Hottest Week on Record, Hottest June, Record hottest days, Record Low Antarctic sea ice

[essentialsaltes]

Earth posts warmest February and ninth straight record-setting month [starting with June '23 in the OP]​

The unrelenting and exceptional global warmth — fueled by a combination of human-caused warming and the El Niño climate pattern — has spanned both land and ocean areas since June. It has scientists worried about the planet crossing a critical climate threshold and prospects for an active Atlantic hurricane season.

The month’s average global air temperature of 13.5 degrees Celsius (56.3 degrees Fahrenheit) was 0.12 degrees (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the previous warmest February in 2016. The warmth of the last 12-month period is unprecedented in modern records, coming in at 1.56 degrees (2.8 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than preindustrial levels.

The world’s oceans remained in record-warm territory as well. February’s average global sea surface temperature was the highest on record for any month, topping out at an all-time high of 21.09 degrees Celsius (69.96 degrees Fahrenheit) at the end of the month, according to Copernicus.

Unusually warm ocean waters in the tropical Atlantic — already as warm as they typically are in July — have forecasters concerned about an active hurricane season, as warm ocean waters can increase the number and intensity of storms.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

We've had awesome weather here in Central Kentucky this year. In the low 70's last week. Even the evenings felt like summer evenings in my old hometown of Seattle (Seattle summer evenings are colder than Kentucky evenings due to the lower humidity). We're loving it. Getting a lot of outdoor projects done too.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I think you'll like this very interesting post.

Consider -- if an object is warmed only by the sun, and has no atmosphere, it will warm up in the sunlight to an average surface temperature due the consistent amount of sunlight hitting it according to its distance from the sun.

The average temperature (when you average over the entire surface) an object like a moon (without atmosphere) then remains at is entirely dependent on its distance from the sun, and it's albedo (the degree to which it absorbs solar radiation).

This process follows a very well known physics law, so that the planet will consistently maintain a 'blackbody temperature' due to absorbing solar radiation from the sun, and emitting infrared. (if it get's hotter, it simply emits more infrared, losing energy at a higher rate, so that it will return to the blackbody equilibrium temperature.)

For a given planet with a given distance from a given star, it the planet has no atmosphere, and has some certain albedo, we can calculate the blackbody temperature the planet as a whole would average over time very precisely.

It's well know basic physics, long tested and quite certain.

Did you know that for its distance from the sun, Venus's natural surface average blackbody temperature according to it's distance from the sun without other factors like atmosphere would be about 275 Kelvin, which is about 35 degrees Fahrenheit.

For Earth, the natural surface average blackbody temperature according to it's distance from the sun would be about 254 Kelvin, which is about -.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Pretty cool huh?

(Actually, it's far far cooler than Earth has ever been. In the very last ice age, the global average from 19,000 to 23,000 years ago was about 46 degrees Fahrenheit (Earth during the last ice age). That's a gigantically warmer level than -.4F)

But fortunately for Earth, it has an atmosphere that helps hold heat at a pleasant level, warming it up in a very very good way for us, allowing Earth's average surface temperature to be about 56 F!

Is that interesting?

So, what's the actual surface temperature of Venus, as it actually exists, atmosphere and all?

Interested?

The U.S.S.R. sent an amazing surface lander to Venus (perhaps their greatest feat of any the Soviet Union ever did), way back in the 70s!

Venera 13 survived the intense atmosphere of Venus almost 127 minutes (!)....

An incredible feat.
The landing site was an area known as the Phoebe Regio. The lander's on-board instruments recorded hurricane-force winds, an ambient temperature of 457°C (854°F) and an atmospheric pressure of 89 atm (9 MPa) – equivalent to the pressure about 1 km (0.62 mi) below the surface of the ocean. Its other instruments were able to take photos of the surface, examine the chemical composition of the atmosphere, and record the sounds of an alien world. Longest time survived on Venus by a spacecraft

The Venera missions measured the temperature on the surface of Venus at over 850F. That's hotter than our typical ovens at home can even get to, and more like a commercial pizza oven temperature.

Why is Venus so intensely hotter than blackbody, so vastly much more than Earth?

Well, we know from simple and clear and easy to demonstrate in a lab that CO2 adsorbs and reradiates infrared radiation, so that Venus's very large amount of CO2 is a very powerful blanket to trap heat.

Venus has a lot of CO2.

This stuff is very simple, very clear, old science, and long confirmed over and over -- that's what is behind the 'science' of 'greenhouse gasses' like CO2. Not exotic or speculative physics, but very basic physics (my degree in college, engineering physics, included most physics courses a physics major takes; so, I'm not guessing about what is basic physics. I simply learned this early on as a freshman, as we learned basic long established physics first).

That is a very interesting article. One thing I notice that is conspicuous in its absence is actually amplified in the very last paragraph: No mention of atmospheric pressure on the temperature. It's why, though Venus and Mars haver roughly the same percentage of CO2 in their atmosphere, one is super cold and the other super hot. It's also why Jupiter is so hot.

It's also why it's colder at the top of the grand canyon and warmer at the bottom. Not to mention the difference between Death Valley and the top of Mt Everest. It's just a part of the reason I'm not worried about CO2. Just a tiny part.

But I think the article is being disingenuous when it doesn't even mention the effect of atmospheric pressure on temperature. I think it's a case of lying by omission.

 

[Nithavela]

We've had awesome weather here in Central Kentucky this year. In the low 70's last week. Even the evenings felt like summer evenings in my old hometown of Seattle (Seattle summer evenings are colder than Kentucky evenings due to the lower humidity). We're loving it. Getting a lot of outdoor projects done too.

I'm curious if you still find the weather "awesome" in a couple of months.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I'm curious if you still find the weather "awesome" in a couple of months.

Not in about three months. As I've said since I moved here, if God had not invented air conditioning there is no way we would have moved here.

Interestingly, though, last summer was more mild than the one before.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The world just got its first real taste of what life is like at 1.5 degrees Celsius​

According to data from the Copernicus Climate Change Service, July of this year was the most scorching July on record, clocking in at somewhere between 1.5 and 1.6 Celsius hotter than the average before the widespread use of fossil fuels.
NB: "The 1.5 degrees Celsius mark isn’t a magic tipping point"

• March 2024 was warmer globally than any previous March in the data record, with an average ERA5 surface air temperature of 14.14°C, 0.73°C above the 1991-2020 average for March and 0.10°C above the previous high set in March 2016.
• This is the tenth month in a row that is the warmest on record for the respective month of the year.
• The month was 1.68°C warmer than an estimate of the March average for 1850-1900, the designated pre-industrial reference period.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Earth posts warmest February and ninth straight record-setting month [starting with June '23 in the OP]​

12 in a row. That's a year.

The planet just marked a “shocking” new milestone, enduring 12 consecutive months of unprecedented heat, according to new data from Copernicus, the European Union’s climate monitoring service.

Every single month from June 2023 to May 2024 was the world’s hottest such month on record, Copernicus data showed.

The 12-month heat streak was “shocking but not surprising” given human-caused climate change, said Carlo Buontempo, the director of Copernicus, who warned of worse to come. Unless planet-warming fossil fuel pollution is slashed, “this string of hottest months will be remembered as comparatively cold,” he said.

The average global temperature over the past 12 months was 1.63 degrees [C] above ... pre-industrial levels.

 

[Halbhh]

12 in a row. That's a year.

The planet just marked a “shocking” new milestone, enduring 12 consecutive months of unprecedented heat, according to new data from Copernicus, the European Union’s climate monitoring service.

Every single month from June 2023 to May 2024 was the world’s hottest such month on record, Copernicus data showed.

The 12-month heat streak was “shocking but not surprising” given human-caused climate change, said Carlo Buontempo, the director of Copernicus, who warned of worse to come. Unless planet-warming fossil fuel pollution is slashed, “this string of hottest months will be remembered as comparatively cold,” he said.

The average global temperature over the past 12 months was 1.63 degrees [C] above ... pre-industrial levels.

While we know that generally during La Nina, surface temperatures cool some due to more cold water upwelling (so it's like a withdrawal of some of the average cooler temperatures from the past from the storage bank of the deep ocean -- withdrawals that slightly warm the deep ocean of course) -- but one can wonder at the moment (in this heat) after seeing the surprise and clear inadequacy of models to predict the amount of current warming whether other expectations might be affected (i.e. -- will La Nina come around as soon as we expect -- probably, but....well....we'll be watching to see!).

 

[Reasonably Sane]

12 in a row. That's a year.

The planet just marked a “shocking” new milestone, enduring 12 consecutive months of unprecedented heat, according to new data from Copernicus, the European Union’s climate monitoring service.

Every single month from June 2023 to May 2024 was the world’s hottest such month on record, Copernicus data showed.

The 12-month heat streak was “shocking but not surprising” given human-caused climate change, said Carlo Buontempo, the director of Copernicus, who warned of worse to come. Unless planet-warming fossil fuel pollution is slashed, “this string of hottest months will be remembered as comparatively cold,” he said.

The average global temperature over the past 12 months was 1.63 degrees [C] above ... pre-industrial levels.

For those that are interested, though Coperincus primarily monitors levels of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere, it also monitors "surface air temperature". Here's the rundown: Copernicus Climate Data Store | Copernicus Climate Data Store

 

[rambot]

For those that are interested, though Coperincus primarily monitors levels of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere, it also monitors "surface air temperature". Here's the rundown: Copernicus Climate Data Store | Copernicus Climate Data Store

Very cool.

Thanks for that!

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Very cool.

Thanks for that!

One thing you really have to be careful about regarding surface temps is the location of the monitoring stations. The "urban heat island" effect can really skew results. Some have argued that only stations that are in rural or desert areas that have seen no real population changes are all that should be used in those numbers. OTOH, some say only satellite readings from the upper atmosphere can be trusted.

To use a silly example, if you were monitoring the average temperature of Antarctica, you wouldn't want to put one of those monitoring stations in the cafeteria at McMurdo station. And when those monitoring stations are in urban areas, that is exactly what it is like. Especially if its a few dozen feet from a building's HVAC heat exchanger. Or a station that is in an asphalt parking lot that was a grassy field 20 years ago. That's one reason the ones that measure the upper atmosphere give a more reliable picture of the "big picture". After all, as so many like to say, weather is local.

BTW, where I live in central Kentucky we are getting a LOT of rainstorms this year. It's noticeable and a lot of people are talking about it. But it's just a cycle, kinda like winter is colder than summer. It's just a bigger cycle. Same thing happened when I lived in Seattle. In the late 60's we had a lot of snow in winter. Twenty years later we had almost - or literally - snow free winters. And then we got a ton of snow again.

Cycles. And some span centuries, and some span millennia. And that is all we are seeing today. And the computer model based predictions fail because we don't really understand it yet. But we are getting better. As long as one leaves the politics out of it, it's a very interesting field of study, and a lot more useful than studying stuff millions of light years away, though both have their merits.

 

[Whyayeman]

One thing you really have to be careful about regarding surface temps is the location of the monitoring stations. The "urban heat island" effect can really skew results. Some have argued that only stations that are in rural or desert areas that have seen no real population changes are all that should be used in those numbers. OTOH, some say only satellite readings from the upper atmosphere can be trusted.

To use a silly example, if you were monitoring the average temperature of Antarctica, you wouldn't want to put one of those monitoring stations in the cafeteria at McMurdo station. And when those monitoring stations are in urban areas, that is exactly what it is like. Especially if its a few dozen feet from a building's HVAC heat exchanger. Or a station that is in an asphalt parking lot that was a grassy field 20 years ago. That's one reason the ones that measure the upper atmosphere give a more reliable picture of the "big picture". After all, as so many like to say, weather is local.

BTW, where I live in central Kentucky we are getting a LOT of rainstorms this year. It's noticeable and a lot of people are talking about it. But it's just a cycle, kinda like winter is colder than summer. It's just a bigger cycle. Same thing happened when I lived in Seattle. In the late 60's we had a lot of snow in winter. Twenty years later we had almost - or literally - snow free winters. And then we got a ton of snow again.

Cycles. And some span centuries, and some span millennia. And that is all we are seeing today. And the computer model based predictions fail because we don't really understand it yet. But we are getting better. As long as one leaves the politics out of it, it's a very interesting field of study, and a lot more useful than studying stuff millions of light years away, though both have their merits.

Kentucky is not the world! There is little dispute that weather events are serious and frequent these days. The weight of scientific evidence is now overwhelming. The atmosphere is heating up at the fastest rate, however measured - (and this includes methodologies which can measure atmospheric temperatures from the distant past).

The rate of increase is itself increasing. Those who cannot see it as an emergency aren't paying attention.

 

[rambot]

One thing you really have to be careful about regarding surface temps is the location of the monitoring stations. The "urban heat island" effect can really skew results. Some have argued that only stations that are in rural or desert areas that have seen no real population changes are all that should be used in those numbers. OTOH, some say only satellite readings from the upper atmosphere can be trusted.

Very aware. Also know that scientists have developed calculations and formula that can allow for can make those calculations useful.

To use a silly example, if you were monitoring the average temperature of Antarctica, you wouldn't want to put one of those monitoring stations in the cafeteria at McMurdo station. And when those monitoring stations are in urban areas, that is exactly what it is like. Especially if its a few dozen feet from a building's HVAC heat exchanger. Or a station that is in an asphalt parking lot that was a grassy field 20 years ago. That's one reason the ones that measure the upper atmosphere give a more reliable picture of the "big picture". After all, as so many like to say, weather is local.

No. the upper atmophere doesn't really give a more reliable picture. The UPPER atmosphere doesn't actually affect our weather in a meaningful way. In fact, because of the fact that it is closer to space, it has the OPPOSITE effect.

Climate is local too.

BTW, where I live in central Kentucky we are getting a LOT of rainstorms this year. It's noticeable and a lot of people are talking about it. But it's just a cycle, kinda like winter is colder than summer. It's just a bigger cycle. Same thing happened when I lived in Seattle. In the late 60's we had a lot of snow in winter. Twenty years later we had almost - or literally - snow free winters. And then we got a ton of snow again.

Ok great. I don't think anyone would argue that. And if this were true, we would imagine that this trend would be historical and this "20 year cycle" you purport to exist would be evidence. But I'm curious; IS there evidence of any such thing?

Cycles. And some span centuries, and some span millennia. And that is all we are seeing today.

You think nobody knows this? Are you saying something that you think climatologists are not aware of or a consideration that suggests that climate change isn't important because of that?

And the computer model based predictions fail because we don't really understand it yet.

I don't think that is totally correct.

But we are getting better.

Yes. What is interesting though, is that, if you consider ALL The models, the aggregate average of A LOTof the models is pretty much BANG on

I

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Kentucky is not the world! There is little dispute that weather events are serious and frequent these days. The weight of scientific evidence is now overwhelming. The atmosphere is heating up at the fastest rate, however measured - (and this includes methodologies which can measure atmospheric temperatures from the distant past).

The rate of increase is itself increasing. Those who cannot see it as an emergency aren't paying attention.

You are trying to argue if global warming is real. Your post merely parots what some people claim. That is not convincing. Rather, may I suggest going to the horses mouth here (one month old video):

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Very aware. Also know that scientists have developed calculations and formula that can allow for can make those calculations useful.

No. the upper atmophere doesn't really give a more reliable picture. The UPPER atmosphere doesn't actually affect our weather in a meaningful way. In fact, because of the fact that it is closer to space, it has the OPPOSITE effect.

Climate is local too.


Ok great. I don't think anyone would argue that. And if this were true, we would imagine that this trend would be historical and this "20 year cycle" you purport to exist would be evidence. But I'm curious; IS there evidence of any such thing?


You think nobody knows this? Are you saying something that you think climatologists are not aware of or a consideration that suggests that climate change isn't important because of that?


I don't think that is totally correct.


Yes. What is interesting though, is that, if you consider ALL The models, the aggregate average of A LOTof the models is pretty much BANG on

View attachment 349645
I

Yeah, I've seen all that. I have been discussing/arguing this on the internet since 2004. I don't get into the weeds on this any more. Not worth my time nor those reading my posts. I just recommend watching the video I posted just before this and, if you have the time, the one before it (the john stossel interview that requires you connect two parts of my link to get it to work. For some reason it comes up with "video unavailable" when I try to link it here.

BTW, a fun snip from her speech:

 

[rambot]

Yeah, I've seen all that. I have been discussing/arguing this on the internet since 2004. I don't get into the weeds on this any more. Not worth my time nor those reading my posts. I just recommend watching the video I posted just before this and, if you have the time, the one before it (the john stossel interview that requires you connect two parts of my link to get it to work. For some reason it comes up with "video unavailable" when I try to link it here.

BTW, a fun snip from her speech:
View attachment 349647

[snicker] Why would I listen to Judith Currie? Of the hundreds of great, reputable climate scientists who are frequently researching and who are not paid by the fossil fuel industry?

 

[Whyayeman]

You are trying to argue if global warming is real. Your post merely parots what some people claim. That is not convincing. Rather, may I suggest going to the horses mouth here (one month old video):

Because it is real.

You have been discussing/arguing this on the internet since 2004 and your opinion is unchanged? You haven't been paying attention.

(There are YouTube videos for everything.)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Extreme heat sends 11 to hospital at Arizona Trump rally​

On Thursday - two weeks before summer even officially starts - the National Weather Service (NWS) forecast record-breaking temperatures in interior California, and parts of Nevada and Arizona.

Trump is next expected to hold a campaign event in Las Vegas on Sunday, where the campaign plans to double the number of EMS staff on site, provide more than 38,000 bottles of water and a cooling tent with air conditioning for supporters, CNN reported Friday.

 

[rambot]

Because it is real.

You have been discussing/arguing this on the internet since 2004 and your opinion is unchanged? You haven't been paying attention.

(There are YouTube videos for everything.)

Fair point. Look at how the temperature has changed in the last 20 years.

That said, there is NO DOUBT that there is a really BIG Dunning Kruger window for Climate science in general. From "It snowed hear yesterday therefore" to "I'm not worried because the CO2 has been higher before and it's been warmer".

And what's the point in keeping abreast of new information?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Because it is real.

You have been discussing/arguing this on the internet since 2004 and your opinion is unchanged? You haven't been paying attention.

(There are YouTube videos for everything.)

No. It changed quite a bit. I didn't have a strong opinion on it at first and, to be fair, I really was afraid we were going into another ice age back in the 70's. But I educated myself. And yes there are youtube videos for everything. How seriously one takes each one is determined by the quality of the content and, most importantly, ones personal baseline/worldview. That's why arguing things like this is pretty pointless.

An easy marker to tell a person has not been paying attention is when they mention 97% of scientists like it's still a thing.