local climate change impacts

[rgwp96]

I’ve been in my current house since 1996.  I know that’s a short time but I have a flowering tree and really the average date hasn’t changed for flowering . Earliest it’s flowered was right around April first, latest about April 15th. This year first flower was april 5th. 

[bluewave]

53 minutes ago, rgwp96 said:

I’ve been in my current house since 1996.  I know that’s a short time but I have a flowering tree and really the average date hasn’t changed for flowering . Earliest it’s flowered was right around April first, latest about April 15th. This year first flower was april 5th. 

Yeah, the faster arrival of spring leaf out since 1981 is located to your south and east. Some of the earlier blooming flowers were damaged near the I -78 corridor back in late March.
 

 

[STORMANLI]

On 4/13/2022 at 12:55 PM, uncle W said:

why can't they do that around the Central Park observation spot...

Would make sense

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

The NYC ASOS was installed under the trees in Central Park during the mid 90s. So this has created an artificial cooling relative to all our other local ASOS stations for summer high temperatures.The old sensors used to be out in the open without trees blocking the sunlight. This was when NYC high temperatures during the summers were more in line with surrounding stations. There were several occasions when the highs in NYC would beat EWR and LGA before the 1990s. NYC is our only local station with the 1980s summer high temperatures remaining essentially unchanged during the 2010s. But the minimum temperatures have increased along with the other stations. This creates an odd distortion to the climate record. NYC used to have 5 more 90° days during the 1980s than POU did. Now POU has 2 more 90° degree days than NYC.
 

Changes in JJA summer average maximum and minimum temperatures between 1981-1990 and 2011-2020

NYC

max…..+0.2

min…….+1.6

EWR

max……+1.0

min…….+0.8

LGA

max…..+2.3

min……+2.8

JFK

max….+1.8

min……+1.2

ISP

max…..+2.6

min……+1.6

HPN

max….+1.4

min…..+1.5

BDR

max….+2.1

min…..+3.3

POU

max…..+2.4

min…...+3.0

 

NYC……90 degree days

81-90…….18

11-20……..18

POU…..90 degree days

81-90……..13

11-20………20

Monthly Number of Days Max Temperature >= 90 for NY CITY CENTRAL PARK, NY
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

Year	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Season
Mean	0	1	3	8	4	1	0	18
1981	0	0	2	10	4	0	0	16
1982	0	0	0	11	0	0	0	11
1983	0	0	6	14	9	7	0	36
1984	0	0	6	1	3	0	0	10
1985	0	0	0	4	2	3	0	9
1986	0	3	2	6	0	0	0	11
1987	0	4	5	9	4	0	0	22
1988	0	1	8	13	10	0	0	32
1989	0	0	3	7	4	2	0	16
1990	2	0	0	6	4	0	0	12

 

Monthly Number of Days Max Temperature >= 90 for POUGHKEEPSIE AIRPORT, NY
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

Year	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Season
Mean	0	1	3	6	3	1	0	13
1981	0	1	1	5	1	0	0	8
1982	0	0	0	10	0	0	0	10
1983	0	0	4	11	7	6	0	28
1984	0	0	7	2	2	0	0	11
1985	0	0	0	3	3	2	0	8
1986	0	2	1	2	0	0	0	5
1987	0	2	3	9	3	0	0	17
1988	0	0	9	12	9	0	0	30
1989	0	0	0	4	4	2	0	10
1990	3	0	0	4	0	0	0	7

 

 

Monthly Number of Days Max Temperature >= 90 for NY CITY CENTRAL PARK, NY
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

Year	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Season
Mean	0	1	2	9	4	2	0	18
2011	0	0	3	14	3	0	0	20
2012	0	0	5	10	3	1	0	19
2013	0	2	3	10	1	1	0	17
2014	0	0	0	3	3	2	0	8
2015	0	0	1	5	8	6	0	20
2016	0	2	0	10	7	3	0	22
2017	0	3	3	5	1	1	0	13
2018	0	2	3	6	7	3	0	21
2019	0	0	1	10	3	0	1	15
2020	0	0	2	14	4	0	0	20

 

Monthly Number of Days Max Temperature >= 90 for POUGHKEEPSIE AIRPORT, NY
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

Year	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Season
Mean	0	1	3	10	4	2	0	20
2011	0	0	3	10	2	0	0	15
2012	1	2	5	11	3	0	0	22
2013	0	3	4	11	0	1	0	19
2014	0	0	1	4	1	2	0	8
2015	0	0	0	5	10	6	0	21
2016	0	4	3	16	6	2	0	31
2017	0	2	4	3	1	2	0	12
2018	0	1	3	8	4	4	0	20
2019	0	0	1	12	2	1	0	16
2020	0	0	4	17	10	0	0	31

 

Here's an idea.....why didn't they maintain the old sensors as a back up check against the ASOS?

I generally don't like ASOS, but I guess they wanted to automate everything.  ASOS has a few faults....one of them is "unknown precip type" during mixed precip events and the famous snow, fog when there is no fog and aside from the temperature issue, it doesn't record the wind speeds properly either.

I don't see any accuracy superiority of ASOS over the older equipment, so this was clearly all about automation not accuracy.

 

[LibertyBell]

LGA

max…..+2.3

min……+2.8

JFK

max….+1.8

min……+1.2

ISP

max…..+2.6

min……+1.6

Chris, I specifically wanted to draw your attention to the above.  How is it that Max temps at JFK have outpaced Mins but at LGA it's the opposite?  I happen to like the accuracy of JFK temps more than LGA temps, mainly because the lows at LGA seem to be artificially boosted.  JFK has a much more natural environment and is more representative of what the local climate should be.  Note that ISP is right in line with JFK and even more extreme.

Also could you kindly post the 90 degree day data for JFK, LGA and EWR, I want to see how they have changed by decade like you did below for NYC and POU?  Thanks!

 

NYC……90 degree days

81-90…….18

11-20……..18

POU…..90 degree days

81-90……..13

11-20………20

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

Here's an idea.....why didn't they maintain the old sensors as a back up check against the ASOS?

I generally don't like ASOS, but I guess they wanted to automate everything.  ASOS has a few faults....one of them is "unknown precip type" during mixed precip events and the famous snow, fog when there is no fog and aside from the temperature issue, it doesn't record the wind speeds properly either.

I don't see any accuracy superiority of ASOS over the older equipment, so this was clearly all about automation not accuracy.

 

The ASOS in the 1990s replaced the previous automated systems of the 1970s and 1980s.  So automation is nothing new . I found a fox weather story done back in January about the  Central Park weather station at Belvedere Castle. You can see how the trees grew over the site in the 1990s. 
 

https://www.foxweather.com/watch/play-568120883000757
 

 

59 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Chris, I specifically wanted to draw your attention to the above.  How is it that Max temps at JFK have outpaced Mins but at LGA it's the opposite?  I happen to like the accuracy of JFK temps more than LGA temps, mainly because the lows at LGA seem to be artificially boosted.  JFK has a much more natural environment and is more representative of what the local climate should be.  Note that ISP is right in line with JFK and even more extreme.

Also could you kindly post the 90 degree day data for JFK, LGA and EWR, I want to see how they have changed by decade like you did below for NYC and POU?  Thanks

All the stations except Central Park are accurate since NYC is the only station with obstructions too close to the equipment. Some stations have had faster minimum rises like LGA, HPN, BDR, and POU. So those accurately reflect local changes. Warming is an uneven process with the minimums rising faster in some spots and others showing more maximum rises. This can also change from season to season.

[LibertyBell]

6 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The ASOS in the 1990s replaced the previous automated systems of the 1970s and 1980s.  So automation is nothing new . I found a fox weather story done back in January about the  Central Park weather station at Belvedere Castle. You can see how the trees grew over the site in the 1990s. 
 

https://www.foxweather.com/watch/play-568120883000757
 

 

All the stations except Central Park are accurate since NYC is the only station with obstructions too close to the equipment. Some stations have had faster minimum rises like LGA, HPN, BDR, and POU. So those accurately reflect local changes. Warming is an uneven process with the minimums rising faster in some spots and others showing more maximum rises. This can also change from season to season.

But isn't the warming rise at LGA for mins higher because of how much more built up that area is (urbanization) vs JFK and LGA?  JFK radiates far better and of course so does ISP.

About the older equipment, do you know what might have happened to it?  Why not keep that maintained where it was as a backup check to the new equipment?  Where the old equipment is located, would that suffer from the same problems as the new equipment does....since the foliage around there has also been allowed to overgrow? Is there any reason this is now allowed to happen vs back in the 70s and 80s and early 90s when this area was properly maintained and the foliage was trimmed?

 

[bluewave]

31 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

But isn't the warming rise at LGA for mins higher because of how much more built up that area is (urbanization) vs JFK and LGA?  JFK radiates far better and of course so does ISP.

About the older equipment, do you know what might have happened to it?  Why not keep that maintained where it was as a backup check to the new equipment?  Where the old equipment is located, would that suffer from the same problems as the new equipment does....since the foliage around there has also been allowed to overgrow? Is there any reason this is now allowed to happen vs back in the 70s and 80s and early 90s when this area was properly maintained and the foliage was trimmed?

 

The urbanization around LGA hasn’t changed since the 1980s. So any warming of the minimums since the 1980s is a result of the warming climate. POU and BDR have had more impressive minimum temperature rises during the summer than LGA.

 

LGA

max…..+2.3

min……+2.8
 

BDR

max….+2.1

min…..+3.3

POU

max…..+2.4

min…...+3.0

 

 

[LibertyBell]

10 hours ago, bluewave said:

The urbanization around LGA hasn’t changed since the 1980s. So any warming of the minimums since the 1980s is a result of the warming climate. POU and BDR have had more impressive minimum temperature rises during the summer than LGA.

 

 

LGA

max…..+2.3

min……+2.8
 

 

BDR

max….+2.1

min…..+3.3

POU

max…..+2.4

min…...+3.0

 

 

But why are LGA mins always several degrees higher than the mins at JFK and NYC (and this happens at all times of the year).

 

[bluewave]

8 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

But why are LGA mins always several degrees higher than the mins at JFK and NYC (and this happens at all times of the year).

 

There are a few reasons. UHI has been around for a long time and isn’t a recent phenomenon in NYC.  The UHI effect in Manhattan became well established by 1890 to 1910. Queens saw a great expansion beginning in the 1930s and 1940s. JFK is right on the cooler South Shore so has cooling sea breezes that LGA doesn’t get. The trees are artificially cooling the NYC ASOS. JFK is our largest airport at 4930 acres. It’s the 6th largest in the world. So there can be a temperature range there by just driving from one part of the airport to another. I am not sure if the weather equipment moved when the ASOS was put  in during the 1990s. It looks like the JFK equipment got moved to a cooler part of the airport. It’s our only station to have steady temperatures between the official 1981-2010 and 1991-2020 climate normals periods. All the other stations show an impressive increase in temperatures except JFK.

 

Difference between 1991-2020 and 1981-2010 climate normals seasonal average temperatures 

 

EWR

DJF…….+1.1

MAM….+0.4

JJA…...+0.5

SON…..+0.7

NYC

DJF…....+1.1

MAM….+0.6

JJA…….+0.8

SON……+0.9

LGA

DJF…….+1.4

MAM…..+1.0

JJA…….+1.5

SON……+1.3

JFK

DJF……+0.1

MAM….-0.4

JJA……+0.1

SON….+0.3

HPN

DJF….+1.4

MAM…+1.1

JJA…..+1.0

SON….+1.2

ISP

DJF……+1.1

MAM..+0.7

JJA….+0.9

SON….+1.1

BDR

DJF…..+1.2

MAM…+0.8

JJA……+1.2

SON…..+1.1

 

[uncle W]

21 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Here's an idea.....why didn't they maintain the old sensors as a back up check against the ASOS?

I generally don't like ASOS, but I guess they wanted to automate everything.  ASOS has a few faults....one of them is "unknown precip type" during mixed precip events and the famous snow, fog when there is no fog and aside from the temperature issue, it doesn't record the wind speeds properly either.

I don't see any accuracy superiority of ASOS over the older equipment, so this was clearly all about automation not accuracy.

 

nothing beat checking a mercury thermometer in a shelter big enough for all instruments...I don't like those little heat shields that are used now...

[uncle W]

NYC's average temperature went up after every building boom era...the building boom is expanding in all directions including up...look at Long Island City today compared to 30 years ago...LGA might be feeling its effects...

[rclab]

1 minute ago, uncle W said:

NYC's average temperature went up after every building boom era...the building boom is expanding in all directions including up...look at Long Island City today compared to 30 years ago...LGA might be feeling its effects...

Good morning Unc. The days when the Hanson tower was the standout downtown Brooklyn identifier are gone. Now it is dwarfed by by this/last decade additions. Stay well, as always …

[bluewave]

A recent study on the NYC UHI effect found that high rise buildings cast shadows which have a local cooling effect. So more high rise development doesn’t necessarily lead to increased UHI. It’s industrial use and low rise densely packed residential housing that has the greatest UHI.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/19/3797/htm

Our study shows that the trees and shadows cast by high-rise buildings and their variability have a cooling effect. In contrast, more impervious surfaces show a heating effect even in the presence of highly reflective bright surfaces. The census tract with industrial and manufacturing areas and multi-family walk-up buildings as dominant land use categories correspond to the highest mean surface temperature. Buildings with lower heights (fewer floors) and less height variability are associated with higher surface temperature. Although the building density is the highest in Manhattan (the central business district), many tall buildings with variable heights have shown cooling effects. Staten Island has the lowest mean surface temperature amongst all boroughs of New York City, where the number of trees is more. The Bronx has the highest mean surface temperature and constitutes moderate building density, height, and height variability. The finding from this study has an important implication for urban heat island modeling since recent surface temperature image reveals similar hotspot locations as observed 20 years ago. The results show the positive effects of trees and building shadows in reducing urban heat. It could help prioritize the areas to mitigate the UHI effect and reduce associated environmental and health-related costs, including sustainable urban planning.

 

 

 

[LibertyBell]

7 hours ago, bluewave said:

There are a few reasons. UHI has been around for a long time and isn’t a recent phenomenon in NYC.  The UHI effect in Manhattan became well established by 1890 to 1910. Queens saw a great expansion beginning in the 1930s and 1940s. JFK is right on the cooler South Shore so has cooling sea breezes that LGA doesn’t get. The trees are artificially cooling the NYC ASOS. JFK is our largest airport at 4930 acres. It’s the 6th largest in the world. So there can be a temperature range there by just driving from one part of the airport to another. I am not sure if the weather equipment moved when the ASOS was put  in during the 1990s. It looks like the JFK equipment got moved to a cooler part of the airport. It’s our only station to have steady temperatures between the official 1981-2010 and 1991-2020 climate normals periods. All the other stations show an impressive increase in temperatures except JFK.

 

Difference between 1991-2020 and 1981-2010 climate normals seasonal average temperatures 

 

EWR

DJF…….+1.1

MAM….+0.4

JJA…...+0.5

SON…..+0.7

NYC

DJF…....+1.1

MAM….+0.6

JJA…….+0.8

SON……+0.9

LGA

DJF…….+1.4

MAM…..+1.0

JJA…….+1.5

SON……+1.3

JFK

DJF……+0.1

MAM….-0.4

JJA……+0.1

SON….+0.3

HPN

DJF….+1.4

MAM…+1.1

JJA…..+1.0

SON….+1.2

ISP

DJF……+1.1

MAM..+0.7

JJA….+0.9

SON….+1.1

BDR

DJF…..+1.2

MAM…+0.8

JJA……+1.2

SON…..+1.1

 

I've also noticed that JFK radiates better when the winds calm down....sometimes there is as much as a 10 degree difference between NYC and JFK in overnight lows.   But on westerly and northwesterly and even northerly winds JFK is warmer at all times of the year for day time highs. 

[LibertyBell]

5 hours ago, bluewave said:

A recent study on the NYC UHI effect found that high rise buildings cast shadows which have a local cooling effect. So more high rise development doesn’t necessarily lead to increased UHI. It’s industrial use and low rise densely packed residential housing that has the greatest UHI.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/19/3797/htm

Our study shows that the trees and shadows cast by high-rise buildings and their variability have a cooling effect. In contrast, more impervious surfaces show a heating effect even in the presence of highly reflective bright surfaces. The census tract with industrial and manufacturing areas and multi-family walk-up buildings as dominant land use categories correspond to the highest mean surface temperature. Buildings with lower heights (fewer floors) and less height variability are associated with higher surface temperature. Although the building density is the highest in Manhattan (the central business district), many tall buildings with variable heights have shown cooling effects. Staten Island has the lowest mean surface temperature amongst all boroughs of New York City, where the number of trees is more. The Bronx has the highest mean surface temperature and constitutes moderate building density, height, and height variability. The finding from this study has an important implication for urban heat island modeling since recent surface temperature image reveals similar hotspot locations as observed 20 years ago. The results show the positive effects of trees and building shadows in reducing urban heat. It could help prioritize the areas to mitigate the UHI effect and reduce associated environmental and health-related costs, including sustainable urban planning.

 

 

 

NYC also has a major urban farming and greening program underway to make the city 30% green by 2030, this should help too.

[LibertyBell]

6 hours ago, uncle W said:

NYC's average temperature went up after every building boom era...the building boom is expanding in all directions including up...look at Long Island City today compared to 30 years ago...LGA might be feeling its effects...

that seems to be the warmest part of the city.... as soon as I get out of the midtown tunnel all the way to the grand central parkway, it's always noticeably warmer than midtown or any other part of the city I've been in.

 

[bluewave]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

that seems to be the warmest part of the city.... as soon as I get out of the midtown tunnel all the way to the grand central parkway, it's always noticeably warmer than midtown or any other part of the city I've been in.

 

Last summer the warmest part of NYC was in Central Queens just south of LGA. The 6-30-21 high at LGA was 100° and 102° at Corona. So that section of Queens was comparable to the area around Newark.The new micronet snapshot from early afternoon illustrated what was happening. There was a local convergence zone just north of the sea breeze front. The warmth probably was enhanced by some local downsloping off the higher moraine. 
 

 

[uncle W]

8 hours ago, bluewave said:

A recent study on the NYC UHI effect found that high rise buildings cast shadows which have a local cooling effect. So more high rise development doesn’t necessarily lead to increased UHI. It’s industrial use and low rise densely packed residential housing that has the greatest UHI.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/19/3797/htm

Our study shows that the trees and shadows cast by high-rise buildings and their variability have a cooling effect. In contrast, more impervious surfaces show a heating effect even in the presence of highly reflective bright surfaces. The census tract with industrial and manufacturing areas and multi-family walk-up buildings as dominant land use categories correspond to the highest mean surface temperature. Buildings with lower heights (fewer floors) and less height variability are associated with higher surface temperature. Although the building density is the highest in Manhattan (the central business district), many tall buildings with variable heights have shown cooling effects. Staten Island has the lowest mean surface temperature amongst all boroughs of New York City, where the number of trees is more. The Bronx has the highest mean surface temperature and constitutes moderate building density, height, and height variability. The finding from this study has an important implication for urban heat island modeling since recent surface temperature image reveals similar hotspot locations as observed 20 years ago. The results show the positive effects of trees and building shadows in reducing urban heat. It could help prioritize the areas to mitigate the UHI effect and reduce associated environmental and health-related costs, including sustainable urban planning.

 

 

 

if there were tall buildings to the north of an obs sight the reflection off the buildings would raise the temperature some...those buildings have to be heated and cooled adding to the warmth around them...

[uncle W]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

that seems to be the warmest part of the city.... as soon as I get out of the midtown tunnel all the way to the grand central parkway, it's always noticeably warmer than midtown or any other part of the city I've been in.

 

when I drive on I 287 near Piscataway it always the hottest spot...

[FPizz]

16 hours ago, uncle W said:

when I drive on I 287 near Piscataway it always the hottest spot...

I lived in Piscataway for 36 years.  I always noticed that area was a bit warmer than some other surrounding spots.  Maybe it had something to do with the Watchung "Mountains" to the NW of town.  I moved about 10 miles west and there is a few degree difference here most days.  

[LibertyBell]

22 hours ago, uncle W said:

when I drive on I 287 near Piscataway it always the hottest spot...

Ever been near Linden?  They seem to be a local hot spot too lol

 

 

[LibertyBell]

22 hours ago, bluewave said:

Last summer the warmest part of NYC was in Central Queens just south of LGA. The 6-30-21 high at LGA was 100° and 102° at Corona. So that section of Queens was comparable to the area around Newark.The new micronet snapshot from early afternoon illustrated what was happening. There was a local convergence zone just north of the sea breeze front. The warmth probably was enhanced by some local downsloping off the higher moraine. 
 

 

That really does seem to be the hottest part of the city, whenever I drive by there, my car thermometer spikes up by 5 degrees lol

 

[LibertyBell]

Report on air pollution has come out saying it is much worse now than it was in the past.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/19/opinion/air-pollution-fossil-fuels.html

In the early weeks of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, doctors noticed a surprising silver lining: Americans were having fewer heart attacks.

One likely reason, according to an analysis published last month by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, is that people were inhaling less air pollution.

Millions of workers were staying home instead of driving to work. Americans were suddenly burning a lot less gas. And across the country, the researchers found that regions with larger drops in pollution also had larger drops in heart attacks.

The menace of air pollution doesn’t command public attention as it did in the 1960s, when thick smog yellowed urban skies. But evidence has piled up in recent years that the real progress the United States has made in reducing air pollution isn’t nearly good enough. Air pollution is a lot deadlier than we previously understood — and, in particular, studies like the analysis of heart attacks during the pandemic show that the concentrations of air pollution currently permitted by federal policy are still far too high.

 

In an assessment of recent research, the World Health Organization concluded last year that air pollution is “the single largest environmental threat to human health and well-being.”

The low quality of the air that we breathe should be regarded as a crisis. It also presents an opportunity. The existential threat of climate change has come to dominate debates about environmental regulation. Proposals to curb emissions, once presented as public health measures, are now billed as efforts to limit global warming.

The solution to both threats is the same: We need to stop burning fossil fuels, preferably yesterday. But there is cause to wonder whether a greater focus on the immediate dangers posed by air pollution, rather than the more distant specter of global warming, might help to muster the necessary support for changes that are going to be expensive and disruptive.

There are many reasons the world is failing to respond adequately to climate change. But surely one factor, one difference between this crisis and, for example, the global effort to close the hole in the ozone layer in the 1980s, is the motivating value of clear and present danger.

Some effects of climate change already are palpable, of course. But the worst is still in the future. Warnings about climate change are predictions, and even if they are taken seriously, people may be indifferent to the quality of life in 2100, or at least unwilling to do anything about it. They might be more motivated to save their own lives.

 

There are practical reasons, too, why it may be easier to curb emissions in the name of public health than in the name of climate change. The laws authorizing environmental regulation, including the Clean Air Act of 1963, were written as public health measures. Conservative federal judges are seeking to use that history to limit the government’s ability to address climate change. When the Supreme Court in February heard arguments in a case challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, several members of the court’s conservative majority were openly skeptical that the agency has the legal authority to require the kinds of sweeping changes necessary to slow global warming.

[LibertyBell]

Looking a little closer at our communities, however, researchers found the air quality in some of the state's major cities worsened. That includes the cities of Albany and Buffalo which fell off the cleanest cities list for daily soot pollution this year.

Albany also joined Syracuse and Elmira on the list for areas with worsening year-round soot pollution.

That's something officials with the American Lung Association say may concern citizens living with health conditions.

"When we're looking at upstate communities, in particular, were looking at people that might be suffering from or living with asthma, cardiovascular disease, elderly, children, pregnant people," said Trevor Summerfield, director of advocacy in New York for the American Lung Association. "So it's a wide gamete. Our lung health is important and if you can't breathe, nothing really matters."

 

https://gothamist.com/news/new-york-citys-air-quality-is-improving-but-it-still-isnt-healthy-enough

 

New York City and some other metropolitan areas have significantly lowered their emissions through more stringent air quality regulations, but it isn’t low enough, experts said, to prevent severe health consequences such as asthma, especially for city kids.

“Just to reiterate, these are preventable cases of asthma,” said Susan Anenberg, an associate professor of environmental and occupational health at George Washington University who co-authored both air pollution studies. “So these are cases of asthma among children that will affect them through the course of their lives and their parents, and they are preventable by reducing transportation-related air pollution.”

The first study focused on the most dangerous of these pollutants, according to Anenberg: particulate matter that’s smaller than 2.5 millionths of a meter, known as PM2.5. The designation is a catch-all for solid or liquid particles of this size that are released in the air, which happens anytime fuel is burned. They are so small, they can only be seen with a microscope. It’s mostly made up of sulfate, nitrates, ammonia and black carbon, all of which negatively affect human health – from causing burning eyes to exacerbating blindness and cancer.

The biggest urban source for this pollutant is traffic, especially big diesel trucks and buses. People who live near New York City airports are often exposed to high levels of PM2.5 due to cars moving around travelers as well as emissions from planes.

This particulate matter causes the greatest disease burden – cancer, stroke and heart disease. These particles can penetrate the lungs and enter the bloodstream. PM2.5 exposure was found to decrease life expectancy by one year in the European Union and by nearly two years in Asia and Africa, where air pollution is worse. If countries met the World Health Organization’s air quality guidelines, life expectancy could increase by up to one year.

“We even have increasing evidence for associations with early birth, preterm birth and low birth weight, as well as cognitive decline,” Anenberg said. “It’s a pollutant that affects every organ, and I think we're probably only scratching the surface with the health outcomes that we considered.”

 

The New York City metropolitan-area has cut its PM2.5 pollution by 40% over the last 20 years with stringent regulations and enforcement from the state’s aggressive air pollution control program, which regulates permitting and imposes emissions limits. Federal law requires states to submit plans and prove that they are lowering emissions to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The metropolitan area is now well below the national average, but its levels are still nearly double the World Health Organization’s limits for a safe environment.

Children are most at risk, according to Illias Kavouras, an environmental health sciences professor at the City University of New York School of Public Health, who wasn’t involved with the studies.

“There is no safe threshold,” Kavouras said. “Government policies and regulations have brought down the levels of PM2.5 pollution, but they are still at levels where they can cause significant damage, particularly in children because they are still developing their respiratory systems.”

Found alongside PM2.5, nitrogen dioxide is a dangerous pollutant ubiquitous in city life, and the focus of the second study. Anenberg said that it not only exacerbates pediatric asthma but has been found to cause it. Kavouras said early and prolonged exposure physically alters the structure of a child’s lungs as they develop.

This highly reactive gas is emitted from power plants and burning fuel in cars. When it interacts with water and oxygen, acid rain can form, which can harm the ecosystems of waterways and forests.

New York City cut its nitrogen dioxide emissions by more than half, still slightly above WHO’s acceptable levels. But the unsettling dangers of nitrogen dioxide for Kouvaras is that it stimulates ozone production, the smog that often surrounds cities and makes it difficult to see.

Hot sunny days in the city, such as one of the 17 days last summer when temperatures hit 90 degrees or higher, coupled with traffic and power plant emissions make ripe conditions for ozone. From June to August 2021, one-third of the recorded outdoor concentrations of ozone published by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for Manhattan were above the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 0.07 parts per million.

Inhaling ozone can damage lungs, and even low levels can cause chest pains, coughing and shortness of breath that affect healthy people, too. Those who exercise while exposed to ozone can increase the amount inhaled. The American Lung Association, an advocacy group that promotes lung health through research and education, gave New York City an F grade for ozone pollution, based on the number of days of elevated levels.

With a failing grade, New York City fares better than most cities. Worldwide, nine out of 10 people live in places where the air is polluted beyond WHO standards. Lowering these air pollutants is the only way to combat their associated health and environmental impacts, said Anenberg. She hopes the studies can provide information relevant to policymakers to make more informed decisions about stronger air pollution controls and designing cities better to move people around within them.

“The more fuel we burn, the more air pollution we have, the more greenhouse gases we have, the more heat we have,” Anenberg said. She added that by increasing public transportation and recreational trails for walking and cycling instead of roadways for our vehicles, not only would we reduce air pollution we would make our cities a more pleasant place to live.

[gravitylover]

So it's not all transportation contributing equally to that aspect of air pollution. Apparently it's primarily from buses and commercial trucking so, I'm thinking the solution is to get people into their own cars and off the buses and maybe people should disperse across the land rather than cluster into small zones that necessitate a huge number of trucks delivering things like food...

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, gravitylover said:

So it's not all transportation contributing equally to that aspect of air pollution. Apparently it's primarily from buses and commercial trucking so, I'm thinking the solution is to get people into their own cars and off the buses and maybe people should disperse across the land rather than cluster into small zones that necessitate a huge number of trucks delivering things like food...

I agree with some of that, but the problem of buses should be fixed with renewable fuel powered buses.  The same should happen with trucks.  Clustering into small zones has always been a health issue.

[gravitylover]

I'm pretty sure that your sarcasmometer need to be recalibrated

[lee59]

On 4/24/2022 at 6:45 PM, LibertyBell said:

Looking a little closer at our communities, however, researchers found the air quality in some of the state's major cities worsened. That includes the cities of Albany and Buffalo which fell off the cleanest cities list for daily soot pollution this year.

Albany also joined Syracuse and Elmira on the list for areas with worsening year-round soot pollution.

That's something officials with the American Lung Association say may concern citizens living with health conditions.

"When we're looking at upstate communities, in particular, were looking at people that might be suffering from or living with asthma, cardiovascular disease, elderly, children, pregnant people," said Trevor Summerfield, director of advocacy in New York for the American Lung Association. "So it's a wide gamete. Our lung health is important and if you can't breathe, nothing really matters."

 

https://gothamist.com/news/new-york-citys-air-quality-is-improving-but-it-still-isnt-healthy-enough

 

New York City and some other metropolitan areas have significantly lowered their emissions through more stringent air quality regulations, but it isn’t low enough, experts said, to prevent severe health consequences such as asthma, especially for city kids.

“Just to reiterate, these are preventable cases of asthma,” said Susan Anenberg, an associate professor of environmental and occupational health at George Washington University who co-authored both air pollution studies. “So these are cases of asthma among children that will affect them through the course of their lives and their parents, and they are preventable by reducing transportation-related air pollution.”

The first study focused on the most dangerous of these pollutants, according to Anenberg: particulate matter that’s smaller than 2.5 millionths of a meter, known as PM2.5. The designation is a catch-all for solid or liquid particles of this size that are released in the air, which happens anytime fuel is burned. They are so small, they can only be seen with a microscope. It’s mostly made up of sulfate, nitrates, ammonia and black carbon, all of which negatively affect human health – from causing burning eyes to exacerbating blindness and cancer.

The biggest urban source for this pollutant is traffic, especially big diesel trucks and buses. People who live near New York City airports are often exposed to high levels of PM2.5 due to cars moving around travelers as well as emissions from planes.

This particulate matter causes the greatest disease burden – cancer, stroke and heart disease. These particles can penetrate the lungs and enter the bloodstream. PM2.5 exposure was found to decrease life expectancy by one year in the European Union and by nearly two years in Asia and Africa, where air pollution is worse. If countries met the World Health Organization’s air quality guidelines, life expectancy could increase by up to one year.

“We even have increasing evidence for associations with early birth, preterm birth and low birth weight, as well as cognitive decline,” Anenberg said. “It’s a pollutant that affects every organ, and I think we're probably only scratching the surface with the health outcomes that we considered.”

 

The New York City metropolitan-area has cut its PM2.5 pollution by 40% over the last 20 years with stringent regulations and enforcement from the state’s aggressive air pollution control program, which regulates permitting and imposes emissions limits. Federal law requires states to submit plans and prove that they are lowering emissions to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The metropolitan area is now well below the national average, but its levels are still nearly double the World Health Organization’s limits for a safe environment.

Children are most at risk, according to Illias Kavouras, an environmental health sciences professor at the City University of New York School of Public Health, who wasn’t involved with the studies.

“There is no safe threshold,” Kavouras said. “Government policies and regulations have brought down the levels of PM2.5 pollution, but they are still at levels where they can cause significant damage, particularly in children because they are still developing their respiratory systems.”

Found alongside PM2.5, nitrogen dioxide is a dangerous pollutant ubiquitous in city life, and the focus of the second study. Anenberg said that it not only exacerbates pediatric asthma but has been found to cause it. Kavouras said early and prolonged exposure physically alters the structure of a child’s lungs as they develop.

This highly reactive gas is emitted from power plants and burning fuel in cars. When it interacts with water and oxygen, acid rain can form, which can harm the ecosystems of waterways and forests.

New York City cut its nitrogen dioxide emissions by more than half, still slightly above WHO’s acceptable levels. But the unsettling dangers of nitrogen dioxide for Kouvaras is that it stimulates ozone production, the smog that often surrounds cities and makes it difficult to see.

Hot sunny days in the city, such as one of the 17 days last summer when temperatures hit 90 degrees or higher, coupled with traffic and power plant emissions make ripe conditions for ozone. From June to August 2021, one-third of the recorded outdoor concentrations of ozone published by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for Manhattan were above the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standard of 0.07 parts per million.

Inhaling ozone can damage lungs, and even low levels can cause chest pains, coughing and shortness of breath that affect healthy people, too. Those who exercise while exposed to ozone can increase the amount inhaled. The American Lung Association, an advocacy group that promotes lung health through research and education, gave New York City an F grade for ozone pollution, based on the number of days of elevated levels.

With a failing grade, New York City fares better than most cities. Worldwide, nine out of 10 people live in places where the air is polluted beyond WHO standards. Lowering these air pollutants is the only way to combat their associated health and environmental impacts, said Anenberg. She hopes the studies can provide information relevant to policymakers to make more informed decisions about stronger air pollution controls and designing cities better to move people around within them.

“The more fuel we burn, the more air pollution we have, the more greenhouse gases we have, the more heat we have,” Anenberg said. She added that by increasing public transportation and recreational trails for walking and cycling instead of roadways for our vehicles, not only would we reduce air pollution we would make our cities a more pleasant place to live.

They say some of the upstate cities air pollution worsened. Just curious as to it worsened as to when. I hope they did not compare it to the pandemic years when people stayed home air pollution was better thru out the world. That would be a little misleading.

[lee59]

1 minute ago, lee59 said:

They say some of the upstate cities air pollution worsened. Just curious as to it worsened as to when. I hope they did not compare it to the pandemic years when people stayed home. Air pollution was better thru out the world. That would be a little misleading.