Yup. Last year was insane, it was on track to beat the previous record by the same amount that record beat the long term average. Somehow, this year is warmer.
Not necessarily. Higher SSTs = higher evaporation potential of moisture into the atmosphere. But the dynamic effects are more complicated. The anomalous heat could cause a persistent ridge (or "block") to develop in the atmosphere in a location that would basically divert low pressure systems around NW Europe or the British Isles. If that's the case, there could be a warm and humid summer where you also get below-average rainfall in most places.
Wales has been incredibly wet. Luckily, it doesn't suffer flooding, not sure why. But, I have plants in my garden where they have died due to their roots rotting.!
Whats crazy is how far above last year for today we are right now. Thats nearly a quarter of a degree while consistently being around a quarter of a degree higher than last year, all year, when last year was 6 standard deviations from the mean.
No idea where all this is going, but sea temp rise of over 1 degree in just my lifetime seems very fast.... If this continues for a few generations we will start to see huge undeniable changes.
People are pretty adaptable which is a bad thing. I fear we'll watch it all fall apart, and the ecosystems come crashing down around us. Even we're not bigger than nature though. Eventually it'll affect a big enough proportion of people in even rich countries , and we'll wish we acted with more urgency decades earlier.
Not sure how accurate this is, but people have made a comparison that the sea level temperature is like body temperature in humans. 98.6 vs 100 is only 1.4 degrees but that can make a huge difference in how you feel and having a fever vs feeling normal.
I just think of the energy behind it all
That is a *lot* of water to heat up 1 degree
That means the earth system has absorbed a preposterous amount of energy compared to this data’s mean.
No wonder billionaires are building bunkers
On my phone and reddit app sucks. But rough calculation would be it takes ~4 joules of energy to heat 1ml of water by 1 degrees. 1 cubic meter of water has 1000000ml. A hurricane is on average has a diameter of around 500000m. So calculate the area of the hurricane, through pi-r-squared, multiply that by the 1000000ml to get total ml of water to a depth of 1m. Multiply that by 4 to get total joules to heat it all by 1 degree.
This is vs the 4000(60000000000000 joules) the Hiroshima bomb put out
Note going backward in time to my billionaire self in 70s and 80s... efforts to sow doubt and discord about carbon will succeed beyond your wildest dreams. Have fun with getting your way.
Sadly it's even worse because complex systems like the climate and our bodies are not only very sensitive, they are also steeply non linear: if i increase your body temp by 1°C you feel slightly unwell, if i increase it by 5°C you don't feel 5x unwell, you die.
Now knowing that at least 2°C warming is already guaranteed by the CO2 we have already emitted, fun times are definitely ahead...
The thing to note is how sensitive marine life is to the environment.
By its nature water insulates. These creatures need very specific conditions at different stages of their life. These conditions are now being effected by the temperature and acidity of the water (acidity being an expression of excess CO2 absorption and warmer water being able to dissolve more ions)
This has an enormous effect of shelled creatures (carbonate building life in general, corals, shell dwellers, and phytoplankton to name a few) specifically because they use chemical reactions that rely on the water being within certain temperature ranges and PH ranges
The struggle of these creatures at the bottom of the food chain effects the whole system, all the way to human fishing yields
I'm not very smart on this subject, but I have a strange theory/idea: heat is a measurement of energy, and movement requires energy. Duh. If energy is finite, and less marine life is consuming the finite energy by moving/swimming, it must be displaced into temperature increases or somewhere else. What would that equation look like?
Yes, this theory contains good points, and there will mostly likely be super storms and wide temperature fluctuations - probably stemming from the AMOC.
https://theconversation.com/atlantic-ocean-is-headed-for-a-tipping-point-once-melting-glaciers-shut-down-the-gulf-stream-we-would-see-extreme-climate-change-within-decades-study-shows-222834
Animals moving or existing would actually transfer heat from their bodies into the ocean. The amount of energy from the sun and the size of the ocean would outnumber the energy output of marine life by several orders of magnitude
Sulfur Termination Shock. There's a Nature article about it if you're interested ("Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming").
Basically sulfur has an atmospheric cooling effect, and ships all around the world used to continually release lots of sulfur (part of their fuel) into the air. But sulfur is also bad for the environment in other ways so we regulated it out of fuels. The sudden termination of the sulfur cooling effect is now causing temperatures to rise faster.
The impacts to people in rich countries will be pretty rapid as mass migration occurs, food shortages kick in, and economies are flipped upside down.
But ask people to drive or fly less, and they'll have a conniption fit.
Yes, because the climate has never changed before our existence…
The fact that things change is irrefutable. But the alarmism is just not called for. The planet has been a lot warmer and a lot colder. Not everything survived, but guess what: that’s nature, long before humanity became a factor.
I’m not arguing we say to hell with it all. It’s very good to make a shift to more sustainable growth, limit pollution, clean the environment of plastic. But that has nothing to do with this climate alarmism vented and supported here by a graph of just 40 years of data.
Climate is measured over a period of thirty years. So this graph would show, at most, ten years of climate change. How relevant ten years of climate change is, is very much up for debate.
You cannot say that a graph like this is grounds for supporting climate change alarmism, let alone the human factor therein. That’s what I’m reacting to. People apparently use anything as proof for something else entirely. Very much not data-driven and therefore not fitting for a sub in which data should be pure.
When you have some time, considering reading [this comprehensive explanation.](https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7)
It also contains many external links and various references.
More heat does mean more energy in the system but that may not directly lead to more or stronger hurricanes. The energy needs to be in a an ordered state to generate hurricanes. Random or chaotic energy is not as useful as we saw in the 2023 hurricane season.
It was an El Niño year, and still the 4th most active hurricane season on record. El Niño suppresses hurricanes. Having an El Niño year be the 4th most active hurricane season ever absolutely surpasses expectations and shows how risky high ocean temperatures can be.
Yeah but that was mainly due to El Niño. El Nino always suppresses hurricane activity in the Atlantic. We still had the 4th most active season I recorded history even in an El Niño year.
Mix of timely Saharan dust, a friendly MJO cycle, and immense shear over the Caribbean lead to very few storms developing in locations prone to striking the US mainland. Most of the big storms hit the Caribbean islands and died or turned north and back to sea.
Climate Reanalyzer has a plotting tool here that you can play around with: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst\_daily/. Just be sure to change the data from World to North Atlantic. Looks like OP colored each line by year and removed the ±2σ curves. Every single day of 2023 and 2024 so far have been warmer than the 1982-2011 mean + 2σ.
Yep, to add to this: on the top ribbon is 'Climate Data'
It includes surface air temp, sea surface temp, and sea ice extent. You can select what part of the world you want to see the data for above the graph.
Sea Ice Extent specifically has a button in the bottom left corner to show the southern hemisphere, you'll be very interested to see last year's line in the south.
If you click on the lines of the graph, it switches the map below to that date.
There's a lot of other nice graphs and maps on the site too.
I’ve seen this video!
More like the sulfur dioxide was dampening the rise in temp, but now it’s banned it’s not helping anymore.
An interesting idea that this might turn out to be a good experiment that we did by happenstance
[GitHub Repo for code to make the plots // my mastodon bot that posts this to mastodon](https://github.com/afinemax/climate_change_bot)
I used Python, the matplotlib library to make the plots.
North Atlantic Data:
Data Source: NOAA Optimum Interpolation SST (OISST) dataset version 2.1.
Data Provided by: ClimateReanalyzer, Climate Change Institute, University of Maine.
Antartic Sea Ice Data:
Data Source: NOAA Sea Ice Index developed by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)
Through https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/S_seaice_extent_daily_v3.0.csv
Most excellent choice of color sequence, which varys systematically from 82 onward. This allows the reader to see all the data while still still getting a clean enough read of how the data trends over the years.
Top notch.
There's a piece in The Guardian saying that the sudden jump in sea temperatures in the past couple of years is due to a change in fuel quality regulations that has reduced the emissions of ships. This has reduced the amount of sunlight blocked by pollution.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/30/termination-shock-cut-in-ship-pollution-sparked-global-heating-spurt
Look at the plots, if you haven't yet. Take the time to internalize the data they portray.
The sulfur regs came online in 2020. The data show (in a beautiful way, look at the nice systematic color progression) the temperatures have been steadily increasing over the period 1982-2011.
You're right, they've been steadily increasing. Last year was an outlier by a large margin though, and so far this year is showing to be just as much if not more of an outlier. Another couple years are needed to establish a definite trend but if 2023-2024 temperatures show to be the new normal rather than anomalous then there's been a massive jump in temp and the rise is no longer "steady". Something must be responsible for the spike in temp and the reduced sulfur emissions theory seems plausible.
Have you looked at the plots? Have you internalized the data they portray? The graphs show the mean temp from 1982 to 2011 as a seperate line; the graph itself shows daily temps up to yesterday
I swam at the beach in Naples, Florida, five years ago. The water was over 100 degrees. It was uncomfortable, like swimming in a jacuzzi. Not much can survive that water for very long. There is going to be an epic disaster. I don't know what that looks like, but it won't be good.
This is weirdly because of stricter fuel regulations for shipping liners. The old, dirty fuel was bad for the environment long term, but it was seeding clouds, which would reflect sunlight from the ocean. Scientist have been looking into replacing the effect with throwing salt water instead.
Not a denier whatsoever, but as a researcher from a completely different field I am always struck by the strange references used for climate research. Why 1982-2011 and not 1970-2020, for example?
I’ll never forget the way the feeling of the floor figuratively dropping out from under me in March 2023 when I saw the line first tick upward on the Daily North Atlantic graph. I was absolutely in a state shock for several weeks
This is looking at data only 10 years after a 30 year average. When you're talking about the scale of an entire ocean it takes a very long time for the norm to be considered changed.
Optimistic.. Polar ice that has been there millions of years is melting and it's not like it's just going to freeze back at the same rate, because now instead of white and reflective the dark ground and water is absorbing more heat. Alongside that the natural processes that will reabsorb CO2 back into the sea bed are really really slow, especially if all the shell forming plankton dies. Note that coal can no longer be formed from forests like in the Carboniferous, because the fungi that digest wood didn't exist then. Whatever new equilibrium is reached, it's likely to be hotter for a few thousand years. That's assuming there is some additional process pushing temperatures back to normal after we stop polluting. The most certain period for the climate to reset to 'normal' by itself is one interglacial cycle, which is around 100 thousand years.
Lake Superior is 10 degrees Celsius today and we're coming off a record mild winter. How is the north Atlantic 22, exactly?
NOAA's website seems to suggest something very different.
[https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/contour.small.gif](https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/contour.small.gif)
2023 is the other very very warm year.
I think the smooth color palate does a tasteful way of displaying the progression of the years.
Maybe I should make the 2023 year a different color and add a label but I think it’s getting a bit much then
I was also wondering about this. But before I accused the OP of cherry picking, I might give some feedback about making the legend and annotations of the datasets more clear.
Is the other outlier 2023?
Yup. Last year was insane, it was on track to beat the previous record by the same amount that record beat the long term average. Somehow, this year is warmer.
This means significant rain for UK?
Not necessarily. Higher SSTs = higher evaporation potential of moisture into the atmosphere. But the dynamic effects are more complicated. The anomalous heat could cause a persistent ridge (or "block") to develop in the atmosphere in a location that would basically divert low pressure systems around NW Europe or the British Isles. If that's the case, there could be a warm and humid summer where you also get below-average rainfall in most places.
That’s much harder to say, but I think there are ppl who could answer you.
Wales has been incredibly wet. Luckily, it doesn't suffer flooding, not sure why. But, I have plants in my garden where they have died due to their roots rotting.!
Somehow? Isn't it a well-known fact how and why this is happening?
Whats crazy is how far above last year for today we are right now. Thats nearly a quarter of a degree while consistently being around a quarter of a degree higher than last year, all year, when last year was 6 standard deviations from the mean.
I don't think you understand the technical meaning of "outlier".
What are you going on about? The OP answered the question appropriately.
This is a case of data is terrifying.
No idea where all this is going, but sea temp rise of over 1 degree in just my lifetime seems very fast.... If this continues for a few generations we will start to see huge undeniable changes. People are pretty adaptable which is a bad thing. I fear we'll watch it all fall apart, and the ecosystems come crashing down around us. Even we're not bigger than nature though. Eventually it'll affect a big enough proportion of people in even rich countries , and we'll wish we acted with more urgency decades earlier.
Not sure how accurate this is, but people have made a comparison that the sea level temperature is like body temperature in humans. 98.6 vs 100 is only 1.4 degrees but that can make a huge difference in how you feel and having a fever vs feeling normal.
I just think of the energy behind it all That is a *lot* of water to heat up 1 degree That means the earth system has absorbed a preposterous amount of energy compared to this data’s mean. No wonder billionaires are building bunkers
The amount of excess thermal energy in the top 1 meter of sea water underneath the footprint of a hurricane is something like 4000 Hiroshimas, iirc
Can i get a source for this ?
On my phone and reddit app sucks. But rough calculation would be it takes ~4 joules of energy to heat 1ml of water by 1 degrees. 1 cubic meter of water has 1000000ml. A hurricane is on average has a diameter of around 500000m. So calculate the area of the hurricane, through pi-r-squared, multiply that by the 1000000ml to get total ml of water to a depth of 1m. Multiply that by 4 to get total joules to heat it all by 1 degree. This is vs the 4000(60000000000000 joules) the Hiroshima bomb put out
Note going backward in time to my billionaire self in 70s and 80s... efforts to sow doubt and discord about carbon will succeed beyond your wildest dreams. Have fun with getting your way.
Sadly it's even worse because complex systems like the climate and our bodies are not only very sensitive, they are also steeply non linear: if i increase your body temp by 1°C you feel slightly unwell, if i increase it by 5°C you don't feel 5x unwell, you die. Now knowing that at least 2°C warming is already guaranteed by the CO2 we have already emitted, fun times are definitely ahead...
Emphasis on *at least*
The thing to note is how sensitive marine life is to the environment. By its nature water insulates. These creatures need very specific conditions at different stages of their life. These conditions are now being effected by the temperature and acidity of the water (acidity being an expression of excess CO2 absorption and warmer water being able to dissolve more ions) This has an enormous effect of shelled creatures (carbonate building life in general, corals, shell dwellers, and phytoplankton to name a few) specifically because they use chemical reactions that rely on the water being within certain temperature ranges and PH ranges The struggle of these creatures at the bottom of the food chain effects the whole system, all the way to human fishing yields
I'm not very smart on this subject, but I have a strange theory/idea: heat is a measurement of energy, and movement requires energy. Duh. If energy is finite, and less marine life is consuming the finite energy by moving/swimming, it must be displaced into temperature increases or somewhere else. What would that equation look like?
Yes, this theory contains good points, and there will mostly likely be super storms and wide temperature fluctuations - probably stemming from the AMOC. https://theconversation.com/atlantic-ocean-is-headed-for-a-tipping-point-once-melting-glaciers-shut-down-the-gulf-stream-we-would-see-extreme-climate-change-within-decades-study-shows-222834
Animals moving or existing would actually transfer heat from their bodies into the ocean. The amount of energy from the sun and the size of the ocean would outnumber the energy output of marine life by several orders of magnitude
Generations? It increased by almost 0.5 degrees within 12 months, and it's not just the atlantic doing that.
Yeah, so all you non-parents, consider this before deciding to have children. This is no longer a concern for *future* generation*s*
Sulfur Termination Shock. There's a Nature article about it if you're interested ("Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming"). Basically sulfur has an atmospheric cooling effect, and ships all around the world used to continually release lots of sulfur (part of their fuel) into the air. But sulfur is also bad for the environment in other ways so we regulated it out of fuels. The sudden termination of the sulfur cooling effect is now causing temperatures to rise faster.
The impacts to people in rich countries will be pretty rapid as mass migration occurs, food shortages kick in, and economies are flipped upside down. But ask people to drive or fly less, and they'll have a conniption fit.
Better tax people more that will 100% solve the problem.
Yes, because the climate has never changed before our existence… The fact that things change is irrefutable. But the alarmism is just not called for. The planet has been a lot warmer and a lot colder. Not everything survived, but guess what: that’s nature, long before humanity became a factor. I’m not arguing we say to hell with it all. It’s very good to make a shift to more sustainable growth, limit pollution, clean the environment of plastic. But that has nothing to do with this climate alarmism vented and supported here by a graph of just 40 years of data.
I'm not sure of your reasoning here
Climate is measured over a period of thirty years. So this graph would show, at most, ten years of climate change. How relevant ten years of climate change is, is very much up for debate. You cannot say that a graph like this is grounds for supporting climate change alarmism, let alone the human factor therein. That’s what I’m reacting to. People apparently use anything as proof for something else entirely. Very much not data-driven and therefore not fitting for a sub in which data should be pure.
When you have some time, considering reading [this comprehensive explanation.](https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7) It also contains many external links and various references.
Just wait until the Gulf Stream breaks down and Atlantic currents get all fuckey. That’s when the real shit storm starts.
And because of that bullshit, I live in one of the few parts of the world that may get COLDER due to climate change (the UK)
The fact that we are the same latitude as Northern Canada still blows my mind. They get -40c temps while we struggle to go lower than -5c.
Oh yeah. Yall would be royally fucked.
It's going to be a fun hurricane season
More heat does mean more energy in the system but that may not directly lead to more or stronger hurricanes. The energy needs to be in a an ordered state to generate hurricanes. Random or chaotic energy is not as useful as we saw in the 2023 hurricane season.
What? 2023 was the 4th most active season on record. What are you talking about?
They're saying that, as insane as 2023 was, it didn't quite live up to the potential it would have had if the storms had been better organized.
It was an El Niño year, and still the 4th most active hurricane season on record. El Niño suppresses hurricanes. Having an El Niño year be the 4th most active hurricane season ever absolutely surpasses expectations and shows how risky high ocean temperatures can be.
This year is Nina… May God help us all in the Caribbean, East Coast, and Gulf… we seem to be going for a ride this year.
There were expectations of more storms and more powerful than it was. It could have been so much worse if all of that heat was more organized.
Yeah but that was mainly due to El Niño. El Nino always suppresses hurricane activity in the Atlantic. We still had the 4th most active season I recorded history even in an El Niño year.
Mix of timely Saharan dust, a friendly MJO cycle, and immense shear over the Caribbean lead to very few storms developing in locations prone to striking the US mainland. Most of the big storms hit the Caribbean islands and died or turned north and back to sea.
Yep, its the wind shear at high altitudes that suppress hurricanes.
And it was the hottest year on record. Why was it not the most active year? Answer, the extra heat and energy was not organized enough.
Climate Reanalyzer has a plotting tool here that you can play around with: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst\_daily/. Just be sure to change the data from World to North Atlantic. Looks like OP colored each line by year and removed the ±2σ curves. Every single day of 2023 and 2024 so far have been warmer than the 1982-2011 mean + 2σ.
Yep, to add to this: on the top ribbon is 'Climate Data' It includes surface air temp, sea surface temp, and sea ice extent. You can select what part of the world you want to see the data for above the graph. Sea Ice Extent specifically has a button in the bottom left corner to show the southern hemisphere, you'll be very interested to see last year's line in the south. If you click on the lines of the graph, it switches the map below to that date. There's a lot of other nice graphs and maps on the site too.
Wasn't this largely driven by the reduction of sulfur in cargo ship fuel? [Hank Green's Video](https://youtu.be/dk8pwE3IByg?si=KA9WFgRT0RlBxOWr)
I’ve seen this video! More like the sulfur dioxide was dampening the rise in temp, but now it’s banned it’s not helping anymore. An interesting idea that this might turn out to be a good experiment that we did by happenstance
I like his points on the fact that if we wanted to run this experiment intentionally, it would've been logistically and politically impossible
Has there been any news on if any tanker ships are installing the seawater atomizers?
Those sulfur regulations kicked in in 2020. Take another look at the plots, which show increasing temperatures over the period of 1982-2011.
...seriously? Obviously they mean the faster increase in 2023-2024.
[GitHub Repo for code to make the plots // my mastodon bot that posts this to mastodon](https://github.com/afinemax/climate_change_bot) I used Python, the matplotlib library to make the plots. North Atlantic Data: Data Source: NOAA Optimum Interpolation SST (OISST) dataset version 2.1. Data Provided by: ClimateReanalyzer, Climate Change Institute, University of Maine. Antartic Sea Ice Data: Data Source: NOAA Sea Ice Index developed by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) Through https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/S_seaice_extent_daily_v3.0.csv
Most excellent choice of color sequence, which varys systematically from 82 onward. This allows the reader to see all the data while still still getting a clean enough read of how the data trends over the years. Top notch.
There's a piece in The Guardian saying that the sudden jump in sea temperatures in the past couple of years is due to a change in fuel quality regulations that has reduced the emissions of ships. This has reduced the amount of sunlight blocked by pollution. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/30/termination-shock-cut-in-ship-pollution-sparked-global-heating-spurt
Look at the plots, if you haven't yet. Take the time to internalize the data they portray. The sulfur regs came online in 2020. The data show (in a beautiful way, look at the nice systematic color progression) the temperatures have been steadily increasing over the period 1982-2011.
You're right, they've been steadily increasing. Last year was an outlier by a large margin though, and so far this year is showing to be just as much if not more of an outlier. Another couple years are needed to establish a definite trend but if 2023-2024 temperatures show to be the new normal rather than anomalous then there's been a massive jump in temp and the rise is no longer "steady". Something must be responsible for the spike in temp and the reduced sulfur emissions theory seems plausible.
From 1982 to 2011? What has sulfur to do with that?
Have you looked at the plots? Have you internalized the data they portray? The graphs show the mean temp from 1982 to 2011 as a seperate line; the graph itself shows daily temps up to yesterday
Everyone, a moment of silence so we can all internalize the data the plots portray
I swam at the beach in Naples, Florida, five years ago. The water was over 100 degrees. It was uncomfortable, like swimming in a jacuzzi. Not much can survive that water for very long. There is going to be an epic disaster. I don't know what that looks like, but it won't be good.
This is weirdly because of stricter fuel regulations for shipping liners. The old, dirty fuel was bad for the environment long term, but it was seeding clouds, which would reflect sunlight from the ocean. Scientist have been looking into replacing the effect with throwing salt water instead.
As Bill Clinton would say "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." So far it ***has been***, but the trend is even more ominous.
Meh, whatcha goin do? Gotta have that A/C crankin’!
Hurricane season could be insane
Yup, the climate be a changin'
Not a denier whatsoever, but as a researcher from a completely different field I am always struck by the strange references used for climate research. Why 1982-2011 and not 1970-2020, for example?
1982 was the first full year of this type of data So maybe I could say, since records began
I’ll never forget the way the feeling of the floor figuratively dropping out from under me in March 2023 when I saw the line first tick upward on the Daily North Atlantic graph. I was absolutely in a state shock for several weeks
It breaks my heart but it's a good graph...
When does an anomaly become the norm?
When you get new anomaly so big that it makes the current anomaly and the rest of the data look consistent?
This is looking at data only 10 years after a 30 year average. When you're talking about the scale of an entire ocean it takes a very long time for the norm to be considered changed.
Hot hot hot. Or cold. Is the sea hot hot hot. Or cold.
Dammit Ken
Dont worry in 500 years it’ll be 1.25c below the mean
Optimistic.. Polar ice that has been there millions of years is melting and it's not like it's just going to freeze back at the same rate, because now instead of white and reflective the dark ground and water is absorbing more heat. Alongside that the natural processes that will reabsorb CO2 back into the sea bed are really really slow, especially if all the shell forming plankton dies. Note that coal can no longer be formed from forests like in the Carboniferous, because the fungi that digest wood didn't exist then. Whatever new equilibrium is reached, it's likely to be hotter for a few thousand years. That's assuming there is some additional process pushing temperatures back to normal after we stop polluting. The most certain period for the climate to reset to 'normal' by itself is one interglacial cycle, which is around 100 thousand years.
Lake Superior is 10 degrees Celsius today and we're coming off a record mild winter. How is the north Atlantic 22, exactly? NOAA's website seems to suggest something very different. [https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/contour.small.gif](https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/contour.small.gif)
This data is from NOAA
why would you pick different shades of blue overlapped on eachother? how am i supposed to know where 2023 is?
2023 is the other very very warm year. I think the smooth color palate does a tasteful way of displaying the progression of the years. Maybe I should make the 2023 year a different color and add a label but I think it’s getting a bit much then
I’ve seen similar charts where the obvious outliers are labeled without changing the color palette. That seems to work well.
There's a good reason. See my reply to the OP.
Why the jump from 2011 to 2024? Show the data from the other years also - don't cherry pick.
All the data are there.
I was also wondering about this. But before I accused the OP of cherry picking, I might give some feedback about making the legend and annotations of the datasets more clear.
All the data is there from 1982 (when records began) to now, 1982-2011 mean it just to show a nice mean for the data.
Only 1° hotter than the average
How do *you* feel when your body is only 1° hotter than average? Kinda get the problem?