30 Year US Summer Temperature Trend

[Montecfo]

When I was a boy, I sometimes tried to weasel my way out of a spanking by pointing out that the kid down the street did the same thing. My mother never bought it. I was responsible for my own actions regardless of what anyone else did or failed to do.

We can try to convince China to take stronger actions to reduce pollution, and perhaps work with them to help make that happen, but in the end we cannot control them. And if they don't take action, that does not let us off the hook. We can control ourselves, and we should.

Point is not we should do nothing. Point is China's behavior renders our good deeds moot and moreover makes continued warming and the predicted worldwide climate disaster a certainty if you believe the science.

 

[Gumby]

It's very easy as one person to ignore recycling, to consume fuels with abandon, to buy a new gadget every month, to fill the landfills with our discards, and say "why not, what possible impact can one person have?"



But it's just as easy to do the opposite of those things, and so I do.

Oddly enough, the old slogan from WWII, "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without" is good advice for the health of our wallets as well as the health of our planet. That should be popular here.

 

[Gumby]

Point is not we should do nothing. Point is China's behavior renders our good deeds moot and moreover make continued warming and the predicted workdwide climate disaster a certainty if you believe the science.

Denying that there is a problem and saying that nothing can be done even if there is one both lead to the same end point -- inaction while things get worse. I would rather try and fail than not try at all. Although perhaps you and I are not disagreeing so much as talking past each other.

 

[NW-Bound]

It's hard to convince developing countries to be green, while they are trying to catch up to developed Western countries.

During the industrialization, Europe and the US burned tremendous amounts of coal for metal production and transportation. Now, we can't tell the poorer countries they have to stay green and not have all the luxury homes and cars that we do.

 

[NW-Bound]

Oddly enough, the old slogan from WWII, "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without" is good advice for the health of our wallets as well as the health of our planet. That should be popular here.

I try to, but modern society makes it hard.

I was able to use my Internet-capable DVD player to play Youtube videos on my TV, until one day it stopped working. Found out that Google changed the Web interface, and the player became obsolete. It's only $50 to buy another player, but here's another still-working piece of hardware they want me to throw away. I have not bought a new one, and it's been more than 5 years.

My HP laptop is still working fine, and has the speed that I need. I was already looking into upgrading it to get perhaps another 30-50% increase in speed, using resale CPU that goes for $75 or so. Boom! Microsoft says Win 11 will not run on older CPUs, and I am not sure if my hardware will qualify.

Well, I have had a lot of investment gains from this consumerism, so it would be hypocritical that I complained too much. Where's the balance?

 

[O2Bfree]

Our carbon emissions may be somewhat self-limiting, as according to many calculations the earth has less than 50 years of oil left.

https://www.worldometers.info/oil/

Then I suppose we'll start depleting coal and natural gas even faster.

It's encouraging to see all the interest in clean energy sources, but at the same time there seems to be more interest than ever in owning humongous, gas-guzzling vehicles and consuming more resources in general. I wouldn't be surprised if we just keep charging in that direction until there's a major, world-wide energy crisis. Damn the torpedos!

 

[NW-Bound]

Our carbon emissions may be somewhat self-limiting, as according to many calculations the earth has less than 50 years of oil left.

https://www.worldometers.info/oil/

Then I suppose we'll start depleting coal and natural gas even faster.

It's encouraging to see all the interest in clean energy sources, but at the same time there seems to be more interest than ever in owning humongous, gas-guzzling vehicles and consuming more resources in general. I wouldn't be surprised if we just keep charging in that direction until there's a major, world-wide energy crisis. Damn the torpedos!

I thought the trend now is towards kWh-guzzling muscle EVs. EVs with so powerful batteries that are capable of self-combustion while driving?

 

[MichaelB]

It's hard to convince developing countries to be green, while they are trying to catch up to developed Western countries.

During the industrialization, Europe and the US burned tremendous amounts of coal for metal production and transportation. Now, we can't tell the poorer countries they have to stay green and not have all the luxury homes and cars that we do.

This is a real issue, it’s about leaving poverty, and it’s badly under-appreciated. Industrialization raises the standard of living for residents of the sponsoring region. We haven’t found a way to raise the standard of living for so many nearly as much without industrializing. It was fundamental to our (US and developed countries) economic progress. To deny it to others is hypocritical, and it also condemns them to a life of poverty,

 

[Car-Guy]

It's very easy as one person to ignore recycling, to consume fuels with abandon, to buy a new gadget every month, to fill the landfills with our discards, and say "why not, what possible impact can one person have?"

But it's just as easy to do the opposite of those things, and so I do.

I agree and I try too.... Ex, I have an iphone 6 which I really like, but since Apple has ended support/ios upgrades, I can't use some of the new apps that are coming out. (Like Schwab's new smartphone app).. So it looks like my perfectly fine iphone 6 will be headed for the dump pretty soon. (Batteries included) Or maybe I can give it away to be recycled for ~99 cents...

 

[O2Bfree]

It's very easy as one person to ignore recycling, to consume fuels with abandon, to buy a new gadget every month, to fill the landfills with our discards, and say "why not, what possible impact can one person have?"

But it's just as easy to do the opposite of those things, and so I do.

Same here. So many of the new gadgets available wouldn't be necessary if we weren't wanting so many gadgets in the first place. Why does buying new stuff make us feel good? Why do we need more and more when apparently there's no end to wanting more?

 

[Music Lover]

Point is not we should do nothing. Point is China's behavior renders our good deeds moot and moreover makes continued warming and the predicted worldwide climate disaster a certainty if you believe the science.

There's science on both sides of the issue. The problem is that only one side is promoted and anyone who disagrees with it is called a denier.

Throughout the planet's history, every single time it got warmer life thrived. Every time it got colder life died off.

None of the benefits of a warmer planet are ever discussed. Longer growing seasons, a greener planet, less deaths by cold, etc.

IMO, I don't think there is a serious problem and I don't see any weather patterns outside of normal variability. Yes, we have to reduce pollution, no one disagrees with that.

 

[Car-Guy]

Our carbon emissions may be somewhat self-limiting, as according to many calculations the earth has less than 50 years of oil left.

https://www.worldometers.info/oil/

Then I suppose we'll start depleting coal and natural gas even faster.

It's encouraging to see all the interest in clean energy sources, but at the same time there seems to be more interest than ever in owning humongous, gas-guzzling vehicles and consuming more resources in general. I wouldn't be surprised if we just keep charging in that direction until there's a major, world-wide energy crisis. Damn the torpedos!

I don't think many folks care very much about such facts, at least not at this time.. See post #53 of the thread below from February of this year... Doesn't hurt to keep repeating it from time to time.


https://www.early-retirement.org/fo...-in-gasoline-prices-108005-3.html#post2565412

 

[target2019]

Extreme temperatures kill 5 million people a year with heat-related deaths rising

The study found more people had died of cold than heat over the two-decade period. But heat-related deaths were increasing, while cold-linked deaths were dropping.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...r-with-heat-related-deaths-rising-study-finds

 

[Music Lover]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...r-with-heat-related-deaths-rising-study-finds

20 times as many people die from cold than from heat, yet that article suggest that warmer temps will kill more. This article has actual stats instead of projections:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

 

[target2019]

20 times as many people die from cold than from heat, yet that article suggest that warmer temps will kill more. This article has actual stats instead of projections:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

I think you missed the gist of the study. The point was that deaths from heat is increasing while the reverse is true about cold. It's actually quite measurable, and that is the entire story AFAIK. People die, count 'em. Measure the temperature. Run statistics. Present the results.

 

[Music Lover]

I think you missed the gist of the study. The point was that deaths from heat is increasing while the reverse is true about cold. It's actually quite measurable, and that is the entire story AFAIK. People die, count 'em. Measure the temperature. Run statistics. Present the results.

I got the gist of the story. My point was that it left out supporting data. The study I posted did show statistics but the other one didn't.

 

[NW-Bound]

^^^ The article still talks about deaths that are somewhat more directly related to heat or cold.

It's a lot harder to know what deaths are caused or will be by climate change, whether it's related to hurricanes, floods, or famine caused by loss of food production, etc...

Whether climate change is man-made or not, I think humans will adapt. It will not eradicate mankind. I just worry that it will cause a lot of hardships to a big portion of the world population. And being concerned about personal survival, I often think about what I can or should do.

 

[Amethyst]

A lot of peer pressure is involved. Just look at the pressure society puts on us to "upgrade" our homes even when the old stuff is perfectly functional...but, horror of horrors, looks so DATED!

Why does buying new stuff make us feel good? Why do we need more and more when apparently there's no end to wanting more?

 

[ncbill]

May solar panels & batteries continue to drop in price.

Not so much because I'm concerned about climate change but because I don't trust utilities will actually deliver power when I need it the most...e.g. Texas winter storm or PG&E imposing blackouts when it gets windy.

 

[Music Lover]

^^^ The article still talks about deaths that are somewhat more directly related to heat or cold.

It's a lot harder to know what deaths are caused or will be by climate change, whether it's related to hurricanes, floods, or famine caused by loss of food production, etc...

Whether climate change is man-made or not, I think humans will adapt. It will not eradicate mankind. I just worry that it will cause a lot of hardships to a big portion of the world population. And being concerned about personal survival, I often think about what I can or should do.

People have adapted. Fatalities due to natural disasters are a fraction of past decades. Also, maybe a little warmer is just that....a little bit warmer. And one of the benefits is longer growing seasons which increases food supply and diversity. On the other hand, a few degrees colder would be devastating to the food chain. Southern areas would experience more crop killing frost. Northern areas could lose entire growing seasons.

 

[Mark1]

Global warmer due to green house gases, global cooling due to nuclear winters, the list goes on and on. The problem is 7.8 billion people and climbing. At some point the Holocene extinction will catch up with us humans and then the earth will recover as it always does after a huge event.

Boy, I wish I could come back in a million years, 10 million years, 100 million years and see how the earth history story continues. Up to now it has been fascinating.

 

[CardsFan]

Fun Fact:

In less than 50 years climate change has morphed from Global Cooling, to Global Warming, and now to just Climate Change, because we really don't know what it is doing.

https://iseethics.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/the-cooling-world-newsweek-april-28-1975.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

So, based on the data and trends I see from last April until now, the S&P will be at 10,000 4 years from now.

 

[ERD50]

I'm not denying (but not blindly accepting either, I'm a skeptic all the way 'round on almost all things, it's my nature) that average temperature rises/changes can have a big effect on the planet (melting ice caps raising sea level, etc).

But for my area, a 0.6 F change (which is 0.333 C change), over 30 years - is that even noticeable? We had a 20 degree change in temperature over one day this week. And that is not a recent thing, the 24 hour temperature swing record for Chicago was set in, wait for it.... 1900 (from 62F to 10F). Would I notice if the average July temperature was 82.6 vs 82.0? A change of 0.02 F per year?

Same with where I live, and it's not just limited to temperature extremes. When we get rain now, we can get 4"+ at a time. That rarely if ever happened 15+ years ago. Same thing with snow in the winter. Much more unpredictable weather these days, and more extreme weather events, without a doubt.

Do you have any data to back that up? It might be true, might even be worse than you say, but people's observations and memory on these sorts of things are wildly unpredictable.

I also think that the internet/social media provides confirmation bias, and the people in the dust bowl, or the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 didn't have the internet.

-ERD50

 

[Aerides]

But for my area, a 0.6 F change (which is 0.333 C change), over 30 years - is that even noticeable? ... Would I notice if the average July temperature was 82.6 vs 82.0? A change of 0.02 F per year?
-ERD50

I think there are a lot of subtle things we might not notice, but could add up. For instance, if the conditions that are perfect to support certain plants or their pollinators shift ever so slightly, does that mean those crops start to fail?

Do certain animal species no longer thrive where they did, or move to new areas where they conflict with others?

It might take more than 0.6, but if it were 1 or 2 or 3, would rice still grow well in the paddies in Asia, would wheat still grow on the great plains?

(above questions rhetorical)

 

[target2019]

I think you missed the gist of the study. The point was that deaths from heat is increasing while the reverse is true about cold. It's actually quite measurable, and that is the entire story AFAIK. People die, count 'em. Measure the temperature. Run statistics. Present the results.

I got the gist of the story. My point was that it left out supporting data. The study I posted did show statistics but the other one didn't.

Articles rarely include supporting data. Studies include statistics to help analyze and interpret data, and will make the data available under certain circumstances.

Authors of articles pick through studies and write something that sells media looks. An editor determines if the article makes sense and doesn't put the media company in jeopardy.

When I read articles and studies I give some thought to the data which I don't see. And I don't see conspiracy of political thought in this, although I know many believe just that.