Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth

'Zero-Degree Line' Rises To Record Height As Heatwave Continues In Europe 75

Switzerland's MeteoSuisse reported another measure of record summer heat Monday when its weather balloon climbed to a record-high 17,400 feet before reaching what it calls the zero-degree line. UPI reports: The zero-degree line, which is the altitude at which the temperature falls below freezing, is considered a key meteorological marker, particularly in mountainous regions, has been climbing and set a record in 2022. "The Payerne, [Switzerland] radiosounding this night from August 20 to 21, 2023 measured the 0C isothermal 5,298 meters, which is a record since the start of measurements in 1954," MeteoSuisse said in a translated social media post.

The weather service said the zero-degree line "affects vegetation, the snow line and the water cycle so has a considerable impact on the habitats of humans, animals and plants alike." The zero-degree line averaged 8,432 feet from 1991 to 2020, with a high of about 13,123 feet in the summer. "Anthropogenic climate change has caused the altitude of the zero-degree line to rise significantly in every season," MeteoSuisse said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Zero-Degree Line' Rises To Record Height As Heatwave Continues In Europe

Comments Filter:
  • Keep burning that Russian oil, guys!

    • by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Wednesday August 23, 2023 @01:06AM (#63789658) Homepage

      Although your comment has little to do with TFA, it is also just wrong. Maybe check actual data before posting?

      The actual data on Switzerland's energy [admin.ch] shows that electricity production is 62% hydroelectric and 29% nuclear. Total energy usage (including cars, etc.) obviously includes more fossil fuels, 36.3% of our total energy usage. Oil is imported, since we have no oil of our own: 39% from Nigeria, 32% from the USA and 25% from Libya.

      You, of course, are from the USA. Where 26% of your electricity comes from coal.

      • Ah my mistake, I see there are different numbers for consumption vs. production, I missed that when I look at my source: https://ourworldindata.org/ene... [ourworldindata.org] where it's far less clear than yours.

        Not from the USA, btw.

      • by eastlight_jim ( 1070084 ) on Wednesday August 23, 2023 @02:53AM (#63789762)

        The thing is, you're both right. Energy, in all its forms, is 49.1% oil and gas from yor own figures (36.3% oil and 12.8% gas). Electricity, aka "power", is of course much greener.

        This basically goes to show how unbelieveably addicted we are to fossil fuels as a planet.

        Even a country with an electricity grid as green as Switzerland's still has at least half of its energy coming from fossil fuels (I'm not sure what's in the 17% of "Other").

        The planet doesn't care whether this was imported, produced domestically, burned in a car, or burned in a power station. It's all the same carbon dioxide.

        • I was mostly criticizing his comment about "Russian oil". I should have made that clear...
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          At least we have a path away from fossil fuels for transport. Europe is making decent progress on that front, could be faster of course but compared to Japan and the US...

      • by jmccue ( 834797 ) on Wednesday August 23, 2023 @06:45AM (#63790130) Homepage

        The actual data on Switzerland's energy [admin.ch] shows that electricity production is 62% hydroelectric and 29% nuclear.

        This is all well and good, but Global Warming is worldwide, thus the word "global" :). Many places have done nothing but increase the use of fossil fuels.

        So in a way the parent post is correct. The US just opened 2 more oil drilling sites, this is under the "environment president". If the GOP was in charge maybe it would have been 3 instead of 2. Also the politicians in the US is doing all they can to keep Gas Prices Low. Why, to get re-elected. So nothing will be done in many places until the politicians "take one for the team".

        So yes, keep burning oil. So how to change, stop subsidizing the Oil Industry, then you will see people move quickly to renewals.

  • by rossdee ( 243626 )

    Thats 0 Celsius, not Fahrenheit

    32 F

    273.15 K

  • by Hoi Polloi ( 522990 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2023 @09:46PM (#63789452) Journal

    Well if the Gulf Stream shuts down that'll cool things off quickly there.

    • Except that heat will just remain off the east coast USA if it's not carried away by the gulf stream so god help the inhabitants there.

      • Well, fortunately the people there still believe in that thing, so that's gonna work out allright for everyone. We get acceptable climate and they get their god. And its rapture.

        • According to this [arstechnica.com] the climate with the Gulf Stream gone wouldn't really be what I'd call acceptable. 3.4 degree drop is pretty bad but the loss of almost 80% of all arable land in UK would be the one that really hurt. The study doesn't look at what would happen in northern continental Europe, but I imagine it wouldn't be good either.

  • or at least that is what the politicians are trying to make us believe.
    So pay up now to pay off your feelings of guilt and desperation!

    • by Sique ( 173459 ) on Wednesday August 23, 2023 @01:23AM (#63789678) Homepage
      A good many problems can be solved by forcing everyone to pay for the damage caused by their actions.

      Otherwise, everyone pays for the damage done by other's actions, and this would be Socialism, right?

      • But privatizing profits and socializing cost is what our economy model is built on.

        • by Sique ( 173459 )
          So Capitalism is Socialism for companies.
        • But privatizing profits and socializing cost is what our economy model is built on.

          No, it's what our political system is built on. In the US at least, there's a huge portion of the population that wants to concentrate money in the smallest number of hands (i.e. the federal government) in the hopes that your "team" will be able to impose its will on the other "team". Naturally all that concentrated money and power attracts corruption.

          Small town governments can be corrupt, but at least people who care can tell who the worst crooks are and actually influence how much corruption they're will

  • When do we start openly and loudly condemning China for its rampant pollution, more than the developed world in total? That brings up another question. When are we going to quit letting China get away with calling itself a developing nation so that it gets all the financial and climate change perks afforded developing nations?

    Until China is forced to consider climate change I ain't gonna make any changes on my part. It is just not worth it.

    {+_+}

    • well, actually; https://edition.cnn.com/2023/0... [cnn.com]
    • Re:So when? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by battingly ( 5065477 ) on Wednesday August 23, 2023 @12:56AM (#63789642)
      China is making significant progress in renewables. The existential threat to humanity isn't China. The threat is all the lazy people who won't make any effort unless everybody else on the planet does so first.
      • Re:So when? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday August 23, 2023 @03:53AM (#63789836) Homepage Journal

        China is about 5 years ahead of its agreed Paris target for peaking emissions. Should be around 2025-26. The peak will be about half what the average American emits, and then start falling.

        That is incredibly good news because the planet couldn't take another 1.4 billion people living an American lifestyle. Or even a European one, for that matter. If China can do it and still maintain improving quality of life for citizens, then so can India and Brazil and all the other developing nations.

        • China is about 5 years ahead of its agreed Paris target for peaking emissions. ...
          That is incredibly good news

          There are two reasons for that: renewables deployment (deploying as fast as they can actually do) AND nuclear deployment (50 plants in operation today, 150 more plants planned for 2035).

          Next Amimojo post consisting of "but but but... denial... blah blah blah" in 3. 2. 1...

    • A lot of that rampant pollution is from outsourced manufacturing from the west so we can continue to buy cheap crap. Have a think about that if decide to pointlessly upgrade your perfectly good phone in 2 years time or whenever. Technosheep couldnt understan why I kept my 2009 nokia until it eventually broke a few years ago even though it did everything I needed.

      "Baaa must upgrade because baaaa baaaa apple tells us baaa baaaa"

    • Well, they did recently announce that they've lifted 100 million of their population out of extreme poverty ahead of schedule, so they should be close to being classified as a developed country soon. What perks do you think should be taken away when they do reach that classification?
      • In turn, the US is pushing about the same amount of people into poverty with a far lower population, try that, China!

    • Re:So when? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday August 23, 2023 @04:33AM (#63789914)

      I condemn China and all its polluting industry!

      Which reminds me, I gotta order some cheap Chinese trinkets of Amazon, brb.

    • Until China is forced to consider climate change I ain't gonna make any changes on my part.

      So, given China is quite ahead of the race [cnn.com] in renewables and nuclear deployment, which are both low-carbon electricity production sources, given also that in 2022 they deployed more solar/wind than all the rest of the world combined, given also that they are the one providing most of the solar panels and wind turbines to other countries transition plans...

      Can you now tell us what changes you are going to implement on your part? Ideally starting right now. Or was it just an excuse to not make any change anyw

  • The extremes around the world so far this year are way above even the worst case year on year predictions and el Nino has barely started. Wtf is going on?

    • It could be a perfect storm (no pun intended) of the current Solar Cycle (25) exceeding predictions and approaching maximum. Combine with an injection of water vapor in to higher levels of the atmosphere due to the Tongan eruption. Combine that with ongoing feedback effects, such as melting permafrost. Combine that with, believe it or not, the switch to cleaner fuels for cargo ships which may have been masking sea surface temperatures in some areas. And finally, and I know this will be controversial, al

      • ...aaaand you argument is...?

        The planet's cooking as we speak & we probably have the technology & the capacity to mitigate the trajectory of temperature rise & maybe even keep our environment reasonably liveable. All that's lacking is the political will. So what's your contribution to this situation? How do your arguments help?
        • Argument is: doesn't understand climate as they included effects that have opposite effects but suggested they would make it worse and mentioned solar cycles that make essentially no difference?
          • by HiThere ( 15173 )

            Sorry, but everything he mentioned has an effect, generally warming, on the weather. Most of them are quite minor, but he was hypothesizing a "perfect storm", which sort of implies lots of small things piling on top of the major causes. So it's a plausible guess, but I don't think any model could validate it.

            OTOH, "perfect storm"s happen occasionally, and need to be expected to happen occasionally. This isn't an argument that things aren't extremely bad, but may be an explanation for why they were worse

            • Maybe this time it didn't act as usual, but that's not something to assume

              If you google around, you'll see that the Tongan eruption was exactly that--few sulfur aerosols, lots of water vapor. Totally the opposite of Pinatubo. Last I saw, its warming impact was mostly for the Southern Hemisphere, and was expected to clear in a few years.

              • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
                It's a bigger water vapour increase, over a sustained period, than I had understood so yes, that would be a rare case of a volcanic eruption having a warming effect. Normally it only applies to activity short of an eruption which can include CO2 leakage but at a level well within the capability of natural carbon sinks to handle, Deccan Traps, etc., excepted.
            • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

              Sorry, but everything he mentioned has an effect, generally warming, on the weather.

              Typically, volcanic eruptions put out CO2 but also other things, noticeably particulates, and typically result in cooling, as you note. This is almost always the case.

              Most of them are quite minor

              Solar activity changes are so tiny that they have not been discerned to have any effect at all.

              • by HiThere ( 15173 )

                Well, I've seen studies that said they thought they had some effect, but then I've seen the same about variation in cosmic ray intensity. (Something about ionizing upper layers of the atmosphere, but I never got clear on what.)

                • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
                  I haven't seen any paper that has stood up to long term scrutiny that has suggested any meaningful effect. The variations in insolation is incredibly tiny. Cosmic rays - also nothing credible I've seen. About fifteen years ago proponents of such theories assured us we'd now be in a period of cooling because of such effects and it hasn't happened. Even now they crop up. If I see credible evidence I'll change my mind but over the last fifty years the conventional theories regarding climate change have proven
            • OTOH, "perfect storm"s happen occasionally, and need to be expected to happen occasionally.

              In probabilistic terms, "occasionally" does not mean anything. What means something is stuff like Antartic ice levels nosediving in a five-sigma event [abc.net.au]. What is a five-sigma event you might ask? It is something that is likely to happen once every 7.5 million year. So you can think that we hit the jackpot this year. But the likely explanation is that it is not a "perfect storm", but just a direct result of the amount of CO2 we keep emitting in excess.

              The Occam's razor principle [wikipedia.org] can help you figure out which s

        • aaaand you argument is...?

          None. I thought it was a straight question, not rhetorical.

      • It could be a perfect storm of [lists a long list of conditions]

        Or, if we follow the Occam's razor principle [wikipedia.org], the simplest explanation is the amount of CO2 we emit in excess compared to pre-industrial levels. Maybe it is a coïncidence, but this is the explanation favored by actual scientists. Go figure.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Wtf is going on?

      You really need to ask at this time?

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        It is a legitimate question: "Why is this year hotter than the models expected?". This doesn't mean one can expect an immediate answer.

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          The models are longer-term averages. The models also predict significantly larger variation than before. Is there really anybody left (except the deniers) that does not know these basic facts?

        • It is a legitimate question: "Why is this year hotter than the models expected?".

          It is not.

          The models do not predict specific events, they show trends. The high temperatures are within the error bars of the trend lines -aka, within the range of predicted results.

          • To clarify my reply....

            I am not saying the question is not legitimate.
            I am saying the answer to the question is that the temperature is not outside the predicted results.

            • by HiThere ( 15173 )

              Yeah, but the predicted results have pretty wide error bars. When you get a result near the edge of what your model predicts, you need to look for some factor you didn't include that you should.

              P.S.: We KNOW that there are lots of important factors not included. Most climate models don't include the ocean around Antarctica, and that's a major issue. (I think it may be a lack of data, but the article I read didn't go into details.) And there are lots of other things that may be important and aren't incl

    • https://www.thenation.com/arti... [thenation.com]

      I can't show this to my 13 year old daughter. She's already said she's not going to have kids because of the environment. This would cause her anxiety.

  • Whilst I'm not for moment denying man-made global warming, the article implies that the zero-degree line has been steadily getting higher.

    The table in the article, however, shows the second-highest year as 1995. There's clearly a lot of variability in this level.

    • The table does not include the new 2023 record. So now the second-highest year was 2022, with 1995 the third-highest.

  • by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Wednesday August 23, 2023 @05:22AM (#63789988)

    ... if you're going to convert everything to feet/inches/bananas/elephants and football fields. All the non USians would very much appreciate.

    • I would upvote if I could.
    • by rossdee ( 243626 )

      Everyone knows that football fields is a measure of area, not height.

      As for elephants, is that african elephants or indian elephants?

      (I suppose it would be african because indian elephants don't live in the Alps.
      OTOH a couple of millennia ago Hannibal passed though the Alps with some african elephants..

  • MeteoSuisse stated "Anthropogenic climate change has caused the altitude of the zero-degree line to rise significantly in every season" without any explanation of why or how they arrived at this conclusion.
  • OK, it's 3.5% higher than 1995 vs. MSL but without the lowest number on record we can't know much.

  • After measurements started in 1954, 1955 was a record-setting year, not matched since in the number of records that fell. Climate changes over centuries, not decades.

  • 74 posts here thus far and no one has mentioned that the highest point on the European peninsula is Mont Blanc with a summit of 4,807.81 m (15,774 ft) which is about 1700 below this 0 C point - thus there was no place on the European peninsula that was below freezing = ice was melting on every mountain top in the Alps.

    The tallest mountain in Europe, by current definition, is Mount Elbrus in the Caucasus at 5,642 m (18,510 ft) so there is still some global heating to go before we reach the level that no plac

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Working...