Western USA drought worst in modern era

[AndyH]

That should be bringing more precipitation to CA, right?

In theory. It likely would have on the old planet. Here on Eaarth I think we're still feeling this stuff out.

Even if it does, I still think we should reclaim some of the farmland in other parts of the country and grow food instead of inedible industrial crops. I doubt this will be the smallest or last drought the west, SW or plains sees.

 

[Zythryn]

That should be bringing more precipitation to CA, right?

In theory. It likely would have on the old planet. Here on Eaarth I think we're still feeling this stuff out.

Even if it does, I still think we should reclaim some of the farmland in other parts of the country and grow food instead of inedible industrial crops. I doubt this will be the smallest or last drought the west, SW or plains sees.

Absolutely! Heck, this drought isn't over yet. I would just like to see some relief out there even if it is temporary.

 

[AndyH]

That should be bringing more precipitation to CA, right?

In theory. It likely would have on the old planet. Here on Eaarth I think we're still feeling this stuff out.

Even if it does, I still think we should reclaim some of the farmland in other parts of the country and grow food instead of inedible industrial crops. I doubt this will be the smallest or last drought the west, SW or plains sees.

Absolutely! Heck, this drought isn't over yet. I would just like to see some relief out there even if it is temporary.

I hear you. I know that CA's been in my prayers. We've finally had 'near normal' rainfall (and some satisfying all-day soaking drizzle 'events') but it's gonna take years of 'normal' to refill the lakes and revitalize agriculture and ranching.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/el-nino-finally-here-but_n_6807646.html?utm_hp_ref=green

El Nino Finally Arrives, But It's Weak, Weird And Late

 

[DesertSprings]

That should be bringing more precipitation to CA, right?

According to the NOAA guy they had on the radio this morning, it is likely too late in the year to be any significant help. However, if it sticks around until the next "rainy" season, it should impact.

He might have just been talking about Southern California however.

 

[tbleakne]

This Fall I have been seeing conflicting reports about the drought in California and the Southwest. Many scientists believe it is mostly natural, not a consequence of Global Warming, but part of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which affects the frequency of El Ninos in California. Tree ring data traces quite a few cycles of the PDO over the last few centuries.
The PDO has been in a negative phase for the last 15 years, and this phase also is implicated in the Global Warming Pause, where the global average surface temperature has not risen much over the same time period, despite the steady rise in CO emissions.

A group at Stanford has challenged this view, saying their simulations show that the "Ridiculously Resilient Ridge" of high pressure that has been blocking winter storms from Southern California is several times more likely to occur with Global Warming.

Even if the drought is mostly natural, this is not necessarily good news if the PDO can remain negative for another decade or more, as many believe. However, the following report has some mildly encouraging news. It seems authoritative, and has further links if you wish to dig deeper, but I have quoted what I feel are the key points, skipping many technical details.

http://urdu.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/archive.html?year=2015&month=02&MR=1

There are several separate stories at this web address. Page down to

Are We Entering a New Period of Rapid Global Warming?
By: Bob Henson

Again, the connection to the drought is through the PDO's influence on precipitation.

Residents of New England may understandably look back at 2015 as the year of their never-ending winter. For the planet as a whole, though, this year could stand out most for putting to rest the “hiatus”— the 15-year slowdown in atmospheric warming that gained intense scrutiny by pundits, scientists, and the public. While interesting in its own right, the hiatus garnered far more attention than it deserved as a purported sign that future global warming would be much less than expected.

The most compelling argument for a renewed surge in global air temperature is rooted in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

Most of the flattening of global temperature during the hiatus can be traced to cooler-than-average conditions over the eastern tropical Pacific, which pulled down global averages. An emerging theme is that natural, or internal, variability in the tropical Pacific can explain at least half of the hiatus.

One crucial point is that global warming didn’t “stop” during the hiatus: the world’s oceans actually gained heat at an accelerated pace.

What next for the PDO?
The PDO index, as calculated at the University of Washington, scored positive values during every month in 2014, the first such streak since 2003. By December it reached +2.51, the largest positive value for any December in records that go back to 1900. The January value from UW was 2.45, again a monthly record.

Because the PDO can flip modes for a year or more within its longer-term cycle, we don’t yet know whether a significant shift to a positive PDO phase has begun. If trade winds weaken throughout this year, and positive PDO values persist, that’ll be strong evidence that a new cycle is indeed under way. The last time we saw a two-year streak of positive values was in 1992-93. If this occurs, and assuming no spikes in major volcanic activity, we could expect greater rises in global temperature over the next 10 to 15 years than we’ve seen during the hiatus. In addition, we should watch for El Niño to make its presence known more often.

More El Ninos should mean more precipitation for Southern California. Of course if the precipitation is warmer, with less snow, that means less snowpack. Perhaps more precipitation will arrive as "atmospheric rivers," which could cause more flooding.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

A term that I recently learned, is "systemic causation". We know that the climate has changed, and that means that every weather event is part of a different climate than we had a couple of decades ago.

Climate is the long term trend of weather events. Climate doesn't cause changes in the weather - but we know the climate has changed - which means that weather events are now different than they used to be. Or, more accurately - the range of weather events is now different.

The drought in California is not over yet, and it is already worse than anything in the last 400+ years. Other places in the world are also having very bad droughts - Sao Paulo Brazil, and Mexico City both are in severe droughts. Other places, I am sure, as well.

At the same time, many places in the world are getting far more rain than they have ever before to our knowledge, in our history.

All these weather events of more extreme rain or drought and the ratio of record high temperatures to record lows - are all part of what we know is a changed climate. And we know it will continue to change rapidly.

 

[RegGuheert]

The drought in California is not over yet, and it is already worse than anything in the last 400+ years.

And if you go back a bit further, you see that 200-year-long droughts are in CA's history. This one is bad but it is nothing like was seen in the past:

Other places in the world are also having very bad droughts - Sao Paulo Brazil, and Mexico City both are in severe droughts. Other places, I am sure, as well.

Of course they do. But from a global perspective, droughts of all severity levels have been steadily dropping over the past thirty-some years, as can be easily seen in this open-access paper in Nature:

At the same time, many places in the world are getting far more rain than they have ever before to our knowledge, in our history.

Perhaps that is true, also. But the data shows that overall there is no trend in worldwide flooding:

Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistend trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive.

All these weather events of more extreme rain or drought and the ratio of record high temperatures to record lows - are all part of what we know is a changed climate. And we know it will continue to change rapidly.

Truly there is nothing new under the Sun:

February, 2015:

February, 1934:

Sorry, but your beliefs are not supported by the scientific data.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

The current drought in the west is much worse than anything that happened 800 years ago in terms of its potential to impact a much larger population that doesn't take kindly to cutting back on anything.

 

[AndyH]

I reported reg's post and drees summarily closed the report. I guess his call for taking the "debate" elsewhere isn't actionable even by the moderators? :?

You are receiving this notification because the report you filed on the post "Re: Western USA drought worst in modern era" in "Western USA drought worst in modern era" at "My Nissan Leaf Forum" was handled by a moderator or by an administrator. The report was afterwards closed. If you have further questions contact drees with a personal message.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=412732#p412732

If you wish to debate global warming, there are threads for that.

 

[AndyH]

We're continuing to see the effects of disrupting the climate system, which means disrupting the hydrologic cycle. Climate data and the folks that analyze them have been saying for years that they expect the SW USA to get warmer and dryer and the NE to get cooler and wetter as time goes on.

Water isn't the only problem, though, for CA's food growers as some crops are already being negatively affected by the reduction in cold hours needed for seeds and fruit to set. The economic impact of climate change go well beyond water bills and pumping rights. It's going to be an interesting ride the next 50 or so years, I think.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToY4eeWsdLc[/youtube]

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400082

Unprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains

In the Southwest and Central Plains of Western North America, climate change is expected to increase drought severity in the coming decades.

 

[RegGuheert]

The current drought in the west is much worse than anything that happened 800 years ago in terms of its potential to impact a much larger population that doesn't take kindly to cutting back on anything.

No argument. And that large population likely contributes to the drought in CA, as well.

The big concern is that the possibility exists for much more severe droughts in CA than we have seen in the last couple of centuries. What happens if history repeats itself?

 

[edatoakrun]

="RegGuheert"
...The big concern is that the possibility exists for much more severe droughts in CA than we have seen in the last couple of centuries...

Actually, my "big concern" is that anthropogenic climate change has already greatly increased drought risk, and the increase in risk will probably accelerate with the increasing rate of future climate change.

Current conditions continue to deteriorate, with snowpack down to ~17% of normal, and with no major precipitation events in the outlook, likely to fall further by the ~ April first (annual norm) maximum:

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

Reservoir storage now less than 2/3 of average:

http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/reservoirs/RES" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Op-Ed in LAT summarizes the current situation:

California has about one year of water left. Will you ration now?

Given the historic low temperatures and snowfalls that pummeled the eastern U.S. this winter, it might be easy to overlook how devastating California's winter was as well.

As our “wet” season draws to a close, it is clear that the paltry rain and snowfall have done almost nothing to alleviate epic drought conditions. January was the driest in California since record-keeping began in 1895. Groundwater and snowpack levels are at all-time lows. We're not just up a creek without a paddle in California, we're losing the creek too.

Data from NASA satellites show that the total amount of water stored in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins — that is, all of the snow, river and reservoir water, water in soils and groundwater combined — was 34 million acre-feet below normal in 2014. That loss is nearly 1.5 times the capacity of Lake Mead, America's largest reservoir.

Statewide, we've been dropping more than 12 million acre-feet of total water yearly since 2011. Roughly two-thirds of these losses are attributable to groundwater pumping for agricultural irrigation in the Central Valley. Farmers have little choice but to pump more groundwater during droughts, especially when their surface water allocations have been slashed 80% to 100%. But these pumping rates are excessive and unsustainable. Wells are running dry. In some areas of the Central Valley, the land is sinking by one foot or more per year.

As difficult as it may be to face, the simple fact is that California is running out of water — and the problem started before our current drought. NASA data reveal that total water storage in California has been in steady decline since at least 2002, when satellite-based monitoring began, although groundwater depletion has been going on since the early 20th century.

Right now the state has only about one year of water supply left in its reservoirs, and our strategic backup supply, groundwater, is rapidly disappearing. California has no contingency plan for a persistent drought like this one (let alone a 20-plus-year mega-drought), except, apparently, staying in emergency mode and praying for rain...

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-famiglietti-drought-california-20150313-story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[RegGuheert]

="RegGuheert"
...The big concern is that the possibility exists for much more severe droughts in CA than we have seen in the last couple of centuries...

Actually, my "big concern" is that anthropogenic climate change has already greatly increased drought risk, and the increase in risk will probably accelerate with the increasing rate of future climate change.

From the peer-reviewed article in Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society you linked back on page 21 of this thread:

However, the three papers that looked at the California drought did not find a clear anthropogenic influence.

Link to the peer reviewed article, in the Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society :

EXPLAINING EXTREME EVENTS OF 2013 From A Climate Perspective

http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you have a link to another scientific report which rebuts this one from the American Meteorological Society?

The point is that there is no reason to attribute the current drought in CA to humans when much more severe and longer droughts occurred in the past when no anthropogenic influence was present. Humans may have an effect on the climate in CA, but it is likely of far less significance than the natural causes already in place.

 

[Stoaty]

EXPLAINING EXTREME EVENTS OF 2013 From A Climate Perspective

http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you have a link to another scientific report which rebuts this one from the American Meteorological Society?

Here you go:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/08/3600717/california-drought-climate-change-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL062433/full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[RegGuheert]

NOAA recently released their Assessment Report entitled Causes and Predictability of the 2011-14 California Drought. Here are some excerpts from the conclusions:

The current drought, though extreme, is not outside the range of California hydro-climate variability and similar events have occurred before. Although there has been a drying trend in California since the late 1970s, when considering the full observational record since 1895, there is no appreciable trend to either wetter or drier California winters.

Our conclusion that the drought was caused by natural variability and not human-induced climate change is in part based on the CMIP5 models, which project wetter conditions in central to northern California in winter but drier conditions in spring.

It seems that the climate models predict the *exact opposite* of what is happening in CA right now. So if those climate models are the basis for anyone's belief that we are in the midst of a huge, man-made climate disaster, then you can't use them to justify your faith that the current CA drought was caused by man.

 

[Stoaty]

So if those climate models are the basis for anyone's belief that we are in the midst of a huge, man-made climate disaster, then you can't use them to justify your faith that the current CA drought was caused by man.

As you know, Reg, the science showing that a man-made climate disaster is occurring rests on over a century of physics and multiple lines of evidence. If you read the thinkprogress link above you will see the criticisms of that study--they focused on precipitation alone, and ignored soil moisture:

"They found that the soil moisture deficit in the state is truly unprecedented as measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI):"

 

[edatoakrun]

The present solution to the drought, for residents of California's overpopulated arid regions, is to simply buy their way out of it:

With the drought stretching into its fourth year, a heavyweight water agency from Los Angeles has come calling on Sacramento Valley rice farmers, offering up to $71 million for some of their water.

The price being offered is so high, some farmers can make more from selling water than from growing their rice. Many are willing to deal...

Metropolitan isn't thrilled about paying $700 an acre-foot for water. But the Los Angeles agency needs the additional supply, despite having spent billions of dollars on storage and conservation projects over the last few years. The State Water Project, which provides about one-third of Southern California's water, expects to deliver only 20 percent of normal allocations this year. The Colorado River, Metropolitan's other main source, is running at less than 50 percent of normal. This year marks the first time since 2010 that Metropolitan has gone into the market to buy water from the Sacramento Valley.

Hirsch said Metropolitan and its partners had to compete against three other bidders, including the San Joaquin Valley's massive Westlands Water District, to make the deal for the Sacramento Valley water.

"What a difficult year it's been to negotiate transfers," the Metropolitan official told the agency's water planning and stewardship committee earlier this week. "It reflects the competition ... and another year of drought."

http://www.redding.com/news/as-drought-worsens-la-water-agency-offers-cash-to-sacramento-valley-farmers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A personal observation.

At that price I allowed ~$50,000 worth of precipitation to flow from my property this rain year, and some of this water undoubtedly will be included in the sales reported above.

I have no legal right to impound this water, and neither do most other property owners in California's watersheds.

But as a matter of fact small-scale illegal use of surface water is common, as water law is often unenforced in rural California, at the present time.

And I am sympathetic, to put it mildly, to any residents whose water table has been lowered and well sucked dry by a nearby corporate farm, and who then decides that using surface water is the only practical alternative, to a hopeless effort to compete with a federally-subsidized corporate farm, to chase the water table ever lower.

 

[RegGuheert]

As you know, Reg, the science showing that a man-made climate disaster is occurring rests on over a century of physics and multiple lines of evidence.

I don't know that, nor does anyone else. The science behind this belief system is pitifully bad, starting with the misguided understandings of Arrhenius. James Clerk Maxwell put forth the proper understanding of the temperature gradient in our atmosphere to counter Arrhenius' nonsense. Do you suppose James Clerk Maxwell did not understand radiation physics? The belief that the oceans and soil are heated above the expected level because of the greenhouse effect is easily falsified by noting that other planets such as Venus and Uranus which have atmospheres OPAQUE to sunlight, still have extremely high temperature gradients. Since sufficient sunlight cannot get to the hottest parts of these planets to heat them, then there is no way for radiation to cause the high temperatures which exist on these planets.

We KNOW from thermodynamics that the temperature gradient is caused by the requirement for the atmosphere to organize itself such that the highest kinetic energy particles are at the bottom and the lowest are at the top. Radiation plays a very small role when the atmosphere is thick, but it does dominate the physics in the very rare atmosphere at extremely high altitude.

The gradient of the temperature of a gas in the force field in which it exists can be used to cool gases to a very low value in a centrifuge. Simply put, the warmest molecules exist at the bottom of the field in order to support the coldest molecules at the top. This temperature gradient exists regardless of the characteristics of the gases. You can read a good description of how this works here.

We need to put a stop to all the nonsense belief that CO2 controls the temperature of the Earth. It is simply politically-motivated pseudo-science.

 

[AndyH]

I have no legal right to impound this water, and neither do most other property owners in California's watersheds.

Double-check your local rainwater harvesting laws - I seem to recall that some in CA are legally 'impounding' water that falls on their property. They're actually doing the environment a service, as climate change is turning the atmosphere into a 'store and dump' water system.

Drought turns the ground into 'pottery' into which water cannot penetrate as easily, so when rain comes it runs mostly on the surface to the ocean. The water needs to be caught, slowed, and allowed to slowly infiltrate the soil in order to rehydrate soil and recharge aquifers. Capture rainwater and release it slowly during the summer. Build swales to slow the surface flow and allow it to soak in. Keep the ground planted so that roots maintain channels for water to penetrate.

P.A. Yeomans' Water for Every Farm
http://www.amazon.com/Water-Every-Farm-Yeomans-Keyline/dp/1438225784
Brad Lancaster's Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and Beyond
http://www.amazon.com/Rainwater-Harvesting-Drylands-Beyond-2nd/dp/0977246434
Gary Nabhan's Growing Food in a Hotter, Drier Land
http://www.amazon.com/Growing-Food-Hotter-Drier-Land/dp/1603584536
The Texas Manual on Rainwater Harvesting
http://www.twdb.texas.gov/innovativewater/rainwater/doc/RainwaterHarvestingManual_3rdedition.pdf

Worst case, one can collect a bit more than half a gallon of water per square foot of roof space in a one inch rain - about 1250 gallons from a 2500 sq ft roof. Think 'tank' or 'swimming pool' rather than 30 or 55 gallon barrel for rainwater harvesting...

PS...Texas and the SW are in year 8 of this drought...

 

[WetEV]

...starting with the misguided understandings of Arrhenius.

He has a Nobel Prize, was a Fellow of the Royal Society, you read some blogs. Hmmm....

James Clerk Maxwell put forth {denier blog reference deleted} the proper understanding of the temperature gradient in our atmosphere to counter Arrhenius' nonsense.

Oh, amusing! You have YET another NEW THEORY of how the climate system operates. I wish you could pick just one. Is that really asking too much?

If you want a "skeptical source" or two:

In other words, without the “greenhouse effect”, there would be no decrease in atmospheric temperature with height, and no convection. The existence of weather thus depends upon the greenhouse effect to destabilize the atmosphere.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We need to put a stop to all the nonsense belief that CO2 controls the temperature of the Earth.

Did you ever think about how you might keep your politics, and agree with the scientific view of climate? Might be more productive.