Dire 2050 high temperature predictions for Europe arriving in 2022

[outside shooter]

But... but... 104 degrees Fahrenheit for London (40C) is no big deal, right?

London, the new Phoenix

A hypothetical weather forecast for 2050 is already coming true | CNN

This "plausible" UK heat forecast becomes reality early next week -- 28 years early.

www.cnn.com

 

[Marvin the Martian]

But... but... 104 degrees Fahrenheit for London (40C) is no big deal, right?

London, the new Phoenix

A hypothetical weather forecast for 2050 is already coming true | CNN

This "plausible" UK heat forecast becomes reality early next week -- 28 years early.

www.cnn.com

Who has been to the UK? Isn't AC relatively rare?

 

[GuyDatHoo]

Those pale freaks could use a bit of sun.

 

[outside shooter]

Who has been to the UK? Isn't AC relatively rare?

I was in the UK and in Rome in the summer of 2003, which was at the time considered their hottest summer in at least 3 centuries, but this one is topping it.

We had intentionally booked "Mom and Pop" type very small hotels and bed and breakfasts. AC was relatively rare in the shops and restaurants in London. Most bigger hotels would have AC, smaller ones were spotty.

I remember the hotel room we had on the hottest day, though, had a small window unit on a timer. The hotel said it would come on "up to 5 minutes very hour, as needed". It was definitely needed, and 5 minues was not nearly enough time.

2003 European heatwave - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[IUCrazy2]

I was in the UK and in Rome in the summer of 2003, which was at the time considered their hottest summer in at least 3 centuries, but this one is topping it.

We had intentionally booked "Mom and Pop" type very small hotels and bed and breakfasts. AC was relatively rare in the shops and restaurants in London. Most bigger hotels would have AC, smaller ones were spotty.

I remember the hotel room we had on the hottest day, though, had a small window unit on a timer. The hotel said it would come on "up to 5 minutes very hour, as needed". It was definitely needed, and 5 minues was not nearly enough time.

2003 European heatwave - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why was it that hot 300 years ago?

 

[BCCHoosier]

Those pale freaks could use a bit of sun.

Between this thread and the one where you were point out the positives of a 10 year old giving birth, I've finally figured you are just here to troll. That or you are simply a vile human. The only time you seem normal is when complaining about the economy and inflation.

Hint- spend less time here if money is tight. Get a better paying job or upskill. Either way you've earned my 5th ever ignore.

Adios muchacho.

 

[GuyDatHoo]

Between this thread and the one where you were point out the positives of a 10 year old giving birth, I've finally figured you are just here to troll. That or you are simply a vile human. The only time you seem normal is when complaining about the economy and inflation.

Hint- spend less time here if money is tight. Get a better paying job or upskill. Either way you've earned my 5th ever ignore.

Adios muchacho.

NOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[outside shooter]

Why was it that hot 300 years ago?

Maybe it wasn't and that's just when thermometers and log books were invented

edit: checks out, actually
Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit 1686-1736 was a physicist, inventor, and scientific instrument maker. He brought his new-fangled thermometers to London England in 1724

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Why was it that hot 300 years ago?

It wasn't necessarily. The thermometer was invented in 1724 so knowing the temp before that becomes more difficult. So this is the hottest since thermometer temps.

 

[snarlcakes]

Between this thread and the one where you were point out the positives of a 10 year old giving birth, I've finally figured you are just here to troll. That or you are simply a vile human. The only time you seem normal is when complaining about the economy and inflation.

Hint- spend less time here if money is tight. Get a better paying job or upskill. Either way you've earned my 5th ever ignore.

Adios muchacho.

Wait until he makes fun of their teeth. You might shed a tear.

 

[The Vid]

But... but... 104 degrees Fahrenheit for London (40C) is no big deal, right?

London, the new Phoenix

A hypothetical weather forecast for 2050 is already coming true | CNN

This "plausible" UK heat forecast becomes reality early next week -- 28 years early.

www.cnn.com

Probably right around the time I’ll be scheduled to die +/- 10 years so F it at this point.

 

[Noodle]

I was in the UK and in Rome in the summer of 2003, which was at the time considered their hottest summer in at least 3 centuries, but this one is topping it.

We had intentionally booked "Mom and Pop" type very small hotels and bed and breakfasts. AC was relatively rare in the shops and restaurants in London. Most bigger hotels would have AC, smaller ones were spotty.

I remember the hotel room we had on the hottest day, though, had a small window unit on a timer. The hotel said it would come on "up to 5 minutes very hour, as needed". It was definitely needed, and 5 minues was not nearly enough time.

2003 European heatwave - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We were in Italy in 2000. Was hot as well, but not as bad as 2003. Hotels had AC but they hardly turned them on and no ability to control in the room. I think they set them at 25C (77F). Miserable at night except in Pesaro where we had a nice breeze off the Adriatic.

 

[Univee2]

We were in Italy in 2000. Was hot as well, but not as bad as 2003. Hotels had AC but they hardly turned them on and no ability to control in the room. I think they set them at 25C (77F). Miserable at night except in Pesaro where we had a nice breeze off the Adriatic.

Yeah, but did they have LaRosa’s there?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Yeah, but did they have LaRosa’s there?

Kraft macaroni

 

[outside shooter]

NASA Climate scientist

I wish everyone on Earth knew how genuinely "off the charts" key planetary trends are right now, and how abnormal and critical it is. Things like atmospheric CO2 fraction, heat extremes on land and ocean, biodiversity loss and extinction rates. All alarms should be going off.

 

[snarlcakes]

NASA Climate scientist

I wish everyone on Earth knew how genuinely "off the charts" key planetary trends are right now, and how abnormal and critical it is. Things like atmospheric CO2 fraction, heat extremes on land and ocean, biodiversity loss and extinction rates. All alarms should be going off.

View embedded media

That guy is a loon. The world isn’t ending because of fossil fuels.

 

[outside shooter]

That guy is a loon. The world isn’t ending because of fossil fuels.

Where did you obtain YOUR degree in climate science? Harvard? Columbia? Did you teach at Caltech? Or Trump University?

"Peter Kalmus (climate scientist) - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kalmus_(climate_scientist)

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

NASA Climate scientist

I wish everyone on Earth knew how genuinely "off the charts" key planetary trends are right now, and how abnormal and critical it is. Things like atmospheric CO2 fraction, heat extremes on land and ocean, biodiversity loss and extinction rates. All alarms should be going off.

View embedded media

totally unbiased source

 

[outside shooter]

totally unbiased source

Oohhhh.. another Harvard grad weighs in!

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Oohhhh.. another Harvard grad weighs in!

what a stupid take. The guy is a loony toon and climate activist. He’s as biased as they come. That doesn’t mean he isn’t smart.

quick, tell us how impressed you are by Penn grads so I can relay to Trump

 

[snarlcakes]

Where did you obtain YOUR degree in climate science? Harvard? Columbia? Did you teach at Caltech? Or Trump University?

"Peter Kalmus (climate scientist) - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kalmus_(climate_scientist)

Here is one example of his lunacy. What do you think happens if we get rid of fossil fuels? Also, I’d prefer we stick with capitalism. It’s difficult to take your source serious when one of his first tweets reveals he’s a socialist.

It’s Saturday and I’m a good mood and will humor you for a while, though. Teach me a few of his scriptures. When is Shaman Kalmus predicting the end of a livable planet? Let me guess, not in the near future? Also, please tell me he is for nuclear?

 

[outside shooter]

"In my opinion nuclear power should be pursued at this time. It is neither "easy" nor sufficient as a "solution" in and of itself. It is however one important piece of a puzzle that has perhaps 499 other pieces."

Sounds like he agrees with me and with CO.H.

 

[snarlcakes]

"In my opinion nuclear power should be pursued at this time. It is neither "easy" nor sufficient as a "solution" in and of itself. It is however one important piece of a puzzle that has perhaps 499 other pieces."

Sounds like he agrees with me and with CO.H.

That’s a start. Does he expand on why it’s only one piece of 500? It seems if someone was scared the world was going to be unlivable and is certain we need to end fossil fuels asap, nuclear is a no brainer. Why wouldn’t nuclear be the majority of the solution? It emits zero carbon and is more reliable than wind and solar?

 

[outside shooter]

Anyone who focuses at all on the CO2 problem sees nuclear fission as, at minimum, an ideal bridge solution, as other technologies evolve.

"499" was likely hyperbole, but different locales are likely to eventually rely on some locally unique combination of solar, wind, geothermal, tide, hydrogen, fusion, fission, etc.

 

[TommyCracker]

what a stupid take. The guy is a loony toon and climate activist. He’s as biased as they come. That doesn’t mean he isn’t smart.

quick, tell us how impressed you are by Penn grads so I can relay to Trump

Yeah but what's commonly missed in these discussions (or any political debate) is the mathematical representation.

Typically it's set up as one climate denier vs Bill Nye and they debate it on TV.

In reality, it should be set up as three deniers vs 97 climate worriers as it's around 97% consensus in the science community.

Maybe this guy is a little too passionate on his concern. Fair enough...now let's hear from the 96 other scientists vs the 3 dissenting opinions.

It's like pointing to Candace Owens as proof to republicans that they are supported by the black community.

 

[snarlcakes]

Anyone who focuses at all on the CO2 problem sees nuclear fission as, at minimum, an ideal bridge solution, as other technologies evolve.

"499" was likely hyperbole, but different locales are likely to eventually rely on some locally unique combination of solar, wind, geothermal, tide, hydrogen, fusion, fission, etc.

I agree. So, it took you and I a half a dozen posts to solve the issue, but the Shaman can’t figure it out. Why do you think that is? Maybe he is a climate activist with a hint of Marxism mixed in.

 

[snarlcakes]

Yeah but what's commonly missed in these discussions (or any political debate) is the mathematical representation.

Typically it's set up as one climate denier vs Bill Nye and they debate it on TV.

In reality, it should be set up as three deniers vs 97 climate worriers as it's around 97% consensus in the science community.

Maybe this guy is a little too passionate on his concern. Fair enough...now let's hear from the 96 other scientists vs the 3 dissenting opinions.

It's like pointing to Candace Owens as proof to republicans that they are supported by the black community.

The debate wasn’t about whether climate change is real or not. The debate was over what we should do. According to Kalmus we should end fossil fuels now (and toxic capitalism, whatever the means). That idea is loony toon bat shit crazy. If we ended fossil fuels today it would lead to untold human deaths and suffering. Not to mention he still uses fossil fuels because god forbid any of these climate zealots practice what they preach. And, which is always the answer to the problem, is you and I placing tax money in their offering plates. Hard pass.

 

[outside shooter]

You are taking hyperbole a ton too seriously, it seems. He, and you, and I, all see an ideal future with only a minimal role for fossil fuels in ground transportation and electricity generation. The sooner we can get there, the better. Nuclear will help us get there sooner. He seemingly uses hyperbole and overly loaded words to gain followers and sell books, though I really don't know much about him.

 

[vesuvius13]

You are taking hyperbole a ton too seriously, it seems. He, and you, and I, all see an ideal future with only a minimal role for fossil fuels in ground transportation and electricity generation. The sooner we can get there, the better. Nuclear will help us get there sooner. He seemingly uses hyperbole and overly loaded words to gain followers and sell books, though I really don't know much about him.

You and others ignore the damage green energies do to the environment due to rare earths. Mining rare earths is bad for the environment and uses oil and gas along with destroying the environment where they are mining. Batteries for vehicles and solar panels that take up so much space, along with windmills that kill so many birds, the wealthy environmentalist don't want Windmills in their locale, all this damage the environment that more than you know that push this green issue. Drilling for oil doesn't do as much damage if done correctly. Check out the mining of rare earths and the impact - https://www.bing.com/search?q=rare+...9i59i450l8...8.107208j0j4&FORM=ANAB01&PC=DCTS
There are a lot more things to include in the issue but you should get the point with this article from Harvard.

 

[TommyCracker]

You and others ignore the damage green energies do to the environment due to rare earths. Mining rare earths is bad for the environment and uses oil and gas along with destroying the environment where they are mining. Batteries for vehicles and solar panels that take up so much space, along with windmills that kill so many birds, the wealthy environmentalist don't want Windmills in their locale, all this damage the environment that more than you know that push this green issue. Drilling for oil doesn't do as much damage if done correctly. Check out the mining of rare earths and the impact - https://www.bing.com/search?q=rare+...9i59i450l8...8.107208j0j4&FORM=ANAB01&PC=DCTS
There are a lot more things to include in the issue but you should get the point with this article from Harvard.

The problem with green energy isn't the energy itself or the amount of it, it's getting it from A to B on our century old power grid.

The best wind farms are in the Midwest. Now we need to get that power from Iowa to New York. To do that means using our dilapidated grid or building new, which means involving private property, local communities, state legislation and the federal legislation.

Not sure how Iowa feels about powering New York City.

Anyway the transportation is supposedly the big benefit of fossil fuels. The infrastructure is already built for it. Plus we can move it to places of need easier (we dig it up in West Virginia, throw it on a train to the fossil burning plant in NYC).

So the question is do we continue on keeping on knowing the adverse effects that the burning of fossil fuels bring or do we take the initiative and make a better, cleaner and more powerful and more independent energy ecosystem?

Clean nuclear (more like nuclear fusion) is the Valhalla but, it needs a serious image make over and lock proof safety measures.

Anyway, as Snarlcakes said, we know what is going on. We know that it's doing a ton of damage and changing the environment in adverse ways in an environmentally rapid pace (the first power plant was built in 1882. That's a millasecond ago from the Earth's perspective) ....doing nothing isn't much of an option.

As George Carlin said, the planet isn't in trouble, we are. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas and keep on rollin.

 

[snarlcakes]

You are taking hyperbole a ton too seriously, it seems. He, and you, and I, all see an ideal future with only a minimal role for fossil fuels in ground transportation and electricity generation. The sooner we can get there, the better. Nuclear will help us get there sooner. He seemingly uses hyperbole and overly loaded words to gain followers and sell books, though I really don't know much about him.

Guilty as charged. I admittedly not a fan of his type.

 

[outside shooter]

Here's a very interesting visualization of year-by-year temperatures since 1880.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

Have any of you seen carbon capture plants? It pumps the smokestack waist into the ground. It actually helps pressurize older oilfields too. If we go electric it captures two kinds of emissions. It’s easier to regulate emissions at the source than every tailpipe. People are so against carbon emissions that they dismiss this as a solution for the short and medium term.

 

[outside shooter]

Have any of you seen carbon capture plants? It pumps the smokestack waist into the ground. It actually helps pressurize older oilfields too. If we go electric it captures two kinds of emissions. It’s easier to regulate emissions at the source than every tailpipe. People are so against carbon emissions that they dismiss this as a solution for the short and medium term.

The sheer volume of CO2 produced annually makes the underground pumping technology inadequate. Solid capture of CO2 could, however, make a dent. Elon Musk has been dangling rewards out there for chemists who can make it feasible. Like a catalytic coverter for CO2 absorption. It is likely to be a fairly exotic metal though. Cobalt is a candidate.

 

[Eurocyldon]

Wait until he makes fun of their teeth. You might shed a tear.

In all fairness, they are about 40 years behind as it relates to dental health care.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

That’s a start. Does he expand on why it’s only one piece of 500? It seems if someone was scared the world was going to be unlivable and is certain we need to end fossil fuels asap, nuclear is a no brainer. Why wouldn’t nuclear be the majority of the solution? It emits zero carbon and is more reliable than wind and solar?

If he says, rightfully, that nuclear is the answer, the mob will cancel him. This is the playing field that the left mob has established and he has to now play on it.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

The sheer volume of CO2 produced annually makes the underground pumping technology inadequate. Solid capture of CO2 could, however, make a dent. Elon Musk has been dangling rewards out there for chemists who can make it feasible. Like a catalytic coverter for CO2 absorption. It is likely to be a fairly exotic metal though. Cobalt is a candidate.

They already have catalyst stacks. As I’ve stated before this isn’t a long term fix. It would be used in conjunction with other technology. I’m doing solar and battery backup right now. It’s silly how cheap this stuff has gotten. Why not produce my own.

 

[outside shooter]

If he says, rightfully, that nuclear is the answer, the mob will cancel him. This is the playing field that the left mob has established and he has to now play on it.

The Bernie bros are staunchly anti nuclear, without any sound reasoning. A growing number of green thinkers are coming around to the idea that such a stance has been a huge mistake.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

The Bernie bros are staunchly anti nuclear, without any sound reasoning. A growing number of green thinkers are coming around to the idea that such a stance has been a huge mistake.

Most woke stances are without sound reasoning and purely based on emotion. While this is certainly true of MAGA, the media is much more likely to drive emotional environmental takes.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Most woke stances are without sound reasoning and purely based on emotion. While this is certainly true of MAGA, the media is much more likely to drive emotional environmental takes.

There are two problems with nuclear, NIMBY and cost. The first is hard to eliminate and happens with refineries and fracking (the CEO of Shell or some other oil company sued to stop fracking near his gated community in Texas).

Cost would be helped if we sat down with France, Germany, and Japan and all agreed to go to the same technology. Basically, make nuclear plants as cookie cutter as possible so GE or whoever could more mass produce the components.