the risk that society needs taken considering city folk are more inclined to want to eat bread, meat and milk than a diet rich in sandalwood nut components? Farmers are trying to meet the demands of the market after all. A pretty essential market at that. Commodities in fact you expect to be consumable on demand. So where’s the food going to come from and at what point do consumers accept they need to stop eating the crops that are becoming harder to grow. Because at the end of the day, if Australia is short in this market, importable surpluses are also tight.
I bet you still had toast for breakfast … comeon Luke! And you never thought about the drought or the plight of a producer when you enjoyed that jam laden piece of heaven.
So by all means criticise farm handouts but do not forget it is the hand that feeds you and the emotional anguish and personal cost that goes into you never having to think about a piece of toast being you last.
What landholders need is direction on new production systems and hence market signals that you folk demand these new foods, eg sandalwood nuts which have all the 3 major food components of oil, protein and carbs so you can supply all three market segments (in the food manufacturing sector). Also appreciate that the more sustainable cropping systems are perennial and have a large lead in time to production (at least 4-5 years). Its a tough gig to get through 4-5 years without income and many farmers should have been prompted to invest in these future cropping systems when they had surplus equity, not waiting until a brick wall had been hit as Govt always waits for.
Well some have a view that drought relief perpetuates bad management and land degradation. Encourages holding on to animals instead of selling. Holding on in bad droughts gets one deeper in debt, more personally stressed and flogs the landscape bare.
Rationalist would say “go north”, “import it”.
Should we prop up rust belt southern Australia? Why can’t Australians form global operations that straddle continents – i.e. a global Sidney Kidman. Why not try to escape climate variation spatially in South America? Too risky?
And when the local panel beater falls on hard times nobody bails them out. Too many staff at the shopping centre dept stores – sack’em.
Just because you like farming means you should get special treatment – is it not just yet another business decision in the eyes of economic rationalists?
Would larger corporate farms be more efficient than family operations. Heresy I hear you say.
You need to be WELL AWARE of the other side of the debate. This is not necessarily my view but backslapping each other is delusionary.
See what the Feds may have done if not an election year?
And why to we have a tax year boundary that lies on the time when El Nino or La Nina may kick in. What a time to make a sell/buy decision.
You can’t grow wheat up north. You can grow corn. Once again, are you willing to give up your Wheaties?
With all due respect the local panel beater provides a dispensible service. Food production is essentia, you’ll likely not do it yourself and importable surpluses may not even be available in the future. The first thing exporters do in tough times is turn the grain drain taps off eg Ukraine and Russia atm. Hence the recent rally in wheat prices to record highs …
Corporate farms will not be willing to take the risk of wheat production. Why do you think the commodity is currently produced by close to a 100% private base? I certainly wouldn’t invest in a wheat producing company at this stage of the global climate cycle. Safer ways to play the boom. Eg own fertilizer producing stocks like Incitec Pivot. In October 2007 it was $25 today it hit $88/share. Potash Corp in north America has been an amazing story also like all global fertilizer producers. The number one performing equities sector since October last year.
All the Feds have done is highlight to the sheeple they (John and Peter) are not to blame for food inflation just as people start to notice hyperinflation on their grocery bills (ie prior to an election)! I agree the money is misdirected but don’t discount how perilously linked your well being is to the fact that farmers take risks.
My argument is simple. We need to grow different crops. Pour money into that fascilitation process and identify the individuals in the farming sector who have solutions to our food woes. One thing is for sure, the current course of debate is infantile and non productive! Tell me how the land base can produce a staple food into the future in a drought resiliant and a less fossil fuel dependent manner … I’m all ears
Food production may be essential but not everyone has to do it – it’s still a business decision. Think of the Goyder line in South Australia – there comes a point where growing of crops (wheat) becomes increasingly unreliable as you go further north. Think of what you’re saying – “corporate farms not willing to take a risk on wheat production”. WTF !!
There is a point where propping up production doesn’t pay. Yep I could go “cornies’ instead of “wheaties” if I had to.
Remember all the Federal support does is put some food on the family farm table, keeps the lights on and gets the kids to school. It’s subsistence stuff.
There is still a lot of non-wheat agricultural production that could be done in our north. And some of it is clever thinking – e.g. cotton in the Ord is now grown out of the peak insects summer season.
I’m not totally disagreeing with you Aaron but suggesting how long would you persist in a situation that delivered poor returns year after year.
You ask how do you do it? Hard call.
Any climate proof farm really needs off-farm non-agricultural-related diversified income, and the sector needs tax mechanisms that level out income and optimise decisions on better things than tax year boundaries. Tax reform?
For the farming/grazing/ranching itself you need to try to escape climate impacts spatially – geographically – operations in SW WA, the Ord and Argentina?? Probably needs partnerships to bring off – requires business skills.
How much you can use genetics, GM and agronomic technology is pretty difficult if it doesn’t rain. It’s simply a fundamental issue.
Quarantine for a “global Kidman” ? Well maybe you don’t import the food products but you can still sell them on the world market.
Perhaps easier to start up a new panel beaters.
🙂
I think we all agree its complex and it must not be forgotten farmers have rewarded society with cheap plentiful food for hundreds of years. I agree sadly there needs to be rationalisation and this is happening on mass. In saying that you would be hard pressed to meet a retired farmers who has regretted leaving the land. The regret may come when we try to find the human resource base to farm these old world cropping zones with new world food systems (perennial, legume based). You’ve generally got a 4-5 year lead in to production at a time when the world needs all the food feedstock it can get.
Deregulating the wheat market is the most logical first step to remove cross subsidization of efficient farmers with less efficient farmers. But that is another story …