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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday November 1, 2017 @03:30PM 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.

22 of 322 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Testable predictions by Okian+Warrior · 2017-11-01 15:41 · 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 · 2017-11-01 16:23 · 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 Capsaicin · 2017-11-01 16:26 · 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
3. Re:Testable predictions by Tiggywinkle · 2017-11-01 16:36 · 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.
4. Re:Testable predictions by quantaman · 2017-11-01 16:38 · 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
5. Re:Testable predictions by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-01 16:43 · 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!
6. Re:Testable predictions by vux984 · 2017-11-01 17:16 · 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.
7. Re:Testable predictions by PopeRatzo · 2017-11-01 18:17 · 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.
8. Re:Testable predictions by Cassini2 · 2017-11-01 22:46 · 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.
9. Re:Testable predictions by riverat1 · 2017-11-02 00:19 · 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.)
10. Re:Testable predictions by riverat1 · 2017-11-02 00:23 · 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.
11. Re: Testable predictions by riverat1 · 2017-11-02 00:30 · 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
12. Re:Testable predictions by Baron_Yam · 2017-11-02 00:41 · 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.
Re:Heard this twenty years ago... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-01 15:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

To be fair, just because they were wrong before doesn't mean they're wrong again.
\o/ by easyTree · 2017-11-01 15:52 · Score: 3, Funny

Skorchio.

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Re:Heard this twenty years ago... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-01 16:06 · 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.
Re:Good idea to burn it? by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-11-01 16:15 · 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.
Trend of monthly averages in a pic by doug141 · 2017-11-01 16:32 · Score: 4, Informative

https://www.reddit.com/r/datai...
Re:Heard this twenty years ago... by riverat1 · 2017-11-01 18:15 · 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.
I actually read the article by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-01 18:32 · 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.
Re:Heard this twenty years ago... by Muros · 2017-11-02 01:23 · 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.
Re:Heard this twenty years ago... by thegarbz · 2017-11-02 04:17 · 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.