Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And this is why you want old kama'aina on CDF Hawai'i because they remember when things were different and can honestly say whats good and works and what doesn't. Slam dunk of a post. Mahalo
I agree all the places we lived that had trade wind etc going thru our place had a lanai and overhang and was faceing Mauka.
The tradewinds are blowing as much as they always have.
Unfortunately this just isn't the case. The UH meteorology department did a pretty thorough study on this a few years ago and found that the frequency of trade wind days has decreased by almost 1/3 since the 70's. I posted the link earlier in the thread. Everything you said about construction may be right, but the part about the tradewinds is not.
Unfortunately this just isn't the case. The UH meteorology department did a pretty thorough study on this a few years ago and found that the frequency of trade wind days has decreased by almost 1/3 since the 70's. I posted the link earlier in the thread. Everything you said about construction may be right, but the part about the tradewinds is not.
You read the sensationalist version (i.e. heavily biased interpretation) posted by Star Advertiser. I read the actual study that was published by the Journal of Geophysical Research. The data showed a dramatic decline (28%) in tradewind frequency (northeast winds blowing over X days during one year) flow when comparing 1973 and 2009. But this was comparing TWO years - not taking data points and averaging over the entire period. If the data showed a consistent decline over the 36 year period, OK, they have a good argument. But that wasn't the case. Not even close.
The article failed to acknowledge that between 1973 and 2009, the days winds blew from the northeast declined a mere 5 days from 195 to 190. Yes, that's still a decline but considering variations in weather patterns that can run decades, this 2% drop is statistically insignificant. But the kicker (and again not noted in the article) is that east wind flow actually INCREASED from 70 days to 85. So the wind actually blew MORE over the period but since it was off a few points on the azimuth (direction) it took it out of the official "tradewind" designation and shifted to the yucky "easterly winds" designation . Another critical data point the article left out is that tradewind frequency actually INCREASED after 1984... meaning the data between 1973 and 1984 was skewing the tradewind number lower.
Media outlets will always cherry pick data to create alarmist articles that increase readership. Overall, the study proved that it's just the same old weather we've been having since we starting measuring and collecting windspeed data. But that wouldn't have made the news, would it?
Everyone thinks it's getting hotter here because the places they live INSIDE really are getting much hotter. Homes are designed like hot boxes and condos like ovens. The outside hasn't changed a bit.
You read the sensationalist version (i.e. heavily biased interpretation) posted by Star Advertiser. I read the actual study that was published by the Journal of Geophysical Research. The data showed a dramatic decline (28%) in tradewind frequency (northeast winds blowing over X days during one year) flow when comparing 1973 and 2009. But this was comparing TWO years - not taking data points and averaging over the entire period. If the data showed a consistent decline over the 36 year period, OK, they have a good argument. But that wasn't the case. Not even close.
The article failed to acknowledge that between 1973 and 2009, the days winds blew from the northeast declined a mere 5 days from 195 to 190. Yes, that's still a decline but considering variations in weather patterns that can run decades, this 2% drop is statistically insignificant. But the kicker (and again not noted in the article) is that east wind flow actually INCREASED from 70 days to 85. So the wind actually blew MORE over the period but since it was off a few points on the azimuth (direction) it took it out of the official "tradewind" designation and shifted to the yucky "easterly winds" designation . Another critical data point the article left out is that tradewind frequency actually INCREASED after 1984... meaning the data between 1973 and 1984 was skewing the tradewind number lower.
Media outlets will always cherry pick data to create alarmist articles that increase readership. Overall, the study proved that it's just the same old weather we've been having since we starting measuring and collecting windspeed data. But that wouldn't have made the news, would it?
Everyone thinks it's getting hotter here because the places they live INSIDE really are getting much hotter. Homes are designed like hot boxes and condos like ovens. The outside hasn't changed a bit.
I just posted the advertiser article because this is not a meteorology forum, trust me I read the study. In fact I know the girl that did the study and published it. While I will admit that the 28% is just picking two endpoints and taking the difference to make the article seem more interesting, the honolulu long term trend is downward and far greater than 2% as you say it is. If you extrapolate it goes from about 240 NE trade wind days in the 70's to about 200 in the 2000's in Honolulu. Furthermore, the long term data indicates a decrease in the intensity of the NE trade winds when they are blowing from about 5.5 m/s to about 4.8 m/s over the same period.
How about I just post the link to the full article and people can read for themselves.
Figure 4 shows the decrease in NE trades pretty effectively along with the increase in easterly wind days and figure 5 shows the decrease in intensity. Northeast winds and east winds are not the same thing, they bring different air masses with different properties and they interact with the mountains differently to impact the frequency and intensity of rainfall. NE trade winds did not increase since 1984, easterly trade winds did. They address that in the conclusions of the paper very specifically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Actual article
[27] As shown in Table 3 and Figures 4a, 4b, and 4c, all three land stations exhibit a decreasing trend in northeasterly trade wind frequency. Kahului generally has a large number of northeast trade wind counts with an annual average of 270 trade-wind days for the 37 year period, while the other two land stations have a lower number of counts (annual average of 216 and 194 for Honolulu and Lihue, respectively). Interestingly, all three stations appear to have a drop in counts over the last 37 years. Honolulu, for example, has a decreasing trend and the largest magnitude (−1.3 northeast trade days per year) at the 10% level of significance as shown inTable 3. For Honolulu, the two largest decreases occur in 1981 and 1997 (Figure 4a). 1981 is known as the dry year in Hawaii, which is characterized by an anomalous anticyclonic circulation at the surface as well as an extended eastward 200 hPa jet core, which created subsidence and prohibited trade flows and trade-wind rainfall [Chu et al., 1993]. Without trade-wind induced rainfall, there was a severe drought in 1981. The second major drop in northeast trade days occurs in 1997, during the strongest El Niño event recorded. During El Niño years, strong surface westerly anomalies prevail over Hawaii, which weaken the climatological northeasterly trade winds over the subtropical North Pacific [Chu and Chen, 2005]. As a result, trade-wind days become less frequent and there is a substantial reduction in trade-wind rainfall.
It is also getting warmer in Hawaii (just like everywhere else) and the rain patterns are changing. It is all well documented because we have decades of data taken at multiple stations.
It really wasn't my intention to get into a pissing contest here but I know a thing or two about Hawaii weather and climate so I am not gonna just let misinformation be spread. Like I said, you may be right about the changes in building codes and construction methods... I am sure that has an impact on how hot the houses get... but you are wrong to say that the weather is the same as it was 40 years ago. The data says otherwise.
Oh Jonah my dream house lol. Dont tell me? Your home brah?
It's an ʻohana unit on one of my properties that was assembled from a kit. It's way more comfortable than the air-conditioned main house that was custom-designed by a "mainland-trained," local architect.
There are a lot more people living in condos these days. Particularly new very poorly designed condos. All new condos are built with windows facing makai. That means they face south (the HOT side of the building)... These new condos don't have lanais like they did in the old days which would set back the windows under the lanai above (thus shading the windows) but instead are built with "window wall" or "curtain wall" systems that push the windows flush to the building - there is NO shade on these windows throughout the entire day and no awnings to shade them. And more often than not, these windows run floor to ceiling because heck, views of the ocean and other buildings is more important than living in less than 95 degree heat This basically means all new condos are 400 ft tall ovens. You can't live in any new condo project comfortably unless you spend $300/mo on air conditioning.
Then to make things worse (this affects units facing mauka), in the old days condos were built with windows on BOTH sides of the units. Meaning you would have the elevator access an open hallway with windows up high for ventilation in the units. Your front door could be opened and a great breeze would blow through the entire condo unit. Now ALL condos are built with entry door corridors in the CENTER of the building and units are located on both sides of the building. Therefore there is ZERO cross ventilation in these buildings. Even if you opened all your windows, no breeze would come through because there is no pressure differential... the wind simply doesn't even enter the condo even with windows open. Condo developers of course don't care if you need to spend $300/mo on electricity just to not sit in a pool of your own sweat. And what is $300 when the maintenance fee is already $1,000/mo
2nd quoted paragraph is our building to a "T". Our lanai is not enclosed, but we still use it as another room. My son plays video games out there, because we have a TV on the lanai.
Our 'front' door is on the mauka side of the building with open walkways on each floor, which is also the side of the building where kitchens and bathrooms are located, both having windows. The makai side of the building is your living area with jalousie windows and sliders (if you haven't enclosed it). We have two 10# kettle balls holding the bathroom door open when not occupied, otherwise it loudly slams shut when we have breezy trade winds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Another critical data point the article left out is that tradewind frequency actually INCREASED after 1984... meaning the data between 1973 and 1984 was skewing the tradewind number lower. 
