Drought predicted for Alberta this summer

Farmers in central and northern Alberta should brace for drought this summer, according to AccuWeather.

“We think it’s going to be a very warm summer,” said Canadian weather expert Brett Anderson.

It is also going to be a dry summer. June will have near normal precipitation but July and August will turn dry as a high pressure system suppresses storm activity across the prairie region.

Anderson said it will be particularly hot and parched in a wide swath stretching from northwestern Alberta to southeastern Saskatchewan.

“Northern and central Alberta really sticks out like a sore thumb in terms of dryness,” he said.

He is not as concerned about the rest of the prairie region.


“I don’t think we’re going into a drought in Saskatchewan. I think we have enough moisture in the ground,” said Anderson.

Manitoba will receive thunderstorms from time to time throughout the summer months and is not expected to be as warm as the other prairie provinces.

“The odds of seeing any widespread drought in that (province) are probably 30 percent or less,” he said.

Anderson said his forecast has nothing to do with a weak El Nino forming. He doesn’t expect that to have any impact on weather patterns until fall or winter.

It is more about the disappearance of a blob of warm water in the Pacific Ocean off the west coast of North America. The blob sent moisture across Western Canada the last couple of years.


In its absence, a high pressure system will form over the prairie region.

“That acts like a big bubble,” said Anderson.

“Any fronts that come in from the north and west, they kind of move around that bubble and the dryness builds across the region.”

The good news is the bubble will reduce the threat of severe thunderstorms because there isn’t the wind energy aloft that is transferred down to the ground.

It also reduces the threat of hail because the persistent high pressure system results in warmer temperatures aloft and the less likelihood of hail formation.


Contact sean.pratt@producer.com

  • sandi

    Wow. You mention enough sub soil moisture in Sask. Did you miss that most of AB has excessive sub soil moisture? This forecast is so wrong. Accuweather should be called not-accuweather, persistently wrong with their forecasts.

  • Brett Sewell

    Brett Anderson nailed the last el -nino pattern to the T

  • Dennis Weatherald

    I didn’t know that meteorology degrees came in Cracker jacks! This guy needs a new job.

    • GreenSenior

      I guess no one will know if he’s right ’til the time comes. But none of us should any longer be surprised by extreme weather events such as the one being predicted….i.e. “the new normal,” also known as anthropogenic climate change. It’s here. It’s now. It’s real. Quebec is yet another, immediate example. http://www.PlanetInPeril.ca

      • Harold

        Extreme weather events have been with us for all of our time. Seasonal and yearly weather patterns are not Climate change signals. A Climate change signal is measured in 15 year increments. Throughout the worlds history there have been eras/ages of cooling to warming and warming to cooling climate changes. For each era it was “It’s here. It’s now. It’s real”. Climate is not weather. The most recent extreme weather event was a drought that lasted 10 years, from 1930 to 1940 and encompassed a large portion of Canada and the United States. Was that a climate change? Could it have been predictable by the previous 10 year weather patterns? Here is another thought for you. Can modern science place the data of the 1920’s into their modern equipment and predict the drought of the 1930’s and its duration? Was the “climate change” or “weather change” man made? Was the disappearance of the last mini- Ice-age man made; was its disappearance a peril dot ca.? To learn how to fear through taxation, one only need visit “planet of fear dot com”, (planetinperil) but “planet of facts” is a better web site.

  • fred

    Hot in Canada means low 70s.

    • GreenSenior

      Hope you mean fahrenheit! 🙂

    • Russell Romick

      Ummm. Hot in Canada means the same as everywhere else. This time last year in Slave Lake, AB, it was 29-32c. That 85f. Don’t know where you live fred but it must be north of 60.

  • Denise

    I noticed that the grasshoppers are already out in southern Alberta. Not a good sign.

  • Happy Farmer

    Not much to do on my farm today due to 7/10″ of rain overnight.

    Somedays I am jealous of weather forecasters. They get to do all this important studying of various trends and tell us what is going to happen. From were I sit, these forecasters are wrong as often as they are right. Must be nice to get paid in full for a job even when you are wrong 1/2 the time.

  • GreenSenior

    Harold, are you saying that 2014, 2015 and 2016 were NOT the hottest on the human record? Are you saying that they do NOT correspond with the highest levels of manmade greenhouse gas emissions in almost a million years? Because, if you do, your quarrel is not with me. It is with the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, the EPA, the National Academies of Science in most countries, the US military, not to mention the Pope. (If you have to ask what those acronyms stand for, I rest my case. You are not informed & should absent yourself from this debate.) You are right about one thing, tho. The climate HAS changed over all of time. But this is the first time we humans are clearly doing the job. Rational people would then try, (by turning from fossil fuels to sustainable sources) to avert the myriad of disasters which are already upon us; floods in CentralEastern Canada, floods around Calgary & Manitoba, wildfires around Ft. Mac., just to mention a few. These are manifestations of a stubborn human society (its industries & its politicians) which refuses to recognize science. As for my blog, I would invite you to visit and get back to me with any FACTUAL INACCURACIES you might detect. If you do not get back, I’LL ASSUME YOU HAVE FOUND NONE. As for the “fear” factor, the only thing which frightens me more than gloomy reports of climate catastrophe, are the number of individuals who refuse to accept science (akin to a cheeky 6 yr-old who informs his math teach, without a shred of evidence that, no, 2 & 2 do NOT equal 4) and keep their heads buried firmly in the sand, lessening the likelihood of a solution, not only for themselves but for the reasonable, rational and realistic among us. http://WWW.PLANETINPERIL.CA

    • Harold

      Congratulations. You have memorized every talking point and every virtue signal that you were given to close conversations and the doors to science. (your talk is not new; it is dated). Your claim is that science cannot, or does not, actively disprove science, so i would question what you truly do know about the term Science. The term Consensus + Science should be the clue that indicates that you are being led down the “garden path”. There is such a thing as Political Science, Social Science, and etc, and all too few understand which of the sciences that they have been made most accustomed to. You are correct in saying that my quarrel is with the ” IPCC, NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, the EPA, the National Academies of Science in most countries, the US military, not to mention the Pope” and I can assure you that I do “quarrel”, but clear to me, you do not. There is more to know beyond the ability to memorize a “Title” and assume by “Title” its authority. I know that the IPCC, EPA. US military, and the Pope are regulatory bodies and that they are not the bodies of Science so I would question your sincerity on the topic of Climate Change. Further, perhaps you missed the news that the NSIDC was caught “red handed” tampering with Climate Records. (Cooking the books) Yes, I have a “quarrel” with NSIDC and the regulatory agencies that you have mentioned and therefore your reference to them has been less impressive and more than perhaps you had thought.
      However, If you were to try to get out of your “bubble” then you might want to visit the Heartland Institute’s – International Conference on Climate Change (9th) where you will discover that there are 31,487 (9,000 PHD, and growing) climate scientists who disagree with your narrative, or your monologue as I would choose to call it. (the tip of the “Ice berg” only, into much more)
      In the mean time, I would not dream of taking you away from the enlightenment of “planet of fear and taxation dot com”. (planetinperil) I would further hate to be the instrument of you losing your cozy feeling of belonging to something so big as the “anti- dooms day machine” and the imagination that you have the power over climate because science (man) told you so. The let down from this virtue may make someone feel a little less relevant.
      On a side note, your analogy of the “class room” did not lend you any weight. (2 & 2 do NOT equal 4) To not equal four, one of the twos would have to have changed in value and obvious. Math is nothing more than the spoken language converted into shorthand for convenience. No one except a liar can claim that when given two objects and then given another two objects that they do not have four objects at hand. (2 + 2 = 4) Quite the opposite, a Liar is a liar and they do not “keep their heads buried firmly in the sand” at any time.
      Did you hope that by printing in “upper case” that it would lend to you some form of additional authority? It didn’t.