Rapid Snow Melt-Off In American West Stuns Scientists (theguardian.com) 112
Scientists say extreme March heat caused an unusually rapid collapse of snowpack across the American West that's leaving major basins at record or near-record lows. "This year is on a whole other level," said Dr Russ Schumacher, a Colorado State University climatologist. "Seeing this year so far below any of the other years we have data for is very concerning." The Guardian reports: [...] The issue is extremely widespread. Data from a branch of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which logs averages based on levels between 1991 and 2020, shows states across the south-west and intermountain west with eye-popping lows. The Great Basin had only 16% of average on Monday and the lower Colorado region, which includes most of Arizona and parts of Nevada, was at 10%. The Rio Grande, which covers parts of New Mexico, Texas and Colorado, was at 8%. "This year has the potential of being way worse than any of the years we have analogues for in the past," Schumacher said.
Even with near-normal precipitation across most of the west, every major river basin across the region was grappling with snow drought when March began, according to federal analysts. Roughly 91% of stations reported below-median snow water equivalent, according to the last federal snow drought update compiled on March 8. Water managers and climate experts had been hopeful for a March miracle -- a strong cold storm that could set the region on the right track. Instead, a blistering heatwave unlike any recorded for this time of year baked the region and spurred a rapid melt-off. "March is often a big month for snowstorms," Schumacher said. "Instead of getting snow we would normally expect we got this unprecedented, way-off-the-scale warmth."
More than 1,500 monthly high temperature records were broken in March and hundreds more tied. The event was "likely among the most statistically anomalous extreme heat events ever observed in the American south-west," climate scientist Daniel Swain said in an analysis posted this week. "Beyond the conspicuous 'weirdness' of it all," Swain added, "the most consequential impact of our record-shattering March heat will likely be the decimation of the water year 2025-26 snowpack across nearly all of the American west." Calling the toll left by the heat "nothing short of shocking," Swain noted that California was tied for its worst mountain snowpack value on record. While the highest elevations are still coated in white, "lower slopes are now completely bare nearly statewide."
Even with near-normal precipitation across most of the west, every major river basin across the region was grappling with snow drought when March began, according to federal analysts. Roughly 91% of stations reported below-median snow water equivalent, according to the last federal snow drought update compiled on March 8. Water managers and climate experts had been hopeful for a March miracle -- a strong cold storm that could set the region on the right track. Instead, a blistering heatwave unlike any recorded for this time of year baked the region and spurred a rapid melt-off. "March is often a big month for snowstorms," Schumacher said. "Instead of getting snow we would normally expect we got this unprecedented, way-off-the-scale warmth."
More than 1,500 monthly high temperature records were broken in March and hundreds more tied. The event was "likely among the most statistically anomalous extreme heat events ever observed in the American south-west," climate scientist Daniel Swain said in an analysis posted this week. "Beyond the conspicuous 'weirdness' of it all," Swain added, "the most consequential impact of our record-shattering March heat will likely be the decimation of the water year 2025-26 snowpack across nearly all of the American west." Calling the toll left by the heat "nothing short of shocking," Swain noted that California was tied for its worst mountain snowpack value on record. While the highest elevations are still coated in white, "lower slopes are now completely bare nearly statewide."
They were expecting what exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Record heat + severe snow deficit resulting in record low snow cover is anything but surprising.
Gonna be fun when the natural cycle is already dipping into extreme drought, such that we are now erasing the one thing that can mitigate it.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you predict "the most statistically anomalous extreme heat events ever observed in the American south-west" ?
Somehow I doubt it.
Everyone expected it — not necessarily in the American southwest, but at multiple somewheres in the world (without guarantees about which specific locations). Droughts and heat events are literally what climate scientists have been warning about for as long as I can remember hearing about global warming. And it always stood to reason that the most at-risk areas were places where rainfall is barely adequate to meet demand (e.g. the American southwest). So if you were going to make a prediction, that
Re: (Score:2)
"Record heat + severe snow deficit" This is was the surprising thing, not the fact that it resulted in anything surprising.
And what are we erasing that can mitigate it? Drill baby drill? Maybe there is some secret thingy to which you are referring?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
La Nina turned out to be extremely weak. It basically ended last month. We're already seeing indications that we're swinging back towards La Nino again.
Re: (Score:2)
In Eastern Washington the heat wasn't an issue but it was warm enough the precipitation fell as rain and caused a bit of flooding including washing out part of US highway 2. I do not dispute the snow deficit.
On the other hand my winter electric bill was two-thirds of usual. (All electric house.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:They were expecting what exactly? (Score:4, Informative)
Isn't the theory for the west that the mountains will see more precipitation as more water evaporates from the ocean?
The amount of precipitation wasn't the issue this year, it was the high temperatures in the mountain West. From the OP:
Even with near-normal precipitation across most of the west, every major river basin across the region was grappling with snow drought when March began,
It's the snowpack that feeds the rivers through the dryer months. Winter rain melts what snow is there and it all runs down hill quickly (literally and metaphorically). There's only so much space in the reservoirs and the rest is back in the ocean by April or May. This summer is going to suck for farmers, or anyone else who needs a steady water supply.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the data center AI bros will shut down all their consumption so we can continue eating, right?
Re: (Score:3)
We got plenty of precipitation. The problem was that it was *liquid* precipitation instead of frozen.
Liquid precipitation doesn't stay in the mountains very long.
Re:They were expecting what exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
BREAKING NEWS: Scientists stunned to learn people think they're so easily stunned!
Worried, yes. Surpised, no. This is exactly the sort of event they've been predicting. Climate change means more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and what snow does fall will melt earlier. They've been saying that for years.
It's going to get worse. This was the worst year yet, but a few decades from now years like this will be common.
Re: (Score:2)
They are probably careful to fake surprise in order not to become targets. Obviously, what is happening is no surprise at all.
Re:They were expecting what exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
Hardly exclusively, but at scale, he's probably pretty high in the hypothetical ranking of people through all of history who contributed the most to making it worse!
Re:They were expecting what exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
Donald has repeatedly claimed climate change is a hoax, and his cult believes him.
Re:They were expecting what exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
“Clean coal” anyone? Rolling back environmental regulations?
Re: They were expecting what exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who's reaching? The guy inevitably had larger private carbon footprint than vast majority of humans through history simply through living as he has, not to mention the effect that his cheerleading for fossil fuels and against ecology will have even many years after he lets out the last sad puff of methane.
You have to reach quite far to deny the at this point very conclusive fact that human activity is changing the climate for the worse, and reach even further still to end up as far up his ass as you are.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's really reaching to say that the guy who flies around his own private 757-200 might have a larger carbon footprint than 99.999% of the rest of humanity.
Simp harder, cuckbro it's hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous Coward
This says everything
Re: (Score:2)
Re: They were expecting what exactly? (Score:2)
2017 trump or 2025 trump?
Re: They were expecting what exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
TDS is when you believe that man cares about you, or has something for you. So yes, TrumpTok is spreading loads of TDS. Deathly silent on those Epstein files, though. How old was she, Don?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, just realized it has been YEARS since I last went out, cut loose and had fun at one of the local "strop" clubs here in New Orleans....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like a battered wife. Most of them are suffering from his actions, and they just keep coming back for more. "But he really loves me..."
Marjorie Taylor Greene compared herself to a battered wife during her exit speech. I guess she's the one who found some trace of inner strength and self-respect and filed for divorce. (Imagine getting shown up by MTG...)
Re: They were expecting what exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
must be Trumps fault.
Well, he is a boomer.
We've known for decades about climate change and what causes it, and yet they continued to pump more and more oil and dig up coal, all for that sweet sweet profit.
Re:They were expecting what exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
You just can't blame it on one generation like that. Trump was -120 years old when we learned about the greenhouse effect and generally how it works on Earth, -90 years old when the first model demonstrations were performed, -50 years old when we first recognized that burning fossil fuels could increase it and -15 years old when someone first published evidence that was actually happening. He was a pre-teen when the Mauna Loa dataset was published conclusively showing that atmospheric CO2 concentration was increasing. Boomers were young adults when fuel efficiency became a priority, admittedly because their parents had been screwing around in the Middle East and not because of the environment.
We've been willfully ignoring the problem for much longer than a human lifespan.
Re: (Score:3)
So that makes it ok to continue ignoring, and in fact roll back regulations that were the result of not ignoring it?
Yes, the signal has been there for a long time. That doesn't mean that the current leaders can hand-wave it away because their predecessors did. Not doing something about it, and actually doing things to make the problem worse with all the clear data you spell out that has been known longer than any current leader has been alive takes away every excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not. I said you can't blame it on a single generation. I did not say that it hasn't been monumentally stupid. I also didn't say that the current ruler of the United States is not to blame for issuing bad proclamations from the throne.
Re: (Score:2)
What matters is not when we understood the problem scientifically, it's when the public understood the problem and viable solutions exist.
1988 was when most Americans learned about global warming, while solar electricity became consistently cheaper than natural gas and coal plants in most countries around 2020. Before 2020, we signed the Paris Climate Accords, we mandated gas mileage, and we got off coal. Things that were possible given to technology at the time. Then between 2020 and 2024 under Biden, we m
Re: (Score:2)
You know Biden and Trump are the same generation, right? So are Obama (although he's on the edge), Bush Jr and Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has complete control of Congress and the Supreme Court, and his agenda is clearly anti-climate, and there's been little effort by Congress to slow him down or hold him accountable for anything.
Re: (Score:2)
We've been willfully ignoring the problem for much longer than a human lifespan.
Blaming dead people is completely unproductive. But boomers have all the power right now in the U.S. - they control Congress, the President's Office, and they control a huge, disproportionate amount of the nation's housing, stocks, and overall wealth. Companies are falling over themselves to appeal to boomers because that's where all the disposable income is. Pharmaceutical companies are investing in erectile medicines, cancer treatments, and other syndromes of old age, rather than vaccines and preventive m
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy enough to go the other way. Pickups and SUVs are the most popular vehicles among American boomers, generation X and millennials. The Zs seem to like smaller cars, but they're also 14-29 so we'll see if that commitment hangs on when most of them have been bending over to stick kids in car seats for a while.
You guys insist on forgetting you're a democracy, for a little longer anyway. You don't command 49% of the vote by only appealing to a single gener
Re:They were expecting what exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not what I was referring too. The South West has multi-century wet/dry cycles and we've recently discovered the last 100-200 years has been the peak wet period. It's only getting drier for a long long time.
Indeed (Score:1, Troll)
For some reason it still seems to surprise a lot of people - even some scientists - that global warming is not a steady linear process but rather it goes in fits and starts and sometimes maybe slightly backwards in temp in some places for a short while. A sudden jump in heat one year - and hence record snow melt - should not come as a shock to anyone especially academics in the field.
Re:Indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, lets say your worst case error bars for 2026 allowed for a deviation of upto 5%, but when the data lands it's actually closer 10% (not the actual numbers, BTW). I think your comments would pretty much align with those quoted in TFA, and especially so since this is only one year out from last year's known data and the margin of error on the trend line is at its smallest. For those that can't figure it out for themselves, and assuming this isn't just an extreme outlier, what that implies is that the models that many sceptics dismiss as "alarmist" might actually be too conservative and the future trajectory could be *far* worse than even the most vocal of the climate change advocates are saying it will be.
Re:Indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is climate change caused by a warming planet. Everyone thinks that means winters get more pleasant, maybe summers get hotter.
What it really means is the trend line goes up, but weather gets more unpredictable. There are no error bars here - you average the temperature over the surface of the Earth and it's going up.
But weather has no part to play in it - one region can be extremely cold. It just means another region will be extremely hot by the same amount, or if it's a bigger region, warmer by a smaller amount. It's just how averages work.
The only truth we know is that the weather will get wilder. We will see winters where huge dumps of snow and record breaking cold will happen far more than normal. And winters where it wouldn't snow a single day. If an area used to reliably get snow every winter, well, it's a whole lot less reliable. Heck, we can expect with some regularity spring or summer like weather in winter. And summers will be scorchers, but there might be a day you have to break out the winter clothes because it suddenly drops. Rare, but it will happen. You might see spring have 100+F weather for a week be the new normal. Or it can dump snow and be -10 in May.
That's what happens with climate change. The usual weather patterns that we've had just became a lot less usual. Weather will just be a lot more extreme and the 100 year floods might become the 10 year floods (even though that's really not what it means - it just means if you graph the average height of a river over the years, the "100 year flood" means it's the 1 percentile height - the height at which there's a 1% chance of happening).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. So?
I already vote green party. I look for practical ways to reduce my carbon footprint.
I'm not going to stop living my life, providing for my family, and making sure my kids have as good of a future as I can manage. And if I'm weighing how much effect I can have on their future by a) putting money towards their education, or b) trying to single-handedly save the planet by spending exorbitant amounts of money on ground source heat pumps, super-expensive electric vehicles, etc., then it's quite obviou
Re: (Score:3)
I'm just trying to get by in a world where I didn't make the rules. The only way I can really help reduce climate change is to cease to exist, and I'm not willing to do that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>The problem is climate change caused by a warming planet. Everyone thinks that means winters get more pleasant, maybe summers get hotter.
Not even that simple!
there is more energy in the atmosphere, stronger wind, drought in some places, floods in others, huge heat waves reaching north but also polar cold waved being pushed from north to south (ie: "heat wave" in north pole and push south the polar cold air to south, bringing freezing low temperatures). higher air and ocean temperature mean stronger hurr
Re:Indeed (Score:5, Funny)
That too complicated for smooth brain. Me want big truck that go VROOM! Me like coal - mining good strong man job. Me saw snow one day - global warning big hoax. Clean energy woke (and probably gay) MAGA! MAGA!
Re: (Score:2)
hey, also blame those that only think in profit and allowed trump to win ("he is a business men, economy will get better!" No, he is just a dangerous child blackmailer, that break everything if doesn't win everytime)... now they get a worse economy, high gas prices, a war, bad climate, less tax for rich but much higher debt... even got their own population killed by "pseudo-cops"
MAGA people are retards but they are too few, i do blame more the others, that should know better and yet voted for him... specia
Re:Indeed (Score:4, Informative)
So simple even a child can understand it. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Sources for the data points. https://www.explainxkcd.com/wi... [explainxkcd.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Indeed (Score:2)
Of course you can argue that. You can argue that huffing coal makes your lungs grow stronger as well.
You do you. But at this point we all know that that's just shilling for the oil companies.
Re:Indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone who read "Chaos" by James Gleick, and had some mathematical knowledge, knew that was going to happen this way. I probably read it between 1987 and 1990, and have had a copy since 2000 somewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For some reason it still seems to surprise a lot of people - even some scientists - that global warming is not a steady linear process but rather it goes in fits and starts and sometimes maybe slightly backwards in temp in some places for a short while. A sudden jump in heat one year - and hence record snow melt - should not come as a shock to anyone especially academics in the field.
Maybe only the scientists that are easily stunned.
Seriously, everyone I know or have worked with understands that weather is not some homogenous thing. And weather is complex with many variables and influences. El Niño, La Niña, the jet stream. Polar vortex that pull warmer air over expected cold areas, while the vortex brings cold to normally warmer areas. AGW felt more in higher latitudes than lower ones. But you know - no need for me to preach to the choir. 8^)
None of this is remotely "stu
Re: (Score:1)
For some reason it still seems to surprise a lot of people - even some scientists - that global warming is not a steady linear process but rather it goes in fits and starts and sometimes maybe slightly backwards in temp in some places for a short while. A sudden jump in heat one year - and hence record snow melt - should not come as a shock to anyone especially academics in the field.
- Viol8, prestigious alt-right academic
Someone needs to make the sequel to Don't Look Up - Don't Zoom Out.
Price of RAM is fine everyone, it goes up and down.
Stock market is fine, it go up it go down.
Oil up 90%, uh, it go up down up *drools* fine. It floats. They all float. You'll float too.
Fucking clowns.
cue the idiots (Score:1)
Cue the people who keep insisting "there is lots of water".
Re:cue the idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a difference between sea water and water we can drink. Now, if they would do something, like building desalinization plants and then pump the water around the country to places that need it, we could actually even reclaim the desert over time if done the right way. The problem is that we have very short-sighted politicians who only think in terms of 1-6 years, instead of thinking 20+ years out. It's like all the idiot executives out there that will go out of their way to save $0.10 cents per hour per employee, not realizing that it will cost the company $1000 extra per year per employee from the side effects. When short term profits are more important than long profits, that is when you know the company is going to crash as soon as a decent competitor shows up.
Re: cue the idiots (Score:3)
Also maybe the fact that desalienization and pipelines are so tremendously expensive, no one could afford the produce grown there anyway.
Re:cue the idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a difference between sea water and water we can drink. Now, if they would do something, like building desalinization plants and then pump the water around the country to places that need it, we could actually even reclaim the desert over time if done the right way. The problem is that we have very short-sighted politicians who only think in terms of 1-6 years, instead of thinking 20+ years out. It's like all the idiot executives out there that will go out of their way to save $0.10 cents per hour per employee, not realizing that it will cost the company $1000 extra per year per employee from the side effects. When short term profits are more important than long profits, that is when you know the company is going to crash as soon as a decent competitor shows up.
It's good to see some thought on possible solutions, but most of that type solution has some big problems. Desalination is expensive and produces toxic waste - brine that contains not only salt, but concentrated toxic chemicals. So a real disposal problem - just dumping it in the ocean produces localized ecosystem disturbances. But yeah, dumping it is what we do.
Piping the water into the desert areas brings its own problems. Is all that salt out of the water? Nope. So assuming we are going to use the water judiciously, we're going to salinate the soil, rendering it barren. And that's already happening in the midwest, using standard Oglala aquifer fresh water for irrigation.
Gonna be a tough sell.
There have been some proposals to build an actual water pipeline from Lake Superior to wherever in the southwest people want it. Aside from teh expense, it leads to international problems since it uses a shared resource between US/Canada. Recent politics has not made Canada any more receptive than they have been in the past, nor the US states along the Great Lakes.
The long term habit of the states who have depleted the Colorado river before it reaches the ocean also tell us that there is no limit to the demand. And that demand is always higher than the supply.https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01291-0
Our water demand has rendered the Colorado River virtually dry at it's delta in the gulf of California https://www.deseret.com/utah/2... [deseret.com].
It's a big and complex issue, with no easy or inexpensive fixes. And many of us just think that the states in the southwest will just add more and more things to do with whatever we give them. And it will never ever be enough.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
That’s why the US is stagnating and China is growing at an incredible pace. In 30 years they created a massive middle class. Check out the world’s largest city. It makes this country look like the old west in comparison. https://youtu.be/4XbqCIMM6Xc?s... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3)
That’s why the US is stagnating and China is growing at an incredible pace. In 30 years they created a massive middle class.
China has been a great success story in many, many ways, but they have now passed the point of "easy gains." Central planning, as with all things, works--until it doesn't. In retrospect, it seems like they held onto the one-child policy for too long.
China's population is massive and has historically been massive (relative to the rest of the world). When the Founders were signing the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia (population circa 30,000) and the 13 British colonies had a population between 1.5
Re: cue the idiots (Score:3)
We're doomed (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/V7NlFWh7Sz8 [youtu.be]
But enjoy the BBC's 'Dad's Army' while you wait for the end to arrive...
We had rain fall in California, to warm for snow (Score:5, Informative)
We had some snow for a minute up in the mountains but this was a very mild winter, so any rain fall we actually got ended up melting the snow we had. We don't do a lot of water catchment, so it makes this lack of snowpack even more concerning.
This will be a rough year but weather forecasters have mentioned that we could get a nice El Nino effect, which for southern California means colder and wetter conditions. El Nino for most of the world means hotter and dryer.
From my vantage point, I feel like significantly more homes should have water catchment systems and water storage. Since we know temperatures are climbing, it means snow will be less reliable but that doesn't necessarily also mean no rain. We can't keep letting the rain runoff into the ocean anymore.
Water catchment systems aren't not all that expensive either. For simple math, a 1000 sqft surface can produce 620 gallons of water with 1 inch of rain fall. If you just used that water for toilet flushing and outdoor watering, you can save a lot of the potable water you receive from the city for bathing, dishes and drinking. We just don't seem to have our priorities lined up yet.
The biggest problem we have is for profit utilities that don't actually want us to become more sustainable, because that cost them money. People also tend to bulk at up front capital cost despite the clear and obvious long term savings and the added resilience.
P.s. You can even buy an osmosis system for your home and ALL the water you collect can be used around the entire home. Even in the desert, where you may only get 5 inches of water a year, that's still 3,100 gallons of collected water. It's not a trivial amount.
Re: (Score:2)
Bermuda is a great example of water catchment systems done right - every home has water catchment and collection, by necessity.
Re: (Score:2)
When my uncle was in the Navy, him and my aunt were stationed either there or another island and they said they would flood the basement and that would be a major source of water. It's a smart idea, especially being surrounded by salt water.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard of this and yes, different states have different laws for the water. I think it's completely asinine to say the water falling out of the sky and landing on my roof is some how not mine but I have heard of this. I was rather surprised California didn't have a similar law. In fact, some of our cities will even give you a rebate for rain barrels and cisterns, among other things, which I think is a wonderful idea.
March was hell (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We had a big ol' heatwave and drought in the 1930's.
In the USA, although the temperatures would not be so remarkable today. But it was pretty localised.
Back then, our farming practices weren't able to handle it, but we made some big changes in response.
Best not to test whether the changes work, I'd say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the temperatures were quite remarkable and remain so now. It was hotter then than it is now. And we are referring to the same locale.
The average temperature in places like Arizona is approximately 1C greater than it was 100 years ago. There were some rather short events in the 1930s when peak temperature was very high, but even then the average is lower than now. It being hot in July 1936 does not mean the 1930s in general in SW USA was hotter than now. And the year is longer than summer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may recall that there was a series of heatwaves and droughts across North America during the 1930's that devastated agriculture and set 13 State heat records that still stand.
Yes, and the average was still cooler than today.
Things are illusorily fabulous (Score:5, Interesting)
The heat wave made March be like late spring. Things that normally bloom in May, bloomed in March. And yesterday I got my first MRGCD irrigation of the year, flooding my back yard and letting the shade trees greedily suck up the water. We're spending a lot more time outside on the patio, compared to previous years during this time-of-year.
If I were stupid, I would be out of my mind with pleasure. Things feel wonderful right now.
But that water I just got .. that is The snowpack, probably. Instead of getting it all throughout summer, this first irrigation is probably the last, or second-to-last.
This summer is going to SUCK.
Bad for us, but not "our fault" (Score:5, Informative)
https://medium.com/predict/thi... [medium.com]
"The real reason we will never be able to "fix" the drought is because the American West is not in a drought right now. ... ... ...
And you can't fix something that isn't broken.
The West's rapid aridification isn't being caused by a "once-in-a-century" weather event like the flooding in Kentucky or the nearly constant hurricanes that pummel the Southeast each year.
It's not even the direct result of climate change (although that's definitely accelerating the process and making the effects more intense). Western states are running out of water because they are located in a desert.
What we're dealing with in the West is not a drought because the current lack of rainfall isn't "abnormal" for a desert. Dry is the default setting. And you can't call it a "drought" because you wish deserts were wetter.
The problem isn't the so-called drought - - it's the city planners, developers, and suburbanites who built cities in a desert with no plan to provide water beyond wishful thinking and praying for rain.
The fact that we got weirdly lucky with unseasonably wet weather for a few decades has helped us ignore the reality that the American West simply doesn't have the water to support 65 million people - - and half of the country's agriculture - - at least not at anything near our current water usage levels.
And there's really nothing we can do about it."
According to researcher Lynn Ingram, a professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at UC Berkeley, "The 20th century was abnormally wet and rainy." Ingram goes on to claim, "The past 150 years have been wetter than the past 2,000 years." (cf "The California drought is helping return the weather pattern to normal" https://archive.ph/0m3BI [archive.ph])
In other words, what we're experiencing now isn't a drought. It's a reestablishment of the norm."
Re: (Score:2)
What we're dealing with in the West is not a drought because the current lack of rainfall isn't "abnormal" for a desert
Lowest in 1200 years seems abnormal to me, even for a desert.
The fact that we got weirdly lucky with unseasonably wet weather for a few decades
Or 1200 years.
The 20th century was abnormally wet and rainy
Lowest rainfall for 1200 years.
Re: (Score:1)
Repeat the 1200 number a few times more, you're not making yourself look stupid enough.
No one on the planet has reliable rainfall data for even last 120 years.
Re: Bad for us, but not "our fault" (Score:2)
The UK has reliable rainfall data from the 1860's (165 years), and less reliable records going back further. But compared with 1,200 years, you have the right magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat the 1200 number a few times more, you're not making yourself look stupid enough.
No one on the planet has reliable rainfall data for even last 120 years.
We do have pretty good data from tree rings. Unless you think the trees came from somewhere else?
Re: (Score:2)
No one on the planet has reliable rainfall data for even last 120 years.
Do some research.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a distant family connection to Santa Fe and have visited a number of times. Lovely place.
What always strikes me is the history of the city and region. Founded in 1610, it's one of the earliest European cities in the Americas.
When reading the history of American Indian sites, so many of them prospered at times for decades (or more) and then declined with ecological shifts, i.e., droughts. The greater regional area had a population in the thousands or tens of thousands at most, and that fluctuated wide
Re: (Score:2)
What you can do about it is reduce your household potable water consumption to 50l (13 gal.) per person per day. [knysna.gov.za]
What governments can do is guarantee the first 50l per person to be affordable. Anything above that should be rationed or priced just high enough that people reduce their consumption enough to prevent the aquifers from drying up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real reason we will never be able to "fix" the drought is because the American West is not in a drought right now.
Basically everyone who lives in the area or studies the climate or hydrology would tell you that you're insane.
The West's rapid aridification isn't being caused by a "once-in-a-century" weather event
More like a once-in-a-millennium event. Though I suspect it's going to be considerably more common going forward.
What we're dealing with in the West is not a drought because the current lack of rainfall isn't "abnormal" for a desert. Dry is the default setting. And you can't call it a "drought" because you wish deserts were wetter.
Deserts have some amount of normal precipitation, too. And when you get a lot less than normal, that's called a drought. Yes, even in a desert.
Re: (Score:2)
-1, offtopic
Regardless of the correctness of Shawn Forno's claims, they are not relevant to an unexpected change in melt-off *rate*. His claims might (or might not) be relevant to a change in snow cover, but that is not what is being reported.
Caveat: No actual scientist were stunned ... (Score:2)
Just the usual "dumb and dumber" reporting by the press that seems to be implying that these changes are somehow a real surprise. They are not. Actual climate scientists were expecting effects like this and they are expecting a lot more and a lot worse.
Meanwhile, in the U. P. (Score:2)
And here I am, in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, sitting on 347" of snowfall this season. And today, the Second of April in the Year of Our Lord 2026, we have a winter storm warning with another 2-4" predicted this afternoon.
All I'm saying is, if the western states want snow they can feel free to come get it! No one here will argue.
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful what you wish for, there end up being a pipeline from the great lakes to water lawns in Arizona.
Lake Powell, Lake Meade, Flaming Gorge (Score:2)
Boffins Baffled (Score:2)
Those scientists are always baffled, stunned, shocked, or bewildered. Can they get anything right?