It’s Not Your Imagination. Summers Are Getting Hotter.

Summer temperatures have shifted toward more extreme heat over the past several decades.

Comments: 149

  1. In 1950 there were about 2.5 billion people in the world. Today there are over 7 billion and a few more billion projected.
    In 1950 most people did not have air conditioning.
    How many billion new air conditioners will be produced?

  2. I read that the demand for AC is expected to increase by a factor of 33 by 2100.

  3. Air conditioners consume lots of electricity, which means increasing the amount of greenhouse gases spewed into the atmosphere, which means hotter weather and a greater need for air conditioners. Talk about a vicious circle.

  4. New technology is opening paths to air conditioners which need no external power not HFCs.

    And engines running on ambient heat which cool their immediate environment.

    Impossible? No, only surprising new science and technology. See aesopinstitute.org

  5. A link to the article by Hansen would be helpful.

    Also: the "average" is not the "top" of the bell curve. The average is the point on the x axis (horizontal axis) bisected by a vertical line running down from the "top" of the bell curve.

    Also: some more information would be very useful: such as, how are the categories of "hot" and "extremely hot" determined? Is this based on the standard deviation of the curves?

    Such categories are not helpful. They only serve to make the science appear more static and clunky than it is: the true important lessons of these curves can simply be summarized by saying that the average summer temps in the n. hemisphere has increased and with that the extremes of these temps have increased, meaning that hi temps get hotter more frequently and that low temps are warmer than they used to be.

  6. Categories are simply discretizations of continuously valued data; there is always information loss in this, but the coarser granularity of the categories allows people to grasp the central point of the data quickly. The most recent data appear to not only have changed on average, but also increased the standard deviation, which accounts for the slightly flatter probability density function of the rightmost graphic.

  7. Good points. By following the links, I gathered that the shift was of one standard deviation of the distribution of summer temps for 1951-1980, which is roughly one degree Celsius. (Hard to eyeball it from the plots.) But if they simply stated that, the authors would have had to explain to the general reader how on Earth can a person feel a one degree average difference. Your suggestion of more noticeable extremes seems right to me.

  8. Why are the axes not quantified? I respect James Hansen and don't doubt the general point being made here, but this chart is scare-mongering propaganda when presented without actual numbers.

  9. No charts should ever be presented without numbers and without CLEARLY labeled axis. This is an example of our general educational level problem.

    I disagree with you on the "scare mongering propaganda" statement, but you're right that the graph is less than stellar.

  10. It's an infographic. This isn't an empirical research study found in a journal, it's for quick and easy consumption. Rest assured, the data is sound.

  11. The meaning is clear. It's a graph showing summer temperatures per its label and years. It's not complicated. Perhaps an elementary math class at your local grade school would be clarifying.

  12. This is very misleading. The period 1950-1980 is one of the coolest in the very short temp record we have. But more important, I don't even think the data is correct. The link below is to the NOAA temp data base, the graph is for max temps in the contiguous US for the summer months june, july, august. Note that the max temps were higher in the 1930's than today. And the graph shows nothing more than normal variation for the period 1895 to present.

    More important, the US has the most extensive & reliable network of ground temp stations. According to Berkeley Earth, the US has 9k temp stations, over half of the globes. Russia by contrast has 700. So the area of the globe with the most extensive, reliable, etc. data collection methodology does not show that max temps are getting higher. So I have a hard time accepting this report. Why wouldn't the US show it is getting hotter if the rest of the northern hemisphere supposedly is? Could it be that the rest of the northern hemisphere temp record simply isn't as accurate?
    I say this after nearly having to turn the heat on earlier this week. In Ct. In July.
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/tmax/3/8/1895-2016?ba...

  13. On the contrary, selecting one part of the globe and ignoring the rest of the planet is misleading. That's why we speak of climate change - because some parts of the globe see the change differently than others do. From that same link, click on "global" and you'll see the global temperature increase as clearly as anything can be seen. The great state of CT is not the whole world.

  14. Please note that the height of the graph is not a temperature, but the frequency of different temperatures. But I agree, it is not the best of graphs.

  15. Sunspot -- you miss the point -- true, the contiguous US is only about 5% of the global land mass -- but a bigger % of the Northern Hemisphere which this graph is based on.

    And -- the US shows no increase in temps. It only shows normal variation. If the rest of the globe had as extensive a ground temp station network, and one where the same methods are used (as in the US) then I'd be more persuaded. But I'd still want an explanation as to why the US shows no warming trend. Certainly you see a global trend, but I'd bet a lot that's an artifact of 2 things -- very bad sampling (Africa had lt 50 stations in 1900, 500 now -- mostly along the coast and it is 20% of the global land mass) and urban heat islands. We've had massive population growth globally, most of it in urban areas. If you compare the various areas of the US, you will see that those areas that have had the most urban growth over the last 100+ years also show the most warming.

    As for CT, the max temps have increased more than the contiguous US -- I attribute that to the Urban Heat Island effect as the entire NE region has had tremendous Urban growth.

    You simply can't ignore the fact that the most accurately measured area of the globe -- the US -- does not show that it's getting hotter in the summers.

  16. I've lived in California for a;most 60 years. i've lived in the Sierra Foothills or spent a lot of time there most of those years. While last winter was one of the wettest on record, this Summer has been hotter than I've ever experienced.

  17. By late this century an average summer will likely be hotter than anything yet experienced. Parts of the world will start to see temperatures high enough that humans can't lose heat and next century those areas will spread.

  18. It should be made clear, especially to the President, that global warming and climate change are two different things. As the planet warms, due to human activity, climates change - some places becoming wetter, others drier, some hotter, and some cooler. It is this that we should be scared of cause climate change results in ecological changes like changes in zoonotic diseases distribution, clean water availability and agricultural productivity, not to mention damage due to extreme climate events, fire and floods. You can deny these facts all you want, or say they are natural and have occurred before, but you cannot deny that life on earth is being threatened by events caused by us within the last 100 years.

  19. Nothing can be "made clear" to this president who has a distinct lack of curiosity and disinterest in learning. Perhaps when Mar-a-Lago is regularly flooded he'll begin to realize the climate is changing.

  20. Why did he choose the period 1950-1980 to be the baseline? This was a period of global cooling. Why not choose 1930-1940, when the global temperatures were high and similar to today? James Hansen is an alarmist and I would want to see ALL the raw data before believing anything he said.

  21. Carol -- absolutely -- with a large enough data set you can make any case you want if you pick and choose your base line. The only climate baseline that should be accepted is one with as long a time frame as possible. Several hundred years would be nice. But oops. We don't have that. In fact we really don't have much of a global temp record at all because there isn't really an extensive network of temp stations now -- and there hasn't been. Our supposed temp record from 1880 to now is simply an illusion. Most of the global land masses had few if any temp stations in 1880, or 1900. Even today the US accounts for more than half the global temp stations according to Berkeley earth.

  22. " Why not choose 1930-1940, when the global temperatures were high and similar to today?"

    In a word, no:

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-ano...

    1. The timeframe of 1930-1940 was a 'mere' 0.1C above the 1950-1980 baseline. Our current warming is a full 0.6C above that baseline. In other words, today is much much warmer than 1930-1940.

    2. A 10-year period is not long enough to form a baseline. Simple mathematics applied to variable system like weather requires a minimum of 17 years to show a trend, and a baseline by definition must be even longer than that to balance out temporary trends. No scientist would choose a 10 year 'baseline'.

    3. As is obvious from that linked graph above, 1950 - 1980 was a relatively stable period in global temperatures. Stability forms a good baseline.

    4. But finally, maybe you're right about one thing. Why not choose a different baseline? I propose that we use 1880 - 1910. The choice of that particular baseline shows a whopping 1.0C warming in the last 110 years - far more than the warming indicated by using the 1950 - 1980 baseline.

    If scientists were trying to "be alarmist", wouldn't they cherry pick a baseline that made things look even worse? You can't make facts like this go away just because you don't like them.

  23. Because that's when we could most accurately measure temperature. There's no conspiracy.

    Before then, we were using mercury tubes and gauges and estimating temperature based on inadequate means.

  24. Within 10 years, some of us are likely to see the Earth become uninhabitable for most multicellular life. Before that, as our staple crops fail and billions starve in the US and elsewhere and the billionaires lose themselves in impossible dreams of Mars colonies and underground bunkers, many of us will hopefully come to terms with our mortality and that of our loved ones and seek some peace. Dying is not easy but I hope, for our Earth, humans finally come together in the experience of it. Look up Near Term Human Extinction, Guy McPherson, etc. if you want to know more. Unfortunately, like some paternalistic family member, those in power think it's better you don't know about our collective terminal illness. Perhaps they are afraid of the market crash and chaos. I think the truth will set you free, if you give it time.

  25. Let's hope the grim predictions prove wrong.

    And recognize that this is an emergency greater than humans have ever faced.

    It needs rapid mass production of breakthrough 24/7 cheap green solar energy systems and similar revolutionary energy and air conditioning technology.

    Such systems are under development everywhere on earth. All but one are severely underfunded as they reflect new science that normally takes a generation to gain acceptance.

    Brilliant Light Power, the one system with adequate capital, is developing a complex technology. Much simpler, less expensive systems are being born.

    See aesopinstitute.org for a few examples.

    Study the new science and ignore the Trolls who are certain such technology is simply fraud and dishonesty.

    The lives of everyone you care about are at issue. Assist if you can.

    Perhaps we can replace fossil fuels much faster than conventional wisdom suggests is possible.

    And increase the odds that humans will be around for many more years.

  26. Imperative now: To turn the heat UP... on those not doing everything possible to combat climate change.

  27. Be aware there are a number of pseudoscientists inhabiting this comments column who are seeking to undermine the science reported here by injecting irrelevant data and erroneous conclusions into the conversation. They are relentless and keep posting the same lies over and over again anywhere real science is reported in the media. I'm convinced many of them are paid shills of the fossil fuel industry, but I could be wrong.

  28. Many of the pseudoscientists here are on your side of the conversation.

    I doubt that there are many who have actually processed the data for themselves. The charts displayed on this page are extreme cases of chartmanship. If you are a non pseudo scientist, you understand how this crap happens. You freak out at the range of change demonstrated in the chart because you have plotted the base data and wonder how they get such extreme charts to happen.

    If you could point me to where I can sigh up to be a paid shill, I would love it. So would the other folks you are claiming are paid.

  29. This is no different than any other mass migration is the past 50,000 years. Living creatures will migrate to survival areas if they are able to do so. If not they will die. We will see more and more slowly migrate north here in North America. Alaska and Canada will open up. Nothing to worry about.

  30. Nothing to worry about except for the fact that a majority of the people in the world live in geographic regions most sensitive to climate change. Not to mention that most of our food and ecological resources are in these regions as well I really hope you're PRO-immigration since we're about to be inundated with a lot of poor, brown, non-christian people.

  31. Yes, because mass human migration has always gone so smoothly and worked so effortlessly, especially when complex, industrialized societies are involved. Nothing to worry about at all.

  32. Exactly! What could possibly go wrong?

  33. As long as there is a Republican administration in place there is really no place for factual data that doesn't fit into a belief system that says their invisible friend in the sky is in charge. Such a belief system allows them to deny any human effect on climate. In turn, that belief relieves them of any responsibility because that god of theirs is in charge.

    "[M]y point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Senator Jim Inhofe, member of both the Senate Science Committee and the Senate Environment Committee.

  34. In Phoenix, we know heat. And what the charts show is that we have more hot days, but our all-time high temperature of 122 occurred 30 years ago. There is a difference between average temperatures and new extremes. The media got this one wrong when it reported that planes are being grounded due to the extreme heat. There is no increase in extreme heat, only in average heat. And average heat doesn't affect planes.

  35. Average temperature when fit to a distribution shows the central tendency, or trend, of the data. That's what matters.

  36. On the days the planes were grounded, they were grounded because of the extreme temperature of the air on those specific days. The problem this story helps indicate is that what once was "extreme" will become more and more normal.

  37. Ignatz -- what you say matters has nothing to do with planes. b. fagan, you make the same mistake as the newspapers. Extreme temperatures have not become normal. Instead, daily average temperatures have increased. Above 115 they ground planes. We get about 3 days like that each year. Eventually, you will likely be right. But there is no such phenomenon now. The media wasn't talking about planes in 50 years. It was talking about immediate increased grounding. That's why they were wrong.

  38. It needs to be emphasized especially in the Great Apocalyptic Global Warming debate that ALL models, whether math based or not, inherently reflect an incomplete body of knowledge. This being the case, it is foolish in the extreme to extrapolate short term data fluctuations through the lens of an incomplete model and make grandiose predictions about the distant future.

    People who make mathematical models are often of the mistaken view that it is their models that drive reality. This is the map-territory confusion called mathematicism, that afflicts too many modern scientific endeavors.

    Like map makers who mistakenly believe their maps determine the shape of the territory, mathematicists BELIEVE that their models determine the behavior of the complex systems they are attempting to model. They believe this even though their models are, obviously and especially, in the case of our complex climate system, of limited scope.

    The more complex a system is the less reliable any model is likely to be. The argument that science can't predict the weather reliably more than a few days in advance and therefore climate predictions are suspect is widely dismissed.

    It is said that climate and weather are not the same thing which is certainly true. But long term global climate is the aggregate of short term global weather. If short term predictions have to be viewed skeptically, long term predictions involving the same system cannot really be considered reliable either.

  39. Explain to the glaciers worldwide that, by melting, they are actually just falling victim to the hidden scourge of "mathematecism".

    Next, tell the rising seas that they shouldn't be rising, that it's all just a grandiose model of the future that's driving them to rise decade after decade. The seas will be embarrassed, but will eventually thank you for your great wisdom.

    Then they'll still continue rising, because the planet is heating due to the measured increase in downwelling IR from the measured increase in persistent greenhouse gases. Measured increases are not models. They are measurements.

    The problem with your argument, Bud, is that the physics, the observations and the models all are in general agreement.

  40. Explain to the NYTimes in Feb. 25, 1923 how anthropogenic increases in CO2 after 1950 have magically teleported back in time and caused early 20th century glaciers and the arctic to melt. From the NYTimes on that date: "First Noted About 1918... The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports... all point to a radical change in the climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard of temperatures in that part of the earth. Old glaciers have disappeared and land once covered with field ice is bare." http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9F05E2D61231E333A25756C2A96...

    Explain to the tidal gauges at The Battery why they currently register the exact same amount of interannual sea level rise (CO2 ~400ppm) as they did during the Civil War (CO2 ~280ppm).

    The climate system is extremely complex and chaotic and cannot currently be accurately described by any model. Observation would seem to indicate that what we are experiencing now is entirely natural and not correlated in any significant way to increases in CO2.

  41. @b fagan, the problem with your reply is that you didn't understand the argument. It's not a question of whether there is a current warming trend, but rather whether that trend can be linearly extrapolated out many years into the future using a model that has no long range track record.

    The fact is that science does not, generally speaking, make long range predictions of complex, open systems. If you choose to believe, on the basis of no real evidence, that climate modelers have suddenly acquired such a breakthrough predictive ability, well it's a free country.

    But beliefs and knowledge are not the same thing. Those who claim to know the future are not scientists; they are mathematicists deeply enamored of their models.

    http://thisislanduniverse.com/commentary/the-cult-of-mathematics/

  42. Energy can exist in different states one of which is heat. Heat itself exists as both sensible heat and latent heat. Sensible heat raises the temperature of a substance while latent heat causes that substance to undergo a phase change.

    When the latent heat required to melt ice is measured by a reference lab the answer is 79 kilo-calories/liter. To compare with sensible heat, a single kilo-calorie (kcal) will increase the temperature of one liter of distilled water, at standard conditions, one degree centigrade. A more complex experiment shows that 541 kcals/liter is needed to evaporate liquid water to vapor.

    In comparison to heat causing a sensible temperature increase, phase changes are capable of buffering large amounts of heat. If the same quantity of heat, that melted the ice, is applied to the melt water, that water’s temperature would rise about 79 degrees Centigrade. 79 degrees Centigrade is 174 Fahrenheit, warm enough to safely cook meat. If the debate on the Earths’ heat content is based on reality, the kilo-calories of heat that result in both sensible heat gain and latent heat phase changes need to be counted.

    To summarize; the air temperature measurements (sensible heat) are just the tip of the melting iceberg.

  43. The main anti-climate change argument, once they accept the scientific data,
    is that while change is occurring, change always occurs.
    But that is not an argument for continuing to befoul the air, deforest the land and spew damaging agents.

  44. But, oh! There is not such thing a climate change...

  45. and just imagine by 2050.... so if you were just born kid, you will only be 33 and will face a lifetime of horrors. Good Luck

  46. This is way too complicated for the climate change deniers, you know, graphs and data and all that technical stuff.

  47. Tricky words like "technical", "climate", and "graphs" are often beyond their ability to comprehend too.

  48. Meanwhile, ignoramuses are so impressed by 'all that technical stuff' that they never question it. Einstein, you're not.

  49. If you add up all the smokestacks, vehicle tailpipes and every other pipe burning something on the earth the pipe would be about 30 miles in diameter. If you don't think humans can have an impact on the climate then think of this pipe sticking up into the relatively thin atmosphere and pumping out CO2 for the last 150 years, 24/7, 365 days a year.

  50. Absolutely hotter in southeast Wisconsin, where I've lived my entire life. I've seen nearly 66 summers and even though, yes, I'm more sensitive to heat now than when I was younger (we are all invincible when we're 10, after all, aren't we), it has also gotten noticeably more humid. The air more often than not now gets dew point saturated with moisture to 70 and even higher (!!!!), it makes it hard to breathe, you almost feel like you are drowning, sucking in hot water, not air! I had a shade structure built in my treeless backyard, but I have spent more time shuttered inside my air-conditioned home then not since at least 2012 (the Year from Hell, it consistently got above 100 degrees with close to 100% humidity) for streaks of days all summer long), because even sitting still in the shade, it is just too uncomfortable to be outdoors. I don't know how people who HAVE to be outdoors because of their occupations stand it, actually. Awful!

  51. Absolutely hotter? Are you sure? Here are the annual number of days in Madison with temperatures over 90 degrees. Has been in long term decline since the 1950s: http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/clim-history/stations/msn/MSN-AP-90degdays-...

    Highest temperature per year in long term decline since 1930s: http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/clim-history/stations/msn/MSN-HIGH-T-ANN.gif

    Average summer temperatures declined for approximately the first half of your life and then slowly rose for the second half. Looks like they are now up by a very non-threatening fraction of a degree vs. when you were a child: http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/clim-history/stations/msn/MSN-TS-JJA-T.gif

    Same with summer dew point: http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/clim-history/stations/msn/MSN-AP-DEWPT.gif

    Climate is cyclical, and the world is not coming to an end. You have barely experienced any real change in the past 66 years. Can you really feel a difference between e.g. 66 degrees and 66.3 degrees? Despite people's fervent wish to believe that the world is ending, there is no reason to be alarmed.

  52. "Between 2005 and 2015, two-thirds of summers were in the hot category, while nearly 15 percent were in a new category: extremely hot."

    That's just bad statistics. Between 2005-2015 there were only 10-11 summers (depending on what dates in 2005 and 2015). What's 2/3 of 10? Why not just say 7 out of 10? Nearly 15%? So we had a hair under one and a half extremely hot summers?

    The graph is equally misleading, as it shows all these spiky points that one would assume represent years for the 1951-1980 period... But for the 2005-2015 period there are just as many spiky points on the graph for 1/4 the number of years!

  53. I believe the distribution is based on measurements of daily temperatures. So even with one summer, one gets a good number of data points.

  54. Ever heard of air conditioning?

  55. Ever hear of anthropogenic climate change?

  56. @Mark,
    Yeah, like I said, turn on the air conditioner.

  57. Sam Carana presents data at Arctic News indicating a sharp rise in temperature threatens human extermination within a decade. We hope he is proven wrong, but this article suggests he might be correct.

    Replacing fossil fuels on a full-scale emergency basis seems justified. During WWII a bomber rolled off the line every hour. Renewable energy is much easier to manufacture.

    24/7 cheap green solar energy is now being born. See aesopinstitute.org

    Engines can run on atmospheric (ambient) heat, a huge reservoir of solar energy larger than all Earth's fossil fuels. The science is hard to believe as it demonstrates a loophole in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A converted Ford engine proved the concept.

    Engines designed to run on ambient heat can be made largely of polymers (plastic) as there is no combustion. They can scale to very large sizes.

    Nikola Tesla wrote: “In this present world …a revolutionary idea or invention is hampered in its adolescence – by want of means, by selfish interests, pedantry, stupidity and ignorance. It is attacked and stifled, and passes through bitter trials and tribulations. … All that was great in the past was ridiculed, condemned, combated, suppressed, only to emerge all the more powerfully, all the more triumphantly from the struggle.”

    Troll attacks make it extremely difficult to find support for urgently needed revolutionary technology.

    Major capital is interested at last. A few bold individuals can bridge the gap and change the world.

  58. Investors aren't put off by "trolls", Mr. Goldes. But they might be put off by constant claims of breakthroughs that have been made but somehow can't be examined. For years, you tout revolutionary inventions that just need some gullible - sorry - bold individuals to bridge a tiny funding gap and change the world. Yet you don't do what so many real innovators do - mortage the house, max the credit cards, do what it takes to get it done yourself.

    Your scare tactic with disinformation about human extinction in ten years is another sign investors should be skeptical of amazing claims without robust proof. No science points to heat-related extinction of the species - for the next few hundred million years, at least, when the sun is finally hot enough.

    That truck engine you claimed was already built - why are you still trolling for money to build another? Why not have that engine examined by an independent, reputable lab? THAT report would interest investors.

    And seriously, if a home inventor could trick up an engine to make it work without fuel, what kind of "major capital" is required to trick up a second one?

  59. The Ford engine was converted by Chris Hunter, a brilliant young inventor in Alaska, after 9 years of experiments. Converted engines are filled with propane, which is not consumed but used as a refrigerant. The 1939 Ford engine seals could not withstand the pressure and leaks are dangerous. Hunter is now converting two modern engines. When complete one will be certified at a State laboratory.

    AESOP is converting two engines. A one cylinder prototype is now complete and undergoing tests. A distinguished independent laboratory will validate the work.

    Revolutionary science typically takes 20 to 30 years before commercialization. Ken Rauen invented the first fuel-free engine 27 years ago. His engines need no propane. A patent was issued more than 12 years ago and proved the science. However, that engine could not overcome friction.

    Jacob Wainwright began delivering papers in 1902 pointing out how to build piston engines that need no fuel. He was a civil engineer not a mechanical engineer and could not build a prototype. Rauen found his work inspired the missing path to overcoming friction. A patent pending prototype opens the way to practical fuel-free engines of any size - as well as super efficient air conditioning - and heat pumps that are self powered.

    Scroll way down under NO FUEL PISTON ENGINES at aesopinstitute.org for Hunter's 4 pages of plans revealing how to convert 4 cylinder engines.

    For science suggesting near term human extinction see Sam Carana at Arctic News.

  60. Would it be possible to show numbers in the metric system on the website for readers outside of the U.S., Liberia and that one other country?

  61. I sympathize, but this is a US paper. It would be great if we would switch to the metric system. That would make sense. But, as you have probably noticed, about half of our good citizens are not making much sense right now. Hopefully, we will recover our sound judgement and be back soon as a rational and responsible member of the world community.

  62. Lots of splitting hairs on the data set.

    If you'd like, take this from the data: what was the extreme outlier in 1951 is now more common. That's a legitimate, factual statement and also shows what is exemplified by the data set.

    Happy?

  63. Here's a clue: it is hot in summer and cold in winter.

    Get over it already.

  64. Here's another clue: it is getting hotter in summer and in winter, because our climate is changing. Accept reality already. Or don't, it makes no difference.


  65. Once again, you are spot on Mr. Stackhouse. I think the equally alarming issue to hotter summers is that the winters (at least in Chicago) have been gradually becoming milder with less snow and earlier springs. The ice caps on the Swiss Alps and Grand Teton mountains are lessening and shrinking at an alarming rate (at least according to National Geographic). For a long time, all I read about was the shrinking ozone layer and/or the big hole in the ozone with accompanying graphics. I can't help but believe there IS a change in the climate. But the real key for me that a crisis is at hand is the accelerating speed of things like hotter summers and more severe storms with unprecedented flooding (which is happening in the Midwest). It's the SPEED of things changing that I find chilling. Yet, the Washington mindset refuses to even acknowledge any tangible evidence, facts, pictures, or anything contrary to their belief system. You can drag a donkey to water, but if they don't believe it's water, they will refuse to drink,

  66. There's a lot to learn in the NY Times for folks who actually read the articles.

  67. global warming is real. i have been going to argentina for many years during our summer months for the pursuit of waterfowl. this year, my longtime outfitter suggested i cancel because the weather was too hot. this suggestion hurt him financially, but it shows how this warming of our planet is real and will cause problems worldwide.

  68. This effect may also help out with slowing the effects of climate change. The primary driving force in humanity's effect on the environment is overpopulation. As temperatures climb, more people will die every summer; heat waves are the most lethal natural disaster overall. When many places have temperatures hitting 130 degrees, it's likely that many people will expire simply due to the heat. If this effect manages to curb our population, then climate change should slow down, or possibly even plateau.

    Just trying to look on the bright side, and for those who say, what if it's you that dies, in that case I won't have to worry about a thing.

  69. I think you're being too optimistic.

    More likely it will be a sudden collapse of a wide range of populations. Even simple nonlinear disease models (such as the SIR model) give precipitous collapse of stressed populations.

  70. Unfortunately under that scenario it's not the major contributors to the problem that perish, it's the poor innocent bystanders. The major contributors just crank up the AC because they can afford to and make the problem only worse. Life really isn't very fair. Developers just finished a 4000 sf addition to the old 1200 sf tear down on the large lot next door to me and the two big new AC compressors never stop running. I'm sure the electricity bill is going to be almost as much as whatever the mortgage payment on a house going for two and half million's going to be. I feel like I'm living next door to a giant cold storage plant.

  71. Dear Iver Thompson,
    Quite right, the people consuming the most resources are the least likely to die from the heat. It's not fair at all, but it seems like an unavoidable unfairness.

    Dear Eric Bittner,
    That's also quite possible, and I tend to try to be optimistic. Still, if the world's population gets cut by two thirds or so, that might work out ideally well for the planet and our species.

  72. If Trump and the GOP would shut their mouths and do their jobs some of the problem would disappear. They wouldn't be pouring their hot air into the climate.

  73. We're going to have to adjust our ways of living. When my California home was built in 1963, it had single-pane windows, no insulation in the walls, and no air-conditioning. The roof was shake, and the exterior walls were painted black and dark brown. Gas-powered cars sat in the two-car garage. Front and back yards were planted with non-native grass. Fifty-four years later the yards are planted with native plants that require little water. One electric car sits in the garage.
    The roof is white and the exterior walls a color that reflects more light. The walls are insulated; the windows are double-pane; and a whole-house fan has been installed to pull in cool ocean air on summer mornings before windows and shutters are closed. In 1963, California's population was 16 million. Today it is 39 million. We don't have more water than we had then, and our houses are filled with digital devices. Each of us must endeavor to consume as little energy and water as possible.

  74. Or, our species could stop breeding like rabbits.


  75. As the old cliché goes, it's not the heat, it's the humidity. The very first ungodly hot summer I vividly recall was in 1995, in Chicago. That summer, almost 800 people died. Every day that summer, I felt like I was living in a never ending sauna. Since then, Chicago still gets those pockets of hot, humid days which last for weeks, but also, the winters don't remain that cold any longer. The days of above freezing are more frequent than sub-zero days. It's as if the planet no longer has enough time to cool off from the summer heat. Mother Nature is in trouble, that's a given. Reading about it in the NYT only confirms the obvious. What I find more frightening than this constant, slow burning heat is this administration flatly refuses to acknowledge a problem even exists, not to mention the belief of global warming is a hoax is hotter than any given summer.

  76. Phony chart. If the 1930's were included the data would look much different i.e. it was hotter in those years than now.

  77. Phony chart? Another example of a climate denier making up facts to suit his/her view.
    Here's the real facts according to NOAA's National Center for Climate Information (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global)
    The temperature anomaly for the period 1930 to 1939 was -0.9 C relative to the 20th century average. The temperature anomaly for the period 1951 to 1980 was +0.5 C relative to that average.

  78. You're incorrect, as is easily determined by the total absence of facts backing up your claim.

  79. This seems to be a clear case of data manipulation. Why the determination that 1950 -1980 is "normal"? Comparing a thirty period to 10 year periods also seems problematic - likely the reason the standard deviation is increasing. I guess it is common knowledge how easily believers in climate apocalypse prophesies are manipulated.

  80. 1980 was the hottest summer ever from Texas to Georgia. The records still stand for most consecutive days over 100F.

  81. Somewhat dishonest in presentation, because there are no meaningful units on the horizontal axis. By following the links, I gather that the shift was of one standard deviation of the distribution of summer temps for 1951-1980, which is about one degree Celsius. (Hard to eyeball it from the plots and we don't have the data.) But if they simply stated that, the authors would have had to explain to the general reader how on Earth can a person feel a one degree average difference.

  82. I chose the article " It's not your imagination. Summers are getting hotter" by Nadja Popovich and Adam Pearce.

    I chose this article because I always don't understand the reasoning behind people believing global warming isn't a thing because it is. As time goes on the people believing that global warming is false are going to have a harder and harder time proving it because of how much evidence there is to back up global warming but once everyone is on the same page about it something can be done about such as making more eco friendly products or recycling more. The problem is there still is quiet a few people in the world who don't want to face the problem head on and that's the brick wall that is standing in our way of making this a better and healthy world to live in.

  83. First, your chosen base period is from a cooler period on the curve. The 1930's Dust Bowl period was warmer than the cooling post 1950's thru the 70's https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-...
    The EPA has a heat wave index. The 1930's had far and away more heat waves than we have https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-an...
    Second while the average temperatures are definitely warmer. It is not the maximum temperature that is the primary cause, it is the higher minimum temps that drive the average higher. Or again the EPA https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-an...
    Its the winters that are more consistently warmer and the night time temperatures that help skew the data. So at least for the US, which has the best data set and where the people who read this article might complain about the weather, not quite as presented.

  84. MScott -- exactly right -- but don't expect the alarmists to believe you OR the EPA or the NOAA data set. And I would add that in addition to higher avg temps being driven by 1) higher mins and 2) warmer winters (how bad is that?) that the areas that show warming in the contiguous US are for the most part those areas that have had the most urban growth. The Acela corridor. Florida. Phoenix to southern california.

  85. You are comparing apples and oranges. The plot shown here is for global summer temperatures. While its true the US had warmer in summers in the '30's than the base period used here, that was not true globally. Globally, June through August was .15C warmer in 1951-1980 than the '30's, according to the NOAA's National Center for Climate Information.
    By the way, higher night time minimums is exactly what you would predict from higher greenhouse gas concentrations: the trap heat in.

  86. Bill -- 1st of all this is for the northern hemisphere. Second --- if you dig into it (say Berkeley earth) you will find that most of the rest of the world doesn't have adequate coverage of temp stations to take adequate samples. We have 9k, Russia for example has 700. All of Africa has 500 stations, mostly near the coast. And if you go back to 1900 or 1880 -- or even 1950 -- you'll see the coverage was even more sparse in all the global land masses ex US and to some extent Europe.

    And these temp stations were not placed randomly, a common method wasn't used and -- the purpose when they were put in was not to track avg global temps. In short, the global temp collection and data set is not reliable -- the samples are simply too small to provide a reliable (which is a necessary condition for validity) estimate of the true mean even before you take into acct method differences.

    And that's before we get into all the adjustments and extrapolations that have been made to the data set that always seem to make the trend appear warmer.

    And higher night time lows result from urbanization -- the urban heat island effect -- as are warming winter temps.

  87. Here's the NYTimes in NYTimes, August 3, 1878:

    "Now, we only know too well that the heat during the present Summer has been unprecedented, and that the last Winter was one of exceptional mildness. Moreover, there has been a very obvious increase in the heat of the climate during the last thirty years.... The snow no longer lies for months in our streets, and the rivers, which used to be frozen from December to March, are now closed to navigation only during a very few weeks in mid-winter.... If this sort of thing continues, it will not be many years before the heat becomes so great that it will be insupportable.... We of this generation have no immediate cause of alarm, but our posterity will find things excessively warm for them, and it is perhaps our duty to advise them not to come."

    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9907E4DB143EE63BBC4B53...

    Seems history really does repeat itself. As for Hansen, and the rather fungible historical temperature records he has had a large part in continually revising, this article provides a nice summary: https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/

  88. Meant to say "malleable," not "fungible"....

  89. Warmer temperatures worldwide are happening and are not going to stop happening even if we immediately stop using fossil fuels (although that would be a good idea). But worrying about denial is just a distraction. Few people point out just how dire the situation is, and even less believe it, which may be just as well, because what can we do about it - the combination of a changing, unpredictable climate, toxic pollution of land, air and sea and too many people, all intersecting in the next 80 years. And no leadership.

    I'm always wryly amused when folk advise us that in 2100 we will have solved our problems with solar and wind farms, sustainable cities, sustainable corporations producing sustainable energy, sustainable seafood, sustainable farming, and also artificially intelligent robots, a cure for baldness and individualized medicine based on genetics, blah, blah, blah. Really? We're going to do all of this without trees, clean water, clean air, species diversity, healthy soil and healthy oceans? Yeah, right.

    Our species is under threat from itself, and the US elects Donald Trump. Phooey. Heck, I guess that is symptomatic of what I just said.

  90. I must agree with most of what you say. Unfortunately, the climate is always "achangin'". This data does show a shift toward warmer weather, but most importantly, I think it indicates that it is too late to do much about it. Yes, reducing fossil fuel usage would be helpful, but the political debate (much based on no understanding of the science) has created a major distraction to what must be done: We must figure out exactly how we are going to adapt to the new climate. What kind of crops should we breed? Where should they be planted? What impact will this warmer climate have on availability of water--for growing our crops? There are a myriad of things that need to be debated by the scientific community--not the politicians who are far more interested in ideology than in truth.

  91. Plant more trees, everywhere. We need trees on this planet.

  92. Not here in Cornwall! Cold and rainy today. Typical summer.

  93. propaganda.
    summers in the 1960's were scorchers. we had a drought here in the NY metro region that lasted years. Those were hot summers. If we were living through that drought today, the Prophets of Doom would be having a field day.

  94. This is a dramatic graphic of the "new normal"--"extremely hot" summers and the major weather events they spawn like "superstorms," floods, droughts that not only kill people, but contribute to dislocation through migration. Climate denying won't make this go away. We need to do everything we can to eliminate the rapid raise in global temperatures before we're literally all toast.

  95. what super storm has hit the US in the last 10 years? Sandy wasn't even a hurricane, it just hit a densely populated area. So where are the super storms?

  96. Yes, yes, Climate Change is going to kill us all. We get it.

  97. Summer temperatures have shifted toward more extreme heat over the past several decades..."
    No, really? Where I live in California, it is now like living in LOUISIANA. The bigly sad part is that I have making this same comment for 10 years or more, but got poo-pooed about it---just your imagination.

  98. Just be glad you weren't living there in the 19th century, as per this history from 1890 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41167825?seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents):

    "The year 1856 might be said to be an exception, even to exceptional years. A severe drought, intense summer heat, earthquake shocks, thunder and lightning, and severe sand storms, made a variety of climate, that, if not pleasing, was varied enough. It was considered the dryest and most unhealthful season the country had known for twenty years. During the summer of that year and the ensuing winter the loss of cattle in the county of Los Angeles alone by starvation was estimated at one hundred thousand.

    The year 1859 was another exceptional year. In October the thermometer registered 110° in the shade, and in December occurred the most remarkable precipitation of rain ever known in the county. It was estimated that one foot of water fell within twenty-four hours. The rivers overflowed the lowlands, doing considerable damage. The starving cattle and sheep, unsheltered from the pitiless rain, chilled through, died by thousands during the storm. Large tracts of the bottom lands were covered with sand and sediment."

    And so on and so forth. Download the pdf from the link. It's a good read. I assure you that your experience in the past 10 years is, if anything, exceptionally good given your state's historical climate variability. Be grateful.

  99. Not here, and it doesn't matter anyway. You can't judge the climate by looking at the weather. Stop encouraging this kind of dumb thinking.

  100. But the 'scientists' and 'journalists' on Fox News deny climate change. And Donnie Trump claims that climate change is a clever covert socioeconomic political plot of the People's Republic of China. While the evangelical Christian Confederate base of the Republican Party base is seeing the end of days triple 666 and a Pale Horse signs of the Book of Revelations in hotter summer days melting ice and rising seas.

  101. You do realize that eventually "weather" does turn into "climate"?

  102. blackmamba,
    Acknowledging climate change and doing something about it are two different things. Climate change acknowledgers who aren't proposing appropriate countermeasures -- like a carbon tax -- are just as bad as deniers. Maybe they're worse by lulling us into thinking we're doing something when what we're doing is woefully inadequate.

  103. @RedRat

    You don't realize that climate and weather are two very different chronological ecological geographic geological things. You clearly don't know any more science than Fox News. Climate change is documented in ice and soil cores and geological sequencing and plate tectonics. Weather is mass media news.

    @Steve C

    The notion that there is market based capitalist answer to climate change is a delusional denial of our reliance on fossil fuels and human nature. Carbon dioxide and methane present two

  104. I really feel bad for the innocent plants and animals. It's really sad watching all the trees die. I certainly hope I'm gone before so I don't have to watch to huge ash tree in my backyard go.

  105. You are not paying attention. Over the last several decades plant mass on this earth has increased by 25% - 50%. That is HUGE! Probably a result of increased C02. Trees are't dying they are thriving.


  106. If you don't want to see that huge ash tree in your backyard go, why not be proactive and water it every week with a good soaking from a garden hose? Your ash tree may be more in danger from the bore ash beetle than a lack of water. Good luck with your tree Mr. Thompson.

  107. My advise to millennials who are obsessed with climate change and impending Armageddon is to get a real job, buy a house, start a family and get over yourselves.

  108. Navigator,
    My advice to anyone over 50 years old is to look at the world you've given to millennials: growing catastrophic climate change, endless wars, broken healthcare, unaffordable higher education, growing wealth inequality, crumbling infrastructure.

    If after taking that look, you feel any responsibility for that mess we've handed to millennials, take some responsibility to mitigate that mess. Better late than never (let's hope).


  109. At the risk of being a smarty pants, back in the '60s and '70s when summer temps were "more normal", I used to see herds of ice cream trucks trolling the neighborhoods with their deafening music and bell ringing. However, not so much anymore. One would think that with these recent sweltering summers there would be an ice cream truck on practically every corner, cooling off the kiddies with their delectable frozen treats.

  110. Ah, those were the days.
    The "Ice Cream Man" started to diversify by dealing drugs. Those who didn't were't making enough money so they became hedge fund managers instead. Alas, the ice cream truck ended up going the way of Halloween. Concerned parents won't let their children buy stuff from a stranger, let alone eat it.
    My favorite treat: the Creamsicle. Yum!

  111. There are still ice cream vendors -- in my area, men, mostly of Hispanic heritage, will push carts filled with icy treats throughout the summer. Not sure what part of the Midwest you live in but perhaps more immigrant-heavy areas might also feature similar vendors. They earn a meager wage. I suspect most non-immigrants will not do this because it's not an easy job, given the hot weather and the distance they cover. Tim is right to some degree.


  112. You know what Tim, that's what I was thinking after I submitting my comment - that those trucks were part of the "good ole days". I recall reading about a few drivers who were "questionable" when it came to kids, so I'm sure that's why parents no longer trust that sort of activity. Too bad but I understand. Those orange Creamsicles were the bomb, weren't they? So sweet and cold with a creamy center. Double yum! Thanks for your comment.

  113. Hate to ask this question -- but how many summers are represented in the graph? If we use the N Hemi temps (1951-1980) as the baseline -- that is 30 summers. But it certainly appears there are more than 30 data points represented here (although impossible tot tell as only the X-axis (summer temp category) is labeled but the Y axis -- which should have the count of summers -- doesn't.

    And of course when you look at it by decades -- that would be 10 summers -- sure looks like a lot more -- but how many? And from where. There is no detail to give us any idea of what is going on here. Did Hansen take every country in the N. Hemisphere and count them?

    And since we're comparing a 30 year time span baseline to decades -- regardless of the # of areas included within the N Hemi -- shouldn't the total number of cases be fewer in the decades -- but that isn't what appears to be the case --- while the peak of the bell curve isn't as high it is more spread out (bigger SD).

    Finally -- what defines each of the categories? What temp range or anomaly?

    And I've looked at the summer temp spread (difference between the lowest and highest anomaly) for the 1951-1980 period for NHemi. 1951-1980 it was .33 degrees C; 2005 -2015 it was .35 C. That's not a huge spread.

    Does this graph make any sense to anyone?

  114. > Finally -- what defines each of the categories? What temp range or anomaly?

    I agree, it's unfortunate that these numbers were not included with the article. They're important and concerning. You can find the numbers in the paper cited, though. From the abstract:

    "Global surface temperature in 2015 was +0.87°C (~1.6°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period in the GISTEMP analysis, making 2015 the warmest year in the period of instrumental data. The 2015 temperature was boosted by a strong El Niño, nearly of the same strength as the 1998 “El Niño of the century”. The updated global temperature record makes it clear that there was no global warming “hiatus”. Global temperature in 2015 was +1.13 (~2.03°F) relative to the 1880-1920 mean. Accounting for interannual variability, it is fair to say that global warming has now reached ~1°C, almost ~2°F."

  115. Stipulating that it is slightly hotter today than in the recent past, what provable damage will be done? If the oceans rise, the lower lying areas can be diked as in the Netherlands. Crops can be grown farther north. I could go on, but the data is clear that cold kills more people than heat. We can adapt to the heat much easier than getting rid of fossil fuels worldwide.

  116. Oh where to begin on this. The data is not clear that cold kills more people than heat. The National Weather Service Nation Hazard Statistics says otherwise. not too mention that cold-related deaths might not be a direct death, while virtually all heat-related deaths are. If you are hoping technology will just advance and save us it seems a leap of faith not too mention people who take that position never talk about costs. Sure reducing fossil fuels can be expensive but so can paying for damages from fossil fuels. This isn't about free markets because the fossil fuel industry has used their monopoly powers to influence the market. The bottom line is extremes are not good, we are changing the normal temperature of the earth (our refrigerators) and more importantly we are changing the coldest part (the freezer, if you will) and this effects things (like melting ice) a lot more than the refrigerator temperature.

    Also it is the extremes that matter people can't handle extreme heat nor extreme cold.

  117. zugzwang: If the oceans rise, lower lying areas can be diked? Perhaps you should visit places such as Bangladesh where coastal areas used for growing crops has been inundated with salt water and people are fleeing inland causing a humanitarian crisis. Who is going to build dikes for that poor country? How do we solve wars fought over lack of fresh water? How many billions of dollars will be diverted to raising up flooded areas in Florida and other low lying areas of our country that could be used for better purposes. And what of other results of the changing climate? Increasing strength of hurricanes causing billions in damage? And on and on. Take a look at the series "Years of Living Dangerously". It's on YouTube.

  118. Due to topology and geology of the US, it is not as easy to build dikes to protect the USA as in the case of Netherlands. Further, the cost is extremely prohibitive (maintenance cost -- not building cost-- of dikes per one kilometer is well over $150,000 per year in the Netherlands). With the size of the USA and our failure to take actions on climate change, it is pay me now or pay me a whole lot more later.

  119. You chose a nice cool week to publish this!

  120. Oh, look, there they are: the typical and predictable array of comments saying, in effect, "hey, there were warmer periods in the past so clearly this article is wrong and climate change is fake. Fakes news! We win!"

    The evidence is not global mean temperatures alone. It's changing precipitation patterns. It's the deglaciation. It's changing ocean levels. It's changing ocean temperatures (many forms of marine life can only survive in a very limited range of temperatures, because they evolved in an environment where temperature is much more constant than on land.) It is the accumulation of consistent empirical evidence.

    It's also worth keeping in mind that the climate and environment on earth has changed a lot over long millions of years. But anything other than the current climate is not friendly to our current form of human civilization, which has only exist for a few thousand. Sure, the earth will still be the earth if Antarctic ice shelf loses, say, 25% of its mass. But we will not be as we are anymore. Our way of life, and even survival, will be facing drastic changes.

  121. I did not buy an AC until 15 years ago when the weather became much warmer and more humid most of the summer. I ran it intermittently as it wasn't needed every day.
    15 years later, I have worn out 3 ACs because the weather has become so much hotter and humid that running them for 27/7 seems to be the only way we can be remotely comfortable.
    I haven't a clue as to the statistics of global warming, but I'm willing to take the word of scientists who do understand them. Those who won't are just going to find they won't fare any better by refusing to accept it.

  122. The graghs highlight the difficulty of discussing climate change in poltical bodies inhabited by people who confuse weather with climate. Not only is the fat part of the bell curve shifting warmer but the shape is flattening with wider tails, I.e. more extreme weather which may be the greater danger than simply having more warm weather.

  123. Looking into the crystal ball forecast, in another 40 to 50 years, there will be 10's of millions of environmental refugees surging endlessly into Europe, North America and other cooler parts of the planet. And they will all be very hot and thirsty, (hungry too). It's a mere trickle right now.

  124. Is this increase in summer temperature somehow related to climate change?
    Or, as Donald Trump and followers say, the whole climate change thing is a hoax created by the Chinese to dominate the global markets for solar energy and ACs?

  125. I believe that I can speak for all Republicans when I say that from now onward summer temperatures in the range of 110-120F will now be defined as 'normal.' There, problem solved. Now let's get back to the important things - destroying our health care system and Benghazi!

  126. More propaganda to drum up support for Harvard's solar geoengineering project where chemicals will be (have already been?) injected into the stratosphere supposedly to cool the earth.

    Nothing could go wrong with that plan [sarcasm].

  127. This is an interesting piece but two points:

    1) The shifting histogram picture is interesting but how about a simple line graph showing for example the number of countries retaining "normal" or "hotter than normal", etc. temps over time? The way it is done now looks nifty but doesn't allow easy comparison between time periods. Or have overlapping histograms of different colors.

    2) Agree with the 2nd top pick: what's the Y-axis? Is it number of countries or regions or something else? Don't make us guess.

    3) I've always thought "climate change" was a better term than "global warming" but this article propagates the latter. It's not always about temps getting hotter in summer, it's about wacky weather in general: a snowstorm in March in Seattle or in June near Lake Tahoe, severe floods, tornadoes out of season, etc.

  128. Good science. And a moving average (hotter) over time showing what we can expect. Elsewhere in the Times we learn that there is a discrepancy in the carbon fossil fuel emissions data with the overall carbon ppm data being added to the atmosphere each year. The former is reported leveling off, while the latter continues to increase. Looking at the data, especially that the overall increase has been going up the last two decades at an increasing rate, it's hard to imagine that the fossil fuel data is accurate, which is reported in an unverifiable way.

    The fossil fuel component of atmospheric carbon emissions can be verified by place using C14 isotope mass spectrometer measurement at an annual cost of just $7 million/yr, but is being blocked by, we must assume, the fossil fuel industry. This is in Boulder. As a world leader in climate research, the U. of Colorado should fund this on its own.

  129. If you want to convince someone re CC -- this graphic is a very poor way to do it.

  130. Those of us who were in New York City during the summertime in the 1950's -- in the days when not everyone had in-home air conditioning --can recall stiffing heat which drove people to sleep out on their fire escapes -- and movie theaters with big signs enticing you to enjoy a movie in air-conditioned comfort and get a break from the heat for a few short hours --

  131. Global warming is real now, and its destructive consequences are real now. We need to act now.

    Promises for voluntarily reducing carbon emissions decades from now, like the Paris accords, are inadequate. Using natural gas as a "bridge fuel" until we get more clean energy is folly; natural gas is a carbon fuel and its major component methane, inevitably released in leaks, is more destructive than CO2. Politicians calling for these "moderate" measures are worse than climate change deniers because they lull us into complacency, into thinking we're doing something meaningful.

    We need taxes -- financial penalties -- on all levels of the fossil materials (coal, oil, natural gas) use cycle: extraction, storage, distribution, and sale. All the things we use fossil materials for -- fuels, fertilizers, plastic products, cosmetics -- need to reflect the cost for the climate change damage they cause.

    We live in a capitalistic dominated world. Make something cost more and it will be used less.

    The funds earned from these taxes should go to support lower income people hurt by such taxes, to support clean energy alternatives, and to research into technologies which will remove CO2 already in the atmosphere.

  132. I believe in global warming and that certain places are hotter than ever, but here in New York City the summers have been much more tolerable, temperature wise, in the past few years. There's barely been any heat waves (and earlier this week it was actually cold). I remember growing up here in the 80s and 90s, it was much worse.

  133. I'm pretty sure we just had 2 weeks of highs over 85 that just ended.

  134. I guess you are forgetting the week last summer when temps were over 100 every day?

  135. Summers do seem to be getting hotter, but a plot of total atmospheric heat energy versus time would make the story clearer. Also of interest would be the relative importance of the various factors contributing to the total heat energy, such as the burning of fossil fuels, radiant energy from the sun, and the natural decay of organic matter.

  136. This summer I haven't been paying much attention to the temperature change, but reading this article has really opened my eyes. Even though some people say we can adapt to the heat, it most likely will not stay that way forever. Climate stability should remain a focus for this generation and the ones to come, even if that means making sacrifices. With temperatures rising over the next few decades, "Hyper"thermia may become an extreme issue. Currently environmental changes are not seen as an issue. The climate should become more stable if more people start paying attention to it.

  137. I have lived in the SF Bay Area peninsula (Palo Alto) for 40 years. We had cold evenings. Noone went out at night without a coat or sweater. Now in the last 10 years, we have a lot of outdoor dining and concerts, no sweaters needed.

  138. If only there were an explanation, scientific theory or an over arching hypothesis which might account for these data.

  139. I live near Palm Springs, CA, one of the hottest areas in the country. Occasionally, it is the hottest area in the world. It is so hot here normally that you would think we wouldn't notice it if it got a few degrees warmer - but we do. We get 100 degree temperatures or more about 110 days a year. Those days have stretched out so that they come earlier and stay longer. A few years ago, we went to Key West to "cool off".
    This year we had more days approaching or exceeding 120 degrees than I can ever remember - and I have been out here more than 20 years. Going outside in that kind of heat almost feels like the Twilight Zone.
    I won't venture into a political discussion about the causes or solutions ( if any). All I know is that it is HOT !

  140. Palm Springs is one of the wealthiest communities in the nation.

    Up in Northern California we are also seeing temperatures far above normal.

    AESOP is developing two technologies that might help.

    The first is seemingly impossible engines that need no fuel. Designed to run 24/7 on ambient (atmospheric) heat, a huge untapped reservoir of solar energy, they can replace fossil fuels fast. They not merely can generate electricity,, but as they run they will cool the immediate environment. An alternative to solar panels that air conditions the home as a bonus!

    The second is air conditioners that are self powered and need no harrmful HFC refrigerants.

    Concerned residents of Palm Springs (and elsewhere) might want to study the website: aesopinstitute.org

    And perhaps get involved. Why not make a difference?

  141. Climate change keeps me up at night, sometimes literally. I want to hear scientists talk about population growth as it relates to climate change. I have to believe that there is a strong correlation. The fact that we have more than twice as many people on Earth now as we did in 1950 has to be affecting the climate. We are like the frog in the pot that won't take action until it's too late. We need to voluntarily agree to limit families to a maximum of 2, and give tax credits to those who have one or none; after all, the children who are born, henceforth, will be inheriting this very hot, crowded, and dry world and they may not be so grateful to have been born.

  142. The chronological progression of charts appear to indicate that this is happening at an accelerating rate.

  143. Maybe people just like to complain more nowadays.

  144. I bet this has something to do with the Russians.

  145. I see the Times is still unwilling to attach causality to these results. Golly, what could the cause of these rising temperatures be?

  146. ...and the sun is stronger.

    I used to be able to walk to the local market...or for 10 or so minutes in my neighborhood, without any problem. Now I get a light burn just walking for a few minutes during the day....

  147. Hotter? I live in New England and as of July we're freezing our butts off. I suppose this also may be part of climate change.
    Spent the 4th of July digging out our winter clothes. Not kidding. I'm guessing we'll have ice fishing in October.

  148. Amazing graphics, but two small caveats should be attached. The article uses the word "average," which is scientifically accurate, though not always used even by climatologists. However, the figures use the term "normal," which is pretty much meaningless since the variability depicted show that there really is no such thing as normal. And who is to say that 1950-1980 was normal anyway? Indications are that human-caused warming was already well-underway by then, as shown by the Mauna Loa CO2 record among others.