Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Does this mean California is more likely to get mega flooding?
- We haven't had any significant flooding in past El Niños. Of course, it will probably be different this round, but at least El Niños tend to align with Mediterranean weather instead of droughts and wildfires.
We also have one of the more advanced waterwork system in the US to support Central Valley agriculture, so a lot of the worst aspects can be somewhat managed.
It's bad that such dramatic climate change is happening, but we're definetly lucky to live in the West Coast because we won't face the brunt of some of the worst aspects of the El Niño comparatively and have the infrastructure to deal with it.
Sadly, the brunt of climate change will be felt by the poorer half of the world.
by alephnerd - "El Niño, California Precipitation, and Landslides" <https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/landslides/el-nino>
El Niño is the “warm phase” of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and features warmer than average ocean surface temperatures off the coast of Ecuador and Peru in the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean.... Historically, the presence of El Niño conditions tilts the odds in favor of wetter than normal precipitation across the southern third of the state. The relationship between El Niño and cool season precipitation is weaker in the central and northern parts of the state.
Flooding is possible, particularly if dams exceed capacity, perhaps exacerbated by earlier snowmelt and peak runoff. Landslides are a more widespread, and less manageable problem, particularly as loose-material slopes are waterlogged. The deluge -> high growth -> heavy fuel load -> large wildfire -> landslide cycle is one that's become fairly well-known in California.
Levee failures within the Sacramento Delta or Central Valley could result in very large-scale flooding, affecting agriculture or communities.
The San Francisco Bay Area may see "king tides" and general flooding throughout the bay and delta region, particularly during December and January, and all the more so if high tides coincide with heavy river run-off. Remember that the entire Central Valley of California, nearly 500 miles long north-to-south, drains out through the Bay. Prevailing winds may create a wind setup or seiche which can result in flooding along a some but not all shorelines, or alternating across a body of water.
by dredmorbius - Not necessarily... it isn't as straightforward as "stronger El Niño means more rain".
The steering of the jet stream seems to have some qualitative changes in these conditions but also more chaos. It could steer storms anywhere along the coast, so different parts of CA, OR, and WA get different impact. Just in my lifetime in CA, I've witnessed some very wet El Niño winters but also some drier than average.
The biggest precipitation threat on the west coast seems to be a repeat of some of the biggest flooding events known historically or geologically. But, these are relatively infrequent and most of the record predates any understanding or tracking of the El Niño oscillation. So the correlation cannot be stated so clearly. These are atmospheric river events which seem to stall, producing heavy rains over the same area for a much longer period.
Just in the recent centuries of CA history, there have been massive floods in northern and southern regions in different month-long rain events. There have been improvements to flood control infrastructure since then. But, the only reason those events aren't known as the most costly is because there wasn't as much economic development here back when the floods happened.
Our usual storms sweep through an area the heaviest rains over just part of a day. Our varied terrain means that each individual storm also has very uneven rainfall amounts due to orographic intensification. Prominences with the right aspect towards the wind will get far more accumulation. Our watersheds can absorb quite a bit of this, but even those brief rains can cause localized flooding.
If the rain continues for many days in a row, we will see widespread mudslides and flooding of larger rivers, basins, etc. Some of the historically extreme events had rain persisting for over a month!
Edit: along with these "mega storm" scenarios, we also have evidence of "mega droughts". It's worrisome to imagine what challenges may come from a more energetic and chaotic climate.
by saltcured - Yes, atmospheric rivers all winter.
Next year a super bloom then the following year massive wild fires.
rain -> fuel -> fire
by chewbacha - Most of the most flood prone areas in CA have been significantly neutered over the decades thanks to massive water projects. There was a time when the LA river would destroy LA routinely. Now everything is channelized. At risk communities are probably the handful of remote ones that do not have great infrastructure, but I'm not even sure where those might be given how the state seems to be able to build thousands of debris flow cement storm drain setups in relevant areas.
Other states seem a lot worse off. Water table is closer to where people live, there's a lack of topology to actually run water out in a lot of cases, there's been little investment in managing water for stormwater for property damage abatement or power or irrigation like in CA where the topology really incentivized massive investment in all of that over the last century.
by asdff - There are three possible scenarios for the next decades:
1) return to preindustrial level of pollution, possibility less than 1/10000
2) make radical changes suggested by scientists, less than 1/100
3) continue with the current pace
The pyramid of pollution, which is directly proportional to the pyramid of wealth, is almost impossible to shrink as the latter is also inevitable.
Just brace for impact.
by tsoukase - Remember that you don't need AC to beat the heat - we've had other options for centuries. One of my favorites is fans.
I've lived in a hot subtropical climate most of my life. The best modes of cooling are, in order of comfort: shade, clothing, breeze, fans, A/C.
Our rather large home didn't have A/C when we bought it. But it did have a huge attic fan that kept the air moving throughout the entire house on hot days. That worked fine from the time the house was built in about 1930 to present (yes, it's still there). At one point we installed a few window units in designated rooms but they were never necessary.
shade - Even on a hot day it's very comfortable in tree-shaded areas. The trees cool the air.
clothes - wear light-colored clothes with fabrics that wick perspiration.
breeze - if you live in an area with a constant breeze, you'll be more comfortable. Sometimes that comes with a caveat: watch out for storms associated with coastal breezes (such as hurricanes).
fans - sometimes a small room fan is just right. Or if you live someplace where you can pay someone to wave a palm frond around you all day, so much the better.
A/C may seem to be the best but imo it isn't b/c it is not transparent: other people are always messing with the controls, there are insufficent/incorrectly-demarcated "zones" in a building, the humidity varies unsuitably, condensation forms in unexpected areas (even inside walls and under floors) and you don't find out for 12 years, etc.
by giardini - You just need a well-isolated house, which are rare in the US, but common in Europe. A well-isolated house doesn't warm up as much on a hot day, unless you open windows wide. Temperature outside can be 35 Celsius, inside <25 Celsius.
Personally, I much prefer this solution than ACs, because ACs sometimes affect my throat and make me feel tired.
by pms - Fans do you no good when the humidity is above a certain point.
You’re also losing a lot of water to evaporation from sweating if it is doing anything at all.
There is a reason why Singapore switched to AC pretty much everywhere except old hawker centers, and why it’s not alone.
by lazide - I live in the US in the Pacific Northwest, one of the *least* air conditioned regions in the country. I have never had built-in AC since moving here in the early 2000's.
Back in the 2000's, it was fine - maybe a few hot days in the summer, but bearable with shade, fans, proper clothing like you said.
But the last ten years or so, the summer has gotten to be more and more brutal. Heatwaves where it's 70-80% humidity and 100+F outside for more than a few days in a row. We have a portable A/C and find ourselves hooking it up more and more often.
- We all know we’re way past the time where we need to cut the carbon emissions, like it was 30 years ago. Why aren’t the governments investing money on research on carbon capture technology? That’s the only way left to undo massive carbon emissions due to industrialisation
- Indeed.
We needed to reach zero emissions 20 years ago and today we should have strong negative emissions.
At this rate I don't think humanity will reach zero emissions before 2050. It's going to take a couple of very bad years for humanity to take this seriously.
by pier25 - "Wait, do you mean I should pay to capture the carbon my neighbors emits? No way!"
That's why.
Edit: Also, as some other comment said, thermodynamics tell us that it would take an inordinate amount of energy to bring carbon back to safe levels. More than what we get from burning oil. It's about entropy and all that. So there's that.
by sdeframond - Carbon capture is physically unable to be as effective as we need it to be. To an approximation, growing a tree is able to capture as much carbon as burning the wood from that tree. If most of our released carbon came from burning wood, we would just need to re-grow that amount of wood (unfortunately it's not even that simple, as the soil stores carbon long term in a way that just growing the tree doesn't capture, and is also released over time when old growth forests are cut down). Instead, the carbon we're burning comes from processes which efficiently concentrated the carbon from plants and microorganisms over millions of years to create coal, oil, and gas.
Carbon capture technology would have to artificially replicate these millions-of-years-long processes, and do it on a scale of years to decades. The scale of carbon capture we need is entirely unfathomable, requiring processes that don't exist, because they have to work against entropy itself.
Carbon capture at the point of burning fossil fuels to abate further emissions might be economical. Capturing already released carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (concentration of ~0.04%) is a fiction pushed by fossil fuel companies to muddy the debate and distract from the urgency of immediately stopping the burning of fossil fuels.
by 1d22a - Wow, this thing should be nicknamed "El Hombre"by mjsweet
- Other than "numbers go up" it's unclear to me what the consequences are, as I'm not extremely familiar with El Niño events. Hurricanes, maybe?
- I live in the Southeast Asia, so this El Nino event is worrying. It also means drought and super typhoons.by lawgimenez
- US NOAA has a (still generally useful) list of links to various impacts:
<https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/elnino/impacts-of-el-nino>
Those include: hydrology (floods, drought), sea-surface temperatures (hotter or cooler, both of which impact local ecologies and fisheries), storms (weaker hurricane season in the Atlantic, due to high-altitude wind shear, stronger in other areas), and others: economic, fisheries, military, human health, marine life, and specific regional impacts.
by dredmorbius - The weather in Japan has been completely wack I can tell you that. The rainy season is never ending in central and north Japan. It was actually declared over but it's back again. Never seen that before.by bamboozled
- I can hardly wait to see how this shakes out locally. We have had 3 La Ninas in a row that have left us with a rainfall deficit of 23.5" (597 mm) under the 20 year average annual total that I have measured here in NTexas. It's been dry overall for several years.
Considering the situation going into the 2015-2016 El Nino we were also in a multiyear drought with a rainfall deficit accumulated from 2010-2014 of over 31" (787 mm). That is just under the 20 year average annual precipitation total for my place - 36.3" (922 mm). We were missing almost a full year's rainfall over that 5 year period. I use a NOAA manual rain gauge of the type that can handle up to 11" (279.4mm) of rain before needing to be dumped. I have recently added a digital tipping gauge unit beside the manual gauge so I can have a clear comparison and track rain rates.
Anyway, if it works out like 2015 did then we went into the year with a deficit but it quickly began raining well above normal so that by mid-June we were already above the normal 20-year average rainfall total. Then it dried up with below normal rainfall from mid-June to late October. There was no rain at all between the first week of September and the last week of October. For the year though we were still 3" (76.2 mm) above the 20 year normal annual total when it started raining again.
Between the last week of October and the end of the year it rained an additional 28" (711 mm) and then it stopped and we fell behind again until finally catching up to normal accumulation in the second week of March 2016.
Currently our accumulation to date is almost 1" (25.4 mm) above the 20 year average annual total for this date. So, just as in 2015 we are a little above normal during summer. I expect that if it works out like 2015 then we can expect a lot more rain beginning in the fall, probably by October.
If I look back over the previous 5 years from 2021-2015, we are again running a rainfall deficit of 26.2" (665.5 mm). That is about 72% of rainfall expected in a normal year using my 20 year average accumulation. Nearly 3/4 of a year's rainfall behind at this point over a 5 year period. Interesting.
I suspect I will need to have some more rock hauled in to repair the driveway by the end of the year since it will all wash down the hill again.
- I've seen dozens of videos and articles about this strongest ever event. And I still have no clue if the next year I should evacuate from Paris for the summer because heatwaves may be even crazier than this year, or prolonged heavy rains are more likely and can make the city more livable.by buybackoff
- I've got an excellent overview of consequences from Claude Opus 5. I'd post it here but there's a "no AI content" policy, so sorry, you need to ask yourself. (Though for Europe specifically, apparently very little except for higher average temperatures).by throw310822
- No offense, but using air travel to avoid climate impacts is a bit ironic and part of the reason we’re in this mess.
No need to fix the root cause, I’ll just fly somewhere cold during the summer /s
by ceroxylon - Water vapor amplifies the greenhouse effect so I don't think rain is going to make it better.
- In the short term the year-to-year temperature fluctuates. Next year might be better than this year
In the medium term, summers in Paris WILL be worse than this year
It will come a day that good years are the ones that are as mild as 2026
- I would bet on it becoming hotter for longer, with some really bad but short torrential rain in between.
So get some sturdy shade structure and an heat pump.
- It might end up like a covid situation where even if you have good AC in your home, you don't want to be in the area because the medical system is on its knees overwhelmed from treating all the cases of heat related illnesses.by asdff
- Given what I learned from "chaos" by James Gleick, the predicament we're in is that we likely cannot predict outcomes or the events themselves, rather what we know is that weather will become more unpredictable and more extreme.
So the answer to your question is it could be either or both or neither. Whatever happens is going to be on average more extreme than what you're used to.
by azeirah - I wrote to Alan Kay over 8 years ago about my fears of global warming and how tech seems to dismiss it as a concern on the whole.
A little known fact about Alan Kay is 17 years ago he was part of a group of "systems people" who published for the NFS about various systems including the climate. He helped write "Transitions and Tipping Points in Complex Environmental Systems" (https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/2022-12/Transitions-and-ti...). He wrote to me that "This, along with many other warnings from many other sources over many years, fell on deaf or disbelieving ears."
He agreed with my concern saying "And, yes, you are right that things will likely be really bad if the climate is allowed to crash past the tipping point."
But what he said following that shook me to my core. Kay said "If you think of a system as an upside-down coca cola bottle, it is easy to see that a little nudge can topple it, whereas considerably more energy is then required to put it back.".
What this means is to get CO2 back down to 350 ppm (we are at 428 ppm), we would need to expend more energy than we did getting it to 450 ppm. That means, we would have to expend more energy than humans have produced IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY in the next 10-20 years (30,000-45,000 EJ range) just to put the system back to where it's safe.
Ask yourself, where are we spending our energy right now as a species? On putting the system to a safe level or something else?
Do we even have the capability to do it? As we continue to expand our industrial capacity, we also use non-renewable resources like oil and metals we can't recycle. As we exploit them, we degrade our industrial capacity for the future. For a deeper analysis read Limits to Growth and work related to it.
by mempko