Southern California - from Orange County and the Inland Empire to north Los Angeles - will heat up over the next 50 years, with more 95-plus degree days in store, according to a new UCLA report compiled with forecasting models generated by a supercomputer.
The study, which contains data 2,500 times more detailed than previous studies, predicts weather patterns from 2041 to 2060. All kinds of maps and city breakdowns show tempurate changes. (See pdf attached reports)
It shows that the number of days with temperatures exceeding 95 degrees will increase.
By mid-century, the number of days with "extreme heat"— temperatures above 95 degrees—will triple in downtown Los Angeles, and quadruple in the San Fernando Valley. Desert communities are predicted to experience five times the number of days over 95 degrees.
The hottest days are likely to break records, said Alex Hall, lead researcher on the study by UCLA's Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. The current record high for downtown is 113 degrees, set on Sept. 27, 2010. Temperatures are predicted to rise 3.7-5.4 degrees across the region by 2050. The hottest days will likely be in the summer and the fall.
"Every season of the year in every part of the county will be warmer," Hall said. "This study lays a foundation for the region to confront climate change. Now that we have real numbers, we can talk about adaptation.''
The study titled "Mid-Century Warming in the Los Angeles Region," which was done with a supercomputer, contains the most precise predictions for how climate change will affect the Los Angeles area's micro climate zones—deserts, coastal areas and mountains. The micro climates are just 2 1/4 square miles.
“This is the best, most sophisticated climate science ever done for a city,” said UCLA Professor Paul Bunje, executive director of UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability Center for Climate Change Solutions. “Nobody knew precisely how to adapt to climate change because no one had the data—until now.”
The city of Los Angeles commissioned the $500,000 study, which was paid for by the U.S. Department of Energy.
“UCLA’s model projects climate changes down to the neighborhood level, allowing us to apply the rigor of science to long-term planning for our city and our region,” said Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in a statement. “With good data driving good policies, we can craft innovative solutions that will preserve our environment and quality of life for the next generation of Angelenos.”
A main concern the study reaffirms is the sustainability of Los Angeles' water resources. The region is dependent on snowfall and precipitation in the local mountains. Another study on local water resources will be released in the fall, and another study on snowpack in the Sierra Nevada range will come out in the summer of 2013.
Another regional concern is the risk of heat stroke and other heat-related maladies.
“Higher temperatures bring higher health risks,” says Dr. Richard Jackson of the Fielding School of Public Health at UCLA. “Longer, harsher heat waves will cause more cases of heat stroke and heat exhaustion—even among otherwise healthy people who believe they’re immune—and higher temperatures mean more smog, with consequences for respiratory health as well.”
This report was compiled with information from City News Service.
It is a fact that every national science academy on the planet has issued formal statements saying the planet is warming, human activity is a contributing factor and the consequences will be catastrophic if we don't reduce greenhouse gas emissions urgently. For example, here is the statement from the American Physical Society (i.e. physicists). "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." You prefer to believe otherwise, but nearly everything you say has been debunked by responsible scientists again and again. You are repeating the myths spread by those who deny the science. I want govt policy based on mainstream science, not on the fears of the misguided or the preferences of industry lobby groups.
Many who initially signed on to the APS letter you have cited, have since reconsidered their endorsement. Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever actually resigned from the APS over its position on global warming: http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2011/09/15/incontrovertible-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/ Put simply, there is no scientific consensus on the topic and to claim otherwise is simply not factual. Sorry.
well-being.
Here we have now seen the accustomed progression of the argument from those who believe without question that mankind is somehow responsible for global warming. First, as Jock did, imply that "99% of research scientists" hold this same belief (but never offer any proof that this is so.) Second, as Gillian did, cite an APS position paper on the topic and offer an excerpt from the paper as somehow "incontrovertible", even when some of the very scientists who signed it (peer-reviewed, published, highly-accomplished academics all) have since reconsidered and, in some cases, even reversed their own endorsement. Third, as Steven did, do not argue the evidence, pro and con, instead, dismiss any arguments against AGW as simply "paid (for) by Hydrocarbon, Inc", "supported by big oil, and "right-wing agenda" and, thus, apparently, entirely unworthy of serious consideration, regardless of the *facts* with which those who disagree support their arguments. Folks who feel more confident in AGW theory than many of the scientists who have been studying the matter for much of their adult lives, really should re-consider their steadfast commitment in light of the utter lack of scientific consensus. That they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that AGW remains just a theory and by no means "incontrovertible" fact, tells me all I really need to know about their interest in seeking the truth of the matter.
I completely agree concerning preparing for disasters of all sorts. Unfortunately, mankind cannot hold back the seas if they do rise. All mankind can do to prepare for that is to move (or be ready to move) to higher ground. What we *can* do regarding preparation of almost any sort is lay in at least a week's supply of food and fresh water sufficient to sustain one's entire household. (food and water) We can arrange for shelter alternatives in the event our home becomes unsafe. (shelter) We can keep basic medical supplies on hand and know how to use them. (health) We can learn basic self- and home- defense techniques and be prepared to use them if (when) no one comes to our aid when we call 9-11 for help. (defense) We can get to know our neighbors and agree to work together and assist one another when disaster strikes. (organize with neighbors) These are the basics of all-hazards disaster preparedness in the urban environment. Food, water, shelter, health, defense, and neighborhood organization.
RAND- http://www.rand.org/topics/global-climate-change.html And the list just goes on and on and on and on. Russia- http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2008081,00.html China- http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/chinese-climate-negotiators-raise-possibility-of-global-warming-pact-by-2020/2011/12/04/gIQAurT8SO_story.html U.N. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40440 Anyway doubtful anything will change your minds. Don't waffle ! There will be big statues of you in the future for saving our planet from a few years of semi austerity while it gets worked out.
John, I think you are no doubt a gentleman and all the best to you
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climate_statement.pdf http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/1204climate_statement.shtml http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html http://www.amstat.org/news/climatechange.cfm http://www.aibs.org/position-statements/resources/Climate_Science_Letter_final_10.21.2009.pdf Don't be fooled by the "debate." There is no legitimate debate. Somehow, almost 400 years later, there are still people who would have Galileo convicted of heresy.