Unprecedented Heat Wave in Pacific Northwest Driven by Climate Change(scientificamerican.com)
scientificamerican.com
Unprecedented Heat Wave in Pacific Northwest Driven by Climate Change
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unprecedented-heat-wave-in-pacific-northwest-driven-by-climate-change/
58 comments
FFS people - we don’t need a peer reviewed study of every extreme weather event to tell us it’s Climate Change. It was 115 degrees in Portland Oregon today. Beating the previous record that was [checks notes] … yesterday.
well... prepare for pedantry as people will lecture you about statistics significance and how this means nothing and how you don't actually know what you're talking about.
this is where we are today. people melting because of the heat and still debating if global warming is a thing. jfc. this is where we are.
this is where we are today. people melting because of the heat and still debating if global warming is a thing. jfc. this is where we are.
Yes, but we're also finally unfortunately at the point where those people can be dismissed out of hand and the grownups at the table can have an actual discussion about the obvious and imminent threat at hand. They sound like the crazies now. It's refreshing to those of us who've been screaming about climate collapse for decades. I'm not sure the smug joy I get from being right about everything outweighs the, y'know, existential terror, but at least now maybe we can quit jerking off and pretending fossil fuels are Jesus's loot crate for humanity and start trying to figure out how to not go extinct in the next couple of decades.
are we at that point? i’m afraid we’re more at the point where everything is up for discussion and everyone can cherrypick their news “sources” to match whatever fucked up conspiracy theory the believe
To everyone questioning climate change’s existence in this thread, I have one question.
What was the last year in recorded history that was colder than average?
What was the last year in recorded history that was colder than average?
You are probably referring to human made climate change, right? Because the climate will always change, if you’ve heard of glacial ages for example.
I don’t know, but where I am (Netherlands) it’s been quite cool lately (Max 19C/66F today) and it’s summer. But if I point that out people say it’s part of the human made CG phenomenon. In other words, every temperature manifestation is part of the phenomenon and we’re supposed to have a normal and this is abnormal. Was there ever a normal, really? Measurements of records are also controversial, as technical capacity to measure temperature (including having more thermometers worldwide) has increased overtime.
I don’t know, but where I am (Netherlands) it’s been quite cool lately (Max 19C/66F today) and it’s summer. But if I point that out people say it’s part of the human made CG phenomenon. In other words, every temperature manifestation is part of the phenomenon and we’re supposed to have a normal and this is abnormal. Was there ever a normal, really? Measurements of records are also controversial, as technical capacity to measure temperature (including having more thermometers worldwide) has increased overtime.
> Was there ever a normal, really?
Yes: Earth naturally fluctuates between warming and cooling cyclical at a steady rate of change.
"The climate has always changed and fluctuated, due to natural drivers that control our climate system. Temperature proxy graphs showing the climate over millions of years---via oxygen isotope data, ice cores, and other geological records---reveals fluctuations from Hothouse worlds to Greenhouse worlds and Icehouse worlds. In the past 10,000 years---due to Milankovitch cyclicity---the Earth has naturally warmed and should do so for ~40,000 years more before the effects reverse, shifting temperatures towards another ice-age.
"Since the industrial revolution, humans have expelled copious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, triggering a dramatic warming over a short time period. The average global temperature was 12˚C during the Last Glacial Maximum. During the following Interglacial period, the average global temperature slowly rose to 13.8˚C. Since 1880, it has increased another 0.6˚ degrees to 14.4˚C (as of 2015). This warming rate is ~50 times faster than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years."
> Measurements of records are also controversial.
Bollocks? I doubt there is any controversy among the majority of climate scientists.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroug...
Yes: Earth naturally fluctuates between warming and cooling cyclical at a steady rate of change.
"The climate has always changed and fluctuated, due to natural drivers that control our climate system. Temperature proxy graphs showing the climate over millions of years---via oxygen isotope data, ice cores, and other geological records---reveals fluctuations from Hothouse worlds to Greenhouse worlds and Icehouse worlds. In the past 10,000 years---due to Milankovitch cyclicity---the Earth has naturally warmed and should do so for ~40,000 years more before the effects reverse, shifting temperatures towards another ice-age.
"Since the industrial revolution, humans have expelled copious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, triggering a dramatic warming over a short time period. The average global temperature was 12˚C during the Last Glacial Maximum. During the following Interglacial period, the average global temperature slowly rose to 13.8˚C. Since 1880, it has increased another 0.6˚ degrees to 14.4˚C (as of 2015). This warming rate is ~50 times faster than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years."
> Measurements of records are also controversial.
Bollocks? I doubt there is any controversy among the majority of climate scientists.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroug...
This argument of scientific consensus is what is bollocks. If there aren’t controversies among the majority of climate scientists I think this is a worrisome sign of science stuck on a loop. Scientific inquiry and disagreements are part of the scientific process which should be expected - seeing the difficulty of grasping most topics of that scale. To me it speaks more of who and what research is funded and a distorted way of doing science.
That said, we’re mostly dealing with models here. I can expect this community to love graphs and models, but also to know how unstable and unreliable they can be. In other words, they often fail to communicate (with) reality. In the climate change field, we can see that by the consistent failure to predict the climate future such as rising of the oceans and other extreme heat predictions going back the 80s or 90s.
There is a lot of money to be made with this perspective (heard the saying- what hurt can it be to pollute less?). Taxes and more taxes and government partnering with private players to offer solutions to this potentially fabricated problem (even if only by promoting models that agree with the story). And that is just one of the benefits that can be gained from this narrative. Power grabs and regulation is also of interest here, in my view.
Then, to defend these interests, you repress and silence scientists who disagree and accuse all opposition of conspiracy. Check who created this term, by the way. Was it a private, independent smart individual or the government?
That said, we’re mostly dealing with models here. I can expect this community to love graphs and models, but also to know how unstable and unreliable they can be. In other words, they often fail to communicate (with) reality. In the climate change field, we can see that by the consistent failure to predict the climate future such as rising of the oceans and other extreme heat predictions going back the 80s or 90s.
There is a lot of money to be made with this perspective (heard the saying- what hurt can it be to pollute less?). Taxes and more taxes and government partnering with private players to offer solutions to this potentially fabricated problem (even if only by promoting models that agree with the story). And that is just one of the benefits that can be gained from this narrative. Power grabs and regulation is also of interest here, in my view.
Then, to defend these interests, you repress and silence scientists who disagree and accuse all opposition of conspiracy. Check who created this term, by the way. Was it a private, independent smart individual or the government?
Oh I can rephrase it if need be.
Rephrased Question: What was the last year in recorded history that the global average temperature was lower than average?
As a second question,
Define x = “normal” || “average”
If you are questioning what “x” or “x temperature” is as an axiom, then what is your definition of “x”?
I don’t want to talk past you if you have a different definition. If you have a different definition than I do however, I need to understand what that definition is before we have any sort of discussion.
Rephrased Question: What was the last year in recorded history that the global average temperature was lower than average?
As a second question,
Define x = “normal” || “average”
If you are questioning what “x” or “x temperature” is as an axiom, then what is your definition of “x”?
I don’t want to talk past you if you have a different definition. If you have a different definition than I do however, I need to understand what that definition is before we have any sort of discussion.
To my understanding, recorded temperatures don't go that long ago for us to use that alone and establish deviation from the real old past.
And as said, the availability of thermometers (specially in the oceans) has increased over time (i.e. more data coming in more recently). This should skew averages. Besides, the validity of thinking in averages in a pretty wild range of temperatures this planet demonstrates could be questioned anyway.
Furthermore, cities have grown dramatically in the last century. Urbanisation creates more heat and thermometers in cities (which of course are used as a reference too), have been steadily reflecting that fact, obviously.
But the problem is, discussing those things put you in the "petrol head" "let's pollute" field, which is definitely not my case. They are attempts to silence the discussion, in my view.
And as said, the availability of thermometers (specially in the oceans) has increased over time (i.e. more data coming in more recently). This should skew averages. Besides, the validity of thinking in averages in a pretty wild range of temperatures this planet demonstrates could be questioned anyway.
Furthermore, cities have grown dramatically in the last century. Urbanisation creates more heat and thermometers in cities (which of course are used as a reference too), have been steadily reflecting that fact, obviously.
But the problem is, discussing those things put you in the "petrol head" "let's pollute" field, which is definitely not my case. They are attempts to silence the discussion, in my view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR58heUGkNA
We're going to grow oranges in Alaska!
We're going to grow oranges in Alaska!
The article’s headline is sensationalist and it does not offer evidence for the claim that this heat wave is “driven by climate change”. The person quoted in the body of the article makes a less certain claim:
> “It’s always difficult to immediately quantify how much impact climate change has had on a climate extreme, but there is plenty of evidence to show that high temperatures and heat waves have become worse due to climate change,” he wrote. “Heatwaves across the contiguous United States have occurred more often and lasted longer since the 1960s, which is consistent with a warming climate due to climate change.”
Cliff Mass, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington in Seattle, maintains a public facing weather blog that analyzes such events. He had a recent post (https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/06/incredible-temperatur...) that suggests this is more of a chance convergence of various factors, including an air compression caused by air sinking off the Western slopes of the Cascade mountain range. More specifically he says:
> Finally, a number of people have asked about the role of global warming on this event. Is global warming contributing to this heatwave? The answer is certainly yes. Would we have had a record heatwave without global warming. The answer is yes as well.
Professor Mass has also promised a future blog post analyzing this event further in the context of global warming.
> “It’s always difficult to immediately quantify how much impact climate change has had on a climate extreme, but there is plenty of evidence to show that high temperatures and heat waves have become worse due to climate change,” he wrote. “Heatwaves across the contiguous United States have occurred more often and lasted longer since the 1960s, which is consistent with a warming climate due to climate change.”
Cliff Mass, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington in Seattle, maintains a public facing weather blog that analyzes such events. He had a recent post (https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/06/incredible-temperatur...) that suggests this is more of a chance convergence of various factors, including an air compression caused by air sinking off the Western slopes of the Cascade mountain range. More specifically he says:
> Finally, a number of people have asked about the role of global warming on this event. Is global warming contributing to this heatwave? The answer is certainly yes. Would we have had a record heatwave without global warming. The answer is yes as well.
Professor Mass has also promised a future blog post analyzing this event further in the context of global warming.
Cliff Mass is an incredible source of knowledge when it comes to Weather in general. In addition to the quote you already pulled out of the article, I'd like to highlight this one.
> Let me end with the golden rule of temperature extremes: the bigger the temperature extreme the SMALLER the contribution of global warming. Think about that.
> Let me end with the golden rule of temperature extremes: the bigger the temperature extreme the SMALLER the contribution of global warming. Think about that.
Hmmm. Imagine for a moment that someone argued: "this is such a cold winter! See, I told you global warming is a hoax!"
That would be laughable. Yet people have no concerns about cherry picking anecdotal evidence when they say "see, it's so hot today, that means global warming".
That would be laughable. Yet people have no concerns about cherry picking anecdotal evidence when they say "see, it's so hot today, that means global warming".
Your mistake, or shall I say, intentional misreading, is assuming that the existence of global warming is something that needs to be proven in the year 2021.
We have already established that AGW is real. Nobody in their right minds are asking "Does this unprecedented heat wave prove the existence of global warming?"
They are asking "Now that we know global warming is happening and that we're experiencing an unprecedented heat wave, is it likely that they are linked and we'll likely see more such events in the coming years?"
We have already established that AGW is real. Nobody in their right minds are asking "Does this unprecedented heat wave prove the existence of global warming?"
They are asking "Now that we know global warming is happening and that we're experiencing an unprecedented heat wave, is it likely that they are linked and we'll likely see more such events in the coming years?"
What? The headline literally says “this heatwave is caused by global warming”.
That’s the claim that spurious and unproven.
And yes, it’s not different than having a cold snap and saying “this cold snap is making people question if global warming is happening”.
Both are just cherry picked anecdotes.
That’s the claim that spurious and unproven.
And yes, it’s not different than having a cold snap and saying “this cold snap is making people question if global warming is happening”.
Both are just cherry picked anecdotes.
If I dump a bunch of wasps in your house, and I say, “hey, watch out for the wasps”, and then you get stung by some wasps — well, it’s pretty damn obvious what’s happening. Can you prove it? Eventually, maybe. And often times these extreme weather events do get properly studied and officially linked to Climate Change. Years later, after people make the same tired points about how you can’t prove this is linked to climate, yada yada yada.
That’s a terrible analogy.
More like “if you were a bee keeper and got bit between 3 and 5 times a day and I introduced a more aggressive bee and you got bit 5 times two days in a row it proves it was due to the more aggressive bee”.
More like “if you were a bee keeper and got bit between 3 and 5 times a day and I introduced a more aggressive bee and you got bit 5 times two days in a row it proves it was due to the more aggressive bee”.
It's not anecdotal to point out that so many places have and continue to have record breaking temps for a record breaking number of days. That's not cherry picking anything.
It was 96 in 1955 in on June 9th in Seattle.
Looking at the last 50 years of data and it's pretty clear Seattle is warming up: https://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Decades/USA/WA/Seattl...
Whether this is due to climate change, urban development or something else entirely could certainly be explained in more depth, but the trend is there.
Whether this is due to climate change, urban development or something else entirely could certainly be explained in more depth, but the trend is there.
Going back further, you can find 100 degrees in mid July of 1941: https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/WA/Seattle...
Though, that was before Sea-Tac was the official weather station: https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/heres-why-s...
Though, that was before Sea-Tac was the official weather station: https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/heres-why-s...
That link is better than the headline because it is averaging hundreds of days for each data point.
A four day heat wave is not very compelling data on its own.
A four day heat wave is not very compelling data on its own.
For years you take the train to work every day, at the same time. But you began to notice, that, recently the train has been late a lot. You begin to wonder whether this is due to some change to the train infrastructure.
But behind you someone shouts “the train was 10 minutes late on one day 20 years ago”. Do you dismiss your hypothesis?
But behind you someone shouts “the train was 10 minutes late on one day 20 years ago”. Do you dismiss your hypothesis?
[deleted]
Of course not.
The phrase "global warming" doesn't appear anywhere in this article. You're moving the goalposts. Both unusually cold winters and hot summers can be attributed to climate change. Things aren't so simple as "the world is supposedly warming so it should always be warm!"
The fact is that throughout the world there has been an increase in unprecedented weather patterns. Right now in Argentina they're having record snowfalls, and that is just as concerning as the unheard-of 43C weather today in British Columbia.
You're burying your head in the sand.
The fact is that throughout the world there has been an increase in unprecedented weather patterns. Right now in Argentina they're having record snowfalls, and that is just as concerning as the unheard-of 43C weather today in British Columbia.
You're burying your head in the sand.
anecdotal? Seattle has had 100F+ maybe a few times in the last century. Now we had 3 days in a row of 100F+ with today hitting 110F. It's not even funny.
Portland, OR has seen 115F.
Most houses in PNW do not have AC. Do you know why? Because up to 10-15 years ago you did not need it. The most you would get would be 80-85 once a year.
Yes, this is totally cherry-picking.
Portland, OR has seen 115F.
Most houses in PNW do not have AC. Do you know why? Because up to 10-15 years ago you did not need it. The most you would get would be 80-85 once a year.
Yes, this is totally cherry-picking.
> The most you would get would be 80-85 once a year.
When I moved to Seattle nine years ago, I was happy that we had only one week that would hit 80+. Annoying to have those hot days without AC, but whatever - it was much better than the Midwest. We'd do just fine for those few days.
But it's been warming up. And while I wouldn't use this one week alone as evidence of a trend, the fact that it was >110°F today is wholly in-line (IMHO) of what we've been seeing. I read the other day that this is "a once in a millennium" event. How long until we have another such event? I'm guessing it'll be before my teenagers graduate from high school.
When I moved to Seattle nine years ago, I was happy that we had only one week that would hit 80+. Annoying to have those hot days without AC, but whatever - it was much better than the Midwest. We'd do just fine for those few days.
But it's been warming up. And while I wouldn't use this one week alone as evidence of a trend, the fact that it was >110°F today is wholly in-line (IMHO) of what we've been seeing. I read the other day that this is "a once in a millennium" event. How long until we have another such event? I'm guessing it'll be before my teenagers graduate from high school.
That is exactly the definition of cherry picking. You’re claiming that one phenomenon is causally linked to a particular event. That evidence is not present in this article or your comment or anywhere else to my knowledge. Three days of high temperatures are all caused by the same single event, a southeasterly flow of air from the Cascades (https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/06/showtime-temperatures...) coinciding with other seasonal factors driving high temperatures to create a particular set of extreme conditions. So how are you able to prove that this is exclusively caused by climate change?
Here. let me write this again:
Most houses in PNW do not have AC. Do you know why? Because up to 10-15 years ago you did not need it. The most you would get would be 80-85 once a year.
10-15 years ago you did not need AC. Today every summer you're in danger of a heatstroke if you don't have it. This is not cherry-picking
Here. From the national weather service:
284
SXUS76 KSEW 290128
RERSEW
RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SEATTLE
628 PM PDT MON JUN 28 2021
...RECORD HIGHS FOR TODAY, JUNE AND ALL-TIME AS OF 6 PM...
LOCATION TODAY RECORD / YEAR
SEA-TAC AIRPORT 107 91 2008*
OLYMPIA 110 92 2008*
QUILLAYUTE 110 92 1995
HOQUIAM 95 86 2008
BELLINGHAM 99 84 1995
NWS SEATTLE 107 89 2000
&&
LOCATION TODAY JUNE RECORD / DATE
SEA-TAC AIRPORT 107 104 27/2021
OLYMPIA 110 105 27/2021
QUILLAYUTE 110 92 24/2017*
HOQUIAM 95 103 27/2021
BELLINGHAM 99 95 27/2021*
NWS SEATTLE 107 101 27/2021
&&
LOCATION TODAY ALL-TIME RECORD / DATE
SEA-TAC AIRPORT 107 104 6/27/2021
OLYMPIA 110 105 6/27/2021
QUILLAYUTE 110 99 8/9/1981
HOQUIAM 95 103 6/27/2021
BELLINGHAM 99 96 7/29/2009
NWS SEATTLE 107 105 7/29/2009
* RECORDS SET ON MULTIPLE DATES; LATEST SHOWN
Most houses in PNW do not have AC. Do you know why? Because up to 10-15 years ago you did not need it. The most you would get would be 80-85 once a year.
10-15 years ago you did not need AC. Today every summer you're in danger of a heatstroke if you don't have it. This is not cherry-picking
Here. From the national weather service:
284
SXUS76 KSEW 290128
RERSEW
RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SEATTLE
628 PM PDT MON JUN 28 2021
...RECORD HIGHS FOR TODAY, JUNE AND ALL-TIME AS OF 6 PM...
LOCATION TODAY RECORD / YEAR
SEA-TAC AIRPORT 107 91 2008*
OLYMPIA 110 92 2008*
QUILLAYUTE 110 92 1995
HOQUIAM 95 86 2008
BELLINGHAM 99 84 1995
NWS SEATTLE 107 89 2000
&&
LOCATION TODAY JUNE RECORD / DATE
SEA-TAC AIRPORT 107 104 27/2021
OLYMPIA 110 105 27/2021
QUILLAYUTE 110 92 24/2017*
HOQUIAM 95 103 27/2021
BELLINGHAM 99 95 27/2021*
NWS SEATTLE 107 101 27/2021
&&
LOCATION TODAY ALL-TIME RECORD / DATE
SEA-TAC AIRPORT 107 104 6/27/2021
OLYMPIA 110 105 6/27/2021
QUILLAYUTE 110 99 8/9/1981
HOQUIAM 95 103 6/27/2021
BELLINGHAM 99 96 7/29/2009
NWS SEATTLE 107 105 7/29/2009
* RECORDS SET ON MULTIPLE DATES; LATEST SHOWN
That’s not statistical proof of causality. Again, how do you know this isn’t just a once in a thousand years event independent of climate change?
> The most you would get would be 80-85 once a year.
There are numerous years, going back decades, with highs higher than the numbers you claim. See https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/WA/Seattle...
> The most you would get would be 80-85 once a year.
There are numerous years, going back decades, with highs higher than the numbers you claim. See https://www.currentresults.com/Yearly-Weather/USA/WA/Seattle...
what kind of statistical proof are you looking for?
Can statistics ever proof causality? At what point do you draw the line?
The numbers are not the numbers I claim. Those are the numbers the national weather service is reporting. I call BS on numerous years with numbers higher than I claim.
The numbers recorded now are the highest on record since we started keeping track. Show me where else you see 110 for Seattle being recorded. Ever.
Can statistics ever proof causality? At what point do you draw the line?
The numbers are not the numbers I claim. Those are the numbers the national weather service is reporting. I call BS on numerous years with numbers higher than I claim.
The numbers recorded now are the highest on record since we started keeping track. Show me where else you see 110 for Seattle being recorded. Ever.
> Can statistics ever proof causality?
Yes, this is an entire field of study. It’s what spawned phrases like “statistical significance”.
> I call BS on numerous years with numbers higher than I claim.
You said in your two earlier comments, “The most you would get would be 80-85 once a year.” I shared evidence that Seattle regularly surpassed that level historically. You’re now moving the goal post by asking me to show a higher temperature than today. That question doesn’t matter since it still isn’t evidence that the record high is caused by climate change.
Yes, this is an entire field of study. It’s what spawned phrases like “statistical significance”.
> I call BS on numerous years with numbers higher than I claim.
You said in your two earlier comments, “The most you would get would be 80-85 once a year.” I shared evidence that Seattle regularly surpassed that level historically. You’re now moving the goal post by asking me to show a higher temperature than today. That question doesn’t matter since it still isn’t evidence that the record high is caused by climate change.
I think you may have missed the only portion of their argument that wasn't cherry picking:
"10-15 years ago you did not need AC. Today every summer you're in danger of a heatstroke if you don't have it."
I would count this as a decently statistical argument, anecdotal as it is, because it's an economic observation, that if true, signals that the market is lagging behind some environmental change.
Also, PDX did record 117F, by far the highest record in recorded history, by like 10F.
"10-15 years ago you did not need AC. Today every summer you're in danger of a heatstroke if you don't have it."
I would count this as a decently statistical argument, anecdotal as it is, because it's an economic observation, that if true, signals that the market is lagging behind some environmental change.
Also, PDX did record 117F, by far the highest record in recorded history, by like 10F.
> “Heatwaves across the contiguous United States have occurred more often and lasted longer since the 1960s, which is consistent with a warming climate due to climate change.”
Climate change is causing this trend. It is not an isolated event. There are expert that study climate.
It is a false equivalence to call "cherry picking" the result of many years of study and confirmed trends with what an TV anchor says to appeal to their audience.
Climate change is causing this trend. It is not an isolated event. There are expert that study climate.
It is a false equivalence to call "cherry picking" the result of many years of study and confirmed trends with what an TV anchor says to appeal to their audience.
What part of the evidence in this article do you consider "anecdotal?"
This is worth a read:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-can-no...
“ Using a climate model, the researchers compared simulations accounting for climate change with scenarios in which human-caused global warming did not exist. They found that the influence of climate change roughly doubled the risk of an individual heat wave. The key to the breakthrough was framing the question in the right way—not asking whether climate change "caused" the event, but how much it might have affected the risk of it occurring at all.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-can-no...
“ Using a climate model, the researchers compared simulations accounting for climate change with scenarios in which human-caused global warming did not exist. They found that the influence of climate change roughly doubled the risk of an individual heat wave. The key to the breakthrough was framing the question in the right way—not asking whether climate change "caused" the event, but how much it might have affected the risk of it occurring at all.”
Tangent: is this a “breakthrough” or standard issue causal inference?
I mean you're right, on some level. The heat wave is only evidence for global warming, just as a cold snap would be evidence against, but we can actually look at global average temperatures which have been climbing since we've been able to to track them. Lots of reasons you could argue that is happening and you can argue about why it's happening, but heat waves are one of the things it will lead to
Trump wrote on Twitter Thursday, "In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year's Eve on record." He added: "Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!"
https://www.foxnews.com/science/trump-says-east-could-use-so...
Close enough?
https://www.foxnews.com/science/trump-says-east-could-use-so...
Close enough?
[deleted]
So what happens if this becomes routine? Will we just have to build all homes to have central AC like Florida?
This was a brutal 3 days, but at least it wasn't humid like Florida. Hydration and shade made it possible to be outside, even if extremely unpleasant.
If it's a handful of days a year, you can make do if you're in good health, anyway. One room with a window or minisplit a/c and everyone in that room will be much more comfortable than none and can be affordable if you shop at the right time.
Designing to get the right airflow, rejecting direct solar heat, and what not can help a ton with regular summer heat in the PNW. Or at least, not being totally stupid about it and making greenhouses instead of green houses. Tree shadows help a ton too, although with warmer weather, there's fire risk, and you need to select trees carefully to avoid fall risk (just say no to cottonwoods near your house, cause they like to fall and drop limbs)
If it's a handful of days a year, you can make do if you're in good health, anyway. One room with a window or minisplit a/c and everyone in that room will be much more comfortable than none and can be affordable if you shop at the right time.
Designing to get the right airflow, rejecting direct solar heat, and what not can help a ton with regular summer heat in the PNW. Or at least, not being totally stupid about it and making greenhouses instead of green houses. Tree shadows help a ton too, although with warmer weather, there's fire risk, and you need to select trees carefully to avoid fall risk (just say no to cottonwoods near your house, cause they like to fall and drop limbs)
We had to take out a lot of giant cottonwoods that someone planted for shade a long time ago. Super hazardous, right on the house. The previous owner also installed gigantic west facing windows — no doubt to optimize for every ounce of PNW light before Las Vegas weather was a thing here. So we installed this 3M film that both cuts down on the glare and also reduces solar gain, and we’re super happy with it. It’s basically a tint. It’s incredible because it’s actually more pleasant to look out through, see the clouds, etc.
Cottonwoods grow pretty quick in the right conditions (lots of sun and moisture), so a 10 year old tree may be 40-50 feet tall.
The big one was ballpark 115’/120’. We had to have a crane remove it. Sad day; as much as poplar drive me crazy — they’re invasive weeds really — it was a giant. We’ve planted a lot of oaks and maples (and a bunch of other stuff).
Most homes in the midwest, south, and west (apart from coastal California, perhaps) have central air.
Trust me, coastal California is all about air conditioning as well.
Will that create more global warming?
Most likely, yes.
Not if powered by green energy. Another reason why we must invest in green infrastructure.
Even if powered by green energy, AC increases overall temperatures in a city (the heat has to go somewhere). Not global warming, but definitely makes it more miserable.
HFCs in AC are GHGs with higher GWP than CO2 too.
https://www.epa.gov/snap/reducing-hydrofluorocarbon-hfc-use-...
https://www.epa.gov/snap/reducing-hydrofluorocarbon-hfc-use-...
Are hydrofluorocarbons from air conditioning systems really significant source of green house gas emotions (like Carbon dioxide is). I’m imagining that they are only global warming producing when the air conditioning systems are disposed. The lifecycle of an average system surely is long enough for that to be a problem. And if it is, aren’t there ways to capture the green house gasses during the recycling process?
Also we have to live with the fact now that the planet is significantly warmer now, and is getting warmer still. Even if we stop polluting now, there is already much damage done. Peoples life’s have been changed, and we will need to change our habits to stay healthy in this altered world. This includes more air conditioning systems in places that previously didn’t need them. Staying healthy is just as important as stopping the climate crisis.
Also we have to live with the fact now that the planet is significantly warmer now, and is getting warmer still. Even if we stop polluting now, there is already much damage done. Peoples life’s have been changed, and we will need to change our habits to stay healthy in this altered world. This includes more air conditioning systems in places that previously didn’t need them. Staying healthy is just as important as stopping the climate crisis.
if it becomes routine?
when i moved to the PNW 20 years ago the summer had maybe a weekend or two that were hot and by hot I mean maybe 80. You would get laughed out of a room if you asked why doesn't anyone have AC.
Nowadays, nobody is laughing. The summers are getting hotter and hotter. We are IMHO at a point where if you're renting/buying/building a house AC should definitely be one of the things you must consider.
when i moved to the PNW 20 years ago the summer had maybe a weekend or two that were hot and by hot I mean maybe 80. You would get laughed out of a room if you asked why doesn't anyone have AC.
Nowadays, nobody is laughing. The summers are getting hotter and hotter. We are IMHO at a point where if you're renting/buying/building a house AC should definitely be one of the things you must consider.
So the last record broken in BC was from 1937. Was that heatwave caused by global warming too?