The US Could See a New 'Extreme Heat Belt' By 2053 (nbcnews.com) 122
An "extreme heat belt" reaching as far north as Chicago is taking shape, a corridor that cuts through the middle of the country and would affect more than 107 million people over the next 30 years, according to new data on the country's heat risks. From a report: The report, released Monday by the nonprofit research group First Street Foundation, found that within a column of America's heartland stretching from Texas and Louisiana north to the Great Lakes, residents could experience heat index temperatures above 125 degrees Fahrenheit by 2053 -- conditions that are more commonly found in California's Death Valley or in parts of the Middle East.
The projections are part of First Street Foundation's new, peer-reviewed extreme heat model, which shows that most of the country will have upticks in the number of days with heat index temperatures above 100 degrees over the next 30 years as a result of climate change. The heat index represents what a temperature feels like to the human body when humidity and air temperature are combined. It is commonly referred to as the "feels like" temperature. "Everybody is affected by increasing heat, whether it be absolute increases in dangerous days or it's just a local hot day," said First Street Foundation's chief research officer, Jeremy Porter, a professor and the director of quantitative methods in social sciences at the City University of New York.
The projections are part of First Street Foundation's new, peer-reviewed extreme heat model, which shows that most of the country will have upticks in the number of days with heat index temperatures above 100 degrees over the next 30 years as a result of climate change. The heat index represents what a temperature feels like to the human body when humidity and air temperature are combined. It is commonly referred to as the "feels like" temperature. "Everybody is affected by increasing heat, whether it be absolute increases in dangerous days or it's just a local hot day," said First Street Foundation's chief research officer, Jeremy Porter, a professor and the director of quantitative methods in social sciences at the City University of New York.
When tiny changes get to you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to get things off on a constructive angle, but when you think about climate change from the earth's perspective, it's no big thing. The problem is that people are tiny. A minor shift of rain from here to there isn't going to bug the planet much, but for the people who live in the first place it becomes a horrible drought while the folks in the second place are being flooded out.
Technical solution? MUCH better weather and climate modeling, at least for understanding the scope of the problems. But in the meantime at least we could make a few more efforts to avoid making things worse... But given the lag times, I don't see much basis for optimism within my lifetime. Or within the lifetimes of the grandchildren of anyone who is alive now.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. This will take a few hundred years to deal with. Climate changes _slowly_ and the next centuries will be really messed up on this dirtball.
Re:When tiny changes get to you... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Climate changes _slowly_ " in the past. The amount of carbon we've dumped into the atmosphere makes slow change unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
I was obviously referring to man-made changes happening slowly on a time scale relevant to humans. A change over 100 years does qualify as "slowly" in that regard. Yes, the _start_ of those 100 years lies quite a while in the past and so we are currently seeing the first small and still pretty harmless (relatively to what is to come) effects. I am well aware that _natural_ changes happen on much much longer time-scales.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like now is the time to start investing in air conditioning stocks and companies!!
Re: (Score:2)
Basically an ACK on the branch though I think the last comment deserves a Funny mod.
Re:When tiny changes get to you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to get things off on a constructive angle, but when you think about climate change from the earth's perspective, it's no big thing. The problem is that people are tiny. A minor shift of rain from here to there isn't going to bug the planet much, but for the people who live in the first place it becomes a horrible drought while the folks in the second place are being flooded out.
It's "no big thing" in the sense that the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs was "no big thing". Is it going to destroy all life on earth? No. Will it impact the existence of the planet as a lump of rock floating through space? No. But are we trending towards the worst extinction event in all of geological history? Yep.
The fossil record shows us multiple catastrophic events that have culminated in the extinction of over 90% of species on Earth. Not the death of 90% of animals, mind you, but the outright extinction of the actual species. Pick 10 animals out of a hat and 9 of them don't exist any more. And, chances are, the ones that survive are going to be the prolific pests and scavengers, things like cockroaches or little scurrying rodents. From the planet's perspective, if that's not a "big thing", I don't think anything else qualifies.
If we look at the current rate of extinctions, and the rate of change in climate, the current period we're living through is on track to cause more extinctions, in less time, than anything before it. Of course, not all of that is climate related... some if it is due to habitat destruction, pollution, and good old hunting things into oblivion, but the general trend is clear - the stuff we're doing is as bad or worse for our ecosystem as an ice age or a massive asteroid impact.
Re: (Score:2)
If true then perhaps our elected officials can lead by example. Instead of US senators flying home from DC every weekend to their home districts, only to fly back to DC for more debates, they could work from home. Or just stay in DC until the end of the legislative session.
If this is a "climate crisis" then our elected officials need to act like it. Such as not attaching billions of dollars of spending for IRS agents to a bill that is supposed to lower CO2 emissions, which gives half of Congress a reason
Re: (Score:2)
Sad ACK to both comments, though I'm not sure I was sufficiently clear about the reference of "tiny" in the title. That's the earth's perspective and it would include all of the prior extinction events and meteorite strikes since the "big one" (if you accept the theory that the moon was chipped off the earth).
And I was also a bit sloppy in anthropomorphizing the earth. (I don't accept any of those theories of the earth's special sentience.)
Re: (Score:1)
The planet is not alive. It has no perspective.
The earth's ecology is big. It's going to suffer extreme damage... many species will go extince... humans may be driven to war... which could lead to extinction of all or almost all multi-cellular land species for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto my previous comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Save the planet? No need to. The planet is fine, it's the people who're fucked.
--George Carlin
Re: (Score:2)
Sad ACK.
Re: (Score:1)
Nice troll, but really -- the planet doesn't care about equity, diversity, or justice. Massive wind storms, massive flooding, and entire areas turned to desert? That's nothing compared to the cataclysmic events the planet has shrugged off over the past few billion years. Admittedly, though, things are going to be tough for anything alive on the planet's surface.
Re: (Score:2)
From George Carlin's "Saving the planet":
"Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine the people are fucked! Difference! The planet is fine! Compared to the people, THE PLANET IS DOING GREAT: Been here four and a half billion years! Do you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years, we’ve been here what? 100,000? Maybe 200,000? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over 200 yea
Re: (Score:1)
30 year guess estimate... (Score:3)
Re:30 year guess estimate... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, that ship has sailed. (Score:3)
Too much happening too soon. You can't scare anybody any more with predictions 30 years out. Nor can you spur action.
Half the world is baking NOW. None of those people could give a flying fuck about 2053.
Re: (Score:2)
Half the world is baking NOW. None of those people could give a flying fuck about 2053.
Yep, half the people are so stupid, they're stupider than the other half!
It seems to me that logic would dictate that if something didn't used to be a problem, and now it is a problem, that that would cause them to be concerned about it getting worse. But your hypothesis, that people are dumb as rocks, is probably more likely.
Re: Sorry, that ship has sailed. (Score:2)
Well, I meant that this people gave more immediate fish to fry, so to speak.
However, I don't disagree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
To quote the immortal George Carlin: Think of how stupid the average person is and then realize that half of them are stupider than that.
much faster than predicted (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Then I guess eco-activists will finally get what they've really wanted all along: mass human deaths and a huge reduction in human populations.
I mean, let's stop bandying about the point: this is the only way anthropic burdens on the planet are going to meaningfully decrease.
So I guess it's victory for you guys?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Only a ghoul or sociopath would revel in the extinction of others, potentially a species. The real
Re: (Score:2)
Well, shit! We need to do something!
When this keeps going, the whole shit hits the fan around 2035, and I plan to still be alive at that time, 2050, that was far away and I was probably dead by then, so I didn't give a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I lost it when I saw people with kids and grandkids cruise around in SUVs to pick up their mail from the box down the road. Then I started to wonder why I, someone without kids driving a hybrid, still care.
Re: (Score:2)
The predictions move because they get more data. As they should. That's literally how they work.
Re: (Score:2)
No worries no doubt thoughts and prayers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, let's double down on doing fuck all.
They don't care + they don't believe you... (Score:5, Insightful)
They will just chalk this up as another fake news story by coastal elites trying to scare the "flyover" country into believe the totally fake climate change and other wokeness.
And to prove you wrong, in 2053 when they go outside in winter and see snow, all of your talk of climate change and "heat belt" will be proven to be the lies that you are trying to sow...
Re: (Score:2)
That's a hell of a crapshoot you have planned.
You: Gee, I know, let's wait and see if it happens. If not, we won!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain to me the logic behind this. I mean, there are only 4 things that can happen.
Climate change isn't real and we don't do jack. Then nothing happens.
Climate change isn't real and we act as if it was. Then nothing happens.
Climate change is real and we act to counter it. Then nothing happens.
Climate change is real and we don#t do jack. Then we're totally screwed.
Is it me or is there only one outcome that is really, really bad and we should try to avoid at all cost?
Re: (Score:2)
Your first item is wrong. The
It isn't real and we don't do jack means nothing happens
is wrong. If you only believe climate change is fake when it is actually fact, then it should be
I believe climate change isn't real when in fact it is and we don't do jack, then we're totally screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is that, even if climate change wasn't happening, it's sensible to not gamble on that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I get your argument and totally agree. If climate change is not real but we act as though it is, our actions will not have an effect.
I contend, though, that the first premise, climate change is not real and doing nothing changes nothing, this is based on a fact that climate change is not real.
However, if in the light of all of the science, the increased heat and droughts and extreme weather events, that some people are climate change deniers, they may believe that climate change is not real and doing no
After Warning People For 30 Years... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think we're entitled to laugh at these people.
That "heat belt" is exactly the same shape as states that have voted for Republicans and climate change denial for the last 30 years.
You have been warned about this.
You were told it was coming. You were told it was going to be bad. You were told that it was going to cause disruption to your lives. That it would cause famine, disease and plagues. You were told that you had time to turn it around, but it was going to be costly.
But no.
No, you didn't want to s
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, we were warned. But instead of destroying the middle class and impoverishing a few generations of our children, we instead decided that we'd rather have a longer summer like our southern neighbors, and shorter winters. Our kids can learn to tolerate 100+ degree temperatures. After all, we did.
In Wisconsin, the joke is that summer is two weeks long. In Illinois, the summer realistically lasts for about 3 months. In Tennessee, it's closer to 9 months. If climate change makes Wisconsin summers la
Re: (Score:2)
Next up: Why is food suddenly so terribly expensive?
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft, since when do we give a fuck about brown people? Twice so if they can't come around to your home to give you a piece of their mind?
Re: (Score:2)
Your god punishes you for not taking care of the world he gave to you. It's like your dad taking away your toy if you break it.
And no crying will get you a new one.
SUVs and Pickups (Score:1)
But just keep driving all of those forever-getting-bigger SUVs and Pickup Trucks. The bigger the better, the more gas used the better. Pedal to the metal.
I'll be dead by then, who cares (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Things can get a lot worse a lot faster than you think. Source: Things are getting a lot worse a lot faster than the formal projections that were already scary. In large part this is specifically because the additional releases of methane were dramatically underestimated. What other effects are being under-anticipated?
um..is the wrong paper linked? (Score:2)
The paper I see linked to this article discusses North Carolina only.
Helluva bad Slashdot summary if it's the correct article.
Re: (Score:2)
You simply didn't understand how the science is done, and what was linked to.
The North Carolina data model has been singled out for study not just in one paper, but across this field, and many fields that use GIS data in their research. This allows better checking of models, compared to everybody using their own local GIS data. The linked scientific study is about a model, and in the scientific paper the model is applied to this standard data set. The story, and the linked article, is about what the model s
Re: um..is the wrong paper linked? (Score:2)
What part of the linked paper talks about extrapolating to a larger area? Also the term âoeheat beltâ doesnt even exist in the paper.
The article is alarmist shite and certainly not peer reviewed.
Re: (Score:2)
You did not correctly parse the words you're replying to.
Keep parsing until they make sense, and say something intelligent and informative. Until then, you're just not listening well.
Nobody says, "it's only a model"? (Score:1)
This is a computer simulation of some potential future of weather patterns based on a lot of assumptions that may not be true. Before someone screams "weather is not climate" I suggest looking up how climate is defined. Climate is defined as as the prevailing weather conditions in an area over a long period of time. Weather is the climate, but not one weather event defines the weather for all time.
There's "climate fatigue" setting in, and after something like 50 years of screaming about climate change th
Re: (Score:2)
An addendum. This is an example on how the "deniers" think:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The video starts with questioning the motives of the people screaming about a "climate crisis", people demanding they be handed money and control to avert the crisis. It takes until 22 minutes in for an alternative solution to be offered so hang on until the end.
If the solution is less money, less freedom, less energy, less food, then expect people to push back. Offer prosperity, abundance, and comfort and everyon
hmmm (Score:2)
WINNING! (Score:3)
We are going to have the MOST EXTREME heat you've ever imagined! Everyone agrees! It's going to be tremendous! We're going to make the sun GREAT again!
Ooooohhhh, "peer reviewed" (Score:2)
No shit, Sherlock. (Score:2)
You mean the house is on fire? You saying that humanities eco balance is abysmal and we need a turnaround? ... I'm shocked!
Jokes aside: We are screwed. We are 5 decades to late in getting an eco turnaround going. The result being that we will have damages that will be with us for a few centuries at least, not counting the 6th extinction that's happening right now. This is undisputed common knowledge and has been for decades. How hard we are screwed however is up to us.... I certainly hope that with stuff
So what will be done with info ? (Score:2)
Past is the best predictor of Future (Score:1)
Open your eyes. (Score:5, Informative)
In order to see it, you first need to take your head out your ass. Record heat waves in Europe. Water levels in the south-west at record lows. 100-year floods in Kentucky. And that's just from this month.
Re:Open your eyes. (Score:4, Insightful)
And that is just the beginning. But those unwilling to see reality will still be in denial when it kills them. These people cannot be reached. They can be killed (by nature) though.
Re: (Score:2)
They can be reached. Show them how lower CO2 emissions saves them money. Or show them how lower CO2 emissions will bring them greater comfort. Put out on their kitchen table that new windows and insulation will save them money in their utility bills, and their home won't have hot and cold spots, and you will get their attention. The next time they go looking for a car then explain how the electric option means better acceleration, never needing to stop at the gas station where the panhandlers hang out,
Re: (Score:2)
All models are wrong some are useful. I work every day with models that are wrong. We know they are wrong. However they are close enough to correct to be extremely useful. We are constantly trying to make the models better but they will always be wrong.
This is true for basically every model used in science for every field. You don't have to prove a model wrong. Most of the papers that present these models even note where it is wrong.
The problem we have is one of politics not one of science. With science we
Re: Open your eyes. (Score:2)
Re: Open your eyes. (Score:1)
When the record is only 50 years old, itâ(TM)s easy to break records. It broke a 100 year record, which means it happened 100 years ago and nobody freaked out back then. Weâ(TM)re getting out of an unreasonably long temperate weather system. 100 years ago, the entire mid-west had dust storms and a great drought, California has historically always been on fire and extremely dry. The people have tried controlling the water with the dams, but even back then they said California had only a few decades
Re: (Score:2)
It broke a 100 year record,
It's not a "100 year record" when referring to something as a 100-year-weather-event. It's an event that should statistically happen only once in a hundred year period. Or, if you choose to think of it this way, it's an event that has a 1% statistical chance of it happening in any given year. Having multiple "one in a hundred" chance events in a short time period is big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
It broke a 100 year record, which means it happened 100 years ago and nobody freaked out back then.
I guarantee you not only did people freak out back then, a lot more would have died than died recently due to the same event.
The difference as to why you should freak out a bit more is that we're now constantly breaking records. No one freaks out when something is a one-off event. But these have long stopped being such.
Re: (Score:2)
Heat waves happen. It's not denial that they don't happen, the denial is that they are caused by human activity. Mocking people for not seeing the weather isn't helpful, demonstrate the connection between action and reaction or nobody learns.
Global warming is happening, and it is from human activity. The denial isn't because people aren't seeing the effects, it is because the people screaming the loudest are hypocrites. People flying on private jets to gather and discuss how to lower CO2 emissions is a
Re: (Score:2)
"See? See? It's just this month. That's weather, not climate!"
C'mon, you knew it would come, why not save them the time?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he's de-sensitised to it. There's only so much "It was the hottest X on record" someone can take. It's a headline I've literally seen several times this month already.
Re: (Score:2)
Dr. Raymond Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... MASS HYSTERIA!
Re: (Score:3)
Actually you have, [kansascity.com] you just loathe to admit it.
Re: (Score:2)
Now getting voted down as a troll!
You'd think that since you were modded troll, and can't understand why, would give you a hint that your perception is warped.
Re: (Score:2)
Now getting voted down as a troll!
You'd think that since you were modded troll, and can't understand why, would give you a hint that your perception is warped.
Well, we don't edit comments here, so he wrong that... before being modded. He planned to be modded as a troll. Which is... wait, what was that verb again???!
*ROFLCOPTER*
Re: (Score:2)
I've been modded troll a whole lot of times, and most of those times were frankly unwarranted on any level, for speaking facts. Sometimes I bother to come back with a collection of citations that the moderators could have trivially found by pasting the sentences I wrote into google, sometimes I don't waste the time since I will always get more upmods. That something got troll modded, even troll mod-bombed, does not mean it's a troll.
I'm not saying this guy isn't a troll, but I am saying that believing a tro
Re: (Score:2)
Er, not convicted, accused. I'm in the caffeination zone right now, please pardon my lack of preview.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I view statements similar to "Now getting voted down as a troll!" as the same as beginning a sentence "I don't mean to sound racist" or "you guys are probably going to think I'm an asshole for saying this". The majority of the time the words that follow are most certainly going to be blatantly racist or ass-hole-ish.
In OP's case, unless they are a climate scientist, they aren't equipped to "see" the issue. So their statement is the equivalent of "I'm not qualified to understand the problem, and it's not s
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmm... can't tell if you're being intentionally daft here or not. We're back to the difference between climate and weather again.
Re: (Score:3)
""nonprofit research group" = political lobby group making the big bucks. " iron-clad innuendo with no basis in fact. How come the climate change deniers always see some nefarious purpose behind any study that they do not like? It's like Fox is draining directly into your brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. The kind of "skeptic" who thinks scientists and non-profits are unreliable because they're in it for the money, but doesn't think the profit motive taints oil company propaganda.
Re:Follow The Money (Score:5, Funny)
Yup, that's the secret liberal pathway to big bucks, being a scientist with NSF funded grants.
How do you deprogram this level of brainwashing?
Re: (Score:2)
You've heard the phrase, "those who can, do; those who can't, teach"?
Good models can be used on how to decide if land is best for a farm, ranch, casino, a residential community with trees and trails, and maybe a golf course. Good climate models means that these businesses pay their lease on time, and allows for taking that money to build another set of profitable business elsewhere. This could be a property manager again, using climate models to help pick tenants, or hire that part out and take on some ot
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of words to demonstrate you don't understand academia or science. Sure, ideas from those realms might eventually go on to make money for someone, but academics and scientists are largely not driven by money. If they were, they would be off running a business somewhere. But there are so many research developments that wouldn't happen if everything was money-driven, so we need people in research roles to keep driving human knowledge forward.
Re: Follow The Money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, a squirrel after his third cup of coffee is now posting on slashdot!
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, a squirrel after his third cup of coffee is now posting on slashdot!
On the internet nobody knows you are a squirrel, or how many cups of coffee you've had.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we do.
We just don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Fix your locale before you shitpost, Ivan.
Re: livable chicago (Score:2)
It is highly livable. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
To lower temperatures, obviously demolish cities. Detroit has the lead on this... LOL
I don't think much of your proposed solutions. Bombed-out ruins and potholed streets contribute just as much to heat islands as pristine buildings and roadways.
Re: (Score:2)
Bombed-out ruins and potholed streets contribute just as much to heat islands as pristine buildings and roadways.
They don't contribute transportation emissions, and they also get covered in plants in relatively short order. It's still not a good plan, of course. The way to minimize the energy consumption of cities is to build residences near workplaces, make them affordable to the employees of those workplaces, and make food available in those places as well.
Re: Hot time in the Cities (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's something I don't get. Blame it on Geriajoe or the annoying orange for all I care, but afterwards we're still fucked. We just got someone to yell at while we melt.
Could we for a change maybe start looking for someone to solve the problem rather than someone to pin it onto?