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.

41 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I know by freeze128 · · Score: 2

    OK. You bring the ice.

  2. Re:I know by fizzer06 · · Score: 2

    It's too hot. Think I'll stay inside under the AC.

  3. 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 Waffle+Iron · · 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.

    2. Re:Testable predictions by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Those are testable predictions.

      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?

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. Re:Testable predictions by quantaman · · 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?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:Testable predictions by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

    7. 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.

    8. Re:Testable predictions by Xenx · · 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.

    9. 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.
    10. Re:Testable predictions by Dutchmaan · · 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.

    11. Re:Testable predictions by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      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

    12. Re:Testable predictions by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      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.

    13. Re:Testable predictions by Maxo-Texas · · 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*.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    14. Re:Testable predictions by Maxo-Texas · · 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).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    15. 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.

    16. Re:Testable predictions by riverat1 · · Score: 4, 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 (It's a big PDF (51 MB) but the chapter on sea level starts on page 359.)

    17. Re:Testable predictions by riverat1 · · Score: 3, 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.

    18. 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

    19. Re:Testable predictions by Baron_Yam · · Score: 3, 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.

    20. Re:Testable predictions by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  4. 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.

  5. Good idea to burn it? by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Good idea to burn it? by Applehu+Akbar · · 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.

  6. George Soros ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    George Soros funded and covered by VICE ? BLAHAHAHAHAHAH

  7. \o/ by easyTree · · Score: 3, Funny

    Skorchio.

    --
    Requiem for the American Dream
  8. Re:Heard this twenty years ago... by Anonymous Coward · · 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."

    ...and it didn't happen.

    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.

  9. Trend of monthly averages in a pic by doug141 · · Score: 4, Informative

    https://www.reddit.com/r/datai...

    1. Re: Trend of monthly averages in a pic by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 2

      Seeing how this is news to you, mercury thermometers became very accurate in the first half of the 1800s. When properly calibrated, which the ones used for measuring weather data were, they were accurate to a single 10th of a degree F and that's about the same as the digital ones used today.

      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.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
  10. 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.

  11. I actually read the article by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:I actually read the article by Xyrus · · Score: 2

      Well, it's Slashdot. What did you expect from an article summary?

      --
      ~X~
  12. Re:I know JACK! by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2
    A btu (british thermal unit) is the same as watt. Actually, it is the same as a joule, but more often people skip that part and instead mean btu/hr.

    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

  13. Re:Heard this twenty years ago... by Thanatiel · · Score: 2

    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.
  14. Re:What's your experience? by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

    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 planning for the future than my memories of weather past.

  15. Re:Heard this twenty years ago... by Muros · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  16. Re:Heard this twenty years ago... by Anonymous Coward · · 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...

  17. Re:Heard this twenty years ago... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    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.
  18. Re:Heard this twenty years ago... by thegarbz · · Score: 4, 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/...

    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.