Actually, in line with what was actually anticipated and taught in science classes in 2000. People decided to go with the best case scenarios as if global emissions would go down for some reason. No one who has been paying attention should be surprised.
Every time the IPCC publishes a report it's like: oh yeah may have gone way past the most pessimistic option this year, yet again, for the seventh time in a row, so here's a new set of predictions that will surely not be overly optimistic this time round.
There's been a 73% decline in global vertebrate populations since 1970. We're in the beginning of a very serious mass extinction and it's kinda like we don't care which is interesting.
Whatever helps get you through it. Functionally it makes no difference. The simulation runs particles smaller than atoms and the maximum speed is still light. Our universe is too vast for us to explore and there's probably other life forms on planets too far away to matter. Our experience is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, yet the only thing we will ever do. Make it count while you're here.
I mean the probability isn't in our favor. As for us, yeah it doesn't change much. Same for a lot of epistemological arguments. Last Thursdayism, Descartes demon, Plato's cave, Chung Tzu's butterfly, solipsism, Boltzmann brains could all be bang on right on the money. I see you're taking the more so physical reality approach, even then if something like the holographic universe or some variation is correct then maybe distance doesn't exist like we think it does. If for instance we're in a black hole then there's a one to one representation of all information here in what we consider 3D space on the black hole's surface.
All the fun ideas aside I agree with you although maybe our definitions of fun may be different. That is I think the first goal is to reduce needless and avoidable suffering for all minds anywhere in existence whenever possible. Like even if it is a simulation of sorts or reality just started ten seconds ago or what I'm experiencing is a Boltzmann brain it still doesn't stop the first goal from at least being the best goal I've found so far.
The fictional one has something along the lines of "as usual" while in reality it's exceptional (for now). Though europe especially is affected by climate change, gets hotter summers, and it's concerning, that we get a few more over-30°C days each year.
We're sitting in our rooms agitated, causing life long issue with sleepless nights, all while these fuckers that did this for greed sake are building climate controlled bunkers.
Fuck rich removed
see you next Tuesday is sencered? What else can we call them...
I've said it before, we need to announce the revolution so all these idiots go into their bunkers, and then brick them up or something.
The concept of hiding out bunker is idiotic, if the world is truly dying then what are you going to do in a bunker? Sit there for the rest of your life, and then what, have your descendants emerge a century later to devastated world, what's the point? The sort of people who hide out in end of the world shelters are not the sort of people who want to get their hands dirty rebuilding civilisation.
Far apart from anything else it's going to be incredibly boring if you're used to the jet setting lifestyle.
They probably think the "cattle" will tire themselves out with revolution after a decade or so, and then they can reemerge to retake the reins of society.
It doesn't make the most sense but these people have more money than sense, almost definitionally.
A lot will admit it’s real but then shift blame to China while overlooking the facts that chinas pollution is largely made by western countries outsourcing the dirtiest parts of their supply chain to China and that China is vastly outperforming and outspending literally every country in considerably bringing down their emissions
Sadly, most people are incapable (or unwilling) to think beyond maybe 2 links in the causal chain, the "in your face" immediatelly visible stuff and a simple explanation for it (generally of the "people I don't like did it" kind).
Faced with "this is happening" (or, worse, "somebody is telling me this is happening"), they'll generally accept whatever "explanation" they're fed and can't just keep asking themselves "Why?" ("Why are you telling me this (what's in it for you)?", "why would those people do this (what's in it for them)?", "is that the only reason?" and so on).
For example, if you dig down, in most countries in Europe the increase in immigration can be traced back to locals not having enough kids and thus the population is aging and you need to let in working age people to pay for retirement pensions of the locals, and that in turn digs down to massive realestate bubbles and stagnating salaries so that the profits of the fatcats are high (at the unspecialized level immigration does put downwards pressure on salaries, though the picture is less clear above that) making life way harder for young people so they have fewer children, and that in turn leads to how the parties in government (mainly the "mainstream" ones) have reliably enacted policies to favor very rich people (mainly making the income from Work be less and less whilst the income from Asset Ownership is more and more) and realestate investors and even the "fringe" "left" has just blindly parroted pro-immigration slogans from the American and British liberals (and ended up punished at the ballot for it, to the gain of the Far-Right), and that in turn leads us to just how many of those politicians have "realestate investestor" as their main source of wealth increase and to the massive levels of Corruption in the modern era (and on the "fringe" "left" parties we dig down to how those heading them grew up in the Neoliberal era, don't really have coherent leftwing ideologies unlike in the old days and thus think the moral liberalism of the Neoliberals is what being "leftwing" is all about).
IMHO Populism works because it just points at some issue (or makes one up) and then provides a single-layer immediate explanation (generally of the "they're bad people" kind), and all wrapped up in a nice bow and that totally satisfies many if not most people. The simplest way to disassemble that is just to ask "Why do you want me to believe that?", but those people refuse to do it.
Some have stopped denying the warming. But they've moved on to "humans can't cause enough pollution to affect the entire earth" and "It's god's will to bring the end times" fml
My favorite is "it's real, but it's the sun, so...what are we gonna do? Besides, humans can't possibly affect the earth!" as if things like aerosolized lead blanketing the planet for 60 years simply didn't happen.
Well its not the whole globe, just Europe here. There are people there I care about, but there's plenty of space for them over here when Europe becomes uninhabitable, and switching to renewables seems like kind of a pain.
I'm in the northern us and traveled to Austin, TX for work recently.
I departed at 72 degrees and raining and landed in 98 degrees with a 78 dew point. It was a heat index of 116.
I understand exactly why the world is burning, watching all the people scurry from AC to AC in a state which derives most of it's power from fossil juice. And then of course, everyone is driving a monster vehicle and coal rolling pedestrians and e scooter renters.
This is not supposed to be personal, but an additional point is how it is completely natural to us as a society to fly somewhere. Even if it's for work.
I don't fly often, but my entire team travels for work, meaning they are on the road all day, everyday. We are a sales organization and that's what is expected by our customers.
I'm not exempt from blame here. I do what I can to reduce my footprint, sadly it's not much.
I fully understand. I did that for a long time, too (working and participating in a frequent flying environment). But that's really where we need to change society. The way we think about things that we have never questioned before.
And one additional thing should become very clear: it's not only about our footprint. Someone needs to stop others from destroying everything, from flying, from coal rolling monster suvs etc. And as there are too few people being that someone, we need to be that someone.
I've accepted that we won't survive the coming storm. Covid showed us that people couldn't be bothered tonwear a mask or get a shot to fight off a disease that was visibly killing millions. If we can't come together on that, there's no way we'll come together to survive the climate crisis.
Do you mean 'we, society as it is right now' or 'we, the human species'. Because i don't really disagree, but at the same time i've seen people get through stuff i expected would kill them. I'm quite convinced some people will survive the storm. Might not be many if we continue this way though
Oh humans will survive. We're hands down the most adaptable species evolution ever spat out. Billions of us living as we have been? Definitely not. But make no mistake, it'll be humans, cockroaches, and whatever's going on on those deep sea vents left at the end.
I wouldn't overestimate humanity's survival capabilities. There have been over a dozen known species of the genus homo, yet all but one are extinct. The rest have died out mostly due to natural changes in climate.
Sure, we can adapt, but we'd have to put in an actual effort to do so. Reducing emissions is an adaptation, but we're not doing enough in that regard.
It's the end for billions, possibly trillions of living beings though (remember not only humans are suffering from climate changes). There will be some sort of rebuilding sure, but the cost will have been unimaginable.
Oh I know. I worship nature. My god is being killed for Tiktok AI slop and Twitter incel CSA. It's the greatest blasphemy imaginable and there is no suffering great enough for its architects. I'm not naive enough to believe in any kind of inevitable legal justice, but I do believe they'll die hollow, even if it's of natural causes.
I think youre right, most people are still too busy fucking around to notice finding out. But there will be a point everybody will see clearly how bad We've fucked up
Doesn't matter what earnings you posted this quarter.
Doesn't matter if you believe in climate change.
Doesn't matter if you need this truck.
You're on this rock of wind and water and it'll do what it needs, to get back to it's equilibrium. That might be at a level we don't exist anymore nature is emotionless and you can't control it.
Humans existed in harmony with nature for a very long time, and in many places still manage to, despite the increasing challenges posed by climate change.
The human species isn't what's throwing the planet out of equilibrium. It's capitalism and the closely-related evils of white supremacy and war.
We can survive this if we kill capitalism, kill the notion of whiteness (and Zionism), return to listening to nature if we have strayed, and avoid war.
Though the human population is projected to begin shrinking very soon even without major environmental pressures, so "surviving this" might not look like the society we have today. Maybe we're maintaining our own equilibrium, at least a little bit.
Ai data centres used about 0.5% of global electricity production last year. Electricity production is about 26,000 TWh annually, versus total energy production of 185 TWh annually, so AI was about 0.07% of all energy consumption. Energy production causes the bulk of greenhouse emissions: 73.2%, putting AI on 0.05% (this is unfair to AI, because electricity is cleaner than the average energy production which includes just burning gas for heat).
A large TV might consume about 100W while on, so 100Wh to watch for an hour. To reach the same consumption with AI, you'd need to run about 55 expensive (the upper estimate I found was 6700J - I assume this means long coding answers, research or image generation) chatgpt queries.
Personally I think it unlikely that someone would reach that 1 prompt per minute at that expensive estimate, so all yourself: is AI really "burning entire areas" compared to just watching TV?
It has it's problems but this is a moral panic.
If you're downvoting, leave me a comment to say why.
It all well and good comparing data centre energy usage with global production. But you miss out the important reality that a good chunk of the data centres running today and in the near future are using fossil fuel power on-site, without a grid connection, which is so much worse.
Be honest. Even if every single data centre did that, would it worse enough to really change the picture? It's still going to be less than paper production by a long way for a long while.
You're fighting a losing battle here, some people just have decided that AI is bad no matter what. There are quite many here on lemmy, which is a shame because there are good and bad sides about AI, but IMO it for sure is here to stay, so discussions would be interesting, again IMO.
AI is bad, but it's bizarre to point to its energy usage, out of all things. It's really missing the forest for the trees. As top commenter's data shows, even gaming on a gaming PC is so much worse (considering a 650W PSU, which is 6.5 times the TV example).
Yep, I've not had a productive discussion about it that I remember. It's not just that people have made their minds up; they also will not hear anything that is misaligned with their belief, even if ultimately compatible: you don't need to think that ai is useful or good to realise its energy use is not especially important. But if it's bad everything about it must be bad.
I mean you're talking to a guy who has halved his total energy usage over the past four years including watching fewer shows, playing fewer games, and sharing more books with friends from our already existing libraries. Trying to convince me that AI isn't that bad because it only adds a little more energy usage is a real lost cause when I'm constantly trying to push things to less energy usage in every way I can because I hear climate scientists sounding all the alarm bells.
It's an extra 0.5% that didn't need to exist on top of everything else we need to reduce.
Do you complain that everyone is being immoral for continuing to watch TV? Or do you accept that energy usage for entertainment is allowed?
How do you compare the relative moral value of using AI, watching TV, driving 10 miles, eating a steak and catching a flight?
If I wanted to halve my carbon footprint I'd further reduce my meat consumption. I would do nothing about gaming, safe in the knowledge that it's basically irrelevant.
Everyone should be doing what they can was more my point. I went for the biggest things for myself. I already was mostly vegetarian and didn't drive much so nothing to change there. Most of my carbon footprint was gaming, TV, and AC. Things I was able to work on easily. I do understand I'm fortunate enough to be able to add more insulation to my house and get more efficient appliances and so on. I do know we need to tackle things at the industrial level for best effect.
My point, again was that adding more power consumption and heat generation is definitely not the way.
Sure, but everyone needs to stay sane and alive - so whether someone is generating a slop meme, or watching TV - or using Claude to keep their boss happy, or whatever, these are relatively morally equivalent things. Yet here, AI is singled out as if it were uniquely damaging, when in fact it's similar. Just more hated.
However there is sharp growth in demand being predicted and I don't see any sign of humanity trading in some other power usage to get their data center power allocation. Even if we're are greening the grid it is all for nothing if the extra capacity has to be filled in by more fossil fuels.
So? Matrix rules motherfucker, I don't care if you've been manipulated into trying to kill me, I just care that you're trying to kill me and it's not my responsibility to deprogram your death cult ass. Fuck em, every last one.
And also made to be susceptible to that level of stupidity by capitalists & their owned politicians gutting education / failing to fund it adequately to begin with. (For US anyway.)
I don’t know where you got the 2% number and I think the real number is probably a lot higher, but let’s assume that number is right for a moment. I know what you’re probably thinking because I used to think the same thing. IF vaccines were not as safe and effective as claimed, that number would be a lot higher than 2%. Four vaccines to cause SIDS, cancer, autoimmune diseases, autism, etc. that would mean that a massive amount of very smart people we’re either dumb or lying.
It seems inconceivable. But, the pharmaceutical industry is incomprehensively, wealthy and powerful in part because they own or effectively own pretty much every major scientific and medical journal and every med school and medical textbook. And they have a government that mandates their products and protects them from lawsuits. You can’t sue a vaccine manufacturer.
Under those circumstances, at least one and 50 medical professionals is screaming from the rooftops that vaccines are not safe, even when the industry is dedicated to destroying their careers and reputations for doing so and is willing to throw essentially unlimited money at it.
And there’s the fact that every study done that truly compared vaccinated and unvaccinated, such as the recent Henry Ford health study, has found that the vaccinated had significantly higher rates of every disease studied. Whereas the unvaccinated had close to zero.
I didn't take the vaccine at first because they pushed it as having "no potential risks". Every medical procedure has risks, so I knew they were bullshitting and was therefore unwilling to risk it. Mind you I worked through the entire pandemic as essential medical personnel (running a weed dispensary lmao)
Eventually, accurate risk information about the myocarditis / etc became available. That actually made me more comfortable because at least it was fucking honest. So I could evaluate, what is likely to cause me more harm, the vaccine or COVID?
The clear, science-based answer is COVID. You aren't a free thinker, you just opted into a different lane of dogma.
You know that phrase when people show you who they are believe them? You knew they were lying. They told you they knew for sure it was safe and you knew they couldn’t know that. Then they admitted a little bit that it might be a little bit unsafe, and suddenly you trusted them?
Imagine a wife, who knows that her husband has cheated on her with dozens of women. She knows that he is currently sneaking out behind her back again and confront him. After some arguing and denial, he eventually admits that he did see another woman, but insists that they only kissed. Should she believe him?
The vaccine did not work well for me: I got COVID at least 3 times. Was wearing N95 masks from the start (happened to have some). Stayed at home except for vital shopping. Grew my hair out. Social distanced the best I could. Played a lot of Animal Crossing. But interacting with work and family is unavoidable, and that's who I believe I got it from every time, as they were generally not taking it seriously.
From what I read, when I got the shot and boosters I should have had some kind of mild reaction. Felt bad for a day or at least a few hours, something like that. But that never happened to me. However, others I talked to did have a reaction, and they also didn't seem to get COVID. So I'm inclined to believe that the vaccine probably did work, for at least some segment of the population, just not for me for some reason. It was a rush job, so it not working for everyone isn't a conspiracy, to me it's somewhat expected. And maybe one of the other brands would have worked, but I don't think you were allowed to mix them.
The conflation of antivaxxers with tin foil hat conspiracy theorists is the product of huge marketing and PR budgets. I read that Pfizer had something like 112 employees just dedicated to Reddit.
It’s not a grand conspiracy theory. It’s just money and perverse incentives.
People like Biden and Fauci went on TV and said “when you get vaccinated, the virus stops with you… you can’t get it and you can’t transmit it.” They forced people to get the vaccine or lose their jobs.
And as you noted, it didn’t work, or at least not well. The data shows that it offered some protection to the initial variant, but the protection waned quickly, and once it wore off, your immune system was primed for a variant that no longer existed, which meant that you were actually at increased risk for new variants.
I know vaccinated people who have been hospitalized with COVID multiple times, and unvaccinated people who can’t seem to get COVID if they tried. It didn’t work. They lied and made billions on that lie.
Naaah. Get your lazy asses back to the office... so its market value doesn't decrease.
Also, no wind turbines or any such humbug in our neighborhood... so we can keep increasing rents. Which we, the boomers, decided ourselves, through collective hypnosis. Also, what's with this freeloader mentality? Imagine if any of the hoi-polloi could simply use wind and sun. Like, for themselves.
I expect climate change to be consistently worse than the mainstream predictions.
There's a huge political incentive to err on the side of downplaying than to exaggerate, and those models should have been bad enough to make the point.
They first created a simplified model. That model was still a fairly good match with the fully featured models. They then varied the parameters around reasonable possible values. If scientists were using most likely assumptions, you would expect a 50/50 split of better/worse predictions.
In practice it was 93% worse. Scientists were (unconsciously) using a lot of best case figures, not expected case.
When I read about that, and the complete lack of follow-up coverage, I knew we were fucked.
Which I don't blame the original scientists or studies for. Their predictions were bad enough that we should have done something then. It's been clear for at least 30 years.
They did what they thought would have the most traction and not get them dismissed as crackpots. And, to be clear, they were still within a margin of error. They weren't generally wrong, considering their margins. It's just that they're not going to be perfect and they made the better choice.
Even now it would be easier to dismiss climate change if the reality ended up better than predicted, even if it was still bad.
One simplified model is not the reason for this. They've been expected to use a number of different climate scenarios in their work for a long time. Stop making shit up.
The point was to test for human bias in the data. The initial complaint was that scientists were cherry picking the data to make it look worse than it was. By looking at the spread, it showed they were minorly cherry picking to understate the problem. A fact that is now more and more obvious as it plays out.
It wasn't deliberate. It was more likely scientists being overly cautious about overstating their case. The end results pushed the normal agreed values closer to best case predictions rather than middle.
This was back when the main models needed weeks of super computer time, so only a few were run, and everyone else analysed the shared results.
I came to the same conclusion after reading papers and articles for years and every year it got a little bit worse and a little bit sooner. Just following the trajectory of the changes in their expectations told me that we would hit ~+6°C by 2100.
Temperature sensors in cars aren't accurate if your car is in direct sunlight or over hot asphalt. If you need accuracy (and in this case I'd argue we do) you should grab the data from environment Canada.
You know it's crazy. This weekend I drove through Southern Utah Arizona and Vegas in Southern California. It was 109° in Las Vegas 106 in St George Utah and 105 and Baker California. But it's expected in those areas during the summer. Canada that's insane to have those temperatures. It's hard to fathom that in France. Maybe in the south of France where it's closer to the equator. But it's still crazy to me. Well not crazy it's further proof of global warming. Not that anyone that can do anything cares.
Yeah I remember reading something about that at one point a couple months ago. They're talking about how the European settlers when they first came to the United States they looked at the latitude and longitude of it and we're absolutely dumbfounded at the difference in temperatures.
The cynic in me imagines that the media purposely promoted the longer timelines to lull people into thinking we had more time, and so there was no rush.
I think it's more about scientists being extremely conservative with their estimates, because they know they'll get impaled over being 'alarmist.'
And then (effectively) fired from their job.
Also, you should check out conservative coverage. There is no timeline compression, its strait up cynicism, hostile denial.
EDIT: I forgot hand wringing. A perfect example: fairly scientific family showed me a WSJ article about how future geoengineering is going to make climate change a non-issue.
"Offended" did not begin to describe my reaction.
I've been reading geoengineering research papers for years, and they amount to things like:
Well, if we redirected a significant portion of the global economy to custom airplane and chemical production, we could rain sulfuric acid over the poles and wipe out all life beyond a certain latitude, and maybe counter the warming some if we keep it up... ecological implications aside, its still rather impractical, but an order of magnitude cheaper than previous proposals. Shows table.
I feel like some counters should immediately banish the speaker to sitting in the corner. "Alarmist" and "divisive" are the top two that come to mind. It's almost always idiots not engaging with the material in good faith who pop those out.
If someone is just trolling, sure. But usually I hear it when someone's like "gay people should be allowed to live" and someone else goes "you're being diViSiVe"
Well there's no retort to that. If you're in a debate environment where an acceptable critique is "well, these people existing is not part of our beliefs, so its not okay," then the whole debate is rigged from the start.
The thing is each individual issue feeds the speed of the rest. Sun melting ice from above, rising sea temp melting from below and both speed the other up. There's thousands of things like this. I'm not an expert or anything I just remember reading something like this.
It doesn't really make a huge difference tbf, also, most of the work is done by a few countries (see India, China and many african countries), countries like South Korea or Italy actually have the opposite problem, there aren't enough kids
Honestly having kids or not doesn’t make a huge difference since most countries are below replacement already anyway. Not like it’s normal to have 3+ kids anymore even if you do have kids.
AI (specifically chatbots) is crap, has stolen and monetized work people shared for free, violates copyrights (including the GPL), has already caused job loss, is biased and bigoted, I'd even say somewhat unethical to use due to the aforementioned things. People are better off not using it (although it's basically forced on you now when you go to certain websites). But I'll just mention a couple things:
It takes around 200 ChatGPT queries to use 2 gallons of water for cooling (EDIT: seeing a lot of different answers on this, some as high as 2 gallons for only 15 queries. Lets go with that instead. It still means that taking a shower for only 4 seconds uses more water than a single ChatGPT query.)
A standard shower head uses 2½ gallons of water per minute
So to save water, taking a shorter shower, not having a swimming pool, not watering a lawn, not washing your car, not spraying driveways, flushing the toilet less often, washing a full load of laundry and running a full dishwasher instead of hand washing are all much more impactful than cutting out the occasional AI query.
I do hope that awareness of AI water waste will also motivate people to cut water use in other ways too, so it's good that the issue keeps coming up.
Yeah just don't fall into the old mistake of weather = climate. Heat waves happened before climate change as well. But our current changing climate makes them more likely to happen more often and more intense, if I am informed correctly.
Look up how many heatwaves happened in France during the 20th century, and how many happened in the last 10 years. Yes, weather on any single day is not climate, but we are quite past "oh heatwaves happened before".
Its not one or the other, that's overly simplistic. Using this one data point to "prove" climate change is about as honest as someone bringing a snowball into congress to prove it's fake.
You need both to prove a sustainable point, otherwise it's forgotten with the next cold snap. This is one extreme data point, and it helps to showcase the problem, but it is not the only one. Use it as part of a whole, not as a singular showcase.
Lemmy users falling for the same logical fallacies they laugh at others for using challenge: impossible.
A single datapoint doesn't prove anything, but a pattern of change that can be proven to be influenced separately from typical weather variation does. Like it or not, it would also have to be proven that the pattern is being caused by something distinct from global climate patterns.
For the record, I firmly believe climate change is real, I just hate when people I agree with try using the same dumb arguments as the people I disagree with.
That they're outliers of what has been the norm for centuries is the entire point. Saying "this is the new normal" is, as you might surmise, normalizing it.
I mean, it is the new normal? None of us (hopefully) want it to be, but it's the reality we have to deal with, unless the laws of physics that make thermometers work suddenly changed and no one noticed
This kind of heatwave did NOT happen before. Weather is locked for over a week with many days or weeks to come. It's almost not a heat_wave_, it's just heat. Stable, unbearable, not changing but only increasing heat, started before summer even started...
As a Person Living In France, I can confirm it feels like someone put an oven in every room. Even places with A/C mostly can't keep up with the heat. The only safe space is the car with working A/C.
We are rapidly reaching temperatures where life becomes impossible, and we'll need to be indoors from May to October. And we are just getting started.
If people can live in the desert then life isn't impossible. Tear down the buildings built for the old climate and build new purpose built structures. Find new times of the day to get outside. It's not impossible unless you insist on not changing.
The problem with humid heat is that it doesn't give a fuck about shade. Europe in general is humid.
When it is humid, there's barely a difference of temperature between shaded areas and unshaded ones.
When it is dry, all you gotta do is find some shade and temperature drops fast, to the point where you might even have to wear a jacket because it's too cold. That doesn't happen with high humidity.
Not to mention with high humidity your own bodies cooling is compromised. Fans don't help as much either. At a certain temp/humidity, people just die unless they get to a climate controlled room.
This is the way. With good insulation doesn't matter if there's a heatwave or a coldwave. And there is the risk of the Gulf steam stopping and sending Europe to a mini ice age.
Except that isolations keeps warmth in, or out in the winter, but not both. Not that simple.
But you're right about cities and AC, I was in Madrid in august last year, jesus it was hot. So hot it was probably dangerous, I wonder how much was caused by ubiquitous AC.
I beg to differ. A good insulation insulates two systems from another. In this case the air outside and the air inside. So with a good insulation you don't need as much heating when it is cold outside and cooling when it is hot outside.
Mozinor, la météo du futur.
Not a clip on climate, more a parody about canicule. France had gone through the 2003 heatwave with an awful lot of casualties amongst old people. Had cost his seat to an unskilled unqualified health minister (something Mattei) under Chirac last presidency.
The clip is typical of Mozinor with childish high-pitched voice and many video samples of blockbusters. In France there is no copyright when it comes to "détournement" of a scene from a movie.
I believe Mozinor is still active but I don't follow anymore.
300, dead zone, Olivier Besancenot, 007, baboulinet, search for any of these adding Mozinor to the request , if you are curious
So I was curious about this, and asked my barber (yesterday) how much the aircon he had installed was.
I was told the unit costs (~£1600) were exceeded by the install/labour, and that all they did was the unit fitting & plumbing/pipe to the external unit. An electrician had to be separately hired to wire it all up.
So I’m conservatively guessing somewhere around 3.5k all in.
For one of those normal units, I’d estimate as about 70x25cm, cooling an area less than my living room.
I’d say anyone looking for a trade in the UK right now, would be wise to skill up on doing it as a one stop shop, and cash in for the next decade.
Portland, Oregon, in °C (cause I never learned Fahrenheit)
It’s not typically known for being a hot place, but this is just the weather report for today.
We’re so very fucked.
(yes watch is in Japanese cause that’s what I grew up speaking and I don’t want to lose it despite having pretty good English, get off my back)
Edit: and then I checked the weather report for later. We’re not cooked, temporarily. Grand scheme of things, thoroughly fucked. But the eye of the storm feels nice.
Hey friend, you sound like you’ve had a rough time with people trying to get you to “integrate” or some such. Your choices of how you experience the world and technology aren’t any one else’s concern and whatever they are, they are valid. I live and work in highly international environments and basically everyone prefers their native tongue for things like computer/phone interface.
I learned English when I was eleven and spent my twenties and thirties masking as yet another basic white American chick, and then in my late thirties I realized that just cause I’m not the exact ethnicity I needed to be for my childhood to be easily believable (white kid growing up on an Air Force base in rural Japan) that I didn’t need to hide it, and that I should celebrate who I was when I was barely a meter tall, thirty years ago. I try my best to keep up my Japanese, but I don’t look like someone who speaks it, which is great when I overhear people shit talking me for being trans or whatnot.
I could take an hour and learn Fahrenheit, but I just don’t want to. I know Fahrenheit for values over 300 anyway: set oven to the number on the box.
さあ、しょうがないね。
(dear solitary downvoter: I’m interpreting your solitary downvote as me explaining my reasoning for why I am how I am, and you just saying “no” with no further context or detail. It was folks like you that caused me to mask up and hide my past for so long. In conclusion, go fuck yourself, solitary downvoter. I’m not gonna fade out of existence, or go back to pretending I like cappuccino and Blazers, just cause you said “no.”)
It's meant to be a joke, it clearly didn't land like I thought, oh well.
The new map has no terrain detail, so I, jokingly, took to mean that they literally flatted out the terrain. Which would cause all sorts of climate change.
Climate change deniers: "I'll be dead by 2050, why do I care?" or "Fuck you, I got mine already."
Reality: FAFO.
Faster than expected, and worse than anticipated. It will get much faster and much worse. Practice growing your own food and stay in shape.
Actually, in line with what was actually anticipated and taught in science classes in 2000. People decided to go with the best case scenarios as if global emissions would go down for some reason. No one who has been paying attention should be surprised.
Every time the IPCC publishes a report it's like: oh yeah may have gone way past the most pessimistic option this year, yet again, for the seventh time in a row, so here's a new set of predictions that will surely not be overly optimistic this time round.
It's designed to keep us passive while we continue to fail.
There's been a 73% decline in global vertebrate populations since 1970. We're in the beginning of a very serious mass extinction and it's kinda like we don't care which is interesting.
Well that's because we are the mass extinction event.
Yup, second organism to cause a mass extinction but the first to self proclaim it's intelligent.
The curse of interesting times strikes again.
I'm still pretty solid on the idea we're in an ancestor simulation or at minimum definitely not in base reality.
Whatever helps get you through it. Functionally it makes no difference. The simulation runs particles smaller than atoms and the maximum speed is still light. Our universe is too vast for us to explore and there's probably other life forms on planets too far away to matter. Our experience is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, yet the only thing we will ever do. Make it count while you're here.
I mean the probability isn't in our favor. As for us, yeah it doesn't change much. Same for a lot of epistemological arguments. Last Thursdayism, Descartes demon, Plato's cave, Chung Tzu's butterfly, solipsism, Boltzmann brains could all be bang on right on the money. I see you're taking the more so physical reality approach, even then if something like the holographic universe or some variation is correct then maybe distance doesn't exist like we think it does. If for instance we're in a black hole then there's a one to one representation of all information here in what we consider 3D space on the black hole's surface.
All the fun ideas aside I agree with you although maybe our definitions of fun may be different. That is I think the first goal is to reduce needless and avoidable suffering for all minds anywhere in existence whenever possible. Like even if it is a simulation of sorts or reality just started ten seconds ago or what I'm experiencing is a Boltzmann brain it still doesn't stop the first goal from at least being the best goal I've found so far.
That's because a lot of money is being spent to keep us oblivious about it.
Idk how to convince people anymore. I am tired and sad
Oh good we are ahead of schedule
Nobody cares anymore now that datacenters and AI exist.
Corporations have never cared, it’s always deflection and distraction.
Example: the myth of recycling
Apt observation, user scrotumnipples
I keep wanting to make "we are flocked" signs with arrows pointing at the cameras, but I don't know if I should worry about putting them up.
The fictional one has something along the lines of "as usual" while in reality it's exceptional (for now). Though europe especially is affected by climate change, gets hotter summers, and it's concerning, that we get a few more over-30°C days each year.
We're sitting in our rooms agitated, causing life long issue with sleepless nights, all while these fuckers that did this for greed sake are building climate controlled bunkers.
Fuck rich removed
see you next Tuesday is sencered? What else can we call them...
.ml has a profanity filter for some reason
I've said it before, we need to announce the revolution so all these idiots go into their bunkers, and then brick them up or something.
The concept of hiding out bunker is idiotic, if the world is truly dying then what are you going to do in a bunker? Sit there for the rest of your life, and then what, have your descendants emerge a century later to devastated world, what's the point? The sort of people who hide out in end of the world shelters are not the sort of people who want to get their hands dirty rebuilding civilisation.
Far apart from anything else it's going to be incredibly boring if you're used to the jet setting lifestyle.
They probably think the "cattle" will tire themselves out with revolution after a decade or so, and then they can reemerge to retake the reins of society.
It doesn't make the most sense but these people have more money than sense, almost definitionally.
"cattle" is neither capable of starting a revolution, not is it capable of sticking with it for more than half a year.
Tested and true in most first world countries
A cow can trample you, and a herd can absolutely stampede, if you agitate them enough.
For that the cow must start to move.
Just attach a link to mudrat...
That's my work out song
But car goes WROOM WROOM!
Cars can’t vroom vroom anymore. There’s too much traffic.
Ah, mais en France car goes «vroum vroum»
If it goes weeeez weeeeeeeeez is it any better?
Why did they remove the relief? It helps orienting.
Not the same channel! TF1 still has the relief map today
And people continue to deny that global warming is real...
No, that was plan A.
Plan A: tell people there's no climate change
Plan B: tell people climate change is natural, not man made
Plan C: tell people climate change is man made but there's nothing we can do about it
We're at plan C now.
But not too much man made. Can't risk be sued
A lot will admit it’s real but then shift blame to China while overlooking the facts that chinas pollution is largely made by western countries outsourcing the dirtiest parts of their supply chain to China and that China is vastly outperforming and outspending literally every country in considerably bringing down their emissions
Sadly, most people are incapable (or unwilling) to think beyond maybe 2 links in the causal chain, the "in your face" immediatelly visible stuff and a simple explanation for it (generally of the "people I don't like did it" kind).
Faced with "this is happening" (or, worse, "somebody is telling me this is happening"), they'll generally accept whatever "explanation" they're fed and can't just keep asking themselves "Why?" ("Why are you telling me this (what's in it for you)?", "why would those people do this (what's in it for them)?", "is that the only reason?" and so on).
For example, if you dig down, in most countries in Europe the increase in immigration can be traced back to locals not having enough kids and thus the population is aging and you need to let in working age people to pay for retirement pensions of the locals, and that in turn digs down to massive realestate bubbles and stagnating salaries so that the profits of the fatcats are high (at the unspecialized level immigration does put downwards pressure on salaries, though the picture is less clear above that) making life way harder for young people so they have fewer children, and that in turn leads to how the parties in government (mainly the "mainstream" ones) have reliably enacted policies to favor very rich people (mainly making the income from Work be less and less whilst the income from Asset Ownership is more and more) and realestate investors and even the "fringe" "left" has just blindly parroted pro-immigration slogans from the American and British liberals (and ended up punished at the ballot for it, to the gain of the Far-Right), and that in turn leads us to just how many of those politicians have "realestate investestor" as their main source of wealth increase and to the massive levels of Corruption in the modern era (and on the "fringe" "left" parties we dig down to how those heading them grew up in the Neoliberal era, don't really have coherent leftwing ideologies unlike in the old days and thus think the moral liberalism of the Neoliberals is what being "leftwing" is all about).
IMHO Populism works because it just points at some issue (or makes one up) and then provides a single-layer immediate explanation (generally of the "they're bad people" kind), and all wrapped up in a nice bow and that totally satisfies many if not most people. The simplest way to disassemble that is just to ask "Why do you want me to believe that?", but those people refuse to do it.
Some have stopped denying the warming. But they've moved on to "humans can't cause enough pollution to affect the entire earth" and "It's god's will to bring the end times" fml
In the UK they've moved on to "we're too small to make a difference, it's like pissing in the wind"..
Canada is the same. Always the what about China. But they make the stiff for us what do people expect. We have outsourced our pollution.
seems like they are still ignoring BREXIT's fallout too.
It's not happening.
It's happening, but it's not our fault.
It's our fault, but it's too late to do anything about it...
Tell them to fuck their gods. ATP There should be forced climate action whether other people like it or not.
My favorite is "it's real, but it's the sun, so...what are we gonna do? Besides, humans can't possibly affect the earth!" as if things like aerosolized lead blanketing the planet for 60 years simply didn't happen.
Well its not the whole globe, just Europe here. There are people there I care about, but there's plenty of space for them over here when Europe becomes uninhabitable, and switching to renewables seems like kind of a pain.
Of course if Europeans refugees DID start fleeing here, they'd change their mind about how much space there is.
Truly wild.
I'm in the northern us and traveled to Austin, TX for work recently.
I departed at 72 degrees and raining and landed in 98 degrees with a 78 dew point. It was a heat index of 116.
I understand exactly why the world is burning, watching all the people scurry from AC to AC in a state which derives most of it's power from fossil juice. And then of course, everyone is driving a monster vehicle and coal rolling pedestrians and e scooter renters.
We're so fucked.
This is not supposed to be personal, but an additional point is how it is completely natural to us as a society to fly somewhere. Even if it's for work.
Absolutely.
I don't fly often, but my entire team travels for work, meaning they are on the road all day, everyday. We are a sales organization and that's what is expected by our customers.
I'm not exempt from blame here. I do what I can to reduce my footprint, sadly it's not much.
I fully understand. I did that for a long time, too (working and participating in a frequent flying environment). But that's really where we need to change society. The way we think about things that we have never questioned before.
And one additional thing should become very clear: it's not only about our footprint. Someone needs to stop others from destroying everything, from flying, from coal rolling monster suvs etc. And as there are too few people being that someone, we need to be that someone.
Don’t forget all the animals people eat!
Global warming or American degrees...
Was Fahrenheit even American?
I think he grew up and lived in Europe after his ancestors moved there from Africa.
Feels ironic.
I've accepted that we won't survive the coming storm. Covid showed us that people couldn't be bothered tonwear a mask or get a shot to fight off a disease that was visibly killing millions. If we can't come together on that, there's no way we'll come together to survive the climate crisis.
O think humans well survive not through any planing or anything just that there is so damn many of us and we are adaptable that some well survive.
Do you mean 'we, society as it is right now' or 'we, the human species'. Because i don't really disagree, but at the same time i've seen people get through stuff i expected would kill them. I'm quite convinced some people will survive the storm. Might not be many if we continue this way though
Oh humans will survive. We're hands down the most adaptable species evolution ever spat out. Billions of us living as we have been? Definitely not. But make no mistake, it'll be humans, cockroaches, and whatever's going on on those deep sea vents left at the end.
I wouldn't overestimate humanity's survival capabilities. There have been over a dozen known species of the genus homo, yet all but one are extinct. The rest have died out mostly due to natural changes in climate.
Sure, we can adapt, but we'd have to put in an actual effort to do so. Reducing emissions is an adaptation, but we're not doing enough in that regard.
If anything is left, it's not the end. Revolutionary optimism even in the face of extinction, man.
That and the willingness to throw every billionaire into a woodchipper.
It's the end for billions, possibly trillions of living beings though (remember not only humans are suffering from climate changes). There will be some sort of rebuilding sure, but the cost will have been unimaginable.
Oh I know. I worship nature. My god is being killed for Tiktok AI slop and Twitter incel CSA. It's the greatest blasphemy imaginable and there is no suffering great enough for its architects. I'm not naive enough to believe in any kind of inevitable legal justice, but I do believe they'll die hollow, even if it's of natural causes.
State where you're from, because we complained but largely adhered to the mask thing in Australia.
Just woke up. It's 6 am and 28 c.
This depresses me so badly. I don’t think we can fully grasp right now just how bad the next few decades are going to get
I think youre right, most people are still too busy fucking around to notice finding out. But there will be a point everybody will see clearly how bad We've fucked up
Canada opened up some ski hills last week.
I am convinced all the climate change predictions were WAY too generous and reality is gonna be far worse.
They were
Scientists always were afraid to be too alarmist and be ignored, so they always went conservative with their estimates.
Now we are here
Yep that's my fear
It will be even worse than what you're expecting right now
Since the invention of the rock axe, there has been a continuous decline.
sad monke noises
Doesn't matter what your intentions are.
Doesn't matter what earnings you posted this quarter.
Doesn't matter if you believe in climate change.
Doesn't matter if you need this truck.
You're on this rock of wind and water and it'll do what it needs, to get back to it's equilibrium. That might be at a level we don't exist anymore nature is emotionless and you can't control it.
That actually matters quite a bit. If you have enough money you can easily deal with the consequences of climate change until you're dead.
Humans existed in harmony with nature for a very long time, and in many places still manage to, despite the increasing challenges posed by climate change.
The human species isn't what's throwing the planet out of equilibrium. It's capitalism and the closely-related evils of white supremacy and war.
We can survive this if we kill capitalism, kill the notion of whiteness (and Zionism), return to listening to nature if we have strayed, and avoid war.
Though the human population is projected to begin shrinking very soon even without major environmental pressures, so "surviving this" might not look like the society we have today. Maybe we're maintaining our own equilibrium, at least a little bit.
We could really use a covid-style lockdown for a few years.
But this time no cure until we wipe out all the anti mask/ anti vaccine idiots first
And "AI" idiots who insist on burning entire areas just to generate shrimp Jesus memes
And the fascist oligarchs. Maybe lock em in submarines and drown the lot of em.
i know the perfect company for that one, im sure they still use a logitech controller.
We don’t need a covid-style lockdown to do that. Just saying.
Ai data centres used about 0.5% of global electricity production last year. Electricity production is about 26,000 TWh annually, versus total energy production of 185 TWh annually, so AI was about 0.07% of all energy consumption. Energy production causes the bulk of greenhouse emissions: 73.2%, putting AI on 0.05% (this is unfair to AI, because electricity is cleaner than the average energy production which includes just burning gas for heat).
In comparison, trying to find something small on https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector my favourite comparison is that energy for making paper consumes more than 10x as much as does AI.
A large TV might consume about 100W while on, so 100Wh to watch for an hour. To reach the same consumption with AI, you'd need to run about 55 expensive (the upper estimate I found was 6700J - I assume this means long coding answers, research or image generation) chatgpt queries.
Personally I think it unlikely that someone would reach that 1 prompt per minute at that expensive estimate, so all yourself: is AI really "burning entire areas" compared to just watching TV?
It has it's problems but this is a moral panic.
If you're downvoting, leave me a comment to say why.
It all well and good comparing data centre energy usage with global production. But you miss out the important reality that a good chunk of the data centres running today and in the near future are using fossil fuel power on-site, without a grid connection, which is so much worse.
Be honest. Even if every single data centre did that, would it worse enough to really change the picture? It's still going to be less than paper production by a long way for a long while.
You're fighting a losing battle here, some people just have decided that AI is bad no matter what. There are quite many here on lemmy, which is a shame because there are good and bad sides about AI, but IMO it for sure is here to stay, so discussions would be interesting, again IMO.
Correct, because outside of scientific and medical applications (run by actual scientists and medical professionals), all AI is bad no matter what.
Nothing it can possibly do for you justifies the harm it does, and your reliance on it atrophies your cognitive skills.
AI is bad, but it's bizarre to point to its energy usage, out of all things. It's really missing the forest for the trees. As top commenter's data shows, even gaming on a gaming PC is so much worse (considering a 650W PSU, which is 6.5 times the TV example).
Yep, I've not had a productive discussion about it that I remember. It's not just that people have made their minds up; they also will not hear anything that is misaligned with their belief, even if ultimately compatible: you don't need to think that ai is useful or good to realise its energy use is not especially important. But if it's bad everything about it must be bad.
I mean you're talking to a guy who has halved his total energy usage over the past four years including watching fewer shows, playing fewer games, and sharing more books with friends from our already existing libraries. Trying to convince me that AI isn't that bad because it only adds a little more energy usage is a real lost cause when I'm constantly trying to push things to less energy usage in every way I can because I hear climate scientists sounding all the alarm bells.
It's an extra 0.5% that didn't need to exist on top of everything else we need to reduce.
Do you complain that everyone is being immoral for continuing to watch TV? Or do you accept that energy usage for entertainment is allowed?
How do you compare the relative moral value of using AI, watching TV, driving 10 miles, eating a steak and catching a flight?
If I wanted to halve my carbon footprint I'd further reduce my meat consumption. I would do nothing about gaming, safe in the knowledge that it's basically irrelevant.
Everyone should be doing what they can was more my point. I went for the biggest things for myself. I already was mostly vegetarian and didn't drive much so nothing to change there. Most of my carbon footprint was gaming, TV, and AC. Things I was able to work on easily. I do understand I'm fortunate enough to be able to add more insulation to my house and get more efficient appliances and so on. I do know we need to tackle things at the industrial level for best effect.
My point, again was that adding more power consumption and heat generation is definitely not the way.
Sure, but everyone needs to stay sane and alive - so whether someone is generating a slop meme, or watching TV - or using Claude to keep their boss happy, or whatever, these are relatively morally equivalent things. Yet here, AI is singled out as if it were uniquely damaging, when in fact it's similar. Just more hated.
However there is sharp growth in demand being predicted and I don't see any sign of humanity trading in some other power usage to get their data center power allocation. Even if we're are greening the grid it is all for nothing if the extra capacity has to be filled in by more fossil fuels.
Yes, about 12% per year these days. Not enough to really change the picture for a long time, though.
The anti-mask/no jab people were convinced to be dangerous by billionaire propaganda.
So? Matrix rules motherfucker, I don't care if you've been manipulated into trying to kill me, I just care that you're trying to kill me and it's not my responsibility to deprogram your death cult ass. Fuck em, every last one.
And also made to be susceptible to that level of stupidity by capitalists & their owned politicians gutting education / failing to fund it adequately to begin with. (For US anyway.)
Yeah, the people with the blood clots, myocarditis, infertility, and skyrocketing rates of ass cancer are the smart ones.
They knew that COVID is stopped by a mask, except you’re sitting down at a restaurant.
They get COVID again and again because the vaccine works!
Hmm. The Lemmy antivax crowd.
"Crowd" being, in this case, one guy lol
Decades of doctors, researchers, and Nobel prize winning immunologists willing to endure endless derision and destroy their careers.
Hundreds of thousands of parents with identical stories.
But we’re just the antivax crowd. Smart people believe the ads on TV.
Decades is a way to count people now? I think the number you're looking for is 2%.
I don’t know where you got the 2% number and I think the real number is probably a lot higher, but let’s assume that number is right for a moment. I know what you’re probably thinking because I used to think the same thing. IF vaccines were not as safe and effective as claimed, that number would be a lot higher than 2%. Four vaccines to cause SIDS, cancer, autoimmune diseases, autism, etc. that would mean that a massive amount of very smart people we’re either dumb or lying.
It seems inconceivable. But, the pharmaceutical industry is incomprehensively, wealthy and powerful in part because they own or effectively own pretty much every major scientific and medical journal and every med school and medical textbook. And they have a government that mandates their products and protects them from lawsuits. You can’t sue a vaccine manufacturer.
Under those circumstances, at least one and 50 medical professionals is screaming from the rooftops that vaccines are not safe, even when the industry is dedicated to destroying their careers and reputations for doing so and is willing to throw essentially unlimited money at it.
And there’s the fact that every study done that truly compared vaccinated and unvaccinated, such as the recent Henry Ford health study, has found that the vaccinated had significantly higher rates of every disease studied. Whereas the unvaccinated had close to zero.
I didn't take the vaccine at first because they pushed it as having "no potential risks". Every medical procedure has risks, so I knew they were bullshitting and was therefore unwilling to risk it. Mind you I worked through the entire pandemic as essential medical personnel (running a weed dispensary lmao)
Eventually, accurate risk information about the myocarditis / etc became available. That actually made me more comfortable because at least it was fucking honest. So I could evaluate, what is likely to cause me more harm, the vaccine or COVID?
The clear, science-based answer is COVID. You aren't a free thinker, you just opted into a different lane of dogma.
You know that phrase when people show you who they are believe them? You knew they were lying. They told you they knew for sure it was safe and you knew they couldn’t know that. Then they admitted a little bit that it might be a little bit unsafe, and suddenly you trusted them?
Imagine a wife, who knows that her husband has cheated on her with dozens of women. She knows that he is currently sneaking out behind her back again and confront him. After some arguing and denial, he eventually admits that he did see another woman, but insists that they only kissed. Should she believe him?
That's
not a remotely comparable analogy lol
The vaccine did not work well for me: I got COVID at least 3 times. Was wearing N95 masks from the start (happened to have some). Stayed at home except for vital shopping. Grew my hair out. Social distanced the best I could. Played a lot of Animal Crossing. But interacting with work and family is unavoidable, and that's who I believe I got it from every time, as they were generally not taking it seriously.
From what I read, when I got the shot and boosters I should have had some kind of mild reaction. Felt bad for a day or at least a few hours, something like that. But that never happened to me. However, others I talked to did have a reaction, and they also didn't seem to get COVID. So I'm inclined to believe that the vaccine probably did work, for at least some segment of the population, just not for me for some reason. It was a rush job, so it not working for everyone isn't a conspiracy, to me it's somewhat expected. And maybe one of the other brands would have worked, but I don't think you were allowed to mix them.
The conflation of antivaxxers with tin foil hat conspiracy theorists is the product of huge marketing and PR budgets. I read that Pfizer had something like 112 employees just dedicated to Reddit.
It’s not a grand conspiracy theory. It’s just money and perverse incentives.
People like Biden and Fauci went on TV and said “when you get vaccinated, the virus stops with you… you can’t get it and you can’t transmit it.” They forced people to get the vaccine or lose their jobs.
And as you noted, it didn’t work, or at least not well. The data shows that it offered some protection to the initial variant, but the protection waned quickly, and once it wore off, your immune system was primed for a variant that no longer existed, which meant that you were actually at increased risk for new variants.
I know vaccinated people who have been hospitalized with COVID multiple times, and unvaccinated people who can’t seem to get COVID if they tried. It didn’t work. They lied and made billions on that lie.
Now think about what else they’re lying about.
Genocide is cool so long as it's targeting the people I think are vile and sub-human.
Disingenuous bullshit for 300 Alex.
Naaah. Get your lazy asses back to the office... so its market value doesn't decrease.
Also, no wind turbines or any such humbug in our neighborhood... so we can keep increasing rents. Which we, the boomers, decided ourselves, through collective hypnosis. Also, what's with this freeloader mentality? Imagine if any of the hoi-polloi could simply use wind and sun. Like, for themselves.
I expect climate change to be consistently worse than the mainstream predictions.
There's a huge political incentive to err on the side of downplaying than to exaggerate, and those models should have been bad enough to make the point.
About a decade ago a group did a study on it.
They first created a simplified model. That model was still a fairly good match with the fully featured models. They then varied the parameters around reasonable possible values. If scientists were using most likely assumptions, you would expect a 50/50 split of better/worse predictions.
In practice it was 93% worse. Scientists were (unconsciously) using a lot of best case figures, not expected case.
When I read about that, and the complete lack of follow-up coverage, I knew we were fucked.
Which I don't blame the original scientists or studies for. Their predictions were bad enough that we should have done something then. It's been clear for at least 30 years.
They did what they thought would have the most traction and not get them dismissed as crackpots. And, to be clear, they were still within a margin of error. They weren't generally wrong, considering their margins. It's just that they're not going to be perfect and they made the better choice.
Even now it would be easier to dismiss climate change if the reality ended up better than predicted, even if it was still bad.
One simplified model is not the reason for this. They've been expected to use a number of different climate scenarios in their work for a long time. Stop making shit up.
The point was to test for human bias in the data. The initial complaint was that scientists were cherry picking the data to make it look worse than it was. By looking at the spread, it showed they were minorly cherry picking to understate the problem. A fact that is now more and more obvious as it plays out.
Funny you say that, my wife does climate change mitigation research. She definitely isn't cherry picking data. Climate change is just very uncertain.
It wasn't deliberate. It was more likely scientists being overly cautious about overstating their case. The end results pushed the normal agreed values closer to best case predictions rather than middle.
This was back when the main models needed weeks of super computer time, so only a few were run, and everyone else analysed the shared results.
I came to the same conclusion after reading papers and articles for years and every year it got a little bit worse and a little bit sooner. Just following the trajectory of the changes in their expectations told me that we would hit ~+6°C by 2100.
You can argue with scientists all that you want to, they're not infallible, it's true.
But you were warned for many decades, don't act all shocked and surprised.
I love the futurama episode where it shows the actual data and the characters are like how could they have been so stupid an ignored that.
That's 43 celsius? Holy shit, good luck to the french, it will soon be everyone.
at leas they can make baguettes and crossaints out in the open.
Last summer in Canada my car read 44C. Was fucked up.
Well, that doesn't mean much. Cars in the sun are basically greenhouses.
Temperature sensors in cars aren't accurate if your car is in direct sunlight or over hot asphalt. If you need accuracy (and in this case I'd argue we do) you should grab the data from environment Canada.
Was your username inspired by the air quality that day?
Nope, they turned into soup last summer and have been that way ever since
You know it's crazy. This weekend I drove through Southern Utah Arizona and Vegas in Southern California. It was 109° in Las Vegas 106 in St George Utah and 105 and Baker California. But it's expected in those areas during the summer. Canada that's insane to have those temperatures. It's hard to fathom that in France. Maybe in the south of France where it's closer to the equator. But it's still crazy to me. Well not crazy it's further proof of global warming. Not that anyone that can do anything cares.
Paris is ~5deg more northern than Montréal, it’s just how the ocean currents work and stuff that makes the weather different. Kinda fucked up, eh?
Yeah I remember reading something about that at one point a couple months ago. They're talking about how the European settlers when they first came to the United States they looked at the latitude and longitude of it and we're absolutely dumbfounded at the difference in temperatures.
The cynic in me imagines that the media purposely promoted the longer timelines to lull people into thinking we had more time, and so there was no rush.
I think it's more about scientists being extremely conservative with their estimates, because they know they'll get impaled over being 'alarmist.'
And then (effectively) fired from their job.
Also, you should check out conservative coverage. There is no timeline compression, its strait up cynicism, hostile denial.
EDIT: I forgot hand wringing. A perfect example: fairly scientific family showed me a WSJ article about how future geoengineering is going to make climate change a non-issue.
"Offended" did not begin to describe my reaction.
I've been reading geoengineering research papers for years, and they amount to things like:
I feel like some counters should immediately banish the speaker to sitting in the corner. "Alarmist" and "divisive" are the top two that come to mind. It's almost always idiots not engaging with the material in good faith who pop those out.
I dunno about "divisive." Sometimes thats a legitimate criticism, and pot-stirrers are little shits, IMO.
If someone is just trolling, sure. But usually I hear it when someone's like "gay people should be allowed to live" and someone else goes "you're being diViSiVe"
Well there's no retort to that. If you're in a debate environment where an acceptable critique is "well, these people existing is not part of our beliefs, so its not okay," then the whole debate is rigged from the start.
The thing is each individual issue feeds the speed of the rest. Sun melting ice from above, rising sea temp melting from below and both speed the other up. There's thousands of things like this. I'm not an expert or anything I just remember reading something like this.
I guess we should vote for fascists harder about it.
Have you guys seen the earthquake videos coming out of Venezuela? You can just tell Earth is pissed the fuck off.
So as per the predictions the temperatures will go down. /s
This is one of the reasons my spouse and I opted to not have kids. This place is doomed.
Dude I feel so incredibly guilty for bringing my kids into this horror. You're doing the right thing.
Thanks; it’s a super depressing choice but I know it’s the right one.
Given that overpopulation likely contributes to climate change, you're also doing your part for those who do have to live through this hellscape!
It doesn't really make a huge difference tbf, also, most of the work is done by a few countries (see India, China and many african countries), countries like South Korea or Italy actually have the opposite problem, there aren't enough kids
Honestly having kids or not doesn’t make a huge difference since most countries are below replacement already anyway. Not like it’s normal to have 3+ kids anymore even if you do have kids.
Chat are we cooked??
Chat we're not just cooked we are battered and deep fried.
”salivates in southern US”
You shouldn't needlessly salivate. That water is needed for datacentres.
Oh yea my bad, umm what if I salivate Brawndo? It’s got electrolytes
Slow cooked until our meat falls off the bone...
ChatGPT, how do I cook a climate? Please respond in Old English and rhyme
Tis better the weather threw back into flight
A cyclone, a tempest, a sky without blight
Thanks you just wasted 2 gallons of potable water.
(I wrote this myself 🥲)
AI (specifically chatbots) is crap, has stolen and monetized work people shared for free, violates copyrights (including the GPL), has already caused job loss, is biased and bigoted, I'd even say somewhat unethical to use due to the aforementioned things. People are better off not using it (although it's basically forced on you now when you go to certain websites). But I'll just mention a couple things:
It takes around 200 ChatGPT queries to use 2 gallons of water for cooling(EDIT: seeing a lot of different answers on this, some as high as 2 gallons for only 15 queries. Lets go with that instead. It still means that taking a shower for only 4 seconds uses more water than a single ChatGPT query.)So to save water, taking a shorter shower, not having a swimming pool, not watering a lawn, not washing your car, not spraying driveways, flushing the toilet less often, washing a full load of laundry and running a full dishwasher instead of hand washing are all much more impactful than cutting out the occasional AI query.
I do hope that awareness of AI water waste will also motivate people to cut water use in other ways too, so it's good that the issue keeps coming up.
Boiling
43 Celsius...along the Atlantic coast too.
Yeah just don't fall into the old mistake of weather = climate. Heat waves happened before climate change as well. But our current changing climate makes them more likely to happen more often and more intense, if I am informed correctly.
Look up how many heatwaves happened in France during the 20th century, and how many happened in the last 10 years. Yes, weather on any single day is not climate, but we are quite past "oh heatwaves happened before".
It's not high summer, and 40C is crazy. This is climate chang. Saying it's weather is oil propaganda.
Its not one or the other, that's overly simplistic. Using this one data point to "prove" climate change is about as honest as someone bringing a snowball into congress to prove it's fake.
You need both to prove a sustainable point, otherwise it's forgotten with the next cold snap. This is one extreme data point, and it helps to showcase the problem, but it is not the only one. Use it as part of a whole, not as a singular showcase.
Thats my interpretation of OPs comment.
Lemmy users falling for the same logical fallacies they laugh at others for using challenge: impossible.
A single datapoint doesn't prove anything, but a pattern of change that can be proven to be influenced separately from typical weather variation does. Like it or not, it would also have to be proven that the pattern is being caused by something distinct from global climate patterns.
For the record, I firmly believe climate change is real, I just hate when people I agree with try using the same dumb arguments as the people I disagree with.
Idk when record-breaking high temperatures are showing up weekly I think they stop being "extreme" data points
Outliers aren't outliers anymore when all the measurements are in that range
That they're outliers of what has been the norm for centuries is the entire point. Saying "this is the new normal" is, as you might surmise, normalizing it.
I mean, it is the new normal? None of us (hopefully) want it to be, but it's the reality we have to deal with, unless the laws of physics that make thermometers work suddenly changed and no one noticed
It looks like you both basically agree
If you have many outliers in rather small interval they stop being outliers and indicate a trend.
I get what you’re saying. And you’re right. It about “how often”
Yes.
This kind of heatwave did NOT happen before. Weather is locked for over a week with many days or weeks to come. It's almost not a heat_wave_, it's just heat. Stable, unbearable, not changing but only increasing heat, started before summer even started...
Not just heat waves, average has also increased - https://showyourstripes.info/s/europe/france/all
At what point does constant heat records and deadly heatwaves move from 'weather' to 'climate'? 10 years? 20?
We are projected to potentially have the warmest day ever recorded in Denmark this weekend, I would call that a direct sign of climate change.
As a Person Living In France, I can confirm it feels like someone put an oven in every room. Even places with A/C mostly can't keep up with the heat. The only safe space is the car with working A/C.
We are rapidly reaching temperatures where life becomes impossible, and we'll need to be indoors from May to October. And we are just getting started.
If people can live in the desert then life isn't impossible. Tear down the buildings built for the old climate and build new purpose built structures. Find new times of the day to get outside. It's not impossible unless you insist on not changing.
A desert is dry. You can endure much higher temperatures in dry climates, but Europe is mostly humid.
Not even that is necessary. Insulation works both ways. But a redesign could be a solution.
shades rigged up between opposing buildings over a street should be a thing
The problem with humid heat is that it doesn't give a fuck about shade. Europe in general is humid.
When it is humid, there's barely a difference of temperature between shaded areas and unshaded ones.
When it is dry, all you gotta do is find some shade and temperature drops fast, to the point where you might even have to wear a jacket because it's too cold. That doesn't happen with high humidity.
Not to mention with high humidity your own bodies cooling is compromised. Fans don't help as much either. At a certain temp/humidity, people just die unless they get to a climate controlled room.
Yeah, I've been checking in on my friends in europe, stay safe stay cool.
Bordeaux here (coucou !) and it has been a couple of brutal days.
Someone linked this as the 2014 broadcast: https://youtu.be/_s55xNz26qQ
People in Brittany in 2014: oh we’ll be fine no worries 😙
People in Brittany in 2026: what da fuk just happen? 🥵
No you just haven't adjusted the numbers for inflation
Everything is fine...
AC is quite rare in France. So everyone is basically cooking alive. Except the politicians because of course their workspace has AC.
AC could add like 10°C to the streets during a heatwave, + any emissions from faulty equipment is massively more powerful than CO2
Putting AC everywhere is not a solution by any standard...
What we need is thermal insulation for the buildings
This is the way. With good insulation doesn't matter if there's a heatwave or a coldwave. And there is the risk of the Gulf steam stopping and sending Europe to a mini ice age.
Except that isolations keeps warmth in, or out in the winter, but not both. Not that simple.
But you're right about cities and AC, I was in Madrid in august last year, jesus it was hot. So hot it was probably dangerous, I wonder how much was caused by ubiquitous AC.
I beg to differ. A good insulation insulates two systems from another. In this case the air outside and the air inside. So with a good insulation you don't need as much heating when it is cold outside and cooling when it is hot outside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4yrb8hRFKQ
Mozinor, la météo du futur. Not a clip on climate, more a parody about canicule. France had gone through the 2003 heatwave with an awful lot of casualties amongst old people. Had cost his seat to an unskilled unqualified health minister (something Mattei) under Chirac last presidency. The clip is typical of Mozinor with childish high-pitched voice and many video samples of blockbusters. In France there is no copyright when it comes to "détournement" of a scene from a movie. I believe Mozinor is still active but I don't follow anymore. 300, dead zone, Olivier Besancenot, 007, baboulinet, search for any of these adding Mozinor to the request , if you are curious
Well lol Not at all This is really a fanfic of tf1 😳🙃
Anyway https://youtu.be/G4yrb8hRFKQ
It's kind of fun ^^
I work in HVAC, maybe I should move to Europe...
So I was curious about this, and asked my barber (yesterday) how much the aircon he had installed was.
I was told the unit costs (~£1600) were exceeded by the install/labour, and that all they did was the unit fitting & plumbing/pipe to the external unit. An electrician had to be separately hired to wire it all up.
So I’m conservatively guessing somewhere around 3.5k all in.
For one of those normal units, I’d estimate as about 70x25cm, cooling an area less than my living room.
I’d say anyone looking for a trade in the UK right now, would be wise to skill up on doing it as a one stop shop, and cash in for the next decade.
Portland, Oregon, in °C (cause I never learned Fahrenheit)
It’s not typically known for being a hot place, but this is just the weather report for today.
We’re so very fucked.
(yes watch is in Japanese cause that’s what I grew up speaking and I don’t want to lose it despite having pretty good English, get off my back)
Edit: and then I checked the weather report for later. We’re not cooked, temporarily. Grand scheme of things, thoroughly fucked. But the eye of the storm feels nice.
Hey friend, you sound like you’ve had a rough time with people trying to get you to “integrate” or some such. Your choices of how you experience the world and technology aren’t any one else’s concern and whatever they are, they are valid. I live and work in highly international environments and basically everyone prefers their native tongue for things like computer/phone interface.
Fuck the haters, stay cool, peace out ✌️
I learned English when I was eleven and spent my twenties and thirties masking as yet another basic white American chick, and then in my late thirties I realized that just cause I’m not the exact ethnicity I needed to be for my childhood to be easily believable (white kid growing up on an Air Force base in rural Japan) that I didn’t need to hide it, and that I should celebrate who I was when I was barely a meter tall, thirty years ago. I try my best to keep up my Japanese, but I don’t look like someone who speaks it, which is great when I overhear people shit talking me for being trans or whatnot.
I could take an hour and learn Fahrenheit, but I just don’t want to. I know Fahrenheit for values over 300 anyway: set oven to the number on the box.
さあ、しょうがないね。
(dear solitary downvoter: I’m interpreting your solitary downvote as me explaining my reasoning for why I am how I am, and you just saying “no” with no further context or detail. It was folks like you that caused me to mask up and hide my past for so long. In conclusion, go fuck yourself, solitary downvoter. I’m not gonna fade out of existence, or go back to pretending I like cappuccino and Blazers, just cause you said “no.”)
I've lived within an hour or so of Portland for 40 years, and 24C (75F) has always been a reasonable temperature for late June
Yeah, I’m not looking forward to the oncoming parade of 40s in July though.
Highs in the 30s in June is icky though.
Future is way hipper than we expected it to be.
This was an accurate representation of their report, 12 years ago.
Their latest report has moved on. Now focused on what it looks like if/when we finally decided to do something.
To be fair the chart on top suggests that it gets so much warmer that they had to revise the colours.
Well of course major climate change occurs when you flatten all the terrain.
I hate modern graphics, it sucked the art out of everything digital.
Dude I am stuck on how terrible the numbers are to look at. Seriously how have all the graphic changes been this much worse?
wat
It's meant to be a joke, it clearly didn't land like I thought, oh well.
The new map has no terrain detail, so I, jokingly, took to mean that they literally flatted out the terrain. Which would cause all sorts of climate change.