Hottest Temperature Ever – A Crazy Year of Weather
peratonweather.com
peratonweather.com
While the 1913 hot spell was certainly significant, all recorded weather information at the time from surrounding locations, in combination with the dynamics of local microclimates, imply that the 134 degree reading was "essentially not possible from a meteorological perspective." [1]
Observer error stands to be the most plausible explanation, implying that the the recent 130 degree reading in Death Valley may actually become the location's, and the world's, hottest verified temperature.[2]
[1] https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/an-invest... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/07/09/death-vall...
The actual hottest place is the Danakil Depression of Ethiopia. The air is toxic around the hot springs due to high sulfur content and so almost nothing lives there except pools of exotic bacteria.
Climate change, ecological collapse etc in the last couple of years has only really just began to strike home and it will make COVID look a walk in the park.
Massive amounts of spending will be aligned to green technologies, carbon capture, re-plantations etc and a divestment in things that make no sense will take hold.
Engineers will stop wasting their time developing pointless products and dedicate energy into real-world applications that can help humanity keep the world as we know it.
It will be every sentient beings responsibility to fight for the environment, or we will lose it, and, if we get caught up fighting ourselves, we very may lose it all.
[1]: https://twitter.com/nwsvegas/status/1413659717126160390?s=21
https://wonderfulengineering.com/japanese-invent-a-jacket-wi...
That’s what the media likes to say.
Based on the Wikipedia page they have negative average temperature for 4 month a year. 10°C is the peak in summer.
I've been persistently arguing for years that climate change is simply a minor threat. 2020 may continue the trend of being the hottest year on record, and that will be completely dwarfed by both the damage from the coronavirus, the threat of overpopulation and the benefits of economic growth (powered by fossil fuels) in Asia. We might be facing a new war to end all wars in the South China sea. This is being driven by technology and equalisation of the worlds great powers more than by climate.
The climate emergency people are going to have to keep struggling to argue that the emergency here is the temperature rise. The evidence remains that running out of fossil fuels is a bigger threat to humanity's comfort than using them. At the timescales being talked about moving cities as a one-off thing if any problems become imminent is an entirely reasonable plan. Shenzhen was built in 40 years.
Also not just temperature increases but more weather unpredictability. Impact on food supply and for many people impact on shelter. Basic life necessities. Coronavirus and wars might be a walk in the park by comparison as much as I hate to say that as it sounds callous
That's the one to watch. I don't think your estimate is out of line, even if 'compared to wars, this is a walk in the park' is seemingly inflammatory.
Climate is a giant chaotic system. It gets more violent as the base energy put into it, increases. This is not linear. How nonlinear? We'll see.
Our experience with catastrophic weather emergencies is the human-facing side of this chaotic system. The amount of energy vented by the atmosphere during these events is comparable to the destruction inflicted by wars… but the climate doesn't run out of bombs, or declare peace. It's a completely mindless thing that follows general heuristics which outline the extent of expected responses out of the chaotic, nondeterministic system… and we are in the process of redefining what these heuristics mean.
While, at the same time, climate is in the process of rapidly altering these definitions out from under us.
We're gonna be seeing city-flattening weather events way sooner and more often than we see sustained wet-bulb temperatures inimical to life in populated areas. Our whole understanding of surviving on this planet will get redefined, first slowly and then rapidly.
We as a species will be able to do this and will survive, but it's a big deal and comparable to colonizing other planets.
Nobody is struggling to argue that because it is absolutely obvious to anyone who's not wilfully stupid and ignorant.
>The evidence remains that running out of fossil fuels is a bigger threat to humanity's comfort than using them
What evidence? You have none.
> At the timescales being talked about moving cities as a one-off thing if any problems become imminent is an entirely reasonable plan. Shenzhen was built in 40 years.
Except you won't have any space to move those cities to that isn't already occupied.
To say nothing about how you'll manage to feed everyone in a completely messed up ecosystem.
[0] https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/glo...
[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/economic-cost-covid-g...
The UN projection for total world population tops out at a little over 9 billion by 2050, and possibly up to 10.8 billion by 2100, but that figure is disputed as more recent population metrics have shown fertility rates crashing faster then usual in nations as their development ticks up - a likely outcome is a peak of 9 billion in 2050, followed by a steady state (ideal) or decline (actual problem since there'd be no reason for the trend to reverse after that) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...]
It is better for everyone to have something to argue about while trying to decide what is and isn't true.
Isn't the high end of the cost to address climate change now $50 trillion? Seems like a pretty good value to me.