Multiyear droughts are worsening. Here’s where they have the most effects.
News Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/01/16/multiyear-droughts-severe-western-grasslands-fires/
Scientific Publication: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ado4245
As the planet experiences more extreme weather patterns, one environmental challenge has become increasingly pressing: multiyear droughts. I picked a recent article, “Multiyear droughts are worsening. Here’s where they have the most effects.” This article is based on a new peer-reviewed study published in Science, the article provides a comprehensive global inventory of multiyear droughts events, their growing severity, and their devastating impacts on vegetation, particularly temperate grasslands.
Multiyear droughts (MYDs), defined by prolonged periods of below-average rainfall and hotter temperatures, have become more frequent and severe due to climate change. The western United States has always been vulnerable to periodic droughts, but climate change is pushing these events to unprecedented extremes. MYDs are not only becoming more frequent but also longer and more intense. These droughts dry out vegetation, deplete critical groundwater reserves, and leave grasslands increasingly vulnerable to wildfires. Grasslands, which are crucial for carbon storage and biodiversity, face an existential threat from this dangerous feedback loop, where drought exacerbates fire, and fire accelerates ecosystem degradation.
The Washington Post article gives a broad overview of the drought-fire relationship, emphasizing how MYDs worsen wildfire risks in western grasslands. It highlights the connection between drier vegetation and more severe wildfires, as well as the cascading consequences for biodiversity and soil health. While the article effectively conveys the urgency of the issue, it falls short in offering a detailed scientific explanation of the mechanisms behind these processes. For example, it does not explain how drought thresholds can lead to irreversible ecological shifts, a key finding of the referenced study. It mentions the decline in vegetation greenness but does not delve into the critical rates of increase in MYD-affected land (49,279 ± 14,771 square kilometers per year from 1980 to 2018) or the varying resilience of different ecosystems, such as boreal and tropical forests.
Figure 5. Distribution of the top 500 MYD events and different aspects of their severity across biomes from 1980 to 2018. (A) Severity for the extent ofanomalous climatic conditions derived from the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SSPEI ). (B) Severity for the extent of anomalies in kernelnormalized difference vegetation index (SkNDVI ). (C) Combined severity (S SPEI+kNDVI) (materials and methods). Histograms on the bottom left of each plot depict thetotal areas affected by MYD events across the five most affected biomes (85) along the severity indexes (S SPEI, SkNDVI , and SSPEI+kNDVI). The rhombi in histogramsindicate the severities across biomes
The peer-reviewed study referenced by the media article, published in Science, offers a far more detailed and systematic exploration of the issue. By analyzing satellite data and ecosystem models, the study shows how prolonged droughts impact grassland regeneration, leading to vegetation loss and heightened fire risks. It identifies critical thresholds—points beyond which grasslands cannot recover from damage—and links these to cascading ecological consequences, such as soil erosion, loss of carbon storage, and the replacement of grasslands by desert-like landscapes. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the compounding nature of these issues: how droughts and fires create feedback loops that intensify the problem over time. The study concludes by stressing the importance of global collaboration to prepare for and adapt to these extreme weather events.
The most pressing issue identified in both the media article and the peer-reviewed study is the rapid expansion of MYDs and their devastating impact on grasslands, which could have cascading effects on global food security, carbon cycles, and biodiversity. such as the quantified annual increase in MYD-affected areas and the precise mechanisms by which MYDs impact different ecosystems. It also misses an opportunity to discuss potential solutions, such as sustainable land management or drought-resistant vegetation, leaving readers without a sense of agency or direction.
I would rate the Washington Post article a 7/10. It effectively raises public awareness of a critical environmental issue and provides an accessible entry point for readers unfamiliar with the topic. However, its lack of scientific detail and omission of actionable solutions prevent it from being truly impactful. Personally, I think the article on Washington Post should add the information how the scientist measured and evaluated those MYDs. While media articles must simplify complex ideas to engage a wider audience, they should also strive to maintain accuracy and nuance. MYDs are not just a regional challenge—they are a global warning sign. As MYDs become more severe, we need collaborative efforts that integrate science, policy, and community engagement to build resilience and mitigate their devastating effects!
I really enjoyed reading your blog post as well as the article itself. The Washington Post article is extremely prevalent with the wildfires in California that are only worsened by the warming climate and droughts from recent years. I agree with the issue you stated with the Washington Post article's lack of solutions to the growing drought problems. The post discusses the issues with multiyear droughts and the warming climate fairly well in addition to their relation to wildfires; however, it falls short in proactively offering solutions to the sense of urgency generated in the post. I do like that the post utilized more than just the initial referenced Science article such as that by Rodell and colleagues to further support the claims of the author. While the Washington Post article leaves out viable solutions, do you think there is anything that the individual consumer/person may be able to do in order to help reduce the warming climate/prevalence of multiyear droughts?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Seth, for sharing your thoughts—that's a great question!
DeleteI believe individual actions can absolutely make a meaningful difference. For example, reducing water waste and using water more efficiently can significantly help with water demand during drought seasons. Additionally, planting and preserving trees is also something we can do as those trees act as carbon sinks and improve soil and water retention, which is especially crucial in drought areas.
I thought that this blog post was very informative not only about MYD, but also how certain media lacks scientific details that are an important part of the story. While the Washington Post article was informative, it definitely missed some key components from the Science article. It made think about how the general public might lack a comprehensive understanding of climate events, since major news articles often do not include all the necessary details. I also had one question, what are some examples of drought-resistant vegetation, and are there any that could be used in agriculture as a sustainable food source?
ReplyDeleteThat’s a great question! I did a quick search on drought-resistant vegetation, and quinoa can tolerate low rainfall and even saline soil! Also, when I visited Big Bend, I noticed people cooking prickly pear, and I saw horses eating it too. I’m not sure why they’d pick such a spiky plant for dinner, but they seemed to enjoy it!
DeleteI like this blog post, as it helped point out some of the flaws of this article and expand on the information provided by the Washington Post. One of the flaws that stood out to me from the article, that you also pointed out, was the lack of solutions to the problem provided. I feel like that is a common issue with most environmental reporting from conventional news outlets is that the explain the rapidly deteriorating and dire climate and environmental issues, but provide very little to no information about potential solutions or what ordinary citizens can do to make a difference. The problem with this approach is that after reading the article, the situation feels so dire and irreversible that it seems like there is no point of even trying to improve it. This is dangerous and we need to write articles in a way that could spark individuals to actually make changes in their daily lives and at least give them hope that the situation could be improved.
ReplyDeleteI also had one question: how are critical thresholds for grasslands measured or calculated?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I think the most common measurements is using remote sensing. It measure changes in energy balance (such as albedo and surface temperature), often associated with land degradation or desertification.
DeleteThe article does a good job of showing the connection between global warming, droughts, and wildfires, but it does not explain why or give a solution on how to solve the problem. Simply stating the issue without a detailed explanation and a potential solution may make the public more fearful of the situation without giving them the knowledge that we can improve the circumstances. Although the article does show the urgency of the one issue, it fails to address the others mentioned in the scientific article, as you mentioned in your blog post. It's essential to show how much the drought is hurting our ecosystems and causing irreversible damage. To show the true impact of the issues stated in the article, they should have included the lasting effects that will occur if we don't work towards finding a solution. Although this information is scary to hear, everyone must be aware so we can work towards lessening the damage. I did have one question relating to your post: Is there a solution to reduce the droughts we are facing? I remember speaking about how scientists produced artificial clouds to help the issue, but is that a feasible long-term solution?
ReplyDeleteI am also disappointed by the WaPo article's doom-and-gloom message, but I respect the effort to raise awareness of a problem. I do question whether or not it is important to highlight geographical areas that are the most affected. On one hand, "raising awareness" for people in a specific area can deepen the impact of the message for those who reside there. On the other hand, are those outside the most affected areas impacted at all?
ReplyDeleteI think that it is most important to show that while environmental issues may have specific affected areas, but really all environmental issues are global issues.
I really like this post and topic. Recently the wild fire in Los Angeles is really a big warning for the world that climate change and the lack of usable water resources really need to be taken care of. This news article and the paper talks about the consequences of multiyear drought with details. There is a question which I am wondering. I would say the water resources in the world are stored in many ways, including sea water, river water, glaciers, underground water, snow, rain water, cloud, water vapor, and etc. And I would assume that the total amount the water resources is a constant value, and it is just the transfer between different forms among different places, which is very similar to law of conservation of energy. So here comes the question, if in one place water resource is really lacking and multiyear drought starts to occur, it should mean that the water resource is “escaping”. Where does it go? If excess water recourses move to another place, will this cause flood at another place at the same time along with drought in one place? Since in the news we do not just see drought, we also see flood. That is why I think when we talk about climate change, we should not just focus on the drought.
ReplyDeleteI found the scientific article and the news post very informative on current trends relating to extended droughts facing our world as we see it. I personally found the news article to be understandable in covering the important need to know information, but as many of us also pointed out, lacking in any solutions to act on and therefore, lacking exigence. I also found it interesting how trends were tracked over an extended time to point out the areas most affected. This feeds me into my main question which also extends off of Rebecca's post, do you think it would be possible to use machine learning in order to predict future drought trends? I would be interested in seeing how this could be developed, seeing there looks to be ample historical data. I think such a study might be able to help emphasize that even if you were to live in an area which isn't severely affected, change can and will happen if left uncontrolled.
ReplyDeleteThat’s a great point! We’ve recently started applying more machine learning methods to predict future climate change on a global scale. These approaches will for sure provide large datasets, allowing us to better understand trends and where we’re heading to.
DeleteThis blog picked a good topic related to trending news of the California wildfire, and the referenced media article and scientific paper are both most up to date. Despite they do arouse the awareness of such deteriorating extreme climate, the article on Washington Post is not very attractive. The article merely cited some conclusions from the scientific paper, without impressing the readers by visible and severe consequences of the MYD. When it comes to the California wildfire, the content is even less correlated - no detailed discussion on the role of MYD in this fire, either it initiated the fire or escalated the fire. In summary, it is a good topic, but this media article is at an average level.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, if we check the wildfire records and drought records in California, we can find the wildfires are not the most severe during MYD, but in a few years after the drought. Do you have any opinion on this phenomenon?
I think Kasha (the article writer) did a good job in breaking it down so that non-science readers can understand what's going on, in contrast to the actual Science Journal that's very scientific heavy in the writing. As others pointed out the biggest issue remain is the offering of solutions since neither of them mention ways to overcome and help to mitigate these MYD. We also need to consider that if the source of these drought is climate change and one of the major contributors to pollution in the area is a major company or industry.... How can scientists actually offer solutions when then they'd have to tell multi-billion dollar companies that they'd need to work on modifying their work or stop it altogether? Who's going to go against the $$$ they will put into defending their goals, regardless of the environmental outcome? 👀 This will make it hard for scientist to actually offer out big scale solutions. Especially those that refuse to see the data provided by scientist. It can easily hop between science to politics and sociology very quickly.
ReplyDeleteI found this article quite engaging and informative. Before reading it, I had little knowledge about multiyear droughts, but it has significantly broadening my understanding of the topic. The article effectively raises public awareness and deserves credit for presenting the science in an accessible manner. However, I noticed that it lacks detailed scientific methods or explanations of how the measurements for multiyear droughts (MYDs) were conducted as aforementioned by the blogger. This omission raises some concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the data presented. Overall, while the article is enlightening, the lack of methodological transparency impacts its credibility. I would rate it 6/10.
ReplyDeleteStarting with the definition of MYD and explaining its importance and a series of impacts with specific examples is a good entry point, which can make readers aware of its severity. However, the use of some professional terms in fiugre5, such as SSPEI, SkNDVI, and Combined severity (SSPEI+kNDVI), is still challenging for readers who are not familiar with this field, because it only shows the distribution of these indices worldwide, but there is no clear and easy-to-understand summary for readers to understand the information it wants to convey. It does a good job as an overview, however, its lack of scientific detail and omission of actionable solutions prevent it from being truly impactful.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Washington Post Article brought attention to a very important issue the world is dealing with, especially with the trending increase in multiyear droughts. However, I agree with your opinion that the article lacks actual scientific data to back up the claims made. The referenced Science article has a lot of valuable data and other information that I think could have been utilized to further prove the claim about the increase of multiyear droughts. For example, the Science article looks into the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) to represent drought conditions as well as vegetation's response to droughts. In my opinion, both of these sets of data help to give a more solid foundation for the Washington Post article. As far as the topic of the actual post, the post brings up several good talking points. More people need to know that these fires are not just happening for no reason. Below-average rainfall and hotter temperatures due to climate change will continue to impact these drought conditions. There seems to be talk about the problems these conditions are causing, but no proper push for solutions. I believe some possible solutions could include improving water storage collected during the wet periods, using drought-tolerant crops, and monitoring weather forecasting. All of these solutions could help decrease the number of multiyear droughts. However, I believe it will ultimately come down to the government encouraging/implementing policies.
ReplyDeleteI can understand why the article did not provide as much scientific detail as the science paper did since it is trying to tell a story to general audiences. However, I find fault with the article's publishers for not adding any 'call to action' or solutions for readers, making this piece appear apocalyptic. Socially, there is a divide among Americans who believe in climate change and those who do not. Without providing any solutions for the reader, this divide is further deepened; those who believe in climate change tend to fear for the future and feel anxious, while those who do not believe in climate change remain firm in their beliefs, thinking there is "nothing they can do to change it."
ReplyDeleteClimate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey
Hickman, Caroline et al.
The Lancet Planetary Health, Volume 5, Issue 12, e863 - e873
I find this topic interesting and timely, especially the discussion about the impacts of MYDs. The relationship between MYDs, vegetation loss and wildfires are particularly concerning, especially the cascade effects on ecosystems and biodiversity. The feedback loops between drought and fire makes the situation more alarming. The initiative of Washington post article is much appreciated except the fact that lacks scientific evidence. What makes some ecosystems recover from droughts better than others? I'd love to hear your thoughts on potential solutions. Also, are there any examples of regions that have successfully mitigated through sustainable practices or innovative technologies?
ReplyDeleteI think these two articles are a great example of the comic/meme you showed us the first day in class about the way scientific news travels as it goes from source to source. While the article from the Washington Post certainly does does an excellent job discussing the devastating effects of MYD, it goes into shockingly little detail about both the extent of the causes and potential for solutions. Lacking such, it causes the reader to feel concerned, yet lost because they do not understand the extent of the causes nor what can actually help solve the problem. One of the benefits of news outlets like these is that they are meant to act as the medium between the scientific community and the public, but when they fail to communicate the entire idea, they put the truth itself at risk. I'm not saying the Washington Post has to have all the figures and numbers originally in the Science article and go over every point, however, if they were to include more, it would only benefit the reader because they would have a more encompassing, holistic, perspective on the topics discussed in both articles. It really is a tricky balance because too much information could leave the reader overwhelmed, yet too little leaves the reader without the tools they need to properly understand the topic.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree! Without presenting some of the data that scientists have discussed in articles, and clarifying the type of data used, it becomes less convincing for the public audience. While it does a great job of catching people's attention, I think it’s crucial to provide strong evidence to show that these results are based on historical data and not fabricated by researchers.
DeleteThis blog underlines the main two causes for widespread drought. It also explains the lack of government initiatives to balance the ecological and commercial aspects of running a government. More stress on the land in the form of vegetation and the changing climate conditions are leading to widespread droughts. This blog shows that there is a need to balance these.
ReplyDelete