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.
Testable predictions (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Testable predictions (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did,but not for any longer than I normally stare at the sun.
Why not?
Re:Testable predictions (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If most people better educated than me in a given field told me that something was most likely correct, I would assume it to be accurate unless/until there was verifiable evidence strong enough to invalidate it.
Well yes. However slashrio is somewhat wide of the mark, if he believes that my post above was arguing in favour of an expert consensus view of science (however arguable that position might be).
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you are replying to the wrong comment. Strangely, I still can't anyone above who made the statement you quote??
Re:Testable predictions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Testable predictions (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:Testable predictions (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Testable predictions (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re:Testable predictions (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish you guys would stop with this "deleting raw data" thing. It hasn't happened. Here's some of it. [berkeleyearth.org]
Re: Testable predictions (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish "you guys" would stop presenting data from known corrupt orgs as real.
Also, I note you completely ignored my comment about data manipulation.
Hide the decline!
If you go get the raw data and plot it out you will still get something pretty close what the "manipulated data" shows. In fact since about 1940 it's difficult to tell the difference between the two.
How data adjustments affect global temperature records [carbonbrief.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Testable predictions (Score:4, Interesting)
>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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And indeed bad predictions, as the models are, as I many times already have pointed out, calibrated on existing data, while trying to 'predict' not-yet-existing data. Every mathematician with a basic understanding of modeling can tell you that.
As with stock markets: "Results from the past are no guarantee of results in the future."
Re: (Score:2)
You know, a scientist fairy dies every time you mistake a hypothesis for a theory.
Re: (Score:2)
As taken from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They have been wrong for the last 20 and it didn't falsify it then...
How have they been wrong specifically? Even during the so called "pause" there was no statistically significant* change in the increasing temperature trend and the oceans where over 90% of the heat goes continued to get warmer.
* Statistical analysis of temperature trends [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Then there is the multi foot sea level rise that started pushing in the 70s but really kicked off in the 80s. Also never happened.
How about the "tipping points" we were supposed to hit in 1990, 1990, 2005, 2010, and 2015. We have another one in 2020 we will also not h
Re:Testable predictions (Score:5, Informative)
No, several feet of sea level rise was not predicted by 2010. The IPCC Second Archive report in 1995 projected a rise of around 5 cm (2 inches) by 2010 (just from eyeballing the graphs). Subsequent IPCC reports have raised that a bit but none of them predicted even a half foot of SLR by 2010.
IPCC Second Archive Report - Working Group 1 [www.ipcc.ch] (It's a big PDF (51 MB) but the chapter on sea level starts on page 359.)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that "science" isn't just one guy. It's a large number of research teams that come out with competing models. Just like there's a lot of medical research that we shouldn't follow until there's a consensus statement from a governing body (ie: American College of Cardiology).
If you look at the IPCC (or other consensus groups) predictions, they conform fairly closely with reality.
If you find one that doesn't, please provide a link.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you old enough to remember when Houston actually had a "winter"? Because I am.
You should take a walk over to Rice University and ask one of the freshmen to explain the difference between "weather" and "climate". Better yet, take a drive down to NASA and ask an actual scientist to explain global warming to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember walking to elementary school in the late 1960s with *ice* on the ground for several weeks. We had about 4-6 week long cold winters.
These days, we don't even get below freezing for more than a few hours (never for days in a row).
Re: (Score:3)
You do understand that since we are still coming out of the last ice age that was 11700 years ago, the temperatures would rise not nearly as fast as they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Use your bloody common sense. It took eleven thousand years to get the temperatures from freezingly cold winters to normal winters and then just fifty years to make the winter disappear completely. I surely don't want it to be true, I like backcountry skiing but Germany had no winter for years, just a prolongued autumn instead. Two years ago I've even seen thrushes breeding in December/January. The chicks died in February, of course, because they needed to be fed insects, not berries.
Re: (Score:2)
Those few freezes have disappeared. That's my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Those few freezes have disappeared. That's my point.
Since 2004 when Galveston got 4 inches of snow? Or last winter when half my neighborhood "lost water" then the pipe froze?
Re: (Score:3)
I live in Houston. I watched the "models" for Harvey. I saw the mass of spaghetti squirm and shift daily, and even hourly. So, no, I do not blindly trust the models.
Tell me exactly how climate models and hurricane models are related again? Climate models aren't trying to predict the temperature an hour from now or 12 hours from now 5 days from now. They're trying to predict how the average temperature will change over a 30 year period or more.
Re:Testable predictions (Score:4, Interesting)
Not even close. Climate models are based on actual physics. The temperature rise we've seen is still within the 95% uncertainty boundaries of the models projected temperature rise.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in houston and I watched the models for Harvey. The models considered most reliable were dead on from days before it landed. I recall the weathermen saying the rain projections seemed too high.
I spent weeks helping flooded people rip out wet sheetrock and wet insulation in areas that had *never flooded in the 50 years since the houses were built*.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The so-called "weather" "men" are just making up fake temperatures to try to make hard working Republicans look like the bad guys when we deliver value to our shareholders by lobbying against the EPA. So sad.
Is "the man" "keepin' you down" and preventing you from from screwing over every living soul you know and selling every scrap of resource you can to the highest bidder so you can be king of the trash pit.
Re: (Score:2)
The so-called "weather" "men" are just making up fake temperatures to try to make hard working Republicans look like the bad guys when we deliver value to our shareholders by lobbying against the EPA. So sad.
Is "the man" "keepin' you down" and preventing you from from screwing over every living soul you know and selling every scrap of resource you can to the highest bidder so you can be king of the trash pit.
Er, you do realize that was a troll, right? Not an actual Republican?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to admit, they're really hard to tell apart.
Good idea to burn it? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good idea to burn it? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Yes really. Natural processes don't remove methane, it just degrades with time. The end of that degradation chain is again CO2 and water vapour.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but methane, unlike CO2, doesn't stay in the atmosphere forever.
George Soros ? (Score:2)
George Soros funded and covered by VICE ? BLAHAHAHAHAHAH
\o/ (Score:3, Funny)
Skorchio [youtube.com].
Inb4 endless GOP attempts at denial (Score:2)
But I think they're going to struggle with this one.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Trend of monthly averages in a pic (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.reddit.com/r/datai... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Oh and before you ask, we use digital ones today because you had to go and read the mercury ones in-person while digital ones can be read remotely and you can automate taking readings.
Good news for British Columbia (Score:2, Insightful)
DE HID Bulbs and LED (Score:2)
with the new DE Gavita or Agrolux systems or FLuence/BC Blondes LED you don't need sunlight to get crazy looking caked weed.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
It will be interesting politically (Score:2)
Time to move north .... (Score:2)
But I'm not gonna become a canadian, dammit!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Change your attitude to a positive one, replace anger with passive-agressive sarcasm, replace "dammit" with "eh?" and you're nearly there.
What's your experience? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Your one hot day (Score:2)
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
I actually read the article (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's Slashdot. What did you expect from an article summary?
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
And yet, the average temperature is only scheduled to increase by 4C.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Woosh? Maybe? I think the parent poster meant Anonymous Coward as a pun - since their comment is under the AC. If not, I bet they wish they did.
Re: (Score:3)
1btu=1055J
1btu(per hour)= 0.2931watts=1055J/3600sec
I think Th on a home ac is around 350, and as long as it's cooler than that outside it will blow 285 inside. Efficiency goes down and more energy is required as Th->Tamb
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and as long as you don't put bodies into the environment that generate heat (like, say, human bodies while alive), you can keep that room at that temperature provided insulation is perfect.
Then again, IF insulation is perfect AND you put bodies producing heat into the environment... well, the second law of thermodynamics tells me that at some point the room will have approximately 37 degrees Celsius.
Re: (Score:2)
He was trying to say Maunder Minimum, but we have no way of telling what the trough or peak of a solar cycle (other than the short-term 11-year cycle) will be. That's why we can only assign names to them long after the fact.
Re: (Score:2)
There is this problem that people live in areas that will feel the heat (literally so) quite soon. And they will want to go where you are now. With no alternative, get in or die trying.
In other words, you'll soon have to decide whether you want to share or shoot.
Re:Heard this twenty years ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, just because they were wrong before doesn't mean they're wrong again.
Re:Heard this twenty years ago... (Score:5, Informative)
Heard this twenty years ago...
No you didn't, at least not from any reputable source. What you heard from those was the global temperatures would continue to rise. This is a novel claim, namely that increases will be felt from year to year over "most of the U.S. and Canada, the Mediterranean, and much of Asia."
What was predicted 20 years ago?! Really?
Hottest year on record: 2016; 2nd hottest year on record: 2015; 3rd hottest year on record: 2014; 4th hottest year on record: 2010; 5th hottest year on record: 2013; 6th hottest year on record: 2005; 7th hottest year on record: 2009; 8th hottest year on record: 1998; 9th hottest year on record: 2012; and for the 10th we have a draw between, 2003, 2006 & 2007.
Re:Heard this twenty years ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the current year, 2017 is set up to be the 2nd or 3rd hottest year on record despite no El Nino.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Where are my mod points when I need them ...
I've heard about this a long time ago (feels more than 20 years) and the only thing that I could say against, is that the raise was slower than I expected (I think I was a kid at the time, and it was on the TV/FUD news machine, so there is that).
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds about right, I was around 15 at that time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Of course he was modded troll, because he is lying. Yes, there is some data homogenization to account for differences in the accuracy of historical data. You can question that practice if you wish, but the un-homogenized data actually shows a larger warming trend. https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
After the original flap about the Darwin station, in which RealClimate accused Watts of cherry picking, and responded by cherry picking themselves. That struck me as flawed, so I calculated the effects of all adjustments for every land station from GHCNv2 (current at the time). Th
Re:Heard this twenty years ago... (Score:5, Informative)
No you didn't, at least not from any reputable source.
Wrong: https://clintonwhitehouse3.arc... [archives.gov]
I was under the impression that it was traditional when providing a link to support a claim, that you choose one that actually supports your claim.
Re:Heard this twenty years ago... (Score:5, Informative)
Hotter by 0.02 degrees.. AND THE MARGIN OF ERROR IS 0.1 degrees.
Science! Learn it!
If you were a scientist you'd not be looking at individual temperatures but at trends: http://www.economist.com/node/... [economist.com]
Instead you make some claim of some arbitrary temperature the GP didn't mention (god knows in what relation to, he mentioned 12 different years). By the way the number you're looking for is +2.03 degrees, not 0.02 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc... [noaa.gov]
But the real disappointment is that someone modded you up.
Re: (Score:3)
Never stopped religious cults from announcing the end of the world, why not learn from the experienced con artists?
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers are bullshit. Over here we learned that years ago, voting for the populist is like jacking off. Everyone does it, nobody admits he does.
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea. What are we going to replace the various religions with that keep telling us the end of the world is near (the world ended twice so far this year, but I think there's room for a third coming)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty pictures [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well hello Mr. Denialist!
The predictions from the IPCC have basically come true. It's hypocritical to dismiss the field of climate change based on whacky popular press stuff and still actually be using a computer given the completely dumbass shit the popular press has said about computers over the years.
Re: (Score:2)
Next year. Last year was an El Nino year; this is a La Nina year. And the solar cycle is becoming longer and flatter than any time in the past century, so I'm expecting COOLING trends for the next 30 years or so.
I love the idea put forth by people on the internet that some shit they read on some random blog is THE TRUTH and those stupid silly scientists haven't realised things like, oh, the sun existing or some shit.
Yeah, climate scientists know about El Nino and La Nina and oddly enough they know about the