Highest Temperatures Ever in 2021 Led To Catastrophic Weather (nbcnews.com) 122
NBC News analyzed data from 8,892 weather stations with records going back at least 30 years. 691 of them recorded their highest temperature ever in 2021.
And there's more cause for concern: Each January, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA and the European Union Earth observation agency Copernicus publish reports on the previous year's temperature data. Copernicus ranked 2021 as the fifth-hottest year since 1850, while NOAA and NASA ranked it as the sixth-hottest since 1880...
In 2021, as Europe recorded its hottest summer, June's weather anomalies in North America were so significant that the continent recorded its hottest June in 171 years, according to the January Copernicus report. The record-breaking heat was even more notable, scientists say, given that 2021 was a La Niña year, in which climate patterns in the Pacific Ocean produce cooler temperatures across the globe.
An August 2021 United Nations International Panel on Climate Change report concluded that climate change caused by humans "is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe." Friederike Otto [senior lecturer in climate science at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment in London who helped write the report] said that last year's weather events proved 2021 was "a year that made the evidence unavoidable." Scientists say damaging spring frosts — such as the one that destroyed winemakers' crops in France last April — are an example of a weather event that is more likely in a warming world. Denis Lesgourgues, co-owner of ChÃteau Haut Selve, a vineyard in southwest France, lost 60 percent of his crop during last year's spring freeze. Warmer winters have caused grapevine buds to grow earlier in the year, leaving them vulnerable to previously harmless early spring frosts. Lesgourgues said that now if the buds are out when the frosts hit, they die and are unable to grow grapes....
In other parts of the world, the increased heat can become a matter of life or death. In Portland, the June heat wave sent temperatures up to 116 degrees, shattering heat records by as much as 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) and killing hundreds of people in the region.
And there's more cause for concern: Each January, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA and the European Union Earth observation agency Copernicus publish reports on the previous year's temperature data. Copernicus ranked 2021 as the fifth-hottest year since 1850, while NOAA and NASA ranked it as the sixth-hottest since 1880...
In 2021, as Europe recorded its hottest summer, June's weather anomalies in North America were so significant that the continent recorded its hottest June in 171 years, according to the January Copernicus report. The record-breaking heat was even more notable, scientists say, given that 2021 was a La Niña year, in which climate patterns in the Pacific Ocean produce cooler temperatures across the globe.
An August 2021 United Nations International Panel on Climate Change report concluded that climate change caused by humans "is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe." Friederike Otto [senior lecturer in climate science at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment in London who helped write the report] said that last year's weather events proved 2021 was "a year that made the evidence unavoidable." Scientists say damaging spring frosts — such as the one that destroyed winemakers' crops in France last April — are an example of a weather event that is more likely in a warming world. Denis Lesgourgues, co-owner of ChÃteau Haut Selve, a vineyard in southwest France, lost 60 percent of his crop during last year's spring freeze. Warmer winters have caused grapevine buds to grow earlier in the year, leaving them vulnerable to previously harmless early spring frosts. Lesgourgues said that now if the buds are out when the frosts hit, they die and are unable to grow grapes....
In other parts of the world, the increased heat can become a matter of life or death. In Portland, the June heat wave sent temperatures up to 116 degrees, shattering heat records by as much as 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) and killing hundreds of people in the region.
I'll wait (Score:1)
I'm sure NBC's reporters got this factually right, but I think I'll wait for scientists to tell me what the data mean. Yes, global warming would mean more stations post record extremes, but to go the other way you have to make inferences from the data that need to control for confounding factors like urban sprawl.
Urban heat island effect (Score:2)
The researchers do know it exists and I read about a clever way to compensate for it. Use windy days, when the air over the city has just come in from the surroundings.
Re: (Score:3)
need to control for confounding factors like urban sprawl.
So you're admitting humans are contributing to a warming planet. Good to know.
Re: (Score:2)
need to control for confounding factors like urban sprawl.
So you're admitting humans are contributing to a warming planet. Good to know.
Or just warming a specific area. Difficult to say for sure. There are so many factors, but if the existence of the cities themselves is a/the problem, then you're solving it with anything we're currently attempting.
Re: (Score:2)
need to control for confounding factors like urban sprawl.
So you're admitting humans are contributing to a warming planet. Good to know.
Or just warming a specific area. Difficult to say for sure. There are so many factors, but if the existence of the cities themselves is a/the problem, then you're solving it with anything we're currently attempting.
Then perhaps reducing the population might help. Lop off one third of the people on the planet. Large swaths of cities could be demolished and turned into parks close enough for people to walk to instead of having to take the subway, bus, or cab. That would offset some of the heating from the rest of the city while helping to clean the air, not to mention free shade* for people to sit under rather than staying inside and running their a/c. Have you seen [imgur.com] Tokyo [imgur.com]?
* Temperatures in the shade are ten degrees c
Re: (Score:2)
One prominent environmentalist I know put it this way, in a kind of metaphorical equation: E = P*S/T
That is to say environmental impact is proportional to population and standard of living but that can be mitigated by technology. I suppose there ought to be a waste factor "W" too.
If your population grows and everything else remains the same, your environmental impact has to grow. At some point this becomes a constraining factor and standards of living begin to fall. However when new technology allows y
Re: (Score:2)
need to control for confounding factors like urban sprawl.
That's done. Given the wide distribution of stations UHI actually makes little difference, averaged over all stations.
Re: (Score:2)
I unequivocally believe in climate change caused by anthropogenic CO2. But citing weak evidence ginned up by amateurs is a recipe for having to walk that particular claim back later.
We broke the planet, now we gotta pay for it (Score:2)
What was the point of that vacuous FP. Just keeping up with your own vacuous Subject? Do you get some kind of special karma for accumulating FPs? Considering the age of the user ID, I'm back to speculating you're dead and your ancient account has been hacked by an actual troll for its legacy of credibility. (But there's a rude speculation, too...)
Every story on this topic reminds me of a little poem I saw at least 40 years ago. I'm not sure what kind of store it was, but I'm pretty sure it was on a little s
Re: (Score:2)
What was the point of that vacuous FP?
The aim is to distract people from the real issue. The real issue is that wind power provides cheaper and more flexible electricity than most fossil fuels when you build it in large enough quantities spread over a wide enough area. This is a rearguard action by the buggy whip makers trying desperately to stop enough capital getting to wind power because they know their investments will soon be worthless and just want to screw the last few cents out of them whilst they still can.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad concurrence.
Re: (Score:2)
but I think I'll wait for scientists to tell me what the data mean
It's a catastrophe. It's existential. Look up.
Re: I'll wait (Score:1)
In other news, 8,201 weather stations did not record record temperatures at any point in 2021...
Funny how a small fraction (I'd love to see an analysis of why those few hundred weather stations showed something the other 8,201 did not...
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess. You were trying to be funny and it failed?
NBC News analyzed data from 8,892 weather stations with records going back at least 30 years. 691 of them recorded their highest temperature ever in 2021.
Let me rephrase the summary for you. NBC News analyzed data from 8,892 weather stations with records going back at least 30 years. All 8,892 weather stations reported higher than average readings, while 691 of them recorded their highest temperature ever in 2021.
2021 was world’s 6th-warmest year on record [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'll wait (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because there'd be no money in becoming a shill for the oil companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because there'd be no money in becoming a shill for the oil companies.
The global warming is not affected significantly by the oil companies. Yes, they are a factor for pollution, which does contribute to global warming, but the major factor is the stripping of forests. Take away thousands of square miles of forest for agriculture, wood harvesting (without replanting), and and city expansion, and you change the surface of the earth to ward off heating the core. When that core gets warmer, the north and south poles experience melting. So, what are Americans to expect by 2050.
Re: (Score:3)
Under catastrophic levels of global warming, the *globe* is only +4C warmer, and since it is mediated by sunlight greenhouse warming isn't going to affect Siberian winters much *directly*.
Siberia will still have bitterly cold winters. However, increased energy in more temperate latitudes disrupts the jetstream and causes occasional transient intrusions of unseasonably warm air masses from the south into far northern places like Siberia. The cold air they displace won't just disappear, it will be displaced
Re: (Score:2)
Space.com https://www.space.com/17816-ea... [space.com] eventually indicates that the average global temp is 14C, so a 4C rise is actually pretty extreme!!
Re:I'll wait (Score:5, Funny)
That would explain why I see so many climate scientists riding around in Lambos.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
It's not lambos, it's private airplanes.
Re: (Score:2)
I need to become a climate scientist then!
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that people are stupid enough to believe that it's climate researchers who are part of a corrupt cabal and not climate change denialists paid by one of the largest industries in the world
Re: (Score:2)
It's not lambos, it's private airplanes.
We have rovers driving around on other planets now, and have sent probes outside of our solar system.
In Texas, they can't supply enough electricity to their people. This is the difference between Republican science and scientist science. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/u... [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That would explain why I see so many climate scientists riding around in Lambos.
If they could predict things like floods and droughts in advance in a timely way they would indeed be rich. But yeah, no Lambos.
Scientists have been warning everyone . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately, I'm getting close to the end of the game myself. I'm gonna go drive around the block for no good reason now; maybe later I'll pour some gasoline out on the driveway and burn it just for fun. Have fun fixing our mess, kids.
Re:Scientists have been warning everyone . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually believe what people genuinely want to hear is "there's nothing we can do about this." It's not the opportunities that are *past* that irritate them; it's the ones that they still might have to do something about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if giving up luxuries and comforts is what you want to avoid, then climate change has got those ready to serve up too. But again I don't think that's the psychology in play here. I think it's FOMO. People don't want to sacrifice if other people aren't being forced to do it too.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, when I travel to areas that I grew up in, all the forests and fields are now subdivisions. The barely populated coastlines are sectioned off into lakefront property. What was wilderness is just becoming part of the suburbs, and what was suburbs is becoming part of the cities.
Do you really think we'll do anything about this or anything else?
I don'
Re: (Score:1)
We have been told over and over again that we don't have to give up on the comforts and conveniences of modern life by people that talk about how solar power is cheaper than coal, wind power is cheaper than natural gas, and electric cars have a lower TCO than hydrocarbon burners.
Why should I have to adjust my thermostat to lower my CO2 emissions when I'm told that my utility could lower my CO2 emissions by buying cheaper wind and solar power? I'm being told over and over that we solved global warming throu
Re: (Score:2)
> The market will continue to lower the CO2 emissions of the willfully ignorant. I
The market will have nothing to do with that. Physics will. Notice that the physical basis of everything is NOT reflected in the market, starting with the infinity of natural resources and their null cost of their existence.
CO2 emissions have reduced precisely 4 times in the past century . 1940, 1980, 2008, 2021. Look at what happened those years.
> People like buying new stuff, and lowering their CO2 emissions while doin
Re: (Score:2)
The market will have nothing to do with that. Physics will.
Okay, then we agree that something will lower everyone's CO2 emissions, whether they seek to or not.
1940, 1980, 2008, 2021. Look at what happened those years.
You need to help me out, lots of things happened those years. My original guess was "Olympic Games" but then I recalled the 1940 games were cancelled.
more stuff, less emissions usually implies less cost of usage. That implies more stuff bought. Rebound effect.
That implies any attempts to lower CO2 emissions will never have any lasting effect. I'm pretty sure you are missing some very important details on how this "rebound effect" works.
If you're in the top 50% of the world's richest. Reduce your income.
WTF? How does that work? That's advice the world cannot follow because by defi
Re: (Score:2)
> You need to help me out, lots of things happened those years.
1940 - WW2
1980 - oil shocks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
2008 - great recession
2021 - covid and ensuing economic troubles
Common factor: reduction of economic/production activity.
> That implies any attempts to lower CO2 emissions will never have any lasting effect.
No, that implies that any efficiency gained in using (in this case) fossil fuels will be quickly offset by an increase of usage.
Might be a different rebound effect than which
Re: (Score:1)
That implies any attempts to lower CO2 emissions will never have any lasting effect.
No, that implies that any efficiency gained in using (in this case) fossil fuels will be quickly offset by an increase of usage.
How is what you wrote any different than what I wrote? It appears you are making the distinction over fossil fuel usage to make your point but that was not clear earlier. There's many ways to increase efficiency beyond more efficient use of fossil fuels. We can use LEDs instead of heating metal inside a glass globe. We can use heat pumps instead of resistance heating. Most of all more efficient use of fossil fuels could mean replacing coal powered electric generation with nuclear power so that coal can
Re: (Score:3)
> That's just bullshit. All over the world we saw per capita CO2 emissions get lower
Physics doesn't care about per capita.
It also just proves the rebound effect: Per unit of consumption we use less, but all together we use more.
As for your last paragraph, you'll be surprised to hear I pretty much agree with you. And everything you wrote is precisely why I think we're screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
As for your last paragraph, you'll be surprised to hear I pretty much agree with you. And everything you wrote is precisely why I think we're screwed.
If you believe we are "screwed" then you don't agree with me. I don't see how my quite clear optimism on humanity's ability to solve problems leaves open any room for being "screwed".
Re: (Score:2)
I agree on the technical ability (nukes, zero emission electricity) . I'm on the fence on zero emission transportation though.
I don't think that humanity will do it until it is too late given the time constants.
I agree that its a luxury to care about global warming.
I also think that having to care about it is one of the consequences of that luxury.
So yeah, I suppose its a case of I agree on the fundamentals, but not on the projected outcomes.
See you in 50 years to know who was optimist, who was pessimist.
Re:Scientists have been warning everyone . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Since I was a kid back in the 1970's. They warned us that there was a point of no return at around the turn of the century. We passed that mark without noticing it
You might not have noticed it but plenty of us did. We can all see bits of change that can never be reversed. It normally takes 20 to 50 years after an animal goes extinct to declare it so but with species wiped out by climate change this has already begun eve for mammals [nationalgeographic.co.uk]. Plenty of us remember how, in summer we would drive along and insects covered the front of our cars. The insects are now gone [theguardian.com] and many will never come back. The methane has begun coming out of the sea not only in the arctic [wikipedia.org] but also in the Antarctic [theguardian.com]. There are plenty of personal signs that will not ever reverse. In the UK we started getting squid in our waters that were not there before and the fish that used to be there have gone. There are plenty of signs for people willing to open their eyes. The world our children live in will never be as good as the one we live in but "irreversable change" does not yet mean it will be completely impossible to live a good life.
Just because change is already irreversible doesn't mean we can't do plenty to slow further change and improve things. Things can still be made lots and lots worse. California may never again have the great forests it used to have but it doesn't have to turn completely to desert. A key thing is cost reduction. There will be massive costs and problems from flooding and drought. Every penny we invest in wind farms today will repay itself hundreds or thousands of times in our descendants future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
maybe later I'll pour some gasoline out on the driveway and burn it just for fun
Wow. um. If you do, make a youtube video. I want to watch.
Re: (Score:3)
Since I was a kid back in the 1970's. They warned us that there was a point of no return at around the turn of the century. .
You were apparently not around in the 70s, because this isn't what people said in the 70s..
The greenhouse effect was not really a big thing in the 70s-- the big worry at the time was the energy crisis. (And if you'd been around then, you would have known that.)
As for greenhouse effect, it was completely scientifically accepted in the 70s (that was before the oil companies started the campaign to discredit it). And the scientific consensus was that by sometime around the year 2000, it would cause enough warm
Re: (Score:2)
The greenhouse effect was not really a big thing in the 70s-- the big worry at the time was the energy crisis
There was plenty of talk about the greenhouse effect at the time, as well as the energy crisis. You're right about it being scientifically accepted by the 1970s, though.
Nope [Re:Scientists have been warning everyone] (Score:2)
The greenhouse effect was not really a big thing in the 70s-- the big worry at the time was the energy crisis
There was plenty of talk about the greenhouse effect at the time, as well as the energy crisis. You're right about it being scientifically accepted by the 1970s, though.
There was a trivial amount of talk about the greenhouse effect at the time, but it was all "by the end of the century this may be large enough to measure." There was absolutely no "They warned us that there was a point of no return at around the turn of the century."
At the very end of the 1970s was the “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment” report to the National Academy of Sciences (1979). If you want to know what scientists were thinking at the end of the 70s, you can see it t
Re: (Score:2)
The greenhouse effect was not really a big thing in the 70s-- the big worry at the time was the energy crisis
There was plenty of talk about the greenhouse effect at the time, as well as the energy crisis. You're right about it being scientifically accepted by the 1970s, though.
There was a trivial amount of talk about the greenhouse effect at the time,
Maybe it depends on location, as I live in the UK, and the greenhouse effect was definitely mentioned, if not as much as how bad British Leyland was at making cars.
Re: (Score:2)
As for greenhouse effect, it was completely scientifically accepted in the 70s
I remember reading that at the Advanced Institute at Princeton in the 50s, the greenhouse effect was entirely accepted (and probably for decades before that). The debate there was whether the greenhouse effect or the next ice age would be the dominant trend (and all evidence of course now suggests that the greenhouse effect is a much more present effect, with the next ice age being thousands of years away).
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure what you mean by "changed their story." The current effort is to try to limit the damage by holding the warming to 1.5C. There's no suggestion we can avoid it.
Re: (Score:2)
They got it right, there was a point of no return that we passed around 2000. We are just trying to limit the damage to a manageable level now. It's too late to avoid it, as we are now seeing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Scientists have been warning everyone . . . (Score:3)
682 weather stations post one (or more) record temperatures in 2021 while 8,201 do not, and you found a way to weave politics into the story... amazing. Perhaps politicizing scientific subjects is a bad idea?
Re: (Score:2)
Put simply; if we'd taken serious action in the 1970s and 1980s we might have preserved a climate which was changing with geologic slowness. Having passed a certain point a decade or two ago, the current trend can no longer be halted. Even if humanity ceased all polluting activities right now, the c
Re: (Score:2)
Nope - I was a kid in the 70s too and my memory seems to be better than yours. Back then, David Suzuki and others warned us against Global Cooling.
Almost no one was warning about imminent global cooling. The idea that it was a big concern is a well debunked myth, but still keeps cropping up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, at that time many scientists were modelling a snowball earth.
No, they weren't. They were modelling a return to a glacial maximum, which is very different from a snowball earth scenario. They were doing so because various things (ice cores, Caribbean coral records, etc.) that became available in the 1960s and were analysed into the 1970s had verified Milankovitch cycles. It meant that we were due a glacial period in about 8000 years' time. That is what they are modelling, and it's still largely valid, although there's been some additional debate in the last 15 years.
Finally, I can stop arguing (Score:2)
When global warming arguments come up (here, say), I can now just sit back and be the smug, aggravating one - what a flip. I say, "the argument is over, we've won", and if challenged with a lot of science-talk, I get to wave my hand dismissively and smirk that the "argument is over" because the general public are now convinced, thoroughly. If they've been convinced by Bad Science, in your long-winded opinion, it doesn't matter. They're still convinced. Your science wouldn't matter if it were correct,
I, too, can stop arguing. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you didn't read my post. I skipped over the quoted part of yours, because now I get to. Because it's over.
Re: (Score:2)
It would help if the pronouncers of doom waited for summer in the same hemisphere as the pronouncement. They have terrible timing
This was in the news a couple days ago, and my electric bill was affected as stated.
https://www.ifiberone.com/colu... [ifiberone.com]
Now last summer was warm. I had the heat pump set to cool for part of 32 days whic was more than usual. The heat pump was been set to heat since the start of October and will remain that way until late April. The current temperature setting is 65 F, so it's not like
Re: (Score:1)
It would help if the pronouncers of doom waited for summer in the same hemisphere as the pronouncement. They have terrible timing
I'm pretty sure summer 2021 has happened in both hemispheres by now.
This is newsworthy because??? (Score:1)
So they took a sample of almost 9000 weather stations and less than 8% of them "recorded their highest temperature ever in 2021."
Yep, the earth is going to incinerate itself into a raisin any day now. Time to buy one of those defunct missile silos and move underground to prepare for the inevitable.
China (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. MOM! It's not fair! Why do I gotta when he don't? Wah!
Re: China (Score:2)
No matter how you choose to look at it, one simple fact remains - China plans to keep burning coal into the foreseeable future. To the best of my knowledge, China has NEVER agreed to any climate agreement which forces them to even stabilize the burning of coal, let alone reduce their burning of coal in the next 25 years. Every climate agreement gives China, India, and probably African nations the ability to increase their coal burning for the next couple decades.
Why is that?
Re: (Score:2)
Because in practice this "what about China and India" shit essentially means "I don't want to compromise my lifestyle but you can't raise your standard of living". If you try to push that, they're going to turn around and say, "well fuck you, too".
The "advanced" countries have all got to where we are with over a century of incredibly wasteful practices that have pumped the atmosphere full of more carbon dioxide than it can handle. Per capita emissions are still higher than China, India, etc. despite expor
If it's Saturday (Score:2, Insightful)
It must be time for another climate Armageddon post. Gotta pay dem dues! Dance with the one who brung ya. Etc.
Not according to Joe Rogan it doesn't (Score:2)
Never mind that he platformed 2 climate change denying grifters without anyone at all to counterbalance. If he's not going to push back on nonsense he should have somebody sitting there who will. You're allowed to have more than one person on at the
Re: (Score:2)
go watch his interview with Jordan Peterson. Didn't push back once.
I'd rather not. That sounds like the most miserable three hours of my year so far.
Re: Not according to Joe Rogan it doesn't (Score:2)
Never mind that he platformed 2 climate change denying grifters without anyone at all to counterbalance
It's a podcast, not a news show - he smokes pot while recording it and you're upset he's presenting both sides of an argument in a fair and balanced format? Last I checked the mainstream media decided opposing opinions didn't deserve to be aired, they were too dangerous (anti-vax, anti-climate change,etc), so they don't offer them a voice, Rogan does.
Re: (Score:2)
Not according to Joe Rogan it doesn't go watch his interview with Jordan Peterson.
I have no strong desire to listen to a wanker interviewing a dickhead, so I'm going to take your word for it and I do commend you on taking one for the team so I don't have to.
Does the esteemed Professor have any more bizarre opinions on decapods?
Seriously though I am impressed at your dedication, I just don't have the patience to listen to either of them.
Life will adapt. (Score:2)
It's only disruption. All life dies facilitating adaptation to change.
Cities can be replaced differently (they're gradually replaced anyway), agriculture can move, people can stop living where they should not want to live then live where they should, and they can stop making excess numbers of new people.
Got floods? Move out of flood plains.
Got fire? Build homes that cannot burn and remove all nearby fuel no matter your esthetic therefore trifling attachment to same.
Many will choose unwisely but either way d
At some point, a sustained 120+ heat wave (Score:3, Interesting)
At that point, people might start to take climate change seriously. Meh. Who am I kidding. Half the population will blame Obame or George Soros.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering if a DIY emergency CPU fan strapped on the forehead or neck with a battery pack would keep someone alive long enough to get out of the area. Would probably need an LED so they could move around at night
I've had to survive a deadly fever without electricity or water before. Kept dunking my head in a bucket of water saved from the last time the water ran. Then when less delirious I simply used a rag and sat in front of a fan (after the power came back on).
What sort of emergency items could exten
Re: (Score:3)
Wet vs. dry heat matters a lot. Look up wet-bulb and dry-bulb temperature. Bottom line - past a c
Re: (Score:2)
A deep hole may save you, if it's deep enough that the temp is under 120F, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Wet bulb temperature is an important concept, and its rising values are very concerning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Basically, if we ignore evaporative cooling from sweat or from dunking your head in a bucket of water, then the 120 degree air temperature will kill you eventually, since our body is designed for a core temperature of about 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and is under significant stress when exceeding 100 degrees. A fan would only make things worse, since it increases the rate at which your bod
Re: (Score:2)
That reminds me of Romans cooking off in the catacombs during the summer heat. Maybe some cities in India could build down more often.
Re: (Score:2)
Cooling off. Cooling off. But an underground catacomb cook off in Ancient Rome would be neat too.
Re: At some point, a sustained 120+ heat wave (Score:2)
Because everyone is on the power grid, and wil always rely on the power grid, and will have no options other than to sit still and wait for the heat to kill them.
Don't be an ass.
As the temps rise society will adapt. This story says over the course of 365 days, 8% of weather stations recorded record temperatures inn2021 - 8,201 did not. Why did increases in global temperatures only effect 8% of the weather stations? Why didn't the other 8,201 ever indicate a single record-high temperature once during 2021?
92
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You would care if you lived in one of those areas recording record highs.
Why would, or should, anyone care if they lived in these areas? We see records broken all the time, high and low, just because we didn't get reliable weather recording until fairly recently. With "recent" being on the scale of climate change.
We have somewhere around 150 years of scientific and precise temperature data. People that study this stuff will tell us that we will see temperature records broken quite often until we have a statistically significant number of years in records. The daily record hi
Reality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
listening to scientists and having a sane plan,
There is no sane plan available to us at the moment.
Interestingly, this is similar to the problem with "Don't Look Up." Shooting a nuclear missile at a meteor won't do much to divert it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no sane plan available to us at the moment.
Of course there is a sane plan available on lowering CO2 emissions. I see them on Slashdot all the time.
There are two camps on what makes a sane plan but both agree that a sane plan exists. In one camp we have the people that will claim we can power the world with renewable energy. Some will even so so far as to claim power from wind and sun is already lower cost than power from fossil fuels, which is telling us that we solved the global warming problem. In what appears to be a minority portion of this
Re: (Score:2)
"Renewable only" isn't practical. Nuclear isn't politically practical.
That is, again, assuming we didn't already solve the problem as so many are claiming right now.
You think it's already solved?
Re: (Score:2)
"Renewable only" isn't practical.
I agree.
Nuclear isn't politically practical.
I've seen a number of public opinion polls that tell me nuclear power is politically practical. If you want to make the case that, as one AC like to comment repeatedly, "nobody wants nukes" then post some links to recent public opinion polls. I know that a number of polls were made in the last year, and even more that are a bit older since that was "election season" for a close race for POTUS.
You think it's already solved?
Why would I not when every time wind or solar power gets a mention on Slashdot there's a large number of c
Re: (Score:3)
Do you want to argue that renewable energy costs more than fossil fuels?
No thanks, I'd rather just scare your kids over it.
South and East of Europe maybe (Score:2)
Average temperatures were around season averages, however not a single day over 30C, which hadn't happened in 30 years.
So, really a rainy and cool summer here.
But yes, it's not looking good overall.
Strange (Score:2)
Last two summer was surprisingly short in central europe. Winters were short and mild too, barely below freezing point. No idea where the data comes from. Maybe the average with the northern regions is high.
The Limits To Growth (Score:1)
In the Spring of 1972 I was completing my EE/CS studies at MIT and took an elective course called The Limits To Growth (course 15.nnn) taught by Profs. Donella and Dennis Meadows et al. I still have their book (ISBN 0-87663-165-0, 1972) and may have my class notes hidden somewhere in my "archives". It's a very complex subject and I can't adequately summarize their book here. Let me just say that they modelled a diversity of scenarios, including some technology advances, and in all cases the continuing expo
I remember... (Score:2)
How we all watched in silent amazement when the first weather satellites went up in 1850 - if you're too young to remember, go to YouTube and search "first noaa satelitte launch 1859".
Copernicus ranked 2021 as the fifth-hottest year since 1850, while NOAA and NASA ranked it as the sixth-hottest since 1880...
2021 was New Zealand's hottest year on record (Score:2)
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/... [nzherald.co.nz]
Bad Data (Score:1, Insightful)
NBC: world's greatest scientists (Score:3)
Totally useless data. How often does this already happen? How many are in urban heat bubbles? How far into the past were records kept?
NBC has a narrative they are pushing. That is all you need to know. Even so-called "scientists" almost all have a narrative they are pushing in this area, so call me in 50 years and we'll see what has really happened.
30 years is nothing (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe a cartoon form of information will help you finally realise that humans have never experienced global conditions this warm, and to our knowledge the temperature has never changed this quickly.
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Who am I kidding. You have to actively avoid learning about this stuff to still spout bullshit like you did.
691/8892? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Higher peak temps get way too much attention. I believe focusing on peak temps leads to deniers saying it's not that much hotter than previous years, from their subjective perspective.
The "deniers" are quite correct to dismiss reports of record high temps because when there are record low temps we hear the global warming alarmist banshees scream about how weather is not climate.
Instead I'd focus on the very tangible problems of climate change, water. Specifically how higher minimum temps is reducing snow fall and rain. And how higher average temps causes more evaporation of steams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs than a few hot days in a year.
The problems with water is not lessened precipitation or greater evaporation. The problem is poor water management by governments on the local, state, and federal level. We are seeing more people in the USA and they need to eat, cook, and bathe. This means they use more water. So, we should be seeing governmen