Chronic 2000-04 drought, worst in 800 years, may be the ‘new normal’
July 31, 2012

Pinyon pine forests near Los Alamos, N.M., had already begun to turn brown from drought stress in the image at left, in 2002, and another photo taken in 2004 from the same vantage point, at right, show them largely grey and dead. (Photo by Craig Allen, U.S. Geological Survey)
The chronic drought that hit western North America from 2000 to 2004 left dying forests and depleted river basins in its wake and was the strongest in 800 years, scientists have concluded, but they say those conditions will become the “new normal” for most of the coming century.
Such climatic extremes have increased as a result of global warming, a group of 10 researchers reported Sunday inĀ Nature Geoscience. And as bad as conditions were during the 2000-04 drought, they may eventually be seen as the good old days.
Climate models and precipitation projections indicate this period will actually be closer to the “wet end” of a drier hydroclimate during the last half of the 21st century, scientists said.
Aside from its impact on forests, crops, rivers and water tables, the drought also cut carbon sequestration by an average of 51 percent in a massive region of the western United States, Canada and Mexico, although some areas were hit much harder than others. As vegetation withered, this released more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, with the effect of amplifying global warming.
“Climatic extremes such as this will cause more large-scale droughts and forest mortality, and the ability of vegetation to sequester carbon is going to decline,” said Beverly Law, a co-author of the study, professor of global change biology and terrestrial systems science at Oregon State University, and former science director of AmeriFlux, an ecosystem observation network.
“During this drought, carbon sequestration from this region was reduced by half,” Law said. “That’s a huge drop. And if global carbon emissions don’t come down, the future will be even worse.”
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation, NASA, U.S. Department of Energy, and other agencies. The lead author was Christopher Schwalm at Northern Arizona University. Other collaborators were from the University of Colorado, University of California at Berkeley, University of British Columbia, San Diego State University, and other institutions.
It’s not clear whether or not the current drought in the Midwest, now being called one of the worst since the Dust Bowl, is related to these same forces, Law said. This study did not address that, and there are some climate mechanisms in western North America that affect that region more than other parts of the country.
But in the West, this multi-year drought was unlike anything seen in many centuries, based on tree ring data. The last two periods with drought events of similar severity were in the Middle Ages, from 977-981 and 1146-1151. The 2000-04 drought affected precipitation, soil moisture, river levels, crops, forests and grasslands.
Ordinarily, Law said, the land sink in North America is able to sequester the equivalent of about 30 percent of the carbon emitted into the atmosphere by the use of fossil fuels in the same region. However, based on projected changes in precipitation and drought severity, scientists said that this carbon sink, at least in western North America, could disappear by the end of the century.
“Areas that are already dry in the West are expected to get drier,” Law said. “We expect more extremes. And it’s these extreme periods that can really cause ecosystem damage, lead to climate-induced mortality of forests, and may cause some areas to convert from forest into shrublands or grassland.”
During the 2000-04 drought, runoff in the upper Colorado River basin was cut in half. Crop productivity in much of the West fell 5 percent. The productivity of forests and grasslands declined, along with snowpacks. Evapotranspiration decreased the most in evergreen needleleaf forests, about 33 percent.
The effects are driven by human-caused increases in temperature, with associated lower soil moisture and decreased runoff in all major water basins of the western U.S., researchers said in the study.
Although regional precipitations patterns are difficult to forecast, researchers in this report said that climate models are underestimating the extent and severity of drought, compared to actual observations. They say the situation will continue to worsen, and that 80 of the 95 years from 2006 to 2100 will have precipitation levels as low as, or lower than, this “turn of the century” drought from 2000-04.
“Towards the latter half of the 21st century the precipitation regime associated with the turn of the century drought will represent an outlier of extreme wetness,” the scientists wrote in this study.
These long-term trends are consistent with a 21st century “megadrought,” they said.
Comments (10)
by Larry
sigh…
Pinons dying in New Mexico were caused directly by an invasive insect species. More rain might have helped but not a direct cause. Changes in ocean currents are STILL the biggest cause of local climate change. CO2 only *really* affects the 10 meters above the ocean…
Socialism/Communism causes more human harm then all of the localized changes in climate and yet “The Solution” is even more ….
by SpottedMarley
a new dark age is coming. just as before and just as in the future. its the cyclic nature of everything. there is no need to fear the inevitable
by Starheart
Nobody denies warming per se. What is actively disputed is the fact that it is: 1) global; 2) escalating in the long term; 3) influenced by human factor, but most importantly 4) that we can and should do anything about it.
We’re not quite the masters of our own planet yet. We can’t prevent localized environmental disasters until we establish global climate control. Which is ultimately what’s wrong with the picture: the green lobby is suggesting that we actually may achieve the advertised goals with current levels of technology.
Green tech isn’t quite competitive yet and requires extensive subsidies that could have improved people’s lives in other ways; there’s plenty of clean energy schemes (such as LENR) that we may see on the market soon enough and that will actually do well on said free market. As such, I’m persuaded there is really no need to demolish power plants to construct giant windmills which would be inadequate anyway.
Also, the green lobby is vetoing nuclear power. Well good luck minimizing carbon emission without that.
by Mortran
5) bad
by JudMiller
Is this how they create their computer models too? Just random guesses from a few years of data – shameful.
by Bri
Talk about a third rail to touch. Anyone who looks at the data with prejudging will come to the conclusion that global warming is real. ( just the tree ring data alone is a knock out blow.) don’t believe me. Invest in a skii resort that doesn’t make it’s own snow. From my perspective, which is very subjective, I think we hit one of those “tipping” points. We will see, in the long run, I fear global cooling. We are gonna use carbon for everything. Just like with plants, it’s there for the taking. We will find a balance. I bet coal will be like gold, in the carbon age. Meanwhile, Canada is looking really good.
by Starheart
Classic global warming panic propaganda in its best, which assumes a causality chain in which every single step is up to debate.
1) A local climate shift is a result of global change. (Debatable. We don’t see heat rising worldwide, and many areas are in fact getting colder. Of course, this extreme is also somehow blamed on global change)
2) The change is escalating rather than cyclical and self-stabilizing. (Climate variations are a natural part of planet’s ecology. There is no evidence that heat keeps accumulating. Earth infrared emissions, for example, confirm that heat keeps dissippating as well as ever)
3) Carbon emission is the cause for the climate change. (Debatable in the long term, all direct evidence has been tied to short-term volcanic events)
4) Man-made carbon emission is more significant than natural causes. (Gross overestimation of human potency and comparison of emissions over time to above mentioned massive events)
5) Humans will keep using fossil fuels long enough to affect the environment irreversably (Whereas we barely got any oil left and coal will soon follow, so a shift to other energy sources is inevitable anyway)
5) There is no way to compensate for man-made carbon emissions except to cut them down (There are in fact plans to bind excess atmospheric carbon cheaper and easier to implement than cutting down on fossil fuels)
6) Allocating money and resources here and now to various unprofitable eco-ventures rather than invest in actually competitive developments of relatively clean energy technology for the future is going to help matters (no comment).
by GatorALLin
this cartoon is still kind of good.. check it out…
http://i1014.photobucket.com/albums/af261/GatorALLin/Other/BetterPlannet.png
by GatorALLin
…lots of good points you make… but this global melting thing is still bothering me….
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/story/2012-07-25/greenland-ice-sheet-melt-climate-change/56479518/1
by Mortran
Bothering you – why?? We should all be happy when Greenland becomes finally green.