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/
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
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.
in the next few decades.
I appreciate your optimism.
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
Welcome to the coldest summer for the rest of your life :)
Why would you do that?
😩
Thats a nice way to put it. Thank you.
And just a week ago I was talking to these boomers that were explaining me how “we should all stop being so attached to climate fear” and that “everything will just sort itself out and we’ll live just fine”.
Yea, no shit boomer
They meant that they’ll live just fine. You see, they will be dead before climate change decimates our planet. 🤷♂️
Looks less likely every year, they’re running out of time quick
It won’t decimate the planet, but it will make the planet a lot less habitable for humans.
So yes depending on where they live they will be just fine, but a lot of people will die. Because of this there will be huge migrations and struggels with having enough resources…
Boomers: “We had hot days in the 60’s and 70’s as well and you didn’t hear us complain”
My parents’ go-to is that everyone was freaking out about an incoming ice age in the 60s (they weren’t), and thus climate experts are all completely clueless and have no clue what they’re talking about.
And they wonder why I visit less than before.
Vermont just had flooding that was on par with Hurricane Irene.
They’re calling it a 1000 year rarity. It happened 12 years ago. Only this time there was no hurricane.
There are ocean temperatures in the fucking 90s.
This hurricane season is gonna be batshit crazy, y’all.
I think, as individuals; we all need to pick up our game and do our part in polluting and destroying the planet more. We can’t let the corporations do all the heavy lifting after all.
Edit: I don’t think I came across properly here, given the replies. This was sarcasm saying we need to fuck up the planet more to keep pace with the rate the corporations do.
But we are. According to the USDA, food waste makes up 22% of the food industries 26% CO2 emissions. And don’t forget the diseases food waste produces.
That food waste is largely due to arbitrary date labels and grocery stores throwing out literal tons of perfectly good food instead of donating it.
How can we sell more without an expiration date?!!! We need to please the profits and shorten expiration dates!
Yes. Our 12% will really make a difference vs corporations’ 80%. And we can get to that 12% if so 8 billion of us work together. I’m doing my 0.0000001% part!
I personally plan on returning my rechargeable AA batteries and going single use from now on. it’s the little things that help
Honestly corporations are only producing what consume. We are using corporations as scapegoats. If we don’t realize this soon and don’t change it ways…
There are more efficient, greener ways to go about producing pretty much everything we use that doesn’t destroy the earth. Problem is is that it’s not as profitable for share holders.
For most categories, yes, but when it comes to something like meat production mentioned in the title here, that’s not really the case. Meat production is massively inefficient in its best case. We are going to have to reduce production which means having changes in consumption in one way or another
If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
[…]
Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.
https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
If it was so efficient, why are not everyone doing it and building it? If it was so efficient, why are energy prices increasing? If it is more efficient, then it would be also more profitable but you say the opposite.
It requires a front-loaded investment in infrastructure, which means lower returns for a few quarters.
Most companies wanted people to use horses for as long as possible because that meant they had to adapt, change, and invest. Why do something that’s difficult when you can just do the same thing? This works out when you don’t really have competition because the cost to enter the market is so high due to decades of mergers and acquisitions, consolidating all means of production and materials to a select-few companies.
So far.
So true it burns.
literally…
Shipping? Shipping is about 2 % of global CO2 emissions.
Large ships emit a lot of sulphur oxides (SOx). E.g. cruise ships emit more than all cars of Europe. SOx is not a greenhouse gas, but it’s a nasty pollutant nonetheless.
They emit a lot, but they transport … a very lot. Trucks are higher emitters per comodity.
Still both should be powered by something else like hydrogen (more interesting for ships I guess) or batteries…
And cruise ships should be IMHO taxed so high (the tax should probably directly go to countermeasures), such that only very rich people are able to (not that I grant them the fun, but they should finance this climate disaster in every possible way…)
Based on what a reasonable carbon price should be, I don’t think you would need to tax them to oblivion. They would just need to pay their fair share.
This website suggests that it is about 0.4 tonne of CO2 per passenger per day. Canada’s current carbon tax is $65 per tonne. So a 7 day cruise would be $182 per passenger in carbon pricing. This is just ballpark and yes you can argue that carbon prices should be higher.
We are quickly arriving at an unpayable bill.
We are quickly arriving at an unpayable bill.
For whom though? I think if your product is going to be very expensive because of that you,ll try to find ways (less carbon emissive) to make it cheaper, and for others, who have low emissions already, they get an advantage. Also rich people generally emit much more carbon than poor people.
I’m a little bit tired of the argument, that everything gets expensive, like the money just goes to nirvana, it’s a tax and a tax should steer industries (mostly) to do the right thing (in this case emit less CO2). The money can go directly to people e.g. in the form of a universal basic income.
For the ability to produce enough food. It’s not the tax that’s the issue it’s that the climate will make industrial food production unviable. We will rapidly exit the conditions that underpin the viability of the modern economy. The only work of value will be making food and related tools in a volatile climatic environment. The bill will not be payable in money, is my point. That is, a tax will be woefully inadequate.
Certainly, it will be really “interesting” how to produce food for ~10 billion people in this uncertain future. But if we finally learn to accept that e.g. cattle isn’t the way forward, I think it may be possible with plant-based food. Although something like vertical farming etc. is definitely not viable today, it may be in the future. And at least currently it’s totally possible to sustainably produce enough (plant-based) food. I think we’ll learn to adapt, that much I trust in agricultural-technological advancement etc. But it will be “meaty” for most people and conflicts will arise (as they already are, see e.g. the conflict in Sudan that is indirectly related to climate change already, similarly as Syria previously (there were quite a few droughts the years before))
The odds that the adaption is rapid and doesn’t cause extreme changes in the daily conditions of everyone are vanishing.
shipping is also trucks dude… and all the other nasty ways we move products around the world…
Trucks, like cars are on a transition to become EVs, with Tesla leading the industry there as well. Of course people will then complain regarding lithium and other bullshit, hence why I think we should stop listening to extremists.
Lol, trash reasoning. “Extremists” that want to start building communities that dont require you to drive everywhere. Just because evs are slightly better then gas doesnt mean its good to keep making cars a centralizing point we build our society around.
So… what’s your solution? Everyone using public transportation?
Everyone walking or biking.
So… you have no solutions?
My guess would be for EV everything. Plant trees in the city roads to lower the average temperature, the countries themselves should create tax incentives for people to move out from overcrowded cities as well.
But sure, easy to just end personal vehicles all together right? People like you are the reason our politicians are so shit.
Realistically, EVs are useful as a stopgap solution. They could be used to cover the transition as we expand public transit like EV busses, trains, subways, etc.
Really not a choice, carbon emissiosn have to stop. EVs dont do that. Urban trees are not going to revese climate change. Wow, you’re saying people need to keep lowering denisity.
more people the better yeah
With modern open-loop scrubbers large ships don’t emit SOx anymore…
…instead they just dump it into the sea. Science!
Wait, is this true?
We can break this record, do like me, burn tires !
Don’t just single out meat. All of industrialized agriculture is massively carbon and energy intensive and built on gradual topsoil depletion.
Meat industry is responsible for most of the farmland. If everyone was vegan we could reduce the amount of farmland we use by like 70%. Thermodynamics says its better to eat plants instead of feeding them to animals and eating animals.
Biology teachers when them teaching the 10 percent law for ecological efficiency to their class 5 years ago is actually useful
Transitioning to plant-based diets (PBDs) has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76%, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 49%, eutrophication by 49%, and green and blue water use by 21% and 14%, respectively, whilst garnering substantial health co-benefits
[…]
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/htm
If I source my beef or lamb from low-impact producers, could they have a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives? The evidence suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.
[…]
Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – have the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. But it’s still true when you compare the extremes: there’s not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of plant proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.
meat production is SO much worse is not even funny… i thinkl its somethinglike you could produce 6x more vegetal protein with the same carbon footprint
If only we had deflation people would not overconsume so much
bu… buut economic growth > everything else …?
How else are they supposed to assuage the feeling that they’re not some immortal magical beings living some divine simulation/game as the chosen
onesplayers?
I’m waiting for the hot part of the year to start where I live, and I live in a tropical country! It will be so funny! 🫠
Curious: how do they know that? Recorded history is like 5k years right?
Scientists use climate proxy records like coral skeletons, tree rings, glacial ice cores, and sediment layers. For example, the levels of oxygen 16 in a layer of ocean debris and fossils go up as temperatures rise. So a high level of oxygen 16 in sediment from one layer tells scientists that the planet was hot and watery when the sediment was laid down.
The presence of oxygen 16 tells you the planet was warm. It does NOT tell you atmospheric temperature.
The claim made in the image is fear-mongering non-sense. The earth is 4 billion years old and was almost certainly hotter in the past, and within the last 100,000 years.
Scientists need to stop being deliberately melodramatic - to the point of lying - to make a point. It is counter-productive.
The point is that they’ve established a relationship between o16 levels and temperature, so if you’ve got twice the o16 then say it was 25% warmer (made up ratio, I haven’t read the study).
This doesn’t tell us what the air temperature was, but it does tell us what it wasn’t (IE upper and lower bounds).
When you have several of these proxies it helps narrow down the temperature range (think how your god works better when you have more satellites).
Now if you know that the last seven days are the hottest on record and you know from your proxies that you are outside of temperatures of the past 100k years then it’s a pretty safe bet to state that we’re at the hottest time in the past 100k years.
There is no melodrama or lying in this fact, unfortunately.
The point isn’t the temperature per se. The planet will be fine with or WITHOUT humans. If temperatures continue to rise, humans will become very uncomfortable letting to wars and instability of society.
Meanwhile in Moscow the coldest 12 of July in 75 years is happening…
That’s why we have tried to make the change between saying global warming and refer to it as climate change which is more accurate and leads to less “oh yeah but it was cold here” or whatever’s. Just exacerbates temperature extremes
So you’re saying it’s a cycle /s
Sure, it will cool down in a few million years. We’ll be fine.
