Dennis Brack/NEWSCOM/FILE
Steven Chu testifies at his January 13 Senate confirmation hearing to become US Energy Secretary.
An orange grove in Redlands, Calif. The state's agriculture annually brings in more than $30 billion in revenue.
(John Dooley/Sipa Press/NEWSCOM/FILE)Photos (1 of 1)
Energy Secretary: Climate change could wipe out Calif. farming
By Eoin O'Carroll | 02.05.09
Energy Secretary Steven Chu warned that, if climate change continues unabated, California’s agriculture could vanish by the end of the century.
Speaking with the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who ran the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory before joining the Obama administration, said that warming temperatures could eliminate up to 90 percent of the Sierra snowpack, which provides water to many of the state’s 76,000 farms.
“I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen,” he told the newspaper. “We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.”
“I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going,” he added.
According to statistics from the US Department of Agriculture [PDF], California is responsible for about half of US fruit, nut, and fresh vegetable production.
As the LA Times notes, Chu is not a climate scientist. His Nobel Prize, which he shared with French physicist Claude Cohen-Tannoudji and American physicist William Daniel Phillips, was awarded in 1997 for his contributions to “laser cooling,” a method of trapping gaseous atoms with laser light.
Chu’s warning – that Sierra snowpack could dip by 90 percent by century’s end – is far more dire than others have predicted. A report last year written by University of California, Berkeley, researchers Fredrich Kahrl and David Roland-Holst said that snowpack on the mountain range is “projected to shrink by 30 percent by 2070-2099.” The report adds that “[d]rier higher warming scenarios” put that figure at 80 percent.
[Update: Commenter Daniel Zappala has pointed to a February 2006 report [PDF] from the California Climate Change Center that says that a 90 percent reduction in snowpack is plausible under a worst-case scenario. See Mr. Zappala’s comment below.]
Still, as The Monitor’s Pete Spotts pointed out in his Horizons blog, as California enters its third year of drought, the water content of snowpack on the Sierras and elsewhere in the state sits at 61 percent of normal (as Mr. Spotts explains, measurement of water content is different from measurement of the snowpack itself).
Mr. Spotts quotes Lester Snow, the Director of California’s Department of Water Resources, who warns, “We may be at the start of the worst California drought in modern history,”
(To the great disappointment of this blogger, Mr. Snow doesn’t let people call him “Les.”)
The decline in spring runoff from the mountains is often cited as contributing to the state’s wildfires.
Chu told the LA Times that he hopes that, in addition to mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions and billions in funding for alternative energy, public education will play a role in helping to curb global warming.
“I’m hoping that the American people will wake up,” he told the Times.
<< New US office takes fresh approach to carbon | MainComments
2. Dave Thomas | 02.05.09
Mr. Chu making an incredibly unsubstantiated statement like this completely disqualifies him for any job at the national, state, or local levels of government. Junk science like man-made global warming is as much a religion as creationism. Enough of this absolute stupidity.
3. Skymodem | 02.05.09
Finally!! We have people in government who aren’t afraid of the faith-based idiots who don’t believe in things like science. Thank God.
4. T. Ellsworth Stubbins | 02.05.09
We need more tax cuts for the rich, and more countries’ oil supplies, that’s all. The rest just flows from a free market. If we let the free market operate free, then the climate becomes free also, and it all works out. For example: The greatest minds of our times, the financial geniuses of Wall Street, made $33 billion in bonuses in 2007 and $18 billion in bonuses in 2008, proving that the Bush system works. All that money, along with the $500 billion profit that the oil companies made in the Bush Era, will trickle down to everyone, and will prove once and for all that Reaganomics is still working beautifully. The MOST important component of this brilliant system, the heart of it, the nucleus, the hub, the axis, the nave, one we must never ever forget, is to continue giving tax cuts to the rich. Bush’s economics, spawn of Reagan’s, is still working very well. We don’t need to pay any attention to these 15,000 so-called scientists around the world, in every scientific body of every country, who’ve wasted their lives studying so-called science, and who keep talking about global warmings. Just go out and shop, like all of us patriotic faith-based idiots from TX, and our commodities, er… I mean planet, will do just fine.
5. Daniel Zappala | 02.05.09
Mr. Chu’s statement is not unsubstantiated:
Cayan, D.,A. Luers, M. Hanemann, G. Franco, and B. Croes. 2006. Climate change scenarios for California: An overview. Sacramento, CA: California Climate Change Center.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-186/CEC-500-2005-186-SF.PDF
The Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) distributed land surface hydrology model was used to simulate snowpack throughout the century (Cayan et al. 2006a). Projected reductions in snowpack increase with temperature, with the larger losses of spring snowpack in the higher range of projected warming (Figure 6). Each of the simulations shows losses of spring snow accumulation, largely over the Sierra Nevada, become progressively larger over the twenty-first century. In the Sierra Nevada by the 2035–2064 period, snowpack could decrease 12% to 47% from historical levels under the lower range of projected warming, and decrease 26% to 40% in the higher range of projected warming, with precipitation changes playing a partial role in the reductions for the lower temperature cases. By the end of century, snowpack could decrease by as much as 90% in the higher amount of warming—almost double the losses expected under the lower warming cases.
6. Barry | 02.05.09
Ignore Chu’s warning of a looming water crisis at your peril folks.
Want a preview of coming attractions?
Mexico City is already having to turn off the tap. Reservoirs are so low that city will turn off water to 2 million people for 3 days per month until at least May. People are going to love getting no water when they turn on the tap…or try to flush a toilet…wash dishes…or take a shower.
And it is coming soon to California.
The CSM just reported last week that CA Water Resources Department estimates it will only be able to send out 15% of the water farms and urban areas are requesting from the Delta via the State Water Project.
Oh, and Lake Oroville reservoir is at 43% of normal…and Lake Mead has 50% chance of being functionally dry in just 12 years.
Over at the biggest reservoir in the west, Lake Powell, engineers are racing to put in a lower outlet pipe in the low-oxygen muck zone because it too is heading toward empty. In fact, it would take decades of above normal rainfall to get it close to normal levels.
We can’t fill the reservoirs we already have out west. Summer snowpack is decreasing. Cities are fighting with some of the nation’s biggest food-producers over who gets to survive.
Bye, bye summer water.
Chu is a hero for risking denier vitriol to warn the rest of us of the ugly reality of what we are already seeing unfold.
We are on track for 1000ppm this century unless we dramatically cut fossil fuels now. The SW will be a multi-century wasteland at those levels.
7. Peter Kledaras | 02.05.09
I don’t know who’s dumber, the alarmist with the Nobel Prize or the idiots who went into debt to hear his lectures.
Can anyone please tell me why none of these scientific studies does what any sensible person would do: Calibrate a model on historic data EXCLUDING THE LAST 50 YEARS and then project what that model would have predicted for today? My guess is that they have, but they’re shy to show us. We would laugh, we would stop going into debt to bow at their feet in colleges, and their grant money would summarily evaporate. Sadly, too many people would rather believe the worst than responsibly verify the risk before alarming pre-teen children (and adults who apparently have equivalent experience levels recognizing abject propaganda).
Has anyone audited the variety of organizations that are airing commercials and invading our public schools to raise the false alarm? Follow the trail–they almost always involve Al Gore, George Soros, a whole lot of investors in companies that stand to gain financially, and academics who want more grant money. Talk about greed on Wall Street! Why all the secrecy? Why not convince more of us openly, honestly, and calmly, if there’s really a case to be made that we’re killing the planet?
People like T. Ellsworth Stubbins clearly have a problem living on the same planet peacefully with other humans. How about let’s have an open and honest debate, and please keep the irrelevant ranting to a minimum. Why do you hate people for believing in God? How is that in any way helpful? How much carbon do you sequester in the bargain? Do you hate President Obama as much as you hate the rest of us? He says he believes in God and supports faith-based programs. Or do you give him a pass because you think he’s just lying to influence us foolish voters? What does that say about you?
8. calvin | 02.05.09
Perhaps they should be thinking about how to capture a greater % of the water in runoff! When 95% of the rainfall/snow in CA is allowed to run back into the ocean without being used, it implies a great impact could be made. But then again, who’s in the way of improving the system of capture? On a simpler note, one has to wonder how it is economical for rice to be grown in CA “the desert”. Perhaps it is outdated water pricing laws from many years ago that don’t promote water conservation?
9. Tesla_x | 02.05.09
“Mr. Chu’s statement is not unsubstantiated”
Incorrect. Mr. Chu’s statement is not rational. He is a FOOL.
The research you referenced is what I categorize as GFJS, or Grant Funded JUNK Science. The WSJ calls it YELLOW SCIENCE. It is nothing more than a contrived supporting document to the new religion of Global Warming, which is a FRAUD.
When you have to LIE by changing historical temperature data, of selectively choose datasets that deliberately ignore cold spots globally, you are LYING.
Do some real reading before you post such propaganda in the future please…
Yellow SCIENCE:
online.wsj.com/article/SB121433436381900681.html?mod=googlenews
How they LIED about Global Warming:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/
ITS THE SUN STUPID:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/earthbreathing.html
Or possibly part of an even larger picture that NO ONE can ethically say they understand with ANY scientific certainty:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/07/the-milky-way-c.html
In any case, Michael Crichton’s State of Fear is more accurate than most realize as a description of what we are being subjected to with all this Fear Mongering and Climate Propaganda.
…End of line…
10. Kevin Gertgen | 02.05.09
I just heard this guy’s “stump speech” where he says a 3 Deg Centrigrade increase in global temperature is an 11 Deg Farenheit increase. It’s not, it’s only 5.4 Deg Farenheit! He’s off by a factor of 2! This was a prepared speech, not an off the cuff remark. This is an error that ANY high school science teacher would catch immediately.
This is the guy we should trust to predict the effects (or even existance) of global warming? Yeah, let’s spend $ trillions on this guy’s mathematical predictions.
11. Jim Wilson | 02.05.09
I grew up in Los Angeles and graduated from the U of Oregon in Eugene, with my major in geography. Last year, my wife and I went to visit a friend in Eugene. On the way up we noticed that Lake Shasta looked HALF EMPTY. My buddies and I used to have a favorite swimming hole in Blue River outside of Eugene. Lo and behold I discovered that the Oregonians had build a dam right over our swimming hole, but the reservoir behind the dam also looked HALF EMPTY and the Old Pioneer Cemetery on Campus in Eugene was covered with brown (not green) grass, a situation I had never seen before. MY deduction is that the Pacific Northwest is also due for a drastic change in it’s agricultural practices.
Jim
12. Barry | 02.05.09
Calvin (#8), the problem is that majority of major water sources in the SW do not flow back into ocean “unused”.
The Colorado River supplies millions of Americans with water, power, food (irrigation) and jobs (industry). Much of the time it doesn’t even flow at all into the ocean. It is so used, re-used, and used again. It is hugely oversubscribed already. California gets a lot of water from this river.
Ditto for all the watersheds that fill the massive reservoir systems in the west.
In China, many of its major rivers also run dry now for months of the year in the lower stretches.
As Jim (#11) points out it is starting to happen up in NW too. In fact studies show that up to 50% of summertime river flows up there are from glaciers melting. In a few years these glaciers will be gone and suddenly rivers will start to trickle and dry up here too.
None of this even gets to “uses” by plants, animals and fish that are suffering or have died out from this decline in summer river flows and increase in summer river temps.
Believe me, the water managers in California know where every drop is and where it goes. And they are sounding the alarm.
We are heading for a very near term choice between water, jobs and food. The long term is looking like none of the above unless we stop the too-rapid climate shifts.
13. Tesla_x | 02.05.09
NEWSFLASH Barry…
Global warming, its assumptions and its datapoints are LIES!
More proof: Gore’s ‘mentor’ from NASA, Hansen…LIED.
His Boss from NASA confirms it.
Read and weep:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/
Anecdotal ‘evidence’ and ‘observations’ are no substitute for HARD UNBIASED Data.
And you and other global warming/climate change evangelists need to stop and think about WHY things really happen.
Water ’shortages’ are related less to climate and more to, IMH Opinion (notice I state opinion…not some fictitious ‘facts’ and fears), changes in the CONTROL of the SUPPLY of water (by big cities) and the DEMAND of these growing cities upon water storage and distribution infrastructure that has not had capacity added for DECADES.
If DEMAND grows and SUPPLY is not increased, you have a PROBLEM, which is where I think we are today.
Most of the blame can be put DIRECTLY at the feet of IRRATIONAL Enviro-NUTS that oppose the construction of Hydroelectric capacity under the guise of animal rights (petakillsanimals.com) and environmental activism (money grubbing sue happy lawyers).
If you have ever opposed the construction of dams, for example, then you are to blame for the water problems, NOT the changing climate.
It is related MORE to man’s failure to adapt to the needs of a growing world population…but that is another conversation.
14. T. Ellsworth Stubbins | 02.05.09
One can do some reading of the conclusions of roughly 100 scientific bodies around the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
or one can continue with business-as-usual, or bible-as-usual, whichever one likes. But God or not, Nature bats last. Katrina was a bunt. I for one am for knowledge, not ideology. Dr. Chu the same, I believe, thank God.
15. Eve | 02.05.09
California has had a frost for the last two years which hurts their growing season. It snowed in Malibu this year. The glaciers in California are growing so whatever the problem is with the water, it is not because of global warming. The problem with blaming everything on global warming is when it is proven not to be the cause of the world’s problems then what? We will have wasted time and a lot of money and the pollution problem will still be with us. Global warming does not exist. Co2 is not a pollutant. In fact lowering Co2 levels will hurt plant life. That is a nice world to leave to your children, one in which there is no more money and no more plant life.
16. Betsy Phair | 02.06.09
Here California is facing a water crisis, yet, in the town of McCloud, at the base of Mt. Shasta, ill informed members of the local water board are poised to sell water to Nestle, a multinational, multibillion corporation, for bottling under the Arrowhead lable.
Huge amounts of water are already extracted from the aquifer/aquifers around Mt. Shasta for bottling. Who really knows how much? There, seemingly, are no controls in place……only greed. This affects everyone in the state.The water from the Mt. Shasta region flows to the delta.
In McCloud, it’s a group of 5 who will be determining whether the money that Nestle would supply to the town will help defray the costs of repairing the infrastructure of this former mill town. Nestle promises tons of jobs and benefits. Strangely, many in the town believe this will be best for “all”! They have got to be stopped!
19. DSFlyman | 02.08.09
I find that most experts are mostly wrong, most of the time. A nice bit of wisdom handed down from my dear Pop. Truth be told. The only thing we have to fear… yeah, you get the picture. Fear mongering has gotten us in hot water (but not really intended) locally, nationally and globally. The answer is simple. Send me all your savings and I will take away your fear. Don’t ask me how, just believe.
Oh yeah, and turn off your TV and yank out your internet.
20. Yew | 02.08.09
“if climate change continues unabated,”
Wow, He’s obviously saying it can’t be changed, or even that it must happen.
“His Nobel Prize”
Working with gaseous atoms (see atmosphere) qualifies him to be far better qualified than myself or you.
Apologists for laziness and greed will always attempt to stop noble pursuits that threaten their laziness and greed.
21. Olivia | 02.09.09
I have to put in a good word for Eoin, who despite being excoriated daily by the denial-of-global-warming set, manages to entertain himself — and me — with gentle humor in the middle of a deadly serious-sounding blog. That line about Lester Snow refusing to let anyone call him Les just cracked me up.
Also, I am not so sure T. Ellsworth Stubbins is a hater, #7. I think his tongue is firmly planted in his cheek; he comes across as droll to me.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Steve S. | 02.05.09
Since Mr. Chu can predict the weather in California 100 years from now, maybe he can predict how earthquakes will effect California in 100 years, or how illegal aliens will effect the economy of California … or maybe he should just stick to lasers in the present.