I found another article[0] that says the measurement is from Climate Reanalyzer[1] that uses the data from CFS/CFSR systems.
The Climate Reanalyzer website also says "The increase in mean global temperature since the start of July, estimated from the Climate Forecast System, should not be taken as an "official" observational record."
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/world-swelters-unoffici...
Don't feed the clickbait titles.
My question is: How is it possible the planet can be billions of years old, then all of a sudden we discover fossil fuels in the past few hundreds years and start extracting and burning them at incredible rates, releasing them into the atmosphere.
Isn't it safe to assume there would be a basic cause-effect relationship here with /some/ kind of consequence? It just strikes me as a "no free lunch" scenario - I don't fundamentally understand how you could all of a sudden start burning all of this stuff and argue against there being negative effects for the overall atmosphere, ecosystem, etc.
Can someone help me understand how/why this wouldn't be the case?
The only people arguing it isn't true are the various think tanks, foundations, coalitions, online PR bots, and the rest funded by the fossil fuel industry - working to persuade those who don't understand the issue, but are sure their opinion is very important.
Atmospheric CO2 science has been researched since the 19th century.
In the 70s Exxon/Mobil had its own climate scientists making shockingly accurate predictions of what would happen.
The IPCC climate change models - produced from 1990 onwards - have usually been conservative.
That is the objective reality. Everything else is spin, FUD, and noise.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-a...
The amount of americans who can't stand that fact that they were wrong on the matter is incredible.
This book goes into good detail in human population growth, growth in energy use, and growth in use of coal, oil and other energy sources.
Highly recommended. Lots of stats, charts and math.
It’s not about climate change, the book is about understanding human growth and energy (across its various forms) and their implications.
Were at the tail end of an ice age.
For most of Earth's history, there were no polar ice caps.
For 400 out of 500 million years the earth was warmer than it is now.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hotte...
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_widt...
Also for a lot of that time earth was a hellishly hot place with little life.
I am extremely curious about the error bars on these numbers. Are we really measuring the temperature in enough places around the globe with 0.01 degree resolution to make this a meaningful statement?
The raw data is available at:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/
Putting all that together into a single temperature requires a model. The error analysis of the model is on their web site. There's certainly more than enough data to justify four significant figures.
(The weird part: the authors of the report are both prominent climate change deniers. One says that the problems are real but not man-made; the other says that the problems are real and man-made but not actually a problem. They are the guys who run the satellite and integrate the data.)
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2023/June/GTR_202306JUN_1....
And that's before you get to the way they rewrite the past in the temperature databases. It leads to problems like this:
Jeff Berardelli, WFLA-TV (Tampa Bay) Chief Meteorologist and Climate Specialist: “In case you missed it. The temperature soared as high as 100 degrees in the Northwest Territories on Saturday, the hottest temperature ever measured north of 65 degrees latitude in the Western Hemisphere”. Tough keeping up with all this climate chaos.”
https://twitter.com/WeatherProf/status/1678635894021005312
100 degrees, hottest ever measured in north of 65 degrees latitude. A factual statement?
No, because it's not true. It reached 100F at Fort Yukon (66.6 degrees latitude) in 1915, according to government logbooks since erased from their websites:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170209162324/https://www.ncdc....
This happens because climatologists engage in data fraud. They not only constantly change how they combine individual readings into global aggregates, but also rewrite the temperature history of every single weather station too. It leads to constant 1984-esque dystopian events, like trusted news sources claiming a new record has been broken when you can find records of that "record" having been previously already been reached or exceeded in newspaper archives and old documents.
https://off-guardian.org/2023/07/12/reality-check-no-we-didn...
Hint: when you're confidently a degree above the temperature range for 100 to 0.05 kya, you don't need to establish two decimal points in that period to say you're exceeding it, only in the recent period where you're closer (which in this case is entirely in the period with global satellite-based temperature data).
I shouldn't have even bothered skim-reading given the starting point of trying to argue that "average temperature" is meaningless, given that temperature is literally only a thing at the scale of averages.
But then, I have actually used satellite records of global surface temperature, so of course I'd be annoyed at a random blogger who thinks this is done today with a bunch of weather stations.
