Number of days over 35 C surges in world's scorching capitals

This horse has already bolted.

The time to do something about climate change was decades ago. The question today is not that the world needs to clean up the mess but more on who will do it.

If developed countries which have benefited from centuries of industrial revolution and still have more emissions per capita than the developing world don't step up they have no right to talk down to others.

Shannon Osaka had a fascinating article in 26 June’s “Washington Post” examining how cleaner air is resulting in faster global warming.

Scientists seem to be in agreement that this is occurring, but no one is certain of the intensity of the impact.

Excerpt for those who might be interested in reading more …

—

Tiny particles from the combustion of coal, oil and gas can reflect sunlight and spur the formation of clouds, shading the planet from the sun’s rays. Since the 1980s, those particles have offset between 40 and 80 percent of the warming caused by greenhouse gases.

And now, as society cleans up pollution, that cooling effect is waning. New regulations have cut the amount of sulfur aerosols from global shipping traffic across the oceans; China, fighting its own air pollution problem, has slashed sulfur pollution dramatically in the last decade.

The result is even warmer temperatures - but exactly how much warmer is still under debate.

—

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ve-accidentally-cooling-planet-stop-180738974.html

It is obvious if you bring through electrical lines and consume gas (cars) in a limited area that energy accumulation will transform into heat eventually. The more warm it is in a place, the less difference density there is between heated air and outside air. So it gets less dispersed.

Moreover, if you use Aircon units thinking to help you at individual level, it does the exact opposite at collective city level. Outside units generate heat. That is why it is even called a heat pump.

Add low albedos of buildings, disappearance of flora (photosynthesis absorbs solar rays energy to create chlorophyllia) and limited space for water ponds, you get full heat island effect.

In forest areas, there is no such folly (no heat dome effect limiting moisture + probably increase of solar sunshine rate).

Understand how nature works in the first place where you live before complaining.

quantifies the growing threat of extreme heat in some of the world's largest urban centers.

On a planet that's long been led by the oil/gas industries and their fossils, and which is currently led by oil fossils like Putin, and rulers like Xi and others that want to burn more burn more, and if the US is led by a someone like The Previous guy who's controlled by other fossils, expect that extreme heat will become even more extreme while the fossils and their fellow billionaire backers might be among the few that are able to stay cooler.

Also expect billions from areas severely affected by extreme heat to move to places where extreme heat might be less of a problem. lots of room in Russia and China for those escaping from the global south. Russia will probably need more people to fight its wars, especially now that so many Russians have been killed in Putin and his pal's war.

Heat Islands are a thing. You need green spaces and less concrete in cities.

Obviously cities would be hotter than 30 years ago. The amount of buildings, asphalt, concrete, glass, cars and less green space means more heat is retained and reflected, resulting in higher temperatures. Combine that with the massive influx of people to major cities, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the underlying cause.

Climate change denialists here at work I see above ....

Delhi alone documented its longest and most severe heatwave in 74 years, registering 39 consecutive days with maximum temperatures at or above 40 C (104 F) from May 14 to June 21, according to weather station data.

That's pretty damn hot!!

The hottest recorded temperature in Japan is 41.1 C in Hamamatsu and that was just for 1 day and it was a big deal.

Climate change denialists here at work I see above ....

Denial is one way they have to deflect their guilt.

Moonraker

Climate change denialists here at work I see above ....

Denial is one way they have to deflect their guilt.

Sigh.... I have not seen any "climate change denier" yet, and I do not expect to one. Such a silly talking point. Fact is, anyone who claims the climate has never changed and should never change is off the rocker.

What people are doubting is that all these government programs in the West like promoting EVs, windmills, and solar panels have any impact on any climate change.

What people are doubting is that all these government programs in the West like promoting EVs, windmills, and solar panels have any impact on any climate change.

What will then, Zaphod?

The only ones doubting it are the ones who don't care/don't want to learn more about it for whatever reason. There's honestly no excuse for an adult to doubt this.

What people are doubting is that all these government programs in the West like promoting EVs, windmills, and solar panels have any impact on any climate change.

It went from outright denial (it's really not happening, it's where they place the thermometers, etc) to denial that it is caused by humans (it's natural, climate always changes) to it will be a good thing (I like warmer weather and we will avoid the ice age I remember "they" said was coming) to finally we will have to adapt and it will provide economic opportunity to move New York and London to higher ground.

What people are doubting is that all these government programs in the West like promoting EVs, windmills, and solar panels have any impact on any climate change.

No, they just aren’t interested or care. Next generations problem. “I want my big SUV because my neighbor has one and it’s a contest”

Why do you think only governments in the West are promoting alternative energy?

Of course, the heat in ever-increasing urbanized areas couldn't possibly be an effect of the significant increase in concrete, asphalt, and other pavements plus the decrease of green (natural) areas in said cities...

Of course, the heat in ever-increasing urbanized areas couldn't possibly be an effect of the significant increase in concrete, asphalt, and other pavements plus the decrease of green (natural) areas in said cities...

Great, you agree on the human impact on climate change.

The larger cities become.

The larger a heat sink they become.

The longer it takes the heat to go down.

The more days temperature stays high.

.

Two wacky ideas.

.

1) If everything was painted white in the city, it might reduce the temperature as the sun light is reflected away.

.

2) Cover all of the roofs with solar pannels and turn the sun light into electricy..

.

Who would want their entire city painted white ?

Who would pay for the solar pannels and have their roofs covered with them?

Apparently climate change deniers think nobody else knows what the urban heat island is. But, it's getting hotter in cities that aren't undergoing increased urbanization too. Don't you think it could be possible that rising temperatures are caused by more than one thing?

Of course, the heat in ever-increasing urbanized areas couldn't possibly be an effect of the significant increase in concrete, asphalt, and other pavements plus the decrease of green (natural) areas in said cities...

climate change has been here since the creation of the earth, including ice ages and medieval warming periods.

And it has always had causes. What is causing this extremely rapid rise in global temperatures? Scotch mist?

Quite cool the past few days.

Why is that?

Quite cool the past few days. Why is that?

Low pressure system.

Hervé L'Eisa

Of course, the heat in ever-increasing urbanized areas couldn't possibly be an effect of the significant increase in concrete, asphalt, and other pavements plus the decrease of green (natural) areas in said cities...

That's not what is causing climate change.

CO2 is the only discussion to be had for climate change. Nothing else matters.

That means more renewables and ways of reducing that CO2 footprint.

I work for a major energy company and we are transitioning towards a greener future.

To misquote the Orange One, build a roof.

The temperatures you see on weather bulletins are recorded in controlled circumstances, inside a Stevenson screen.

Some years ago, 'wind chill factor' was added to cold temperatures, so people would take more care.

The same should now be done, adding 'sun burn factor'. You will experience a much higher temperature than the official temperature, if there is no cloud, and you are not in shade.

I commonly record outdoor temperatures over 40C when the official temperature is below 25C. I need to record what my plants are experiencing, which is what people are experiencing.

The difference between these two is the difference of temperature you will experience in shaded environments.

So build shade in cities. Trees are good but planners fear tree roots. Maybe canopies that unfurl when there is no cloud.

You can also paint your roof white, have thicker walls, block the sun from windows, and keep them closed if the outdoor temperature is higher than the indoor one. Air conditioning grids may also be created, allowing people to pipe centrally cooled air into their homes whenever they need it.

There is loads of stuff we can do in new builds and with clever retro-fitting.

Low pressure system.

Not where I am.

And a high pressure system can bring in drier air, which can promote a cooling effect.

maybe we are lucky because where we live have 23c now and light rain,very refreshing air...

Unfortunately this situation is not frequent nor it is going to continue, the changes are so pervasive and inevitable by now that people are going to consider lucky being only on terrible situations instead of deadly ones.

Heat Islands are a thing.

The article is talking about a global scale, not about something that only happens in cities. This is of course a reason to be specially careful in cities, but the changes are happening everywhere.

Combine that with the massive influx of people to major cities, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the underlying cause.

The planet is not a city, and it is heating up the same, the explanation do not hold water when places different from cities are also being affected.

Fact is, anyone who claims the climate has never changed and should never change is off the rocker.

Fallacy, that is not the argument, climate change (as in the current crisis) do not refer to changes in general but those that are being observed thanks to human activity.

What people are doubting is that all these government programs in the West like promoting EVs, windmills, and solar panels have any impact on any climate change.

Yet, when confronted with the lack of evidence to prove that claim nothing is being offered, in that situation the experts of the world (that have at least evidence to support their recommendations) are simply a much more sure source of information.

Quite cool the past few days.

In general? no it is still record high in every region, obviously pretending weather is climate makes no sense.

Not where I am.

But yes in general which is the reason for its importance. The article is talking about a predictable (and deadly) consequence of human activity effects on the climate. Does it make it less important for you that the people are dying where you can't see them? that would betray a terrible lack of empathy.

Deadly consequences ?

Doomsayer ?

No empathy ?

Not ever feeling superior sometimes ?

Know your limits.

If change was going to lower temperatures, that would have been more terrible, from far.

Earth, while blue, is a ball of fire.

No denial, just stating the obvious.

GHG are a problem but worst is forgetting the obvious our ancestors applied.

The 2 or 3 degrees plus change on average is not making punctual local temperature change worse, which have always existed, more impactful.

What I see is politicians making the citizens pay for their failure.

I am a HVAC and energy engineer, and have been interest in climate change since my young years.

Fallacy, that is not the argument, climate change (as in the current crisis) do not refer to changes in general but those that are being observed thanks to human activity.

Wrong.

The experts describe it:

Climate change is a long-term change in the average weather patterns that have come to define Earth’s local, regional and global climates.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/what-is-climate-change/

he 2 or 3 degrees plus change on average is not making punctual local temperature change worse, which have always existed, more impactful.

Reference needed,

Wrong

Again, the quoted text clearly and unequivocally says the term is referencing at the current crisis, not at change in general, that means you are the one using a wrong definition precisely because you choose to ignore the text you yourself quoted. What is the point of that?

From your own source, immediately below the text you used

*Changes observed in Earth’s climate since the mid-20th century are driven by human activities, particularly fossil fuel burning, which increases heat-trapping greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere, raising Earth’s average surface temperature. *

So, your own source says this is because of human activity, you proved the point yourself.