Places becoming less livable

[Daniel B.]

This is not a bubble that is ready to burst.  Rather it will have its air let out slowly over time.  The seas will not rise overnight to swallow all the property.  Areas will decline as they are affected, and will be spread out over decades.  As the article state, this is "slow-motion."

[dnem]

You can't possibly know that.  The interplay of buyer psychology, insurance and lending can play out in very nonlinear and emergent ways. See 2008/2009.

[Daniel B.]

No more than others could possibly know.  The 2008/09 housing burst was inflamed by the financial credit crunch, which reigned in loose credit over the previous decade.  The issue here is seas rising slowly over the coming decades.  Unless demand for ocean front property completely tanks, which would take a huge change in buyer mindsets, the odds of a bubble burst are slim.  These properties are still desirable, meaning someone will snatch them up, before the price can fall to far.

[Archimid]

There would be no bubble if climate science was taken into account when planning and risks were divulged to buyers. However, because of cowardly climate change deniers, unscrupulous real state people and civil servants who failed on their duties to the people, bubble are created where SLR is ignored until it is too late. Bubbles burst.

But as you can see, the people that are causing the bubbles by deceiving others about the risk  of climate change also forego any responsibility for creating the bubbles. No surprise there.

[Sigmetnow]

Houston, Texas

”The Memorial Day 2015, Tax Day 2016 and Harvey floods all reached or exceeded the 500-year standard, which refers to a storm that has a 0.2 percent chance of happening in any given year.”

Houston City Council unanimously backs plan to build homes in flood plain
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/amp/City-Council-unanimously-backs-plan-to-build-12863712.php

[Shared Humanity]

Houston, Texas

”The Memorial Day 2015, Tax Day 2016 and Harvey floods all reached or exceeded the 500-year standard, which refers to a storm that has a 0.2 percent chance of happening in any given year.”

Houston City Council unanimously backs plan to build homes in flood plain
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/amp/City-Council-unanimously-backs-plan-to-build-12863712.php

You can't fix stupid.

[magnamentis]

Houston, Texas

”The Memorial Day 2015, Tax Day 2016 and Harvey floods all reached or exceeded the 500-year standard, which refers to a storm that has a 0.2 percent chance of happening in any given year.”

Houston City Council unanimously backs plan to build homes in flood plain
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/amp/City-Council-unanimously-backs-plan-to-build-12863712.php

and even less greed which is almost a synonym for stupidity.


You can't fix stupid.

[Sebastian Jones]

Houston, Texas

”The Memorial Day 2015, Tax Day 2016 and Harvey floods all reached or exceeded the 500-year standard, which refers to a storm that has a 0.2 percent chance of happening in any given year.”

Houston City Council unanimously backs plan to build homes in flood plain
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/amp/City-Council-unanimously-backs-plan-to-build-12863712.php

and even less greed which is almost a synonym for stupidity.


You can't fix stupid.

Well, they probably figured that if they had experienced a one-in-500 year flood 3 years running, they are now safe for 1500 years...

[Shared Humanity]

Well, they probably figured that if they had experienced a one-in-500 year flood 3 years running, they are now safe for 1500 years...

[DrTskoul]

A Pakistani City Hit 122.4 Degrees In April, Probably Setting A World Record

... But weather extremes expert Christopher Burt says it’s likely the hottest record ever set on earth, an assessment the U.N. agency said it has no reason to doubt

[Sigmetnow]

Three newspapers confront one challenge: Sea-level rise is real, South Florida needs all hands on deck — now

...the editorial boards of the Miami Herald, South Florida Sun Sentinel and Palm Beach Post — with reporting help from WLRN Public Media — are joining hands in an unprecedented collaboration this election year to raise awareness about the threat facing South Florida from sea-level rise. In drumbeat fashion, we plan to inform, engage, provoke and build momentum to address the slow-motion tidal wave coming our way.
...
The problem is, we’re not convinced sea-level rise will harm us in our lifetimes. We’ve got to change that mindset because it already is. Like most of us, Doris Edelman of Hollywood hadn’t heard of king tides five years ago. Now she can’t leave her house those autumn days when king tides lift the Intracoastal Waterway over its banks, over her street and halfway up her driveway. She’s not an isolated case. ...

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article210451219.html

[josh-j]

Three newspapers confront one challenge: Sea-level rise is real, South Florida needs all hands on deck — now

Now that is heartening to see! Excellent article.

[Susan Anderson]

Kilauea is getting to be more problematic. I could never understand living next to a volcano or on a active fault. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/10/609948589/scientists-warn-that-hawaiis-kilauea-volcano-could-erupt-ballistic-rocks

Interesting scientific discussion about the dynamics here and in other articles on the subject. Scary stuff!

[Shared Humanity]

Kilauea is getting to be more problematic. I could never understand living next to a volcano or on a active fault. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/10/609948589/scientists-warn-that-hawaiis-kilauea-volcano-could-erupt-ballistic-rocks

Interesting scientific discussion about the dynamics here and in other articles on the subject. Scary stuff!

If you are so unlucky as to be smashed by one of these rocks, it is safe to say that Pele has decided it is your time.

[Susan Anderson]

Do have a look at one of the articles, the dynamics of the buildup are interesting. Indeed, a big boulder is curtains (to mix a metaphor). But it seems the bigger picture is much more dangerous, and threatens the whole region.

[SteveMDFP]

Do have a look at one of the articles, the dynamics of the buildup are interesting. Indeed, a big boulder is curtains (to mix a metaphor). But it seems the bigger picture is much more dangerous, and threatens the whole region.

I'm no volcanologist (nor Vulcan, even if I play one at Halloween), but from having spent some hours over at VolcanoCafe in the past, I think the answer is "not so much."

Hawaii's volcanoes are fed by basaltic/oceanic crust, rather unlike volcanoes on continental land masses, which have silicate-rich magma/lava.   Hawaii's volcanoes thus emit less-viscous, more fluid and far less explosive lava.  When a Hawaiian volcano erupts, you can often safely just walk away from the flowing lava.

A few boulders might get thrown up into the air, but they're unlikely to see massive, destructive super-heated pyroclastic flows charging down a mountain and devastating whole towns.

[TerryM]

I've seen volcanic bombs that landed in dry lake beds far from any visible volcanos. They can't have been terribly old as the lakes had silted up to their present level before they flew in.
Terry

[Sigmetnow]

USGS warns of Kilauea’s explosive potential if magma reaches groundwater:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2164.msg153778.html#msg153778

[gerontocrat]

California - a place becoming less liveable?

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2018-05-10-california-climate-change-report-solar-panels-new-homes

California Reports On Dire Impacts of Climate Change, Fights Back by Becoming First State to Require Solar Panels on New Homes

On the same day the 350-page "Indicators of Climate Change in California" (https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf ) report was released, the California Energy Commission unanimously voted to approve measures requiring solar panels on all new homes, condos and multi-family buildings up to three stories high beginning in 2020.
One of the more disturbing findings, the scientists note, is the increase in the average nighttime temperatures, which have increased by 2.3 degrees over the past century.

Other findings in the report include:

• An increase in extreme heatwaves and accompanying droughts since 1950

• A 9 percent decrease in snowpack since 1906.

• The Sierra Nevada's largest glaciers shrunk by up to 70 percent.

• Lake Tahoe warmed by one degree since 1970 and has warmed 10 times faster over the past four years.

• The mean sea level in San Francisco has risen 7 inches since 1924.

• Oxygen depletion has also been detected in the water off San Diego.

• The five largest fire years since 1950 have all occurred since 2006.

Despite the litany of dire impacts presented in the report, the state has had some success in efforts to combat climate change by reducing harmful emissions, Rodriquez said.

"Our state’s pioneering efforts to curb emissions of greenhouse gases are working," he said. "Concentrations of the short-lived climate pollutant black carbon have dropped by more than 90 percent over the last fifty years."

[Daniel B.]

I tend to become suspicious when the a study selects seemingly random years for their comparison, and quite variable at that.  Choosing 1950 for droughts, includes the recent wet decades, while removing several drier ones over the preceding century.  Other studies have shown much drier conditions existed even earlier.

https://www.water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/waterconditions/docs/California_Signficant_Droughts_2015_small.pdf

The heat wave data showed an increase in nighttime temperatures, but no significant increase in daytime heat waves.  Other studies have shown that nighttime irrigation increases nocturnal temperatures.

Subsequently, 1906 showed the deepest snowpack in recent history.  The years encompassing the previous decade were all 50-75% lower. 

The sea level rise in San Francisco amount to just under 2 mm/yr., less than the global average, and it appears to have been largely influenced by land subsidence.

The fire claim is just plain false.  The most recent large fire just nosed out the 2003 Cedar fire for the top spot (unless my math is wrong, 2003 occurred before 2006).  Choosing just five, and since 1950, eliminates the large 1932 Matilija fire.  There is considerable doubt as to the effect of climate change on fires, although most of the large fires can be considered manmade.

[oren]

So no climate change impacts on California?

[Archimid]

I tend to become suspicious when the a study selects seemingly random years for their comparison, and quite variable at that.

I tend to become suspicious when disaster costs keep rising, we know why, but people keep saying there is nothing to be concerned about. I really don't understand what you possibly have to gain from down playing the risks. It doesn't matter. The fires will continue, the floods will continue, the droughts will continue.

Any way, of all your nice and comforting but misleading information the easiest to debunk is the fires.

Top 20 largest  fires in California since 1932

http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/Top20_Acres.pdf

14/20 happened after the year 2000, 6/20 since 2010, with less woods for fuel and a much larger fire service.

The rest is just as misleading when context is added, but the context is difficult to type.

Daniel B. what do you think you gain from playing down the risks of climate change?

[Daniel B.]

I tend to become suspicious when the a study selects seemingly random years for their comparison, and quite variable at that.

I tend to become suspicious when disaster costs keep rising, we know why, but people keep saying there is nothing to be concerned about. I really don't understand what you possibly have to gain from down playing the risks. It doesn't matter. The fires will continue, the floods will continue, the droughts will continue.

Any way, of all your nice and comforting but misleading information the easiest to debunk is the fires.

Top 20 largest  fires in California since 1932

http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/Top20_Acres.pdf

14/20 happened after the year 2000, 6/20 since 2010, with less woods for fuel and a much larger fire service.

The rest is just as misleading when context is added, but the context is difficult to type.

Daniel B. what do you think you gain from playing down the risks of climate change?

Greater accuracy.

Of course fires, floods, and droughts will continue.  No one is saying that if we changed our behavior, that these things would cease.  By the way, the main reason that disaster costs are rising is that more and more people are building in flood plains, hurricane zones, etc. 

[Archimid]

Greater accuracy.

You think you are being more accurate? Let's see:

What Daniel B claims:

The heat wave data showed an increase in nighttime temperatures, but no significant increase in daytime heat waves.

What the paper claims:

 

Both extreme heat days and nights have increased at a faster rate in the past 30 years. Heat waves, defined as five or more consecutive extreme heat days or nights, are also increasing, especially at night.

Did you misread that or do you have evidence that contradicts the claims of the paper? Because if you don't then you didn't add accuracy, you simply lied (intentionally or not).

And then Daniel B. said:

The fire claim is just plain false.  The most recent large fire just nosed out the 2003 Cedar fire for the top spot (unless my math is wrong, 2003 occurred before 2006).  Choosing just five, and since 1950, eliminates the large 1932 Matilija fire

Another inaccurate statement. Fire years is not the same as largest fires by area. The top 5 fire years (total area burned) all happened after 2006. So once again, your "greater accuracy" turn out to be misleading lies.

You are not adding accuracy.  You are lying. What do you have to gain by that? you are also part of this world and your life style is in danger, just like ours. Why are you working against your own interests?

[miki]

You are not adding accuracy. You are lying. What do you have to gain by that? you are also part of this world and your life style is in danger, just like ours. Why are you working against your own interests?

Archimid, I think you are wasting your time. I have decided to do not waste mine, at least on this forum, dealing with this kind of planned "insanity"... that's why when I see a post by D.B., no offense, I just bypass.

[Daniel B.]

Greater accuracy.

You think you are being more accurate? Let's see:

What Daniel B claims:

The heat wave data showed an increase in nighttime temperatures, but no significant increase in daytime heat waves.

What the paper claims:

 

Both extreme heat days and nights have increased at a faster rate in the past 30 years. Heat waves, defined as five or more consecutive extreme heat days or nights, are also increasing, especially at night.

Did you misread that or do you have evidence that contradicts the claims of the paper? Because if you don't then you didn't add accuracy, you simply lied (intentionally or not).

And then Daniel B. said:

The fire claim is just plain false.  The most recent large fire just nosed out the 2003 Cedar fire for the top spot (unless my math is wrong, 2003 occurred before 2006).  Choosing just five, and since 1950, eliminates the large 1932 Matilija fire

Another inaccurate statement. Fire years is not the same as largest fires by area. The top 5 fire years (total area burned) all happened after 2006. So once again, your "greater accuracy" turn out to be misleading lies.

You are not adding accuracy.  You are lying. What do you have to gain by that? you are also part of this world and your life style is in danger, just like ours. Why are you working against your own interests?

You are cherry picking the heat wave data.  Yes, there was an increase in the last 30 years, but that just compensated for the decrease in the previous 30.  Overall, the net change was insignificant.

I may need to re-read the fire data.  Their data showed individual fires.  I may have missed their definition of a fire year.  Still, since most of the fires were man made, it is hard to blame any increase on climate change.

[Archimid]

You are cherry picking the heat wave data.

No, I'm just comparing what the paper said vs what you said. 

Yes, there was an increase in the last 30 years, but that just compensated for the decrease in the previous 30.

California average temperatures since 1900

  Overall, the net change was insignificant.

And you base that on what exactly? Because you say so? I don't know but increasing billion dollar disasters beg to differ.

[Daniel B.]

You are cherry picking the heat wave data.

No, I'm just comparing what the paper said vs what you said. 

Yes, there was an increase in the last 30 years, but that just compensated for the decrease in the previous 30.

California average temperatures since 1900

  Overall, the net change was insignificant.

And you base that on what exactly? Because you say so? I don't know but increasing billion dollar disasters beg to differ.

I base that on the plot presented in the paper.  Not the one you posted, which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.  What exactly does the average temperature have to do with daytime or nighttime heat waves?

[Archimid]

I base that on the plot presented in the paper.

You mean the night time heat waves graph on page 13? It's the same shape as the one I present.

Not the one you posted, which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.  What exactly does the average temperature have to do with daytime or nighttime heat waves?

Average temperatures and number of heat waves are correlated. When the average temperature is higher than normal, then the chances that you get 5 or more days of temperatures above the threshold increase. The opposite is also true. The average temperature graph goes further back into the past than the heatwave count graph, but it behaves in about the same way.

Both of them completely contradict your claim that
 

Yes, there was an increase in the last 30 years, but that just compensated for the decrease in the previous 30.

[Archimid]

This is such an inaccuracy that I can’t help but to correct it.

 

Still, since most of the fires were man made, it is hard to blame any increase on climate change.

Climate change can make man made fires much, much worse. It is hotter, drier, with sick trees that burn faster. Humans may start the fire but the spread characteristics are due to the climate.

[Daniel B.]

I base that on the plot presented in the paper.

You mean the night time heat waves graph on page 13? It's the same shape as the one I present.

Not the one you posted, which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.  What exactly does the average temperature have to do with daytime or nighttime heat waves?

Average temperatures and number of heat waves are correlated. When the average temperature is higher than normal, then the chances that you get 5 or more days of temperatures above the threshold increase. The opposite is also true. The average temperature graph goes further back into the past than the heatwave count graph, but it behaves in about the same way.

Both of them completely contradict your claim that
 

Yes, there was an increase in the last 30 years, but that just compensated for the decrease in the previous 30.

Not when the average temperature increase is a direct result of increased nighttime temperatures.  That does not change the potential for daytime heat waves at all.

[Archimid]

Not when the average temperature increase is a direct result of increased nighttime temperatures

No, the average temperature increase is a result of global warming. That it warmed at night more than during the day is a signature of greenhouse gases.

That does not change the potential for daytime heat waves at all.

That doesn't even make sense. Day and night time temperatures are connected and influence each other.  Night temperatures don't change the potential of day temperatures?  That's madness. There is an eternal interaction between day and night.

The following paper goes into much greater accuracy:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL052979

Current and projected heat waves are examined over California and its sub-regions in observations and downscaled global climate model (GCM) simulations. California heat wave activity falls into two distinct types: (1) typically dry daytime heat waves and (2) humid nighttime-accentuated events (Type I and Type II, respectively). The four GCMs considered project Type II heat waves to intensify more with climate change than the historically characteristic Type I events, although both types are projected to increase. This trend is already clearly observed and simulated to various degrees over all sub-regions of California. Part of the
 intensification in heat wave activity is due directly to mean warming. However, when one considers non-stationarity in daily temperature variance, desert heat waves are expected to become progressively and relatively less intense while coastal heat waves are projected to intensify even relative to the background warming. This result generally holds for both types of heat waves across models. Given the high coastal population density and low acclimatization to
heat, especially humid heat, this trend bodes ill for coastal communities, jeopardizing public health and stressing energy resources

[ghoti]

Over night temperatures are part of the criteria used by Environment Canada to issue heat warnings:

Issued when 2 or more consecutive days of daytime maximum temperatures are expected to reach 31°C or warmer and nighttime minimum temperatures are expected to fall to 21°C or warmer.

To me this means the risk of issued heat warnings increases with the trend of increasing overnight temperatures.

[Daniel B.]

Not when the average temperature increase is a direct result of increased nighttime temperatures

No, the average temperature increase is a result of global warming. That it warmed at night more than during the day is a signature of greenhouse gases.

That does not change the potential for daytime heat waves at all.

That doesn't even make sense. Day and night time temperatures are connected and influence each other.  Night temperatures don't change the potential of day temperatures?  That's madness. There is an eternal interaction between day and night.

The following paper goes into much greater accuracy:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL052979

Current and projected heat waves are examined over California and its sub-regions in observations and downscaled global climate model (GCM) simulations. California heat wave activity falls into two distinct types: (1) typically dry daytime heat waves and (2) humid nighttime-accentuated events (Type I and Type II, respectively). The four GCMs considered project Type II heat waves to intensify more with climate change than the historically characteristic Type I events, although both types are projected to increase. This trend is already clearly observed and simulated to various degrees over all sub-regions of California. Part of the
 intensification in heat wave activity is due directly to mean warming. However, when one considers non-stationarity in daily temperature variance, desert heat waves are expected to become progressively and relatively less intense while coastal heat waves are projected to intensify even relative to the background warming. This result generally holds for both types of heat waves across models. Given the high coastal population density and low acclimatization to
heat, especially humid heat, this trend bodes ill for coastal communities, jeopardizing public health and stressing energy resources

That is my point exactly!  The increase in nighttime temperatures (while predicted by global warming theory), increases the average temperature, but does not affect the daytime temperature.  Even your publication supports to my post about increased water vapor leading to an increase in nighttime temperatures, but not daytime.  The increased cloudiness, due to higher humidity, is a temperature moderator. 



The following details the difference regions in California:

http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/8/3/25/htm

The more humid, coastal regions have experienced an increase in heat waves since 1950, but the drier interior regions have seen a decrease.  Most affected has been the Central Valley, where agricultural irrigations appears to cause a significant increase in the nighttime heat wave indicator, while simultaneously causing a significant decrease in the daytime heat wave indicator.

If you have been reading some of the other threads, you we see a similar effect in the Arctic, whereby winter low temperatures have increased dramatically, but summer highs have not.

[Daniel B.]

Over night temperatures are part of the criteria used by Environment Canada to issue heat warnings:

Issued when 2 or more consecutive days of daytime maximum temperatures are expected to reach 31°C or warmer and nighttime minimum temperatures are expected to fall to 21°C or warmer.

To me this means the risk of issued heat warnings increases with the trend of increasing overnight temperatures.

Not necessarily.  Increases in clouds and water vapor tend to moderate the temperature, leading to increased overnight temperatures, while simultaneously decreasing daytime temperatures.  This is particularly true in the agricultural regions, where they found a 4-8C decrease in midday temperatures during the summer growing season.

http://faculty2.ucmerced.edu/lkueppers/pdf/Kueppers%20&%20Snyder%202011%20irrigation%20and%20regional%20diurnal%20energy%20fluxes%20clim%20circuln.pdf

[Archimid]

That is my point exactly! 

Ohh good, because inaccuracies like the one below are very misleading.

Yes, there was an increase in the last 30 years, but that just compensated for the decrease in the previous 30.  Overall, the net change was insignificant.

Sigh. Can you at least be consistent? I know it is hard to do when your views are not grounded in science, but in a desperate attempt to to feel safe. But you can at least try.

The increase in nighttime temperatures (while predicted by global warming theory), increases the average temperature, but does not affect the daytime temperature.

Global warming affects both day temperatures and night temperatures but the anomaly is greater at night temperatures.  Night and day temperature do affect each other.

 

Even your publication supports to my post about increased water vapor leading to an increase in nighttime temperatures, but not daytime.  The increased cloudiness, due to higher humidity, is a temperature moderator. 

I have no contention with that part. Clouds warm the night and cool the days. That is obvious. My contention is that:

1. You have claimed that this warming episode is part of a some sort of 30 year cycle. That is very misleading. Temperatures over California since 1900 illustrate why. yeas there are cycles, but so far the warmest part of the cycle is getting warmer and the coolest part of the cycle is also getting warmer, thus your argument is pure lies.

2. You imply that the cause for the nighttime increase is irrigation. While I don't doubt irrigation may play a role, the primary cause for the warming are GHG. Sure , you may now say" I never said GHG's didn't play a role" but that was the intention of your argument, with enough wiggle room for later denial.

If you have been reading some of the other threads, you we see a similar effect in the Arctic, whereby winter low temperatures have increased dramatically, but summer highs have not.

Similar in some ways but very different in others. Similar in that night temperatures increases much more than summer temperatures. Different in that surface temperatures north of 80 will remain constant until sufficient ice is gone. Once is gone summer temperatures will increase dramatically.

[Daniel B.]

That is my point exactly! 

Ohh good, because inaccuracies like the one below are very misleading.

Yes, there was an increase in the last 30 years, but that just compensated for the decrease in the previous 30.  Overall, the net change was insignificant.

Sigh. Can you at least be consistent? I know it is hard to do when your views are not grounded in science, but in a desperate attempt to to feel safe. But you can at least try.

The increase in nighttime temperatures (while predicted by global warming theory), increases the average temperature, but does not affect the daytime temperature.

Global warming affects both day temperatures and night temperatures but the anomaly is greater at night temperatures.  Night and day temperature do affect each other.

 

Even your publication supports to my post about increased water vapor leading to an increase in nighttime temperatures, but not daytime.  The increased cloudiness, due to higher humidity, is a temperature moderator. 

I have no contention with that part. Clouds warm the night and cool the days. That is obvious. My contention is that:

1. You have claimed that this warming episode is part of a some sort of 30 year cycle. That is very misleading. Temperatures over California since 1900 illustrate why. yeas there are cycles, but so far the warmest part of the cycle is getting warmer and the coolest part of the cycle is also getting warmer, thus your argument is pure lies.

2. You imply that the cause for the nighttime increase is irrigation. While I don't doubt irrigation may play a role, the primary cause for the warming are GHG. Sure , you may now say" I never said GHG's didn't play a role" but that was the intention of your argument, with enough wiggle room for later denial.

If you have been reading some of the other threads, you we see a similar effect in the Arctic, whereby winter low temperatures have increased dramatically, but summer highs have not.

Similar in some ways but very different in others. Similar in that night temperatures increases much more than summer temperatures. Different in that surface temperatures north of 80 will remain constant until sufficient ice is gone. Once is gone summer temperatures will increase dramatically.

Where did you come up with this 30-year cycle?  I am not automatically ruling this out, but do you have any supporting documentation for this claim?

I am not claiming that the nighttime increase is entirely due to irrigation.  Just that the daytime decrease is.  Hence, there has been no observable rise in daytime heat waves.

[TerryM]

Is there any indication that irrigation in California has increased in recent decades?


When I moved to S.Cal. in 63 the vast orange groves needed constant irrigation, (and smudge pots kept the frost away). Today the city of Riverside and Orange County are wall to wall subdivisions.
Sprinkler systems are present, but so much is under asphalt that I doubt that irrigation has increased.


They've been irrigating, at least in the southern portion of the state since it belonged to Mexico.
Terry

[Daniel B.]

Is there any indication that irrigation in California has increased in recent decades?


When I moved to S.Cal. in 63 the vast orange groves needed constant irrigation, (and smudge pots kept the frost away). Today the city of Riverside and Orange County are wall to wall subdivisions.
Sprinkler systems are present, but so much is under asphalt that I doubt that irrigation has increased.


They've been irrigating, at least in the southern portion of the state since it belonged to Mexico.
Terry

As SoCal as transitioned from agriculture to suburbia, irrigation has decreased.  Consequently, the asphalt jungle has experienced a larger temperature increase than the rest of the state.  Conversely, irrigation has increased in the central valley area.  Most of the research into the effects of irrigation on temperature has been conducted in that area.

[John Batteen]

I'm with you Terry.  I know in Phoenix at least, a given area of suburbia uses less water than the same area of orange trees.  Lots of citrus ripped out for suburbs in both Phoenix and California.  Plus with water becoming more scarce everyone is moving from flood to drip irrigation.  It's possible water use has remained the same, simply becoming more efficient with the same amount of water.  But I doubt it has increased significantly.

[Shared Humanity]

You are not adding accuracy. You are lying. What do you have to gain by that? you are also part of this world and your life style is in danger, just like ours. Why are you working against your own interests?

Archimid, I think you are wasting your time. I have decided to do not waste mine, at least on this forum, dealing with this kind of planned "insanity"... that's why when I see a post by D.B., no offense, I just bypass.

I put him on ignore months ago.

[Shared Humanity]

2 graphs for fires in California...

...to the untrained eye, you might conclude that fires are getting worse.


I would actually be quite worried by these trends except for two things.

1. I don't live in California.
2. Daniel B. tells me not to worry.

[Shared Humanity]

The following paper goes into much greater accuracy:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL052979

Current and projected heat waves are examined over California and its sub-regions in observations and downscaled global climate model (GCM) simulations. California heat wave activity falls into two distinct types: (1) typically dry daytime heat waves and (2) humid nighttime-accentuated events (Type I and Type II, respectively). The four GCMs considered project Type II heat waves to intensify more with climate change than the historically characteristic Type I events, although both types are projected to increase. This trend is already clearly observed and simulated to various degrees over all sub-regions of California. Part of the
 intensification in heat wave activity is due directly to mean warming. However, when one considers non-stationarity in daily temperature variance, desert heat waves are expected to become progressively and relatively less intense while coastal heat waves are projected to intensify even relative to the background warming. This result generally holds for both types of heat waves across models. Given the high coastal population density and low acclimatization to
heat, especially humid heat, this trend bodes ill for coastal communities, jeopardizing public health and stressing energy resources

There you go again...getting all sciencey and shit.

[Daniel B.]

The following paper goes into much greater accuracy:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL052979

Current and projected heat waves are examined over California and its sub-regions in observations and downscaled global climate model (GCM) simulations. California heat wave activity falls into two distinct types: (1) typically dry daytime heat waves and (2) humid nighttime-accentuated events (Type I and Type II, respectively). The four GCMs considered project Type II heat waves to intensify more with climate change than the historically characteristic Type I events, although both types are projected to increase. This trend is already clearly observed and simulated to various degrees over all sub-regions of California. Part of the
 intensification in heat wave activity is due directly to mean warming. However, when one considers non-stationarity in daily temperature variance, desert heat waves are expected to become progressively and relatively less intense while coastal heat waves are projected to intensify even relative to the background warming. This result generally holds for both types of heat waves across models. Given the high coastal population density and low acclimatization to
heat, especially humid heat, this trend bodes ill for coastal communities, jeopardizing public health and stressing energy resources

There you go again...getting all sciencey and shit.

Exactly!  That is the same publication to which I was referring.  They separated California into six diverse regions.  Since 1950, all six regions showed an increase in their nighttime heat wave indicator (about 15 days on average).  Of the six regions, only two showed an increase in their daytime heat wave indicator, the coastal north and south (15 days on average).  The northern forest and southern desert area showed variation over the 60-year period, but little net change.  The Mojave desert showed a large decrease over the first 20 years (>15 days), followed by an increase over the last 20 years (<15 days).   The central valley showed a large decrease (~20 days).

[TerryM]

^ Smog?
Terry

[ghoti]

^ Smog?
Terry

Actually more like FUD

[Daniel B.]

^ Smog?
Terry

Actually more like FUD

Sure, why not?  Spread more fear among the masses. 

[magnamentis]

the colder temps are the easier it is to become warmer and matter of factly in general that's how its. look at the anomaly maps all over the place, the largest difference compared to averages are where it's coldest, this includes N of 80N but includes mountain regions.

the smallest increase in temps is where temps are high i.e. in the deserts where it has always been between 40 and 50C it still is 40 - 50 C, same to equator regions where humidity is flattening temps ups and downs.

of course there's more to it and there are more sophisticated ways to put it but in general it like that.

so much to night temps increasing faster than day times where the sun is the main heating source while at night it's airflow and earth-stored heat radiation.

[oren]

Following DB's claims up-thread of warming limited only to the nighttime, I have written this post in the Global Surface Air Temps thread.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,445.msg154180.html#msg154180

[Daniel B.]

Following DB's claims up-thread of warming limited only to the nighttime, I have written this post in the Global Surface Air Temps thread.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,445.msg154180.html#msg154180

Yes, your data does support my claims.  For those you have not read the paper, it shows that winter minimum temperatures are rising at a rate of 0.19C/decade, while summer maxima are rising at just 0.07C/decade.

The authors conclude, "While there are many factors which may asymmetrically affect the radiative forcing on the diurnal extreme temperatures, here, we demonstrate that the night‐time temperatures are inherently more sensitive to perturbations to the radiation balance and will warm more rapidly on a uniform forcing (such as that from the build‐up of greenhouse‐gases). This effect is most pronounced in regions where there is a strong diurnal cycle in the boundary‐layer depth, with shallow boundary‐layers forming at night."

Additionally, "DTR [diurnal temperature range] is significantly reduced largely because of strong increase in Tmin in wintertime (December through May) and in high latitudes." and for the Arctic regions specifically, "Practically all warming must be attributed to Tmin increase"