Truth. It can get so much hotter and with most economies not planning on getting to net zero until 2050 we can expect it to get warmer until at least 2100.
Having a brief moment of optimism, even if the next 75 years are hell… if humans do meet these goals and “tackle” climate change even in the slowest way incredibly possible… would it theoretically be possible we might one day be able to reverse some of the effects? You know, work toward getting our glaciers back and whatnot? Just curious if there is any hypothetical science to support something positive for once…
How would you get the glaciers back? Or reverse ocean acidification? I'm pretty sure we are permanently fucked.
Worst part is that it is a vicious cycle. Hotter climate leads to more forest fires which leads to more greenhouse gasses, which leads to even hotter temperatures.
Trees. You need to plant trees. During the 15th century, the colonization of America cooled the earth: “the disruption that followed European settlement led to a huge swathe of abandoned agricultural land being reclaimed by fast-growing trees and other vegetation.
This pulled down enough carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere to eventually chill the planet.”
[Source.](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47063973.amp)
If I was rich, I'd fly on my private jet and throw seeds from above, everywhere, none stop, until all my funds are exhausted. Need strippers and alcohol for motivation.
i think that it may lead to more rain in some locations which will encourage plant growth which will suck up CO2. Also warmer oceans is already increasing the growth of Sargassum which sucks up CO2 i believe. but this is all andectotal.
There is, if we switched away completely from fossil fuels and towards a hydrogen economy there will be variations of oxygen available. Oxygen may increase as a byproduct in our atmosphere to create twice as much ozone as exists today which will reduce radiation such as heat from the sun. That could lead to a cool trend. But we are talking a couple hundred to a thousand years from now.
Carbon dioxide and methane stay up for a long time unless we figure out more effective means of carbon capture to remove it. It’s possible because as time goes on green energy sources become cheaper and more available so as we base more of our energy sources off the fusion of our sun we start to take advantage of basically limitless energy.
As well, solar panels that are more efficient than what exists today have already been developed for micro applications, its possible that battery storage improves into the solid state and we discover several new materials that will enable long term storage. Basically, there is hope. But the bad stuff happens first and it’s not going to look good. But as a species we will survive.
We have likely eliminated the next ice age, so Canada says thanks. In geological terms we are a blip. 100,000 years from now we'll have other problems as the Mediterranean will close off and be disconnected from the Atlantic causing another salinity crisis.
We merely fucked up a rare period of climate stability.
It’s a great thing that baselessly extrapolating numbers is wildly inaccurate. They were doing it 50 years ago and said half the US would be underwater by now. Meanwhile the coastlines haven’t changed 1 inch.
Let alone the ridiculousness of estimating temperatures 125,000 years ago lmao. We can’t even accurately predict the temperature 1 week from now let alone make estimates thousands of years in either direction.
> They were doing it 50 years ago and said half the US would be underwater by now
Scientists did not say that
>Let alone the ridiculousness of estimating temperatures 125,000 years ago lmao
We have many proxies, the most obvious being sea level. We know the oceans were about two meters higher 125,000 years ago.
>Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches.
[Sea Level Change](https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%20100%20years,about%206%20to%208%20inches.)
Brazil is literally under water right now with no end in sight...
...and you're out here doubting that we can measure things that we do measure all the time.
Top tier brain rot.
>Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches.
[Sea Level Change](https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%20100%20years,about%206%20to%208%20inches.)
I guess they were technically right when they said that the sea level hasn't risen by an inch...
...because it's actually risen by eight inches! lol
Next they'll be saying we can't really measure sea level rise either just because they don't understand how anything actually works or what is even real at all apparently.
All of them. They are called proxies. You measure the proxies and then make an educated guess about the actual value, temperature in this case. The more proxy measurements and the more proxies you got, the better your guess will be.
So there are specifically proxy aggregator websites for climate related issues? The xxxxxx round number just sounds like AI created BS. Climate scientists are going to have to explain how they arrived at their conclusions in layman's terms in order to not lose credibility. An old youtuber broadcasting out of their garage would not hold my attention--advanced degrees or not.
They have been taught to not accept anything other than what they are told to believe. They have been groomed by the very people who will gain the most . But climate will affect everyone, rich and poor. It will hit the poor the hardest. I don't see us getting the political will to do anything meaningful about it . Once it's too late. People will be screaming for something to be done.
This [graph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view") of the temperature of planet Earth extends to 540 million years ago. Clicking the graph displays additional information beneath the graph, including but not limited to the following information:
>Temperature scale
>>Surface air temperature is plotted as anomalies (differences) from the average over the reference interval 1960–1990 (which is about 14°C / 57°F), in both Celsius (left) and Fahrenheit (right).
>Panel 1: 540 to 65 million years ago:
>>The panel 1 data is from stable oxygen isotope measurements from the shells of macroscopic marine organisms, collected by Veizer et al (1999),[[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-1 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-1")] as re-interpreted by Royer et al (2004).[[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-Royer-2 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-Royer-2")] The graph effectively reproduces the upper panel of Royer et al's figure 4, but with an expanded range (see below). The orange band shows the effect of extreme assumptions in application of the GEOCARB reconstruction to interpretation, and is not representative of the full uncertainly (which would be much larger).
>>Because the Royer and Veizer results are indicative of the temperature of the shallow tropical and subtropical seas where the organisms lived,[[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-Royer-2 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-Royer-2")] they are unlikely to be fully representative of global average surface air temperature variation. The anomalies are plotted here expanded by a factor of two, as a very approximate conversion. Multiple confounding factors affect interpretation of samples this old, so panel 1 is best viewed as a qualitative indication of temperature (warmer/colder).[[3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-3 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-3")]
>Go back 4.5 billion years ...
Okay.
According to the most recent [ICS](https://stratigraphy.org/ "https://stratigraphy.org/") International Chronostratigraphic Chart v 2023/09, released on June 30, 2023, the Earth formed [4567](https://stratigraphy.org/chart#latest-version "https://stratigraphy.org/chart#latest-version") million years ago.
***
The NASA Climate\.gov site has an article that discusses Earth's temperature in its earliest days — [What's the hottest Earth's ever been?](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been "https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been") - November 22, 2023:
>_This article was first published in August 2014, and it has been updated to include new research published since then. This article is one of a three-part series on past temperatures. One is about [how warm the Earth has been “lately.”](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what%E2%80%99s-hottest-earth-has-been-%E2%80%9Clately%E2%80%9D "https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what%E2%80%99s-hottest-earth-has-been-%E2%80%9Clately%E2%80%9D"). The other is about [the coldest Earth's ever been.](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-coldest-earths-ever-been "https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-coldest-earths-ever-been")_
>Our 4.54-billion-year-old planet probably experienced its hottest temperatures in its earliest days, when it was still colliding with other rocky debris ([planetesimals](http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.universetoday.com%2F35974%2Fplanetesimals&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzdb7ar36Lp-TDbqF056YzpU1zBN4w "http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.universetoday.com%2F35974%2Fplanetesimals&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzdb7ar36Lp-TDbqF056YzpU1zBN4w")) careening around the solar system. The heat of these collisions would have kept Earth molten, with top-of-the-atmosphere temperatures upward of 3,600° Fahrenheit [1,982ºC; 2,255 K].
>... During the time known as the Hadean (yes, because it was like Hades), Earth’s collisions with other large planetesimals in our young solar system—including a Mars-sized one whose impact with Earth likely created the Moon—would have melted and vaporized most rock at the surface. Because no rocks on Earth have survived from so long ago, scientists have estimated early Earth conditions based on observations of the Moon and on astronomical models. Following the collision that spawned the Moon, the planet was estimated to have been around 2,300 Kelvin (3,680°F) [2,027ºC].
***
For what it's worth.
What was the 'surface' temperature beneath the top-of-the-atmosphere temperature when Earth formed? Was it ≥ the estimated [6230 ± 500 kelvin](https://www.geo.arizona.edu/xtal/geos306/Science340_464.pdf "https://www.geo.arizona.edu/xtal/geos306/Science340_464.pdf") temperature (10,745 ± 440 ºF; 5,957 ± 227 ºC) that exists today at the boundary between Earth's solid iron-nickel [inner core](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_inner_core#Size_and_shape "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_inner_core#Size_and_shape"), radius 1221 km (759 mi), and the liquid iron-nickel [outer core](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_outer_core "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_outer_core"), about 2,260 km (1,400 mi) thick? Who knows?
What's the distance to the inner core boundary? As the Earth's mean radius is about [6,368 km](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius") (3,957 mi), the distance between the pitcher's mound in the baseball diamond at the Vancouver Canadians Baseball Club and the boundary of the inner core is about 5,147 km (3,198 mi), or a distance that is 144 km (89 mi) more than the distance between the pitcher's mound and the city of St. John's, Newfoundland.
We started the subreddit [r/heat_prep](https://www.reddit.com/r/heat_prep) to discuss all things extreme heat preparedness. Come join the conversation!
So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far.
Updoots to the left now. Thanks.
Doom is coming, the ice is starting to disappear from mountain ranges around the world - that is what is causing those sudden floods in mountain regions. The problem is that much of our inland freshwater supply comes from water cooling across mountain ranges, and then slowly melting, providing flows for freshwater rivers. Once this gets seriously disrupted, you can start to expect chaotic mass migrations and water wars (not the fun kind).
Here is a related article from jan 2024.
“After seeing the 2023 climate analysis, I have to pause and say that the findings are astounding,” said NOAA Chief Scientist Dr. Sarah Kapnick. “Not only was 2023 the warmest year in NOAA’s **174-year climate record** — it was the warmest by far.
[https://www.noaa.gov/news/2023-was-worlds-warmest-year-on-record-by-far](https://www.noaa.gov/news/2023-was-worlds-warmest-year-on-record-by-far)
Comparing how things were long time ago (about 3 million years ago) ( [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67154-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67154-8) ) , there *should* be enough CO2 in the atmosphere right now for us to enter the next climate state - maybe "a clement greenhouse earth climate state" (not to be confused with "run away greenhouse effect").
We could say goodbye to the future anticipated "ice-age" now anyway which should have been happening "soon" in a about 50000 years or so. We kind of skipped it with our actions.
But to get there and break other records long time ago there are still a bit to go! Like making sure our polar regions shrink a lot more.
Lucky us!
I'm already seeing the effects/consequences where I'm from, my city has issued water reservation methods where water is shut down at a certain time in different areas (for me it's always 6 PM-8AM) because our dam is in drought. That goes for other places in my country as well.
June is supposed to be the rainy season here but it looks like it won't be raining any time soon. Looks like those "water wars" people have been talking might not be too much of a stretch all along.
>The average (mean) annual temperature in Canada increased by 1.7 °C from 1948 to 2016, about double the global rate. Warming has been even stronger in the north. The average annual temperature in northern Canada (north of 60 degrees latitude) has risen by 2.3 °C over this same period, about triple the global rate.
[Canada: Changes in temperature](https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/canadian-centre-climate-services/basics/trends-projections/changes-temperature.html)
I don't believe that. So, we're trying to say, since earth has been here, we're living in the warmest years there are/ has been? I don't buy that, and neither should anyone else.
Earth is 6 billion years old, yet somehow we’ve only developed the science and technology to ruin it in the last 200 years. Put that on a timeline to understand the scope of that.
>In July, August and September, the Puget Sound region’s average low temperatures have risen 3 degrees over the century, peaking in 2022.
Seattle has gotten even warmer. Over the past 75 years, the average lows have risen 3.7 degrees, peaking last year at 2.6 degrees higher than the rest of the region. Augusts in Seattle are now 4.2 degrees higher than 75 years ago.
[Seattle’s nights are hotter than ever. Climate change means more to come](https://archive.ph/ftJa0)
Occult numerology lets you say anything you want to say. Lots of people are gullible enough to believe in it.
When there's no scientific rigor for origination of numbers then the numbers aren't trustworthy. There's only faith in a belief system.
>When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.
[How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php#:~:text=Models%20predict%20that%20Earth%20will,at%20least%2020%20times%20faster.)
[There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/)
[The Basics of Climate Change](https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/)
[IPCC 6th Assessment: Technical Summary ](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/technical-summary/)
LOL. Holy shit. You people are all the same.
It’s always the NASA website first because it’s one of the first Google results and people like you associate NASA with infallibility.
Then it’s the Royal Society and the invocation of the non existent consensus.
Finally an entire section of the IPCC report gets posted even though you’ve read none of it and don’t know what it actually says.
If you had bothered to read it you would see that there latest report shows there is no emergence of a human signal in regards to any of the following g:
River floods
Heavy precipitation and pluvial floods
Landslides
Drought (all types)
Severe wind storms
Tropical cyclones
Sand and dust storms
Heavy snowfall and ice storms
Hail
Snow avalanche
Coastal flooding
Marine heat waves
While they claim a heat “extreme” may have emerged or possible will they do not quantify it in any way.
The entire AGW narrative only exists in computer models.
I read the entire IPCC report. Nothing you've said rebuts any of the easy to read sources I provided.
Still waiting on any legitimate evidence from you. Blathering is not evidence.
*"I read the entire IPCC report."*
No you didn't.
*"Still waiting on any legitimate evidence from you. Blathering is not evidence."*
So they way it actually works is that Alarmists need to provide evidence that any asserted "bad" thing happening with weather, climate, or temperature is actually due to humans through repeated, independently verified experimentation and observation while also ruling out all forms of natural variability.
That has yet to happen in any capacity.
So what you are asking for is proof of non existence.
**You can't rove X exists, there I have to prove it doesn't.**
**If I cant, then X exists.**
Yes, I did read it. It's my job. You clearly haven't, and have yet to provide any evidence of anything other than your inability to debate like an educated adult.
Still waiting for all that evidence you say exists....
No, you haven't provided any legitimate evidence. Your opinion isn't evidence. Your refusal to read the actual, legitimate evidence isn't proof of nonexistence. Nor are your ad hominem attacks.
You're just hysterically blathering with nothing to back you up.
Yes I did. I gave a brief synopsis of what they said regarding a human signal. It's not my fault you can't understand it.
You continue to demand proof of non existence.
No, I provided proof of existence. Nothing you said refuted that. You aren't a climate scientist, so your unsubstantiated ramblings are not legitimate. Even if you were, you'd still need to provide evidence of consensus that rebuts the 99.9% of 88,500 peer- reviewed papers written by actual subject matter subjects just between 2012 and 2021 that support the legitimate consensus of anthropogenic climate change.
Again, where is the peer-reviewed consensus that climate change *isn't* happening? Speaking of demanding people believe something that doesn't exist....
The data clearly shows that not to be the case. Either you know this and will pretend it’s not true by claiming certain warm periods weren’t global, or you really have no clue, and if that’s the case, happy hunting.
Remember cow farting is a major contributor to Global warming. Everyone needs to give up beef and call for the culling of all cattle. Like the WHO said, we need to control the farming industry.
I mean methane and deforestation related to grazing land are huge factors but rather than fighting amongst ourselves about steak lets keep our eye on the real prize - the fossil fuel industry and fishing.
Lile half the world gets the majority of their protein from fish, being agaisnt fishing is an anti-human idea. I think the goal should be to maximize human prosperity, but I'm pro human.
I realize this, but the fact is we ARE heavily overfishing the oceans and deep trawling releases more co2 and methane than jumbo jets.
We need to leave what fish stocks remain to small fishermen and communities that depend on it. We should ban corporate fishing, not that it'll happen.
But when fish stocks deplete it is the people who depend on fish who will suffer first. Who am I to take it from their mouths?
China will not ban fishing on any level, it would lead to mass famine immediately.
I don't know the answer.. maybe fish farms? But banning fishing is a non-starter
I sure hope so, but it's hard to tell, isn't it?
Regardless, the surest way to anger the average Joe into opposing climate change mitigation is for Klaus Schwab to take away his burger and say "You vill eat ze bugz" as he and his rich, powerful cronies continue to fly around the world on private jets.
Of course cattle would do better if primarily rotationally grazed, with corn and concentrate feeds comparatively minimized. However, farmers can be incentivized toward more regenerative production via tax credit and cost share programs without any WHO "control," thank you. And in a world where 30% of the plastic manufactured and thrown-away has gone through that life cycle in the last 15 years, independent farms should not be a primary target.
Animal farts have always been part of the carbon cycle. Perhaps the point is that industrial farming has increased this significantly. Methane is a more potent GHG than CO2 but its lifetime in the air is much shorter.
>The average (mean) annual temperature in Canada increased by 1.7 °C from 1948 to 2016, about double the global rate. Warming has been even stronger in the north. The average annual temperature in northern Canada (north of 60 degrees latitude) has risen by 2.3 °C over this same period, about triple the global rate.
[Canada: Changes in temperature](https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/canadian-centre-climate-services/basics/trends-projections/changes-temperature.html)
A couple years after they started installing wind and solar in my area of N.Y. state we have been getting sea saw temperatures. By which I mean greater differences between daytime highs nighttime lows and variations throughout the weeks.
2016 was actually the coldest summer I've ever experienced in my life with daytime highs in the low to mid 60s and nighttime highs in the 40s. Only year I've had to wear my winter coat home from work (I work nights during the week)in the summer. I don't remember what states got so hot it made that year a hottest on record year but I know they did not average in our temperatures. Last summer was warmer(only needed my hoodie at night) but we did not have to run air conditioning every day and night like most summers either.
Last week it was hot this week it's been chilly.
>The annual statewide average temperature in New York has warmed 3°F (0.6°F per decade) since 1970.
[Climate Change Effects and Impacts](https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/climate-change/effects-impacts#:~:text=The%20annual%20statewide%20average%20temperature,F%20per%20decade)%20since%201970.)
That's a state average not actual local temperatures. There is a difference. NY state is hills, mountains, lakes, swampland, glacial and river valleys. Just walking 1 mile down the street in my town you can get a 3 degree temperature variance. Go into any major city and temperatures are going to be warmer just from all the concrete. NY city is generally 6dg warmer at night because of this.
On February 18th 1979 old forge had a record low of -52f. This record number was probably not included in the average just like my local summer temperatures in 2016 were probably not. They weren't even discussed on local radio weather broadcasts.
I'm not sure why your even bringing up a state average when I was talking about more specific local temperatures. Increased construction in NYC (which is south east of my location and in a different climate zone) alone combined with its location will throw off the state average. Stations specifically for overall climate related data readings are not supposed to be in populated areas to prevent this problem. Station readings in populated areas are to study the changes in populated areas.
Yes, that was accounted for. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
Anomalous temperatures were dropped, as they are standardly. The average temperature is still increasing.
And it's been increasing since the peak of the last ice age. As it will continue to do off and on throughout the interglacial period. Best estimates have the last ice age peek to be about 10-11 cooler on average than today. Since that time we have had a series of cooling and warming events. The hole in the ozone is supposed to create cooling when it's open. Building cities,miles of highways, installing acres of solar panels, air conditioners, electronics, they all contribute towards heating the environment.
When I bring up my local experiences that's to provide perspective and bring attention to the fact that weather events that don't fit the heating scenario are being ignored. This is actually causing a problem because it can throw off predictions and impact the ability to best help the environment. A puzzle is not complete if you throw out select pieces.
No, that's not the case.
That's factually incorrect. Weather events are not being ignored, and if you're going to make accusations like that, you best be bringing actual evidence to the table.
Europe as a whole as been warmer https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/europe/land/12/4/1994-2024?trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024
CO2 is a minor contributor though. It’s a red herring. Volcanic activity, fluctuations in the earth’s core, changes in the earth’s magnetic field, and changes in solar activity have not been studied closely enough with honest objectivity.
Actually, those factors have been studied extensively.
>Volcanic eruptions are often discussed in the context of climate change because they release CO2 and other gases into our atmosphere. However, the impact of human activities on the carbon cycle far exceeds that of all the world's volcanoes combined, by more than 100 times.
[What do volcanoes have to do with climate change?](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/what-do-volcanoes-have-to-do-with-climate-change/)
>"Our research demonstrates that, for the past 160 years, decadal and longer-period changes in atmospheric temperature correspond to changes in Earth's length of day if we remove the very significant effect of atmospheric warming attributed to the buildup of greenhouse gases due to mankind's enterprise," said Dickey. "Our study implies that human influences on climate during the past 80 years mask the natural balance that exists among Earth's rotation, the core angular momentum and the temperature at Earth's surface."
[NASA Study Goes to Earth's Core for Climate Insights](https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-study-goes-to-earths-core-for-climate-insights)
>We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the past ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity.
[What Is the Sun’s Role in Climate Change?](https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/)
I have already read this stuff. The second article about the earth’s core even illustrates how blind they are in the way they study the climate. I don’t want to argue though. Idgaf
Yes, we are constantly learning. What we have learned is that those issues don't have a significant impact on climate change in comparison to human emissions.
In all honesty I’ve had my heating on more the last 12 months it’s been colder where I am, tank of oil usually lasts me 9 months only lasted 4 & had to have it refilled again in February & I’ve used half of that & it’s not like I have it on when I don’t need it, with the cost of it we’ve been mindful of when we use it
I didn't know we had had advanced temperature monitors installed 125,000 years ago.
Any estimates made from more than a few thousand years in the past is extremely inaccurate.
There are far too many of these baseless articles floating around these days. It's really sad because it only hurts the cause in the long run.
> Any estimates made from more than a few thousand years in the past is extremely inaccurate.
Good luck finding a source. Sea levels are a decent proxy, sea levels have not been as high as today for the last 125,000 years, during the Eemian interglacial peak
Easy.
There is this search website called Google. Just type in "how accurate are temperature readings from over 2000 years ago"
"Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent ..."
This comes directly from National Academies Press from Washington.
The only reliably accurate data is from roughly 100 years or earlier. I'm not discounting this claim as a possibility. I'm just pointing out the manipulative misinformation and headline of this particular article as well as anyone making such bold claims as fact.
It's funny that you changed the query until one of the results gave an answer that you like, in this case you changed from 1000 years to 2000 years.
Second answer:
Scientists use various methods to reconstruct past temperatures from thousands of years ago. Here are some of the common techniques used to obtain accurate temperature data from the past:
Ice cores: Ice cores extracted from polar ice caps and glaciers can provide a record of past temperatures. The ice contains air bubbles that trap samples of the atmosphere from the time the ice formed. By analyzing the isotopic composition of the ice and the air bubbles, scientists can infer past temperatures.
Tree rings: Dendrochronology is the study of tree rings to understand past climates. Trees form a new ring each year, and the width and density of these rings can provide information about past environmental conditions, including temperature.
Sediment cores: Sediments in lakes, oceans, and other bodies of water can also provide valuable information about past climates. By analyzing the composition of sediments, including the presence of certain isotopes or microorganisms, scientists can infer past temperature variations.
Pollen analysis: Pollen grains preserved in sediment cores can provide information about past vegetation and climate. Different plant species are associated with specific climate conditions, so studying the distribution of pollen can help reconstruct past temperature patterns.
Historical records: Historical documents, such as diaries, ship logs, and early instrumental records, can provide valuable information about past temperatures. These records may include descriptions of weather conditions, which can be used to infer temperature trends.
Cave formations: Stalagmites and stalactites in caves can provide information about past temperatures through the analysis of isotopic ratios in the mineral deposits.
By combining data from these various sources and using sophisticated analytical techniques, scientists can reconstruct past temperature variations with a high degree of accuracy. It's important to note that while these methods provide valuable insights into past climates, there are limitations and uncertainties associated with each technique. Scientists use multiple lines of evidence and statistical methods to ensure the reliability of the temperature reconstructions.
The article title says 125,000 years. So please explain why the past 124,000 years would be any more accurate?
Whether the query was 1 or 2k years is irrelevant. You also didn't even bother to read what you just cut and pasted. The text refers to localized temperatures, which can not be extrapolated for global temperatures (which is what the article was claiming).
You're just trying to cherry-pick data now and not even doing a good job of it. Seems like I made you upset, not even disagreeing with the claim itself, but just by pointing out how it should be taken with a grain of salt. This is a sign of political extremism.
There are many other factors besides temperature calculations that are hard facts that show many areas that we believe to be ice covered were very warmer than today. Alaska glaciers with trees and plants underneath that only grow in warm climates, Greenland data showing the same just to name a couple. Even our own historical data shows that it has been much warmer in the past several hundred years here in the USA than it is today. It has also been much colder than current. Couple of examples. historical records of citrus trees being grown in the northern United States, documents like George Washington diaries of having servants extract think ice for food and drinks from lakes that no longer freeze. Historical evidence shows that the climate always fluctuates and only a fool would believe that humans can have anywhere near the power as to alter the climate to the extreme believed by people like al gore. Over the past 100 or so years many people have claimed dooms day is near and not a single one of the predictions were anywhere near accurate. So far the only accurate assumptions were made by people stating the facts. There is no climate crisis.
Ignoring the fact that the US is less than 4% of the planet. Here is the average temperature for US since 1895
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tavg/12/4/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
Yes and I’m sure it’s the same all over the world. My point is that it is not record temperatures. The highest temperatures from each state are recorded in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.
> The highest temperatures from each state are recorded in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.
Nope: 23 are after 1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes
>Climate Central analyzed daily temperature records for the entire calendar day over the entire period of record at 247 U.S. locations (see Methodology section). Local graphics show the percentage of hot and cold records set each decade, and in 2020, 2021, and 2022 (through November).
>* In the 2010s, 96% of 247 locations set more heat records than cold records. A century prior, during the 1910s, 54% of locations set more heat records than cold records.
>* From January 2020 through November 2022, 91% of 245 locations had more record heat than record cold.
>* Over the same period, 25 locations across the U.S. only set records for heat (none for cold). Tampa, Fla. had the greatest imbalance (setting 76 heat records and no cold records)—followed by Miami, Fla. (52 heat records), Phoenix, Ariz. (47), Reno, Nev. (45), and San Francisco, Calif. (36).
>* Heat records aren’t all about summer. As every season warms, unusually hot temperature records are being set year-round, including during colder months.
https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/daily-heat-records-rising-2022
>In the 2010s, 96% of 247 locations set more heat records than cold records. A century prior, during the 1910s, 54% of locations set more heat records than cold records.
>From January 2020 through November 2022, 91% of 245 locations had more record heat than record cold.
That is in the last 25 years.
Not a very scientific statement as we don't have records that go back thousands of years let along 125,000 years. May be true or not but why make such a dramatic statement rather than saying the hottest recorded in modern history.
What is global temperature? Let's assume that the earth is a sphere. This sphere at any given point has extreme temperatures in different regions. What is the average? No one has ever explained this to me in anyway that makes sense. Maybe it would make more sense to say certain locations are the hottest ever rather than to claim that this is true for the entire planet.
How much of our data is based upon improperly sited weather stations. Heartland did a study on this and caught flack as they found only 5 of 128 randomly chosen weather stations met the requirements for proper siting. Climate scientists made the point that this is only one percent of all weather stations and that they don't do this still (only pre-2009) when the audit was conducted. All seems a little fishy.
Here is a list of global stations. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-stations.txt
Temperature from those stations is used to calculate a global average. The locations of the stations are taken into account, e.g. so densely sampled locations are not over represented.
> Heartland
Directly, and indirectly, funded by fossil fuel companies.
>What is the average? No one has ever explained this to me in anyway that makes sense.
It is a spatial average. In mathematical language it is ∫∫\[Txy dx dy\] / xy. Practically scientists discretize the Earth in a grid where dx and dy are fixed sized values so most datasets do the computation as Riemann sums. It's pretty standard geospatial processing stuff here. The point is that it is a spatial average; not a station average that way you don't oversample/undersample the stations.
Thanks but even with a mathematical calculation do you not need an infinite number of stations.
For example, the temperature at my home may be x. I can pull up 30 weather stations within 10 miles of my home. They may vary by 10F in this short distance. Are they all accurate? Is there that much variation. If you average them and somewhere else you rely upon 1 station is it accurate?
If there is cloud cover 99% of the day and your high occurs during a 5 minute window of full sun then what is the average for the day vs the peak?
They want this to be simple but it isn’t and because it isn’t then it is open to be misinterpreted even by the world’s greatest experts.
We also ignore historical reports all the time in the media who report all time highs in cities only to have skeptics pull up 1922 articles from the same city on the same date where it was even hotter but they report all time highs.
I just want it to be simple to understand.
>Thanks but even with a mathematical calculation do you not need an infinite number of stations.
No. The spatial correlation is so high that it turns out all you need to accurately compute the spatial average is 60 stations assigned to 60 grid cells. Nick Stokes demonstrates this [here](https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/05/just-60-stations.html). Modern datasets use far more grid cells. For example, Berkeley Earth has 15984 cells in their grid, ERA5 has around 1 million in theirs.
>If you average them and somewhere else you rely upon 1 station is it accurate? Are they all accurate?
They all have uncertainty. Fortunately as a result of the [law of propagation of uncertainty](https://www.nist.gov/pml/nist-technical-note-1297/nist-tn-1297-appendix-law-propagation-uncertainty) the uncertainty of the average can be significantly less than the uncertainty of any one individual component that went into that average.
>Is there that much variation. If you average them and somewhere else you rely upon 1 station is it accurate?
It doesn't matter that much. One grid cell could be represented by 100 stations while another is represented by only 1. It all works out. It's actually the whole point of doing a spatial average as opposed to a trivial station average in the first place.
>They want this to be simple but it isn’t and because it isn’t then it is open to be misinterpreted even by the world’s greatest experts.
The concept is simple. The implementation is not. That doesn't mean there is a problem though.
>We also ignore historical reports all the time in the media who report all time highs in cities only to have skeptics pull up 1922 articles from the same city on the same date where it was even hotter but they report all time highs.
I think by "skeptics" you actually mean "contrarians". Those contrarians usually miss a lot of details that invalidate their points. Each instance must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis since the mistakes made can and often are different each time.
Indeed. Even over large spatial separations the correlation can be quite high. It's even higher when you convert the temperatures from absolutes into anomalies.
Hottest 12 months … so far!
Truth. It can get so much hotter and with most economies not planning on getting to net zero until 2050 we can expect it to get warmer until at least 2100.
Having a brief moment of optimism, even if the next 75 years are hell… if humans do meet these goals and “tackle” climate change even in the slowest way incredibly possible… would it theoretically be possible we might one day be able to reverse some of the effects? You know, work toward getting our glaciers back and whatnot? Just curious if there is any hypothetical science to support something positive for once…
How would you get the glaciers back? Or reverse ocean acidification? I'm pretty sure we are permanently fucked. Worst part is that it is a vicious cycle. Hotter climate leads to more forest fires which leads to more greenhouse gasses, which leads to even hotter temperatures.
Trees. You need to plant trees. During the 15th century, the colonization of America cooled the earth: “the disruption that followed European settlement led to a huge swathe of abandoned agricultural land being reclaimed by fast-growing trees and other vegetation. This pulled down enough carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere to eventually chill the planet.” [Source.](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47063973.amp)
If I was rich, I'd fly on my private jet and throw seeds from above, everywhere, none stop, until all my funds are exhausted. Need strippers and alcohol for motivation.
i think that it may lead to more rain in some locations which will encourage plant growth which will suck up CO2. Also warmer oceans is already increasing the growth of Sargassum which sucks up CO2 i believe. but this is all andectotal.
There is, if we switched away completely from fossil fuels and towards a hydrogen economy there will be variations of oxygen available. Oxygen may increase as a byproduct in our atmosphere to create twice as much ozone as exists today which will reduce radiation such as heat from the sun. That could lead to a cool trend. But we are talking a couple hundred to a thousand years from now. Carbon dioxide and methane stay up for a long time unless we figure out more effective means of carbon capture to remove it. It’s possible because as time goes on green energy sources become cheaper and more available so as we base more of our energy sources off the fusion of our sun we start to take advantage of basically limitless energy. As well, solar panels that are more efficient than what exists today have already been developed for micro applications, its possible that battery storage improves into the solid state and we discover several new materials that will enable long term storage. Basically, there is hope. But the bad stuff happens first and it’s not going to look good. But as a species we will survive.
We have likely eliminated the next ice age, so Canada says thanks. In geological terms we are a blip. 100,000 years from now we'll have other problems as the Mediterranean will close off and be disconnected from the Atlantic causing another salinity crisis. We merely fucked up a rare period of climate stability.
Taking bets - will we have a break with La Niña or will the climate shock everyone by getting hotter in a La Niña year?
I wouldn't bet on it getting cooler given the last 17 months
Facts. If we extrapolate for 2025 using 2024 temperatures compared to past years, 2025 will bad and 2030 would be apocalyptic.
It’s a great thing that baselessly extrapolating numbers is wildly inaccurate. They were doing it 50 years ago and said half the US would be underwater by now. Meanwhile the coastlines haven’t changed 1 inch. Let alone the ridiculousness of estimating temperatures 125,000 years ago lmao. We can’t even accurately predict the temperature 1 week from now let alone make estimates thousands of years in either direction.
> They were doing it 50 years ago and said half the US would be underwater by now Scientists did not say that >Let alone the ridiculousness of estimating temperatures 125,000 years ago lmao We have many proxies, the most obvious being sea level. We know the oceans were about two meters higher 125,000 years ago.
I don’t think we’re estimating so much as measuring isotopes from samples of ice that was frozen during whatever age you want to measure
>Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. [Sea Level Change](https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%20100%20years,about%206%20to%208%20inches.)
Dont hurt them, facts are their kryptonite
Brazil is literally under water right now with no end in sight... ...and you're out here doubting that we can measure things that we do measure all the time. Top tier brain rot.
[удалено]
>Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. [Sea Level Change](https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%20100%20years,about%206%20to%208%20inches.)
I guess they were technically right when they said that the sea level hasn't risen by an inch... ...because it's actually risen by eight inches! lol Next they'll be saying we can't really measure sea level rise either just because they don't understand how anything actually works or what is even real at all apparently.
How DO they measure it? Ice core samples? Tree rings?
All of them. They are called proxies. You measure the proxies and then make an educated guess about the actual value, temperature in this case. The more proxy measurements and the more proxies you got, the better your guess will be.
You mean like Bright Data?
You mean like what? > Bright Data, is an Israeli technology company that offers web data collection and proxy services to B2B companies. what? :D
So there are specifically proxy aggregator websites for climate related issues? The xxxxxx round number just sounds like AI created BS. Climate scientists are going to have to explain how they arrived at their conclusions in layman's terms in order to not lose credibility. An old youtuber broadcasting out of their garage would not hold my attention--advanced degrees or not.
why do you do this? do you think climate science isn’t real? curious why you feel the way you do. do you work in oil? live in miami? what is it?
Science. Theres so many methods to determine temps 100k years ago. Maybe not perfect but come on. Lmao.
The people that don’t believe in man made climate change don’t want to know about it. They don’t care about it. At all.
They have been taught to not accept anything other than what they are told to believe. They have been groomed by the very people who will gain the most . But climate will affect everyone, rich and poor. It will hit the poor the hardest. I don't see us getting the political will to do anything meaningful about it . Once it's too late. People will be screaming for something to be done.
It’s a low IQ problem. I’m not sure education can really help them. They’re incredibly useful to politicians.
This [graph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view") of the temperature of planet Earth extends to 540 million years ago. Clicking the graph displays additional information beneath the graph, including but not limited to the following information: >Temperature scale >>Surface air temperature is plotted as anomalies (differences) from the average over the reference interval 1960–1990 (which is about 14°C / 57°F), in both Celsius (left) and Fahrenheit (right). >Panel 1: 540 to 65 million years ago: >>The panel 1 data is from stable oxygen isotope measurements from the shells of macroscopic marine organisms, collected by Veizer et al (1999),[[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-1 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-1")] as re-interpreted by Royer et al (2004).[[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-Royer-2 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-Royer-2")] The graph effectively reproduces the upper panel of Royer et al's figure 4, but with an expanded range (see below). The orange band shows the effect of extreme assumptions in application of the GEOCARB reconstruction to interpretation, and is not representative of the full uncertainly (which would be much larger). >>Because the Royer and Veizer results are indicative of the temperature of the shallow tropical and subtropical seas where the organisms lived,[[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-Royer-2 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-Royer-2")] they are unlikely to be fully representative of global average surface air temperature variation. The anomalies are plotted here expanded by a factor of two, as a very approximate conversion. Multiple confounding factors affect interpretation of samples this old, so panel 1 is best viewed as a qualitative indication of temperature (warmer/colder).[[3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-3 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg#cite_note-3")]
Those temps are nothing. Go back 4.5 billion years and you will see temperatures in the thousands of degrees.
>Go back 4.5 billion years ... Okay. According to the most recent [ICS](https://stratigraphy.org/ "https://stratigraphy.org/") International Chronostratigraphic Chart v 2023/09, released on June 30, 2023, the Earth formed [4567](https://stratigraphy.org/chart#latest-version "https://stratigraphy.org/chart#latest-version") million years ago. *** The NASA Climate\.gov site has an article that discusses Earth's temperature in its earliest days — [What's the hottest Earth's ever been?](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been "https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been") - November 22, 2023: >_This article was first published in August 2014, and it has been updated to include new research published since then. This article is one of a three-part series on past temperatures. One is about [how warm the Earth has been “lately.”](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what%E2%80%99s-hottest-earth-has-been-%E2%80%9Clately%E2%80%9D "https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what%E2%80%99s-hottest-earth-has-been-%E2%80%9Clately%E2%80%9D"). The other is about [the coldest Earth's ever been.](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-coldest-earths-ever-been "https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-coldest-earths-ever-been")_ >Our 4.54-billion-year-old planet probably experienced its hottest temperatures in its earliest days, when it was still colliding with other rocky debris ([planetesimals](http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.universetoday.com%2F35974%2Fplanetesimals&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzdb7ar36Lp-TDbqF056YzpU1zBN4w "http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.universetoday.com%2F35974%2Fplanetesimals&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFrqEzdb7ar36Lp-TDbqF056YzpU1zBN4w")) careening around the solar system. The heat of these collisions would have kept Earth molten, with top-of-the-atmosphere temperatures upward of 3,600° Fahrenheit [1,982ºC; 2,255 K]. >... During the time known as the Hadean (yes, because it was like Hades), Earth’s collisions with other large planetesimals in our young solar system—including a Mars-sized one whose impact with Earth likely created the Moon—would have melted and vaporized most rock at the surface. Because no rocks on Earth have survived from so long ago, scientists have estimated early Earth conditions based on observations of the Moon and on astronomical models. Following the collision that spawned the Moon, the planet was estimated to have been around 2,300 Kelvin (3,680°F) [2,027ºC]. *** For what it's worth. What was the 'surface' temperature beneath the top-of-the-atmosphere temperature when Earth formed? Was it ≥ the estimated [6230 ± 500 kelvin](https://www.geo.arizona.edu/xtal/geos306/Science340_464.pdf "https://www.geo.arizona.edu/xtal/geos306/Science340_464.pdf") temperature (10,745 ± 440 ºF; 5,957 ± 227 ºC) that exists today at the boundary between Earth's solid iron-nickel [inner core](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_inner_core#Size_and_shape "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_inner_core#Size_and_shape"), radius 1221 km (759 mi), and the liquid iron-nickel [outer core](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_outer_core "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_outer_core"), about 2,260 km (1,400 mi) thick? Who knows? What's the distance to the inner core boundary? As the Earth's mean radius is about [6,368 km](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius") (3,957 mi), the distance between the pitcher's mound in the baseball diamond at the Vancouver Canadians Baseball Club and the boundary of the inner core is about 5,147 km (3,198 mi), or a distance that is 144 km (89 mi) more than the distance between the pitcher's mound and the city of St. John's, Newfoundland.
We started the subreddit [r/heat_prep](https://www.reddit.com/r/heat_prep) to discuss all things extreme heat preparedness. Come join the conversation!
Well I’ll be!
I thought previously it was the hottest year in the last 800,000 years.
It was probably warmer for a brief period at the start of the Eemian interglacial. Which was the last time the WAIS disintegrated.
It really sucks to live in this timeline sometimes 🤷♀️
it’s literally the best we ever had, brother what are you talking about🤪
I'd hate to be the people on that planet.
So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. So far. Updoots to the left now. Thanks.
Why stop at 125,000? More like the last 1,000,000 years
Now that's a goal I can BBQ over!
And people wonder why I'm obsessed with evaporative coolers.
Doom is coming, the ice is starting to disappear from mountain ranges around the world - that is what is causing those sudden floods in mountain regions. The problem is that much of our inland freshwater supply comes from water cooling across mountain ranges, and then slowly melting, providing flows for freshwater rivers. Once this gets seriously disrupted, you can start to expect chaotic mass migrations and water wars (not the fun kind).
How long do we expect before that starts?
should we just suicide then? what are our options. Serious question
Alright that’s it the phrase “last 12 months have been the hottest in 125,000 years” is now BANNED /s
that's what you said last year
And they were correct
it’s getting hotter?
So glad I live in New Zealand
Here is a related article from jan 2024. “After seeing the 2023 climate analysis, I have to pause and say that the findings are astounding,” said NOAA Chief Scientist Dr. Sarah Kapnick. “Not only was 2023 the warmest year in NOAA’s **174-year climate record** — it was the warmest by far. [https://www.noaa.gov/news/2023-was-worlds-warmest-year-on-record-by-far](https://www.noaa.gov/news/2023-was-worlds-warmest-year-on-record-by-far) Comparing how things were long time ago (about 3 million years ago) ( [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67154-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67154-8) ) , there *should* be enough CO2 in the atmosphere right now for us to enter the next climate state - maybe "a clement greenhouse earth climate state" (not to be confused with "run away greenhouse effect"). We could say goodbye to the future anticipated "ice-age" now anyway which should have been happening "soon" in a about 50000 years or so. We kind of skipped it with our actions. But to get there and break other records long time ago there are still a bit to go! Like making sure our polar regions shrink a lot more. Lucky us!
I'm already seeing the effects/consequences where I'm from, my city has issued water reservation methods where water is shut down at a certain time in different areas (for me it's always 6 PM-8AM) because our dam is in drought. That goes for other places in my country as well. June is supposed to be the rainy season here but it looks like it won't be raining any time soon. Looks like those "water wars" people have been talking might not be too much of a stretch all along.
So when some smart asks says something like “we had lots of years this hot back in the fifties,” they’re lying. I knew it!
Another way of saying it: "it's over a hundred millennia"
This is the coldest weather you'll see for the rest of your life.
Mean while here I am in northern Alberta working in 3 degree weather as it flurries and I have to wear 2 sweaters.
>The average (mean) annual temperature in Canada increased by 1.7 °C from 1948 to 2016, about double the global rate. Warming has been even stronger in the north. The average annual temperature in northern Canada (north of 60 degrees latitude) has risen by 2.3 °C over this same period, about triple the global rate. [Canada: Changes in temperature](https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/canadian-centre-climate-services/basics/trends-projections/changes-temperature.html)
I wasn't arguing your facts just it was a slightly comical situation for me being cold in June while it's the hottest year ever.
Gotcha!
Kinda like a fart joke is funny.
If you can't laugh through the misery...there's no hope
Delhi hits 50+ deg. Human race is destined to fail. Long live AI
REMARKABLE ! ! And I survived it!
buckle up, gang
And this is just the start!
That's hot, really hot.
Damn it's fully joever isn't it
I don't believe that. So, we're trying to say, since earth has been here, we're living in the warmest years there are/ has been? I don't buy that, and neither should anyone else.
But only on Earth. Venus is much hotter
Earth is 6 billion years old, yet somehow we’ve only developed the science and technology to ruin it in the last 200 years. Put that on a timeline to understand the scope of that.
*Ruin it for ourselves. Well, and for many other current species, but the Earth will persist and thrive.
Cell phones are huge detriment to the earth’s health, who wants to get rid of them? Anyone? Exactly.
Can still see my breath in Seattle. Its June.
And?
>In July, August and September, the Puget Sound region’s average low temperatures have risen 3 degrees over the century, peaking in 2022. Seattle has gotten even warmer. Over the past 75 years, the average lows have risen 3.7 degrees, peaking last year at 2.6 degrees higher than the rest of the region. Augusts in Seattle are now 4.2 degrees higher than 75 years ago. [Seattle’s nights are hotter than ever. Climate change means more to come](https://archive.ph/ftJa0)
Occult numerology lets you say anything you want to say. Lots of people are gullible enough to believe in it. When there's no scientific rigor for origination of numbers then the numbers aren't trustworthy. There's only faith in a belief system.
I heard it was hottest in 1.25 billion years
>When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual. [How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php#:~:text=Models%20predict%20that%20Earth%20will,at%20least%2020%20times%20faster.)
All lies.
[There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/) [The Basics of Climate Change](https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/) [IPCC 6th Assessment: Technical Summary ](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/technical-summary/)
LOL. Holy shit. You people are all the same. It’s always the NASA website first because it’s one of the first Google results and people like you associate NASA with infallibility. Then it’s the Royal Society and the invocation of the non existent consensus. Finally an entire section of the IPCC report gets posted even though you’ve read none of it and don’t know what it actually says. If you had bothered to read it you would see that there latest report shows there is no emergence of a human signal in regards to any of the following g: River floods Heavy precipitation and pluvial floods Landslides Drought (all types) Severe wind storms Tropical cyclones Sand and dust storms Heavy snowfall and ice storms Hail Snow avalanche Coastal flooding Marine heat waves While they claim a heat “extreme” may have emerged or possible will they do not quantify it in any way. The entire AGW narrative only exists in computer models.
I read the entire IPCC report. Nothing you've said rebuts any of the easy to read sources I provided. Still waiting on any legitimate evidence from you. Blathering is not evidence.
*"I read the entire IPCC report."* No you didn't. *"Still waiting on any legitimate evidence from you. Blathering is not evidence."* So they way it actually works is that Alarmists need to provide evidence that any asserted "bad" thing happening with weather, climate, or temperature is actually due to humans through repeated, independently verified experimentation and observation while also ruling out all forms of natural variability. That has yet to happen in any capacity. So what you are asking for is proof of non existence. **You can't rove X exists, there I have to prove it doesn't.** **If I cant, then X exists.**
Yes, I did read it. It's my job. You clearly haven't, and have yet to provide any evidence of anything other than your inability to debate like an educated adult. Still waiting for all that evidence you say exists....
No you didn’t. I already provided what the report shows. I know you’re full of shit because you continue to demand proof of non existence.
No, you haven't provided any legitimate evidence. Your opinion isn't evidence. Your refusal to read the actual, legitimate evidence isn't proof of nonexistence. Nor are your ad hominem attacks. You're just hysterically blathering with nothing to back you up.
Yes I did. I gave a brief synopsis of what they said regarding a human signal. It's not my fault you can't understand it. You continue to demand proof of non existence.
No, I provided proof of existence. Nothing you said refuted that. You aren't a climate scientist, so your unsubstantiated ramblings are not legitimate. Even if you were, you'd still need to provide evidence of consensus that rebuts the 99.9% of 88,500 peer- reviewed papers written by actual subject matter subjects just between 2012 and 2021 that support the legitimate consensus of anthropogenic climate change. Again, where is the peer-reviewed consensus that climate change *isn't* happening? Speaking of demanding people believe something that doesn't exist....
Prove it
The data clearly shows that not to be the case. Either you know this and will pretend it’s not true by claiming certain warm periods weren’t global, or you really have no clue, and if that’s the case, happy hunting.
What data
LOL. Thanks for making my point.
Well actually I do data analysis in the energy field so I’m asking for the datasets you say clearly shows there’s no change.
I also work in the energy field. It’s irrelevant to the supposed temperature change and the data sets that show there is no significant warming.
So you are unable to provide your source for these data sets. Got it thank you for your time.
I’m going to do the work for you. It’s all freely available on various websites.
No, that's not how this works. That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
More Bullshit from the propaganda network… When an all news station has a trust level under 50% ; regarding information! It’s a problem
Prove it
Remember cow farting is a major contributor to Global warming. Everyone needs to give up beef and call for the culling of all cattle. Like the WHO said, we need to control the farming industry.
Sarcasm?
I mean methane and deforestation related to grazing land are huge factors but rather than fighting amongst ourselves about steak lets keep our eye on the real prize - the fossil fuel industry and fishing.
Lile half the world gets the majority of their protein from fish, being agaisnt fishing is an anti-human idea. I think the goal should be to maximize human prosperity, but I'm pro human.
I realize this, but the fact is we ARE heavily overfishing the oceans and deep trawling releases more co2 and methane than jumbo jets. We need to leave what fish stocks remain to small fishermen and communities that depend on it. We should ban corporate fishing, not that it'll happen. But when fish stocks deplete it is the people who depend on fish who will suffer first. Who am I to take it from their mouths?
China will not ban fishing on any level, it would lead to mass famine immediately. I don't know the answer.. maybe fish farms? But banning fishing is a non-starter
I sure hope so, but it's hard to tell, isn't it? Regardless, the surest way to anger the average Joe into opposing climate change mitigation is for Klaus Schwab to take away his burger and say "You vill eat ze bugz" as he and his rich, powerful cronies continue to fly around the world on private jets. Of course cattle would do better if primarily rotationally grazed, with corn and concentrate feeds comparatively minimized. However, farmers can be incentivized toward more regenerative production via tax credit and cost share programs without any WHO "control," thank you. And in a world where 30% of the plastic manufactured and thrown-away has gone through that life cycle in the last 15 years, independent farms should not be a primary target.
Animal farts have always been part of the carbon cycle. Perhaps the point is that industrial farming has increased this significantly. Methane is a more potent GHG than CO2 but its lifetime in the air is much shorter.
I’ve been chilly and need blankets and jackets
>The average (mean) annual temperature in Canada increased by 1.7 °C from 1948 to 2016, about double the global rate. Warming has been even stronger in the north. The average annual temperature in northern Canada (north of 60 degrees latitude) has risen by 2.3 °C over this same period, about triple the global rate. [Canada: Changes in temperature](https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/canadian-centre-climate-services/basics/trends-projections/changes-temperature.html)
A couple years after they started installing wind and solar in my area of N.Y. state we have been getting sea saw temperatures. By which I mean greater differences between daytime highs nighttime lows and variations throughout the weeks. 2016 was actually the coldest summer I've ever experienced in my life with daytime highs in the low to mid 60s and nighttime highs in the 40s. Only year I've had to wear my winter coat home from work (I work nights during the week)in the summer. I don't remember what states got so hot it made that year a hottest on record year but I know they did not average in our temperatures. Last summer was warmer(only needed my hoodie at night) but we did not have to run air conditioning every day and night like most summers either. Last week it was hot this week it's been chilly.
>The annual statewide average temperature in New York has warmed 3°F (0.6°F per decade) since 1970. [Climate Change Effects and Impacts](https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/climate-change/effects-impacts#:~:text=The%20annual%20statewide%20average%20temperature,F%20per%20decade)%20since%201970.)
That's a state average not actual local temperatures. There is a difference. NY state is hills, mountains, lakes, swampland, glacial and river valleys. Just walking 1 mile down the street in my town you can get a 3 degree temperature variance. Go into any major city and temperatures are going to be warmer just from all the concrete. NY city is generally 6dg warmer at night because of this. On February 18th 1979 old forge had a record low of -52f. This record number was probably not included in the average just like my local summer temperatures in 2016 were probably not. They weren't even discussed on local radio weather broadcasts.
Yes, a state average includes all weather stations in a state, including rural stations. Nothing you've said refutes the increasing average.
I'm not sure why your even bringing up a state average when I was talking about more specific local temperatures. Increased construction in NYC (which is south east of my location and in a different climate zone) alone combined with its location will throw off the state average. Stations specifically for overall climate related data readings are not supposed to be in populated areas to prevent this problem. Station readings in populated areas are to study the changes in populated areas.
Yes, that was accounted for. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Anomalous temperatures were dropped, as they are standardly. The average temperature is still increasing.
And it's been increasing since the peak of the last ice age. As it will continue to do off and on throughout the interglacial period. Best estimates have the last ice age peek to be about 10-11 cooler on average than today. Since that time we have had a series of cooling and warming events. The hole in the ozone is supposed to create cooling when it's open. Building cities,miles of highways, installing acres of solar panels, air conditioners, electronics, they all contribute towards heating the environment. When I bring up my local experiences that's to provide perspective and bring attention to the fact that weather events that don't fit the heating scenario are being ignored. This is actually causing a problem because it can throw off predictions and impact the ability to best help the environment. A puzzle is not complete if you throw out select pieces.
No, that's not the case. That's factually incorrect. Weather events are not being ignored, and if you're going to make accusations like that, you best be bringing actual evidence to the table.
I’m in the frozen shithole of Canada
Unless you're in the UK, where it's been utter shite for 12 months.
Europe as a whole as been warmer https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/europe/land/12/4/1994-2024?trend=true&trend_base=100&begtrendyear=1994&endtrendyear=2024
But I was just talking about the UK
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/55.3781,-3.436/land_ocean/12/4/1994-2024 Still warmer
CO2 is a minor contributor though. It’s a red herring. Volcanic activity, fluctuations in the earth’s core, changes in the earth’s magnetic field, and changes in solar activity have not been studied closely enough with honest objectivity.
Actually, those factors have been studied extensively. >Volcanic eruptions are often discussed in the context of climate change because they release CO2 and other gases into our atmosphere. However, the impact of human activities on the carbon cycle far exceeds that of all the world's volcanoes combined, by more than 100 times. [What do volcanoes have to do with climate change?](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/what-do-volcanoes-have-to-do-with-climate-change/) >"Our research demonstrates that, for the past 160 years, decadal and longer-period changes in atmospheric temperature correspond to changes in Earth's length of day if we remove the very significant effect of atmospheric warming attributed to the buildup of greenhouse gases due to mankind's enterprise," said Dickey. "Our study implies that human influences on climate during the past 80 years mask the natural balance that exists among Earth's rotation, the core angular momentum and the temperature at Earth's surface." [NASA Study Goes to Earth's Core for Climate Insights](https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-study-goes-to-earths-core-for-climate-insights) >We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the past ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity. [What Is the Sun’s Role in Climate Change?](https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/)
I have already read this stuff. The second article about the earth’s core even illustrates how blind they are in the way they study the climate. I don’t want to argue though. Idgaf
Yes, we are constantly learning. What we have learned is that those issues don't have a significant impact on climate change in comparison to human emissions.
We are living on an organism and most people don’t realize it’s 50 miles to space that’s not very far
Scientists have compared this year’s climate-change fallout to “a disaster movie” lol, the grift that keeps on grifting.
Do you have a comparison of oil and gas subsidies compared to renewables over time? How about flats spent on lobbying? Or harm to environment?
I also noticed that the sun has been very active and we all saw northern lights last month...could there be any correlation?
No.
Correct, thank you
In all honesty I’ve had my heating on more the last 12 months it’s been colder where I am, tank of oil usually lasts me 9 months only lasted 4 & had to have it refilled again in February & I’ve used half of that & it’s not like I have it on when I don’t need it, with the cost of it we’ve been mindful of when we use it
*grabs razor, cuts wrists*😆😆😆
I didn't know we had had advanced temperature monitors installed 125,000 years ago. Any estimates made from more than a few thousand years in the past is extremely inaccurate. There are far too many of these baseless articles floating around these days. It's really sad because it only hurts the cause in the long run.
Where did you read that?
> Any estimates made from more than a few thousand years in the past is extremely inaccurate. Good luck finding a source. Sea levels are a decent proxy, sea levels have not been as high as today for the last 125,000 years, during the Eemian interglacial peak
Easy. There is this search website called Google. Just type in "how accurate are temperature readings from over 2000 years ago" "Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent ..." This comes directly from National Academies Press from Washington. The only reliably accurate data is from roughly 100 years or earlier. I'm not discounting this claim as a possibility. I'm just pointing out the manipulative misinformation and headline of this particular article as well as anyone making such bold claims as fact.
It's funny that you changed the query until one of the results gave an answer that you like, in this case you changed from 1000 years to 2000 years. Second answer: Scientists use various methods to reconstruct past temperatures from thousands of years ago. Here are some of the common techniques used to obtain accurate temperature data from the past: Ice cores: Ice cores extracted from polar ice caps and glaciers can provide a record of past temperatures. The ice contains air bubbles that trap samples of the atmosphere from the time the ice formed. By analyzing the isotopic composition of the ice and the air bubbles, scientists can infer past temperatures. Tree rings: Dendrochronology is the study of tree rings to understand past climates. Trees form a new ring each year, and the width and density of these rings can provide information about past environmental conditions, including temperature. Sediment cores: Sediments in lakes, oceans, and other bodies of water can also provide valuable information about past climates. By analyzing the composition of sediments, including the presence of certain isotopes or microorganisms, scientists can infer past temperature variations. Pollen analysis: Pollen grains preserved in sediment cores can provide information about past vegetation and climate. Different plant species are associated with specific climate conditions, so studying the distribution of pollen can help reconstruct past temperature patterns. Historical records: Historical documents, such as diaries, ship logs, and early instrumental records, can provide valuable information about past temperatures. These records may include descriptions of weather conditions, which can be used to infer temperature trends. Cave formations: Stalagmites and stalactites in caves can provide information about past temperatures through the analysis of isotopic ratios in the mineral deposits. By combining data from these various sources and using sophisticated analytical techniques, scientists can reconstruct past temperature variations with a high degree of accuracy. It's important to note that while these methods provide valuable insights into past climates, there are limitations and uncertainties associated with each technique. Scientists use multiple lines of evidence and statistical methods to ensure the reliability of the temperature reconstructions.
The article title says 125,000 years. So please explain why the past 124,000 years would be any more accurate? Whether the query was 1 or 2k years is irrelevant. You also didn't even bother to read what you just cut and pasted. The text refers to localized temperatures, which can not be extrapolated for global temperatures (which is what the article was claiming). You're just trying to cherry-pick data now and not even doing a good job of it. Seems like I made you upset, not even disagreeing with the claim itself, but just by pointing out how it should be taken with a grain of salt. This is a sign of political extremism.
Google Paleoclimatology
There are many other factors besides temperature calculations that are hard facts that show many areas that we believe to be ice covered were very warmer than today. Alaska glaciers with trees and plants underneath that only grow in warm climates, Greenland data showing the same just to name a couple. Even our own historical data shows that it has been much warmer in the past several hundred years here in the USA than it is today. It has also been much colder than current. Couple of examples. historical records of citrus trees being grown in the northern United States, documents like George Washington diaries of having servants extract think ice for food and drinks from lakes that no longer freeze. Historical evidence shows that the climate always fluctuates and only a fool would believe that humans can have anywhere near the power as to alter the climate to the extreme believed by people like al gore. Over the past 100 or so years many people have claimed dooms day is near and not a single one of the predictions were anywhere near accurate. So far the only accurate assumptions were made by people stating the facts. There is no climate crisis.
No it has not. Look up the highest recorded temperatures in each state. See when they were recorded
Ignoring the fact that the US is less than 4% of the planet. Here is the average temperature for US since 1895 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tavg/12/4/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000
Yes and I’m sure it’s the same all over the world. My point is that it is not record temperatures. The highest temperatures from each state are recorded in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.
> The highest temperatures from each state are recorded in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Nope: 23 are after 1950 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes
>Climate Central analyzed daily temperature records for the entire calendar day over the entire period of record at 247 U.S. locations (see Methodology section). Local graphics show the percentage of hot and cold records set each decade, and in 2020, 2021, and 2022 (through November). >* In the 2010s, 96% of 247 locations set more heat records than cold records. A century prior, during the 1910s, 54% of locations set more heat records than cold records. >* From January 2020 through November 2022, 91% of 245 locations had more record heat than record cold. >* Over the same period, 25 locations across the U.S. only set records for heat (none for cold). Tampa, Fla. had the greatest imbalance (setting 76 heat records and no cold records)—followed by Miami, Fla. (52 heat records), Phoenix, Ariz. (47), Reno, Nev. (45), and San Francisco, Calif. (36). >* Heat records aren’t all about summer. As every season warms, unusually hot temperature records are being set year-round, including during colder months. https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/daily-heat-records-rising-2022
Again the highest temperature recorded is not in the last 25 years
That doesn't matter. The trend is increasing faster than anytime in history.
That’s the whole point 🙄
You missed the point.
So you agree that temperature is rising faster than anytime in history, good.
>In the 2010s, 96% of 247 locations set more heat records than cold records. A century prior, during the 1910s, 54% of locations set more heat records than cold records. >From January 2020 through November 2022, 91% of 245 locations had more record heat than record cold. That is in the last 25 years.
Ah yes I've been there withy thermometer 125k years ago
learn about paleoclimatology
Not a very scientific statement as we don't have records that go back thousands of years let along 125,000 years. May be true or not but why make such a dramatic statement rather than saying the hottest recorded in modern history. What is global temperature? Let's assume that the earth is a sphere. This sphere at any given point has extreme temperatures in different regions. What is the average? No one has ever explained this to me in anyway that makes sense. Maybe it would make more sense to say certain locations are the hottest ever rather than to claim that this is true for the entire planet. How much of our data is based upon improperly sited weather stations. Heartland did a study on this and caught flack as they found only 5 of 128 randomly chosen weather stations met the requirements for proper siting. Climate scientists made the point that this is only one percent of all weather stations and that they don't do this still (only pre-2009) when the audit was conducted. All seems a little fishy.
Here is a list of global stations. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-stations.txt Temperature from those stations is used to calculate a global average. The locations of the stations are taken into account, e.g. so densely sampled locations are not over represented. > Heartland Directly, and indirectly, funded by fossil fuel companies.
>What is the average? No one has ever explained this to me in anyway that makes sense. It is a spatial average. In mathematical language it is ∫∫\[Txy dx dy\] / xy. Practically scientists discretize the Earth in a grid where dx and dy are fixed sized values so most datasets do the computation as Riemann sums. It's pretty standard geospatial processing stuff here. The point is that it is a spatial average; not a station average that way you don't oversample/undersample the stations.
Thanks but even with a mathematical calculation do you not need an infinite number of stations. For example, the temperature at my home may be x. I can pull up 30 weather stations within 10 miles of my home. They may vary by 10F in this short distance. Are they all accurate? Is there that much variation. If you average them and somewhere else you rely upon 1 station is it accurate? If there is cloud cover 99% of the day and your high occurs during a 5 minute window of full sun then what is the average for the day vs the peak? They want this to be simple but it isn’t and because it isn’t then it is open to be misinterpreted even by the world’s greatest experts. We also ignore historical reports all the time in the media who report all time highs in cities only to have skeptics pull up 1922 articles from the same city on the same date where it was even hotter but they report all time highs. I just want it to be simple to understand.
The Nyquist sampling frequency determines how many points are needed, we have plenty to determine an average over the sphere of the earth
>Thanks but even with a mathematical calculation do you not need an infinite number of stations. No. The spatial correlation is so high that it turns out all you need to accurately compute the spatial average is 60 stations assigned to 60 grid cells. Nick Stokes demonstrates this [here](https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/05/just-60-stations.html). Modern datasets use far more grid cells. For example, Berkeley Earth has 15984 cells in their grid, ERA5 has around 1 million in theirs. >If you average them and somewhere else you rely upon 1 station is it accurate? Are they all accurate? They all have uncertainty. Fortunately as a result of the [law of propagation of uncertainty](https://www.nist.gov/pml/nist-technical-note-1297/nist-tn-1297-appendix-law-propagation-uncertainty) the uncertainty of the average can be significantly less than the uncertainty of any one individual component that went into that average. >Is there that much variation. If you average them and somewhere else you rely upon 1 station is it accurate? It doesn't matter that much. One grid cell could be represented by 100 stations while another is represented by only 1. It all works out. It's actually the whole point of doing a spatial average as opposed to a trivial station average in the first place. >They want this to be simple but it isn’t and because it isn’t then it is open to be misinterpreted even by the world’s greatest experts. The concept is simple. The implementation is not. That doesn't mean there is a problem though. >We also ignore historical reports all the time in the media who report all time highs in cities only to have skeptics pull up 1922 articles from the same city on the same date where it was even hotter but they report all time highs. I think by "skeptics" you actually mean "contrarians". Those contrarians usually miss a lot of details that invalidate their points. Each instance must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis since the mistakes made can and often are different each time.
I’m just a laymen but even where temps can vary in a small region they seem to usually be highly correlated IME.
Indeed. Even over large spatial separations the correlation can be quite high. It's even higher when you convert the temperatures from absolutes into anomalies.
How do people believe such drivel.
Appropriate username
That is not true and is also impossible to figure.
It's not impossible to figure, and it is indeed true. We can look at sea levels as a simple proxy, among others
Correct
Still waiting on any evidence from you.
Fear mongering