Natural cycles, sea surface temperatures found to be main drivers in ongoing event
According to a new NOAA-sponsored study, natural oceanic and atmospheric patterns are the primary drivers behind California’s ongoing drought. A high pressure ridge off the West Coast (typical of historic droughts) prevailed for three winters, blocking important wet season storms, with ocean surface temperature patterns making such a ridge much more likely. Typically, the winter season in California provides the state with a majority of its annual snow and rainfall that replenish water supplies for communities and ecosystems.
Further studies on these oceanic conditions and their effect on California’s climate may lead to advances in drought early warning that can help water managers and major industries better prepare for lengthy dry spells in the future.
“It’s important to note that California’s drought, while extreme, is not an uncommon occurrence for the state. In fact, multi-year droughts appear regularly in the state’s climate record, and it’s a safe bet that a similar event will happen again. Thus, preparedness is key,” said Richard Seager, report lead author and professor with Columbia University’s Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.
This report builds on earlier studies, published in September in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, which found no conclusive evidence linking human-caused climate change and the California drought. The current study notes that the atmospheric ridge over the North Pacific, which has resulted in decreased rain and snowfall since 2011, is almost opposite to what models project to result from human-induced climate change. The report illustrates that mid-winter precipitation is actually projected to increase due to human-induced climate change over most of the state, though warming temperatures may sap much of those benefits for water resources overall, while only spring precipitation is projected to decrease.
Folsom Lake, 2011
(Credit: CA Dept of Water Resources)
Folsom Lake, 2014
(Credit: CA Dept of Water Resources)
The report makes clear that to provide improved drought forecasts for California, scientists will need to fully understand the links between sea surface temperature variations and winter precipitation over the state, discover how these ocean variations are generated, and better characterize their predictability.
This report contributes to a growing field of science-climate attribution-where teams of scientists aim to identify the sources of observed climate and weather patterns.
“There is immense value in examining the causes of this drought from multiple scientific viewpoints,” said Marty Hoerling, report co-author and researcher with NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory. “It’s paramount that we use our collective ability to provide communities and businesses with the environmental intelligence they need to make decisions concerning water resources, which are becoming increasingly strained.”
To view the report, visit: http://cpo.noaa.gov/MAPP/californiadroughtreport
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
Told this first time 1979……. Natural cycles, Natural forces, Facts about our Earth movements around sun, Facts re. Sun and so on.
When will they ever learn?
Thanks, Anthony, that helps to clarify matters a great deal! Here’s hoping that you and your fellow Californians are treated to a nice, regular rainfall and snowfall in the mountains!! Cheers, Charles the DrPH
Careful what you wish for Charles.
CA now has a storm advisory, for an intense winter storm due to arrive Wed/Thurs (Dec. 10/11), with up to 4 inches of rain in urban areas, and up to 8 inches in the coastal mountains. Wind advisory says 30-40 mph in the urban areas, and possibly >60 mph in the coastal range.
We’ve had a reasonable amount of rain already in December, so the ground is wet. If the storms hits as expected, there will be plenty of runoff and some local flooding.
So far things are shaping up to a wet Winter. No promises, but the drought may be over for now.
Please don’t say the drought is over. Let’s not jinx ourselves.
Not to worry Dave the (expert) in Sacramento will find a away to keep the drought going , their jobs depended on it.
What difference will being able to predict droughts in California make when the state’s activists and brilliant legislators will stop nearly every single attempt to effectively prepare for it? Just asking.
“To provide improved drought forecasts for California, scientists will need to fully understand the links ..” What a deep new insight. Activists and brilliant legislators suspected it all the time.
It will never pass the alarmist test for policy distortion purposes.
Alarmists want to have their cake and eat it. They demand we listen to the science. When we do they don’t like the answers. Even when the IPCC tells them so based on observations.
Some warmists wonder why we don’t take their models seriously. The problem is choosing which model to base policy on.
Hark! What’s that sound?
It’s the sound of Climate Alarmist heads exploding.
Film at 10:10 !
The current drought ‘severity’ might also have something to do with California’s population expanding 169% since 1970 while its seasonal water storage capacity expanded 40%. Self inflicted wound in a dry state with known periodic drought conditions.
This California native can only say “Amen.”
Nuccitelli has a different version of the Califonia drought story, mentioning Mann, tree rings, models, heatwaves, droughts, floods, and wildfires… general global warming doom and gloom.
California just had its worst drought in over 1200 years, as temperatures and risks rise
Global warming is playing havoc on extreme weather
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/dec/08/california-just-had-its-worst-drought-in-over-1200-years
How can he get away with this?
Expecting the truth from a left wing rag?
He gets away with it because of dubious moderation at the Guardian.
Nuccitelli lets some comments through, responds with half-truths (at best) and then deletes the referenced corrections without leaving a “this comment was removed…” stub.
So he looks competent even though he knows he isn’t.
Easy. Politics like war and love have no rules.
Nuccitelli in relation to science is incompetent and lacks integrity, qualities that are in high demand in politics.
Why not? He is a regular contributor for Guardian, they can’t become Nuccitelli-deniers. A newspaper going against its own editorial policy? No way.
The Guardian also has readers, who expect and demand this kind of alarmism. Ignore readers’ interests for the sake of truth? Excuse me?
Not just the Guardian. My local paper http://www.dailybulletin.com had this on the front page with a big bold headline “Worst drought in 1,200 years”.
From what I read the study only covered 3 years (2012-2014) which I assume are the rainfall years 2011/2012 thru 2013/2014 since the calendar year 2014 is not finished.
They used tree rings to show while there were 37 other 3 year periods as dry or dryer, none were also as warm. From what I understand, tree rings are a poor proxy for temperatures as the making of the hockey stick showed us.
So they use an extremely short time period and an extremely poor temperature proxy and translate that into a headline of worst drought in 1,200 years. Color me skeptical.
This is the money quote from the paper … Nuccitelli instead invokes the climate spirits and says GAIA is troppo-mad with Kalifornia.
Well they say a picture is worth a thousand words, so two pictures are worth two thousand words at least.
I think I can use a few less than that.
So I have a picture of a lake / reservoir full of water, and I have a different picture, different time, same place, of the same lake / reservoir devoid (almost) of any water.
So what does that tell me ??
Basically, it tells me they took a picture of a lake full of water, and a picture of the same lake with next to no water.
Unfortunately, they didn’t say anything about what happened to the water in the lake between the two photographs.
If they pumped all of that water down to SoCal, to fill a lake down there, like Pyramid lake for example; the message would seem to be:
DON’T PUMP THAT WATER DOWN TO SOCAL !!
Yes we have water problems, but much of the problem is the politics of water, not the meteorology of water.
PS How about you show us a pair of pictures of Pyramid Lake, taken on the same dates as those two pictures of Folsom Lake.
That’s CA Dept. of Water Resources, that I am asking.
George, according to the CA DWR, Pyramid Lake is currently at 106% of historical average and 93% of capicity. Looks they shipped a little extra water down there this year.
Thanx Richard. A guy just posted a pic of Pyramid Lake, taken last weekend. Yes it is at 106% of capacity, and is one of the few cases where the average is always equal to the max and min at the same time.
I think they use it as a training ground for pumping engineers, to teach them how to keep the lake water level at least as constant as the sea level.
Correction; he posted 5 pictures, and that was on a popular fishing site. I guess the 93% of capacity, refers to the normal boat traffic.
It’s been a bad couple years, but a lot of water was dumped out of Folsom lake last year. Look at the numbers:
http://www.cdec.water.ca.gov/jspplot/jspPlotServlet.jsp?sensor_no=2725&end=12%2F08%2F2014+15%3A09&geom=huge&interval=6000&cookies=cdec01
Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
This report builds on earlier studies, published in September in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, which found no conclusive evidence linking human-caused climate change and the California drought.
I have the solution.
Move to where they have water or desalinate some.
Don’t like the desert or arid regions subject to drought? MOVE!
A “good governance” response to a hard drought probably should not include:
– releasing hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of fresh water supplies into a salt-water delta merely to “save a few fish (delta smelt)” that as a species has survived many such, even more severe, mega-droughts in the past.
read here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/13/us-usa-california-water-idUSBREA2C1MB20140313
So NOAA implies that climate change (i.e. warming) should tend to create more precipitation (RAIN!!!) for CA. Well what are we doing trying to stop it?!?! Aren’t we trying to get more reliable water sources in CA?
Are those Folsom Dam images real?
If you verify at Google Maps, the second image from 2014 doesn’t look like an actual one and it seems to be photoshopped.
https://www.google.de/maps/place/Folsom+Lake,+California,+USA/@38.7126132,-121.1326915,7738m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x809b1cde93447ea9:0xd88b1be1b70ea78a?hl=de
There is the satellite image from Google Maps, watermarked as “2014”, that has absolutely no resemblance.
Thanks for pointing this out, petermue.
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/jspplot/jspPlotServlet.jsp?sensor_no=4927&end=12%2F08%2F2014+14%3A10&geom=huge&interval=2160&cookies=cdec01
Maybe that picture from 2014 was from January 2014.
Google Maps isn’t a good source for up-to-date images. Neither is whatever current image Google Earth is using. Click on the Google Earth historical image icon and go back one image on the scale. Those images have good dates on them. The date on the current image tends to be a copyright-type date, rather than when it was taken.
The Feb 2014 historical image shows the lake way down, though not as much as the image above in the post. Now that the lake’s down a bunch, maybe they can find Jimmy Hoffa.
What, you mean … this has NOT been worrrrrrrrrrrst drrrrrrrrrrrrrought innnnnnnnnnnn 1200 yearrrrrrrrrrrrrs?
You have to copy the link at the end of the article to get the report; clicking on it gives a server error.
At this point in time, folsom is 33% full.
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/reservoirs/RES
Yes, it shows 33% of capacity but 68% of historical average and 40% more than at this time last year. So normally the reservoir is at 50% of capacity this time of year.
I assume this reservoir is also used for flood control and is kept half full early in the rain season to prevent flooding. Later in the rain season Mar/Apr they probably allow it to fill closer to capacity for water storage.
Odd, the ‘Nutter’ has a post today saying much the opposite. Who to believe? Who to believe?
After all, alarmism is such a credible approach to persuasion.
Is this a subliminal message to Jerry Brown to stop shuffling around to get Federal money for drought by way of global warming grand standing, and to stop using funds for unrelated projects like high-speed rail?
Folks need to remember that California tends to drought when things are cooling. The ’70s had significant drought ( I learned to ski then and the mountains were nearly bare). There’s also a cyclical pattern layered onto it as the ocean warms / cools. Oh, and when it gets really bad, California has droughts that last a few hundred years and make the last 100 years look like a tropical rain forest in comparison.
So just what will the PTB do when one of those returns (as it eventually will)? Hmmm? A flood of 1862 or a drought like did in the Anasazi are completely normal and expected events in California. They will happen again, and they are normal.
What’s not normal is to say that normal rainfall in a year does not mean the drought has ended. With the new definition, you can be in 200% rain fall land and still be in a ‘drought’ since you have not had 100% recovery of all reservoirs (despite mismanagement). The traditional definition was “normal rain means a drought has ended”. The rest is just word games and “drought for political effect”…
California floods during worst drought in 1,200 years
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/12/04/california-drought-update/19907867/
The article includes graphs showing condition of Cal’s major reservoirs, FWIW.
Maybe if governor moonbeam et al would stop worrying about the pygmy sphincter fish and actually listen to the grownups in the room that know what needs to be done, they could manage these situations better.
On Thursday this week there is apparently going to be some serious rainfall throughout California, presumably one of the spin off effects of global warming, or not.
Michael Mann trashes this report on Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/climate-change-and-the-re_b_6288402.html
Check out Mann’s links to what he considers papers that countermand Hoerling’s study. Bob Tisdale should get a kick out of the descriptions of how ENSO and El Ninos work.
Here is the headline for the same storm to hit British Columbia, just incredible. The CBC is in the same family as Australia’s ABC and England’s BBC.
Link http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/storm-warning-incredible-subtropical-storms-to-drench-b-c-1.2864131?cmp=rss