2631
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 209 points 1 year ago

Slight inaccuracy, the data only goes back to 1979 and has not yet been verified by NOAA which has data going back to 1880.

It’s also worth noting that this is based on the Climate Reanalyzer which is intended for forecasting temperatures, not record keeping.

It would be more accurate to say it was the hottest day ever recorded by the Climate Reanalyzer.

Source: https://time.com/6292103/worlds-hottest-day-preliminary-record/

[-] [email protected] 87 points 1 year ago

This. It's also not accurate to say it's the warmest we've been in the past 10,000 years, it was likely warmer during the roman warm period, and potentially a couple of other points. So we can only really say it's the warmest we've seen in the last couple hundred years.

That's not to say this isn't concerning, we're on track to smash the roman warm periods average temperatures within our lifetimes and make the earth the hottest it's been since the paleoscene, which would have massive ramifications. But we're not there yet, the problem is that we will likely get there in the next few decades.

[-] can 51 points 1 year ago

in the next few decades.

I appreciate your optimism.

[-] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago

If you want some more optimism, we actually have slowed the rate of warming from what was predicted 20 years ago. The reality we are living in would have been considered an "optimistic prediction" at one point. We are still warming, things are still going in the wrong direction, but the changes that people have been making to mitigate global warming are making an impact. We might still be going over the cliff, but at least we're doing it with our brakes on instead of full speed ahead. So yes, I do think it will be decades before we truly break temperature records that have been seen by humans, maybe even several decades. That doesn't downplay the significance of the need to stop it though

[-] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago

From what I've heard about our current climate warming situation I'd downgrade the metaphor from using breaks to taking the foot off the pedal a bit.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

You can slam the brakes on your Camry but there’s an oil tanker behind you and all they’re doing is laying on the horn and pointing at their green logo while shoving your car off the cliff.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

That's what the oil industry likes to think, but they're actually with us in the Camry. There is only the Camry, we're all on the Camry together, good and bad.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, but the mega rich oil execs have ejector seats and parachutes.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

That lead them back into the Camry?

[-] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What about tipping points? I hear about ice cover, ocean currents, and other systems where once we get past a tipping point, additional warming is self sustaining. At that point it doesn't matter if we have our brakes on, we've gone over the cliff right?

[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If we end up triggering a self-sustaining feedback loop, that's how I understand it, yeah. We still do have some very high risk strategies we could implement, like solar shielding to reduce total light reaching the earth, or bioengineering plants that suck up carbon super efficiently, but it's hard to say what the impacts of those would be

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I don’t see either of those happening because there’s no short-term profit. Also, unintended consequences.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't consider solar shielding high risk, since it would be easy to design fail-safe, but I totally wouldn't trust bioengineering methods, since life uhh... finds a way.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Too bad there’s a lag time of about 40 years on emissions. We’re only feeling the effects of what was emitted in the early 80s. Imagine how bad it’ll be in 20 years time.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Can you tell me more about this?

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Sure. Essentially what happens is the ocean absorbs much of the CO2 that’s released by us. If you’ve ever heard the term “ocean acidification” that’s what causes it.

Water and the oceans change on a much more gradual scale than the atmosphere, so it takes decades for the CO2 to be released back into the air. For example, if you bring a pot of water to an open flame it still takes time for the water to reach the temperature to boil, it’s not instantaneous.

The ocean is far more massive than our atmosphere. It’ll take time for the changes to take effect, especially a noticeable one on our end. But if you take a look at the ph levels of the oceans over the last century it becomes abundantly clear we’re messing things up big time.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Oh that's crazy I didnt know about that. Does the water just absorb the CO2 somehow or does it have to do with algea?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Both! It can absorb it on the surface through atmospheric diffusion and through photosynthesis from both algae and phytoplankton

[-] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

At least the "medieval warm period" which gets cited a lot, was a regional phenomenon and global temperatures are higher today. The Wikipedia page seems to suggest the same for the Roman warm period.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The Roman warm period was about 2 degrees F warmer than today when you're measuring global average temperatures, not just in europe, although it was more pronounced in europe. At current rates though, we'll break that bar in 40 years or so though

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You act like you use the word Paleoscene like you know when it was.

I don't.

I did however hear on the BBC News Podcast that Nerds are saying we should change the name of the period we're in now to be the "Time of Man" and I realised that I have no idea what Epoch we are currently in.

So I thought I'd ask you. Then I'll memorise your answer and be less dumb.

Please help.

Edit: I know how to use Google but this way is more fun sometimes.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Paleocene was the time right around when the dinosaurs died, so about 65 million years ago. you've heard of Jurassic, and maybe you've even heard of cretaceous, this is the one that comes right after those two. Right now we're in the Holocene. The reason I mentioned it though is because (as far as we can tell) it was the hottest period in earth's history, with average temperatures 8 degrees Celsius higher than today (which is a ton, the fact that it's an average makes it seem less insane than it actually is). we're nowhere close to getting as warm as it was then, but even if we got half that hot in a relatively fast amount of time (like we are) it could still cause mass extinction.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks. I have heard of all of these times I just had no idea where they are in relation to each other.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

If I were to pick one, I'd call it the Menocene. Seems apt.

I did Google it though, if you want the actual answer.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Holocene is the current geological time it cover from now to a out 11,000 years ago from the last glacial period... The Paleoscene was about 66-56 million years ago.

load more comments (22 replies)
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
2631 points (97.4% liked)

Memes

44230 readers
1432 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS