A new study using a reconstruction of North American drought history over the last 1,000 years found that the drought of 1934 was the driest and most widespread of the last millennium.
Using a tree-ring-based drought record from the years 1000 to 2005 and modern records, scientists from NASA and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory found the 1934 drought was 30 percent more severe than the runner-up drought (in 1580) and extended across 71.6 percent of western North America. For comparison, the average extent of the 2012 drought was 59.7 percent.

“It was the worst by a large margin, falling pretty far outside the normal range of variability that we see in the record,” said climate scientist Ben Cook at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Cook is lead author of the study, which will publish in the Oct. 17 edition of Geophysical Research Letters.
Two sets of conditions led to the severity and extent of the 1934 drought. First, a high-pressure system in winter sat over the west coast of the United States and turned away wet weather – a pattern similar to that which occurred in the winter of 2013-14. Second, the spring of 1934 saw dust storms, caused by poor land management practices, suppress rainfall.
Brown colors of the Palmer Drought Severity Index, or PDSI, indicate strong drought conditions across the United States in the summer of 1934. PDSI was calculated from monthly averages of precipitation, temperature and other factors from 1934, available from the Climate Research Unit.
According to the recent Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, climate change is likely to make droughts in North America worse, and the southwest in particular is expected to become significantly drier as are summers in the central plains. Looking back one thousand years in time is one way to get a handle on the natural variability of droughts so that scientists can tease out anthropogenic effects – such as the dust storms of 1934.“We want to understand droughts of the past to understand to what extent climate change might make it more or less likely that those events occur in the future,” Cook said.
The abnormal high-pressure system is one lesson from the past that informs scientists’ understanding of the current severe drought in California and the western United States.
“What you saw during this last winter and during 1934, because of this high pressure in the atmosphere, is that all the wintertime storms that would normally come into places like California instead got steered much, much farther north,” Cook said. “It’s these wintertime storms that provide most of the moisture in California. So without getting that rainfall it led to a pretty severe drought.”
This type of high-pressure system is part of normal variation in the atmosphere, and whether or not it will appear in a given year is difficult to predict in computer models of the climate. Models are more attuned to droughts caused by La Niña’s colder sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, which likely triggered the multi-year Dust Bowl drought throughout the 1930s. In a normal La Niña year, the Pacific Northwest receives more rain than usual and the southwestern states typically dry out.
But a comparison of weather data to models looking at La Niña effects showed that the rain-blocking high-pressure system in the winter of 1933-34 overrode the effects of La Niña for the western states. This dried out areas from northern California to the Rockies that otherwise might have been wetter.
As winter ended, the high-pressure system shifted eastward, interfering with spring and summer rains that typically fall on the central plains. The dry conditions were exacerbated and spread even farther east by dust storms.
“We found that a lot of the drying that occurred in the spring time occurred downwind from where the dust storms originated,” Cook said, “suggesting that it’s actually the dust in the atmosphere that’s driving at least some of the drying in the spring and really allowing this drought event to spread upwards into the central plains.”

Dust clouds reflect sunlight and block solar energy from reaching the surface. That prevents evaporation that would otherwise help form rain clouds, meaning that the presence of the dust clouds themselves leads to less rain, Cook said.
“Previous work and this work offers some evidence that you need this dust feedback to explain the real anomalous nature of the Dust Bowl drought in 1934,” Cook said.
Dust storms like the ones in the 1930s aren’t a problem in North America today. The agricultural practices that gave rise to the Dust Bowl were replaced by those that minimize erosion. Still, agricultural producers need to pay attention to the changing climate and adapt accordingly, not forgetting the lessons of the past, said Seager. “The risk of severe mid-continental droughts is expected to go up over time, not down,” he said.
Read the paper at Geophysical Research Letters
The Worst North American Drought Year of the Last Millennium: 1934
Benjamin I Cook, Richard Seager and Jason E Smerdon
Abstract
During the summer of 1934, over 70% of Western North America experienced extreme drought, placing this summer far outside the normal range of drought variability and making 1934 the single worst drought year of the last millennium. Strong atmospheric ridging along the West Coast suppressed cold season precipitation across the Northwest, Southwest, and California, a circulation pattern similar to the winters of 1976–1977 and 2013–2014. In the spring and summer, the drying spread tothe Midwest and Central Plains, driven by severe precipitation deficits downwind from regions of major dust storm activity, consistent with previous work linking drying during the Dust Bowl to anthropogenic dust aerosol forcing. Despite a moderate La Niña, contributions from sea surface temperature forcing were small, suggesting that the anomalous 1934 drought was primarily a consequence of atmospheric variability, possibly amplified by dust forcing that intensified and spread the drought across nearly all of Western North America.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

According to NOAA data, the trend is towards much reduced droughts across the mid continental belts.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/mid-continental-droughts-on-the-decline/
And this is not just a reflection of the 1930’s, as the 1950’s and 60’s also suffered from severe droughts
Droughts and extreme weather in 1929-
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/138537700?searchTerm=world%20droughts&searchLimits=
‘The world’s weather has been
specialising in droughts,’ . says Dr.
E; E. Free in the New York ‘Times.’
‘Over the eastern two-thirds of the
United States damage is estimated….
‘Great Britain has been similarly
parched. Not only has agriculture-.
: been damaged ‘ severely, but the
water supplies of many towns and
, villages: .have failed
From the other side of
the world, in South China, come re–
ports of droughts, with.
famine threatened and suffering al
ready acute.
Early in July tor
rential floods swept Eastern India,
and Coehii*4/hiiia, : with stories of
hundreds of elephants floating help.
lessly to drown.
‘Droughts, crop failures and for
est fires are reported from Europe,
from the West Indies, from Australia
and elsewhere in the Southern Hemis-
sphere. India and South Africa re
port the severest hailstorms there on
record. In yugoslavia, in the early
months of the year oyer 100 people^
were killed by lightning.’
‘During ‘ January and February of ,
last – winter : Europe – experienced the
greatest cold’ ill’ over two centuries.
Trains were snowbound for two
weeks in the Balkans; Rome was.
snow-covered,. and ice-crusts formed
on Venetian canals. wolves
appeared in villages -in yugoslavia, ,
Hungary and Spain. ‘The Flame of.
Remembrance in’ Paris,’ intended to
be eternal, went out because the gas
frose up
The registrar-general
ascribed more than 60,000 ? extra
deaths in England to the weather, i
India and South Africa re
port the severest hailstorms there on
record”
“Dust clouds reflect sunlight and block solar energy from reaching the surface. That prevents evaporation that would otherwise help form rain clouds, meaning that the presence of the dust clouds themselves leads to less rain”, Cook said.
Of Course: the lack of solar energy is the reason for all the record high temperatures in 1934. Sarc
The global warmist alarmists are like the BORG ( Star trek). Every climate scenario gets assimilated into AGW .
As the climate cools over the next 20 years or so – the new story line-
“Frosts like the ones that caused so much damage to crops this season could be more common for the next 20 years, according to scientists.
They say greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were changing the way high pressure systems formed and moved, causing severe frost problems for farmers”
What “changing climate” is he nattering about? And why exactly would the risk of severe droughts be expected to increase? These “scientists” remind me of so many clucking hens, mindlessly warning about the future, with no solid scientific basis whatsoever.
I’ll wait to see what Steve McIntyre has to say on this one.
Acknowledged that 1934 was bad, but how do they maintain that it was the worst “in 1,000 years”? What about the tree ring evidence that shows a 50-60 year drought in the late 12th century across most of the southwest, the one that wiped out the Anasazi civilization which was thriving up to that point? How could one bad year be worse than that one?
(an event like that today would completely wipe out 5 or 6 states, at least)
Echoed!
I’m on your side questioning the claims for the 30’s being the worst western drought in a thousand years.
Their claimed findings seem a little too pat which makes me suspect this is a softening up preliminary for a follow-on paper claiming anthropogenic causes.
Don’t forget Bakersfield. The dust storm of December 77 was really impressive. I was working as a roustabout at the Belridge field,
http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/weather/blog/Top-10-Weather-Events-in-Kern-County-134729928.html?mobile=y
Worst drought in 1000 years? Maybe for Kansas, but the Anasazi might beg to differ, regarding Arizona and New Mexico.
Same goes for California, which suffered a 200-year megadrought from the 9th to 12th centuries. In the Sierra Nevadas near Tahoe lies Fallen Leaf Lake, where Stanford’s Sierra Camp is located. During the Medieval megadrought, trees grew on the newly exposed shoreline of the lake. Then, as Fallen Leaf expanded once again, the trees were preserved under cold water.
And if you go diving there, they are cool to see.
reality of physics also means that was the hottest year because water in the air/ground modifies the temperature extremes(see deserts if you disagree)…….a very dry year would also be a hot year in summer because the dry air both heats and cools much easier than wet air…………IF another made this point i am sorry i didnt read the thread before posting.
@ferdberple 10/14at 9:06 pm
It is just possible that Science doesn’t actually know what the “normal range of variability” is? And thus continues to see everything caused by nature as “abnormal”?
Yes. It is the crux of the “Black Swan”. Nature does not have a Normal Distribution when it comes to events, yet so many people try to fit it to one. Log-Normal may be closer to the mark, but I suspect insufficient sampling and claims of outliers is a strong hint that whatever distribution is chosen, its kurtosis (4th moment) of the chosen distribution is habitually lower than the sample leading to the real possibility that the chosen distribution is narrower than it ought to be. But tests of kurtosis may (of necessity) be unable to reject a non-normal kurtosis without raising red flags.
Rather than stating that the sample doesn’t fail non-normal-kurtosis tests at 95% confidence (assuming kurtosis was tested at all), one should be up front and say the sampled kurtosis std error is at the 77th percentile expected for that distribution, giving the reader the hint that kurtosis is an unresolved issue when it comes to confidence limits.
Do they even bring skew into the picture?
I find this claim to be a highly questionable claim. By saying this they are claiming that they have the same resolution for determining the PDSI 1,000 ago than they did in 1934. That’s absurd. What is the error of their PDSI value for the year 1200 based on tree rings? Ask Mikey Mann, these tree rings could just be showing changes in temperature instead (sarc).
Furthermore, drought in an individual year is not important for climate interpretations. Consecutive years of moderate drought are much more impactful than a single year with extreme drought.
Long-term aridity changes in the western United States
ER Cook, CA Woodhouse, CM Eakin, DM Meko… – Science, 2004 – sciencemag.org
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/PIC/pic35.html
I don’t believe this study. I’ve read about south west maga droughts not to long ago.
I was extant during the 39-40 edition (4 droughts in succession from 1931) and I’m amazed that that history has been largely ignored when they talk about temperatures and droughts today. There was also a black snot and shirt collar drought in the early 50s, too which I know from memory.
Something that doesn’t compute is, what has California got to do with it. Didn’t those whose topsoil blew away in West Central US and prairies in Canada head for California to pick fruit?
Hello, we need to keep on spreading the word that the effects of CO2 are logerithmic. Therefore the more there is the less the effect.
Hence CO2 cannot be a factor in the usual nonsence said about the climate come weather.
The warmers keep on trotting out the same lies, and the politicians who are either stupid, or see votes in it, or both, appear to go along with it.
President Obama is a good example of this, is he stupid, I don’t think so, then he is in it for what he can get out of it, whatever that is ?
Dr. Goebbels said it all way back in the 1930’s. Tell a lie often enough and it will become the truth.
Michael Elliott.
The study’s conclusion appears to conflict with NOAA’s assessment that the most severe North American drought of the past 500 years occurred in the late 16th century:
“Longer records show strong evidence for a drought that appears to have been more severe in some areas of central North America than anything we have experienced in the 20th century, including the 1930s drought. Tree-ring records from around North America document episodes of severe drought during the last half of the 16th century. Drought is reconstructed as far east as Jamestown, Virginia, where tree rings reflect several extended periods of drought that coincided with the disappearance of the Roanoke Colonists, and difficult times for the Jamestown colony. These droughts were extremely severe and lasted for three to six years, a long time for such severe drought conditions to persist in this region of North America. Coincident droughts, or the same droughts, are apparent in tree-ring records from Mexico to British Columbia, and from California to the East Coast.”
Here’s the link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_500years.html
NOAA also contends that “When records of drought for the last two millennia are examined, the major 20th century droughts appear to be relatively mild in comparison with other droughts that occurred within this time frame. Even the 16th century drought appears to be fairly modest, when compared to some early periods of drought.” Link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_2000years.html
Has anyone read the Cook, Seager, Smeardon study? Do they discuss NOAA’s assessments?
1934 may have been the driest year for the central plains but it is widely acknowledged that the worst drought year for the northern plains that extend into Canada was 1937. That year there was little rain and complete crop failure was common across the Canadian Prairie. At the 1000 acre University of Saskatchewan Research farm the total feed harvested consisted of 200 tons of Russian Thistles.
I can hear you asking, so how dry was it?
Canadian Prairie wheat yields in 1934 averaged 11.3 bu/acre. In 1937 they were 6.4 bu/acre.
In 1934 the Prairie provinces produced 172 million bushels of wheat or 4.68 million tonnes.
In 1937 142.5 million bushels of wheat were grown or 3.86 million tonnes.
Wheat exports of 95.5 million bushels for the 37/38 marketing year were half of the 36/37 marketing year.
milodonharlani
October 15, 2014 at 10:21 am (replying to bonanzapilot above)
The greater “devil behind the details” lies within the curves in the “too wet” years shown in the graph above.
The Colorado River flow that was used to “regulate”” the water going to California, Los Angeles, NV and AZ from the Hoover Dam was measured between 1915 (the maximum wettest point of a record-setting wet period!) through 1919 (a year almost as “wet” as 1915!).
So, when the Hoover Dam was approved and the water rights signed off by everybody concerned in the 1928-1932 time frame negotiations, TOO MUCH WATER was being predicted for every year in the future. And, of course, now they are not able to meet the contracts for water and power that are “per regulation” because the regulations are too optimistic about water available.
And no politician can admit now that CA or LA or NV or CO or AZ or anybody else must give up “their” water to somebody else’s state or city. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I’m afraid we can’t control the weather, climate nor other natural cycles. All these AGW’s should have learned that by now. Pollution yes, something can be done about that. But it costs, particularly in the case of coal surface fires.