5 ms·

This chart looks like all 3 months since May 2023 have been extreme outliers: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/F0A3/production/_130630616_era_5_glob

• albertgoeswoof 3y ago
  This chart is terrifying! It reminds me of the XKCD temperature chart: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
  • jansan 3y ago
    Why? What will be the consequences besides the two mentioned in the aricle (sharks may become more aggressive, and some fish and wales may move in search of cooler waters)?
    • inetknght 3y ago
      warmer waters = less oxygen less oxygen = less life less life = less food less food = less human
      • Longhanks 3y ago
        I’d argue that "less human" is a net positive for Earth.
        • anonymoushn 3y ago
          You first :)
          • blooalien 3y ago
            How about the people who actually caused (and are still actively causing, and fighting to continue causing) the problem go first, yeah?
            • wongarsu 3y ago
              So nuke most of the Western World? The couple still-standing cold war bunkers should be enough to house the couple of deserving offgriders and climate activists that can be judged innocent. And yes, we would also have to kill part of China, especially the cities
              • blooalien 3y ago
                Oh yeah, because using nukes always works out for the best for everyone involved, yeah? Let's just do that. Much faster and more efficient than waiting for the 1% to boil us slowly to death.
                • wongarsu 3y ago
                  It's more efficient than trying to put a billion people (give or take a couple) to the guillotine or the electrical chair, and the side effect of nuclear winter didn't seem that bad to me given the context. Might cause some food shortages though
              • jjav 3y ago
                > So nuke most of the Western World? This thread is silly. To reduce the world population you don't need to kill anyone at all. You simply look for ways to reduce birth rates.
            • Slava_Propanei 3y ago
              [dead]
            • techdmn 3y ago
              Of course the trouble is those same people have been capturing enough value out of the destructive process that they will surely go last. I suspect this is no small part of the reason we're in the fix we're in.
      • randomdata 3y ago
        less human = less greenhouse gas emissions less greenhouse gas emissions = less greenhouse gas less greenhouse gas = cooler waters Seems the problem is eventually self correcting.
        • ljf 3y ago
          True though there is a risk that before we get to the end of the 2nd step on your flow, that loads of methane is released from across the currently frozen plains of Asia/Russia - along with more CO2 released from more regular wild fires. The earth could go on releasing greenhouse gases even when (if) we stop releasing, if it gets too warm.
          • randomdata 3y ago
            There is only so much methane trapped, and the warmer climate is said to increase the chances of wildfire, so it too will eventually reach a tipping point where the forest growth can't keep up.
            • deleted 3y ago
              [deleted]
        • ethbr0 3y ago
          ... dinosaur eats man. Woman inherits the earth. (Best line delivery in the movie)
    • defrost 3y ago
      Slow increase until there is little to no sea ice in winter . . . and then ... oh shit. The context is that atmospheric gases are trapping more and more solar energy. The same unit of energy that transforms a mass of zero degree ice to zero degree water can also transform that same mass of zero degree water to ~ 76 degree Celsius water (over two thirds of the way from almost ice to boiling). Once there's significantly less ice to buffer the increasing solar energy the water gets much hotter much faster. ADDED: It's unfair to savagely downvote my parent jansan for asking "Why?" Not everybody is across the potential consequences here.
  • ChatGTP 3y ago
    Properly terrifying an XKCD don't seem to mix?
  • jacquesm 3y ago
    If you like terrifying graphs you will love this one, click 'antarctic' after the page loads: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-...
    • bobmaxup 3y ago
      https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/08/02/the-rapid-loss-of-antarctic-sea-ice-brings-grim-scenarios-into-view https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/08/02/the-rapi...
• 7373737373 3y ago
  Has this temperature average been measured by exactly the same stations over all those years? Or is this satellite data? Edit: Looks like it is a model that combines many sources: https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/CKB/ERA5%3A+data+documentation#ERA5:datadocumentation-Observations https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/CKB/ERA5%3A+data+docume...
  • veave 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • 7373737373 3y ago
      It's good to be skeptical of models, but a bit too much to presume any ill intention without evidence of the same. Let's see if we can find any singular raw data source, so we can verify for ourselves (or "closer to the measurement" (which doesn't imply "closer to reality" - a good model combining several data sources would be closer to reality than a singular source), since satellite data probably needs a lot of pre-processing)
    • bwestergard 3y ago
      There is no such thing as "raw data" independent of past practice, because all measurements gain their meaning from a model (though this is more or less explicit in different engineering and scientific contexts). For example, we might say that a "thermocouple is a temperature sensor". But a bunch of physical assumptions have to be made - a model needs to be adopted - in order for a person to justify a temperature reading using a thermocouple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocouple#Principle_of_operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocouple#Principle_of_oper...
    • jvm___ 3y ago
      British statistician named George Box wrote the famous line, “All models are wrong, some are useful.”
• gmuslera 3y ago
  We had extreme outliers corresponding with the same time of the year, but this time the record is compared with the hottest point of the cycle, like breaking all summer heat records in a day of winter (and all winter were nearly as hot). And the year and going up trend is not over yet. We are driving into uncharted territory.
• blondie9x 3y ago
  That’s called a tipping point. I think it’s now been broken through. The hardest part of all this is not nearly enough is being done to stop atmospheric greenhouse gases growth. If you looks at growth rates in CH4 and CO2. It’s pretty steady since recording began. It isn’t until it flat lines and we get back to 350 ppm CO2 that we can even begin to get back to the habitable planet we are suited for.
  • revscat 3y ago
    Even were we to destroy all oil refineries and coal mines today via an organized bombing campaign it would not be enough.
    • blondie9x 3y ago
      Why not? That would effectively bring emissions growth to 0. More carbon would start to be fixed then released into the atmosphere again due to growth in afforestation efforts. Within the next 5-10 years we would start to see negative greenhouse gas emissions growth. It's all about balancing the math so we fix more then is released. Stopping fossil fuel emissions shifts the curve towards fixation and greenhouse gas reductions. As long as we continue to grow carbon fixation efforts without burning more fossil fuels we should head towards a negative growth trend and 350 ppm again.
      • revscat 3y ago
        Because the die has already been cast. Nothing humanity can do given extant technologies can reverse what was became inevitable a decade ago.
• hotpotamus 3y ago
  I've heard all my life that the climate system is fiendishly difficult to model (which seems true enough to me), and nearly always in the context that perhaps the undesirable predictions of these models may not come to pass (AKA climate change denialism). To me, the unpredictability of making measurable changes to the composition of the Earth's atmosphere is a reason not to do it; not an excuse that can do whatever we want with no repercussion. I'm pretty sure this all ends badly.
  • ImaCake 3y ago
    Not sure im reading you right but i assume ur just saying “it cant be done”? To which I would like to to point to decades of consensus on global warming and that, yes, the climate is absolutely over 1C warmer now than the mid 20th century. Models are wrong, but the ones climatologist use are clearly getting something right!
    • hotpotamus 3y ago
      Oh, I suppose it can and has been done well enough that we can now see the shape of our doom. The denialist argument for a long time seemed to be that impeccably accurate models are impossible and thus no model should be used for any predictive purposes, and therefore we didn't need to take any action. The game may still be technically going on, but I'm fairly sure their side has already locked in their "win" and the outcome is now certain.
• ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  All the other years are the same colour, giving the impression that it varies within a range. But other graphs colour them by recency and the most recent ones are clearly moving upwards, which makes the newest one seem more inevitable than surprising.
• genezeta 3y ago
  I'd say you're reading it correctly. This is what I see: There's an underlying yearly cycle that goes something like: - gets hotter around March - gets colder around May-June - gets hotter around August - gets colder around November This is, let's say, a sort of cyclic baseline that repeats every year. But over it there are variations. Some years are generally colder, or generally hotter. Some the differences are bigger or smaller, etc. Then, obviously, it's not a perfect curve and there's "noise" on it. It's also interesting to note that the "March peak" is generally hotter than the "August peak", and that the "November valley" is generally colder than the "June valley". All this, broadly speaking. Now, until last year, the highest temperature had happened in 2016, in the "March peak". This "makes sense". I mean, it makes sense that the hottest it got was on one of the hot peaks. What's more, it happened in the hotter one of both hot peaks. But if we look at this year, what we see is two things. One is that, as the title points out, there's been a new highest, higher than March 2016. This is pointed out because it makes an easy and simple headline. The second thing you can see is what you pointed out, that in 2023 we haven't had much of a valley in May-June and instead it has been hotter since March producing that the August peak be not only much higher than other years but even higher than the highest March peak. (And, I may add, it may still get hotter in this peak)
  • ethbr0 3y ago
    This is the "daily average sea surface temperature between 60°N and 60°S". And southern latitudes have more exposed ocean than northern ones. See 60° to 60° on "Land Mass at Each Latitude" https://www.ecoclimax.com/2016/08/land-mass-at-each-longitude-and-latitude.html?m=1 https://www.ecoclimax.com/2016/08/land-mass-at-each-longitud... Which would make sense that southern summer (ending ~March) would be the typical yearly peak. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_equinox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_equinox
    • genezeta 3y ago
      Yes, you're absolutely right. There's more sea surface in the southern hemisphere, so it makes sense that generally the peak would be determined by southern summer.