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."

Comments

Re:Complete Hogwash

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Lovelock is not worth listening to because...

[ukemike]

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.