World Registers Hottest Day Ever Recorded on July 3 (reuters.com) 126
July 3 was the hottest day ever recorded globally, according to data from the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction. From a report: The average global temperature reached 17.01 degrees Celsius (62.62 Fahrenheit), surpassing the August 2016 record of 16.92C (62.46F) as heatwaves sizzled around the world. The southern U.S. has been suffering under an intense heat dome in recent weeks. In China, an enduring heatwave continued, with temperatures above 35C (95F). North Africa has seen temperatures near 50C (122F). And even Antarctica, currently in its winter, registered anomalously high temperatures. Ukraine's Vernadsky Research Base in the white continent's Argentine Islands recently broke its July temperature record with 8.7C (47.6F).
Neener neener (Score:1, Troll)
Puts hands over ears and says "I am not listening..."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Somebody must have done that here in Manhattan Beach because apparently we missed the memo. It was fucking cold here yesterday.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
See, global warming isn't really a thing! /s
Re:Neener neener (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that we are exiting a glacial period, and have been for 12,000 years, which is longer than our daily temperature records have been maintained for, aren't new modern history maximums expected?
The problem is not that the climate is changing, a gradually changing climate is normal. The problem is the speed at which it's happening is not gradual.
Think of it this way; when you're driving your car and you go from 60km/h to 0 in the span of twenty seconds, that's not a problem.
Now when you're driving your car and you go from 60km/h to 0 in a twentieth of a second, that's almost certainly a very big problem.
In the last few decades we've seen the climate change to a degree that would normally take multiple centuries, millennia even, and it's still speeding up.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In the last few decades we've seen the climate change to a degree that would normally take multiple centuries, millennia even, and it's still speeding up.
I think that is missing an important point with the long term statistics. Yes we should stop our experiment to see what happens if we dump endless CO2 into the atmosphere, but temperatures have been going up for 10k years and there is little indication that they will stop even if we do everything perfect.
So the point is that aside from stopping or reducing emissions, we should also simply do more to prepare for large scale droughts, floods, water rise, etc. It's entirely possible for humans to overcome a 5
Re: (Score:2)
but temperatures have been going up for 10k years and there is little indication that they will stop even if we do everything perfect.
You've missed the point that was being made. A temperature going up slowly is not an issue. A changing climate is adapted to by nature, we've seen this through historical analysis of what the planet looked like e.g. as it came out of an ice age.
You can adapt to slow change. Trees grow, animals migrate, seeds germinate, reefs move. This takes TIME. Time that is not being given. The issue here isn't stopping us from reaching 1.5C temperature rise. It's stopping from that happening in the insanely short time f
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry what is your evidence of that? I think 'natural', 'normal' ice ages kill off a large part of ecosystems regardless of them taking hundreds or thousands of years to develop. A 1 degree change ultimately isn't super relevant regardless of it taking 1 year or 100 years to develop.
Re: (Score:1)
The second part of that is that it we simply don't know if earlier temperature fluctuations were gradual or rapid. It seems very likely that rapid temperature changes have happened many times before.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there are proxies and such. Tree rings, ice cores, pollen layers in lakes and such and other then short changes caused by natural disasters, there's no evidence of fast long term changes that I've heard about.
Volcanic winters are likely the most common fast temperature changes, years like 536 where summer didn't show up for 3 years and half of humanity died off (partially from the plague which showed up) and the dark ages started.
https://www.science.org/conten... [science.org]
Re: Neener neener (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
why does it matter what words you use to describe it?
call it lego-made if it makes you feel better. the only point that matters is that it is within our control to reduce the amount of human suffering that results from it
Re: (Score:1)
the only point that matters is that it is within our control to reduce the amount of human suffering that results from it
Re: (Score:1)
the only point that matters is that it is within our control to reduce the amount of human suffering that results from it
bit dramatic captain america
Re:Neener neener (Score:5, Interesting)
> Given that we are ...
A timeline of earth's average temperature - https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:1)
And you just "forgot" to show us any of these faster changes...
Fuck off denier troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Got any evidence of faster changes other then things like volcanic winters and dinosaur killing asteroids hitting?
Re: (Score:2)
But since you asked, here is some evidence for you that such shifts occurred in pre-history, not to mention the other causes that you mentioned as well: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a natural disaster as the ice sheets melted and a huge lake suddenly emptied into the ocean, and it was a huge lake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> There are billions of tons of carbon lost to fossilization. Carbon that is rightly ours, as a global ecosystem. It belongs in the biosphere where it started. Fuck the stupid fungus that couldn't break down bark. We need that back. The biosphere has been out of balance ever since.
Interesting choice of argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how things were before trees? up to4500 ppm of CO2, ocean temperatures in 30'sC, a world that was basically uninhabitable for people, especially with the storms.
We also have an example of an Earth type world where CO2 did not get sequestered, it is a hell hole.
Re: (Score:2)
It was much hotter and has changed much faster in prior times.
So when did the "prior times" you're talking about take place?
Re: (Score:2)
The big bang... duh! /s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://sciencenordic.com/clim... [sciencenordic.com]
Allow me to highlight some portions that are relevant to you. Given that it seems your belief is that the climate of the earth has always been what it was like in pre-industrial 1700's, I dont expect you to be able to read a full article on a subject and fully comprehend it:
The planet had started to escape this cold grip when an event occurred, the so-called Antarctic Cold Reversal, around 15,000 to 14,000 years ago At this time, temperatures in the northern hemisphere started to increase, whilst the southern hemisphere became gradually colder. These temperature changes happened quickly, sometime by as much as ten degrees centigrade in a single decade.
Re: (Score:2)
The main thing to remember is that if they don't put error bars on their reconstruction, then it's unscientific (or provisional data, not conclusive).
Re: (Score:2)
There's always some play between temperature changes, their span and amplitude, and when that gets into the realm of climatic change as opposed to the realm of more local and short lived changes in temperature.
Munroe's xkcd graph is obviously about climatic averages so it is somewhat misleading when his graph starts to follow the past 50 years' changes and the future predicted changes in temperature.
> The main thing to remember is that if they don't put error bars on their reconstruction, then it's unsci
Re: (Score:2)
> Only 22,000 years Randal Munroe picked. Go back through the geological record. Thatâ(TM)s where this data comes from. It was much hotter and has changed much faster in prior times.
Not debating pre 22,000 years. I think Munroe's graphic novel of average temperatures is relevant.
> No. We arent hitting a wall. It has been gradual, and will continue to be for ages to come.
Wall, gradual, ages. Terminology. Sure there are wider variations in temperature in the past 22 000 years than Monroe's graph of
Re:oh really? (Score:2)
Can you point on this timeline to the ice age we are exiting? https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re:oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately it's spreading.
Re:oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
We really have to understand why that happens.
The carbon cartel could not be doing the damage they are in terms of delaying our response without millions of useful idiots.
Why people make rejection of information which has very strong factual basis a part of their identity is a significantly important thing to understand.
There are people being elected who are objectively fucking morons, and they are getting elected.
This in turn delays actions on all manner of important issues. Things that are far, far more important than drag shows.
And yet here we are.
Re:oh really? (Score:4, Informative)
The carbon cartel could not be doing the damage they are in terms of delaying our response without millions of useful idiots.
To be fair to the useful idiots, they are a small in impact compared to the billions of useful normal people who depend on burning carbon as part of the way we have built our entire society. /Disclaimer: This post has been written on a 4K screen, which I had no choice in importing from *checks tag* the other side of the world, and which is currently powered by a significant portion of natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Fossil fuels are called that precisely because that is what they are. Fossils. It used to be in the biosphere.
It wasn't in the biosphere all at the same time though.
Re: (Score:2)
Really???
You realize that human's wouldn't be able to survive on most of the Earth's surface if that happened right?
Or do you own some land in the Arctic which you're trying to raise the property prices of?
Google what wet-bulb temperatures above 35C (95F) mean for human physiology you absolute numpty.
Re: oh really? (Score:5, Informative)
I have a 39KW solar system, 4 powerwalls, and I am on my second Tesla Model X. I am greener than you are.
No, you are not. You think you are because you buy the "I have an EV! I am green!" act. And you buy it, because it allows you to stay in your comfort zone and allows you to think climate change can have no impact on your lifestyle.
You want to be able to boast about being "green"? Calculate your CO2 emissions per year, taking everything into account (heating/AC, transportation, eating, smartphones/TVs/computers, manufacturing of everything you use). If you believe everyone on earth should be equal, you basically have a 2 tons CO2eq budget per year, in order to meet the +2 C scenario. If you believe the Somalis or the Chinese have less right than you to eat meat or fly by plane, you can have more.
Your setup is not about being green. It is about you being resilient, and using subsidies in a smart way. Those are two different things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: oh really? (Score:5, Interesting)
We have dug up carbon that took tens of millions of years to accumulate back in the Carboniferous period, and we've burned that in a couple centuries. As many have said, the sheer rapidity of this, and consequent changes to the atmosphere and climate, are unprecedent in our planet's history short of a major meteor impact. It has zero to do with how much carbon was floating around at different points in prehistory, and everything to do with how fast we've changed that today.
The reason you are being labelled as "rejecting science" is that you're willfully ignoring the combined conclusions of every significant scientific institution (and almost every climatologist) in the world, and instead regurgitating the usual irrelevant climate-distraction claims ("we're exiting an ice age! it was worse in the past! changing climates are normal!").
There are many reasons these scientists are so concerned, which are laid out clearly and without hyperbole in the IPCC reports. Those reports are quite clear about the causes, and the consequences, of the anthropogenic climate change we're now seeing (and they directly contradict you). If you were as pro-science as you claim, you would have read these peer-reviewed and vetted reports, or even the primary-source studies they're based on, rather than whatever vested-interest blogs you've apparently been getting your "information" from.
Re: (Score:2)
We have dug up carbon that took tens of millions of years to accumulate back in the Carboniferous period, and we've burned that in a couple centuries.
This intuition is not really useful, because it hasn't changed the composition of the atmosphere significantly. That is, if you measure the amount of various gases in the atmosphere and round them to the nearest percentage, you won't notice the change at all. The atmosphere is so huge that it's a minuscule change.
Of course, a minuscule change can cause huge problems, and that is what we are investigating here. But it's not a big change because the atmosphere is huge.
Re: (Score:2)
In absolute terms, sure. In relative terms, we've boosted atmospheric CO2 by 50% [climate.gov].
As you say, this can cause outsized effects. However, it's a little disingenuous to say "we are investigating" this, since we have already investigated this, some time ago, and the science is quite clear that all this extra CO2 will have an outsized effect, as the IPCC Working Group 1 reports have been saying for decades now.
The remaining questions are precisely how outsized this effect will be, and how quickly, which depends m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a 39KW solar system, 4 powerwalls, and I am on my second Tesla Model X.
I call BS. Quickly, without using Google, which models? And *four* powerwalls. Yeah, right.
Re: (Score:2)
You also seem to be assuming I'm a Democrat. The country I live doesn't have a Democrat party so your assumption is wrong.
The country I live does however generate 98% of it's electricity using renewables, so I doubt you're greener than me, despite your sad little boasts.
Oh, and returning all the carbon back to the atmosphere would kill the biosphere completely. You're a barely coherent fool.
Re: (Score:2)
A propos "record temperatures", this article has a few things to say about some of them:
"Exclusive: Three Typhoon Jets Landed Next to Thermometer When Britain’s ‘Record’ Temperature of 40.3C Was Recorded"
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/... [dailysceptic.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I will likely still be modded a troll.
A very accurate prediction.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Like when the teacher tells the class the average for the math exam was 87, and then Paul looking puzzled says "87? I don't get it, I got 63".
Re: Neener neener (Score:1)
Whoosh
Re: (Score:1)
Somebody must have done that here in Manhattan Beach because apparently we missed the memo. It was fucking cold here yesterday.
Thanks for explaining the difference between Climate and Weather. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for explaining the difference between Climate and Weather.
Since the topic article reported on the global temperature for one single day, obviously we should be discussing "weather", not "climate".
Incidentally, I am interested in the methods and techniques used to obtain that "record high temperature". For a start, how was the day "3rd June" defined? If it was the temperatures all around the world during the day of 3rd June in the USA, it would be night time in nearly half the world. Or if it was the daytime temperature everywhere, it could not represent the temper
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone follow the link to the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction and tell us how the global temperatures for that single day were measured?
Yes. Any one of us here could go to the source and to the body of literature the methods used are based on. But suppose one of us did that. Why would you trust that person's word any more than you would someone who did those things as part of his job (i.e., a professional scientist working in the field)?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Somebody must have done that here in Manhattan Beach because apparently we missed the memo. It was fucking cold here yesterday.
Likewise here in southern England. It's long been my custom, as soon as the weather gets warm enough in April or May, to don my "summer uniform" of shorts and a short-sleeved shirt. I also look forward to hot sunny days when I can sunbathe and soak up UV, which boosts Vitamin D, nitric oxide, and other chemicals essential to health.
Well, it's been summertime for quite a while now, but there have been no more than two or three weeks of proper summer weather. For the past few days the temperature has been qui
Re: (Score:2)
Same in Montana. We're consistently about 20 degrees below normal, and have had ONE day that approached normal summer temps (but was still well below average). Hard freeze three days in a row a week before that (end of June). Gave up on the idea of a garden this year, it's been too cold and wet.
If you look at the upper wind patterns -- for the northern hemisphere they're still stuck in winter mode, with weather coming off Siberia instead of off the central Pacific.
Re: (Score:1)
Puts hands over ears and says "I am not listening..."
Which is what got us in this mess in the first place. And the moronic masses continue to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you are trying to distract from your sins by a desperately attempt to generate a new fantasy where somebody else is to blame. Try harder. Because nobody buys it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
nukes are too slow to build
It has only been 50-60 years since we have been able to build nuclear plants. France has been producing low-carbon electricity since the 70s.
Greenpeace and the like have been opposing and actively delaying nuclear for decades, and then they are the one complaining that it is too slow. Bunch of criminals.
produce very expensive power
Let me fix it for you: "produce very cheap power, with low CO2 emissions, and not only when the wind happens to be blowing". There.
Re: Neener neener (Score:2)
Re: Neener neener (Score:2)
Test
*Looks outside at all the fireworks smoke* (Score:3)
You know, I'd just once like to see someone actually just own it and say they don't care about climate change not because they're dismissive of the science, but because they know they'll be dead before it really starts screwing things up for humanity. Take Denis Leary's lead [youtube.com] and just admit it.
Never happen (Score:2)
You know, I'd just once like to see someone actually just own it and say they don't care about climate change not because they're dismissive of the science, but because they know they'll be dead before it really starts screwing things up for humanity. Take Denis Leary's lead [youtube.com] and just admit it.
That won't happen. Largely, because that opinion doesn't exist.
I'm not going to say that *no one* has that opinion, there are a lot of people with crazy ideas, but the number is so small as to be negligible. No large group of people have that opinion, it's not mainstream.
The belief in that opinion arose from cognitive dissonance. You find someone who doesn't believe what to you is obvious, and rather than questioning your own beliefs your mind uses the fundamental attribution error [wikipedia.org] to sort of "fill in the b
Re: (Score:2)
Not Just a River in Egypt (Score:3)
"Lying to themselves" hits the nail on the head. I'm sure there are people somewhere who really, truly believe it's made-up because they lack the knowledge to evaluate it. People with no exposure to science or the broader world at all: The truly illiterate, voodoo practitioners in the jungle, isolated tribes who live off the land and only speak the same language as 50 other people, that sort of thing.
Everyone else is lying to themselves. Climate denial is exactly the right term - they're in denial. Humans h
Re: (Score:3)
Even people who accept the reality of climate change are typically in denial about the sacrifices and changes in lifestyle that will be required to stop it.
I noted my lack of change in lifestyle. It's a lack of will to follow through when the easy/cheap options are there. I cannot say with 100% certainty, but in general I would support laws that take away the conveniences I enjoy that are causing the most damage.
Re: (Score:2)
You're in the minority, then. Many people are under the impression that the electric company is just going to install some windmills, they'll buy an electric car on their next upgrade. That that will be sufficient, and all the funds are going to come out of the same bills they're used to paying. That it's going to be some near-automatic change, the path of least resistance enabled by technology.
That's certainly the scenario D-politicians are pushing, anyway. I suppose it's a natural stance to take when you'
Re:Never happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the misinformation comes from a few sources and they're all connected to the fossil fuels industry.
Belief (Score:2)
I don't think we should believe in climate change. I don't believe in science. The best of my layperson scientific knowledge says we are pulling all the wrong levers. Or better, because I think a time for all things, we are failing to address the current situation. The time for burning dead dinos and ferns is over and should have been mid-century last maybe.
I believe in things that I can't prove. And those things are vanishingly few. And I have a whole other group trying to profane the stuff I take
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong about a terrarium though. That is not going to give you much useful data about a planetary atmosphere, although they are fun.
Re: (Score:2)
There's another point you're missing. You're not necessarily saddling your children and grandchildren with the impact of climate change if you make them rich enough to be able to afford to evade those impacts. It's kind of like being an Russian oligarch; what you're doing is terrible for your country but your kids will do fine.
Re: (Score:1)
I have several times pointed out a list of lifestyle changes that individuals can make which would dramatically reduce their carbon footprint. People refuse to do these things, not because they know they will be dead before it starts screwing things up, but because they think the ask is unreasonable.
1. Go vegetarian or vegan. (Let's not argue about nutrition or ethics, I am ONLY pointing out that meat production is an enormous polluter, whereas plant production pollutes way less, and if vegetarianism beca
Re: (Score:1)
Notice that making some small amount of effort to any of those things works too.
1 eat _less_ meat
2 stop flying as much.
3 drive to work less
4 have fewer kids
5 live in a smaller place
The numbers got us into this mess and they can get lessen the impact.
The majority of people in the world cannot take your list and look at it objectively.
It becomes an emotional and personal thing.
That's part of the problem, and apparently a large part of the problem.
I look forward to someone in the psychological sciences explain
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a childless person it's really bloody tempting to have that view, especially when it's becoming clear those in charge will not be doing anything substansive.
Avoiding buying things with crappy packaging feels increasingly worthless.
We are going to die (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There was a series of advisory books on driving and travelling published many years ago by Shell with the title: "Shell helps"
I really like how some climate activists in the Netherlands turned this marketing on its head:
"Dood gaan we allemaal - Shell helpt"
"We will all die - Shell helps"
https://www.zwartekatkollektie... [zwartekatkollektief.nl]
Re: (Score:2)
An unusual summer! June coolest in 15 yrs (Score:1)
https://timesofindia.indiatime... [indiatimes.com]
Nothing will change until the profit motive does (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody paying even a modicum of sense to the science knows climate change is real. But it doesn't matter and will continue not to matter so long as companies that dump carbon into the atmosphere are able to privatize their profits and socialize the cost of doing so. If our governments charged BP, or Chevron, or Shell more money per ton of carbon they dumped into the atmosphere than they could make off an equivalent amount of refined gasoline, things would change in a hurry. The people running those companies don't care about the long term impacts: they'll be long dead by the time those chickens come home to roost. And they get to live in the lap of luxury in the meantime.
Re: (Score:1)
and will continue not to matter so long as companies that dump carbon into the atmosphere are able to privatize their profits and socialize the cost of doing so.
And yet we continue to blame the companies for our own problems. I just bought a new monitor, you know what I was concerned about? Price. So it stands to reason that this monitor will have been manufactured where it was cheapest, and then shipped to me through the power of burning fuel oil and diesel to my doorstep where it is now sitting plugged into a wall being fed with power provided by natural gas. And I like any normal person chose the natural gas option for power as the one being the cheapest.
Tomorro
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of it is the "stick it to the liberals" attitude. The Reagan administration undid a lot of the alternative energy initiatives that the Carter administration (and others before him) started mostly for that reason.
CLIMATE CRISIS (Score:2)
At the moment we are close to aphelion (the furthest point from the sun) so the earth is receiving less heating from the sun.
A lot like losing weight (Score:2)
I'm on a good trajectory lately. Over the last four months I've lost 30 pounds. The way it happens is that if I'm 195, I'll suddenly drop to 192. Then I'll bump back up to 194; and spend a week around there. Then I'll suddenly drop back and go to 190,
Depending when you ask me if I'm losing weight, my answer might be different. Mid-plateau I might say no. But if you chart that, it becomes clear that I am.
Global temperatures are plateau hell. It's easy to pretend it's not real if you refuse to draw the chart
A positive way to think of it (Score:1)
Re:More like hottest so far (Score:5, Informative)
"Hottest day ever" would mean that there never will be a hotter day recorded in the future. I find that highly unlikely given the current state of where climate change is going.
It didn't say "Hottest day ever." it said "Hottest day ever recorded" as in, of all the days that have been recorded, this is hottest.
Re: (Score:1)
It also doesn't talk about recording temperatures started in the1300's, coming out of a mini Ice age. Instead, it makes really stupid people think this was the hottest day in the worlds history.....which I would bet my nuts it wasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be challenged with regards to language interpretation. You cannot record the heat of days in the future.
Re:More like hottest so far (Score:5, Funny)
You cannot record the heat of days in the future.
Certainly not with that attitude!
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be challenged with regards to language interpretation. You cannot record the heat of days in the future.
Yes you can. You just have to do it in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
That is just infantile.
Re: More like hottest so far (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cue Homer Simpson meme:
"Today is the hottest day ever recorded"
"The hottest day ever recorded" so far.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hottest day ever" would mean that there never will be a hotter day recorded in the future. I find that highly unlikely given the current state of where climate change is going.
"Hottest day so far" would have been a more appropriate wording.
July 4th was the most pedantic comment ever recorded on Slashdot.
According to esteemed poster quantaman:
The comment neither resolved ambiguity nor provided insight. Moreover, it was utterly and completely predictable. In fact, quantaman was so confident this inane comment would be made that he composed the broad strokes of reply before even opening the comment section to find the person who would perform the inevitable nitpicking (though quantaman claims the recursive references to himself in the 3rd person
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone in literally the entire universe understands this is what's meant by that phrasing in literally any ongoing timeline.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hottest day ever" would mean that there never will be a hotter day recorded in the future.
And if you leave out words of a sentence it changes it's meaning. Here let me demonstrate: "a hotter day recorded in the future". Kind of a different sentence when with a different interpretation when you leave out some words isn't it.
Read from the first capital to the full stop. Grammer exists for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
The average global temperature reached 17.01 degrees Celsius
Now we're doing "average global temperature" I'm sure they're transparent about those calculations. More obfuscated bullshit.
[... ]
If one doesn't have access to the data, and/or one does not understand the math being used, what option do we have? Look to unbiased experts who do have access to the data and do understand the math being used. I found this link from NASA showing several scientific associations' statements on global warming. They uniformly state that global warming is happening: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think 1880 was only a "few decades or so" ago?
Yes. To be precise, 14 decades and change. That is "a few".
Human beings (more or less) have been around for about 100,000 decades (more or less). That isn't "a few".
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is at least "several", more like "many".
Re: (Score:2)
Or during the other warm periods that occurred over last four millennia. The hottest global day could have happened in the warm period during the Roman era, or in the warm period a thousand years before that, or in the warm period around 2500BC....and so on. Too bad humans lacked the foresight to cut out fossil fuel usage 3000 years ago-it could have prevented all the man-made climate change we are experiencing today. :P
In contrast, the most recent global cool-down, albeit a very short one, occurred in 1