NASA: 100 Degree Average Temps Coming

Minorities and women in diapers hardest hit. Story here. 

Here in Texas, we have a word for hot, scorching weather like they’re predicting. We call it June. Please do not get us started on August. You aren’t ready for August. It’s like all the scary parts of Revelations.

But the article has a few gems:

In the 2080s, the average summer high will probably be 102 degrees in Jacksonville, 100 degrees in Memphis, 96 degrees in Atlanta, and 91 degrees in Chicago and Washington, according to the study published in the peer-reviewed journal Climate.

In other news, in Dallas today the forecast was for rain. Yeah. Start getting it right a week in advance and then let’s talk about 2080, please.

And then there’s this:

Many politicians and global warming skeptics have criticized computer models as erring on the side of predicting temperatures that are too hot and outcomes that are too apocalyptic with global warming. But Druyan said the problem is most computer models, especially when compared to their predictions of past observations, underestimate how bad global warming is. That’s because they see too many rainy days, which tend to cool temperatures off, he said.

There is an established link between rainy and cooler weather and hot and drier weather, said Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Rainy days mean more clouds blocking the sun and more solar heat used to evaporate water, Druyan said.

So in 2080, not only is it going to be painfully hot (the 90’s in Chi-town) but there will still be those jagoffs who say, “Yeah, but it’s a dry heat.” Great.

But at least it ends on this note:

Trenberth said the link between dryness and heat works, but he is a little troubled by the computer modeling done by Lynn and Druyan and points out that recently the eastern United States has been wetter and cooler than expected.

A top U.S. climate modeler, Jerry Mahlman, criticized the study as not matching models up correctly and “just sort of whistling in the dark a little bit.”

But Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, editor of the journal Climate but not of this study, praised the paper, saying “it makes perfect sense.”

Good. At least we have consensus.

thanks to lauraw posting OT here.  You think in the future that David Caruso will have to leave his sunglasses on? That could be an upside to climate change.

Advertisements

4 Responses

  1. Hey. Global warming has been going on since the end of the Ice Age.

    Responsible scientists tell us that if we managed to stop ALL carbon emissions caused by human activity it would reduce those emissions by less than 14%. Now if we could put a cap on Mt. Etna, we could make a significant reduction. Check out the facts at http://www.sepp.org.

    Remember, the so-called scientists who are scaring everyone about global warming being caused by human activity are the same ones who bring your local weather forecasts. Don’t know about you, but where I live, that’s not too impressive.

    And by the way, just for the record, NASA “ain’t what it used to be” when my husband was a scientist working on the Apollo and Gemini flights.

  2. Yes, I meant the post above to be snarkier than it reads, I guess.

    The climate’s been changing as long as there’s been a climate, either warming up to average temps much hotter than today or cooling to the point that glaciers spread and seas actually freeze over. That’s been the case since man was reliably making fire, let alone harnessing fire to drive cars.

    I think the politically motivated enviromental doomsayers are the ersatz high priests of an unorganized religion that wants to sacrifice industy instead of virgins to the skygods they say we’ve angered.

    But if we’re not the cause, then it’s unlikely that changing our ways will prevent the change. Instead of asking what we sinners in the hands of an angry Gaia can do to appease, the better question is what we can do to adapt to rising temperatures and sea levels, etc.

    Adapting is what humans do best.

    It would be helpful to know how much, if at all, things are actually going to change. Which is why I get snarky at articles like this. The science isn’t there for accurate prediction, even if it was unimpeded by politics.

  3. Even if we concede *everything* coming from the Gorethodox faithful up to and including “it’s gonna be really hot”, the overwhelming historical evidence says that warmer climes have always meant huge boons to humanity: more living space, more productive agriculture and net *fewer deaths* from disease and cold (by a factor of anywhere from 2:1 to 10:1 depending on whom you believe. Nobody on the left has yet answered the question of why something that leads to greater prosperity and lower mortality is to be feared, much less (futilely) resisted. Then again, this is the same crowd that brought you abortion-on-demand and a near cult around Dr. Kevorkian. Kinda makes sense in that context, doesn’t it?

  4. KM,
    It’s their religion and Gore is their apologist. You can throw facts at them all day long and not shake their faith.

    That said, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if it does get hotter as we come out of the little ice age. And while I don’t think we’re causing the change, I do think we need to get the politicians and gaia-worshippers out of our science to make sure that we’re adequately prepared to a.) avoid trouble caused by the change and b.) capitalize on it effectively.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: