I’ll note that for most purposes, when people talk about going to 2°C above what it was in the late 1800s, they usually are talking about the long-term average, not one-day events.
I’ll note that for most purposes, when people talk about going to 2°C above what it was in the late 1800s, they usually are talking about the long-term average, not one-day events.
But the article did actually explain the difference between crossing this threshold for a day and the average moving up over time. It’s like the third sentence. This is further down in the article:
Climate change is a complex problem that we can only see play out over time. This a newsworthy headline because it is a new milestone – it’s the first time that recorded temps hit 2 degrees above average for a full day. Just because it’s not the single most important milestone that announces the apocalypse, doesn’t mean it’s not significant and newsworthy or “alarmist” in any way to report it. It lets us see the trend as it plays out in real time.
The article literally correctly explained the significance of this event and quoted a scientist telling people not to panic, what’s the problem?
I thought making it plural made it clear already, but I wasn’t just talking about this one article.
I’m also not sure where you got 2 degrees above average for a month? The article is about a single day.
Typo, I’m prone to them early in the morning.
TBH though if you look at the state of climate journalism and think it’s alarmist, you’re just a climate denier at this point. Anyways, if you’re annoyed about climate alarmism, shouldn’t you find a climate alarmist article to complain on instead of a reasonable, well-reported article on the matter?
I’m not having a conversation about shit I didn’t say.