By Larry Kummer. Posted at the Fabius Maximus website.
Summary: The “permanent drought” in California, like the now ended “permanent drought” in Texas, is ending. But like the panic about Texas, it is rich in lessons about our difficulty clearly seeing the world — and the futility of activists exaggerating and lying about the science. Of course, they should have learned this after 29 years of trying (starting from James Hansen’s 1988 Senate testimony).
Warnings of a permanent drought in California
Remember all those predictions of a “permanent drought” in California? Those were examples of why three decades of climate alarmism has not convinced the American people to take severe measures to fight anthropogenic climate change: alarmists exaggerate the science, and are proven wrong — repeatedly. When will the Left learn that doomster lies do not work?
Wired, May 2016: “Thanks El Niño, But California’s Drought Is Probably Forever“. “California is still in a state of drought. For now, maybe forever.” The article gives no support — none — for this clickbait claim. In January Wired attempted to weasel away from their claims by defining drought to mean needing more water than nature provides (“A Wet Year Won’t Beat California’s Never-Ending Drought“). Orwell nodded, unsurprised.
The NYT did no better in “California Braces for Unending Drought“, May 2016. The closest the article comes to supporting their headline is an odd statement by Governor Brown: “But now we know that drought is becoming a regular occurrence…” Drought has always been a regular occurrence in California. The governor also said that “California droughts are expected to be more frequent and persistent, as warmer winter temperatures driven by climate change reduce water held in the Sierra Nevada snowpack and result in drier soil conditions.” That is probable. But it is quite mad for the NYT to call more frequent droughts “an unending drought.”
Status of the California drought
“During the past week, a series of storms bringing widespread rain and snow showers impacted the states along the Pacific Coast and northern Rockies. In California, the cumulative effect of several months of abundant precipitation has significantly improved drought conditions across the state.”
— US Drought monitor – California, February 9.
Precipitation over California in the water year so far (October 1 to January 31) is 178% of average for this date. The snowpack is 179% of average, as of Feb 8. Our reservoirs are at 125% of average capacity. See the bottom line summary as of February 7, from the US Drought monitor for California.
The improvement has been tremendous. The area with exceptional drought conditions have gone year over year from 38% of California to 0%, extreme drought from 23% to 1%, severe drought from 20% to 10% — while dry and moderate drought went from 18% to 48%, and no drought from <1% to 41%. See the map below. And the rain continues to fall.
For data about the western states see the dashboards at NOAA’s Western Water Assessment. For a longer-term perspective on the western drought see NOAA’s “Western drought: It ain’t over ’til…well, it ain’t over” by Deke Arndt, 2 February 2017. It will take years of good rain and snow to recharge California’s groundwater.
Conclusions
“We don’t even plan for the past.”
— Steven Mosher (member of Berkeley Earth; bio here), a comment posted at Climate Etc.
Journalists could have told us that historical data shows that past droughts in the US southwest lasted for centuries, a grim warning encouraging us to prepare. Droughts, often long and fierce, are the natural climate of this region. But telling the truth was boring — bad clickbait — and would have been politically useless for the Left. But their exaggerations and misrepresentations of science — and failed predictions — have only eroded away the public’s support for sensible measures to control and allocate water use.
This has been their way since they discovered that weather porn was good clickbait and might support their campaign for aggressive public policy measures to fight anthropogenic climate change. The result: contributing to the public’s loss of trust in the news media and an almost complete failure to get their policy changes.
In this as in other things, only a reality-based community can reform America. Too bad neither Left nor Right has any interest in giving up their tribal beliefs to focus on the often-inconvenient truth. Look here for ideas about ways you can help.
For More Information
See all posts about droughts, and especially these …
· Droughts are coming. Are we ready for the past to repeat?
· Everything you want to know about California’s drought (except when it will end), Nov 2014.
· Key facts about the drought that’s reshaping California, March 2015.
· Our response to California’s drought shows America at work to enrich the 1%.
For all their fatuous talk about “sustainability” (which they define in a manner that agrees with their
tactics) liberals bringing in illegals willing to work for the low wages that apparently Californians believe is their God-given right is perhaps the dopiest “solution” to problems of their own making.
If no one is willing to pay enough for those “unwanted jobs” to attract workers (due to a certain extent by competitive welfare wages) then perhaps those jobs should not exist at all. I also would think that the state prison system could supply virtually unlimited workers, and they would likely
find the low wages very acceptable. Those illegals won’t be satisfied for long by those low wage jobs and in a few short years, their children won’t need to take them either. Therefore it looks like the illegal alien solution is never-ending and not a sustainable solution either.
Illegal immigration is the peculiar institution of the left. It keeps the census counts in democrat party controlled urban areas high. This allows for over representation in Congress. It also keeps federal funding, mostly given on per cap basis, high as well. It also allows for reduced wages which increases dependency. It’s more lucrative than the earlier democrat party’s peculiar institution, slavery.
In the late 50’s we Ohioans had a multi-year drought. My little home town had two small reservoirs that came within an inch of drying up. In a blinding flash of the obvious, town leaders bought up land to build a third reservoir with more than twice the capacity of the first two. We haven’t had a drought since, but the bonds are all paid off and people sleep at night.
But what do I know…I’m not from California.
Not from CA, but Kasich is about as monkey nuts crazy as Gov Moonbeam?
Yep, a disappointment in these parts…
WUWT readers, I just finished an article about that that you may find interesting. I’d also appreciate comments on how to improve it, and any additional examples you would add.
Climate Science Behaving Badly; 50 Shades of Green & The Torture Timeline
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/climate-science-behaving-badly-50-shades-of-green-the-torture-timeline/
“In 1861, farmers and ranchers were praying for rain after two exceptionally dry decades. In December their prayers were answered with a vengeance, as a series of monstrous Pacific storms slammed—one after another—into the West coast of North America, from Mexico to Canada. The storms produced the most violent flooding residents had ever seen, before or since.
“Sixty-six inches of rain fell in Los Angeles that year, more than four times the normal annual amount, causing rivers to surge over their banks, spreading muddy water for miles across the arid landscape. Large brown lakes formed on the normally dry plains between Los Angeles and the Pacific Ocean, even covering vast areas of the Mojave Desert. In and around Anaheim, , flooding of the Santa Ana River created an inland sea four feet deep, stretching up to four miles from the river and lasting four weeks.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atmospheric-rivers-california-megaflood-lessons-from-forgotten-catastrophe/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/after-the-noachian-floods-in-1861-california-experienced-a-punishing-drought/
“Droughts end in floods”.
For mysterious reasons, this always seems to surprise people.
In Arizona, we pump water into the ground to recharge our aquifers. In fact, most of our water is now stored underground and not in reservoirs. Hello CA… anyone listening or watching?
Open air reservoir storage in arid climates has been called “hanging water out to dry”.
That was mainly due to the fact that the CAP water was so expensive and that was even after US taxpayers paid most of the tab.
Water availability, not the price is the supposed lament of the econutty Left.
As to the uselessness of at the present time, unneeded de-salinazation plants, they are no different, in principle, than a reservoir half full, at the present moment in time.
Caveat: I probably don’t know what I am talking about.
I thought drought/drought conditions were based on past averages of precipitation and the deficits going forward. Meaning, technically there could still be a drought despite being in monsoon conditions if the past totals of deficits weren’t made up.
That’s easily how AGW supporters can claim “permanent drought.” Has CA erased the past deficits?
Just add that the ‘ground filling up’ is a computer model with dodgy assumptions, it doesn’t count snow and frozen ground well (or at all), and the precipitation amounts are adjusted by the bogus temperature data from NOAA and you are getting there… The Palmer Drought Index is seriously broken. Heck, even the wiki about it says so. (Cue the Wiki Langoliers…)
Don B, ‘praying for rain’ – another example spanning centuries:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8269597
Here is something I have learned: Whenever you see the word “could” in a headline about some possible undesirable effect, it really means “will not even come close to”. “Could” is a weasel word meant to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). It is always used instead of “would” because the authors know their predictions will not come true but want to scare nonetheless. When, not if, it does not come true, the authors will just say ‘we didn’t say it would happen, just that it could happen.’ By using the magical word “could”, an alarmist of any type can put out the most insane scare story in an attempt to motivate you to action.
Here are some examples:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/why-the-us-trade-gap-could-obstruct-trumps-economic-vision/2017/02/07/ee4c6c68-ed74-11e6-a100-fdaaf400369a_story.html
“Why the US trade gap could obstruct Trump’s economic vision” — INCORRECT
“Why the US trade gap will not even come close to obstructing Trump’s economic vision” — CORRECT
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/13/future-summers-could-be-hotter-than-any-on-record/
“Future summers could be hotter than any on record” — INCORRECT
“Future summer will not even come close to being hotter than any on record” — CORRECT
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/10/brexit/
“Brexit could further harm woeful rural payments system” — INCORRECT
“Brexit will not even come close to harming woeful rural payments system” — CORRECT
It’s been said before but needs repeating.
“It never rains in California
But girl don’t they warn ya
It pours, man it pours”
(Albert Hammond)
* * * * * * *
Climatologists are desperately trying to explain the mystery of where southern Australia’s winter rainfall is going. They’ve known the rain is being pulled south by an unexplained force. Now they’ve devised a revolutionary new theory to explain why. It appears that the circulation of the entire Southern Hemisphere is changing to suck our rain away. The reason is the Antarctic Vortex – a natural tornado of 30km high, super-cold, super-fast winds spiralling around Antarctica. The vortex is not new; it’s one of the engines that drive climate in the Southern Hemisphere. But now it appears the vortex is shifting gear, and is spinning faster and faster, and getting tighter. As it does it’s pulling the climate bands further south dragging rain away from the continent out into the southern ocean. Most disturbing of all we might be responsible for shifting the speed of the vortex. Scientists at the US Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research believe the speeding up of the vortex is caused by the combined effect of global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica. If their theory is true it will have devastating consequences for our southern cities – the drought may not go away.
ACB Catalyst, Drought Vortex, 2003
* * * * * * *
“DROUGHT will become a redundant term as Australia plans for a permanently drier future, according to the nation’s urban water industries chief…. “The urban water industry has decided the inflows of the past will never return,” Water Services Association of Australia executive director Ross Young said. “We are trying to avoid the term ‘drought’ and saying this is the new reality.”
-The Age, 2007
* * * * * * *
“Drought is too comfortable a word,” said John Williams, the New South Wales state Commissioner for Natural Resources. “Drought connotes a return to normal. We need to be adjusting.”
-Cosmos, 2007
* * * * * * *
“The pattern that we’re seeing now in the weather in Australia is very much the pattern was predicted by computer models as much as a decade ago.We will have to get by with less water. The CSIRO’s telling us that. We’re seeing it now, in the evidence before our eyes in our rivers and creeks, and of course the computer models in the global models have been predicting just this now for some years. I think all evidence says that this is our new climate and we have to get by with less water than we’ve ever had before.”
-Tim Flannery, 2007
* * * * * * *
Climate change boosted Australia’s 2010 floods (Climate News Network, 2011)
* * * * * * *
Scientists see climate change link to Australian floods (Reuters, 2011)
* * * * * * *
Warmer ocean temperatures worsened Queensland’s deadly 2011 floods (ABC, 2015)
* * * * * * *
Climate change and La Niña may bring severe floods to Australia — “It is highly likely that January 2017 could see floods similar to those in 2011.” [didn’t happen] (NewScientist, 2015)
* * * * * * *
Lesson learned: Heads they win, tails we lose.
Models back that up.
California is a desert, and rainfall won’t follow a “Normal” distribution. In a majority of years, California will have below average rainfall, in a few years, way above average rainfall..
Posting on Austrailia drought pronouncements pretty much covers it. Politicians have to give voters a reason to support them. Environmentalism works on a certain part of the population. Once in office you control funding and appointments.
Also true that weather is closely followed by many in the population creating a sensitive spot for propaganda. Your once friendly television weatherperson morfs into a theory spouting loon without notice.
Is there a price for failure?
“Your once friendly television weatherperson morfs into a theory spouting loon without notice.”
The Weather Channel is a good example of that. They are becoming unwatchable.
‘Is there a price for failure?’
Were our major cities of Melbourne and Sydney actually go into a long term drought and the dams actually not fill, we would run out of power to desalinate water.
Why, because the additional power required would be too unreliable and subject to blackouts when we reach the SA renewable goals.
The California snow pack has clearly recovered. The last really big year was 2010-2011 where snowfall was about twice average (>800″ @ur momisugly 8200′) and if not for that, the drought that followed would have been far worse. The accumulated snowfall so far is about 1 month ahead of where it was in 2010-2011 and in most places already exceeds the total amount received in any year since. There’s more snow still on the ground at the 6000′ level than I’ve seen in decades, despite the recent rain which for the most part just increased the water content of the snow on the ground.
Two lessons from the California drought: don’t build houses in the desert and build more water storage.
Emanuelle,
As I mentioned upthread, it is not possible to build sufficient water storage in California to make much different in a multi-year drought. Also, the good sites are almost all taken (a map of California’s hydro infrastructure makes the state look like a pinball machine).
Plus, the beneficiaries are farmers — who are unwilling to pay for these expensive construction projects. They’re roughly 2% of California’s GDP, so state funds are better used on its many other critical needs.
The start of the Los Angeles River is some 40+ miles from its outlet into the ocean. In addition to rainfall and runoff, it receives flow from at least 1 major wastewater treatment plant. Large portions of it are concrete channels, which means zero recharge in those sections. Lots of wasted water.
Sure, open reservoir sites may be relatively “taken,” but there is aquifer storage and recovery as an option. 40-60% of water usage in CA is groundwater.
This map doesn’t look unique compared to other states
Michael,
Anything can be done. The question is determining who will pay for it. The farmers will gain the most from adding to California’s water — as they are the largest user, pay the least, and are the first to have their supply cut.
Will they pay to implement your ideas? California history suggests not. That is the ultimate free market answer.
The usual solution is — as we see in these comments, ignoring the question of who pays — or to use political power to get others to pay for it.
I hope the delta smelt are good at navigating log jams in the river and outlets.
Lessons learned …… until the next drought.
The most important lesson is that the climate committed will learn no lesson. The politicians who are committed to pushing the climate hype agenda will not change a thing. The climate activistdbeill deny there is any reason to reconsider.
The spin will be that climate change is causing extremes – drought and rainfall – and that we’d be so much better off if things were more consistent like they used to be.
Here’s a quick graphical look at the west’s past. Smart people will plan for long-term drought, whether or not they believe CO2 is the cause. http://www.geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/California-Historical-Droughts.png
Aren’t we all in a permanent drought? Using Wired’s definition. If we disregard the entire water supply industry and infrastructure, all city dwellers are a permanent drought.
Well I have plenty of water, what I have is a Scotch Drought… never as much as is needed 😉
“Roman-style aqueducts were used as early as the 7th century BC, when the Assyrians built an 80 km long limestone … is still debated, but some evidence supports circa A.D. 540–552, in response to drought periods in the region”
Have we gone backwards?
Richard,
“Have we gone backwards?”
The California water infrastructure in 1920 made the Romans look like beginners. Today’s infrastructure would be science fiction to them.
Going backwards might help. Several fountains in Pompeii still work, approximately 1938 years after the city was buried by debris from a massive volcano eruption.
I think the Romans are winning. (Especially since said fountains have not been maintained since 79 AD.)
Allykat,
If Pompei’s foundations still work, it is because they were buried since 79 AD, so the concrete and lead pipes were unused and protected.
That’s a weird basis for comparison with our current systems.
Here in California our drought will never be over. It is not a matter of climate but rather a matter of Mankind’s out of control population. Droughts and floods are part of our current climate so if we could stop climate change, droughts and floods will be locked in. Actually a climate has yet to be identified where droughts and floods are not a possibility. Maybe it would be best if the entire state were convered with an ice sheet.
Willhass,
“t is not a matter of climate but rather a matter of Mankind’s out of control population”
Fortunately that is not correct. There is enough water in California for many more people. Urban water use is 8% to 13% of the State’s water. Ag consumes 30% to 50% of the State’s water (depending on the year) , and produces roughly 2% of California’s GDP.
See Water Use in California by the Public Policy Institute of California.
No that is correct. The human populaton requires ag products so ag usage is part of the human demand. Here is Southern California the rain we get does not matter that much because we import so much water from other locations. That import of water requires energy. Much of the state is desert or semi arid and drought conditions are the standard. Just 200 years ago the county where I live was mostly ranch land and wilderness but today it is mostly urban and sumurban. They have been trying to pave over the entire county.
Has California offered to buy the farmer’s land or, at least, pay for annual lost income from lost land use to compensate farmers for not growing crops? Or, are the farmers expected to lose the use of their land, be unable to sell it, pay taxes on it anyway and receive no compensation?
Sailor,
“Has California offered to buy the farmer’s land ”
When did this become a socialist state? Little rain, so urban populations have to buy the farmers’ land? Well, you can start a collection from people willing to do so. Using the State’s police power to do so seems a bit much.
Willhas,
” The human populaton requires {California’s} ag products so ag usage is part of the human demand. ”
That’s not even remotely true of American farming. Cheap California ag products — grown with subsidized water — have helped drive farmers our of business in much of America. For example, much of the farmland in the well-watered Northeast has gone fallow in the past few decades. And continues to go so, as the farmers die and the land is abandoned.
I’ve seen that happen during my lifetime in Central New York. The US has ample unused farmland to replace expensively irrigated desert in California — some irrigated using rapidly depleting groundwater, some with water lifted over mountains.
Will,
As I have repeatedly showed you, human population growth is so far from out of control that its rate has been cut in two.
The only reason that CA’s population is growing is because of net immigration, with US citizens fleeing it in droves and illegal aliens more than taking their place.
We are already over populated yet the population is still growing. Why do we need so many people?
So a drought is “… needing more water than nature provides …” They can not control nature so they must then control the “needing” part of the equation. So California must either stop the unregulated flow of people or tell everybody to return to the good old days of only bathing on Saturday “whether you need it or not”. Or should that be “weather you need it or not”. And say “goodbye” to green lawns and parks and pools.
Chuck,
“So California must either stop the unregulated flow of people or tell everybody to return to the good old days of only bathing on Saturday “whether you need it or not”.”
Fortunately, that is widely believed but a myth. As I noted several times upthread, urban water use is a small fraction of Calfiornia’s water use. Farming uses most, producing a tiny fraction of California’s GDP.
California will eventually get rational public policies to manage water, as free market economics slowly exert their power. As the ancient adage says, “The mills of economics grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mills_of_God)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
― H.L. Mencken
+1
I didn’t know Obama was such a dedicated follower of Menchen.
Meanwhile another storm with high winds is heading for the constituents of Edward Markey. They deserve it most, along with freezing rain.
Hello to you all from Perth, Western Australia which Australia’s own Tim Flannery predicted would be the first ghost city of the 21st century due to permanent drought. Tim Flannery also predicted that the dams in the eastern part of Australia would NEVER be full again. He is wrong on that count and I am here to vouch that my home town is doing very nicely, thank you, and that we had over 100mm (4 inches) of rain last Friday.
In the meantime our taxpayer-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation still reports Tim Flannery’s utterances as if they are Holy Writ.
He appeared on a BBC program recently chatting about early aborigines and colonisation of Sydney on the ABC.
No mention of climate.
The ABC TV just buys its docos and runs them.
For an authoritative view The First Fleet by Rob Mundle is well worth the time and price for a read
https://www.amazon.com.au/First-Fleet-Rob-Mundle-ebook/dp/B00KV08ZP6