Southern California Sees Its Longest Streak of Bad Air In Decades (sfchronicle.com) 107
According to state monitoring data, Southern California violated federal smog standards for 87 consecutive days -- the longest stretch of bad air in at least 20 years. "The streak is the latest sign that Souther California's battle against smog is faltering after decades of dramatic improvement," reports San Francisco Chronicle. From the report: The ozone pollution spell began June 19 and continued through July and August, with every day exceeding the federal health standard of 70 parts per billion somewhere across Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. It didn't relent until Sept. 14, when air pollution dipped to "moderate" levels within federal limits for ozone, the lung-damaging gas in smog that triggers asthma and other respiratory illnesses. It's not unusual for Southern California summers to go weeks without a break in the smog, especially in inland communities that have long suffered the nation's worst ozone levels. But environmentalists and health experts say the persistence of dirty air this year is a troubling sign that demands action. Regulators blame the dip in air quality in recent years on hotter weather and stronger, more persistent inversion layers that trap smog near the ground.
Re: (Score:3)
Fires (Score:4, Informative)
All the fires they've had this year made things worse too.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
As the climate warms due to massive fossil emissions, fires become more frequent, larger, and harder to fight. So the choice is to stop dumping fossil fuel emissions into our saturated atmosphere and use renewables, or die.
And if Republican denialist faggots would rather die than stop polluting, we should accommodate their decision.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice try.
“We have 100 years of fire suppression that has led to this huge accumulation of fuel loads, just dead and downed debris from trees and plant material in our forests, and in our woodlands,” says Berleman. “As a result of that, our forests and woodlands are not healthy, and we’re getting more catastrophic fire behavior than we would otherwise.”
https://www.motherjones.com/en... [motherjones.com]
Jerry Brown would rather spend the money on a train to nowhere and banning plastic straws.
Re:Fires (Score:4, Interesting)
Which side is the "nowhere" side, Los Angeles or San Francisco?
But the same article.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Also says this
"Further complicating the picture is climate change—the major factor behind the longer fire seasons and bigger fires. This creates a feedback loop, where megafires exacerbate climate change, which then encourages even bigger wildfires. One study found that from 1984 to 2015, climate change doubled the area burned by wildfires across the West, compared to what would have burned without climate change."
Re: (Score:2)
When its put like that... doesnt fucking sound believable, does it? But here you are, saying it, and citing it, as if you didnt even know what it says....
Re: (Score:3)
What he said was that twice the area got burned, not twice as many fires. Could be the same number of fires, each one burning double what it would have if it was cooler and/or damper.
I don't know about California, but where I am further north, the early warm springs has caused a lot of undergrowth of grasses and such which then dries out and forms fuel. Whether the early springs are caused by climate change or natural variation is hard to pin down but statistically the winters have been getting warmer, spri
Re:Fires (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice try.
The forests are not substantially different after 100 years of fire suppression than they were after 90 years of fire suppression, but fires are much, much more severe than they were 10 years ago. That puts the lie to the notion that it's the built-up undergrowth responsible for the new severity of fires. They're getting fire tornadoes for the first time in built-up areas, not just in forests, which also has nothing to do with that undergrowth. You are in denial.
Jerry Brown would rather spend the money on a train to nowhere and banning plastic straws.
The train is meant to go everywhere [midwesthsr.org], and without all the whiners and the corporate interests fighting it, it would. And it might anyway. Banning plastic straws costs almost nothing as government action is measured, and it has the potential to make a substantial difference in oceanic pollution. Like six-pack rings, plastic straws seem to have a disproportionate effect on marine life.
Re: (Score:3)
Except it's hella ableist,
No, no it isn't. You can still have them if you ask, especially if you have a disability. The law only prohibits giving them to people who don't ask for them.
and actually not at all effective because plastic straws from North America and Europe are present contribute homeopathic amounts of oceanic plastics
Banana peels on football fields, not eyedroppers in tank cars.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You liberal morons hate science when it talks about there actually being differences between genders, or that there actually are genders--or when it talks about differences in intelligence levels across populations (even populations of the same race, so leave that out of this). When science doesn't fit your narrative you don't just ignore it, you actively suppress it.
Also, the last time I checked, California is governed by not just liberals but actual total leftists and has been for quite some time. They
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, IDIOT, the more pollution there is, the less oxygen there is, so that retards fires
Holy shit, that is the stupidest thing I have read here in a long time. Congratulations, sir.
Re:Fires (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
Regulators blame the dip in air quality in recent years on hotter weather and stronger, more persistent inversion layers that trap smog near the ground.
Yeah. And the fires. [usatoday.com]
Even here in Seattle [usatoday.com], we had a week or so of horribly, smoggy air that was outside the "safe" levels, and that's pretty rare for this area. You could see the haze drifting over from the fires on satellite imagery.
One could argue that a warming and drier climate encouraged the development and spread of wildfires over a sustained period, but it's pretty odd to not even mention them as a major contributing factor for this season's bad air.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, that makes total sense -- for a Trumper.
From my comment history, it should've been obvious I'm no fan of Trump. That doesn't mean I can't call out California when they do something stupid like classify coffee as a carcinogen, or want to secede from the union because waiting 4 years for the next presidential election is just too long, man.
Re: (Score:2)
They're discussing ozone here. It didn't come from a fire.
Your first clue should have been where you typed, "we had a week or so", and then remembered, "damn, the article said 87 days, didn't it."
You did read it, right?
Re:Fires (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep, I read it. But you might not be aware that, according to observational data, wildfire smoke may interact with local pollutants to create ground-level ozone.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com]
The Seattle smog was different, but the larger point I was making was that wildfires are huge events that undoubtedly have a very real impact on the regional environment. I'd be very surprised if the two events weren't linked. Can that be proven yet? No, but if you see correlating data, you have to at least LOOK to see if there may be causality before dismissing it out of hand.
Re: (Score:2)
All the fires they've had this year made things worse too.
The two things go together. We had the hottest summer in Southern California history this year, in inland valleys (not the desert) it hit 118 F. I have lived years of my life in deserts around the world and have never seen a temperature that high before.
And when it is really, really hot everything gets really, really dry. Then all it takes is an ignition source.
Umm - 4 counties? Perspective... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much... I have been in all four counties at least 4 days in the past three months, and never really noticed it especially bad... aside from the feedlot in Ontario. Mostly in the morning, so it would usually be less then, but not especially bad.
I live by the ocean though, so I am not getting it consistently bad; this could skew my perception.
Re: (Score:1)
... aside from the feedlot in Ontario.....
I know this place!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
every day exceeding the federal health standard of 70 parts per billion somewhere across Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties
Not the ENTIRE area, just somewhere in that area. AC needs to learn to read, rather than spending all that time trying to dream up snarky remarks...
Re:DENIALIST FAGGOT LYNNFAG DENIES THE FACTS (Score:4, Insightful)
Not the ENTIRE area, just somewhere in that area.
I wish there was a way to concentrate it right at the Trump apologists.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't your meme how everyone is fleeing California?
How much of that comes from China? (Score:2, Interesting)
Smog is a global problem.
None in this case (Score:5, Insightful)
The chemicals concerned (e.g. NOx, O3) have a low lifespan in the atmosphere and so are not going to make the trip across the Pacific. A more interesting question is how much of China's smog is as a result of USA manufacturers moving their production to China.
Re:None in this case (Score:5, Informative)
The chemicals concerned (e.g. NOx, O3) have a low lifespan in the atmosphere and so are not going to make the trip across the Pacific.
Nonsense [npr.org]. Got any more lies which are easily disproven?
Fascinating, thank you (Score:2)
That really surprises me, but I agree that the source appears valid.
How is that possible? (Score:1)
California is one of the most regulated states when it comes to emissions, have an area of the country with the least amount of heavy industry per capita, less cars (due to taxes), much more expensive living (and thus smaller areas to heat/cool, also due to taxes), yet when you look historically, they've been the top violators of CO2 and O3 standards.
Now it seems either, all the regulation is counterproductive to the end goal or it doesn't do anything but cost money and thus energy (money spent = energy spe
Re: (Score:3)
Now it seems either, all the regulation is counterproductive to the end goal or it doesn't do anything but cost money and thus energy
False. We had a severe problem in LA with air quality in the seventies, children with bleeding lesions on their lungs and the like. We instituted the CARB and cleaned that problem right up. However, the USA has been exporting its production to China, and the pollution doesn't stay in China. And sadly, it comes to Los Angeles [independent.co.uk]. What's needed is not less regulation, it is more. As a nation (and not just California) we should place tariffs on goods which come from polluters, to account for the cost of the pollu
Re: (Score:2)
If what you're saying is true, then kids would still have the same problems, emissions have doubled since the 70's and Ozone doesn't have a lifespan long enough to travel the ocean (O3 is highly reactive and breaks down in a matter of days, much faster than average air currents)
If China would be the problem, we would expect Seattle and parts of Canada and Mexico as well to be much more affected. So the claim that California's problems are "China's fault" is poorly supported. On the other hand, places with l
Re: (Score:3)
If what you're saying is true, then kids would still have the same problems, emissions have doubled since the 70's
Which emissions, where?
and Ozone doesn't have a lifespan long enough to travel the ocean
The big problems are particulates, VOCs, unburned hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen, not ozone.
If China would be the problem, we would expect Seattle and parts of Canada and Mexico as well to be much more affected.
Why? You don't know how air currents work?
My theory is that regulation drives up cost and innovation down leaving less money to replace inefficient processes.
Your theory is dumb. Regulations drive efficiency by demanding it.
Re: (Score:2)
California has way more people living in it now, than in the 70's as well.. regulate all you want, but more population = more pollution.
Wrong. There is not a direct link between those two things. That's how much we've cleaned up emissions, especially in California. The EPA tells us that todayâ(TM)s cars emit 75 to 90 percent less pollution per mile driven than cars made in 1970 did. You can have three times as many cars, and still have less pollution from that source. We also cleaned up industrial sources significantly.
The fact is that you can have less pollution with more people if you start out with excessive pollution.
Democratic commercial? (Score:1)
Reading the article I can't help but to think it's a Democratic commercial. They like regulation. We need more! Yea, not so fast. Nothing on what's really the cause, just a guess.