CA Water Year Not Looking Good - Jan. May Be Driest On Record, Sierra Snowpack At 67% Of Average

[hatrack]

EDIT

There are ominous signs every where that this is shaping up as the third year of a drought that could have major consequences for urban, farm, and industrial users as well as minimal flows needed to sustain the ecological systems of rivers and the Delta.

• New Melones Reservoir on the Stanislaus River is dropping at the rate of 79 acre feet a day at a time of year when it is expected to grow by hundreds of acre feet a day.

• Rainfall on the watershed above Tri-Dam’s Beardsley Dam on the Stanislaus is usually 6.87 inches in January, the wettest month of the year. As of Friday morning it was .95 inches for January

• Sierra snow pack — the biggest reservoir in the state — was at 67 percent of normal as of Monday.

The rainfall pattern on the watershed above Beardsley tells a sobering story. It was 6 inches during November when the average is 4.8 inches. It was at 93 percent of normal, which is 5.74 inches, in December. It is lagging by almost 6 inches for January with under two weeks left in the month. The normal for February is 6.57 inches.

There is already a 5 inch plus deficit so far this water year. Even if by some chance it ended up as a normal year, the Department of Water Resources warns that it won’t break the back of the drought. New Melones — the biggest reservoir on the Stanislaus — has a 2,419,000 acre feet capacity. It was at 1,151,316 acre feet Friday morning and still dropping 799 acre feet a day.

Forecasters expect the 2008-09 weather year to be dry again based on temperatures in the eastern and central Pacific Ocean being cooler than normal. Historically, this changes weather patterns and reduces precipitation in California. The Department of Water Resources has already indicated water deliveries to cities and agricultural will be just 15 percent of normal.

EDIT

http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINTRE50F43120090116

[tabatha]

1. Hmmm... not good.

I was hoping for better rain this year.

[enid602]

2. Argentina

If you want to sees omething odd, google the current drought here in Argentina. We supply much of Europe´s beef, vegetables, etc. Very serious.

[XemaSab]

3. Here's Shasta Lake:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist2/cctv/sm_pitriver.shtml

(As an aside, reporters are sorta dumb sometimes. "Forecasters expect the 2008-09 weather year to be dry again based on temperatures in the eastern and central Pacific Ocean being cooler than normal. Historically, this changes weather patterns and reduces precipitation in California." No, you dork, the same weather change that BRINGS cool temperatures to the eastern and central Pacific ALSO BRINGS dry weather to California. And, if I'm not mistaken, it's mostly water temperatures they're talking about, which is not clarified in these sentences.)

[XemaSab]

4. AND EVEN WORSE:

• New Melones Reservoir on the Stanislaus River is dropping at the rate of 79 acre feet a day

New Melones — the biggest reservoir on the Stanislaus — has a 2,419,000 acre feet capacity. It was at 1,151,316 acre feet Friday morning and still dropping 799 acre feet a day.

:o

[quidam56]

5. But Hannity says there is no such thing as global warming...

http://www.wisecountyissues.com

[guardian]

6. Big deal! CA watershed is down, CO is up

Let me guess, the below article was written by a know nothing religious idiot in the pocket of a big oil lobbyist and has no credibility, and the watershed in CO has nothing to do with global warming. But the OP article that shows something bad was written by a highly respected climate genius who's only altruistic motive is to benefit mankind and is obviously another sign of impending planetary destruction because I bought orange juice.

Why do you brainwashed GW fanatics see EVERYTHING as Global Warming?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Link: http://www.waterchat.com/News/State/09/Q1/state_090108-02.htm
Tuesday January 6, 2009
CO: Colorado Snowpack Above Average

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service

Lakewood, CO -- Colorado's mountain snowpack has gotten off to a good start with much of the state recording above average totals for the New Year. According to the latest snow surveys, conducted by the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the state’s snowpack is 120 percent of average. With the 2009 totals topping last year's January 1 readings, the current snowpack is the highest since 1997. Additionally, this year's snowpack marks only the third time that above average January totals were measured across the state in the 12 years since 1997, according to Allen Green, State Conservationist with the NRCS.

The latest surveys are welcome news to the state's water users, since up to 80% of Colorado's surface water supplies originate from the melting snowpack during the spring and summer months. The best news comes from those river basins across southern Colorado once again this year. A series of heavy storms have delivered abundant snowfall to the Rio Grande, Arkansas and San Juan River basins in December. "We've seen a snowfall pattern which is strikingly similar to last year in these basins", said Green. After a very dry fall, several intense storms brought heavy accumulations to boost snowpack totals to well above average by the January 1 surveys. The current snowpack readings in these basins range from 135 to 140 percent of average, and are nearly identical to those statistics of a year ago. The Rio Grande basin's 140% of average is the highest January total measured since 1985, bringing the best news to water users in this basin in decades.

Meanwhile, snowpack totals across northern Colorado remain at near average to slightly below average for this date. With the December storm pattern favoring southern Colorado, the northern basins received smaller totals, which range from 86 to 99 percent of average in the Yampa, White, and North and South Platte basins. While these basins remain slightly below average, only the North Platte is short of exceeding last year's totals for this date.

Overall, the state is on track to experience another good runoff year when spring arrives. Streamflow forecasts for the spring and summer months call for near average to above average runoff for most of the state. "At the present time, we still have 60 percent of the snowpack accumulation season ahead of us. There's a lot that can happen in the next few months that can change this picture; but right now, things look great", said Green.
As the New Year begins, reservoir storage is in good condition statewide. With no basins showing any potential shortages, the statewide totals are at 98 percent of average and are 101 percent of last year's storage volumes.

The table below shows Colorado’s snowpack and reservoir storage as of January1, 2009.

BASIN % AVG % LAST YR.’S % AVG % LAST YR.’S SNOWPACK SNOWPACK STORAGE STORAGE
GUNNISON 127 109 105 99
COLORADO 27 120 96 97
SOUTH PLATTE 99 107 95 107
NORTH PLATTE 86 96 --- ---
YAMPA/WHITE 97 113 --- ---
ARKANSAS 137 99 96 105
RIO GRANDE 140 103 81 86
SAN JUAN 135 104 109 91
STATEWIDE 120 109 98 101

Contact:
Mike Gillespie
[phone]

[XemaSab]

7. You like almonds?

Tomatoes? Avocadoes? Peppers? Asparagus? Lemons? Walnuts? Strawberries? Peaches? Artichokes? Lettuce? Rice? Cherries? Broccoli? Oranges? Grapes? Plums? Kiwifruit? Cauliflower? Grapefruit? Pistachios? :shrug:

And, last but not least, wine? :shrug:

Then shut the fuck up.

[guardian]

8. Non Sequitur

Typical cogent, well thought out argument designed to sway an opposing viewpoint with supporting facts. What's your fallback position? I suppose with your vast intellect you use the "liar liar pants on fire" rebuttal.

I imagine you can understand the first word of my reply subject...it has less than four letters.

[neverforget]

9. and your position is typical of one in denial: find one thing that supposedly

refutes the OP's article and say "see? there is no climate change!" one article does not refute the other.

[NNadir]

10. Small brain!

First of all, genius, if Colorado were now under a glacier it would have no bearing whatsoever on the issue of climate trends.

We have a problem, hardly universal, but real, on this website with "google thinking" in which a lazy, poorly informed person provides a bit of selective attention to announce that a particular snippet "proves" that he or she should hear want he or she wants to hear.

Now, noting as I do, that you are a yet another example of this phenomena does not establish that all people who post here are as dumb as you are. It does establish unambiguously that there is at least ONE person as dumb as you are.

There is in any complex system something known as "noise" - and although the word particularly suits the illiterate denial machine, which is not restricted to anti-science kooks in the climate change denial squadrons - this refers to random fluctuations that can obscure a signal.

Most modern instrumental software is designed to calculate a signal to noise ratio, and to sort out the signals from it. There are even very rigorous conventions about it. For instance, in bioanalytical guidance documents, the FDA suggests that the LOD on a bioanalytical method be set at a S/N ratio of 3. Software can easily calculate this, recognizing that one of the features of noise is that momentarily an indicator can be moving in the opposite direction of the actual signal.

Now, if you were bright, educated, and informed, you might actually know something about the nature of the signal represented by the Colorado Snowpack, recognizing for instance that in 2006 things were not so rosy in Colorado.



Of course, the signal in May of 2006 doesn't "prove" anything, but the trend does.

Then too, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration happens to be in Colorado, and probably know something about it.

They collect something called "data," which they make available for anyone who wants to read it:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/monitoring_and_data/drought.shtml

There is always some shit-for-brains illiterate fuck-off dunderhead running outside on a freezing day screaming "Climate Change is Shit!!!!!" while claiming to be serious, graceful, gracious, open-minded and clear.

Generally these are the same types who couldn't tell the FTIR spectrum of, say, carbon dioxide, from the stock charts on their Lehman Brothers accounts that they learned to interpret in a "I'm too dumb to do science" MBA program at the "George W. Bush School of CEO Presidents." The number of science books opened by these types is typically zero, unless of course, one is talking about the "science" books at Liberty "University" or the ones at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In the latter institution one can find Kurt Wise, who has "proved" that the world is 5000 years old by collecting a Ph.D. from Harvard.

Tough shit kiddie. The new Secretary of Energy is a scientist, a Nobel Prize winning one in fact. I don't think he'll be returning Inhofe's phone calls.

Tough shit, kiddie. The age of crushing science in service to feel good fantasies and

[guardian]

11. I think YOU were crushed by your attempt at "science"

So "shit-for-brains illiterate fuck-off dunderhead" (your words not mine) what is the trend?

According to the OP, CA is in drought in 2009. According to your fancy graphic CA was near normal in 2006. Colorado was coming out of a drought in 2006. But now has plenty of water due to higher than average snow pack. One is getting better, one getting worse. The only trend here is that climate isn't static. Droughts come and go. Weather patterns change.

Apparently YOU are the "lazy, poorly informed person provides a bit of selective attention to announce that a particular snippet "proves" that he or she should hear want he or she wants to hear." It rains---global warming. Britney Spears forgets her panties--global warming. Cold weather in Siberia--global warming. Katrina--global warming. You had a thought--global warming.

As far as SNR...that is the sound of your ass talking.