Heat Waves Grip 3 Continents as Climate Change Warms Earth (nytimes.com) 299
An anonymous reader shares a report: Punishing heat waves gripped three continents on Tuesday, breaking records in cities around the Northern Hemisphere less than two weeks after the Earth recorded what scientists said were likely its hottest days in modern history. Firefighters in Greece scrambled to put out wildfires, as parched conditions raised the risk of more blazes throughout Europe. Beijing logged another day of 95-degree heat, and people in Hangzhou, another Chinese city, compared the choking conditions to a sauna. From the Middle East to the American Southwest, delivery drivers, airport workers and construction crews labored under blistering skies. Those who could stay indoors did.
The temperatures, afflicting so much of the world all at once, were a withering reminder that climate change is a global crisis, driven by human-made forces: the emissions of heat-trapping gases, mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels. John Kerry, the U.S. special envoy for climate change, sought to coordinate some of the global response with the Chinese premier in Beijing, as a heat wave clutched a huge swath of China. "The world really is looking to us for that leadership, particularly on the climate issue," Mr. Kerry told Chinese officials. "Climate, as you know, is a global issue, not a bilateral issue. It's a threat to all of humankind."
The planet has warmed about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the 19th century and will continue to grow hotter until humans essentially stop burning coal, oil and gas, scientists say. The warmer temperatures contribute to extreme weather events and help make periods of extreme heat more frequent, longer and more intense. Also affecting this year's conditions is the return of El Nino, a cyclical weather pattern that, depending on the sea surface temperature and the pressure of the air above it, can originate in the Pacific and have wide-ranging effects on weather around the world.
The temperatures, afflicting so much of the world all at once, were a withering reminder that climate change is a global crisis, driven by human-made forces: the emissions of heat-trapping gases, mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels. John Kerry, the U.S. special envoy for climate change, sought to coordinate some of the global response with the Chinese premier in Beijing, as a heat wave clutched a huge swath of China. "The world really is looking to us for that leadership, particularly on the climate issue," Mr. Kerry told Chinese officials. "Climate, as you know, is a global issue, not a bilateral issue. It's a threat to all of humankind."
The planet has warmed about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the 19th century and will continue to grow hotter until humans essentially stop burning coal, oil and gas, scientists say. The warmer temperatures contribute to extreme weather events and help make periods of extreme heat more frequent, longer and more intense. Also affecting this year's conditions is the return of El Nino, a cyclical weather pattern that, depending on the sea surface temperature and the pressure of the air above it, can originate in the Pacific and have wide-ranging effects on weather around the world.
If only this were true (Score:5, Insightful)
The planet has warmed about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the 19th century and will continue to grow hotter until humans essentially stop burning coal, oil and gas, scientists say.
If we stopped burning coal, oil, gas, and rainforests tomorrow - and if we somehow changed our agriculture so we didn't have massive quantities of cow farts to contend with - we'd still be looking at (probably many) decades of increased temperatures. Unless we came up with ways to rapidly sequester large amounts of greenhouse gases, it would be a LONG time before temperatures would reach pre-industrial levels.
Even that assumes that we don't encounter the runaway scenario: increased temperatures, driving processes such as ocean-life die-off and more rapid rotting of vegetation, which in turn release more greenhouse gases to drive increasing temperatures.
I can't forgive the bastards in the oil industry who knew about AGW in the 50's, and whose warming predictions - made in the 60's - have turned out to be amazingly accurate six decades after the fact. All those fuckers should live forever, suffering Prometheus' fate. That would be appropriate, since they "gave fire to us mortals", so to speak.
Re:If only this were true (Score:5, Insightful)
"Even that assumes that we don't encounter the runaway scenario"
Unlikely. If a 6 mile wide asteroid travelling at 10 miles per second that set light to most of the biomass on the planet 65 million years ago couldn't manage it I doubt we will. However that doesn't mean we can't fuck things up so badly ourselves and a load of other animals go extinct.
"I can't forgive the bastards in the oil industry who knew about AGW in the 50's"
Unfortunately its become increasingly clear that the upper echelons of most large corporations are populated by people on the psychopath spectrum and they simply don't care.
Re:If only this were true (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately its become increasingly clear that the upper echelons of most large corporations are populated by people on the psychopath spectrum and they simply don't care.
The age-old traditional approach of torches & pitchforks will work. Trust me.
Re: (Score:3)
"Even that assumes that we don't encounter the runaway scenario"
Unlikely. If a 6 mile wide asteroid travelling at 10 miles per second that set light to most of the biomass on the planet 65 million years ago couldn't manage it I doubt we will. However that doesn't mean we can't fuck things up so badly ourselves and a load of other animals go extinct.
It's not a runaway scenario in the sense that it keeps running - nobody is seriously predicting Venus-like conditions. It's more that the climate switches into a new stable state that is significantly different to the current one, rather than returning to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately its become increasingly clear that the upper echelons of most large corporations are populated by people on the psychopath spectrum and they simply don't care.
Too true. And yet the fact that psychopathy is still pretty prominent suggests that it has been selected for by evolution and tends to confer a survival advantage. So for me the question is "How do we harness psychopathy and direct it into productive channels?". That may not be possible though...
Re: (Score:3)
"Even that assumes that we don't encounter the runaway scenario"
Unlikely. If a 6 mile wide asteroid travelling at 10 miles per second that set light to most of the biomass on the planet 65 million years ago couldn't manage it I doubt we will. However that doesn't mean we can't fuck things up so badly ourselves and a load of other animals go extinct.
"I can't forgive the bastards in the oil industry who knew about AGW in the 50's"
Unfortunately its become increasingly clear that the upper echelons of most large corporations are populated by people on the psychopath spectrum and they simply don't care.
Study some of the other mass die-offs on Earth. Sure, the dino-killer gets the headlines, but it was not at all the largest extinction event we've experienced. The Great Dying, as it's called, would be the one to look at with a bit of trepidation. It's believed that volcanic activity, or as I like to call it, the salt basalt assault (do a little dance now), started a greenhouse gas output that seems to have escalated over a relatively brief period, geologically speaking, causing other greenhouse gas emissio
Re: (Score:3)
According to wonkypedia CO2 went up to 2500ppm during that extinction so we've got a way to go yet. Not that I'm trying to make light of what we're doing.
Oh yeah, we definitely have a ways to go. But we're currently playing around with whether we can make that happen quicker or slower, rather than attempting to mitigate the possibility.
Re: If only this were true (Score:3)
The coal and oil we've dug up and burned represents multiple worldwide successions of plants, dummy. Burning down every plant on the planet doesn't compare.
Re:If only this were true (Score:5, Informative)
How about we eat fewer cows, find ways to make them burp & fart less (e.g. small amounts of seaweed in their feed), & stop digging up huge amounts of methane from under the ground, a lot of which escapes into the atmosphere?
Essentially, we know the problems, the causes, & have lots of feasible solutions. What's lacking are political mandates due to fossil fuels lobbies corrupting our political systems & poisoning our media with distracting nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks - I was aware that methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but I hadn't realized until you brought it up, and I looked it up, that its half-life is more than ten times shorter. So just cutting methane emissions could have a significant short-term benefit.
And tackling the methane problem might be easier, cheaper, and less controversial. We still need to drastically cut CO2 emissions, but at this point I'd be happy to see any kind of significant greenhouse gas reductions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Letting a handful of billionaires run every country might not have been such a good idea. They are the ones we need to either convince or replace with someone else; like citizens to decide how to run things. I don't think they are about to happily give up their wealth an power.
If it wasn't for the fact that money equals power, I'd be happy to cede them their ill-gotten gains and force them to sod off while the rest of us set about reversing the various kinds of damage they've wrought.
Re: (Score:2)
puppies (Score:2)
Re:puppies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They'd be good to take snow shoeing in the Valles Caldera in winter.
Summer though, not good.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't expect any change to happen before total dis (Score:2)
As a kid I thought the world really seemed like it meant it in the late 80s and early 90s when it said the world was going to be happy and clean when I got older. I know now we are going to keep dragging our feet until it gets SO bad that countries start forcing other countries to stop polluting, or affected locals start forcing specific factories to stop what they're doing. We could have planned to do this all gracefully, but humans are greedy procrastinators.
Re: (Score:2)
We are not going to do anything (Score:3)
*I used to work on trying to match electricity demand to supply and the savings for above average income consumers where very significant. There were also huge savings for the electric utilities. We were blocked either by the stupidity of the public utility commissions or by requirements to offer similar savings to poor people. Rich people are flexible in the large amounts of power they consume. Poor people generally have fewer options and they consume far less power.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who are screaming the loudest that global warming is a problem are not willing to sacrifice anything meaningful to fight climate change.
Really ? I know of many people who did what they could on their own, but the rich have done nothing. I myself could I have done more, but I think I am in the top 15% of people who lessened my CO2 emissions in the rich country I live in.
The sad thing is, the politicians in charge in both parties really do nothing because the fear loosing their cushy jobs. It is time they "take one for the team".
The quickest thing to do is make auto fossil fuel expensive, electric rates cheap. Eliminate the oil subsidizes
As climate change (Score:2)
As climate change has already warmed up Earth for a while now, and this is one of the consequences. Too bad it takes a disaster before we find money to do things properly.
Last Year's News (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's one of the benefits of an ever-warming planet, you can just recycle the "record heat" articles every year
I love this part (Score:2)
I see. A known decadal cycle of equatorial warming and cooling is "affecting this year's conditions". And which phase of that cycle are we in at the moment, the warming phase, or the cooling phase?
It's not that I think the climate isn't changing,
Re:Context context context (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is whether this is actually true, or whether the present series of temperature spikes in a few areas is merely a coincidence.
The actual question is: are we, as a species, willing to risk doubting global warming, rather than do something about it?
There are two outcomes in the future:
Either it's not really Global Warming, and then we made some sacrifice for no good reason;
Or it IS Global Warming, but we ignored it like idiots and got fucked.
I would choose Option #1, thank you. I'd rather make some sacrifice and be proven wrong, than ignore it and be proven wrong.
Re: Context context context (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two outcomes in the future: Either it's not really Global Warming, and then we made some sacrifice for no good reason; Or it IS Global Warming, but we ignored it like idiots and got fucked.
Even if the reason for the decision in your first case is incorrect, itâ(TM)s not like the âoesacrificeâ is purely negative. The drive to decarbonise the energy economy also shifts us to energy sources that arenâ(TM)t going to run out, as well as resulting in a whole host of other valuable innovations.
Re: Context context context (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, this won't end with electric cars. They also produce harmful particulate pollution, plus they're still an incredibly inefficient way to organise towns & cities around. We should be organising towns & cities around people, not cars.
Re: (Score:3)
EVs dramatically reduce particulate pollution for the types of particulate that actually cause these harms to human health (plus NOx and SOx, which are also important causal mechanisms). I'm not claiming EVs don't have harmful effects, but this is like smoking vs vaping. You don't want non-smokers to start vaping, you do want smokers to switch to vaping and then reduce their vaping.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Context context context (Score:4, Insightful)
I know, that's why I fail to understand people who try to dismiss the potential danger based solely on "but it might not be that".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Context context context (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe if it was you in their shoes, yes.
I happen to know quite a few scientists (I also worked on a piece of software that's widely used in science) from various fields (generally, fields using a ginormous amount of data), and most of them are genuinely passionate about what they do, while at the same time being woefully inapt when it's about securing their funding.
Another rather common trait among them was their lack of interest for living comfortably, or amassing wealth. Give them their tools, their time, an inflatable bed with a blanket, and enough sustenance to keep living, and they're happy.
Re: Context context context (Score:5, Insightful)
That makes no sense though. Its not like climate scientists would be out of a job if the world wasn't warming or the cause wasn't anthropogenic emissions.. There are still tons of things to study about the dynamics of our atmosphere and climate. In fact, given the amount of carbon emissions emitted, there would probably be substantially more work needed to understand the dynamics of Earth's climate if the world was not warming since this would be counter to our expectations and the current understanding of how the system behaves.
Re: (Score:3)
both of those statements are sooooooo flawed, you , yourself, can discover the flaws in them.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This is a complete fairy tale story.
When benefits are factored in servicemen in the military are handsomely compensated for what they do. Those benefits, bonuses and other forms of compensation motivate a much larger fraction of enlistments than idealism.
Re: Context context context (Score:5, Informative)
Hold it, are you a professor at Berkely?
our normal work day when not deployed, started between 4:30 am and 5 am Ended between 5 and 6 pm. Monday through friday, weekends, well, many of those we were allowed off duty, but then many we are on alert, meaning that we were expected to be ready and in uniform with all our gear within 2 hours of being alerted. then there was having duty. Duty was a 24 hour job, where you worked for an NCO or an Officer for 24 hours straight and heaven forbid you fall asleep! And, guess what? The number of hours you work, has nothing to do with your paycheck.
We had an on again, off again training schedule, meaning for every 4 weeks we were not deployed, we would have 4 - 6 weeks deployed, when deployed you are on duty 24/7. Sure, you may choose to sleep, when allowed, but if there is anything that happens in that sleep period, you are expected to be up and doing your part.
When I joined, I was paid the princely sum of $733/month before taxes. I had a 2 man room and I shared that with some pretty nice guys, mostly... and of course we had 4 toilets and 4 showers for the 35 guys in that barracks building.
But you go on again about stuff you have virtually no experience of.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't worry, I know all the fallacious arguments. My coworkers used them all the time and I even believed them myself until I got out and learned how the real world works.
Every single government employee in the history of ever believes himself to be underpaid compared to the private sector. It's fundamental to the belief system of working in the public sector.
The reason people in the military have financial problems is because they are actively encouraged to live beyond their means, go into debt, and genera
Re: (Score:3)
Telling a scientist that "he's in for the money" is about the most insulting you can be.
Even the guys at Exxon who's paycheck really might have depended on giving the "correct" answer wrote in their conclusions that it's happening. cf Dr Hoffert.
You're thinking of psychopaths. Most people have a way to register reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Everybody knows instinctively that it's unwise to unreservedly trust an answer from someone whose paycheck is influenced by the content of the answer. How could it be otherwise?
The main money in atmospheric science is in weather prediction. Make a climate model ten percent more accurate and nobody will care. Make a weather prediction model ten percent more accurate and a lot of people will be interested. Make a hurricane prediction model ten percent more accurate and everybody will be interested.
The other thing to keep in mind is that atmospheric science is also used in planetary science. Quite a bit of the research is aimed at understanding the atmospheres of other planets (in f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They also despise seeing peasants too close from their land as well so the fewer the better since they now possess robots to do the dirty work anyway so peasants aren't useful to them in any way anymore now.
I feel like I've read that story [fandom.com] before.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you think small.
I do things I have control over, and do what I can about things I can't control (e.g. protest, raise awareness, vote for who I think and hope could improve things).
Giving up because someone you have no power over doesn't do what they are supposed to do is not the way to go.
I'm not going to stop feeding myself because "hunger will come again tomorrow" or because "there are starving kids in Africa". Extreme analogy, I know, used solely as an example.
Re: (Score:2)
And then you think your contribution to stop this over the last 30 years (if that, probably more like over the last 10 - 15 years) should be measurable and easily seen by you? Let me guess, you're an American, right? Americans seem to usually feel like there should be a fast easy fix for everything, no matter how di
Re: Context context context (Score:3)
Re: Context context context (Score:5, Informative)
And current flora and fauna haven't been here for most of that time. They change with the climate.
That said, it is the RATE of climate change that matters. That is what is making this current change so dangerous now, the rate is too fast to which to adapt. And even slow climate change has limits for flora and fauna, see Venus for the wonders that can await if we screw this planet up.
Re: (Score:3)
We've always had rains. Just because it's been raining for 40 days and 40 nights without let up is no reason to start listening to all the doom and gloom!
Re: Context context context (Score:4, Interesting)
There has been heat waves since the planet exists. How could any and every heat wave now be automatically linked to climate change?
Always a good question, But the answer is: context.
This is a global heat wave, not local. This is a long-term extended heat wave (globally, twelve months so far of record-breaking heat so far) not a week or two. And while this year is is above the decades-long rising curve, that decades-long rising curve is now pretty well documented, so we can see that this heat wave is part of the temperature rise.
So, the quick answer is, there have been heat waves before, but this particular heat wave is riding on top of a rising curve, which is what is exacerbating it and making it severe.
Re: (Score:3)
There have been people dying every since people existed, how can the murders down the street now automatically be considered part of a crime wave?
Re: (Score:3)
Even if it's not really global warming, we will have cleaned up a lot of other pollution. Renewables will help us handle rising temperatures if it is just a natural thing and not caused by us too, since unlike thermal plants the ambient temperature isn't too much of an issue for them.
Deli is over 50C these days. A lot of stuff doesn't work in such high ambient temperatures.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether this is actually true, or whether the present series of temperature spikes in a few areas is merely a coincidence.
The actual question is: are we, as a species, willing to risk doubting global warming, rather than do something about it?
There are two outcomes in the future:
Either it's not really Global Warming, and then we made some sacrifice for no good reason;
Or it IS Global Warming, but we ignored it like idiots and got fucked.
I would choose Option #1, thank you. I'd rather make some sacrifice and be proven wrong, than ignore it and be proven wrong.
It's not like that. You missed two important things: probabilities and costs. You could argue (hypothetically) that option 2 (there is GW) has very low probability but high costs and option 1 (there is no GW) has high probability and low (zero) costs. So logically you should choose option 1.
In real life you don't protect yourself from items falling from the sky by wearing hard hat because even if you can die from falling brick there is very low probability of this happening.
So, in case of global warming you
Re: (Score:2)
Lightning strikes have very low probability, yet people put these lightning strike poles on their houses, rather than risk it.
Most people never get involved in a life-threatening accident in their whole lives, yet they drive cars with many safety features. It would be way cheaper to drive cars with almost no safety features, since the statistical risk is very low.
Probability and cost are trumped by effect gravity.
If the effect is death, you better damn "do the needful" to avoid it from happening, as much as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either it's not really Global Warming, and then we made some sacrifice for no good reason;
Or it IS Global Warming, but we ignored it like idiots and got fucked.
I think you've left out the outcome that's the biggest reason people/nations refuse to do something: "It is global warming, I make some sacrifice, my neighbor refuses to make sacrifices, and I still get fucked".
Re: (Score:2)
That's why, if left to each person separately, that sacrifice won't happen.
Re:Context context context (Score:4, Insightful)
The actual question is: are we, as a species, willing to risk doubting global warming, rather than do something about it?
There are two outcomes in the future:
Either it's not really Global Warming, and then we made some sacrifice for no good reason;
Or it IS Global Warming, but we ignored it like idiots and got fucked.
I would choose Option #1, thank you. I'd rather make some sacrifice and be proven wrong, than ignore it and be proven wrong.
To do proper risk-benefit analysis we need to quantify Option #2. It could be anything from return to historical norms (we are at the end of little ice age) to complete collapse of the ecosystem. I think the likely outcome is much closer to former than latter.
Additionally, we need to have an honest conversation about what exactly Option 1 means. How much loss of quality of life, poverty in the developing world, and depopulation is it going to take? Be honest, Option 1 is not a few solar panels and drive less - it is live in a tiny apartment, own no car, do no travel, and eat soy and pasta.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether this is actually true, or whether the present series of temperature spikes in a few areas is merely a coincidence.
The actual question is: are we, as a species, willing to risk doubting global warming, rather than do something about it? There are two outcomes in the future: Either it's not really Global Warming, and then we made some sacrifice for no good reason; Or it IS Global Warming, but we ignored it like idiots and got fucked.
I would choose Option #1, thank you. I'd rather make some sacrifice and be proven wrong, than ignore it and be proven wrong.
My guess is that the majority will choose option 1.
At this point, given rejection of grade school science of atmospheric energy retention characteristics based on it's composition.
At this point, seeing the effects of anti-greenhouse gases during a time when ocean going ships used the crappiest fuel on the planet, and injected sulfur aerosols which had a cooling effect, then a switch to cleaner fuels, and temps started zooming again...
There's nothing left other than rejection of the truth based on stup
Re: Context context context (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. And most of the human race has decided to gamble, and is doing that with no or extremely limited understanding of the available facts. Hence it is something like
a) 1% probability for "it's not really Global Warming, and then we made some sacrifice for no good reason;"
b) 99% probability for "it IS Global Warming, but we ignored it like idiots and got fucked."
About as sane as the average lottery player. Only with the lottery you do not lose that big and get much, much more if you win. So actually a lot _
Re: (Score:2)
With he huge difference that it fucks people while alive, not after they are dead. Big, big difference.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is most certainly a coincidence.
I have homes on 2 continents. In 2 of them, a few decades ago we had winters that lasted from late November to late March, now it barely snows twice or three times in January; we'd rarely see temperatures above 30 for a few days in August, now we see 2 months or more of scorching 35+C temperatures.
In one, we had mild winters with occasional snow and pleasant, if somewhat hot summers with cool nights. Now we have no winters and equatorial weather at 35 degrees latitude
Re: (Score:2)
Growing up a northern U.S. state, my neighbor would put up an ice rink every autumn and take it down again the spring. It was great, we could play hockey all winder long. No one would bother putting up a rink now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, my grandmother remembered the lake near our place freezing in winter and them kids playing on the ice. I remember it freezing, but the ice was almost never thick enough for us to play there. Today it never freezes.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I'm traveling regularly, and no, I'm not a part of the problem. Thanks for sharing.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically you are, same as Fortnite_Beast and myself...
Re: (Score:3)
What are these "weather events" that you're talking about? Are they like the gradual change from cold to warm that I'm observing, or something else?
In passing, I doubt that I'm emitting even 1% of what you are ;)
Re:Context context context (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate change will increase the frequence of such events. Hence the single event does not prove anything, but several of them do, because then you can determine a frequency. It's like winning the lottery is an improbable, but possible event. But if someone regularly wins the lottery, there is a high probability that cheating is involved.
Yes, those three heatwaves point to Climate change as a possible cause. Yes, if you view them in isolation, they prove nothing. Singling them out, ignoring everything else and then argue that they can't prove Climate change, as they are but anecdotical evidence, is demagogic.
Good reply (Score:2)
Thank you
Re: (Score:2)
You are way out of date. These are not simple single events like a dice roll. They're complex events with lots of data attached to them, and scientists are now at the state of being able to attribute the degree to which climate change has caused particular weather events. You think of this as in-principle impossible, but you're just wrong.
Here: https://www.worldweatherattrib... [worldweath...bution.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm no climate sceptic...
"...but..."
This message was brought to you by the kind of people who say, "I'm not racist but..." & "I'm not a misogynist but..."
Ouch (Score:2)
Seriously - I'm totally committed to the belief that climate change is happening; I'm old enough to be aware that, for example, rain intensity has increased significantly where I live. That's climate change. However I'm strongly allergic to claims that seek to prove something on the basis of observations that prove to be insufficient to actually prove what is being claimed. As a serious Christian I get very annoyed with the Christians who are less than honest about what they claim God is doing; it's SHAMEFU
Re: (Score:2)
We need to keep the people with us (Score:3)
If we are sloppy and give the sceptics reason to crucify us, the proles will doubt the truth of what we say, not least because they don't WANT to believe the truth, and any excuse to not do is what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter how much evidence you p
The eternal challenge of democracy, of course (Score:2)
Unfortunately the psychologists have worked out how to game our democracies to the point where politicians can get elected by lying and are never held accountable. This is not an easily soluble problem; the only rational solution is to overthrow democracy (for a bit, honest...) Which leaves us with an unpleasant choice; roast or abandon our principles.
Thanks for playing!
Re: Ouch (Score:2)
Reminds me of my die-hard republican friend. He always claimed the US was in a worse shape at the end of Obama's 1st term than at the beginning. It was even more laughable because both him and his wife got significantly better job
Re: (Score:2)
I totally accept that we face a climate crisis but we have a problem. The problem is that there are many who are struggling to accept the facts, and if it can be shown that the scientists have over egged the pudding or claimed something is significant when it is not, then those sceptics will latch onto those mistakes as an excuse to reject what they don't want to hear.
Re: (Score:2)
With a warming atmosphere and ocean, the atmosphere is able to contain much more water. So there. Anyhow, this sort of thing is also predicted by climate change models.
Re:Context context context (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is whether this is actually true, or whether the present series of temperature spikes in a few areas is merely a coincidence.
No, this is the real question [imgur.com]. A spike is a sudden, short-lived increase. Weeks on end of higher than normal temperatures is not a spike.
I'm no climate sceptic;
Yes you are, or you wouldn't be asking the questions you're asking such as . . .
And, even more challenging: is it moral to panic the public with what is not significant?!
Who's panicking? No one's panicking. The only one who even mentions panic are deniers such as yourself. If you don't think it's acceptable to notify people of the dangers of climate change, such as the current blistering heat wave only in June, then why bother notifying people of any danger? Forget the tornado watches and warnings. Forget the sever storm or potential for flash flooding. That's just panicking people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Context context context (Score:5, Insightful)
That attitude in part stems from people now starting to think they are as smart on a particular subject as the scientists. During Covid, you could not swing a kneazle without hitting 10 epidemiologists who miraculously never needed a degree before they could opine to the rest of us that it was nothing more than a flu.
And the climate deniers are rarely scientists, very very rarely. Amazingly, they are able to divine it is all some hoax because the scientists are getting rich off research grants, the sun has been getting hotter, the climate was much warmer before there were humans, etc. Any excuse will do to for them to show to the rest of us their "common sense". And they repeat these tropes to each other thus building a community that believes in bullshit and are happily reinforced in their beliefs when their community parrots the same beliefs back at them: mutual co-recursive backscratching.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazingly, they are able to divine it is all some hoax because the scientists are getting rich off research grants [...]
And, of course, no one is getting rich of the continued consumption of oil.
some good points (Score:3)
Thank you for the corrections - some of your points are valid...
Is it a spike in temperatures? That depends on the scaling of the graph; if the X axis is of a few months, it's not a spike, it's it's 10 years, it's clearly a spike. But I get your point.
Weeks of above average temperatures have happened throughout history; I'm old enough to have 'enjoyed' the UK's major drought in the 1970s when a high pressure system settled over the country for several months. And I'm just old enough to have been alive for t
Re: Context context context (Score:2)
I'm no climate sceptic
climate pedant maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
No - someone who wants us to depend on statistically significant events, not random coincidences!
Re: (Score:2)
Consider it from another perspective: Before the last ice age, temperatures were clearly warmer, so the ice age hit and reduced temperatures. It stands to reason that over time, temperatures would go back up, but, if it were to happen naturally without human activity, it would be a fairly slow and gradual process. Some species would die off, others would adapt, things would generally be balanced.
So, what happens when the warming process happens faster due to human activity? We have cut down forests, t
You're preaching to the choir (Score:2)
I totally accept that we face a climate crisis. The problem is that there are many who are struggling to accept the facts, and if it can be clearly shown that the scientists have over egged the pudding or claimed something is significant when it is not, then those sceptics will latch onto those mistakes as an excuse to reject what they don't want to hear.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your support (Score:2)
I've been downvoted to Troll! Not impressed...
Re: (Score:2)
And, even more challenging: is it moral to panic the public with what is not significant?!
Oh, honey, that ship sailed the second we decided talking heads filled with panic and fury are better suited to be "journalists" than fact-checked reporters that tell stories as they happen and let people decide the meaning through their own filters. Panic sells, baby. And we got money to make.
Which is also why we don't really do all that much about climate change. There's too many dollars being made on the roots of our part of climate change. You can not, under any circumstances, have a negative impact on
Wow - I thought I was a cynic (Score:2)
I wish I could disagree...
Re: (Score:2)
The clear evidence has been present for about, what, 20 years now? This is a _result_ of climate change.
Climate? Or weather? Both. [Re:Context...] (Score:3)
It's certainly easy to spin a line that this is clear evidence of the climate change that we've been warned about for many years now. The question is whether this is actually true, or whether the present series of temperature spikes in a few areas is merely a coincidence.
Yes, always a good question. The frequency of local heat waves will, of course, increase as the planet warms, but no individual local heat wave can be unambiguously tagged "this is global warming." Global warming is in addition to the usual sources of variations (collectively known as "weather"), not instead of.
The article referenced notes that this is not local, however, it's record-breaking heating on three continents. Other news recently is pointing out that the weather has been unusually hot-- where "un
Re: (Score:2)
"The industrial revolution is the cause of this poisoning. No one wanted to clean up the messes or not make the messes to begin with"
To be fair, back in victorian times no one had heard of climate change (unless you count bible stories) and it wasn't until 1859 that it was discovered CO2 trapped heat anyway. Plus the technology to clean up the smokestacks didn't exist.
You can't blame the victorians, they knew no better. We however do know better and we CAN be blamed.
Re: (Score:2)
"Blamed for what exactly?"
Do give it rest, feigned ignorance at this stage just makes you sound like an idiot.
"The lowest amount of death from any cause, be it medical, food, giving birth"
Non sequiter.
"or extreme weather?"
Now you're just trolling.
Good insight (Score:2)
Thank you.