this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
89 points (94.9% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5527 readers
734 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
None of these links support what you’re saying. Yes, heat is increasing, as it is virtually everywhere. Precipitation changes are small as outline in the graphic. And the heavily inhabited parts of California are along the coast where the modeled changes in GDP are negligible.
Now I personally suspect it may be worse than this but it certainly does not support the idea that California is somehow a dramatically worse place to be than anywhere else in the country. I know there has been some speculation that the upper Midwest and northeast might constitute some kind of climate refuge but I doubt this. These areas are generally humid and not well prepared for heat, and we’ve already seen huge wildfires and increased flash flooding in many northern areas. Not to mention extreme pest outbreaks and forest dieback, increases in mosquito-born illnesses, and even arctic air outbreaks and blizzards. Part of what makes these places less harmed by warming is the fact that they are already so cold. But people there are used to this cold. They are not used to the challenges to come.
The issue with climate change is primarily the change. We can adapt to these new conditions given enough time but their rapid and global nature makes this difficult.
I don't think you understand, it is precisely the humidity, i.e. the consistent flux of water through a regional climate that serves as a moderator of deadly, extreme and permanently damaging weather events.
Think about how much energy it takes to boil a pot of water, water absorbs and softens chaotic swings in energy in regional climate systems because of that capacity for water to hold heat energy.
There have been numerous studies about this from first street and others that show semi-arid places like California getting hit brutally hard not so much by a massively changing baseline of average environmental conditions but rather from the rapidity and violence with which energy passes through semi-arid regional climates when there isn't a consistent background flux of water that can divert and dilute the impact of natural disasters and weather events.
I understand the concept you’re describing but you aren’t applying or understanding it correctly. In fact, California’s climate is dominated by this effect because prevailing winds bring cool oceanic air to the state which is why coastal areas do not get extremely hot or cool. As this air warms across land the humidity drops, so this climate is a bit unique in the way it works but there is typically no extreme heat combined with humidity.
In contrast, the eastern US receives most of its air from dry inland areas, which is why the climate is so seasonally variable. It’s true that the more humid climate does reduce the diurnal temperature swing, and this means absolute maximum temperatures can be lower in many humid climates compared to their arid counterparts. But this ignores that the human body can tolerate dry heat much more effectively than humid heat. So the relationship between aridity and extreme heat mortality is more complicated than it first appears. The most vulnerable places are those that are both hot and humid like the gulf coast, parts of the Middle East, and India. There’s absolutely no reason to think California will be rendered uninhabitable by extreme heat in the foreseeable future.
Look at these figures, you are horendously off the mark with your conclusions here, California is going to continue to be a place where climate change brutalizes people and it sucks :(
https://www.budget.senate.gov/hearings/next-to-fall-the-climate-driven-insurance-crisis-is-here_and-getting-worse
Also my argument is explicitly not that baseline environmental conditions are going to wreck havoc on people's lives in California and rather that in places like California it is the increasingly wild swings in weather that is going to kill and displace people in mass amounts.
I don't think you are grasping my fundamental point. Most of the time these places will still have nice weather, it is the exceptions and the speed of them that will inveitably cause mass migration out of these areas.
Think of it as living at the bottom of a long slot canyon along a river in the desert but the entire regional climate system is the slot canyon. Most of the time it is a wonderful place to live but the bad days are really bad and the trouble is they come with little to no warning.