North America's Weather Turns Weird, Wild, and Extreme. Here's Why (msn.com) 124
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Washington Post:
An outbreak of severe storms, including deadly tornadoes, hail bigger than DVDs and life-threatening flooding, has ravaged the South, coming amid a month of wild weather across North America. Texas is baking beneath heat indexes as high as 120 degrees, the coasts are cool and mostly calm and Canadian wildfire smoke is suffocating much of the northern U.S.
If it seems the weather has been a little bit "off" since the calendar flipped to June, you're not imagining it — things have been downright weird. It's all linked to a bizarre jet stream pattern, which is displacing air masses from their typical positions and disrupting the movement of weather systems across the continent.
Among other things, the jet stream created a sprawling heat dome in Canada which "helped sap the landscape of moisture, leaving it ripe to burn," the article points out.
"Meanwhile in the southern U.S., the roaring southern branch of the jet stream has been energizing storms. That's brewed back-to-back rounds of severe weather, complete with strong winds, tornadoes and 'gargantuan' hail — and the pattern doesn't look to budge soon." [El Niño] historically, has been linked to split-flow jet stream patterns like the one driving wild weather across parts of the Lower 48. Natural variability, a.k.a. randomness, is also a big player, but it stands to reason that the two factors, overlapping together, are in large part culpable for what we've been facing.
Some scientific research also suggests human-caused climate change may increase the chances of slow, wonky jet stream patterns such as the one being observed this summer. The idea is that the disproportionate warming of the high latitudes is reducing the temperature contrast between the north and south, weakening the jet stream and thus causing it to take bigger dips and meander more. It remains a controversial idea.
If it seems the weather has been a little bit "off" since the calendar flipped to June, you're not imagining it — things have been downright weird. It's all linked to a bizarre jet stream pattern, which is displacing air masses from their typical positions and disrupting the movement of weather systems across the continent.
Among other things, the jet stream created a sprawling heat dome in Canada which "helped sap the landscape of moisture, leaving it ripe to burn," the article points out.
"Meanwhile in the southern U.S., the roaring southern branch of the jet stream has been energizing storms. That's brewed back-to-back rounds of severe weather, complete with strong winds, tornadoes and 'gargantuan' hail — and the pattern doesn't look to budge soon." [El Niño] historically, has been linked to split-flow jet stream patterns like the one driving wild weather across parts of the Lower 48. Natural variability, a.k.a. randomness, is also a big player, but it stands to reason that the two factors, overlapping together, are in large part culpable for what we've been facing.
Some scientific research also suggests human-caused climate change may increase the chances of slow, wonky jet stream patterns such as the one being observed this summer. The idea is that the disproportionate warming of the high latitudes is reducing the temperature contrast between the north and south, weakening the jet stream and thus causing it to take bigger dips and meander more. It remains a controversial idea.
Re:How to determine if climate is changing (Score:5, Informative)
Obligatory XKCD:
https://xkcd.com/2278/ [xkcd.com]
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Why is this modded as Troll? (Score:2)
It's cynical but not incorrect. The mod also assumes that someone feels the climate shouldn't change which, given the current historical record, is absolutely absurd.
El Nino is El Ninoing ... (Score:2, Offtopic)
but MAYBE it's because of Justin Bieber.
Maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Hail "bigger than DVDs?" (Score:2)
Are these ultra-thin, disc-shaped hailstones?
If you really wanted to give an impression of size without resorting to standard units of measure (12cm or slightly less than 5 inches in diameter), maybe cantaloupe-sized? I don't know.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably this is after they have hit the ground and gone splat.
It would be more useful to talk about how much they weigh.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, how much did they weigh. It's the momentum that counts, and for falling ice that's usually mainly weight dependent. (Yeah, you COULD build a lifting body out of ice, but you'd need to do it on purpose.)
Re: (Score:2)
Hailstones bigger than DVDs?
Are these ultra-thin, disc-shaped hailstones?
Clearly they were referring to storage capacity. DVDs are quite outdated, so these days even a good size hailstone contains more data. Problem is, they melt before you get halfway through watching the movie.
USA needs more trees. A lot more trees. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
(*) Well ok, maybe no trees if you are in a city built where it should be nothing but desert. But hey that's your problem don't make it mine.
Re: USA needs more trees. A lot more trees. (Score:2)
ãS~~Trees~~ Clearcuts.ã
Can I fix that for you?
Re: USA needs more trees. A lot more trees. (Score:2)
You know all that green you see when you flip google maps to satellite view? Clearly trump was running around with bucket of green paint to fool everyone.
Re:USA needs more trees. A lot more trees. (Score:4, Interesting)
There are actually a lot of trees in the USA, but the total biomass is less because so little forest is old growth. For the majority of species, older trees fix more carbon because they actually grow faster — all growth occurs in a layer just below the bark.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have a lot of trees in Canada. We tried to share the benefits with USA for free but it wasn't appreciated and we got hit with "Blame Canada" again. Go figure!
Re: (Score:2)
You guys are starting to crack people up (Score:4, Insightful)
First three posts are all "this isn't climate change" and also "stop talking about it".
Guys, you've gone from frustrating and aggravating to eye-rolling to kind-of-funny. Not because the debate has changed - we've been pretty clear all along on our side, though your reasons have shifted (away from solar cycles, after two of them) -- but because you've lost. People are barely listening any more.
At least, the ones who make the real decisions. The private backers of $20B renewables+powerline projects in North Australia, Morocco, Libya are not betting tens of billions of dollars on a fairy tale. They believe. So do all the people who just voted in the three giant climate acts (Infrastructure, IRA, and CHIPS are all climate acts) and failed to more than scuff the paint on them with the debt hostage demands.
This very year is estimated to be Peak Gasoline. Peak Transportation Fuels hits in 2026. Less oil will be sold, worldwide in 2030 than 2028. It's already happening. And weather like this is just going to usher that along. The dates I just gave may even be timid, because every time somebody has predicted the pace of renewables and batteries they've been too timid. (That said, we're down to such sort timelines, they're probably accurate.)
You've lost, it's all over but the shouting. Can you please stop shouting?
Re: (Score:1)
If Obama and Biden put out a joint statement that they were mistaken about climate change, what do you think the republicans would say?
1) They would agree
2) They would say something about being "woke" and say yes climate change is real
Re:You guys are starting to crack people up (Score:4, Informative)
Dubya acknowledged AGW at the beginning of his presidency [archives.gov] as his father did not long after the start of his [scientificamerican.com]. But "somehow" this message was lost on Republican voters. I'm not a fan of either of the G.B.s but at least they didn't deny science.
Re:You guys are starting to crack people up (Score:4, Insightful)
This very year is estimated to be Peak Gasoline. Peak Transportation Fuels hits in 2026. Less oil will be sold, worldwide in 2030 than 2028.
People have been predicting peak oil my entire life. I don't take them seriously for obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Very different.
This is a prediction of peak oil *sales*, not production. It does not attempt to predict mother nature, just the human energy economy, which has 1% as many variables. We can only make so many cars per year, it takes years to build a factory, so 2030 is highly predictable.
Re: (Score:2)
And this has been predicted many years before - especially by the oil companies where they've been reaping in the profits but not investing in new R&D. They see the writing is on the wall where sales will decline - not quite to zero - b
Re: (Score:2)
What is going to happen is the peak _demand_ for oil. Developed countries are rapidly moving towards EVs and more fuel-efficient vehicles, and this is rapidly reducing the need for oil. In fact, the US oil consumption had peaked in 2005: https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
These fuel efficient vehicles are now filtering into developing count
Re: (Score:1)
People underestimate the miracle of fracking. It basically doubled the worldwide oil reserves, so as a result, right now there's no oil production bottleneck in sight.
Yep. World leaders said "well, I can afford a water filter" and the rest is... ugh.
Re: (Score:1)
What shocks me is that
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah in reality we get modded down by you and your sock puppets and you get modded up to +5. [...] You and ArchieBunker and Quonset and drinkypoo and opportunist all need to get an island somewhere and live out your miserable lives in Democratic Socialist poverty.
Wow, that's an entire rent-free condo complex in your head!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Guy who spreads misinformation has a handle named the same. Fitting.
Stolen election... 6000 yr old earth... (or do you believe its flat?)... we've heard all of your nonsense before.
Re: You guys are starting to crack people up (Score:1)
Hello sock puppet. How are you?
Re: You guys are starting to crack people up (Score:2)
And yet the top insurance companies are pulling out of the most vulnerable areas:
https://apnews.com/article/cal... [apnews.com]
* Californiaâ(TM)s unsettled market aligns with trends across the country in which companies are boosting rates, limiting coverage or pulling out completely from regions susceptible to wildfires and other natural disasters in the era of climate change. *
Every corporation knows it now. I got a job offer years ago to shill that AGW is not real, I know about the big money. And I get dirty at w
This is impressive... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, duh.
If you've been around for more than a few decades, it won't affect you, you'll be dead before the planet becomes uninhabitable.
Re: This is impressive... (Score:4, Insightful)
Mmm, dunno if that's true for those that are now around 20.
I mean, it's not like I would have to care. I have no kids, I'm 50, I'll be out of here before the big shit hits the fan. But if I had kids, I'd really hate how they'd probably and justifiably piss on my grave for dumping my mess on them.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right, but you are missing an important bit in your argument. Let me fix that for you:
I don't think anything humanity is doing right now, short of global thermonuclear war, is going to make the planet uninhabitable for them within their lifetimes and far, far beyond.
What that means is that there is a high probability (keyword here being probability, not certain) that you and they will be on the winning side of climate change:
- you are likely at latitudes less impacted by climate change (if you are near the equator, then some parts will indeed become unsuitable for outdoor human life for more than half the days in a year; by unsuitable, we mean too hot and too humid to allow sw
Re: This is impressive... (Score:2)
I direct your attention to the other side of the planet right now, and to both sides of the planet in the not so distant past, where the situation is or was closer to the hell you're prognosticating than it is here and now.
I don't mind not living on the wrong side of the tracks. There always has and always will be a wrong side of the tracks. I see no value in feeling guilty over it or trying to make myself more poor so that that we're all more equal.
Re: (Score:2)
I also see no value in preserving your wealth to make myself poorer in the future. Hope you don't mind.
Re: This is impressive... (Score:2)
Which is why we have strong property rights embedded in our economic and political system. And the 2nd amendment in our constitution to make sure you lefty pickpockets don't get any ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I don't really worry too much about it. I just break out the popcorn and watch you get blown once across your continent in the next hurricane from across the pond.
That's the thing, I dunno if you noticed it, but the storms and other nasty crap really got worse the past couple years in the US. Fortunately not here. So ... enjoy.
Re: This is impressive... (Score:2)
Um...no they haven't. There were a few that came ashore nearer to populated areas than in other years, but that's random chance. Global warming doesn't really make cities, as opposed to unpopulated coastline, into hurricane magnets, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes they have [statista.com].
But even if you don't believe me or statistics, believe insurances that hike up their premiums [theregreview.org] simple because they have to pay out more. This in turn means that your Floridian or Texan real estate value plummets because the total cost to own goes up considerably - or you can leave your property un- or underinsured.
Or you can hope for a government disaster relief fund, but that would be very socialist of you.
Re: This is impressive... (Score:2)
Insurance prices risk. Risk is probability times consequence.
The probability can stay the same, but if the consequences rise because people build on hurricane-prone shorelines with government subsidized insurance, well why wouldn't that work right up until it doesn't?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in your example it's the other way around, people building homes where they are more at risk increases the probability, not the consequence, but in the end, that doesn't matter.
And ... maybe you can go into detail how government subsidizing insurances would increase what the owner has to pay for their insurance? If I get subsidized, usually my costs go down, not up.
Re: This is impressive... (Score:2)
No...if a hurricane has a 100% chance of coming ashore in a given spot, but it is completely unpopulated, the risk is zero. If that same spot has a hundred thousand homes in the splash zone, the probability is the same, but the risk is likely more than $10 billion.
Government subsidies encourage risky behavior by building in the splash zone. What starts out as a bailout for uninsured homeowners (ie the poor) attracts more expensive to insure construction and thus higher premiums.
Insurance works as a risk poo
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I finally get what you're trying to say. Yes, that makes sense.
The thing is, though, that the premiums are rising. Even in areas where people don't build in (former) flooding zones and hurricane corridors. Also, you'll find that insurances do make differences depending on where you build. So a blizzard insurance is considerably cheaper in South Florida than in, say, Michigan.
Existing insurance premiums go up. And not just because we have an inflation going on. What would you say would be the reason for
Re: This is impressive... (Score:2)
Modest sized homes haven't been built en masse in this country since the 1980s or earlier. As housing stock turns over, the overall risk increases because the overall costs of rebuilding are rising faster than inflation since the average house is more expensive adjusted for inflation now than 50 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
And why again does a premium go up for a house that has not been in any way changed since it has been built?
Re: This is impressive... (Score:2)
For three reasons.
The first is inflation in the cost of rebuilding (could also include added permitting costs now vs back then which would be above the inflation in labor and materials).
The second is because the property values of surrounding homes inflate the value of an old home in a suddenly expensive neighborhood.
The third is that you're paying into a risk pool carrying more liabilities by virtue of having more expensive properties in the pool. Remember: insurance that charges only in direct proportion
Re: (Score:2)
And that all happened in the last 3-4 years? And not any of that before? Interesting.
Re: (Score:3)
You would expect humanity, or at least people on slashdot, to understand the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma [slashdot.org], and understand why cooperation may benefit both sides (and not just make you poorer, boohoo, my heart is crying for you).
You might even have a look at the Iterated version of it, which is more representative of political and human interactions between countries and people.
Of course, given that most people are too dumb to even realize they are dumb, the best course of action is yours
Re: (Score:2)
This one is for all your smooth brains out there. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Can you point out which historical context you're speaking about?
Re: (Score:1)
This one is for all your smooth brains out there. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Yes, it's gotten a little warmer as we came out of the last glaciation.
If you're going back beyond old-farts' lifetimes, though, try expanding your horizons a bit - back to the carboniferous, at least. And look at the ongoing drop in the carbon dioxide level during the deep ice ages, its failure to fully recover during the intervening periods of glacial retreat/advance combs, and the fact that the LAST deep glaciation ALMOST hit the l
Ravaged the south? (Score:2)
Will all these southern states be applying for federal disaster relief? They're all too happy to vote against northern states asking for money.
Tornadoes (Score:2)
I had six tornadoes come through my area in Northwest Ohio just a few days ago, the closest only five miles away (I saw the rotating wall cloud forming as it passed by, mother nature is awesome). It's going to be an interesting summer this year. The local weather stations were completely surprised by the storm's development. It was a much cooler than normal day making the appearance of tornadoes even that much more surprising.
Forget the simulations (Score:2)
Something you can do (Score:2)
"here's why" (Score:1)
We're living in the age of stupidty. (Score:1)
Solution is economic, not technical or political. (Score:2)
And the people who stand to lose the most from that will do their damnedest to make sure it doesn't happen, by making any serious public discussion about it impossible.
When did Slashdot get so woke? (Score:1)
Multiple contributing factors (Score:2)
One of the many factors involved in how CO2 and other compounds affect climate and weather, is also around aerosols, particularly those created by cargo shipping, mostly in the Northern hemisphere.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/e... [nasa.gov]
https://www.science.org/doi/10... [science.org] (2016)
https://prospect.org/environme... [prospect.org]
There's been an interesting 'experiment' occurring for decades as these ships spewed aerosols as they traversed the oceans. These aerosols essentially acted as cloud seeding, which effectively reflected so
How much of this is a set up? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sometimes weather is weird (Score:5, Funny)
It is fun to have unusual weather, as long as it is not dangerous.
I assume you were born after DVDs became obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
As for fun unusual weather go look up what a water cycle is. The entire Southwest America is running out of water because it's out of whack thanks to climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Only partially. One reason it's running out of water is that a vastly increased population likes to water their lawns and grow crops that require lots of irrigation. That would do it even without any extra changes. And the SouthWest has long experienced periodic droughts that have been long enough to kill civilizations. That's probably what happened to the Anasazi. This doesn't mean or imply that climate change isn't making things worse, just that it's only happening a bit more quickly than should real
Re: (Score:2)
likes to water their lawns and grow crops that require lots of irrigation
You forgot the bit that makes things a thousand times worse:
... in the middle of the desert.
They're not just living beyond their means water-wise, they're doing it in the middle of the least feasible and sensible place to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of Old folks refused to believe in it. Coincidentally they'll all be dead before the worst of the effects hit...
You'd think they'd be the ones who'd see it more clearly but there's probably something to that "coincidence". Get off their lawn.
He's probably one of those who let their Viewmaster lever twang upwards and crack the plastic at the top of the slot.
I don't think Viewmaster size hailstones would be fun though.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a difference between questioning something and repeatedly questioning forever because you don't like the answer.
But hey, you do you.
Re: (Score:2)
So since the majority of governments around here are pushing that climate change is not happening, we should question them? I'm glad that you agree that we should be questioning them, don't know why you were marked troll for pushing the science instead of the governments view.
Re: (Score:2)
sure, question everything!
then question yourself. ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
ps, anymore I consider downvotes on slashdot to be a badge of honor and proof I don't go along with the groupthink.
Re: (Score:2)
It is fun to have unusual weather, as long as it is not dangerous, and we do not have to scream about anthropogenic climate change ever time.
Well, it is dangerous, and it's not fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat after me.
Weather is not climate.
Weather is not climate.
Weather is not climate.
Weather is not climate.
Weather is not...
Okay. Okay. Enough weather IS climate.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but increasingly violent weather is dangerous (as well as being the canary in the coal mine for anyone unconvinced by their ski resort having no snow, etc).
Ocean surface temperatures are much higher than normal this year - huge amount of energy in the system - that will manifest as more violent hurricanes etc as the year progresses.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that the big stuff doesn't suck, but the small stuff is a lot more damaging than people realize. To be honest I forgotten my high school or hell let's face it grade school science with regards to the water cycle
Re: (Score:2)
What is weird, from my memory of high school and grade school science was that one of the feedback mechanisms in the carbon cycle was global warming causing more evaporation, leading to more rain, which led to more silicate weathering and perhaps in a short (geological) time of millenniums, the weathering would reduce the CO2 back to balance, which at the time was somewhere around 300 ppm. That was the science 50 odd years back that we were taught.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
All of that is real, but it was never going to rebalance atmospheric CO2 while we continued to increase carbon emissions. However, most CO2 is believed to be removed from the atmosphere by the ocean, and then subsequent reaction with subaquatic limestone.
If we had all died to a plague 50 years ago or something, maybe things would be rebalanced by now, or closer to it anyway. Clearly the system does have self-regulating characteristics, otherwise it would never have had a period of relative stasis. But we pe
whee (Score:2)
Even Dice did something about serial mod abusers.
B!zX does something about them too... give them more modpoints
Re: (Score:2)
All of that is real, but it was never going to rebalance atmospheric CO2 while we continued to increase carbon emissions. However, most CO2 is believed to be removed from the atmosphere by the ocean, and then subsequent reaction with subaquatic limestone.
My understanding is that it is closer to 50/50 between weathering and plants sequestering CO2, and my implication (should have been clearer) was if we stopped emitting formerly sequestered CO2.
If we had all died to a plague 50 years ago or something, maybe things would be rebalanced by now, or closer to it anyway. Clearly the system does have self-regulating characteristics, otherwise it would never have had a period of relative stasis. But we perturbed it by exceeding the system's ability to self-regulate.
Even if we do keep emitting CO2, at some point there will be a new balance, higher then now and not good for us but the world will continue on
Re: (Score:2)
"... and not good for us but the world will continue on."
Umm. That isn't very reassuring.
How about trying to aim for a world that continues on AND is good for us?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, unluckily a lot of others don't agree and even if we all agreed, there's a long ways to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1321/ [xkcd.com]