Global warming: Regional climate change impacts

[jacob]

South Florida, again:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... e25552300/

[Scrubby]

I am curious if anyone here has put thought into how they will stay cool during the hot summer months?

The tap water is free and fairly cold where I live, so I've been considering getting an old radiator from a car and run tap water through it. I'd use a quieter fan than the kind used in cars, though. The purpose is of course to avoid the electricity bill of normal AC. No idea how well it would work.

[black_son_of_gray]

In better news: http://www.sfgate.com/drought/article/C ... 415631.php

Turns out the public is actually paying attention to the drought messages and scaling back water usage in California.

[black_son_of_gray]

https://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015 ... ng-beaches

Interesting highlights:

• About 39 percent of the U.S. population lives in coastal counties.
• Various insurance approaches to coastal areas are discussed
• Florida is basically a lost cause: "Well, yeah, the worst-case scenario in the United States is the Florida shoreline. Both sides of Florida have virtually hundreds of miles of high-rise-lined shoreline. You can't move back high-rises because there's no place to move them in Florida, basically. And so my thinking there is they're not going to move until the buildings fall down or something like that.
  [...]
  I see increasing amounts of sea walls. I see sea walls getting very high on both sides of the islands in Florida. And then eventually I just don't see a solution to a high-rise-lined shoreline unless perhaps we're looking at an offshore reef of some kind, or perhaps we're looking at letting these cities and towns flood and then using boats or something to get around. But it's an impossible situation, it seems to me. Florida is in really, really long-term danger, I think."
• Last caller asks: "I'm 22 years old. I'm from the coast of North Carolina. I'm from Brunswick County. And I'm wondering what changes I can expect to see in my lifetime." Response: "Yeah, well, in the next 50 years we'll probably see a foot or more of sea level rise in coastal areas. I think that's a pretty safe estimate." Moderator: "And put that in real terms for people. 'Cause we hear, you know, X inches or X feet, but just make that real for us, if you could." Response: [...] "And in most -- on average in North Carolina, a one foot sea level rise will move -- should move the shoreline back, in theory, 2,000 feet or something like that. Behind the Outer Banks, the shoreline will move back about two miles for a one-foot sea level rise, if to the extent that the slope of the land controls it."

[jacob]

http://www.wxshift.com/

Local weather with climate trends/historic data superposed.

[Riggerjack]

Clinton WA, in 2050 is predicted to be 69 degrees, DOOM!

I don't doubt a certain amount of GW planning is a good idea. But keep the scale in perspective.

Phoenix is unpleasantly hot and dry now, and using more water than is being delivered, now. It doesn't take GW to make that model unsustainable. If the climate appleals to you, figure out the water problem, if you have land, the cooling problem is easy. So much reliable solar, plus some geothermal loops, a fan,radiator, and a pump. Not cheap, but still very doable on an ERE scale. Less than 10k lifetime cost, I'd think. That doesn't fix the water issue, and I wouldn't trust the traditional well solution down there. Still, if that's where you are happy, that's where you should be.
The PNW is an easier adoption, but nobody who wants to live in Phoenix is going to be happy here. Plus the PNW is an alt energy dead zone. Solar, well, pretty much out. Wind, have you seen our forests? Hydro is tapped, and very politically incorrect. Tidal, regulated out of possibility, and politically incorrect. So, cooling and water won't be an issue, but energy will be.

My plan is an efficient house, a garden, and no real disasters, but then, my timeline is only 40 odd years, my house is at 400 feet, and even the bottom of my well is 235 feet above sea level. A foot more or less won't make much difference to me. If it gets warmer, my energy needs go down.

I think people should take an honest look at what their planning horizon is, before trying to figure out where they should go. Alaska may be the best place to be in 2300, but that doesn't mean it's where you want to be between now and then.

[jacob]

On second thought ... maybe this [website]/focusing on context-less temperature is a bad idea.

Perspective A: My body temperature increased from 37C (98.6F) to 38C (100.4F). No big deal, I'll just crank up the A/C.
Perspective B: My body temperature increased from 37C (98.6F) to 38C (100.4F) I'm sick, my body is no longer operating properly.

[jacob]

http://choices.climatecentral.org/#12/4 ... treme-cuts

Enter zip code ...

[enigmaT120]

http://choices.climatecentral.org/#12/4 ... treme-cuts

Enter zip code ...

Weird. No change where I live, which I expected -- I live at about 600 feet above sea level. But I zoomed the maps out until I could see the Oregon coast, and it didn't seem to show much difference between the two scenarios. Maybe I did something wrong.

[jacob]

Not necessarily.

First, in order to inundate large areas, the land has to be flat whereas the Oregon coast line tends to be rather steep in most places. Check out Miami Beach, FL; Boston, MA; New York City, ... for examples of flat where a few feet make a huge difference, especially Florida.

Second, due to failure to act sooner, some sea level rise is already locked in and it's too late to revert it. Check out SFO (Brisbane, CA) and OAK (Oakland, CA) airports.

[jennypenny]

http://choices.climatecentral.org/#12/4 ... treme-cuts

Enter zip code ...

What exactly am I looking at here? Best and worst case in 2100?

--------

Did anyone see the recent article about how scientists are predicting that the next solar cycle might make things much colder over the next 20 years? I thought I bookmarked it, but now I can't find it. It was part of an article that also discussed the current rate of slowing of the Gulf Stream, which will compound the problem and make things even colder for northern Europe. I'm not trying to stir the pot. I only mention it because if it's true, it might change where some here choose to live.

[jacob]

@jp - The default is comparing RCP2.6 with RCP8.5 for the year 2100. You can change these parameters. For more info, click on "Learn About This Map" in the upper left corner of the link.

Was it the Zharkova paper? If so, see ... viewtopic.php?p=97049#p97049 ...

If not, see http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/15062 ... s8535.html

Pertinent part: "Regional structure is found in the wintertime response in both [upper and lower limit bracketing] experiments, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For EXPT-B [the upper limit], the change in winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century is found to be of similar magnitude to the difference between RCP6.0 and RCP4.5 projections for this region. We conclude that solar forcing may be an important source of uncertainty in regional climate projections."

Globally, this regional effect only delays the global temperature increase by 2 years before the CO2 forcing overwhelms it.

"This offsets or delays the global warming trend by ~2 years and is small compared with the modelled global warming. This is consistent with other recently published results3, 4, 5, 6, 7, which indicate that any change in global mean temperature due to a future prolonged solar minimum would do little to substantially offset or delay the warming due to projected increases in long-lived greenhouse gases."

Since largely unchanged averages are a zero-sum game, this means that

"The general pattern of warming over northeastern North America/Greenland and southern Europe/northern Africa and cooling over southeastern North America and northern Europe can be seen more clearly in EXPT-B (Fig. 3g)."

---That if N Europe and SE US cools down, then S Europe, NE US, and W US heats up correspondingly.

[George the original one]

But I zoomed the maps out until I could see the Oregon coast, and it didn't seem to show much difference between the two scenarios.

Use 97138 to look at Seaside & Gearhart. The locked-in scenario wipes out a number of expensive homes and changes the shape of the Necanicum bay. The enhanced scenario wipes out the majority of both towns. Moral, as always: don't buy a home in a floodplain or primary dune.

Now, as a sophisticated amateur geographer, I note that tidal action, hydraulic erosion, redeposition, and storm damage is not considered in these scenarios. Rather than the Necanicum getting a more open bay, I think the channel would be straightened to due-westerly after a storm breach and then the mouth would gradually begin marching northwards again. On the other hand, I'm not sure what effects the headland to the south has on the overall erosion patterns.

[bryan]

Check out SFO (Brisbane, CA) and OAK (Oakland, CA) airports.

Hmm, looks like some of my favorite spots in SF and Oakland would gain some waterfront. Nice.

[jennypenny]

@jacob--No, it wasn't that. It was a political article. I just emailed the person who originally sent it to me. Hopefully, he still has the link.

It basically said that the faster-than-expected slowing of the Gulf Stream (from the melting Greenland ice sheet) combined with lower-than-normal solar activity over the next 10-15 years might bring very cold weather to parts of northern Europe, which when combined with immigrant problems and economic decline could lead to tumultuous times for some countries. It wasn't taking a stance one way or the other on climate change, just pointing out a possible confluence of events that would have a negative impact on the region. I remembered it because the timing coincided with Howe's estimates of when of the Fourth Turning's big bang might happen.

I wasn't trying to argue or discount estimates of overall global warming. We've talked about regions that might get warmer or wetter, and I was just bringing up a region that might be affected in the near-term by colder weather. I watch the region because Ireland and Poland are on our short list.

[jacob]

Ireland for sure (coastal temperate). Poland, not so much. It's not nearly as dependent on the NAO or the jet stream frontal systems.

The study above confirms this but keep in mind that it's a bracket study to figure out the best and the worst case as the solar physics is not quite to the level of being superpredictive of longer term cycles (longer than 11 years). Otherwise, solar physics is extremely well understood. On par with Big Bang particle physics. To several decimals... (as far as I understand from attending a bunch of AAS meetings in my time.)

I thought the Fourth Turning [timing] only applied to US demographics?!?

If Russia cleans up IS given their opposite [to the US] geopolitical interests in that region (pipelines) the immediate immigrant problem might go away real fast as order is restored. In the longer run there will still be some pressure but I don't think the climate pressure will be greater than e.g. Mexico to US or US to Canada for that matter.

[bryan]

Check out SFO (Brisbane, CA) and OAK (Oakland, CA) airports.

Hmm, looks like some of my favorite spots in SF and Oakland would gain some waterfront. Nice.

And for fun, I'm now parked at the lowest point in the San Francisco Bay Area at 13 ft. below sea level (http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-new ... -residents)

Actually kind of nice and super convenient location to the office and some clients. I wonder if there is any cheap space I can park my van at less stealthily/as a base to do some handiwork. Just have to keep an eye out for any storms coming through..

[jennypenny]

LOL I think the Express is trolling the forum ... http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/6 ... -the-brunt

I thought the Fourth Turning [timing] only applied to US demographics?!?

Yes. I was speculating on the combined effects of a fourth turning event here at the same time as trouble in Europe. Predictions of a final meltdown of the Chinese economic machine are also around the same time frame.

[jacob]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 15706.html

We find that substantial Antarctic ice loss can be prevented only by limiting greenhouse gas emissions to RCP 2.6 levels. Higher-emissions scenarios lead to ice loss from Antarctic that will raise sea level by 0.6--3 metres by the year 2300. Our results imply that greenhouse gas emissions in the next few decades will strongly influence the long-term contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet to global sea level.

Concerning ice shelf tipping points. Not really new stuff... just yet another confirming number. If the tipping point is crossed, the long-run sea rise (e.g. year 2700) will be much much higher and put all of our coastal constructions under water. Stated political goals and commitments currently aim at somewhere around RCP4.5. Current behavior still aims at RCP 8.5. But the tipping point is around RCP2.6.

[IlliniDave]

I used the two zip codes were I plan to spend my out years and it shows no change whatsoever, even from the present. So I'm guessing that the tool is only interested in sea levels and not freshwater changes. Just thinking about it, I would expect some changes to freshwater levels due simply to having more water in liquid/vapor from out in the system.