String of Record Hot Months Came To an End In July (arstechnica.com) 81
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The past several years have been absolute scorchers, with 2023 being the warmest year ever recorded. And things did not slow down in 2024. As a result, we entered a stretch where every month set a new record as the warmest iteration of that month that we've ever recorded. Last month, that pattern stretched out for a full 12 months, as June of 2024 once again became the warmest June ever recorded. But, despite some exceptional temperatures in July, it fell just short of last July's monthly temperature record, bringing the streak to a close.
Europe's Copernicus system was first to announce that July of 2024 was ever so slightly cooler than July of 2023, missing out on setting a new record by just 0.04 degrees C. So far, none of the other major climate trackers, such as Berkeley Earth or NASA GISS, have come out with data for July. These each have slightly different approaches to tracking temperatures, and, with a margin that small, it's possible we'll see one of them register last month as warmer or statistically indistinguishable. According to the Copernicus system, July 2024 was 0.68 degrees above the average temperature for July from 1991 to 2020. It also included the warmest day ever recorded.
In terms of anomalies, July 2024 also represents the first time in a year that a month was less than 1.5 degrees C above preindustrial temperatures (defined as the average from 1850-1900).
Europe's Copernicus system was first to announce that July of 2024 was ever so slightly cooler than July of 2023, missing out on setting a new record by just 0.04 degrees C. So far, none of the other major climate trackers, such as Berkeley Earth or NASA GISS, have come out with data for July. These each have slightly different approaches to tracking temperatures, and, with a margin that small, it's possible we'll see one of them register last month as warmer or statistically indistinguishable. According to the Copernicus system, July 2024 was 0.68 degrees above the average temperature for July from 1991 to 2020. It also included the warmest day ever recorded.
In terms of anomalies, July 2024 also represents the first time in a year that a month was less than 1.5 degrees C above preindustrial temperatures (defined as the average from 1850-1900).
What a shocker (Score:4, Interesting)
Just like the graphic says. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I see that graph stops well before there were palm trees in Antarctica [smithsonianmag.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Now graph how quickly the Antarctic warmed.
Starting to see the problem yet?
Re: (Score:3)
A tool to communicate a subject to laypeople is not going to be held to the same standard as a formal argument or scientific paper. I mean unless you're a complete tool, then yes, you are free to rage against cartoons for not explaining a complex topic in a single frame.
Re: (Score:3)
Put up with sources and numbers or be forever silent.
Re:What a shocker (Score:4, Informative)
Want to peruse the citations for yourself? https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/i... [explainxkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
As is your right, as I explained (and predicted) earlier.
Re: (Score:3)
That gross cartoon is the definition of misinformation.
It's not deceptive. It's very similar to the graphs of temperature reconstructions you currently see in the scholarly literature: Reconstructions of large-scale temperature variability over the last 2000 years that were published since AR5 of the IPCC. [springernature.com]
Which is figure 3 from Esper, J., Smerdon, J.E., Anchukaitis, K.J. et al. The IPCC’s reductive Common Era temperature history. Commun Earth Environ 5, 222 (2024). [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Silly cartoon is a mess of inaccuracies ...
I don't see all these inaccuracies. Can you elaborate on what they are?
... and highly deceptive/fraudulent statistical fuckery
There's no statistics. That's just the temperature reconstruction from the sources that Munroe cites.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you could produce a revised version with citations I will gladly start linking to it.
Re: (Score:2)
I see a silly cartoon with serious statistical flaws drawn by a not-climatologist, being used by other non-climatologists to try to prove something that it doesn't prove.
It demonstrates that the global warming since the middle of last century is unprecedented. Proving that the "the climate is always changing" denalist talking point doesn't work, because the current global climate change is much faster than normal background climate change.
Is that why you [...] post this nonsense so often?
It's not nonsense. It's an expansion of northern hemisphere mean surface temperature reconstructions in the scholarly literature.
It's a childish cartoon and insulting to adults who want to discuss real issues.
The basic issue: That the increase in greenhouse gasses has increased the greenhouse effect; is childishly sim
Re: (Score:2)
I see a silly cartoon
Go and look at research papers, then.
with serious statistical flaws
Citation required.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't scroll that far. I think I need a new mouse.
Re:What a shocker (Score:4, Informative)
Rapid climate change means that growing zones will change. At the very least, it means a ton of chaos while farmers have to adapt to changing conditions. Chaos in the agriculture industry means famine. Famine means mass deaths.
It's quite possible we will end up with less arable land due to climate change, or shorter average growing seasons on our arable land. That means we have a harder time recovering to current production levels.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to be a pessimist, but I doubt we'll need to recover current growing levels after the famine...
It Depends (Score:2)
At the very least, it means a ton of chaos while farmers have to adapt to changing conditions.
It depends on where you are. Up here in Canada the projection is for longer growing seasons leading to increased crop yields and eventually the ability to grow more productive, high yield crops. Ultimately how much chaos there will be will depend on how fast the changes come - spread over several decades should enable us to adapt pretty well since we can adapt far faster than nature. However, if it gets faster than that then yes, there will be chaos.
Re: (Score:2)
My part of Canada, the actual west, the prediction is for more drought. There's less and less snow and glaciers in the mountains.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, haven't seen those predictions. Currently it does seem that drought is becoming more common. Just consider the fires, last year IIRC, much of the North West Territories was on fire bad enough for lots of evacuations, along with northern BC and Alberta. The Mackenzie river is once again very low as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to draw such a graph.
OK [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, plate tectonics has its origins early in the 20th century. There were a few decades of whinging about it, but by the 1960s it was widely accepted as a correct description of lots of earthly phenomena. Today, you can't find a geologist (or insurance actuary, in geologically-active areas) that doesn't use the theory of plate tectonics as the bedrock (pun intended) of their field.
Global warming, as
Re: What a shocker (Score:2)
plate tectonics
If you go look at the neat animation [wikipedia.org], you will see that the Antarctic plate was pretty much in its current position only 50 million years ago.
But hey: Throwing terminology around keeps most of the public back on its heels. "It sounds lke science, dude. It must be right."
Re: (Score:2)
A good chunk of Earth's history has seen ice free poles. This period of permanent ice caps is rare, perhaps 20% of geological history. Still it is the climate we've evolved for.
Re: What a shocker (Score:2)
Global warming is too slow
Re: (Score:1)
Until the next time a solar active period coincides with El Niño and we have again another string of records.
People are dumb.
Blame the Media (Score:1)
People are dumb.
Perhaps, but they are being misled by the media who are conflating weather and climate to write extra-scary headlines that grab attention. The result is that some people get whipped up into believing the world is ending which is just nonsense while others spot the inconsistencies and start to doubt climate change altogether which is equally stupid. So perhaps people are dumb but the media, whose job it is to educate and enlighten us, are making us all dumber.
Re: (Score:2)
I learned that this was going to be a record breaking year due to solar activity and El nino from the media.
I admit I am using critical thinking to realize it won't happen again for a handful of years.
But I don't know that it's the media's fault that people ignore everything they don't want to hear.
The fact that some huge percentage of years in the last 20 have been record breaking years is a thing I've learned from the media too.
Re: (Score:1)
But I don't know that it's the media's fault that people ignore everything they don't want to hear.
The problem is that much, if not all, of the media are rapidly losing everyone's trust because none of them are actually interested and focussed on reporting facts in an unbiased way as possible. The result is that when people hear something they disagree with they are now more inclined to dismiss it as media bias/half-truths than they are to think that it's a real fact and that they may need to rethink things.
If you want people to not ignore what you are saying then you need to focus on reporting newsw
Weather vs Climate (Score:2)
The problem with climate change is that, now there has been a really hot spell, everyone will say there is a pause for the next 15 years.
That is exactly why the media should never have hyped up the hot spell as climate change because it was not, it was weather. The problem they are going to have now is exactly what you said. Having firmy established that global warming means record temperature highs in a lot of people minds, those people are going to think that all our green energy efforts have now solved global warming whenever we have a period without record highs and that's a problem since it is going to need a long, steady, sustained e
Re: What a shocker (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it has been . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Good to hear since my A/C isn't working right now (Score:3)
It's not that bad. I come from a much hotter climate than where I live now. I'm actually looking forward to seeing my electric bill.
The power company tells me how I'm doing compared to similar homes in my neighborhood. If any home used less electricity than me in July I suspect it's because it's vacant.
It's getting late enough in the year that I think I may just wait until next spring to get it fixed. Imagine getting it repaired in the middle of August with a 90-day warranty and only actually using it for about 30-45 days before the warrant runs out. I don't know what kind of guarantees or warranties are offered, but I'm imagining.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it depends. HVAC companies may be starting to charge lower rates in the fall because they don't expect as many calls for air conditioning service then. And they might exte
Re:Good to hear since my A/C isn't working right n (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever wondered about those things? We generally keep the house around 74 in the summer and 64 in the winter which I think is a pretty good compromise (a small fan in the summer and warm clothes in the winter make it comfortable), yet we always get 'average' on those ratings. I know our neighbors keep their house so col
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree that those temps seem like a good compromise to save electricity, but I really see a difference between summer and winter. In winter my gas bill goes up and my electric bill goes down and I start being more efficient than the average neighbor. Typically from June through September I use more than the average neighbor. I do like my A/C, but the fan I bought helps. Oh my, that uses electricity too. I'm sure it doesn't use as much as the A/C.
I noticed a box for a fan in my neighbor's trash last
Re: (Score:2)
Someone should mod this "funny".
It was me (Score:5, Funny)
I spent all July with the windows open and the A/C on.
You're welcome for cooling things down!
Re: (Score:2)
No, you fuckers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or you could do it properly: ñ produces ñ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am 100% utterly surprised that /. renders that properly.
Re: (Score:2)
No one claimed the warming has stopped, just that July isn't setting monthly records, unlike the preceding few months.
Re:Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
The scientists and engineers of the Internet celebrate skepticism. Unless we're discussing this topic.
There's a difference between being skeptical and being ignorant and repeating bullshit that has been demonstrably proven wrong time and time again.
When your you're young and your dad tells you the world you're allowed to be skeptical. When you're grown up and every scientists in the world agrees the world is round, when we on the daily send things orbiting around our globe, when we have direct pictures and measurements of it, you're no longer skeptical, you're an ignorant denier.
There's not a scientist or engineer in the world who celebrates skepticism of well understood and proven concepts.
Re: (Score:2)
Every? We've told you a million times: Don't exaggerate.
The funny thing is... I literally am not exaggerating.
Re: (Score:2)
The science is settled. You're a conspiracy theorist. You're spreading misinformation.
Yes that's how it works. Think it's wrong? Well gravity is just a theory so you're free to float the fuck away.
The problem is that the same usual group of reeee-tards demand nobody question any conclusions that repudiate their political dogma.
Why would anyone question politics when the settled science is the science which was produced under left governments, right governments, democratically elected leaders, dictators (yes the Chinese scientists also agree it's a thing), and even heavily biased science by special interest groups (like those oil industry funded studies), all agree.
Hint: When everyone is against you from across the entire
Re: (Score:3)
Almost no snowflakes vote Democratic. Snowflakes are mostly Republican...like closeted gays are mostly Republican (which is why they managed to crash the Grindr servers where they had their convention...so many guys who hate themselves, but love the cock).
Re:Funny (Score:5, Funny)
"All right, call it in the air, heads or tails.
"Heads."
"Nope, turns out it's tails."
"I say it's heads."
"No, look. See, eagle. Tails."
"Looks like heads to me.
"No, George Washington in profile is heads. The eagle is tails."
"That eagle's tail isn't even visible. He may not even have one. His head, however, is very prominent."
"No, there's a tail. You can see it below the... the branch he's perched on."
"That could be anything."
"Well, it's not really relevant. 'Heads' and 'tails' are just words. They're not, like, describing the things in the pictures."
"AHA! So you admit that heads and tails are just a THEORY."
"I... what? No? Plus, that's not even what the word 'theory' means. It doesn't mean, like, 'made up on the spot'. It means a system of related ideas."
"Real convenient, just defining words to mean whatever YOU want."
"It's... it's tails. Is there somebody else we can talk to, someone you trust, who can tell you it's tails?"
"Someone I trust who believes in tails? Not likely. I only trust heirs to frozen food fortunes who have cable TV shows. And he says that all coins are heads. Except when Hillary Clinton called 'heads' that time. But that was completely different, of course."
"..."
"You know, most quarters nowadays don't even HAVE eagles on the back. What kind of trick quarter do you have there?"
naysay (Score:3)
Global Warming : Mission Accomplished! (Score:1)
nt
Global Cooling Again (Score:2)
Accurate, but incomplete (Score:2)
I would like to commend the slashdot editors for at least picking a source (climate.copernicus.eu) that contains some actual details we can inspect rather than sourcing non-technical news organizations such as The Guardian (*blech*). The summary is accurately stated, another win. Well done.
However, by "warmest year ever recorded", they mean "since 1991". Obviously that's a huge problem, because there have been much longer periods of high temperatures even in the recent past, such as in the 1930s in the US,
Re: (Score:3)
I'm legitimately curious, what data are you looking at to come to that conclusion. If I look up the Dust Bowl heat wave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave), then I find this information:
Summer 1936 remained the warmest summer on record in the USA since official records began in 1895, until 2021.[33] February 1936 was the coldest February on record, and 5 of the 12 months were below average, leaving the full year 1936 at just above the average.
This doesn't seem to support your point. 2023 handily beat 2021.
Are you comparing using a different measure?
Moreover, the surface air temperature curves in the Ars Technica article go back to 1940. Right at the top of the article: https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com]
I'm obviously not omniscient, but is
La Nina kicking in ... (Score:2)
As I said earlier [slashdot.org], this string of record breaking warm months globally may be a clue that runaway warming has started, but ONLY IF it continues in autumn.
If it does not continue (and it didn't), it means that the effects of La Nina have started, and that is exactly what we are seeing ...
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, you will never concede to the vast preponderance of evidence that industrial release of vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere across something only slightly proud of a century is having a detrimental effect on world climate. Just so we know where you stand, you do admit that lead tetraethyl was found in Antarctic ice samples clear back in the sixties, yes? I mean, there is such a thing as air pollution, right? And, pollution is bad, wouldn't you agree?
So global warming doesn't matter, we s
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know if you are trolling or having a serious discussion ... but anyways ...
Yes, CO2 from two centuries of burning fossil fuel is a major concern, and we need to transition to cleaner energy. I say two centuries, because it all started with coal and steam engines, not just gasoline and internal combustion engines.
The relative slow down of the warming trend that has gone for about a year is only because we have La Nina kicking in. It does not mean that global warming has magically stopped, or was not th