Millions in US Face Extreme-Heat Threat (theguardian.com) 155
Millions of Americans face the threat of dangerous heatwaves in the coming weeks with another summer of record-breaking temperatures forecast to hit the US. From a report: Most of New Mexico and Utah -- alongside parts of Arizona, Texas and Colorado -- have the highest chance (60% to 70%) of seeing hotter-than-average summer temperatures, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa). In addition, the entire north-east -- from Maine down to Pennsylvania and New Jersey -- as well as a large stretch from Louisiana to Arizona, Washington and Idaho, have a 40% to 50% chance of experiencing above-average temperatures from June through August. Only south-west Alaska is expected to have below-normal temperatures.
"We can expect another dangerous hot summer season, with daily records already being broken in parts of Texas and Florida," said Kristy Dahl, principal climate scientist for the Climate and Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "As we warm the planet, we are going to see climate disasters pile up and compound against each other because of the lack of resilience in our infrastructure and government systems." Texas has already been hit with a series of tornadoes, unprecedented floods and record-breaking temperatures. Earlier in May, temperatures spiked as hundreds of thousands of households around Houston were left without power after a destructive storm killed at least seven people and damaged transmission towers and power lines.
"We can expect another dangerous hot summer season, with daily records already being broken in parts of Texas and Florida," said Kristy Dahl, principal climate scientist for the Climate and Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "As we warm the planet, we are going to see climate disasters pile up and compound against each other because of the lack of resilience in our infrastructure and government systems." Texas has already been hit with a series of tornadoes, unprecedented floods and record-breaking temperatures. Earlier in May, temperatures spiked as hundreds of thousands of households around Houston were left without power after a destructive storm killed at least seven people and damaged transmission towers and power lines.
Fake news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is kind of karmic justice that the places which will likely suffer most in US tend to be the places that are actively resisting doing anything about the problem. Actually, they seem to be doing the opposite of what is in their own best interests.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You make it sound like China isn't producing more and more pollution so that the poor people in the red states can stuff their homes with cheap Chinese junk, while they continue to oppose any measure that will help them.
Re: (Score:2)
neither create the massive pollution
[citation needed]
Re:Fake news (Score:4, Informative)
Don't bother, here's the data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
As expected, the red states output most CO2 per capita.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It is now everyone's problem, sadly.
The real issue is that people with short planning horizons end up using the "cheapest" options, and "cheapest" means either subsidized, or depending heavily on creating "externalities", that is, spreading the cost without paying.
So when the time comes to internalize the costs (usually because otherwise the situation becomes untenable), and they're suddenly facing the real bill for their lifestyle, they are unhappy about it.
And then they become very creative denialists of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One would think this is obvious and a no-brainer, but lo and behold, in many cases the long-term future of the company is not really a concern of the management, unlike what they can grab and gold-parachute out with.
Go figure...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1/10, too obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
This is absolutely what I'm talking about. The blue states exported pollution to China.
There was more manufacturing in red states, how did blue states export pollution to China? More of the big polluters were incorporated in red states, how did blue states export pollution to China? Most of the jobs left during republican administrations, and to the extent that any of them have come back, it has been under democrat administrations, how did red states export pollution to China?
The truth is that democrats and republicans (or blues and reds if you like) have been largely united in offshoring man
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> nor should they vote to spend their last few bucks
Nobody is asking them to spend more bucks on EV subsidies. Federal taxes on poor people in red states haven't increased for decades.
What does affect them is rising insurance rates due to more incidents of extreme weather. Grid failures. Droughts and floods. And yet red states oppose efforts to reduce emissions.
Re: (Score:3)
>> Because the emissions are in China
China is the #1 emitter, but the USA is #2. So you are wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
And yet An America pollutes nearly twice as much [ourworldindata.org]
Americans are the top 5% of polluters in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the poor people in the blue states and the rich people in the red states?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously ! There was a time a scientist was wrong, lets ban all science.
I sort of feel bad (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I sort of feel bad (Score:5, Informative)
Florida even bans laws that would mandate heat breaks for out door workers.
Texas has already gotten rid of mandated breaks during high heat [npr.org]. Big Government knows better than local communities.
Re: (Score:2)
Culling the weak :-) Jokes aside I'm reminded of a city in Siberia where the schools don't have heating. On average they have one kid fatally freeze to death every year, and the community does in fact accept this as culling the weak. Madness.
And here I was bitching about my english teacher setting homework.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the irony on that one is poignant.
Re: (Score:2)
Texas has already gotten rid of mandated breaks during high heat. Big Government knows better than local communities.
How does anyone propose anything like this? How does one get re-elected after creating this kind of law? Do you really believe that elections are true reflections of the values that the People hold?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Oh please, that cuts hard both ways, you only notice it when you're on the receiving end.
The fastest way to get marked -1, troll is to post a link with solid facts backed by science that is in opposition to the leftist narrative.
The better quality the links are, the faster it gets modded down.
Quit yer bitchin.
Re: (Score:2)
the leftist narrative
What is that?
Re: I sort of feel bad (Score:2)
Indeed, I'm eagerly awaiting their non- response as well. Who knows, may be this one will buck the trend and offer up something, ANYTHING substantive.
We can only hope.
Re: (Score:3)
As usually, you shitposted some garbage instead of answering a simple and straight question.
*shrug*
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>> solid facts backed by science
All I ever see here from you is a bunch of arrogant personal opinions. Many of which have been solidly refuted, so quit whining.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is but one example, I am sure there are others.
sun blocking aerosols (Score:1)
I am certain that the Sun blocking aerosols will be used in the next decades to cool down the planet by a couple of degrees, this doesn't change the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, it doesn't reduce CO2 production, so the oceans will keep getting more and more acidic. If we use aerosols that have some base (Sodium, for example) ingredients, we could reduce this acidity as well. Given that people are not switching to nuclear energy production away from coal, oil and gas, this is what will have to happen for
Re: (Score:1)
The last thing we need is a bunch of stupid fucks experimenting on the only planet we have.
"Doing something is better than doing nothing!" is pure idiocy.
Anyway cutting down on incoming sun to cool the planet, even if we could do it in a controlled and safe way (we can't) doesn't help with any of the other problems high co2 causes. If you want lower co2, stop producing co2. Don't bandaid the effects of it with other insane sci-fi bullshit that won't work and will make things worse in other ways.
Re:sun blocking aerosols (Score:5, Informative)
The last thing we need is a bunch of stupid fucks experimenting on the only planet we have.
(...again, after the unplanned 200-year-running fossil carbon release experiment has already gone horribly wrong)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes so we should double down and intentionally fuck up the planet. Great idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes so we should double down and intentionally fuck up the planet. Great idea.
Dude! The guy you're trying to argue with agrees with you! Maybe count to ten, or even twenty, before pulling the trigger on your next snarkasm outburst?
Re:sun blocking aerosols (Score:4, Insightful)
whatever you mean, we are experimenting on this planet every day for millenia. We move earth, change river flows, create channels between oceans, move species between continents, remove billions of tons of metals, coal, oil, gas from where we find it, we burn 50 billions of tons of oil, gas, coal and wood per year, we release billions of tons of particular matter into the air, ground and water, we destroy billions of tons of insects, millions of tons of fish per year, we grow cultures by billions of tons, we turn night into day in our cities and towns, displace species, pollute waters. We do all of this and we actually know exactly that we already stopped global dimming once, in the seventies, when we cleaned up sulphur and lead from some of the aerosols.
What I said we will have to do soon will happen, in out lifetimes (well in some of our lifetimes), we will use base aerosols to block 1-2 % of the Sun light and to deacidify the ocean water (which we have acidified).
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't say do nothing. I stopped reading right there because you didn't read my post either.
Law of Averages and Deviations (Score:4, Informative)
a large stretch from Louisiana to Arizona, Washington and Idaho, have a 40% to 50% chance of experiencing above-average temperatures from June through August.
Unless you have a skewed probability distribution this sounds like exactly what you would expect: with a typical symmetric gaussian probability disbtribution half the time you'll be above average and the other half of the time you'll be below. Indeed, these numbers suggest that a cooler than average summer is more likely than not since it you have a 40-50% of being hotter than average then there is a corresponding 50-60% chance of being cooler. Normally you would expect even odds of being either hotter or cooler so a 60-70% chance means that things have changed by 10-20%.
It's almost as if someone is trying to use the public's ignorance of basic statistcs to make these numbers sound far more frightening than they are. A difference of 10-20% is under one standard deviation from the mean which is what you expect to get two years out of three, sounds a lot less scary now doesn't it?
The concerning part is that we are having more above average years than below average years and, if we keep this up and do not take action to stop global warming then we will start to see more significant temperature deviations. Deliberately misleading people by presenting what are basically irrelevant weather projections in a manner deliberately intended to scare is appalling and destroys the credibility of the real scientific case for global warming.
Re: (Score:3)
That only works if the global average is constant. It’s not. Literally every year is hotter than the previous when you use global averages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"40-50% of being hotter than average then there is a corresponding 50-60% chance of being cooler."
I don't think that follows from the information presented. A more accurate statement would be "a corresponding 50-60% chance of being average, or cooler than average".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it's just really bad writing.
My guess is they have an "average" range and then "hotter than" and "lower than" average, probably based on percentiles or standard deviations.
I'm too lazy to read the article though, because as you point out the quotes don't line up with conclusions stated which leads me to believe it's pretty stupid. Also, we already know it's the hottest year for 2,000 years.
Re: (Score:2)
So I clicked on TFA and the article says "normal" not average, which definitely implies a range.
Re:Law of Averages and Deviations (Score:5, Insightful)
a large stretch from Louisiana to Arizona, Washington and Idaho, have a 40% to 50% chance of experiencing above-average temperatures from June through August.
Unless you have a skewed probability distribution this sounds like exactly what you would expect: with a typical symmetric gaussian probability disbtribution half the time you'll be above average and the other half of the time you'll be below. Indeed, these numbers suggest that a cooler than average summer is more likely than not since it you have a 40-50% of being hotter than average then there is a corresponding 50-60% chance of being cooler. Normally you would expect even odds of being either hotter or cooler so a 60-70% chance means that things have changed by 10-20%.
It's almost as if someone is trying to use the public's ignorance of basic statistcs to make these numbers sound far more frightening than they are. A difference of 10-20% is under one standard deviation from the mean which is what you expect to get two years out of three, sounds a lot less scary now doesn't it?
I agree the reporting is confusing/incomplete for not defining what "hotter than average" means. But you're making the fairly common mistake of assuming the reporting is wrong due to ignorance or deliberate misdirection, when in fact you're the one who has come to the wrong conclusion
If you open the article and look at the map included at the very top you see the bands showing things like 70%, 50%, 33% and "equal chance", which in context is obviously a lower category of heat risk than 33%.
So obviously your conclusion that 50% == 'equal chance' would be a normal year is wrong (even assuming a Gaussian distribution).
Again, the reporting is incomplete because it doesn't actually tell us what hotter/cooler means, but I'm assuming it's either 33% above the regular odds of hotter than usual (whether or not a Gaussian) or there's a deadband where there's a range of temperatures considered "normal".
Re: (Score:3)
You're giving them a *lot* of benefit of the doubt. By saying "30% chance of above normal temperatures" they implicitly say "70% chance of not above normal". Given annual variations, it is unusual to have precisely normal temperatures - there is always a near 50% change of being above normal, and a corresponding near 50% change of being below normal. So large regions are probably not looking at any sort of problem - but the map sure doesn't tell you that.
Since TFA fails to link to any actual source, one h
Has to be Ignorance or Deliberate Bias (Score:3)
I agree the reporting is confusing/incomplete for not defining what "hotter than average" means.
Hotter than average has a well defined scientific meaning and that is exactly the language that they use in the article. So sorry but there is literally no other possibility other than ignorance or bias. An average is not a "range", it is a value. You can have an uncertainty on that value, like any measurement, but an "average" is a single value based on a distribution. Using it to mean a range is not how it is defined and if you want to use it that way you _have_ to state clearly what your own personal de
Re: (Score:3)
It's not well phrased in TFA, but what it means is that there is a 40-50% chance that temperatures will be above the average band for those areas, which can be a problem because buildings are not adapted for them and people may be unprepared for dangerous levels of heat.
It's not a single temperature that is the average, it's the band of temperatures experienced during those months at different times of the day. It doesn't imply that there is a 50-60% chance of it being below that band either, because the hi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a combination of a journalist simplifying the report, and climate science conventions.
If you read the report it does explain all this.
Re: (Score:2)
40-50% of being hotter than average then there is a corresponding 50-60% chance of being cooler... public's ignorance of basic statistcs...
Speaking of basic statistics, you kind of forgot about a very important third category in weather predictions: Temperatures are going to hover around average. You know - the thickest, tallest part of the bell curve?
For 72 F average, 72.1 F !== "above average", 71.9 F !== "below average"...
deserts (Score:1, Flamebait)
oh noes, it'll be really hot in the deserts where no one should be living anyway, and where aquifers are being pumped dry faster than centuries of rain will refill them!
oh the humanity!
Science (Score:1)
Science doesn't become false by you not believing it.
The poor will suffer every one else will be fine, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is ample opportunity if you are willing to actively seek it.
Sure, if by "actively" you mean "with the aid of guillotines".
It may seem extreme to move 1000 miles, or more, away. It it isnÃ(TM)t any more extreme than slowly being cooked in a box of an apartment with no a/c while barely making ends meet. There are in fact options.
Most people can't afford to move even if they have a job. They're spending all their money just to have a roof over their head [reddit.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Coolest year within the next centuries / millenia (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that 2024 will very likely be amongst the coolest within the next millenia.
Thank you so much, Exxon, Shell, Saudi Aramco etc.
Panic-inducing map (Score:2)
So we have this map, covered with orange and red, which people associate with heat. What does light orange mean? A 33% chance of a warmer-than-normal summer. Meaning a 67% chance that summer will *not* be warmer than normal. White on the map is labeled as "equal chance". How does that differ from dark orange, which is a 50% chance?
Seriously, the coloration on this map is deliberately misleading. It is designed - not to inform - but to induce panic and clicks. Maybe there is real information here, but this
Kill all the poor (Score:2)
I believe the current policy in the USA is simply to say, "Oh, how terrible... thoughts & prayers... this isn't who we are... etc." & then carry on as usual. Equally as effective & maybe more efficient?
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, we're working on solutions to this problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (Mitchell and Webb, running time 0:02:39).
I'm replying to VeryFluffyBunny to say THANK YOU for including an explanation and running time of a video link, instead of just throwing up the URL. I really appreciate the courtesy, let's hope it catches on.
Been thru worse heat.... (Score:2)
Don't believe in man made global warming (Score:2)
we should be pleased (Score:2)
...because cold kills generally twice as many people in the US as heat.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
A Lancet study showed more generally cold killed 9x the deaths due to heat.
"According to a 2023 Lancet Planetary Health study, cold deaths outnumber heat deaths in most places, with more than 90% of temperature-related deaths being caused by cold. The study found 203,620 deaths attributed to cold and 20,173 deaths attributed to heat in 854 European cities. "
Re: (Score:2)
But does cold cause 9x the deaths of heat in summer?
Re: (Score:2)
Um, the study was for a year or more.
You know seasons are cyclical, right?
Re: (Score:2)
So a REFERENCED scientific study is "bullshit"?
https://www.thelancet.com/jour... [thelancet.com]
I thought we were supposed to use science to make important decisions?
Or is it "bullshit" when the science doesn't confirm your quasi-religion?
Re: (Score:2)
Explain how I misrepresented ANYTHING.
You're simply a liar, hoping nobody checks your AC bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure your point?
First, the study tracked Jan 1, 2010, to Dec 31, 2021 - so "last summer" is outside the scope of the study.
Or are you asserting that 2010-2021 are not representative and that climate change is so overwhelming and imminent that 2023 is an entirely different climate than the previous decade? (In which I'll just stop bothering to take you seriously. TBH, ACs generally are just trying to REEE! so I guess I'm assuming you're out of the ordinary.)
Secondly, the numbers are such that even addin
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, CDC data showed cold deaths were multiples of heat deaths, not 10x but more like 2x-3x.
That would be US data, AC coward.
Look, just because you post 4x as AC doesn't mean we don't know it's all you.
40-50% Chance? (Score:2)
I'm not a maths guru, so someone please help me out here. Doesn't a 40% - 50% chance of higher than AVERAGE temperature mean that they are actually less likely to have hotter temps than in a normal year, given that you should generally have a 50% change of higher than average temperatures? Unless temperature isn't bell curved and you perhaps normally have an 80% chance of lower than average but 20% chance of being MUCH higher than average (or something similar).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
In summary, while the statement highlights a valid concern about air conditioning waste heat, it oversimplifies a complex issue by implying that running AC year-round is the primary driver of increased environmental temperatures. A more nuanced understanding of the various contributing factors and the role of energy efficiency is necessary for a comprehensive assessment.
Re: (Score:2)
If you run Air Conditioning year round don't be surprised when the waste heat it generates makes the environment even hotter.
While it's true that waste heat from air conditioning makes the environment hotter, the amount of additional heating is rather trivial compared to almost all the other sources of waste heat, which is itself small compared to greenhouse effect heating. The heating due to the carbon dioxide emitted to generate the energy to run the air conditioner is much larger than the waste heat of the air conditioner.
If we upgrade our society from terawatts to petawatts, waste heat may someday become a problem, but that'
Re:Cause and Effect (Score:4, Insightful)
What needs to be done is to bring the factors that cause climate change under control, that is, to reduce dramatically the anthropogenic greenhouse gases, both the current emissions and the accumulated shit.
Nothing else will help.
Re: (Score:2)
What needs to be done is to bring the factors that cause climate change under control, that is, to reduce dramatically the anthropogenic greenhouse gases, both the current emissions and the accumulated shit.
Yeah, doesn't it just suck to have an undeniably accurate one-sentence summary of how badly we have fucked up and how stubbornly we continue to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it is depressing. That's why I don't even argue about it anymore. Instead, I'm trying to come up with something that can help, technologically.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about reddit, as I'm not using it, but let me think about it and I'll get back to you.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't forgotten, but I need a few more days to prepare.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
of climate hysteria. now they're trying to scare you of the weather before it even happens
Yup. Just like all those scary tornado warnings. They can't be sure a tornado will happen, but they're going to scare you into believing it will happen.
Re:your daily dose (Score:4, Insightful)
These states are currently experiencing a heatwave. https://www.reuters.com/market... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You know it's now summer, right? And Texas has more people than ever so an article that says they're using more power than ever is Captain Obvious material.
Re: (Score:2)
You know it's now summer, right? And Texas has more people than ever so an article that says they're using more power than ever is Captain Obvious material.
I can't tell from the Reuters report whether or not that "more power" also translates into "more power per capita". Can you?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, I would t bother reading that deeply into anything he posts. His hit rate for posting relevant and meaningful links is very low.
In this one he intros the link with "these states are currently experiencing a heatwave" and in the same line gives a URL about total power usage in Texas going up.
He just posts links because he thinks they strengthen his points by having a link and doesn't expect anyone to actually read and challenge them.
But since you asked and you're not an idiot like him, I went back to r
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. The AI BS and the crypto BS likely account for a pretty big chunk of the increase. OTOH I guess those theoretically fund more peak generating and transmission capacity. I say 'theoretically' because the whole situation with power in Texas reeks of shell games.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes exactly. The weather follows our arbitrary designation of the 4 seasons and changes dramatically on those 4 key dates we assigned.
I'm in. Makes sense. My misunderstanding of how calendars work has made Texas hotter this year.
I don't even live in Texas yet I can feel their heat.
Re: your daily dose (Score:2)
Summer starts in a month. Until then, it's merely spring.
You know springtime, when everything is as wet and as green as it gets.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh, as I already said to someone else, the weather exactly follows the 4 arbitrary dates we put on the calendar. You can go see that reply for details.
Re: (Score:2)
Cu
Re: (Score:2)
They are arbitrary. The weather slowly changes day by day through the entire year. It does not magically change on a particular calendar date. And being weather, there are variations over time as well.
This is something you should know, since you apparently mistaught kids about calendars and weather.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are no adult virgins in the western world. Get ready for the worst.
Re: (Score:2)
"Summer starts in a month. Until then, it's merely spring."
Yeah, for some reason in the US, a season doesn't start until the midpoint of the season. So summer starts with the summer solstice (around the 21th June) and spring and autumn (called 'fall' in the US) start with their respective equinoxes.
Where I come from a season starts on the 1st of the month of which the mid season date is. (And 6 months different because its the other hemisphere)
Re: your daily dose (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah yes, the smartest and most humble commenter on /.
Seems like no matter the story, you swoop in like a brain damaged superhero to ensure the conversation gets even more idiotic than it was before. Bravo.
Re: (Score:2)
Snark is not flame bait. Sarcasm is a perfectly acceptable form of humor to drive home a point. The only people riled up by a bit of snark are hyper sensitive clowns who need their safe spaces to get through the day. The reason snark gets modded down is because it's effective and it shoves the other person's idiocy in their face. My favorite kind is agreeing with someone's stupid idea then following up showing just how stupid they are. By agreeing with them. How is agreeing flame bait? Silly shit.
Per
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trolling, or are you honestly that stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that he's both trolling and stupid.