Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth

Why Europe Keeps Being Pummeled by Heat Waves (nytimes.com) 110

Europe is facing its fifth round of dangerously high temperatures this summer, the New York Times reports. Now climate scientists wonder if global warming is doing more than raise temperatures... The weather patterns that create heat domes aren't new, but today they arise on top of the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. That makes it more likely that heat waves reach record-shattering temperatures for long stretches. But other environmental changes — natural, human-influenced or both — might also be causing heat domes to become more frequent and longer lasting. And it's these changes that scientists around the globe are trying to puzzle out.

One change has to do with the Arctic. The differences in temperature between the hot Equator and the frigid far north help keep weather moving around the Northern Hemisphere. But with the top of the world now warming at several times the pace of the rest of the globe, those temperature gradients are narrowing. That might be causing the movements of weather systems to become more sluggish, producing more persistent heat waves. In Europe, reduced air pollution could be having a similar effect. Industrial emissions can contain particles called aerosols that reflect sunlight. Curbing aerosols has improved air quality, but it may also have altered the way air moves across the continent.

Scientists haven't come to firm conclusions about how these shifts might be affecting European summers, said Antje Weisheimer, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford. The complex, fine-scale interactions in the atmosphere that drive weather dynamics are tough to capture in computer simulations, Dr. Weisheimer said. "It's tricky," she said. "We're making small progress."

Dim Coumou, a professor of climate science at the Dutch university VU Amsterdam, sees artificial intelligence as one way forward. In a recent study, he and his colleagues used an A.I. algorithm to help a weather model better predict summer temperatures in Europe. They not only improved the model's forecasts; they also discovered why some of the model's predictions had been off: It misrepresented the way conditions in the western Pacific Ocean influenced atmospheric patterns that eventually made their way to Europe. With A.I., "we can also learn what the climate models are missing," Dr. Coumou said.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Europe Keeps Being Pummeled by Heat Waves

Comments Filter:
  • Yeah... (Score:5, Funny)

    by zurkeyon ( 1546501 ) on Saturday August 15, 2026 @07:36PM (#66290670)
    We are terraforming the planet for Lizard people. Don't ya know? ;-D
    • Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday August 15, 2026 @07:44PM (#66290674)
      I mean I guess yeah technically since Elon Musk and Jeff bezos are lizard people but I think they're native lizard people rather than the usual batch of aliens we get.

      Literally there's about 3 or 400 people who are going to destroy the entire planet except for a small section of it that they will be allowed to live on protected by automatic killbots and periodic Mass cullings.

      And your Boomer uncle is all in favor of it as long as he doesn't have to look at trans people or let them drink his beer.
      • Better yet, they might get around to blowing us all up! At least we'd have something decent to watch on TV ;-D
      • by logjon ( 1411219 )

        And your Boomer uncle is all in favor of it as long as he doesn't have to look at trans people or let them drink his beer.

        I disowned my right-wing relatives. I don't have any such boomer uncles anymore.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Mr. Barky ( 152560 )

        It is rather easy to blame others for climate change. Yes, the rich do a disproportionate amount of damage. But they wouldn't be able to do that damage without many, many people buying their products. The rich don't create industrial pollution for the hell of it (at least most, maybe there are a few that just like to destroy). They are creating pollution on your behalf.

        If you take an airplane without really needing to, if you buy a larger house or car than you need, if you eat more than you should... you're

        • It is rather easy to blame others for climate change. Yes, the rich do a disproportionate amount of damage. But they wouldn't be able to do that damage without many, many people buying their products.

          It is rather easy to blame others for climate change. Yes, the poor consume products which do ecological damage. But they wouldn't be able to do that damage without rich people deciding it's what they will be allowed to buy.

          If you take an airplane without really needing to, if you buy a larger house or car than you need, if you eat more than you should...

          Come on now, leave some billionaire cock for the rest of us to suck.

          • It is rather easy to blame others for climate change. Yes, the rich do a disproportionate amount of damage. But they wouldn't be able to do that damage without many, many people buying their products.

            It is rather easy to blame others for climate change. Yes, the poor consume products which do ecological damage. But they wouldn't be able to do that damage without rich people deciding it's what they will be allowed to buy.

            If you take an airplane without really needing to, if you buy a larger house or car than you need, if you eat more than you should...

            Come on now, leave some billionaire cock for the rest of us to suck.

            None of these problems would exist if there were only 10 percent the present amount of people, and if humanity returned to teh lifestyle that we evolved from.

            One could make a plausible case that the roots of all this was when humanity started practicing agriculture.

            • So your solution to shit billionaires is to return to being hunter gatherers? I do not think you will find many other to enlist in your scheme.

              • So your solution to shit billionaires is to return to being hunter gatherers? I do not think you will find many other to enlist in your scheme.

                Yaknow, given population growth, and most of the world wanting a first world lifestyle, Nature won't need to enlist people to hunter gatherer lifestyle. Might be more like a compulsory draft.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by pipegeek ( 624626 )

          But they *do* create industrial pollution.

          You can cast blame on individuals for their "carbon footprint", but don't forget that that concept was invented by the petroleum industry to take the heat off of them.

          Yes, we who participate in society are all making the problem worse. But none of us individual consumers, by our own abstention, can meaningfully inflect the trajectory. To align all our actions enough to actually make a dent, we'd need to either all band together and refuse to buy this stuff *at the

        • It is rather easy to blame others for climate change. Yes, the rich do a disproportionate amount of damage. But they wouldn't be able to do that damage without many, many people buying their products. The rich don't create industrial pollution for the hell of it (at least most, maybe there are a few that just like to destroy). They are creating pollution on your behalf.

          If you take an airplane without really needing to, if you buy a larger house or car than you need, if you eat more than you should... you're also contributing to global warming and the general degradation of the environment. It is a collective problem, not the fault of a few individuals. If all the rich suddenly distributed their money to the general fund, the problem would still exist. People want to maintain their lifestyle.

          If we got rid of 90 percent of humanity, or returned to hunter gatherer ways, we wouldn't need to worry about airplanes or houses or overeating. I solved the problem much better than you.

          Depends on how you wish to take my statement, Unironically that is the fix to human's altering the environment excessively by placing humanity as just one part of the environment. And preventing us from influencing it any more than natures other creatures. Of course, few of us want to live on the edge, and to die in our

          • If we got rid of 90 percent of humanity, or returned to hunter gatherer ways

            Those are two entirely different things, and one way to achieve the first is voluntary birth control. Other ways include pandemic, war, and famine, all of which I for one consider suboptimal.

            few of us want to live on the edge, and to die in our 30's.

            "30's" would be life expectancy at birth, which is heavily biased by infant and child mortality [ourworldindata.org]: "As recently as two centuries ago, around 1 in 2 children died before reaching the end of puberty."

            Council on Foreign Relations [cfr.org]: "In 1800, for example, global life expectancy was estimated to be just twenty-nine years. Th

          • If we got rid of 90 percent of humanity, or returned to hunter gatherer ways, we wouldn't need to worry about airplanes or houses or overeating.

            Or if, you know, we developed ways to generate and use that don't produce carbon dioxide emissions, and ways to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it, then we wouldn't have to slaughter billions and return to a subsistence lifestyle.

            Can we maybe try a carbon tax for a couple of decades first? We can always do the murdering later. Given the birthrate trends, if we wait a century the population will crash without doing anything.

            • If we got rid of 90 percent of humanity, or returned to hunter gatherer ways, we wouldn't need to worry about airplanes or houses or overeating.

              Or if, you know, we developed ways to generate and use that don't produce carbon dioxide emissions, and ways to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it, then we wouldn't have to slaughter billions and return to a subsistence lifestyle.

              Can we maybe try a carbon tax for a couple of decades first? We can always do the murdering later. Given the birthrate trends, if we wait a century the population will crash without doing anything.

              We still have the problem of resource management. The earth is not an endless supply of what we need for civilization, and there are limits to recycling.

              https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info] We hear how people are going to stop having children. Well, yeah some groups are. But I remember when 8 billion was crossed a few years ago, now we are at 8.3 billion - .3 billion added in just a few years. That's 1 USA worth of population. https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info]

              So - what is your solution? How do we get that

              • We still have the problem of resource management. The earth is not an endless supply of what we need for civilization, and there are limits to recycling.

                What resources are we short on?

                • We still have the problem of resource management. The earth is not an endless supply of what we need for civilization, and there are limits to recycling.

                  What resources are we short on?

                  Water is a big one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. There is much prior evidence that we are willing to kill each other for fresh water.

                  As human population increases, and weather patterns change, some places will become arid, others enjoy increased rainfall. The leads to so called "climate migration" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. although an increasing number of humans eventually creates the same effect even if a person does not believe in the energy retention effects of an atmosphere based upon

        • Sounds like an argument for degrowth, which has growing support in Europe.

        • It is rather easy to blame others for climate change. Yes, the rich do a disproportionate amount of damage. But they wouldn't be able to do that damage without many, many people buying their products. The rich don't create industrial pollution for the hell of it (at least most, maybe there are a few that just like to destroy). They are creating pollution on your behalf.

          If you take an airplane without really needing to, if you buy a larger house or car than you need, if you eat more than you should... you're also contributing to global warming and the general degradation of the environment. It is a collective problem, not the fault of a few individuals. If all the rich suddenly distributed their money to the general fund, the problem would still exist. People want to maintain their lifestyle.

          This argument comes up a lot. My one counter?

          The rich, the owner class, the would-be oligarchs like to make global decisions for the rest of us, and continually assert that they are the drivers of all things. They promote the idea that their superior wealth makes them superior human beings. They seem to believe that they are unto gods, and their will absolutely *IS* the creator of our reality. If they want to believe all that, more power to them, but then they get to shoulder a little more of the burden for

      • And your Boomer uncle is all in favor of it as long as he doesn't have to look at trans people or let them drink his beer.

        Recent survey by the Human Rights Campaign [hrc.org] [possibly biased, of course]: "The survey, commissioned in February 2026 by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation .... Large majorities of Americans support equal rights and protections for transgender Americans (85%), as well as equal access to healthcare (89%), workplace protections (79%), and protections for transgender students (83%)."

        Maybe more relevant: "41.2% of U.S. adults say they know someone who is transgender. ... [but] only 27% of Americans report reg

      • by 0xG ( 712423 )

        I mean I guess yeah technically since Elon Musk and Jeff bezos are lizard people but I think they're native lizard people rather than the usual batch of aliens we get.

        Literally there's about 3 or 400 people who are going to destroy the entire planet except for a small section of it that they will be allowed to live on protected by automatic killbots and periodic Mass cullings.

        And your Boomer uncle is all in favor of it as long as he doesn't have to look at trans people or let them drink his beer.

        What a stupid comment, I think you have set some kind of a record.

    • Look at the good side, people won't have to move south when they retire any more. It will be warm where they already live.

      Interestingly enough, on average I run the heat pump in cooling mode about 22 days a year. So far this year I've used it 8 days.

      The heat pump is in heating mode from continuously from mid-October to Mid-April. It will be a long time before that balances out up here at 47 degrees North.

      • The parts of Europe we are talking about are far far far further north than 47 latitude.
        Mainz is 52 latitude north.
        Rome is 48 latitude north.
        And then comes Hamburg, London, Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki, Edinburgh and so on ..

        • Your numbers are off. Rome is at ~42 degrees north. Mainz is further north than 47, but it's at 50 north not 52.
          • You are right, Mainz is 50 latitude. No idea why I made mistake there.
            There is a bronze/brass marker on the road where the latitude goes.

            You are right about Rome, too. it is 42. NYC is 48. I mixed that up.

    • by yalla ( 102708 )

      Pssht! Don't say that out loud, or we need to love bomb y'all with Nostalgia Max [1]....

      https://insidejob.fandom.com/w... [fandom.com]

    • I'm not sure many lizards could survive in the desert, without water, with 30% CO in the air, and, on top of that, given the current geopolitical situation, after a few thousand H-bombs have exploded all over the place...
  • by zamboni1138 ( 308944 ) on Saturday August 15, 2026 @08:13PM (#66290726)

    We've had heatwave after heatwave after heatwave, and we still have another month of summer. Where I live 5% of the state is on fire, the National Weather Service regularly predicts "Smoke" as the weather. The air quality index is actually advertised as -1, I have no idea what that means, but it can't be good. For weeks at a time the sunrises and sunsets are orange in color because of the smoke. This is not a European problem, it's an everywhere problem. Not only do we have to stop human carbon from going into the atmosphere, but we have to remove energy from the system. Reducing population won't do it. Reducing pollution won't do it. We need to take very drastic and expensive steps to reduce the amount of energy hitting the planet from the Sun. Solar panels won't cut it, wind power won't cut it, nuclear power won't cut it. We have to block it. And then try and restore our atmosphere.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      We caught a guy who was setting fires over here. In large part due to video surveillance.

      More Flock cameras is the answer.

    • ...but we have to remove energy from the system. Reducing population won't do it.

      Thanos enters the chat > Actually...

    • I was in Ontario last month when the wildfire smoke was coming through. The AQI was pegged at 500 for two days.

    • The air quality index is actually advertised as -1, I have no idea what that means, but it can't be good.

      Sounds like either missing data or a mistake. The Air Quality Index is confusing, because it's actually the Air Danger Index: larger numbers are worse [airnow.gov].

  • Thought I read in a similar article that the Atlantic currents are slowing as well, which normally moves air around, and so it's just sitting on Europe.

    And that this is only going to get worse with that current in collapse?

    • Re:Currents (Score:4, Informative)

      by ls671 ( 1122017 ) on Saturday August 15, 2026 @09:05PM (#66290806) Homepage

      No, if that current collapse, Europe is going to freeze. That current cools down Northern America and warms up Europe. That's why you have snow storms and it's cold in Montreal in the winter while comparatively a lot warmer in Paris France and Paris is farther up North than Montreal.

      Paris 48.8567 N
      Montreal 45.50889 N,

  • by FeelGood314 ( 2516288 ) on Saturday August 15, 2026 @08:40PM (#66290770)
    Any complex system with variability will see the average values of its members rise and fall but if you take the standard deviation of the set you will see it is much more constant than the average. IQs have steadily gone up with better healthcare but the deviation in IQ has barely changed. The variability of a stock is fairly persist even as the price rises or falls. We have always had the occasional record high, low, most rain etc. However if you look at the variability of the weather, for instance in Southern Ontario Canada, 50 years ago, the chance that it would rain on Saturday used to be almost completely independent on whether it had rained the previous Wednesday (3 days earlier). 30 years ago their was a strong correlation. The average temperature didn't change, the average precipitation didn't change but the variability of the weather made a huge change. The change in variability indicates a significant change in how the system works.

    The people of Europe are learning what the farmers on Southern Ontario learned 30 years ago. Even if the average doesn't change the weather has significantly changed. Average temperature is a terrible measure for climate change. It might be easy to explain but it lags the real change by 30 years.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      IQ is bunk because it is influenced by education and practice. Therefore it is not a measure of raw intelligence potential.

  • TFA is paywalled. Somebody tell me what it says. Is it because God hates them for being gay?

  • List of heat waves [wikipedia.org]. Calling what happening this year unprecedented (or even unusual) is click bait sensationalism.
    • by jsonn ( 792303 )
      So Germany has been shattering heat records over the last ~200 years in many cities more than once after the last two month. Sorry, I might not be as enlightened as you, but how is that not unprecedented? You know, the same heat records that have been set and reset this decade. Combine that with record low water in major river systems like the Rhine.
      • He's so deep in the cult and it's sad.

      • by sinij ( 911942 )
        1 in a 100 are bad odds, unless you get to play 50 times. The same idea applies here, you can always find somewhere that has been shattering some kinds of records somewhere, like January 2025 North American cold wave [wikipedia.org].
        • by jsonn ( 792303 )
          The current decade has been shattering summer heat records *for the same areas* over and over again. Northern Germany used to consider 30C a rare and very hot summer. Just Hamburg for example as a total record of 40.1C in 2022 and 39.4C as record for June this year. Yes, once is weather and an outlier. Having multiple heat waves in a row is not. The very list you linked in fact tells exactly that story: the summer weather has been progressively getting worse (as in hotter) over the last half century.
    • Sure, if everything you know about this year was that someone used the word heatwave you may come across that conclusion. In the meantime please go through all those you just cited, show us where we have experienced 6 successive heatwaves in one season without any rain between them. We'll wait while you continue to embarrass yourself.

    • your list does not support your claim, in fact it does support the fact that this is unprecedented. What used to be a very rare occasion with years apart are now happening several times in a single year with higher temperatures than what they did in the past. Even more is that they all match the predictions from the climate change models, which informs us that we are going to look back at 2026 as the coldest year from then on.
  • Have they considered implementing fines?
    • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
      I misread that as fires, which do seem to have been implemented this year.
      • I misread that as fires, which do seem to have been implemented this year.

        Somewhat related, and with the business of disrupted weather patterns, in Canada, there have been a lot of fires, the West coast has been baking.

        While here in PA, we're inundated with rain - the ground is saturated, and every new storm brings flooding. I wish we could send about half of that water out west.

        And while I don't think we've had any 90+ degree days here, it isn't cooling down much at night. mid 80's during the day, mid 70's at night.And I only recall one day the humidity dropped below 99 pe

  • ...causing movements of weather systems to become more sluggish, producing more persistent heat waves. In Europe, reduced air pollution could be having a similar effect. Industrial emissions can contain particles called aerosols that reflect sunlight. Curbing aerosols has improved air quality, but it may also have altered the way air moves across the continent.

    Don't let MAGAs hear this, they are itchin' for an excuse to pollute and deregulate.

    • Stop grinding  the "sky is falling" ax. To get the required aerosol numbers up-to-snuff you would only have to reactivate 30-40 coal-fired power plants. Just think of all the new jobs created  ... tart spicy tang to the air and gorgeous orange-flake sunsets ...
  • There are all sorts of global oscillations in the oceans and atmosphere that are poorly understood. Tying specific weather events to these oscillations is speculation, not science.

    • and yet those scientists models have predicted the temperatures that we now experience to a t and have done so for decades upon decades. Yes I know they don't tell you that on FOX.
  • by Hank21 ( 6290732 ) on Sunday August 16, 2026 @04:50PM (#66291850)
    Throughout this topic, I see a lot of posts from the anti AC side claiming that installing AC in Europe is impossible - of which one argument is that split unit compressors are too loud. Have you seen modern splits from companies like Midea - who is the core manufacturer for many white labeled brands? Both the inside air handler(be it wall mounted or conceiled) and outside units are SILENT. The concealed units are much smaller than a traditional "Central" air handler and can utilize smaller ducting as well. I think people are hung up on the old binary scroll compressor at full tilt cycling on and off with a huge fans blowing at max speed. These modern inverter units modulate the compressor, utilize electronic servo controlled TXV's and modulate both the inside and outside fans to suite the demand. Not only that, but they are affordable and consume considerable less power.
    Let's also address the issue of European dwelling construction and comfort: They are designed to absorb heat and minimize drafts - which is terrible for old-school AC's that try to cool the air as quickly as possible - creating cold clamy moist air. I've been in one such home with a Big old oversized AC. It is just gross. Modern units, like the technology mentioned above, deal with this "Stagnant" air perfectly by removing moisture form the air(by modulating the compressor to a lower setting and lower fan speed over a longer duration). This enhances comfort much more than simply lowering temperature and is ideal for those people who keep the place sealed tight.
    Someone posted a chart which claims China is the largest producer of greenhouse gasses. If that is true, then I have to say at least China is making amends in a way with the new affordable and efficient HVAC technology. So, Europeans, I love you, but don't mock progress, give it a try, figure out a way to make it work - the only limit to this is yourselves!

Today's scientific question is: What in the world is electricity? And where does it go after it leaves the toaster? -- Dave Barry, "What is Electricity?"

Working...