Or
Feedback Loop Rule
The coldest summer of the rest of your life.
fuck
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
289 points (100.0% liked)
196
16460 readers
2317 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm having a hard time believing that to be honest. As far as I'm aware this year is above average due to El Niño. While the trend is definitely horrifying, there's reason to expect the La Niña years to be a bit colder again afaik. What this year does provide is a bleak look into the not so distant future where this is the norm, not the exception.
Yeah this is definitely exaggerated for Effect. Extreme weather isn’t going to be hot weather only, we’ll see extremes in all directions.
I better not hear any more bitching about it being hot.
In 50 years our generations "I'll give you something to complain about / crashing the economy" will be "you think this is hot? I'll show you hot."
Well it doesn’t feel hotter here and there’s still snow in the winter, so it’s not really a big issue!
/s
I just moved further north, problem solved
That Antarctica one, note that June and July are winter months in Antarctica, you would expect ice to be increasing
Indeed
My world's on fire, how bout yours?
Conservatives: That's the way I like it and I never get bored (of ignoring the issue instead working with democrats to come up with a plan to curb emissions).
The world burns as bright as the flame in my hearth 💓
The ice we skate is getting pretty thin, indeed
We've had like three days of 30+°C, and it's been raining since. In one week, temperatures dropped from 33 to 10, and haven't climbed above 20 yet.
Meanwhile other places burn. What the hell kind of July is this?
Time to drop an ice cube in the ocean /s
Thus solving the problem once and for all
Just like daddy puts in his drink every night! And then he gets mad…
conservatards and climate deniers be like:
"damn guess i was wrong lol"
That 120000 figure is false. There's no way we could know the Earth's average temperature 120000 years ago
Historic temperatures are based on the fossil, geologic, and hydrologic record, mostly
But if you claim that this is the hottest month since then, when the average temperature varies by less than a degree a year, you're implying that you know the maximum yearly average temperature from 120000 years ago to within a degree. The article you linked doesn't mention how precise the estimations are, but I can't imagine they're that precise
Is it really hotter now than any time in 100,000 years?:
Without rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth is currently on course to reach temperatures of roughly 3 C (5.4 F) above preindustrial levels by the end of the century, and possibly quite a bit higher.
At that point, we would need to look back millions of years to find a climate state with temperatures as hot. That would take us back to the previous geologic epoch, the Pliocene, when the Earth’s climate was a distant relative of the one that sustained the rise of agriculture and civilization.
The model that was used to make the 120,000 statement accounts for changes in temperature variability over time. This is a weird thing to complain about unless you are criticizing a specific part of the model that was used for this analysis. A similar thing goes for the comment about precision, not only do you not know if that's the case but also it's already been accounted for as part of the model (and really is accounted for in the majority of statistical methods by default).
This is like when you see climate change deniers claim "but the climate already warms and cools in cycles so we should expect periods of natural warming" as if that's not already accounted for by any modern model of climate change. Which it is.
I did a little reading, and it seems like mean temperatures getting hotter tends to lead to the the standard deviation either remaining the same or decreasing, meaning with perhaps some other info you should be able to make a reasonable estimate of the standard deviation or put an upper bound on it. But I'm not a climatologist, I don't know all of the details on how this particular analysis was done and don't know how this was necessarily factored into that, though I do know that it accounted for changes in variability. And frankly, it could be reasonably assumed that that was the case, because overlooking something like changes in variability would be a pretty silly error to make as a climatologist.
If the only concern was science journalism mis-reporting the statements of scientists, then yeah that happens surprisingly often and is a reasonable concern, but once you've seen experts saying this as well rather than just hearing it second-hand from the journalists the concern requires much more substantiation.