Slashdot Mirror
More Hot Weather For Southern California, Says UCLA Study
The L.A. Times reports on a study by UCLA climate researchers who conclude, based on supercomputer analysis of a model "2,500 times more precise than previous climate models for the region" that the area around L.A. will experience more (and more extreme) hot spells in decades to come. From the article: "The study, released Thursday, is the first to model the Southland's complex geography of meandering coastlines, mountain ranges and dense urban centers in high enough resolution to predict temperatures down to the level of micro climate zones, each measuring 2 1/4 square miles. The projections are for 2041 to 2060. Not only will the number of hot days increase, but the study found that the hottest of those days will break records, said Alex Hall, lead researcher on the study by UCLA's Institute of the Environment and Sustainability."
Enough of these ignorant blurbs.
I dont care if this shit is accurate or not, I am going to attempt to do what is right, not what is cheaper.
History has proven that cheaper is not better for us, for the environment, or for our future.
If it were, we wouldnt worry about lakes catching on fire, cancer eating our bodies, and carbons heating up the earth (this is true BTW, look at historical evidence, and not just 50 years ago, more like 5 million years).
So shut the fuck up, make your decision, and die in your environment, or live in it.
Just a slight shift in ocean currents would make that entire region a barren desert anyway
Um, it pretty much is. Southern California passed its carrying capacity a century ago. The only region it's inhabitable is that massive amounts of water are diverted from the Colorado River Basin to Southern California. It's gotten to the point where upstream governments have outlawed collecting, in rainbarrels, water that falls on your roof to water your garden, because it's "not your water". But it is Southern California's water, you see.
At some point in the future the water source will fail, and the place will become mostly inhabitable. Massive amounts of contingent wealth will be wiped out when this happens. The only thing that could really keep it going is nuclear-powered desalinization, but Californians tend to be anti-nuke (of all types, not just LWR's), so that's unlikely to help them. Even if they could be convinced, the time delay to implement is too long, because they won't act soon enough.
Oh, but they have movie stars.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Here's a prediction of human reactions to Lovelock’s interview:
1) Attack his age. "Oh, he's an old doddering fool! He's lost his mind!"
2) Call him irrelevant because he's not publishing. "How can he know anything about climate science? He hasn't published a paper for so long!"
3) Attack the media source. "This paper is in the pocket of big oil!"
4) Attack using a straw man. "Oh, but the ice is thinning in Greenland! This proves everything I say and proves you wrong!"
What you won't hear, and what makes this more religion than science as Lovelock says, is an argument against Lovelock's actual critiques of the state of climate science. It's because his points are too logical and irrefutable, so rather than try and engage in that uphill battle they will change the question posed and make up their own questions to answer. Its something along the lines of cognitive dissonance but worse.
That's because you don't go read the original papers which always contain information about the uncertainty. Instead you read journalist's accounts of the papers which usually leave the uncertainty out to avoid confusing readers. Mostly the journalist probably doesn't understand it well enough themselves to convey it accurately to their readers anyway.
The published study can be found here and it does contain uncertainty information. Here is a downloadable PDF of the summary of findings.
Which is easier to predict: Tomorrow's exact temperature or generally how warm the weather will be in August?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
It's gotten to the point where upstream governments have outlawed collecting, in rainbarrels, water that falls on your roof to water your garden, because it's "not your water". But it is Southern California's water, you see.
That's called "non-riparian water rights," and it goes back to before the western states were even founded. The basis for this system is Common Law legal precedent, not legislation (although most states have passed laws formally codifying their water rights systems... as of over a hundred years ago).
But don't let facts get in your way.
Ok, that's an easy answer: yes, predicting the weather is still hard, although modern predictions are actually very good most of the time, and certainly not as bad as common `wisdom' thinks they are.
However, climate models are about climate, not weather. They predict average weather, and that is easier than predicting the weather on a particular day. In a very similar way you cannot reliably predict the next roll of a dice, but you can very reliably predict the tallies of the next hundred rolls.
When predicting the next rolls of the dice you can even predict the expected error in the prediction: the standard deviation. The climate model of this article is apparently so good that they can also predict the expected deviation, which allows them to predict that there will be these hot spells, even though they are not able to predict the exact days these hot spells will happen.
It's all been done, starting 30 years ago, and the results are in. It happened exactly as you wrote, except for
8. Begin a massive disinformation campaign to avoid having to act on the results.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
If the weather cannot be accurately predicted 100% of the time for three days in advance, why would anyone believe they can predict it based on some trending for the next 50 years?
Because they understand how science works.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Ah, the old denier tactic of mixing up serious science with bogus science reporting in the mass media.
There is a reason why there is a "mainstream" in science. It's fact based, it's boring, and it's usually correct.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
What you won't hear, and what makes this more religion than science as Lovelock says, is an argument against Lovelock's actual critiques of the state of climate science. It's because his points are too logical and irrefutable, so rather than try and engage in that uphill battle they will change the question posed and make up their own questions to answer.
Okay I'm confused I read the article you linked to and saw this: "Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect." Now I know you are focusing on the second part of the sentence, but did you read the first half of the sentence? For the rest of the article he makes arguments about what sorts of things we should be doing to minimize anthropomorphic global warming.
Now the rhetorical trick you and he are using here is sneaky. He says that the doomsday predictions including his and Al Gore's were incorrect. But his predictions and "Al Gore's Predictions" were never the same, and his predictions were always radically more alarmist than anything real climate scientists predicted. Al Gore, who is not a scientist, but has made an effort to bring scientific results to the public, never made the sort of wild predictions that Lovelock is known for. He implied that he and Al Gore made the same predicitions, and you implied that he and real scientists made the same wild predictions. Mainstream climate science never made the sort of sensational predictions that Lovelock made. In 2006 Lovelock predicted that 80% of the world population would be wiped out by 2100. In 2008 he predicted that by 2040 the Sahara will have grown to encompass Paris and even Berlin! he also predicted in 2008 that by 2040 there would be no vitually food grown in Europe. So when he goes to the media and states that his past alarmism was wrong, anybody who has been paying attention says "no shit!" Real climate scientists have never made those sorts of wild claims. If you haven't been paying attention you might say "oh look an important climate scientist is backpedaling!!" Lovelock was an attention hound then and he is one now. So, i responded to the article you liked to without attacking his age, mentioning that he doesn't publish (or really participate in science at all), without accusing the Guardian or Sun of being biased, or without using a straw man. In fact I demonstrated how he, and you, were using a something similar to a strawman argument by conflating his past hyperbole with real scientific predictions then attacking both as if they were the same. In a followup message you suggested that people "address his valid critiques." The critiques he made in the article you linked to were all about means of addressing the problem of climate change. He suggests that wind energy will never be enough. Fine, i agree. He suggests massive adoption of nuclear energy. Fine, that would be much better than burying our heads in the sand, though there are real problems with nuclear power. He suggests that the political environmental movement is prone to hyperbole. Fine, I'm glad he finally looked in the mirror. He suggests more use of methane gotten through fracking. Fine. Methane is certainly a less carbon intensive fossil fuel than coal, and though fracking is likely to be very damaging to our water supply at least getting methane doesn't involve blowing up whole mountains. So all the things he said have to do with means and methods of dealing with climate change. I think as a society we need to be open to suggestions about means and methods. I'd much rather have that discussion than this endless disinformation campaign trying to hide the fact that climate change is real.
-- QED