Cont: Global warming discussion V

[dann]

Despite the bluster of the Republican candidates, the incontrovertible fact remains that anthropogenic climate change is real. As swathes of the world swelter and burn and flood, the folly displayed at the debate makes it critical we understand why so many persist in denying reality.
(...)
Climate change confounds a central tenet of libertarian free-market views. Accepting the reality of human-mediated climate change means mitigating action should logically follow. But as free-market beliefs typically entail strong distrust of government or market regulation, climate change poses an ideological challenge. This leaves people with two distinct options: One might carefully reevaluate the boundaries of one’s convictions to incorporate new information and refine their philosophy; this intellectually admirable approach is difficult and cognitively expensive work. Or there is a darker, easier alternative—simply reject the problem, and retreat into naked negation by ignoring evidence and seeking to stymy those pointing out the urgency of the issue.
Republican Presidential Candidates Vow to Fiddle as Earth Burns (Scientific American, Sep 1, 2023)

David Robert Grimes, the author of the article, "is a fellow with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

 

[dann]

Climate change is happening, but has it ever happened before?
This Will Be My Most Disliked Video On YouTube | Climate Change (Astrum on YouTube, Aug 31, 2023 - 22:13 min)

Most of the comments are quite sensible and not from haters, like this one, for instance:

@corneliuscorcoran9900
It actually says a lot about the quality of the Public Relations companies employed by the oil industry. Thirty years ago, there was no 'controversy', everyone believed the plain facts- we have put too much CO2 into the atmosphere and it's causing the planet to get warmer. Nothing controversial, no need to understand the finer points of relativity, or the Schrodinger equation. The only dispute between 'right' and 'left' was how much of a role govt. should play in the phasing out of fossil fuels vs 'the market'. (You should listen to a 1991 speech by Margaret Thatcher, she sounds like Greta Thundberg.) Then the oil companies spent billions, buying politicians and a few scientists, advertising space in our media and, as they were invented 'influencers', and they confused and dis-informed until half the population were convinced that, that light, with the 'choo-choo' sound getting closer, was not a train, but a natural track-based cycle, so no need to get off the rails.

I'll have to look up what Thatcher said in 1991.

ETA: Found it! Speech at 2nd World Climate Conference (Nov 6, 1990).
As could be expected from Thatcher, she blames population growth and demands sacrifices. Some of you will applaud that! But she also mentions the "intensive use of fossil fuel" and praises UN's contribution to climate science:

I want to pay tribute to the important work which the United Nations has done to advance our understanding of climate change, and in particular the risks of global warming. Dr. Tolba and Professor Obasi deserve our particular thanks for their far-sighted initiative in establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The IPCC report is a remarkable achievement. It is almost as difficult to get a large number of distinguished scientists to agree, as it is to get agreement from a group of politicians. As a scientist who became a politician, I am perhaps particularly qualified to make that observation! I know both worlds.

I can imagine Republicans hearing her speech today and then start shouting Lock her up! along with all the other radical-left Marxist agitators!

 

[Myriad]

Be careful when you talk about "we," or at least specify whom you're talking about. These guys aren't part of any we trying to come up with solutions to any problems that we have in common with them. And you seem to forget that a lot of people don't have anything remotely similar to what can be described as a "consumerist lifestyle."

We are not the ones who currently make any decisions about what to reduce, remove or stop producing. The factories that produce stuff as well as the oil wells used to generate energy for that production are private property. The people they belong to don't intend to reduce, remove or stop producing any of the stuff they profit from producing.

And the politicians have no intentions to make them do so.

There are two different questions in play here.

One is, what should be done?

The other is, people aren't doing what should be done, how do we get them to do it?

The second question is what you want to keep bringing up, as in the quote above. Only the first part of it, actually. There's been no discussion of how to force factory owners and government officials to act differently. Only how much it sucks that they're not already doing it. That's all politics anyhow, and for whatever reason, this thread is in the science and technology forum. If you want to talk about the psychology of the propaganda you've been talking about, and how to use psychology to counteract it, I'd be very interested. Or if there's some other science or technology of altering governments or changing the ownership of other people's private property you think should be discussed.

That's all pointless anyhow, without an answer to the first question. We can posit a world dictator bent only on the mutual good of humanity and the environment coming to power this afternoon, but she'll still need a plan. That's the context in which Hercules56 was asking, what should "we" do that would work? You can read "we" as meaning the Hypothetical Benevolent World Dictator (HBWD) and the question is no less important.

For instance, shutting down most recreational air travel might be a sensible step, and is even something that's already happened recently due to Covid. But doing it permanently will alter the economy of present tourist destinations. What happens to Las Vegas, Orlando, Hawaii, the Bahamas? Do the local populations formerly making a living from tourism go on the dole, relocate, or learn to code? How is that paid for?

Then there's your advice to businesses: switch to renewable power sources. But there aren't nearly enough renewable power sources for them all to do that. So: build new renewable power sources. But who does that? Each individual business? The existing utility companies? The armed forces? Some newly constituted labor corps? How is it paid for?

Now, of course, the HBWD doesn't have to worry about literally paying for anything. A dictator can just dictate what work everyone will do. "Go build a solar-powered solar panel factory where the Orlando Airport used to be." But she can't conjure up goods or services or expertise out of thin air. If the assigned workers get to Orlando and there's no construction materials and no food for them to eat and none of them knows how to build a solar panel factory anyhow, no factory will happen (and she won't seem very benevolent any more either). The HBWD can't allocate resources until they exist, taking them from the available streams and/or stockpiles. So when I ask how something is paid for, it's shorthand for asking what streams and/or stockpiles the necessary resources, labor, and expertise are drawn from.

If wind and solar is the answer, "how many new wind turbines and solar farms, on what time schedule?" remains the crucial question. The status quo has so far not proven to be enough-fast-enough to halt the increases in greenhouse gas emissions, let alone decrease them. So what's the target? That will tell us what kind of effort would be necessary, and what (not whether) sacrifices would be required to achieve it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Speech at 2nd World Climate Conference[/url] (Nov 6, 1990).
As could be expected from Thatcher, she blames population growth and demands sacrifices. Some of you will applaud that! But she also mentions the "intensive use of fossil fuel" and praises UN's contribution to climate science:

I can imagine Republicans hearing her speech today and then start shouting Lock her up! along with all the other radical-left Marxist agitators!

Would this be the same Thatcher who privatized British gas and electricity, and busted unions leading the way to privatizing the coal mining industry? The same Thatcher whose tax cuts and welfare policies were 'fueled' by North Sea oil? The same Thatcher who after leaving politics in 1992 was hired by the tobacco company Philip Morris as a "geopolitical consultant" for $500,000 per year and $50,000 per speech?

 

[stanfr]

I just was responding to a dude on Quora who said that, as an engineer, he knew the scientists are lying about climate change, cause the sea level in Atoria has not been rising.

When I, and many others, pointed out that a single data point was not good evidence that sea level is not rising, he responded with a lengthy diatribe about how Al Gore was influenced by Armand Hammer and clearly the global warming hoax was a giant Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy! It's hopeless....

 

[W.D.Clinger]

As NOAA says:

Relative Sea Level trends at the coast can be positive or negative. A negative trend does not mean the ocean surface is falling; It indicates the land is rising more quickly than the ocean in a particular area. Trends close to zero indicate the land is rising at nearly the same rate as the ocean.​

As reported by the Daily Astorian:

Figuring out how climate change might impact any particular part of the coast is very difficult, said Ruggiero. It’s due in part to how geologically active the Northwest is. Near the mouth of the Columbia River and along the southern Oregon Coast, sea levels actually appear to be declining because tectonic plates are pushing up against each other, making parts of the Northwest slowly gain elevation.

But it’s a temporary respite. In a few decades, Ruggiero warned, the sea level will be rising faster than the land. “In almost every projection, at some point, the entire Oregon Coast becomes submerged.”​

A quantitative projection:

Sea levels are projected to rise 6 inches over the next 16 years in Astoria due to faster rates of ice melts and increased thermal expansion [Sea Level Rise].​

I just was responding to a dude on Quora who said that, as an engineer, he knew the scientists are lying about climate change, cause the sea level in Atoria has not been rising.

When I, and many others, pointed out that a single data point was not good evidence that sea level is not rising, he responded with a lengthy diatribe about how Al Gore was influenced by Armand Hammer and clearly the global warming hoax was a giant Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy! It's hopeless....

There are a lot of stupid people in the world. As your anecdote points out, a few of them are engineers.

 

[dann]

Would this be the same Thatcher who privatized British gas and electricity, and busted unions leading the way to privatizing the coal mining industry? The same Thatcher whose tax cuts and welfare policies were 'fueled' by North Sea oil? The same Thatcher who after leaving politics in 1992 was hired by the tobacco company Philip Morris as a "geopolitical consultant" for $500,000 per year and $50,000 per speech?

Yes, of course it would! How can you doubt it?!
And why did you leave out this part of my post?
"I can imagine Republicans hearing her speech today and then start shouting Lock her up! along with all the other radical-left Marxist agitators!"
You can't be ignorant of the fact that the contrast is striking, which was both my point and the point of the YouTube comment that compared her to Greta Thunberg.

Yes, Thatcher was bad! Very bad! So bad that Reagan and other Republicans loved her. They probably still do. And yet she praised climate science, actual climate science, 33 years ago. Unlike U.S. Republicans (and probably British Conservatives) nowadays.

 

[dann]

The emission reductions in the 11 high-income countries that have "decoupled" CO2 emissions from Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fall far short of the reductions that are necessary to limit global warming to 1.5°C or even just to "well below 2°C" and comply with international fairness principles, as required by the Paris Agreement, according to a paper published in The Lancet Planetary Health journal.
(...)
The study identified 11 high-income countries that achieved "absolute decoupling" (defined as decreasing CO2 emissions alongside increasing GDP) between 2013 and 2019, which were Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
(...)
None of the high-income countries who have "decoupled" emissions from growth have achieved emission reductions anywhere near fast enough to be Paris-compliant. At current rates, these countries would on average take over 200 years to get their emissions close to zero, and would emit more than 27 times their fair share of the global carbon budget for 1.5°C.
(...)
The authors suggest a range of steps that policymakers can take to speed up emission reductions in fair and socially beneficial ways:
* Shifting away from economic growth as a core objective, and instead prioritizing ecological sustainability, well-being, and fairness as development objectives.
* Scaling down carbon-intensive and unnecessary forms of production and consumption (e.g. SUVs, air travel, industrial meat and dairy, fast fashion, cruises, mansions, private jets).
* Reducing inequalities in income and wealth (e.g. via wealth taxes and maximum income thresholds).
* Insulating buildings, and repurposing buildings to minimize new builds.
* Reducing food waste and shifting to agro-ecological farming techniques and predominantly plant-based diets
* Introducing laws to lengthen product lifespans, and guarantee rights to repair.
* Shifting away from private cars and improving public transit, bike systems and walkability.
Experts warn 'green growth' in high income countries is not happening, call for 'post-growth' climate policies (Phys.Org, Sep 5, 2023)

Good luck with capitalism "shifting away from economic growth as a core objective" ...

An article in The Ecologist yesterday even mentioned private jets and other of the percenters' toys as does the article in The Lancet. Hot and cold showers aren't mentioned at all. Neither is the recycling of bottles and cans.

* Scaling down carbon-intensive and unnecessary forms of production and consumption, such as sports utility vehicles, air travel, industrial meat and dairy, fast fashion, cruises, mansions, and private jets.
* Reducing excess consumption of wealthy classes, and reducing inequalities in income and wealth through wealth taxes, maximum income thresholds, or luxury carbon taxes.
* Insulating buildings, and repurposing buildings to minimise new builds.
* Reducing food waste and shifting to agro-ecological farming techniques and predominantly plant-based diets.
* Improving public transit, bike systems and walkability to reduce car use.
Post-growth offers climate hope (The Ecologist, Sep 4, 2023)

Danish article: Danmarks grønne vækst får kritik: »I bund og grund greenwashing« (Videnskab.dk, Sep 5, 2023)

The original article: Is green growth happening? An empirical analysis of achieved versus Paris-compliant CO2–GDP decoupling in high-income countries (The Lancet Planetary Health Home Page)

 

[dann]

The facts have been out there for anyone to view for decades. But the truth is way too much for most people to accept, so when 'alternative' facts are presented they lap them up. I've been discussing global warming with ordinary people for decades, and almost nobody - including scientists - recognized the gravity of it. Behind my back they called me an 'alarmist'. And these people vote.

Global warming should be the top issue on voter's minds this year, but it isn't. They are all worried about inflation, increased taxes and insurance bills - not even understanding why costs are going up. They should be looking at buying an electric car, and getting solar panels installed, and cutting down on consumption of dirty products, but they aren't. This isn't because 'Big Oil' hoodwinked them into thinking global warming is a hoax. The actual culprit is simply shortsighted selfishness.

Are you sure your impression is correct? Could it be like in Australia where people tend to exaggerate the number of global warming deniers?

I’ve seen this phenomenon (the gap between perception of support and reality) play out over decades with climate change. Climate deniers or “dismissives” make up 10% or less of the population. Those who are alarmed or concerned make up over 50% of the population. And yet if you ask Australians in focus groups or surveys how many deniers are out there, they suggest more like 20% or 30%. This overestimation of opposition to climate action undermines social consensus and slows progress, giving the majority the idea that these denialist delusions are legitimate because more people believe them to be true.
It’s the “megaphone effect”, except with one of those voice distortion devices attached.
A majority of First Nations people support the voice. Why don’t non-Indigenous Australians believe this? (April 27, 2023)

 

[Roger Ramjets]

And why did you leave out this part of my post?
"I can imagine Republicans hearing her speech today and then start shouting Lock her up! along with all the other radical-left Marxist agitators!"

We are not interested in what you can imagine. Have any Republicans actually shouted words to the effect of "Lock Her up!" in response to any of Thatcher's speeches? Or did they look at her record of union busting, privatizing fossil fuels and taking money from the tobacco industry, and ignore those few times she tried to greenwash herself?

Yes, Thatcher was bad! Very bad! So bad that Reagan and other Republicans loved her. They probably still do. And yet she praised climate science

I don't know why you are pushing this news from another country way back in 1990, when there is a more recent example that is much more relevant. In 2001, who said:-

Good morning. I've just met with senior members of my administration who are working to develop an effective and science-based approach to addressing the important issues of global climate change...

Our country, the United States is the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions. We also recognize the other part of the story — that the rest of the world emits 80 percent of all greenhouse gases. And many of those emissions come from developing countries.

This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's.

That's right, the president that 122,295,345 republicans voted for in 2004, George W Bush.

Your (poorly articulated) argument appears to be that Republicans today would reject their own leader if he spoke like Thatcher or Bush did. You are wrong. If Trump did it they would all fall in line behind him just like they did on other issues. That's the power of partisanship.

 

[dann]

Whatever.

 

[dann]

Agricultural CO2 emission

Faktisk kan vi i 2050 nå til et sted, hvor vi ikke alene reducerer menneskehedens klimaaftryk eller sågar bliver klimaneutrale. Vi kan ovenikøbet skabe en verden, som bruger mere CO₂, end den selv skaber.
»Det globale fødevaresystem får i høj grad skylden for klimakrisen, men vi har vist, at man med en omfattende omlægning at fødevaresystemet i hele verden på én gang vil være i stand til at fjerne mere CO₂ fra atmosfæren, end vi udleder,« lyder det fra Laura Vang Rasmussen, lektor og forsker ved Institut for Geovidenskab og Naturforvaltning på Københavns Universitet.
Forskere: Sådan fjerner verdens fødevaresystem mere CO2, end det udleder (Videnskab.dk, Sep 6, 2023)

In fact, by 2050, we can get to a point where we not only reduce the climate imprint of humanity or even become climate neutral. We can even create a world that consumes more CO₂ than it creates.
"The global food system is to a large extent blamed for the climate crisis, but we have shown that with a simultaneous major change of the food system all over the world, it will be possible to remove more CO₂ from the atmosphere than we emit," says Laura Vang Rasmussen, associate professor and researcher at the Department of Geosciences and Nature Management at the University of Copenhagen.
Researchers: How the world's food system can remove more CO₂ than it emits

We analyze an array of scenarios under the conditions of full yield gap closures and caloric demands in a world with 10 billion people. Our results reveal a high-end capacity of 33 gigatonnes of net negative emissions per annum via complete food system transformation, which assumes full global deployment of behavioral-, management- and technology-based interventions. The most promising technologies for achieving net negative emissions include hydrogen-powered fertilizer production, livestock feeds, organic and inorganic soil amendments, agroforestry, and sustainable seafood harvesting practices. On the consumer side, adopting flexitarian diets cannot achieve full decarbonization of the food system but has the potential to increase the magnitude of net negative emissions when combined with technology scale-up. GHG reductions ascribed to a mixture of technology deployment and dietary shifts emerge for many different countries, with areas of high ruminant production and non-intensive agricultural systems showing the greatest per capita benefits.
Model-based scenarios for achieving net negative emissions in the food system (PLOS Climate, Sep 6, 2023)

In one scenario, the recommended flexitarian "diet is predominantly plant-based and contains moderate amounts of dairy, eggs, meat, and fish." But the meat won't be from ruminants like "sheep, cattle, and goats," but from chickens and pigs, I assume. (Well, maybe the occasional steak from the cattle needed for dairy.)

 

[wobs]

Hoping for green hydrogen? It might not be as good for climate as first thought:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35419-7

Abstract

Hydrogen (H2) is expected to play a crucial role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, hydrogen losses to the atmosphere impact atmospheric chemistry, including positive feedback on methane (CH4), the second most important greenhouse gas. Here we investigate through a minimalist model the response of atmospheric methane to fossil fuel displacement by hydrogen. We find that CH4 concentration may increase or decrease depending on the amount of hydrogen lost to the atmosphere and the methane emissions associated with hydrogen production. Green H2 can mitigate atmospheric methane if hydrogen losses throughout the value chain are below 9 ± 3%. Blue H2 can reduce methane emissions only if methane losses are below 1%. We address and discuss the main uncertainties in our results and the implications for the decarbonization of the energy sector.

The YT vid below suggests from the studies that a leakage rate of >2% would be bad for climate change (assuming using green hydorgen).

It is also inefficient, so it ssue needs to be limited to those areas where no altnertaive exists to replace foissil fuels. So things like steel production.

The amount of extra renewables that would be required for green hydorgen is mind blowing as well.

 

[The Atheist]

Happy 21st century, humans! You may not have many more of them.

“It’s time for global leaders to start telling the truth,” said Weaver, a professor at the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria in Canada. “We will not limit warming to 1.5 C; we will not limit warming to 2.0 C. It’s all hands on deck now to prevent 3.0 C global warming — a level of warming that will wreak havoc worldwide.”

https://apnews.com/article/un-hottest-summer-climate-change-b7c7936070952da781af01288607b1f1

The greatest threat facing humanity is apathy.

But nobody cares.

 

[Myriad]

In fact, by 2050, we can get to a point where we not only reduce the climate imprint of humanity or even become climate neutral. We can even create a world that consumes more CO₂ than it creates.
"The global food system is to a large extent blamed for the climate crisis, but we have shown that with a simultaneous major change of the food system all over the world, it will be possible to remove more CO₂ from the atmosphere than we emit," says Laura Vang Rasmussen, associate professor and researcher at the Department of Geosciences and Nature Management at the University of Copenhagen.

Researchers: How the world's food system can remove more CO₂ than it emits

There was one of those 66 million years ago. Can we duplicate its success?

 

[dann]

Hoping for green hydrogen? It might not be as good for climate as first thought:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35419-7


The YT vid below suggests from the studies that a leakage rate of >2% would be bad for climate change (assuming using green hydorgen).

It is also inefficient, so it ssue needs to be limited to those areas where no altnertaive exists to replace foissil fuels. So things like steel production.

The amount of extra renewables that would be required for green hydorgen is mind blowing as well.

Mind-blowing? Whose mind has been blown? It is one of those presentations that meticulously calculates the energy it requires to compress, store and transport hydrogen without comparing it to other sources of energy - as if fossil fuels and nuclear don't need to be extracted, refined, transported and stored.

And yes, energy is wasted when turning hydrogen into electricity, but it is not as if energy isn't wasted when burning fossil fuels and fissioning nuclear.
Besides, you were the one whose main argument against wind and solar was the extra capacity it would require. As a way to store that extra capacity on windy and/or sunny days, using it to produce hydrogen would be a way to store some of that extra energy produced by wind turbines and solar panels.
For some reason, you always present "the amount of extra renewables" as a problem. In this case, it would be the solution!

As for "those areas where no altnertaive exists to replace foissil fuels.," the video mentions "other application where batteries can't be used, like freight, industry heat and aviation." I don't know why batteries can't be used for freight. As mentioned before, we already have battery-run ferries in Denmark. But I can see why it might not be possible for ocean-crossing vessels.

As for the problem with leakage, this is the conclusion of the video: "So solutions do exist. They just need to be adapted for commercial applications."
Why not mention that conclusion instead of blowing your mind?!

 

[dann]

Nearly all world's population exposed to global warming over June-September, study says (Reuters, Sep 8, 2023)

Study finds ‘direct evidence’ of polar amplification on continent as scientists warn of implications of ice loss
Antarctica is likely warming at almost twice the rate of the rest of the world and faster than climate change models are predicting, with potentially far-reaching implications for global sea level rise, according to a scientific study.
Antarctica warming much faster than models predicted in ‘deeply concerning’ sign for sea levels (TheGuardian, Sep 8, 2023)

Tackling climate change needs a rapid transformation of the way our world works, travels, eats and uses energy, according to an important UN review.
This is the first "global stocktake" to examine the efforts of countries to reduce planet-warming emissions since the Paris agreement was signed in 2015.
While progress has been made, efforts now need to be massively scaled up.
The report calls for "radical decarbonisation" with a fast phase out of fossil fuels without carbon capture.
Burning fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal to generate electricity emits carbon dioxide, which is the main driver of climate change. Carbon capture in industrial processes and power stations stops most of the CO2 produced from being released, and either re-uses it or stores it underground.
Renewable energy also needs significant expansion while deforestation needs to be halted and reversed by 2030.
Climate change: UN calls for radical changes to stem warming (BBC, Sep 8, 2023)

On Labor Day, you could drive from Minnesota’s border with Canada all the way to where Louisiana hits the Gulf of Mexico and not encounter a high under 90 degrees. The heat hasn’t broken: Today, nearly a third of Americans are sweltering under heat alerts.
America Could Be in for a Rough Fall - The weather is about to get even weirder. (TheAtlantic, Sep 8, 2023)

(We're having temperatures in Denmark right now what would be very high for July!)

Nearly all world's population exposed to global warming over June-September, study says (Reuters, Sep 8, 2023)

Meanwhile in Florida: DeSantis, Undaunted by Florida Storms, Shrugs Off Climate Change (NYT, Sep 8, 2023)


ETA: Uddannelsesinstitutioner siger farvel til oksekød i kantinen (DR.dk, Sep 8, 2023)
Educational institutions in Denmark will no longer serve beef, which is allegedly responsible for 55 percent of CO₂ emissions from food consumed by Danes.

 

[Aridas]

A bit of a round-up.

PragerU And Jordan Peterson Demonstrate How Billionaire-Backed Disinfo Spreads On Social Media

For years now, people have been pointing out that PragerU is turning funding from fracking billionaires into Christofascist propaganda and climate disinformation on social media.

For years now, Facebook has been waffling on the problem, pretending to act but not really doing much because it's helmed by Republican election-stealing climate denier Joel Kaplan.

And for years now, researchers have pointed out that PragerU spends those frackbucks on Facebook advertisements to boost its reach and artificially inflate its views.

But all that only seems to have encouraged Texas (and Florida and Oklahoma) to (maybe) approve PragerU content for use in schools, despite the fact that it is factually wrong and "insanely racist."

There's a bunch more in that round up, but I don't feel like pushing Fair Use further here.

 

[dann]

I mentioned PragerU's propaganda directed at school children a couple in posts 560 and 562 in the hoax thread.

 

[dann]

The global average temperature for June, July and August was 16.77^oC (62.19^oF), beating the previous record set in 2019 by almost three-tenths of a degree.
Earth has just seen its hottest three-month spell on record (NewScientist, Sep 6, 2023)

"Almost three-tenths" doesn't sound like much, but it's an insane rise if it continues.

Rise of mass deaths as heatwaves start to pass survivability threshold (NewScientist, Sep 8, 2023)
Deadly humid heatwaves to spread rapidly as climate warms – study (TheGuardian, Sep 8, 2023)
Hottest summer ever most likely caused by anthropogenic global warming (Videnskab.dk, Sep 8, 2023 - in Danish)
World isn’t moving fast enough to cut pollution and keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius, UN scorecard says (CNN, Sep 8, 2023)
Climate activists protested at Burning Man. Then the climate itself crashed the party (NPR, Sep 7, 2023)
Heat pumps will cool your home during the hottest of summers and reduce your global warming impact (TheConversation, Sep 7, 2023)