Baby, it's hot outside.

Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
Okay, this is a riff on an old 40s song Baby, it's cold outside.

The West Coast of the United States into Canada has been experiencing the hottest temperatures ever recorded. Today, Spokane will be hotter than Phoenix 43 to 40 C (110 to 104 F). Lytton BC, Canada, was over 46 C yesterday (116 F). I think that is the highest temperature ever recorded in Canada--I could be wrong.

Here in Washington State things are getting, shall we say, a little uncomfortable. Less than half of our residents have air conditioning in their homes. I know I do not have air conditioning. So, in the morning, I quickly close all the windows and put my fans on very early. I drink a lot of fluids. I avoid getting out in the heat. This morning I actually got up to mow my lawn at 5 a.m. This afternoon, I am seriously thinking about going to a movie just to get out of the heat.

Of course, this does not compare to the Outback, nor does it compare to living in the Mojave desert for five years. I am sure other readers here also have had problems with heat.

And people still deny climate change is real. I know over the past ten years, our summers have gotten hotter, though. Our winters are much shorter. Our wet season was practically non-existant this spring.

I know climate change is not going to subside in the near future, but what would you think of the efforts to mitigate it in your country?
«13

Comments

  • The efforts to mitigate climate change are not going to cut it. We have reduce and stop what we're doing, but we won't. And no electric cars won't fix the climate.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    The efforts to mitigate climate change are not going to cut it. We have reduce and stop what we're doing, but we won't. And no electric cars won't fix the climate.
    @NOprophet_NØprofit who is the 'we' in your middle sentence? The negative in the last word of that sentence implies that it's a 'we' you don't speak for, can't deliver, and that possibly doesn't include you.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited June 29
    Get used to it and worse, much worse, for oooooh 100 years. We can get back to here in 200. If we go flat out nuclear, solar & wind.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    The efforts to mitigate climate change are not going to cut it. We have reduce and stop what we're doing, but we won't. And no electric cars won't fix the climate.
    @NOprophet_NØprofit who is the 'we' in your middle sentence? The negative in the last word of that sentence implies that it's a 'we' you don't speak for, can't deliver, and that possibly doesn't include you.

    I'm part of "we". I caught, just like everyone, in a world built around fossil fuels, cars, plastic, consumerism. The best course is for us to stop burning fossil fuels, using dervied things like plastics, and to redesign things so automobiles are used. The normal respond is that this isn't practical, it can't be done, how will we get places?, we need oil. To which the only responses are perhaps is burn baby burn, come on baby light my fire or some other lyric.

    It's also ridiculous to tell us that changing individual behaviour will make a lot of difference. It''ll make a little but not enough.
  • Raptor EyeRaptor Eye Shipmate
    It’s not hot in my part of England, I’ve got extra layers on despite it being midsummer!

    Having said that, I am fully signed up to reducing our pollution level to nil - but unless everybody makes the effort individually as well as collectively, it won’t work. Trading carbon is ridiculous. Turning to electricity which causes pollution too but which we can’t see as exhaust fumes is nonsense.

    The clamour to fly on planes which cause a great deal of pollution demonstrates how committed people are - not. Everyone wants someone else to sort it. They won’t, as long as we keep up the demand to live the lifestyles we’ve got used to.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited June 29
    Before this week Seattle had two days at or over 100 (38C) in its entire history, once in 1992 and once in 1999. (They've been recording temperature since the late 1800s). This week we've had three in a row. Things are definitely changing.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Before this week Seattle had two days at or over 100 (38C) in its entire history, once in 1992 and once in 1999. (They've been recording temperature since the late 1800s). This week we've had three in a row. Things are definitely changing.

    What fraction of people in Seattle have A/C? When I visited friends there a while ago, it seemed like it was pretty common not to.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited June 29
    mousethief wrote: »
    Before this week Seattle had two days at or over 100 (38C) in its entire history, once in 1992 and once in 1999. (They've been recording temperature since the late 1800s). This week we've had three in a row. Things are definitely changing.

    What fraction of people in Seattle have A/C? When I visited friends there a while ago, it seemed like it was pretty common not to.

    About 34%. According to this article it's by and large young and better-off (not necessarily rich but household income above 100k) people. When I was a kid it was conspicuous consumption to have air con. It was pretentious for any but the very rich - pretending to be something you're not. Snobbery in that you are acting superior to your socioeconomic equals.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited June 30
    I remember back in the 80s attending a conference in Tacoma WA about this time of the year, and they still had central heat on in the building. Big changes in the last 40 years.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    This reminds me of our 2009 summer. Be alert for some very dangerous fires.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited June 30
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Lytton BC, Canada, was over 46 C yesterday (116 F). I think that is the highest temperature ever recorded in Canada--I could be wrong.

    The four highest temperatures ever recorded in Canada:
    1. Lyton, BC 121°F, June 29, 2021
    2. Lytton, BC 118°F, June 28, 2021
    3. Lytton, BC 115°F, June 27, 2021
    4. Yellow Grass, SK, 113°F, July 5, 1937
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Of course, this does not compare to the Outback, nor does it compare to living in the Mojave desert for five years.

    Lytton was hotter than the Australian Outback for the past several days. This may be because the Outback is currently in winter. Nevertheless, the Pacific Northwest was hotter than 98% of the planet over the last several days.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    I remember back in the 80s attending a conference in Tacoma WA about this time of the year, and they still had central heat on in the building. Big changes in the last 40 years.

    Picking two data points (or anecdotes) which support a position is unwise.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    The four highest temperatures ever recorded in Canada:
    1. Lyton, BC 121°F, June 29, 2021
    2. Lytton, BC 118°F, June 28, 2021
    3. Lytton, BC 115°F, June 27, 2021
    4. Yellow Grass, SK, 113°F, July 5, 1937

    Lytton has 2 "t"s In more widely used Celsius temp:, it was 48.6°C on 29 June.

    https://weather.gc.ca/city/pages/bc-33_metric_e.html
  • Lytton has 2 "t"s In more widely used Celsius temp:, it was 48.6°C on 29 June.
    ...which differs from the number reported by @Crœsos by 0.8°C. I suspect you're looking at two different weather stations in the area. That's very much larger than the calibration error I expect on a well-maintained weather station, but not at all unreasonable for a difference in peak temperature at two different but nearby locations.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Lytton has 2 "t"s In more widely used Celsius temp:, it was 48.6°C on 29 June.
    ...which differs from the number reported by @Crœsos by 0.8°C. I suspect you're looking at two different weather stations in the area. That's very much larger than the calibration error I expect on a well-maintained weather station, but not at all unreasonable for a difference in peak temperature at two different but nearby locations.

    I'm h aving a hard time believing two nearby stations can report a 47° difference in temperature, be it celsius, fahrenheit, or kelvin.
  • Soror MagnaSoror Magna Shipmate
    An unusual-but-will-become-usual feature of this heat dome is that night time temperatures have stayed close to 20°C. The minimum June 8 was 5.9°C, historical average for the month of June is 13.4°C. "Dome" refers to the fact that it is hot all the way up to 20,000 feet, so there's no relief at higher elevations either.

    The consequence is, of course, that the usual trick of drawing in fresh air to cool your home at night and sealing it up during the day doesn't work.

    People and pets and livestock are dying. Even cats are getting heat stroke.
  • It all sounds quite frightful, and indeed frightening.

    Is there any indication from meteorologists as to how long the heatwave is likely to last?
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    It all sounds quite frightful, and indeed frightening.

    Is there any indication from meteorologists as to how long the heatwave is likely to last?

    The other way of looking at this is that it isn't a heatwave, it's one of the cooler summers places like that will experience from now on.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    I'm h aving a hard time believing two nearby stations can report a 47° difference in temperature, be it celsius, fahrenheit, or kelvin.

    Am I missing something? @NOprophet_NØprofit mentioned 48.6°C. @Crœsos mentioned 121°F, which is 49.4°C. The BBC's report had 49.6°C, which rounds to 121°F. I don't think anyone has claimed a 47 degree anything difference between two nearby points at the same time of day.
  • Lytton has 2 "t"s In more widely used Celsius temp:, it was 48.6°C on 29 June.
    ...which differs from the number reported by @Crœsos by 0.8°C. I suspect you're looking at two different weather stations in the area. That's very much larger than the calibration error I expect on a well-maintained weather station, but not at all unreasonable for a difference in peak temperature at two different but nearby locations.

    Mine comes from Environment Canada which is one of the gov't weather stations.

    Meanwhile Exxon is being evil again: https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-exxonmobils-lobbying-war-on-climate-change-legislation
    A senior ExxonMobil lobbyist has been captured on camera revealing how the oil giant is using its power and influence to water down US climate legislation.

    Which is also in the context of Exxon suppressing the info of climate change for 50+ years. There are many documents showing this. They're a deceitful bunch. One link to sources: http://www.climatefiles.com/exxon-knew/
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    It all sounds quite frightful, and indeed frightening.

    Is there any indication from meteorologists as to how long the heatwave is likely to last?

    The other way of looking at this is that it isn't a heatwave, it's one of the cooler summers places like that will experience from now on.

    This is where we're at with about 1.1°C warming. The target a lot of folks are aiming for is 1.5°C warming by 2100, a target which seems ever more difficult to actually achieve.

    And here's an interesting Twitter thread about wet bulb temperature and human survival.
  • It all sounds quite frightful, and indeed frightening.

    Is there any indication from meteorologists as to how long the heatwave is likely to last?

    The other way of looking at this is that it isn't a heatwave, it's one of the cooler summers places like that will experience from now on.

    I'm well aware of the possibility that this is the *new normal*. I was simply wondering how long those suffering the current heatwave have got to put up with it.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    It's also ridiculous to tell us that changing individual behaviour will make a lot of difference. It''ll make a little but not enough.

    If several billion people decide to make a little bit of difference instead of running the kind of "I'm not the biggest emitter so it doesn't matter what I do" line of thinking the same way that various countries have also tried, it will make a significant difference.

    You're employing the same logic that is used in saying "my vote won't make a difference".
  • God have mercy.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I remember back in the 80s attending a conference in Tacoma WA about this time of the year, and they still had central heat on in the building. Big changes in the last 40 years.

    Picking two data points (or anecdotes) which support a position is unwise.

    Not claiming a scientific position here, just noting the difference I experienced forty years ago.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Caissa wrote: »

    Very sorry to hear this.

    Last night a thunderstorm came through. It is expected to be about 10 degrees (F) here today. Still higher than normal, but backing off a little.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Isn't 10F several degrees below freezing?
  • I think 10F might be a typo...maybe 70-80F was meant?
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Or perhaps 10 degrees cooler?

    Our heat broke yesterday and as far as I know it never broke 80 (27c). Gott sei dank.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate

    It says they think it was caused by a train. I wonder if it wasn't some asshole torching the Catholic church.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I think 10F might be a typo...maybe 70-80F was meant?

    I meant to say 10 degrees off from the high yesterday.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »

    It says they think it was caused by a train. I wonder if it wasn't some asshole torching the Catholic church.

    Half listening to the BBC World, I understand the Lytton mayor he thought someone set the fire.
  • mousethief wrote: »

    It says they think it was caused by a train. I wonder if it wasn't some asshole torching the Catholic church.

    "asshole torching the asshole Catholic church"?
    Canada day is being marked with orange shirts and marches about indigenous children nationwide.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »

    It says they think it was caused by a train. I wonder if it wasn't some asshole torching the Catholic church.

    "asshole torching the asshole Catholic church"?
    Canada day is being marked with orange shirts and marches about indigenous children nationwide.

    Good but relevance?
  • Mr ClingfordMr Clingford Shipmate
    edited July 2
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    ...Turning to electricity which causes pollution too but which we can’t see as exhaust fumes is nonsense.
    @Raptor Eye No, it isn't. Got any credible evidence to back up that bold statement? If you meant the best thing is no cars at all, then, yes, I agree. But we want cars. In that case then electric is significantly better than fossil fuel for CO2.
  • EigonEigon Shipmate
    Adequate public transport would be a start - I had to go to the next village to the doctor's yesterday. The appointment took five minutes and then I had to wait two hours for the bus home.
  • I wonder whether the UK and other governments should turn round to the airports and that section of the tourist industry and say no more bailouts, after hearing nearly 18 months of pleas. Perhaps now is the moment to cut flights and that carbon cost, ditto cruise ships, and decide that we don't need so many planes and ships as a start. Spend the money rebuilding public transport so we can reduce car use.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    It depends somewhat on the existing infrastructure. In France it was fairly simple to ban domestic flights for trips that can be done in less than two and a half hours on the train. However, that is possible because the French have spent decades investing in high speed rail. In countries that have built all their infrastructure around roads and aviation, it's a much bigger ask.
  • Raptor EyeRaptor Eye Shipmate
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    ...Turning to electricity which causes pollution too but which we can’t see as exhaust fumes is nonsense.
    @Raptor Eye No, it isn't. Got any credible evidence to back up that bold statement? If you meant the best thing is no cars at all, then, yes, I agree. But we want cars. In that case then electric is significantly better than fossil fuel for CO2.

    Yes, it is. Anyone interested can google and find reports about the pollution caused by electricity generation. Addressing one kind of pollution increases another. All pollution needs to be reduced towards nil if we are going to continue to live healthily on this planet. It will affect the way we live on it.
  • Eigon wrote: »
    Adequate public transport would be a start - I had to go to the next village to the doctor's yesterday. The appointment took five minutes and then I had to wait two hours for the bus home.

    I suspect that "during a pandemic" is a bad time to be looking for extra customers for your public transport system.
  • Mr ClingfordMr Clingford Shipmate
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    ...Turning to electricity which causes pollution too but which we can’t see as exhaust fumes is nonsense.
    @Raptor Eye No, it isn't. Got any credible evidence to back up that bold statement? If you meant the best thing is no cars at all, then, yes, I agree. But we want cars. In that case then electric is significantly better than fossil fuel for CO2.

    Yes, it is. Anyone interested can google and find reports about the pollution caused by electricity generation. Addressing one kind of pollution increases another. All pollution needs to be reduced towards nil if we are going to continue to live healthily on this planet. It will affect the way we live on it.

    No, it isn't. The CO2 produced by electric cars powered by the grid is way less than petrol or diesel cars. And that grid is getting greener by the day.
  • Eigon wrote: »
    Adequate public transport would be a start - I had to go to the next village to the doctor's yesterday. The appointment took five minutes and then I had to wait two hours for the bus home.

    I had to decline my first invitation for a Covid jab as the sports centre they were using wasn't on a bus route.
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    ...Turning to electricity which causes pollution too but which we can’t see as exhaust fumes is nonsense.
    @Raptor Eye No, it isn't. Got any credible evidence to back up that bold statement? If you meant the best thing is no cars at all, then, yes, I agree. But we want cars. In that case then electric is significantly better than fossil fuel for CO2.

    Yes, it is. Anyone interested can google and find reports about the pollution caused by electricity generation. Addressing one kind of pollution increases another. All pollution needs to be reduced towards nil if we are going to continue to live healthily on this planet. It will affect the way we live on it.

    Guess when most cars will be charging. And guess when surplus wind power is usually available.
  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    ...Turning to electricity which causes pollution too but which we can’t see as exhaust fumes is nonsense.
    @Raptor Eye No, it isn't. Got any credible evidence to back up that bold statement? If you meant the best thing is no cars at all, then, yes, I agree. But we want cars. In that case then electric is significantly better than fossil fuel for CO2.

    Yes, it is. Anyone interested can google and find reports about the pollution caused by electricity generation. Addressing one kind of pollution increases another. All pollution needs to be reduced towards nil if we are going to continue to live healthily on this planet. It will affect the way we live on it.

    No, it isn't. The CO2 produced by electric cars powered by the grid is way less than petrol or diesel cars. And that grid is getting greener by the day.

    This is more than fuel costs. The input manufacturing pollution costs to make electric vehicles is 15-68% more than gas cars depending on size. We will not solve the climate crisis by shifting within the same model of car-centric and individual transportation. The problem is cars. https://www.businessinsider.com/building-electric-cars-how-much-pollution-versus-gas-powered-vehicles-2019-11?op=1

    When people say that they can't get where they need to without a car, this is the very problem. A 15 minute city means you can walk to most things you need to within that time span. This is happening with infill housing and changes to zoning laws: subdividing large urban and suburban house lots and allowing stores and businesses to mingle with housing. We moved to such a neighborhood this year. 6 homes where there were formerly two. We cannot walk to everything but only must drive anywhere about once every 1-2 weeks. Joining a car-share solves this within city. There is no intercity transportation other than airplanes between larger cities out or province as of 2 years ago. You must drive or fly. Which is a problem.

  • EigonEigon Shipmate
    Eigon wrote: »
    Adequate public transport would be a start - I had to go to the next village to the doctor's yesterday. The appointment took five minutes and then I had to wait two hours for the bus home.

    I suspect that "during a pandemic" is a bad time to be looking for extra customers for your public transport system.

    Even before the pandemic, the buses only ran every two hours, and none in the evenings.
  • Mr ClingfordMr Clingford Shipmate
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    Raptor Eye wrote: »
    ...Turning to electricity which causes pollution too but which we can’t see as exhaust fumes is nonsense.
    @Raptor Eye No, it isn't. Got any credible evidence to back up that bold statement? If you meant the best thing is no cars at all, then, yes, I agree. But we want cars. In that case then electric is significantly better than fossil fuel for CO2.

    Yes, it is. Anyone interested can google and find reports about the pollution caused by electricity generation. Addressing one kind of pollution increases another. All pollution needs to be reduced towards nil if we are going to continue to live healthily on this planet. It will affect the way we live on it.

    No, it isn't. The CO2 produced by electric cars powered by the grid is way less than petrol or diesel cars. And that grid is getting greener by the day.

    This is more than fuel costs. The input manufacturing pollution costs to make electric vehicles is 15-68% more than gas cars depending on size. We will not solve the climate crisis by shifting within the same model of car-centric and individual transportation. The problem is cars. https://www.businessinsider.com/building-electric-cars-how-much-pollution-versus-gas-powered-vehicles-2019-11?op=1
    That last link also states:
    "In a 2015 study, the Union of Concerned Scientists found that gas-powered cars emitted almost double the emissions that contribute to global warming as electric vehicles, which can make up the difference from the manufacturing stage in six to 18 months of driving, depending on the size of the battery.

    In 2018, the organization found that electric vehicles were getting even cleaner."

    As I said earlier:
    "If you meant the best thing is no cars at all, then, yes, I agree."
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited July 3
    The problem with the 15 minute city is it's still a city.

    I loathe being in cities. Pollution, noise, crime - these are the words I associate with the word 'city'. And that comes from living and working in several of them.

    How to square that with my preference for walking and cycling and my dislike of motor dependency and assumption of availability, I have no idea. 15 minute village? Is it possible?
  • You might be able to have a sort of 15 minute village, with most immediate needs met in the immediate neighbourhood (I think there are places like this in The Netherlands), but major items of infrastructure, such as hospitals, rail/bus stations etc. might need to be spread about rather more IYSWIM.
Sign In or Register to comment.