Western USA drought worst in modern era

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862

The Great Flood of 1862 was the largest flood in the recorded history of Oregon, Nevada, and California, occurring from December 1861 to January 1862. It was preceded by weeks of continuous rains (or snows in the very high elevations) that began in Oregon in November 1861 and continued into January 1862. This was followed by a record amount of rain from January 9–12,
 
="palmermd" atmospheric river. that is a new term for me...
From p. 24 of this thread, articles on ARs, both the kind you want, and the kind you don't...

Today's LAT has a story illustrating California's dependence on atmospheric river events:

...California usually needs about five good atmospheric rivers each winter to fill reservoirs, stimulate spring vegetation growth and build snowpack to healthy levels, said Michael Anderson, a climatologist for the California Department of Water Resources. But how much the storms boost the state's water supply depends on the characteristics of each one, including how cold it is, whether it makes landfall toward the north or south, and whether the precipitation falls mostly as rain near the coast or as snow in the mountains...
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-atmospheric-rivers-20150119-story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But with the rising ocean and land temperatures (and rising snow levels) that have already occurred, and the more rapid increase expected in the future, the risk of one of these atmospheric river events overwhelming flood control structures, with massive economic costs, increases.

...This document summarizes the next major public project for MHDP, a winter storm scenario called ARkStorm (for Atmospheric River 1,000). Experts have designed a large, scientifically realistic meteorological event followed by an examination of the secondary hazards (for example, landslides and flooding), physical damages to the built environment, and social and economic consequences. The hypothetical storm depicted here would strike the U.S. West Coast and be similar to the intense California winter storms of 1861 and 1862 that left the central valley of California impassible. The storm is estimated to produce precipitation that in many places exceeds levels only experienced on average once every 500 to 1,000 years.

Extensive flooding results. In many cases flooding overwhelms the state’s flood-protection system, which is typically designed to resist 100- to 200-year runoffs. The Central Valley experiences hypothetical flooding 300 miles long and 20 or more miles wide. Serious flooding also occurs in Orange County, Los Angeles County, San Diego, the San Francisco Bay area, and other coastal communities. Windspeeds in some places reach 125 miles per hour, hurricane-force winds. Across wider areas of the state, winds reach 60 miles per hour. Hundreds of landslides damage roads, highways, and homes. Property damage exceeds $300 billion, most from flooding. Demand surge (an increase in labor rates and other repair costs after major natural disasters) could increase property losses by 20 percent. Agricultural losses and other costs to repair lifelines, dewater (drain) flooded islands, and repair damage from landslides, brings the total direct property loss to nearly $400 billion...

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1312/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WU forecasts about 5" of rain, in the next 4 days:

http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/zmw:96069.1.99999" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nothing to get too exited about.

It will be relatively warm, and snow levels will be very high, probably even higher than during the December storms.

So don't expect too much improvement in CA snowpack, which has now melted away to ~21% of normal, for this date.

http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/snowapp/sweq.action" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you want more info on this particular AR, read the CWB article here, and follow the comments for updates in real-time.


After another extraordinary mid-winter dry spell, major atmospheric river to soak NorCal later this week


Filed in Uncategorized by Daniel Swain on February 1, 2015 • 617 Comments...

http://www.weatherwest.com/archives/2905#disqus_thread" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Hit the "snow level forecast tab to see the very high snow levels projected.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/rev/avalanche/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Strange to think you could be at Donner pass or Echo Summit mid-winter, and still be ~1,000 ft. below snow level.

On the bright side, If California had ~normal snowpack, the pulse of snowmelt from this warm storm would probably cause severe flooding.

Not that much rain here yet, but the wind really picked up ove rthe last few hours, and I've begun hearing tree branches hit the ground.

I'm going to try to finish all grid-dependent activities for the day, ASAP.
 
edatoakrun said:
Hit the "snow level forecast tab to see the very high snow levels projected.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/rev/avalanche/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Strange to think you could be at Donner pass or Echo Summit mid-winter, and still be ~1,000 ft. below snow level.

On the bright side, If California had ~normal snowpack, the pulse of snowmelt from this warm storm would probably cause severe flooding.

Not that much rain here yet, but the wind really picked up ove rthe last few hours, and I've begun hearing tree branches hit the ground.

I'm going to try to finish all grid-dependent activities for the day, ASAP.
Although the snow line moves higher as you move south, I can remember skiing in rain/sleet at 8,600 ft. back during the Great Yosemite Flood of '96-'97, and the snow line was probably 1,000 feet higher. Pineapple Expresses always raise the snow level.
 
Weatherman said:
smkettner said:
'Atmospheric River' must be the latest buzz word to be overused to increase media hype :roll:

Kind of like "Polar Vortex".

the media does like dramatic sounding buzz words.
Nice try, but Polar Vortex has been a 'known thing' since at least the 1950s...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5k4Xz65zjU[/youtube]
 
AndyH said:
Nice try, but Polar Vortex has been a 'known thing' since at least the 1950s...

Not in the way it was hyped last year. You would think it never got cold or snowed in the Midwest before.


First the ATMOSPHERIC RIVER!!! is going to come and drown your poodle, then the POLAR VORTEX!!! is going come to freeze it solid!!!
 
Weatherman said:
AndyH said:
Nice try, but Polar Vortex has been a 'known thing' since at least the 1950s...

Not in the way it was hyped last year. You would think it never got cold or snowed in the Midwest before.


First the ATMOSPHERIC RIVER!!! is going to come and drown your poodle, then the POLAR VORTEX!!! is going come to freeze it solid!!!
You might want to compare/contrast "hype" and "facts". It was abnormal last year to have most of the air mass that should have stayed over the north pole instead hanging out over Detroit.

I'm originally from Michigan and remember the winters there in the 1960s and 1970s. Nobody is confusing the polar vortex with normal weather. We haven't had normal weather for the past 30 years.

I wonder why climate deniers have so much trouble understanding the difference between climate and weather? Hmmm....
 
Polar Vortex, January 1977 (blamed on global cooling):

screenhunter_224-jan-21-20-19.gif


The Lewiston Journal

Polar Vortex, 2014 (blamed on global warming):

screenhunter_53-jul-17-14-00.jpg


The Guardian

1976-1977: Drought in CA and cold in the Midwest and East
2013-2014: Drought in CA and cold in the Midwest and East
 
AndyH said:
And no, in the 1970s, no scientist - not a single one - blamed anything on 'global cooling'. None. Zero.
Time Magazine - June 24 said:
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.
Steven Goddard works diligently to expose the efforts of those who would rewrite history to support a political movement dressed up as bad science.
 
Reg, Steven Goddard isn't even Steven Goddard. That name is a pseudonym:

http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Time Magazine - June 24 said:
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling.

Also good quotes in the "Rolling Stone", the source of this "science". Both great scientific sources, wouldn't you agree? :lol:

This statement was incorrect when published.

You can verify this by searching archives of scientific journals.

You have been told before.


In about 1973, a scientist showed me the Keeling curve in a scientific journal, and explained why it was a threat.

mlo_full_record.png
 
RegGuheert said:
AndyH said:
And no, in the 1970s, no scientist - not a single one - blamed anything on 'global cooling'. None. Zero.
Time Magazine - June 24 said:
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.
<snip>
Clearly you have a problem understanding what 'science' means, Reg.

No, Time magazine is not science. "Journalists" at Time are not scientists.

That was the time frame when scientists were able to quantify the Milankovich cycle and when some said the planet was due to start cooling. Barring our greenhouse gas pollution the planet SHOULD be cooling. Climate scientists understood in the 1970s, though, that our emissions were overpowering natural cycles.

The garbage you tout as fact was a result of one journalist MISUNDERSTANDING A SCIENTIFIC PAPER and the rest reporting the error like the lemmings they are. MYTH does not equal FACT. Your 'sources' that continue to tout myth as fact are liars.

Since you like sources from journalists, here are some. The source science is linked should you feel froggy.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-cooling
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...he-1970s-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
http://www.newscientist.com/article...ey-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2...th-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/
http://aerosol.ucsd.edu/classes/sio217a/sio217afall08-myth1970.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
 
Stoaty said:
Reg, Steven Goddard isn't even Steven Goddard. That name is a pseudonym:

http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
NeilBlanchard said:
The Time magazine cover that has been all over the 'Net - is a hoax.

http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/

The article in the 1977 issue was not the cover story, so they doctored the cover from a later issue to conform to their erroneous claims.
Nice! ;-)
 
Weatherman said:
AndyH said:
Nice try, but Polar Vortex has been a 'known thing' since at least the 1950s...

Not in the way it was hyped last year. You would think it never got cold or snowed in the Midwest before.

Yes, I've noticed the few times I watch popular media in recent years that snow storms now have names, and much more hype than they did decades ago. Don't think it means anything beyond the desire of advertisers to sell more beer and such.

I'm wondering what the last snowstorm to hit New York will be hyped like, oh in 2090 or so.

Starting from the first chance in the longest model prediction, through the breathless announcement of snowflakes in Central Park, to follow ups with the orange groves on Long Island.

All in resolution higher than we can guess now, probably 3D as well. :roll:
 
Back
Top