Climate models forecast southwestern drought
The largest reservoirs in the American Southwest – Lake Powell and Lake Mead (pictured above) – are now about half full, at their lowest levels since they were created. Photo by Kyle Simourd
Nineteen different climate modeling groups around the world – using different climate models – show widespread agreement that southwestern North America can expect lasting drought conditions in the coming century.
Richard Seager: That transition to increased aridity reaches a level of aridity akin to perpetual drought conditions sometime within the first few decades of the 21st century.
That’s Richard Seager at the Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory. He said to expect “a transition to a new climate” in the American Southwest.
Seager believes this change is a consequence of global warming. Atmospheric models show that global warming will cause drier areas to get drier and wetter areas to get wetter during the 21st century. Seager said that although cutting carbon emissions might lessen the drying, the transition to a new climate can’t be reversed.
Richard Seager: Even the best–case scenarios mean adjusting to some level of drying.
Meanwhile, the largest reservoirs in the American Southwest – Lake Powell and Lake Mead – are now about half full, at their lowest levels since they were created. And experts point out that water in the American Southwest is largely used for agriculture.
Our thanks today to NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
An imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America
Expert: water is a different kind of resource
Should other countries heed Australia’s drought?
Our thanks to:
Richard Seager
Research Scientist
Lamont–Dougherty Laboratory, Columbia University
Palisades, NY
NEW! Find related content with Sphere
I’ve had trouble downlaoding the podcast in iTunes since the 2007-06-05 podcast. My other iTunes feeds download ok. I submitted a trouble report to E&S but haven’t had a response.
If you’re interested or concerned about this story, NPR’s Morning Edition is doing a series on Southwest drought this week. Richard Seager talked about making the difficult choice between water for cities and water for agriculture. The first installment of the series gives a very human perspective on what’s largely a political decision. The story is called Crops vs Craps.
Michael, we’ll check on the iTunes podcast problem. In the meantime, you can download the podcast from this page …
Does that help?
Best,
Deborah
Also having trouble downloading podcast from iTunes (for about a week or so).
Thanks, John. The files seem to be playing on our website, so I’m thinking it might be an iTunes problem with our files. We’ll ask them.
Many many thanks.
Deborah
If we are going to deal with these problems that probably will occur in the future, we have to be aware of them. We all need to know as much as we can. Thanks 4 the info.
The southwest is doomed. There is not enough water for all of the people that are living there.
Doomed?!? What do you mean by doomed??
aWarner sounds like someone who’s never experienced what draws so many people to live in the Southwest…
doomed because that land can’t support all the people who continue to be drawn there
I want to know, doomed as in apocalypse, doomed as in gradual extinction, or doomed as in the Northwest will have to take us all in as environmental refugees?
I say the senior communities go first. That way we can eliminate a few of the golf courses. But not all of them.
His models may say this, but the data doesn’t. Yes it is dry this year, but that is not the trend in CA or the SW in general. Scientists don’t ususally make conclusions based on a single data point
Over the last 66 years (since 1940) CA has seen ppt increase year to year as has the West in general.
You can play with all the climate data from the US since 1895 at this site: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
You might be suprised at what you find out.
Global warming is caused soley by 1500 year solar cycles – and it CANNOT be stopped. Sooo – relax and enjoy the better weather!
Please read: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=0df9b3cd-802a-23ad-4984-5ac0c6d42605
When aWarner speaks of the southwest being “doomed,” I think he’s talking about a possible failure of the human infrastructures in that part of the country, caused by global warming.
That’s the biggest problem (for humans) with global warming. Our human infrastructures were built with a different climate in mind.
So the issue isn’t, for example, simply that the southwest will get warmer or drier. As individuals, we can adapt to additional warmth or dryness. But, as a society, we need our underlying infrastructures to function properly. And perhaps most immediately relevant for humans in the southwest is that Lake Powell and Lake Mead, which supply water for the large populations living in the southwest, both are much lower than they have ever been since they were built. I don’t know about Lake Mead, but Lake Powell is so low that it’s nearly below the level of the pumps that pump water out of the lake for human use. And, sure, we can lower those pumps. But that costs money.
Multiply that cost by thousands of similar infrastructure problems throughout the world – caused by climate change – and you begin see the great cost of climate change.
Deborah
To Okolona.
According to ice core studies, atmospheric CO2 has cycled from roughly 180 to 280 parts per million in the last 450,000 years. I submit this graph. The green line represents CO2 levels, the blue line: temperate, and the red line: dust. Note how closely the up-and-down levels of CO2 and temperature correspond.
Human-induced CO2 emissions has increased atmospheric CO2 levels to around 380 parts per million, and these levels are projected to increase to 450-550 ppm by 2050. Regardless of what cycle or cycles you wish to refer to, these CO2 levels appear to have no precedent in modern geological history.
Bruce
Once again Bruce,
There is NO evidence that any source of CO2 is the CAUSE of ANY warming on earth. None, zero, zilch, nada!
Please expalin how SUVs and factories on Earth are causing the recent and dramatic melting of Martian polar ice. Guess there’s some other reason that planet is heating up? Huh?
To Okolona,
Reading you previous comments, I am fully aware that you don’t think atmospheric CO2 in any way or shape causes global warming on Earth. And I’m fully aware of your recent claim that a 1500-year solar cycle is the SOLE cause of ALL global warming here on Earth (what happened to the Milankovitch cycles you use to refer to?).
My point is that regardless of whatever cycle or cycles you wish to refer to, ice core studies show that the present spike in atmospheric CO2 levels is totally unprecedented in Earth’s modern geological history, and that this spike is probably due to human-induced CO2 emissions. Unlike you, many climatologists find this unprecedented phenomenon a cause for concern and a reason to pause.
I’m not aware of any ice core studies that have been done on the planet Mars.
Bruce
Bruce,
If you are not afraid to face the truth simply google “Mars, melting”.
Hello Okolona and Bruce,
I googled Mars melting and found at the top of the list a story about seasonal climate change on Mars. Yes, Mars has seasons, as Earth does, and its seasons change … so its ice caps wax and wane in size. This has nothing whatever to do with earthly climate change. It has more to do with the change in the seasons - summer, fall, winter, spring - happening on Earth, and on Mars, for billions of years …
So … Okolona … forgive my saying so … but I believe you need to look more deeply than just the headlines.
Likewise, there are a few (a very few) astronomers who have gotten a huge amount of publicity for claims of martian warming, suggesting that warming on Mars and warming on Earth might be due to solar cycles. The operative word here is might. The warming on Mars, if it exists at all, could also be caused by forces internal to Mars alone. And remember these are just a few astronomers, a handful of studies, in contrast to the thousands of scientists who have studied global warming on Earth, and who now believe it is human-caused.
So I ask you the same thing you asked Bruce … if you are not afraid to face the truth … please open your mind to the possibility that global warming on Earth is, indeed, caused by humans. I can’t ask you to see some simple proof of this, because it’s not a simple thing. But I can assure that the scientific majority believes that global warming is real, and is human-caused.
Deborah
Deborah (and Bruce while I’m at it),
I apologize for wrongly assuming that all visitors to this website would have some concept of scientific principle and basic logic – “might”, “consensus”, and “believe” are not proofs.
ALL scientists, save one, once believed the sun was the center of the universe. Most scientists were convinced at one time the Earth was flat, and in the 1700s many scientists believed the human body could not withstand speeds above 60 mph.
You said: “Thousands of scientists who have studied global warming on Earth, now “believe” it is human-caused.” Then you follow with “I can’t ask you to see some simple proof of this, because it’s not a simple thing.” That makes absolutely no sense.
A “complicated proof” would be fine Deborah. Cite one in your next post.
I thank both of you for making my case. Gonna fill up my Hummer – and go enjoy this fine weather.
Okolona,
And I am surprised that someone sounds as knowledgeable as you do about science would be asking for “proof.” Surely you know that – in science – “might” and “consensus” and “believe” are the best we can do on the subject of global warming at this time. No one – not scientists, not anyone – knows for certain what the future will bring.
Your ideas about solar cycles and melting on Mars are all about “might” and “believe,” too, by the way. And yet you choose to believe them and to ignore the scientific consensus.
Why?
If you want to read about the evidence, you might try going to Wikipedia’s article on global warming. It’s a good write-up for the general public, is neutral in tone, and has lots of options for looking further at any part of the question you choose. Be sure to look at the bottom of the page, too, under Further Reading … all the evidence you could possibly want … but, as I said, not a simple story.
Best,
Deborah
Deborah,
Obviously we do not agree. But that is OK. Although we may never agree – clarity of position is all I seek. Your website offers the world a chance to clearly see an individual’s thinking on such issues. That is a great service to mankind!
But I would like to touch on a real problem. Many Americans don’t want us to use coal, oil, nuclear power, or wood as an energy source. Recently some “Don Quixotes” actually sought to ban windmills in a Massachusetts county because they were killing birds and ruining views. So what DO we use for power? These same people bravely fight our many “threats”: e.g. SUV’s, corporations, second-hand smoke, and anyone that would dare harm a sea turtle egg, or suggest we drill for oil; unfortunately, these same people choose not to acknowledge our REAL enemies.
The only hope for these individuals will be the awakening they have when they walk outside some morning, and see a strange glow in the sky – and hear that a major city has just been flattened. Maybe then they will find the courage of their grandparents – and face and fight the REAL threats that our children and we face.
BUT, until that morning – I am sure they will continue to conjure up threats – and bravely fight their quixotic campaigns.
Finally, respectfully, and hopefully yours,
Okolona
PS: Just arrived at a gorgeous place in Red River Gorge, KY. Will be looking UP for the closing positions of Venus and Saturn in about 4 hours, if sky clears. Tomorrow it’s canoeing the Gorge.
Thank you Okolona. True, we do not agree. But I value the chance to understand your thinking on this subject.
Enjoy the Gorge … and the planets!
All best,
Deborah