Pacific Northwest Bakes Under Once-In-a-Millennium Heat Dome (cbsnews.com) 154
As covered earlier today, the Pacific Northwest is experiencing the most severe heat wave in its history, with all-time record temperatures being set in Portland, Seattle, and Lytton, B.C, which just broke the record for hottest temperature ever recorded in Canada at 116 degrees. CBS News says this heat wave "is of an intensity never recorded by modern humans," and by one measure it's "more rare than a once in a 1,000 year event." Meteorologist Jeff Berardelli explains what's causing this "heat dome" and why events like this "are bound to become more common, more extreme and more deadly in the coming years": The heat is being caused by a combination of a significant atmospheric blocking pattern on top of a human-caused climate changed world where baseline temperatures are already a couple to a few degrees higher than nature intended. [...] In the case of this specific heat dome, which is a mountain of hot air stacked vertically through the atmosphere, it is a once in a 1,000 or even 10,000-year event for this particular area. How do we know? It's actually quite simple to explain. The intensity of a heat dome is measured by how "thick" the atmosphere is at a given spot. The hotter the air in that column, the larger the thickness of air in that column, because heat expands. In our historical record of North America's Pacific Northwest this heat dome registers a statistical standard deviation from the average of greater than 4. In layman terms, that means it falls more than 4 deviations to the right of the center of a typical bell curve (shown below) and that equates to values with less than a 99.99% chance of happening. In other words, statistically speaking, there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of experiencing this value. So, if you could possibly live in that spot for 10,000 years, you'd likely only experience that kind of heat dome once, if ever. It is worth noting that our historical record is limited and statistics like this are very sensitive to small changes. But if it seems like an overstatement to say there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of having a heat dome like this, it is certainly not an overstatement to say this is the kind of event you would expect to experience once in 1000 years.
So what is causing this heat wave? Like any heat wave, it is being caused by a highly amplified jet stream pattern. These extreme jet stream perturbations are a natural, normal part of the atmosphere. But the climate science community is split as to whether these extreme jet stream perturbations are becoming even more likely because of climate change -- a phenomena known as the wavy jet stream. Along with a more wavy, buckling and slow-moving jet stream, comes a phenomena called "blocking". This is when waves in the jet stream become so elongated that they break off, sit and spin. In this case there is a textbook type of block called an Omega block over the Pacific Northwest because it looks like the Greek letter Omega. Inside this Omega, the heat pools and intensifies. There is a faction of climate scientists who believe that a warming climate -- specifically the Arctic -- results in a more wandering jet stream at certain times of the year. But it is hotly debated; there is an equal amount of research that does not arrive at this conclusion.
Mann and his colleagues have been involved in some of this research, in which he finds that a specific type of Northern Hemisphere blocking -- what he calls Quasi Resonant Amplification -- will increase by 50% this century under business as usual human-forced climate warming. "I do indeed believe that the phenomenon we describe in our work played a very important role in the record heat wave," Mann said. As for the lack of consensus in the climate research on the wavy jet stream and blocking, Mann thinks it has more to do with the current state of climate modeling "This is an area where current generation models are NOT capturing a real-world climate connection," Mann explained. Whatever the cause, the result of an extreme jet stream pattern is extreme weather across many parts of the nation and globe. Over the past few days, the central U.S. has seen over a foot of rain with flash flooding along a stalled front. And, starting on Sunday and continuing through most of the upcoming week, the major East Coast cities will also sweat through a heat wave -- although not nearly as intense as the one in the West -- with feels-like temperatures near 100 degrees from Washington D.C. to Philadelphia and New York City.
So what is causing this heat wave? Like any heat wave, it is being caused by a highly amplified jet stream pattern. These extreme jet stream perturbations are a natural, normal part of the atmosphere. But the climate science community is split as to whether these extreme jet stream perturbations are becoming even more likely because of climate change -- a phenomena known as the wavy jet stream. Along with a more wavy, buckling and slow-moving jet stream, comes a phenomena called "blocking". This is when waves in the jet stream become so elongated that they break off, sit and spin. In this case there is a textbook type of block called an Omega block over the Pacific Northwest because it looks like the Greek letter Omega. Inside this Omega, the heat pools and intensifies. There is a faction of climate scientists who believe that a warming climate -- specifically the Arctic -- results in a more wandering jet stream at certain times of the year. But it is hotly debated; there is an equal amount of research that does not arrive at this conclusion.
Mann and his colleagues have been involved in some of this research, in which he finds that a specific type of Northern Hemisphere blocking -- what he calls Quasi Resonant Amplification -- will increase by 50% this century under business as usual human-forced climate warming. "I do indeed believe that the phenomenon we describe in our work played a very important role in the record heat wave," Mann said. As for the lack of consensus in the climate research on the wavy jet stream and blocking, Mann thinks it has more to do with the current state of climate modeling "This is an area where current generation models are NOT capturing a real-world climate connection," Mann explained. Whatever the cause, the result of an extreme jet stream pattern is extreme weather across many parts of the nation and globe. Over the past few days, the central U.S. has seen over a foot of rain with flash flooding along a stalled front. And, starting on Sunday and continuing through most of the upcoming week, the major East Coast cities will also sweat through a heat wave -- although not nearly as intense as the one in the West -- with feels-like temperatures near 100 degrees from Washington D.C. to Philadelphia and New York City.
Meanwhile (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Lucky you. I'm broiling at 105 degrees right now (around 85 in my house). Most of our homes are not equipped with AC (or at least, not with powerful central AC), because we typically don't need it. I've only got a couple of portable window units taking the edge off, and there's no way they can keep up with this ridiculous weather. Now we've got that blast of heat slapping you in the face when you step outside that those in SoCal or other southern states are well familiar with.
Fortunately, it's expected
Re: (Score:2)
For some days, having closed and blinded windows does help. Intuitive attempt to have windows open or air circulating inwards other ways is wrong choice. This can be used only during brief hours of the night decrease, in extent at all happening. Also, I am helped a lot with adjacent overgrown garden and greenery on external wall surface. These shadows are savers in summer extremes.
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea, except that you may regret breathing this thing in, especially when blocking ventilation in that while, because of external heat. Blinds would be of comparable functionality.
Re: (Score:2)
bounce the sunshine right back outdoors before it turns into heat inside your home
It was said in the context of being inside. As for external mounting/dismantling, I see clear benefits of having and using blinds home furnishing over mounting works for each heat period.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not both? Use insulation in reasonably wide strips as vertical blinds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great illustration on how very simple things make significant difference. Our intuition should trigger more often solutions, that would be less consumant, more intuitive and genuinely inventive, while being utterly simple. My European heart so often leans to these qualities in the lifestyle of Italian and French. Yet so often it has to admin having been put into the dumb consumption corner. Cheers, TX.
Re: (Score:2)
If you live in an apartment, you can't do that (heck, I couldn't even put aluminum foil on the inside of the window back when I rented.)
I'm not sure what the HOAs would say to reflecting light away from your house (and possibly to your neighbor's house.) They have lots of odd rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the problem is that builders in the PNW don't install sufficient venting in the attic, mostly because venting costs money and isn't attractive. Before the next heat wave get the largest gable vents you can buy, hack a hole in every gable end in your roof and install them, and then caulk the edges to keep the damn yellow jackets out. We did that during a heat wavethe first year we lived in our house here and it lowered the interior temperature by almost 10 degrees from one day to the next. Suffici
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for switching temperature units in the middle of this story.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, our friend from across the ocean is using the most widely used temperature scale in the world, it is us that are the weirdos here.
Re: (Score:2)
Once a millennium? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not disputing the likely link to climate change -- but do we have enough data from > 130 years ago to conclude that this happens only once every 1000 years?
The standard deviations calculated are essentially for data that only records temperatures for the past 130 years, since Americans settled Oregon.
Re:Once a millennium? (Score:5, Informative)
but do we have enough data from > 130 years ago to conclude that this happens only once every 1000 years?
Yes - Via proxies.
https://earthscience.stackexch... [stackexchange.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Once a millennium? (Score:5, Interesting)
Meteorology faculty at UW are referring to it as a "once in a century" event, which makes more sense. And the "climate change" part of it is likely just a couple-degree nudge higher on temperatures which were already going to be record-breaking.
Biggest reason it's such a big deal is we're just not equipped to handle it well - our average summer highest temp is right about 80F.
Also, blaming the record temps on a "heat dome" is not particularly correct. We get thermal troughs once or twice a year - usually pushes our temps into the mid-90s. The reason this one is so extreme is because of the position of the thermal trough - higher-pressure hot air from east of the Cascade mountains is flowing through various gaps in the mountains towards the low, and then compressional heating is occurring (since Western Washington and Oregon are significantly lower in elevation than the eastern part of the states.
Re: (Score:3)
Biggest reason it's such a big deal is we're just not equipped to handle it well - our average summer highest temp is right about 80F.
That was badly worded. The average daily high temperature in the Seattle-Tacoma area tops out around 80F in late July and early August. Normal for late June is roughly 72F.
Re: (Score:2)
... Biggest reason it's such a big deal is we're just not equipped to handle it well ...
I hear you. We in Georgia get laughed at for that same reason when we get snow.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm up near Vancouver, BC and we are seeing temperatures never seen before.
I got home yesterday at 16:30 and the temperature taken on the north side of my house in the shade was 45.6 C. Our normal heat waves in the summer are usually between 30 C and 34 C. Most homes here do not have air conditioning. I am lucky and had central A/C installed but it was so hot the A/C couldn't cool my place properly. It was running constantly from about 11 AM until after midnight, and only able to keep the house around 27-28
Re: (Score:2)
One thing to check to improve the efficiency of your AC unit, is to make sure the area around the outdoor portion is clear, the more airflow it gets, the better the cooling effect it can achieve, but yes, at the temperatures quoted in this article, I would not expect my unit to keep up, and I am in the central east coast, where our temps frequently break 100F (37C) in the summer. 46.6C (115F) is pretty hot, and I cannot imagine it being comfortable, good luck, hopefully it passes quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah we have a piddly little portable AC which was already on its last legs -unsurprisingly, it didn't do much for us. The house was miserable!
I'm just thankful the temperature dropped so much overnight - we left our house wide open, with fans pulling the cooler air in until I got up this morning. It's pretty pleasant right now...
Re:Once a millennium? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not disputing the likely link to climate change -- but do we have enough data from > 130 years ago to conclude that this happens only once every 1000 years?
The standard deviations calculated are essentially for data that only records temperatures for the past 130 years, since Americans settled Oregon.
We can only prove it completely by allowing it to happen, deciding that there may be some mechanism that causes physics to fail regarding the energy retention characteristic of atmosphere by it's composition. Than after a few millenia, we can compare and say "yup, Global warming is real."
My money is on the physics being real. Others might still be pissed they took lead out of gasoline. In the mean time it's like Jumping off a cliff. Maybe we'll die, maybe we won't.
Re: (Score:3)
In our area (near Vancouver, BC) we were below normal temperatures since March or so by as much as 7 C. Nobody commented on climate change then, it's just the weather. Now that the heat wave moved in for 4-5 days (which will help even out our skewed lower temperatures this year) it's all of a sudden climate change?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when you were as low as 7 degrees below normal, were the recorded temperatures still within historically established boundaries? Because something like 60 records were broken in B.C. yesterday, and not by a small amount - by up 10 degrees. That's not simply "breaking records" - that's obliterating them. Comparing them to a mild unseasonable cold snap isn't reasonable.
https://globalnews.ca/news/798... [globalnews.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trying to prove or disprove whether or not climate change exists or does not exist.
It's unreasonable to use a once-in-a-millennia or once-in-a-century weather event and slap a climate change label on it. This has happened before, as the old record here (for all of Canada) that was broken (in Lytton, BC) was set in 1937. Lytton (for those not from around here) is regularly the hot spot in BC, and they do record daily temperatures from 35 - 40 C in the summertime. Many records that fell were 70+ year
Much Hype, Inconsistency and Bad Statistics (Score:4, Informative)
Then there is the fact that they have identified the cause as due to some particular behaviour of the jet stream. Hence, to do such a statistical prediction you need to first ask how often this sort of highly unusual pattern occurs and then how likely such a pattern is to produce this much heating. Perhaps this pattern occurs once every 50 years and the previous time it was statistically on the cool side and did not stand out in the data. That would make this event a once-a-century event.
Lastly, as has been pointed out on this side of the border, you cannot ascribe the cause of a single weather event to climate change. You can say that climate change may make such events more likely although it seems the experts are divided on even this. Climate and weather are not the same things and this summary confuses the two and then actually ignores the effect of climate change on the climate data they are using to make wild, unsubstantiated projections!
Re: (Score:2)
Then there is the fact that they have identified the cause as due to some particular behaviour of the jet stream.
[...]
Lastly, as has been pointed out on this side of the border, you cannot ascribe the cause of a single weather event to climate change. You can say that climate change may make such events more likely although it seems the experts are divided on even this.
The experts are not divided on the belief that AGW will cause more exceptional weather events, as more energy is added to a chaotic system.
There is also some agreement that melting ice is going to shut down the conveyor, which provides the bulk of the energy behind the jet stream [npr.org].
Not being able to conclusively, definitively tie a specific weather event to AGW is a dumb excuse given what we know, and nobody should use it for anything.
Re: (Score:2)
The experts are not divided on the belief that AGW will cause more exceptional weather events
Not being able to conclusively, definitively tie a specific weather event to AGW is a dumb excuse given what we know
It is not an excuse for anything it is simply sticking to what we know an
Re:Once a millennium? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we don't. And the summary actually said so. The 1 in 10,000 years is a best guess estimate based around the standard deviation, and, as it said, is quite sensitive to problems with the data.
It's also wrong because of systematic changes. When the climate changes, then the averages move. So it's probably more like a once in a century event today, and perhaps a once in a decade event if the warming continues.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. We have other data that lets us estimate the major climatic cycles with longer periods than that. Once you've factored those out you've just got a regular old sample you can make inferences from.
The actual description sounds like it's filtered through a journalist's head though. The one in a whatever terminology isn't really very good. The real situation is that you have some risk that you assume is a uniform distribution with value 1/1000 everywhere. As the summary notes, we know that's not really tr
Re: (Score:2)
Err, 1821 was when the British permanently settled the Columbia and Fraser basins, Ft Vancouver on the Columbia itself was established in 1821, which is 200 years of records that while not accurate, would show 20F degree outliers.
My reading of the summary was that it was somewhere between 100-1000 year event
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Once a millennium? (Score:2)
already a couple to a few degrees higher than nature intended.
so from a scientific perspective it already discredited itself.
Leaves (Score:2)
I sure hope they all got their forests swept of those pesky leaves.
Re: (Score:2)
The forests up here are mainly coniferous - so mostly needles.
Re:Leaves (Score:5, Funny)
Great, even the trees are drug addicts now.
Wait, could this explain climate change? Are the trees so high on drugs that they're not doing their jobs?
Re: (Score:2)
So, raked.
Do we need multiple stories on the same topic? (Score:2, Informative)
As covered earlier today, the Pacific Northwest is experiencing the most severe heat wave in its (recorded) history [slashdot.org] ...
For best info read Cliff Mass (Score:5, Informative)
Cliff Mass is a University of Washington professor of Atmospheric Sciences. He has a blog where he talks about weather.
I am not completely convinced about the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, but he is. However, he has my complete respect because he calls out nonsense from his side of the debate. Some CAGW true believers have given him a lot of flak for not properly toeing the line and joining the echo chamber. As far as I can tell, he is all about the actual science and does not blow smoke to try to convince you that the world will burn in 12 years or whatever.
He has previously said that he estimates that global warming contributes about 2 degrees F to this record-breaking heat wave in the Pacific Northwest. So, if the airport near Seattle hits 110 degrees F today, it would likely have hit 108 degrees F without global warming.
Here are his two most recent blog updates about this record-breaking weather.
Even More Extreme: Extraordinary Record Highs Followed by Perhaps the Most Rapid Cooling in Northwest History [blogspot.com]
Showtime. Temperatures Are Surging to Unparalleled Highs. [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I am not completely convinced about the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, but he is.
What is your hypothesis though Steve? Does physics break down at global atmospheric levels?
Re: (Score:2)
Dark air?
Re: (Score:2)
Dark air?
When I've had too much garlic!
Re:For best info read Cliff Mass (Score:5, Interesting)
What is your hypothesis though Steve? Does physics break down at global atmospheric levels?
I wondered if someone would say something snarky. And here you are! You know, you didn't have to be insulting, you could have simply asked me what I meant.
Here are a few concepts related to global warming:
0) Greenhouse gases help trap heat
1) The world has gotten warmer, and greenhouse gases contributed
2) The world has gotten warmer, greenhouse gases contributed, and it will continue to get worse
3) The world has gotten warmer, greenhouse gases are a major factor, and in the future various feedbacks will reinforce and the temperature will shoot up hugely, and It Is A Big Problem
4) Greenhouse-gas driven warming will kill us all within 12 years unless we DO SOMETHING NOW
I'm completely on board with 0) and 1), and willing to consider 2). I am not convinced of 3) and I think the people claiming 4) don't have science on their side.
One of the problems I see is that non-scientists will promote level 4) ideas, and scientists are silent about it. Cliff Mass is not silent about it; he will say "the science doesn't support that." And recently he got hassled in social media for saying the science doesn't support some level 4) idea.
P.S. I personally have switched to driving an electric car, and in my new home replaced a gas heater and a gas hot water heater with electric heat pumps. And I'm working on getting rooftop solar power. And I'm planning to get my wife an electric car when I can. So while I'm not fully convinced of the CAGW hypothesis, I'm acting like someone who is.
Slow catastrophe [Re:For best info read Cliff Mass (Score:5, Insightful)
Number 4 is nutty and no actual scientists assert that-- in fact, nobody at all asserts that: this is a straw-man claim that nobody makes.
A point to keep in mind is that greenhouse warming is very slow on a human scale. It's rather fast on a geological scale, but this is something that is happening on the scale of decades. But also, it is something that will continue for centuries. Nobody is predicting we'll die in 12 years. They are predicting that by the year 2100 we will have some melting of ice caps that will raise sea level on the order of a meter, and other concomitant effects, which will continue to get worse.
Even point 3 is a bit of a stretch. Yes, there are some feedbacks that can amplify the effects: lower snow coverage means lower albedo meaning higher heat absorption, for example. But most of the predictions made by actual scientists studying the climate don't show "the temperature will shoot up hugely"; they show a problem getting monotonically worse unless we do something.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Yes, people do state the world will end in 12 years. It is pretty wrong, and should be called out when it happens.
Re: (Score:2)
meh. This is a non-quote. The attribution is
"Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like".
Nobody actually said that. "We're like" is not an attribution.
Re: (Score:2)
We includes her. She is saying she believes, and others like her believe that the world will end in 12 years.
not an actual quote [Re:Slow catastrophe] (Score:2)
We includes her.
But she didn't attribute that quote to herself. She said that people in her generation said things like that.
She is saying she believes,
No. It was an off-the-cuff example of the types of things people in that generation say
and others like her believe that the world will end in 12 years.
Who was she quoting? Nobody. No specific people were listed as saying this.
Re: (Score:2)
Number 4 is nutty and no actual scientists assert that-- in fact, nobody at all asserts that: this is a straw-man claim that nobody makes.
A point to keep in mind is that greenhouse warming is very slow on a human scale. It's rather fast on a geological scale, but this is something that is happening on the scale of decades. But also, it is something that will continue for centuries. Nobody is predicting we'll die in 12 years. They are predicting that by the year 2100 we will have some melting of ice caps that will raise sea level on the order of a meter, and other concomitant effects, which will continue to get worse.
Even point 3 is a bit of a stretch. Yes, there are some feedbacks that can amplify the effects: lower snow coverage means lower albedo meaning higher heat absorption, for example. But most of the predictions made by actual scientists studying the climate don't show "the temperature will shoot up hugely"; they show a problem getting monotonically worse unless we do something.
Given the over the top reaction to my reply asking about where the physics fail, even offering a plausible starting point, - where do the physics fail, and what causes it? I'm pretty certain that we have a case where the subsequent actions are different than the initial words. As I pointed out to another poster, I am always willing to talk to reasonable people who have doubts. Instead, I get a random guy on the internet ragereply.
Indeed, the composition of the atmosphere has changed over eons. Formation
but the physics don't fail [Re:Slow catastrophe] (Score:2)
Given the over the top reaction to my reply asking about where the physics fail...
There was a non-answer to your question about where the physics fail because nobody had suggested that the physics fail in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the over the top reaction to my reply asking about where the physics fail...
There was a non-answer to your question about where the physics fail because nobody had suggested that the physics fail in the first place.
Yeah - I was offering a base to start on. If a person is not convinced, should they not be able to formulate a reason for that disbelief? It doesn't matter if they think the reason is that human based greenhouse emissions are different, or that the whole thing is a hoax.
I see you are a scientist for NASA - Does your group of scientists take temper tantrums if someone asks a question wanting them defend theirr position? Have a nice day, and peaceout.
Re: (Score:2)
I am always willing to talk to reasonable people who have doubts.
An admirable sentiment! I approve! I wish more people would do this. You are welcome to actually try this with me; you haven't yet.
When you said:
I did not interpret this as a fact-based debate or even as a friendly request for clarification, but rather as a snarky dismissal.
Please feel free to clarify what you actually meant. I'm finding it difficult
Re: (Score:2)
We are far into the weeds here. I intended to praise Cliff Mass for being dedicated to science even when it makes people harass him on social media, and now there's this huge debate over the CAGW hypothesis. I apologize for my role in steering the conversation in this direction.
Number 4 is nutty and no actual scientists assert that-- in fact, nobody at all asserts that: this is a straw-man claim that nobody makes.
I would agree with you that I haven't heard many scientists making claims like this. Also, I
FUD [Re:Slow catastrophe [Re:For best info...]] (Score:2)
Agree with you on point one.
On point two,
...I think one of the big issues with Global Warming as the new dogma is the massive amounts of FUD being spread
You do realize that the vast majority of the FUD is being spread by oil companies (and by people whose FUD has been fostered encouraged, and amplified by oil companies), right? They have been pumping out shit with no other intent than to spread uncertainty, and have been doing this continuously for forty years. And they've been amplifying not only the fringe voices on the denier side, but also amplifying the fringe voices on the "it's going to be catastrophic" side (
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Greta Thunberg is in the news because she's photogenic and makes good copy. That's not hard to explain. Television is a visual medium, and they flock around to put somebody on camera who isn't a boring scientist or an equally boring politician.
The oil companies are still out there spreading FUD. They've just learned to hide it a little more than they did in the 1990s, when the American Petroleum Institute didn't even bother to hide that they sent out their memo to their members asking them to fund "a
Re: (Score:2)
What is your hypothesis though Steve? Does physics break down at global atmospheric levels?
I wondered if someone would say something snarky. And here you are!
You are way to sensitive there my precious little snowflake. Now you've been insulted, thin skinned one.
Re: (Score:2)
You are way [too] sensitive there my precious little snowflake. Now you've been insulted, thin skinned one.
Is this an example of you being "always willing to talk to reasonable people who have doubts"?
SMH.
Re: (Score:2)
0) Greenhouse gases help trap heat
1) The world has gotten warmer, and greenhouse gases contributed
2) The world has gotten warmer, greenhouse gases contributed, and it will continue to get worse
3) The world has gotten warmer, greenhouse gases are a major factor, and in the future shifting water resources and feasibility of continuing to grow the same crops and livestock along with shrinking natural resources like
Re: (Score:2)
Most atmospheric scientists are at least at 2, with a significant number at probably 2.5+ because of the clear evidence and models that have feedback. Number 4 is just absurd and no scientist is predicting a date, it's likely a made up number intended to be laughable by the climate change deniers.
The wait and see approach is just ridiculously stupid. The car is going 90mph, the tires are squeeling around all the curves, you're holding on tight and the driver says "we should be fine, let's wait and see wha
Re: (Score:2)
4) Greenhouse-gas driven warming will kill us all within 12 years unless we DO SOMETHING NOW
And how do you come to such a bullshit idea?
And why do you feel insulted if one points that bullshit out?
Re: (Score:2)
Please see my other comment here [slashdot.org].
And how do you come to such a bullshit idea?
By reading the news. People like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg say this sort of thing (not this thing literally exactly word for word, but definitely this sort of thing).
Amusingly, you currently have a Slashdot signature quoting Greta Thunberg as saying "Unite Behind the Science" while she is one of the people who claimed that we all have to slash carbon dioxide emissions within 12 years or face dire consequences.
Greta Thunberg: we h [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious, have you read the actual report [www.ipcc.ch] that provoked Thunberg's speech and the other headlines? The summary [www.ipcc.ch] gives examples of some outcomes we hope to avoid - one paragraph:
The report highlights a number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5C compared to 2C, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5C compared with 2C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5C, compared with at least once per decade with 2C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2C.
Your definition may differ, but I would class the near-total loss of warm-water coral reefs as "catastrophic" - certainly for those that depend on them, human and otherwise. And losing entire ecosystems probably qualifies as "irreversable":
"warming of 1.5C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems,” said Hans-Otto Portner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
As for the "12 years" timeline, that's how long we've got [ucsusa.org] before our continuing carbon emissi
Re: (Score:2)
have you read the actual report
I haven't; I try to keep up on geek news sites like Slashdot and I hope that will cover me. I'm really not qualified to read an IPCC report and evaluate it.
I would class the near-total loss of warm-water coral reefs as "catastrophic"
Yeah, I'm also not a fan of the coral reefs dying.
I agree that the media often likes to mischaracterise the scientific reports as "we're all doomed in 12 years", which is overdramatic as well as clearly untrue.
But it's also used to justify some sc
Re: (Score:2)
For example, there was a serious proposal to create a "carbon tax" that would extract two trillion dollars from the US economy in 10 years, justified because the global warming emergency is allegedly so dire. I believe this would cause immediate and serious inflation of the cost of food and other goods that are moved around on trucks.
This is a good point to discuss, and you're right to be concerned about potential price increases, though I doubt they would be as serious as you seem to think. Transportation is only one small component of food costs, and fuel costs are not the only component of transportation either. A 10% rise in fuel costs might translate to a 1 or 2% rise in the cost of goods. Still, this can be significant for some, and needs to be taken into account.
More importantly, the cost of a tax on carbon emissions must be bala
Re: (Score:2)
you're right to be concerned about potential price increases, though I doubt they would be as serious as you seem to think.
There's room to discuss it. If carbon dioxide is really the big emergency some claim it is, I would be on board with aggressive measures to deal with it. However if we have a few decades of time, I suspect we can fix the problem quite painlessly. So I'm 100% in favor of honest research and clear-eyed evaluation of the situation, and then doing the right thing.
Let's pick an number and
Re: (Score:2)
However if we have a few decades of time
This was the original point; we don't. If we haven't scaled back our emissions a lot more dramatically by ~2030, we will blow through our remaining carbon budget, resultant temperature rises are very likely to exceed 1.5C a couple decades later (they're already over 1C), and the risks of major (indeed, "catastrophic") consequences rise significantly. If it exceeds 2C, then considerably worse. If we'd started acting two or three decades ago, we'd have had much more headroom in our carbon budget and we could'
Re: (Score:2)
Amusingly, you currently have a Slashdot signature quoting Greta Thunberg as saying "Unite Behind the Science" while she is one of the people who claimed that we all have to slash carbon dioxide emissions within 12 years or face dire consequences.
You get something wrong: you claim, that she claimed. I know nothing about such a claim. As we already have dire consequences in Germany, and in Thailand, where I live, and in West of the US: she is probably right. If she indeed claimed that, which i doubt.
I'm curi
Re: (Score:3)
I know nothing about such a claim.
Dude, that link I gave you includes two things: a video clip of Greta Thunberg talking, and a transcription of her remarks. Maybe you have good reason to distrust The Guardian, but you can simply click on the video link and listen to her say the words "less than 12 years". It's in the first 20 seconds of the clip.
That clip is from January 2019. On September 23, 2019, in the famous "How dare you!" speech, Greta Thunberg went further: instead of 12 years to save the planet
Re: (Score:2)
Greta Thunberg went further: instead of 12 years to save the planet she now said that cutting carbon dioxide emissions in half within 10 years was not enough.
Having less than 12 years to save the planet does not mean in the catastrophe comes in 12 years.
Up to you to figure the difference.
(We actually wont "save the planet" as the currently on going run away effects will have thier impact in 50 years, so good luck with your stupid attitude)
Re: (Score:2)
Having less than 12 years to save the planet does not mean in the catastrophe comes in 12 years.
First you accused me of making something up. So I gave you video evidence, which you didn't even look at, but you called me an idiot for sending you a URL from a news organization you don't like. Now you are grasping at straws to find some way you are right and I am wrong.
For the record, I never expected anyone to take the phrase "global warming will kill us all within 12 years unless we DO SOMETHING NOW" as a
Re: (Score:3)
I don't find it helpful or convincing when people assert that I am a "denier" (that's a definite "snarl word") just because I'm not completely convinced.
IMHO you are welcome to call someone a "denier" if they insist that the Earth has never warmed at all for any reason, or they insist that greenhouse gases don't cause warming, etc. But I don't deny science.
I've seen people who strike me as intelligent and well-informed criticizing the CAGW hypothesis. It's enough to make me question it. But I don't feel
Re: (Score:3)
I don't find it helpful or convincing when people assert that I am a "denier" (that's a definite "snarl word") just because I'm not completely convinced.
Deniers exist, but it's not useful to apply that label over broadly.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't find it helpful or convincing when people assert that I am a "denier" (that's a definite "snarl word") just because I'm not completely convinced.
Assuming that you are still taking a shit fit - about my insufferable reply - can you point out where I called you a denier?
I quite simply asked where AGW fails in your estimation - nothing more, nothing less. Even gave a plausible failure mechanism.
We can discuss these things as adults. Or we can take temper tantrums. Noted that you chose the temper tantrum response.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that you are still taking a shit fit - about my insufferable reply -
Oh, don't worry. I wasn't upset just because you were rude to me... I really don't care what an unpleasant stranger says on Slashdot.
You're welcome to ask me about things I say. You're welcome to educate me if I believe something incorrect. So far you haven't actually taught me anything or really contributed much to the discussion, but you are welcome to start now.
can you point out where I called you a denier?
Dude, not everythin
Re: (Score:2)
I am not completely convinced about the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, but he is.
What is your hypothesis though Steve? Does physics break down at global atmospheric levels?
Sounds like he understands global warming due to the greenhouse effect-- which is to say, he accepts the physics-- but is not certain to what extent it is "catastrophic".
OK. The effects are much harder to quantify than simply the existence of the warming.
The blog he links seems to say "global warming contributes about 2 degrees F" to the heat wave", about 3.5C. Yep. That calculation, however, does not include any effect of global warming on the behavior of the jet stream, which could be causing the partic
Re: (Score:2)
I am not completely convinced about the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, but he is.
What is your hypothesis though Steve? Does physics break down at global atmospheric levels?
Sounds like he understands global warming due to the greenhouse effect-- which is to say, he accepts the physics-- but is not certain to what extent it is "catastrophic".
OK. The effects are much harder to quantify than simply the existence of the warming.
The blog he links seems to say "global warming contributes about 2 degrees F" to the heat wave", about 3.5C. Yep. That calculation, however, does not include any effect of global warming on the behavior of the jet stream, which could be causing the particular heat pattern.
Pwople tend to fixate on the extremes, like the guy who said that all life would be extinguished, or when Trump noted there was no such thing because it got cold in the winter.
All that can be tossed.
What happens might be a bit less predictable, but there is the wild card.
Let us remove all of the physics, and look only at the politics. So let's say that something happens, and the western drought is the sort of things that lasts for many decades. Let's assume tat lake Mead gets so low they can't gener
Re: (Score:2)
What is your hypothesis though Steve? Does physics break down at global atmospheric levels?
I'm going to take you at your word and assume that you did not intend to be snarky or in any way give offense.
Therefore, in the spirit of helping another person out, I'm going to explain where (in my opinion) you went wrong.
First of all, we have no past history. So in your very first comment to me (ever, so far as I can recall) you started out calling me by my first name, even though in my opinion the two of us are n
Re: (Score:2)
He has previously said that he estimates that global warming contributes about 2 degrees F to this record-breaking heat wave in the Pacific Northwest.
As in total temperature contributed by the warm globe? As in ignoring that severe weather patterns have been accelerated in a rate with global temperature rise meaning that if the world were 2 degrees colder this event may not have happened at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Today's post on the Cliff Mass blog:
The Big Heat Post Mortem and the Next Few Days [blogspot.com]
Many records for maximum temperature were set yesterday; also, the record for the most extreme temperature drop in a day. Portland, Oregon cooled from 116 F to 64 F, a change of 52 F; Seattle cooled by 46 F; and Salem, Oregon is the champion, cooling from 117 F to 61F for a 56 F drop!
Re:For best info read Cliff Mass (Score:4, Insightful)
Im not going to take seriously anyone who is using Fs as a standard of measurement.
Friend, please consider that Cliff Mass is writing his blog for the people in the Seattle area to read. That means most of his readers are Americans, and that means that he uses Fahrenheit just because it's what his readers understand.
If you told me that he was doing his work at University of Washington using Fahrenheit, I would raise my eyebrows. But I have no reason to think he is doing that.
This should be a huge wakeup call, but you have people like yourself who always try and minimize.
Ah. You are asserting then that you know better than the professor of Atmospheric Science, and this unique weather pattern is driven primarily by global warming?
Sorry, I don't put much faith in Proof By Assertion. If you want to convince me that global warming is the main cause of this weather event, please start citing sources.
But of course in two weeks no one will even care again and you denialists get what you want anyway.
I wouldn't call myself a "denialist". You just did, but then you don't know anything about me. Congratulations on adding absolutely nothing useful to the conversation, while being insulting.
Re: (Score:2)
Pacific NORTHWEST you doofus. Can you not see the heading?
It seems pretty clear that LynnwoodRooster was making a joke about the comment to which he/she was replying:
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Cliff Mass the "I will contort myself every possible way in order to not call the current weather event related weather trends the rest of us just call Climate Change?" Meterologist?
Mr. There is no Forest, only Trees?
If so, it should be really easy for you to come up with citations to support your claims. Let's see them! Put up, or shut up.
Of an intensity never recorded by modern humans... (Score:2)
ah good old American reporting....
Exactly how do they know this particular event was an intensity never recorded by modern humans?
Did they check with the middle east, or africa or Australia to verify that claim?
Here in Australia - regularly reaches above 48 degrees C.. and no doubt a more intense heat...
I've personally walked through 50 degrees C on more then 1 occasion in outback NSW.
1 in 10,000 assuming Gaussian distribution (Score:3)
In most natural systems the distribution becomes a power law past a certain point which can lead to an underestimation of outliers.
I'm neither a statistician not a weatherman though - please chime in if you're both!
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. Nobody ever bothers to do a goodness of fit test to see if the distribution is normal. But if you see that 2 percent of your population is 3 sigmas away from the mean, that could be an indication that you do not have a normal distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. Nobody ever bothers to do a goodness of fit test to see if the distribution is normal. But if you see that 2 percent of your population is 3 sigmas away from the mean, that could be an indication that you do not have a normal distribution.
I think we're agreeing here. But my point is, if nobody does a goodness fit, why make (probably) incorrect statements about outliers?
I'm actually working on something where an answer to that question could matter... but I'm afraid to post in on Stack Exchange because they hate questions like that.
Bottom Line (Score:2)
About that "once in a thousand years" thing (Score:3)
Local town near here had a Once-In-A-Thousand-Year flood back in 2016. Two years later, in 2018, it had one again. [apnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
1. Randomness is random. You have have two 1:1,000 events occur immediately adjacent to each other and they can still be 1:1,000 events over a million attempts. It's probability, not a schedule.
2. If the events can be affected by an outside force (humanity), then we have to ask, "Have these probabilities taken into consideration humanity's effect on this probability?"
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the point. When your statistical models based on recorded evidence shows two events as being outliers then perhaps the model is indeed changing. It's possible that the original math was wrong, but it's easy to just recheck the math and you are absolutely not the first person on the plant to think of that possibility. Thus anyone with statistically half a brain would consider the possibility that things are getting worse.
The ugly little truth (Score:2)
We're unlikely to do much about climate change. It's already happening, and it'll continue to happen.
What I wonder about is the ugly little truth - at what point do some parts of the country become too expensive to live in?
Most of the Pacific Northwest is probably going to be mostly okay, even with the extreme heat of today - long term mitigation will likely involve more air conditioning.
But what about sea level rise on the coasts? Or droughts in the interior? What happens when insurance will no l
People without air conditioning (Score:2)
I seem to remember 36% of houses in Seattle have air conditioning.
The effect on infrastructure is being destructive. Portland had to shut down their light rail and a Washington freeway had to close when the expansion exceeded what the expansion joints could handle and the pavement broke. https://twitter.com/wsdot_traf... [twitter.com]
Everyone there, please don't take chances.
It was 110 at our place (Score:2)
It was 110 at our place and miserable as hell.
Re: (Score:2)
At least there was warning days in advance. Enough time to make sure my old window unit still worked.
Forecasters don't always get things right, but when they said "EXCESSIVE HEAT WARNING", they couldn't have been more correct.
True Statements (Score:2)
1) This will be one of the hottest Summers of your life.
2) This will be one of the coldest Summers of the rest of your life.
3) This statement will be true for every Summer from now until you die.
4) The previous three facts are likely to contribute to your death.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't we use planes or fans on the ground to impact the "giant column of hot air" that's causing this?
The atmosphere weighs ten tons per square meter. The area of the city of Seattle alone-- let alone the whole coastal northwest-- is 200 milliion square meters. Do the math.
Re: (Score:2)
Hundreds of people dead? Is there a list? I’d love to see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you can't even troll well. If you're going to make shit up at least make it a little bit believable. Go back to 4Chan for another couple more years until your trolling skills have developed.
Yeesh, newbies.