Slashdot Mirror
California Declared Totally Drought Free For First Time in Seven Years
California was declared totally drought free for the first time in more than seven years this week, following unusually abundant winter rains and snowfall statewide, according to the government's weekly report on U.S. drought conditions. From a report: The U.S. Drought Monitor's latest survey reflected an astonishing turnaround - at least for now - from a severe, prolonged dry spell that reduced irrigation supplies to farmers, forced strict household conservation measures and stoked a spate of deadly, devastating wildfires. A relatively small swath of California's southern-most region, including most of San Diego County, remains labeled "abnormally dry" on the drought map index, as does a tiny patch at the state's extreme northern end along the Oregon border. But this week marks the first time since mid-December of 2011 that 100 percent of the state has been classified as being free of drought, defined as a moisture deficit severe enough to cause social, environmental or economic ills. Conditions were classified as normal across 93 percent of the state.
Extreme swings in weather conditions are a sign that the earth's climate system has absorbed more energy. And we have been seeing lots of extreme swings in the last couple of decades.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
They're called lakes. You dam up a river or creek somewhere. When it rains, the water level goes up. When it's not raining, it gradually goes down, because the water is being used municipally.
There's a lake that's 60-70 years old that supplies most of the water to my hometown. There was a drought during my childhood, and I grew up knowing that lake to have two islands, a big one and a little one. Turns out the little one wasn't supposed to exist: that was a bit of lake bed peeking above the water surface because it had gotten so low. After the El Niño storms in the mid-90s, the lake was full to the brim, and remained mostly full for most of my adult life, but slowly dwindled down to record lows after such a long drought, so the point that instead of one island, instead of two islands, it had only two peninsulas, because so much of it had run dry you could walk out to either island on the dry lake bed.
I should go take a look at the lake this weekend, after all of the heavy rains we've been getting lately, and see how many islands there are in it now.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I've been told wet weather is a sign of climate change. Two years ago, drought was a sign of climate change. It's an all powerful phenomenon that explains everything.
I've been told the inability to track a straight line is a sign of poor alignment in a car. I've also been told that difficulty in turning is also a sign of poor alignment in a car. I've been told that the inability to stop is a sign of bad brake adjustment. I've been told that sudden jerky stops are also a sign of bad brake adjustment. I've been told that an engine failing to heat up can be caused by a bad thermostat. I've been told that a car overheating can also be caused by a bad thermostat. Gosh, it's almost as if opposing extremes in a given system can be caused by the same thing!
The problem is complexity. The climate is warming, so :global warming" is accurate. However, you tell that to Joe On the Street and he thinks it just means Alaska will be like California in the end so what's wrong with that?
The real truth is with the added heat energy, the climate will swing more wildly. One day you can enjoy a spring day, the next, you get 3 feet of snow dumped on you.
The use of climate change is meant to reflect that - the climate is changing, and the wonderful summer days you remembered as a kid was replaced with scorching hot heatwaves years ago. Plus, the word "change" is scary
"Understood?" No, you fail at understanding how oscillating systems behave. More energy leads to higher amplitudes.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
BS. Cities and towns only use about 10% of the water. The vast majority of water is used for agriculture and for environmental reasons (keeping rivers flowing, wetlands wet, and preventing saltwater inundation in bays). Yes most of the water used by LA metro residents is piped in from elsewhere. But it's a tiny fraction of the water that's redirected around the state. Southern California has very little agriculture - a few orange groves and scattered ground crops. The vast majority of agriculture is in central California (note that the Bay Area is actually in the middle of the state, not Northern California as its generally called, and is adjacent to most of this agricultural productivity).
What needs to happen is for the price of agricultural products grown in California to increase to truly reflect the scarcity of water. Agriculture contributes only 2% to California's GDP, but consumes 80% of its non-environmental water use. California's agriculture industry needs to be charged full price for the water it uses. People in other states will then either pay the higher prices for California crops and livestock, allowing California farmers to afford to buy water from sources in other states. Or they'll refuse to pay the higher prices, allowing production to move to states where it makes more economic sense to grow those crops and livestock. Both of these alleviate the endemic water shortages. But as long as the state government insists on subsidizing its agriculture industry with cheap water, it'll result in water shortages for residents outside of the agricultural areas. That's what happens when you subsidize something - it distorts the economy causing shortages elsewhere.