We just hit 1.5 C above per-industrial levels for the first time.
3 years ago by ruford1976 to c/world
The IPCC calculations were always criticized for being overly optimistic. Anyone following this debate knew that we would hit 1.5 C sooner rather than later.
We are definitely going to hit 3 degrees in our lifetime, once the melting tundras release their methane store.
Melting tundra releases methane, accelerating the increase in temperature. Rising temperature reduces polar ice, making oceans absorb more heat, accelerating heating. Climate pattern changes cause more frequent and larger wildfires, accelerating heating.
There are probably processes that work to reduce heating as it increases that I'm not aware of, but there are a lot of positive feedback processes which is concerning.
I believe the IPCC 1.5C was criticized because it included effects of a carbon sequestering process that hasn't been invented yet. That's pretty optimistic.
There are probably processes that work to reduce heating as it increases
Nuclear war, for one. In a more naturalistic vein, asteroid strike or massive volcanic eruptions. People worried about climate change just refuse to look on the bright side.
Which is why I support the idea of setting up bases on the Moon and/or Mars.
Everything is accelerating, and nobody gives a fuck to do anything before it's too late. I hate the argument that NASA doesn't push its budget to prevent CC or even Space X. Because stopping CC is a global effort on a colossal scale. It's not going to work until it's too late. Might as well get off this rock.
Edit: Very fucking optimistic of you all
Ignore them. They're so hopelessly black-pilled, they're not likely to support any significant course of action.
We're gonna have to kickstart human expansion into space to not only save ourselves from climate collapse but also what's left of the biosphere. You're not wrong at all.
If we can't make Earth livable we certainly can't make the Moon or Mars livable. At best it will be a handful of people living miserably for a short time. "Get off this rock" just isn't a realistic option, and we don't have the time to make it so.
The Earth would be more habitable than the Moon and Mars even in worse than worse case scenario climate change conditions. The atmosphere will still protect us from cosmic radiation, and we won’t need pressurized suits and habitats. A lot of people will suffer and die, but humanity will not go extinct because of climate change, our society will though.
If anyone is curious about what 3C looks like, here's a solid video on how a 3C world would look.
https://youtu.be/uynhvHZUOOo?si=yk8rvR1Bg3t4aKGe
It's 16 minutes so as a TL;DW: Not "extinction event" but extremely bad. Areas of the globe will simply become unlivable - and these areas tend to be highly populated. The resulting mass migrations and shortages of water/food will lead to conflict, often between nuclear powers. End result: humanity will keep on living, but it will be a significantly more deadly environment and a significantly more conflict-prone political environment. Economic collapse will hit major metropolitan centers.
If watching the video bums you out try to focus on the absolutely bonkers cool sideburns the climate scientist has. Cheered me up a little. Like a handsome person telling you that you have a bad disease.
Anyway, vote for climate-positive outcomes wherever possible and consider joining a climate lobbyist group. I'm a member of this one but I'm sure there are others.
As if all that is not depressing on its own, there just a little less than half of the world that believe it’s a hoax. While they’re being cooked alive. And continue to vote for politicians that perpetuate the idea it’s a hoax.
what's worse is that it's actually 1.6 C
it says in the article here
Data released last week from Copernicus, a branch of the European Union Space Programme, shows August was 1.59C warmer than 1850–1900 levels, following a 1.6C increase in July.
Yes but only for a couple of months, averaged over the whole year it's significantly lower than that. Probably still on track to hit the annual average of 1.5 sometime in the next 10-20 years. Still definitely a dire situation but not entirely out of left field based on the recent estimates.
The recent records have now lifted the year-to-date global temperature to the end of August to 1.35C above pre-industrial levels, just 0.01C behind 2016 — the current record holder
i had my doubts. i was questioning the lack of coverage of this news.
regardless there is still good reason to be concerned.
Soooo 3 degrees bij 2050? We are so fucked.
I'm already telling people to get out of Florida*. I expect multiple Katrina-level events over the next 15 years. "Florida refugees" is going to become a common phrase.
Orlando might be more likely to survive than Miami or Tampa, but do you really want to be in the city surrounded by devastation?
We, as humans, seem to have lost the ability to plan more than 20 years into the future. Florida is still building in areas that are going to be crushed, and the only reaction is from insurance companies.
We're not trying to prevent it. We're not building any kind of defenses or contingency plans. We're not encouraging people to move out. We're not preventing people from moving in. In fact, we're building new and encouraging people to move IN to Florida. It's full on head in sand.
If that massive icesheet in Antarctica gives way, Florida will be under water.
At the rate we're going, I think it will take a cataclysm of that level before people will realize how important this thing is.
Man I have like 5 family members and friends just move to Florida. They were tired of the high taxes and politics of California. At least they won't burn in a wildfire though!
I'm literally living 6 meters below sea level. Please send help!
It's nice by the coast though, I'd just put aquatic pilings under my house and have a ruggedised shelter built into it. Even if I live to a hundred and fifty with all the ice melted my land will still be under less water than the intercoastal platforms we've been routinely building since world war one.
Still tracking for 8.5C by 2100!
We will need to drop some ice cubes in the ocean around that time.
Supposedly the new stringent heavy shipping emissions controls are having an impact on the greenhouse effect. Reduction of sulfur dioxide which had a reverse greenhouse effect is warming the oceans up more.
"Carbon Brief analysis shows that the likely side-effect of the 2020 regulations to cut air pollution from shipping is to increase global temperatures by around 0.05C by 2050. This is equivalent to approximately two additional years of emissions."
https://www.carbonbrief.org/....
So this may be our first example of the threats of NOT enacting terraforming for climate change will have.
It proves that creating cloud cover will impact ocean temperature. There are methods of doing this without creating acid rain. Just spray ocean water as a fine mist into the air and you should get some nice fluffy clouds. We have the capability to cover entire oceans in cloud cover to mitigate global warming.
Obviously this would have some unpredictable impacts on weather patterns, but we're already dealing with that no matter what we do. We're at a point where we're desperate enough to try some crazy schemes like this.
After September 11th and the COVID lockdowns, scientists noted an increase in global surface temperature due to the absence of contrails. So yes, this is actually something we are already doing!
Sulfur dioxide however is an even more effective reflector of sunlight compared to water vapor. And don't forget, water vapor is itself a very greenhouse agent that contributes toward planetary heating.
Hank Green had a pretty decent video in this.
https://youtu.be/dk8pwE3IByg?si=lmRdxCnQS6OtYkqL
We can do the same thing without the horrible pollution that ships produced.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I believe by "interesting," you mean "moist." At least, for everyone above/below ±35° latitude.
Also, I hope you enjoyed photosynthesis while it lasted because once the permafrosts at ±60° latitude thaw, we're in for a tough time.
Hate to break it to you, but everyone in the world is either above or below ±35° latitude.
I can't quite figure out if it's supposed to mean everyone within 35° of the equator latitude, or everyone outside it.
They've been saying that literally since the 60's?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand they're still wrong.
Homer, everywhere's gonna be a hellhole if you only focus on the pimps and the chuds.
I have kids. I am fucking livid that the assholes who pretend climate change isn't happening have decided to sacrifice their kids and mine on the altar of making a quick buck.
You can't eat money, assholes. And you can't bring it with you when you die. If the future is nothing but more and more severe weather to the point that civilization collapses under the strain, then I hope you live long enough to see it and are unable to hide from reality anymore.
They think they do. No amount of money will protect a person from the collapse of a civilization. Never has, never will. Their plans are very much predicated on the assumption that markets will somehow magically continue to function after the general populace has lost all faith in them
What about the ultra rich that have built bunkers and have their security outfitted with locking, exploding collars to keep them in line?
I forget who, but some consultant said that they did a talk with a small group of the ultra wealthy that are doing this.
Edit: This is what I was referring to https://www.theguardian.com/...
I think the reference to collars was more a hypothetical in the article as the author was challenging the bunker dudes how would they ensure the people keeping them safe remained loyal, and that none of them considered anything like "treat them like people before the cataclism", it didn't even occur to them at all, instead they proposed a bunch of more controlling measures, which included "disciplinary collars"
They can buy themselves a few years at best without a functioning supply chain. We all depend on society, no matter how much they like to deny it
The ultra-rich will still be dependent on their retinues of loyal followers, whose loyalties will of course be tested by the collapse of civilization. Unless their retinues are robots, of course.
These billionaires imagine they're rich because they're brilliant, not because they're the biggest assholes and lucky (and born rich). They overestimate their independence from all the people and other creatures that actually make the planet and human society work. Once they get to their bunkers or their Mars outpost, perhaps reality will gradually get through to them. They can't escape this using bunkers, rockets and weapons.
Why did you choose to have kids knowing what kind of future they would have? This is the reason I didn't, and also to reduce my footprint in the world. I mean even 20 years ago, it was obvious nothing was going to change. So I don't know why somebody would willingly have children these days.
Sometimes, in an intimate relationship, babies.
Every time, choice.
Cum in her mouth or ass or tits. Get a vasectomy.
Yeah right, like I'd give away my cum.
No kids = no future
But, bringing kids into this mess is practically immoral.
The world has always been a mess. What's your solution, wait until the world has solved every problem before anyone has kids? Humans would never have even evolved if that's the plan.
Even nature is fucked.
No... its simply not. Maybe Jimmy John and Mary sue having a dozen offspring in missouri are a slight part of the problem but your average person have one or two is not the problem.
As with everything in this world: Its the corporations. They are the problem. No amount of reuse, reduction, or recycling by any individual would even register on the graph of emissions/carbon footprint when compared to even a tiny company
I do agree that its irresponsible to subject yet another human being to the future we are careening towards
I mean, I get what you are saying, but if for a few generations only every 10th family would have only 1 child, GHG emissions would fall drastically. Having a kid basically more than doubles 'your' own carbon footprint.
Is this the only, the necessary, or the preferred way? Ofc not. Is it the biggest impact I can personally have on global warming? It is (voting, protesting, buying local & sustainable helps, but whatever you are doing the kids are doing it too).
It's sad bcs there are so many ways we could solve this (at least achieve carbon neutrality, tho we need more than that now), but short-term profits of the current elite would suffer a little tiny bit so we can't do it.
But additionally now we do need to prep to mitigate consequences and damage control (on top of green/ESG investments) ... I wonder if all those profits will be used to finance this ...
117.7 tonnes of Co2e per kid per parent per year in the USA (58.6 tonnes average when including all the poorer countries).Wynes et al. 2017
A conservative estimate is that we need to emit less than 2.1 tonnes in total per person per year to try to prevent catastrophic Anthropogenic climate change. Girod et al. 2013 (life expectancy/2050).
117.7 > 2.1
We need a fertility rate of about 0.01 for several decades.
Human overpopulation is not only the biggest contributor to push us into a climate-change tipping-points cascade, it's also the root cause of almost all its other causes. It's also the root cause of unsustainable habitat loss and pollution. It's also the root cause of factory farming and industrial fishing, which causes more pain and suffering every year than all other atrocities ever committed combined.
As for corporations, they're not burning the planet for shits and giggles - they're psychopaths doing it because billions of people are choosing to buy their goods and services, which they want but don't actually need.
Don't worry about climate change, the US is hell bent on starting global thermonuclear war very soon. We can go fast and crispy instead of slowly choking.
It's just announced plans to get rid of Mutually Assured Destruction and install nukes in Finland. Then they said they don't care if their latest weapon ATACMS is used to attack civilians in Russia. This has been a red line for a long time, they just pushed it.
We're closer to nuclear armoggedon now than ever in your lifetime before.
Every 2a person I've ever met who talks this way wants to shoot the wrong people.
It's almost like maybe we shouldn't rely on the lowest common denominator to resolve complex nuanced issues, huh?
You've never talked to a single socialist, anarchist, leftist, etc. about civilian firearm ownership before? It's very commonly thought of as a necessary evil to prevent systemic oppression. Maybe don't spend so much of your time talking to trumpers and neoconservatives?
To wit: there is no "right people" to want to shoot, and anyone who thinks there is probably has their own tribalism issue to work out. Community defense specifically does not have a target right up until the point someone else is an aggressor, and ends when violence is no longer needed. This is why you never saw "antifa burns down trump supporter's house" or whatever in the news.
No, it’s not. It also solves nothing.
You sound unhinged.
Yeah man, that Thomas Jefferson guy was a real unhinged fuckwad.
that Thomas Jefferson guy was a real unhinged fuckwad
uhh, yeah? he fucked people he didn't consider human, he's at least unhinged as a dogfucker
We had a good run. Good luck to the next species to dominate the earth. May you avoid religious dogma, find an economic system that respects your natural environment, and a political system that respects the right to live a clean and healthy world.
Mosquitos are like “that species was delicious. I wonder what the next one will taste like”
we probably taste like shit.. they sit around the campfire and remember the good old days of fresh, free range Dino blood as far as the proboscis could poke.. not this Walmart meat they get now..
I dunno, they seem fucking determined to get as much of my blood as possible, little fuckers.
@Gsicht @Sterile_Technique And “pragmatic” solutions to the climate crisis. Oh wait …!
I mean, we left the planet. We created art. We did some good, and life will diversify again after we're gone.
they might just carry on until this planet is molten
The odds of true runaway warming are very low, the planet has both been much hotter and had much higher CO2 levels in the past. The Holocene is actually a cool period, geologically.
We're just going to make it too hot to grow enough crops to feed the world.
it seems pretty likely that microprocessors will survive us, and give a BIG jump start to any species that follows. literacy seems to be a longer shot, but still a possible stepping stone for some other organism to take over our work. my money is on fungi to figure out microprocessors. if not them, then plants, especially "weeds". finally, ocean mammals might be able to work some of the junk we've made and cargo-cult themselves into the information age.
i really am hopeful for life on earth to survive the death of Sol.
we did just waste a good few million years of evolution though (let's say 65 million accounting for the rise of mammals). earth isn't going to be habitable forever, from memory there's less than a billion years left before the temp would increase with the expanding sun enough to make liquid water impossible. feels like we kind of shot earth in the foot a bit here
65 million years isn't that bad on a geologic scale
As long as there isn't a runaway greenhouse effect that turns Earth to Venus, life would almost certainly continue, with or without us.
Is there any reason you would think me not producing art means that humans haven't?
Realistically, extinction would be sweet relief compared to what is actually in store for humans with climate change. More likely that we hang around in smaller communities and death / suffering is even more widespread.
I mean realistically it's all going to hell sooner or later. You'll start with millions of climate refugees, closed borders, violence. Then climate wars (a wall with machine guns isn't going to stop people who have no other way to survive). And if a country with nukes (like India) finds itself uninhabitable then things are really going south. Next up you have a possible nuclear war and the end of humanity as we know it.
Sure, a small amount of humans might survive, but civilization will go down in chaos. Even areas that are inhabitable and have plenty of water will break down, because the local infrastructure can't support hundreds of thousands of refugees forcing their way in.
You’ll start with millions of climate refugees
Millions? If only.
I've seen estimates which say at least a billion by 2050:
Oh, I was more thinking per area. Not all refugees will go to the same place.
It will start with millions and that might already be enough to cause collapse. When it's over a billion it's already over.
I've seen estimates that say a billion dead by 2100 is the most optimistic possible outcome. Even the notoriously cautious IPCC is making the most unimaginably dire predictions:
In its report focusing on the impacts of global warming on people and the planet, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that every inhabited continent is already experiencing multiple climate impacts, from droughts and flooding to biodiversity loss and falling food production. Between 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in areas “highly vulnerable to climate change,” the authors warn, with “additional severe risks” should the Earth warm beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). (From an article in Forbes magazine.)
Food and water wars.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
eventually boil us alive!
eventually? https://www.wired.com/...
eventually? don't trip in the street https://www.nbcnews.com/...
sorry, eventually was like 2005. we've entered the lethal zone and it's only going to get worse.
The humid areas will suffer and become uninhabitable first. As the wet bulb temps get higher than normal body temperature, and make it impossible for the natural human evaporative cooling system to work. - basically sweat won't be enough to keep cool anymore. And youll essentially have to walk around in a bubble with a dehumidifier to survive.
If they gave them real life motives, that would radicalize a whole generation lol
Haven't they heard of the american method? Don't they know the cure for X is more X?
We just need to add some more global warming and that will solve global warming!
Or is that just applicable to guns and debt?
Nah - it'll just pivot to "Well it's too late now - no reason to hold back".
I genuinely wonder why eco-terrorism isn't already a meaningful "problem" - I don't mean "some protestors blocked a road for a couple of hours or flinged some paint and soup around" - I mean "You're working to kill all known life in the universe, and we're doing whatever it takes to stop you."
There's no one funding it. If some of the billionaires can direct their money to make renewables adopted in the mainstream we can be in a much better place now. But, you know to have that amount of money the switch that also governs your care for the environment gets switched off too.
The problem is far worse than what any single billionaire can fix. Billions of dollars are being poured into renewable energy infrastructure. It's just that while this is happening, we're also emitting the same amount of CO2 as always. The only long-term resolution of this is de-growth.
Explosives and rifles aren't expensive. There's a reason the best funded military in the world consistently gets slowed up by insurgents.
While big funding would certainly help, this is more an issue of motivation (which expensive media campaigns would certainly help).
I'm not advocating for any of this, but as long as innocents weren't caught up in it, I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it either.
You joke, but I've seen those kinds of arguments, especially online.
Some time back, someone argued that global warming was a self-solving problem because the oceans reflect light and heat energy back out into space, so as the earth warms and the oceans rise, the ability to reflect that heat will increase and we could even go back into an ice age because of it.
That is, of course, not really how it's going to go. Massive ecological collapse and possible human extinction would occur due to the initial warming, first off, even before you get to the arguments about... Everything else at the crux of that.
For a long time, one of the talking points of climate change denial wasn't that it wasn't happening but that it was normal for us to go through heating and cooling cycles, so just deal with it and wait it out, we survived the last ice age so we can survive this heat wave, right? But again, that's mostly bullshit.
Well, the global warming is a self-solving problem. The nature will just make itself uninhabitable for humans.
Congratulations to the small, niche organisms, waiting to fill the gap left by the mammals!
Bad news to a lot of those organisms though, the Extinction Level Event doesn't stop at humans. I'm not sure what's resilient enough to survive. Cockroaches maybe? Rats?
You ain't going to do a thing against bacteria. You could scour the entire surface and they'll just be like 'Welp, time to hang out underground for a couple of thousand years'
I think snow and ice would be better at reflecting but we seem to get rid of those ice caps.. But when the ice melts, it cools down the ocean so of course, problem solved!
There is indeed an upper limit for global warming, because hot bodies lose more energy by radiating heat than colder ones. I think the equilibrium of energy gained by the sun and lost by heat radiation from the earth is at something like +5K in average global temperature. I doubt humanity would survive this though, civilization definitely won't.
The homeopathic approach to climate change. Great.
Homeopathic processes aim at curing by introducing a very low concentration of the disease, so effectively curing x by adding x. I think your example would make sense if it was oil or CO2 instead of a tree.
Burning a tree also sets free a lot of CO2. :) Heating with wood is not sustainable at all, unlike some lobbyist made us beliveve.
But yeah, oil would have been the more obvious example.
I am so glad that garbage uses homeopathic rather than holistic these days. You want a doctor that takes a holistic approach, they're looking at your whole body not just their specialty. Homeopathic =/= holistic.
The environment is ok and all, but we need to think about the economy.
Is there anything i could/can do to make a difference?
Apart from the voting which is above all else, if you REALLY want to do something on an individual basis, you should reduce your meat or become a vegetarian. It seems that's what experts claim has the biggest impact. Apart from that, don't have children, or 2 at most.
There are other things you can do individually as well, like try using the car and AC less, and generally live more frugally.
But remember that 100 companies make up 71% of all human made carbon emissions. It's good to act locally, but we need global action to stop these companies and their supporters, that means voting for competent government.
They will respond faster to heavy regulations/taxation, national policy shifts towards renewable energies, fossil fuel bans and nationalisation/forced liquidation.
No individual is their primary customer, and doesn't have the negotiating power to affect them, they are effectively Mega corps, and immune even to certain national laws.
Vote for a government that will affect them, the other meaningful option (for individuals) is sabotage/Eco-terrorism, which isn't really a long-term solution.
When the parties on offer are various flavours of neoliberalism, as in most capitalist countries these days, it doesn't give you any options that will make a difference quick enough. They simply can't do what needs to be done within that economic framework.
That said, vote for the least worst one. But the most significant things have to be done outside of that electoral framework, because it can't resist the demands of short-term profit.
Yup, my wife and I both want kids.
We're now pretty set on adoption.
Same with atheism, religious people have more children, so the religious population is increasing, despite people deconverting.
My family had one kid. So we went from I believe seven grandparents and great aunts and uncles down to one child just within two generations!
At this rate my family could depopulate the whole planet in no time.
Also a friend of mine just told me that he met a lady who had 22 siblings so...
adoption
Going vegetarian doesn't seem to be the most impactful when you look at the numbers, as per this video. Vegan diets still have the lowest GHG footprint and GWP of all diets.
That being said, I went vegetarian first before going vegan. So your point is entirely valid.
If you want to see what the heck veganism is about compared to vegetarianism, check this resource out.
But yeah! Leather is also bad for the same reason, contributing to the same industry. There are alternatives out there so don't feel bad!
One step at a time, like you've mentioned in your other comments.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
reduce your meat or become a vegetarian
i'm dubious about this. don't get me wrong: i try to make sure at least half my calories come from soylent. i'm saying i have looked at the methodology, and it doesn't seem sound. HAVING READ THE RELEVANT STUDIES it's not clear to me that the researchers are even drawing correct conclusions.
here's an example that i think can be extrapolated across many data points: cotton seed. first, cotton is grown for textiles. like, exclusively. like, the only reason to grow cotton is for textiles. BUT you can increase the profits from your cotton harvest if you sell the seed to cattle operations. so cattle are fed cottonseed. then the water and land-use costs of cotton get rolled into the costs of raising cattle. but that's nonsensical. cottonseed is purely waste product, and giving it to cattle CONSERVES resources.
soybeans are another thing altogether, and the complexity of the whole agricultural system implies, to me at least, that maybe it's not so simple as "reduce your meat intake".
I must admit it''s not super intuitive to me either, but it seems the consensus is pretty strong among experts, and I haven't taken the time to really delve in deep on the issue.
But apparently a significant part of the problem is that cows make a lot of methane, that is a very bad greenhouse gas, and when it breaks down it's to CO2 which is still a greenhouse gas. So kind of a bad double dip as I understand it.
Shall i give fatwa for Green Jihad?
Depends on your definition of peaceful. Industrial sabotage that specifically targets unmanned equipment would still be peaceful by my definition, for example.
Vote!
Oh boy not the false equivalence again. If you don't give a shit yourself then don't vote.
It makes a difference who gets the power, and your main influence is your power to vote.
Yes, some that really give a shit might not be a part of a major party in whatever country you live in, but even among established parties there are people who are more inclined to do something about the climate catastrophe than others.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure the deficit we could create on an individual basis will just be used by companies instead, so I'm just gonna agree with the others on voting being the most effective method of making a difference.
Some changes people (in the US or elsewhere) might want to check into:
- See if your local electric utility has Green Power programs where you can elect to have your power come from renewables (via credits) for 2-5% of your bill/month extra
- If you own a home, consider making switches to more electrified stuff like: induction cookstoves v. natural gas, heat pumps v. AC units, power tools that have batteries and/or cables v. gasoline or diesel, adding solar panels to your roof or property (only costs ~$20k these days), etc.
- Start moving your pensions or stocks into greener index funds, or even consider adopting banks and credit unions that publicly disclose which projects and companies they invest your dollar in
- Consider buying your groceries from local farmer's markets or farms that have mail-to-your-door programs (aka CSAs or Community Supported Agriculture programs); this is a good resource to learn more about the farms near you
- Switch to non-red meat diets, and then after that switch to a vegetarian diet, and then after that switch to a vegan diet (all while consulting health professionals); this is a good resource on vegan diets if anyone is curious
- Consider choosing a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV; 100% electric) or a Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV; 50/50 electric/gas) as your new car; this resource can steer you in the right direction
- Vote in primary elections where candidates prioritize climate action, then vote for them again in general elections when the time comes; this is a good resource to stay up on current civic events
- Buy clothing/shoes used, or if you need to buy new, look for the GOTS and OEKO-TEX labels to make sure what you're buying is organic, is ethical, and doesn't pollute local environments of where your clothes/shoes are made
If we all stop breathing at the same time...
Don't procreate. Or if you do just yeet the baby into a furnace to skip a few steps, same outcome really.
We did it boys, cold is no more
We won the cold war
We came, we cold, we conquer
Yeah, it should at least be reported in Fahrenheit. Then you can say 98.6°F is normal human temperature whereas 2.7° higher, 101.3, is an unpleasant fever. Then imagine if that fever never goes away. At 5.4° higher (the 3°C we will almost certainly hit), your brain boils.
It's Americans you mainly need to market to.
Climate change must be stopped by any means necessary. Start doing what must be done. You know what that means.
It's not enough. We (rich and not so rich) must either consume less, or be less people.
The first route involves changing technologies AND habits. And I'm not talking about recyclable bags or save water at home.
You change habits by making it more expensive to do unsustainable shit. Very few states here in the US are willing to properly tax carbon emissions. Very few Americans are willing to remove the subsidies that the beef industry enjoys which would see steak at $35/lb.
Just saying "consume less" does very little. People respond to incentives. Peoples' wallets are big incentives.
Recycle harder?
Consume local!
I HAVE ALL THE PAPER STAWS* IM DOING MY BEST!!! *now with more cancer microplastics!
What does that mean? I'm a little slow over here, but happy to help.
Economic sabotage and guerrilla warfare if necessary
Big words, why don't you go ahead and show us how it's done then? Or are you just going to chest pound from behind your monitor?
Such a counterproductive useless attitude. Not trying to be mean, but rhetoric like this is what spurs inaction.
Careful, gonna cut yourself on all that edge dickhead.
Almost Pizza! https://youtube.com/watch?v=KLHRjaUBb3o
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=KLHRjaUBb3o
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
And if you close your eyes and imagine, EVERYTHING looks like a pizza!
Tremendous, very smart people are saying it's the biggest change we've ever seen. Nobody has ever seen the numbers this high before. The best people are saying we have the highest numbers. Isn't that something?
By Jove it's simply splendid!
Extinction event goes vroom
Again, I'm not going to read that. It will just make me sad and angry a d nothing will change.
Politicians don't give a shit, even of they'd understand what is going on, they're mostly too dumb...
Things are going to get a LOT worse and nobody seems to understand that there is no quick fix here. "Yeah but CO2 scrubbers can..." no they cannot. Building those generates tonnes of CO2, then run ing them effectively generates CO2 as well. Think about it. Even if you put them on a solar grid (which too will initially cost CO2, not hugely important but just to keep in mind), the electricity that that grid generates to pull 100 tonnes of CO2 out of the air will NOT be available to other systems which will generate 150 tonnes of CO2 for their electricity.
Untill ALL electricity is solar, wind or nuclear, it literally is just throwing away energy. It's actually more efficient to just connect those solar cells for your CO2 scrubbers to the electrical grid. You won't pull 100 out, but now at least somewhere else won't put in 150 into the system.
And even if they work. Do you have any idea how much CO2 we currently generate, and worse, how much we have generated that is in the atmosphere that we need to pull out for things to get better?
The current state of CO2 scrubbers is close to carrying water out of the ocean with buckets.
You wanna pull the extra CO2 out of the air? We've been adding extra on an industrial scale for near 2 centuries. RHAT amount of CO2 is what we need to pull out to get back to what it should be.
You always have losses with conversions, but taking that the earth has beeb pulling more CO2 you can more or less say that getting all the extra CO2 out of the atmosphere will take at least the same amount of energy that we've been generating with burning fossil fuels for the past 2 centuries. Think about it, were talking spending energy to pull air through a system, spending energy to filter the CO2, spending energy to store it, spending the same amount of energy we got from bur ing fuels to split the c from the O2 (same process in reverse), then spend energy to process and store all that carbon. Mayke Plastics out of it, maybe? Storing co2 is a problem as the amounts are astronomical. Where do youbstire cubic kilometers of CO2 , every year? If it escapes your back to square one.
Yes, that is a shit load of energy that we can't produce all at once. For the next decades we'll have to dedicate 25-50% of our energy output to cleanit the atmosphere, there is no way around that, there are no free lunches here.
Electrical cars are NOT the solution. For a small part, maybe, but mostly not. Electrical cars require roughly the same amiunt of energy as a gas car, that still needs to be generated. We need to use less energy. Wasting tonnes on energy on transporting 2 tonnes just to move a 70kgs person for a few kms is just insane. Use bikes. Walk. Use public transportation.
You wanna solve the climate change crisis?
- make sure all central electrical power generation is solar /wind /water /nuclear within 10 years. Until we are at that point, the rest doesn't even matter.
1a) in parallel, start redesigning all our cities to become walkable. This doesn't mean the conspiracy bullshit that American criminally lying politicians are saying, this means that stored and stuff we want is close by. Cities will be primarily for people, not cars. You can walk to stores because they're close by. You can use bicycles to go everywhere we want. Public transportation can take care of the rest and with that we can get rid of 90+% of cars. Not because it's forbidden, hit because we'll designed cities don't NEED cars.
There are loads of things that can't go electrical, like airplanes. Reminds me: BUILD TRAINS. FFS America get your shit together and start building good railroads. Then you can get rid of half your airplane flights. Most flights are short enough that a high speed train is faster than flying anyway. The longer flights s yous still need cannot go electrical. You'll need to build and run scrubbers spending the same amount of energy as those airplanes (and other systems that can't go electrical) just to make sure their CO2 doesn't add to the problem.
increase our energy capacity by a factor of two. We need to generate twice the amount of energy (all green) so that 50% can go to scrubbing our atmosphere for the next, say, century.
think about how to store all the captured CO2 or convert it to plastics or something.(double the energy required)
get ready to pay 2-3 times more for our energy. We've been the party generation who have enjoyed cheap energy from burning crap. The next 3-4 generations at least will be paying the bill, that is if they get to live to do so.
THIS IS IMPORTANT, I CANNOT CLARIFY THIS ENOUGH:
None of us will see this problem solved. Even if we actually seriously start working on fixing this shit today, we will be long dead and gone before this is done. THERE IS NO QUICK FIX. It took centuries to get here, it will take at least a century to get back where we started
Anyone claiming that this is easy to solve, sorry, is lying.
This is the biggest threat mankind has faced and people somehow just don't give a shit and it is fucking depressing
Everything you said tracks except 5. Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, and that's with the subsidies for fossil fuels.
From a purely economic perspective fossil fuels don't make sense anymore, they're being kept around because fossil fuel companies are using immense amounts of money to fight against renewables.
People seem to forget renewable energy is essentially free. Sure there's maintenance and upfront cost but that's true for all energy generation. Fossil fuels simply can't compete and it's only going to get worse as we get better at collecting renewable energy.
No.
We're going to be paying 2-3 times more because we need to create enormous amounts of extra energy to clean the atmosphere.
That, and renewable energy isn't free either. Solar panels require regular replacement as they (still) degrade quite a bit (too much) over time. If I'm not mistaken, they still require replacement every 10 or so years.
Windmills require regular maintenance. The power grid requires maintenance.
Wind and solar requires enormous batteries that degree and require regukar replacements.
Renewables are only so so renewable, don't expect to pay anything less for the same amount of energy. Then now we will have to generate these enormous amounts of extra energy to take the CO2 out, who is going to pay for that? We all are.
So yeah, do expect to pay 2-3 times more for energy when this all starts, ideally tomorrow but likely 20 years from now as we're still not done partying.
I already mentioned maintenance.
You people act like coal plants don't have teams of maintenance engineers onsite 24/7.
I'm not acting like anything. I am fully aware of the requirements of fossil fuels. I'm mentioning all the requirements for "renewables" because there people typically act as if there are zero costs (and pollution and maintenance) related with it.
I'm not pro fossil fuels, not at all. Don't get me wrong. I'm simply saying that were Ina SERIOUSLY fucked situation that simply won't be solved within our generation, if ever at all. We're at a cliff and a small group just keeps partying while shuffling closer and the rest of the world gleefully shuffles right after them. A few renewables are not going to fix this
Price doesn't matter if it's cloudy like most winters with barely any sun and the wind is not blowing. Solar also won't work at night and energy storage is crap, batteries are very much not renewable. Of course there is reversible hydro plants but these can't be used everywhere and are a disaster for local ecosystems.
Everyone is acting like renewables will fix everything.. They won't. The only thing that can replace fossil fuels right now is nuclear, which is also not renewable, but at least we have plenty of fuel for it.
if we were to replace current fossil plants with nuclear, the fuel runs out in 70-100. years and will get much more expensive. Think about paying ten times your electricity bill in 20 years.
It is possible to run a 100% renewable grid, using technology like hydrogen or other chemical storage system.
Solar wont have the output in winter. Nuclear plants will have to shut down in summer, because the water supply will get unstable. France nuclear heavy energy production could collapse within the next two decades if the current trend of lower river water continues. And there is no reason to believe otherwise.
But the biggest issue is that the grid is thought the wrong way around. Currently the supply is adjusted to the demand. But for many applications the demand can be adjusted to the supply. On the household level that means your fridge and washing machine to run, when there is a lot of energy available. On the industrial level that means to automate productions and adjust their intensity to available energy.
Not all nuclear plants are the same. Some can use nuclear waste as fuel. Others are small and modular which allows them be turned on and off as needed and also be deployed easier and cheaper. We need solutions sooner, rather than later. Nuclear tech is here now, storage for renewables still needs more time to refine and streamline.
Thermal hydro has pretty much solved the storage problem and solar works fine during the winter.
There are many solutions to storage, not many being used. If someone is talking about storage, in 90% of cases they mean batteries and until that changes the problem isn't solved.
As for solar during winter, it might work, barely, but at much lower output just because you have a lot less sunlight during a day. So you have to cover 16-17 hours of no light with just 7-8 hours of sun. This varies wildly depending on location of course.
I'm sure it will all work out.
(later)
💀
This is the best summary I could come up with:
This year is now almost certain to become Earth's warmest on record after a hot July and August saw global temperatures reach the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels for the first time.
Data released last week from Copernicus, a branch of the European Union Space Programme, shows August was 1.59C warmer than 1850–1900 levels, following a 1.6C increase in July.
This upward swing should ensure 2023 becomes the new warmest year on record, an assessment shared by the Bureau of Meteorology's Senior Climatologist Blair Trewin.
"If current 2023 temperature anomalies are maintained, or increase, over the last four months of the year that would be sufficient for an annual record to be set," he said.
Major global climatological records have fallen at a rapid rate across the Earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere and cryosphere, including:
"A large part of it is the removal of the cooling influence of La Niña which has been suppressing global temperatures over the last two to three years," Mr Trewin said.
The original article contains 531 words, the summary contains 167 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Apocalypse, here we come!
Money loves predictible crises
Seems bad
there is no hightech stuff. The idea that some miracolous savior technology will come around is peddled to prevent the transformation away from fossil fuels and our current economy of working too much to consume too much and stay in the hamster-wheel.
We already have the technologies and the sooner we scale them up the better. But we also need social and economic reforms, where we stop measureing society in terms of GDP and stop providing the means for uber rich individuals to get even more rich. We cannot afford the billionaires any longer and that is why they fight so much to ruin mankind as a whole, instead of providing a good lufe to everybody.
What's per industrial playa pimp
I live in one of the blue spots. It's not that I don't believe this, but we have been cooler than average.
Which is exactly what you'd expect given what the blue represents? Does that mean you ignore the rest of the planet? Do you understand that we're talking about the temperature of the entire earth, right?
What ever happen to the big ole hole in the ozone back in the 80s and 90s??....
They're separate problems, linked mostly in terms of humans being a cause of both. With CFCs/HCFCs now phased out, the ozone layer is slowly repairing itself and should be back to pre-1980 levels in the next 30-40 years or so. This will be good for helping to prevent skin cancer, and it will marginally affect the climate (e.g. lower ozone is associated with lower humidity), but it's not going to do much to mitigate global warming.
We still have to put on plenty of sunscreen in Australia because of it (if you believe Australia exists, of course!).
I recently saw an article about the clouds on Uranus that seem to be missing. Scientists attribute it to the solar cycle.
Meanwhile here on earth, nearly 19 AU closer to the sun, it's all our fault.
@lemmy.world
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/...
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/...
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
go to feed...
A decade ago, It was predicted that we would hit 1.5°C between 2050-2060, and even as recently as 2 years ago the prediction had moved forward to between 2030-2040.
The next decade or two are going to be very... interesting
save