Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth United States

30 Million Americans Face 'Excessive Heat Alerts'. Death Valley, California Hits 130 Degrees (cnn.com) 199

"Death Valley, California, recorded high temperatures of 130 degrees Fahrenheit on Friday and 129.4 degrees on Saturday, according to the National Weather Service..." reports NPR. "Experts need to verify the 130-degree records from this year and last year, but if correct they would be the hottest temperatures reliably recorded on Earth."

"Interestingly, it could happen again Sunday, and perhaps even Monday as well," adds CNN. But they also report that nearly a tenth of all Americans are now facing a hot weekend: More than 30 million people in the West are under excessive heat alerts. The heat alerts stretch from northern Washington state down to the Arizona/Mexico border. Grand Junction, Colorado, set a new all-time temperature record of 107 on Friday. Las Vegas tied its all-time temperature record of 117 degrees on Saturday. Fresno, California, could also near its all-time temperature record of 115 degrees on Sunday.

But none of these quite compares to the staggering 130 in Death Valley — 13 degrees above normal.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

30 Million Americans Face 'Excessive Heat Alerts'. Death Valley, California Hits 130 Degrees

Comments Filter:
  • by freedom_surfer ( 203272 ) on Sunday July 11, 2021 @11:58AM (#61572525) Homepage

    This is totally normal. If you don't believe me, just wait till all my climate changing denialist friends come out of the woodwork. They'll set you straight with all their mad logic and dope facts. And I do mean mad logic with extra dope.

    • Bring solutions. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MacMann ( 7518492 )

      The climate has always been changing, and nobody denies that. There may be some dispute over global warming though.

      Why did "global warming" become "climate change"? Is not the problem too much CO2 from human activity and this CO2 is warming the planet? That is the problem, so call it what it is. I prefer CAGW, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. That is because even if the globe is warming that does not mean it is bad. Had we been in an ice age with Montana under a mile of ice then some warming

      • Stop being a fuckwit, OK?

          The global temperature is rising. This causes the climate to change.

        • Stop being a fuckwit, OK?

              The global temperature is rising. This causes the climate to change.

          Stop being an obstacle to the solution. I don't care about trying to agree on the problem when there is a way to agree on the solution.

          Oh, and name calling is not an argument.

          • Ahh according to delicate snowflakes, telling them the truth is an obstacle to progress because they just get sick strong feelings that they can't cope.

        • The global temperature is rising. This causes the climate to change.

          Are you really that stupid? The increase in temperature CAUSES the temperature to change ("climate change")?

          Ask your mom to check your posts before you "Submit" them to Slashdot.

          • Oh silly me, mean temperature is the only thing that counts as climate. WTF, bro?

            Ask your mom to check your posts before you "Submit" them to Slashdot.

            I asked your mom instead. Last night.

    • You know that people can agree that the climate is absolutely changing, but disagree on the sense that humans are the only or primary cause, right?

      But hey, I know building strawmen is very self-validating, so please continue for your own sake.

    • This is totally normal. If you don't believe me, just wait till all my climate changing denialist friends come out of the woodwork. They'll set you straight with all their mad logic and dope facts. And I do mean mad logic with extra dope.

      And none of that smug blah blah is solving the problem. If you want to solve anything, get hot (pun intended) with going nuclear, and figuring our carbon sequestration.

    • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      Nahh, right wingers tend to be booze hounds not pot heads. You know the nasty drunk stuff all brawls and rape. The non control freak left are pot heads, always have been. Anal retentive control freaks can not stand pot, too much introspection into their nasty ass lives, who they really are, too much of a shock for the ego. They much prefer the lies of alchohol or the rush of cocaine. Heroine is their Achilles heel, genetically deficient in happiness (suck it up, it is a brain chemical), the happiness provid

  • by DuroSoft ( 1009945 ) on Sunday July 11, 2021 @11:58AM (#61572527) Homepage
    Just 35 more degrees and it will be safe to eat
  • by S_Stout ( 2725099 ) on Sunday July 11, 2021 @12:00PM (#61572533)
    This would be a good time to start building desalination plants in mass. The water problem is only going to get worse and places like Lake Mead are going to cut you off.
    • by Jzanu ( 668651 )
      Desalination is cheap and easy but does nothing for the problem of pumping the bulk of that water from coasts into fields, etc.
      • by Mal-2 ( 675116 ) on Sunday July 11, 2021 @12:20PM (#61572571) Homepage Journal

        Desalination is easy, but energetically not cheap. That won't matter if energy itself becomes cheap, at which point the "pumping it uphill" problem isn't really a problem either.

        Fusion would solve so many other problems as a trickle-down effect.

        • It seems to me hot climates would be ideal for distillation using solar-powered evaporation, which would massively reduce the energy cost. Systems like this one [mit.edu] promise 6 l/m^2.h using no electricity.

          • by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

            Insolation matters more than heat, you can always build a greenhouse around your facility to keep the temperature up. I think it would be better to build near the coast where the water is and where the brine will be discharged, and then only pump the water uphill. Putting the evaporators in the desert means pumping seawater in, and both brine and fresh water out, making the plumbing a lot more expensive to maintain. Fresh water is far less corrosive than seawater or brine.

            So unless it's mostly cloudy at the

            • by Mal-2 ( 675116 ) on Sunday July 11, 2021 @01:39PM (#61572795) Homepage Journal

              I should add that the ideal place to put these may be out at sea, like oil platforms are now, so that the brine dumps have minimal environmental impact (or at least it's less obvious, being away from the coast), they don't use up any land, and (almost) nobody will complain about setting up windmills around them to power them -- which in the near term, is probably the best way to do it. When there's power, they run. When there isn't, they sit idle.

        • Cheap energy would be the biggest technology jump since the transistor.

          • by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

            Yeah. Most of the other problems the world faces actually have known solutions. We just lack sufficient power to implement them, and the way we currently generate that power would make many other problems worse. That's why I personally consider either fusion or something similar in capability to be the make-or-break technology if we're to become a multi-star civilization before resources run out back home. I focus on fusion because there's no doubt it exists (whether it's practical or not), but there are le

        • Desalination is easy, but energetically not cheap.

          OTEC [wikipedia.org] electricity and drinking water at the same time. Also, the heat it needs to operate can come from sources other than surface sea water.

          Fusion would solve so many other problems as a trickle-down effect.

          we need to address this asap, not "20 years" from now. Fusion, for all its promises, is not going to save us anytime soon.

          We need to be looking at ALL the sources of carbon neutral/negative energy that we can use NOW. Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro-thermal, and nuclear (MSRs not LWTR). And anything else that can generate carbon neutral energy.

          • by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

            I'd be the first to agree development must continue on other energy sources to continue the incremental improvements while we wait for a major breakthrough. It may just be stalling for time, but a little more time may just be enough. It certainly isn't going to hurt our chances.

        • Fusion would solve so many other problems as a trickle-down effect.

          Nuclear fusion is hard, nuclear fission is easy. We discovered how to make fission work, and it's done so well for us that all of the submarines in the US Navy are powered by nuclear fission, and all aircraft carriers are powered by it as well. The US Navy had more surface ships powered by fission but Congress deemed them too expensive to keep. If Congress took CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) seriously then they could take huge chunks out of the CO2 emissions from the military by buildin

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Not going to work. Better get used to there being far less arable land in the future and it being in different places than now.

  • Its great here. Its 80F at 1pm in july. This is about 15 to 20 degree's lower than normal.
  • Move Along? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mikeebbbd ( 3690969 ) on Sunday July 11, 2021 @12:48PM (#61572633)

    Heat outbreaks due to intrusion by the 4 Corners High, like this week's in central/northern CA, are not unusual, and ordinarily happen at least 5-6 times between June and October for a few days to a week at a time. Worst is usually late July thru August, when it can be 105-110 for weeks at a time, and not just in Fresno, Bakersfield, and Redding. Valley Weather Service sites usually don't call "excessive heat" alerts until it's going to be over 105F for several days and mid-70s or higher at night. San Joaquin Valley and Redding areas usually don't get very concerned until it'll be over 110F for several days.

    I have a Chevy Bolt. Yes, it's parked and charged in the driveway, not inside. Yes, I leave it plugged in (the 120V charger is adequate) so the battery cooling can operate.

    Outbreaks like last week's in the PacNW and Canada are a different story. An explanation other than just ordinary weather variation is needed for that.

    • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday July 11, 2021 @01:58PM (#61572855)
      that describes in detail [arstechnica.com] why it's basically impossible to have this heat wave without climate change. I'm frankly surprised /. hasn't picked it up as a post.
      • The article was focused more on the Pacific NW and Canada heat wave about a week ago. Yes, that one has all the fingerprints of a warming climate on it, and was so far from the norm that it didn't just break records, it shattered them. This week's in Northern and Central California is breaking some records (for this time of year), but is not really very far from what's seen in other 4-Corners breakouts.

        Southern Calif. has been really hot this year, though (as well as dry, another story); the usual fog and s

      • I'm not surprised because the article does not say that at all. To quote part of the conclusion:

        All the calculations in this analysis assume a sort of "bad luck plus climate change" explanation. An unlikely combination of weather events that can't be blamed on climate change is made somewhat worse by the background temperature increase.

        So the article says is that it is possible that there was a natural - but rare - heatwave that was possibly made slightly worse by the underlying global temperature rise. However, they do mention that it is possible that their models have missed something and that climate change may make the unprecedented weather pattern we saw that drove the heat wave more likely. Their models do not show that....but models can

  • by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Sunday July 11, 2021 @01:39PM (#61572799)
    This is the sort of thing that needs to happen to us, as a species, in order to propel us to move forward. Too many people refuse to believe the science any more. We need a real, concrete, in-your-face demonstration of the consequences of climate change. Something so bad that even the climate deniers and trumpites will have no choice but to acknowledge that something is actually different. As far as I see it, there are only three scenarios that will meet this bar:


    1. Superstorms that render major coastal cities uninhabitable. 10s or 100s of millions displaced. Death toll: who knows.
    2. Major breadbasket regions of the world converted to desert. Almost worldwide food crisis. Death toll? Who knows.
    3. Heatwave knocks out the electrical grid of a big portion of the country, temperatures above human survivability and no ac. Death toll: hundreds of thousands or a few million people cook to death.

    Hard for me to tell if 1 or 3 would be the least damaging, but I'm pretty sure the world will face one of these situations within my lifetime. Since I live in a region that's pretty far north, I'd personally go for the heat wave.

    We could have mitigated this, if our species had a slightly less severe case of head-up-ass-itis. But, shrug. It is what it is. I'd just as soon one of these scenarios happen sooner rather than later. The longer we put this problem off, the harder it will be to adjust.
    • Of all three of those, none is very likely.

      • Hm. Not sure if you're a denier or if you've actually got some knowledge that I don't. So, this might be a bit harsh of a response, but... what rock have you been under for the past 3 decades? What part of "unprecedented heat waves all across the country" or "hottest average temperatures in thousands of years" don't you understand?

        All it would take is 5-10 more degrees of heat, for a few extra weeks, to overwhelm a power grid. Or kill off the plants in a breadbasket region for that matter, and once yo
        • I believe the problem is you didn't read carefully.

          "Temperatures above human survivability" isn't a serious threat any time soon with a 2 degree change.

          Superstorms that render major coastal cities uninhabitable? That's just movie fantasy level, it's not science.

          • See, that tells me that you're a troll or your an idiot. Any properly technically trained person understands the difference between mean, median, standard deviation, and outlier events. 2 C average increase means MUCH higher extremes, and those are the events that are going to have the big visible effects.

            And... if you're going to call superstorms fantasy... you're gonna have to back that up with scientific evidence. Storms can get really frikkin energetic, and we're in climate territory that's nothing
            • See, that tells me that you're a troll or your an idiot

              ok, do you have a real argument? Or are you just going to insult me?

              • I gave you my argument. You went "nuh uh". I challenged you to show me more than that, and you followed up by demonstrating that you lack freshman-in-college level math skills.


                So, in terms of insulting you... um, yeah, that's pretty much where we are. I've lost patience with idiots. We're cooking the planet, and a large group of idiots are insisting that we continue business as usual. Fine. I respect democracy. So, if a large group of idiots wants to do something idiotic and they have the numbers to fo
    • I believe you have it wrong. Don't try to convince people of the problem, convince them of the need for the solution. We see this in the US Congress. Democrats scream about global warming, come up with big spending programs to address it, and then when Republicans are unwilling to spend more on global warming than was spent during World War Two when adjusted for inflation the Democrats accuse the Republicans of denying there is a problem. Nobody is denying that there is a problem, it's just that the pro

      • by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Sunday July 11, 2021 @04:03PM (#61573157)
        You sound like a reasonable conservative. The problem is that when you get together with a million other conservatives, you follow Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter and Alex Jones, and then elect people who know better intellectually but loudly claim to be climate deniers in order to get elected.

        I would really like to somehow come together and address this problem earlier rather than later. The problem is 40 million conservative voters demand a solution that doesn't cost them a penny or threaten their way of life in any way whatsoever. Meaning, you're just gonna sit around doing nothing until you're dragged forward kicking and screaming.

        I agree that some environmental causes are loony and prone to missing the big picture. That doesn't invalidate my complaints about the conservative forces in this country. Liberals can charge forward and do stupid stuff, but sometimes standing still with your head in the sand is the more dangerous option. That's where we are on this issue.
        • The problem is 40 million conservative voters demand a solution that doesn't cost them a penny or threaten their way of life in any way whatsoever. Meaning, you're just gonna sit around doing nothing until you're dragged forward kicking and screaming.

          No, the problem is that Democrats tried to make nuclear power out to be something we should fear more than CAGW.

          My guess is that it was Andrew Yang that exposed the lie on nuclear fission power. After he spoke in support of nuclear power it forced the other candidates to either support nuclear power or make the indefensible claim that nuclear power was a greater threat than CAGW.

          I agree that some environmental causes are loony and prone to missing the big picture. That doesn't invalidate my complaints about the conservative forces in this country. Liberals can charge forward and do stupid stuff, but sometimes standing still with your head in the sand is the more dangerous option. That's where we are on this issue.

          Your complaints are invalid because Yang exposed the lie that people had to choose between low energy costs or low CO2 emissions.

      • If you have to lie to make your point because the facts don't match your worldview, perhaps you should reconsider your views, no?

        Meanwhile in the real world the most recent Republican president called global warming a Chinese hoax, and remind me how many Republican reps and senators tried to correct the record?

        • Meanwhile in the real world the most recent Republican president called global warming a Chinese hoax, and remind me how many Republican reps and senators tried to correct the record?

          Yet another example of someone trying to get agreement on the problem after Republicans and Democrats already agreed on the solution.

          We are going to lower CO2 emissions in the USA because the Democrats agreed with the Republicans on a need for more nuclear power. I don't care who said what about global warming. You should not either. Who is bringing solutions? Are you bringing solutions?

          If I'm being carted into an emergency room for a fever and a headache then I don't want the physicians and nurses to f

    • Those items are called "restoring a balance". When a particular animal runs amok it will eventually consume all the resources it needs for its own continued infestation, and the infestation will return to supportable levels.

  • Take the Death out of Death Valley.

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Working...