Readers may recall that Dr. John Christy found that irrigation increases temperatures measured in the central valley. This study finds it also increases rainfall and storms due to the additional available moisture. CO2 is not listed as being part of the equation, which makes the ‘extreme weather’ meme being pushed by alarmists even less likely. – Anthony
Central Valley irrigation intensifies rainfall, storms across the Southwest
UCI study finds that doubling of moisture in air has positive, negative effects
Irvine, Calif., Jan. 28, 2013 – Agricultural irrigation in California’s Central Valley doubles the amount of water vapor pumped into the atmosphere, ratcheting up rainfall and powerful monsoons across the interior Southwest, according to a new study by UC Irvine scientists.
Moisture on the vast farm fields evaporates, is blown over the Sierra Nevada and dumps 15 percent more than average summer rain in numerous other states. Runoff to the Colorado River increases by 28 percent, and the Four Corners region experiences a 56 percent boost in runoff. While the additional water supply can be a good thing, the transport pattern also accelerates the severity of monsoons and other potentially destructive seasonal weather events.
“If we stop irrigating in the Valley, we’ll see a decrease in stream flow in the Colorado River basin,” said climate hydrologist Jay Famiglietti, senior author on the paper, which will be published online Tuesday, Jan. 29, in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The basin provides water for about 35 million people, including those in Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Phoenix. But the extra water vapor also accelerates normal atmospheric circulation, he said, “firing up” the annual storm cycle and drawing in more water vapor from the Gulf of Mexico as well as the Central Valley.
When the additional waves of moisture bump into developing monsoons, Famiglietti said, “it’s like throwing fuel on a fire.”
Famiglietti, an Earth system science professor in the School of Physical Sciences, and colleague Min-Hui Lo, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California Center for Hydrologic Modeling who is now at National Taiwan University, painstakingly entered regional irrigation levels into global rainfall and weather models and traced the patterns.
“All percent differences in the paper are the differences between applying irrigation to the Central Valley and not applying it,” Famiglietti said. “That’s the point of the study – and the beauty of using computer models. You can isolate the phenomenon that you wish to explore, in this case, irrigation versus no irrigation.”
Famiglietti’s team plans to increase the scope of the work to track how major human water usage elsewhere in the world affects neighboring areas too. A better understanding of irrigation’s impact on the changing climate and water availability could improve resource management in parched or flooded areas.
About the University of California, Irvine: Founded in 1965, UCI is a top-ranked university dedicated to research, scholarship and community service. Led by Chancellor Michael Drake since 2005, UCI is among the most dynamic campuses in the University of California system, with more than 28,000 undergraduate and graduate students, 1,100 faculty and 9,400 staff. Orange County’s second-largest employer, UCI contributes an annual economic impact of $4.3 billion. For more UCI news, visit news.uci.edu.
Source: http://news.uci.edu/press-releases/central-valley-irrigation-intensifies-rainfall-storms-across-the-southwest-2/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There are towns in Queensland Australia now which are currently under water. Agriculture is a big industry in Queensland. I’m not making the connection — historically flooding is normal in QLD — but imagine the claims that would be made regarding Queensland floods if a study linking CO2 to extreme rain had come out right about now.
And does the more frequent storm also mean more frequent forest fires?
**That’s …..the beauty of using computer models. You can isolate the phenomenon that you wish to explore**
It’s also called ‘scientific reductionism’, which is less beautiful.
It’s a shame you didn’t delay this post until tomorrow when the article comes out. I’d have liked to see their calculation for the amounts of water involved. That is, I’d like to see the comparison between the number of acre-feet used for irrigation and the number of acre-feet that end up coming back down the river. If the ratio was a big number it would make it a lot more believable.
For reference, here’s where it should appear tomorrow or the next day: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%291944-8007/accepted
Famiglietti, an Earth system science professor in the School of Physical Sciences, and colleague Min-Hui Lo, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California Center for Hydrologic Modeling who is now at National Taiwan University, painstakingly entered regional irrigation levels into global rainfall and weather models and traced the patterns.
No mention whether the models have been validated. In which case, the patterns will be whatever they want it to be, right?
Oh, crap! The Sun rose again today. We’ve conducted a study and found both land surfaces and bodies of water warm when the Sun shines on them. It’s certainly worse than we thought. And dear God! Moisture may lead to rain. Since when does a desert need rain? Furthermore, those crops, yes, those plants growing everywhere people live…. Well, more food will just encourage more people to live and have families. And you know what those creatures do. Well, they CHANGE things. They just can’t leave things alone. Always trying to make things better. Well, we should just make sure everything stays the SAME. We must pretend the trees don’t actually grow in the forest, and more trees per acre has nothing to do with less wildlife and more fires. It’s just nature resetting the balance. Right? Is that grey matter coming out of my ears?
On a hot night, step out into a lawned backyard and then move into a cement or paved backyard. The difference is very noticeable. Years ago in Aus when you were allowed to use a firearm and cut a tree down the common means of keeping your house cool was verandahs and lawn surrrounding the house. No AC in those days. Of course it wasn’t as hot either, so some informed people attempt to tell us!!!
@Patricia Ravasio: I went to your buckyworld link. Are you serious? In 1981, people were just beginning to realize that the idea of the world heading into an ice age was anything more than a natural weather cycle. The IPCC was founded in 1988 and a good many of us skeptics, include I, believed in the hypothesis of global warming in the mid 1990’s. That is, until I (and probably many others) thought about it, and delved into the evidence.
Your writing is sophomoric and you’re a bit late to the CAGW party. So your blog site is a loser, and you sound like a whiny flunky. I cannot imagine anyone with sense would use your blog site for anything meaningful. Had I been a believer in CAGW, I would not want you on my side.
The good news is that your blog helps show just how underwhelming the case for CAGW is.
@moderator: I am trying to post a response to @Patricia Ravasio: but I cannot get the page to actually post and let me subscribe to this page. I tried twice and the site shows that I am trying a duplicate post…
[REPLY . . sorry but I can see no issues this end. Perhaps wait a few minutes and try again . . mod]
We are all growing very tired of idiotic extreme weather warnings. Myself, I’m becoming very agitated. I console myself with the following quote:
“I’m not saying let’s go kill all the stupid people…..I’m just saying let’s remove all the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out.
Up until about 150 years ago, rain and snow fell in the Sierras, and flowed down the hill into the San Joaquin Valley. It was a lush, fertile place. Wildlife and plants were abundant – it was, according to literature, an incredibly beautiful place. There was so much water, in fact, that there were lakes in the valley. Tulare Lake wasn’t drained until the mid-20th century. Near Bakersfield, there is a hill (Shark Tooth Hill) where marine fossils can be found. Lots of water.
In the early 20th century, dams were built to hold back the water so the valley wouldn’t flood all the time, and would allow the farmers to get the water they needed for crops by using irrigation canals.
So, now, we have just ‘delayed’ the water from coming to where it always came – down the hill into the valley. How in the Sam Hill can that cause more extreme weather, when the water that was always there is still there, just in a different way? It’s not like we’ve taken a dry, arid place where there is no water to begin with, and replaced it with a moist environment. The water was, and is, always there.
This study is bogus and so full of holes, I can’t stand it.