Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Every Other Summer Will Shatter Heat Records Within a Decade (vice.com) 322

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Think of the stickiest, record-hot summer you've ever experienced, whether you're 30 or 60 years old. In 10 years or less, that miserable summer will happen every second year across most of the U.S. and Canada, the Mediterranean, and much of Asia, according to a study to be published in the open access journal Earth's Future. By the 2030s, every second summer over almost all of the entire Northern hemisphere will be hotter than any record-setting hot summer of the past 40 years, the study found. By 2050, virtually every summer will be hotter than anything we've experienced to date. Record hot summers are now 70 times more likely than they were in the past 40 years over the entire Northern hemisphere, the peer-reviewed study found. What does all this mean? Heat alerts will be increasing, cities will have to employ aggressive cooling strategies most summers, and in places like South Asia, it will be too dangerous to work outside, Francis Zwiers, director of the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium at Canada's University of Victoria, said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Every Other Summer Will Shatter Heat Records Within a Decade

Comments Filter:
  • by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Wednesday November 01, 2017 @11:41PM (#55474083) Homepage Journal

    Those are testable predictions.

    If we do *not* get the results predicted by the study above, would that invalidate the theory of global warming?

    If not, what testable predictions does the global warming theory make, whose failure *would* invalidate the theory?

    • by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Thursday November 02, 2017 @12:23AM (#55474219)

      If we do *not* get the results predicted by the study above, would that invalidate the theory of global warming?

      I'm not sure about that, but I'm pretty sure of one thing:

      If we *do* get the results predicted by the study above, you're going to deny them anyway.

    • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

      Those are testable predictions.

      So is looking at the sun. During the last eclipse, did you look at it without special glasses? Did you stare at it without glasses during non-eclipse times, just to verify that those astronomers advising caution weren't pushing some librul agenda?

    • by Capsaicin ( 412918 ) on Thursday November 02, 2017 @12:26AM (#55474231)

      If we do *not* get the results predicted by the study above, would that invalidate the theory of global warming?

      Does this single study comprise the entirety of modern climatological theory as it pertains to observed warming?

      If not, what testable predictions does the global warming theory make, whose failure *would* invalidate the theory?

      More generally, You seem to be working from a naive Falsificationist view of science. Your question is like asking "what testable prediction does astrophysics make whose failure should make us revert to a pre-scientific belief (eg. that stars are cracks in the firmament through which we can glimpse the cosmic fire?)." We cannot abandon theory simply because some testable hypothesis was 'falsified.' Theory is not to be invalidated but supplanted.

      Specifically, if temperatures global temperatures would just stop rising decade upon decade, and instead began to fall decade upon decade, and if this fall were not readily to be explained by current theory, that should open the door to the acceptance of a more productive alternative theory once that theory became available.

    • by Tiggywinkle ( 4112675 ) on Thursday November 02, 2017 @12:36AM (#55474247)
      I feel like I'm taking crazy pills on here sometimes. The theories presented by climate change science have given temperature ranges time and time again, and they have been proven time and time again as being accurate. Those temperature ranges presented over the past 30 years by the widely peer reviewed and referenced papers would be the ones you disprove, but they already have been borne out as true. We are past the stage where we are looking to test the new numbers - we will continue to as we always have of course - but if you keep waiting for more and more evidence on top of the already overwhelming scientific consensus, wtf is the point of any of the god dam science? Your arse would be on fire before you decide not to sit on the stove top.
    • by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Thursday November 02, 2017 @12:38AM (#55474257)

      Those are testable predictions.

      If we do *not* get the results predicted by the study above, would that invalidate the theory of global warming?

      No, it would invalidate the results of this specific piece of research.

      Well, partially invalidate... their model is statistical so fail or succeed analysis of what specifically happened would be required to figure out if their results were correct. It could be their research was flawless but some nutjob started WWIII and caused a Nuclear winter.

      If not, what testable predictions does the global warming theory make, whose failure *would* invalidate the theory?

      1) Carbon continues to skyrocket but temperatures plummet or even plateau.
      2) Another mechanism is found that better explains the temperatures.
      3) More research suggests that the positive feedbacks won't kick in, or at least not to the extent we predict.
      4) A negative feedback is discovered that will counteract the warming and the positive feedbacks.
      5) It turns out there's a bad assumption shared by all the models, and if you correct it the extreme warming goes away.

      The only one that feels remotely plausible is #3, and maybe a little bit of #5 (though 5 could go the other way and underestimate the warming), but even there the certainty is growing stronger, not weaker.

      The obvious follow-up question is what could convince you that AGW is a real thing?

      • by Cassini2 ( 956052 ) on Thursday November 02, 2017 @06:46AM (#55475089)

        5) It turns out there's a bad assumption shared by all the models, and if you correct it the extreme warming goes away.

        Climate scientists assume that people will listen, and attempt to avert disaster. Unfortunately, if you look at the data, CO2 production keeps going up. As a result, the "assume humanity will take action" models consistently underestimate global warming.

        It makes me begin to understand how civilizations collapse.

        • Unfortunately, if you look at the data, CO2 production keeps going up.

          Nope. CO2 emissions keep going up. The past few years CO2 production has actually leveled off and in many countries started to decline as a result of civilisations taking action.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02, 2017 @12:43AM (#55474279)

      It's all a conspiracy.

      China is in on it. So are 98% of scientists. NASA satellite designers are in on it, probably Hilary, the weather channel is in on it, the people who monitor CO2 levels in the atmosphere, they're in on it too. Elon Musk? he is soooo in on this conspiracy. Wikipedia? Up to its eyeballs in this conspiracy. The people who make thermometers, they're the worst of all. Those polar researchers and their ice measurements? Ice floats, so if it melts it would raise sea level by zero, Hannity said so, so that's proof that they're in on it too! The people who measure sea levels, in on it. All those hurricane victims, actors, all fake. Entomolgists and their 'insects species collapse', in on it. The UN? Totally behind it all, how else could all of this be co-ordinated.

      It's all a cunning plan to stop the US mining its coal reserves, they came up with the plan in the 70s, and you're all falling for it.

      How else can you explain away a model of global warming backed up by consistent global warming! Conspiracy that's how! That's the only possible explanation!

    • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Thursday November 02, 2017 @01:16AM (#55474413)

      "If not, what testable predictions does the global warming theory make, whose failure *would* invalidate the theory?"

      A scientist has predicted superbugs that will prove immune to all known antibiotics will decimate humanity within the century. What if that doesn't happen? Does that invalidate the theory of natural selection?

      A scientist has predicted a mega-earthquake off the coast of British within the next hundred years. If that doesn't happen, would that invalidate the theory of plate tectonics?

      That's about how absurd your position is.

      Climate models are making all kinds of predictions, and lots of the predictions are coming true. And every time one fails we refine the models. What do you really expect ... the observational data we have doesn't change, we just keep adding more... the new models still have to fit the data. There is no theory here you can slay at a single stroke with one test.

      Even if a super volcano went off and the resulting clouds of dust sent the world into an unscheduled ice-age that wouldn't invalidate the theories behind climate change. It just obviously means any model that didn't incorporate this new event would not predict anything useful.

    • Those are testable predictions.

      If we do *not* get the results predicted by the study above, would that invalidate the theory of global warming?

      If not, what testable predictions does the global warming theory make, whose failure *would* invalidate the theory?

      Of course it would be wrong to expect it to happen every other year like clockwork but to expect it to be the average over a 15 or 20 year period

    • If we do *not* get the results predicted by the study above, would that invalidate the theory of global warming?

      No, all it would invalidate would be the particular pattern of warming suggested by the theory. To debunk global warming in general would require not only a stop to the warming, but also a sustained period of cooling, which we haven't seen that since accurate record keeping began in the 1850s.

      Seriously, arguing against global warning or trying to debunk it really is in the same league as flat earth theory or the idea that the earth is at the center of the solar system.

      • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Thursday November 02, 2017 @08:41AM (#55475379)

        >Seriously, arguing against global warning or trying to debunk it really is in the same league as flat earth theory or the idea that the earth is at the center of the solar system.

        Some of the deniers have evolved their position to specifically deny anthropogenic climate change, asserting that it's solar cycles or some other periodic effect.

        At it's heart, it is an argument against responsibility and action, not the fact of climate change itself.

        They haven't quite caught on to the idea yet that even if we're not changing the climate, we might want to fight any natural long term change that will harm us. It'll be interesting to see the next evolution of the denier camp's position.

    • What all the rage-replies to your post fail to realize is that the globe could be warming.

      It could be warming SHARPLY.

      It could be warming so significantly it will cause devastation.

      Yet...the quasi-cult-religion of AGW is not by any means proved by such a thing.

      Because, you see, their assertion is that it's CAUSED by people. That's where their shit starts to fall apart, no matter how much righteous indignation is applied to spackle it in place.

      If you're taller than me, that's an observable, provable fact in

    • If we do *not* get the results predicted by the study above, would that invalidate the theory of global warming?

      Nope, It would invalidate the one paper making the one prediction. AGW is an amalgamation of a wealth of scientific models and and studies that are trending in a similar direction.

      If not, what testable predictions does the global warming theory make, whose failure *would* invalidate the theory?

      If the long term averaged mean global temperature deviates from its correlation to atmospheric CO2 then you'll have invalidated one of the fundamental pillars around which much of AGW research is based.

      Good luck.

  • by manu0601 ( 2221348 ) on Wednesday November 01, 2017 @11:43PM (#55474099)

    Methane has a grater impact on greenhouse effect than CO2, and ice-trapped methane will be released because of ocean warming, thus increasing greenhouse effect and climate warming again.

    The best scenario would be to avoid ocean warming so that methane stays trapped, but if it is to be released, perhaps it is better to burn it.

    • by kiviQr ( 3443687 )
      not sure if you grasped the concept of burning;) it releases heat and CO2.
      • by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Thursday November 02, 2017 @12:15AM (#55474191)

        not sure if you grasped the concept of burning;) it releases heat and CO2.

        but since methane has over 20 times the greenhouse effect of CO2, we would be better off than if the methane were released unburned - though not better off than if the methane were not released in the first place.

        • by Xyrus ( 755017 )

          The atmospheric lifetime for methane is about 12 years. Methane breaks down into CO2 and water vapor. So while it has a stronger greenhouse effect, it's short lifetime makes methane itself not really contribute much to the overall effect if it's just a spike. If there is a long continuous increase in methane production then that has a larger impact, but for an event like a "clathrate gun" temperatures would have a temporary surge then cool back down a bit.

          The resulting bump in CO2 however would have a longe

    • Methane has a grater impact on greenhouse effect than CO2,

      Yes, but methane, unlike CO2, doesn't stay in the atmosphere forever.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    George Soros funded and covered by VICE ? BLAHAHAHAHAHAH

  • \o/ (Score:3, Funny)

    by easyTree ( 1042254 ) on Wednesday November 01, 2017 @11:52PM (#55474127)

    Skorchio [youtube.com].

  • But I think they're going to struggle with this one.

    • Their base won't believe in Global Warming even as their noses are rubbed in it. They'll just blame liberals and yap about how badly they're being treated.

  • by doug141 ( 863552 ) on Thursday November 02, 2017 @12:32AM (#55474239)
  • Bigger Buds! There's really just as much positive as negative to global warming. Some people say the glass is half empty and some say it's half full. Some people just like to complain.
    • with the new DE Gavita or Agrolux systems or FLuence/BC Blondes LED you don't need sunlight to get crazy looking caked weed.

    • It's easy to say that if you happen to live in an area that will see benefits. As with all natural disasters and externalities of industry, the poor will take the brunt of the suffering, both for geographical reasons and for the fact that the poor have less access to physical mobility.

      • So you've developed empathy for the poor from reading a book. How quaint.
        • I grew up in a trailer park with a single mom who worked as many overtime hours as she could to make ends meet. But nice try. And regardless of how one develops empathy for the poor, your reaction is to question the source of said empathy? As though that has shit to do with anything. Are you high?

          • I happen to be poor right now. You questioned my empathy. Turnabout is fair play. Overreacting isn't going to help.
    • I have seen predictions that in the second half of the century the grain belt will move from USA and Europe to Canada and Russia. That could make things very interesting as countries try to gain food security.
  • But I'm not gonna become a canadian, dammit!!!!

    • Change your attitude to a positive one, replace anger with passive-agressive sarcasm, replace "dammit" with "eh?" and you're nearly there.

  • Instead of "I believe this person or set of data", what is your experience?

    I live in the southeast part of the San Francisco Bay area. Last summer (a few months ago), it got up to 108 degrees one day. It's never been that hot since I moved here in 1989. Also last summer we had more hot days that usual.

    I don't know if the temperatures have been gradually increasing here, but last summer was a record breaker for me.

    What's everyone else's experience?

    • Weather-related anecdotes do not say anything about Climate Change, and I say this as part of the majority of the planet (outside the US) who acknowledge that Climate Change is real.
    • My experience over the last 40 years would seem to support a warming trend - but that doesn't matter as there could be a perfectly logical explanation for a local trend that has nothing to do with global climate change. Or my recollection could be faulty for a variety of reasons.

      Give me a generally accepted climate model interpreted by an expert and confirmed against known records, with a reasonable explanation of where the model is weak and its anticipated predictive accuracy... that's worth far more in p

    • I live in the southeast part of the San Francisco Bay area. Last summer (a few months ago), it got up to 108 degrees one day. It's never been that hot since I moved here in 1989.

      That's why they call them "record temperatures." Records happen in the context of "just normal weather." Consider the context:

      Looking at the climate record [noaa.gov] for San Francisco for last summer, we can see that you had a couple of short-duration extreme outlying temperature events. We can also see from the records shown on the graph tha

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02, 2017 @02:32AM (#55474561)

    And this is wrong. The conclusion is that the CURRENT record summer will become the norm within 20 years. It does not mean that within 20 years, every other summer will become hotter than the last, but rather that there is 50% chance that temperatures will reach the current record of the last 40 years or so. The likelihood that every other summer would break records is obviously very low.

    • by Xyrus ( 755017 )

      Well, it's Slashdot. What did you expect from an article summary?

    • The likelihood that every other summer would break records is obviously very low.

      That would be a logical conclusion if ever other summer recently hasn't done so or come close breaking those same records.

  • And yet, the average temperature is only scheduled to increase by 4C.

You will never amount to much. -- Munich Schoolmaster, to Albert Einstein, age 10

Working...