I don’t know how I feel about it. On one hand, it makes for less of an echo chamber. On the other hand, their thoughts are fucking stupid and it hurts my brain to see them.
I mean, I think they're definitely still in the minority. It seems like there's a larger proportion of them here than on reddit. I see more of their opinions here. Maybe that's just how the algo works here regarding upvotes & downvotes and how comments are displayed.
Happy to have them here. I almost never agree with them, but not only is it good to have your opinion challenged (though often wearying to have to repeat yourself), it's good for THEM to have their opinion challenged too. Maybe only 1/100 will change their opinion after being challenged and seeing that their opinion is very much in the minority, but that's 1/100 more than if we were all chatting away in a safe space with no opposing views.
(and to be clear, no I don't think shit like nazis, devout racists etc is an 'opposing view' that deserves any debate)
Yeah. I hardcore disagree with conservatives as a libertarian socialist myself, but I always want to hear what people who disagree with me (and people who agree with me) are saying, and engage in civil conversation with people who actually believe what they say.
The problem for me comes when shills (people who don't believe what they say but get paid to say it) come into the conversation, or when people use outright disingenuous arguments (usually strawmans).
No, but it takes a person to control a company. A Person to direct the goals of a company.
So I guess Tim Apple is somewhat involved if there is innovation or not.
Man I am kinda sorry, that I invade your worldview.
But rich people don’t have all their money stored in a vault like Dagobert Duck. It’s all stocks.
And boy, if one of the companies make losses, then their money goes downhill. It’s volatile.
And due to immense concurrence in innovation in the tech sector, every investor has a huge interest in innovation.
And with many investment, the start of a company is ensured.
The current capitalism is the system that works best.
Especially the US capitalism is one hell of a driver in innovation.
I live in Germany and many companies wouldn’t be possible here. Even though we have capitalism, it’s much softer than its US counterpart.
The downside of course is poverty for cheaper labour.
And that’s brutal, but it’s the reality we live in.
Though I wouldn’t want to live in the US without healthcare, on the counter side I wouldn’t want to start a company here in Europe.
This is a good example of the worst kind of pseudo intellectual bs that tricks the uninformed. It's confidently wrong in so many different areas that I don't even know where to start.
Saudi Arabia has 'proven' whatever it has proven through insane levels of draconian state intervention in everything, a lot of oil rents, and using imported slave labour.
I don’t think you have been reading a single one of the articles.
The first one already is a not so fitting response to m claim that European style houses are ore resilient against extreme weather events.
The demand side of the economy is the consumer population. The consumers decide what they do and do not want to purchase, therefore driving demand.
"Infinite need" implies that infinite supply could exist, or that infinite growth is sustainable, both of which are not true. Infinite need also doesn't exist.
I will argue that people (for example) needing clean water increases the demand for clean water. This is why companies like Nestle are profiteering off of selling bottled water, and why the CEO said that water should not be a human right.
Wait. But someone has to bottle the water, right? Or is nestle supposed to do it for free?
Furthermore they have to compete with tap water. So the value of bottled water can only be the water itself + bottle + energy used to fill bottle + interest because their “service” is not for free. There is a justified interest to make a profit from one’s efforts.
I give you that. Just a few were directly involved in innovation.
But the rich do quite successfully create the framework conditions for innovation and development.
Mostly driven by profit, but a world based purely on goodwill fails at the first doubter, the first who does not want to participate.
So capitalism is what we got. And so far it has proven to be more resilient than other systems.
Even if they're right — which we all know they are not — it wouldn't matter. Climate change is going to devastate human life if we do nothing. If, somehow, the source of the warming wasn't human-caused, we'd still need to find a way to counteract it. It's not our fault doesn't prevent it from being our problem.
"Ok, then let's prepare for the inevitable, strengthen infrastructure, prepare for mass migrations, improve our crops to sustain bigger variances in weather, evacuate people from flood danger zones, ensure our supply chain doesn't collapse, fund poor countries so they can survive better, etc. You know, prepare for the crisis"
I had a guy tell me once that maybe climate change is just the Earth getting closer to the sun, and we should send an astronaut up to the Hubble telescope so they can look through it and measure the distance to the sun....
I've known this guy for over a decade, and it's not that he's stupid, he's just completely ignorant about climate change and doesn't put in any effort to learn about science.
It's not happening.
It's happening but it's all cyclical.
It's not cyclical this time but it's not our fault.
It's our fault but global warming is good ackshually.
Global warming is bad but there's nothing we can do about it.
We could do something about it but it's too expensive/late.
Maybe it's not too expensive but THE CHINESE!
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
(no not all conservatives/climate change deniers are narcissists but the overlap is interesting)
There's a lot of money pushing this idea. I live in a certain US state where an organization has been paying to have billboards up that push this idea for years now.
The most terrible thing is that it's a half truth. While yes plants grow better with increased CO2, the downsides are so destructive it is not at all beneficial.
If you're based in the UK, then all you can do is smile at the shit we have to deal with government-wise. If you don't laugh, you'll go mad, kinda thing.
That 'Four Stage Strategy' is horribly, horribly apt even today.
I've found a clever way to counter those folks is to say, "you might be right, and as the apex species it's our moral obligation to seize control and protect the natural order of things for as long as we are able to slow the coming of hell on earth. Just like our right to shoot guns. Yee haw."
What I hear some acquaintances say is like "who cares, I'll go to the beach, turn the AC on, what's the big deal" .
As if the floods we had in Italy this year, or the wild fires, or the storms, or the draughts, or the Alps without snow, the glaciers disappeared, the sea turned green, the invasion of jellyfish weren't connected.
Some people, most people, are just too fucking stupid.
To be fair, I think both sides blow it out of proportion and that can stifle discussion. It won't be the "end of the world" where everyone will die, but we will have the "end of the world" as we know it.
I think one of the main points that need to be stressed to the kind of people in your example would be droughts.
Droughts will continue to get worse and will affect everyone. With a bad enough drought, we won't be able to feed entire cities. And that's when things really start to fall apart.
Yeah, people expect the earth to suddenly start cracking and spitting out hot lava or something.
No, it's gonna be a slow, steady march towards the end, just as it always has been. Slow enough that we feel like we can put it off for another day.
Slow enough that one day we will look up from our phones, see the oceans of fire and shrug. Too late now, just switch on the AC and go back to scrolling.
I think a lot of them also did come over here. No doubt about it, daily records are being broken but sharing without any context feels very on brand for that ole gang.
How long have they been recording? I assume there's no records from all that long ago. Being as how humans, and measurement especially are a fairly new thing.
But he doesn't deny climate change, he denies that man has such a big influence on him. Or maybe he denies the theory that nature itself is not able to regulate temperature. After all, uncomfortable for a human does not mean uncomfortable for nature as a whole.
Right - we humans are generally most concerned with what’s “comfortable”. That’s a fun spin on “being able to live”. The earth will be fine with or without us, we’re just doing a good job of shooting for “without”.
Well I look forward to his contribution questioning the established science in the Journal Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. He should direct his profound expertise and diligent work appropriately.
So we basically understand "weather" for roughly 8ppm of earth's life. That said, we can infer much amount about climate (not weather, climate) from much older archeological and even paleontological evidence.
Here is a graphic to help visualize the unprecedented rate of temp change. Data source for temperature is cited and likely errors are explained. https://xkcd.com/1732/
It's actually worse than that. We are not in the predicted path, we are in one of the worst estimated predicted paths. Understandable as that comic was made in 2012.
Yeah, you're right. It would be even more obvious now if it were redone. I specifically like that one because it invites people to scroll through the time axis slowly and on a linear scale. It makes the recent changes more real than the same graph fitted to a screen and seen all at once.
They cite their sources. I got paywalled by the Marcott paper, but that seems like it has data you're looking for. I think most of the referenced links are as follows:
Recycling metals is good, especially aluminum. Recycling glass? Not bad. Recycling plastic? That is literally something the oil industry forced by having their resin codes look almost exactly like the recycling symbol. People understandingly confused the resin codes to mean it was recyclable and flooded recycling centers with plastic. So instead of throwing it in the garbage and telling people plastic is not recyclable, they did what they could to recycle it. Sorting and cleaning was a pain in the ass and made it not worth it...in the US. China was happy to accept it for a couple decades until a few years ago. Now most recycling centers only accept plastic with a reason code of 1 or 2. But people do not really check the number on the symbol. A lot of it is 5 which is not recyclable in the vast majority of places but people still toss that into recycling because they think it has the recycling symbol on it. So recycling centers have to sort that shit out and send it to the landfill. It is a massive waste of resources that the oil companies are fine with since people think they are doing their part.
Recycling in general though was not supposed to be a fix for climate change. While recycling things like aluminum is significantly more energy efficient than mining, the bigger issue there is the mine itself.
In general I feel like no one really takes a holistic view of this and everyone just points fingers. If indeed all the models are correct and human-produced CO2 is causing global warming, it's not just "corporations" or "the rich" or just individuals, it's the whole of the machine of humanity hacking away at the tree branch they're sitting on, and we need to radically shift our energy production to eliminate greenhouse gas externalities, and ideally figure out, what's it called, CO2 sequestration or whatever, to bring it back to normal.
And to the degree we can't shift immediately, we shouldn't just be burning fossil fuels towards ends we don't even need, like dumb luxury goods or just driving in circles. It does come down to all of us as individuals - some of us have more power than others (yeah, more or less proportionally to wealth), but the buck has to stop somewhere.
Yeah, sad thing is we are already signed up for the next 20 years, as in even if we stopped emitting everything tomorrow, we would still have +2°C in 20 years...
And how realistic is stopping everything tomorow?
+3°C.. we would need to have a new coronavirus crisis every years, not just a new one, but stack them on top, in terms of emissions. Ofc you can't have more then one global confinement at a time (doesn't make sense to double confine someone) so that wouldn't even work.
We aren't locked in for the next twenty years, only the next ten years.
We could build a thousand RBMK like nuclear reactors in a decade and then suck out 50 ppm of CO2 out of the atmosphere in another decade.
Would cost $500B to $1T or so.
We just don't really think global warming is serious enough to warrant an action plan at the scale of the Manhattan project, Apollo program or Messmer plan.
We're not locked in for the next 20 years. Not for the next 10.
The carbon in the atmosphere is going to be there for the next millenium and the temperature won't level out till the 2100s if we stopped all carbon emission right this second.
Furthermore, if we did stop all emissions right now, the planet would get 0.5-1.5 °C hotter within a year or two due to the end of the aerosol pollution cooling effect that's been cutting the effects of carbon induced climate change in half this whole time.
This year is so hot because they put limitations on sulfur emissions from shipping boats in the Pacific. Those emissions were cooling the atmosphere, but the aerosol emissions (which that sulfur is one of) only last in the atmosphere for about 2 weeks before they're rained out of the air.
It was taken out because the pollution was directly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths per year. If we need to geoengineer an aerosol to cool the planet, we can do better.
Deaths from increasing temperatures are estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands a year already, how many of those could the aerosols have prevented? Was that more or less than tens of thousands?
I'm not saying it can't be done or it shouldn't necessarily, I'm just trying to express why this decision happened at a political level. Politics only occasionally leads humanity to the logical course of action.
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a speculative technology at the moment.
Like, yes, we "can" do it, if you ignore all the materials and energy needed to perform that process. And that's just in theory, in practice its bound to be far more difficult.
No matter how you put it, it's easier to just... Not release the pollution in the first place. If it's too difficult to stop polluting, it will certainly be too difficult to remove that pollution that has been already released. Entropy and all that.
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is something we should only really start thinking about when the world already runs nearly entirely cleanly.
An Apollo scale program to extract carbon emissions from the atmosphere could be financed by the OECD countries without heavily impacting their economies.
Building a thousand nuclear plants with reduced safety requirements in a remote place would not run into NIMBY problems.
Stopping emissions globally would require Chinese political will, since they emit more than all of the OECD combined.
If you want China to emit even less, support protectionist policies in Western countries and/or tariff reductions for products that may prove they've been produced with renewables.
I think that there need to be a specific tipping point/trigger when everyone and their mother direct funding towards fixing the problem.until then the majority of people won't simply care
I'm genuinely curious at this point if that point even exists. Like, I've had legitimate conversations with multiple people and i've asked them "what would need to happen for you to believe in human's causing climate change?" The answer is generally something along the lines of "I'm not sure it's even possible for humans to have that big of an effect on the earth."
I would imagine there are tons of people out there who think the same, people with VERY deep pockets and in equally powerful positions that would never change course on their money making machines. Literally the only way I see substantial change happening is if it becomes incredibly profitable.
The tipping point was going to be "our cheap labor is dying out and profits are going down"... except now with automation it's going to be "our robots are breaking down and we need a few more experts to fix them", so no need to care about 99% of the population.
The rich and powerful have to see very direct problems that affect them. Kind of like when social conservative politicians take an anti-LGBT position, then turns out their kid is trans, so then they pivot to being pro-LGBT in rhetoric so they can keep talking to their kid.
Considering here in Winnipeg, Canada, where it reaches -35C or even colder, it was pretty wild having weeks on end of +30C to even +39C temperatures, and so soon into our summer.
I never want to complain about the heat when we have snow for 7 months, but that was ridiculous.
My father in law is in complete denial. According to him they moved all the measurement equipment so that it favours "the Agenda" and gives wrong readings. He also claimes CO2 isnt a greenhouse gas. Sigh...
Acknowledging the truth means accepting that we're fucked, that even if we weren't individually responsible (maybe) we are still going to have to deal with the ramifications... And that's scary. It's far more comforting for there to be a secret cabal controlling everything and that really life is gonna be ok and you don't have to change anything at all.
I've spent years working at a fossil-fuel-adjacent company, and I've noticed that even some intelligent people (consciously or unconsciously) avoid any information that that might make them think they may not being living a perfectly moral life, or information where the obvious solution goes against their "values" (pro-business, free market). They also grasp for any information that affirms their values and lifestyle, no matter how easily discredited the source.
It's kinda worrying that it always seems to result in Nazi-like conspiracy theories like "the Agenda," "Elites," "groomers," "cultural marxism," etc.
It's wise to have a small toaster oven if you absolutely need to cook something. They preheat fast and obviously put off less heat than a full oven. I don't really bother with the oven much these days as it's getting over 110 here at the moment. Also cook after the sun sets
Thank fuck for that. Now if we can only turn off all the other a.c. as well, we'd have made a start!
Edit: this was a joke, but wow, you Americans are really defensive about your AC. I live in the UK and the rare times it gets very hot we are miserable because our building almost never have AC, and are built to retain heat. So I do see how much more comfortable it makes you.
Someone, who was trying to argue in favour of AC, said it uses 10% of all electricity globally. Thats insane! I guess we actually do need to turn it all off.
Well, you can't so celebrating one poor guy's AC going out in a heatwave is kind of a dick move, besides, it's not AC in it of itself that is causing global warming, i'd bet that if we ran all AC on solar we'd still be fucked.
Also it's businesses cooling (empty) offices that are the bulk of the % of AC watt hours used.
AC uses about 10% of all electricity globally. However, that's electricity, not energy. If you include fossil fuels burned in engines in the energy equation, it drops to closer to 1.5%. There are bigger fish to fry.
Numbers: global energy production (all sources): ~650 EJ (exajoules). Total electricity consumption is ~23000 TWh -- about 85 EJ.
1.5% of all energy used is huge. Actually insane. I was joking, but you've convinced me that we do actually need to turn all that off. As well as stop shipping so much, flying so much, burning so much oil, etc. But fucj me 10%of all electricity and 1.5% of all energy. Wow.
Death by heatwave while lacking AC is one of the main ways that climate change will be killing people. A Texas grandmother died from heat last week (among a dozen more people in her town) being too afraid to turn on her air conditioner because of the expense.
When the choice is between running the AC while potentially contributing to the global energy consumption driving the climate change and turning the AC off and literally dying, you don't need to be a hero.
I mean, in the scenario described where we literally can’t grow food in the surrounding land, it’s hard to say what the political landscape or legal institutions even looks like at that point.
Once people start going hungry and killing rich people then suddenly the rich will wake up and realize they have to do something, hopefully by then it's not too late.
Its less about affordability... and more about distribution models. Can you get stuff out to the suburbs in a way that makes sense? Do we need to even have the trational suburban model or can it be repurposed for agriculture? There are going to be a lot of people cramped into smaller spaces in the next century.
We're a stones throw away from workers rising up anyway, so that's a topic for another conversation.
Next year is going to be worse. And the year after that even more so. And it will continue like that for decades, probably centuries.
Even if I could tolerate dumbasses who don't think CO2 emissions (and destruction of multiple natural CO2 sinks) are the driver of all this, it's still infuriating that they don't seem even concerned that the world is getting hotter and more deadly and are focused on some nonsense topics that no one in their right mind would give that much of a shit about.
I recall that 5-6 years ago, temperatures around 30 Celsius were outrageous, unprecedented and unbearable here in Central Europe. Now, we're seeing stuff like 40 degrees and we don't even whine about it anymore.
we’re watching zombies slowly lurching towards us, but there’s people pretending it’s totally normal and nothing to worry about.
If 2020 Gave Us Zombies Instead Of A Pandemic. It was pretty depressing in realizing how easy we could solve crises, but we can't, since some politicians prefer talking points, and too many sheep happily follow. And measures against the pandemic were just a temporary inconvenience, while the climate crisis seems to be here to stay, growing stronger every day.
This beautiful little comic has never stopped being relevant since the very day it was made. Ever more destructive pushes for profit, all for that beautiful shareholder value.
I suppose on a global scale, probably. I live in Sweden, so way up north, climate has been royally fucked here for a while, mostly in the sense that it's just been wrong. Short cold winters. Spread out cold snaps. Weird heatwaves. Not 50C like some places, but back in 2018 I think we were pushing 40, which is just unheard of.
Thankfully we've not had something since but it's just a matter of time.
Yearly. They look at slices generated by compressed layers of snowfall. Thick layer = cold year. They look at more stuff but that's roughly how it works.
edit: not sure why you're downvoted. It's a good question.
I don't mean to disagree or argue, but I still think this is a delicate point.
We are moving Earth out of the climate in which humanity emerged, survived, lived and prospered.
Some point out how terrible it would be to stop using oil and coal. Which it would. But on the other hand - we survived 200'000 years without oil and coal, but we never had to endure the climate in which we are speeding right now.
I think we mostly have the same point. I just find it worth noting the climate has not been this hot ever in the whole of mankinds existence.
The original toot clarified that they were talking about direct measurements only (but evidence exists that this is the warmest period in the last 125,000 years).
Ah yes, approximation is not a record therefore we cannot consider it a factor at all, regardless of it being our best estimate given our current data. You're right, let's throw it all out and opt for ignorance. 🙄
No you're acting like we can't use this as a data point when it's the data we have. It may not align apples to apples, but we have a recognizable trend that aligns with/exceeds predictions. I don't see the point in doubting the data we have.
This Wikipedia page honestly has some of the best climate change graphics I've seen anywhere. They're simple, fact-based, concise and paint a pretty obvious and telling picture.
I've essentially given up that our planet, or the human race is gonna survive another few generations. It literally all feels so empty and I have no desire to have kids who will ultimately have to live through the boiling temperatures. Either population collapse, or the planet dying off will result in society falling apart.
Instead of agreeing to nebulous things like “limit to 2 degrees”. International politics should have focused on specifics like “hey, at least don’t make any new coal plants”.
How is this whataboutism? Who said anything about the West or East vs West?
If anything this comment is about how China continues to increase their carbon emissions per capita year over year while the west is doing the opposite.
Edit: In fact the EU produces less then China per capita...
lol, i didn't notice the spanglish, i was typing in spanish just before that commnet, and this most often happens to me right after switching languages
Stupid thing is that it's locally so cold that I had to turn the heat back on last week after having it off for two months. Just a few weeks back I had to bring the fans down from the attic to stay cool. Shit is just weird. This summer is going to be fucked. There's also not the usual pollen or insects.
Anyway, if you're interested in visiting Denmark as a tourist, I can currently only recommend mid May or early September. The remaining 47 weeks of the year are "normal" 10°c and windy rain regardless of seasons.
And its the coldest and rainiest july ive ever experienced. We broke the rain record a few days ago. Its not been higher than 20 degrees c, for more than a day, in the past 2 weeks.
It's also a fundamental misunderstanding of how global warming actually works. It's like grabbing a glass of water and sloshing it around: the fact that the water level might look lower if you cherry-pick a measurement in the trough of a ripple doesn't somehow disprove that you added energy to the system.
Obviously global warming is a problem. But it always bugs me when they say things like "hottest day ever recorded!" And then you look at the graph and it's only since 1979.
hey that’s actually entirely missing the point! a more accurate statement would be “this summer was hotter than every other summer we’ve ever recorded, and it’s not even done yet!”
i just gotta assume you’re willfully misunderstanding because this seems like pretty elementary level deduction here.
Here in the south it's winter. Today is the first day since the season started that I actually feel some cold. That of course ends tomorrow, cause, why not? We are expecting ~26C for saturday
Man, I'm so glad this global warming thing is leftist propaganda or I'd really be freaking out right now.
Luckily, we can choose to reject reality and believe whatever makes us feel better.
I feel best believing the biosphere is gonna force humanity to “find out” for the last century of fuckin around with a recklessly unplanned terraform.
Love how the collective of humanity needs to find out because the richest few fucked around.
You can always find these people and make them find out. They are actively committing genocide against the human race.
We ned a guillotine emoji.
But the rich are supplying a demand. And a ton of innovation wouldn’t be there without them.
Why does it seem like there are a ton more conservatives here on Lemmy than there were on Reddit?
My theory is they just had a habit of getting banned so they weren't as visable
I don’t know how I feel about it. On one hand, it makes for less of an echo chamber. On the other hand, their thoughts are fucking stupid and it hurts my brain to see them.
I mean, I think they're definitely still in the minority. It seems like there's a larger proportion of them here than on reddit. I see more of their opinions here. Maybe that's just how the algo works here regarding upvotes & downvotes and how comments are displayed.
Happy to have them here. I almost never agree with them, but not only is it good to have your opinion challenged (though often wearying to have to repeat yourself), it's good for THEM to have their opinion challenged too. Maybe only 1/100 will change their opinion after being challenged and seeing that their opinion is very much in the minority, but that's 1/100 more than if we were all chatting away in a safe space with no opposing views.
(and to be clear, no I don't think shit like nazis, devout racists etc is an 'opposing view' that deserves any debate)
For every person that choose to leave reddit...
There's 5-10 "conservatives" who were ip banned and dont have a choice between Reddit and Lemmy.
They are not getting down-voted into nothingness for refusing to tow the party line.
I appreciate the variety of opinions presented here. Plus (in my experience) the conversation has been civil.
Yeah. I hardcore disagree with conservatives as a libertarian socialist myself, but I always want to hear what people who disagree with me (and people who agree with me) are saying, and engage in civil conversation with people who actually believe what they say.
The problem for me comes when shills (people who don't believe what they say but get paid to say it) come into the conversation, or when people use outright disingenuous arguments (usually strawmans).
But they kinda do. Imagine Samsung or Apple stopping innovation. Company goes bankrupt.
You think Tim Apple is coming up with their innovations? Lol
No, but it takes a person to control a company. A Person to direct the goals of a company. So I guess Tim Apple is somewhat involved if there is innovation or not.
Man I am kinda sorry, that I invade your worldview.
But rich people don’t have all their money stored in a vault like Dagobert Duck. It’s all stocks.
And boy, if one of the companies make losses, then their money goes downhill. It’s volatile.
And due to immense concurrence in innovation in the tech sector, every investor has a huge interest in innovation.
And with many investment, the start of a company is ensured.
The current capitalism is the system that works best.
Especially the US capitalism is one hell of a driver in innovation. I live in Germany and many companies wouldn’t be possible here. Even though we have capitalism, it’s much softer than its US counterpart.
The downside of course is poverty for cheaper labour.
And that’s brutal, but it’s the reality we live in.
Though I wouldn’t want to live in the US without healthcare, on the counter side I wouldn’t want to start a company here in Europe.
You mean the innovation that's destroying the planet? Ok bro.
Holy shit please tell me this person is just trolling us. I refuse to believe this is a real take
Anytime someone points to the Saudis as an example to follow…probably don’t need to listen to anything else they say.
I am no troll. I believe that I see the world as it is. I guess so do you.
Doesn’t matter much though. No matter what we do. We will see who is right. Luckily time passes all by itself. For now.
This is a good example of the worst kind of pseudo intellectual bs that tricks the uninformed. It's confidently wrong in so many different areas that I don't even know where to start.
Maybe if you don’t know where to start means that you don’t know where I am actually wrong?
European style houses won't save anyone from extreme heat
https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3151/too-hot-to-handle-how-climate-change-may-make-some-places-too-hot-to-live/
Europe has had plenty of fatal heatwaves in the past.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/case-studies/heatwave#:~:text=More%20than%2020%2C000%20people%20died,Europe%20sweltering%20in%20August%202003.
Saudi Arabia has 'proven' whatever it has proven through insane levels of draconian state intervention in everything, a lot of oil rents, and using imported slave labour.
https://mideast.shisu.edu.cn/_upload/article/2f/5e/aaff7a9b4644a4b5234d6a4e6f0c/1f06bdf4-bf8b-4874-9567-d5412e350c32.pdf
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/saudiarabia0708/5.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_workers_in_Saudi_Arabia?wprov=sfla1
Hardly a model for anyone to follow.
I don’t think you have been reading a single one of the articles. The first one already is a not so fitting response to m claim that European style houses are ore resilient against extreme weather events.
European style house, 2021, Germany: https://piped.video/watch?v=Ork8a_qrw8s
A similar flood happened in 1804 in the same region. Exactly the same region.
The houses were placed in a strategically bad position.
And many had no cellars ( to reinforce the houses in the ground).
The worst kind of bootlicking.
Oh no, I was called a bootlicker and my ego will now collapse…
Are you sure it's not the demand driving the demand? The rich are the supply-side of "supply and demand".
Demand driving the demand?
Does needing something increase the need for it by itself into infinite need?
Demand driving the demand?
Does needing something increase the need for it by itself into infinite need?
The demand side of the economy is the consumer population. The consumers decide what they do and do not want to purchase, therefore driving demand.
"Infinite need" implies that infinite supply could exist, or that infinite growth is sustainable, both of which are not true. Infinite need also doesn't exist.
I will argue that people (for example) needing clean water increases the demand for clean water. This is why companies like Nestle are profiteering off of selling bottled water, and why the CEO said that water should not be a human right.
Wait. But someone has to bottle the water, right? Or is nestle supposed to do it for free?
Furthermore they have to compete with tap water. So the value of bottled water can only be the water itself + bottle + energy used to fill bottle + interest because their “service” is not for free. There is a justified interest to make a profit from one’s efforts.
Like the
explosion motorcombustion engine?What’s an explosion motor? Motor ain’t supposed to explode.
.... Do you really not know how combustion engines work?
They use combustion.
Shhh shhh. You gotta use crayons for the big words.
English is not my primary language. I believe it was explosion motor what you have written at first.
And while I am no expert of the workings of a modern combustion engine, I do indeed have an understanding of how a combustion engine works.
I also know what reaction takes place and I know the average fuel consumption of an average European car.
Ribbit
I give you that. Just a few were directly involved in innovation.
But the rich do quite successfully create the framework conditions for innovation and development. Mostly driven by profit, but a world based purely on goodwill fails at the first doubter, the first who does not want to participate. So capitalism is what we got. And so far it has proven to be more resilient than other systems.
Thanks to denial, I'm immortal!
My uber driver said that global warming is actually true but have literally nothing about human influence.
Some years ago these persons were saying that global warming was a hoax, now that only the human influence is a hoax.
I always hated that argument from people.
Even if they're right — which we all know they are not — it wouldn't matter. Climate change is going to devastate human life if we do nothing. If, somehow, the source of the warming wasn't human-caused, we'd still need to find a way to counteract it. It's not our fault doesn't prevent it from being our problem.
"it has nothing to do with human influence"
"Ok, then let's prepare for the inevitable, strengthen infrastructure, prepare for mass migrations, improve our crops to sustain bigger variances in weather, evacuate people from flood danger zones, ensure our supply chain doesn't collapse, fund poor countries so they can survive better, etc. You know, prepare for the crisis"
:|
>:(
I had a guy tell me once that maybe climate change is just the Earth getting closer to the sun, and we should send an astronaut up to the Hubble telescope so they can look through it and measure the distance to the sun....
I've known this guy for over a decade, and it's not that he's stupid, he's just completely ignorant about climate change and doesn't put in any effort to learn about science.
Ahhh, yes. The conservative backpedalling.
It's not happening. It's happening but it's all cyclical. It's not cyclical this time but it's not our fault. It's our fault but global warming is good ackshually. Global warming is bad but there's nothing we can do about it. We could do something about it but it's too expensive/late. Maybe it's not too expensive but THE CHINESE!
In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
My dad unironically used this argument when we were talking about this last week. Some people have their heads so far up their own ass, it's just sad.
Had a argument with a person on YouTube, he thought that increased CO2 in the atmosphere would be beneficial. It would help plants grow better!
Also that humans was not behind it.
It's not a problem! And if it is, it's not our fault. And even if it is, it was completely necessary.
Basically all right wing policies.
You got it wrong, it's:
(no not all conservatives/climate change deniers are narcissists but the overlap is interesting)
There's a lot of money pushing this idea. I live in a certain US state where an organization has been paying to have billboards up that push this idea for years now.
The most terrible thing is that it's a half truth. While yes plants grow better with increased CO2, the downsides are so destructive it is not at all beneficial.
They might grow bigger, but I don't think they grow better. Veritasium did a video about the increase in CO2 having an effect on plants.
oo Interesting video! I'll send it to them ^^ thanks <3
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/Yl_K2Ata6XY
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I heard that on talk radio once too. 20 years ago!
BuT CO2 iS pLaNt FoOd! Why do you hate plants!
The sad thing is we're supposed to be in a ice age. The plant is further away from the sun about the same plane since the last ice age.
It's crazy how often I find this fitting: The Four Stage Strategy. At least it gives me a smile now and then.
If you're based in the UK, then all you can do is smile at the shit we have to deal with government-wise. If you don't laugh, you'll go mad, kinda thing.
That 'Four Stage Strategy' is horribly, horribly apt even today.
I've found a clever way to counter those folks is to say, "you might be right, and as the apex species it's our moral obligation to seize control and protect the natural order of things for as long as we are able to slow the coming of hell on earth. Just like our right to shoot guns. Yee haw."
What I hear some acquaintances say is like "who cares, I'll go to the beach, turn the AC on, what's the big deal" .
As if the floods we had in Italy this year, or the wild fires, or the storms, or the draughts, or the Alps without snow, the glaciers disappeared, the sea turned green, the invasion of jellyfish weren't connected.
Some people, most people, are just too fucking stupid.
Don't forget crops. You can't eat heat.
Ask them if they'll be at the beach when it's 55c out and all the crops have died.
To be fair, I think both sides blow it out of proportion and that can stifle discussion. It won't be the "end of the world" where everyone will die, but we will have the "end of the world" as we know it.
I think one of the main points that need to be stressed to the kind of people in your example would be droughts.
Droughts will continue to get worse and will affect everyone. With a bad enough drought, we won't be able to feed entire cities. And that's when things really start to fall apart.
Yeah, people expect the earth to suddenly start cracking and spitting out hot lava or something.
No, it's gonna be a slow, steady march towards the end, just as it always has been. Slow enough that we feel like we can put it off for another day.
Slow enough that one day we will look up from our phones, see the oceans of fire and shrug. Too late now, just switch on the AC and go back to scrolling.
As an example of this, the North America wildfires this year don’t really seem to be due to climate change… but people keep tying the ideas together.
The extreme weather swings and the droughts are bad enough. And it is guaranteed to get worse. No reason to stretch the truth.
Ribbit
If you don’t choose to believe in it, it can’t hurt you. That’s verified fact
Phew, that's a load off my mind.
I used to be subbed to /r/collapse. I see world news is covering that for me.
Yhe they do think of everything
Has been in earnest since about 2014 by my watch
Well, there's ![email protected]
I think a lot of them also did come over here. No doubt about it, daily records are being broken but sharing without any context feels very on brand for that ole gang.
How long have they been recording? I assume there's no records from all that long ago. Being as how humans, and measurement especially are a fairly new thing.
Per NASA, accurate global readings go back to 1880 and historical localized temperatures go back to the 1650s
Not much in the grand scheme of things. There was an ice age not that long ago. Nature does some funny shit.
My brother in Christ. We're supposed to be in an Ice Age now.
The trailing end of an ice age anyway.
Probably the last one for the next 200,000 years or so...
We are in an ice age right now.
Is this comment satire?
Not even Lemmy is safe from climate change deniers.
But he doesn't deny climate change, he denies that man has such a big influence on him. Or maybe he denies the theory that nature itself is not able to regulate temperature. After all, uncomfortable for a human does not mean uncomfortable for nature as a whole.
Right - we humans are generally most concerned with what’s “comfortable”. That’s a fun spin on “being able to live”. The earth will be fine with or without us, we’re just doing a good job of shooting for “without”.
Well I look forward to his contribution questioning the established science in the Journal Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. He should direct his profound expertise and diligent work appropriately.
Publish : https://mts-natrevearthenviron.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex
You might wanna do some research into why ice ages and interglacial periods happened.
Spoiler alert: it's the composition of the air.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-the-rise-and-fall-of-co2-levels-influenced-the-ice-ages/#:~:text=These%20ice%20ages%20are%20triggered,age%20than%20it%20is%20today.
Nature doesn't do shit this funny.
So we basically understand "weather" for roughly 8ppm of earth's life. That said, we can infer much amount about climate (not weather, climate) from much older archeological and even paleontological evidence.
Here is a graphic to help visualize the unprecedented rate of temp change. Data source for temperature is cited and likely errors are explained. https://xkcd.com/1732/
It's actually worse than that. We are not in the predicted path, we are in one of the worst estimated predicted paths. Understandable as that comic was made in 2012.
Yeah, you're right. It would be even more obvious now if it were redone. I specifically like that one because it invites people to scroll through the time axis slowly and on a linear scale. It makes the recent changes more real than the same graph fitted to a screen and seen all at once.
Can't stand those comics. Thanks but no thanks.
They cite their sources. I got paywalled by the Marcott paper, but that seems like it has data you're looking for. I think most of the referenced links are as follows:
Shakun https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915
Marcott https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1228026
Annan and Hargreaves https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/9/367/2013/cp-9-367-2013.html
Hadcrut4 https://psl.noaa.gov/data/gridded/data.hadcru4.html
Dang climate change denial is one thing but speaking ill of xkcd on the internet are you a fucking madman?
But I have been recycling like they asked me too. Who's not doing their part? Oh wait ....
Recycling metals is good, especially aluminum. Recycling glass? Not bad. Recycling plastic? That is literally something the oil industry forced by having their resin codes look almost exactly like the recycling symbol. People understandingly confused the resin codes to mean it was recyclable and flooded recycling centers with plastic. So instead of throwing it in the garbage and telling people plastic is not recyclable, they did what they could to recycle it. Sorting and cleaning was a pain in the ass and made it not worth it...in the US. China was happy to accept it for a couple decades until a few years ago. Now most recycling centers only accept plastic with a reason code of 1 or 2. But people do not really check the number on the symbol. A lot of it is 5 which is not recyclable in the vast majority of places but people still toss that into recycling because they think it has the recycling symbol on it. So recycling centers have to sort that shit out and send it to the landfill. It is a massive waste of resources that the oil companies are fine with since people think they are doing their part.
Recycling in general though was not supposed to be a fix for climate change. While recycling things like aluminum is significantly more energy efficient than mining, the bigger issue there is the mine itself.
Recycling does not have any impact on climate change and was never suggested to have any impact on climate change
I think that was the joke....
Ah if it is I missed it and I feel appropriately goofy
So why have I been wasting my time?!? Captain planet is an asshole
If we cure climate change tomorrow and do nothing about garbage/sustainability in packaging, we all still die - its just more disgusting.
Captain Planet focuses on the entirety of the environment, not just climate. That's why he whooshes bulldozers into the air in the Amazon.
We’re all dead no matter what. Climate change or not, humans don’t have a good ending.
Strong disagree.
Yes.
I hate it here.
In general I feel like no one really takes a holistic view of this and everyone just points fingers. If indeed all the models are correct and human-produced CO2 is causing global warming, it's not just "corporations" or "the rich" or just individuals, it's the whole of the machine of humanity hacking away at the tree branch they're sitting on, and we need to radically shift our energy production to eliminate greenhouse gas externalities, and ideally figure out, what's it called, CO2 sequestration or whatever, to bring it back to normal.
And to the degree we can't shift immediately, we shouldn't just be burning fossil fuels towards ends we don't even need, like dumb luxury goods or just driving in circles. It does come down to all of us as individuals - some of us have more power than others (yeah, more or less proportionally to wealth), but the buck has to stop somewhere.
We are so fucked. And this is only the beginning.
Yeah, sad thing is we are already signed up for the next 20 years, as in even if we stopped emitting everything tomorrow, we would still have +2°C in 20 years...
And how realistic is stopping everything tomorow?
+3°C.. we would need to have a new coronavirus crisis every years, not just a new one, but stack them on top, in terms of emissions. Ofc you can't have more then one global confinement at a time (doesn't make sense to double confine someone) so that wouldn't even work.
We. Are. Fucked.
We aren't locked in for the next twenty years, only the next ten years.
We could build a thousand RBMK like nuclear reactors in a decade and then suck out 50 ppm of CO2 out of the atmosphere in another decade.
Would cost $500B to $1T or so.
We just don't really think global warming is serious enough to warrant an action plan at the scale of the Manhattan project, Apollo program or Messmer plan.
We're not locked in for the next 20 years. Not for the next 10.
The carbon in the atmosphere is going to be there for the next millenium and the temperature won't level out till the 2100s if we stopped all carbon emission right this second.
Furthermore, if we did stop all emissions right now, the planet would get 0.5-1.5 °C hotter within a year or two due to the end of the aerosol pollution cooling effect that's been cutting the effects of carbon induced climate change in half this whole time.
This year is so hot because they put limitations on sulfur emissions from shipping boats in the Pacific. Those emissions were cooling the atmosphere, but the aerosol emissions (which that sulfur is one of) only last in the atmosphere for about 2 weeks before they're rained out of the air.
We're fucked.
So can't we reintroduce the sulfur?
It was taken out because the pollution was directly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths per year. If we need to geoengineer an aerosol to cool the planet, we can do better.
Deaths from increasing temperatures are estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands a year already, how many of those could the aerosols have prevented? Was that more or less than tens of thousands?
I'm not saying it can't be done or it shouldn't necessarily, I'm just trying to express why this decision happened at a political level. Politics only occasionally leads humanity to the logical course of action.
So which is the lesser evil?
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is a speculative technology at the moment.
Like, yes, we "can" do it, if you ignore all the materials and energy needed to perform that process. And that's just in theory, in practice its bound to be far more difficult.
No matter how you put it, it's easier to just... Not release the pollution in the first place. If it's too difficult to stop polluting, it will certainly be too difficult to remove that pollution that has been already released. Entropy and all that.
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is something we should only really start thinking about when the world already runs nearly entirely cleanly.
You ignore political realities.
An Apollo scale program to extract carbon emissions from the atmosphere could be financed by the OECD countries without heavily impacting their economies.
Building a thousand nuclear plants with reduced safety requirements in a remote place would not run into NIMBY problems.
Stopping emissions globally would require Chinese political will, since they emit more than all of the OECD combined.
China has stalled their CO2 emissions since roughly 2012; they mostly pollute so much because there's immense demand of manufactured goods in richer countries; they've been putting far more effort into transitioning to renewables than some Western countries; and they're still below emissions per capita than Canada, the US, Russia, South Korea, Netherlands, Poland, Iran, Israel, Germany and Japan.
If you want China to emit even less, support protectionist policies in Western countries and/or tariff reductions for products that may prove they've been produced with renewables.
That graph badly needs updating. They stalled between 2012 and 2016, but skyrocketed from 10 gigatons 2016 to 11 in 2021.
So no, your premise is wrong.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china
Isn't it possible to reduce CO2 on the long run by planned forestry management, if we reduce our own emissions enough?
I've started telling people to prepare for the Mad Max times. Yeah it's hyperbole, but it actually makes them pause for half a second.
What's disturbing is the gleam in some alt-right people's eyes.
I think that there need to be a specific tipping point/trigger when everyone and their mother direct funding towards fixing the problem.until then the majority of people won't simply care
I'm genuinely curious at this point if that point even exists. Like, I've had legitimate conversations with multiple people and i've asked them "what would need to happen for you to believe in human's causing climate change?" The answer is generally something along the lines of "I'm not sure it's even possible for humans to have that big of an effect on the earth."
I would imagine there are tons of people out there who think the same, people with VERY deep pockets and in equally powerful positions that would never change course on their money making machines. Literally the only way I see substantial change happening is if it becomes incredibly profitable.
The tipping point was going to be "our cheap labor is dying out and profits are going down"... except now with automation it's going to be "our robots are breaking down and we need a few more experts to fix them", so no need to care about 99% of the population.
The rich and powerful have to see very direct problems that affect them. Kind of like when social conservative politicians take an anti-LGBT position, then turns out their kid is trans, so then they pivot to being pro-LGBT in rhetoric so they can keep talking to their kid.
Jokes aside, this is very concerning. And sad. Humanity will never be able to pull on one string.
Nice one
Considering here in Winnipeg, Canada, where it reaches -35C or even colder, it was pretty wild having weeks on end of +30C to even +39C temperatures, and so soon into our summer.
I never want to complain about the heat when we have snow for 7 months, but that was ridiculous.
- Carlin
Global warming having a giant effect now.
My father in law is in complete denial. According to him they moved all the measurement equipment so that it favours "the Agenda" and gives wrong readings. He also claimes CO2 isnt a greenhouse gas. Sigh...
What makes people become that dumb?
fear of having lived your life entirely wrong and being too old to accept responsibility in changing it
Living in their own reality and being drip fed propaganda constantly
FoxNews
Acknowledging the truth means accepting that we're fucked, that even if we weren't individually responsible (maybe) we are still going to have to deal with the ramifications... And that's scary. It's far more comforting for there to be a secret cabal controlling everything and that really life is gonna be ok and you don't have to change anything at all.
In their fairy tale, inaction may even be the moral choice, because any reaction would be playing right into the secret cabal's evil plans.
Propoganda baybeeee
Decades of it
I've spent years working at a fossil-fuel-adjacent company, and I've noticed that even some intelligent people (consciously or unconsciously) avoid any information that that might make them think they may not being living a perfectly moral life, or information where the obvious solution goes against their "values" (pro-business, free market). They also grasp for any information that affirms their values and lifestyle, no matter how easily discredited the source.
It's kinda worrying that it always seems to result in Nazi-like conspiracy theories like "the Agenda," "Elites," "groomers," "cultural marxism," etc.
It’s not being dumb, it’s being that stubborn.
If they hadn’t “picked a side” already, they would be very easy to convince.
Republicans
What like they moved the sensors closer to the sun?
the a.c. broke in my apartment wish me luck guys
You can put damp towels in the freezer and wear them around your neck. My AC broke in August once and I lived on the third floor.
THANK YOU!! that's such a good idea
f
As European where AC are not common: Close all windows and window shutters during the day. And don't use the oven.
It's wise to have a small toaster oven if you absolutely need to cook something. They preheat fast and obviously put off less heat than a full oven. I don't really bother with the oven much these days as it's getting over 110 here at the moment. Also cook after the sun sets
Thank fuck for that. Now if we can only turn off all the other a.c. as well, we'd have made a start!
Edit: this was a joke, but wow, you Americans are really defensive about your AC. I live in the UK and the rare times it gets very hot we are miserable because our building almost never have AC, and are built to retain heat. So I do see how much more comfortable it makes you.
Someone, who was trying to argue in favour of AC, said it uses 10% of all electricity globally. Thats insane! I guess we actually do need to turn it all off.
Well, you can't so celebrating one poor guy's AC going out in a heatwave is kind of a dick move, besides, it's not AC in it of itself that is causing global warming, i'd bet that if we ran all AC on solar we'd still be fucked.
Also it's businesses cooling (empty) offices that are the bulk of the % of AC watt hours used.
One guy said it makes up for 1.5% of all the energy we use! That's huuuuge. I was joking originally but I'm pretty convinced now.
I'd say 1.5% is a fucking steal for the benefit it provides, if I could only have one modern convenience i'd take AC every fucking time
One guy said it makes up for 1.5% of all the energy we use! That's huuuuge. I was joking originally but I'm pretty convinced now.
AC uses about 10% of all electricity globally. However, that's electricity, not energy. If you include fossil fuels burned in engines in the energy equation, it drops to closer to 1.5%. There are bigger fish to fry.
Numbers: global energy production (all sources): ~650 EJ (exajoules). Total electricity consumption is ~23000 TWh -- about 85 EJ.
1.5% of all energy used is huge. Actually insane. I was joking, but you've convinced me that we do actually need to turn all that off. As well as stop shipping so much, flying so much, burning so much oil, etc. But fucj me 10%of all electricity and 1.5% of all energy. Wow.
Do you know how many people literally die every summer because they don't have AC (let alone simply suffer)? AC is becoming a growing necessity.
Besides, AC is pretty small game compared to the big polluters.
A lot of people will die because of climate change as well. A lot more, in fact.
Death by heatwave while lacking AC is one of the main ways that climate change will be killing people. A Texas grandmother died from heat last week (among a dozen more people in her town) being too afraid to turn on her air conditioner because of the expense.
When the choice is between running the AC while potentially contributing to the global energy consumption driving the climate change and turning the AC off and literally dying, you don't need to be a hero.
Do you live outside? Under a liquid cooled tree? In a temperate zone? Never used electricity in your life?
Your privilege is showing. Not everybody is lucky enough to live in paradise.
Pair this with the Atlantic Ocean temperatures this year and you can anticipate an enormous, global shortage of food.
How does a city if 1 Million, or more, feed itself when all surrounding regions can’t grow food?
We’re fucked, so fucked.
We have the technology for indoor skyscraper style farming.
I mean, in the scenario described where we literally can’t grow food in the surrounding land, it’s hard to say what the political landscape or legal institutions even looks like at that point.
Once people start going hungry and killing rich people then suddenly the rich will wake up and realize they have to do something, hopefully by then it's not too late.
Mankind is roughly 9 meals between civilization and chaos.
Landlords are not the problem there. Zoning regulations are.
Landlards are a problem everywhere.
Incentivizing people to build housing is a good thing, actually.
Yes let me use valuable resources to manufacture something that ALREADY FUCKING EXISTS
Honestly, wood isn't that valuable.
Also we have an insane shortage of housing
Its less about affordability... and more about distribution models. Can you get stuff out to the suburbs in a way that makes sense? Do we need to even have the trational suburban model or can it be repurposed for agriculture? There are going to be a lot of people cramped into smaller spaces in the next century.
We're a stones throw away from workers rising up anyway, so that's a topic for another conversation.
Do you have any sources? I doubt we would see similar economies of scale compared to current farming.
There would be challenges, but again, the scenario we are discussing is a world where we literally can’t grow food in the surrounding land.
You can read all about the concept here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming
This absolutely terrifies me, especially since so many people deny climate change. What is it going to be like in 5-10 years?
Next year is going to be worse. And the year after that even more so. And it will continue like that for decades, probably centuries.
Even if I could tolerate dumbasses who don't think CO2 emissions (and destruction of multiple natural CO2 sinks) are the driver of all this, it's still infuriating that they don't seem even concerned that the world is getting hotter and more deadly and are focused on some nonsense topics that no one in their right mind would give that much of a shit about.
I recall that 5-6 years ago, temperatures around 30 Celsius were outrageous, unprecedented and unbearable here in Central Europe. Now, we're seeing stuff like 40 degrees and we don't even whine about it anymore.
I feel like we’re watching zombies slowly lurching towards us, but there’s people pretending it’s totally normal and nothing to worry about.
And meanwhile a sizeable portion of the people is yelling that the zombie apocalypse is actually a good thing.
If 2020 Gave Us Zombies Instead Of A Pandemic. It was pretty depressing in realizing how easy we could solve crises, but we can't, since some politicians prefer talking points, and too many sheep happily follow. And measures against the pandemic were just a temporary inconvenience, while the climate crisis seems to be here to stay, growing stronger every day.
Sad but true. Politicians in general appear to be a spineless lot, appealing only to their corporate donors.
Wonder how much the Republican candidates will spend talking about catastrophic climate change? 😅
Yeah, but have you seen the profits?
This beautiful little comic has never stopped being relevant since the very day it was made. Ever more destructive pushes for profit, all for that beautiful shareholder value.
Its ok guys, come winter no one will be worrying about it again.
Source toot: https://mas.to/@advisorybriefs/110735907070699446
Data source: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
Thank you!
Cool. Great, even. Man, we're fucked.
Hopefully this can accelerate some good anti-heat paint and solar shade projects.
I'm ready for companies to do their ad campaigns about how they are saving the earth with their new policies and products.
Fuck it, please just profit from saving the earth. I dont care if its just doing what we've been asking them to do for the past 30yrs.
We're fucked.
The nice thing is that this is going to become a more or less yearly thing. Wee.
More or even more.
I suppose on a global scale, probably. I live in Sweden, so way up north, climate has been royally fucked here for a while, mostly in the sense that it's just been wrong. Short cold winters. Spread out cold snaps. Weird heatwaves. Not 50C like some places, but back in 2018 I think we were pushing 40, which is just unheard of.
Thankfully we've not had something since but it's just a matter of time.
Why are these Temperatures only since 1979?
TBF you can also pretty know the temperature from thousands of years ago somehow accurately by analysing ice from the polar caps
Yeah but the original toot is only taking about measured temps, not proxy temps.
Yearly. They look at slices generated by compressed layers of snowfall. Thick layer = cold year. They look at more stuff but that's roughly how it works.
edit: not sure why you're downvoted. It's a good question.
Also the composition of captured gasses dissolved in the ice help us see what the atmosphere was like back then
It's a really cool field to look into NGL
The herd acts in mysterious ways... one would have thought we left those practices in the R-site...
I don't mean to disagree or argue, but I still think this is a delicate point.
We are moving Earth out of the climate in which humanity emerged, survived, lived and prospered.
Some point out how terrible it would be to stop using oil and coal. Which it would. But on the other hand - we survived 200'000 years without oil and coal, but we never had to endure the climate in which we are speeding right now.
I think we mostly have the same point. I just find it worth noting the climate has not been this hot ever in the whole of mankinds existence.
Geology disagrees
Yes... that is how records work lol...
Yes, proxy measurements are a thing lol.
Human's are pretty damn great at predicting issues and surmising evidence of the future and past based on current findings.
We don't call our current epoch the Anthropocene for no reason.
The original toot clarified that they were talking about direct measurements only (but evidence exists that this is the warmest period in the last 125,000 years).
Ah yes, approximation is not a record therefore we cannot consider it a factor at all, regardless of it being our best estimate given our current data. You're right, let's throw it all out and opt for ignorance. 🙄
No you're acting like we can't use this as a data point when it's the data we have. It may not align apples to apples, but we have a recognizable trend that aligns with/exceeds predictions. I don't see the point in doubting the data we have.
I'm sure we would take ice samples from the modern era, ya know if any new ice was being deposited. Other systems are pretty easy to correlate 1:1.
Just because something isn't digital doesn't mean it doesn't exist or we can't take observations from it.
This Wikipedia page honestly has some of the best climate change graphics I've seen anywhere. They're simple, fact-based, concise and paint a pretty obvious and telling picture.
I've essentially given up that our planet, or the human race is gonna survive another few generations. It literally all feels so empty and I have no desire to have kids who will ultimately have to live through the boiling temperatures. Either population collapse, or the planet dying off will result in society falling apart.
The last generation will be here soon
If this was 20 years ago, I’d have zero kids.
I can’t in good conscience bring a child into this world
I'd have no kids now- also 20 years ago- but still.
Looks like we've entered a completely new regime now.
Worse part will be Christmas diner
Well okay, maybe that's not as bad as complete collapse and mass deaths and migrants drowning in the Mediterranean and malaria
But still, Christmas dinner is gonna suck more and more
fuck this, honestly
Meanwhile, in England, it’s been 18-20 degrees for the entirety of July so far
You hear that Venus? We're coming for you!
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin
Instead of agreeing to nebulous things like “limit to 2 degrees”. International politics should have focused on specifics like “hey, at least don’t make any new coal plants”.
Whataboutism, the west contributes significantly more per capita than China. Yes they should be doing more but it's better focused elsewhere
How is this whataboutism? Who said anything about the West or East vs West?
If anything this comment is about how China continues to increase their carbon emissions per capita year over year while the west is doing the opposite.
Edit: In fact the EU produces less then China per capita...
Crazy thing about it, in the end, it doesn't even fucking matter where the emissions come from, just that there are the emissions to begin with.
It's better to focus everywhere. Not gonna solve this by shifting blame. That goes for EU/US shifting blame to China as well.
Why does this follow north hemisphere's seasons?
usualmente i sort comments by top, but for this one im sorting by hot
sorts by caliente
Entonces it also makes it top.
lol, i didn't notice the spanglish, i was typing in spanish just before that commnet, and this most often happens to me right after switching languages
haha i love it
I wonder how bad things will get before people will rise up.
N+1
Rise up to do what? Burn more shit? :D
The dead walk. Zombies have arrived. They are us.
Nothing to see here. Move along and keep burning fossil fuels.
Nice
Weird. Where I live it's cold as hell.
Edit: The last 2 weeks, I see. Yeah that makes sense
Stupid thing is that it's locally so cold that I had to turn the heat back on last week after having it off for two months. Just a few weeks back I had to bring the fans down from the attic to stay cool. Shit is just weird. This summer is going to be fucked. There's also not the usual pollen or insects.
Anyway, if you're interested in visiting Denmark as a tourist, I can currently only recommend mid May or early September. The remaining 47 weeks of the year are "normal" 10°c and windy rain regardless of seasons.
Deep thinking is the only kind that matters
Hold my beer
Madness I say absolute madness
Hi
I'm mostly sure before our surface cooled down it was hotter. Or when we had no ozone or when moon formed.
And its the coldest and rainiest july ive ever experienced. We broke the rain record a few days ago. Its not been higher than 20 degrees c, for more than a day, in the past 2 weeks.
It's "global warming" not "Nioxic warming."
It's also a fundamental misunderstanding of how global warming actually works. It's like grabbing a glass of water and sloshing it around: the fact that the water level might look lower if you cherry-pick a measurement in the trough of a ripple doesn't somehow disprove that you added energy to the system.
But I saw snow last Winter!
Southern hemisphere?
Probably just UK
Obviously global warming is a problem. But it always bugs me when they say things like "hottest day ever recorded!" And then you look at the graph and it's only since 1979.
There is a key word here in the OP, but no one wants to address that. Just fear, Fear, FEAR.
17 degrees Celsius is a nice balmy temperature is it not?
"Its hot in summer. Who knew??"
hey that’s actually entirely missing the point! a more accurate statement would be “this summer was hotter than every other summer we’ve ever recorded, and it’s not even done yet!”
i just gotta assume you’re willfully misunderstanding because this seems like pretty elementary level deduction here.
They put it in quotes, so I think they may just be mocking people who say such things IRL.
This is why the discriminator /s is necessary for comments like that.
I'm repeating the conservative argument. There's 4 or 5 templated responses every time agw comes up
Here in the south it's winter. Today is the first day since the season started that I actually feel some cold. That of course ends tomorrow, cause, why not? We are expecting ~26C for saturday