Study: Southern California to Get Hot, Hot, Hot

Climate change predictions that are 2,500 times more precise than previous studies show rising temperatures for the greater Los Angeles area.

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.

John B. Greet June 24, 2012 at 07:08 AM
Jake you are missing a very important point. No reasonable person I know of denies that global warming occurs and may be occurring now. Global warming occurs. So does global cooling. The scientific debate -that is still very much in progress- is whether man has anything to do with global climate changes and, if so, how much.
John B. Greet June 24, 2012 at 07:10 AM
He's not a "good" American, he's a "GREAT" American. : )
Gillian King June 24, 2012 at 07:18 AM
John B Greet... most of what you are saying is your personal, unsubstantiated opinion. 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.
Steven DuVall June 24, 2012 at 01:32 PM
Jake: I like what you wrote at 12:25 on June 23rd. Brief but very effective. How ANYONE could fall for the ignorant and obvious propoganda of the right is beyond me! It's so easy to ask "who stands to make or lose the most money and/or power in a given situation" to get to the bottom of the misinformation in this issue. Big oil and the monied right-wing elite like the Koch brothers have the most at stake here and are therefore attempting to bend the facts to fit their needs. There's really nothing to gain by proclaiming the truth - that global warming is real and very much caused by our greenhouse gas emissions - except for possibly using that truth to turn the situation around and get us back on the right path...if it's not already too late. By subverting the facts, big oil and their ilk are putting our planet in even more danger and their motivation is obviously profit. How shameful and deceitful and yes, even typical.
John B. Greet June 24, 2012 at 07:17 PM
Gillian: With respect, you are claiming things as fact that are not. Like so many others, you very much seem to *need* to believe information that supports your worldview. That's fine. We all do. But only folks like you seem willing to claim things as "incontravertible" when they are not, in attempts to support what you seem so need to believe. 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.
Steven DuVall June 24, 2012 at 07:32 PM
And...John B Greet, you sound like you're being paid by Hydrocarbon, Inc. to spread propoganda and misinformation on this issue. What could your motivation possibly be for protecting one of the richest industries in human history? The only dissenting scientists on this issue were clearly supported by Big Oil, Big Energy, etc., to help support the Right-wing agenda and Big Money at the expense of individual citizens and our long-term well-being.
John B. Greet June 24, 2012 at 08:58 PM
Ah yes, thank you Steven. 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.
Skraeling June 24, 2012 at 09:19 PM
In the New America, tv visibility is tantamount to veracity. Wing nuts love FOX, even though they KINOW what it is, Liberals rarely watch anything on tv, but read and educate themselves....both sides refuse to deal with each other...that is why it is good to be in the middle....FOX and their paid entertainers are merely talk radio with pics...only a fool could watch it regularly. But, we have lots of those..
Skraeling June 24, 2012 at 09:21 PM
Doesn't matter who is responsible for it, just like Afghanistan...still, the real question is what are we doing to prepare for this? Better to err on the side of caution...easier to just scream at each other...
John B. Greet June 24, 2012 at 10:24 PM
The only folks responsible for Afghanistan are those who live there. We need to be out of there and, indeed, out of all of the Middle East. With Long Beach built C-17's and other large airlifters, we can deploy reactionary forces from the U.S. in support of our allies almost anywhere in the world in about three days. 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.
Jock June 24, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Great John. i haven't sighted anything you recognize nor has anyone else. Only what you want to hear works huh.You sir have been listening to too many "Great Americans" (and perhaps Greet Americans ?) like Sean Hannity. Perhaps the Truman 2 by 4 ? Then Drill, Burn, Sign no Kyoto or any other accord. Holy Moley. As I keep saying , your children's children will either say.."Look at those idiots they could have had bigger cars more jets and didn't know that Oil would last forever and is good for you in your water and air. Damn I love my Iron lung ! I couldn't live without it !!" or they will say "Damn them " You keep saying the evidence isn't in yet. BS. Continue with your head in the Oil Shale. Little chance of anything short of global famine and starvation changing this course anyway. You will be long gone. The legacy of your bought ignorance will live on, just like the radiation and chemicals in the ground over Chatwsorth. The Corporations whose stockholder depend on profits are not looking out for you. Your whole "I am good so don't tell me what to do" attitude does not apply to corporations they are not people. When will the evidence be in Bud ? If you are wrong everybody suffers, .
John B. Greet June 24, 2012 at 10:44 PM
Thanks, Jock. I think your latest comments support and underscore my rebuttals far better than mine ever could. I hope we can, at the very least, agree to disagree.
LA Libertarian June 25, 2012 at 04:56 AM
All of the above "conversations" point to the intractability particularly of the far left. Those holding leftist positions resort to hate speech and name calling, all the while accusing those who do not share their beliefs of doing the same. Leftists live in a perpetual emotional state that shortcuts their ability to debate and consider other points of view, and learning that their held positions are not correct. The clearest example of this sort of political mindset resides in France, where a nation resorts to tantrums usually the province of four-year olds whenever some socialist goodie is taken away from them by the simple fact the state has run out of money. France's reversion in the most recent election to retirement at age 60 and numerous other state supported perk will hasten the demise of that once great nation. Leftists here want, fervently and in high dunder, for the United States of America to be France. I suggest that will never happen. Thanks to John B. Greet and Pam Cole for taking the personal risk of speaking to truth and being willing to take ad hominem attack.
Donald W June 25, 2012 at 08:54 PM
More global warmist nonsense. I thought this story was a forecast for the next few weeks. Their prediction ability to forecast a week or two out is pretty spotty, let alone fifty years out.
Harvey in S.O. June 26, 2012 at 07:49 PM
John B. Greet, thank you for your coherent rebuttals to the name callers and almost informed opponents. Several things have been overlooked: the global warming fraud of manipulated statistics at Britains Anglican College [going from memory]: the 12 trees in Siberia sited as the basis for the AGW, the emails requesting "scientists" to withhold any contradictory opinions or evidence to the conclusions of "accepted" AGW "facts"; the current attempt of the UN to govern the entire world's economic activity, ostensibly to protect us from AGW, but really a tool of mass global taxation and redistribution of the entire global wealth [which has every dictator in 3rd world countries licking their chops over the potential of increased in their personal wealth by those who will be fleeced]; Al Gore having a 10% stake in the Carbon Credits Exchange; and so forth. The ebb and flow cycles of sunspot activity, like Earth's daily tides, having major impact on this planet warming/cooling cycles. As was pointed out in other respondents here, this planet is constantly changing, with periods of ice sheets and periods of drought; that the Sahara Desert was at one time a forested area, and on and on. There is science, pseudo science, BS, politics and a newly formulating matrix of information constantly being scrutinized. Those who say the information is incontrovertable, in other eras, would be on the side of the argument that the world is flat and any other opinion is blasphemy.
Jock June 26, 2012 at 08:56 PM
Yes John we can definitely agree to disagree, I would have it no other way. Although there have been many ups and downs in Earths climate, in the 3 Billion odd years of it's existence, none have been at the accelerated rate of the last 100 years. "This old planet will keep on goin,g we aren't effecting it" !.. Damn Skippy the Earth will keep going, Just not with us on it, That's the "Global" us, the generations to come. You and I will hardly notice a thing other than some beaches will disappear and it will be hotter than usual. Maybe a few more fires, a little more Famine and the Sahara moves across the Planet from tropic to tropic etc. Your way of vision ends the movie. God has plans ? God does not abide fools. Give you "Domain" over the earth so you can, what ? OK you won't like any of these sources, they aren't necessarily on FOX news but they are disparate as can be 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 B. Greet June 26, 2012 at 09:56 PM
LOL....So that was your idea of agreeing to disagree, huh Jock?
Jock June 27, 2012 at 12:51 AM
Honestly John, other than agree to disagree with you, which is fine, I needed to at least comment on the last 3 or so fellow Patchers who seem to think all "Liberals" are mean and commies and worst of all FRENCH- talk about LOL !!. Got news..did my time in our Nations Service during "War time" and have no need to prove my love for this land or this planet. Before you "Libertarians" think anyone is giving away "Your" land or rights, remember there are lots of people who shed blood for the right to be Liberal too. John, I think you are no doubt a gentleman and all the best to you
Nancy Wride (Editor) June 27, 2012 at 01:02 AM
Dear God, not FRENCH Jock, not FRENCH.....
Monica Bey June 27, 2012 at 07:06 AM
Yes, sticking your head in the sand is always a great way to solve problems.
Monica Bey June 27, 2012 at 07:07 AM
"Never mentions global warming" ... uh, what do you think this is all about?
Monica Bey June 27, 2012 at 07:14 AM
John B - If you don't think 7 billion people (soon to be 10 billion) have an impact on what's happening with our air, water, resources -- have a GLOBAL impact -- well, there's no point trying to have a logical discussion with you!
Paul June 28, 2012 at 01:39 PM
I am not sure why you would have a conversation with someone that thinks hannity is sane. Let's talk bunker fuel. 16 supertankers will put out as much pollution as all the cars in the world. Think about that next time you book a cruise. Every farmer in the world knows the earth is warming. It doesn't matter what caused it. It needs to be fixed. 5 trillion wasted on a fake war keeps us from investing in education to solve our problems. For every job created by war we could have 2.5 if spent on education. Then maybe we could have critical thinkers instead of just critics.
Paul June 28, 2012 at 01:39 PM
I am not sure why you would have a conversation with someone that thinks hannity is sane. Let's talk bunker fuel. 16 supertankers will put out as much pollution as all the cars in the world. Think about that next time you book a cruise. Every farmer in the world knows the earth is warming. It doesn't matter what caused it. It needs to be fixed. 5 trillion wasted on a fake war keeps us from investing in education to solve our problems. For every job created by war we could have 2.5 if spent on education. Then maybe we could have critical thinkers instead of just critics.
Jock June 28, 2012 at 02:27 PM
Well Paul it's the old "If we were invaded from Space the world would unite" theory. I am hoping people will look up and smell the invader..The Invader is us. I have found that many people I work with or have known for my whole life have become FOX or Alan Keyes or Hannity or Ditto heads. Somehow, some of the ones that are Christian have decided that man made warming is an apostacy. Lots of nutty stuff. BUT, one on one, on a day to day basis, values like our kids and kindness and charity one on one are there. They are my friends and when the Aliens arrive I want them at my side.It is a mind set. My tendency is to shake my head and turn red with veins jutting and eyes bulging screaming "Can't you see !!!!!". . I am trying to reach across. Let he who has them Eyeballs see. PS I have heard that the main source of pollution in the LA basin is idling Tankers in the Harbor. cheaper to keep them running than re starting I guess.
H077y300d June 28, 2012 at 07:18 PM
You are all missing the point of the study, which us illustrated perfectly by the late, great comic Sam Kinison's famous joke in which he comments on famine and starvation: His response to the Ethiopians: “Hey, we just drove 700 miles with your food and it occured to us that there wouldn’t be world hunger—if you people would LIVE where theFOOD is! You livein a…DESERT! Nothing grows here? Dammit, you see this? This is SAND…we have deserts in America, but we DON"T LIVE IN ‘EM!” But we do live in deserts...we just import water...for now. But in 50 years that might not be an option.
Bart Hayes June 28, 2012 at 10:25 PM
These climate change deniers are amazing. The fact is that there is a consensus among experts, based on evidence and peer reviewed analysis, that climate change is occurring and is caused by human activities. Some sources that are not the Wall Street Journal or political websites: 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.
tinytom June 28, 2012 at 10:37 PM
Ok, say it's true what you believe. And assume you have absolute power. What do you propose is done now to remedy the sitation?
Bart Hayes June 29, 2012 at 05:33 AM
Tinytom - That's easy. Internalize the externalities. I'll never understand why conservatives and libertarians are opposed to ensuring that the party engaged in a given activity pays its costs. Take fracking in Culver City for instance. The question shouldn't be whether to ban it. It should be what is the magnitude of the risk and the likelihood of the harm. The product of those two variable is what PXP needs to pay to affected communities for the right to potentially pollute.
Ken Browning June 30, 2012 at 07:01 PM
@ Henry Carey, the TVA was mainly to prevent seasonal flooding, generate electicity with giant turbines, not move water around. Maybe if the CA engineers on the aqueduct had been in the Corps of engineers of the lower Mississippi, Katrina would not have been so devastating???


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something