From the THE EARTH INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY and the department of “intense droughts only occur in the age of the SUV” department, where they apparently failed to take the climatic history of the region into account:
Graphic from North American drought: Reconstructions, causes, and consequences, Cook et al. 2007 PDF here: NADrought
Warming climate is deepening California drought
Scientists say increasing heat drives moisture from ground
A new study says that global warming has measurably worsened the ongoing California drought. While scientists largely agree that natural weather variations have caused a lack of rain, an emerging consensus says that rising temperatures may be making things worse by driving moisture from plants and soil into the air. The new study is the first to estimate how much worse: as much as a quarter. The findings suggest that within a few decades, continually increasing temperatures and resulting moisture losses will push California into even more persistent aridity. The study appears this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

“A lot of people think that the amount of rain that falls out the sky is the only thing that matters,” said lead author A. Park Williams, a bioclimatologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “But warming changes the baseline amount of water that’s available to us, because it sends water back into the sky.”
The study adds to growing evidence that climate change is already bringing extreme weather to some regions. California is the world’s eighth-largest economy, ahead of most countries, but many scientists think that the nice weather it is famous for may now be in the process of going away. The record-breaking drought is now in its fourth year; it is drying up wells, affecting major produce growers and feeding wildfires now sweeping over vast areas.
The researchers analyzed multiple sets of month-by-month data from 1901 to 2014. They looked at precipitation, temperature, humidity, wind and other factors. They could find no long-term rainfall trend. But average temperatures have been creeping up–about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the 114-year period, in step with building fossil-fuel emissions. Natural weather variations have made California unusually hot over the last several years; added to this was the background trend. Thus, when rainfall declined in 2012, the air sucked already scant moisture from soil, trees and crops harder than ever. The study did not look directly at snow, but in the past, gradual melting of the high-mountain winter snowpack has helped water the lowlands in warm months. Now, melting has accelerated, or the snowpack has not formed at all, helping make warm months even dryer according to other researchers.
Due to the complexity of the data, the scientists could put only a range, not a single number, on the proportion of the drought caused by global warming. The paper estimates 8 to 27 percent, but Williams said that somewhere in the middle–probably 15 to 20 percent–is most likely.
Last year, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration sponsored a study that blamed the rain deficit on a persistent ridge of high-pressure air over the northeast Pacific, which has been blocking moisture-laden ocean air from reaching land. Lamont-Doherty climatologist Richard Seager, who led that study (and coauthored the new one), said the blockage probably has nothing to do with global warming; normal weather patterns will eventually push away the obstacle, and rainfall will return. In fact, most projections say that warming will eventually increase California’s rainfall a bit. But the new study says that evaporation will overpower any increase in rain, and then some. This means that by around the 2060s, more or less permanent drought will set in, interrupted only by the rainiest years. More intense rainfall is expected to come in short bursts, then disappear.
Many researchers believe that rain will resume as early as this winter. “When this happens, the danger is that it will lull people into thinking that everything is now OK, back to normal,” said Williams. “But as time goes on, precipitation will be less able to make up for the intensified warmth. People will have to adapt to a new normal.”
This study is not the first to make such assertions, but it is the most specific. A paper by scientists from Lamont-Doherty and Cornell University, published this February, warned that climate change will push much of the central and western United States into the driest period for at least 1,000 years. A March study out of Stanford University said that California droughts have been intensified by higher temperatures, and gives similar warnings for the future.
A further twist was introduced in a 2010 study by researchers at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. They showed that massive irrigation from underground aquifers has been offsetting global warming in some areas, because the water cools the air. The effect has been especially sharp in California’s heavily irrigated Central Valley–possibly up to 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit during some seasons. Now, aquifers are dropping fast, sending irrigation on a downward trajectory. If irrigation’s cooling effect declines, this will boost air temperatures even higher, which will dry aquifers further, and so on. Scientists call this process “positive feedback.”
Climatologist Noah Diffenbaugh, who led the earlier Stanford research, said the new study is an important step forward. It has “brought together the most comprehensive set of data for the current drought,” he said. “It supports the previous work showing that temperature makes it harder for drought to break, and increases the long-term risk.”
Jonathan Overpeck, co-director of the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona, said, “It’s important to have quantitative estimates of how much human-caused warming is already making droughts more severe.” But, he said, “it’s troubling to know that human influence will continue to make droughts more severe until greenhouse gas emissions are cut back in a big way.”
###
The study’s other authors are Richard Seager, Jason Smerdon, Benjamin Cook and Edward Cook, all of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory; and geographer John Abatzoglou of the University of Idaho.
The paper, “Contribution of anthropogenic warming to California drought during 2012-2014,” is available from the authors or the Earth Institute press office.
Abstract
A suite of climate datasets and multiple representations of atmospheric moisture demand are used to calculate many estimates of the self-calibrated Palmer Drought Severity Index, a proxy for near-surface soil moisture, across California from 1901–2014 at high spatial resolution. Based on the ensemble of calculations, California drought conditions were record-breaking in 2014, but probably not record-breaking in 2012–2014, contrary to prior findings. Regionally, the 2012–2014 drought was record-breaking in the agriculturally important southern Central Valley and highly populated coastal areas. Contributions of individual climate variables to recent drought are also examined, including the temperature component associated with anthropogenic warming. Precipitation is the primary driver of drought variability but anthropogenic warming is estimated to have accounted for 8–27% of the observed drought anomaly in 2012–2014 and 5–18% in 2014. Although natural variability dominates, anthropogenic warming has substantially increased the overall likelihood of extreme California droughts.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064924/abstract
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

“But warming changes the baseline amount of water that’s available to us, because it sends water back into the sky.”
And it is well known that once water is in the sky, it never comes back down… LOL
It should have read “available to CA” – if it evaporates in CA it moves East to somewhere else
Bring forth the tree rings. Who will be the ring bearer?
Maybe they should reconsider stuffing so many people into a desert?
From the text:
“A lot of people think that the amount of rain that falls out the sky is the only thing that matters,” said lead author A. Park Williams, …
He made that up.
See Thornthwaite, 1948
If lack of rain does not define a “drought”, then what does? I think “A lot of people think” that words mean what they mean, not what an activist wants it to mean.
Wasn’t Jonathan Overpeck in Ghostbusters?
Ah, a duly alarmist comment from Jonathan Overpeck, a Climategate conspirator, if, perhaps, just a minor corrupt player.
This quote from above says it all: “…month-by-month data from 1901 to 2014. They looked at precipitation, temperature, humidity, wind and other factors. They could find no long-term rainfall trend. But average temperatures have been creeping up–about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the 114-year period, in step with building fossil-fuel emissions.”
Clearly the only measured factor that is dramatically increasing, temperature, is the one that is routinely corrected to fabricate a large warming trend. These corrections every 8 to 10 years to “refine” past data have happened so often that I wonder if the actual data obtained 5 to 10 decades ago is even available to the public.
And Winston looked at the sheet handed him:
“Adjustments prior to 1972 shall be -0.2 degrees and after 1998 shall be +0.3 degrees.”
Winston wondered at the adjustment to the data. At this point, no one even knows if the data, prior to his adjustments, was raw data or already adjusted one or more times previously.
It didn’t matter. All Winston was sure of is that one of the lead climatologists needed more slope to match his computer model outputs. He punched out the new Fortran cards and then dropped the old cards into the Memory Hole where they were burned.
“There!” Winston exclaimed to himself. “Now the temperature data record is correct again; all is double-plus good.”
You didn’t get the memo Anthony?
And what is the percentage of the temperature data that are from UHI affected areas.
I’ve always wondered what happened in the Sahara? Magic fairies stole the water? Or can desertification only be cause by global warming?
I heard a brief interview with this fellow (a “bioclimatologist”, which sounds like a BS profession if I’ve ever heard such) this morning on ABC news [radio]. He began by stating that “It is certain that climate change will increase the severity of droughts…” (emphasis added).
You know that you’re dealing with a con artist, not a scientist, when their first few words are “It is certain”, at least about almost all scientific topics.
They used a poor example with Horseshoe Lake in Mammoth since it’s a remnant volcanic crater with a sandy bottom that allows water to escape. The other lakes around it are at near normal levels.
Worse! Horseshoe Lake area is an area of dramatic tree kill since 1989 DUE TO NATURAL CO2 seeping upward through the soil. The source of the CO2 is the volcanic center you mention. See USGS publications for several dramatic photos:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs172-96/
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/long_valley/long_valley_sub_page_23.html
This is a widely-known phenomenon in the area, and should have been apparent to whomever selected the photo to include in the press release.
I wonder if anyone competent analysed this thermally. If the balls are light weight they would float high and only actually cover a small part of the water surface. Depending on the thermal conductivity of the ball material, much of the absorbed energy might be conducted to the top surface of the water causing increased evaporation compared to bulk warming of uncovered water by sunlight. Reduced cooling at night because of radiation shielding of water surface to sky. Because both water and black have absorptivity near one there is not much difference from just color but lighter color would absorb less solar energy. There must be a lighter color UV blocker than carbon black.
Zinc oxide is a 100% sunblock. Titanium dioxide is used as a pigment in house paints and a million other products. Both are so good at blocking uv and so safe they are used in topical sunscreen products.
There are others.
BTW, both are intensely white.
‘his means that by around the 2060’, when the authors will no longer be around to be reminded of their claims and ask why they where so wrong . How says climate ‘scientists’ never learn anything , while they have certainly learned to make their predictions so far ahead in time that they no longer bite them on the rear end when they totally fail.
Another worthless FALSE hype article about global warming.
These guys may be onto something. If there is a correlation between rising global temperatures and west coast drought, then the strong droughts of the Medieval period prove the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, and that it must have been warmer than today. Congratulations fellas, you’ve just proven that natural variation is stronger than human inputs.
Regarding the timeline of droughts in the American west……I would have thought the drought of 1976/77 would at least have brought the line to average or higher, however briefly considering the scale.
Seems like the recent drought in CA tracks closely with the rise of Ocrat control of CA state government.
Never let a crisis go by without taking advantage of it, while also blaming it on anyone and everything but your own actions…
I saw this Aug 16 tweet from Rep. Eric Swawell on ‘Steven Goddard’s blog:
Rep. Swalwell lives near Livermore, California, where a weather station has operated since 1903. I looked to see just how threatening Swalwell’s dashboard thermometer reading might be.
Official high temp at Livermore on August 16 was 106°. That’s a record high for that day, beating the 1951 record of 105°. But the record hottest temperature for August is 112°, set in 1946, and that beat the previous record of 110° set in 1913. Since 1951, when the hottest day was 111°, only in one year, 1998, did August temperatures reach 110° at Livermore.
Since 1903, there have been 21 months of August when temperatures exceeded 106°. 13 of those were prior to 1952.
If the current weather forecast is accurate, this August mean max temp will be 87°—1.2° below the 88.2° average for the preceding 113 years.
Note to Rep. Swalwell:
Yes, climate changes, and I doubt there are many members of Congress who disagree. But you won’t find evidence of impending climate catastrophe in Livermore’s official weather history, or on your car’s dashboard.
Very well said indeed, if I may say so!
Also, car thermomethers vary wildly and generally read off hot asphalt – 109 on a 106 day is actually surprisingly close. This is a fine example of a political point made with a literally meaningless number, wearing a shoddy cardboard “mantle of SCIENCE!”
Hold up. +2.5 C in 114 years? Says who?
OK, they claim merely +2.5F in 114 years. Still, that is completely outlandish. I don’t think even Hansen and Mann claim that.
I believe that that’s a regional claim, not based on the putative global increase of 0.8°C.
But right here at this site we’ve seen multiple data sets showing cooling for CA during this period (bad sites notwithstanding).
There are very few weather stations in California that have been in operation for 114 years, and those that have typically have large gaps in the data. 2014 was an extreme record warm year, but the warmth was mostly in the winter and spring. Summertime highs are trending down.
The record warmth may be due to the warm blob of water off the coast and the ridiculously-resilient high pressure ridge responsible for it. Meteorologists say there’s no proof the warm blob has anything to do with anthropogenic global warming. Climatastrophists say “what else can it be?”
Oh noes! I think I can hear the growing beat of the COP21 jungle drums: “doom, Dooom, DooooM, DOOOOOM!”; summoning all the wide-eyed, knuckle-dragging Paris-ites to their ‘last hurrah’ at the big fossil fuel-powered Global Government knees-up in December.
Let’s just hope they go down like The Hindenburg…
I have a copy of an older paper – back before the scientists had to include words like “global warming” or “climate change” to get published. While it was looking more specifically at drought in New Mexico, it did indicate that NM was part of a larger area impacted (i.e. the US southwest and Northwestern Mexico). Without even talking about CO2, big coal, evil oil companies, etc, the paper came to three concise conclusions:
• The 1950s drought was very substantial, but previous droughts (e.g., around A.D. 1000 and in the late thirteenth and sixteenth centuries) were both longer and drier.
• The late twentieth century wet spell is truncated by the smoothing function, but it is clearly a wet spell of historic proportions.
• Frequency analysis of this curve indicates that severe droughts occur at least once every century, with an average of approximately 60–80 years between droughts. An average drought periodicity between 50 and 100 years is observed in similar records throughout the Mountain West, suggesting that the next severe drought episode in New Mexico is due anytime within the next couple of decades.
We don’t need global warming/climate change to have a mega drought in the southwest – it was coming anyway.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Note the introductory comments and the graph presented.
There is nothing happening in the weather now that hasn’t happened many times before.
From the press release, it sounds as though the Columbia team has forgotten about the oceans. If it were true that the only available water was that in the land and biosphere or already in the air, higher temperatures would indeed suck water out of the land and biosphere, leaving the surface drier. However, given that there is in fact a vast reservoir of water available, namely the oceans, I see no reason for the relative humidity to go up or down if there is AGW warming. Perhaps the article, which I admittedly haven’t read, explains this.
I would be curious to know by how much a 1dC increase in air temperature would reduce sea level due to the increase in absolute humidity, holding relative humidity constant. I doubt that it’s perceptible, and certainly the oceans would not dry up altogether.
BTW, I think a useful distinction should be made between climatology and climate science. Climatologists make a living studying the climate, but whether what they are doing is science depends on how they do it. Thus, astrologists study the stars, but what they are doing isn’t science despite the “ology” in their trade.
LATimes had an article yesterday about the Columbia study.
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-climate-change-drought-20150820-story.html
They may have let the cat out of the bag.
“Williams and his colleagues made their forecast after conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the annual variations of drought and weather conditions at 23,955 locations throughout California. In each of those seven-square-mile plots, the team assessed the precipitation, temperature, wind, humidity and solar radiation for each month over the last 120 years.”
Looks like they used some type of fillnet-type program to create missing monthly data for five parameters over a 120 years period for most of the 24,000 grid boxes. I think it would be safe to say that more than half of their data is made up out of thin air!
The author then goes on to say that these “measurements” were then fed into their “simulation” to generate the convenient .statistics that were published.
I’m sorry. How do these people call themselves scientists?
It’s time to give these “researchers” a more accurate name: Climate Workers. Credibility for sale one grant at a time.
Reblogged this on Sierra Foothill Commentary and commented:
This reblog is my California Drought Report #41.