
Scientists caught off-guard by record temperatures linked to climate change - fspear
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-weather-climatechange-science-idUSKCN1061RH?rpc=401
======
cconcepts
I have no doubt that climate change is a problem. I have kids, I dont want to
give them a hospital pass.

I've tried to stop living such a carbon dependant lifestyle but I look outside
and my efforts feel futile. How do I REALLY do something about this other than
a few pretentious yet barely discomforting lifestyle changes and the odd
empassioned few sentences at dinner parties?

Start pushing for a carbon tax?

Start an electric car company?

Begin development of technology to get us to Ma.....oh wait

Plant heaps of trees?

Buy drones and start my own version of operation sunscreen?

Seriously. The mild excitement that comes with media alarmism has transitioned
into "I really need to start doing something drastic or I'll regret it"

~~~
gst
IMO the problem is that most sides in the discussion don't propose any viable
solutions:

On one side there are the climate change deniers (and the people who don't
care about it). They are fine to continue business as usual.

On the other side there are the people who are concerned about climate change.
But instead of agreeing to effective solutions (compromises) that allow us to
somewhat mitigate global warming (such as nuclear energy) they oppose those
solutions and instead propose things that are 1) not realistic to implement in
the short-term and that 2) the first group (the climate change deniers) would
never agree to.

Basically the outcome is that we're stuck in a grid lock now and nothing
happens at all.

Regarding nuclear energy: Most of the people whom I know oppose nuclear energy
because of 1) "what happens if there's an accident" and 2) "what should we do
with the waste". My response to this: 1) Per TWH nuclear energy is
statistically safer than other energy sources:
[http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-
so...](http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html)
and 2) While there are some more long-term approaches for waste (reprocessing,
maybe Thorium) even in the short-term I prefer a well definied disposal site
over just blowing the waste into their air (which is what happens with fossil-
fuel powered plants. I recommend reading
[http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/james-
lovel...](http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/james-lovelock-
nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution-564446.html) for a few more
arguments.

~~~
yequalsx
The only viable, realistic solution is for people to stop having as many
children as they currently do. The population of the planet is beyond carrying
capacity at current levels of consumption.

~~~
CWuestefeld
The Malthusian argument is threadbare and false.

Humanity has always been on the brink of demise. We've always been barely able
to feed our people. This took us from hunter-gatherers to the development of
agriculture, on to irrigation, fertilization, terraced farming, crop rotation,
selective breeding, genetic manipulation.

In terms of energy, as we depleted the forests of wood for burning, we've gone
through similar transformations, learning to harness other means of light and
heat like wax, whale oil, and so on.

It turns out that the greatest resource we have is not vegetable or mineral,
it's the human mind. Intentionally shutting off the creation of new minds -
the engines that are going to find the means of solving all the other problems
- is counterproductive.

~~~
ipsin
This "we've gotten this far!" argument applies to global warming as well,
doesn't it?

I don't believe the proposition that global warming is not a problem because
human ingenuity will fix it.

Our land and oceans are already straining under our population load.

~~~
CWuestefeld
Yes, they're straining. But they've always been, through recorded history. The
only difference is that when we look back at them through 21st century
glasses, the problems don't even look like problems anymore.

I mean, we stopped denuding the forests to get firewood, so a visitor from,
say, 3 centuries ago would be astonished at how well wooded the land is near
cities. You can canoe down the Delaware River today and feel entirely
surrounded by the trees, yet around the time of the Revolution, those hills
were bare.

We hunted whales almost to the point of extinction. But we came up with better
energy sources, and while this was recent enough that the whales haven't quite
recovered yet, they're not threatened in this manner anymore.

So you'll have to explain to me how this time it's different than the
countless other times when our ancestors (look back at Malthus!) claimed that
we were on the brink of disaster.

~~~
antisthenes
> Yes, they're straining. But they've always been, through recorded history.

You keep repeating that, but it simply isn't true. The oceans have not been
straining in the pre-industrial era in the slightest.

> You can canoe down the Delaware River today and feel entirely surrounded by
> the trees, yet around the time of the Revolution, those hills were bare.

This is a typical anecdote that falls flat in the face of data. Look at global
forestation rates in the pre-industrial era and today.

> So you'll have to explain to me

No one owes any explanation to a person who denies facts when presented with
them. You made claims without evidence, therefore your claims can be dismissed
without evidence.

------
blondie9x
We all know by now CO2 and CH4 leads to a warmer planet. We also know what's
driving greenhouse gas levels to rise across Earth. Contributors are
deforestation, intensive animal farming, and primarily the combustion of
carbon fossil fuels like coal, tar sands, oil, natural gas etc. But here is
the underlying problem, despite us knowing how bad things are, (97+% of
scientists who study this field agree we are causing the planet's climate to
shift away from the temperate climate we thrived in) not enough is being done
at present to truly solve the problem.

What really is disheartening and what no one in the media and government is
talking about is how in 2015 CO2 levels rose by the largest amount in human
recorded history. 3.05 PPM
[http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html)
We are being lied to and mislead by our governments that uniform actions are
being performed to save the planet for the future of man. Vested interests in
the fossil fuel industry continue to drive climate change. Yes, solar and wind
energy is starting to become incredibly efficient and cheap but not enough of
it is coming online in proportion to fossil fuel burning that persists and is
also installed annually. If we do not rally against it, our ability to live on
this planet is at stake. The lives of our posterity are also at risk because
of the burning. It will not be until we take extreme actions not on a country
level but as humanity together that we will slow the burning and save
ourselves.

What are these actions you might ask that will actually be effective? These
can range from banning fossil fuels entirely, global carbon pricing system,
banning deforestation, changing human diets, extreme uniform investment in
renewable energy and potentially fourth generation nuclear reactors, more
funding for developing nations to install alternative energy sources, and to
shift the transportation grid towards sustainability.

~~~
redwood
One more key contributor (since CH4 aka natural gas is so much worse as a
green house gas compared with CO2 when released than burned or kept in the
ground):

Human activity, ranging from fossil fuel extraction, to natural gas usage, has
massively led to a large amount of natural gas leakage across the network. All
this leaking adds up and is an "unseen" but incremental accelerant on these
problems ([https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-
environment/wp/20...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-
environment/wp/2016/02/25/california-gas-leak-was-the-worst-man-made-
greenhouse-gas-disaster-in-u-s-history-study-says/))

------
barney54
What is frustrating about this article is that no climate scientists were
caught off-guard by 2016 bring hot so far. There was a strong El Niño.
Everyone saw serious heat coming months in advance.

~~~
Diederich
The amount of heating is what's surprising, not the heating itself.

------
knowThySelfx
CO2 is the only culprit?

This one says Ozone layer is recovering:
[http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/6...](http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/10741/Report-
telltale-signs-that-ozone-layer-is-recovering-.aspx)

This one says increased CO2 has helped the speedy recovery of Ozone:
[http://classroom.synonym.com/co2-deplete-ozone-
layer-4828.ht...](http://classroom.synonym.com/co2-deplete-ozone-
layer-4828.html)

I understand the topic is climate change. Probably there are other factors
contributing to it. Its been said Methane and NOx are more potent. Is there an
increase in those emissions? We are only looking at CO2 it seems.

------
danieltillett
When are we going to stop f __*ing around and start doing something serious?
Let 's just buy off the carbon lobby (oil/coal/gas owners) and get on with a
crash program of energy decarbonisation.

~~~
pif
I think that many people agree with you in principle, but when they start
considering the cost in terms of lifestyle, than the followers start to
vanish.

~~~
pietrofmaggi
"Cost in terms of lifestyle" compared to what? there're studies (e.g. this
report from citybank[0]) that shows that inaction is actually more expensive,
taking into account the cost of the climate change disasters...

Seems to me that people believe that doing nothing we will keep living in the
same way. Sorry to have to wake you up. Doing nothing will screw up the planet
and your (and mine) "lifestyle".

The article referenced in this discussion[1] have other nice data/information
about this topic.

I have kids and this is not the future I want for them.

[0]
[https://ir.citi.com/hsq32Jl1m4aIzicMqH8sBkPnbsqfnwy4Jgb1J2kI...](https://ir.citi.com/hsq32Jl1m4aIzicMqH8sBkPnbsqfnwy4Jgb1J2kIPYWIw5eM8yD3FY9VbGpK%2Baax)

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10622615](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10622615)

~~~
antisthenes
> "Cost in terms of lifestyle" compared to what?

> I have kids and this is not the future I want for them.

Why did you choose to have kids? Was not having kids an acceptable lifestyle
cost for you in order to _save the planet_ ?

~~~
danieltillett
Unfortunately unless everyone stops having kids it is not going to help. I
would argue that what the world needs is more thoughtful people and that
thoughtful people should be having more children.

~~~
pietrofmaggi
Well, if everybody stops having kids (everybody), saving the planet will not
be a problem for a long time, at least for human kind :-)

------
redwood
It's all about batteries. An order of magnitude more efficient electric
battery technology is the key missing piece to get us away from a fossil based
economy.

------
conistonwater
How much of it is due to El Niño, and how much due to global warming proper?
Is it difficult to figure out? The article doesn't say.

~~~
tehmaco
From Bad Astronomy, El Niño accounts for around 0.1C globally:
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/07/20/june_201...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/07/20/june_2016_was_the_hottest_june_on_record.html)

------
kodroid
So, what can be done? I posted this question on Reddit ages ago with no
replys, would be interesting to hear anyone on heres opinion on it...

> Hi all, Im sure there are many reasons why this would not work but thought
> would be good to get some input. I came across this article about creating
> carbon fibre from atmospheric carbon
> [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/540706/researcher-
> demonst...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/540706/researcher-
> demonstrates-how-to-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/) and as
> carbon fibre utilising 3d printers now exist like
> [https://markforged.com/product/mark-one-
> composite-3d-printer...](https://markforged.com/product/mark-one-
> composite-3d-printer/) this seems like something with amazing potential. Of
> course one of the main challenges is the energy needed to operated such a
> machine - but in the right places (which im guessing is windy as the carbon
> pulling machine needs high air exposure anyway) renewable forms of energy
> could maybe be used? In a daydream I thought it would be amazing to replace
> steels and plastics with atmospheric carbon. Reduce oil dependency, lower
> carbon footprint (even thought its not putting it back in the ground it
> seems like a good second), created a fantastic building element. Anyhow -
> would be great to hear why this wont (or would!) work from someone who knows
> more than me about this stuff. :)

~~~
pjc50
Money? There isn't currently a market for this product, there may never be,
and it requires a big upfront investment.

Scaling? "given an area less than 10 percent of the size of the Sahara Desert"
_does nobody have any idea how large that is?_ If he'd said "an area the size
of Texas and California combined" it might look less feasible.

But really it needs millions in altruistic funding to even get a pilot plant
going. It's a lot like Tesla's plan to get everyone driving electric cars: no
technical barrier, but the financial one is huge and it takes a while to scale
even if it's successful.

------
threeseed
It seems pretty clear to me what is going to happen over the coming century.

The world has turned a blind eye to the millions dying from starvation and
preventable disease. And will do so again when tens to hundreds of millions
die from the effects of climate change e.g. starvation, flooding, heat waves
etc.

And as the disaffected and left behind turn to terrorist acts to vent their
frustration the rest of humanity will close borders, become more xenophobic
and intolerant. Governments will be polarised to the extent that they will be
largely ineffectual.

Ultimately it is going to be the likes of Tesla and hopefully Apple to make
electric cars a lust item, scientists to finally get nuclear fusion, carbon
storage and renewable battery technology working and entrepreneurs to glue it
all together.

~~~
zamalek
At times I hope that climate change deniers in positions of power are held
accountable for crimes against the human race; however, in the face of what I
would anticipate to be the global living conditions justice would seem
pointless.

We can only hope that it becomes just bad enough to scare everyone[1], but no
worse (i.e. methane pockets). _If_ it's already "worse" geoengineering is the
only thing that can save us because it's a runaway process, cutting carbon
emissions would only delay the inevitable. We're not seeing much in the way of
investment into that final pocket ace, though, at least Alphabet had a shot at
it.

[1]: [http://traveller24.news24.com/News/Alerts/watch-another-
torn...](http://traveller24.news24.com/News/Alerts/watch-another-tornado-hits-
joburg-in-peak-traffic-20160726)

------
dev1n
climate change is one of those few issues where an alarmist attitude is
actually needed. Still need to get more media outlets to change from saying
"save the planet" to "save humanity".

~~~
ars
Why? Humanity will be fine. At worst some people will have to move a bit
inland.

~~~
soundwave106
Under some predictions, parts of the Middle East and North Africa might
become, if not uninhabitable, very uncomfortable (50C+ summer averages) by the
end of the century, with all the consequences that arise from this.
[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1665-6](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1665-6)

Present experience proves that people, especially the impoverished, can't just
easily uproot and leave one country for another, with no political or
sociological consequences whatsoever.

------
cpncrunch
What is this data based on? From my own experience, living on Vancouver
Island, temperatures this summer have been much cooler than in recent years.
This summer has been almost exactly average in temp, compared to above average
for the last few years.

Looking at accuweather's data (www.accuweather.com, search for a city, then
click 'month'), virtually everywhere in the US has been pretty much bang on
the average temps for June and July.

~~~
radiorental
What drought? it rained in my town today.

~~~
cpncrunch
Ok, I see you were being sarcastic, saying that what happens in my hometown
has no relevance. I guess you didn't read the rest of my comment...as well as
my personal anecdote (which was probably bad to put on HN), I put actual
science.

If you look at the data for New York, Miami, Los Angeles, and various other
cities across the US, you'll see that temperatures have been exactly average
for June and July.

So, I'm just wondering where this data came from, and why it is difference
from the actual recorded temperatures. Is it because it is satellite data? If
so, why does it differ?

In typical HN fashion this is a press release rather than an actual scientific
article.

Just to clarify, I'm not a climate change denier. However scare articles with
no science behind them do more harm than good (if that is what this is).

 _EDIT_ here is where the data comes from:

[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201606](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201606)

I guess a small amount above average temperatures just isn't noticeable in the
average temperature graphs.

~~~
Oletros
>I guess a small amount above average temperatures just isn't noticeable in
the average temperature graphs.

From your link

> The worldwide ocean surface temperature during June 2016 was 0.77°C (1.39°F)
> above the 20th century average, the highest global ocean temperature for
> June in the 137-year record.

0.77C is not a small amount

~~~
cpncrunch
>0.77C is not a small amount

It is in the context I was using (the accuweather graphs). If you have a look,
you'll see that 0.77C is not noticeable.

~~~
radiorental
So your argument centers around looking at non scientific data and coming to a
different conclusion.

~~~
cpncrunch
No. I asked a question and answered it myself. I come to the same conclusion.

------
merpnderp
I see articles like this that are pure fear mongering and weep. It didn't
mention El Nino even once.

Yet a massive El Nino event caused the increase in world temperature and
higher rainfall around the world in 2016. This isn't even a debatable fact,
yet apparently not worth mentioning in an article about weather and
temperature events in 2016.

------
graycat
Some points:

(1) Does the climate change? Apparently. E.g., we had _glaciations_ , most
recently IIRC, about 12,000 years.

(2) What is a _greenhouse gas_ : Leading examples are water vapor, CO2, and
methane. Each of these is transparent to visible light, e.g., if water vapor
or CO2 were not transparent to visible light, then we could see our breath as
we exhale. So, since greenhouse gasses are transparent to visible light,
visible light from the sun passes through greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere,
strikes the surface of the earth, and gets absorbed by and warms the surface.
That warmer surface then radiates as in Planck black body radiation. That
radiation is mostly out in the infrared we cannot see with our eyes. But here
is what a greenhouse gas does: It absorbs the Planck black body infrared
radiation from the surface of the earth, gets warmer, and warms the
atmosphere. Without a greenhouse gas, that infrared radiation might just
continue and escape into outer space. The glass in the ceiling of a greenhouse
works similarly -- it lets visible light from the sun in but blocks infrared
light from the warm interior surfaces of the greenhouse from getting out
(there is some controversy in how a greenhouse works, but a greenhouse is
still the source of the term _greenhouse_ gas).

(3) Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, CO2 in the atmosphere warms it? Yup.

(4) What are the sources of CO2 in the atmosphere? I don't have good data on
all the sources and how much each contributes (it's not clear that anyone
does). Supposedly one of the largest sources is volcanoes, and there we have
to count the ones under the oceans, too. Supposedly rotting vegetation is a
source. All animals exhale CO2. Burning fossil fuels, wood, etc. releases CO2.
Baking calcium carbonate to make lime for cement, etc., releases CO2.
Supposedly a large source of CO2 is the oceans: Supposedly warmer water can
absorb less CO2. So, as ocean water warms, from circulation, volcanoes, the
seasons, warmer climate, etc., CO2 can be emitted. A guess is that the oceans
are an overwhelmingly large store of CO2 and a major source/sink of CO2 (as a
_source_ emits CO2, a _sink_ absorbs it). Yes, rotting vegetation emits CO2,
but, then, sure, as that vegetation originally grew, it was a sink of CO2.

(5) Does CO2 absorb all the infrared light? Nope, not even close. CO2 absorbs
in just three narrow frequency bands, one for each of bending, twisting, and
stretching of the molecule. More generally, say, for other gasses, the subject
is _molecular spectroscopy_ , based on, e.g., quantum mechanics, some group
theory, etc.

(6) Okay, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and, thus, warms the atmosphere. If someone
lights a match, then that, too, will warm the atmosphere. A question is, how
much? In particular, how much CO2 warms the atmosphere how much?

So, we believe that what CO2 does follows only from well understood principles
of physics and chemistry. For large changes in CO2 concentrations over long
terms, say, centuries, maybe we would have carefully to consider biology, that
is, how plants, the oceans, etc., respond to the extra CO2.

But, already just for small changes in CO2 over just a few decades, apparently
the calculations from principles in physics and chemistry are quite
challenging. E.g., for flows in the atmosphere and oceans we would have to use
the equations of fluid flow, the Navier-Stokes equations, for the whole
planet, including the oceans. Of course, for such a calculation, we would need
_boundary conditions_ , e.g., what all the CO2 concentrations, temperatures,
and flow rates are now. For the oceans, our best data for the boundary
conditions is often crude.

Still there have been efforts to do the calculations. The efforts resulted in
predictions of temperature for a few decades.

The results of some dozens of efforts to do these calculations have been
summarized in, e.g.,

[http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg](http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg)

By now we have been able to compare the predicted temperatures with the
observed ones. The result is that in nearly all cases of the calculations, the
predicted temperatures were way above the observed temperatures. In simple
terms, as science, the calculations flopped.

So, for the question of how much CO2 warms the planet how much, we don't have
solid scientific information.

(7) Apparently a common _Claim_ is that essentially the only cause of changes
of the temperature of the planet is greenhouse gasses, essentially just CO2,
from human or other sources. So, with more CO2, the temperature will go up;
with less CO2, the temperature will go down; the times the temperature went up
was due to more CO2; the times the temperature went down was due to less CO2.

Well, we can test this Claim. We have three tests, A-C:

Test A. As at

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age)

there was the Little Ice Age:

"The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one
beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated
by intervals of slight warming."

It was significantly colder, certainly in both Europe and the US. Some of the
effects are famous: E.g., in the famous painting of General Washington
crossing the Delaware River, there was ice in the river. IIRC, usually there
isn't. There was winter ice skating on the Thames River in London; IIRC
usually there isn't.

Was this cooling caused by lower CO2 concentrations? Apparently there is no
such evidence. So, the cause was something else. So, the Little Ice Age serves
as a counterexample to the _Claim_ above. So, there can be causes of
significant changes in temperature that have little or nothing to do with CO2.

Test B. Can say the same for the Medieval Warm Period, as at

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period)

from "lasting from about 950 to 1250".

Test C. For more, at Vostok Station in Antarctica, the Russians took some ice
cores and from them measured CO2 concentrations and temperature back ballpark
1 million years. They found several times when temperature went up and CO2
concentrations went up. Al Gore's movie _An Inconvenient Truth_ showed a graph
of those two over several hundred thousand years. E.g., as at Web page

[http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/labs...](http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/labs/Lab10_Vostok/Vostok.htm)

can see graph

[http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/labs...](http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/labs/Lab10_Vostok/Vostok_files/untitled2.jpg)

Gore claimed that the higher CO2 caused the higher temperatures. Well, due to
the long time interval of the horizontal axis of the graph, not easy to see on
the graph was that the CO2 peaks occurred about 800 years after the
temperature peaks. So, really, just by common sense, the higher temperatures
were not caused by higher CO2. Instead, something caused the higher
temperatures; they caused more biological activity, and in 800 years that
activity caused higher CO2.

So, here we have three failed tests of the Claim, three counterexamples of the
Claim above. For anything scientific, those counterexamples are an
overwhelmingly serious problem for the Claim about CO2.

=== The Current Scientific Situation ===

If we get a case when CO2 went up and soon temperature went up, that still is
poor evidence that the higher CO2 caused the higher temperature, that is, the
several counterexamples to the Claim remain.

That is, from the data, we already know, e.g., the end of The Little Ice Age,
the Medieval Warm Period, and the Vostok data, that there are causes of
significant warming that have nothing to do with CO2.

Indeed, it is not at all clear that at realistic concentrations CO2 has
anything at all significant to do with the temperature of the earth; to the
Claim from climate data we have several overwhelmingly serious
counterexamples, and otherwise we just don't have any solid scientific
evidence: We tried with calculations from principles of physics and chemistry,
and they flopped.

Net, from the calculations and from the historical record, we have no solid
evidence that, at anything like realistic levels, more CO2 in the atmosphere
will cause significant increases in the temperature of the earth. Yes, CO2 is
a greenhouse gas, but we just don't have any solid evidence, from either
calculations or observations, that CO2 will be causing any significant warming
of the earth.

So, can we use science to urge reductions in burning fossil fuels, subsidize
wind and solar sources of electric power, impose carbon taxes, etc.?

IMHO, my view is that such steps would be extremely irresponsible, would shoot
our economy in the gut for reasons that are little more solid than some
ancient religion, e.g., when the Mayans killed people to pour their blood on a
rock "to keep the sun moving across the sky" \-- e.g., as at

[http://books.google.com/books?id=DgqLplWtGPgC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA...](http://books.google.com/books?id=DgqLplWtGPgC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=Mayan+blood+sun+moving+sacrifice&source=web&ots=Do6njWN5M9&sig=FxTeclIiqggqIH5Ws_oENCek1uI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA76,M1)

on page 76 of

Susan Milbrath, 'Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and
Calendars (The Linda Schele Series in Maya and Pre-Columbian Studies)',
ISBN-13 978-0292752269, University of Texas Press, 2000.

with

"Indeed, blood sacrifice is required for the sun to move, according to Aztec
cosmology (Durian 1971:179; Sahaguin 1950 \- 1982, 7:8)."

------
pluma
IOW climate change is even worse than scientists anticipated.

~~~
yiyus
While this is true, I think that what the article is trying to point out is
not that climate change is worse, but that the models we have do not work in
the current conditions. This is scary, because scientists have been
anticipating climate change for decades, but now we know that what they
anticipated was not as accurate as we thought.

If predictions from 10 years ago, let's say, had been replaced by worse
predictions one or two years ago, we would still know with some certainty what
will happen next. But what the article says is that everything we know is that
things are getting worse than expected and we have no way to know how worse.
Scary.

~~~
NumberCruncher
>> scientists have been anticipating climate change for decades, but now we
know that what they anticipated was not as accurate as we thought.

It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future

~~~
chx
Aye but predictions are necessary. If there's a 4C global temperature rise
that displaces 760M people. To put this into perspective, about 1M migrants in
a year almost collapsed Europe's political system. We need to know how quick
that happens so we can begin to do something. Dam, evacuate etc.

~~~
vkou
More likely, we will cover the borders with barbed wire, and machineguns.

~~~
chx
The borders of what? Omaha? New York, DC, Los Angeles, Seattle and 'Frisco are
(at least partially) gone.

------
awt
Buy some of these from your local government:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence)

------
Shivetya
except that temperatures dropped in June by a large amount after El Nino
started to wane. The La Nina that is coming could once again stall the
"warming". Let alone, the warmest title is for years since 1979, its not like
we have satellite data that is accurate and going back that long. We do
however have drought data including some good numbers out of China that shows
clear cycles in weather for centuries.

So long story short, we don't know why and we need to quit acting other wise
and put more effort into correcting models so that they are least close to
predicting what has occurred over the last few decades of known data. If a
model cannot reproduce what has happened it cannot be reliable in predicting
what will. How can we not fix them?

~~~
Brakenshire
The temperature dropped in June in the sense that the rather than being 0.3
degrees warmer than the warmest equivalent month, now it's only 0.2 warmer
than the warmest equivalent month ever recorded. That is an odd sort of
progress.

Also, the records don't go back to 1979, most go back to the start of the
instrumental record in the 1880's. And satellite data isn't a panacea, the
process of getting from the direct measurements to a temperature distribution
involves a significant amount of processing based on theoretical models, and
corrections for factors like orbital decay, and different satellites and
processing methodologies have historically shown a lot of disagreement. It's
all useful data, but it's not as if satellites are perfect and everything that
comes before is worthless.

