From the “children just won’t know what drought is” department.
A few years ago, some genius politicians, spurred on by some equally genius “climate scientists” told the citizens of California that we were now in a “permanent drought” situation. Of course, the NYT bought this drivel, and made it a headline.
We here at WUWT called bullshit on it, and now we can say “told you so” with impudence. A mere 1% of the entire state of California is now in a drought situation, according the the U.S. Drought Monitor website.
Just compare the previous first weeks of March:
California maps here: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA
Of course, we’ll still have shrill fools that will screech “climate change!” the next time the soil gets a bit dry, but for those people, there’s this lesson in California climate history:
From 2014, spot the portion caused by “man-made climate change”:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jerry Brown was guv during the late 70s drought and the 2016-2019 drought. Correlation is causation. Once he is pushing daisies CA will be safe.
My prediction from about 4-5 years ago was for rains returning from late 2015, increasing through 2016, and too much by early 2017. And staying in a wet phase until 2024 because of the solar minimum increasing El Nino conditions.
Looking at the map it still shows San Diego, Orange, & Borrego as ‘abnormally dry’.
If this is abnormally dry, what is normal?
Everyone does realize that if a new cycle starts and it starts raining too much in California…that will be because of man-made climate change as well, right? There is no beating this AGW crap.
I can see it now…increased upper atmosphere warming in the tropics has caused an increase in the Hadley cell circulations and that has caused all of the raining…because there is too much CO2. We need more money to study this…
I’m curious why 2017 is missing from the graph. 2016, 2018 and 2019 are all there, but no 2017, the year Oroville dam almost collapsed from too much water.
Jeff,
You are repeating falsehoods.
The Oroville Dam spillway was destroyed during normal usage. It fell apart due to poor maintenance, old age and perhaps faulty construction. The dam is a separate structure and was never threatened.
Albert, you weren’t paying attention. The faulty eroded emergency spillway was undercutting the dam structure, albeit somewhat away from the Dam proper. Thus the evacuation and being forced to use the damaged main spillway to lower water levels.
A good portion of the dam is on bedrock, but there is a lot of the dam that isn’t…..the fear of collapse was very real….most dam collapses start with one little crack, and then all hell breaks loose from the force of the moving water.
Albert was right, the main spillway failed for the reasons he stated, because they then stopped using it the level increased until the emergency spillway was reached. There was no ‘undercutting’ of the dam structure.
Sorry Steve S but it’s you that wasn’t paying attention. Albert was spot on. The main spillway was damaged on February 7 2017 so the California Department of Water Resources stopped using it in order to assess the damage. This resulted in the waters continuing to rise until they flowed over the emergency spillway. It was the use of the emergency spillway the caused erosion and damage to the concrete weir of the emergency spillway, not the dam itself. The fear was that the *emergency spillway* would collapse causing a wall of water to be sent into the Feather River below and flood communities downstream. And that fear about the emergency spillway, not the dam itself, is what triggered the evacuation.
The thing to remember is the emergency spillway, due to the idea that it would be seldom used (per FERC engineering guidelines), wasn’t designed to the same structural standards as the main spillway. A problem further exacerbated by the fact that the hillside below the emergency spillway wasn’t bedrock (as a geological report from the 1960s suggested) but was actually weathered rock subject to deep erosion if the spillway were to be put into use. in short it was much more prone to erosion than officials believed.
Steve is absolutely correct. The run off from the emergency spillway was cutting unstable rock and the cut was moving horizontally to the Southeast, threatening the head gates and upper main spillway. Had the emergency spillway been constructed in such a way as to force the water flow to the Northwest there would have been no problem. While the gate structure failure might not have have led to complete dam failure, it still would have meant an uncontrolled release of a massive amount of water. Hence the evacuation of 160 – 200 thousand folks who were down stream.
pbh
Steve is absolutely correct
No, he isn’t.
The run off from the emergency spillway was cutting unstable rock
Yes, and that was undermining the concrete weir of the emergency spillway, not the dam itself as Steve claims. Two different structures.
While the gate structure failure might not have have led to complete dam failure, it still would have meant an uncontrolled release of a massive amount of water. Hence the evacuation of 160 – 200 thousand folks who were down stream.
The evacuation was due to the threat of an uncontrolled release of a massive amount of water from the emergency spillway, *not* the dam itself. there was no threat of uncontrolled water being released by the dam itself. Hence Steve is absolutely wrong to suggest otherwise.
And in case it wasn’t clear in my last post, the concrete weir of the emergency spill way and the dam proper are two separate structures. It was the concrete weir of the emergency spillway, not the dam itself, that was being “undercut”. The dam itself wasn’t in any danger. The danger was from the emergency spillway.
I agree with your analysis except, The term Drought is actually not the correct term. Drought is a term that is not solely based on the amount of rainfall in a region. It is my understanding that the term is the ability of an agency/city to supply its population with water. Therefore, if the population grows and the water supply stays the same, the drought could increase. I remember a few years ago, before 2016/2017 rains that they said it would take years of excess rainfall to get out of the drought and fill the reservoirs. They were wrong about that also. Keep up the great work.
Drought, by definition, is a term that is based on the amount of rainfall in a region. So, yes, drought is the correct term.
Any “science” that depends on a consensus is not a science. Consensus has never been a part of the scientific method.
But it is a primary instrument of politics.
+42
The idea that CA’s future is permanent drought is part of why no effort has been made to provide additional reservoir capacity. Why waste money building something that will never be needed or used. Well living in northern CA (Redding) I can attest to the fact that Shasta Dam has been spilling water since late February to make sure there is adequate room for possible future rain storms. As of 1 PM today they have released enough water (640,000 Ac-ft) to fill the additional 18.5′ increased planned for the dam. If no water was spilled the lake would be within 26,000 Ac-ft of normal full capacity of 4,552,000 Ac-ft and there would still be 640,000 AC-ft of reserve space assuming the 18.5′ addition was built. There is a chance the plans could be stopped if certain folks have their way. The addition to Shasta Dam has been talked about for decades now so it is not a new idea. In Jan & Feb of 2017 there was a large spill that even exceeds what is happening this year. The point is twice now they have spilled precious water that could have been stored had pointed headed leadership not been in charge. A talked-about downstream off-site reservoir that pumps excess water during high winter flows has also been kicked around with no action. A perfect example of how climate change thinking has adversely impacted common sense fixes.
John,Alex &
Interesting perspectives from all of you. Thanks. I hope you are right and that you will survive the odd 10 years of dimished precipitation.
Perhaps you must just understand what imho is causing the coming drought times in Europe and USA. .
Most of the sats and data sets show that earth is still warming. However, my data set is showing the opposite. It is cooling. Especially minimum temperatures are dropping.
Click on my name to read my rpeort on that.
Simple physics tells me that as the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapor available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler (winters) and warmer (drier summers). It is happening already, is it not? Europe had one of its driest summers ever. USA had one of the worst winters.
We here in the South Africa are still in drought time but I think / hope that the worst is already over.
Totally agree with you.
Thanks!
Regarding California’s failure to build any new dams recently: the major problem is that we already have over a thousand significant dams here and there aren’t really any good places left to build them. The two major proposals–Sites Reservoir in the hills on the west side of the Sacramento Valley and Temperance Flat on the San Joaquin–don’t make economic sense. Too costly for projected water yields. And the whining about the Delta Smelt forcing us to “waste” huge amounts of water is a big distraction for all sides. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is an extremely complicated hydrologic and ecosystem that has been extensively modified by humans already but which still supports tremendous numbers of local and migratory birds and fish of many species, as well as a significant number of farms. The water battle isn’t people vs. fish, it’s various groups of people against other groups of people, some of whom live, farm, and/or fish for recreation in the Delta. The water rights issues are messy and complicated even if you ignore the fish. We now have a human population 40,000,000, so there’s no way to have the super abundant fish and game populations the state had 150 years ago, nor can water stay as cheap as it was 20 years ago. But we certainly could have more fish and a more efficient water market than we have now. My personal vote is to solve our electricity and water problems at the same time by building a couple of new nuke plants on the Socal coast and using the waste heat for desalination.
Of course there’s an ongoing drought and of course there is ongoing climate change…
California’s climate IS now one of drought, punctuated by blocks of extreme rainfall. Its climate has changed: climate change did that.
If I eat 3 meals a day, then switch to eating the equivalent of 20 meals once a week (were it possible) I’d still technically have eaten the same amount… so too with Californian rainfall.
And what does the human body do when it has this type of eating pattern? It stores the excess for future use when food becomes scarce.
California’s climate IS now one of drought, punctuated by blocks of extreme rainfall
Same as it always been. There hasn’t been a decade in the past century for which that pattern doesn’t emerge. California has been battling frequent drought conditions ever since it became as state in 1850, and it will continue to do so. There’s nothing unusual about the same thing happening again and again.
“…California’s climate IS now one of drought…”
No. It is absolutely is not according to CLIMATE indices and definitions. There’s no debate.
“…If I eat 3 meals a day, then switch to eating the equivalent of 20 meals once a week (were it possible) I’d still technically have eaten the same amount…”
3 meals per day is 21 means per week, not 20 meals per week…so it is not “technically…the same amount.” Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, you can’t even do simple multiplication.
“…so too with Californian rainfall…”
Drought conditions are not solely about rainfall. But with regard to rainfall, long-term drought conditions reflected in the images above are related to 6-60 months of rainfall. That’s long-term stuff.
The hydrologic system is far more complicated than just rainfall amounts or frequencies. But let’s go on with your diet analogy. If you eat 3 meals per day for a week (just to remind you again, 3 x 7 =21, not 20), the effect on the body would be much different than, say, eating no meals for 6 days and then cramming 21 meals into day 7. The same is true of rainfall…the effects of 21 units of rainfall (remember, 3 x 7 = 21) spread evenly over 7 days (or months) are vastly different than those of having 21 units of rainfall concentrated over 1 day (or month). The latter condition is more likely to result in long-term drought indices. And yet only 1% of CA scores in “abnormally dry” or “moderate drought” conditions. So apparently your alleged extremes are not really so.
And just as a reminder, in case you didn’t catch-on yet…3 x 7 = 21, not 20. I can direct you to some multiplication table exercises, if necessary.
Griff, as per normal, you are an idiot. This is not a change for California, it is normal. It is the way it always is. In fact Jon & Johanna Hall wrote and Orleans sang about it more than forty years ago in their song Golden State:
California, I’m in love with you
Your magic always the same
Your season’s always summer
Except for driving rain
A little bit of sadness
And then the sun comes out again
Have you ever been to California? My family has been here for over 150 years and let the record show that they almost starved to death on long, cold, wet, miserable winter. Reduced to digging roots because the rain would not stop.
And if you have not read…
Up and Down California in 1860-1864;
The Journal of William H. Brewer — https://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/up_and_down_california/up_and_down_california.pdf
then you need to just shut up about things about which you have no clue. Read it and tell me why there were floods of biblical proportions in 1862 and virtually no water for the next two years. The cattle ranches of southern California were stripped of all livestock because there was no water and no feed.
And no vegetables for your stupid non-sequitur illustration about human eating patterns. This is like every other comment you ever made… stupid, illogical and fallacious. Learn to start your brain before you turn on you computer.
And no…this isn’t ad hominem. That presumes that I’m avoiding the issue to attack the person. In this case, Griff is the issue. As usual.
“California’s climate IS now one of drought, punctuated by blocks of extreme rainfall. ”
As it always has been. Ever heard of the Great Flood of 1862?
Sometimes I wonder whether you are for real or a bot griff. Can a real, living person really be so infinitely credulous?
Low it will bring snow on the west side and tornadoes on the east.
Are you sure it is not a wet drought? You know, akin to that colder global warming?
There’s A Once-a-Decade ‘Super Bloom’ In The California Desert – For The 2nd Time In 2 Years | TIME
https://youtu.be/Z8TB8SzsFFQ
El Niño will remain very weak. Spring will be cool in the west of the US.
A big drop in temperature in the Eastern Pacific.
wheres the ENSO chart gone????????
Data does suggest that ‘permanent readiness for drought conditions’ is required for Californian politicians.
I remember a San Diegoan medical Professor on sabbatical in Oxford telling us of the Californian drought of the early Nineties, so it is a safe bet to suggest that drought will reemerge sometime in the next decade.
Looking from the outside, one does ask if the actions of the early European settlers were consistent with climate reality in that part of the world.
They have to live with the consequences now, though.
so it is a safe bet to suggest that drought will reemerge sometime in the next decade.
California has regularly had to battle drought since before it became a state in 1850. There hasn’t been a decade in the past century that California hasn’t has a drought at some point during that decade. So that is a very safe bet indeed.
Don’t even think of new dams. Be sure to dispose of existing dams.
Weren’t “we” also worried about the southeast USA when Atlanta was in a drought period a few years ago?
Joe G
Real climate science is about predicting the future by analysing data from the past
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/11/californias-permanent-drought-is-now-washed-away-by-reality/#comment-2652329
& follow-ups
One thing people neglect to note is that hurricanes and tropical storms which make landfall are part of the water cycle in the southeastern US, often hitting Florida and then dumping rain over the southeast region. Extended quiet periods lead to rainfall deficits and risks of drought. Florida went from 2005 to 2016 without a hurricane making landfall…that’s quite an extended period. There were some tropical storms but still…
Another cold front over northern California.
A severe storm is developing in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado.
What we need is a nationwide network of canals and pipelines to move water to where it is needed, just as we long ago built out worldwide electric-grid connections. We need more dams, too.
The reason we don’t have either is twofold: (1) the farm lobby, which wants to go on getting subsidized water, and (2) the urban-planning scam, whose believers are sure if they don’t build enough infrastructure, population growth will all go somewhere else, even though that has never happened.
So long as these stupid government interventions prevent the market from working, we’ll have water shortages. Just don’t try to tell me they’re results of the free market. What free market?
You can download the rainfall statistics for the bay area in particular for 150 years.
The drought that ended after 4 years in 2015 and 2016 was the 4rth worst in the 150 year period. It was not close to the worst.
The problem is that california has 38 million residents now and the bay area is 9 million. Even though we have added sources of water like Colorado the amount of water needed is growing because of population.
In other words this has nothing to do with the actual amount of water that fell but the amount we need.
Because of growing population we can’t assume that we will have enough water. We either need to import more or institute more rigid water saving procedures.
America is water rich and it wouldn’t be that hard to get more water in but it would be a project and expensive and a lot of environmentalists don’t like us moving things around like this so they would prefer we sacrifice. I don’t have a strong opinion until they till me I can’t shower or water my land as needed.