Why drought could be the new normal for the US Southwest

[tabasco]

Source: CS Monitor

Hang tight, Golden state. Californians longing for "good old days" of steady rainfall might be waiting for a long time.

California's current drought could become a more regular phenomenon, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters arguing that the storms that usually bring rain to the Southwestern states are becoming rarer.

"Droughts are occurring there more easily," Andreas Prein, the study leader and a postdoctoral researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told the Associated Press.

The study, based on broad storm patterns rather than day-to-day rainfall, suggests the Southwest's rain and snow comes primarily from low-pressure storms in the North Pacific Ocean off the coast of Washington.

Read more: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0206/Why-drought-could-be-the-new-normal-for-the-US-Southwest

[Igel]

1. My understanding is that the current state of affairs is close to the "good old days".

Much closer than the previous atypical 100-150 years. Separating out the reversion to historic norms from global warming is going to be a bear, but neither set of advocates are going to be interested in the results of such a project (which I expect is on-going because it's a relatively important one).

Many people assume that the way something is is the way it has always been and always must be, and therefore they want to preserve it in its "pure state." I have kids in class who are 16 and are convinced that the world they have personally known is the world that's always existed. I know teachers who are 60 with the same lack of perspective. There's hope for one group, I guess (not sure about the kids).

Much of the East Coast forest in the US was human-made when Europeans arrived, with species spread by Native Americans. What many want to preserve or restore are post-agricultural forests with a mix of species. I know people who want to preserve the current state of wildlife in and around Houston, but it's nothing like it was 200 years ago. In some cases, the species they want to protect are documented to have arrived in the last 100 years. It's like people who want to protect the "wild horses" they think are native to the American west--it's like protecting kudzu or zebra mussels, except that neither kudzu (a CCA project) nor zebra mussels are especially cute and we don't squee over pictures of them.

[tabasco]

2. I would like to see a citation for this assertion:

"Much of the East Coast forest in the US was human-made when Europeans arrived..."

Very interesting. Thanks.

[4139]

3. Related stuff...

The change in Europes forests http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/597

Some time Google the Jack Pine, it's seeds only pop out of the cone during a fire, because we've kept fires at a minimum few Jack Pine... and there a few types of birds that rely on the Jack Pines

[Kali]

6. here are a couple from a fast google

http://www2.nau.edu/~alcoze/for398/class/pristinemyth.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_savannas_of_North_America

[tabasco]

8. Those links do not state that forests were "human made"

The links state that the native use of fire somewhat modified areas of forest, but not that much of the forests were "human made."

Perhaps something more than a "quick google check" is in order.

[Kali]

12. well perhaps you can do your own research

those two articles discuss fire as a pre-columbian management tool and that is how forests were "human made"

what are you looking for? evidence that they were planted by hand?

[happyslug]

13. The problem with the concept the pre-Columbia Forest were man made, is how did man make them?

This relates to the end of the large beasts in North America, about the time man appears. These creatures were huge and hard for anything but man to kill (the Large Predictors, such as the Dire Wolf and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dire_wolf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_extinction_event

List if extinct animals over the last 10,000 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_animals_extinct_in_the_Holocene

One theory says Humans killed off the Mammoths, That in turn permitted Elm Trees to replace grass. An alternative theory is that as the world warmed up after about 12,000 years ago, grass dominated Tundra gave way to Forests and Mammoths disliked Forests and retreated to isolated grasslands and then died out. Then the ancestors of First Americans showed up and burned these marginal forests and built the great plains. The problem with this theory is the Great Plains reached to the Pennsylvania Border about 8000 tears ago and then retreated to Illinois 4000 years ago (about 2000 BC).

Most scholars suggest that the grasslands of the Prairie Peninsula reached peak distribution during a time of global drought, known as the Hypsithermal Interval (8000 to 4000 YBP), when the western species more adapted to dry climates migrated toward the east (Stuckey 1981, Webb et al. 1983, Baskin et a!. 1994). A more recent warm and dry period known as the "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Climatic Optimum" also occurred globally and locally in North America from ca. A.D. 900 to 1300 (Brush 1991, Luckman 1994). This period has been associated with more frequent wild fires (Brush 1991) and the development of oak (Quercus spp.) savannas (Nuzzo 1985). During cooler and wetter times, the grassland has been colonized by forest, but research strongly suggested that many large remnants throughout the Midwestern states persisted because of a frequent fire regime (Gleason 1923, Pyne 1987, Heikens and Robertson 1994). Therefore, no clear and simple relationship has been shown to exist between climate and the distribution of grassland because other factors, such as fire and grazing animals, played significant and integral roles (Anderson 1982).

http://library.eri.nau.edu/gsdl/collect/erilibra/archives/HASH01c3/6a873096.dir/doc.pdf

This is AFTER man shows up in North America and this spread and then retreat appears to have been driven by drought NOT man caused burning and that can be seen by the retreat of the Prairie after 4000 years ago (Through fire was a factor, the fire involved may NOT be man made).

Thus the better argument is the large animals died out about the time man shows up in North America, for the same reason Man showed up, it was a time of huge changes in the environment. the world was warming up after the Collapse of the North American Ice Sheet about 8,000 years ago, after being in decline since 20,000 BC:

http://serc.carleton.edu/vignettes/collection/58451.html

The Eastern North American Ice Sheet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_Ice_Sheet

The Western North American Ice Sheet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordilleran_Ice_Sheet

http://faculty.washington.edu/dbooth/Ch_02_INQUA_volume.pdf

In summation, it appears that while the First Americans had some affect on North America's forest, they were restricted to what they could do for the only real tool they had when it came to trees was fire. First American, in per-Colombian days had no real way to cut down anything by the smallest trees (Flint Axes do NOT last that long). They did not have access to any large beast of burden to pull out any stumps (Which restricted what land they could clear for farming ONCE the First Americans embraced farming 9000 years ago, through most of North American did not embrace corn till about 2500 BC, or 4500 years ago). Thus what they could do to the environment was restricted (per-Colombian First Americans did have access to copper, and while copper can be made into a good spear or arrow head, it does NOT have the strength to be used in an Ax).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize

http://www.nps.gov/dewa/learn/nature/upload/cmsstgCORN.pdf

http://www.nativetech.org/cornhusk/cornhusk.html

Through Corn may have only been embraced by Eastern First Americans about 1000 AD:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20622484?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Corn was adopted in the Eastern US after 800 AD (and was the dominate food by 1100), but other foods had been ground since 2000 BC:

http://faculty.bennington.edu/~kwoods/classes/enviro-hist/easter%20na%20agr%20origin.pdf

The biggest single problem with farming in the Eastern US, was it was the largest single set of Deciduous forest in the world. Europe had always been more mixed between grasslands and forests. and the Northern Russian Forest is like US Western Forests, mostly coniferous trees (and the Russian Forest NOT in the Taiga, is more a mixed forest then Deciduous Forest):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_deciduous_forest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_broadleaf_and_mixed_forest

Now, when White Men started to appear off the coast of North America (The Vikings made the first recorded visits, but Irish monks MAY have preceded them), access to European goods became possible. I have NOT heard of any strong evidence of such trade (An Inuit grave was found with Chain Mail Armor) but Iron would have been the most wanted item and its rusts.

Thus it is POSSIBLE for some trade from 1100 to 1500 via fishermen coming to fish the Great Banks. The Great Banks have been fished since BEFORE Columbus by Europeans, but from the lower classes of Europe not the upper classes with their access to writing. It took six to none weeks to sail from Europe to the Great Banks, for the wind and currents runs the other direction and you have to sail against both, something NOT impossible but hard and takes a long time.

On the other hand going from North America to Europe could be done within a week during the Middle ages. All Fishing boats of that time period were made of wood, held in place by nails. These were small boats that could be landed on any beach during a low tide and repaired (Replacing lost nails and wood). Once repaired, the fisherman would have fished and once full head home. If any exchange of Iron tools were made to First Americans such exchange would have occurred as the fishing boats were beached and repaired. This would have been small scale trade, in the form of furs and fresh food more then anything else, for the First Americans did not really have anything to trade with these Fishermen, for the Fishermen dealt with fish not furs and would have to be careful when dealing in furs for that may be getting into the business of someone with strong political connection at home.

Thus any trade would have been limited, but it is possible it occurred. That would have provided the first Iron Tools to First Americans, and Iron Axes can be used to take out a tree.

The problem remains how to remove the stumps other then with fire and time? for First Americans had no access to Horses or Oxen for that work. With Oxen, it became possible to remove tree stumps and truly convert woodland to farmland. That would be the greatest change in the Environment of North America till the adoption of the internal Combustion engine (Trains and steam boats help make even greater removal of Trees in North America in the 1800s, but the actual removal was still done by axes and Oxen, till the Steel saw came into widespread use in the 1880s. Steel Saws are only cost effective when the Bessemer Furnace, invented about 1866, made making steel almost as cheap as making Iron. The mule replaced the Ox in the 1800s , and in the 20th century replaced by the Truck, as the chain saw replaced the steel saw).

Removal of trees and stumps were the work of Axes and Oxen (Thus the story of Paul Banyan and his Ox, Babe) till the late 1800s. Those two items, Axes and Oxen, caused more change to the North American Environment till the 1800s then anything else (Steam power became a bigger factor in the 1800s but to catch the level of change caused by the Ax and Oxen, it took the internal combustion engine).

Just a comment, the First Americans just did not have access to the tools they needed to change the environment. You can only do so much with fire and flint axes.

[Kali]

14. actually, you can do a lot of change with just fire

I mean look at what 100 years of fire suppression has done in the west, especially...

it is a tool that works on large landscape scale as well as small locals

[happyslug]

15. But fire is hard to control on GREEN trees.

Fire repression was bad for it left a lot of dead wood laying around. Where fire is permitted to occur naturally (and in areas with control burns) such wood is burned and the standing trees remain relatively untouched. The fire are to small in height and NOT not enough to burn green wood. Native American's main problem was green wood NOT dead dry wood.

Now one technique the First Americans did use was to cut a tree near its base. Tree growth is along its outer trunk and once that is cut completely you have a dead tree in most species of tree. You then a few months later come back and burn the now dead wood till the tree feel. It is an intensive way to take down a tree, but the only way the First Americans could do so. This is most effective on second growth timber, for such trees tend NOT to be that thick at their base. If you have enough workers and time this can be done extensively (And this is believed to be how the Ancient Mayans did it in Central America, the Mayans has already collapsed when the Spanish appeared so NOT a major threat, at the same time stayed independent of Spain, in fact the Surviving Mayans stayed independent of Spanish rule till 1700 and even into the 1800s were semi-independent).

In North America fire was also the main way to clear land. This was REQUIRED for Corn eats up a lot of nutrients and can deplete land quickly (i,e, land become less productive within five years and has to be abandoned after about 10 years of use when Corn is the main source of foo, then left to recover for 10 to 20 years, and then reused for by then the trees are still small and easy to remove using the above technique.

One way to extend the life of a Corn Field is to plants beans and pumpkins along with corn. Thus these became the "Three Sisters" of First American framing technique. Pumpkin would provide ground cover to eliminate weeds and beans would fix nitrogen, a needed elements for plants but an element NOT removed from the air to the soil by corn (but is "Fixed" from the air into the soil by Beans and other plants).

Given the limitations caused by the lack of adequate tools to take down trees (an Iron or Steel Ax, through a Bronze Ax would have worked) and then remove stumps (lack of Oxen), the use of fire had limited potential to convert wood lands to farm lands. On the other hand fire could be used (and access to Obsidian, a Volcanic substance, stone, you had a very sharp but brittle cutting tool, Obsidian was the preferred weapon material of the Mayans and Aztecs for they had access to it, but as you went north and east it disappeared and thus North American Indians had to make do with flint, which can be just as sharp as obsidian but even more brittle, i.e breaks easily and quickly upon to many impacts).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint

Yes, there are ways to use fire to remove trees, they are very work intensive and then you have the problem of what to do with the stumps (which has to be removed with man provided muscle power only). Fire can be effective but given the use of wood for burning to keep warm, a lot of pre-Colombian dead wood in the forest were gathered by First Americans and used for fire to cook and keep warm (Gathering fire wood another very labor intensive job, a job reserved for woman in most First American tribes).

Just a comment that while fire can be useful, it is that NOT useful when it comes to green trees. Most green trees are very fire resistant and as such unless the fire is very intensive not affected by fire. Dead trees are a different situation, they are fire sensitive thus you have to kill the tree first, then come back months later to take it down with fire. That was the only effective way First American had to take down trees and thus they did they best to avoid doing so (thus going after smaller trees of fields abandoned just decades before instead opening and taking out mature trees).

[PasadenaTrudy]

5. Makes sense. n/t

[PasadenaTrudy]

4. We are expecting record breaking heat

next week. Like, 87 or higher It's in the low 80s right now at noonish. Sucks.

[chapdrum]

7. COULD be?

In Calif., the drought (from my reading) is the worst in literally hundreds of years - and no end in sight.

Still, that doesn't stop climate champion Brown from continuing to allow rogue corp's(e) like Nestle' and Walmart
to buy water from the state.

In British Columbia, Nestle' pays $2.25 (not a typo) for each 264,172 gallons it removes.
The figure in Calif. is confidential.

Drought is the major factor in what has brought Syria to (if not over) the brink.

But we'll be safe, because we're Exceptional.

[mikehiggins]

9. Well, I guess that does it. Nobody should resettle in New Mexico.

You can visit, of course, and spend money (and buy art--Santa Fe is maybe the second site for great art in the US--after NYC) but move here. Nah. Not enough water. Beautiful mountains, of course, and generally nice people but still, drought, y'know?

Problem is, when people do come here, especially Santa Fe, they wake up one morning and find out they've lived here for ten, twenty, thirty years. It's like one of the M. Shalayam (sp) movies, just a little bit out of synch with the rest of the world.

Scary, and oh yeah. Drought.

[PasadenaTrudy]

11. I'd love to live

in Santa Fe. I visit twice a year. Maybe one of these years. Actually, it's the third largest art market

[TexasBushwhacker]

10. We even got a "fire weather" warning in Houston

You know, humid, soggy Houston. But other than the torrential rainfall in May it's been dry here.