348
submitted 6 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

I'll note that 2.5°C of warming by 2100 is a significant improvement over the trajectory we were on a decade ago, even if still far from where we need to be

all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] qprimed@lemmy.ml 105 points 6 months ago

“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”

jesus christ :-(

[-] vaquedoso@lemmy.world 27 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

In Córdoba Argentina weather has been getting crazy these last few years. We've been constantly getting 40°C+ temperatures in summer, an even in winter we've hit the 40°C mark (in the middle of July, mind you). Last year we only had like two days in the whole year where we managed to get minus 0°C temperatures

[-] kboy101222@sh.itjust.works 18 points 6 months ago

That's 104° F for anyone wondering

[-] Stanley_Pain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 6 months ago

The rest of the world understood 😆

[-] Onii-Chan@kbin.social 11 points 6 months ago

Almost 9 fucking months of summer here in Perth, with about 3 of those months being 30C and clear every single day. Forests and bushland are dying as a result, and water is scarce. I've never seen anything like it.

[-] krashmo@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

I don't mean to downplay the situation at all but doesn't that description pretty much match the world as it exists today? If anything I would expect their predictions to be more dire than that. The global south seems to have more than it's fair share of pain and suffering already.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

Oh sweet summer child...just wait. It hasn't even begun to get bad.

[-] krashmo@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Oh I know. I'm just saying I don't think this particular quote really communicates that fact. It could just as easily be describing any point in the last 200 years as a future impacted by climate change.

[-] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 57 points 6 months ago

“But line must go up! For the ecomony!”

[-] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 6 months ago

I always replace "the economy" with "rich people's yacht money" in such cases

[-] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 8 points 6 months ago

Maybe the rich people will all get caught in hurricanes and their yachts will go down with them on them. Mother nature correcting course.

[-] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I wouldn't count on that tbh, especially since it won't solve anything...

We are not in the same boat at all (metaphorically and physically as well for the most part): The 90% have a little boat at best with most of the Global South being on a raft, with the rich basically being on a Dreadnought but in hysterical size of like cruiseships

[-] Know_not_Scotty_does@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago

Oh man, "For the economy!" is a really depressing war cry...

[-] xkbx@startrek.website 22 points 6 months ago

For our bosses yachts! For pizza Fridays! For unpaid overtime and less sick days! FOR THE ECONOMY!

charges into warehouse with debilitating knee pain I can’t afford to check out

[-] Ooops@kbin.social 5 points 6 months ago

Nope... Spreading that bullshit as a fact is part of the problem.

The economy isn't the problem. We can adapt in a lot of ways that helps the climate while also having working economies.

The actual problem is that the people with money want exactly the kind of economy that makes them money for decades. So they will block any changes to keep everything as it is.

[-] catch22@startrek.website 2 points 6 months ago

Really depends how you measure the economy. Gross national happiness seems like better way to judge the health of an economy than GDP, which has little bearing on the state of most people's lives.

Humans make all this shit up, line goes up is a completely valid retort to how the economy is being mismanaged, because it is what is seemingly most important regardless of the quality of people's lives.

Saying if the line didn't go up, people's live would be worse is true, but only because of who we are letting rule the playground, i.e. if they don't have all the toys then nobody is getting anything.

[-] sudo42@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

It’s very revealing for their favorite lie: “Anyone can get rich. All you have to do is work hard like I do.” Then they do everything in their power to prevent anything that might impact their current money-making scheme.

If they’re working hard now and all you have to do is work hard to get rich, why not move their efforts to something that will make the world a better place… or at least stop making it a worse place?

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 46 points 6 months ago

2.5C is a conservative estimate.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

Considering we're essentially at 1.5c now (over a decade ahead of the IPCC's estimates), I'm almost certain we'll hit 2.5c well before 2050.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

And we know conservatives are pretty much never correct.

[-] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 months ago

They mean that literally, not politically.

[-] PoolloverNathan@programming.dev 8 points 6 months ago

!woooosh@lemmy.world

[-] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

I've heard it both ways. 🍍

[-] ayaya@lemdro.id 5 points 6 months ago

You know that's right.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 44 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Out walking yesterday and I realized you can't see around because you can't see over these monstrous trucks and SUVs. You used to be able to see over the tops of sedans.

[-] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 15 points 6 months ago

Fuel economy is still better than that of the 60s and 70s despite it though. I think height has little to do with it. We need more robus bike lanes and routes, better transit systems, and most of all: get the big ships under control. I remember reading somewhere that a few of the largest ships create a significant amount of our world pollution. For any gain we may make on automobiles, the top percenters will find a way to reverse that with more of their environmentally unfriendly garbage.

That's my opinion.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 33 points 6 months ago

Now imagine what the fuel economy would be without the monstrous height and weight.

[-] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 6 months ago

It is glorious.

[-] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago

You miss my meaning. I'm not arguing that taller vehicles like a suburban are equivalent to a Nissan leaf.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

That's because I think you're missing what's relevant. Comparing it to fuel efficiency from the 70s is not the right metric. It's meaningless.

[-] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago

You're the one that mentioned now and what used to be.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Height. And I did not say the 60s or 70s either. I really don't see this being productive anymore. (Well never was.)

[-] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 months ago

Height absolutely matters because frontal area, along with Cd, affects drag directly. Drag is the primary force that needs to be overcome at higher speeds per the road load equation. Your opinion has nothing to do with it, it's all just basic physics. You're right though that fuel economy has been mostly increasing for decades, but that is in spite of vehicle largess, not because size is irrelevant. Imagine how much better off we'd be if folks didn't commute in trucks for no reason at all. And a big yes to transit, biking, and human centered development.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1237-may-9-2022-fuel-economy-all-vehicle-classes-has-improved

[-] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 months ago

I understand how drag works, I was more referring to what seemed to me as a comment on how increased height in vehicles has made fuel economy worse, when that is not exactly true. Yes it does decrease economy, especially if compared to the height of a car, but if we are referring to "used to", the newer taller vehicles are still more economical than their shorter older predecessors

[-] SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

There are however billions more vehicles since the 70s, so I think it's kinda a moot point.

[-] Zombifrog@lemm.ee 19 points 6 months ago
[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 7 points 6 months ago

We probably can't make it that hot. We can however make it too hot for us.

[-] northendtrooper@lemmy.ca 15 points 6 months ago

I'm wondering how bad the hurricane season will be this year with the turnover to El Nino and the heating of Atlantic Ocean.

[-] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 6 months ago

Capitalism working as intended

[-] MercurySunrise@slrpnk.net 10 points 6 months ago

So, so many people are going to die. The current upper class is making all the mass murderers of the past look like specks, and yet, I don't see any more protests than I ever did. It's... truly surreal.

[-] sping@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 months ago

Oh now, let's not imagine the majority would say no thanks to profligate consumption if they had the means.

The problem is the system (or lack thereof) that allows it to happen, not so much which individuals win the absurd game.

And the threshold of consumption where you're pay of the problem is a lot lower than most people want to face.

this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
348 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5205 readers
610 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS