Monday was the hottest day ever measured by humans, beating a record set the day before, as countries across the globe continue to feel the heat, according to the European climate change service.

Provisional satellite data published by Copernicus early Wednesday showed that Monday broke Sunday’s mark by 0.1 degree Fahrenheit.

Climate scientists say the world is now as warm as it was 125,000 years ago because of human-caused climate change. While scientists can’t be certain that Monday was the hottest day throughout that period, average temperatures haven’t been this high since long before humans developed agriculture.

The temperature rise in recent decades is in line with what climate scientists projected would happen if humans kept burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate.

“We are in an age where weather and climate records are frequently stretched beyond our tolerance levels, resulting in insurmountable loss of lives and livelihoods,” said Roxy Mathew Koll, a climate scientist at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology.

Copernicus’ preliminary data shows the global average temperature Monday was 62.87 degrees Fahrenheit.

The previous mark before this week was set just a year ago.

Before last year, the previous recorded hottest day was in 2016, when average temperatures were 62.24 degrees.

While 2024 has been extremely warm, what kicked Sunday into new territory was a way toastier than usual Antarctic winter, according to Copernicus. The same thing was happening on the southern continent last year when the record was set in early July.

But it wasn’t just a warmer Antarctica on Sunday. Interior California baked with triple digit heat, complicating the fighting of more than two dozen wildfires in the West. At the same time, Europe sweltered through its own deadly heat wave.

Copernicus records go back to 1940, but other global measurements by the United States and United Kingdom governments go back even further, to 1880. Many scientists, taking those into consideration along with tree rings and ice cores, say last year’s record highs were the hottest the planet has been in about 120,000 years. Now the first six months of 2024 have broken even those.

Frequency of records being surpassed cited as worrisome

Without human-caused climate change, scientists say extreme temperature records wouldn’t be broken nearly as frequently as in recent years.

“It’s certainly a worrying sign coming on the heels of 13 straight record-setting months,” said Berkeley Earth climate scientist Zeke Hausfather, who now estimates there’s a 92% chance that 2024 will beat 2023 as the warmest year on record.  

The former head of U.N. climate negotiations, Christiana Figueres, said “We all (will) scorch and fry” if the world doesn’t immediately change course. “One third of global electricity can be produced by solar and wind alone, but targeted national policies have to enable that transformation,” she said.

“What is truly staggering is how large the difference is between the temperature of the last 13 months and the previous temperature records,” Copernius Director Carlo Buontempo said in a statement. “We are now in truly uncharted territory and as the climate keeps warming, we are bound to see new records being broken in future months and years.”

July is generally the hottest month of the year globally, mostly because there’s more land in the Northern Hemisphere, so seasonal patterns there drive global temperatures.

Recent climate change contributors  

Scientists blame the supercharged heat mostly on climate change from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas and on livestock agriculture. Other factors include a natural El Nino warming of the central Pacific Ocean, which has since ended. Reduced marine fuel pollution and possibly an undersea volcanic eruption are also causing some additional warmth, but those aren’t as important as greenhouse gases trapping heat, they said.

Because El Nino is likely to be soon replaced by a cooling La Nina, Hausfather said he would be surprised if 2024 sees any more monthly records, but the hot start of the year is still probably enough to make it warmer than last year.

Sunday’s mark was notable but “what really kind of makes your eyeballs jump out” is how the last few years have been so much hotter than previous marks, said Northern Illinois University climate scientist Victor Gensini, who wasn’t part of the Copernicus team. “It’s certainly a fingerprint of climate change.”

University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann said the difference between the this year’s and last year’s high mark is so tiny and so preliminary that he is surprised the European climate agency is promoting it.

“We should really never be comparing absolute temperatures for individual days,” Mann said in an email.

Yes, it’s a small difference, Gensini said in an interview, but there have been more than 30,500 days since Copernicus data started in 1940, and this is the hottest of them all.

“What matters is this,” said Texas A&M University climate scientist Andrew Dessler. “The warming will continue as long as we’re dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  … We have the technology to largely stop doing that today. What we lack is political will.”

Researchers have discovered bundles of “dark oxygen” being formed on the ocean floor. 

In a new study, over a dozen scientists from across Europe and the United States studied “polymetallic nodules,” or chunks of metal, that cover large swaths of the sea floor. Those nodules and other items found on the ocean floor in the deep sea between Hawaii and Mexico were subjected to a range of experiments, including injection with other chemicals or cold seawater. 

The experiments showed that more oxygen — which is necessary for all life on Earth — was being created by the nodules than was being consumed. Scientists dubbed this output “dark oxygen.” 

About half of the world’s oxygen comes from the ocean, but scientists previously believed it was entirely made by marine plants using sunlight for photosynthesis. Plants on land use the same process, where they absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. But scientists for this study examined nodules about three miles underwater, where no sunlight can reach. 

This isn’t the first time attention has been drawn to the nodules. The chunks of metal are made of minerals like cobalt, nickel, manganese and copper that are necessary to make batteries. Those materials may be what causes the production of dark oxygen. 

“If you put a battery into seawater, it starts fizzing,” lead researcher Andrew Sweetman, a professor from the Scottish Association for Marine Science, told CBS News partner BBC News. “That’s because the electric current is actually splitting seawater into oxygen and hydrogen [which are the bubbles]. We think that’s happening with these nodules in their natural state.”

The metals on the nodules are valued in the trillions of dollars, setting of a race to pull the nodules up from the ocean’s depths in a process known as deep sea or seabed mining. Environmental activists have decried the practice.  

Sweetman and other marine scientists worry that the deep sea mining could disrupt the production of dark oxygen and pose a threat to marine life that may depend on it. 

“I don’t see this study as something that will put an end to mining,” Sweetman told the BBC. “[But] we need to explore it in greater detail and we need to use this information and the data we gather in future if we are going to go into the deep ocean and mine it in the most environmentally friendly way possible.”

Yellowstone National Park visitors were sent running and screaming Tuesday when a hydrothermal explosion spewed boiling hot water and rocks into the air. No one was injured, but it has left some wondering: How does this happen and why wasn’t there any warning? 

The Weather Channel’s Stephanie Abrams said explosions like this are caused by underground channels of hot water, which also create Yellowstone’s iconic geysers and hot springs. 

“When the pressure rapidly drops in a localized spot, it actually forces the hot water to quickly turn to steam, triggering a hydrothermal explosion since gas takes up more space than liquid,” Abrams said Wednesday on “CBS Mornings.” “And this explosion can rupture the surface, sending mud and debris thousands of feet up and more than half a mile out in the most extreme cases.” 

Tuesday’s explosion was not that big, Abrams said, “but a massive amount of rocks and dirt buried the Biscuit Basin,” where the explosion occurred.   

A nearby boardwalk was left with a broken fence and was covered in debris. Nearby trees were also killed, with the U.S. Geological Survey saying the plants “can’t stand thermal activity.” 

“Because areas heat up and cool down over time, trees will sometimes die out when an area heats up, regrow as it cools down, but then die again when it heats up,” the agency said on X.

The USGS said it considers this explosion small, and that similar explosions happen in the national park “perhaps a couple times a year.” Often, though, they happen in the backcountry and aren’t noticed.

“It was small compared to what Yellowstone is capable of,” USGS Volcanoes said on X. “That’s not to say it was not dramatic or very hazardous — obviously it was. But the big ones leave craters hundreds of feet across.”

The agency also said that “hydrothermal explosions, “being episodes of water suddenly flashing to steam, are notoriously hard to predict” and “may not give warning signs at all.” It likened the eruptions to a pressure cooker.

While Yellowstone sits on a dormant volcano, officials said the explosion was not related to volcanic activity. 

“This was an isolated incident in the shallow hot-water system beneath Biscuit Basin,” the USGS said. “It was not triggered by any volcanic activity.” 

New Delhi — Scientists say Indian farmers’ eager uptake of a painkiller for their cattle in the 1990s has led to the inadvertent deaths of half of a million people and massive economic losses — not from any harm to the cattle, but from the loss of millions of vultures, scavengers that historically devoured animals’ remains before they could rot and become vectors for disease.

In early 1990s, the patent on a painkiller called diclofenac lifted, making it cheap and widely available for India’s massive agricultural sector. Farmers use it to treat a wide array of conditions in cattle. But even a small amount of the drug is fatal to vultures. Since the beginning of its widespread use in India, the domestic vulture population has dropped from a whopping 50 million to just a few thousand — and according to a study published by the American Economic Association, the impact on humans has been monumental, reflecting the vital role the scavengers play.

Vultures have been a crucial part of India’s ecosystems for centuries. According to the authors of the study, entitled “The Social Costs of Keystone Species Collapse: Evidence From The Decline of Vultures in India,” the large, homely birds are a “keystone species” — one that plays an irreplaceable role in an ecosystem. 

They’re the only scavengers that feed entirely on carcasses, and they do it extremely efficiently, quickly devouring the remains and leaving little behind to spread disease. The study authors say India’s vultures would typically eat at least 50 million animal carcasses every year, before their population was decimated.

In doing so, they prevented the dead farm animals from rotting, and the deadly bacteria and other pathogens that thrive in carcasses from being transmitted into human populations.

“In a country like India with prohibitions on eating beef, most cattle end up turning into carcasses,” Anant Sudarshan, an associate professor of economics at the University of Warwick in England, who co-authored the study, told CBS News. “Vultures provide an incredible disposal service for free. … A group of vultures takes about 45 minutes to turn a cow carcass into bone.”

The vultures’ keen appetite also helped keep the populations of competing scavengers in check, such as feral dogs and rats, which can transmit rabies and a host of other diseases.

In 1994, farmers began giving diclofenac to their cattle and other livestock. The drug causes kidney failure and death in vultures that feed on the carcasses of animals given the painkiller, and the population of the birds shrank from 50 million to just 20,000 over the course of the ensuing decade alone.

Without the vultures around to do the job, farmers started disposing their dead livestock in local bodies of water, which caused water pollution — and another way for pathogens to reach humans.

Sudarshan and study co-author Eyal Frank, an environmental economist at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, examined the impact of the drastically reduced vulture population on human health by mapping vulture habitats with health data from more than 600 districts in India. They said their research shows 100,000 human deaths every year between 2000 and 2005 could be linked with the decreased vulture populations. 

It also shows economic losses they estimated at $69 billion per year, largely associated with premature human deaths due to the collapse of the scavenger population.

These deaths were caused, according to their research, by the spread of diseases that a thriving vulture population would have mitigated. Stray dog populations, and with them, the spread of rabies, also increased during the timeframe, as did the amount of bacteria measured in many local water sources.

“India is now the largest center of rabies in the world, as the feral dog population has grown dramatically,” Sudarshan told CBS News.

Without a major vulture rebound, the study authors said the spread of disease and resulting deaths will only continue in the coming years, as will the costs associated with health care.

India did ban diclofenac for veterinary use in 2006, but Sudarshan said the ban needs to be enforced much more effectively. He and Eyal have called for more conservation funding to boost vulture populations, but they’ve warned that even if the Indian government does mount a major effort, it will take at least a decade for the species to bounce back to the extent required because they’re “slow reproducers.”

As an alternative to bringing the vultures back, Sudarshan said India could build a network of incinerators around the country, but the estimated cost of that is about $1 billion per year, and they would use a huge amount of energy and create considerable air pollution, which is already a major problem for India. 

“So, it makes more sense to bring back the natural way of dealing with the millions of animal carcasses that India produces each year,” he said.

And he said that work must start urgently, as the “vultures began dying in the 1990s. India has not done anything three decades on.”

The government does spend about $3 million per year to save India’s native tigers. Sudarshan said while vultures may be far less of a tourist attraction, there’s a broader question about “the basis of our conservation policy.”

“Our paper shows that the cost of losing them [vultures] is about $69 billion a year, which is far higher than any benefits the tiger” brings, he said, adding: “We need to think from a cost effectiveness point of view and growth view, how should we pick species to conserve?”

“Understanding the role vultures play in human health underscores the importance of protecting wildlife – and not just the cute and cuddly,” said his co-author, Frank. “They all have a job to do in our ecosystems that impacts our lives.”