Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the record-hot dept.

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.

11 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. Testable predictions by Okian+Warrior · · 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?

    1. Re:Testable predictions by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    2. Re:Testable predictions by Tiggywinkle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Testable predictions by vux984 · · Score: 3, 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.

    4. Re:Testable predictions by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I live in Houston.

      Are you old enough to remember when Houston actually had a "winter"? Because I am.

      I watched the "models" for Harvey.

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Testable predictions by Cassini2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re: Testable predictions by riverat1 · · Score: 4, 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

  2. Re:Heard this twenty years ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To be fair, just because they were wrong before doesn't mean they're wrong again.

  3. Good news for British Columbia by boudie2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Heard this twenty years ago... by riverat1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the current year, 2017 is set up to be the 2nd or 3rd hottest year on record despite no El Nino.

  5. I think we should take those 50% failed sensors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Here let me finish this article for you:

    I think we should take those 50% failed sensors and just plug in data that supports our crazy theory of global warming. Then we can sell Carbon Credits through some crazy Bagman who gets trillions with a T and can demand you shut down your business so China which has 0 env protections get the jobs. Cause we love Communists that murdered 160+ Million people, they give us lots of babies now after we gave them autism with our vaccines.