There’s too much red in this picture. They really should use another baseline. If red would start only at 40 Degree Celsius, the globe would look much more welcoming.
Look, I’m just trying to give productive feedback.
Except China is proud of their red.
Our red
The whole situation with climate change feels so hopeless.
I think the worst part of it is that its not actually hopeless, at least not in theory. It’s just that we, or more accurately the people with actual power, refuse to act because it would mean slightly less profit.
I fully believe that if the world comes together, a united global effort, it is solvable, but we won’t.
Me too, specially when I was younger I thought we could change the world for good if united. I saw cristal clear that the rich wanted to be richer at the expense of the poorer, but as I grew older and saw the reality and stupidity of the world (Like Trump, a massively rich guy being massively voted by the poorest and less educated people) I lost hope. I came to realize that education and stoicism and the best tools the human race has to progress to a healthy society. So that’s what I try to share now when I can.
I’m going to gently remind you that Drumpf’s base is actually on avg. wealthier than the opposition’s base. That’s why you get those obnoxious trucks, flags and infinite merchandise (courtesy of Chinese workers).
No need to smear the common people, it’s simply a fact that democracy is not a real tool for change.
Nono look at the 10 poorest states in America(with worse living conditions). They all voted majority Trump, some of the porest counties in the USA are literally voting 80% for trump
If you listen to Obama on that podcast recently (whom those people probably voted for too), paraphrasing: he says economic anxiety makes people prone to risk taking, emotional voting and feel racial resentment.
Median income is BS though. If me and Elon musk make up the test then it would show we have a median income of billions. …I don’t have anywhere close to billions. So a bunch of poor people vote trump and ten billionaires vote trump so trump voters are better off on a average? That’s a joke
They used exit polls, so I doubt the data includes that. It’s likely that anomalies are cut out too if the data is processed this way - they also compare the median to the state median to make the comparison more meaningful, which is how we ‘know’ that his base is wealthier.
Apologies for using Nat Sliver as a source.
Yes but that’s only true due to a suite of nefarious influences having to do with things like voter suppression, gerrymandering, dark money and manufactured voter apathy.
We have to accept that democracy is too easy to ‘manage’ and has been since its inception. We need local democracy badly.
There are various versions of democracy. Some are far more effective at implementing the will of their constituents than others.
In my opinion the problem isn’t democracy itself, but rather, has to do with the many various ways in which it’s implemented.
The US version of democracy, for example, is very old, clunky and buggy as fuck because it was created by 18th century white men, some of whom were slave owners, and all of whom were terrified of the possibility that in creating a new (to them) form of governance they might accidentally create a new mechanism for tyranny.
Accordingly, they deliberately created a system that by design would be almost impossible to change short of massive civil unrest and that to this day is very unresponsive to real public sentiment.
The key is that they designed it that way not because they wanted an efficient democracy, but rather, because they wanted to protect themselves and their rights against the rise of a possible tyrant.
What they created was very stable, but again, it wasn’t responsive, nor was it meant to be responsive, to public opinion.
Since then, political scientists have figured out much better ways to run democracies.
One of my favorites is the Irish Republic which, in the 1920s, instituted a suite of reforms to the US model in creating its government with the result that Ireland has gone from being the last third-world country in western Europe, to now being a thriving and economically developed western European nation with a highly-educated English-speaking population that isn’t obliged to take orders from any of the world’s great powers.
Ireland did this by having a high-functioning modern-style democracy.
Though I mostly agree with you, sometimes I feel human nature is just ugly.
Some very highly educated people have done some very terrible things throughout history.
(Sorry about submitting the half sentence, I meant to hit cancel and then decided to commit after that blunder.)
Though I mostly agree with you, sometimes I feel human nature is just ugly.
This is not true. Humans are created by the material conditions they find themselves in. “Human nature” when in an abundant environment is very different, we can see this among remaining hunter gatherer tribes like the Hadza (watch/read the whole thread).
Living in capitalism is what makes people the way you see them. Competition for resources with your fellow workers and an endless toil for the benefit of someone else enforced by the threat of homelessness and death if you don’t take part.
Being an asshole under capitalism is as natural as coughing is in a smoke filled burning building. If you don’t know anything different you can’t see that to constantly cough is not the natural way of human beings. When you take people and put them in different material conditions you get a completely different outcome.
The biggest issue with our environment that drives these problems is that human brains can only reliably grok a few hundred other humans as being people. Beyond that, to a greater or lesser degree, anyone else just feels like an object (which is why we feel upset when people we know die but the statistics of how many people die each day globally don’t have a similar effect.)
Some of us cope better than others but fundamentally any environment that requires humans to be reliant on interacting with over a few hundred other people will lead to people treating each other as objects.
It’s why conservative people often feel it would be inconceivable to mistreat someone they personally know but will casually do profoundly cruel things to people they don’t. If you view their actions towards people outside of their sphere of personhood through the lense of what is and isn’t an appropriate way to treat an object rather than a person they often seem perfectly naturally.
I know the research you’re talking about here but don’t think it should be viewed as something that makes people incapable of empathy to those outside their core group. It makes it harder, but that hasn’t stopped entire nations of people moving hard left towards extreme vocal empathy among one another as the working class. Unity, solidarity and love for one another is demonstrably possible among very large numbers it just requires the right set of prerequisites to achieve, these prerequisites are what socialists should be working towards ticking off in order to set the stage for a wider revolutionary movement.
Aigh…let’s say you in fact can blame greed and capitalism alone.
Haven’t we all agreed that extremes are unessential?? It’s capitalism’s fault, it’s comunism fault…world isn’t white and black it’s grey.
It depends where you are and what it depends how you use it…fuck sake reality is way too complex for you to do these types of statement man.
If we are going to guess then mine is we need something more in the middle…
You make a statement about complexity but you’re not actually saying anything. This is all wishy washy.
There is no middle between “the workers hold power” and “the bourgeoisie should hold power”. There is no middle between “private property should exist” and “private property should not exist”. There is no middle between “profit should be the driving force of development” and “the human development index should be the driving force of development”.
Your wishy washy “we need a middle” is nonsense if you can not put into words what that fundamentally means in terms of actual functioning policy and societal design. Who holds power is THE essential question here. Capitalist society functions as a dictatorship-of-the-bourgeoisie. Socialists want the opposite, a dictatorship-of-the-proletariat. Flipping the power on its head and putting the workers in charge of the outcomes instead of the bourgeoisie.
If you can not fundamentally describe in absolute terminology what you think society needs to do in order to change the current situation then all you are doing in your opposition to people who do want change is supporting keeping it the way it currently is. That puts you on the side of the climate death cult driving us towards the inevitable end.
Neoliberals won’t (nor will the reactionaries they’ve carefully trained) and unfortunatly we’ve let them infest all major political parties and media outlets across most of the globe.
With these managed democracies, they’re able to delay actual progress until the mining and oil execs are satisified with their obscene wealth (which is never going to happen).
Until these people are pried from their positions of power, everybody “coming together” is meaningless.
The solution is going to require immediate, strict, drastic regulations and billions of dollars of research and investment that will never turn into profits, with much of it financed through taxing the rich appropriately.
Neoliberals hate every one of those ideas and have positioned themselves so they can veto all of them.
Voting genuine progressives and ensuring they keep their promises is the only way out because the best we’ll ever get out of this neoliberal psuedo-left is “Maybe we can find a way to save the world that’s more profitable than just letting everyone die”.
I am fully convinced that won’t materialize until a major Western city or province/state/territory/[insert administrative unit here] gets catastrophically and irreparably fucked up.
Not even then.
Not sure if this will give you hope or not, but one thing to consider is that we could still make it far worse, or put differently, that it’s still in our power to stop that from happening. We can’t change the fact that climate change already has noticeable negative consequences today, nor that global temperatures will rise by at least 1.5° towards the end of the century (compared to 1950-1980), probably more. But we do have a somewhat realistic chance of keeping it at around 2° or below (see e.g. here or here for easy simulations in your browser). The point is that every tenth of a degree counts, and our action or lack thereof now might well make the difference between it “just” getting bad with regular droughts, crop failures, some regions becoming temporarily uninhabitable due to wet bulb temperatures and so on on the one hand, or all of that on a much larger scale leading to societal collapse if we don’t act at all. We live in the worst extinction event the earth has seen since the asteroid that killed the non-bird dinosaurs, but we can still keep it at that instead of turning it into the worst extinction event the earth has ever seen. Luckily, governments (and industry) largely have at least accepted that climate change is a thing, and in Europe and the Americas green-house gas emission have actually already been sinking for the last 15 years or so. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not great, and these governments still should do much more, but it could also be worse, and the fact that we’re lowering emissions despite our politicians generally being very friendly with industry could give at least a sliver of hope. The emissions of China and India (and the rest of Asia) are still rising, but show signs of decelerated growth at least, and in Africa emissions are still fairly low and rising rather slowly, with a chance that some less developed countries might more or less just skip a big chunk of carbon-based industrialisation in favour of renewables. Altogether this means that we’re already on a way to avoid the worst possible scenarios, and still have the power to keep it towards the lower end of the scale as far as terrible outcomes are concerned.
In addition, while individuals have always less power than whole governments or industries, there are nevertheless things anyone reading this could do, e.g.:
- Voting for parties that favour stronger climate action, and perhaps even more importantly, not supporting those who do less or even nothing. You can also protest or try to influence your government in some other ways.
- Reduce your personal impact by not consuming animal products (in particular meat and dairy), not flying if you can avoid it, not buying stuff you don’t really need, and not having (more) kids. Edit: Also try to favour public transport over driving your own car, and if you need a car, try to use a small, electrical one to reduce emissions.
- Tell other people you know who might listen to do those things. Many people favour climate action in principle, but are too lazy, scared or just otherwise preoccupied to actually start doing stuff on their own. You kicking them in the butt or leading by example can motivate them and in turn other people they might now.
If you’re reading this and whether or not you’re already doing some of those things, I’m sure you can find at least some things you could do (I know I can, and I’m trying to put it into practice), which might in turn also make you feel less depressed about the situation. As mentioned before, I’m not saying that we’re in a great situation, but whining about it helps nobody, and we’re still in a situation where we have the power to stop things from getting even worse.
I mean I can vote and get reasonable parties and politicians that will enact reasonable regulations, laws and systems in place, eat entirely sustainable foods, use sustainable energy and means of transportation, recycle and reuse just about everything and get everyone else, as in every single person in the entirety of the United States on the same page and there will still be seven and a half billion people that fucking don’t. I’m not the problem here.
I know that the US isn’t in a vacuum and sometimes one country’s legislation and practices affect others, but I find it very interesting that a lot of these conversations don’t mention insanely populated, growing and polluting countries like China and India that are disproportionately burning this planet without much concern. A lot of your points are just laughable when it comes to China and its government (for example), its deception of its people and their push to have even more kids at all costs. Let’s not even talk about their laughable environmental protection measures.
I know it’s a hot take and maybe it’s foolish and unsympathetic, but while I already do take measures to mitigate some of my impact on this planet, I won’t do it at great personal expense or inconvenience when I fucking know that somebody else will just take whatever gains my actions have had and will fill that vacuum and then some by having more kids and consuming more oil, coal, plastic, meat, fish, etc than I ever will in my lifetime. The last few years have shown that lives aren’t all that precious and I value mine and my comfort above most others and at this point I don’t think I give a shit about people halfway across the globe. They certainly don’t give a shit about me.
Call me an edgelord, hurl insults at me, but I won’t lose sleep over it. In the grand scheme of things, I’m not the problem here and I don’t give a shit anymore.
I know this won’t change your mind or anything, but this is probably pretty close to the mindset of some other ~1.5 billion first world countries’ populations’ mindset. And those combined account to currently around ~37% of CO2 emissions. So if all people like you (if you consider first world countries’ people to be people like you) all came together and did more we could have some pretty huge impact. Of course the other ~63% may still fuck things up, but this is a much different comparison than just you against the rest of the world, you’re not very unique in that regard.
I’m so tired of people turning everything into an awful prisoner’s dilemma. Everyone should just aim to be the best person you can be and stop fretting about whether everyone else is trying quite as hard as you. It doesn’t need to be complicated.
Right? On a global scale, though, “best person you can be” should be something like, “let’s try to behave in such a way so that if everyone behaved like me, the world would be a good place”. That is hard though, to think like that.
What can help is the knowledge that by doing so it is impossible not to on some level inspire others to do the same to some degree by example.
If you’re a selfish jerk that will cause people around you to be .001% (or something) more selfish and jerky. If you are kind and good that will push the needle the other way similarly.
Except the amount more those people are better or worse for knowing you then also influences how much better or worse the people they know are etc and so while it is a small effect per person, the diffused effect is meaningful, cumulative and self-reinforcing. It doesn’t take a lot of people within a community either giving up and being the worst or finding enough of a spine to try to be good to start to tip the balance of the whole community in either direction. It also means that as you are better and kinder, your immediate external world gradually becomes a little better and kinder which makes it easier and more rewarding to be that way in an endless virtuous cycle.
Ok now apply the fact that at least 45% of the western world is brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry. They’re low IQ repeater bots who would glady kill every single one of us because climate change is a “hoax”.
I think a very small minority “would gladly kill every single one of us”, not 45%. If it were 45%, there’d already be open civil war all over the west.
I don’t think this is a hot take anymore. Middle/lower class are sick of hearing that everything is our problem. It isn’t.
Thank you this was actually really nice to read. I feel like everywhere I look is more bad news about the climate it’s nice to see we can at least still mitigate it
My 13yo refuses to discuss the topic. He says he’s already been traumatized by it.
What a ❄️ ❄️
Human problems have human solutions.
The science is clear, now it’s an engineering problem.
Unfortunately, it’s actually a political problem.
Another human problem, so solvable.
It’s not like a super volcano or asteroid.
Asteroid problem is more solvable than political problem.
Armageddon solved it like in 2 hours or so.Is it though?
CEOs don’t want to risk their profits.
Politicians don’t want to risk their terms.
Voters don’t want to lower their living standards.No one really wants to do something.
Appropriate username, but I (unfortunately) agree
There’s like 100 people with the power to make the change and they’ve all decided to invest the money and power in self preservation. It’s the biggest ‘fuck you proletariat scum’ I could imagine. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff
As if the voters are any better. They could vote for policy makers that bring change, or go into politics themselves. But they don’t actually want to be affected by such policy changes. It’s always the others, always just finger pointing.
Are you talking about American voters?
Only about 35 percent of the eligible voters participated, so yeah. Apathy and complacent comfort is a big player in the game. I’m pretty convinced that a lot of people’s apathy comes from the lack of political agency. When business interests conflict with human interests guess who wins every time.
No. I’m talking about all voters.
Dropping a big ice cube on the ocean every now an then?
Would you need a bigger ice cube every time?
A morbid solution for it would be an all-out war between China and India, they are about a 1/3 of the world’s population.
Ghengis Khan proved that with enough murder you can drastically lower global temperature.
“Global warming is a lie”
Don’t look up
“Its always hot in summer”
Or how about “it’s cooler where I am this year, so far! We even had snow!”
“It hasn’t been as hot in my area this year”
People saying:
“Voting doesn’t matter. They’re all the same.” “Things can’t be solved because the global elite won’t allow it” “I don’t have to do anything because it won’t matter” “This is all big industry’s problem, why should I do anything”
have been manipulated/influenced/radicalized by a combination of paid media shills, RW billionaires and Saudi/Kremlin/Iranian propaganda.
Snap out of it and let’s all pitch in to save our children and world.
Voting matters, but unfortunately it appears to be an incredibly sub-optimal solution for dealing with climate change for the following reasons:
- Just because you can vote, doesn’t mean that the option you need is even on the menu. It often isn’t.
- Through hard work you can get the option on the menu, but that doesn’t mean your politician won’t do “deals” after they are in power.
- Lobbyists get access to politicians 24/7 and have a lot of influence, you have one vote every 4 years;
- Even if politicians do what you want, it is unlikely that your country by itself will make a difference, this is a global problem.
Meanwhile we are all fucked. It is likely too late already for preventing severe climate change. Our only hope now is geoengineering. The USA and EU are already considering blocking the sun.
The people who (rightly) have a sense of urgency about this are taking more radical action. They are blocking roads and throwing soup at famous paintings. These are desperate acts that seem rational in the face of the horror that we should strive to avoid, but the majority opinion of our species seems to be that these people are “too radical” and that common folks just trying to get by should not be inconvenienced, and that these radical eco-terrorists should be thrown in a cage.
To be honest, I’m not sure that our species deserves to survive.
Fun fact, there are climate lobbyists as well.
You can (very) easily join up here: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
They are serious, bipartisan, and get face-to-face time regularly with elected leaders.
I do. Others don’t. Unfortunately it will end only one way. We all know how.
Real shame. Civilizations rose and fall. Ours was very fast
Frankly, the biggest blame lies with Russia. They saw climate change coming, right after coming out of COVID-19, and they said “Y’know what would be a good idea? To go full conquest mode given our short-term advantage in the oncoming crisis’ and force the rest of the world to have to cut back on their climate change pledges to defend against our imperialism.”
I mean, not that the climate pledges were doing much, but Russia went in the completely opposite direction and gave countries the perfect excuse to give them up. I’m definitely not claiming other countries have no blame, but even China and the US were at least posturing against climate change.
No, they’re not rational in the face of anything. They’re stupid virtue-signalling that does nothing to reduce climate change. The only way they could possibly be rational is that they get people talking about them, but climate change is not some little-known issue. The entire world has been screaming about it for the past 20 years. If you haven’t been listening, some cunt with soup isn’t going to change that.
“Virtue-signaling” is just another though-terminating cliché of the current culture wars. It implies that the action has no cost to the person and provides some social credit. These people are risking their lives, violence, prison time, etc. Everyone hates them. Nobody knows their names. They keep doing it. Your hypothesis doesn’t hold. If we all decided that we don’t give a shit about this civilization-ending event, might as well through some soup at a van Gogh painting. Why not? It won’t matter anyway.
Even if these people were horrible “virtue-signaling” vandals, it is a microscopic problem in comparison to the real one: clime change. And yet the media focus on the former. Why? You do the math.
stuck fin
But you’re not talking about the people who are already doing everything they can you’re talking about the people who aren’t, and they haven’t, and they won’t, so it is industry and government who needs to do the things for them, because they won’t. If our votes aren’t enough then there is nothing more that can be done under the current system.
Voting is still good, but it’s the bare minimum. Not everyone has the time, but if you do, you should try to advocate publicly, and preferably in a group. Just like with unions, collective action is more effective. If I give feedback to my city individually, I’m a data point. But as part of an advocacy group, they reach out to us.
Agreed, at least in principle - but your statement is so reductive it really could be said about anything.
It’s so hard to motivate people to vote, people are exhausted and finding ten minutes in the day to feel good about oneself, much less performing a (seemingly futile, thanks to those poisonous ideas you’ve mentioned) civic duty is bordering on impossible. When 1 in 15 people in the UK need drugs just to keep their desire to live one more day in check - and a good chunk of the remaining population from that statistic are barely holding on - fighting the futility for someone else is an insurmountable goal.
I don’t know if we can afford to wait for climate to get worse for people to take action. People are dying preventable deaths, if it weren’t for the very evident effects of man made climate change being politicised or obfuscated, maybe it’d be just a warm Summer in Europe right now.
How long can we wait for a peaceful solution to form?
If we don’t wait - how many heads would we need on pikes next to Mortimer Buckley or Larry Fink before we start seeing positive change? When would be the tipping point for the guillotine to become the most ethical solution?
Sorry, I’m rambling. I just feel so hopeless sometimes, and putting a X in a box 2 or 3 times a decade doesn’t do anything to make me feel like we’re making progress…!
This doesn’t address your entire post/point but make sure to vote in every election, not just 2 or 3 times a decade - local and state (assuming USA, sorry?) elections definitely matter!
“Reductive” is the exact word that popped into my head, while reading PP’s comment.
I have come to suspect that we can look forward to continued basic survival being monetized, as VC-funded startups enter the space to disrupt breathing and skin-based evaporative cooling, and just generally making it to the next minute.
Green and renewable investment is the fastest-growing investment sector among VCs
I love that they just have to make up colors now since the previous spectrum is no so inadequate
Glad they’re doing that instead of rescaling it, otherwise it’d be easier to ignore.
I think we’re gonna need a bigger scale.
Nah just shorten the when it’s supposed to happen axle. We’ve known for years. Yet another great thing America gave us, petroleum based capitalism,
Yeah America is the only one with cars. Capitalism bad.
Posted from iphone
And people thought I was kidding when I wondered a few years ago when we would have to face the problem of not even being able to drive due to melting tires from the heat.
The melting point of rubber tires is around 371°C or 700°F
They soften much earlier, though. And there’s also the friction of moving against the road.
We can change the rubber formulation so the Tg shifts up or down. This is actually part of the difference in winter and summer tires.
They start to lose integrity around 200⁰C or 390⁰F… we’ll be dead long before our tires randomly soften to the poi t rhey deform.
But you’re right that friction under even slightly higher heat means they’ll wear out significantly quicker. Drivers might need to change them every 1-2 years instead of 3-5, as a hypothetical.
I live in the Phoenix area. Every summer, as it starts to heat up (so like april…) you start seeing the tire debris everywhere, and the higher frequency of cars pulled over with flat tires… Heat is absolutely a factor in premature tire failure, whether or not the rubber is literally melting.
I mean of course some people don’t change their tires when they’re supposed to, or continue driving on flat tires to get to move their vehicle from the place it originally went flat. So sure when not being used as designed, of course there is a bias towards rubber tearing in the triple digits instead. If you’re not an idiot driving on safety hazards it’s extremely unlikely.
crop failure will be a big issue. cant grow corn or apples indoors. Hope yall like… lettuce.
Lettuce is a luxury food with very little nutrition and high water requirements…
Chances are good that the majority won’t retain access to it for very long really since it will make the most sense to grow something more efficient.
Potatoes. You don’t need a lot of light and they grow from the sprouts of old potatoes. They do need some water though. Same with other root vegetables like carrots and sweet potatoes. But I’ve never managed to get a sweet potato to grow. Carrots and potatoes and tomatoes grow good in the fall and winter in az. Now I’m just trying to figure out what to grow to can for the summer months.
Well it’s been fun y’all, cya in the wasteland, better watch your water.
You mean the same water that’s so contaminated with forever chemicals that multiple governments set recommended limits for safe fish consumption?
Hahaha…we’re fucked.
For those interested:
"A new study has found that consuming a single fish from the Great Lakes is equal to drinking a month’s worth of water contaminated with high levels of “forever chemicals.”
(The recommended amount of some species of fish is now 0 in lake Michigan.)
http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/fishadv/lakemichigan.htm
My aim is terrible. I really hope I don’t have to actively recycle urine.
Just piss with VATS
‘mysterious stranger’ music plays
Hope for a critical piss.
chuckles I’m in danger!
The world is a ripe tomato.
The world is three miles of bad road
Walking down the street
Will I never meet her?
She’s a real woman-child
Oh, my kiss breath turpentine… I am smitten…
Lovely haiku.
Some reuters reporting here.
Including…
Prolonged bouts of high temperatures in China have challenged power grids and crops, and concerns are mounting of a possible repeat of last year’s drought, the most severe in 60 years.
China is no stranger to dramatic swings in temperatures across the seasons but the swings are getting wider.
On Jan. 22, temperatures in Mohe, a city in northeastern Heilongjiang province, plunged to minus 53C, according to the local weather bureau, smashing China’s previous all-time low of minus 52.3C set in 1969.
Since then, the heaviest rains in a decade have hit central China, ravaging wheat fields in an area known as the country’s granary.
These few sentences really capture the horror of “climate change”, that so many people overlook. Yes “average global temp” might increase by 1 degree celsius, but the really immediately terrifying part is changes to large weather patterns that provide a foundation to gargantuan food production industries.
I live in Western Australia. It’s a large state perhaps 3 times the size of texas, but it’s very arid and mostly desert aside from the south west corner in which there’s a “belt” of land with appropriate conditions for cropping in which 18 million tonnes of grain is grown each year, of which 90% is exported. Suppose this year the state receives 30% less rain, then next year 30% more. Suppose that halves production this year, and washes away some of the dry top soil next year. Hell, we might even receive more rain but just a few hundred kilometers from where it usually is.
Point is, even a mild interruption to established weather patterns is going to have a huge and detrimental impact on human agriculture. It’s terrifying really.
For those wondering, one degree celsius increase means every kilogram of air has at least increased by 1°C. The specific heat of air is about 1158 J/(kg*C). Now that might not seem like a lot of energy, in fact 4g (one teaspoon) of sugar has 68,000 J of chemical energy.
The thing is, you might have noticed, there’s a lot of air around us. About 5.14 x 10^(18) kg of air. So when you take a pretty normal number and multiply it by an insanely huge number, you get an insanely huge number. That’s about 5 exajoules of energy. That is the total energy consumption of the US in 2021 for four million years. Or in sugar terms, equal to the energy of sugar if you converted a little over half of the Earth’s entire mass into sugar.
We hit that additional amount of energy in our atmosphere in 2017.
The air increasing by 1⁰C isn’t too crazy.
The ocean increasing by 1⁰C is an insane nightmare. Do you know how massive a heat sink the ocean is? For it to change, even by 1⁰, is terrifying.
And we’re gleefully adding thermic energy to this constantly at a rate of about four Hiroshima bombs every second.
But as an Australian myself i believe the government will ensure we’re all fed and not leave us to starve. Especially not in the Northern Territory where we can’t grow fuck all. /s (do we do that here)
When Westralia seceeds you territorians should come with.
We shall hoard our wealth of grain and hydrogen and watch the world burn.
China is massive though, Mohe is further north than Mongolia, it’s 2,200 km north of Beijing.
It’s nowhere near the central wheat fields so it’s not really comparable
I’m not saying the agricultural circumstances are comparable.
I’m saying that it’s the changes to weather patterns, hot or cold wet or dry, that are scary.
“It was hotter” is IMO a bit of a distraction, because no one really knows what that means in practical terms.
Like in the linked Reuters article, the higher than usual rainfall could well be more problematic than the higher maximum temp.
The image makes it look like Earth has turned into Venus.
We’re trying our damnedest!
Reposting my comment from another similar thread ‘cause I think it’s kind of important to add.
Ok, so it doesn’t mention wet bulb temperature anywhere, so I went to figure it out. The first thing I was surprised with is apparently most of online calculators don’t take in values higher than 50C.
I couldn’t find the exact data about humidity for that day, but it has been 35-40%+ at a minimum for most days in that region, sometimes even reaching 90%.
So, 52C at around 40% humidity is 37.5C in wet bulb temp. The point of survivability is around 35, and most humans should be able to withstand 37.5 for several hours, but it’s much worse for sick or elderly. 39 is often a death sentence even for healthy humans after just two hours — your body can no longer lose heat and you bake from the inside. That’s like having an unstoppable runaway fever. And with that humidity it’s reached at 54C.
We’re dangerously close to that.
An absolute death sentence for folks without air conditioning or another means to stay cool.
Time to make some mud and make like pigs I suppose?
I know the predator movie was preparing us for something
Dillon! You son of a bitch
Heterosexual engorged arm penises grabbing ensues
That works, until… Until the power goes out because everyone has their AC on maximum. After that, it becomes a fight of who has a bigger generator and more gas stored, or who has solar power for the AC.
From what I know the critical wet bulb temperature is ~31.5°C. it was from a study done last year.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jul/31/why-you-need-to-worry-about-the-wet-bulb-temperature
It’s a bit different depending on your health and all that. But 35 WBT is a definite point for everyone (since our bodies run at 36–37C). Kinda like the difference between “some will die” and “most will die”.
From @beigegat’s article it says that from real expieriences it’s 31.5C
The oft-cited 35C value comes from a 2010 theoretical study. However, research co-authored by Kenney this year found that the real threshold our bodies can tolerate could be far lower. “Our data is actual human subject data and shows that the critical wet-bulb temperature is closer to 31.5C,” he says.
I mean to say that the wet bulb temperature at which most will die is ~31.5°C, the gaurdian report I linked is saying that the 35°C number comes from a 2010 study, whereas the findings of the 2022 study found the number to be much lower ~31.5°C.
It’s probably a measure for persistent temperature then. Like, if you lock someone in a room at that temperature (or if it wouldn’t cool down at night, for example), then that person would be dead no matter what after some amount of hours or days.
35 is more of a real-life guideline, since it does cool down at night and you don’t need to withstand this temperature persistently and indefinitely.
And for the last several years there have been lots of places that exceeded 31.5 WBT during the day. Hell, you can probably find several places with that WBT right now. But since people don’t drop dead immediately and need time to heat up, it’s still survivable.
Think about it in terms of a 2D graph. You need to know the duration in addition to temperature to gauge survivability. A million degrees is survivable for a femtosecond, 35 for an average earth day, and ~31 indefinitely.
If that was true, people would die in Russian sauna - 80-90° at 100% humidity with 10-20 minute sessions.
Well, people do die in saunas. More often than you might think. And those who can sit through 20 minutes are usually already accustomed to them, it’s not like people can sit for a long time the first time. Stick an unprepared elderly person there and it’s often not going to end well.
Also, right after intense sauna sessions (and in between as well) people dunk themselves into very cold plunge pools or snowdrifts to quickly cool off.
And you got the temperature/humidity ratios wrong. 100% humidity is used in a hammam, a Turkish-style steam room, and those are kept at around 45-55C. Russian saunas never exceed 90%, most are kept at around 70%.
Have you been to one and looked at the hydrometer? It’s really hard to raise the humidity above 70–80%, and the usual for most people 1-2 ladles per ~10 mins barely raises the humidity above 60%.
I don’t want to be rude, and I completely am all for combating climate change, but 39C is not baking your insides…
I have been deployed to multiple places that were 52C (~125F) in the day/night with high humidity levels, in full long sleeve/pants for 8 hours at a time. 39C (~102F) is hot, but not bake you from the inside type of hot.
Elderly and sick are people not included in what I said above for obvious reasons.
I find it pretty funny that people are arguing both “35 WBT is pretty fine” and “31.5 WBT is a death sentence”.
Yet somewhere in that range seems to be the consensus for an actual “your body is on the clock and you’re not surviving it for a prolonged time” situation.
I don’t know your personal experience and how dangerous it was in regards to temperature, but high temperature environments start feeling pretty humid at like ~50%, so you still pretty much need an actual temperature/humidity reading to gauge it correctly.
So guys, take it to the scientists :) I’m not talking out of my ass here, rather quoting research data. There are a couple dozen papers listed in the link above, and most seem to agree on the dangerous temp region. Read their methodology and reasoning if you’re interested to learn more.
Oh I’m not arguing it’s a hot temp and exerting yourself in those temps is very much a death sentence; especially without water. I’m saying that many people in the world have lived through those temperatures. Research studies have a way of making things a bit more dire than what is normally human survivable, probably for legal/medical moral reasons.
The US military definitely has rules against 40+ WBT and state how many hours of work per hours of rest we could have in high temp+humidity levels. However, I, and anyone who had to deploy or live in East Africa (like Djibouti) or the Middle East can definitely attest, 50WBT is survivable for 8 hours days. Again, not talkin’ elderly or sick persons.
Yeah, that makes me think that data was just wrong. Every homeless in the area would be dead with those temps and humidities.
Homeless have been dying during summer and winter for years. It’s just, as with too many things, the new normal and not newsworthy. If they started dying from critical weather I’m not sure we would even know.
Every homeless in the area would be dead with those temps and humidities.
Shhhh … don’t give the elites running our planet another reason to ignore global warming.
It’s strange - in the UK we’re usually getting toasty this time of year too, but we’ve had unusually mild weather despite many other parts of the world experiencing record temperatures. Feels like the mildest summer we’ve had in about 10 years.
This might be because we’re in an ill niño weather event. This brings hot coast to the southern hemisphere particularly South America. And it means the North is cooler particularly north Europe and Canada. This will flip back and forth over the years
ill niño
Must be summer 1999 🤘
It’s Spanish for… The nino.
Don’t be illin’
EDIT: for the record in case you actually didn’t notice the typo, it’s spelled “EL niño”, not “ILL niño”
