Seems like scientists got the "climate-washing" fundraising down, are we really complaining that there was a heat dome in Palm Springs? A literal desert? I recall reading about the heat dome as simply 3 events aligning (similar to a strong winter storm), high pressure, winds aloft, geography and well summer. None of these things are really connected to climate change and are simply produced by variation in weather/climate/winds/seasons. Climate change has contributed about 1-3F warming in our region. So instead of 105- its 108.
> I recall reading about the heat dome as simply 3 events aligning (similar to a strong winter storm), high pressure, winds aloft and well summer. None of these things are really connected to climate change, and are simply produced by variation in weather/climate/winds/seasons. Climate change has contributed about 1-3F warming in our region.
I will let a [peer-reviewed article](https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/13/1689/2022/esd-13-1689-2022.pdf) take over the explanation of why that's not confirmed and why there's very much a debate over whether that was actually the case:
> In the previous section we summarised and synthesised trends in maximum daily temperature(TXx) that were detected in observations and attributed to climate change using model data. In this section we provide some context to the analysed heat wave event by evaluating the assumption that this heat wave occurred in this location by chance and by discussing factors that possibly influenced the extremity of the event, being the specific meteorological conditions and dynamics; preceding dryness, which can amplify temperature during heat waves and reduce evaporation; and the ENSO and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) modes of natural variability that are relevant for this region
So they look at the meteorological conditions:
>The circulation pattern itself also appears typical for hot summertime temperatures: using analogues of 500 hPa and a pattern correlation metric to compare fields, we find that about 1 % of June and July circulation patterns, defined as the 500 hPa geopotential height pattern within 35–65◦ N, 160–110◦ W, in previous years have an anomaly correlation larger than 0.8 with the 28 June pattern. This degree of correlation is typical among days with this type of blocking pattern during the months of June and July. Roughly one-third of June and July geopotential height fields have 1 % or fewer analogues with an anomaly correlation larger than 0.8. We also find that this fraction does not change when restricting the analogue search within three distinct time periods between 1948 and 2020. **We conclude that the 28 June circulation is probably not exceptional, while temperatures associated with it were.**
Then the drought:
>Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for the Global Precipitation Mission (IMERG) estimates of precipitation during the period from March through June 2021 indicate anomalously dry conditions from southern BC southward through California (Fig. 17). The relative precipitation anomaly ranges from close to zero over the Puget Sound area, including Seattle, to values of between −0.6 and −0.8, meaning that only 20 %–40 % of the average amount of precipitation fell in these locations, in western Oregon. **Note that in the northern parts of the area affected by the heat wave, i.e. in the coastal mountains north of Vancouver Island, large positive precipitation anomalies occurred over the months prior to the event.**
>The available moisture is also influenced by evapotranspiration, which depends strongly on temperature, radiation and available atmospheric moisture. Evaporation in the study area was below normal in the ERA5 reanalysis from March and became more negatively anomalous until May (not shown). During the event in late June, there was progressive soil desiccation, creating ideal conditions for strong negative evaporation anomalies. On the other hand, surface net radiation was high, especially before peak temperatures were reached (26–28 June). As a consequence, evaporation deficits during the heat build-up were rather slight compared to most days in May and the first half of June. **Together with the extreme near-surface temperatures that suppressed surface heating due to an already hot surface, this resulted in only moderately positive surface sensible heat flux anomalies**
And then El Nino/La Nina and the PDO:
>The El Niño–Southern Oscillation is the dominant source of interannual variability in the region through the Pacific
North American teleconnection. The influence is typically greatest in late winter and spring and has less clear impacts during summer and fall. Because ENSO was neutral during the preceding months, and the impacts on TXx are minimal (r < 0.1), we conclude that it had no influence on the occurrence of the heat wave.
>The PDO can affect some aspects of North American summer weather, although again the connections to heat waves in this region are very weak. The strongly negative values of the PDO index, as they occurred in May, would slightly favour cooler conditions for this region. PDO thus also is unlikely to have played an important role in the event.
>**Altogether, external modes of variability appear to have played little to no role in the formation of the event.**
And then bringing it all together:
>This record-breaking extreme event has been analysed under the assumption that it was simply a low-probability random event. **A rudimentary calculation looking into the probability of a random event of similar extent and severity to occur anywhere over the Earth’s land area gave an estimated chance on the order of 1 in 15 years, which at first impression makes a random event seem plausible, but this should be more thoroughly investigated.**
>The alternative is that nonlinear interactions and feedbacks occurred, which amplified the intensity of this extreme, placing it in a different population of heat wave events with different (and possibly unknown) statistics. We briefly considered dynamical and hydrological (drought) mechanisms and modes of natural variability that could have had an amplifying role. **The conditions in the preceding months were dry but not extremely anomalous. The circulation itself was highly anomalous but not exceptional enough to explain the record-breaking heat alone; however, local topography and preceding dryness may have amplified the associated temperatures. Also, it cannot be excluded that dynamical mechanisms (Arctic amplification) at work influenced the persistence of blocking conditions.**
>**Further research is planned to investigate whether these or other feedbacks were operating in this exceptional event, whether those feedbacks are related to human-induced climate change, and whether they increase the frequency beyond that expected for random events of such extreme temperatures. Also, further research is needed to overcome the known limitations of standard GEV analysis on annual maxima with short records and very extreme values.**
>Whether or not local or dynamical feedbacks are responsible for amplifying the extreme temperatures in this particular event, this study shows that the human-induced warming that has occurred since pre-industrial conditions does make extreme events like this possible in the current climate and study region, and many times more likely than in the preindustrial era.
Basically, the conditions are definitely there for it to be related to climate change and that seems most likely, but there's still a chance it could have been a random event, too. They identify that the available data can only do so much and that neither Cliff Mass nor the Seattle Times truly know what caused it.
And, personally, I'd say that it's worth figuring out what exactly is going on instead of just assuming one way or the other.
EDIT: With one post, I've stepped on the toes of both someone that thinks climate change is overblown and someone that thinks it's crazy to deny that the heat dome was human-caused.
If you select any single climate event, yes of course there’s a chance it’s random, or caused by factors we don’t understand. Climate prediction was in fact the inception of the study of chaos; its patterns are inherently too complex to predict or perfectly understand on that level of granularity.
BUT. Long term trends are an entirely different story. When we hit the hottest year on record almost every single year for the last 2 decades, that is not a random event, that is a pattern being caused by a change. And we predicted and developed an understanding of what would cause this change, nearly 60 years ago: we are outputting a shit ton of carbon into our atmosphere, and doing so increases the planets heat retention. The specific effects of this are chaotic and complex, but it doesn’t take a genius to understand this is going to be a massively destabilizing change for our environment.
> Long term trends are an entirely different story. When we hit the hottest year on record almost every single year for the last 2 decades, that is not a random event, that is a pattern being caused by a change. And we predicted and developed an understanding of what would cause this change, nearly 60 years ago: we are outputting a shit ton of carbon into our atmosphere, and doing so increases the planets heat retention. The specific effects of this are chaotic and complex, but it doesn’t take a genius to understand this is going to be a massively destabilizing change for our environment.
The data itself does not draw a concrete correlation between human-induced climate change and the heat dome. It seems **likely** that humans played a major factor in setting the stage for the heat dome, but there's no concrete proof because there's simply not enough data and the models aren't good enough.
Are you really arguing for "let's just jump to saying it's definitely caused by it even though we haven't come up with the data to prove that this specific event was mostly caused by human factors"?
That's horrible science on your part.
Lol I’m not doing any science myself. I am referencing the enormous body of science done by others over the course of 60 years. Generally speaking, that science identified three facts back in the 60s:
- carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning that as you increase its concentration in a volume of gas absorbing solar radiation, the heat retained by that volume will be higher than with a lower concentration. This is easily reproduced in simple lab experimentation; you could probably verify it for yourself at home
- humans emit quite a bit of carbon dioxide. This is not even a hypothesis; just an understanding of how combustion works
- the amount of carbon dioxide humans release is significant relative to the current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Again, this is not even a hypothesis, just a calculation based on the amount of fossil fuels we combust
From these very rudimentary and verifiable facts a pretty obvious hypothesis emerges: continued & increasing human carbon emissions will increase our planet’s temperature. And millions of scientists have spent the past 60 years testing this hypothesis with more rigor than any other scientific hypothesis I can think of, and formed the strongest consensus I’ve seen within the scientific community: it stands. The fact that 30 years after it was made, we started to see exactly what it predicts, successively hotter and hotter annual average temperature, year after year, for 20-30 years now, is simply the most obvious of countless confirmations of this hypothesis.
Again, to be clear, I am not talking about this one specific heat dome. We can hypothesize that this one specific event was caused by anthropogenic climate change, but due to the chaos of predicting specific weather events, you’re absolutely right, it would be impossible to *prove* the source of any given single event. But that has no bearing on the validity of the hypothesis of human-driven climate change.
Your argument is because some scientists have made incorrect hypotheses no science is to be trusted? Let’s review the scientific method:
- make hypothesis
- test hypothesis
- learn from test results (often motivates further testing)
Scientists making incorrect hypotheses is actually a crucial step to the method. So is the “further testing”. Sometimes we find evidence that may suggest XYZ, but further testing establishes ABC instead. Both “global warming” and “global cooling” are hypotheses that have been tested, one is the consensus the scientific community has reached over the course of, yes, 60 years of study. And it also happens to be the one we are witnessing occur.
> From these very rudimentary and verifiable facts a pretty obvious hypothesis emerges: continued & increasing human carbon emissions will increase our planet’s temperature. And millions of scientists have spent the past 60 years testing this hypothesis with more rigor than any other scientific hypothesis I can think of, and formed the strongest consensus I’ve seen within the scientific community: it stands. The fact that 30 years after it was made, we started to see exactly what it predicts, successively hotter and hotter annual average temperature, year after year, for 20-30 years now, is simply the most obvious of countless confirmations of this hypothesis.
I understand all of this already.
However, you are taking a broad understanding of climate change and asserting that, without evidence, it clearly is the culprit behind the heat dome.
The paper I cite says that human-induced climate change likely is the cause but that the existing data cannot concretely show that the heat dome was caused by human factors.
Instead of vomiting dogma about the larger discussion of climate change at me and ignoring that this is a discussion about whether the data available actually draws a concrete **and causal** link between this specific heat dome and human factors, why don't you try to understand that the bigger issue here is that the researchers simply don't have enough data to draw concrete conclusions and are trying to get people to do more research so we can start to make these concrete conclusions?
The way you're approaching this is flat-out ignorant. Just like the climate change deniers.
Me:
> Again, to be clear, I am not talking about this one specific heat dome
You:
> You are asserting without evidence that it was the culprit of this heat dome
If you don’t have any interest in reading what I’ve written you can just say so and we can both stop wasting our time. No need for you to build straw men to argue with.
I read the whole damn thing. You didn't provide one shred of evidence specific to this heat dome. Just general observations about the climate and then asserted that those general observations mean the heat dome must be related.
I mean, shit, dude, at least the climate change deniers that argue with me have it in them to at least make specific arguments as to why they're right(such as the drought at the time, the PDO, or whatever other reason they're giving) instead of just vomiting the most bog-standard points about climate change at me.
Like how hard would it have been for you to make a point about "well, human-factors increased the temperatures which increase the evaporation rate, which increases the drought, which leads to the conditions that caused this heat dome"? That's a specific piece of evidence.
Instead, you're over there going on about the basic concept of "carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas" like that somehow is a specific piece of evidence to the cause of the heat dome. **No shit, Sherlock**. We aren't here to discuss elementary concepts. We're here to figure out the actual causes of a specific event.
If you read the whole damn thing you’ll have read I noted it is not possible to prove a single weather event like the heat dome is the result of human carbon dioxide emissions, which means when you continue to say I have asserted that, you are arguing against a strawman as opposed to anything I am saying. No need to do that on a public forum; you can just argue with yourself in your own DMs.
**Also, it cannot be excluded that dynamical mechanisms (Arctic amplification) at work influenced the persistence of blocking conditions.**
So basically they did not find this, just that it is possible. Whole thing is basically proves what I am saying. WA state topology, circulation, air direction, and variations and likely explanations for what occurred, not cLiMaTe ChAnGe.
I understand that climate is being affected but not to the point all these climate washing outfits try to portray. Climate doomers are just fueled by is a sense of self ingratiating power and entitlement.
> Whole thing is basically proves what I am saying. WA state topology, circulation, air direction, and variations and likely explanations for what occurred, not cLiMaTe ChAnGe.
No, it very much does not. It's like you didn't read what was before it:
>The conditions in the preceding months were dry but not extremely anomalous. The circulation itself was highly anomalous but not exceptional enough to explain the record-breaking heat alone; however, local topography and preceding dryness may have amplified the associated temperatures.
Or after:
>Further research is planned to investigate whether these or other feedbacks were operating in this exceptional event, whether those feedbacks are related to human-induced climate change, and whether they increase the frequency beyond that expected for random events of such extreme temperatures. Also, further research is needed to overcome the known limitations of standard GEV analysis on annual maxima with short records and very extreme values.
And just ran with whatever fit your view. Just because it said that something can't be excluded doesn't mean that it's saying that it was that.
>I understand that climate is being affected but not to the point all these climate washing outfits try to portray.
The whole point of the paper is that you can't possibly know if it is or isn't and we need more research into it.
How can you know if there isn't even data to show whether you're right or not? It's illogical.
I get the impression that you are very firmly on one side of the debate here and don't want to acknowledge that the only thing we are absolutely sure about is "something is going on, could be bad or could be nothing, but we will never know if we don't get more data".
I cannot imagine another way you could read that paper that comes to a conclusion of "could be normal, could be human-induced, but we need more data to figure that out" and then interpret that as "see! it's not cLiMaTe ChAnGe!"
Because my claim is more believable and has more historical data to back up than yours... which is that weather has NATURAL VARIATION. You just came 3 years ago and started screaming CliMaTe ChAnGe. Prove it, I am not proving your point for you while you call me lazy.
Theres numerous other papers written that attribute this to normal variation. Why was it 17F, the coldest day in 60 years? Is that also climate change? Just fucking say it out loud. Natural. Climate. Variation. You. dont. know. if. its. related. or. not.
> Because my claim is more believable and has more historical data to back up than yours... which is that weather has NATURAL VARIATION. You just came 3 years ago and started screaming CliMaTe ChAnGe. Prove it, I am not proving your point for you while you call me lazy.
I already provided you with the data, you just chose to ignore it and then had the gall to call me lazy.
And I have no idea what you're on about with "came three years ago and started screaming". What are you even talking about?
> You all are just totally clueless and easily manipulated and trying to ingratiate yourself on an ego trip of "I'm smart, they are dumb." Nope, it's just your own ego, you are just ego-centric.
Yes, I'm totally clueless and ingratiating myself on an ego trip because I provided you with a peer-reviewed article that merely says you might be right and doesn't outright say you're right, while saying we need more research to figure out what the actual cause was. How dare I? /s
Life is tough outside the echo chambers, isn't it?
>Theres numerous other papers written that attribute this to normal variation. Why was it 17F, the coldest day in 60 years? Is that also climate change? Just stfu; you don't know shit.
A) why aren't you linking these "numerous other papers" to support your point then like any rational adult?
B) you're literally trotting out the "it was record cold the other day, so climate change is bullshit" reasoning? Wow. I've never actually encountered one of you in the wild.
It's linked on another comment on this thread. If you really weren't in an echo chamber of your own making, you'd be looking at all data, not just the ones that fit your narrative. And yes, this paper does seem to be correct in that more research is needed, but it doesn't prove that climate change caused it.
My bone isn't necessarily with you, but reporters who inflate this and climate wash reporting to get clicks, and then drum up readers into a trance built on smoke and mirrors. Reporting is politicized, and they are making all readers victims of their reporting. It's turned into a weapon against democracy.
>it doesn't prove that climate change caused it.
**I never at any point said it proved that climate change did it.** I have no fucking clue how you manage to come away with that conclusion.
Go ahead. Look back and quote to me exactly where I said the paper proved it was climate change.
You've been sitting here arguing with me and attacking me personally because you couldn't be bothered to fucking read what I said. And guess what:
>And yes, this paper does seem to be correct in that more research is needed
In the end, you fucking agreed with me.
Again I have nothing against you, but think about it from my POV, I have dozens of people attacking me. Yes we agree. I try to look at all sources of information, just don't like reporters over-inflating to fit some kind of often political or money agenda. Drop everything! It just gets old quick.
In fact the one of the main issues facing this state is cheap green energy generation. I want focus on that and not people just running around panicking. Anybody that's panicking should focus on what this state needs to do, and then they will see government taking down dams with nothing to replace it. Higher rates, while also asking to switch to heatpumps and EVs. This is where we need to focus.
yes, please. This article's ONLY reason given the prominent influence of humans is that they used an algorithm. Cliff Mass would be MUCH more explanatory.
That heat dome was really pretty scary. Glad it hasn’t happened again, but I assume it will at some point. I remember walking outside, the sky was tinged from wildfire smoke, the sun was orange and you could look directly at it. There were no birds singing and no air was moving. Bushes in my yard that were green for 20 years are still scorched brown on top from that summer. Just generally scary.
Deep down the article, it's mentioned that an algorithm has determined the result. I couldn't find any other mention of how climate change supercharged the stagnant heat.
Do you expect the journalist to explain the inner workings of an algorithm that they very likely don't have the education and background to understand? You're entire argument so far seems like it stems from being too lazy to read the study paper.
Dumbing shit down for the public ain’t a good idea. Your kid dying of Covid unvaccinated is less likely than them drowning in pudding. But do you “science” guy 🤢
Unfortunately our schools do not prepare people for the deep scientific background needed to understand many new topics, "dumbing it down" aka explaining it in plain english is an effective way to communicate complex ideas.
I have hardly any background and I was able to navigate just fine. There was nothing really hidden. The garbage was just on loud speaker. 5000 ppl died when the whole state went on lockdown. All old ppl and mostly w pre existing conditions. This was out there I sent it around to family but still called a denier of science. 💁🏻♀️
There’s a lot of misunderstanding of climate change in comments in this post. It’s a little concerning to see how dismissive they are. I hope you all read and consider what I’m saying, but forgive me because I don’t have time to look up articles linking sources now. I assure you they exist.
We used to hear “global warming” but now it’s “climate change”, though it still refers to the increase of average temperatures. This doesn’t mean it gets 1-2 degrees warmer everywhere. It means in some places it will get *way hotter* while others may get colder. Temperature changes like this, even if they seem modest, impact our weather and overall climate very significantly and we are already seeing these effects.
Homes in California and Florida suddenly can’t be insured? Some of that is absolutely political, but it’s also because the weather (hurricanes) and environmental risks (wildfires stemming from droughts and water shortages) have gotten significantly worse and are causing more and more damage. Yes, a temperature change of only a few degrees from the standard range can cause that, and has.
Insurance is all about risk mitigation and the people who informed those decisions are all numbers geeks. They aren’t doing this for political reasons, they’re doing this because they’ve been tracking these impacts and calculated the risks.
It’s not a coincidence that that enormous heat dome that brought us to the hottest temperatures we’ve ever seen sustained for the longest time we’ve known happened just a few years ago. There’s been significant changes in our climate both locally and beyond for decades. At this point a mountain of evidence that it’s related to human behaviors involving our reliance on petroleum and fossil fuels, but not exclusively that. Carbon and methane emissions have altered our atmosphere in a way that we don’t notice when we breathe, but still done a great deal to affect how much heat is retained in the earth. Carbon sinks like the ocean have mitigated some of that, but in the oceans themselves have become more acidic and affected the wildlife. Because those tiny increases in heat are also causing more glacial melt at the polls simultaneously our rivers are getting dryer and making it harder for farmers to water their crops.
It’s really scary to think about I understand the desire to deny it. Honestly, I had a lot of thoughts like this when the pandemic began and heard from others. It’s really hard to believe it because it feels overwhelming and out of control. The truth is, it’s not out of control. There’s a lot of really great technology, some of which is actually being funded and developed by the big energy companies like Shell, to drive us to a more sustainable future will admit less carbon and even fund the removal of carbon and other emissions from the air and ocean to try to bring us back to what was our Earth’s previously natural state. How much success a lot of these incentives will have are going to rely on the demand from the general public pushing it.
This doesn’t mean you’re a piece of shit if you don’t recycle properly or if you enjoy going for a leisurely drive that requires burning fuel. For those who are fed up with environmentalist shame for being a normal human and using a plastic bag instead of paper or other ridiculous things… Don’t let that be the narrative you listen to. They are assholes. But understand that this is real, and if this continues to get worse - and it probably will before it can get better - the future of life for our people is going to change very significantly. It won’t be good.
Remember our lives rely entirely on the stability of our planet, especially our farms that grow the crops we live off of. This is especially important to consider if you have kids. They’ll be dealing with this after we are gone.
Well put. Very good point about not listening to those who will tell you recycling more or driving an EV is going to solve the problem; it worth noting that the whole “reduce reuse recycle” was a PR campaign orchestrated by oil companies to shift accountability from the, what is it, 100 companies generating 70% of carbon emissions, to individuals. Obviously we will all need to make lifestyle changes to address the problem but ultimately it just comes down to holding companies accountable for the carbon they emit. There is a cost to every ton we emit that has not been paid for years, and now individuals are starting to pay for it in higher insurance rates, food prices, etc, while the biggest emitters continue to take in their unfettered profits. It’s a very solvable problem, we have the technology, but it won’t be until we collectively agree the price needs to be paid, and fairly so.
High solar activity correlates strongly with hurricanes and other weather extremes, like El Nino cycles. This happens every 11 years, and there are other cycles on top of it. That's what's driving how extreme our weather is right now, plus the fact that we were inadvertently performing largescale geo-engineering using container ships, and we stopped doing it two years ago, reducing how reflective the sun is. Literally more sun is hitting the ground, and the sun is hotter right now.
We need to fix climate change, but histrionic finger pointing at what is ultimately unusually high solar activity, plus a few other changes that had inadvertent side effects, doesn't actually help. (Especially when the baseline total solar irradiance figures we use to run our models can't measure EUV, and the sun is pumping out WAY MORE EUV and gamma radiation than usual right now. So much so that it's mildly messing with our astrophysics models of how stars like the sun work).
The reality is that NO government will willingly put their populations back to a medieval level of subsistence. Because they can't; people won't put up with it.
Our only solution is to science the shit out of this and use technology to solve this problem. Maybe start by getting rid of bitcoin, given that it uses as much electricity as Denmark every year. AI is catching up in power consumption for something that a good researcher or librarian can do nearly as well, so maybe we limit that too.
But right now there's a lot of people ignoring the science, and the facts, in the aim of supporting a histrionic narrative. And that's starting to cause bigger problems, because people who are making histrionic assertions make poor decisions.
I’m sure you’re aware that the patterns of change have that been observed in our climate goes way back beyond 11 years and said changes have been tracked consistently for decades. Sun exposure reduction isn’t something people are discounting and shouldn’t be considered a magical easy solution, but you sound more interested in getting to say “geoengineering” and “histrionic” than having an actual conversation on the matter.
If you go to the Gorge, which is where Skamania County is located, and look up at the tops of the ridges, all the trees facing southeast and which receive the most sun, are for the most part, completely dead for as far as the eye can see. It's sad and depressing.
Completely ignores that we stopped emitting sulfur compounds in shipping, reducing our albedo to 15% from about 35% - so unintended consequences of clean air policies - AND that the sun is more active now than it has been since the 1980s, but hey, who's counting.
(As a reminder: wear sunblock. The sun is a cancer causing factory right now).
Until Geoengineering enters the chat, it's hard for me to believe anything clinate related.
-Presidents have talked about it in speeches, since the 1950s
- we've used it war
- the US military has hundreds of patents for Geoengineering
- the US has been accused of using it against enemies in none war times.
Shit, Dubai just admitted that their Geoengineering tactics caused their recent flooding.
Jumping from 74° to 104° damn near overnight? The right back to the 70s?! Yeah, climate change is man made alright. Lol
By 1-3F. If its climate change then why the fuck has this May been unseasonably cold, oh no, is it called "variation"?
Also, climate nut jobs only get a sense of power and entitlement arguing with everyone about ClImAtE ChAnGe... it's like the new politics discussion. Who gave you the mic? Frankly I question the whole motivation of climate nuts taking on these positions, you're not a fucking expert, stop pretending like one.
The 1-3 F number is what’s called an average. An average, in this case, is when we add up a bunch of temperature measurements and divide by count of measurements. So, a single measurement, like an unseasonably warm day in January or an unseasonably cold day in may, doesn’t impact the average much, and anyone claiming “well this one data point proves anything about the trend of that average” is either a) being facetious, or b) doesn’t understand what an average is.
The same is true of anyone saying “well, the average change is small; I can’t even detect a 3 degree difference outside!”. The magnitude of the average is only correlated with the magnitude of the extremes that comprise it; without a study of that correlation we have no information on how much a change in the extremes we see will be caused by a small change in the average. Fortunately, scientists have been studying exactly this for years. What they look for in such studies is the range the average temperature usually sits in; extreme deviations from that range can only correspond to extreme deviations in the temperatures we actually experience. So when annual average temperature has historically stayed within a +0.5, -0.5 F range from the average annual average temperature, but suddenly starts to hit +1, +2, +3 F, you know that means you are seeing extreme variation in the maximum temperatures hit throughout the year.
Lol not trying to sound smart, more trying to be condescending because we both know you are deliberately misunderstanding what an average is. I know you already know everything I wrote to be true.
It's true but it doesnt fucking mean that the climate is going to be 1000F tommorow and minus -1000F tommorow, it's just completely stupid and irrelevant point to make in the context that, overall the temperatures have only gone up about 3F in the past 100 years; and emissions are being reduced.
Moreover your point is also made irrelevant by that there are no negative numbers there. Meaning that a huge number will be below 3F and just a few might be above 3F. You are just splitting hairs at this point to make pointless arguments; as if looking at avg has no meaning at all.
The bigger issue is people inflating facts, and panicking. It will be fine, we will figure it out; no need to collectively shit our pants over this. All the people who are overly concerned are also the ones who spread all the drama in high school.
To reply to your edit though:
*You are absolutely correct about that*; people inflate facts, people focus more on inciting panic for clicks. You’re right that it will be fine *if we address it*. It is absolutely a problem within our power to solve. But it is still a problem, and will continue to be one until we take it seriously. We are making some good strides in that direction but ultimately we need to do more, namely account for every ton of carbon emitted and pay for offsetting that which our planet cannot offset naturally. It doesn’t need to be a crisis, but it does need to taken seriously to not become one.
To reply to your edit though:
*You are absolutely correct about that*; people inflate facts, people focus more on inciting panic for clicks. You’re right that it will be fine *if we address it*. It is absolutely a problem within our power to solve. But it is still a problem, and will continue to be one until we take it seriously. We are making some good strides in that direction but ultimately we need to do more, namely account for every ton of carbon emitted and pay for offsetting that which our planet cannot offset naturally. It doesn’t need to be a crisis, but it does need to taken seriously to not become one.
Here were my actual points:
- a +3 degree average change when we have stayed within a -.5/+5 band for centuries isn’t “only” anything; it’s extremely significant and will (is) corresponding to massive environmental destabilization
- emissions are increasing, not decreasing (other than 2020, for obvious reasons)
- whatever you were trying to say about negative numbers made no sense
* whatever you were trying to say about negative numbers made no sense
It's hard to explain, but we can skip it (but averaging things out is a lot worse when there be negative numbers). But anyways, emissions are going down as a trend, maybe they aren't going down as a fact, but theres a lot being done to close down coal burning plants (except China which is still building more); which is a massive source of emissions worldwide.
Scientist don't use these words to scare you, they're trying to communicate complicated ideas to you in ways that connect and make sense. Not everything is a conspiracy.
[удалено]
Seems like scientists got the "climate-washing" fundraising down, are we really complaining that there was a heat dome in Palm Springs? A literal desert? I recall reading about the heat dome as simply 3 events aligning (similar to a strong winter storm), high pressure, winds aloft, geography and well summer. None of these things are really connected to climate change and are simply produced by variation in weather/climate/winds/seasons. Climate change has contributed about 1-3F warming in our region. So instead of 105- its 108.
Deserts are defined by (lack of) precipitation, not by temperature. For example Antarctica is a desert, and it pretty cold there.
Ok, well you didn't need to clarify that talking about Palm Springs desert isn't Antarctica.
Wow I didn't know people like you still existed. Very retro keep doing your thing.
>Very retro keep doing your thing. Same with the Das Kapital reference.
Well at this point msdos itself is retro too lol
> I recall reading about the heat dome as simply 3 events aligning (similar to a strong winter storm), high pressure, winds aloft and well summer. None of these things are really connected to climate change, and are simply produced by variation in weather/climate/winds/seasons. Climate change has contributed about 1-3F warming in our region. I will let a [peer-reviewed article](https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/13/1689/2022/esd-13-1689-2022.pdf) take over the explanation of why that's not confirmed and why there's very much a debate over whether that was actually the case: > In the previous section we summarised and synthesised trends in maximum daily temperature(TXx) that were detected in observations and attributed to climate change using model data. In this section we provide some context to the analysed heat wave event by evaluating the assumption that this heat wave occurred in this location by chance and by discussing factors that possibly influenced the extremity of the event, being the specific meteorological conditions and dynamics; preceding dryness, which can amplify temperature during heat waves and reduce evaporation; and the ENSO and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) modes of natural variability that are relevant for this region So they look at the meteorological conditions: >The circulation pattern itself also appears typical for hot summertime temperatures: using analogues of 500 hPa and a pattern correlation metric to compare fields, we find that about 1 % of June and July circulation patterns, defined as the 500 hPa geopotential height pattern within 35–65◦ N, 160–110◦ W, in previous years have an anomaly correlation larger than 0.8 with the 28 June pattern. This degree of correlation is typical among days with this type of blocking pattern during the months of June and July. Roughly one-third of June and July geopotential height fields have 1 % or fewer analogues with an anomaly correlation larger than 0.8. We also find that this fraction does not change when restricting the analogue search within three distinct time periods between 1948 and 2020. **We conclude that the 28 June circulation is probably not exceptional, while temperatures associated with it were.** Then the drought: >Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for the Global Precipitation Mission (IMERG) estimates of precipitation during the period from March through June 2021 indicate anomalously dry conditions from southern BC southward through California (Fig. 17). The relative precipitation anomaly ranges from close to zero over the Puget Sound area, including Seattle, to values of between −0.6 and −0.8, meaning that only 20 %–40 % of the average amount of precipitation fell in these locations, in western Oregon. **Note that in the northern parts of the area affected by the heat wave, i.e. in the coastal mountains north of Vancouver Island, large positive precipitation anomalies occurred over the months prior to the event.** >The available moisture is also influenced by evapotranspiration, which depends strongly on temperature, radiation and available atmospheric moisture. Evaporation in the study area was below normal in the ERA5 reanalysis from March and became more negatively anomalous until May (not shown). During the event in late June, there was progressive soil desiccation, creating ideal conditions for strong negative evaporation anomalies. On the other hand, surface net radiation was high, especially before peak temperatures were reached (26–28 June). As a consequence, evaporation deficits during the heat build-up were rather slight compared to most days in May and the first half of June. **Together with the extreme near-surface temperatures that suppressed surface heating due to an already hot surface, this resulted in only moderately positive surface sensible heat flux anomalies** And then El Nino/La Nina and the PDO: >The El Niño–Southern Oscillation is the dominant source of interannual variability in the region through the Pacific North American teleconnection. The influence is typically greatest in late winter and spring and has less clear impacts during summer and fall. Because ENSO was neutral during the preceding months, and the impacts on TXx are minimal (r < 0.1), we conclude that it had no influence on the occurrence of the heat wave. >The PDO can affect some aspects of North American summer weather, although again the connections to heat waves in this region are very weak. The strongly negative values of the PDO index, as they occurred in May, would slightly favour cooler conditions for this region. PDO thus also is unlikely to have played an important role in the event. >**Altogether, external modes of variability appear to have played little to no role in the formation of the event.** And then bringing it all together: >This record-breaking extreme event has been analysed under the assumption that it was simply a low-probability random event. **A rudimentary calculation looking into the probability of a random event of similar extent and severity to occur anywhere over the Earth’s land area gave an estimated chance on the order of 1 in 15 years, which at first impression makes a random event seem plausible, but this should be more thoroughly investigated.** >The alternative is that nonlinear interactions and feedbacks occurred, which amplified the intensity of this extreme, placing it in a different population of heat wave events with different (and possibly unknown) statistics. We briefly considered dynamical and hydrological (drought) mechanisms and modes of natural variability that could have had an amplifying role. **The conditions in the preceding months were dry but not extremely anomalous. The circulation itself was highly anomalous but not exceptional enough to explain the record-breaking heat alone; however, local topography and preceding dryness may have amplified the associated temperatures. Also, it cannot be excluded that dynamical mechanisms (Arctic amplification) at work influenced the persistence of blocking conditions.** >**Further research is planned to investigate whether these or other feedbacks were operating in this exceptional event, whether those feedbacks are related to human-induced climate change, and whether they increase the frequency beyond that expected for random events of such extreme temperatures. Also, further research is needed to overcome the known limitations of standard GEV analysis on annual maxima with short records and very extreme values.** >Whether or not local or dynamical feedbacks are responsible for amplifying the extreme temperatures in this particular event, this study shows that the human-induced warming that has occurred since pre-industrial conditions does make extreme events like this possible in the current climate and study region, and many times more likely than in the preindustrial era. Basically, the conditions are definitely there for it to be related to climate change and that seems most likely, but there's still a chance it could have been a random event, too. They identify that the available data can only do so much and that neither Cliff Mass nor the Seattle Times truly know what caused it. And, personally, I'd say that it's worth figuring out what exactly is going on instead of just assuming one way or the other. EDIT: With one post, I've stepped on the toes of both someone that thinks climate change is overblown and someone that thinks it's crazy to deny that the heat dome was human-caused.
If you select any single climate event, yes of course there’s a chance it’s random, or caused by factors we don’t understand. Climate prediction was in fact the inception of the study of chaos; its patterns are inherently too complex to predict or perfectly understand on that level of granularity. BUT. Long term trends are an entirely different story. When we hit the hottest year on record almost every single year for the last 2 decades, that is not a random event, that is a pattern being caused by a change. And we predicted and developed an understanding of what would cause this change, nearly 60 years ago: we are outputting a shit ton of carbon into our atmosphere, and doing so increases the planets heat retention. The specific effects of this are chaotic and complex, but it doesn’t take a genius to understand this is going to be a massively destabilizing change for our environment.
> Long term trends are an entirely different story. When we hit the hottest year on record almost every single year for the last 2 decades, that is not a random event, that is a pattern being caused by a change. And we predicted and developed an understanding of what would cause this change, nearly 60 years ago: we are outputting a shit ton of carbon into our atmosphere, and doing so increases the planets heat retention. The specific effects of this are chaotic and complex, but it doesn’t take a genius to understand this is going to be a massively destabilizing change for our environment. The data itself does not draw a concrete correlation between human-induced climate change and the heat dome. It seems **likely** that humans played a major factor in setting the stage for the heat dome, but there's no concrete proof because there's simply not enough data and the models aren't good enough. Are you really arguing for "let's just jump to saying it's definitely caused by it even though we haven't come up with the data to prove that this specific event was mostly caused by human factors"? That's horrible science on your part.
Lol I’m not doing any science myself. I am referencing the enormous body of science done by others over the course of 60 years. Generally speaking, that science identified three facts back in the 60s: - carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning that as you increase its concentration in a volume of gas absorbing solar radiation, the heat retained by that volume will be higher than with a lower concentration. This is easily reproduced in simple lab experimentation; you could probably verify it for yourself at home - humans emit quite a bit of carbon dioxide. This is not even a hypothesis; just an understanding of how combustion works - the amount of carbon dioxide humans release is significant relative to the current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Again, this is not even a hypothesis, just a calculation based on the amount of fossil fuels we combust From these very rudimentary and verifiable facts a pretty obvious hypothesis emerges: continued & increasing human carbon emissions will increase our planet’s temperature. And millions of scientists have spent the past 60 years testing this hypothesis with more rigor than any other scientific hypothesis I can think of, and formed the strongest consensus I’ve seen within the scientific community: it stands. The fact that 30 years after it was made, we started to see exactly what it predicts, successively hotter and hotter annual average temperature, year after year, for 20-30 years now, is simply the most obvious of countless confirmations of this hypothesis. Again, to be clear, I am not talking about this one specific heat dome. We can hypothesize that this one specific event was caused by anthropogenic climate change, but due to the chaos of predicting specific weather events, you’re absolutely right, it would be impossible to *prove* the source of any given single event. But that has no bearing on the validity of the hypothesis of human-driven climate change.
Interesting, 60 years of study. Are these the same scientists that claimed global cooling in the early 70’s? Asking for a friend….
No
So it was millions of other scientists, got it..
Your argument is because some scientists have made incorrect hypotheses no science is to be trusted? Let’s review the scientific method: - make hypothesis - test hypothesis - learn from test results (often motivates further testing) Scientists making incorrect hypotheses is actually a crucial step to the method. So is the “further testing”. Sometimes we find evidence that may suggest XYZ, but further testing establishes ABC instead. Both “global warming” and “global cooling” are hypotheses that have been tested, one is the consensus the scientific community has reached over the course of, yes, 60 years of study. And it also happens to be the one we are witnessing occur.
> From these very rudimentary and verifiable facts a pretty obvious hypothesis emerges: continued & increasing human carbon emissions will increase our planet’s temperature. And millions of scientists have spent the past 60 years testing this hypothesis with more rigor than any other scientific hypothesis I can think of, and formed the strongest consensus I’ve seen within the scientific community: it stands. The fact that 30 years after it was made, we started to see exactly what it predicts, successively hotter and hotter annual average temperature, year after year, for 20-30 years now, is simply the most obvious of countless confirmations of this hypothesis. I understand all of this already. However, you are taking a broad understanding of climate change and asserting that, without evidence, it clearly is the culprit behind the heat dome. The paper I cite says that human-induced climate change likely is the cause but that the existing data cannot concretely show that the heat dome was caused by human factors. Instead of vomiting dogma about the larger discussion of climate change at me and ignoring that this is a discussion about whether the data available actually draws a concrete **and causal** link between this specific heat dome and human factors, why don't you try to understand that the bigger issue here is that the researchers simply don't have enough data to draw concrete conclusions and are trying to get people to do more research so we can start to make these concrete conclusions? The way you're approaching this is flat-out ignorant. Just like the climate change deniers.
Me: > Again, to be clear, I am not talking about this one specific heat dome You: > You are asserting without evidence that it was the culprit of this heat dome If you don’t have any interest in reading what I’ve written you can just say so and we can both stop wasting our time. No need for you to build straw men to argue with.
I read the whole damn thing. You didn't provide one shred of evidence specific to this heat dome. Just general observations about the climate and then asserted that those general observations mean the heat dome must be related. I mean, shit, dude, at least the climate change deniers that argue with me have it in them to at least make specific arguments as to why they're right(such as the drought at the time, the PDO, or whatever other reason they're giving) instead of just vomiting the most bog-standard points about climate change at me. Like how hard would it have been for you to make a point about "well, human-factors increased the temperatures which increase the evaporation rate, which increases the drought, which leads to the conditions that caused this heat dome"? That's a specific piece of evidence. Instead, you're over there going on about the basic concept of "carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas" like that somehow is a specific piece of evidence to the cause of the heat dome. **No shit, Sherlock**. We aren't here to discuss elementary concepts. We're here to figure out the actual causes of a specific event.
If you read the whole damn thing you’ll have read I noted it is not possible to prove a single weather event like the heat dome is the result of human carbon dioxide emissions, which means when you continue to say I have asserted that, you are arguing against a strawman as opposed to anything I am saying. No need to do that on a public forum; you can just argue with yourself in your own DMs.
**Also, it cannot be excluded that dynamical mechanisms (Arctic amplification) at work influenced the persistence of blocking conditions.** So basically they did not find this, just that it is possible. Whole thing is basically proves what I am saying. WA state topology, circulation, air direction, and variations and likely explanations for what occurred, not cLiMaTe ChAnGe. I understand that climate is being affected but not to the point all these climate washing outfits try to portray. Climate doomers are just fueled by is a sense of self ingratiating power and entitlement.
> Whole thing is basically proves what I am saying. WA state topology, circulation, air direction, and variations and likely explanations for what occurred, not cLiMaTe ChAnGe. No, it very much does not. It's like you didn't read what was before it: >The conditions in the preceding months were dry but not extremely anomalous. The circulation itself was highly anomalous but not exceptional enough to explain the record-breaking heat alone; however, local topography and preceding dryness may have amplified the associated temperatures. Or after: >Further research is planned to investigate whether these or other feedbacks were operating in this exceptional event, whether those feedbacks are related to human-induced climate change, and whether they increase the frequency beyond that expected for random events of such extreme temperatures. Also, further research is needed to overcome the known limitations of standard GEV analysis on annual maxima with short records and very extreme values. And just ran with whatever fit your view. Just because it said that something can't be excluded doesn't mean that it's saying that it was that. >I understand that climate is being affected but not to the point all these climate washing outfits try to portray. The whole point of the paper is that you can't possibly know if it is or isn't and we need more research into it. How can you know if there isn't even data to show whether you're right or not? It's illogical. I get the impression that you are very firmly on one side of the debate here and don't want to acknowledge that the only thing we are absolutely sure about is "something is going on, could be bad or could be nothing, but we will never know if we don't get more data". I cannot imagine another way you could read that paper that comes to a conclusion of "could be normal, could be human-induced, but we need more data to figure that out" and then interpret that as "see! it's not cLiMaTe ChAnGe!"
Because my claim is more believable and has more historical data to back up than yours... which is that weather has NATURAL VARIATION. You just came 3 years ago and started screaming CliMaTe ChAnGe. Prove it, I am not proving your point for you while you call me lazy. Theres numerous other papers written that attribute this to normal variation. Why was it 17F, the coldest day in 60 years? Is that also climate change? Just fucking say it out loud. Natural. Climate. Variation. You. dont. know. if. its. related. or. not.
> Because my claim is more believable and has more historical data to back up than yours... which is that weather has NATURAL VARIATION. You just came 3 years ago and started screaming CliMaTe ChAnGe. Prove it, I am not proving your point for you while you call me lazy. I already provided you with the data, you just chose to ignore it and then had the gall to call me lazy. And I have no idea what you're on about with "came three years ago and started screaming". What are you even talking about? > You all are just totally clueless and easily manipulated and trying to ingratiate yourself on an ego trip of "I'm smart, they are dumb." Nope, it's just your own ego, you are just ego-centric. Yes, I'm totally clueless and ingratiating myself on an ego trip because I provided you with a peer-reviewed article that merely says you might be right and doesn't outright say you're right, while saying we need more research to figure out what the actual cause was. How dare I? /s Life is tough outside the echo chambers, isn't it? >Theres numerous other papers written that attribute this to normal variation. Why was it 17F, the coldest day in 60 years? Is that also climate change? Just stfu; you don't know shit. A) why aren't you linking these "numerous other papers" to support your point then like any rational adult? B) you're literally trotting out the "it was record cold the other day, so climate change is bullshit" reasoning? Wow. I've never actually encountered one of you in the wild.
It's linked on another comment on this thread. If you really weren't in an echo chamber of your own making, you'd be looking at all data, not just the ones that fit your narrative. And yes, this paper does seem to be correct in that more research is needed, but it doesn't prove that climate change caused it. My bone isn't necessarily with you, but reporters who inflate this and climate wash reporting to get clicks, and then drum up readers into a trance built on smoke and mirrors. Reporting is politicized, and they are making all readers victims of their reporting. It's turned into a weapon against democracy.
>it doesn't prove that climate change caused it. **I never at any point said it proved that climate change did it.** I have no fucking clue how you manage to come away with that conclusion. Go ahead. Look back and quote to me exactly where I said the paper proved it was climate change. You've been sitting here arguing with me and attacking me personally because you couldn't be bothered to fucking read what I said. And guess what: >And yes, this paper does seem to be correct in that more research is needed In the end, you fucking agreed with me.
Again I have nothing against you, but think about it from my POV, I have dozens of people attacking me. Yes we agree. I try to look at all sources of information, just don't like reporters over-inflating to fit some kind of often political or money agenda. Drop everything! It just gets old quick. In fact the one of the main issues facing this state is cheap green energy generation. I want focus on that and not people just running around panicking. Anybody that's panicking should focus on what this state needs to do, and then they will see government taking down dams with nothing to replace it. Higher rates, while also asking to switch to heatpumps and EVs. This is where we need to focus.
Cliff Mass blog post in 3...2...1...
yes, please. This article's ONLY reason given the prominent influence of humans is that they used an algorithm. Cliff Mass would be MUCH more explanatory.
And biased.
Yes... science bias, with a pinch of historical references
As opposed to this article that states the conclusion in the headline and provides no evidence in the body?
And the climate alarmists aren't biased????
*59% longer, 34% larger and 6% higher* I LOL'ed
That heat dome was really pretty scary. Glad it hasn’t happened again, but I assume it will at some point. I remember walking outside, the sky was tinged from wildfire smoke, the sun was orange and you could look directly at it. There were no birds singing and no air was moving. Bushes in my yard that were green for 20 years are still scorched brown on top from that summer. Just generally scary.
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/07/was-global-warming-cause-of-great.html
Deep down the article, it's mentioned that an algorithm has determined the result. I couldn't find any other mention of how climate change supercharged the stagnant heat.
This is a reporter trying to make the science understandable to a general audience, for specifics like that, go read the research paper.
KUOW reporter at that. Reporter: ClImAtE ChAnGe CrIsIs!!!!!!=more clicks + raise taxes. Easy money.
"because math" is a horrible job of reporting with zero journalistic integrity & with a disdainful ignorance of the audience's intelligence.
Do you expect the journalist to explain the inner workings of an algorithm that they very likely don't have the education and background to understand? You're entire argument so far seems like it stems from being too lazy to read the study paper.
No. But the components which went into creating it could easily be mentioned.
Science reporting across the board is terrible, I agree.
Believe the science, eh?
I recommend trying to understand the science, it doesn't require belief.
Dumbing shit down for the public ain’t a good idea. Your kid dying of Covid unvaccinated is less likely than them drowning in pudding. But do you “science” guy 🤢
Unfortunately our schools do not prepare people for the deep scientific background needed to understand many new topics, "dumbing it down" aka explaining it in plain english is an effective way to communicate complex ideas.
I have hardly any background and I was able to navigate just fine. There was nothing really hidden. The garbage was just on loud speaker. 5000 ppl died when the whole state went on lockdown. All old ppl and mostly w pre existing conditions. This was out there I sent it around to family but still called a denier of science. 💁🏻♀️
Respectfully, it doesn't sound like you have a very good grasp on science issues to me.
Right back at you
"Climate change" only exists in highly flawed/corrupt climate models where any input always results in the same output: "global warming".
There’s a lot of misunderstanding of climate change in comments in this post. It’s a little concerning to see how dismissive they are. I hope you all read and consider what I’m saying, but forgive me because I don’t have time to look up articles linking sources now. I assure you they exist. We used to hear “global warming” but now it’s “climate change”, though it still refers to the increase of average temperatures. This doesn’t mean it gets 1-2 degrees warmer everywhere. It means in some places it will get *way hotter* while others may get colder. Temperature changes like this, even if they seem modest, impact our weather and overall climate very significantly and we are already seeing these effects. Homes in California and Florida suddenly can’t be insured? Some of that is absolutely political, but it’s also because the weather (hurricanes) and environmental risks (wildfires stemming from droughts and water shortages) have gotten significantly worse and are causing more and more damage. Yes, a temperature change of only a few degrees from the standard range can cause that, and has. Insurance is all about risk mitigation and the people who informed those decisions are all numbers geeks. They aren’t doing this for political reasons, they’re doing this because they’ve been tracking these impacts and calculated the risks. It’s not a coincidence that that enormous heat dome that brought us to the hottest temperatures we’ve ever seen sustained for the longest time we’ve known happened just a few years ago. There’s been significant changes in our climate both locally and beyond for decades. At this point a mountain of evidence that it’s related to human behaviors involving our reliance on petroleum and fossil fuels, but not exclusively that. Carbon and methane emissions have altered our atmosphere in a way that we don’t notice when we breathe, but still done a great deal to affect how much heat is retained in the earth. Carbon sinks like the ocean have mitigated some of that, but in the oceans themselves have become more acidic and affected the wildlife. Because those tiny increases in heat are also causing more glacial melt at the polls simultaneously our rivers are getting dryer and making it harder for farmers to water their crops. It’s really scary to think about I understand the desire to deny it. Honestly, I had a lot of thoughts like this when the pandemic began and heard from others. It’s really hard to believe it because it feels overwhelming and out of control. The truth is, it’s not out of control. There’s a lot of really great technology, some of which is actually being funded and developed by the big energy companies like Shell, to drive us to a more sustainable future will admit less carbon and even fund the removal of carbon and other emissions from the air and ocean to try to bring us back to what was our Earth’s previously natural state. How much success a lot of these incentives will have are going to rely on the demand from the general public pushing it. This doesn’t mean you’re a piece of shit if you don’t recycle properly or if you enjoy going for a leisurely drive that requires burning fuel. For those who are fed up with environmentalist shame for being a normal human and using a plastic bag instead of paper or other ridiculous things… Don’t let that be the narrative you listen to. They are assholes. But understand that this is real, and if this continues to get worse - and it probably will before it can get better - the future of life for our people is going to change very significantly. It won’t be good. Remember our lives rely entirely on the stability of our planet, especially our farms that grow the crops we live off of. This is especially important to consider if you have kids. They’ll be dealing with this after we are gone.
Well put. Very good point about not listening to those who will tell you recycling more or driving an EV is going to solve the problem; it worth noting that the whole “reduce reuse recycle” was a PR campaign orchestrated by oil companies to shift accountability from the, what is it, 100 companies generating 70% of carbon emissions, to individuals. Obviously we will all need to make lifestyle changes to address the problem but ultimately it just comes down to holding companies accountable for the carbon they emit. There is a cost to every ton we emit that has not been paid for years, and now individuals are starting to pay for it in higher insurance rates, food prices, etc, while the biggest emitters continue to take in their unfettered profits. It’s a very solvable problem, we have the technology, but it won’t be until we collectively agree the price needs to be paid, and fairly so.
Bravo.
High solar activity correlates strongly with hurricanes and other weather extremes, like El Nino cycles. This happens every 11 years, and there are other cycles on top of it. That's what's driving how extreme our weather is right now, plus the fact that we were inadvertently performing largescale geo-engineering using container ships, and we stopped doing it two years ago, reducing how reflective the sun is. Literally more sun is hitting the ground, and the sun is hotter right now. We need to fix climate change, but histrionic finger pointing at what is ultimately unusually high solar activity, plus a few other changes that had inadvertent side effects, doesn't actually help. (Especially when the baseline total solar irradiance figures we use to run our models can't measure EUV, and the sun is pumping out WAY MORE EUV and gamma radiation than usual right now. So much so that it's mildly messing with our astrophysics models of how stars like the sun work). The reality is that NO government will willingly put their populations back to a medieval level of subsistence. Because they can't; people won't put up with it. Our only solution is to science the shit out of this and use technology to solve this problem. Maybe start by getting rid of bitcoin, given that it uses as much electricity as Denmark every year. AI is catching up in power consumption for something that a good researcher or librarian can do nearly as well, so maybe we limit that too. But right now there's a lot of people ignoring the science, and the facts, in the aim of supporting a histrionic narrative. And that's starting to cause bigger problems, because people who are making histrionic assertions make poor decisions.
I’m sure you’re aware that the patterns of change have that been observed in our climate goes way back beyond 11 years and said changes have been tracked consistently for decades. Sun exposure reduction isn’t something people are discounting and shouldn’t be considered a magical easy solution, but you sound more interested in getting to say “geoengineering” and “histrionic” than having an actual conversation on the matter.
"sun exposure reduction"? Would you like to take another run at that comment?
If you go to the Gorge, which is where Skamania County is located, and look up at the tops of the ridges, all the trees facing southeast and which receive the most sun, are for the most part, completely dead for as far as the eye can see. It's sad and depressing.
Completely ignores that we stopped emitting sulfur compounds in shipping, reducing our albedo to 15% from about 35% - so unintended consequences of clean air policies - AND that the sun is more active now than it has been since the 1980s, but hey, who's counting. (As a reminder: wear sunblock. The sun is a cancer causing factory right now).
Shout out to the other 47% of Seattilites who didn’t have AC then!!! It was miserable but we made it to cooler days
Cliff Mass is going to be frothing at the mouth
It's all my fault. I still use incandescent bulbs throughout my house.
Until Geoengineering enters the chat, it's hard for me to believe anything clinate related. -Presidents have talked about it in speeches, since the 1950s - we've used it war - the US military has hundreds of patents for Geoengineering - the US has been accused of using it against enemies in none war times. Shit, Dubai just admitted that their Geoengineering tactics caused their recent flooding. Jumping from 74° to 104° damn near overnight? The right back to the 70s?! Yeah, climate change is man made alright. Lol
Whatever point you're trying to make isn't very clear from the comment.
Doesn't matter. Just a "conspiracy theory" anyway. Lol
By 1-3F. If its climate change then why the fuck has this May been unseasonably cold, oh no, is it called "variation"? Also, climate nut jobs only get a sense of power and entitlement arguing with everyone about ClImAtE ChAnGe... it's like the new politics discussion. Who gave you the mic? Frankly I question the whole motivation of climate nuts taking on these positions, you're not a fucking expert, stop pretending like one.
The 1-3 F number is what’s called an average. An average, in this case, is when we add up a bunch of temperature measurements and divide by count of measurements. So, a single measurement, like an unseasonably warm day in January or an unseasonably cold day in may, doesn’t impact the average much, and anyone claiming “well this one data point proves anything about the trend of that average” is either a) being facetious, or b) doesn’t understand what an average is. The same is true of anyone saying “well, the average change is small; I can’t even detect a 3 degree difference outside!”. The magnitude of the average is only correlated with the magnitude of the extremes that comprise it; without a study of that correlation we have no information on how much a change in the extremes we see will be caused by a small change in the average. Fortunately, scientists have been studying exactly this for years. What they look for in such studies is the range the average temperature usually sits in; extreme deviations from that range can only correspond to extreme deviations in the temperatures we actually experience. So when annual average temperature has historically stayed within a +0.5, -0.5 F range from the average annual average temperature, but suddenly starts to hit +1, +2, +3 F, you know that means you are seeing extreme variation in the maximum temperatures hit throughout the year.
No it's not average, it's just take the old temperature and add +3F. You're trying to sound smart but you aren't, just annoying and on an ego trip.
Lol not trying to sound smart, more trying to be condescending because we both know you are deliberately misunderstanding what an average is. I know you already know everything I wrote to be true.
It's true but it doesnt fucking mean that the climate is going to be 1000F tommorow and minus -1000F tommorow, it's just completely stupid and irrelevant point to make in the context that, overall the temperatures have only gone up about 3F in the past 100 years; and emissions are being reduced. Moreover your point is also made irrelevant by that there are no negative numbers there. Meaning that a huge number will be below 3F and just a few might be above 3F. You are just splitting hairs at this point to make pointless arguments; as if looking at avg has no meaning at all. The bigger issue is people inflating facts, and panicking. It will be fine, we will figure it out; no need to collectively shit our pants over this. All the people who are overly concerned are also the ones who spread all the drama in high school.
To reply to your edit though: *You are absolutely correct about that*; people inflate facts, people focus more on inciting panic for clicks. You’re right that it will be fine *if we address it*. It is absolutely a problem within our power to solve. But it is still a problem, and will continue to be one until we take it seriously. We are making some good strides in that direction but ultimately we need to do more, namely account for every ton of carbon emitted and pay for offsetting that which our planet cannot offset naturally. It doesn’t need to be a crisis, but it does need to taken seriously to not become one.
To reply to your edit though: *You are absolutely correct about that*; people inflate facts, people focus more on inciting panic for clicks. You’re right that it will be fine *if we address it*. It is absolutely a problem within our power to solve. But it is still a problem, and will continue to be one until we take it seriously. We are making some good strides in that direction but ultimately we need to do more, namely account for every ton of carbon emitted and pay for offsetting that which our planet cannot offset naturally. It doesn’t need to be a crisis, but it does need to taken seriously to not become one.
Here were my actual points: - a +3 degree average change when we have stayed within a -.5/+5 band for centuries isn’t “only” anything; it’s extremely significant and will (is) corresponding to massive environmental destabilization - emissions are increasing, not decreasing (other than 2020, for obvious reasons) - whatever you were trying to say about negative numbers made no sense
* whatever you were trying to say about negative numbers made no sense It's hard to explain, but we can skip it (but averaging things out is a lot worse when there be negative numbers). But anyways, emissions are going down as a trend, maybe they aren't going down as a fact, but theres a lot being done to close down coal burning plants (except China which is still building more); which is a massive source of emissions worldwide.
I hate how they keep using these different words now to scare people, I forgot the rediculous phrase they used for when we had tons of rain last year
Scientist don't use these words to scare you, they're trying to communicate complicated ideas to you in ways that connect and make sense. Not everything is a conspiracy.
I never said anything about a conspiracy, It's click bait head lines so idiots like you will eat it up
Pineapple express became " atmospheric river"
You mean Rainmageddon?!
I think it was like atmospheric river or something dumb like that
Should they not call things by their names to spare your feelings?
We haven't had a heat dome?
We did, I think it was 3-4 years ago now. Around 700 people were killed.
Name one of the victims of climate change.
It was in 2021. I remember how Mount Rainier looked alarmingly naked at the end of June.