Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the so-damn-thirsty dept.

A new study published as a joint effort by scientists at Cornell University, the University of Arizona, and the U.S. Geological Survey finds that the chances of the Southwest facing a “megadrought” are much higher than previously suspected.

According to the new study, “the chances of the southwestern United States experiencing a decade-long drought is at least 50 percent, and the chances of a ‘megadrought’ – one that lasts up to 35 years – ranges from 20 to 50 percent over the next century.” Not so crazy, according to Richard Seager, a climate scientist at Columbia University who has helped pen many studies of historical megadroughts: “By some measures the west has been in drought since 1998 so we might be approaching a megadrought classification!” he says. The study points to manmade global climate change as a possible cause for the drought, which would affect portions of California (where a drought is currently decimating farms), Arizona and New Mexico.

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/09/scientists-american-southwest-faces-megadrought/

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:10AM

    by PizzaRollPlinkett (4512) on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:10AM (#90142)

    You can get your name in the news, too, if you follow my handy guide to making predictions:

    1. If you predict a specific event, don't predict a specific time.
    2. If you predict a specific time, be vague about what will happen.
    3. Make your prediction at least 5 years into the future. No one will remember it five weeks later, let alone in five years.
    4. Give yourself plenty of room with time frames and percentages. Ranges like 20-50% are so broad they predict anything.

    And don't worry about accuracy, because in today's 24/7 news cycle, no one will remember your prediction tomorrow.

    --
    (E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
    • (Score: 4, Funny) by khallow on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:46PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:46PM (#90176) Journal

      It's not a real list if you don't include the following two rules:

      A) Make lots of predictions.

      B) Only remind people when you're right.

      • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Saturday September 06 2014, @02:52PM

        by evilviper (1760) on Saturday September 06 2014, @02:52PM (#90201) Homepage Journal

        C) Claim to be right 96% of the time, because one of the minor details in each of predictions happened to pan-out.

        --
        Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:36PM

          by frojack (1554) on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:36PM (#90247) Journal

          D) Bonus points for mistaking cause and effect or failing to notice that global warming can't help but increase evaporation and rainfall.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:51PM

            by evilviper (1760) on Saturday September 06 2014, @05:51PM (#90255) Homepage Journal

            Not so sure about that last one... More rain, but not necessarily where you want it. TFA did say that Washington/Oregon will be less likely to experience drought, so they could be getting California's rain. Bit of a kick in the teeth for both sides... Seattle gets MORE RAIN while the deserts of California get less.

            BUT... Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere mean plants require less water, too, so that's something.

            --
            Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
            • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:29PM

              by frojack (1554) on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:29PM (#90341) Journal

              Why would you discount out of hand the probability that warmers areas would get more rain?

              After all, the Green Sahara Cycle [wikipedia.org] happens when it is WARMER than it is today, not when it is colder as many assume.

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday September 07 2014, @07:44AM

                by evilviper (1760) on Sunday September 07 2014, @07:44AM (#90444) Homepage Journal

                Why would you discount out of hand the probability that warmers areas would get more rain?

                First off, that's a very foolish thing to say... The California Deserts are already "warmer areas"... The record-setting warmest spots on Earth, in fact, and yet they are deserts because they get very little rain. So "warmer areas" do not automatically "get more rain". Isn't Seattle vs Las Vegas/Los Angeles proof enough of that?

                Secondly, I did not dismiss the claim "out of hand". I pointed you to a source who did the research and made the claim... Specifically, it's in TFA:

                "In computer models, while the southern portions of the western United States (California, Arizona, New Mexico) will likely face drought, the researchers show the chances for drought in the northwestern states (Washington, Montana, Idaho) may decrease."
                http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/08/study-southwest-may-face-megadrought-within-century [cornell.edu]

                While I don't know if the above claim is correct, it's completely plausible. Warming global temperatures means SOMEBODY will get more rain, but it doesn't means EVERYONE will get more rain. If those who already get lots of rain, just get more, while those who get little will get less, we'd be worse-off all-around.

                After all, the Green Sahara Cycle happens when it is WARMER

                The WP article claims you need 4% higher solar insolation for a Green Sahara. No amount of warming due to CO2 will do that for you.

                --
                Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday September 07 2014, @11:30AM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 07 2014, @11:30AM (#90462)

      You forgot #5, Pizza, which is

      5. Add a level of indirection

      So don't predict drought in a desert, predict drought in a region, where that region is mostly desert.

      I'm enjoying watching this because overall society wide, its a textbook example of uneducated human response to a crisis. All the stereotypes are out to play. Strong opinions about engineering problems they don't know about. Blame the other guy. Its not a real problem. Several others.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday September 08 2014, @06:42PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday September 08 2014, @06:42PM (#90910) Journal

      You can provide a fact free rebuttal to a study, too, if you follow my handy guide to rebuttals:

      1. If you rebut a specific study, don't rebut anything the study actually says.
      2. If you rebut anything the studay actually says, be vague about what the flaws are.
      3. Make your rebuttal require verification in 5 years. No one will remember it five weeks later, let alone in five years.
      4. Give the authors zero room with time frames and percentages. After all, science must be 100% accurate at any resolution you demand. There is no such thing as error bars.

      And don't worry about accuracy, because in today's 24/7 news cycle, no one will remember your rebuttal tomorrow.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by evilviper on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:34AM

    by evilviper (1760) on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:34AM (#90148) Homepage Journal

    We could do without the constant fear-mongering. The key is right there in the summary: "By some measures the west has been in drought since 1998" In other words, it's 1984 new-speak bullshit that the news media flings at the public at every opportunity. It's the same way every single day there's record temperatures (high or low). Now that we've got computers precisely monitoring hourly temperatures, every day, some 5-block radius is going to be higher or lower than it has been on that exact same day, since they started recording that minutiae.

    Rain levels slightly lower than average? "We're in a drought!" Rain levels higher than average? "That's still not enough rain to make up for the last 3 years of drought!" or "Despite all this rain, they're having a drought up-stream where we get our water from!" I don't think there's been a year in the past 20 of living in So Cal, where I haven't heard about what a terrible drought we're in. I'm not joking, the above quotes are very much based on what the local news reports.

    As another commenter said (better than I could) not too long ago: I'll believe there's a real drought and start conserving water when all the golf-courses around me stop getting watered and turn brown.

    As for farmers, they should blame salmon. Endangered species laws say animals get first call on all available resources, so dams are releasing far more water than they used-to, to accommodate one animal or another, substantially reducing available human supplies. Whether that's a good or a bad thing, you can decide for yourself.

    Of course farmers have themselves to blame, too. Homeowners are being asked to install drip-lines, and paying fines if there is ANY water run-off onto the sidewalk. Meanwhile, it's slow-going even asking farmers to install SPRINKLERS rather than flood irrigation which wastes obscene amounts of water. Never-mind taking the next step of requiring specific types sprinklers that waste less water to evaporation, and forget about requiring subterranean watering systems like drip or soak lines. It's a prisoner's dilemma, of course, particularly because farmers get absurdly low rates, but the end result is years where the government steps-in and says you don't get any water because of the overuse.

    I get pleas from the water company, asking me to spend hundreds of dollars on low-flow toilets and rip out my lawn to conserve water, on a regular basis... This might save me a few cents every months. I don't fault anyone who wants to do so, but it's pretty ridiculous trying to bully people to do uneconomic things. And when they get their way, the water district gets less revenue, and has to raise their rates to compensate... This pattern has repeated several times over.

    Fortunately, the state of California has a nice little law that says new construction can't be approved until the municipality has proven it has sufficient water reserves to supply it. So, using twice as much water will mean half as many neighbors, or at least forcing those who want development to find and develop more expensive sources of more water. Green-shaming the public is just so much cheaper for them.

    BTW, I can see the angry replies now, so I'll mention that I do say this as someone who supports tiered water prices, grey-water systems, and has extremely low-flow aerators on all faucets and showers, etc. Just ask adolf (1961) [soylentnews.org].

    --
    Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
    • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:39AM

      by evilviper (1760) on Saturday September 06 2014, @10:39AM (#90151) Homepage Journal
      --
      Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday September 06 2014, @11:50AM

      by kaszz (4211) on Saturday September 06 2014, @11:50AM (#90160) Journal

      In which areas are people bullied into water preservation?

      Almost seems like a hint to move to greener pastures..

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by khallow on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:52PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:52PM (#90180) Journal

        Pretty much the entirety of California. I think one of the bigger contributors to the downfall of that state will be the widespread and epic mismanagement of water. I might add that we might see a US southwest "megadrought" just from that part alone even if the climate plays nice. Draining the water table completely is a recipe for long term and enduring droughts IMHO.

      • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:53PM

        by evilviper (1760) on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:53PM (#90182) Homepage Journal

        In which areas are people bullied into water preservation?

        Any big cities in the South West. Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc.

        Almost seems like a hint to move to greener pastures..

        It would be absolutely mindbogglingly stupid to move just because water happens to be a little more expensive. It still remains a completely trivial expense to average households. Those with an acre of blue grass may feel a bit of pain, but even that is a small expense next to, say, the cost of home heating, up north.

        People are getting "bullied" into saving energy all over the place. Are you going to pick up and move to WA, where they've got lots of cheap hydro-power? Or maybe to South Carolina, where gasoline prices are lowest in the country?

        My whole point is that they're directing their efforts the wrong way around. Maybe a number of the farmers should move, but those big users being less wasteful is an option, too.

        --
        Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:20PM

          by frojack (1554) on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:20PM (#90269) Journal

          Are you going to pick up and move to WA, where they've got lots of cheap hydro-power?

          No, goddammit, stay away. Parts of Washington are still suffering from the northward migrations of the hippie horde of the 60s and 70s.
          They've moved up here, and are now tearing out dams left and right to destroy the same cheap water and power they moved here to enjoy.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday September 11 2014, @04:37AM

            by Reziac (2489) on Thursday September 11 2014, @04:37AM (#91930) Homepage

            If they want to remove dams... I have a suggestion: ration their water and power proportionate to the amount that's no longer available. Don't just raise prices; make it unavailable. See how long it takes them to figure it out.

            Idiots...

            As to that 'endangered' salmon in California, as I recall it's actually an invasive species, not native.

            --
            And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by gallondr00nk on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:54PM

      by gallondr00nk (392) on Saturday September 06 2014, @01:54PM (#90183)

      Whenever there's mention of drought in America, it always makes me think of the Owens Valley Lake, drained by Los Angeles to the point where it's so dry that the salt and sediment residue left behind is blown across the entire state. The eventual solution? Pumping water from LA back to the lake in order to keep it wet.

      Yet for all the press regarding its unprecedented drought, California still insists on growing things like almonds, despite them needing enormous amounts of water. Perhaps, just maybe, there should be a discussion about why such water intensive agriculture is being carried out in a fucking desert?

      I agree that there's a logical failure, where ordinary people are expected to put up with more and more authoritarian water saving measures, while agriculture (by far the largest consumer of water) barely has to do anything.

      I can only surmise that either the state of California is being completely won over by lobbying efforts, or that the drought isn't half as severe as the news hysteria machine says it is.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:06PM

        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:06PM (#90263)

        Yet for all the press regarding its unprecedented drought, California still insists on growing things like almonds, despite them needing enormous amounts of water. Perhaps, just maybe, there should be a discussion about why such water intensive agriculture is being carried out in a fucking desert?

        In the desert land was cheap and the long growing season makes it an attractive place to do agriculture, as long as there is cheap water available. I think we are screwed long term, as we have allowed over development in areas where farming can be relatively benign from an environmental standpoint. New Jersey for instance, has the nickname "The Garden State", gained because it had good soil, plentiful rain and relatively easy terrain to farm in a large part of the state. Now it has strip malls, condos and housing developments over much of that area and a great deal of high quality, sustainable food producing land has been lost forever. We'll lose the desert too, even if we still had cheap, abundant water, as the soil there tends to become more and more alkaline as it gets watered and efforts to mitigate that become more expensive and more futile as time goes on.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by gallondr00nk on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:06PM

          by gallondr00nk (392) on Saturday September 06 2014, @09:06PM (#90333)

          I suspect it's time for a conversation over how land and water supplies have changed, and what we need to do differently in the future. As you say, prime arable land has been turned into housing developments, while deserts have been turned over for agriculture. It'll be immensely disruptive and costly, but I suspect that in the long run that land usage will have to be reversed.

          Topsoil erosion seems to be becoming an increasingly immediate problem as well. It could be that we also need to do something radical with the soil itself, something like reintroducing the techniques making Terra Preta [wikipedia.org], a rich, dark soil with excellent nutrient content and retention qualities.

          • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday September 11 2014, @04:42AM

            by Reziac (2489) on Thursday September 11 2014, @04:42AM (#91931) Homepage

            It looks like this terra preta is fundamentally burned garbage. The problem for that nowadays is since garbage is largely plastics, you need to burn something else. Tho I imagine 'cleaned' garbage could be bricked up and used.

            I saw a study over 20 years ago that claimed over half the best farmland in the U.S. had already been built over. Once it's gone, what do they expect to eat?

            --
            And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:13PM

      by frojack (1554) on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:13PM (#90265) Journal

      This might save me a few cents every months. I don't fault anyone who wants to do so, but it's pretty ridiculous trying to bully people to do uneconomic things.

      It is said in the investing world, that the sum of everything known about a company is reflected in the price of their stock.

      It is a simplistic way of looking at the world, but in the end, it really is the only way. Yes there are large amounts of public works and expendatures to transport water all over the state, but those all end up being reflected in the price of water sooner or later. The same is true for gasoline to a large extent.

      The days when and industry could externalize costs and pass them on to society as a whole are long gone. You can't get away with that anymore because people aren't that dumb, and they notice that newsprint paper is dirt cheap, but the river is an open industrial sewer. The paper mill is forced to bear cleanup costs and newsprint prices go up.

      Its the same with water. When they start using all the much hyped new technology to set up solar powered desalination plants (or whatever) you can believe there is a problem. But all of this will be reflected in the price of water. When the price goes up, you know the worries are serious.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 06 2014, @06:56PM (#90288)

    I will just leave this set of pre-drought and current-drought photos of california lakes right here. [theatlantic.com]