The only people that matter, who also happen to be the ones that caused and continue to exacerbate the climate apocalypse knowingly for private profit, have built luxury bunker complexes in temperate places like New Zealand to shield themselves from the consequences of their own actions.
No one important is in danger, just us billions of disposable capital batteries, no biggie.
Now get back to work! The owners/Pharoahs/oligarchs/beloved job creators have quarterly ego score expectations to exploit out of you before you die of heat stroke as a result of your bad decisions, like being poor!
In 1988 my uncle was working as a chemist for the oil industry in Oman. When he was home he'd tell us about global warming from carbon dioxide from burning oil
In the industry they knew. In politics they knew. But it made a lot of money and they'd be dead before New York would be flooded
I wish aging had been solved back then, so those people would know they'd live to see the impending disaster
RIP Great Barrier Reef this coming southern summer
New York won't get flooded for another 100-200 years... we may still need to solve the aging problem if we want to avoid that.
Scientists knew in the early 1900s.
New Zealand won't be exempt from climate change and they have to come out of their bunkers at some point. I always ask myself what good their money will be when global trade collapses. How long until their security guards realize that they hold the real power?
Security guards have families, families can be held hostagesafely in the bunker while the guards battle the hungry hordes outside.
It's already happening, North Island has been flooding so much this year it's barely newsworthy anymore. And yet people think voting in the rightwing "we need to be fiscally conservative but also we will spend billions on roads" party is a good idea.
So, pretty much like every other Western country. I'm in Germany, and conservative thinking and an openly fascist party are on the rise, while everything is blamed on the Greens in the government.
The more you attempt to shift to revolution, the more you counteract real meaningful change. There are market solutions to this problem and it's called government regulation.
Successful revolution and war will not help global warming. Failure will result in a massive social shift against these ends.
This is literally idealism.
You have an idea about a market solution to the problem, and then act like you've solved the problem.
The problem isn't a lack of ideas! The problem is a lack of implementation! You have to get these ideas into the real world somehow, and revolution is the only way you can do that. There are billionaires aligned against implementing these ideas. You have to stop them.
Revolution is also more than eating the rich. Its also setting a framework for the future through non-violent action. Organizing and interacting both with local communities and national and international concerns.
When the rich send men with guns to break up your non-violent organizations and communities, you aren't going to debate them into submission.
So we all burn while you try to change the system instead of focusing on the problem at hand. Great and thanks.
Did I say that was the only thing?
Because if you ignore this now to burn down the rich, you'll be burning later anyways.
Its over man, I just look at those sad little true believers as pathetic comic relief.
They'd be the ones in the town squares pre-revolution scolding passers by for not blindly following the wisdom of their oppressive monarchs.
"Stay the course! So I can feel like I'm safe and that everything is working as it's supposed to!"
They're the peasants that revolt against their local lord while still being loyal to the king, because surely the problem is just that the king has bad advisors and the local lord is corrupt!
They're the voters stupid enough to vote against their interests, and there's no shortage of them. Serfs gonna serf.
It's not idealism. If you have a better solution that is not radical by design, go ahead. I was literally not specific intentionally. Go ahead, what instrument within the current system would work that are not regulations?
Regulations don't work when they don't get implemented, which means your ideas are purely ideas and not materialistic solutions. There aren't going to be any regulations, don't you get it? That ship has so obviously sailed.
There isn't a better solution that's not radical and that's why radical solutions all that's left!
We'll, changes won't work on your system if they don't get implemented either. If your system is a catch-all for forcing through unpopular changes, don't expect to see much success. We have implemented comprehensive environmental changes in the past but it takes time and ground work.
Which country is the model to emulate? Which country has had the successful revolution?
Many countries have successfully overthrown previous governments and implemented new ones. It depends what you mean by 'successful'.
It depends what you mean by ‘successful’.
I'm asking which ones did it by their definition of successful. Which country should we emulate?
There will be people who thought it was successful, and people who thought it was unsuccessful, in every revolution. You'd need to clarify who 'they' are.
I asked a specific person, @queermunist, which country we should emulate. @queermunist, which country should we emulate?
I await their response.
And as for me, I'm not sure there's anything we can do about this, even with a revolution - at least with such a small number of us that actually care. If the majority actually wanted to change from the status quo, maybe then a revolution could work.
Well, I mean, historically, the USA had a very successful revolution in that they have become the greatest world power nowadays...
Even if they are a capitalist crazed two party nation, where a majority struggle to survive and they have to pay for the basic human right of healthcare, all in the name of some "free market" to help the rich get richer at their own expense.
So, you are saying we should emulate the United States? Are you following this conversation?
That's not what I said. I gave an example of a "successful" revolution.
In the conversation on which successful country to emulate. I think the point is that one doesn't exist that's been successful. It's a societal filter.
Those are some great definitions but that doesn't change the fact that literally anyone can find someone that disagrees with these positions. Forcing them on people will not get the reaction you want. That right there throws out any thought of regulatory capture being the sole thing at play. It can hardly be considered a plutocracy when a good portion of the populous agrees with it.
Even if that is the complete reality, very few people agree with you and antidemocratic actions will result in a massive backlash.
People agree with Hitler, doesn't make them right, or worth listening to, nor does it make them willing to compromise, some people need to be forced to relinquish their incorrect and harmful opinions through violence and death.
You're relying on the wilfully ignorant and belligerent to go against their nature, and that's a level of stupidity so divorced from reality that you're effectively no different than them.
You'll sit here and argue that you're right till you're blue in the face but you'll still never change anything.
Well, I'm sure your unpopular revolution will force through all the changes our society needs. Just like they did in Germany in the 1930s.
Appeasement doesn't work, that's why we killed the Nazi's instead of waiting for them to agree with us.
You're the global warming equivalent of a Nazi apologist, so it's a bit rich when you refer to me as the one pushing a harmful agenda for caring about the survival of the human race above and beyond the ignorance of individuals.
Yep, that's how they got elected. You're doing a great job describing exactly how they came to power. I'm not an apologist, you are an enabler.
No, you're both.
Explain how I'm enabling climate denialism by saying we ignore climate denialists?
And how are you not the apologist for defending their indefensible position?
Do you practice being this stupid or does it come naturally?
Climate denialists claim that climate action is a red herring for socialist changes. You literally are doing that.
At no point did I defend them. That's a strawman.
Insults mean you have run out of actual argument. Sorry about your reading comprehension. That must make it hard for you.
No, it's a legitimate question. You said objectively incorrect things so you're either disingenuous (practiced stupid) or just stupid (naturally stupid).
You could be uneducated but you seem to think you wield cognizance and comprehension with expert skill so I'll take you at your word and contribute your wilful ignorance to belligerence rather than lack of education.
I hate to break this to you, but these have to go hand in hand.
Government, and the individuals who make up the government, are balancing a lot of competing demands.
Until one of those demands may include the loss of use of their property, at the very least, then they will always be more incentived to overvalue the perspective of the rich. And the rich will literally say, yeah, it's bad, but we can slap a bandaid on it - 20% or the cost for 40% of the solution, that should get us by!
Some other overwhelming force will eventually be necessary to change the calculus of what an "acceptable solution" looks like. Because with your market regulation, you will always have people willing to pay the fine instead of following the rules, and if they are allowed to continue externalizing those costs to the rest of us, we will continue to have less room to request less benefit, and we will have to take what they decide to give us. Which I can almost guarantee will be pennies compared to what it costs us in the meantime.
The hottest 36 days on record. Also the coolest summer we can expect to see for the rest of our lives.
People generally don't realize this, but it'll become apparent soon enough!
Laughs and sobs simultaneously
Oh, if I were an alien looking down at us little billions of ants destroying their own habitat to construct tributes to a few thousand fat ants, to the point all the ants were about to die off, I'd be tilting my head and laughing my alien ass off.
I'd be really sad, because I have empathy. Of course, maybe you'd be a psychopathic alien who laughs at injustice and pain.
This graph is the most damning. We’ve made zero progress according to the only metric that matters.
Why does the graph begin at 1959?
When should it begin?
I believe that’s the NOAA data source and they started measuring this in the late 50’s. The direct measurement data doesn’t go further back because the technology to measure and or concern wasn’t there.
That said, people have been able to extrapolate past carbon ppm through means other than direct measurement.
So that's why all the conservatives are laughing and cheering. I was wondering why they were celebrating. They are accomplishing their mission of killing us all.
Owning the libs will become the most common cause of death of conservatives.
"Them libs want to protest the climate issue? Well fuck em, let's burn more oil and make more profit for those companies! That'll show them snowflake protestors!"
This is literally the mindset we're up against. They've been brainwashed so hard into "owning libs", and have their tongues so far up billionaire's arseholes, they have lost any sense of empathy, sympathy, and basic intelligence. We're all fucked.
Part of the problem with being socially minded is that your representatives tend to be less inclined to abuse their power to disingenuously manipulate useful idiots. We'd rather educate them than manipulate them, but they're too stupid to know the difference.
Also of everyone else.
Don't worry, they're gearing up for the "Climate change is real, but we just need to genocide more of the people with a <100kg/yr carbon footprint to fix it" chapter of dogshit rhetoric soon.
They'll never say that in good faith because it's the rich that have the biggest carbon footprints.
My point is they'll (continue to) blame the people whose carbon footprints are <1% of theirs and would be manageable for centuries and advocate for genocide as a solution.
Currently blaming the global south is just used to deflect.
Killing everyone will kill more liberals than conservatives, so it's a net positive for them!
This will be the coolest summer you ever experience.
Nah, that will be 2027. After the current El Nino oscillation but before the 50 degree summers start.
Fun fact: All this probably happened because we stopped to geoengineer by outlawing ships blowing sulphur into the air which created additional cloud cover. That is, this year isn't really exceptional climate-change wise, it's just that we could witness, by fortuitous natural experiment, how much worse it actually already is... as well as that we can limit the impact by geoengineering. It works, and without wrecking havoc on the overall system.
And the good news is that we don't need to blow sulphur into the air to generate clouds, the same effect can be had by blowing salt water into the air, just strap a couple of water cannons to every cargo ship. No I'm dead serious.
All this probably happened because we stopped to geoengineer by outlawing ships blowing sulphur into the air which created additional cloud cover.
You have your causality running backwards... this was already here, and the sulfur was masking it. This happened because we put so many GHG in the air.
It works, and without wrecking havoc on the overall system.
Europe is the one that initiated the sulfur reductions. With the additional dimming data now available, they reviewed it to determine how much damage had been caused. The conclusion? The benefits of reducing sulfur actually outweigh the damage of unmasked warming. The plan for further reductions was upheld.
If we mask radiative forcing, we don't want to be doing it with sulfur. That leads to acid rain, ocean acidification, and asthma and other diseases. CaCO3 is a candidate. The long-term consequences of any candidate is unknown. Except that we know that the less sulfur raining down on us and the fish in general, the better.
You have your causality running backwards… this was already here, and the sulfur was masking it.
Which is what I said?
It was probably framing it like
Fun fact: All this probably happened because we stopped to geoengineer by outlawing ships blowing sulphur into the air which created additional cloud cover.
Instead of something like “we noticed the effects of climate change exceptionally this year because we stopped blowing sulphur (…)”. Yes, this is probably pedantic in a room where everyone understands anthropocentric climate change. Still, I can understand why some people might want to be extremely clear with how we use language regarding this topic, given… Everything that’s going on.
It is totally terrifying but also very strange to read about the record heat everywhere while we here in Germany had probably the coldest July in a decade. We had 16C where we should have had 30C. And we had rain, a lot of rain.
Still, I'm terrified.
The world average temperature is up. Locally this puts more energy in weather
Taller storms, bigger hail, more cyclones/typhoons/hurricanes earlier and later in the season
Apparently the average is up in Germany, you just haven’t had any extremes this year.
I saw hail in fucking July in the Netherlands...
Also lots of rain of course.
Shit's getting crazier and crazier.
Yeah July was basically November
Yeah where I'm at in southwest Ohio in the US it has been one of the coolest, wettest summers also. So in order for the average to be the highest ever, other places had to be extra, extra hot.
Jup, my "Summer Vacation" is now over. Very pissed off about the weather
Oil barrons merely see global warming as yet another catastrophe to take advantage of for power and profit, they will have their companies pump oil til there's not a single drop left to pump anywhere, using every excuse they can find to keep pumping and polluting while evading taxes and regulation as much as possible. They are evil scum and belong in jail for their lies and behavior.
Drug dealers are arguably pretty evil...but there is undeniably huge demand for the products. And getting rid of a dealer won't solve addiction itself.
43 ºC in my town today. Now we are at 32 ºC and is 23:00.
This is hell.
In Maui, some of us didn't survive :(
What do we win? I hope someone makes a movie about us.
the movie 2012 comes to mind for whatever reason lol
'Don' t look up' it's a depressing documentary dressed up as a dark comedy focusing on the incapacity of competence to sway the tide of general ignorance.
Next species would make plushies after us, like we did with dinosaurs. Cute little featherless bipeds. 2990-3000s would also see a cartoon where humans would sing about friendship, turning some kids into human-geeks.
Actually, some of us didnt
Yeap, every day people die
Again, you're not being very helpful. Take your weird existential nihilism somewhere else, please
On sorry, I thought no people die when "the pmanet was not hot" lol
Meanwhile in germany: 13°C and endless rain.
Extremes getting more extreme.
Couldn't the massive fires (energy and compounds generated) exacerbate these values?
Don't make me say what I didn't say.
No actually fires have an overall negative (lowering) effect on temperatures, because the smoke reduces the sun energy from reaching land over large areas, it’s been well established that areas affected by smoke will have lower peak temps than they otherwise would have. Except it can cause temps to stay higher overnight by preventing the heat from escaping into atmosphere.
But in terms of highest temps ever recorded.. it doesn’t seem fires would contribute to that at all, more just a consequence of the high temps (drying effect).
Thank you, but I was talking about heat generated by the fires and compound build-up (eg: co2), while the last one might bring its effects later.
Just to be sure, I talk about these figures, not the global climate deregulation.
What's this "we survived?" dies
Relevant vlogbrothers video about why this particular summer is hotter.
Now that we have an idea of how much ocean cloud cover can produce a certain amount of global cooling we can find other, better ways of doing it in a controlled manner.
Nukes could help
We'd need an awful lot of them to be detected at interstellar distances
If we put them on high population centres it will have long term effects too.
Hunga Tunga Hunga Ha'apai didn't help either. Instead of just the usual global cooling sulfur dioxide, this particular volcano was under water enough that it launched massive amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere, which has greenhouse effects. Add that all together on top of the chronic climate change and you get this summer.
That was just to August 6th. The last 4 days were also the hottest, so 40 days now. Assuming today is also the hottest August 11, tomorrow will be actually be 41. :)
Isolated islands catching on fire because it's so goddamn hot doesn't feel like surviving.
That's not true
Continents are also on fire
666 upvotes lol. It's hot as hell
…since 1979
Edit: not saying there’s not a climate change disaster happening, but some of these analyses are a little misleading.
not saying there’s not a climate change disaster happening, but some of these analyses are a little misleading.
Except that to only say "...since 1979" is to comment in either ignorance or bad faith (your pick). We maintained record breaking temps ALL above the prior record for 36 is the damn point, and to miss that is to miss the entire thing.
There have been 44 years since 1979. Lets say the probability of getting 1 day above the 1979 record in a given year is 1/44 (uniform). The probability of even getting a week of the hottest days in one year would be (1/44)^7, would be a one in 300 billion chance. There are some issues and some assumptions I'm making for convenience, but its not ok to make idle comments with no comprehension of the scale of extremity this event represents.
As in, do you have any fucking idea how unlikely that is? This isn't an 'oopsie poopsie' funny record event.
Not to be too pedantic but your back of the envelope probabilities are based on inaccurate assumptions and probably several orders of magnitude off. Specifically, your not just assuming uniform but also independent from one day to the next. A more accurate treatment would be to assume conditional dependence from one day to the next (the Markov property). Once you have a record hot day, you are significantly more likely to have another record hot day following it.
That said, it’s still low probability, just not as low as what you’re saying.
Any thoughts on how I could incorporate that for a better back of the napkin?
(Also, that number is only consider that the number presented was based on 7 independent events, not 34)
If we stick with your 1/44 assumption, we can then assume 50% chance that the following day will also be a record setting day (probably too low still but the math is easier). Your one week estimate would be (1/44)*(1/2)^6.
While the data presented here only goes back to 1979, I seem to recall that some scientists worked out global average temperatures based on coral reef core samples and ice core samples. I think there were some other samples too but I can't remember what they were. So they are the hottest ever
I can't find any indication that 1979 had a 36-day heatwave with anything approaching the temperatures we're seeing.
I think the significance of 1979 is that's when we started keeping track of an overall global temperature day by day...
Not terribly significant. The length, number of heat records broken, and sheer catastrophic scale of this heatwave is unprecedented. We don't have any reason to think anything remotely like this has happened in human history, and the fact that we didn't have the means to track the entire planet's average temperature prior to 1979 doesn't negate that.
Hawaii is on fire. Oregon is on fire. Canada is on fire. California is on fire. The winter in the southern hemisphere is unprecedentedly warm, and much of Australia burned over their summer. It's going to burn again.
This is an emergency.
For the hell of it, I checked the list of hottest temperatures recorded and the top for the US was in 1913, Sweeden 1933, Russia 2010, and Germany/France 2019 (for just a small selection of countries). Very few were from this year and many weren't even in the last half century.
You're downvoted because you're comparing one day record temp to a full month of record highs.
Also, a large part of the reason the global average temperature is high is because the Southern hemisphere is having a very warm winter.
Comparing global average to local max temperatures is also wrong.
Much of eastern North America is having a relatively cool summer thanks to the smoke from the Canadian wildfires. Temps in my area have barely broken 85F/30C all summer
Oh good, maybe the smoke from everything being on fire will cool us down!
Hottest 36 days ever recorded...so far.
Nobody panic!
The only people that matter, who also happen to be the ones that caused and continue to exacerbate the climate apocalypse knowingly for private profit, have built luxury bunker complexes in temperate places like New Zealand to shield themselves from the consequences of their own actions.
No one important is in danger, just us billions of disposable capital batteries, no biggie.
Now get back to work! The owners/Pharoahs/oligarchs/beloved job creators have quarterly ego score expectations to exploit out of you before you die of heat stroke as a result of your bad decisions, like being poor!
In 1988 my uncle was working as a chemist for the oil industry in Oman. When he was home he'd tell us about global warming from carbon dioxide from burning oil
In the industry they knew. In politics they knew. But it made a lot of money and they'd be dead before New York would be flooded
I wish aging had been solved back then, so those people would know they'd live to see the impending disaster
RIP Great Barrier Reef this coming southern summer
New York won't get flooded for another 100-200 years... we may still need to solve the aging problem if we want to avoid that.
Scientists knew in the early 1900s.
New Zealand won't be exempt from climate change and they have to come out of their bunkers at some point. I always ask myself what good their money will be when global trade collapses. How long until their security guards realize that they hold the real power?
Security guards have families, families can be held
hostagesafely in the bunker while the guards battle the hungry hordes outside.It's already happening, North Island has been flooding so much this year it's barely newsworthy anymore. And yet people think voting in the rightwing "we need to be fiscally conservative but also we will spend billions on roads" party is a good idea.
So, pretty much like every other Western country. I'm in Germany, and conservative thinking and an openly fascist party are on the rise, while everything is blamed on the Greens in the government.
The more you attempt to shift to revolution, the more you counteract real meaningful change. There are market solutions to this problem and it's called government regulation.
https://i.pinimg.com/474x/40/bf/b6/40bfb6a76627032773450ddee967be36.jpg
Successful revolution and war will not help global warming. Failure will result in a massive social shift against these ends.
This is literally idealism.
You have an idea about a market solution to the problem, and then act like you've solved the problem.
The problem isn't a lack of ideas! The problem is a lack of implementation! You have to get these ideas into the real world somehow, and revolution is the only way you can do that. There are billionaires aligned against implementing these ideas. You have to stop them.
Revolution is also more than eating the rich. Its also setting a framework for the future through non-violent action. Organizing and interacting both with local communities and national and international concerns.
When the rich send men with guns to break up your non-violent organizations and communities, you aren't going to debate them into submission.
So we all burn while you try to change the system instead of focusing on the problem at hand. Great and thanks.
Did I say that was the only thing?
Because if you ignore this now to burn down the rich, you'll be burning later anyways.
Its over man, I just look at those sad little true believers as pathetic comic relief.
They'd be the ones in the town squares pre-revolution scolding passers by for not blindly following the wisdom of their oppressive monarchs.
"Stay the course! So I can feel like I'm safe and that everything is working as it's supposed to!"
They're the peasants that revolt against their local lord while still being loyal to the king, because surely the problem is just that the king has bad advisors and the local lord is corrupt!
They're the voters stupid enough to vote against their interests, and there's no shortage of them. Serfs gonna serf.
It's not idealism. If you have a better solution that is not radical by design, go ahead. I was literally not specific intentionally. Go ahead, what instrument within the current system would work that are not regulations?
Regulations don't work when they don't get implemented, which means your ideas are purely ideas and not materialistic solutions. There aren't going to be any regulations, don't you get it? That ship has so obviously sailed.
There isn't a better solution that's not radical and that's why radical solutions all that's left!
We'll, changes won't work on your system if they don't get implemented either. If your system is a catch-all for forcing through unpopular changes, don't expect to see much success. We have implemented comprehensive environmental changes in the past but it takes time and ground work.
Which country is the model to emulate? Which country has had the successful revolution?
Many countries have successfully overthrown previous governments and implemented new ones. It depends what you mean by 'successful'.
I'm asking which ones did it by their definition of successful. Which country should we emulate?
There will be people who thought it was successful, and people who thought it was unsuccessful, in every revolution. You'd need to clarify who 'they' are.
I asked a specific person, @queermunist, which country we should emulate. @queermunist, which country should we emulate?
I await their response.
And as for me, I'm not sure there's anything we can do about this, even with a revolution - at least with such a small number of us that actually care. If the majority actually wanted to change from the status quo, maybe then a revolution could work.
Well, I mean, historically, the USA had a very successful revolution in that they have become the greatest world power nowadays...
Even if they are a capitalist crazed two party nation, where a majority struggle to survive and they have to pay for the basic human right of healthcare, all in the name of some "free market" to help the rich get richer at their own expense.
So, you are saying we should emulate the United States? Are you following this conversation?
That's not what I said. I gave an example of a "successful" revolution.
In the conversation on which successful country to emulate. I think the point is that one doesn't exist that's been successful. It's a societal filter.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-inside-luxury-bunkers-ultra-rich-prepare-for-doomsday-2022-9
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/politics/democrats-dark-money-donors.html
Those are some great definitions but that doesn't change the fact that literally anyone can find someone that disagrees with these positions. Forcing them on people will not get the reaction you want. That right there throws out any thought of regulatory capture being the sole thing at play. It can hardly be considered a plutocracy when a good portion of the populous agrees with it.
Even if that is the complete reality, very few people agree with you and antidemocratic actions will result in a massive backlash.
People agree with Hitler, doesn't make them right, or worth listening to, nor does it make them willing to compromise, some people need to be forced to relinquish their incorrect and harmful opinions through violence and death.
You're relying on the wilfully ignorant and belligerent to go against their nature, and that's a level of stupidity so divorced from reality that you're effectively no different than them.
You'll sit here and argue that you're right till you're blue in the face but you'll still never change anything.
Well, I'm sure your unpopular revolution will force through all the changes our society needs. Just like they did in Germany in the 1930s.
Appeasement doesn't work, that's why we killed the Nazi's instead of waiting for them to agree with us.
You're the global warming equivalent of a Nazi apologist, so it's a bit rich when you refer to me as the one pushing a harmful agenda for caring about the survival of the human race above and beyond the ignorance of individuals.
Yep, that's how they got elected. You're doing a great job describing exactly how they came to power. I'm not an apologist, you are an enabler.
No, you're both.
Explain how I'm enabling climate denialism by saying we ignore climate denialists?
And how are you not the apologist for defending their indefensible position?
Do you practice being this stupid or does it come naturally?
Climate denialists claim that climate action is a red herring for socialist changes. You literally are doing that.
At no point did I defend them. That's a strawman.
Insults mean you have run out of actual argument. Sorry about your reading comprehension. That must make it hard for you.
No, it's a legitimate question. You said objectively incorrect things so you're either disingenuous (practiced stupid) or just stupid (naturally stupid).
You could be uneducated but you seem to think you wield cognizance and comprehension with expert skill so I'll take you at your word and contribute your wilful ignorance to belligerence rather than lack of education.
I hate to break this to you, but these have to go hand in hand.
Government, and the individuals who make up the government, are balancing a lot of competing demands.
Until one of those demands may include the loss of use of their property, at the very least, then they will always be more incentived to overvalue the perspective of the rich. And the rich will literally say, yeah, it's bad, but we can slap a bandaid on it - 20% or the cost for 40% of the solution, that should get us by!
Some other overwhelming force will eventually be necessary to change the calculus of what an "acceptable solution" looks like. Because with your market regulation, you will always have people willing to pay the fine instead of following the rules, and if they are allowed to continue externalizing those costs to the rest of us, we will continue to have less room to request less benefit, and we will have to take what they decide to give us. Which I can almost guarantee will be pennies compared to what it costs us in the meantime.
The hottest 36 days on record. Also the coolest summer we can expect to see for the rest of our lives.
People generally don't realize this, but it'll become apparent soon enough!
Laughs and sobs simultaneously
Oh, if I were an alien looking down at us little billions of ants destroying their own habitat to construct tributes to a few thousand fat ants, to the point all the ants were about to die off, I'd be tilting my head and laughing my alien ass off.
I'd be really sad, because I have empathy. Of course, maybe you'd be a psychopathic alien who laughs at injustice and pain.
Funny you say that...
Why does the graph begin at 1959?
When should it begin?
I believe that’s the NOAA data source and they started measuring this in the late 50’s. The direct measurement data doesn’t go further back because the technology to measure and or concern wasn’t there.
That said, people have been able to extrapolate past carbon ppm through means other than direct measurement.
https://theconversation.com/scientists-understood-physics-of-climate-change-in-the-1800s-thanks-to-a-woman-named-eunice-foote-164687#:~:text=Humans%20were%20already%20increasing%20carbon,carbon%20dioxide%20into%20the%20air.
So that's why all the conservatives are laughing and cheering. I was wondering why they were celebrating. They are accomplishing their mission of killing us all.
Owning the libs will become the most common cause of death of conservatives.
"Them libs want to protest the climate issue? Well fuck em, let's burn more oil and make more profit for those companies! That'll show them snowflake protestors!"
This is literally the mindset we're up against. They've been brainwashed so hard into "owning libs", and have their tongues so far up billionaire's arseholes, they have lost any sense of empathy, sympathy, and basic intelligence. We're all fucked.
Part of the problem with being socially minded is that your representatives tend to be less inclined to abuse their power to disingenuously manipulate useful idiots. We'd rather educate them than manipulate them, but they're too stupid to know the difference.
Also of everyone else.
Don't worry, they're gearing up for the "Climate change is real, but we just need to genocide more of the people with a <100kg/yr carbon footprint to fix it" chapter of dogshit rhetoric soon.
They'll never say that in good faith because it's the rich that have the biggest carbon footprints.
My point is they'll (continue to) blame the people whose carbon footprints are <1% of theirs and would be manageable for centuries and advocate for genocide as a solution.
Currently blaming the global south is just used to deflect.
Killing everyone will kill more liberals than conservatives, so it's a net positive for them!
See you next summer.
This will be the coolest summer you ever experience.
Nah, that will be 2027. After the current El Nino oscillation but before the 50 degree summers start.
Fun fact: All this probably happened because we stopped to geoengineer by outlawing ships blowing sulphur into the air which created additional cloud cover. That is, this year isn't really exceptional climate-change wise, it's just that we could witness, by fortuitous natural experiment, how much worse it actually already is... as well as that we can limit the impact by geoengineering. It works, and without wrecking havoc on the overall system.
And the good news is that we don't need to blow sulphur into the air to generate clouds, the same effect can be had by blowing salt water into the air, just strap a couple of water cannons to every cargo ship. No I'm dead serious.
You have your causality running backwards... this was already here, and the sulfur was masking it. This happened because we put so many GHG in the air.
Europe is the one that initiated the sulfur reductions. With the additional dimming data now available, they reviewed it to determine how much damage had been caused. The conclusion? The benefits of reducing sulfur actually outweigh the damage of unmasked warming. The plan for further reductions was upheld.
If we mask radiative forcing, we don't want to be doing it with sulfur. That leads to acid rain, ocean acidification, and asthma and other diseases. CaCO3 is a candidate. The long-term consequences of any candidate is unknown. Except that we know that the less sulfur raining down on us and the fish in general, the better.
Which is what I said?
It was probably framing it like
Instead of something like “we noticed the effects of climate change exceptionally this year because we stopped blowing sulphur (…)”. Yes, this is probably pedantic in a room where everyone understands anthropocentric climate change. Still, I can understand why some people might want to be extremely clear with how we use language regarding this topic, given… Everything that’s going on.
Tldw: Hank Green video.
Thanks for this info. Really enjoyed learning something hopeful
It is totally terrifying but also very strange to read about the record heat everywhere while we here in Germany had probably the coldest July in a decade. We had 16C where we should have had 30C. And we had rain, a lot of rain.
Still, I'm terrified.
The world average temperature is up. Locally this puts more energy in weather
Taller storms, bigger hail, more cyclones/typhoons/hurricanes earlier and later in the season
Apparently the average is up in Germany, you just haven’t had any extremes this year.
https://twitter.com/rarohde/status/1688486834890854401?s=46&t=041FqqqpppFjW7CoNV9wDw
I saw hail in fucking July in the Netherlands...
Also lots of rain of course.
Shit's getting crazier and crazier.
Yeah July was basically November
Yeah where I'm at in southwest Ohio in the US it has been one of the coolest, wettest summers also. So in order for the average to be the highest ever, other places had to be extra, extra hot.
Jup, my "Summer Vacation" is now over. Very pissed off about the weather
... also the coolest 36 days of summer of the rest of our life
Phoenix just broke its record for consecutive days over 110° at 31, previous record was half that...
Cincinnati only had two days over 90 total all summer so far. I think we may get another day this week. Phoenix is getting all of our heat.
Some didn't survive & that's a problem.
lol git gud
Every day people dei, but hey, more were born so.... That is how life works
Not a helpful sentiment
What the Fossil Fuel Industry Doesn't Want You To Know | Al Gore | TED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgZC6da4mco
Oil barrons merely see global warming as yet another catastrophe to take advantage of for power and profit, they will have their companies pump oil til there's not a single drop left to pump anywhere, using every excuse they can find to keep pumping and polluting while evading taxes and regulation as much as possible. They are evil scum and belong in jail for their lies and behavior.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=xgZC6da4mco
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Drug dealers are arguably pretty evil...but there is undeniably huge demand for the products. And getting rid of a dealer won't solve addiction itself.
43 ºC in my town today. Now we are at 32 ºC and is 23:00.
This is hell.
In Maui, some of us didn't survive :(
What do we win? I hope someone makes a movie about us.
the movie 2012 comes to mind for whatever reason lol
'Don' t look up' it's a depressing documentary dressed up as a dark comedy focusing on the incapacity of competence to sway the tide of general ignorance.
Next species would make plushies after us, like we did with dinosaurs. Cute little featherless bipeds. 2990-3000s would also see a cartoon where humans would sing about friendship, turning some kids into human-geeks.
Actually, some of us didnt
Yeap, every day people die
Again, you're not being very helpful. Take your weird existential nihilism somewhere else, please
On sorry, I thought no people die when "the pmanet was not hot" lol
Meanwhile in germany: 13°C and endless rain.
Extremes getting more extreme.
Couldn't the massive fires (energy and compounds generated) exacerbate these values?
Don't make me say what I didn't say.
No actually fires have an overall negative (lowering) effect on temperatures, because the smoke reduces the sun energy from reaching land over large areas, it’s been well established that areas affected by smoke will have lower peak temps than they otherwise would have. Except it can cause temps to stay higher overnight by preventing the heat from escaping into atmosphere.
But in terms of highest temps ever recorded.. it doesn’t seem fires would contribute to that at all, more just a consequence of the high temps (drying effect).
Thank you, but I was talking about heat generated by the fires and compound build-up (eg: co2), while the last one might bring its effects later.
Just to be sure, I talk about these figures, not the global climate deregulation.
What's this "we survived?" dies
Relevant vlogbrothers video about why this particular summer is hotter.
https://youtu.be/dk8pwE3IByg
Now that we have an idea of how much ocean cloud cover can produce a certain amount of global cooling we can find other, better ways of doing it in a controlled manner.
Nukes could help
We'd need an awful lot of them to be detected at interstellar distances
If we put them on high population centres it will have long term effects too.
Hunga Tunga Hunga Ha'apai didn't help either. Instead of just the usual global cooling sulfur dioxide, this particular volcano was under water enough that it launched massive amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere, which has greenhouse effects. Add that all together on top of the chronic climate change and you get this summer.
https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/2022-tonga-volcano-may-have-caused-temporary-global-warming?amp
Hottest so far.
Tomorrow is going to be 37
That was just to August 6th. The last 4 days were also the hottest, so 40 days now. Assuming today is also the hottest August 11, tomorrow will be actually be 41. :)
Isolated islands catching on fire because it's so goddamn hot doesn't feel like surviving.
That's not true
Continents are also on fire
666 upvotes lol. It's hot as hell
…since 1979
Edit: not saying there’s not a climate change disaster happening, but some of these analyses are a little misleading.
Except that to only say "...since 1979" is to comment in either ignorance or bad faith (your pick). We maintained record breaking temps ALL above the prior record for 36 is the damn point, and to miss that is to miss the entire thing.
There have been 44 years since 1979. Lets say the probability of getting 1 day above the 1979 record in a given year is 1/44 (uniform). The probability of even getting a week of the hottest days in one year would be (1/44)^7, would be a one in 300 billion chance. There are some issues and some assumptions I'm making for convenience, but its not ok to make idle comments with no comprehension of the scale of extremity this event represents.
As in, do you have any fucking idea how unlikely that is? This isn't an 'oopsie poopsie' funny record event.
Not to be too pedantic but your back of the envelope probabilities are based on inaccurate assumptions and probably several orders of magnitude off. Specifically, your not just assuming uniform but also independent from one day to the next. A more accurate treatment would be to assume conditional dependence from one day to the next (the Markov property). Once you have a record hot day, you are significantly more likely to have another record hot day following it.
That said, it’s still low probability, just not as low as what you’re saying.
Any thoughts on how I could incorporate that for a better back of the napkin?
(Also, that number is only consider that the number presented was based on 7 independent events, not 34)
If we stick with your 1/44 assumption, we can then assume 50% chance that the following day will also be a record setting day (probably too low still but the math is easier). Your one week estimate would be (1/44)*(1/2)^6.
While the data presented here only goes back to 1979, I seem to recall that some scientists worked out global average temperatures based on coral reef core samples and ice core samples. I think there were some other samples too but I can't remember what they were. So they are the hottest ever
I can't find any indication that 1979 had a 36-day heatwave with anything approaching the temperatures we're seeing.
I think the significance of 1979 is that's when we started keeping track of an overall global temperature day by day...
Not terribly significant. The length, number of heat records broken, and sheer catastrophic scale of this heatwave is unprecedented. We don't have any reason to think anything remotely like this has happened in human history, and the fact that we didn't have the means to track the entire planet's average temperature prior to 1979 doesn't negate that.
Hawaii is on fire. Oregon is on fire. Canada is on fire. California is on fire. The winter in the southern hemisphere is unprecedentedly warm, and much of Australia burned over their summer. It's going to burn again.
This is an emergency.
For the hell of it, I checked the list of hottest temperatures recorded and the top for the US was in 1913, Sweeden 1933, Russia 2010, and Germany/France 2019 (for just a small selection of countries). Very few were from this year and many weren't even in the last half century.
https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/List_of_weather_records#Highest_temperatures_ever_recorded
You're downvoted because you're comparing one day record temp to a full month of record highs.
Also, a large part of the reason the global average temperature is high is because the Southern hemisphere is having a very warm winter.
Comparing global average to local max temperatures is also wrong.
Much of eastern North America is having a relatively cool summer thanks to the smoke from the Canadian wildfires. Temps in my area have barely broken 85F/30C all summer
Oh good, maybe the smoke from everything being on fire will cool us down!
/s
"Survived"
Jesus Christ
well there was where earth was young
Lets go for more!!! (China says)
This explains why our electronic devices are hot to the point they cannot charge.
36 days... July 3rd to August 6... is
3435 days.I find it very hard to believe anything that makes such a simple mistake doesn't have other mistakes.
Hm, I'm counting 35 days
You're correct, still not 36 though.
Still not 34 either. Where'd you learn to count?
It would actually be 35 days, since it is inclusive of July 3rd. Maybe simple mistakes are equally simple to overlook, sometimes. :P