Is Human-Caused Climate Change Guilty for California's Drought?

[PatrickJS]

Is Human-Caused Climate Change Guilty for California's Drought?

A study published on Monday thoroughly connects human-caused climate change to the worsening and frequency of droughts worldwide, and in particular California's years-long dry spell.

California's current drought is a disaster; having begun in 2012, it is a record-breaker in terms of severity. Droughts around the world have become increasingly devastating [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/142003-The-Drinkable-Book-Its-Water-Filtering-Pages-Could-Save-Billions-of-Lives], and scientists now say - and have been saying, for several decades - that human emissions are responsible.

One of the most recent voices in the scientific, political, published a study [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/141281-Pope-Francis-Issues-an-Encyclical-on-the-Environment-Saying-We-Need-Immediate-Action-to-Save-Humanity] that takes one of the most in-depth looks at droughts ever, with particular focus on California's.

"This would be a drought no matter what [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/science/climate-change-intensifies-california-drought-scientists-say.html?_r=0]," says Williams. "It would be a fairly bad drought no matter what."

"But it's definitely made worse by global warming."

This seems like common sense, of course, but it doesn't hurt to have the data and the research to back it up. Rising temperatures cause moisture to evaporate from soil and reservoirs faster; warm air can contain more water vapor. The result is that no matter how much rain or snow an area gets, the atmosphere will pull it away quickly.

California already wasn't getting enough precipitation, so how can we tell how exactly much worse it is due to changing climate? According to his models, Dr. Williams says that the two degrees Fahrenheit difference between California today and the end of the 19th century leads to the evaporation of as much as 8.5 trillion gallons of water. A concurrent paper, from the University of California, Davis [https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/files/biblio/Final_Drought%20Report_08182015_Full_Report_WithAppendices.pdf], suggests this year alone is going to cost the state about 2.7 billion dollars, and the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands. Williams' group says human emissions are responsible for up to 27% of that.

Two degrees Fahrenheit may seem paltry, but it is clearly having a dramatic effect. "Just from the temperature change, we're in a new climate," says Dr. Williams.

My current favorite settings may be post-apocalyptic wastelands [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/141952-Witness-the-Shiny-and-Algebraic-Madventure-Time-Mash-Up-Of-Mad-Max], but that doesn't mean I want to live in one. If anyone has any information to add, just say so in the comments - and keep it civil!

Source: University of California, Davis [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/science/climate-change-intensifies-california-drought-scientists-say.html?_r=0]

Permalink

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

While I completely agree climate change is fucking over California, part of the blame lies with building so many farms in the middle of a desert. That did the water no favors.

 

[username sucks]

As a Californian, I don't care about blame, just use some fancy science to make it rain already!

 

[mad825]

While I completely agree climate change is fucking over California, part of the blame lies with building so many farms in the middle of a desert. That did the water no favors.

Farms? I thought it was the laughable notion of everyone wanting green lawns in the middle of a desert.

 

[RJ 17]

Wait, don't large portions of California burst into flames every summer? Seems a drought is the least of their worries...though I'd imagine it's certainly not helping with said yearly bursting into flames.

 

[ritchards]

If I remember the American Science Committee properly, there is no such thing as climate change, therefore no humans can be blamed for anything ever...

 

[Cowabungaa]

Honestly, screw that sensationalist title, that's not doing anyone any favors.

So the answer to that ridiculous title is no, but the effect is probably worsened by it. Come now, let's not stoop to clickbait-type titles.

Wait, don't large portions of California burst into flames every summer? Seems a drought is the least of their worries...though I'd imagine it's certainly not helping with said yearly bursting into flames.

I had a Californian neighbor for two weeks and I ended up chatting with him, and apparently it's so bad that they have to import water. I'd eh, call that a pretty big worry.

And things combust a lot easier when they're really dry, that doesn't help either.

While I completely agree climate change is fucking over California, part of the blame lies with building so many farms in the middle of a desert. That did the water no favors.

Isn't California really weird and varried in that regard? The fact that it has incredibly fertile areas for instance, like at the same time it has theclimatologically and geologically best area to grow wine grapes, Nappa Valley I think, yet at the same time it has incredibly parched parts.

You'd think that if it's indeed that fertile it'd be fine to have farms there. But now this is happening. I suppose they expanded out of those fertile areas into the parched parts?

 

[ecoho]

While I completely agree climate change is fucking over California, part of the blame lies with building so many farms in the middle of a desert. That did the water no favors.

this is the first thing I thought when I read this.

seriously the only parts of Cali that are really in trouble right now are the ones in the middle of the desert. I mean come on what did they expect? that the rains would come just because they turn the desert into farmland?

 

[Metadigital]

Was there any doubt as to whether or not California's drought was worsened by anthropocentric climate change?
Nope.

Did we really need this study?
Probably. Science is fundamentally a political process and these sorts of studies are what eventually translate into new laws even if they don't tell us anything new.

Is the US going to do anything about it?
I'm sure something will be done to make sure the major businesses and wealthy individuals living and working in California are made comfortable while they're in the area.

Can we expect California's climate to recover?
Unlikely. Expect continued environmental degradation.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Snip.

Snip.

Snip.

Snip.

All depends on where you look. Northern California? Consisted of marshland and forest. Central California? Consisted of plains and marshland. Southern California? Consisted of savannas and deserts. And even then, you gotta look where those are at! Pull up a map of California and put it on the Bird's Eye view (Or whatever it is that shows the geological features) and you can see where each of those separate biomes are.

Honestly, this drought that's got the entire West Coast burning is bad and gonna suck hard. Them food prices will be rising if nothing's done!

 

[Steve the Pocket]

While I completely agree climate change is fucking over California, part of the blame lies with building so many farms in the middle of a desert. That did the water no favors.

Farms? I thought it was the laughable notion of everyone wanting green lawns in the middle of a desert.

And then of course you've got all the bottled-water companies still being given free reign to drain the state of what little water it has left and sell for a dollar a liter, from what I hear.

 

[Baresark]

This truly sucks, but the California government has been failing for 50 years to address this issue. There is a drought every single year in California. 50 years ago people started arguing for water desalination plants, and for 50 years the government has been ignoring the issue. We can't stop what has already be done, but we sure has hell can try to fix this going forward and that means that governments need to step in line for what is necessary so far as decisions are concerned. That is the point of them, to make big decisions, not worry about re-elections constantly.

The pain in the asses are developing nations. They don't have legislation in place for climate change. No matter how good we are in the US, there is still places like China. Every damn year the air gets cleaner here in my experience. I mean, I grew up and everything was gas guzzler that spewed out pollution. Factories dumped whatever they needed to dump where ever they needed to dump it. It's way better now than it was 20 years ago and it's only getting better. In the last 4 decades, diesel fuel has become 90% cleaner than it was, and it was better for the environment from day one than gasoline, and it's cheaper to produce. But we still have most vehicles using gasoline. It's just this kind of thing that confounds me all the time.

But, I digress. It's really a combination of things. Governments failing, bad companies taking advantage of those failing policies, people not being engaged in their local politics (that is how companies store toxic waste in your back yard).

 

[Deathfish15]

I blame the people. Yep, the people. See, there were areas of grasses, bushes, and even trees. All that lush, oxygen-providing greenery was cleared out for houses....rows and rows of houses. Painted a nice light-reflecting white. And filled with oxygen absorbing, carbon dioxide spewing people. Each house of which has at least 1 vehicle, usually 2 or even 3!

But let us look at it more importantly in the aspects of what people are. They are humans. Humans are 55-75% liquid! The more humans that move into an area, breed, and spread population about, the more water/liquid that is needed to sustain said population.

Oh and yes, immigration does have a factor into this issue as well. When people form another location move from that location to a new one, they start to take up resources of the new location. They settle, they breed, they increase population with that area. BAM! More liquid jelly bags that are occupying the water supply within the area.



Blame the cities that keep expanding their populations.

Blame the contractors that keep building more houses to sell to out-of-state players.

Blame the lack of planting low water using, shade-providing plants/trees along the rivers, water reservoirs, streams, and crops (oh, and I KNOW that there are both hybrid bred and genetically engineered trees that use less than 1/8th the water of other trees while providing equal amount of leaf shade. I know this because when I was a kid we took a field trip to a place that grew these as well as got a few saplings to grow ourselves.)**.

Blame the farms who built farms in the middle of a freakin' desert!

Blame all Californians who lack the foresight for their own mistakes that were clear as day to the rest of the world.




**Go ahead and Google "Nebraska National Forest". Largest human made (planted) forest in the United States. They planted tons of trees in the Nebraska Sandhills between 1902 and present day. And to supplement the forest they have a nursery that provides millions of seedlings every year and they also go to forest services across the country.

 

[ecoho]

Snip.

Snip.

Snip.

Snip.

All depends on where you look. Northern California? Consisted of marshland and forest. Central California? Consisted of plains and marshland. Southern California? Consisted of savannas and deserts. And even then, you gotta look where those are at! Pull up a map of California and put it on the Bird's Eye view (Or whatever it is that shows the geological features) and you can see where each of those separate biomes are.

Honestly, this drought that's got the entire West Coast burning is bad and gonna suck hard. Them food prices will be rising if nothing's done!

the south is were the largest problems are, manly LA. the rest of the state can easily get by if they didn't have to support that southern part.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Snip.

And the issue with that is that Southern California (Los Angeles, San Diego, and the surrounding desert towns/cities) contains a rough estimate of over 60% of the state's population. Southern California isn't just Los Angeles. So if we're talking about large scale relocation of over 24 million people, the country will be negatively affected just by such a large population influx in nearby areas. This doesn't even take into account the negative affect it will have on the economy itself. Southern California has 10 ports along the shore, and these are the biggest, most busy ports in the United States, and shutting those down will drastically overload the rest of the ports along the Pacific Coast, not counting the economic impact of such a problem. And we can't forget the fact that Southern California has 25 military bases as well, now we have to deal with large scale military relocation, of all branches of the military.

The drought along the West Coast has gone far beyond the capabilities of California. It's a Federal Government problem now, and we all know that nothing will happen.

 

[Stupidity]

How utterly meaningless. This is bad political science. Here's some geology and history to wash away the taste of mob psychology.

"Ingram is referring to paleoclimatic evidence that California, and much of the American Southwest, has a history of mega-droughts that could last for decades and even centuries."

http://californiawaterblog.com/2011/04/12/mega-drought/
http://time.com/1986/hundred-years-of-dry-how-californias-drought-could-get-much-much-worse/

 

[GundamSentinel]

While I completely agree climate change is fucking over California, part of the blame lies with building so many farms in the middle of a desert. That did the water no favors.

Farms? I thought it was the laughable notion of everyone wanting green lawns in the middle of a desert.

A couple of weeks ago there was an article in a big newspaper here (the Netherlands) about the drought in California that featured a huge page-wide aerial photo of a town in California with every house having a big lawn and every other house a swimming pool. Across the street from those houses was miles of desert, with sand blowing onto the road.

My first thought: who the hell thought that was a good idea?

 

[FalloutJack]

Actually, it was California's inability to look at itself and think "You know? A series of desalinization plants along the coast would work wonders.". True, they're expensive to build, but the process has been around a long time. Could've taken care of this YEARS ago.

 

[kuolonen]

How utterly meaningless. This is bad political science. Here's some geology and history to wash away the taste of mob psychology.

"Ingram is referring to paleoclimatic evidence that California, and much of the American Southwest, has a history of mega-droughts that could last for decades and even centuries."

http://californiawaterblog.com/2011/04/12/mega-drought/
http://time.com/1986/hundred-years-of-dry-how-californias-drought-could-get-much-much-worse/

Read the source and you will note they say there would have been a bad drought with or without climate change. They are not disputing that. What they are saying is that it is going to be worse because of it.

(Minus points for Escapist for bad journalizm, since the title kind of implies that there would not have been a drought without climate change.)