Slashdot Mirror


Summer Weather Is Getting 'Stuck' Due To Arctic Warming (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Summer weather patterns are increasingly likely to stall in Europe, North America and parts of Asia, according to a new climate study that explains why Arctic warming is making heatwaves elsewhere more persistent and dangerous. Rising temperatures in the Arctic have slowed the circulation of the jet stream and other giant planetary winds, says the paper, which means high and low pressure fronts are getting stuck and weather is less able to moderate itself. The authors of the research, published in Nature Communications on Monday, warn this could lead to "very extreme extremes," which occur when abnormally high temperatures linger for an unusually prolonged period, turning sunny days into heat waves, tinder-dry conditions into wildfires, and rains into floods.

One cause is a weakening of the temperature gradient between the Arctic and Equator as a result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The far north of the Earth is warming two to four times faster than the global average, says the paper, which means there is a declining temperature gap with the central belt of the planet. As this ramp flattens, winds struggle to build up sufficient energy and speed to push around pressure systems in the area between them. As a result, there is less relief in the form of mild and wet air from the sea when temperatures accumulate on land, and less relief from the land when storms build up in the ocean.

31 of 387 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I live in Norway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You really sure you wanna ring that bell? Because when Norway is 30C all year round, that means that a good portion of the planet is going to be uninhabitable. So there will be billions of people, many of them with guns, who will come for their piece of Norway. And you can't stop them all, especially if the famous winter slog that caused the Russians so much trouble before isn't there any more. Some people think Scandanavia has african migrant problems now, if what you wish for comes to pass there'll be several hundred million migrants coming your way...

  2. Summer? What Summer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I live in South Carolina. We did not have a Summer this year.

  3. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by KenAndCorey · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I was just looking over all your assertions, and they are almost 100% wrong. "They" are most of the world's scientists, not some shady organization backed by Al Gore. https://climate.nasa.gov/ https://europeanclimate.org/

  4. Trivial solution by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    Have all nations drop their emissions together. We need to get to the levels of Denmark and Finland . They have some of the lowest, and correct levels. The question is how to measure, which really needs to be sats. Only a few nations are well measured, and we have nations like china with a communist gov, that prohibits it. So, sats will at least be precise. And then normalisation should be emission /$GDP( real ). That will cause all give and businesses to drop emissions.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Trivial solution by blindseer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have all nations drop their emissions together.

      I agree, but that's not a "how". That's not an engineering plan.

      We need to get to the levels of Denmark and Finland .

      Okay, let's look at how Finland does it.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      They get 25% of their electricity from nuclear, 20% from hydro, and... 22% imported? That doesn't sound like a plan. That's just exporting your emissions.

      Let's look at Denmark.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      They get 75% from natural gas, and 25% from wind. Not a bad plan in my opinion. Though I would like to see them adopt some nuclear power like Finland. Natural gas produces about half the CO2 output of coal, and wind a tiny fraction of the CO2 output of natural gas.

      To get an engineering plan start with the CO2 output of the different energy sources.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      The best three on that list is hydro, nuclear, and wind.

      Let's look at the energy sources with the best energy return on investment.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      If we toss out the carbon heavy sources we again get the same top three, hydro, nuclear, and wind.

      Let's look at the safest energy sources.
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
      Wow, look at that, the same three come out on top, hydro, nuclear, and wind.

      Cheapest energy?
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Well, the pattern is broken, geothermal comes out on top. What's the next three, again tossing out the carbon heavy sources? Hydro, nuclear, and wind.

      I believe we have a start on an engineering plan for lowering the worlds emissions. Let's start with hydro, nuclear, and wind. If you want to sprinkle in some geothermal and solar then that's fine by me. Just so long as we start with hydro, nuclear, and wind. You know, like Denmark and Finland did.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Trivial solution by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      Actually, it is trivial to cheat when you do not measure emissions (for most nations, it is calculated) and govs lie about consumption, populations, etc.
      However, what they can NOT lie or manipulate easily is real GDP. And while China is by far the largest cheaters, they are not the only ones. That is why we need to get EVERYBODY on-board. Otherwise, it is not fair.

      Basically, this is the same problem that we have with corporate taxes. All these gov are playing as many games as they possibly can.
      America pulled out of Kyoto and Paris. In spite of that, America dropped nearly the amount that we were required for Kyoto. And chances are high that we will continue dropping for next 10 years. But many nations will not.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Trivial solution by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your reading and other comprehension skills baffle me ...
      You show us a link about Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      And then you claim, they generate their electricity They get 75% from natural gas, and 25% from wind.
      Could you have the dignity to READ your links? And comprehend them?
      Denmark produced 2014 47% of its energy by wind, solar and hydro. 7% not 75%, by gas.

      There is a nice table at 25% of the page, just scroll there.

      I don't bother to debunk your other links ... no idea what your secret agenda is. So far everything you posted about nuclear energy, solar and anything related to power was basically wrong.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Trivial solution by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Nice to see somebody sincere and not just a troll here.

      Thanks.

      Ok, I think that you looked at this all wrong. You simply looked at our electricity and nothing else. Instead, lets look at where CO2 comes from. Electricity USED to be our main source. Now, it and Transportation are tied.

      Well, if electric cars are the future, which seems to be a popular claim, then this will be a self correcting problem if we fix the CO2 from electricity. No?

      So, IOW, Transportation will take care of itself, assuming Tesla does not die.

      Seems you agree with me. I'm not so sure Tesla will be the solution, they are still a luxury car maker. We'll need to see electric cars on every price level. Out here in snowy suburbia we'll need light trucks, SUVs, or whatever else that handles snow well. Not everyone can wait for the snow plows, and some of use need to carry tools and gear to work regularly.

      You went through pointing out to the top 3, but ignored the other low ones. In addition, you made it solely about emissions, which I think is a HORRIBLE mistake.

      I did not make it solely about emissions. I did exclude the worst offenders on every step, only because the primary goal is reducing CO2. The reason I stopped at the top three is because that seemed like a nice dividing line taking into the other factors like cost, safety, energy return, and of course CO2 emitted.

      Also, if I include more than three then people will just focus on their "favorite" and ignore the rest. We need to first focus on where we get the most gain for the lowest costs, then once those are going then we can all pick a "favorite" and see how it stacks up.

      As such, we need at least a good chunk of our power to come from on-demand systems. IOW, Perry is correct when he speaks of needing these kinds of systems.
      As such, 2/3 of it should be from on-demand systems.
      That means that 1/3 could come from wind/solar, but the other 2/3 really needs to come from hydro, nukes, geo-thermal, since these are all on-demand.
      Geo-thermal is CHEAP to add, and we can add a lot of it.

      Yes, hydro and nuclear are on-demand power. Geothermal is just not that great on EROEI. I haven't seen any metrics on safety either. I could probably be convinced on geothermal. I had to draw a line somewhere and I found that on most every metric there is a consistent top three, beyond that geothermal gets mixed up with solar, ethanol, and maybe one or two more. Choosing a top five gets hard, and also dilutes the focus on far better solutions, like hydro, nuclear, and wind.

      Hydro is not as cheap, but more importantly, it is limited.

      Hydro is limited. Hydro is very nice as it has such a low CO2 footprint, is safe, and therefore should be used as much as we can. It's a nice storage medium, even without pumped hydro, as it can ramp up and down quickly and it has an inherent storage capability with the water kept behind the dam. It mates well with the intermittent nature of wind, and the slow ramp capability of nuclear (at least third generation nuclear, fourth generation might not have this problem). I included it on my list as it cannot be ignored as part of the solution.

      SHould have a mix of wind/solar as well as nuke or geo-thermal if possible.

      Solar is near worthless. I'll go along with wind, and maybe geothermal, but solar needs to stay in the realm of orbiting satellites and pocket calculators. We have better options than solar and so solar should be left as a last resort.

      I would like to suggest that we also need to lower our energy use.

      After nearly 50 years since the oil crisis of the 1970s there's been a push for ever increasing efficiency. I just don't believe that there is much left to gain on this. Lowering it any more will start to impact quality of lif

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    5. Re:Trivial solution by bazorg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Solar is not a solution, it can be part of the solution but it is not a solution on it's own. Hydro, nuclear, and wind are solutions. The main part is that hydro, nuclear, and wind must ALL be included in the solution. Without all three the solution falls apart.

      Oh, and natural gas. It's going to be difficult to go all hydro, nuclear, and wind at once. Until that happens we should use lots of natural gas to get off of coal and oil.

      hi

      from all that what stands out for me is the criticism of solar electricity generation.
      Some of the stats you have there for ROI are US-based, while the "ideal" mix is based on experience from countries in the north of Europe. I think we probably will have different optimal solutions and varying ROI depending on the place. Logistics, availability of capital, sun hours per day and quality of the distribution grid will be important factors, and the availability of historical data for alternative energy is also skewed by early adoption in wealthier countries.

      In short: I wouldn't dismiss photovoltaic just because hydro/nuclear/wind have better historical better performance.

      Once different countries get serious about phasing out fossil fuel, some will have local advantages in using solar vs wind, or will not have the capital for nuclear, or will prefer not to convert to gas altogether. YMMV.

      (PS: I like solar)

    6. Re:Trivial solution by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe you can lead the way. Switch off your computer and never turn it on again

      You can't solve the Tragedy of the Commons by personal actions.

  5. Re:And..? by hey! · · Score: 2, Informative

    Which means they have data to back it up. They may be wrong, of course, in which case their assertions will be disproved -- which is the thing that distinguishes the scientific consensus from religious opinion.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Re:CCAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The advisory committee was scheduled to come to an end. Each person had a five-digit salary and they only met a few times for meetings lasting a few hours during Obama's second term. Their funding was not explicitly renewed.

    Nothing of value was lost and Trump did not "disband" the committee. Trump was not involved at all.

    We have talked about this at length on slashdot more than once. Leave it.

    *as an aside, like many sated the last time this was discussed, I would looove to have a job paying me 30k to show up for an afternoon meeting once every six months, have no responsibilities and no expectations. Fantastic!

  7. Re: Hadley cells will move next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's always been a money grab - but when half of the top ten companies get their $1.4 trillion a year from oil and gas, it's pretty obvious where the climate money trail really leads.

  8. Re:Canadians die too easily by rmdingler · · Score: 2

    Won't do any good. It got 98F in Ontario this month and the pussies started dropping like flies. As in died. 98 is a LOW temp where I live. Come back when you enjoy a nice 121F in the shade, weaklings.

    The weaklings can't handle our weather is a common misconception, whether it's being told in January in the Upper Peninsula or in July in El Paso.

    Human bodies have a remarkable ability to acclimate to the weather where they find themselves. If it seems odd to folks living in West Texas that folks perish in northern cities during heat waves of 98F/37C, try to remember that shoveling the Newport, Vt snow in freezing winter conditions would doom many fresh off the plane from Southern Florida.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  9. Re:I live in Norway. by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is it won't be 30C year round. It'll be 40C in the summer and -20C in the winter and the variations will be erratic and unpredictable. Summer will start in January one year and July the next, it'll rain all year long one year and then won't rain again for two more. The worst kind of situation imaginable for food production.

  10. Re: Hadley cells will move next by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful
    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  11. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by youngone · · Score: 2

    ...in the image of God.

    Yes, but which one? man has created thousands of gods over the span of history.

  12. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    I've opted for the 'no children' route, personally. What have you done?

    Like many on Slashdot, I've also opted for the "no children" route. Then again, you need a female partner for that so it's not like we opted into anything to begin with.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  13. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Man is special -- made in the image of God.

    Judging from most of the people I've met so far in my life, I have to deduce that God is an asshole.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  14. More Windy lies, don't you ever get sick? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 4, Informative

    In addition, china is by far the largest in terms of total emissions across all time frames

    Yet another obvious Windy lie. Don't you ever get sick of lying all the time? literally on the first page of Google.

  15. Re:Beneficiaries of Longer Summers by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 2

    "Just as there are losers there are also winners and the longer summers are very beneficial in the northern areas. We're getting longer growing seasons. Our winters are more temperate although still deep snows. The news is good."

    And here i was, with all the doors and windows sealed, trying to not to be asphyxiated by half the continent being on fire, when I should have been thinking, "Hey, my strawberries did do better than ever this year!"

    --
    -
  16. Re:It's not that they think SCIENCE is fake by DamnOregonian · · Score: 4, Informative

    Volcanos would like to have a word with you outside sir....

    Horse shit, they would.
    Volcanoes eject about 200 million tons of CO2 from the crust annually, human fossil emissions are about 24 billion. They're not even the same fucking sport. Quit lying.

    Last word? If your argument relies on your being full of shit to make sense, that makes you a fuckwit.

  17. Re:Why putin or trump? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Alright, 2.2 Chinese are responsible for the CO2 of each America. My numbers were from 2009, but that doesn't change the point in the slightest.

    while America comes down.

    So? What the hell is the point of that? We can criticize when we pass them.
    Until then you're bitching about someone using less than half the amount of CO2 per person than we are.

    The population size does not matter.

    It absolutely fucking matters. We are all in this together, and China puts out a relatively small amount of CO2 for the amount of people they have. We are the offender, not them. Now could that change some day? Sure. But I'm not going to point fingers at them as long as we're the person driving a Suburban, bitching about the Honda drivers wasting gas because there's so fucking many of them.

    China has emitted the MOST as a nation since the time of christ, 1850, 1950, last 10 years, etc. They continue to grow their emissions.

    So? What the fuck is your point here? Your argument is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard.
    You're literally making the argument that we should draw arbitrary lines around groups of emissions and judge them on the whole instead of the content. You are terminally stupid, dude.

    Only an idiot would sit in this shit and continue to let it happen.

    Only a complete fucking moron would sit there from his castle and complain about the masses of poor people below him hoarding money.

  18. Re:Why putin or trump? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

    China has emitted the MOST as a nation since the time of christ, 1850, 1950, last 10 years, etc.
    That is wrong.

    America is the all time leader, probably 100 times as much as the rest of the world together, moron.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  19. More Windy lies. by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 3, Informative
    I already showed you you were lying about that here.

    In addition, china is by far the largest in terms of total emissions across all time frames

    Yet another obvious Windy lie. Don't you ever get sick of lying all the time? literally on the first page of Google.

    Why bother continuing the lie further? Are you really that stupid?

  20. Re:Entitled much? by blindseer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interesting graph, especially the slopes on those lines. China's CO2 output has been climbing, quite rapidly too. For USA it's been pretty steady, even dropping slightly. The CO2 output per capita in the USA is the same now as it was in the 1960s, and down about 20% from the 1970s. Shouldn't we get a little credit for that?

    I'd like to see the CO2 output go down in the USA. Judging from what I've picked up over the years there will not be a significant drop until we build more nuclear power. We've damned up all the rivers worth a dam for hydro, so we can't grow much there. Windmills are popping up like dandelions, that's good. What we need now to balance this out and really put a knife in the heart of coal, the biggest CO2 emitter of them all, is more nuclear power.

    I've read some encouraging news recently. Seems like the powers that be are now taking nuclear power seriously. I suspect a lot of nuclear power plants breaking ground in the next five or ten years. Unfortunately most of that is just to make up for the nuclear power we'd be shutting down. We'll see growth in nuclear power yet, then we can see the CO2 per capita drop.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  21. Stop with the lies Windy. by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 3, Informative
    Stop with the lies Windy.
    Three times now you have claimed this with nothing to back it up. where this shows clearly America was far far worse going back to 1900.

    Data from 1900-2004 supports such an argument, when you keep in mind the size of countries' populations. The US has the biggest historical share (314,772m metric tonnes of carbon dioxide), while European countries such as Germany (73,625) and the UK (55,163) cast a shadow over developing nations such as India (25,054), Brazil (9,136) and Indonesia (6,167). China is on 89,243.

    And that isn't even considering America is a quarter the size of China.

  22. Re: And..? by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The composition of the atmosphere has been changed a fraction of a tenth of a percent.

    Imagine we separate the atmosphere in different layers of pure gases. The pre-industrial amount of CO2 would then be equivalent to about 3 feet thick layer of pure CO2. The current layer of CO2 would be about 4 feet.

    The fact that this layer of CO2 is very thin compared to the much bigger amounts of nitrogen and oxygen is irrelevant. Nitrogen and oxygen don't block IR.

  23. Re:Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    In other words, fuck the planet if I can't have my SUV, I'm not going to drive a smaller car just 'cause it might let my kids live!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. Re: Thank you for the DOOOOOM announcement! by turp182 · · Score: 2

    Here's a great Nat Geo article about the Netherlands and the future (for everyone else) of farming.

    https://www.nationalgeographic...

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  25. Re:LMAO, more fake man made global warming news by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

    Yes, but which one? man has created thousands of gods over the span of history.

    I bet you can't even name 200.

    Challenge accepted.

    Continued from previous post. Slashdot's filter is racist.

    So racist it's blocking even an additional list of ten names. So have a fucking Wikipedia link instead. There's more than 200 in the Hindu pantheon alone, nevermind the ancient Egyptian pantheon, Norse pantheon, Roman and Greek pantheons, Mayan pantheon, not to mention the DC and Marvel pantheons.

    The list of 200 would have had more impact... Fucking filters. My karma is Excellent, assholes. I should be exempt.