Climate change made European heatwave up to 3°C hotter

  
Via:  dignitatem-societatis  •  2 weeks ago  •  10 comments

Climate change made European heatwave up to 3°C hotter
Human-induced warming also made the hot spell up to 100 times more likely in some parts.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The extreme heatwave that caused record temperatures last week across Western Europe was made more likely — and severe — by human-induced climate change.

In France and the Netherlands, where temperatures rose above 40 °C, climate change made such a heat spell at least 10 times — and possibly 100 times — more likely to occur than a century or so ago. The findings come from a rapid analysis by scientists with the World Weather Attribution group that combined information from models and observations.

In the United Kingdom and Germany, climate change made last week’s event five to ten times more likely, the group found. And in all locations, observed temperatures were 1.5–3 °C hotter than in a scenario in which the climate was unaltered by human activity.

The group has analysed six European heat waves since 2010 — includingthe one that occurred in late June— and has found that each one has been made significantly more likely and intense because of climate change.

Meanwhile, the latest European heat wave has moved to Greenland, where it is causing unprecedented surface melting of the thick ice sheet that covers most of the island.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  Dignitatem Societatis @1    2 weeks ago

Sounds serious.

Somebody  should do something about it, or.....

we're all doomed jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
MrFrost
2  MrFrost    2 weeks ago

And Siberia is on fire...

Russia has declared a state of emergency over Siberian wildfires

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2212070-russia-has-declared-a-state-of-emergency-over-siberian-wildfires/

 
 
 
 
 
Nerm_L
5  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

Sounds like the United States should prioritize building factories to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines.  Can't replace fossil fuels without increasing manufacturing.  And the United States doesn't have a shortage of sand, carbon, iron, copper, or rare earths to meet its needs.

Of course, if all of this is just about winning elections by scaring voters then it can easily be ignored.  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @5    2 weeks ago
if all of this is just about winning elections by scaring voters then it can easily be ignored.

The scariest of propositions. This is an issue that simply cannot be ignored, but you are correct...when relegated to the purely political, it becomes yet another thing to get kicked-down-the road as partisan consensus will never be reached. Playing on fear with hyperbole and conjecture should not be the motivation...it needs to be strictly science-based, totally non-partisan, and soberly presented. Dollars diverted to R&D and the manufacturing of alternative energy sources is a wise long-term investment, for when it eventually becomes economically feasible, it becomes politically irrelevant. Sooner rather than later as the clock is certainly ticking.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1    2 weeks ago
The scariest of propositions. This is an issue that simply cannot be ignored, but you are correct...when relegated to the purely political, it becomes yet another thing to get kicked-down-the road as partisan consensus will never be reached. Playing on fear with hyperbole and conjecture should not be the motivation...it needs to be strictly science-based, totally non-partisan, and soberly presented. Dollars diverted to R&D and the manufacturing of alternative energy sources is a wise long-term investment, for when it eventually becomes economically feasible, it becomes politically irrelevant. Sooner rather than later as the clock is certainly ticking.

Science has proven very effective at scaring voters.  But addressing the problem is going to require applied engineering.  Where is the push for new and expanded engineering education?

What effort has the United States made to expand production of the resources needed to manufacture alternative energy?  It seems the political effort is to close mines and refineries rather than build new ones.  It seems the environmental effort is to close manufacturing facilities rather than build new ones.

Climate change is a direct result of 'feel good' environmentalism.  NIMBY environmentalists have promised we can have our technology without harming the environment in the United States.  And that worked for water and land.  Wrecking the environment in other countries to provide the country's needs has, indeed, made the environment in the United States cleaner.

Climate changed can't be addressed with NIMBY solutions.  Wrecking Asia's climate so the United States can claim to be environmentally friendly won't work.  Climate change is different; its about a global environment rather than regional micro environments.  Offshore manufacturing pollutes more than domestic manufacturing.  That's what the last 50 years of data clearly shows.  The United States has lost its manufacturing infrastructure to appease NIMBY sensibilities.  And no one is making any effort to revitalizing that domestic manufacturing infrastructure (except maybe Trump).  In fact, the climate change fear mongers seem to be adamantly opposed to any efforts at revitalizing manufacturing in the United States.

NIMBY environmentalists have won; the conservationists have lost.  Climate change really is a political hoax perpetrated by NIMBY environmentalists.  The climate change fear mongers are only demanding NIMBY solutions so they claim victory by wrecking environments outside the United States.  But that NIMBY solution won't work for air pollution.  NIMBY environmentalists may have killed us all.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
Climate change is a direct result of 'feel good' environmentalism.

nevermind

 
 
 
Nerm_L
5.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
nevermind

Yes, that fact is unsettling.  People use their smart phones to take pictures of natural wonders in the United States.  Owning that smart phone has not harmed the environment in the United States.  We can have our technology and clean environment, too.  Environmentalists have touted that as a resounding success of the environmental movement.

But that has been achieved by wrecking the environment in other countries.  The United States even ships its technology waste out of the country so its environmentally friendly facade is not tarnished.

But climate change is different.  Climate change is global.  The pollution caused by our consumption of technology now affects the United States, too.  Manufacturing alternative energy technology outside the United States won't keep the environment clean, either.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Texan1211
Snuffy
Dulay


82 visitors