Want to know if climate change is real? For answers, just look to the Valley

Climate change is real. There, I said it. At least it is in California’s San Joaquin Valley, anyway.

On the surface, that’s a really odd-sounding statement, I know. But, it’s true. And, air pollution, apparently, is behind the change.

I can explain.

Okay, so I might be skeptical if I hadn’t witnessed the shift with my own two eyes and felt the change with my flesh. But, I have. The Valley is where I’ve made my home for the past 40-plus years.

I remember back in 1977 when I first relocated here from back east and recall during the cold-weather climes essentially three straight months of fog. Even before that while attending California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo closer to the coast, on several occasions with friends we drove to China Peak ski resort in the Sierra, passing, of course, through Fresno and encountering fog – thick fog. That was in both 1973 and 1974.

To visit the Valley today, one is hard-pressed to find the same day-in-and-day-out dense-fog episodes as was so common during the late ’70s period. I haven’t kept actual count, but those foggy-day-and-night encounters are indeed rare – at least here in Fresno.

And, when we get fog around these parts now, it seems as though it completely burns off by late morning at the latest.

The switch from a practically-daily-during-the-winter occurrence to the occasional-bout-with-fog situation, the change was gradual, taking place over, at least, a length of 30 years. That period, however, is enough time to establish a climate trend, according to what experts tell us.

In contrast, the period prior to 1930, based on what I’ve read and understand, is very similar to what we experience winter-weather-wise in the San Joaquin Valley, post-2016. History repeating itself?

What about it being a coincidence?

Not according to research done by a team at University of California, Berkeley, which has studied this matter in depth.

Even if I wasn’t aware of said study, I’ve been observant enough to notice the change as I am sure many others have as well.

What is critical here is to know definitively if polluted air plays into this – if it has any contributory role at all. Here again, the experts say there’s a connection.

That being the case, this has bigger implications – implications for what has been going on in the world related to global warming, the common denominator here being the influence of human activity on it.

Personally, I feel this is all very, very interesting. My gut tells me that ongoing study in this regard should continue. In other words, keep close tabs on the weather and pollution trends.

And, as time goes on, the more data gathered, in this regard, the more reliable the findings should become.

In the meantime, I’ll keep tracking the patterns to see what I can learn.

I welcome others to do likewise. The more eyes focused on getting at answers, decisive answers, the better, as far as I’m concerned.

People everywhere could and should benefit from having this knowledge.

California’s expansive and agriculturally fertile yet often air-polluted San Joaquin Valley

Image (top): AndrewHorne

– Alan Kandel

6 thoughts on “Want to know if climate change is real? For answers, just look to the Valley”

  1. One popular geoengineering strategy proposed for countering imaginary global warming/climate change is reducing solar heating by increasing the earth’s albedo.

    This increase is accomplished by various physical methods, e.g. injecting reflective aerosols into the atmosphere, spraying water vapor into the air to enhance marine cloud brightening, spreading shiny glass spheres around the poles with the goal of more reflection thereby reducing the net amount of solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere and surface and cooling the earth.

    More albedo and the earth cools.

    Less albedo and the earth warms.

    No atmosphere means no water vapor or clouds, ice, snow, vegetation, oceans and near zero albedo.

    Zero albedo and much like the moon the earth bakes in that 394 K, 250 F solar wind.

    These geoengineering plans rely on the atmosphere cooling the earth and expose the error and delusion of greenhouse theory which says the atmosphere warms the earth and with no atmosphere the earth becomes a -430 F frozen ball of ice.

    A failure of greenhouse theory means no CO2 global warming and no man caused or cured climate change.

    Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ’78, CO PE 22774

  2. By reflecting away 30% of the incoming solar energy the atmosphere/albedo make the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.

    Greenhouse theory has it wrong.

    The non-radiative processes of a contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, render ideal black body LWIR from the surface impossible. The 396 W/m^2 upwelling from the surface is a “what if” theoretical calculation without physical reality. (And, no, it is not measured!) (TFK_bams09)

    Greenhouse theory has it wrong.

    Without the 396 W/m^2 upwelling there is no 333 W/m^2 GHG energy up/down/”back” loop to “warm” the earth. (TFK_bams09)

    Greenhouse theory has it wrong.

    These three points are what matter, all the rest is irrelevant noise.

    No greenhouse effect, no CO2 global warming, no man caused nor cured climate change.

    Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ’78, CO PE 22774

  3. What I know is that the climate-change evidence of the San Joaquin Valley is compelling!

  4. The climate “changes” continually over the millennia all over the world. The issue is recently…..is it “man-made” from increased CO2 and/or methane gases. That theory has been completely debunked. Therefore, man is not the cause of any changes we seen in the “climate” and the billions of $$$ being wasted on trying to reduce CO2 or methane emissions needs to stop now! I have lived my entire 70 y/o life in Southern California……….I have seen no changes in the 4 seasons and the “climate” at all, just less smog from laws requiring automobile emissions reductions.

Comments are closed.