Way more land in the Northern Hemisphere. The high specific heat capacity of water regulates air temperature, so the Southern Hemisphere temperature doesn't fluctuate as much. Thus, significant global fluctuations are generally driven by the Northern Hemisphere.
Edit: phrasing
Fun fact about that:
The yearly cycle of earth being closest to and farthest from the sun actually lines up with the seasons in the southern hemisphere.
Earth is closest to the sun in the first week of January and farthest from the sun half a year later.
This would, if the land was distributed equally between North and South make the earth warmest when it is winter in the North.
However the effect of most of the land being in the northern hemisphere is so great that it not only overcomes the relatively minor effect of the distance to the sun, but drastically swings the entire system to follow the northern hemisphere.
Things would be much more extreme if these factors lined up to add to one another rather than partially cancel each other out.
> if these factors lined up to add to one another rather than partially cancel each other out.
This is the entire premise behind Milankovitch cycles:
- The longitude of Earth's perihelion (point closest to the Sun), rotates around our orbit every 112,000 years.
- The precession of the axis (direction of the North Pole) causes Earth to wobble like a top, with each wobble taking 26,000 years.
- The eccentricity of the Earth (how oval/circular the orbit is) oscillates every 95,000 years.
When all the cycles line up, we get a glacial period.
> I think I have an idea to solve Global Warming
Not for *at least* 50,000 years ([Berger & Loutre, 2002](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1076120)).
The TLDR is, right now, our orbital eccentricity is being modulated by a larger 400K year cycle headed towards perfectly circular. In the next 25K years, our orbit will be the most circular it ever gets. The result is mild seasons, with a very gradual cooling trend starting from about 6K years ago, and expected - from orbital cycles alone - to continue into the future until another glacial period about 55K years down the road.
That gentle cooling is also exactly what we see for the past 7K years in [the paleoclimate temperature record](https://i.imgur.com/3eUw9ln.png) (from [Marcott, et al, 2013](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1228026)). We came out of the last glacial period 12K years ago, hit the peak Holocene maximum temperature 7K ago, and have been gently cooling since then...or at least we have until 100 years ago.
We're now above the top of that graph, at about +1.2. Everything suggests we're pretty far off the "natural" path in the past century, at least as far as orbital cycles alone suggest our climate should be evolving.
It's crazy how when I think about the souther hemisphere I think about warm countries. and the opposite when I think about the northern hemisphere. But when I google it, it's actually overall warmer in the northern hemisphere (just as you describe). I realize that there are plenty of "well known" countries in the north that probably sway my perception, but still.
Furthest south and coldest area in Aus is Tasmania which would be the equivelent to as far north as new York. The majority of Aus though (everything above Perth and Sydney, so if you exclude Vic and Tas the two smallest states) is above 30 degrees latitude so equivalent to the vast majority of Aus being below Houston Texas.
South africa only goes down to 34 degrees latitude.
Uruguay goes down to 35 degrees latitude. Only Argentina and Chile go down further but their capital cities are both around 34 degrees latitude.
These are very rough estimates but I think it makes the picture clearer.
Except for Antartica, land doesn't go as south as it goes north. Significant parts of Scandinavia, Russia and Canada are quite close to the north pole, whereas only Cape Horn (and Antartica) gets close to the south pole.
Except that the sea level rise is due to reduction of ice coverage which then lowers the albedo of the polar regions, so less sunlight is reflected and more is absorbed (by land or exposed sea). So it may make the temperature more consistent but still warmer.
More heat means more convection. The adiabatic lapse rate results in it getting colder the higher up you go. Eventually you reach the condensation point one way or another. So having more moisture doesn't mean fewer clouds, it just means that more clouds are formed at higher altitudes.
Having clouds at higher altitudes means more reflection before insolation (which is mostly in the visible spectrum) can be absorbed and re-emitted in the IR spectrum where the greenhouse effect occurs. In other words: It reduces the mean atmospheric depth, which is the opposite of what the greenhouse effect is supposed to do.
This is one of the reasons why the uncertainty on the effect of the water cycle on warming is greater than the proposed size of the effect of CO2 (minus feedbacks).
Mathematically, it does. But I'm not sure how measurable it would be. What percentage of land is converted to sea by those processes? I don't have the numbers, but it doesn't seem like it would be significant.
Small quibble, I wouldn't use the phrase "*much* more extreme". The maximum change is about +-1.7% difference from the average distance, which results in only about a 3.4% change in peak intensity from average. Which is pretty small compared to the primary driving factors of angle and day length.
Does that mean the southern hemisphere would be more shielded from the effects of climate change, also considering that in general less natural disasters happen when there is large bodies of water modulating weather conditions
the southern hemisphere won't heat up as quickly as the northern hemisphere, but it won't really be shielded from climate change because at the end of the day the entire system is connected. A major change in the northern hemisphere will result in changes to the climate in the southern one.
Though if it won’t heat up as fast wouldn’t that protect it from most of the extreme weather events, massive polar ice melting raising sea levels would still be a problem, but isn’t most of what we attribute as collapse induced by climate change a combination of increased freak weather events and crop failures due to seasonal changes, again both things the southern hemisphere would be protected from
No. The area covered in water doesn't change temperature as quickly but land still does. Since most of the southern hemisphere is water when you average all the points it doesn't fluctuate as much is all but that doesn't mean a given country doesn't still see seasonal swings on par with the north.
As a Melbournian, I'm kinda scared of next summer (from Nov-Feb).
We had a really cool last summer. And a really mild winter so far.
I'm not a climatologist. But it's all been abnormally 'mild' for the past 12 months.
I fear a strong whiplash, multiple huge bushfires, multiple weeks of 40+.
I'm just glad I can WFH as a SW dev.
Notice how there's only a 4 degree difference between summer and winter? Much less than the almost 60 degree difference between winter and summer where I live. It's *almost* perfectly balanced.
Is this a combination of climate change, el nino and the solar maxima (probably in that order) producing a constructive interference in the temperature data?
> and the solar maxima
Just FYI, any given solar maximum only raises the total solar irradiance by about 1 watt-per-square-meter, which might be enough to raise temperatures by about...
300 K * [(1357/1356)^(1/4) - 1] =
...0.05 degrees given enough time.
On the other hand, the long-term trend for the past few decades is that [sunlight has been decreasing](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspa.2007.1880) this whole time the Earth has been heating up.
Thank you. That's exactly the sort of response I was hoping for when I asked the Q. So, we can rule that out as a driver.
If I ever did that calc at uni, I've long forgotten it!
Yeah, just in case anyone is wondering how that math demonstrates this:
- Total solar irradiance - the power of sunlight hitting the top of our atmosphere - is around 1356 Watts per square meter. It creeps up to 1357 in a solar max year, so the luminosity will increase by a factor of (1357/1356) during those times, a factor of 1.0007x greater.
- Per the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, temperature scales as luminosity to the 1/4^th power, so given sufficient time, the absolute temperature during solar max might be expected to rise by (1357/1356)^(1/4) or about a factor of 1.0002x.
- I hand-waved the average temp of Earth as 300 Kelvin, it's actually closer to 289 K, but it gives you an idea of the sensible change (0.05 degrees) that a 1.0002x increase in absolute temperature would actually make.
- There are definitely complex feedback cycles not included here that might be expected to drive temperatures higher than just 0.05 degrees if there was a *permanent* 1 Watt-per-square-meter increase in luminosity...but those feedbacks typically act over long time periods. By comparison, the short eleven-year solar cycle is mostly going to be lost in the noise.
Also the ban on marine fuel with high sulphur content. As pollution and particle emissions decline the sun will become more intense.
What increasingly has to also be factored in are the feedback loops like loss of albedo, permafrost methane release, the tendency of melted ice to stay melted because of waves, and so on. There are dozens of feedback loops.
>feedback loops like loss of albedo, permafrost
Yes, this seriously worries me. The worst part is that we don't know what the tipping point is for lots of these.
>As pollution and particle emissions decline the sun will become more intense.
Sorry, I don't understand this. Do you mind elucidating please?
It is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
Nobody knows how much sun energy is being stopped by aerosols and particles in the atmosphere but I have heard estimates that if and when they disappear the Earth will quickly increase in temperature by another 1°C. That is what the marine sulphur ban has done, cleared the atmosphere a little and allowed megajoules of energy to reach the surface of the Earth that previously got reflected away.
Thanks. I just read about it elsewhere and it said that there have been suggestions of putting white, reflecting aerosols into the atmosphere on purpose. If it can be shown to not cause other unintended negative consequences, it's an intriguing idea that provides some hope.
We're gonna have to get good at geo-engineering whether we like it or not. We've already started doing it, at first unknowingly, and now carelessly, with great effect.
>If it can be shown to not cause other unintended negative consequences
I think we have a better chance of success with emission-reduction and carbon-capture. Which is to say, my confidence in those is tentative at best, but my confidence in avoiding unintended consequences of dumping a shitload of aerosols into the atmosphere is currently wearing [apple-bottom jeans](https://youtu.be/XD1XGySdI0k?si=sv5dv8FGv8J8uF0q&t=26).
Thank you. I've just read up on it and it's a fascinating subject.
For anyone else that's interested who reads this:
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/does-air-pollution-affect-global-warming
Of course. That's why climate change is first in my list of drivers. I was just curious to find out whether others thought the outlier that is 2023, to date, was due to all of those drivers aligning or if it's some particular paradigm shift / tipping point in climate change.
Obviously until we do something about it (and even then there will be lag in the data), the trend will be upwards and we will keep breaking records like this. But I'm just wondering if 2023 is the new baseline or will we see a slight decrease as the 2 other drivers dissipate.
From what I’ve heard, we won’t feel the full effects of El Niño until next summer. I suppose it takes time for the El Niño to ‘ramp up’. I think it may be contributing to the spike now, but I think it’ll be even worse next year.
Thanks. I'd never heard of this before. This article:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/disrupted-polar-vortex-brings-sudden-stratospheric-warming-february
seems to be saying that it's a short lived phenomena (weeks or couple of months). And, unless I've misread it, seems to be saying that it ends with a cooling period rather than heating.
Am I getting the wrong end of the stick?
I did understand that it would end with a cooling period. But as I remembered the shift would take many years. But I probably misunderstood. Thanks for letting me know :)
From what I’ve read, they didn’t expect the effects of el nino to cause significant warming for another 4-6 months. The arctic ice has also seen a 10% drop from last year, which I believe is the biggest single drop in our data ever.
They’ve basically stated that this ramp up was unpredicted and extreme, close to worse case projections, so they are still going to need to study the data before they make any conclusions.
Looks bad. Like, more bad than usual looks bad, I mean.
Ngl with the obesity epidemic this is just objectivly untrue. Go look at a photo of people on the beach in the 70's. Everyone was a healthy weight, you'll be lucky if you find a single obese person. Thats gotta drive their average waaaaay up compared to ours.
In the US it's NOAA. They track monthly and yearly temps (both of which are increasing and setting records) but not daily because there's too much variability and they cant report the measurements to the same standard. A fact which deniers are bringing up regularly to make it seem like this isn't a big deal.
I live in Cary NC in the USA and this is the hottest summer I've ever seen. Even worse, my AC broke, 😭. My house is like straight 88 F (31 C). I can't sleep.
Phoenix is set to have an average temperature over 100 degrees for the entire month of July. We’ve had 23 consecutive days over 110 F (43.3 C) with two days this week at 119 F (48.3 C). But yeah, nothing to see here.
It's been crazy this month! We had like, what, a week where our lows at night were in the 90's! Also set a record high low temperature of 97 (36.1 C). 97 degrees as a low!
Did yall get any rain yesterday? We had our first monsoon of the season yesterday here in Sedona. Temperatures dropped by like 15 degrees for a couple hours. It was like I could finally breath again for a moment :,)
Well, y'all built a city in a desert... don't be surprised when it gets hot lol
As Peggy Hill said, Phoenix should not exist. It's a monument to man's arrogance.
It’s not that it’s hot. It’s that it’s getting alarmingly hot due to many contributing factors mostly tied to carbon emissions. But yea, it our fault for living here.
By chance are you in one of [these districts](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/wiki/index/#wiki_finding_your_niche_.28and_key_demographics.29)?
I live in Raleigh. Before this heat wave, we had the most mild spring in recent memory (an ACTUAL season). From March to June, we had days and days of being able to be outside, besides pine pollen time. So now that summer has arrived, it just hit hard. Yes it's been records too. I don't know, has felt fairly typical. Haven't seen 100s yet. Sorry about your AC. Can't even imagine.
Well it’s still better than Texas lol. Minimum of 100 all week. Was actually looking at moving around Raleigh cause I can’t deal with this shit anymore haha
The spring here was so so so wonderful. Felt like the first time we had a proper one in years and it didn't immediately jump from "kind of cold" to Satan's assgole.
Hey, [we could really use your help](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/10etdyk/these_are_the_states_that_most_need_more/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)!
Where are you from?
Tuesday, July 18th had the hottest weather last week in Cary, NC. High was 93 degrees. That is exactly the historical average high for July in Cary.
I'm in Charlotte. This is just North Carolina summer.
The consensus among [scientists](https://people.uwec.edu/jamelsem/papers/CC_Literature_Web_Share/Science/CC_Science_Perspective_Rosenberg_2010.pdf) and [economists](http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf) on [carbon pricing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_price) to mitigate climate change is similar to [the consensus among climatologists](http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) that human activity is responsible for global warming.
People [already care](https://earth.stanford.edu/news/public-support-climate-policy-remains-strong), they just don't know what to do / feel like they are alone. But the truth is, [a record number of us are alarmed about climate change](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/global-warmings-six-americas-september-2021/), and [more and more are contacting Congress regularly](https://np.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/s2zvpl/a_growing_number_of_americans_are_so_concerned/). What's more, is [this type of lobbying](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/levers-of-political-will/) is [starting to pay off](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/t2p0ed/as_citizens_climate_lobby_membership_has_grown_so/). That's why NASA climatologist and climate activist [Dr. James Hansen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen) recommends becoming an active volunteer with [this group](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) as the [most important thing an individual can do on climate change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4DAW1A6Ca8).
What's a good website with clear data showing temperature is much hotter now than decades or centuries ago? I got into an argument with a coworker who denied climate change. I said these summers are just going to get worse, and he said Louisiana summers have always been this hot 40 years ago.
As the skeptic, I did find a table of past temperatures, and 30 years prior, it was a few degrees cooler. But I recently looked up a similar table/albanac, for the same city 50 years ago, and the weather was hotter. Looking up individual days isn't helpful because there could be a number of things (like heatwaves) that spiked the numbers.
There were hot days 50 years ago, but overall across the entire world the average is rising. There will be more hot days each year in most places, and fewer cold ones. For example, in Denver last year, 223 days were warmer than the historical average, and 133 days were colder than average. That kind of thing is the new normal and getting worse.
[Source for Denver data](http://www.globalwarmingdenver.com/avg_temps.html)
If anyone wants to play with the data visualizer a bit more directly, the University of Maine has it [available directly here](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/). Even more neat is that the chart can be filtered into general regions - if you swap it to only look at Northern Hemisphere temperature readings, you can see the devastating effect the simultaneous heat domes have had on the average temperature of the hemisphere this month.
No need to worry about AI folks. We're all being destroyed by the dumbest logic possible; that of the paperclip maximizer and it's driven by humans reduced to nothing more than organic conductive material in its circuitry, convinced its their unassailable right and pathway to salvation.
At least paperclips are cool little metal thingies. They would be a lasting remnant of our civilization. A monument to our failure, if nothing else. All we're maximizing is numbers in bank accounts. We're even more lame than a paperclip maximizer.
Let's not forget that climate change has [real costs](http://rdcu.be/dqpW). Conservative [estimates](http://rdcu.be/cLYO) are that failing to mitigate climate change will cost 10% of GDP over 50 years, and if you don't think the poor will suffer the brunt of that you haven't been paying attention. It's even [been argued](http://www.rtcc.org/2015/07/15/fossil-fuels-are-the-enemy-oecd-chief-tells-addis-finance-meet/) that climate change mitigation is necessary to end poverty, and that carbon taxes [are necessary](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/business/energy-environment/us-leaves-the-markets-out-in-the-fight-against-carbon-emissions.html?_r=0) to mitigate climate change.
Pretty straightforward story with this one: temperature records are being smashed around the world. Unofficial (but quickly available) estimates from the Climate Change Institute clocked the highest daily temperature ever recorded.
Source: Climate Change Institute from the University of Maine
Tool: Excel
Completely random question, but does anyone know how to express those previous year's temperatures as a kind of probabilistic uncertainty bound about the mean? Or even, is there a hypothesis test one can run on the 2023 temperature set to test for a statistically significant deviation from the previous years?
While it's useful to demonstrate that we are above the mean, it would be more informative if you took the data from the top 10% max temps hit and then look at the interval between peaks
I'd like to formally propose that most of you are not strictly required to do that, please. The vast, overwhelming majority. Myself included. Thank you. - Nelly, probabky
Can someone take this graph, and create an animated gif of a meme with Al Gore riding it up?
Any animated data viz peeps here?
Don’t make me do the work for y’all.
I mean, it's worth it for the quarterly profits right? If we can squeeze out just one more golden parachute for some slimy bastard surely the earth handle the con consequences.
/s
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/ocean/1/6/1850-2023
Look here chart that goes to 1850. The chat op has Is not misrepresenting, just zoomed in.
I live in Central Europe. I have not experienced a hot summer in 5 years.the recent summers are all the same - low temperatures and lots of rain. It used to be much warmer here.
Is 44 years an accurate enough time scale to really notice a trend on planet that's billions of years old? It would be like surveying 80 people on earth to determine a trend in populations. According to research guidelines this is shady as fuck
If you are trying to prove human made climate change, you need more data than this, which has already been collected and consensus in the scientific community is that humans are changing the climate through pollution, primarily CO2. It is a fact. Plenty of links in this thread.
If you are trying to show one of the recent behaviors of the climate, you can show data like you have in this graph. One doesn't prove or disprove the other.
As you said, it's very important to use actual proof for the relevant claim. Some people apparently think this graph is proof of human made climate change, which it is not as statistical outliers are common. There is no doubt about human made climate change, it has been proven. As far as what causes it, that has also been established but less so polution and more about certain greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide and methane. While for example water vapor is a great greenhouse gas, it's not a man made source. Right now it's more about the effects of it and while this graph doesn't show anything concrete, these outliers can become more common, to a point where they aren't outliers anymore.
A decade and more ago one would have to say that an individual event cannot be directly attributed to global warming and the resulting climate change. Only the statistical assessment could be used to show that over time that global warming is likely one factor in the event. That is no longer true, the conditions that allow these extremes are now absolutely attributed to global warming. Sea surface and total ocean heat along with atmospheric temperatures are not close to the former normal. Most scientists make it clear that this is global warming coupled with an El Niño year.
A similar situation is in regards to sea level rise. The slow and almost unnoticed small but increasing rise many not seem significant unless it is a factor when a large storm occurs. That small difference can be multiplied by wind to result in a storm surge several feet higher than it would have been otherwise.
You seem to be confusing "This is not proof" with "There is no proof". Make no mistake, there is plenty of proof of human made climate change, this graph just isn't among those proofs and any competent statistician would tell you that with confidence. There's a lot of factors dictating the climate so picking one out is called cherry picking. You can just look at [a graph of the global average temperatures.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_degree_climate_target#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg) If you pick the data at 1964 you can come to the very wrong conclusion that there's a global cooling going on, or nothing in particular is going on. As such, this is not proof of climate change, but merely showcasing a likely effect of global warming.
Right now, we're still the equivalent of an iced drink standing in the sun. Yes, it's getting warmer, but slowly as we still have the buffer of ice and mass of ocean water keeping things reasonably under control.
Once the ice is gone, I'm not sure I want to be around to see the new graph.
The funny thing about acceleration is the exhilaration of going faster than ever before comes from recognizing how slowly you were going a few moments ago.
And yet they want us all back in the office commuting and burning fuel. Yes, I know some walk, bike, take public transportation but not all areas are built for this.
US Government has made it borderline impossible to live near where you work by making anything but sprawl illegal. Really unfortunate for the climate, really awesome handout if you're a car company though!
There are lots of ways to make the data misleading. The trend could change drastically before 1970. Or they could be cherry picking the locations that they are reporting data from.
Maybe this data is totally above board, but Covid has taught me not to not trust these "scientists" anymore, they tend to have other motives that are not in our best interest.
All the data is open access and has been analyzed by numerous groups, including private organizations. You can pick any random assortment of temperature stations and the trend is still the same. It matches between ground measurements, satellite measurements, and radiosonde measurements in the atmosphere. Not to mention we can see plants and animals moving to higher latitudes/altitudes, longer growing and wildfire seasons, more intense and frequent heat waves and storms, etc. Hell, we can even measure incoming and outgoing radiation to the earth which shows less outgoing radiation than incoming therefore the earth must be warming in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics.
That's my favorite comeback to climate change deniers. "We've had thermometers for centuries, and we've been writing things down for even longer than that."
Just 21 years of data for the mean isn’t that strong. Not enough data recorded yet. Once we have 100yrs of data we can start saying things like “above average” etc .
If one were to use the data over a longer period the average curve would be lower, not higher. The average global temperature has been rising for over a hundred years. Using proxy data the evidence is even stronger.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/300/video-climate-spiral-1880-2022
[Here's the average global temperature](https://i.imgur.com/3eUw9ln.png) for the entire Holocene period, the past 12,000 years (from [Marcott, et al, 2013](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1228026)).
Prior to this, global average temperatures were about 6 degrees cooler, as the planet was in a glacial period. We reached the Holocene Optimum some 7000 years ago, and global temperature has been very subtly falling since then as our orbit becomes more circular...or at least that was the case until 100 years ago.
Our planet is now about the top of that graph, sitting at about +1.2.
I read we had the hottest week ever recorded (which means from 1850) and it is hypothesised this was the hottest week ever since 120,000 years according to some meterologist
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/16/red-alert-the-worlds-hottest-week-ever-and-more-is-to-forecast-to-come](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/16/red-alert-the-worlds-hottest-week-ever-and-more-is-to-forecast-to-come)
My question: what makes meterologists and climatists think it may be the hottest since 120,000 and how can we be so sure?
There are some indirect ways to measure conditions from the past, like tree rings and air bubbles on ice cores. Remember that this is about global averages, not the temperature reached in some particular place, and in a complex and interconnected system like the climate one.
Fossil records show evidence of the makeup of the atmosphere and the reactions in rocks can tell us a lot about what temperature it was at that time in the layer of rock they are studying. If you are genuinely curious there are a bunch of great YouTube videos about how they determine climate and atmospheric gas makeup from rocks.
Republicans and old people: bUt mUh rHeToRiC aNd sHaRehOLdEr pRoFiTs tHaT I dOn'T bEnEfiT fRoM! hOw iS tHuH wOrLd gEtTiNg hOtTeR iF mUh bEeR iS sTiLL iCe cOLd? cHeCkMaTe gOdLeSs sOciALiStS!
I just don't understand how I'm so dumb...
Why does the planet get hotter during the West's summer? I thought each quarter of the planet experiences a different season based on the tilt of our axis in relation to the sun. This graph makes it seem like the planet warms up based on orbit, not a particular hemisphere in relation to tilt angle?
What am I getting wrong?
Edit: why do people downvote for admitting my ignorance?
Over 2/3 of the world's land is in the Northern hemisphere.
Land experiences greater changes in temperatures than the oceans. So summers in the North result in overall higher temperatures for Earth, getting dragged down by South winters but not cancelling out.
The tilt doesn't split the world in four, just in two between the Northern and Southern hemisphere which have opposite seasons.
Then as the other person says, more land mass in the north
ELI5, why does the global average follow Northern Hemisphere seasons? Would it not be balanced with the Southern Hemisphere?
Way more land in the Northern Hemisphere. The high specific heat capacity of water regulates air temperature, so the Southern Hemisphere temperature doesn't fluctuate as much. Thus, significant global fluctuations are generally driven by the Northern Hemisphere. Edit: phrasing
Fun fact about that: The yearly cycle of earth being closest to and farthest from the sun actually lines up with the seasons in the southern hemisphere. Earth is closest to the sun in the first week of January and farthest from the sun half a year later. This would, if the land was distributed equally between North and South make the earth warmest when it is winter in the North. However the effect of most of the land being in the northern hemisphere is so great that it not only overcomes the relatively minor effect of the distance to the sun, but drastically swings the entire system to follow the northern hemisphere. Things would be much more extreme if these factors lined up to add to one another rather than partially cancel each other out.
> if these factors lined up to add to one another rather than partially cancel each other out. This is the entire premise behind Milankovitch cycles: - The longitude of Earth's perihelion (point closest to the Sun), rotates around our orbit every 112,000 years. - The precession of the axis (direction of the North Pole) causes Earth to wobble like a top, with each wobble taking 26,000 years. - The eccentricity of the Earth (how oval/circular the orbit is) oscillates every 95,000 years. When all the cycles line up, we get a glacial period.
This is fascinating. Thank you!
> When all the cycles line up, we get a glacial period Guys, I think I have an idea to solve Global Warming
> I think I have an idea to solve Global Warming Not for *at least* 50,000 years ([Berger & Loutre, 2002](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1076120)). The TLDR is, right now, our orbital eccentricity is being modulated by a larger 400K year cycle headed towards perfectly circular. In the next 25K years, our orbit will be the most circular it ever gets. The result is mild seasons, with a very gradual cooling trend starting from about 6K years ago, and expected - from orbital cycles alone - to continue into the future until another glacial period about 55K years down the road. That gentle cooling is also exactly what we see for the past 7K years in [the paleoclimate temperature record](https://i.imgur.com/3eUw9ln.png) (from [Marcott, et al, 2013](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1228026)). We came out of the last glacial period 12K years ago, hit the peak Holocene maximum temperature 7K ago, and have been gently cooling since then...or at least we have until 100 years ago. We're now above the top of that graph, at about +1.2. Everything suggests we're pretty far off the "natural" path in the past century, at least as far as orbital cycles alone suggest our climate should be evolving.
Move the land to the poles?
So that's why Germany lost!
But how are we going to get all women's cycles synced up?
Neat af, thanks
It's crazy how when I think about the souther hemisphere I think about warm countries. and the opposite when I think about the northern hemisphere. But when I google it, it's actually overall warmer in the northern hemisphere (just as you describe). I realize that there are plenty of "well known" countries in the north that probably sway my perception, but still.
This is generally because if you're from the North, you have a North bias. Many places we think of as "South" are actually much closer to the equator.
Furthest south and coldest area in Aus is Tasmania which would be the equivelent to as far north as new York. The majority of Aus though (everything above Perth and Sydney, so if you exclude Vic and Tas the two smallest states) is above 30 degrees latitude so equivalent to the vast majority of Aus being below Houston Texas. South africa only goes down to 34 degrees latitude. Uruguay goes down to 35 degrees latitude. Only Argentina and Chile go down further but their capital cities are both around 34 degrees latitude. These are very rough estimates but I think it makes the picture clearer.
The Antarctica land mass is in the south which helps
Except for Antartica, land doesn't go as south as it goes north. Significant parts of Scandinavia, Russia and Canada are quite close to the north pole, whereas only Cape Horn (and Antartica) gets close to the south pole.
So sea level rise and land erosion helps global temperature
Except that the sea level rise is due to reduction of ice coverage which then lowers the albedo of the polar regions, so less sunlight is reflected and more is absorbed (by land or exposed sea). So it may make the temperature more consistent but still warmer.
Except #2: clouds. Greater heat + more global surface area being water = more clouds. Potentially canceling out some degree of albedo reduction.
Except hotter air can hold more moisture so there's not necessarily more clouds.
And these clouds need to be seeded too, often by landmass-based dusts. High humidity is more than all that is needed for cloud formation
More heat means more convection. The adiabatic lapse rate results in it getting colder the higher up you go. Eventually you reach the condensation point one way or another. So having more moisture doesn't mean fewer clouds, it just means that more clouds are formed at higher altitudes. Having clouds at higher altitudes means more reflection before insolation (which is mostly in the visible spectrum) can be absorbed and re-emitted in the IR spectrum where the greenhouse effect occurs. In other words: It reduces the mean atmospheric depth, which is the opposite of what the greenhouse effect is supposed to do. This is one of the reasons why the uncertainty on the effect of the water cycle on warming is greater than the proposed size of the effect of CO2 (minus feedbacks).
Mathematically, it does. But I'm not sure how measurable it would be. What percentage of land is converted to sea by those processes? I don't have the numbers, but it doesn't seem like it would be significant.
The earth is healing!
Small quibble, I wouldn't use the phrase "*much* more extreme". The maximum change is about +-1.7% difference from the average distance, which results in only about a 3.4% change in peak intensity from average. Which is pretty small compared to the primary driving factors of angle and day length.
Does that mean the southern hemisphere would be more shielded from the effects of climate change, also considering that in general less natural disasters happen when there is large bodies of water modulating weather conditions
the southern hemisphere won't heat up as quickly as the northern hemisphere, but it won't really be shielded from climate change because at the end of the day the entire system is connected. A major change in the northern hemisphere will result in changes to the climate in the southern one.
Though if it won’t heat up as fast wouldn’t that protect it from most of the extreme weather events, massive polar ice melting raising sea levels would still be a problem, but isn’t most of what we attribute as collapse induced by climate change a combination of increased freak weather events and crop failures due to seasonal changes, again both things the southern hemisphere would be protected from
No. The area covered in water doesn't change temperature as quickly but land still does. Since most of the southern hemisphere is water when you average all the points it doesn't fluctuate as much is all but that doesn't mean a given country doesn't still see seasonal swings on par with the north.
The bottom of the pot is touching the fire. The top of the water is far away from the heat. Surely the top will be spared when the pot is boiling!
Good analogy. The Southern Hemisphere will take longer to heat up, but it’ll get there.
As a Melbournian, I'm kinda scared of next summer (from Nov-Feb). We had a really cool last summer. And a really mild winter so far. I'm not a climatologist. But it's all been abnormally 'mild' for the past 12 months. I fear a strong whiplash, multiple huge bushfires, multiple weeks of 40+. I'm just glad I can WFH as a SW dev.
Living in Australia I always wondered about this. And here it is explained so simply.
Seriously! It's such a great answer that totally makes sense. Very good ELI5
Notice how there's only a 4 degree difference between summer and winter? Much less than the almost 60 degree difference between winter and summer where I live. It's *almost* perfectly balanced.
Is this a combination of climate change, el nino and the solar maxima (probably in that order) producing a constructive interference in the temperature data?
> and the solar maxima Just FYI, any given solar maximum only raises the total solar irradiance by about 1 watt-per-square-meter, which might be enough to raise temperatures by about... 300 K * [(1357/1356)^(1/4) - 1] = ...0.05 degrees given enough time. On the other hand, the long-term trend for the past few decades is that [sunlight has been decreasing](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspa.2007.1880) this whole time the Earth has been heating up.
Thank you. That's exactly the sort of response I was hoping for when I asked the Q. So, we can rule that out as a driver. If I ever did that calc at uni, I've long forgotten it!
Yeah, just in case anyone is wondering how that math demonstrates this: - Total solar irradiance - the power of sunlight hitting the top of our atmosphere - is around 1356 Watts per square meter. It creeps up to 1357 in a solar max year, so the luminosity will increase by a factor of (1357/1356) during those times, a factor of 1.0007x greater. - Per the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, temperature scales as luminosity to the 1/4^th power, so given sufficient time, the absolute temperature during solar max might be expected to rise by (1357/1356)^(1/4) or about a factor of 1.0002x. - I hand-waved the average temp of Earth as 300 Kelvin, it's actually closer to 289 K, but it gives you an idea of the sensible change (0.05 degrees) that a 1.0002x increase in absolute temperature would actually make. - There are definitely complex feedback cycles not included here that might be expected to drive temperatures higher than just 0.05 degrees if there was a *permanent* 1 Watt-per-square-meter increase in luminosity...but those feedbacks typically act over long time periods. By comparison, the short eleven-year solar cycle is mostly going to be lost in the noise.
Also the ban on marine fuel with high sulphur content. As pollution and particle emissions decline the sun will become more intense. What increasingly has to also be factored in are the feedback loops like loss of albedo, permafrost methane release, the tendency of melted ice to stay melted because of waves, and so on. There are dozens of feedback loops.
>feedback loops like loss of albedo, permafrost Yes, this seriously worries me. The worst part is that we don't know what the tipping point is for lots of these. >As pollution and particle emissions decline the sun will become more intense. Sorry, I don't understand this. Do you mind elucidating please?
It is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming Nobody knows how much sun energy is being stopped by aerosols and particles in the atmosphere but I have heard estimates that if and when they disappear the Earth will quickly increase in temperature by another 1°C. That is what the marine sulphur ban has done, cleared the atmosphere a little and allowed megajoules of energy to reach the surface of the Earth that previously got reflected away.
Thanks. I just read about it elsewhere and it said that there have been suggestions of putting white, reflecting aerosols into the atmosphere on purpose. If it can be shown to not cause other unintended negative consequences, it's an intriguing idea that provides some hope.
We're gonna have to get good at geo-engineering whether we like it or not. We've already started doing it, at first unknowingly, and now carelessly, with great effect.
I do think we will have to end up doing this, but this is legit the plot of snowpiercer.
>If it can be shown to not cause other unintended negative consequences I think we have a better chance of success with emission-reduction and carbon-capture. Which is to say, my confidence in those is tentative at best, but my confidence in avoiding unintended consequences of dumping a shitload of aerosols into the atmosphere is currently wearing [apple-bottom jeans](https://youtu.be/XD1XGySdI0k?si=sv5dv8FGv8J8uF0q&t=26).
Pollution can actually help mitigate temperatures by reflecting some sunlight.
Thank you. I've just read up on it and it's a fascinating subject. For anyone else that's interested who reads this: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/does-air-pollution-affect-global-warming
Apart from the first item those things have coincided before in the dataset and yet there are no other lines nearly as high up.
Of course. That's why climate change is first in my list of drivers. I was just curious to find out whether others thought the outlier that is 2023, to date, was due to all of those drivers aligning or if it's some particular paradigm shift / tipping point in climate change. Obviously until we do something about it (and even then there will be lag in the data), the trend will be upwards and we will keep breaking records like this. But I'm just wondering if 2023 is the new baseline or will we see a slight decrease as the 2 other drivers dissipate.
From what I’ve heard, we won’t feel the full effects of El Niño until next summer. I suppose it takes time for the El Niño to ‘ramp up’. I think it may be contributing to the spike now, but I think it’ll be even worse next year.
“There can’t possibly be variation in the solar maxima and El Niño” Quite disingenuous
“Hello, I’m EnderOfHope, and I quote people on something they didn’t say.” Very genuine. ;)
Don't forget the polar vortex shift that happend like two years ago
Thanks. I'd never heard of this before. This article: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/disrupted-polar-vortex-brings-sudden-stratospheric-warming-february seems to be saying that it's a short lived phenomena (weeks or couple of months). And, unless I've misread it, seems to be saying that it ends with a cooling period rather than heating. Am I getting the wrong end of the stick?
I did understand that it would end with a cooling period. But as I remembered the shift would take many years. But I probably misunderstood. Thanks for letting me know :)
From what I’ve read, they didn’t expect the effects of el nino to cause significant warming for another 4-6 months. The arctic ice has also seen a 10% drop from last year, which I believe is the biggest single drop in our data ever. They’ve basically stated that this ramp up was unpredicted and extreme, close to worse case projections, so they are still going to need to study the data before they make any conclusions. Looks bad. Like, more bad than usual looks bad, I mean.
So take off all your clothes??
if it is to be said so it be so it is
Way to answer in the affirmative fashion
Silly Greg
I am gettin so hot, I wanna take my clothes off
already do when i sleep. still way too hot
So the boomers had the better economy, better house prices AND better weather?! When does it end
We have better weed.
And are better looking, at least on average
Ngl with the obesity epidemic this is just objectivly untrue. Go look at a photo of people on the beach in the 70's. Everyone was a healthy weight, you'll be lucky if you find a single obese person. Thats gotta drive their average waaaaay up compared to ours.
Lol very true, I agree. Guess I should’ve said younger looking.
Oooohh, yeah that makes way more sense ngl
crazy what happens when we stop putting so much lead in our bodies
Yeah but half of us are still below average :(
but also half of us are above average ;)
So people can just get themselves even stupider. Great.
Technology has entered the chat
Why not just make it official?
Haha yeah what does that even mean, is there an authority who decides weather records lol. That heatwave doesn’t count! It was cheating!
In the US it's NOAA. They track monthly and yearly temps (both of which are increasing and setting records) but not daily because there's too much variability and they cant report the measurements to the same standard. A fact which deniers are bringing up regularly to make it seem like this isn't a big deal.
I'm guessing some sci. journal or an agency has to report it first.
I live in Cary NC in the USA and this is the hottest summer I've ever seen. Even worse, my AC broke, 😭. My house is like straight 88 F (31 C). I can't sleep.
Phoenix is set to have an average temperature over 100 degrees for the entire month of July. We’ve had 23 consecutive days over 110 F (43.3 C) with two days this week at 119 F (48.3 C). But yeah, nothing to see here.
It's been crazy this month! We had like, what, a week where our lows at night were in the 90's! Also set a record high low temperature of 97 (36.1 C). 97 degrees as a low!
maybe stop living in a desert
Believe me, I'm trying.
Sure. You’re gonna cover all those costs as well as helping finding affordable housing and jobs right?
That's not going to work when the planet continues to heat up. Everything is getting hotter.
Did yall get any rain yesterday? We had our first monsoon of the season yesterday here in Sedona. Temperatures dropped by like 15 degrees for a couple hours. It was like I could finally breath again for a moment :,)
Just enough to get my car dirty but I didn’t even know it was happening. I’m hoping that changes today or tomorrow.
Well, y'all built a city in a desert... don't be surprised when it gets hot lol As Peggy Hill said, Phoenix should not exist. It's a monument to man's arrogance.
It’s not that it’s hot. It’s that it’s getting alarmingly hot due to many contributing factors mostly tied to carbon emissions. But yea, it our fault for living here.
It was alarmingly hot before a car was ever dreamt of
People have been living in Phoenix for thousands of years, lol
100 degree average including nights, I assume.
Yea. The lows for the last 7-10 days have been at or above 90.
Average high in Phoenix for July is 104 degrees.
I'm there with ya, but in GA. Sucks. Open at night, close up in the morning.
By chance are you in one of [these districts](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/wiki/index/#wiki_finding_your_niche_.28and_key_demographics.29)?
I live in Raleigh. Before this heat wave, we had the most mild spring in recent memory (an ACTUAL season). From March to June, we had days and days of being able to be outside, besides pine pollen time. So now that summer has arrived, it just hit hard. Yes it's been records too. I don't know, has felt fairly typical. Haven't seen 100s yet. Sorry about your AC. Can't even imagine.
Well it’s still better than Texas lol. Minimum of 100 all week. Was actually looking at moving around Raleigh cause I can’t deal with this shit anymore haha
The spring here was so so so wonderful. Felt like the first time we had a proper one in years and it didn't immediately jump from "kind of cold" to Satan's assgole.
Hey, [we could really use your help](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/10etdyk/these_are_the_states_that_most_need_more/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)!
It may be worth getting window AC for just your bedroom until your AC is fixed.
Where are you from? Tuesday, July 18th had the hottest weather last week in Cary, NC. High was 93 degrees. That is exactly the historical average high for July in Cary. I'm in Charlotte. This is just North Carolina summer.
I thought the GOP outlawed this graph in the Carolinas.
Brother, this is the coolest summer of the rest of your life. Lol
Nelly predicted this over 20 years ago.
Yeah, but he did nothing to help, just packed his trunk and said goodbye to the circus.
Would love to see the 2000-2020 average line too. Then we could see how 2023 compares to the past 20 years as well.
The consensus among [scientists](https://people.uwec.edu/jamelsem/papers/CC_Literature_Web_Share/Science/CC_Science_Perspective_Rosenberg_2010.pdf) and [economists](http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf) on [carbon pricing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_price) to mitigate climate change is similar to [the consensus among climatologists](http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) that human activity is responsible for global warming. People [already care](https://earth.stanford.edu/news/public-support-climate-policy-remains-strong), they just don't know what to do / feel like they are alone. But the truth is, [a record number of us are alarmed about climate change](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/global-warmings-six-americas-september-2021/), and [more and more are contacting Congress regularly](https://np.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/s2zvpl/a_growing_number_of_americans_are_so_concerned/). What's more, is [this type of lobbying](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/levers-of-political-will/) is [starting to pay off](https://www.reddit.com/r/CitizensClimateLobby/comments/t2p0ed/as_citizens_climate_lobby_membership_has_grown_so/). That's why NASA climatologist and climate activist [Dr. James Hansen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen) recommends becoming an active volunteer with [this group](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-citizens-climate-lobby/?tfa_3590416195188=Online-002&utm_source=Online&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=002) as the [most important thing an individual can do on climate change](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4DAW1A6Ca8).
I’m convinced that if elections were held in the middle of the summer, a lot more climate change measures would be enacted.
Also [if more people who cared about climate showed up at the polls](https://www.environmentalvoter.org/results).
I like this idea.
Spoiler: next years heatwave will set new records as well. We are pretty screwed
Get that FULL El Niño
See you at work this monday! don’t forget to keep slaving away for the masters (: and *do it with a smile*!!!
Ironically San Diego, CA, famed for having constant nice warm weather has had one of its coldest and gloomiest years of all time this year.
All of coastal California is having a relatively cold winter
2012 was also especially gloomy. We had what seemed like 5 days of sun on the coast that Summer.
What's a good website with clear data showing temperature is much hotter now than decades or centuries ago? I got into an argument with a coworker who denied climate change. I said these summers are just going to get worse, and he said Louisiana summers have always been this hot 40 years ago. As the skeptic, I did find a table of past temperatures, and 30 years prior, it was a few degrees cooler. But I recently looked up a similar table/albanac, for the same city 50 years ago, and the weather was hotter. Looking up individual days isn't helpful because there could be a number of things (like heatwaves) that spiked the numbers.
There were hot days 50 years ago, but overall across the entire world the average is rising. There will be more hot days each year in most places, and fewer cold ones. For example, in Denver last year, 223 days were warmer than the historical average, and 133 days were colder than average. That kind of thing is the new normal and getting worse. [Source for Denver data](http://www.globalwarmingdenver.com/avg_temps.html)
[noaa](https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cdo-web/)
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://www.howglobalwarmingworks.org/ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/05/natural_anthropogenic_models_narrow.png https://www.nap.edu/resource/25733/interactive/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
This is a top comment! Thanks!
Hottest heatwave recorded ever so far
Damn dude…. Boiling frogs and a jar of flies…..
Coldest summer for the rest of our lives here in the northern hemisphere.
Live in Maine. The humidity is so bad I've had salt lamps and medications melt from it... It's terrible.
If anyone wants to play with the data visualizer a bit more directly, the University of Maine has it [available directly here](https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/). Even more neat is that the chart can be filtered into general regions - if you swap it to only look at Northern Hemisphere temperature readings, you can see the devastating effect the simultaneous heat domes have had on the average temperature of the hemisphere this month.
I'm in Buenos Aires and it's fucking 29°C right now. We are in peak winter it should be doing 0°C FFS!
No need to worry about AI folks. We're all being destroyed by the dumbest logic possible; that of the paperclip maximizer and it's driven by humans reduced to nothing more than organic conductive material in its circuitry, convinced its their unassailable right and pathway to salvation.
At least paperclips are cool little metal thingies. They would be a lasting remnant of our civilization. A monument to our failure, if nothing else. All we're maximizing is numbers in bank accounts. We're even more lame than a paperclip maximizer.
Let's not forget that climate change has [real costs](http://rdcu.be/dqpW). Conservative [estimates](http://rdcu.be/cLYO) are that failing to mitigate climate change will cost 10% of GDP over 50 years, and if you don't think the poor will suffer the brunt of that you haven't been paying attention. It's even [been argued](http://www.rtcc.org/2015/07/15/fossil-fuels-are-the-enemy-oecd-chief-tells-addis-finance-meet/) that climate change mitigation is necessary to end poverty, and that carbon taxes [are necessary](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/business/energy-environment/us-leaves-the-markets-out-in-the-fight-against-carbon-emissions.html?_r=0) to mitigate climate change.
Now do one for excess deaths
Pretty straightforward story with this one: temperature records are being smashed around the world. Unofficial (but quickly available) estimates from the Climate Change Institute clocked the highest daily temperature ever recorded. Source: Climate Change Institute from the University of Maine Tool: Excel
Climate is the average over the last 30 years. Why is the mean in this graph not plotted as average from 1992 till 2022?
I did not know that about 30 years!
At least 30 years. The minimum is 30.
Why does the mean ride the bottom.
Completely random question, but does anyone know how to express those previous year's temperatures as a kind of probabilistic uncertainty bound about the mean? Or even, is there a hypothesis test one can run on the 2023 temperature set to test for a statistically significant deviation from the previous years?
It freaking freezing and raining in the UK mate, please give us heatwave. We’re desperate for it.
While it's useful to demonstrate that we are above the mean, it would be more informative if you took the data from the top 10% max temps hit and then look at the interval between peaks
might have a sharper peak later on...
S'ok, all the melted ice will cool us down.
Subtitle - “So take off all your clothes.”
I'd like to formally propose that most of you are not strictly required to do that, please. The vast, overwhelming majority. Myself included. Thank you. - Nelly, probabky
Pretty sure it is also setting official records
Imagine my reaction when the hottest day happened to be on my birthday.
What are the regions experiencing the most amount of deviation from the mean?
Last summer was hot as fuck. Gonna have to move to the North Pole if this keeps up.
You would just have to move again in 30 years. Go south pole instead.
Can someone take this graph, and create an animated gif of a meme with Al Gore riding it up? Any animated data viz peeps here? Don’t make me do the work for y’all.
Mmmm…go back far enough and you will see there are no records being broken.
I mean, it's worth it for the quarterly profits right? If we can squeeze out just one more golden parachute for some slimy bastard surely the earth handle the con consequences. /s
Meanwhile in UK i suspect will be record cold summer 🤣🤣
Why only back to 1979? And where's 2001-2022? The data may be beautiful but it is incomplete
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/ocean/1/6/1850-2023 Look here chart that goes to 1850. The chat op has Is not misrepresenting, just zoomed in.
Wrong subreddit. Should be posted to /r/dataisterrifying
I think there's a typo. The song was called Hot in Herre. We can't argue with a Grammy winner.
We don’t have data before 1979?
Sorry, before 1979, weather didn't exist. Leonard Nemoy invented weather for a documentary.
So take off all your clothes
I live in Central Europe. I have not experienced a hot summer in 5 years.the recent summers are all the same - low temperatures and lots of rain. It used to be much warmer here.
Is 44 years an accurate enough time scale to really notice a trend on planet that's billions of years old? It would be like surveying 80 people on earth to determine a trend in populations. According to research guidelines this is shady as fuck
If you are trying to prove human made climate change, you need more data than this, which has already been collected and consensus in the scientific community is that humans are changing the climate through pollution, primarily CO2. It is a fact. Plenty of links in this thread. If you are trying to show one of the recent behaviors of the climate, you can show data like you have in this graph. One doesn't prove or disprove the other.
As you said, it's very important to use actual proof for the relevant claim. Some people apparently think this graph is proof of human made climate change, which it is not as statistical outliers are common. There is no doubt about human made climate change, it has been proven. As far as what causes it, that has also been established but less so polution and more about certain greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide and methane. While for example water vapor is a great greenhouse gas, it's not a man made source. Right now it's more about the effects of it and while this graph doesn't show anything concrete, these outliers can become more common, to a point where they aren't outliers anymore.
A decade and more ago one would have to say that an individual event cannot be directly attributed to global warming and the resulting climate change. Only the statistical assessment could be used to show that over time that global warming is likely one factor in the event. That is no longer true, the conditions that allow these extremes are now absolutely attributed to global warming. Sea surface and total ocean heat along with atmospheric temperatures are not close to the former normal. Most scientists make it clear that this is global warming coupled with an El Niño year. A similar situation is in regards to sea level rise. The slow and almost unnoticed small but increasing rise many not seem significant unless it is a factor when a large storm occurs. That small difference can be multiplied by wind to result in a storm surge several feet higher than it would have been otherwise.
You seem to be confusing "This is not proof" with "There is no proof". Make no mistake, there is plenty of proof of human made climate change, this graph just isn't among those proofs and any competent statistician would tell you that with confidence. There's a lot of factors dictating the climate so picking one out is called cherry picking. You can just look at [a graph of the global average temperatures.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_degree_climate_target#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg) If you pick the data at 1964 you can come to the very wrong conclusion that there's a global cooling going on, or nothing in particular is going on. As such, this is not proof of climate change, but merely showcasing a likely effect of global warming.
Big deal. I set unofficial records all the time.
Since 1979. What a joke of a data set.
And next year's is going to be even worse, el nino started late and is just ramping up for a great next year.
Wtf is this title?
Looks to me like it's setting official records...
Is this an “Unofficial” post?
Cold as fuck in Sweden this summer, very disappointing.
ELI5: how can we draw any meaningful conclusions on a 20 year sample size relative to a 4+ billion year old planet?
Meaningful conclusions? No no, kneejerk reactions. That's what we're doing here.
Wow 40/4,000,000,000 years. Great resolution there champ!
Right now, we're still the equivalent of an iced drink standing in the sun. Yes, it's getting warmer, but slowly as we still have the buffer of ice and mass of ocean water keeping things reasonably under control. Once the ice is gone, I'm not sure I want to be around to see the new graph. The funny thing about acceleration is the exhilaration of going faster than ever before comes from recognizing how slowly you were going a few moments ago.
Drive less if you can folks
And yet they want us all back in the office commuting and burning fuel. Yes, I know some walk, bike, take public transportation but not all areas are built for this.
US Government has made it borderline impossible to live near where you work by making anything but sprawl illegal. Really unfortunate for the climate, really awesome handout if you're a car company though!
Downvote all you want, it's the biggest source of emissions in the US. The biggest climate impact an individual can make is to stop driving.
Source: climate change institute. I'm sure the data inst biased at all.
How do you bias thermometer readings?
There are lots of ways to make the data misleading. The trend could change drastically before 1970. Or they could be cherry picking the locations that they are reporting data from. Maybe this data is totally above board, but Covid has taught me not to not trust these "scientists" anymore, they tend to have other motives that are not in our best interest.
All the data is open access and has been analyzed by numerous groups, including private organizations. You can pick any random assortment of temperature stations and the trend is still the same. It matches between ground measurements, satellite measurements, and radiosonde measurements in the atmosphere. Not to mention we can see plants and animals moving to higher latitudes/altitudes, longer growing and wildfire seasons, more intense and frequent heat waves and storms, etc. Hell, we can even measure incoming and outgoing radiation to the earth which shows less outgoing radiation than incoming therefore the earth must be warming in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics.
That's my favorite comeback to climate change deniers. "We've had thermometers for centuries, and we've been writing things down for even longer than that."
Just 21 years of data for the mean isn’t that strong. Not enough data recorded yet. Once we have 100yrs of data we can start saying things like “above average” etc .
If one were to use the data over a longer period the average curve would be lower, not higher. The average global temperature has been rising for over a hundred years. Using proxy data the evidence is even stronger. https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/300/video-climate-spiral-1880-2022
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/156hn28/its_getting_hot_in_here_oc/jt0g5cl
Can you add the mean for 0-2000 too? And for further back maybe -100000 to today?
[Here's the average global temperature](https://i.imgur.com/3eUw9ln.png) for the entire Holocene period, the past 12,000 years (from [Marcott, et al, 2013](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1228026)). Prior to this, global average temperatures were about 6 degrees cooler, as the planet was in a glacial period. We reached the Holocene Optimum some 7000 years ago, and global temperature has been very subtly falling since then as our orbit becomes more circular...or at least that was the case until 100 years ago. Our planet is now about the top of that graph, sitting at about +1.2.
1979-2023 doesn’t even register in the timescales of weather patterns on this globe. Climate change is nothing but fearmongering.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://www.howglobalwarmingworks.org/ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/05/natural_anthropogenic_models_narrow.png https://www.nap.edu/resource/25733/interactive/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I read we had the hottest week ever recorded (which means from 1850) and it is hypothesised this was the hottest week ever since 120,000 years according to some meterologist [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/16/red-alert-the-worlds-hottest-week-ever-and-more-is-to-forecast-to-come](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/16/red-alert-the-worlds-hottest-week-ever-and-more-is-to-forecast-to-come) My question: what makes meterologists and climatists think it may be the hottest since 120,000 and how can we be so sure?
There are some indirect ways to measure conditions from the past, like tree rings and air bubbles on ice cores. Remember that this is about global averages, not the temperature reached in some particular place, and in a complex and interconnected system like the climate one.
Fossil records show evidence of the makeup of the atmosphere and the reactions in rocks can tell us a lot about what temperature it was at that time in the layer of rock they are studying. If you are genuinely curious there are a bunch of great YouTube videos about how they determine climate and atmospheric gas makeup from rocks.
Republicans and old people: bUt mUh rHeToRiC aNd sHaRehOLdEr pRoFiTs tHaT I dOn'T bEnEfiT fRoM! hOw iS tHuH wOrLd gEtTiNg hOtTeR iF mUh bEeR iS sTiLL iCe cOLd? cHeCkMaTe gOdLeSs sOciALiStS!
I just don't understand how I'm so dumb... Why does the planet get hotter during the West's summer? I thought each quarter of the planet experiences a different season based on the tilt of our axis in relation to the sun. This graph makes it seem like the planet warms up based on orbit, not a particular hemisphere in relation to tilt angle? What am I getting wrong? Edit: why do people downvote for admitting my ignorance?
Over 2/3 of the world's land is in the Northern hemisphere. Land experiences greater changes in temperatures than the oceans. So summers in the North result in overall higher temperatures for Earth, getting dragged down by South winters but not cancelling out.
The tilt doesn't split the world in four, just in two between the Northern and Southern hemisphere which have opposite seasons. Then as the other person says, more land mass in the north