8 ms·
2023 was earth's warmest September In 174 year record
- bonzini 3y agoDon't worry, it's not going to be the warmest in 175 years record!
- talent_deprived 3y ago174 years, out of a 4 billion+ year history.
- sevg 3y agoSo you're implying that since records only go back 174 years that they can't be indicative of anything? Let's try to put a bit more effort into our debates on HN :)
- gameoverhumans 3y agoAren't you sick of this tired old argument? Humans have not existed on this planet for the 4 billion years. More like 4 million. Sure, an accurately recorded history of 174 is still a pretty small fraction of 4 million. So if you're going to try to downplay the increasingly obvious Great Filter our idiotic species is hurtling towards at breakneck speed, at least be dignified about it and use the right numbers. Thanks!
- RandomLensman 3y agoIn what scenario is climate change removing humans from the planet? If we cannot handle/manage/remove a mere 2-3 degree increase (which is about the current trajectory), sooner or later natural variation will doom us. The great filter might very well be the unwillingness to consider more than mono-thematic solutions mixed with doomsterism, though.
- nerdponx 3y ago> sooner or later natural variation will doom us. Correct, but we have managed to convert "later" to "significantly sooner". The fact that eventually the climate would have changed unfavorably anyway at some unknown point in the future is no reason to be comfortable with humans inducing an unfavorable change right now. That's like saying there's no point in getting an oil change because the car engine is going to wear out eventually anyway. or like saying you might as well smoke and drink as much as you want because everyone dies at some point.
- RandomLensman 3y agoI am saying we already on a path not in the catastrophic collapse space and we need and will be able to handle things, because we need to for far more problematic things in the future anyway.
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoHuman race handled the Blacl Death, but was it fun? It can probably survive a global nuclear war, but is it a great idea?
- esarbe 3y agoYou might be underestimating the social upheaval that will result from wast regions of the earth becoming uninhabitable and the effect of the population movements from desperate people trying to get away starvation. You might also be underestimating the consequences of ecosystem collapse. Since 1970 we've already lost about 60% of biomass of insects, birds and mammals. The impact of rapid climate change will put additional pressure on already vulnerable species. I have little doubt that widespread ecosystem collapse will be the death nail for our global human civilization.
- RandomLensman 3y agoSo you are an expert in these things that you don't trust other experts? Catastrophic collapse is not really something generally assumed on the 2-3 degree warming path.
- FFP999 3y ago> Aren't you sick of this tired old argument? Per Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thealienthing 3y agoThis article discusses how hot the earth has been over the last 500 million years using permafrost as a means of determining the global temperature across the millennia https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been#:~:text=Even%20after%20those%20first%20scorching,and%20250%20million%20years%20ago https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte....
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoWhat happenes 65 million million year ago? Cretaceois mass extinction What happened 200 million years ago? Triassic mass extinction What 250 million years ago? Mass extinction 99% of anything that ever lived is extict. You are eager to join a big club.
- RandomLensman 3y agoI don't see humanity building defenses against what likely caused those mass extinctions...
- gameoverhumans 3y agoAgreed, humanity is unlikely to survive an asteroid of the likes that wiped out the dinosaurs, considering it increased global atmospheric temperatures to several hundred degrees celsius for a few minutes (or several thousand for a few seconds) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFCbJmgeHmA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFCbJmgeHmA). It doesn't look like we need the help of celestial bodies intersecting ours, though. We're ushering in our own demise just fine on our own, thank you very much!
- RandomLensman 3y agoWhen and where are we currently ushering in our demise? None of climate models have us on trajectories close to global extinction - we are roughly on a 2-3 degree warming path at present. This kind of doomsterism is just not useful.
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoI don't think you understand what that number means at all. 24K years ago New York was under 4 miles of ice, during summer. If that happened today, do you think the government of Canada and United States would survive such a schenario?How many people would be left alive in North America, 30% of the current population? How big do you think the change in global temperature was during the last ice age? 30 degrees or 20 degrees? It was only 6 degrees. That's all it takes. Average yearly temperature for Hong Kong is 23 degrees, for Dubai it's 26 degrees. 3 degrees is the difference between lush tripics and a desert where you will starve because nothing grows. A global change of 3 degrees means 12 degree change on land because 70% of the planet is an ocean and it's tempersture doesn't change
- Zambyte 3y ago174 years out of 174 year history you mean. History is defined by what we have written records of. Within the context of the article, those billions of years you mention are all prehistory, besides the most recent 174 years.
- gmuslera 3y agoCivilization existed for around 10-15k years, around the time climate got stable enough to get agriculture in a scale to support big cities. The changes that had been since then in global climate weren't sudden enough to put that in danger. Eventually plants and animals adapt to hotter climate if given time and don't surpass some critical thresholds. But we are changing climate at a speed which precedents were around mass extinctions. Adaptation will be hard, adaptation of what we need at the scale we need to support a civilization will be harder, and we don't know yet if we will cross some threshold that may be lethal for us, at least at the time scale we live. And that is just about averages. In recent years we had big heatwaves covering most of US and Europe, reaching near 50ºC even at high latitudes. You may be able to survive averages, but what about peaks for 55ºC or more? Check your cooling devices and electrical grids safe margins if you think AC will save from that.
- Delomo 3y agoLook at how much we humans changed the world in just 100 years. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-... You can't be that ignorant that you don't see how crazy much we have an impact on the planet
- Mistletoe 3y agoAnd I discover another graph that starts going haywire around 1971. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com https://wtfhappenedin1971.com
- matheusmoreira 3y agoInteresting correlation. I suppose the planet can't handle all the exponential growth and resource consumption caused by unlimited credit.
- nerdponx 3y agoI don't think unlimited credit is the root cause.
- uoaei 3y agoThere's no "the root cause" and it's silly to frame the discussion that way. Unlimited credit is a huge factor in tandem with a market-based economic system that had developed in absence of appropriate pricing mechanisms to accurately account for "externalities". We had runaway dynamics that we called "wealth creation" (note the distinction from value creation) that created money through investments that spurred short-term growth at the expense of long-term stability. You even see this in microcosm in the modern business cycle, but we are beginning to become intimately familiar with the effects of long-term value extraction from the environment, of converting biological and ecological resilience and fecundity into dollars to buy consumer products and research, marketing, production, and distribution of more consumer products.
- hanniabu 3y agoOnly reason I can think of is the increasing consumerism as part of that trend, which requires more power plants, manufacturing, transportation, and destruction of environments for resources
- Lichtso 3y agoThe end of the gold standard [0]: "1971 when the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the US dollar to gold" [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
- readthenotes1 3y agoI guess we ought to put that sulphur back in the grill of transoceanic vessels...
- tonyedgecombe 3y agoI suppose we have a fallback if things get really bad. It would be better not to rely on that though.
- fuzzbazz 3y agoThat would be bad for human health in coastal zones (i.e. most of the population). Better would be to release sulphur in a controlled way so that the effects are far from civilization, like on the middle of the ocean, and then study the relationship with temperature.
- tzs 3y agoThat just slight shifts where we are on the warming curve. It doesn't change the growth rate unless we also start rapidly growing the number of transoceanic vessels.
- nine_k 3y agoNot going to help with acidification of oceans :(
- user3939382 3y agoIs it time for the blue sunscreen from RoboCop?
- goodluckchuck 3y ago[flagged]
- ta988 3y agoThis has been debunked many times, but here I made the effort to look outside youtube conspiracy videos for you: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/nasa-did-not-create-global-warming-by-manipulating-data-tony-heller-steven-goddard/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/nasa-did-not-create-...
- goodluckchuck 3y agoMy point isn’t that they are incorrect (calculations of the historical temperatures), but that they are not true (readings from the thermometers).
- lopis 3y agoData tampering? In science, you must accept new science coming your way, and update your assumptions and your models. Specially data from medieval times since it was mostly guess work based on indirect records, because there are no temperature records. Specially no records of global temperature. I recommend a better video instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFikZnuSahM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFikZnuSahM
- Delomo 3y ago[flagged]
- throw151023 3y ago[flagged]
- Delomo 3y ago[flagged]
- dundercoder 3y agoDoes anyone know how these averages are calculated? Is it a straight average of the temperature of each square mile of the entire globe, or are there weights for regions or terrain types?
- civilitty 3y agoA grid is overlayed over the Earth and a temperature is calculated for each cell. Over the continental US and Europe most of the numbers are determined using weather stations but where sensor data is unavailable, like most of the oceans, a temperature is calculated indirectly using satellite data and a bunch of other sources. The grids for the northern and southern hemisphere are averaged separately and then combined with a weight to eliminate bias towards the northern hemisphere (since most of the weather stations are concentrated in the northern half of the planet). There are lots of different models for this calculation and different agencies use ones tailored to their needs and data quality.
- NotGMan 3y agoBut how can this method be accurate due to mass urbanization/concretization as that increases heat instead of eg a forest? This would then apply that it's not "global warming" but merely the effect of concrete heat capture and emission and not CO2 related? How can they then say this is "human gas pollution related"? Where am I wrong (serious question)?
- deleted 3y ago
- ta988 3y agoI recommend that https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world if you want maps and details.
- wutwutwat 3y agoI’m pretty confused. Where I’m at they kept saying we were setting records for hottest days ever recorded, and we never broke 90. I remember being a kid and teenager living in the same area and we had many summer days hit triple digits. This was a mild summer for my area, yet it keeps being reported as record breaking high temps and that’s just simply not true. I legit don’t understand why this is being said. Maybe I was blipped in from another universe or something. Would explain a lot of things actually.
- brookst 3y agoAre you mistaking local weather for global climate?
- ForkMeOnTinder 3y agoYeah, GP's comment is on the same level as the senator who tried to disprove global warming by showing everyone a snowball. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8
- wutwutwat 3y agoNo, I'm not confusing the two. The news says record temps for my state, ever recorded, and I'm saying I remember plenty of days growing up in the same exact area where it was much hotter than the "record days" being reported as the hottest days every recorded here. Wtf is up with downvotes. I wasn't trolling and I know full well that climate change is different than local weather. My comment was only talking about local weather being reported as the hottest days in MY area and me saying that's BS, because it literally is BS. It had nothing to do with global climate and I never said it did. You guys are the ones misreading what I said then trying to say I don't know the difference. Let's break it down > Where I’m at they kept saying we were setting records for hottest days ever recorded, and we never broke 90. I remember being a kid and teenager living in the same area and we had many summer days hit triple digits. This was a mild summer for my area, yet it keeps being reported as record breaking high temps and that’s just simply not true > Where I’m at they kept saying we were setting records for hottest days ever recorded, and we never broke 90 LOCAL > I remember being a kid and teenager living in the same area and we had many summer days hit triple digits. LOCAL > This was a mild summer for my area, yet it keeps being reported as record breaking high temps and that’s just simply not true LOCAL Please go fight your strawman somewhere else, I'm not denying climate change, I was saying localy they report this summer has had the hottest days LOCALLY ever recorded, and that isn't true because LOCALLY 15 years ago we had 103 days and this summer LOCALLY we never hit 90. Local lie about local temps.
- FFP999 3y agoSo, meet back in this thread this time next year to update those numbers to "2024" and "175" respectively?
- tzs 3y agoIn case anyone wonders if this is just because record warmest months get hyped and record coolest months do not, we can't actually tell because there hasn't been a record coolest September since 1912. Similar for other months. As far as years go the last record coolest was 1904.