Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

More Hot Weather For Southern California, Says UCLA Study

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the 469.9-times-more-spurious-precision dept.

Earth 218

The L.A. Times reports on a study by UCLA climate researchers who conclude, based on supercomputer analysis of a model "2,500 times more precise than previous climate models for the region" that the area around L.A. will experience more (and more extreme) hot spells in decades to come. From the article: "The study, released Thursday, is the first to model the Southland's complex geography of meandering coastlines, mountain ranges and dense urban centers in high enough resolution to predict temperatures down to the level of micro climate zones, each measuring 2 1/4 square miles. The projections are for 2041 to 2060. Not only will the number of hot days increase, but the study found that the hottest of those days will break records, said Alex Hall, lead researcher on the study by UCLA's Institute of the Environment and Sustainability."

cancel ×

218 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Chaotic systems (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429735)

Precision is not the answer. Lorenz pointed that out rather a long time ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Norton_Lorenz [wikipedia.org]

Re:Chaotic systems (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429769)

The theories of Lorenz notwithstanding, I can assure you there are quite a few strange attractors
in southern California ...

Move away (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429763)

Move away while you still can!

Re:Move away (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429793)

Way ahead of you! Left California two years ago and have no intention of ever moving back.

Re:Move away (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430299)

"Way ahead of you! Left California two years ago and have no intention of ever moving back."

We all took out the bubbly when we heard it. Good riddance!

Re:Move away (0)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430955)

Why. Dick Cheny will see this as a business opportunity to attract people from cold weather climes. Oh yeah, he and all the other fucktards who cause this will be dead by then.

2041-2060 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429781)

Are we supposed to believe this? They can't even predict tomorrow's weather right.

Re:2041-2060 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429807)

Hurr! You're FUNNY!!

This global warming stuff is baloney! It was COLD during winter!!

Re:2041-2060 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429867)

And a prediction of temperatures thirty years from now is either right or wrong.

Re:2041-2060 (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430323)

I always trust my old Indian weather stone that hangs in my garden.
If it swings around, it's windy.
If it casts a shadow, it's sunny.
If it's wet, it rains.
It was never wrong 'til this day.

Re:2041-2060 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430191)

Hurr! You're FUNNY!!

This global warming stuff is baloney! It was COLD during winter!!

Glad you're learning:

Green ‘drivel’ exposed [torontosun.com]

The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria

Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.

The implications were extraordinary.

Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.

Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.

His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.

Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.

Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.

Modded down by a true believer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430329)

Can't allow heretics to question the Correct Religion.

Re:2041-2060 (3, Insightful)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430341)

Here's a prediction of human reactions to Lovelock’s interview [torontosun.com] :
1) Attack his age. "Oh, he's an old doddering fool! He's lost his mind!"
2) Call him irrelevant because he's not publishing. "How can he know anything about climate science? He hasn't published a paper for so long!"
3) Attack the media source. "This paper is in the pocket of big oil!"
4) Attack using a straw man. "Oh, but the ice is thinning in Greenland! This proves everything I say and proves you wrong!"

What you won't hear, and what makes this more religion than science as Lovelock says, is an argument against Lovelock's actual critiques of the state of climate science. It's because his points are too logical and irrefutable, so rather than try and engage in that uphill battle they will change the question posed and make up their own questions to answer. Its something along the lines of cognitive dissonance [wikipedia.org] but worse.

Re:2041-2060 (1, Troll)

haruchai (17472) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430465)

Lovelock was always out on the far extremes and the serious, thoughtful scientists were never in his camp. Not Hansen, not Schneider, not Santer, not Alley nor even Jones and Mann.

Re:2041-2060 (2, Insightful)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430611)

You know, you're proving my point. I don't believe the question was "Is Lovelock an extremist, and/or does he agree with other climate scientists?" I only wish I could go back and add #5 to my list. "attack him for not agreeing with other scientists and call him extreme". It would be really cool if you actually addressed his valid critiques instead of "making up your own questions".

Here's an easy one, and try to answer this question without making up a new question in its place: If we can't predict past weather with any confidence using our climate models, how can we have any confidence in their predictions of future weather?

Re:2041-2060 (4, Informative)

mean pun (717227) | more than 2 years ago | (#40431029)

Ok, that's an easy answer: yes, predicting the weather is still hard, although modern predictions are actually very good most of the time, and certainly not as bad as common `wisdom' thinks they are.

However, climate models are about climate, not weather. They predict average weather, and that is easier than predicting the weather on a particular day. In a very similar way you cannot reliably predict the next roll of a dice, but you can very reliably predict the tallies of the next hundred rolls.

When predicting the next rolls of the dice you can even predict the expected error in the prediction: the standard deviation. The climate model of this article is apparently so good that they can also predict the expected deviation, which allows them to predict that there will be these hot spells, even though they are not able to predict the exact days these hot spells will happen.

Re:2041-2060 (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40431035)

This one's really easy.Simple answer: Wrong predicate.
We don't have confidence in long term weather predictions but we do have confidence in long term climate predictions. This is because the former is chaotic while the latter isn't. Remember that the first quantitative predictions by Hansen in 1982 we quite on the money (if a little on the conservative side.)

Re:2041-2060 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430939)

Hansen and Mann are serious and thoughtful? Just making sure I understand your calibration on the subject.

Re:2041-2060 (1)

theshibboleth (968645) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430865)

I'm assuming this is a troll, but since it has triggered responses: Global warming = very long term increase in average temperatures worldwide.
Weather = whether it's raining, snowing, none of these, the temperature, etc. outside your house right now.

Re:2041-2060 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429811)

Actually I was going to say: '30 years is plenty of time to soak up more grant money before being proven wrong' :)

Re:2041-2060 (1)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430991)

weather != climate.

Child of the 80's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429795)

Most of the people reading this sentence will be dead by 2041. So that's kinda cool.

Re:Child of the 80's (2)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430125)

What? That's only 30 years. I don't know about you, but I plan on being alive in 30 years. In fact, I'm hoping to reach 80 or 90.

Re:Child of the 80's (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430167)

With the chemicals in the water, air pollution, and the diminishing quality of foods? Good luck with that.

Look at this chart [washingtonpost.com] . Next few decades are going to be cancer central.

Re:Child of the 80's (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430449)

Part of the rise in cancer rates is related to the fact that we are less likely to die of other things. We live longer. After a certain point your DNA just fails, since there really isn't an evolutionary reason to debug past a certain time (no longer breeding = no selection pressures). The same goes for coronary problems.

Just because these are more prevalent doesn't mean that there is a novel environmental agent causing the increase.

Re:Child of the 80's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430751)

The first part of your statement, agree. As we live longer lives, the kinds of diseases change.
Your second assertion, DNA just fails, and then the conclusion, it's not environmental, is not factual.
The age old truth holds here. The simplest explanation is probably the most correct. Why does anything change? External force. The perfect duplication requires input of the highest quality. Quite a laughable proposition in this greed based unchecked race to the bottom system that we live in. A simple look in the rearview mirror at past times confirms shorter lifespans were due to surrounding conditions. Garbage in, garbage out.

Re:Child of the 80's (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430859)

Yes, bozo AC is barking at the wrong statistic. Average age is increasing. From a population standpoint that's all that matters (other than quality of life - but that is more an individual metric). You're going to die of something. If you decrease the prevalence of some causes of death, others are going to increase.

Precision FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429803)

"2,500 times more precise than previous climate models for the region"

At least they make the distinction between precision and accuracy. But 2500 * .00001 is still .025. Yeah.

2,500 times more precise... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429829)

... does not mean 2,500 as accurate.

Predicting it will be 72.2334 degrees doesn't help much if it's actually 101.

Much better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429851)

So, past climate simulations were so awful, yet people tried to use them? Maybe we should wait for even ones which are 10,000 times better.

Ocean currents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429855)

Just a slight shift in ocean currents would make that entire region a barren desert anyway, from coast to Nevada.

Re:Ocean currents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430123)

L.A. is a desert. All their water is piped in.

Re:Ocean currents (2)

FrankSchwab (675585) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430235)

LA and the surrounding basin (all the way east to Riverside/San Bernardino) isn't a desert; there's plenty of humidity in the daily onshore breezes and the 15 inches of annual rainfall to keep it out of that category.

But, there isn't nearly enough rainfall/runoff to support 13 million people there.

Re:Ocean currents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430979)

I guess the question is whether changes in ocean currents could change the prevailing winds to be offshore? Is it possible to have mostly Santa Ana wind patterns, or does hot land mass and convection put an upper limit to the duty cycle of those events?

Re:Ocean currents (4, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430179)

Just a slight shift in ocean currents would make that entire region a barren desert anyway

Um, it pretty much is. Southern California passed its carrying capacity a century ago. The only region it's inhabitable is that massive amounts of water are diverted from the Colorado River Basin to Southern California. It's gotten to the point where upstream governments have outlawed collecting, in rainbarrels, water that falls on your roof to water your garden, because it's "not your water". But it is Southern California's water, you see.

At some point in the future the water source will fail, and the place will become mostly inhabitable. Massive amounts of contingent wealth will be wiped out when this happens. The only thing that could really keep it going is nuclear-powered desalinization, but Californians tend to be anti-nuke (of all types, not just LWR's), so that's unlikely to help them. Even if they could be convinced, the time delay to implement is too long, because they won't act soon enough.

Oh, but they have movie stars.

Re:Ocean currents (3, Interesting)

TheEmperorOfSlashdot (1830272) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430823)

It's gotten to the point where upstream governments have outlawed collecting, in rainbarrels, water that falls on your roof to water your garden, because it's "not your water". But it is Southern California's water, you see.

That's called "non-riparian water rights," and it goes back to before the western states were even founded. The basis for this system is Common Law legal precedent, not legislation (although most states have passed laws formally codifying their water rights systems... as of over a hundred years ago).

But don't let facts get in your way.

Re:Ocean currents (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430871)

You could always do solar powered desalinization. But you're basic point is correct. Too many Californians.

Would you all please do something about it. Perhaps move to Oregon? Trenton, New Jersey?

Error bar or Confidence interval? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429905)

What is the uncertainty of the prediction? They make a prediction 30 to 50 years in the future and don't provide a confidence interval. Doesn't the alarm anyone else that these "Scientists" get away with this kind of prediction.

Here is an example. When there is a hurricane brewing in the gulf, the track of the hurricane is predicted but the track isn't a straight line it is a gradually increasing cone. The people who predict hurricane tracks are honest about their predictions of the future. If you ever watch the predictions, you will note they never predict past 3 days. The reason is that the uncertainty becomes so large that a longer range prediction would become meaningless.

Now, a high resolution model predicts 30 to 50 years in the future and no confidence interval...

There is only one possible conclusion... FRAUD!!!

Re:Error bar or Confidence interval? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430043)

I don't remember ever seeing a plus and minus value on a climate prediction either. I guess the value would be so large they would be laughed at.

Re:Error bar or Confidence interval? (3, Informative)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430463)

That's because you don't go read the original papers which always contain information about the uncertainty. Instead you read journalist's accounts of the papers which usually leave the uncertainty out to avoid confusing readers. Mostly the journalist probably doesn't understand it well enough themselves to convey it accurately to their readers anyway.

The published study can be found here [c-change.la] and it does contain uncertainty information. Here is a downloadable PDF of the summary of findings. [c-change.la]

Re:Error bar or Confidence interval? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430509)

I laughed my ass off... Sure, the uncertainty is in the pdf you referenced...

Did you notice, the uncertainty is ON THE ORDER OF THE PREDICTION!!!! In other words the prediction is meaningless!!

Thank you for providing documented evidence why the articles NEVER include the uncertainty... It is way too embarrassing to say the temperature will rise 4 degrees with an uncertainty Plus and Minus 4 degrees!!!

Re:Error bar or Confidence interval? (2)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430641)

From the summary. [c-change.la]

Uncertainty in future warming is represented by range projections. For example, the uncertainty range for the warming averaged over the region’s land areas is from 1.7 to 7.5F. This is a 95% uncertainty range, so that there is a 19 out of 20 chance that the correct value lies in this range. The uncertainty is due to variation in the global models and the complex seasonal and topographical features of the L.A. regional climate. Even the lower bound is positive though, indicating extremely high confidence in the likelihood of warming by mid-century.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Re:Error bar or Confidence interval? (2)

VernorVinge (1420843) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430721)

It's really sad that these climate theorists consider computer models the equivalent of science. Hypothesis testing and peer replication of results is science, running 25 scenarios through a supercomputer is conjecture and speculation. How many trillions of variables affect the earth's atmosphere? We don't know how much heat is reflected from clouds. We don't know how sunspots and flares affect out atmosphere. We don't know how much carbon dioxide is trapped by the ocean. We don't even know what the average temperature was for any years before 1880. To pretend that we KNOW at a 95% certainty that man is causing global warming is the height of hubris and deception.

Terminology... (2)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#40429917)

"2,500 times more precise"

Which, of course, does not mean [agilent.com] "2,500 times more accurate."

Re:Terminology... (1, Funny)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430019)

Precision in climate modelling? Who knew meteorologists had a sense of humour?

Re:Terminology... (2)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430497)

Climate models when run on a global scale typically use a grid size of 100x100 km (at the equator). In this case they ran them on a regional scale with a grid size of about 2.5 sq. miles which is about 2.4x2.4 km. That's where the increased precision comes from. It's easier to take in the vagaries of local geography into account at that scale.

Re:Terminology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430147)

Put it this way - whereas climatologists used to give you a ballpark figure, now they're able to tell you WHICH ballpark in what city.

Re:Terminology... (1)

citizenr (871508) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430783)

"2,500 times more precise"

Which, of course, does not mean [agilent.com] "2,500 times more accurate."

metrology != meteorology
lol

precision = true positives / (true positives + false positives)

Enough! (4, Interesting)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40429937)

Enough of these ignorant blurbs.
I dont care if this shit is accurate or not, I am going to attempt to do what is right, not what is cheaper.
History has proven that cheaper is not better for us, for the environment, or for our future.
If it were, we wouldnt worry about lakes catching on fire, cancer eating our bodies, and carbons heating up the earth (this is true BTW, look at historical evidence, and not just 50 years ago, more like 5 million years).
So shut the fuck up, make your decision, and die in your environment, or live in it.

Re:Enough! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430005)

The biggest problem is overpopulation, all else flows from that. I expect you will do what's right.

Re:Enough! (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430483)

Getting rid of all the ACs would be a good 1st step.

Re:Enough! (1)

mrbester (200927) | more than 2 years ago | (#40431013)

Hopefully they'll be the primary targets from the increased Predator visitations.

Re:Enough! 5 million years... (-1, Offtopic)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430119)

Well , I did look.

In the last 2.5 million years we have had about 2 dozen ice ages that virtually covered most of the landmass north of 50 degrees latitude throughout the world. Each time, the orbital variations of the earth changed and the climate warmed & the ice sheets melted away. Species of plants and animals came and went and mankind had nothing to do with it. Early hominids did live through these cycles, however, and who knows if the cycles resulted in furthering the emergence of modern man?

These changes were accomplished without the input of mankind and look like they will happen again, regardless of what man does.

The last time a multi-decade abrupt climate change occurred was the Maunder Minimum which we think was caused by a long term solar cycle where sun spots mostly ceased for a period of decades. Again, the Sun caused the problem and not mankind. As of yet solar scientists do not know how often that cycle repeats or why, though they are certainly trying to figure it out.

There will NEVER be an end to climate cycles on the Earth, just as they have existed in the past. The Sun and Earth's orbital changes will cause most changes and man can not stop these even if he tries. There also is the law of unintended consequences. Suppose you actually lower the temperature of the earth by 2 degrees by some man directed activity and you induce a little ice age. Who is liable for the people who die and countries who suffer the most?

Re:Enough! 5 million years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430499)

Man both can and has altered the Earth's climate. The only reason we are not back in an ice age now is due to the effects of agriculture over the past 8000 years or so. While that had apparently had a positive influence on Earth's habitability, it does not appear that is the case with the current sets of changes. And the Earth's human population was much lower at the time of those past changes, and there was lots of fertile, lowly-populated areas for humans to move to in response to climate change, particularly pre-agriculture when we had a lot less investment in infrastructure. That's not so easy now with a population in excess of 6 billion and all of the good land already taken.

Re:Enough! 5 million years... (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430587)

There is not a confirmed single cause for the Little Ice Age which started before and finished well after the Sporer and Maunder Minima. Volcanos are likely factors as well as reduced insolation.

If there ZERO GHGs in the atmosphere, the Earth would be too cold for life as we know it ( well, too cold for us ), even if our orbit were perfectly regular and if insolation was constant at the max irradiation we've experienced in the last few millennia.
If we are able to cause a significant change to the concentration of GHGs, partcularly long-lived ones, we are potentially capable of affecting global climate.

Who is liable if we RAISE the temp by several degrees?

Re:Enough! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430265)

History has proven that cheaper is not better for us, for the environment, or for our future.

Um.... do you have references? Or are you just blurting something out like a moron?

If it were, we wouldnt worry about lakes catching on fire

I can't remember the last time I worried about a lake catching fire. Man - you're either on drugs or you have too much time on your hands.

So shut the fuck up, make your decision, and die in your environment

You first! I Dare you!!!

Re:Enough! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430333)

A river leading into Lake Erie did catch fire in the 1960s [wikipedia.org] . If we had continued polluting ever more, certainly at some point a lake would catch fire. It was a real concern until we reduced pollution. I guess some people never learn from history, though, and those who don't are condemned to repeat it.

Re:Enough! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430369)

Enough of these ignorant blurbs.

I dont care if this shit is accurate or not, I am going to attempt to do what is right, not what is cheaper.

History has proven that cheaper is not better for us, for the environment, or for our future.

When you chastise others for ignorance, you should avoid being 100% wrong. Cheaper has been better both for the short and long run. Modern waste disposal (sewers, dumps, garbage trucks) are far "cheaper" in terms of time and money (or just about any other metric you choose) than carrying out your own trash and dumping it a short walk away from the cave. Yet this "cheaper" method of disposal is also better, cleaner, and ultimately better for the environment than a billion local garbage piles. The plow is cheaper and better. Aqueducts and irrigation are cheaper and better. Agriculture is cheaper and better than gathering berries in the woods. Domesticating animals is cheaper and better than hunting with a spear. Petroleum oil is cheaper, and better than slaughtering whales for oil. Cheaper and better is the only way humans are able to support a multi-billion population.

Now if you don't particulary like humans and you are going to argue that things were better for Gaia good old days when human population was a few million and lifespans rarely exceeded 30, then there is no rational basis for discussion.

Re:Enough! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430571)

OH NOE TEH CARBONS

Re:Enough! (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430645)

Just need to define "right" in a non subjective way, with all non subjective factors taken into account, and that includes what we don't know about what is an important factor and what not. Taking the cheapest route is the right choice for a lot of valid sets of important factors (i.e. what you can do with the budget you have, or the fastest way to profit, or the easiest path with all the unknowns that are in the middle, or just letting Darwin prevail). Taking fairy tales as the guide of what we should do (what is basically what we usually do for most long term decisions in our lives) is pretty risky in this matter.

Re:Enough! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430989)

Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel." For every civilization that collapsed from unsustainable behavior, 10 other civilizations fell before them. Frequently under the heals of the unsustainable civilization, because their grass-fed pacifism and population control provided them with little motivation to be warriors or explorers.

Unsustainable behavior is the fire underneath the feet of technology, exploration, and human progress. Contentment with living in harmony with nature will doom the species to extinction by asteroid or black hole. I would argue that a lack of biodiversity resulting from globalization leaves the species in much greater peril than our consumption.

Look at the Hard Disk shortage several years ago following the tsunami that flooded the only factory where they are made. Every day it seems like entire classes of products are made by a single factory in Asia. What happens if China invades Taiwan and the resulting regional conflict ends in barricades of the entire region? Our international business culture makes pandemic from antibiotic resistant bacteria more likely by the day. Airports and food.

Did they release the source code and data? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40429939)

This is what air conditioners are for.

Do not mod this down. This is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be said, and loudly.

Re:Did they release the source code and data? (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430145)

Well, it should have been modded funny.

But more seriously, why don't architects in these areas start building for the environment? Two years ago we moved from Santa Monica to Encino. Santa Monica is routinely at least 15 degrees cooler due to its proximity to the ocean. However, the house we bought has a very large attic space with a thermostat controlled fan that pulls in outside air. The attic provides such an excellent buffer that last summer we ran the air conditioner for maybe a total of seven days. Also, the roofing material is concrete tile, which probably contributes a lot to the effect.

Some days I come home and walk in and it feels very cool in the house and I hear fan noise and I think my wife has turned on the air conditioner, only to realize that the only thing I'm hearing is that attic fan.

Re:Did they release the source code and data? (1)

Xenkar (580240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430461)

It is because sensible building methods tend to have overall cheaper costs over the lifetime of the structure and the houses don't rot away in fifty years. This means less of our income going to bankers since there will actually be something there for the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren to inherit and the bankers don't like that.

My current favorite is hyperadobe, which is earthbag construction using raschel mesh bags or tubing.

Experience (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429947)

I have lived in SoCal all my life and there was a period in the 70's when pollution was rampant to the point you didn't trust any air you couldn't see, and even warm says resulted in eye and lung pain from acids in the air. It also served as a microclimate greenhouse effect.

We now have more than double the cars, more than 4x the degree of traffic jams, a lot less pollution that is feelable or seeable. But the greenhouse effect is still about the same. Greenhouse gases in order of magnitude are:

Water (dihydrogen monoxide)
Methane
Carbon Dioxide

As we deplete our groundwater in SoCal I expect the water level to slightly decrease, but moderated by the coastal breeze and morning low clouds off the ocean. Reverse air flow we call Santa Ana winds coming off the desert more often than usual would have a far stronger impact on that as the desert we live in has lower humidity when it is dominant. LA is surrounded by desert and ocean. The mountains act as a wind wall to channel the flows in their natural directions but contain it in the "valleys".

The key word I picked up in the original article is "model". The model might be 2500x as good as it was before, but it was crap before and they might just be talking about resolution not results! Probably so. Bragging about 2.5 mi square resolution! That's 6.25 sqmi each or 6 sections of land to the real estate folks.

On an actual experience basis the average temperature is down. The peak temperatures are up and the peak wind speeds are up. The rainfall is down.

You want to have a real impact on global warming in a good way? Replentish groundwater sourced from flood areas. One big water pipeline going 24/7 would do it. Run it from the Great Lakes Area to the area west of the Sierras. Done.

JJ

Re:Experience (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430087)

You SoCal-er's problem is you keep leeching water off the rest of us, rather than solving your water crisis problems yourself. Up here in NorCal, the only time we've got a 'water crisis' is because our local water companies sell us down a river (or canal as it is) to you guys, then try and jack up our rates claiming that capacity doesn't meet demand. I remember before we all got shafted on water metering and even when we had a full resevoir they were putting us on alternate day water rationing for our lawns because all our supply was being sold down to you guys.

So in conclusion: Screw you SoCal, may the sands of the desert consume you once more!

Re:Experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430247)

Technically Utah owns all the water coming into CA so they decide who gets how much. I think we should buy all midwest floodwater and capture it to a pool the size of the state of New Jersey then export it between floods to where all the brain farts live. We can totally afford to support our habit. :)

Re:Experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430105)

The big dust cloud that keeps engulfing Arizona is caused by groundwater depletion in the Imperial Valley which is East of the Los Angeles - San Diego sight line. So yes groundwater recharge would have several benefits. I think the midwest folks who are flooded out occasionally can spare it (smile).

Re:Experience (1)

chasisaac (893152) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430357)

Well that would be excellent to to spare some water. The problem is not all the midwest is under water. Usually only small parts are underwater. And trust me if there could be method to store large volumes of water we would. We would be storing it, as we are approaching drought conditions right at a Mid Summer's Night.

Here we grow row crops, melons, cattle, hogs (yech), and horses. If we are out of water you are out of food.

Re:Experience (1)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430819)

That is actually the same problem as California. We also farm deserts and prairies like the Midwest, which uses far more water than the population centers. USDA indicates that water consumption by farming is 80% nationally and 90% in western states. To make a positive impact on water use, the lowest hanging fruit (heh) is more efficient water use in farming. ...or we could all become vegetarians.

file under "W" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429959)

for "Who gives a shit"

It's California, ass crack of the USA.

Has doubts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429971)

Then you can tell me precisely what the temperature will be in Burbank tomorrow down to 1/2500 of a degree?

I think you can't.

Re:Has doubts (1, Funny)

turkeyfeathers (843622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430073)

I can... it will be 80.2364 degrees in Burbank tomorrow.

Gosh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40429991)

Wow. Southern California gets hot weather, eh?

Gosh, who'd have thought it?

Re:Gosh. (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430079)

Cali's weather is pretty moderate. The summers there are much nicer than virtually everywhere else in the US.

Re:Gosh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430531)

It is now, although we do have several hot months here in the valleys once the June gloom has ended. Perhaps it won't be so nice 40 years from now, although I probably won't live long enough to see that.

Re:Gosh. (2)

riverat1 (1048260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430583)

You're talking about the coast. Inland in the Mohave Desert, Death Valley and the Central Valley it gets pretty damn hot.

2041-2060... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430173)

So why did they predict 2041-2060? Something wrong with the next 20 years? Or is that a little to close to test their predictions?

As far as more precise, it is like those ING radio commercials..." THREE times the national average interest on your savings" Three time zero is still zero. [or 3 times 0.00125 is still close enough to 0 for most of us.]

Keep everyone out of the sun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430175)

We'll just need to switch everyone over to the night shift. Ya, that's the ticket.

2041? After 2038, we all go back to 1901 temps (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430187)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem [wikipedia.org]

And a lot of folks won't give a rat's ass anyway, if an overheated LA burned down, fell over, and sank into the swamp.

Call it Urban Improvement.

Climate prognosticators (0)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430205)

Isn't anyone else sick of these climate prognosticators? There can be no confidence to this resolution of predictions made 30 years out, or even 30 minutes out. Anyone who's ever used a differential equations knows that the more iterations of a simulation, the more errors stack up. Furthermore, if you can't even simulate past weather with your models then what the hell good are the models? That should invalidate any work done with climate models, at least until they become more accurate. It would be like using a ruler to measure something, but you knew that all the marks on the ruler were wrong, but you measured it anyway. Until there's a single climate simulator that can measure past weather I see fraud in all these pseudoscience prognostications.

Why is everything going backwards? (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430237)

that the area around L.A. will experience more (and more extreme) hot spells

Why do they get to have all the fun? I was looking forward to seeing global warming hit Death Valley hard, and setting a new high, and breaking it's own record for hottest recorded temperature, ever.

Instead, the deserts have been having pretty mild summers for the past few years, as well as unusually large amounts of snow. And instead, a spot like L.A., which is 72F degrees year-round and only gets out of that long-sleve weather temps for a couple weeks, is going to get all the warming instead? Wha??

Let Me See If Understand This (0)

chasisaac (893152) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430319)

I am not sure that I understand this. A place that is a desert, with sage brush and the works, unless it pumps in tons o' water is going to have hot days. And over a period of 50 years some of those days will break heat records in a desert. And there will be times when heat lasts several days together, just like it was when I was told the ice age is coming?

Yes this makes sense now.

LOLs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430325)

So...the weathermen can't do a good job predicting what the temperature will be tomorrow, but we're supposed to believe that somehow we can for 30+ years in the future? ROFL.

Re:LOLs (3, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430603)

Which is easier to predict: Tomorrow's exact temperature or generally how warm the weather will be in August?

Suspicious dates (1)

Coward Anonymous (110649) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430413)

Why not predict something verifiable* like say 2020? Or, given this astounding accuracy, 2014?

* verifiable during the career of the guy releasing this study. As it is now the results seem to be designed not to put the author's reputation on the line.

Re:Suspicious dates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430561)

RTFA and try to understand what he is actually saying. Obviously you don't the slightest idea of what you are commenting on.

Re:Suspicious dates (1)

Coward Anonymous (110649) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430635)

You are pointlessly belligerent and an AC to boot. I read the article and if this man can predict relative climate changes statistically(e.g. E(X days above 95 in 2020)=...) in 2041 he'd better be able to predict something similar for earlier years. If he can't.... well, then the mathematics are almost certainly against him. So I rather think you haven't the slightest idea of what you are commenting on.

I hope I am not alive by then! (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430419)

I hope I am dead way before those years! :P

the environments gay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40430447)

wut r u a buncha fags

"Breaking records" is bogus. (0)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430511)

"Breaking records" sounds horrible and scary but is utterly bogus.

We have, what, a couple hundred years of records? That means each day of the year has at most a couple hundred recorded samples. Less if the records are incomplete or earlier measurement methods were not accurate enough to qualify. Call it 180 to make the math easy.

Assume the climate is completely unchanging (rather than systematically drifting) and the measurements are randomly distributed (a multi-modal distribution around the various weather patterns typical for the date). Then this year's new sample is exactly as likely to be the new record (in a given direction) as any of the others. 1 in 181.

With 365 days in a year the expectation, with no climate change at all, is just over two "record high" days every year. Law of small numbers says some years have a bunch more than that and others less or none.

So the newsies get to run a couple "WE'RE ALL GOING TO FRY" news stories a year. Much more exciting filler than "I'ts unusually hot today" to get the viewers' adrenalin up to make the commercials more effective.

Ditto with record lows - which they can ignore (or treat properly as "it's unusually cold today") while the template is "global warming" rather than "next ice age".

Re:"Breaking records" is bogus. (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430565)

So the newsies get to run a couple "WE'RE ALL GOING TO FRY" news stories a year.

A LOT more than two, actually. They can also run them when the temperature is a tie or near tie for the record. That happens a lot because the newscasts work on whole-number degrees, which is a very coarse measurement.

They have a LOT of measurement stations in any geographic area (typically at least one for each suburb in an urban zone), most of them with shorter histories and all of them with statistical noise on the measurements. So when the temperature is near the record a number of them will set new records.

and fusion power is forever 20 years away... (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430523)

I am not going to quibble over whether their predictions are right or not, all I have to say is, way to take the safe road ... a generation out meaning no one will remember the prediction.

If you cannot predict accurate within five years why should I believe you can project out thirty to forty or believe that accuracy is better?

2,500? (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430549)

I can see how you could say something was 2,500 x bigger, lighter or some other measurable aspect but how can a model be 2,500 more accurate? How exactly that defined? Almost as bad as something I saw the other day that claimed something or other was 10x more digital. WTF?

Re:2,500? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430973)

I can see how you could say something was 2,500 x bigger, lighter or some other measurable aspect but how can a model be 2,500 more accurate?

They didn't say "more accurate", they said "more precise". Not the same thing at all....

As an example, a temperature increase of 15 degrees, plus or minus 1 degree is much more precise than a temperature increase of 15 degrees plus or minus 10 degrees.

However, if the temperature actually increases 1 degree, neither the more precise nor the less precise number would be "accurate".

As a "denier"..... (1)

Kr1ll1n (579971) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430559)

I would first like to say I am glad to hear they have a prediction for a time frame that is within reason. Now, that being said, here is what needs to happen;

1. No additional "green" legislation (keeps the data used for prediction accurate, assuming the predictors did not factor in additional green initiatives)
2. Begin a controlled measurement starting ASAP of the area of the prediction.
3. In 2041 (29 years from now), gather all the results from the testing for each year, and see if prediction aligns with fact.
4. Factor in external influences (massive quakes\tsunamis\wars\etc).
5. Present analysis with current prediction and results to scientific community.
6. Wait for peer review responses to validate or discredit study.
7. Present all final analysis to general public for consumption.
8. Begin initiatives to correct situation, if finalized study deems it necessary.

If data and results align closely enough with prediction, with external influence factored in, we can say climate science and by extension, climate change, is a real and occurring event. We can say what caused it, and why. We can say what is not responsible for the change, with some level of certainty.

Uh huh (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#40430875)

And our local meteorologists were predicting a colder than usual winter last November; and it was the 3rd warmest on record. But sure, I'll trust these new awesome predictions that go decades into the future.

Phhhttttt!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?