A decades-long mega-droughts is likely to hit the U.S. Southwest and Central Plains regions during the second half of this century, if climate change issues go unattended – forecasts researchers from NASA, Columbia and Cornell universities. The study findings are published in the journal Science Advances.

The new forecast is based on models of continued climate change and considers the lagging pace of many countries in mitigating the output of greenhouse gases. The study findings reveal that there is about 20% chance that mega-droughts will last 35 years or more and 50% chance that they will last at least a decade or more.

The scientific article also predicts 80% likelihood of such mega-droughts to strike between 2050 and 2099 and calls for serious actions to mitigate climate change concerns.

Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist who was not connected with the study, explained that the forecasts in this study are based on the most reliable model results available today. Caldeira is associated with the Department of Global Ecology at Carnegie Institution for Science.

Mega-droughts expected to hit Southwest U.S. in decades to come

The study scientists wrote in their article that the consistency of results demonstrates high risk of a multi-decadal mega-drought and the severity is likely to exceed even the persistent mega-droughts that are believed to characterize the medieval era.

The Southwest, including California and the Great Plains states, are likely to be affected by the mega-droughts.

While California is already fighting a severe drought, a leading NASA scientist noted that the study forecast is not directly connected to the current drought and don’t even say anything about the ongoing situation in California.

The study authors noted that significantly higher temperatures are likely to contribute to future droughts in the Southwest and Great Plains regions. Such extreme situation could badly impact natural ecosystems and agriculture.

57 Responses

  1. xiromisho


  2. Mugen Rudedog

    I live in the Desert very heavy Chem-trails were in the sky way before droughts like this. Fyi,

  3. B McLaurine

    What a relief ! I had no idea that NASA and the politicians could control the weather !
    We are saved !!!

  4. Daniel A Bernath

    Guy Power at NASA makes wanted posters at Aimes Research Center using NASA facilities. Why should we believe anything NASA has tok tell us?

    • Flagwaver

      Where do you get this information? It sounds kind of delusional. If you can prove it, though, I’m sure NASA will definitely listen.

      • Daniel A Bernath

        “Hello from the box of discarded $19.95 wigs under the porch of hero Navy seal Don Shipley. We don’t talk to crazy either.“`

      • Flagwaver

        What are you talking about? What does a box of wigs have to do with the NASA Researchers or their forecast?

      • Daniel A Bernath

        Exactly. The puzzle, you have solved. Signed Yoda. (Is my dress order done yet Jason Ellenburg?)

      • Flagwaver

        What are you talking about? I do make dresses, buy my specialty are unisex costumes (particularly Japanese and Star Wars). How does your stalking me relate to this article?

      • Daniel A Bernath

        I’m on the other side of the country. Go back to your seamstress failure life. You attack me and cry like little girls when fire is returned. Pathetic.

      • Flagwaver

        Really? I don’t cry when a delusional old has-been types lies on the internet. But, who am I to dissuade you from your insanity (that’s for the courts when you are committed). Oh, and I would say that trying to insult people over the internet while denying what a simple google search turns up about your own name is pathetic.

      • A_Proud_Infidel

        All someone needs to do is a Google search on your name, the results will speak volumes about you, Daniel A. Bernath.

  5. Whirled Peas

    20% chance forecasting rain tomorrow – we all know what that means.

    • Daniel A Bernath

      Don’t forget the Snow-ocaust for NYC. They predict the weather 80 years into the future but mess up on what will happen tonight? Need more $$ NASA?

  6. he is what he is!

    the fc right wing still thinks the earth is 2k years old for Gods sake~!

    their mental midgets!

    America our children’s future is on the line here..TIME TO ACT!

    • xiromisho

      There will be no action on Climate Change from the US Govt. The best bet is reducing carbon footprints at the local levels because Congress has made clear, in their elections of the science committee, that science and facts are now political issues, not actionable events.

      The events in “The Day After Tomorrow” would have to occur, literally, for a republican to even say: “Okay, Climate Change is real.” Even then there’s the off chance that, with D.C. and NYC underwater, they may say: “This is just a natural cycle”

  7. grassroot

    And assuming we can do anything about it is arrogant, and an obvious Leftist narrative.

  8. marco02

    Why is NASA wasting OUR tax $$$’s on dumb ass 50 year climate forecasts?
    NASA use to represent great goals & achievements in aeronautics and space for the people of the USA… that was until the liberal pucks screwed that up as well as every damn thing they get their hands into, with their defunding and mis-direction on stupid climate research BS… NASA should get back to its primary purpose … great aerospace & space exploration goals, achievements & functionality. enough of this government money wasted on the liberal religionist CC BS!!!!

    IF and that’s a BIG IF … climate change, naturally or with contributing man made carbon emissions effects, we will adjust… All those wealthy water front homes on land lost to the seas, they don’t need government funds to save them, they have financial resources to liquidate & relocate… All you liberal supporting voters, whom been dup’d that its to help YOU!!!, (the earnings challenged class)…. HA! All your taxes are to be re-distributed to the wealthy in the name of CC… All those researchers & CC funded businesses are laughing all the way back and forth to their plush government labs in their luxury sedans… Just keep the money flowing you fools …. ha ha ha!!! WHAT a great GIG!!!

    • Fletch

      Yeah I remember all of those rich people in the superdome displaced by hurricane Katrina. It was a real hoot, nothing but caviar and champagne up in there.

      • marco02

        yup their liberal mayor & governor they elected really got those school buses moving in time to help those poor folks out didn’t they… I guess when the agenda was to cover their a$$’s and spent valuable time planning to blamed it up the ladder to the federal level… HA! Blame and deflect responsibility vs rendering aid when needed… yea keep voting for those liberals and base your life style on depending on them to come to your aid in time of need…. yea thats gonna to happen!!!!

        btw Katrina was a 100 year cycle hurricane… read your history … ever heard of Louisiana’s Huey Long? Yea you know ol’ corrupt Huey. Didn’t that mayor Nagin of NE end up in Jail??? New boss same as the old boss… Not the 1st time they rebuilt NE after a hurricane … I guess that hurricane during Huey’s time was caused by CC also…. Boy ol’ Huey is turning in his grave that he himself didn’t think up that CC excuse, ol’ how the corrupt ideology has evolved, Huey would be impressed!!!
        You fools believe in the arrogance’s that MAN has the power equal to the force of nature in its destructive power…

      • Fletch

        Didn’t say Katrina had anything to do with climate change.

        In your previous comment you said:

        “IF and that’s a BIG IF … climate change, naturally or with contributing man made carbon emissions effects, we will adjust… All those wealthy water front homes on land lost to the seas, they don’t need government funds to save them, they have financial resources to liquidate & relocate..”

        I was under the impression that if sea levels rose it would have an effect on the areas like those devastated by Katrina. If I’m in error on this I will happily admit I’m wrong. Just the easiest example I could think of to show that your idea about rising sea levels affecting only the wealthy was wrong.

      • xiromisho

        I live on Long Island, Ny. I am not wealthy, my home is worth only 200k, if the Sea Level rises, I and my family, are instantly homeless – also I work for the Cable company there, so if I do indeed manage to get to safety I will not have a job, as the cable company is likely not going to be working whilst underwater.

        This is why I am, personally, concerned. The water level is not going to rise “A few feet” we’re talking 9 to 23 feet above sea level. Most of the methods to get on and off my island would be pretty much submerged.

      • Guest

        Get your head out of your ass, there’s no denying climate change. It happened before and will happen again. Science, bitch!

    • ken

      Get your head out of your ass, there’s no denying climate change. It happened before and will happen again. Science, bitch!!

    • Aaron

      You sir, are a satirical genius!
      Were I you, I would send my resume to The Onion, and stat. A bright future lies in front of you!

  9. Jeff Davis

    The “best” models we currently have. These would be the same models that
    have failed to properly predict the fact that there has been no
    increase in warming for 18 years according to the satellite record ? The
    same people who said the Arctic would be ice free this year? The same
    people who have to generate something to try and scare monger the world
    so they can qualify for grant money next year? The same people who have manipulate the ground temperature record up?

    Dont believe me please check the facts yourselves. It’s quite the eye opener.

    • Chris Crawford

      If you think that the models are wrong, surely you can be more specific. How many standard deviations of error are you talking about? Over what dimensions and what spans? If you can’t specify the error, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    • xiromisho

      What’s it like in that Fox News bubble? Because temps have been rather consistently rising over the past two decades.

      I assume you have air-conditioning in there?

      Also they predicted that Greenland would loose most of its ice this year, and so far it’s right on track. Greenland is the land mass to watch because of the massive amount of Ice on the Land (not already in the water).

      • marco02

        Yes, “GREENland” named before the religion of man made cause of CC because the the land was the color of green ice…

      • xiromisho

        I’m not quiet sure what your comment is referencing… mainly because what I think it’s referencing can’t be right because it would infer you believe that Greenland isn’t one of earth’s largest stores of Land-Ice and Glaciers.

  10. disqus_ucIWLiTToR

    Can they tell us where the next cali-like climate can be expected?

  11. Bob

    Its a desert. There’s sand and snakes and lizards, etc. This is just more BS to tax people to death.

  12. Tim Connolly

    Weather and climate are two separate but related phenomena. Science pursues facts. While there certainly have been isolated examples of scientists who have falsified results for personal gain, these are rare exceptions. Climate scientists include people in many disciplines and in many countries. hey are not part of a global conspiracy to make money.

    We rely on the work of scientists on a daily basis, in multiple areas of life. The results of science have been integrated into the fabric of our societies and businesses.

    We ignore their warnings at our peril.

    • Colm Keegan

      I would be more convinced if they actually took the most pre-eminent scientisits from each side of the debate and held a series of adversarial debates laying out their positions for all to see. Instead we have one side claiming there is no debate–they are right and everyone else is wrong. If their positions and claims are sound, there should be no objection with putting them up to scrutiny. Isn’t this the very process that scientists go through when they propose a thesis? Why should it be any different here? Isn’t it a dangerous precedent to suppress and marginalize dissent in this arena?

      • Fletch

        Similar disagreements exist in other areas. We just never hear about when there is a small dissenting group when it comes to ideas about how the dinosaurs went extinct, or what the mechanism is for some obscure biochemical reaction. When you publish in a scientific journal you are putting your ideas up for scrutiny. Climate science relies on many different assumptions and models. I do not think having some debate for the public who doesn’t understand the first thing about how the science is done will do much to help the problem. If the findings of the climate scientists had no political or economic impact, very few people except climate scientists would care about what they’re saying.

      • Chris Crawford

        Actually, the debate you propose is carried out every day, and has been going on for decades now. Scientists argue in the pages of scientific journals. That debate consists of thousands of research papers, each addressing one tiny point in excruciating detail.
        There’s no suppression of information. Anybody — even a nonscientist — who has something to add to the discussion is free to submit a paper for publication. However, it has to pass muster for making a solid contribution to the debate, for either side.
        The end result of this ongoing process is a huge array of papers all pointing in the same direction — global warming — and a tiny number of papers pointing in the opposite direction.

      • bozozozo

        they have been put up to scrutiny, I thought.

        your argument is like saying that vaccine deniers and vaccine supporters should have a straight up debate to come to the truth about whether vaccines are safe.

        or that Holocaust deniers and those who believe the Holocaust happened should debate,

        or that creationists and evolutionists should debate.

        they can do that, but the evidence in each case is so overwhelming that debate is pointless: vaccines are safe, the Holocaust occurred, evolution is real, and global warming is happening, and is caused, at least in part, by human activity.

    • boca_grande

      This post seems like it was done in coordination with the filing in the Science Journal. Troll or Robo post. Spin this Pronouncement in favor of the “Science” community. Lets take a closer look. GW movement says public is confused and overwhelmed. Lets break this down into smaller hunks. Say 50 years. They haven’t told us a darn thing only that the “best models” available have said this. What the warm air from the gulf of mexico will start turning cooler. Isn’t that what drives storms up and into the mid west. This is just more of the same trust us and our computer models we are scientists and you are peons. There is no rush to higher temperatures, and climates have been changing for eons. Does population growth, figure into the models? Is the eventual cutting down of the rain forests figuring in to this model? If you want people to get on board you are going to have to communicate with us in a different fashion. Politics are politics. Your messengers seem to come from the left. Academia. That is how we ended up with Obama.

      • Chris Crawford

        I suggest that you study science, not politics, if you wish to understand climatology.

      • Mike Albers

        Wow, that went completely over your head.

      • lightatmidnite

        I always wondered why a 1000 years ago Greenland was actually green and supported a thriving Viking colony with grapes and agriculture, but then again they didn’t the cognoscenti around telling them to back off because global warming was going to spiral out of control. As it turned out just the opposite happened. Funny huh….

  13. Randal Colling

    2nd half of the century huh?…..Too bad they couldnt do a better job predicting the weather for next week !

  14. jmc8888

    Well since an inaccurate computer model said so, from the masters of
    propaganda (since they can’t do any actual space exploring they do
    propaganda), then I take this so seriously….

    Good thing we can’t bring water down from Alaska instead of the Federal Reserve
    printing trillions of dollars for worthless private debt, aka DERIVATIVES. Oh
    wait, we can actually do something productive to more than double our
    water supply west of the Mississippi. But we can’t do something like
    that, we’re Americans, and we do nothing except watch Kim Kartrashians
    butt get bigger.

    How about the wars of choice, that serve no purpose, and didn’t accomplish anything other then put us further into debt. (meanwhile the real perpetrators of 9/11 sit free in Riyadh)

    People can be morons and drink the kool-aid propaganda, or they can search for the truth, and laugh at you morons.

    Here is a clue…statistical quackery, are GUESSES. In this article we hear the following quackery….

    1. Climate change is caused by man

    2.That by killing ourselves off by stopping all economic activity, we can
    end or lessen the drought before it starts (which they forget is WORSE
    then supposed outcome they wish to deflect)

    3. All from a computer model aka guess (ZERO or ONE). Wall Street used similar confidence rates to describe that housing could never go down. Whoops. In fact they said it was over 99 percent certain. Pro tip: Anytime you hear certainty or confidence, know what you are listening/reading is complete bs, because it is a faulty guess.

    4.It forgets that droughts are common in the Southwest, even
    megadroughts…Phoenix wasn’t the first city in Phoenix…you people DO
    realize that drought caused a previous society to go the way of the
    dodo… but this time it’s going to be all our fault… from climate

    Now that’s what I call an inconvenient truth.
    In other words, that’s the truth, and no truth exists in this article.
    The only thing that even approaches truth, is that we may be naturally
    approaching a mega-drought, and sane people known this, but now here
    comes the green fascists trying to ‘predict’ what was already known to
    be coming soon. What’s next, global warming causes the ‘big one’ in

    From a REAL democrat, unlike neo-con wall street whore obama…
    that you all probably still LOVE. I guess you support the murdering of
    Americans, like Obama has done. He even murdered a colorado born

    • Fletch

      “Here is a clue…statistical quackery, are GUESSES.”

      Damn man. It’s good to see that some armchair statistician, scientist and a REAL democrat can intellectually dismantle the work of people who are expects in computer models and statistics right in here in the comments section. No need to actually understand and be able to explain to the scientists who published this why their work is wrong in technical terms. People of your intellect just need good feelings about what seems right and wrong to them. Oh and from one armchair scientist to the next, the way the brain works, its ability to learn and recognize patterns is statistical in nature. So every stupid thought you come up with is statistical quackery, aka guesses. I love when people give lectures on things as if they know what they’re talking about. Why not publish in Science yourself? Your words are falling on deaf ears here.

      • vallie47

        No, because he’s a SHOUTER, not a grower…or shower.

    • bozozozo

      jeez, sorry you’re so unhappy about something.

      1. so, if carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising, the levels are consistent with the amount of carboniferous fuels burned during and since the industrial revolution, and rising carbon dioxide levels can cause a greenhouse effect, why is that not consistent with human activities ‘causing’ global warming?” Man has caused a number of other things, such as the extinction of the passenger pigeon and massive deforestation of the earth, why can’t we accomplish global warming? heck, methane from human flatus must have some effect.

      2. nobody says we should kill ourselves off, or stop all economic activity. what people do say is to make a transition to alternative fuels and energy production that produce fewer greenhouse gasses. reforest. live sustainably. Heck, the live sustainably movement should create lots of economic activity. though I think carbon credits would create economic activity on a par with the derivatives you, I think with some justice, deride.

      3. ah, so since the Wall Street model failed, all models are worthless. that is an inductive leap worthy of, well, um, not much at all. you’re right: if someone on Wall Street says a bull market can’t fail because it’s different from all previous bull markets that have failed, it’s bs. but there are other areas in which a bit more certainty can be achieved.

      4. we’re not just talking about the Southwest. we are talking about the world as a whole, and the effect global warming will have everywhere. I agree there are cyclical weather patterns that existed before humans came round, and after humans came around. but humans have never had the numbers and industry before to affect those weather patterns. we do now. and we are. is that so hard to believe?

      I understand you don’t believe. I just don’t understand how you think you have the answer, and no one else (except those who agree with you) does. and regardless, if there is anything that can be done to ameliorate the effects of whatever is happening, be it global warming due to human activity, or a long term cyclical weather pattern that is recurring, is it not reasonable to do whatever we can to do so?

      and why the gratuitous comment about the president? do you really think you could have done better? or that, say, Romney or McCain could have done so? And murder?

      c’mon, guy

      • Fletch

        From the little I have read about climate change and the arguments from people that are more fluent in the climate models than jmc8888 but are arguing against AGW, they accept the data that is collected, what they don’t agree with is the forecasts that are made, especially as it relates to the impact of CO2 on the climate vs. other non human caused factors. They could be right, only the dismissive nature from some people is kind of pathetic. The approach of most global warming skeptics I’ve seen is similar to that of someone who believes in perpetual motion or ‘free energy’. They watch a video or read an article about someone who supposedly made a perpetual motion(PM) device, and because they already have a conspiracy mindset, believe that the reality of PM is suppressed by oil companies or some powerful secret agency. I’ve read similar arguments about cures for cancers, origins of diseases, and denial of all sorts of scientific fields. Most think they can see the light while those who don’t are either, too stupid, paid shills, brainwashed or evil conspirators. The media has caused so much confusion about climate change, it is really something that should be left to experts, only the conspiracy theorists never trust an expert opinion over their own on anything, well that is unless it comes from someone who disagrees with the mainstream ideas. Cause those people are like them.

  15. Randal Colling

    Too bad they couldn’t do a better job predicting the weather for next week.

    • he is what he is!

      another stupid comment from a brain dead NRA Con!

      they are fc idiots!

      • Randal Colling

        Sir you look just like a guy I arrested recently.

      • he is what he is!



    • thing unreal

      woah you mean long-term patterns are easier to figure out than short-term events? check and mate libtards!!!!!

  16. nodemonratfan

    What do you expect from two liberal colleges? They only keep tenure if they agree with the climate change agenda


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.