Impact of California drought?

[Damien Evans]

A Palm Springs official was quoted in the news last week, saying that this particular statistic makes them look worse than they are---she blames it on Palm Springs having huge numbers of tourists; when you calculate "water per capita", you divide net water use by the number of residents, so tourists' water use gets counted against residents.

I don't buy it---Santa Barbara and Monterey are big tourist towns too and they're doing fine on water.

But yeah, zoom in on Palm Springs in Google Maps. Lawns lawns lawns. Also, there's a pool in every backyard.

When we had the big drought in Victoria a few years ago, the government actually brought in water restrictions banning watering of lawns like that.
http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/water/saving-water/water-restrictions

 

[jimtron]

Thanks for the responses folks, lots of food for thought here.

 

[a_unique_person]

It's a supply/demand problem. Pure and simple. If you take some of the burden off of potable water by providing desalination technology for human consumption, you can be more creative in providing non-potable water for agricultural needs.

There have been longer and more sever droughts in California's history. It's cyclical by nature (literally). So, predictions about when they drought will break are not based on precedent other than they fact that they do. Predictions about the future are not reliable.

I also take objection to the term "exceptional" because it's qualitative. The next time there are the inevitable floods in the current drought riddled areas people will make all manner of excuses based on a variety of post-hoc analysis about the reasons it happened.

Tincture of time. Just wait. In a few years, we'll likely be complaining about too much rain in those same regions. In the meantime, it may be a good time to invest in almond futures.

~Dr. Imago

Erm, no. Cycles and trends are different.

And if there are floods, and there will be, there is probably a trend there too, as a warmer atmosphere can hold more water. If you don't believe me, ask the Insurance companies about extreme weather events and the trends they are seeing.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Erm, no. Cycles and trends are different.

Erm, yes. I see no trend. Just a lot of predictions.

~Dr. Imago

 

[Dr. Imago]

Based on tree rings, some droughts have even lasted hundreds of years.[/url]

I don't base anything on tree rings. Tea leaves? Maybe.

(IOW, you have to have solid science in order to make sound predictions. Let's have a wager that, in less than two years, we'll be complaining about flooding in Southern California. I'll eat the biggest dose of humble pie if this doesn't happen. Feel free to bookmark this thread. That prediction is as sound as any.)

~Dr. Imago

 

[Dr. Imago]

Here is a great random partial anonymous quote from the Interwebs I recently saw, and happen to agree with...

The psychology of extrapolation beyond endpoints. There seems to be a strong human tendency to intrepret the endpoints of a series as though it were a vector. Essentially overfitting a trend to what is actually a noisy series. Humans are natural signal-searchers, pattern-seekers.

A common trap many into which many well-intentioned people can fall.

~Dr. Imago

 

[OMGturt1es]

There have been longer and more sever droughts in California's history.

Not in recorded human history. To infer that California has seen longer and more severe droughts-- as we know it has-- we have to rely on proxy data from the geologic record. You seem willing to accept these data to infer that California has seen longer and more severe droughts, but you later write:

I don't base anything on tree rings. Tea leaves? Maybe.

(IOW, you have to have solid science in order to make sound predictions...)

So I'm confused now. If you don't believe proxy data, you can't infer that California has seen more severe droughts in the past. And this is California's most severe drought in recorded human history. So you must just be confused about the severity of our current drought in relation to recorded human history? Or are you just picking and choosing proxy data?

It's cyclical by nature (literally). So, predictions about when they drought will break are not based on precedent other than they fact that they do. Predictions about the future are not reliable.

Scientists have accurately predicted each storm that has undercut current ridging. So there's far more than guess work here. And ten years ago, scientists predicted this ridging would occur as a consequence of melting Arctic ice-- especially in ENSO neutral times, which we're currently in. This ridging is completely unprecedented in recorded human history, so this wasn't a weak prediction that we would expect to be true no matter. While it's too soon to know if it was an accurate prediction-- maybe it's just coincidence, really-- simply writing it off as guess work is absolutely silly.

I also take objection to the term "exceptional" because it's qualitative. The next time there are the inevitable floods in the current drought riddled areas people will make all manner of excuses based on a variety of post-hoc analysis about the reasons it happened.

It's very apparent you know far less about this topic than you assume:

1. "Exceptional drought" is an official drought category. Your objection to this term-- and your past protest of me using it-- indicates you have spent very little time studying drought.

2. Flooding in California is completely consistent with climate-cased increasing frequency and severity of droughts. A warmer atmosphere holds more water to deliver more rain during storms while also holding more water during times of drought to increase drought severity. A warmer atmosphere typically amplifies background "cyclic" hydrology. This concept is generally referred to as "intensification" of the water cycle.

3. Flooding in California is heavily influenced by ENSO. Strong El Ninos increase the likelihood of atmospheric rivers. Most of California's flooding events over the past couple decades-- '86, '97-- were due to ENSO/atmospheric rivers. There's no post-hoc analysis about flooding in California. Scientists understand what causes these events and they forecast them in advance so that folks can prepare (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvmeUStFvz8).

Erm, yes. I see no trend. Just a lot of predictions.

I'm confused. Do you believe there is no trend in average temperature? Do you believe there is no trend in the frequency and severity of heat waves?

...Let's have a wager that, in less than two years, we'll be complaining about flooding in Southern California. I'll eat the biggest dose of humble pie if this doesn't happen. Feel free to bookmark this thread. That prediction is as sound as any.)

It's very likely we'll see flooding in California within 2 years, given that SST anomalies are now indicating developing El Nino conditions-- finally.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand your hesitation to conclude from imperfect data, but you should trust that water and climate experts who have been studying this problem their entire professional lives have also approached it with the same hesitation. You should understand that the major difference between their and your assessments isn't your superior intellect but their knowledge and expertise. You don't need to pretend to understand it, but when water and climate experts all agree that California is going to slowly warm and dry over the coming decades, you should be willing to assume they probably have a better handle on the subject than you do, and you should challenge yourself to understand the subject at their level rather than challenge their views based on your armchair-assessment.

 

[Dr. Imago]

No, the record I originally posted stated that this is an every "10-40 year" kind of drought. The same record also states that there have been once in a "100 year" droughts in recent recorded history.

Tree ring data is not validated. Too many other potential confounding variables.

It's very likely we'll see flooding in California within 2 years, given that SST anomalies are now indicating developing El Nino conditions-- finally.

I won't have to eat humble pie, then.

~Dr. Imago

 

[Dr. Imago]

I understand your hesitation to conclude from imperfect data, but you should trust that water and climate experts who have been studying this problem their entire professional lives have also approached it with the same hesitation. You should understand that the major difference between their and your assessments isn't your superior intellect but their knowledge and expertise. You don't need to pretend to understand it, but when water and climate experts all agree that California is going to slowly warm and dry over the coming decades, you should be willing to assume they probably have a better handle on the subject than you do, and you should challenge yourself to understand the subject at their level rather than challenge their views based on your armchair-assessment.

I make no such assumption. And neither should they. Part of the process of good Science is its predictive value. Those predictions have proven to be woefully inept in this regard.

~Dr. Imago

P.S. I'm not going to entertain a debate on the impact of Climate Change here. There are other threads for that.

 

[a_unique_person]

I make no such assumption. And neither should they. Part of the process of good Science is its predictive value. Those predictions have proven to be woefully inept in this regard.

~Dr. Imago

P.S. I'm not going to entertain a debate on the impact of Climate Change here. There are other threads for that.

They have been remarkably accurate, given the constraints scientist have to work with. The drought has included the first year on record, which is consistent with predictions.

 

[a_unique_person]

Here is a great random partial anonymous quote from the Interwebs I recently saw, and happen to agree with...



A common trap many into which many well-intentioned people can fall.

~Dr. Imago

Since we know that net energy in the climate system is rising, and has been consistently rising for many decades now, we don't have to worry about that issue.

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't base anything on tree rings. Tea leaves? Maybe.

(IOW, you have to have solid science in order to make sound predictions. Let's have a wager that, in less than two years, we'll be complaining about flooding in Southern California. I'll eat the biggest dose of humble pie if this doesn't happen. Feel free to bookmark this thread. That prediction is as sound as any.)

~Dr. Imago

it looks like flooding is already a concern, especially since land degraded by wildfires and development is going to cause mudslides.

 

[OMGturt1es]

No, the record I originally posted stated that this is an every "10-40 year" kind of drought.

The record you posted (http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/hydrology/state_fd/cawater1.html) does not include this drought. It was already pointed out to you that the record you posted ends in 1989, to which you responded:

The chart is reported as "current". But, I'm not sure what exactly that current date is current to.

This potential problem should have been a red flag for you. As should have other posts in this thread citing scientific literature that indicates this drought is of historic magnitude. As should have your unfamiliarity with basic drought terminology. As should have your unfamiliarity with the unprecedented ridging behind this drought. And as should have the chart's title:

"Table 1. Chronology of major and other memorable floods and droughts in California, 1827- 1989"

Tree ring data is not validated. Too many other potential confounding variables.

I basically never pick on grammar, but this one is telling: Those reading peer reviewed, scientific literature rarely refer to data as singular, as-- at least in Earth science literature-- the word "data" is almost always treated as plural.

Moreover, those reading peer reviewed, paleoclimate literature don't tend to make blanket statements about entire types of proxy data, as those familiar with these data understand that "tree ring data" could refer to any of the countless individual tree ring datasets, each of which has been independently tested (or not) against other past indicators of temperature (validation against things like sea level, fire, etc.) and each of which has its own known limitations.

I make no such assumption. And neither should they.

If you are unwilling to obtain expert-knowledge, you should start with expert consensus. Doubting consensus is fine if you're willing to do your homework. But that's not what you are doing.

You are so ignorant of this topic that you incorrectly concluded this drought within California's ordinary, observed range. You are so ignorant of your own sources that you thought the data you cited included this drought. You are so ignorant of droughts in general that you objected to describing drought with by its official category.

Part of the process of good Science is its predictive value. Those predictions have proven to be woefully inept in this regard.

Part of the process of good Science is understanding your own limitations and thoroughly, carefully, and honestly assessing all data when verging beyond your limited area of expertise. It's clear you have not done this at all. It's clear you don't know anything about this topic. It's clear you don't even know which predictions could even be tested for success, let alone which ones have been tested and found accurate.

P.S. I'm not going to entertain a debate on the impact of Climate Change here. There are other threads for that.

I'm not looking for a debate. I asked you a question that has direct, atmospheric consequence on drought. When water is scarce, a warmer atmosphere will necessarily intensify drought. So I'll ask again: Do you believe there have been clear trends in global mean temperature? Do you believe there have been clear trends in the frequency and severity of heat waves?

 

[Dr. Imago]

OMGTurtles:

The point of the original graph was to show that droughts are cyclical. There should be no contention that this isn't the case. The original. Current to 1989. Okay. Stipulated.

Anyway, is this better (my emphasis)?

Calendar year 2013 closed as the driest year in recorded history for many areas of California, and current conditions suggest no change in sight for 2014.

http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/

So what? Despite being more severe, if you look further down on that page, the magnitude of the drought is comparable to other droughts and nominal in certain regions.

Furthermore, the state department of water resources recognizes this:

About half of the years with similarly dry first quarters in the historical record of northern Sierra precipitation, for example, caught up to average by the end of the season.

http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/droughtinfo.cfm

it looks like flooding is already a concern, especially since land degraded by wildfires and development is going to cause mudslides.

Looks like I won't have to wait very long about whether or not I'll be eating humble pie:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...st-Drought-Southern-California-247245261.html

Consensus Science is the worst kind. You can't fool mother nature.

~Dr. Imago

 

[ThunderChunky]

I don't base anything on tree rings. Tea leaves? Maybe.

(IOW, you have to have solid science in order to make sound predictions. Let's have a wager that, in less than two years, we'll be complaining about flooding in Southern California. I'll eat the biggest dose of humble pie if this doesn't happen. Feel free to bookmark this thread. That prediction is as sound as any.)

~Dr. Imago

It's not a prediction, just a possibility. Droughts in the past have lasted hundred of years. A smart person (or government) would hedge for such a possibility.

 

[OMGturt1es]

OMGTurtles:

The point of the original graph was to show that droughts are cyclical. There should be no contention that this isn't the case. The original. Current to 1989. Okay. Stipulated.

Anyway, is this better (my emphasis)?

Dr. Imago:

You are being dishonest. And it's insulting, frankly.

I never took issue with your contention that drought is "cyclical." In fact, here's my first post in this thread:

While California drought is cyclic, the current drought is exceptional...

To which you responded:

No it's not.

As is absolutely clear by reading this thread, I took issue with your mis-characterization of California's current drought as within observed variance. Statements like:

While long-lasting, the current drought is considered "moderate" (as compared to, for instance, the one between 1976-77).

And

No, the record I originally posted stated that this is an every "10-40 year" kind of drought.

These statements are just false. Plain and simple. You are just wrong.

http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/

So what? Despite being more severe, if you look further down on that page, the magnitude of the drought is comparable to other droughts and nominal in certain regions.

Where?

The portion of the page that indicates regional conditions clearly marks 2013 as the driest year in recorded human history for 9 of 11 regions.

Furthermore, the state department of water resources recognizes this:

About half of the years with similarly dry first quarters in the historical record of northern Sierra precipitation, for example, caught up to average by the end of the season.

http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/droughtinfo.cfm

You just don't know anything about this topic. And you're now grasping at straws to pretend otherwise. We're already in historic territory. Even if we were to "catch up"-- which your source indicates is unlikely-- water year 2013 was already historical, as indicated by your source. Water year 2014 has been pathetic. We are quickly approaching the dry season, and if we don't see major precipitation before then, we will simply be moving further into historical territory.

Looks like I won't have to wait very long about whether or not I'll be eating humble pie:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...st-Drought-Southern-California-247245261.html

Consensus Science is the worst kind. You can't fool mother nature.

I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.

 

[BenBurch]

Doesn't really matter if they are cyclic or man-made to the problem they present. Right now we have more humans in that watershed than it is able to support.

 

[rwguinn]

OMGTurtles:

The point of the original graph was to show that droughts are cyclical. There should be no contention that this isn't the case. The original. Current to 1989. Okay. Stipulated.

Anyway, is this better (my emphasis)?



http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/

So what? Despite being more severe, if you look further down on that page, the magnitude of the drought is comparable to other droughts and nominal in certain regions.

Furthermore, the state department of water resources recognizes this:



http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/droughtinfo.cfm



Looks like I won't have to wait very long about whether or not I'll be eating humble pie:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...st-Drought-Southern-California-247245261.html

Consensus Science is the worst kind. You can't fool mother nature.

~Dr. Imago

Yeah. 3 to 6 inches of wet, all at once, is going to solve a long-term deficiency that needs 15-20 inches over an extended period just to catch up.

 

[Dr. Imago]

You are being dishonest. And it's insulting, frankly.

I never took issue with your contention that drought is "cyclical."

Oh, brother. Dishonest? That's a rather heavy charge, don't you think? And sorry if I offend delicate sensibilities. You apparently assume, like certain other posters I occasionally run into here, that a response is only directed at an issue you raised rather than explaining a broader purpose of why it was posted. We're not having an intimate one-on-one conversation, please remember.

Ben wanted to split hairs about trends vs. cyclical. You called this drought "exceptional". You both seem to want to disregard the actual fact that there have been droughts - similar, longer, and as bad - as the current one, and before "recorded history" (which, if I recall correctly, only goes back to 1858) especially if you believe the tree ring data (which, for separate reasons, I don't find that reliable) that the region that we now call California has always subsequently recovered from.

So, I'll ask you: what is your point? I seem to be having as much trouble following that as you claim to have following mine. Is it that this is the slow plod towards some cataclysmic end to the State of California as we know it? That it is never going to recover from this drought? Ever? Poppycock.

I'll be as clear as I can, because I'm responding to you and others (and frankly no one warrants that much individual importance to me on a thread with multiple posters and ideas going on at the same time).

1) The point of posting the record of droughts/floods was that they are cyclical - not trends as Ben said (which I responded to separately) - and that there is a history of them always being eventually broken. You now disagree with that point? From what you stated before, I'll accept "no" as an answer in advance. And, besides I never accused you of doing that, by the way.

2) The current drought - while it may be "exceptional" - is no different ultimately than past droughts in the region, especially for those who put credence in tree ring data, except that this one happens to have occurred while man was measuring and recording it - both climatological and in sensationalist news outlets.

3) All I really care about is the distribution problem of potable and otherwise usable water for humans. That's really it. The rest is splitting hairs. I'm simply most curious about how to provide people with potable water in locations where they live doing so in an efficient and cost-effective manner. But, you seem to have some greater point to prove or convince me that I, frankly, don't really care about. Am I an expert on droughts? Of course not. But, I'm confident that I will be proven correct when this drought breaks and California recovers - just like it always has. So, again, forget what I said for a minute just so you can have a pissing match with me: what is your point[/B]? (And, that is actually a rhetorical question.)

4) It's going to rain. Soon. And a lot. Brace yourselves. That's all they'll be talking about in the near future. Drought schmout.

Now. That's the sum of the response you're going to get from me on this tangent.

~Dr. Imago

 

[BenBurch]

Yeah. 3 to 6 inches of wet, all at once, is going to solve a long-term deficiency that needs 15-20 inches over an extended period just to catch up.

Yeah, that was a really stupid assertion.

One would only have to have observed what happens when a deluge happens in the West to know how stupid, but some people appear never to have left their keyboards to look at the real world.