California’s drought declared natural by NOAA

But not all scientists are calling the report limited in perspective.

Read the whole story

 

[jdale]

The subtitle doesn't seem to work here:

California’s drought declared natural by NOAA
But not all scientists are calling the report limited in perspective.

The subtitle seems to stress a negative that does not correspond to anything present in the title itself. "But not all scientists agree" is an obvious alternative, or "But some scientists are calling the report limited in perspective" would work. Even "Not all scientists are calling the report limited in perspective" could work, implying that some of them are calling it that.

 

[Jims1973]

Can someone explain the timeframe of the photo. How long ago was the water high enough to create the obvious color change at the top of the support pillars?

 

[Tpyo]

As a non-American, I hadn't got a clue what NOAA stood for*. It wasn't in the article, so I thought I'd follow the link to the report. It turns out even they don't put it at the top of the report** - so I had to resort to google.


*National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. You're welcome.
** Going back, they don't even expand it until the introduction.

 

[Chuckstar]

Tpyo[/url]":m1qhbtyo]As a non-American, I hadn't got a clue what NOAA stood for*. It wasn't in the article, so I thought I'd follow the link to the report. It turns out even they don't put it at the top of the report** - so I had to resort to google.


*National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. You're welcome.
** Going back, they don't even expand it until the introduction.

If only there were some kind of search system that would let you enter a term and search a huge database of information. It would be especially helpful if "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" were to show up as the top result when searching "NOAA", so that one didn't even have to click any further to get the answer. One can only dream, I guess.

 

[lewax00]

Well at least we know it's not the work of a supervillain.

 

[Dr. Jay]

jdale[/url]":1wytycai]The subtitle doesn't seem to work here:

California’s drought declared natural by NOAA
But not all scientists are calling the report limited in perspective.

The subtitle seems to stress a negative that does not correspond to anything present in the title itself. "But not all scientists agree" is an obvious alternative, or "But some scientists are calling the report limited in perspective" would work. Even "Not all scientists are calling the report limited in perspective" could work, implying that some of them are calling it that.

Yeah, sorry about that. Revised the end of the sentence without going back and making the start of it agree. Fixed now.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

lucusloc[/url]":7yghaugv]Wait, Michael Mann is still considered a credible scientist?

Having been cleared in many investigations that find absolutely no evidence of wrong-doing or misconduct, and his work withstanding the scrutiny of his peers, yes. There's no reason to think otherwise.

 

[Stormspace]

I suspect that without the expertise to conclusively point to global warming any comments to that affect by NOAA would just be fear mongering. However they can say that the weather patterns indicate that it isn't out of the ordinary while leaving the deeper meaning up to those more qualified to make those statements. Without their own evidence to support the global warming model backing away from those statements doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

[iko]

Jims1973[/url]":28seip5n]Can someone explain the timeframe of the photo. How long ago was the water high enough to create the obvious color change at the top of the support pillars?

Looks like that's the Tuolumne river, which is fed out of Don Pedro reservoir, so the height isn't a great indicator of water availability, since it's controlled by how much the dam releases.

The vast majority of urban California's water is routed though so many control systems that observing individual reservoir or stream/river levels isn't terribly informative. A reservoir being full means that it's been pumped full, a stream being low means that water isn't being released.

Not that there are any full reservoirs left at this point. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/Stat ... or.aspx?CA

 

[RFT]

Jims1973[/url]":2geyerhg]Can someone explain the timeframe of the photo. How long ago was the water high enough to create the obvious color change at the top of the support pillars?

I can't comment on that particular lake/dam/river, but from seeing similar drops in reservoirs where I live, the height difference was 3 years tops, and possibly from Spring of last year.

 

[Boreas]

iko[/url]":adl1c6dx]

Jims1973[/url]":adl1c6dx]Can someone explain the timeframe of the photo. How long ago was the water high enough to create the obvious color change at the top of the support pillars?

Looks like that's the Tuolumne river, which is fed out of Don Pedro reservoir, so the height isn't a great indicator of water availability, since it's controlled by how much the dam releases.

The vast majority of urban California's water is routed though so many control systems that observing individual reservoir or stream/river levels isn't terribly informative. A reservoir being full means that it's been pumped full, a stream being low means that water isn't being released.

Not that there are any full reservoirs left at this point. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/Stat ... or.aspx?CA

It's not a terrible indicator of the present crisis, though: there's simply no water to release. Here are a bunch of before-after photos that better illustrate the depletion.

http://imgarcade.com/1/california-droug ... and-after/

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Another recent study emphasizes the mechanism of temperature in worsening drought conditions independent of the amount of precipitation received.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 8/abstract
Apparently, current drought preparedness doesn't take temperature into account, either.

 

[Kyuu]

Chuckstar[/url]":366laiwr]If only there were some kind of search system that would let you enter a term and search a huge database of information. It would be especially helpful if "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" were to show up as the top result when searching "NOAA", so that one didn't even have to click any further to get the answer. One can only dream, I guess.

Regardless of if it can be looked up (and the poster you responded to stated explicitly that he *did*, in fact, Google it, so your snarkiness is a bit puzzling), it's still bad form to use an acronym in an article that isn't likely to be immediately recognized and understood by the readership without at least dedicating a few words to saying what the heck it stands for. I'm American and I still didn't know what the heck NOAA was until I came into the comments.

 

[Deimon]

Those who believe that global warming is happening and is being caused by us do a disservice to those struggling against the deniers buy denying any climate study that doesn't find links to global warming.

I remember reading years ago in Time magazine that scientist who are familiar with the West and South West of the U.S. say their studies show that the 19th and 20th centuries were an usually wet time for the region and that drier conditions are the norm.

 

[Chuckstar]

Deimon[/url]":2tlaei2k]Those who believe that global warming is happening and is being caused by us do a disservice to those struggling against the deniers buy denying any climate study that doesn't find links to global warming.

I remember reading years ago in Time magazine that scientist who are familiar with the West and South West of the U.S. say their studies show that the 19th and 20th centuries were an usually wet time for the region and that drier conditions are the norm.

Droughts were more common in the American Southwest between roughly 1550 and 1900 AD than they have been since 1900. Of course, the archaeological evidence is that there was likely even greater rainfall before that 1550 time period (I don't think there's great tree ring data, yet), since areas like Phoenix supported relatively large populations during the roughly 700 to 1300 AD time period. Seems like the rainfall record in the American Southwest is highly dependent on relatively small fluctuations in conditions (more so than typical for regional climatic systems). Given it's high variability, it's probably not a good region to use as an indicator of broader climatic trends.

 

[dmattingly23]

Not sure where John Timmer is located, but this year might be the one that breaks the cycle. We here in NorCal are still trying to dry out from the flash flooding from all the rain in the past 2-3 weeks. We're already an 1.25" over last year at this time and more is coming.

 

[Veritas super omens]

Kyuu[/url]":1w07ol5f]

Chuckstar[/url]":1w07ol5f]If only there were some kind of search system that would let you enter a term and search a huge database of information. It would be especially helpful if "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" were to show up as the top result when searching "NOAA", so that one didn't even have to click any further to get the answer. One can only dream, I guess.

Regardless of if it can be looked up (and the poster you responded to stated explicitly that he *did*, in fact, Google it, so your snarkiness is a bit puzzling), it's still bad form to use an acronym in an article that isn't likely to be immediately recognized and understood by the readership without at least dedicating a few words to saying what the heck it stands for. I'm American and I still didn't know what the heck NOAA was until I came into the comments.

Ars expects a certain level of scientific literacy from its readers, or at least a good bit of google fu. They are not going to explain Newtons laws for example. It can be time consuming looking up something you don't know, as one Wikipedia page will lead to the next.... and the next etc. until you look up and find you've just burned up 2-3 hours of time.

 

[Solomon Black]

Deimon[/url]":2l1snmbb]Those who believe that global warming is happening and is being caused by us do a disservice to those struggling against the deniers buy denying any climate study that doesn't find links to global warming.

I remember reading years ago in Time magazine that scientist who are familiar with the West and South West of the U.S. say their studies show that the 19th and 20th centuries were an usually wet time for the region and that drier conditions are the norm.

Damn straight we need to keep in mind that while climate change exacerbates any number of problems... weather can and does vary all on its own.

Sure any weather event in a world of climate change can be said be effected since we can't know how it would have been otherwise right now, but if you can't show that something is outside of normal expectations or any sort of direct causality... the evidence isn't there and we're supposed to be following the evidence.

Droughts happen all on their own have since forever.

 

[spindizzy]

Chuckstar[/url]":24w1a9h3]

Tpyo[/url]":24w1a9h3]As a non-American, I hadn't got a clue what NOAA stood for*. It wasn't in the article, so I thought I'd follow the link to the report. It turns out even they don't put it at the top of the report** - so I had to resort to google.


*National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. You're welcome.
** Going back, they don't even expand it until the introduction.

If only there were some kind of search system that would let you enter a term and search a huge database of information. It would be especially helpful if "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" were to show up as the top result when searching "NOAA", so that one didn't even have to click any further to get the answer. One can only dream, I guess.

Or even better if there were some type of system for easily linking text to its meaning, possibly marking it by underlining it or adding a super-texted number and colour change. That would be amazing and revolutionise how we could access information. With a little effort you could even automate it!

Still making useless sarcastic comments is even easier (see this comment as evidence).

 

[ichemandrew]

I highly enjoyed reading this, mentally pronouncing "NOAA" as "Noah".

 

[Mondoman]

Whatever you think about the validity of current *global* climate models, even the modelers agree that *regional* climate models don't currently produce correct results, and likely won't for at least another decade. Sadly, this report's reliance on such regional models thus lessens the scientific credibility of NOAA at precisely a time when we need confidence in the scientific ability of government researchers.

 

[schizrade]

Stormspace[/url]":1mozpcb9]I suspect that without the expertise to conclusively point to global warming any comments to that affect by NOAA would just be fear mongering. However they can say that the weather patterns indicate that it isn't out of the ordinary while leaving the deeper meaning up to those more qualified to make those statements. Without their own evidence to support the global warming model backing away from those statements doesn't seem unreasonable.

Exactly, they don't want to make a statement then get called out if it is wrong and look like alarmists. The process at play in CA is a natural one that would happen whether humans were around or not.

Now the follow up question would be are we making it worse? That is another study altogether.

 

[Jackattak]

dmattingly23[/url]":37cvq8my]Not sure where John Timmer is located, but this year might be the one that breaks the cycle. We here in NorCal are still trying to dry out from the flash flooding from all the rain in the past 2-3 weeks. We're already an 1.25" over last year at this time and more is coming.

More on the way. Flash floods here in SF through Friday. Get your Zodiacs out!

 

[spope]

I live here (drove over Don Pedro Lake yesterday, in fact (depressing)). There was a radio interview yesterday with the lead author. While I don't remember verbatim the conversation, it went something like:
Host:"So your study found climate change had nothing to do with the drought?"
Dr. Seager "Well, not precisely.."<solid explanation of climate modeling done> "Now this study only addresses the lack of precipitation over this period. There are secondary effects, like the increased evaporation of moisture out of the ground with increased temperature that has an overall effect on how much water is available"

So, I think the bigger issue is that people outside of science sometimes don't understand that a study is often very limited in scope and method. The proper headline might be "Local modeling shows that the long term lack of precipitation in CA is due to ocean surface temperature increased believed to be cyclical, stochastic, and natural."

Instead: "Causes of Calif. Drought Natural, Not Man-made: NOAA" -USA Today

 

[Vidi Vici Veni]

California’s drought declared natural by NOAA
Aren't all droughts natural ? Or has geo-engineering progressed to James Bond levels.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

schizrade[/url]":13nwq0a7]

Stormspace[/url]":13nwq0a7]I suspect that without the expertise to conclusively point to global warming any comments to that affect by NOAA would just be fear mongering. However they can say that the weather patterns indicate that it isn't out of the ordinary while leaving the deeper meaning up to those more qualified to make those statements. Without their own evidence to support the global warming model backing away from those statements doesn't seem unreasonable.

Exactly, they don't want to make a statement then get called out if it is wrong and look like alarmists. The process at play in CA is a natural one that would happen whether humans were around or not.

Now the follow up question would be are we making it worse? That is another study altogether.

I find that this analogy is one which people are able to understand and are willing to consider...

New York Times: Paul Krugman: Loading the Climate Dice
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/opini ... .html?_r=0

 

[Bruja Malvada]

Last year, to somebody in my running club, I told him I was pretty sure this is natural because California is a desert. He agreed, and bashed the tree-huggers for calling it all global warming. I'm also an eco-anxious vegan. So yes, global warming is real, and yes, maybe it contributes to or worsens this drought, but no, this drought not caused by global warming. People forget that this is a desert. That California simply has too many people. Yes, we have loaded the climate dice as Bernardo Verda notes, but... this is mostly a very natural occurance. It's as if no one has driven from Los Angeles to Vegas. Because this is a freaking desert. A big freaking desert. Like four hours of desert between between LA and Vegas. So no, a drought in a desert is not caused by global warming. It's caused by a desert.

 

[Alhazred]

Stormspace[/url]":1l5kp2hx]I suspect that without the expertise to conclusively point to global warming any comments to that affect by NOAA would just be fear mongering. However they can say that the weather patterns indicate that it isn't out of the ordinary while leaving the deeper meaning up to those more qualified to make those statements. Without their own evidence to support the global warming model backing away from those statements doesn't seem unreasonable.

Except for the fact that they're one of the very foremost organizations in climate research and if they were 'without the expertise' then nobody knows squat about the climate, which clearly isn't true. They simply drew a conclusion which their modeling and the evidence they gave most weight to pointed at. If they couldn't draw a conclusion they'd have not bothered to do a study.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Mondoman[/url]":1gz9rf9e]Whatever you think about the validity of current *global* climate models, even the modelers agree that *regional* climate models don't currently produce correct results, and likely won't for at least another decade. Sadly, this report's reliance on such regional models thus lessens the scientific credibility of NOAA at precisely a time when we need confidence in the scientific ability of government researchers.

Yep, scientists' reliance on the best available tools makes them less credible.
Wait...

 

[Evolution]

dmattingly23[/url]":5di1yqlz]Not sure where John Timmer is located, but this year might be the one that breaks the cycle. We here in NorCal are still trying to dry out from the flash flooding from all the rain in the past 2-3 weeks. We're already an 1.25" over last year at this time and more is coming.

I think the title that says "California’s drought" is somehow inaccurately misleading to those who are not quiet familiar with the California state. California runs from near south of Canada to the north of Mexico it stretch out over a thousand miles on a straight line north to south. It covers lot of grounds. It shapes like a hot dog. It would be more appropriated to says "southern California drought" than it just says "California drought" which is not quite the same.

Don Pedro reservoir is located at about 50 miles East of San Francisco. When areas gets furthur inland to the east side of the stae its temperature on average is a few degree hotter than what is in the city of San Francisco near the ocean. When we got some rains in the city for the last few days, over where Don Pedro reservoir is at over there might got none.

 

[jdale]

Evolution[/url]":33c1fnvq]

dmattingly23[/url]":33c1fnvq]Not sure where John Timmer is located, but this year might be the one that breaks the cycle. We here in NorCal are still trying to dry out from the flash flooding from all the rain in the past 2-3 weeks. We're already an 1.25" over last year at this time and more is coming.

I think the title that says "California’s drought" is somehow inaccurately misleading to those who are not quiet familiar with the California state. California runs from near south of Canada to the north of Mexico it stretch out over a thousand miles on a straight line north to south. It covers lot of grounds. It shapes like a hot dog. It would be more appropriated to says "southern California drought" than it just says "California drought" which is not quite the same.

Don Pedro reservoir is located at about 50 miles East of San Francisco. When areas gets furthur inland to the east side of the stae its temperature on average is a few degree hotter than what is in the city of San Francisco near the ocean. When we got some rains in the city for the last few days, over where Don Pedro reservoir is at over there might got none.

Um, looking at the map, I suppose I might agree with you that "California's drought" is a misnomer, but only because extreme drought conditions extend into Oregon and Nevada.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101884085#.
http://wildfiretoday.com/wp-content/upl ... 4-2014.jpg

That map does not support your implication that the drought area is limited to southern California. It might be tougher going in the south because the baseline levels of rain are lower to begin with, but it's "severe drought" all over the state.

 

[dr_buzzsaw]

iko[/url]":3krvzbr3]

Jims1973[/url]":3krvzbr3]Can someone explain the timeframe of the photo. How long ago was the water high enough to create the obvious color change at the top of the support pillars?

Looks like that's the Tuolumne river, which is fed out of Don Pedro reservoir, so the height isn't a great indicator of water availability, since it's controlled by how much the dam releases.

I'm pretty sure that bridge is the CA49/CA120 crossing of the main channel of the Don Pedro reservoir itself, behind the dam. Right in the middle of this map:

https://goo.gl/maps/m8aWR

It's been full to the top of the piers within the last 5 years.

 

[John Savard]

It is appropriate to conclude that natural variation could have caused this drought, and thus it is not conclusive proof of global warming in progress. That is merely caution, not a whitewash, even if, when more data is in, it will someday be possible to say that global warming currently did have an impact sufficient to have made the difference between that drought happening or not.

But drought in California clearly does have an obvious man-made cause. Even in normal years, California only gets so much rainfall - and the number of people who live there is such that it is constantly short of water. That, not global warming, is what is being ignored.

 

[poit]

Alhazred[/url]":11c7bg4g]

Except for the fact that they're one of the very foremost organizations in climate research and if they were 'without the expertise' then nobody knows squat about the climate, which clearly isn't true. They simply drew a conclusion which their modeling and the evidence they gave most weight to pointed at. If they couldn't draw a conclusion they'd have not bothered to do a study.

The summary makes it sound like it was rather obvious to them anyway...

"The drought’s first year (2011/2012) was likely the most predictable, when La Niña effects largely explained high pressure off the West Coast, though simulations indicate that high pressure continued to
be favored due to ocean effects in 2012-14."

I often mention the benefits of people doing a little research on the impacts of ENSO in various regions before they blame climate change for anything. While someone might find a correlation and quickly blame climate change, many well documented impacts might be mistakenly attributed to climate change, especially to anyone assuming the whole "30 years is climate" thing would somehow filter out ENSO variations...since the Pacific Decadal Oscillation leads to 25-30 year periods of El Nino dominant conditions followed by 25-30 years of La Nina dominant conditions.

 

[davleigh]

[trollhide=Trolling.]California population:

1960 15,000,000
2000 33,000,000

Could the lack of water be something to do with the massive increase in population, as well as the lack of rain?

Sorry AGW fanbois.[/trollhide]

 

[RoStone]

[trollhide]The NOAA is still relying on "old science", like the empirical principle (like admitting a theory was wrong when the predictions based on the theory didn't materialize).

That way is only for reactionaries, deniers and evil, stupid, immoral people.

Enlightened people (and people who don't want to get insulted) throw that garbage out and instead use the new (improved) science that relies on the consensus.

To find the consensus, you do the following:

- First you define who are the true enlightened scientists (i.e. "climatologists") and who aren't (i.e. "meteorologists").
- Then you make a big survey of papers that the true enlightened scientists have written.
- Then you decide about each paper whether it is on-topic and should be included and whether it agrees with your proposition
- Finally you count all those that agree and those that disagree to find the consensus
- All disagreement to the consensus is unscientific, stupid and immoral.

Only that way is the true way to knowledge. The astrologers have proven that a long time ago.

It is also much more democratic. To believe that data and experimental results can overrule the majority opinion is clearly undemocratic and a sign of pathological authoritarianism, hate and corruption - it is hate speech.

The Consensus on the other hand is enlightened and the sign of intelligence, caring, morality and truthfulness. The one-paper-one-vote principle shows how fair it is. After all, all scientific papers are equal and it would be immoral and stupid to use outdated concepts such as "reality" (what's that anyway?) to judge their value. After all, who are we to judge? Aren't we all and isn't everything the same? Shouldn't we fight against inequality, wherever it may be?

The democratic way of doing science is to vote for what is true and what isn't. You are not against democracy, right?

If the NOAA is still overrun by those unscientific empiricists (i.e. deniers, haters, reactionaries), isn't it time that they be replaced by enlightened climatologists? How can we allow such unscientific denial of the consensus?[/trollhide]