SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The 2015 El Niño event is now neck-and-neck with [the] record-setting event of 1997-1998 in terms of its mid-summer intensity.
Chart shows sea surface temperature difference from average (in degrees Celsius) in central and eastern Tropical Pacific in 2015 (orange line) compared to 1997 (blue line). By definition, El Nino becomes established when the sea surface temperature difference from average in this region is 0.5 Celsius for at least one month. It becomes a moderate El Nino event at 1 degree Celsius, strong at 1.5 degrees, and very strong or "super" at 2 degrees. In mid-July 2015, the sea surface temperature difference from normal was around 1.5 degrees, on the cusp of a strong El Nino event and comparable to the 1997 event at the same time, which eventually became a super El Nino. The red dots represent the average model forecast for the rest of 2015 which shows the sea surface temperature difference from average climbing above 2 degrees, achieving super El Nino strength, but it is not forecast to be quite as strong as the 1997-1998 event .
Good news: lots of rain on the way to drought-stricken California. Bad news: mudslides.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by gallondr00nk on Wednesday July 22 2015, @01:04PM
There were bad floods here in the UK a couple of years back, and one of the contributing factors was that farmers are no longer obliged to sow cover crops over their fields for the winter. A root system on a bare field not only soaks up far more water than bare soil, preventing run offs causing flooding, but also binds the soil and prevents mudslides. Instead, all the water ran off into the nearest river and flooded places downstream, doublessly carrying with it tons of rich fertile soil.
Since topsoil erosion is also an issue in many parts of the world, it would make sense to encourage the practice of cover crops to be more widespread. But then, California agribusiness grows almonds in the desert, then complains when there's no fucking water left, so I doubt there's much hope there.
As an aside, where I live, heavy rain occasionally causes surface water runoff that gets into peoples houses, yet when you look down the street, well over half of the front gardens are just concrete or gravel. It makes me wonder how easily it could be mitigated if people would just plant a few bushes or plants.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 22 2015, @01:43PM
The problem they have is the particular area and the rain cycles. Around SD and LA there are hills. LOTS of hills and you keep going mountains. So yeah they plant stuff to keep it in place. The other problem is they are borderline a desert. So they can go 5+ years with little to no rain. All that 'fallow' crop dies.
This is nothing new for them (though they will act like it is again). LA has huge concrete ravines that cut thru the middle of the city to help mitigate the flooding that happens (stay away from the beaches after a good rain like that).
They do not get 'soaking' rains. They get large bursts that cause flooding. Usually followed by a couple of years of 'nice rain'. Then on top of that areas that have been nicely baking in the sun get weak and suddenly let loose causing mud slides.
You then get drought measures which are needed. Needed because everyone plants Kentucky blue grass which looks REALLY pretty but is a horrible grass need lots of water. So you have millions of gallons sprayed on yards. But they can not plant bushes or shrubs because they are on water restriction. But then when the rains come the yards are dead because no one could water them so they gravel them over making the flooding even worse.
In 10 years time I predict everyone is still talking about it. Just like the floods from the 90s/80s/70s/and so on.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday July 22 2015, @09:38PM
But then, California agribusiness grows almonds in the desert, then complains when there's no fucking water left, so I doubt there's much hope there.
They've been doing that for generations, until somebody pointed out the diminishing snail darter population. True to form, the EPA provided cover for the corporate farms and all the toxic run-off that was causing the problem, and instead decided it was the small farmers in San Joaquin using too much water, and if they could just divert all that fresh water back to the ocean it would cover up the issue. It didn't, and now there's a drought, and once-fertile farmland is now desert. Monsanto's customers are still buying all their crap, though, so I guess it's all good for Corporate America.
I am a crackpot