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