[jeffreyH (OP)]

Europe is in another serious heatwave. The last such heatwave was 2003. If this is becoming the norm are we prepared for such a future?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40825668
It isn't happening to future generations. It's happening now.

[evan_au]

In the linked webpage, "Europe Heatwave" was prominently displayed on North Africa and Egypt...

[alancalverd]

If it last happened in 2003, then there have been 13 intervening years when it didn't, which beggars the definition of "norm".

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Well we can pretend it will only be a problem at the end of this century if that is what keeps us happy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heat_waves

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Nasa has undertaken water vapour measures for some time now. A maximum was recorded in 1996 with small variations since then. From 1997 onwards we have subsequently seen all sorts of climate records broken. Are we trying to solve the wrong problem?
https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/content/Water_vapor_measurements_in_the_mesosphere_from_Mauna_Loa_over_solar_cycle_23

[Bored chemist]

Nasa has undertaken water vapour measures for some time now. A maximum was recorded in 1996 with small variations since then. From 1997 onwards we have subsequently seen all sorts of climate records broken. Are we trying to solve the wrong problem?
https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/content/Water_vapor_measurements_in_the_mesosphere_from_Mauna_Loa_over_solar_cycle_23

Most of the Earth's surface is wet, so water vapour is a proxy measure for surface temperature (OK, it's not a very good one but...).
We know that the Earth is getting warmer, and most of us are trying to solve that problem, by attacking the cause.
So, what "wrong problem" do you think we might be trying to solve?

[Bored chemist]

If it last happened in 2003, then there have been 13 intervening years when it didn't, which beggars the definition of "norm".

But not the definition of "becoming the norm" which is what was under discussion.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Nasa has undertaken water vapour measures for some time now. A maximum was recorded in 1996 with small variations since then. From 1997 onwards we have subsequently seen all sorts of climate records broken. Are we trying to solve the wrong problem?
https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/content/Water_vapor_measurements_in_the_mesosphere_from_Mauna_Loa_over_solar_cycle_23

Most of the Earth's surface is wet, so water vapour is a proxy measure for surface temperature (OK, it's not a very good one but...).
We know that the Earth is getting warmer, and most of us are trying to solve that problem, by attacking the cause.
So, what "wrong problem" do you think we might be trying to solve?

Well for a start I think we need to know what effect a higher concentration of water vapour has on the systems ability to sink carbon.

[alancalverd]

The Wikipedia "heat wave list" seems to show that large areas of concrete or desert can get very hot  in the absence of cloud and wind. I, for one, don't find this surprising.

What is interesting is that water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas, so increasing water content will increase night temperatures by preventing radiative loss, but above the saturation level, clouds will prevent daytime heating. Hence we have a mechanism for the longterm cyclic behavior of climate. 

It is interesting to note that the annual cycle of Mauna Loa water vapor peaks in early summer, around the same point as the annual cycle of carbon dioxide. Since anthropogenic CO2 is at a minimum in summer, this throws a tiny spanner into the idea that "it's all our fault".

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Of course it isn't all our fault but we ain't helping. So water vapour appears to affect the peak in CO2. Who caused the magnitude of that peak? Santa Claus? He does ride that sleigh awfully fast. Must burn a ton of fuel.

[alancalverd]

On my planet, Santa Claus flies in mid winter, not early summer. Still, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says, why let the facts spoil a good story?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Well the IPCC are not without an ulterior motive. The word intergovernmental tends to give that away. How does knowing that help?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

The rate at which things happen are just as important as whether or not they have happened in past history.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n4/abs/ngeo2681.html

[mrsmith2211]

We are not even prepared for today's extremes of weather, so my answer is no. Certainly there could be options with better planning and land management that could have taken place, but  famines, floods, wildfires, tornadoes, mudslides, avalanches and earthquakes effects could be mitigated by proper, though expensive solutions, or planning.

[chris]

famines, floods, wildfires, tornadoes, mudslides, avalanches and earthquakes effects could be mitigated by proper, though expensive solutions, or planning.

I absolutely agree, but foremost in that planning should be population control.

Part of the reason that there are more victims of natural disasters now than in the past is that there are more people living in harm's way. Apart from directly causing the problem through potentiation of climate change, we are also increasingly colonising patches of the Earth that were formerly less worth living on because they were inherently riskier...

[alancalverd]

Intelligent species, such as earthworms and wildebeeste, adapt to weather by burrowing and surfacing (to avoid cooking or drowning) or migration (to avoid starvation). In general they do this quickly enough to survive all that the present climate can throw at them, and show sufficient climate adaptability to have recolonised their habitats after the last ice age.

Stupid species like homo sapiens breed to excess, migrate to unsuitable terrain, and complain about natural phenomena instead of adapting to them.

By definition, extreme weather is whatever you haven't prepared for or are happy to adapt to. So -30°C is not extreme if you have sewn together enough sealskins and fox pelts, + 40°C is entirely within the normal range if you are prepared to sleep during the day and hunt wallabies at night, and 20" of rain is no big deal if your stone cottage is on a well-drained Irish hilltop.

But if you cram lots of people onto the side of a rubbish dump, or cover the Texas desert with concrete and abandon infrastructure planning laws, any thunderstorm looks pretty extreme even if it is within the normal range for the area.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

During the industrial revolution factories were built along with houses for the workforce. It is a sensible idea to build some types of factory near to a water supply to cut transport costs. Capitalism caused the problems but now puts its hands up and says "What problem?"

[yor_on]

We can't be prepared. We're guessing still how and what it will express itself as. Using statistics to prove a point is also a way to never get ahead of the problem, in this case that is :) And in its case connected to what we want, and want not, to believe.

It's a non linear system, the climate.

We could do some simple things though, stop making so many babies, one per person should be enough for it to have a impact in some decades. Stop creating mono cultures, stop making 'mega meat factories', change farming methods, change energy sources etc, to slowly turn it around. It won't stop Global warming, but it might milder its effects.

then again, this sounds also like the old conflict between nomadic life and the farmers. We're all 'farmers' today, very few nomads left. And when they went they took their way of looking with them. We don't have those values, and we learned not to believe in it anymore, so we're slightly one eyed there.