• ClickToDisplay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    214
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    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/

    • bric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      90
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      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.

        • bric@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          38
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          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

          • GitProphet@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            26
            ·
            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.

            • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              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.

              • abbadon420@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                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.

          • pbkoden@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            edit-2
            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?

            • trafguy@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              edit-2
              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

              • toxic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

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

              • Lev_Astov@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                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.

          • xts@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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.

              • xts@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                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.

                • natryamar@lemmy.fmhy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  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?

                  • xts@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

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

      • efiler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        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.

      • LifeBandit666@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        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.

        • bric@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          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.

        • Entropywins@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          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.

        • CMLVI@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          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.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      There’s a whole hot world outside of America who don’t need to wait for its underfunded organizations to get around to validating the data.

      But I get it. The news is dire. It’s neat to cling to uncertainty in times like this unless you lived in Lytton