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.
A. Goodland, Kansas
B. Omaha, Nebraska
C. Chicago, Illinois
D. The Entire Plains and Midwest would become a Desert even under a slightly warmer climate
E. Other/Not sure what impact a Hotter Climate would have on future rain or snow amounts
This is a vegetation map showing the Pliocene period 3.5 million years ago compared to today. Looks like there was a desert in the Great Plains, but no desert in the southwest? Actually fewer deserts globally than today
Chicago would probably still be Prairie. Maybe Savanna
During the Pliocene, global temps were 2-3C warmer than now, but Co2 levels were between 365-410 ppm. We are currently at 400 ppm and rising by 2.2 ppm annually.
Based on climate models (take them with a grain of salt), looks as if Illinois' climate is heading south not west. So hotter and more humid. Not hotter and drier more like East Texas and Louisiana, not west Texas or New Mexico....
Goodland, KS as it already averages under 500 mm of rain, not to mention its High Plains location.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
Based on climate models (take them with a grain of salt), looks as if Illinois' climate is heading south not west. So hotter and more humid. Not hotter and drier more like East Texas and Louisiana, not west Texas or New Mexico....
Indeed it is foolhardy to make deterministic, linear-based, predictions for certain regions of the world. One of the more ridiculous statements of the NCA from yesterday was the 50 to 60-day increase in annual 90F+ days by 2041 to 2070 in the southern mid-Atlantic. For D.C. alone that is absurd.
Goodland, KS as it already averages under 500 mm of rain, not to mention its High Plains location.
Indeed it is foolhardy to make deterministic, linear-based, predictions for certain regions of the world. One of the more ridiculous statements of the NCA from yesterday was the 50 to 60-day increase in annual 90F+ days by 2041 to 2070 in the southern mid-Atlantic. For D.C. alone that is absurd.
I believe that adding Co2 will eventually lead to a much warmer world. BUT there is a lot of inertia to overcome. The oceans are MUCH colder now than what they were during the Pliocene, and there is a crap load of ice to melt. The models 100 year forecast are not to be taken seriously. Especially the regional forecasts.
Speaking of 90 and 100 degree days. Check out how many Chicago is supposed to have by the end of the century A month of 100+ degree days, and as many as 80 days above 90F??
Quote:
the number of summer days over 90 degrees in Chicago could reach as many as 80 in one year and the number of days over 100 degrees could be close to 30.
I believe that adding Co2 will eventually lead to a much warmer world. BUT there is a lot of inertia to overcome. The oceans are MUCH colder now than what they were during the Pliocene, and there is a crap load of ice to melt. The models 100 year forecast are not to be taken seriously. Especially the regional forecasts.
Speaking of 90 and 100 degree days. Check out how many Chicago is supposed to have by the end of the century A month of 100+ degree days, and as many as 80 days above 90F??
Have the number of 100+ days been going up or down since records began? I don't have the data in front of me, but if memory serves me correctly, the number of 100+ days in Chicago has actually decreased over the years.
Have the number of 100+ days been going up or down since records began? I don't have the data in front of me, but if memory serves me correctly, the number of 100+ days in Chicago has actually decreased over the years.
Although direct comparisons should not normally be made due to station changes, these are the total number of 100F+ days from NOWData in said 30-yr period using the official station of record at the time (see ThreadEx for station history):
1881 to 1910: 4
1891 to 1920: 10
1901 to 1930: 11
1911 to 1940: 19
1921 to 1950: 19
1931 to 1960: 27 (due to both Dust Bowl and the warm 1950's)
1941 to 1970: 17
1951 to 1980: 14
1961 to 1990: 15
1971 to 2000: 20
1981 to 2010: 16
Given this is not (yet!) a clime where 100F is an annual occurrence, I don't think using 100F+ days is a good metric. A more discernible decline from 1931 to 1960 onward in 90F+ days at the official location can be made out, BUT that may be in part due to the change in station(s)
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.
A month of 100+ degree days, and as many as 80 days above 90F?? 
