California Now Suffering Worst Drought Ever, 2014 Hottest Year On Record

Tyler Durden's picture

While most headlines are focused on the devastating drought in California, which by some measures is the worst on record, there is another 'factor' that has exploded to record highs - the heat. As Bloomberg reports, the California heat this year is like nothing ever seen, with records that go back to 1895 and with 70 percent of the state’s pastures rated “very poor to poor,” according to the USDA, things do not appear to be about to get better any time soon.


As Bloomberg reports,

The California heat this year is like nothing ever seen, with records that go back to 1895. The chart below shows average year-to-date temperatures in the state from January through July for each year. The eastern half of the U.S. has had an unusually cool 2014, but it's a lone exception compared to the rest of the planet.



The high temperatures have contributed to one of the worst droughts in California's history. The water reserves in the state’s topsoil and subsoil are nearly depleted, and 70 percent of the state’s pastures are rated “very poor to poor,” according to the USDA. By one measure, which takes into account both rainfall and heat, this is the worst drought ever.


Perhaps more worryingly,

The International Panel on Climate Change, which includes more than 1,300 scientists, forecasts temperatures to rise 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

That puts California's record heat well within the range of what’s to come, turning this “hot weather” into, simply, “weather.”

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
knukles's picture

MOAR IPCC manipulated data.
Not that it ain't serious out here, folks, but hockey sticks do not science make.
Funding... sure do.
And while we got a real shortage of water, it has not been any hotter, and in fact in many places, cooler, than normal.

This is bullshit

Keyser's picture

It may not be any hotter, but one cannot deny the lack of rainfall... At the rate they are going and with the lack of rainfall, I'd say there will be a mass exodus from LaLa land in the next year... 

in4mayshun's picture

The rainfall issue is legit, but as far as I can tell, this summer has been a little cooler than normal. We havent seen but a couple of 100+ degree days and usually we have atleast 2 weeks each summer in the central part of hte state.

Deathrips's picture



All they have to do is fractionalize and rehypothicate the water!!!!


Problem Solved Bitchezzzz...../faceplant/ /again/





James_Cole's picture

There is no global warming, and even if there was it's not caused by humans. And even if it was caused by humans there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. And even if there was something people could do to mitigate the effects it'd cost too much. And even if it didn't cost too much, well CHINA!!! INDIA!!!! Blame them!!

People need to grow up and take the adult approach - stick your fingers in your ears and sing loudly. 

ugmug's picture

Obama is bringing in more people from south america to sponge up all the excess heat and sponge off all the people generating all that global warming by working everyday.

Publicus's picture

Nothing a little Ebola won't solve.

Pool Shark's picture



Blah, blah, blah, blah...

Us Californians old enough to remember back before last year can recall several "worst" droughts that ended with El Nino-style flooding a year or two later.

Prediction: within two years, we'll be (again) hearing stories of massive mudslides and flooding in Los Angeles.

[same as it ever was...]


Amish Hacker's picture

The real ark is Los Angeles itself. There you'll find a breeding pair of bizarre creatures you didn't think even existed.

conscious being's picture

For 2 years  now, during the rainy season in CA, there has been a nearly constant ridge of high pressure, off the coast, diverting the rain bearing jet stream further north. The eddy this sets up results in the "Polar Vortex".

Is this a naturally occuring phenomina, or are the usual suspects up to something nefarious??

Landrew's picture

Wow, you are dumb, the polar vortex is created by the Artic warming.

Realname's picture

Yeah, because, no-one has ever heard of such a thing as a polar vortex up until last winter. I remember a polar hurricane in Va Beach one was followed up by unicorns riding aloft rainbows. Cold air caused by, thats a classic. Al Gore is awaiting your 'services'.

Toxicosis's picture

Whew, am I ever glad we have you around here to assure us.  I mean you've done so much climate science work, like I feel honored to be in your presence.

J S Bach's picture

"The International Panel on Climate Change, which includes more than 1,300 scientists, forecasts temperatures to rise 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century."


My God, what a load of bullshit.  These poltroons known as scientists told us we had global cooling 40 years ago... then global warming... now "climate change".  All they care about is the "importance" of their research - thus their paychecks. 


Notice how they never mention the fact that the midwest and parts of the east are experiencing the coldest August on record.  


Common sense tells the honest thinking person that the climate of earth as well as every other orb in the universe is constantly in flux.  It's called "the laws of nature".  You don't need a PHD and a $100,000 college education to come to these obvious conclusions.


What a waste of brain cells!

James_Cole's picture

It's called "the laws of nature".  You don't need a PHD and a $100,000 college education to come to these obvious conclusions.

Yep, your ignorance is (and will always be) free of charge!

J S Bach's picture

Do tell... where was I in error?

Sophist Economicus's picture

Cole is in a constant state of PMS. All you have to do is tow the liberal line and all will be fine.

James_Cole's picture

Tonnes of citations so don't give the stupid "wiki is not a reliable source WHINEEEEE" bullshit.

You can start with arrhenius:

Högbom found that estimated carbon production from industrial sources in the 1890s (mainly coal burning) was comparable with the natural sources.[14] Arrhenius saw that this human emission of carbon would eventually lead to warming. However, because of the relatively low rate of CO
 production in 1896, Arrhenius thought the warming would take thousands of years, and he expected it would be beneficial to humanity.

And move on to this:

For the century ahead, however, a survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1979 found 7 articles predicting cooling and 44 predicting warming (many other articles on climate made no prediction); the warming articles were cited much more often in subsequent scientific literature.

The mainstream news media at the time exaggerated the warnings of the minority who expected imminent cooling. For example, in 1975, Newsweek magazine published a story that warned of "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change."[29] The article continued by stating that evidence of global cooling was so strong that meteorologists were having "a hard time keeping up with it."[29] On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued an update stating that it had been "spectacularly wrong about the near-term future".

Evidence for warming accumulated. By 1975, Manabe and Wetherald had developed a three-dimensional Global climate model that gave a roughly accurate representation of the current climate. 

By the early 1980s, the slight cooling trend from 1945-1975 had stopped.

 In 1985 a joint UNEP/WMO/ICSU Conference on the "Assessment of the Role of Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases in Climate Variations and Associated Impacts" concluded that greenhouse gases "are expected" to cause significant warming in the next century and that some warming is inevitable.

J S Bach's picture

James, James, James...


There's no denying that the earth is going to "warm" or "cool" between any two periods of time - whether that period be 5 years or 5,000 years - yes, it's going to change.


The question is - which snake oil salesman are you going to believe as to up or down?  It's like predicting the stock market.  If you get it right, you're a genius... if wrong, you're a fool.  Either way, the broker selling or buying the stock makes money.


The whole discussion is ridiculous.  If mankind - as a microscopic bacillus on the face of this planet - were truly capable of making such changes, then there would be an issue.  As it stands, the earth itself belches out far more filth and toxins through the oceans and vulcanism than mankind could ever malevolently contrive.  By stating this, I am not "for" pollution nor irresponsible abuse of the earth or its natural resources.


For many, this whole "argument" is merely an obvious attempt at a power-grab from the totalitarians in our midst who will stop at nothing to tax or control us "plebs".  Fear is a great fund-raising motivator... and obivously, you have taken the bait.

James_Cole's picture

There's no denying that the earth is going to "warm" or "cool" between any two periods of time - whether that period be 5 years or 5,000 years - yes, it's going to change.

The issue in this instance is not 'change,' it is rate of change. 

The question is - which snake oil salesman are you going to believe as to up or down?  It's like predicting the stock market.  If you get it right, you're a genius..

If a pretty smart chemist could predict impact of CO2 emissions in the late 1800s, don't have to be a genius to get the picture in 2014. 

The whole discussion is ridiculous.  If mankind - as a microscopic bacillus on the face of this planet - were truly capable of making such changes, then there would be an issue.

You can confirm it *IS* likely an issue by digging in here:

Fear is a great fund-raising motivator... and obivously, you have taken the bait.

True, all them client scientists rolling down my block in their lambos lol. If only the oil industry could afford comparable incomes..

J S Bach's picture

Okay... I give up.  My rich oil-buddy friends can't argue with all those client scientists in their lambos.

James_Cole's picture

lol, you caught my talk n' type congrats. 

massbytes's picture

And you have obviously never done the math.  It is known how much CO2 etc mankind produces and it is known how much the planet naturally produces.  They know this because the CO2 isotopes produced by burning fossiles fuels are of a different ratio than CO2 generated by natural forces.  Not that tough.  But of course don't lets facts confuse you.  Keep blathering on about what you are "sure" about.  Try to read something that wasn't published 40 years ago or by the minority of true climate scientists that are simply gadflys. 

GeorgeWKush's picture

Global warming is certainly real and it is most certainly man made. I don't see why so many Zerohedgers fall for the lies and misinformation of the oil industry, when the financial benefits of creating and covering up such a wild hoax clearly is miniscule compared to the financial losses big oil and other big corporations would suffer if CO2 emissions really were to be cut back on.

EscapeKey's picture

Because everything on ZH is a conspiracy theory.

DeadFred's picture

Nah we just look at data instead of the stuff we're spoonfed from the MSM. For twenty years I've been hearing this stuff and seen the models that get revised again and again because they're wrong. It's like looking at the IMF GDP estimates over time. Consistently wrong and revised in the same direction. Without government sponsorship the scientists who put this stuff out would be laughed out of town and we might get to the bottom of what is causing the global weather change (it's not warming but it is getting more extreme). Instead what we get is respected scientists who lose their funding after challenging the .GOV sponsored propaganda.

CoastalCowboy's picture

Wow GWK! You drank the whole damn pitcher of Kool-Aid.

Yes, Global warming is real. My city was 90 miles from the sea 20,000 years ago and came to its present position of 15 miles from the sea about 4000 to 5000 years ago. As far a my knowledge of history goes the human population was WAY smaller and both industry and the internal combustion engine did not even exist to make CO2 emissions.

These are natural cycles so we have no choice but to live with them. Anthropogenic global warming is at best an extremely minor component of global warming if even that much

GeorgeWKush's picture

Oh yeah, I forgot that the climate used to change before there where humans and combustion engines on earth, and I assume most other scientists forgot as well. Sure thing moron.

I guess the fact that landslides use to happen before we got dynamite, avalanches happened before humans went skiing and forest fires raged long before humans began to use fire, just suggests, if not proved beyond any reasonable doubt, that neither landslides, avalanches nor forest fires can ever be caused by humans.

Nick Jihad's picture

So, you are convinced that man-made global warming is real, because reducing CO2 emissions would hurt the oil companies?  Let me tell you about my theory that Social Security causes cancer...

GeorgeWKush's picture

No, I'm convinced that AGW is real because of the scientific evidence that exists. The problem is just that there are so incredible many people out there pouring out all kinds of information (most of which is rubbish) about this topic, so whatever you must think of global warming you can trace down huge amounts of information supporting your case, and I'm not going to bother discussing all this data. Therefore, assuming that having a proper motive and the means to carry out a conspiracy is absolutely vital in proving any conspiracy theory to be fact, I try to show you that the motive and the means doesn't really seem match up this time, instead of arguing over scientific technicalities. Unfortunately it seems that too many people here like to believe in conspiracy theories just because they support their predetermined opinions and beliefs.

Perdogg's picture

Scientific evidence exists because it has been manufactured. That's all. Please go sell crazy somewhere else.

PhilofOz's picture

I for one will not fall for the lies of the greed-ridden psychopathic banksters that want to drain us of even more funds with any sort of carbon-trading scheme they can devise using man-made global warming as their excuse for it. Banksters or oil corporations? Hmmm! Which slime-ball scum of the earth should I trust more?!

Toxicosis's picture

Yep the Northeast and midwest represent about less than 1% of the entire planet, so obviously you're right on the money.  Extrapolations and exceptions to measured assessments must be one and the same to you.

Whew, am I ever glad you're here to.

Realname's picture

Dont forget the 'acid rain' scare of the 80's and 90's.

conscious being's picture

Scrubbers on power plants, etc addressed this. Y2K was real too, [not all the fantastic predictions about what would go wrong], but money was spent and it was addressed.

cougar_w's picture

Wow what a twit. That is one mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging rant for the archives, it is.

Da Yooper's picture

It boggles the mind


ya have


millions of people living in a


what was once a desert & then


they wonder why it doesn't rain

James_Cole's picture

It boggles the mind


ya have


billions of people living on 


what was once a planet completely


inhospitable to humans and they

complain it's rapidly becoming that


way again

ajax's picture



Humans are inhospitable to humans no matter what the weather.

Majestic12's picture

Agreed.  In fact, when my MIC buddies are not playing the HAARP (which is rarely), it is "sunspot activity" that controls our weather....goodle "Maunder minimum"...or don't...but the recent colling is the signal that the MM has will bring a 100-year "mini Ice Age" it does cyclically....try tading carbon credits then....

MeMadMax's picture

I just moved out of lost angeles a month ago and saw rain for the first time in 3 years during my stay in montana and I really can't wait for snow too.


The weather in california is just surreal. It's "blurry"... Not from smog but from something they call the marine layer or something like that, but anyways, the sky is just milky 24/7/365 and you can't see the stars or anything and it drove me up the wall...


I had to get out of there, it was driving me batty...


Plus no freakin jobs either...


Good riddence. mexico can have the place for all I freakin care...

vulcanraven's picture

Hey brother, LA native here. Looking to leave the state by early next year and purchase a piece of property somewhere, have been reading alot about Montana. How is it up there? The landscapes look unreal

MeMadMax's picture

I am a montana native and right now the job scene reminds me of back in the 90's.

As far as property, try billings and work your way west towards the mountains as it gets prettier as you go. Go east and it gets more expensive but the landscape turns into flat prairie.

There are "Now hiring" signs everywhere in the eastern half of the state from billings on out, the closer you get to the oil boom the more you have... never seen anything like it. And if you compare it to los angeles, you would think you were in candyland as far as job outlook is concerned. Plus no sales tax and gas prices are steady at 3.59. Food prices are slightly less than cali. Overall, price of living is significantly less.

I went to billings as it's a good middle of the road town for starting from scratch.


The only down side is the current crop of young adults seem to have issues. They don't want to work and are into drugs, even thou the opportunity to work is there.


Otherwise, the place isn't flooded with people, immigrant or not. That "90's feeling" of good times is back. Prospects for making millions are not there, but living a good life are if you are willing to work for it.


Have a good one.

jbvtme's picture

montana is a desert. they get one cutting of hay and need to empty a river to do so. the place is populated with red necks and californians, both pretty much clueless. raw milk is illegal in the state and you can count the number of organic gardens on one hand. plus the country music is from hell. the skiing, fishing, hunting, hotsprings, hiking, river running and yellowstone park are pure heaven...

Implied Violins's picture

That blurry sky is probably because of this:

There was recently a meeting of the Shasta county council where information was presented showing an increase in soil levels of 1000% of aluminum and barium due to spraying, which has drastically affected the weather. It made the news. I can't find the clip but it's there - search 'Dane Wigginton' (sp?).

Abitdodgie's picture

So if they stoped chem trailing over the pacific by caly and let some mosture through , then maybe it would rain . That would mean that Nancy would not be able to buy up that farmland in the valley (not San Fernando) for pennys on the Dollar , and who the fuck votes for that old bitch anyway.