Saying that there is no "abnormally low rainfall" in California is ridiculous. Droughts have appeared in California throughout history as seen in tree ring samples (https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Rele...torical-Drought-Record-in-Southern-California). Since a drought is simply "a prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall, leading to a shortage of water", to qualify as a drought, we just need to figure out the average rainfall for an area and then look for the rainfall for a single "season" to see if it is a drought or not. By season, of course, I mean a rainfall season, which in California is usually defined as July 1 - June 30. As California is a large state and is mainly north-south, precipitation can greatly vary, so I'm going to use data from Stanislaus County to show you recent droughts. The average season rainfall in Stanislaus County is 12.12" (based on rainfall totals going back to 1888. Anything lower than that would be considered a drought which I made bold in the chart below. This chart comes from https://www.mid.org/weather/historical.jsp, which I only am showing from 2000 onward. Season Rain Total 2022 - 2023 17.53" 2021 - 2022 9.96" 2020 - 2021 9.40" 2019 - 2020 6.54" 2018 - 2019 12.50" 2017 - 2018 7.87" 2016 - 2017 17.93" 2015 - 2016 17.41" 2014 - 2015 12.10" 2013 - 2014 7.19" 2012 - 2013 9.97" 2011 - 2012 9.54" 2010 - 2011 15.99" 2009 - 2010 16.76" 2008 - 2009 8.78" 2007 - 2008 11.80" 2006 - 2007 8.36" 2005 - 2006 13.28" 2004 - 2005 16.34" 2003 - 2004 8.56" 2002 - 2003 9.40" 2001 - 2002 10.53" 2000 - 2001 12.99" 1999 - 2000 16.57" Now anyone looking at the above chart will notice that there seems to be a cyclical nature to the average rainfall. This is due to the El Niño/El Niña phenomena in the Pacific Ocean. To give some historical context, the 2019-2020 season was the driest since the 1975-1976 season. The driest season on record is 1913 at 4.3". So yes, droughts exist, though I agree that California's population increase has made the effects worse.
Yes, covering 23 years. And in 13 of those years rainfall was above average. So I would say that according to that chart, wet years are more common than dry years. As there were 13 above average years, and only 11 below average years. That alone kinds busts your claims of drought. And tell me, is the native flora and fauna suffering and dying during the dry years? I bet not, because there is still enough water for them. Only the humans who use far more water than needed are the ones suffering. Not dying, but suffering as they can only water their lawns twice a week instead of daily. Once again, below average rainfall does not make a drought. Especially in an area of the country where that is actually the norm. It is a desert after all. So not believe me? You said yourself average rainfall is 12.12". Average rainfall in Raleigh NC is 46.58". Miami, 61.9". New York, 40". Seattle, 39.34". Dallas, 39.1". In fact, the only state I lived in that was dryer than California was my 5 years in El Paso. What you are missing is that is in the driest area of the country. Almost the entire state is a desert, and what you are not seeing is the El Niña-La Niña effect. That is a much longer cycle that is on average a 7 year cycle (but it can very to 10 years). Hell, are you even aware that this has been going on for so long that a great many plants in the region have specifically adapted to require fire to reproduce? The exact same way that a great many plants in Australia also require fire to reproduce. This very fact screams that the region is a very dry region, and has been for about as long as humans have been on the planet. Because you sure as hell do not get pyrophile plants evolving in areas that have large amounts of rainfall. And yes, pyrophile plants are something that have long fascinated me. A very particular evolutionary trait, perfect for a region that naturally tends to be dry and have a lot of fires. Your most well known California trees like the redwood, sequoia, lodgepole, and many others can not even reproduce at all without fire. Which is why the total fire suppression era of most of the 20th century devastated those plants. And imported species that came from Australia fit in almost perfectly, as the hot and dry climate of California was a perfect match. However, then in the 1990s they realized that the pryophile plants from Australia had adapted a very different way of handling fires. Instead of just relying upon the fire to open the seed pods, those plants actually scattered their seeds by exploding in fires. Which is why most communities in the state now outlaw the planting of Eucalyptus.
The flora and fauna of various regions are changing as climate changes. Tree species that have been dominant are receding. Ocean fauna are moving toward the poles in order to stay in waters where they find food. Agriculture needs predictable water and appropriate temperature. Etc., etc. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-marine-species-distribution#:~:text=of 165 miles.-,Background,migrating back during the winter. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...jor-crops-in-the-crosshairs-of-climate-change You are right that negative impact on cities by drought might be measured by the amount of water per person - thus impacted by population growth. And, that is a factor that we have no way to control. But, drought would be an increasingly serious problem even if the human population were constant. There are very real changes that are independent of population growth.
Real-world data show drought in the United States has become less frequent and severe as the climate has modestly warmed. Moreover, the United Nations reports “low confidence” about any negative trends globally. Droughts have always occurred, and they always will, so alarmists cannot claim that any droughts are necessarily caused by global warming. Instead, analysis of global and U.S. drought data show the droughts that have occurred recently are less frequent and severe than the droughts of the past several decades. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chart below shows that the United States is undergoing its longest period in recorded history without at least 40 percent of the country experiencing “very dry” conditions. Note also the peaks in drought around 1978, 1954, 1930, and 1900 are much larger than what the U.S. experienced in the 21st century and the late 20th century. Figure 1: U.S. Wet and Dry Extremes Figure 1: Percentage of United States experiencing “very wet” (in green) and “very dry” (in yellow) conditions. Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/uspa/wet-dry/0. And from NOAA Figure 2: Average Drought Conditions in the Contiguous 48 States, 1895–2015 https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-drought
As they always have. What, you think this is new? Remember, we are still in the tail end of an ice age, migrations are part of the history of the planet. You are just stating something that should be obvious, and has nothing to do with the topic.
It doesn't matter if 20 out of 23 years were above average rainfall, three years of below average rainfall is still a drought. Not for the whole time of course, just for those three years. You are saying there was no drought, but the past three years had below average rainfall, so it was a drought. This year we have higher than average rainfall, so we are currently not in a drought. Also, rainfall averages of Raleigh, Miami, New Your, Seattle, and Dallas have nothing to do with California rainfall averages. Heck, even Southern California averages have nothing to do with Northern California averages. Finally, I'm not sure what the pyrophile plants tangent have to do with any of this.They have no influence on the weather.
No, it is not. It needs to be a shortage of water that impacts an area. Just being below average does not make a drought. And humans living in an area that are taking more water than the area can provide is not a drought either. Look, even if the region got 5 years in a row of 20" of rain, there still would not be enough water for everybody. This is obvious when one sees that a single state is taking most of the water from all the major rivers in multiple states and it is still not enough. That is not "drought", that is a lack of natural resources to support a population. Other major cities do not have that problem, because cities like New York and Chicago are built either near massive lakes, or have a hell of a lot more rain than California gets. You all keep trying to point fingers and change definitions to blame everything other than the most obvious fact of all. LA is built in a freaking desert. Most of the SW is a desert, and has been a desert for tens of thousands of years. All you are doing is trying to change the definition to fit what you want it to mean. It just does not work that way.
And that there is a very issue, you do not understand. Think about it, and evolution. The very proof that California has been a hot and dry climate is proof in the very plants. How many plants are there in the rest of the country that actively need fire to reproduce? Name plants like that in the SE, or NE, or anywhere else on the planet that is not hot and dry and been like that for a million years or more. Requiring fire to reproduce is a very specific biological evolutionary trait, and only happens in a few locations with very specific conditions. Specifically, most of them are in the South-West North America, and Australia. Southern Europe has plants that are pyrophytes, in which they have built in protections from fire. But they do not have pyrophilic plants, which actively need fire to reproduce. The area is wet enough that such an adaptation was never an advantage. Another thing, is that those plants are also extremely "drought resistant". In fact, we are seeing the impact of humans once again in the large number of trees dying in California. That is because not only are they taking all the ground water from the state, they are tapping the aquifers and lowering underground water levels so low that plants that evolved to use those water sources are now suffering. Believe it or not, the aquifers in California were once so shallow that one could dig only a few feet down once and hit water. Most of the Central Valley was like that once, and a lot of effort in the earliest days of settling was often trying to find solutions to getting rid of this low water table. No irrigation was needed for a century simply because there was so much water in the ground. Now, a constant problem in the state is wells going dry. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/thousands-of-california-wells-dry-up-amid-megadrought The thing is, these "droughts" would not affect the natural balance of the state at all if not for people. And no, not climate, that is the scream of a moron. Go to the areas near the coast and the plants are fine. The same in the Sierras where humans are not pumping the aquifers. The California Oak is amazingly adapted to thrive in the state. A deep root system so it does not rely upon surface water at all but taps water deep underground. And a thick outer covering of cork that serves the exact same purpose as the "cork" trees in Southern Europe. Ever wonder why cork trees are mostly in Spain and Italy? It's a fire adaptation, and they have the same hot dry climate that California has. The thick layer of cork protects the tree like a blanket from fires as well as lowering water loss through evaporation. You don't see adaptations like that in rainforests, or in the rest of the country. Such an adaptation is not needed in Georgia or Maryland. Only in hot dry areas. This and everything else is absolute proof that the periods of low rainfall is completely natural there. All of the plants have specifically evolved to handle long periods of low rainfall and fires. However, humans are not evolved to handle that, and in essence are acting like locusts and stripping all of the natural supply to the detriment of the environment. And it is nothing malicious, the area simply can not support as many people as it has. If these periods of lower rainfall were not natural, foliage all over the state would by dying. But that is not happening, other than in the areas where humans have been pumping the aquifer dry.
Ok, but I never argued that California is not hot and dry. I live in the central valley for over 50 years, so I can confirm that it is very hot and dry, but that is not what I am saying. You said there are no droughts, but by your very definition, there have been droughts in California. Rainfall records show that some years have more rain, and some years have less. If we have a lot less rain over a few years, it is considered a drought. That's it. No politics, pseudoscience or ideology needs to be included. It is what it is.
Actually not. It has to be enough less rain that it impacts the environment. Three years in a row of say ½ inch less of rain a year would not cause a drought at all, as the environment would likely barely notice that. However, I agree that 3 years in a row of ½ the annual rainfall would be a drought. And most years there is a shortfall of rain, it is in the area of a fraction of an inch. The environment would barely notice that little of a difference. Here is what the NOAA uses as the definition of a drought: Two, three, even four years in a row of a fraction of an inch below average would not be a drought. Because that would not be enough to affect the "hydrologic imbalance". In fact, the funny thing is about a decade ago there was a flood year with well above normal rainfall, and drought at the same time. Because there was a warm late-spring storm that came though and melted away most of the snowpack that provides water for most of the year. That was an irony, as I want to say the snowpack was about 120% normal, but by May most of it was gone where it normally lasts into late June and even July.
Your definition: "a prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall, leading to a shortage of water" So here's how it works. We know California is hot and dry in the summer, so we have built reservoirs to hold water from the cooler, wetter, winter. They also hold the water that come from the melting snowpack in the summer. In an average year, we allocate the water so that everyone gets what they need (theoretically). During dry years, the reservoirs go down, but get filled up again when the wet years come around. During a drought however, their is so much less water, and it lasts for so long, that the reservoirs become almost depleted. This is where we were prior to 2023.
Inches of rain can be a little misleading at times as it seems to be just a little amount of water, but a 1/2" of rain on one square mile is equal to ~8.7 million gallons of water, but let's figure out percentages. The average amount of rain over 5 years is 60.6 inches. From 2017 - 2022, we received 46.27 inches of rain. That means we only received only ~76% of our normal rainfall. That is almost 24% less rain than we normally get. I would say that 24% less rain would be considered substantially less water.
Actually, that is not my definition. That is the definition of the Oxford English Dictionary. And as you saw in the one you quoted, that is the definition from NOAA. And you highlighted part of it, but not the most important part. I highlighted it in red so you could understand that most only use half of the definition.
Which is misleading as California is a desert. The statewide average rainfall in that state is 22". So if it got 7 years in a row of 23 inches, that would be well above average. However, the average rainfall in Alabama is over 54" a year. If it got 22" a year even for two years, that would be a tremendous drought which would impact the environment severely. You keep concentrating on the wrong thing. And one can not average the rainfall then spread it out evenly over multiple years. That is not how it works. By how you are doing it, you can have 4 average years and a single far below average year, then you could claim the entire 5 year span was a drought. And I know for a fact most of those years you point out was well above average. 2017 was 150% average rainfall. 2018 was 65% normal. 2019 was 60% normal. 2020 was 40%, and it is only in the third year of most droughts that the environment starts to be impacted. Especially in a desert, as the plants and animals have evolved to handle those occasional dry spells. 2021 was 85% normal, that is almost normal, and even helped the region recover from the previous dry years. And now in the 2022-2023 season, it is ranging from 160-210% normal. Which without humans removing all of the water would be refilling all the aquifers to help take the area through the next dry spell. California is a Mediterranean Climate, where the entire ecosystem evolved to handle periods of dry weather followed by torrential downfalls. Such conditions are completely natural there. And I notice your targeted years. Add in the almost 200% rainfall of this year, what does that then do to your "average"? Wow, no more drought. See how that works?
Ok, we're back on the plants and animals for some reason. You know that they have absolutely nothing to do with whether there are droughts or n0t, right? Saying that droughts don't exist because they have evolved to handle them, is like saying wildfires don't exist because plants and animals in those areas have evolved to handle wildfires. So ultimately, it comes down to Random Internet Guy #525601 vs. the NOAA, Department of Agriculture and the National Weather Service. Yeah, I know where I would place my money.
Wow. Are you even aware that there are a great many plants in California that require fire to reproduce? They literally can not reproduce without fire. That is one of the things that was actually heavily impacting a great many forests in California until that was realized. Humans were putting out fires so fast that a lot of plants were not reproducing.
This topic is not about fire management practices. And, the reason for some species evolving to require fire for reproduction is a topic that would need to actually be addressed. As for flora and fauna outside of direct human management, species are moving due to increasing heat and drought in California. https://thehill.com/policy/equilibr...ornias-desert-trees-cant-take-the-heat-study/
As they have always migrated. Once again, nothing exceptional here. Animals either change to adapt to an area, move, or die. That is like Science 101. Otherwise, we would still be battling Mammoths and Smilodon today, and would still have simians in the midwest.
Actually was why I brought up the organisms that have evolved to deal with wildfires, to prove that just because one is true, does not make the other false.
But such an adaptation is only developed in very dry and hot climates, as those are the only locations that make sense. Like Australia or Western North America.
Most people can't even comprehend that there were still living mammoths around at the time the Great Pyramids were being built. Their concept of time rarely goes much beyond themselves or their parents. It would be like telling many Londoners that the Thames used to freeze over solid and they would have giant parties on the ice.
