17 degrees Celsius is a nice balmy temperature is it not?
This is average of the whole world, including polar areas and places where right now it’s winter.
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
A couple of years back we had a day in December (I think it was the week before Christmas) in which it was so hot that people were sitting in T-Shirts in the “Beer Garden” (German thing for an open-air Pub). I think it was like 23°C, in December…
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.
Hopefully this can accelerate some good anti-heat paint and solar shade projects.
Personally I just want more trees and for big mega parking lots to be ripped out
Yes plz. We need more carbon sinks. Less trees means less oxygen, which means more co2 and more of these crazy weather patterns. There are cooperations that only see profit and sadly a lot see it only in the short term. Were is my green city where the walls have vegetation on them. Eco friendly and probably insulates pretty well.
Just in time but not cheap because… Money!
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.
You hear that Venus? We’re coming for you!
Source toot: https://mas.to/@advisorybriefs/110735907070699446
Data source: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
Thank you!
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
I didn’t get the sense that they’re saying China’s the sole reason for pollution - we all understand that it’s an issue globally - that article is just showing an example of how, instead of fixing the problem, the powerhouse countries of the world are doubling down on pollution.
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.
the a.c. broke in my apartment wish me luck guys
Thank fuck for that. Now if we can only turn off all the other a.c. as well, we’d have made a start!
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.
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.
Do you live outside? Under a liquid cooled tree? In a temperate zone? Never used electricity in your life?
Bro imagine intentionally living in a temperate zone where you don’t need expensive resources to not die. I cannot believe these people. Total morons. Living in a swamp or desert is fucking genius.
Your privilege is showing. Not everybody is lucky enough to live in paradise.
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.
f
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
I used to be subbed to /r/collapse. I see world news is covering that for me.
Yhe they do think of everything
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.
Has been in earnest since about 2014 by my watch
Me too but lately I feel like I don’t miss it too much. It’s all around us now. You either see it, or you’re an asshole.
Man, I’m so glad this global warming thing is leftist propaganda or I’d really be freaking out right now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
BuT CO2 iS pLaNt FoOd! Why do you hate plants!
I heard that on talk radio once too. 20 years ago!
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.”
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”
:|
>:(
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.
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.
But the rich are supplying a demand. And a ton of innovation wouldn’t be there without them.
Like the explosion motor?
What’s an explosion motor? Motor ain’t supposed to explode.
… Do you really not know how combustion engines work?
They use combustion.
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?
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.
Demand driving the demand?
Does needing something increase the need for it by itself into infinite need?
The worst kind of bootlicking.
Oh no, I was called a bootlicker and my ego will now collapse…
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.
Imagine thinking CEOs drive innovation lmao
Why does it seem like there are a ton more conservatives here on Lemmy than there were on Reddit?
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.
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.
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).
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)
Idk. I’m on kbin and haven’t experienced that. Usually when I wish violent death on conservatives I get a ton of upvotes.
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.
But they kinda do. Imagine Samsung or Apple stopping innovation. Company goes bankrupt.
Oh brother
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 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.
deleted by creator
You mean the innovation that’s destroying the planet? Ok bro.
Removed by mod
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
Europe has had plenty of fatal heatwaves in the past.
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://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.
adapting to extreme weather events shouldn’t be too hard. Maybe start building European style housing.
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).
You can always find these people and make them find out. They are actively committing genocide against the human race.
Thanks to denial, I’m immortal!
Inspector 5 gave me his blessing!
How could he bring me into this world knowing I would die?
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.
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.
Ask them if they’ll be at the beach when it’s 55c out and all the crops have died.
Don’t forget crops. You can’t eat heat.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You might wanna do some research into why ice ages and interglacial periods happened.
Spoiler alert: it’s the composition of the air.
Nature doesn’t do shit this funny.
My brother in Christ. We’re supposed to be in an Ice Age now.
We are in an ice age right now.
The trailing end of an ice age anyway.
Is this comment satire?
Questioning acknowledged truths isn’t always denial. Science moves forward by constantly challenging established facts. It allows us to have a more detailed and solid understanding of phenomena. Climate change deniers are generally uninformed (to put it mildly), but I’m tired of people who get triggered by any question about climate change data. Information is power y’all!
Not even Lemmy is safe from climate change deniers.
You don’t own the Internet or truth motherfucker
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
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.
to be fair records only go back like 200 years tho but it is still telling about the direction
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.
they have daily readings from cores?
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
not sure why you’re downvoted. It’s a good question.
The herd acts in mysterious ways… one would have thought we left those practices in the R-site…
deleted by creator
sadreality
to be fair records only go back like 200 years tho but it is still telling about the direction
Yes… that is how records work lol…
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.
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).
approximation is not a record tho
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. 🙄
i suggested no such thing, you made that last part up for yourself.
i am just highlighting that comparing data from different sources/methods of collection is not proper apples to apples comparison. but sure have a melt down over it lol
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.
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.
To be fair, everything earlier than 200 years ago is irrelevant. We’ve built our current society and civilization in the current climate. If it changes too fast and too much, we won’t be able to adapt in time and our society and civilization will be damaged or destroyed. That is what we should aim to prevent.
Whether it was even hotter while we were living in caves, or whether a couple million humans could survive the climate apocalypse doesn’t matter. If it comes to that point, we’ve already failed.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
