
Summers Are Getting Hotter - blondie9x
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/28/climate/100000005316272.mobile.html
======
georgecmu
To address several questions of why there are no "actual units in the x-axis":

If I understand correctly how this graph and the categories are constructed,
the plotted data do not have associated temperature units. The temperature
data from each location is first normalized and expressed in terms of standard
deviations relative to the local temperature distribution in the baseline
period. These normalized readings are then binned together to create the bell
curve plots.

That's why there are no "extremely hot" data points in the baseline period: by
definition these data points lie outside the local baseline distributions.

UPDATE: This approach makes sense: different locales will have different
temperature distributions; that means that a single measurement (presented as
a deviation from the mean temperature expressed in absolute units: e.g. 7
degree F higher than average) can be extremely anomalous in one locale, but
can be within 1 standard deviation in another. But once these measurements are
expressed in standard deviations, the absolute temperature units disappear.

~~~
stochtastic
I wrote a chapter of my PhD explaining why the linked PNAS paper is highly
misleading (see the letter we published in PNAS in response for a summary:
[http://www.pnas.org/content/110/7/E546.full](http://www.pnas.org/content/110/7/E546.full)
and a somewhat extended comment including figures here:
[http://stochtastic.blogspot.com/2013/02/temperature-
extremes...](http://stochtastic.blogspot.com/2013/02/temperature-extremes-
variance-or-mean.html) )

TL;DR: While regional normalization makes sense in a stationary climate, the
presence of trends tends to exaggerate extremes by increasing the apparent
variance of the distribution.

Eyeballing the data from the NYT article, it appears that the authors have
continued to make the same statistical mistakes. It is unfortunate that NYT
would publish this, as the field (climate science) is quite aware of the
problem with the original 2012 paper.

~~~
guelo
Looking at your graph here[1] it looks like your correction affects the shape
of the distribution but not the shifting median. Is that a correct reading?

[1] [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XN8uKkAKWbw/UJlrmG-
yBfI/AAAAAAAADZ...](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XN8uKkAKWbw/UJlrmG-
yBfI/AAAAAAAADZw/Gwe3nkuEddU/s1600/comment.png)

------
CalRobert
I wonder when people in places that are proud of their weather will start to
realize their base assumptions may no longer be valid. I lived in San Diego
the summer of 2015 and it was brutally hot. People kept saying "the last few
years have been pretty warm", but were generally dismissive when presented
with the possibility that this was the new normal.

~~~
aaron-lebo
You got me wondering and apparently the average max temperature in SD in
August 2015 was 81.

Here, it was 83 degrees at 11 last night and it's been a relatively cool
summer. But wait, there's nothing like a humid 98 degree day in the middle of
August. SD doesn't sound too bad.

The fact that human beings lived in places like Houston before the advent of
air conditioner suggests that new normal will get adapted to pretty quickly.
How did they do that?

~~~
AndrewKemendo
Having grown up in Houston I know that sadly, before air conditioning, a lot
of people died from heat exposure. Predominantly the elderly and sick.

[1][https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/study...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/study-home-air-conditioning-cut-premature-deaths-on-hot-
days-80-percent-
since-1960/2012/12/22/5b57f3ac-4abf-11e2-b709-667035ff9029_story.html)

~~~
hyperbovine
Even today this happens in highly developed countries where AC is not common.
A 2003 heat wave in killed 20,000 people in France, Spain and Portugal, in
addition to tens of thousands more related deaths in the years that followed.

~~~
volkk
after a quick wikipedia read, it seems the number is as high as 70,000
(although this is across all of europe). insane.

source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave)

~~~
Someone
That number looks worse than it is. Many of the deaths were elderly people who
already were of poor health, and would not have lived for long if that heat
wave hadn't occurred.

A way to show that is true is by looking at the death rate shortly _after_
that heat wave; it is slightly lower than expected.

If you want to compare this number with e.g. car accidents, it would be better
to count QALY's lost ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-
adjusted_life_year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-
adjusted_life_year)), rather than deaths.

------
cydonian_monk
An overwhelming number of people I know are convinced all of this data has
been falsified (usually by Democrats, but I hear all manner of wild
conspiracies), and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. To them
summers are not warmer, and anyone who remembers otherwise has a bad memory or
isn't old enough to know better.

Is there anything at all we can do to change the minds of such entrenched
folks? Or do we just write them off and move on?

~~~
jeremyt
Be transparent with the data. Stop making adjustments that are questionable
and coincidentally result in increased warming. Stop blacklisting scientists
who disagree with the consensus. Stop getting hacked and releasing emails
showing people discussing how to "hide the decline". Stop gaming peer review
by having the papers reviewed by a group of people who all agree. Stop making
hyperbolic predictions about the future which are completely falsifiable and
indeed end up to be false. Stop insisting that the models are completely
accurate even though they have been completely inaccurate thus far. Stop
accusing people who have questions about mitigation strategies as "climate
deniers".

That would be a good start.

~~~
accountyaccount
It's kind of sad that you think accuracy is the reason conservatives hate
liberal ideas (sad because I know you're trying your best to help here).

You're talking about a political base that is currently thriving almost
entirely on spite and a total absence of fact. They don't give a shit how
accurate your x-axis is labeled, they're at the point where in some circles
they discredit science as a concept.

~~~
malandrew
> they're at the point where in some circles they discredit science as a
> concept.

Because the left has politicized science. Science should be apolitical. Many
on the left do not fail to provide those on the right justifications for
dismissing science outright. This will not be fixed until those on the left
with a high respect for the impartiality of science start to condemn those on
the left that abuse that science to further their message.

The right discrediting science as a concept is the effect, not the cause.

~~~
Oletros
> Because the left has politicized science

Curiously, like creationism, the only part of the world were climate change is
a problem is in some sectors of USA.

In the rest of the world, even the right parties agree that climate change is
happening and it is a real problem.

Don't blame the left for politicing something when almost ALL of the world,
left or right agree and some right groups in USA are the ones making the
noise.

~~~
jeremyt
Your entire comment is political. There's nothing scientific in it.

You're basically just saying that everybody else agrees, so you need to get in
line.

~~~
Oletros
> You're basically just saying that everybody else agrees, so you need to get
> in line.

No, what I'm saying is that everybody excep a little group abides to
scientific facts.

Like in the case of Creationism, the little group disregards any scientific
fact and proof because ideology.

------
jrs235
How much affect does AC have on increasing the outside air temperature?

What and how much direct effect does the heat exchange have? What about the
energy required to run the units?

~~~
LeoPanthera
Energy can't be created or destroyed, only moved around. So the heat generated
by an air conditioner can be calculated exactly by how much electrical power
it consumes.

~~~
benlorenzetti
Your absolutely correct, but I just want to point out that thermal efficiency
of an AC unit will be greater than 100%. I.e. it can drive more heat from one
reservoir of air to another than the electric electric energy required to do
so.

------
tmaly
I would like to point out that this summer is probably one of the coldest in a
while. My flowers that are usually in full bloom from the hot summer, have yet
to bloom.

My friend in Finland said the summer there is one of the coldest in the last
50 years.

~~~
0xFFC
I would like point out quite opposite. Here in iran the summer has been so far
one of the warmest summers anyone ever remembers. Last year was too. This year
is so far hotter than last year.

I do live in very cold area in Iran. It is unbelievable how much weather has
became warmer. Even i do remember when i was child , weather was noticeably
colder. ( and I am in my 20's) . Let alone old peoples, who are literally (
all of them) in shock about how warm the weather became in last 5/10 years.

~~~
thiht
And here in France the weather is kinda cold for the summer.

Maybe just stop using local climate tout justify global warming?

~~~
0xFFC
Did you read my comment clearly? Because if you did, you would understood I
wasn't touting anything!

------
vonzeppelin
I'm looking forward to growing peanuts in Kentucky.

~~~
microcolonel
Some folks are growing olives on a Canadian island just off Vancouver. They
had their first successful oil pressing from the trees just this last
December. I'm looking forward to bamboo in New Hampshire.

Live Tree or Die!

~~~
yellowapple
Bamboo is nothing to look forward to unless you're using it as construction
material or otherwise have a real use for it. Bamboo is basically a giant
weed.

~~~
microcolonel
I understand that it also makes good biochar. Some varieties make good textile
fiber, I personally like the feel of bamboo and bamboo hybrid textiles, and
the ones I own seem to hold up better than cotton after washing. The fact that
it is _basically a giant weed_ (more specifically a grass, everyone's
favourite type of weed) is great, because you can abuse it, and it'll still
take up tonnes of space for you. It's not too hard to contain if you make sure
to moat, vinegar, and block it thoroughly. A good place for an expired family
pet or a political enemy. When compressed thoroughly (three or four thousand
tons per square meter) with the fibers aligned, it makes for unusually uniform
and dense planks, beams, and boards. If assembled while green, then treated
with borax, it can make for very interesting (and outrageously strong)
structures if you know what to do with it. If you go to extra lengths, it can
be a centenarian building material.

The shoots are also _good eats_ when cooked in rich stew or broiled with
mayonnaise and chili.

------
okreallywtf
Since the comments have become a general discussion of climate change, I
decided to look up polls to see what public perception are. Fears of climate
change seem to more or less track temperatures.

[http://www.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-
thr...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-
high.aspx)

------
virtuexru
I like the graphic; it's very scary. But why were they not inclined to put
actual units in the x-axis. Kind of hard to compare what is "cold" vs "normal"
vs "hot" without having some kind of basepoint reference.

~~~
09bjb
Yeah absolutely. Without an explanation of what the units are it's worse than
useless. "Here's a diagram of an arbitrary metric I invented. Scary, isn't
it?"

I'm no climate science denier but stuff like this just adds fuel to the fire.
You might say we're just supposed to take it on faith ;)

~~~
mturmon
I would counter that it's up to you to engage your curiosity and track back to
the paper if you're interested in the particulars. You don't have to take it
on faith, the link is right there in the article.

------
okreallywtf
A serious question for those who are generally skeptical about climate change:
Why do you think that so many scientists, nations, and people are generally in
agreement that climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
Who do you think gains by pushing the (in your mind, false) climate change
narrative? I honestly want to know, I'm not trying to belittle.

Even ignoring the data (whichever way you interpret it), those of us who
accept anthropomorphic climate change see a pretty clear case of "look who
benefits" in terms of climate change. The vast majority of money and power is
on the climate-change-is-fake side in America (if not worldwide). Huge,
extremely powerful interests have a great deal at stake in whether or not we
work to reduce carbon emissions and by how much. The switch from fossil fuels
to renewable resources could lose some very powerful people a lot of money.

On the climate-change-is-real side, its much harder to tell. Climate
scientists don't have _that_ much to gain, maybe a little research money here
and there but nothing in comparison to say the oil and gas industries and
those that use petroleum and petroleum derivatives. Renewables are an emerging
industry. Batteries, solar panels, wind farms, tidal power etc all represent a
financial opportunity to whoever gets out front. China is making large strides
in this industry, but still its an industry in its infancy, it doesn't have
nearly the political and financial clout that entrenched fossil-fuel
industries do.

Do you see why it might be confusing for some of us to see regular people
essentially defending the powerful against the weak, as it were? I think that
the overall of the research indicates that the earth is warming and we're the
primary cause (in that we're the cause that it is increasing so rapidly, as
opposed to at historic rates), I know there is some bad science as there
always will be, but this situation just makes absolutely no sense from a
logical perspective. It would be the most confusing conspiracy probably ever
to have a worldwide, grassroots coordination to move to cleaner energy sources
for bogus reasons and defeat the most entrenched and wealthy interests in
probably all if history in the process. For what? If the reasons are bogus why
do all these scientists care? Who benefits?

~~~
benlorenzetti
I believe in climate change and I am proud of some of the successes of the
EPA/other US policies have had in protecting the global commons (ozone, lead,
NOx, etc). But following your point, ignoring this to focus on a "who gains"
perspective...

Trump used now-unsurprising hyperbole when he said that global warming was a
hoax invented by the Chinese, but he was alluding to this point.

China has over a billion citizens, a disproportionate number of young men, and
quasi open economy + closed political system where who you know & schooling
strongly affects your ability to succeed. Also, like the US and Russia, it has
tremendous natural & mineral wealth available for traditional enterprises.

In such a <em>political</em> climate, China has made it a national policy to
out-compete America for traditional manufacturing jobs to keep all those
people, particularly young men employed and rising. Cheap energy is a major
manufacturing consideration and if you can get the American government to
deficit spend money or regulate private industry on this, that fits China's
national goals nicely.

(Encouraging deficit spending by the US helps keep the Renminbi cheap relative
to the dollar in our crazy fiat world)

Russia has an even stronger incentive to encourage environmentalist policies
by the US government because of its fossil fuel wealth and ambitions for the
opening Arctic ocean without US competition there.

Ironically, historically, betting against American ingenuity and worldwide
technological advancement has been a mistake; some minimally invasive level of
US government intervention is probably worth it for mitigating global warming
and blunting oil-rich oligarchies. But it is also still in the interest of
current Chinese/Russian/Iranian/Venezuelan leaders at this time.

Finally this can be viewed two ways in US politics. On the one hand,
environmental protectionism logically hurts the working class in America, to
some difficult-to-quantify extent in the immediate term/recent past. On the
other hand, America is a world leader. We may have some moral imperative, plus
gains in technology financed in America lift all boats, including ours which
is the largest and finest.

(may have to reevaluate the phrase "lift all boats")

~~~
okreallywtf
Some interesting thoughts. Alternatively, I could see fueling the climate-
change-is-fake side in America could benefit China and Russia in totally
hypothetical ways.

1) We stay dependent on fossil fuels and make it harder for the world to make
the transition, allowing Russia to continue making money exporting.

2) We stay out of the renewable energy research and manufacturing business
globally, allowing China to corner that market while our traditional
industries are propped up longer than they should be (ie, Coal) .

3) Our influence gradually weakens as we're the last holdout, despite being
the most powerful and wealthy nation. Who will listen to the US on anything if
we're anti-science and the only major holdout on climate change?

~~~
benlorenzetti
Thanks for honest counter arguments!

I agree with (1) from a long term perspective and think we should increase
funding to green tech researchers. But I weigh political resistance to
developing resources (ice breaking trade lanes, oil wealth, etc.) on the North
American side of the Arctic ocean as benefiting Russia more than
unquantifiable acceleration (due to more research funding) of the eventual
long term, technology based decline of fossil fuels.

On (2) and (3) these are basically free market vs. government organized
enterprise and left vs. right political arguments, so I'm not sure if I can
rebut them articulately. And they probably come down to Putin's and Xi's
personal opinions, not ours.

But if Xi wants to subsidize worldwide solar power production at the cost of
China's other industries, I say go ahead and we'll probably still compete with
private actors. They should lead some like us.

And again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be _any_ US government organized
enterprise in this field. For example I think the US, Russia, China, UK, and
others could work together by laying a great circumnavigating high voltage DC
cable for solar energy, on which ``the sun never sets''. But still the
validity of (2) and (3) is definitely colored by political leanings.

------
IanDrake
Can anyone explain why the base period is 29 years but then they step forward
by 10 years?

Seems kind of arbitrary and when these types of things are arbitrary I wonder
what alternative time frames with the same data might look like.

~~~
TomSawyer
This is the best answer to that, that I've seen:
[https://twitter.com/corbettmatt/status/891003236412469248](https://twitter.com/corbettmatt/status/891003236412469248)

------
frabbit
[http://www.realclimate.org/images//THE-EPA-A-
TEAM.jpg](http://www.realclimate.org/images//THE-EPA-A-TEAM.jpg)

------
microcolonel
Buy land in New Hampshire and Detroit.

------
bolololo12
finally! Can't wait here in UK until it will finally get hotter, they keep
saying about the climate change.. Always raining and cold here

------
Kenji
Gotta love a graph with an x axis of "extremely cold - cold - normal - hot -
extremely hot"

Why not put it in numbers? It's not like we are strangers to numbers in
degrees celsius or fahrenheit. Only a fool would do axes like that.

~~~
vturner
This article is an example of why I find it difficult to intellectually buy
into the warming climate theory. It would seem if one is trying to convince
the public of "global warming" or "climate change" or whatever the current
term is, that scientists would at least publish articles that lay-scientists
like myself could read and be convinced. But that's not what we have here, no
what we have here is a hyped-up oh my its getting hot article...

First off, your observation of the ridiculous x-axis labels. Really,
"Extremely Hot" Is that supposed to scare me or something?

Second, what does this mean...

"...compared actual summer temperatures for each decade since the 1980s to a
fixed baseline average." Did you sample at the same location each summer? Did
you sample at the same point in the summer? Did you account for any changes in
winter/spring/fall temperatures?

And finally...did they happen to point out the time periods are not all of the
same length?

~~~
esaym
Everything today in "science" is just based off of pretty charts and cartoon
graphics. That's their "proof".

The hottest I've been in was in Sep. 2006 in Waco Tx [0]. Mainly due to a
hurricane in the gulf that pulled the humidity out of the air, but it wasn't
so bad. Road my motorcycle to work that day. Summer 2007 was even stranger,
rained almost every other day and temps never made it above 100 that year. Now
I'm farther south. I was going to replace my A/C unit in 2015 because it
couldn't keep up in the 104+ summer that year. But for the last two summers,
it hasn't gotten above 101 and the A/C has been working fine, so here I sit.

[0][http://i.imgur.com/Cgu3Vuc.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/Cgu3Vuc.jpg)

~~~
tstactplsignore
This is mindboggling anti-intellectualism. There is absolutely zero substance
to your claim. Scientific work is more rigorous and quantitative than ever,
especially in climate science, and the fact that you are too lazy to learn the
first thing about how modern science works doesn't change that reality. All I
can say is I'd really, really wish that you'd educate yourself on how science
works. Please start by reading some scientific journals, Nature Geoscience and
Geophysical Research Letters are a good place to start.

~~~
kbenson
This isn't an effective way to engage with and change someone's point of view,
and there's plenty of science on that. It may be intellectually satisfying to
you personally, but that's no better than what you are denigrating here. If
you actually care about the cause you profess to be for with your actions,
please find a different way to express it, lest you hurt while trying to help.

~~~
tstactplsignore
Upvoted because you're right. But honestly, I wasn't trying to engage with
that poster: I was trying to engage with readers, by fighting this kind of
nonsense simply by calling it out as such. I wish I could respond with a
substance filled, evidence based response to such a claim, but where would I
even begin with such a thing? His claim itself is so vague and unsupported
that it's more of an emotional feeling than an opinion that can be criticized.
Perhaps someone better than me should try.

~~~
kbenson
> But honestly, I wasn't trying to engage with that poster: I was trying to
> engage with readers

That's a valid reason to respond as you did. It was my assumption that you
were targeting that towards the parent which was in error.

> I was trying to engage with readers, by fighting this kind of nonsense
> simply by calling it out as such.

That works well for getting people who agree with you to take notice.
Unfortunately, if you don't use that to make a new argument to those that
already agree with you, you're just preaching to the choir. I don't really
have a problem with that, and I wouldn't have called it out if I interpreted
it as that, but I also don't think it's all that productive (that's not really
meant to be a critique, I'm just explaining my personal point of view on this
at this point).

> His claim itself is so vague and unsupported that it's more of an emotional
> feeling than an opinion that can be criticized. Perhaps someone better than
> me should try.

When I can summon the strength myself to engage, I find that asking for more
details and asking people to actually explain in more detail their belief
works well. Often I find that what initially seems like an opinion completely
unfounded in facts has _some_ basis, but people are reluctant to go into them
because of dismissive responses.

I'm sure we all have a few opinions like that, where we would love to have a
good discussion on it, but it's become decisive enough that trying to start a
substantive conversation and keep it one track is hard when people make large
assumptions about the details of your opinion without actually asking. For
example, try starting a conversation on actual differences in how the brain
functions between the sexes, and whether that does or does not lead to
specific advantages or disadvantages for one sec in certain types of thinking,
and whether that advantage if it exists is completely subsumed by
environmental factors. I suspect that conversation will quickly approach
uselessness if it gets any traction. Some discussions still have far too much
cultural and social baggage to happen fruitfully in public, even here, where
I'm sure a larger than normal percentage of people would identify as rational
intellectuals.

