US Government Induced Drought

[eyeball]

Or Canadians could stop insisting on fresh lettuce in January.

And grow kale instead, good point.

Why not desalination plants, do these cause cancer in California or something?

[eyeball]

Tell you what, when people like you fill their posts with knee jerk nonsense, then the rest is not worth reading. Lift those knees high though.

Would it be too much to ask that you learn to weave a few threads together and rub more than two thoughts together from time to time?

If you can't conceive of how the flow of water can raise multiple issues across whole landscapes and even cultures you really don't have any business in a discussion about them.

[sharkman]

Would it be too much to ask that you learn to weave a few threads together and rub more than two thoughts together from time to time?

If you can't conceive of how the flow of water can raise multiple issues across whole landscapes and even cultures you really don't have any business in a discussion about them.

Not sure how you can extrapolate my thoughts on those issues when I've not posted my thoughts on the flow of water across cultures, etc.(since this is a thread on California, and all of the comments, save yours, have been focused on that). But at least you stopped with the silly knee jerk comments for now, good job.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why not desalination plants, do these cause cancer in California or something?

Yes...as the coastal water is polluted by raw sewage from British Columbia and Mexico.

[eyeball]

Not sure how you can extrapolate my thoughts on those issues when I've not posted my thoughts on the flow of water across cultures, etc.(since this is a thread on California, and all of the comments, save yours, have been focused on that). But at least you stopped with the silly knee jerk comments for now, good job.

ALL the comments save mine? Really.

What about your comments about levees in New Orleans and oil fields in Alaska? And what the heck do tree huggers have to do with fish and pistachios? You seem to be all over the map in your panic over some little valley and a couple of farmers in a planet filled with little valley's and farmers.

Oh look, now pollution from BC and Mexico have entered the picture.

[eyeball]

Okay so deslination is out because it's too expensive ($2000 per acre foot) and harms marine ecosystems and fish.

Recycling sewage however is good for marine ecosystems and fish and is even cheaper ($900 per acre foot) than piping water ($1000) from somewhere else so...California must produce lots and now we know of at least two other sources.

Desalination isn't the answer to California's water problem

I have to call into question whether the $1000 per foot cost of piped-in water takes into account the price of ecological and economic mitigation of the ecosystems, people and industries that are deprived of that water. I have serious doubts that it does and when it's called for I expect the politics of government caving to enviro-terrorism and accommodating slackers and layabouts to raise it's ugly head. This is often the case when fish and anything from bears to fishermen that rely on them are in the path of some passing desperate economic need or another. I'll save Dick the trouble of pointing out the similarity to Northern Gateway.

And yes this is pretty much happening around the planet. The thing that's really different in the case of California though might be the famed litigious nature of the place and the way it's tipped the balance towards the environment and naturally functioning ecosystems before. This is definitely a story worth following and weighing in on for anyone on the planet where the balance all too often tips the other way.

Edited February 16, 2014 by eyeball

[bush_cheney2004]

....This is definitely a story worth following and weighing in on for anyone on the planet where the balance all too often tips the other way.

Yes....it is so exciting even though it is a repeat of what happened in the region almost 90 years ago. Yawn.....

[waldo]

So the liar-in-chief showed up in California today

as you quite regularly toss out the liar charge/label, just exactly how is Obama (and his admin) responsible for this most recent drought concern? Setting aside any aspects of weather/climate, for a most dated and complex water management issue, one that stems from state level decisions initially mapped out in the late 1980s, to early 1990 policy that engaged the U.S. federal government/Clinton, to 2001 state/federal policy that directly followed Bush admin decisions, to 2007 federal court direction... with all of that flowing through both state and federal Democratic and Republican governments... just exactly what part in all of that do you assign accountability to Obama over?

of course, any suggestion of changing inappropriate water diversion presumes upon an existence of... water to divert in the first place. With snow packs at their minimum levels and reservoirs at 20% of 'normal' levels, do you think there's some underlying reason why, for almost 2 years now, no effective winter storms have hit northern California to help with that snowpack, to help fill some portion of those reservoirs? Is Obama responsible for the "Ridiculously Resilient Ridge"... that just won't move on? What could it be that's holding that ridge firm, hey Shady?

[waldo]

just the rather relatively small scale Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta?... or all/most of California?

just California, or large parts of U.S. western states?

[gunrutz]

Well, they've been keeping records since the 1840s, so they know this drought is the worst in at least 170 years.

And they can measure rings in trees. Narrow rings indicate years when water was scarce. And they can study sediment layers and deposits of shells in riverbeds and things like that as well.

Regardless, whether its 1580 or 1840, this is the worst drought in a very long time, and claiming Obama and the smelts caused it is false.

-k

Tree rings are not accurate, trees grow at varying rate under a combination of circumstances, treee rings can't even be used to accurately model recent past weather for which we have very good accurately measured data, not useless, but far from precise. In any case, even if it was true, there have been major changes in precipitation patterns over North America in the recent past without any input from things like AGW, which even the ipcc admits wasnt a factor before the 1970's. The dust bowl for example, where farmers were encouraged to farm land that had in reality been seeing more rainfall than it normally did, when drought came the land abused by poor methods, turned to dust, droughts happen, and all on thier own. Of course some people like the posts above will of course blame the boogey man, and they could be right, but they just talk mostly, there is little of substance in blaming this drought on agw, maybe, maybe not. The drought's of the dustbowl era lasted the better part of a decade, all on thier own, droughts happen. There is evidence to suggest that at least in some areas, like the great plains, the last couple of centuries have been in fact wetter than normal, using the measure of salinity, this is one example of that research, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_laird96.html, also there is evidence to suggest that the mayan civilization ended because of drought, So perhaps we will se more drought in the future, but clearly not all of it, or any of it, can be blamed on agw at this time, no matter how desperate some are to make it that. If you want to look at tree ring data http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.LDEO/.TRL/.NADA2004/.pdsi-atlas.html plenty of droughts to be seen, all the way back to two thousand years ago.

[On Guard for Thee]

According to Shady, as I read it, Obama clapped his hands, and it was like the red seas parted. Just like that! And there was drought.Be careful if you dessent. His Gods may suck the water from your non GOP lands.

[waldo]

Tree rings are not accurate, trees grow at varying rate under a combination of circumstances, treee rings can't even be used to accurately model recent past weather for which we have very good accurately measured data, not useless, but far from precise.

If you want to look at tree ring data http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.LDEO/.TRL/.NADA2004/.pdsi-atlas.html plenty of droughts to be seen, all the way back to two thousand years ago.

which is it? Tree ring proxies are inaccurate, or they support your follow-up link... and present 'plenty of droughts to be seen'? Make up your mind!

in actual fact, (short of the known divergence problem over the most recent years), tree ring proxies track lake sediment proxies quite well (in agreement with your link to the Laird study). In fact, tree ring proxies confirm your very point about drought occurrences throughout the Holocene and your other link reference's targeted 2000 year prior period.

.

In any case, even if it was true, there have been major changes in precipitation patterns over North America in the recent past without any input from things like AGW, which even the ipcc admits wasnt a factor before the 1970's.

please update your talking point; 1970 is an AR4 reference point for drought extremes... 1950 is the new AR5 point of reference.

.

The dust bowl for example, where farmers were encouraged to farm land that had in reality been seeing more rainfall than it normally did, when drought came the land abused by poor methods, turned to dust... Of course some people like the posts above will of course blame the boogey man, and they could be right, but they just talk mostly, there is little of substance in blaming this drought on agw, maybe, maybe not.

no - as follows, a previous post of mine (per Weather Underground/Jeff Masters):

The Dust Bowl drought and heat of the 1930s: partially human-caused

Using computer models of the climate, the scientists found that the Dust Bowl drought was primarily caused by below-average ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific and warmer than average ocean temperatures in the Atlantic, which acted together to alter the path of the jet stream and bring fewer precipitation-bearing storms to the Central U.S. However, the full intensity of the drought and its spatial extent could not be explained by ocean temperature patterns alone. Only when their model included the impact of losing huge amounts of vegetation in the Plains due to poor farming practices could the full warmth of the 1930s be simulated. In addition, only by including the impact of the dust kicked up by the great dust storms of the Dust Bowl, which blocked sunlight and created high pressure zones of sinking air that discouraged precipitation, could the very low levels of precipitation be explained. The Dust Bowl drought had natural roots, but human-caused effects made the drought worse and longer-lasting.

The fact that we are experiencing a drought in 2012 comparable to the great Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s--without poor farming practices being partially to blame--bodes ill for the future of drought in the U.S.

With human-caused global warming expected to greatly increase the intensity and frequency of great droughts like the 2012 drought in coming decades, we can expect drought to cause an increasing amount of damage and economic hardship for the U.S. Since the U.S. is the world's largest food exporter, this will also create an increasing amount of hardship and unrest in developing countries that rely on food imports.

.

...droughts happen, and all on thier own.

The drought's of the dustbowl era lasted the better part of a decade, all on thier own, droughts happen.

no - droughts don't just... happen! Happen like what? Uhhh... like "poof"... like "magic"... like, like... what?

.

There is evidence to suggest that at least in some areas, like the great plains, the last couple of centuries have been in fact wetter than normal, using the measure of salinity, this is one example of that research, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_laird96.html, also there is evidence to suggest that the mayan civilization ended because of drought, So perhaps we will se more drought in the future, but clearly not all of it, or any of it, can be blamed on agw at this time, no matter how desperate some are to make it that.

you charge desperation? Just how desperate are you? I've left a question in the prior post you chose to belittle from afar... to belittle indirectly. Don't be shy, have a go at the same question. Winter storms are the key to replenish the snowpack and depleted reservoirs... given little to no effective winter storms in 2 years and given the presence of that long-standing high pressure ridge that just won't budge and move off... just what is keeping that high pressure ridge in place?

.

[kimmy]

I am not blaming the drought on Obama,

You may not be, but Shady certainly is, and that's implied in all of this noise coming out of the conservative blogosphere too.

-k

[Wilber]

Don't under estimate the importance of a three inch fish. The entire Antarctic ecosystem is built on a two inch crustacean called krill.

[kimmy]

Don't under estimate the importance of a three inch fish. The entire Antarctic ecosystem is built on a two inch crustacean called krill.

Shush, Wilber! Stop applying sense to this. That's not what this talking point is about.

The talking point is that Obama plunged a whole state into drought to preserve an insignificant minnow, and applying any amount of inquiry to the reasons behind the situation makes it sound less cut and dry.

-k

[TimG]

Shush, Wilber! Stop applying sense to this. That's not what this talking point is about.

Come on. If this particular fish was so important to the eco-system then they would not be talking about one species on the endangered list - their would be many.

The talking point is that Obama plunged a whole state into drought to preserve an insignificant minnow, and applying any amount of inquiry to the reasons behind the situation makes it sound less cut and dry.

This debate is about how arbitrary rules in the ESA allow the courts to trump what should be political discussion about allocating water resources. By supporting the ESA, Obama shares the blame for the problems created by arbitrary court rulings. If the courts were left out of the question and California politicians still decided that it would be best to divert water to preserve the delta then it would be a different situation.

[waldo]

Come on. If this particular fish was so important to the eco-system then they would not be talking about one species on the endangered list - their would be many.

and there are many species on that list... singling out the one is a ploy to focus attention on the Endangered Species Act and away from the fact there is little water available to divert in the first place. And, of course, its also a tact intended to focus attention away from the state-wide drought rather than the delta proper. But hey now, this is a classic case for your personal incessant Adapt-R-Us only nattering... as I read it, unlike Southern California cities, those in Northern California don't have water storage and contingency plans for drought; equally, no state-level drought contingency plan exists for the north part of the state... hence significant water restrictions with rationing already occurring in certain areas, with more to come if no significant rain is realized in the remaining 'wet' winter months.

essentially, there may not be enough water in either the federal/state water systems to deal with a drought of this magnitude. I trust you aren't ignoring my earlier post graphics showing the actual magnitude of the drought.

.

This debate is about how arbitrary rules in the ESA allow the courts to trump what should be political discussion about allocating water resources. By supporting the ESA, Obama shares the blame for the problems created by arbitrary court rulings. If the courts were left out of the question and California politicians still decided that it would be best to divert water to preserve the delta then it would be a different situation.

no - as I highlighted earlier, Obama is a late-comer. Current California water-management reflects on decades of both federal and state level administration decisions/policy, with a smattering of judicial oversight... all of it spanning multiple iterations of both Republican and Democratic state/federal governance.

[Wilber]

Just wondering where this water is going to come from.

http://shasta247.com/general/shasta-lake-water-level-report/

[GostHacked]

If the crops are as drastically affected as is projected, prices are going up big time. This area of California is one of the major breadbaskets of the nation. Farmers are selling off their herds and leaving large percentages of their land fallow. Food shortages, rising prices, and an unemployment rate in the region up to 40% all spell tough times for a state that is going bankrupt. Barry wants to pass out money but what he should do is rescind the water diversion for these fish so irrigation of farmland can resume.

The same type of environmentalist meddling several years before Katrina stopped upgrades to the levees around New Orleans due to some small bird native to the area. Shutting down oil rich lands to exploration in Alaska due to reindeer which would wander around somewhere else, has had major ramifications to gas and oil prices in the last decade. And now Californians, already hit hard with serious economic issues, are going to have food shortages. Way to go tree huggers.

Might not have been a good idea to build a sprawling metropolis in the desert. Or below sea level, or ,, or ...

[PIK]

Soon someone will want to build turtles tunnels under roads. Oh wait that has already happened here.

[BubberMiley]

I've never understood why right-wingers have such contempt for eco-systems. It seems they benefit from them just as much as left-wingers do.

[bleeding heart]

No, eco-systems are for wussies and commies.

[gunrutz]

I've never understood why right-wingers have such contempt for eco-systems. It seems they benefit from them just as much as left-wingers do.

Yep, you sure don't, btw, the oil that comes out of the ground that gets turned into CO2, that benefits you as much as anyone else, the difference being that in your imagination we can have the lives we do without it and the asociated pollution, and if right wingers are fooling themselves over climate change you are equally as foolish for thinking we can live like we do without it. You dont understand, the argument goes right past you and anyone else who thinks like you do, meanwhile the best alternative we have in nuclear has been vilified by another version of eco nut, even so far as forcing Germany to burn more very dirty coal.

[BubberMiley]

You dont understand, the argument goes right past you and anyone else who thinks like you do, meanwhile the best alternative we have in nuclear has been vilified by another version of eco nut, even so far as forcing Germany to burn more very dirty coal.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say because the run-on sentences ran on a little too long, but I recognize how we live in an oil-based economy. So does everyone else. But only one side seems to recognize the reality and is calling for a plan to move past that in order to sustain the economy.

But do you agree that it's a little simplistic to reduce ecosystem preservation to protection of a minnow or a bird or a turtle?

Edited February 19, 2014 by BubberMiley

[bleeding heart]

It appears that the word "conservative" has undergone a rather radical transformation.

Edited February 19, 2014 by bleeding heart