Ai data centres used about 0.5% of global electricity production last year. Electricity production is about 26,000 TWh annually, versus total energy production of 185 TWh annually, so AI was about 0.07% of all energy consumption. Energy production causes the bulk of greenhouse emissions: 73.2%, putting AI on 0.05% (this is unfair to AI, because electricity is cleaner than the average energy production which includes just burning gas for heat).
A large TV might consume about 100W while on, so 100Wh to watch for an hour. To reach the same consumption with AI, you'd need to run about 55 expensive (the upper estimate I found was 6700J - I assume this means long coding answers, research or image generation) chatgpt queries.
Personally I think it unlikely that someone would reach that 1 prompt per minute at that expensive estimate, so ask yourself: is AI really "burning entire areas" compared to just watching TV?
It has its problems but this is a moral panic.
If you're downvoting, leave me a comment to say why.
It all well and good comparing data centre energy usage with global production. But you miss out the important reality that a good chunk of the data centres running today and in the near future are using fossil fuel power on-site, without a grid connection, which is so much worse.
Be honest. Even if every single data centre did that, would it worse enough to really change the picture? It's still going to be less than paper production by a long way for a long while.
You're fighting a losing battle here, some people just have decided that AI is bad no matter what. There are quite many here on lemmy, which is a shame because there are good and bad sides about AI, but IMO it for sure is here to stay, so discussions would be interesting, again IMO.
AI is bad, but it's bizarre to point to its energy usage, out of all things. It's really missing the forest for the trees. As top commenter's data shows, even gaming on a gaming PC is so much worse (considering a 650W PSU, which is 6.5 times the TV example).
Yep, I've not had a productive discussion about it that I remember. It's not just that people have made their minds up; they also will not hear anything that is misaligned with their belief, even if ultimately compatible: you don't need to think that ai is useful or good to realise its energy use is not especially important. But if it's bad everything about it must be bad.
I mean you're talking to a guy who has halved his total energy usage over the past four years including watching fewer shows, playing fewer games, and sharing more books with friends from our already existing libraries. Trying to convince me that AI isn't that bad because it only adds a little more energy usage is a real lost cause when I'm constantly trying to push things to less energy usage in every way I can because I hear climate scientists sounding all the alarm bells.
It's an extra 0.5% that didn't need to exist on top of everything else we need to reduce.
Do you complain that everyone is being immoral for continuing to watch TV? Or do you accept that energy usage for entertainment is allowed?
How do you compare the relative moral value of using AI, watching TV, driving 10 miles, eating a steak and catching a flight?
If I wanted to halve my carbon footprint I'd further reduce my meat consumption. I would do nothing about gaming, safe in the knowledge that it's basically irrelevant.
Everyone should be doing what they can was more my point. I went for the biggest things for myself. I already was mostly vegetarian and didn't drive much so nothing to change there. Most of my carbon footprint was gaming, TV, and AC. Things I was able to work on easily. I do understand I'm fortunate enough to be able to add more insulation to my house and get more efficient appliances and so on. I do know we need to tackle things at the industrial level for best effect.
My point, again was that adding more power consumption and heat generation is definitely not the way.
Sure, but everyone needs to stay sane and alive - so whether someone is generating a slop meme, or watching TV - or using Claude to keep their boss happy, or whatever, these are relatively morally equivalent things. Yet here, AI is singled out as if it were uniquely damaging, when in fact it's similar. Just more hated.
However there is sharp growth in demand being predicted and I don't see any sign of humanity trading in some other power usage to get their data center power allocation. Even if we're are greening the grid it is all for nothing if the extra capacity has to be filled in by more fossil fuels.
They seem to be talking more about reliability than capacity. And you've not commented on the numbers, and comparison with other activities, which I'd take as more reliable and significant than the pronouncements of a damn lobbyist.
So? Matrix rules motherfucker, I don't care if you've been manipulated into trying to kill me, I just care that you're trying to kill me and it's not my responsibility to deprogram your death cult ass. Fuck em, every last one.
And also made to be susceptible to that level of stupidity by capitalists & their owned politicians gutting education / failing to fund it adequately to begin with. (For US anyway.)
I don’t know where you got the 2% number and I think the real number is probably a lot higher, but let’s assume that number is right for a moment. I know what you’re probably thinking because I used to think the same thing. IF vaccines were not as safe and effective as claimed, that number would be a lot higher than 2%. Four vaccines to cause SIDS, cancer, autoimmune diseases, autism, etc. that would mean that a massive amount of very smart people we’re either dumb or lying.
It seems inconceivable. But, the pharmaceutical industry is incomprehensively, wealthy and powerful in part because they own or effectively own pretty much every major scientific and medical journal and every med school and medical textbook. And they have a government that mandates their products and protects them from lawsuits. You can’t sue a vaccine manufacturer.
Under those circumstances, at least one and 50 medical professionals is screaming from the rooftops that vaccines are not safe, even when the industry is dedicated to destroying their careers and reputations for doing so and is willing to throw essentially unlimited money at it.
And there’s the fact that every study done that truly compared vaccinated and unvaccinated, such as the recent Henry Ford health study, has found that the vaccinated had significantly higher rates of every disease studied. Whereas the unvaccinated had close to zero.
I didn't take the vaccine at first because they pushed it as having "no potential risks". Every medical procedure has risks, so I knew they were bullshitting and was therefore unwilling to risk it. Mind you I worked through the entire pandemic as essential medical personnel (running a weed dispensary lmao)
Eventually, accurate risk information about the myocarditis / etc became available. That actually made me more comfortable because at least it was fucking honest. So I could evaluate, what is likely to cause me more harm, the vaccine or COVID?
The clear, science-based answer is COVID. You aren't a free thinker, you just opted into a different lane of dogma.
You know that phrase when people show you who they are believe them? You knew they were lying. They told you they knew for sure it was safe and you knew they couldn’t know that. Then they admitted a little bit that it might be a little bit unsafe, and suddenly you trusted them?
Imagine a wife, who knows that her husband has cheated on her with dozens of women. She knows that he is currently sneaking out behind her back again and confront him. After some arguing and denial, he eventually admits that he did see another woman, but insists that they only kissed. Should she believe him?
The vaccine did not work well for me: I got COVID at least 3 times. Was wearing N95 masks from the start (happened to have some). Stayed at home except for vital shopping. Grew my hair out. Social distanced the best I could. Played a lot of Animal Crossing. But interacting with work and family is unavoidable, and that's who I believe I got it from every time, as they were generally not taking it seriously.
From what I read, when I got the shot and boosters I should have had some kind of mild reaction. Felt bad for a day or at least a few hours, something like that. But that never happened to me. However, others I talked to did have a reaction, and they also didn't seem to get COVID. So I'm inclined to believe that the vaccine probably did work, for at least some segment of the population, just not for me for some reason. It was a rush job, so it not working for everyone isn't a conspiracy, to me it's somewhat expected. And maybe one of the other brands would have worked, but I don't think you were allowed to mix them.
The conflation of antivaxxers with tin foil hat conspiracy theorists is the product of huge marketing and PR budgets. I read that Pfizer had something like 112 employees just dedicated to Reddit.
It’s not a grand conspiracy theory. It’s just money and perverse incentives.
People like Biden and Fauci went on TV and said “when you get vaccinated, the virus stops with you… you can’t get it and you can’t transmit it.” They forced people to get the vaccine or lose their jobs.
And as you noted, it didn’t work, or at least not well. The data shows that it offered some protection to the initial variant, but the protection waned quickly, and once it wore off, your immune system was primed for a variant that no longer existed, which meant that you were actually at increased risk for new variants.
I know vaccinated people who have been hospitalized with COVID multiple times, and unvaccinated people who can’t seem to get COVID if they tried. It didn’t work. They lied and made billions on that lie.
Naaah. Get your lazy asses back to the office... so its market value doesn't decrease.
Also, no wind turbines or any such humbug in our neighborhood... so we can keep increasing rents. Which we, the boomers, decided ourselves, through collective hypnosis. Also, what's with this freeloader mentality? Imagine if any of the hoi-polloi could simply use wind and sun. Like, for themselves.
I expect climate change to be consistently worse than the mainstream predictions.
There's a huge political incentive to err on the side of downplaying than to exaggerate, and those models should have been bad enough to make the point.
They first created a simplified model. That model was still a fairly good match with the fully featured models. They then varied the parameters around reasonable possible values. If scientists were using most likely assumptions, you would expect a 50/50 split of better/worse predictions.
In practice it was 93% worse. Scientists were (unconsciously) using a lot of best case figures, not expected case.
When I read about that, and the complete lack of follow-up coverage, I knew we were fucked.
Which I don't blame the original scientists or studies for. Their predictions were bad enough that we should have done something then. It's been clear for at least 30 years.
They did what they thought would have the most traction and not get them dismissed as crackpots. And, to be clear, they were still within a margin of error. They weren't generally wrong, considering their margins. It's just that they're not going to be perfect and they made the better choice.
Even now it would be easier to dismiss climate change if the reality ended up better than predicted, even if it was still bad.
I came to the same conclusion after reading papers and articles for years and every year it got a little bit worse and a little bit sooner. Just following the trajectory of the changes in their expectations told me that we would hit ~+6°C by 2100.
One simplified model is not the reason for this. They've been expected to use a number of different climate scenarios in their work for a long time. Stop making shit up.
The point was to test for human bias in the data. The initial complaint was that scientists were cherry picking the data to make it look worse than it was. By looking at the spread, it showed they were minorly cherry picking to understate the problem. A fact that is now more and more obvious as it plays out.
It wasn't deliberate. It was more likely scientists being overly cautious about overstating their case. The end results pushed the normal agreed values closer to best case predictions rather than middle.
This was back when the main models needed weeks of super computer time, so only a few were run, and everyone else analysed the shared results.
Even when trying to be the most realistic, the climate is too difficult to accurately model, due to many variables and interactions between them, like feedback loops, which tend to make our models err on the generous side
The cynic in me imagines that the media purposely promoted the longer timelines to lull people into thinking we had more time, and so there was no rush.
I think it's more about scientists being extremely conservative with their estimates, because they know they'll get impaled over being 'alarmist.'
And then (effectively) fired from their job.
Also, you should check out conservative coverage. There is no timeline compression, its strait up cynicism, hostile denial.
EDIT: I forgot hand wringing. A perfect example: fairly scientific family showed me a WSJ article about how future geoengineering is going to make climate change a non-issue.
"Offended" did not begin to describe my reaction.
I've been reading geoengineering research papers for years, and they amount to things like:
Well, if we redirected a significant portion of the global economy to custom airplane and chemical production, we could rain sulfuric acid over the poles and wipe out all life beyond a certain latitude, and maybe counter the warming some if we keep it up... ecological implications aside, its still rather impractical, but an order of magnitude cheaper than previous proposals. Shows table.
I feel like some counters should immediately banish the speaker to sitting in the corner. "Alarmist" and "divisive" are the top two that come to mind. It's almost always idiots not engaging with the material in good faith who pop those out.
If someone is just trolling, sure. But usually I hear it when someone's like "gay people should be allowed to live" and someone else goes "you're being diViSiVe"
Well there's no retort to that. If you're in a debate environment where an acceptable critique is "well, these people existing is not part of our beliefs, so its not okay," then the whole debate is rigged from the start.
The thing is each individual issue feeds the speed of the rest. Sun melting ice from above, rising sea temp melting from below and both speed the other up. There's thousands of things like this. I'm not an expert or anything I just remember reading something like this.
Honestly having kids or not doesn’t make a huge difference since most countries are below replacement already anyway. Not like it’s normal to have 3+ kids anymore even if you do have kids.
I actually think it might even be worse to not have kids at this point, someone needs to fix all the issues previous generations have created. I'm pretty sure we need human intervention, some kind of Geo-engineering/Terraforming to avoid a runway hot house earth (something like effective carbon capture)... So I don't think antinatalism helps...
brother, we have a couple years left.
capitalism was and will be extremely efficient.
it actively even degraded people's intelligence level to maximize consumerism and most importantly the holiest of all: profit accumulation. education is completely indoctrinating us in every aspect to affirm the system.
change is completely out of reach to have every human being on earth to emancipate, so we'd dissolve all borders and switch from this hellscape of commodity based production to a to a needs based one.
its not going to work within national solutions, all those will have to play the game of the mightiest, we need all people to realize this but media already done its job to scare people out of reach for years. its literally the allegory of the cave, and people choose the chains.
I know we're fucked. But I refuse to believe that we cannot change. It will still get significantly worse, that I'm fairly sure of. But I also think that at some point for one renewables lobby is bigger than fossil and will actively fight fossilized lobby and that humans will see on a broader scale that we need to change. All of this is already in progress. I doubt doomerism does us any good. I'd agree that global collaboration would help significantly (and to a part this is happening already). Also keep in mind we're prone to talk about extremes, like capitalism, communism, socialism etc. While a mix of those is more accurate for most states (social market economy). USA is probably much closer to capitalism, but I doubt their system will work much longer it's too polarized to be "stable" much longer.
So while it will get ugly (and let's hope that climate scientists weren't too optimistic) I think we at least may be able too avoid a runway hothouse earth and stabilize the climate to at least human survivability (which is still sad...)
It doesn't really make a huge difference tbf, also, most of the work is done by a few countries (see India, China and many african countries), countries like South Korea or Italy actually have the opposite problem, there aren't enough kids
AI (specifically chatbots) is crap, has stolen and monetized work people shared for free, violates copyrights (including the GPL), has already caused job loss, is biased and bigoted, I'd even say somewhat unethical to use due to the aforementioned things. People are better off not using it (although it's basically forced on you now when you go to certain websites). But I'll just mention a couple things:
It takes around 200 ChatGPT queries to use 2 gallons of water for cooling (EDIT: seeing a lot of different answers on this, some as high as 2 gallons for only 15 queries. Lets go with that instead. It still means that taking a shower for only 4 seconds uses more water than a single ChatGPT query.)
A standard shower head uses 2½ gallons of water per minute
So to save water, taking a shorter shower, not having a swimming pool, not watering a lawn, not washing your car, not spraying driveways, flushing the toilet less often, washing a full load of laundry and running a full dishwasher instead of hand washing are all much more impactful than cutting out the occasional AI query.
I do hope that awareness of AI water waste will also motivate people to cut water use in other ways too, so it's good that the issue keeps coming up.
The only thing that can save us now is for the top governments across the world to work together on climate change. Most importantly they need to be proactive instead of reactive.
That being said, yeah, we are absolutely cooked. Even when people start dying they'll still just fight over resources instead of working together. You can already see signs of it like Trump having his grubby little fingers in Greenland.
The one thing that I look forward to is if I remain healthy and with a bit of luck, I'll live long enough to watch this dystopian shithole come crashing down.
Doesn't matter what earnings you posted this quarter.
Doesn't matter if you believe in climate change.
Doesn't matter if you need this truck.
You're on this rock of wind and water and it'll do what it needs, to get back to it's equilibrium. That might be at a level we don't exist anymore nature is emotionless and you can't control it.
Humans existed in harmony with nature for a very long time, and in many places still manage to, despite the increasing challenges posed by climate change.
The human species isn't what's throwing the planet out of equilibrium. It's capitalism and the closely-related evils of white supremacy and war.
We can survive this if we kill capitalism, kill the notion of whiteness (and Zionism), return to listening to nature if we have strayed, and avoid war.
Though the human population is projected to begin shrinking very soon even without major environmental pressures, so "surviving this" might not look like the society we have today. Maybe we're maintaining our own equilibrium, at least a little bit.
While I agree that the capitalist requirement for unceasing exponential growth is at the heart of modern climate change, it is slightly disingenuous to claim that humans have been living in harmony with nature prior to the industrial revolution. There is a lot of evidence for pre-modern humans clear cutting swathes of land, wiping out megafauna, and treating the environment as an object for exploitation long before the notion of infinite growth became commonplace.
If we really want to get to the heart of it, it is the monotheistic notion that the world was created for us, that there is another (better) world for us after we die, and that therefore it is our birthright to use this land in any way we see fit. Capitalism and industrialisation have provided humanity with the tools to proliferate to such an extent that the scale of the damage we are causing is far greater than anything we were capable of previously, but the Christian imperative to reap the land has been around far longer.
More animistic cultures/religions tend to emphasise the importance of balance with nature and recognise humanity's place in the larger ecology, but they are therefore also less likely to propogate widely and become a dominant global force.
Fair point with megafauna, but my counterpoint would be that we were struggling to exist, like any other animal, and extinction is a part of nature. Driving things extinct isn't inherently unnatural.
But then you could say, "Yes, but the same applies to climate change. The earliest oxygen-exhaling plants poisoned the atmosphere and lead to the extinction of more ancient plants." (Or was it the giant fungus? I forget.) And you'd have a point there too.
But I think the key difference is having a viable alternative and being aware of the suffering we're causing. We know what we're doing; the plants did not, they just evolved that way. We have alternatives to farming and hunting animals until their extinction; early inhabitants of Aotearoa, who drove the Moa to extinction, probably didn't. I will pick preserving megafauna over having my hypothetical preferred megafauna dinner, but I can't pretend I'd pick preserving megafauna over preventing my family from starving to death.
If we really want to get to the heart of it, it is the monotheistic notion that the world was created for us, that there is another (better) world for us after we die, and that therefore it is our birthright to use this land in any way we see fit. Capitalism and industrialisation have provided humanity with the tools to proliferate to such an extent that the scale of the damage we are causing is far greater than anything we were capable of previously, but the Christian imperative to reap the land has been around far longer.
I agree so strongly that that philosophy definitely makes it much worse. My main issue with Abrahamic religions is the notion that god resembles man (and vice versa) instead of resembling forces of nature.
But I don't think monotheism was a prevailing philosophy when the megafauna were driven to extinction. Animals (and sometimes even plants) have driven each other to extinction many times in our planet's history, and we're just animals. I think the only thing that gives us the potential to rise above that status is knowledge, and that acting as caretakers to all other living beings on this planet is the highest application of that knowledge in the short-term. Long-term, the highest application is extending the reach of life to other planets, even if it's as simple as intentional panspermia with extremophile microbes.
Lots of good points here and well articulated. I agree that the critical difference between homo-sapiens and ancient forms of speciocide lies in our understanding of the consequences of our actions, and therefore (at least theoretically) having cognitive some control over our actions. I also agree that in most cases megafauna extinctions weren't driven by a monotheistic philosophy, however, I would argue that in those cases we were likely ignorant to the full consequences of our actions thereby mitigating culpability to some extent. Either way, I wanted to push back on the notion of preindustrial humans being in harmony with nature (and perhaps the idea of harmonious nature more broadly) as I don't think there is a lot of evidence for that beyond a few isolated examples.
I completely agree that we should be aspiring to the role of caretakers of this planet we've all found ourselves on, and to me the greatest tragedy of the human condition is the recognition of how much we've perverted that role. I find it hard to look forward to any kind of future for humanity when we are currently so at odds with that goal, and with seemingly no desire to alter course as a collective.
We're sitting in our rooms agitated, causing life long issue with sleepless nights, all while these fuckers that did this for greed sake are building climate controlled bunkers.
Fuck rich removed
see you next Tuesday is sencered? What else can we call them...
I've said it before, we need to announce the revolution so all these idiots go into their bunkers, and then brick them up or something.
The concept of hiding out bunker is idiotic, if the world is truly dying then what are you going to do in a bunker? Sit there for the rest of your life, and then what, have your descendants emerge a century later to devastated world, what's the point? The sort of people who hide out in end of the world shelters are not the sort of people who want to get their hands dirty rebuilding civilisation.
Far apart from anything else it's going to be incredibly boring if you're used to the jet setting lifestyle.
They probably think the "cattle" will tire themselves out with revolution after a decade or so, and then they can reemerge to retake the reins of society.
It doesn't make the most sense but these people have more money than sense, almost definitionally.
There's been a 73% decline in global vertebrate populations since 1970. We're in the beginning of a very serious mass extinction and it's kinda like we don't care which is interesting.
Whatever helps get you through it. Functionally it makes no difference. The simulation runs particles smaller than atoms and the maximum speed is still light. Our universe is too vast for us to explore and there's probably other life forms on planets too far away to matter. Our experience is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, yet the only thing we will ever do. Make it count while you're here.
I mean the probability isn't in our favor. As for us, yeah it doesn't change much. Same for a lot of epistemological arguments. Last Thursdayism, Descartes demon, Plato's cave, Chung Tzu's butterfly, solipsism, Boltzmann brains could all be bang on right on the money. I see you're taking the more so physical reality approach, even then if something like the holographic universe or some variation is correct then maybe distance doesn't exist like we think it does. If for instance we're in a black hole then there's a one to one representation of all information here in what we consider 3D space on the black hole's surface.
All the fun ideas aside I agree with you although maybe our definitions of fun may be different. That is I think the first goal is to reduce needless and avoidable suffering for all minds anywhere in existence whenever possible. Like even if it is a simulation of sorts or reality just started ten seconds ago or what I'm experiencing is a Boltzmann brain it still doesn't stop the first goal from at least being the best goal I've found so far.
Not saying you're wrong but I don't see the point in letting the population collapse. It will just bounce back later and probably be far greater assuming humans don't go extinct before achieving sufficient space travel and colonies. That is also assuming we're the only ones here and this isn't like a controlled demolition of the human species by some other entity or force.
no no you don't understand, the billionaires want more money, the number simply must go up. and maybe they would care about the world if any of their workers would inform them of the consequences of each of their actions, but none that do stick around so the number keeps going up, fuck the consequences
Possible but they're holding summits trying to figure out how to maintain control in their bunkers when money no longer has value. I think they're pretty aware of the situation at hand.
Safe until there's a revolt and they become the bunker bitch or in a worse case tomorrow's dinner. You see the issue? Can't control people with money if money no longer has value.
of course, though i bet they're working under the assumption that their defences are enough, or that they will be the last remaining humans out there. basically, hubris
greed and hubris are a powerful combo, unfortunately
Sociopathic billionaires with all of the power to do something about it absolutely don't care if the world ends. They only care if they were on top before the game ended.
I'm not absolutely sure if. That's true, seems to be more so a function of their age. Like if i'm 92 and the world ends then not so bad, but if I'm like 38 and the world ends then that's sad.
You're very right. We're dealing with mostly rich old people who never cared about others while they were young and certainly don't now that they're about to die.
People like elon musk will be around for a good while longer and I think people need to not underestimate just how mentally ill these people are. They're not capable of caring about other people as much as themselve like normal people are. This is a key feature of sociopathic narcissism, and people like that are well equipped to traverse our economic system more successfully than anyone else because they have no morals or empathy holding them back. After enough decades of capitalism, the only ones on top are people like this and then it devolves into neo-feudalism.
If any billionaire regardless of age cared about humanity, they would use their massive power and influence to help humanity and they simply choose not to.
You know it's crazy. This weekend I drove through Southern Utah Arizona and Vegas in Southern California. It was 109° in Las Vegas 106 in St George Utah and 105 and Baker California. But it's expected in those areas during the summer. Canada that's insane to have those temperatures. It's hard to fathom that in France. Maybe in the south of France where it's closer to the equator. But it's still crazy to me. Well not crazy it's further proof of global warming. Not that anyone that can do anything cares.
Yeah I remember reading something about that at one point a couple months ago. They're talking about how the European settlers when they first came to the United States they looked at the latitude and longitude of it and we're absolutely dumbfounded at the difference in temperatures.
Temperature sensors in cars aren't accurate if your car is in direct sunlight or over hot asphalt. If you need accuracy (and in this case I'd argue we do) you should grab the data from environment Canada.
No shit! Almost like I specified because I wanted transparency or else I would just say that it was 44C out. Also, it was very nearly there with the humidity.
As a Person Living In France, I can confirm it feels like someone put an oven in every room. Even places with A/C mostly can't keep up with the heat. The only safe space is the car with working A/C.
We are rapidly reaching temperatures where life becomes impossible, and we'll need to be indoors from May to October. And we are just getting started.
If people can live in the desert then life isn't impossible. Tear down the buildings built for the old climate and build new purpose built structures. Find new times of the day to get outside. It's not impossible unless you insist on not changing.
The problem with humid heat is that it doesn't give a fuck about shade. Europe in general is humid.
When it is humid, there's barely a difference of temperature between shaded areas and unshaded ones.
When it is dry, all you gotta do is find some shade and temperature drops fast, to the point where you might even have to wear a jacket because it's too cold. That doesn't happen with high humidity.
Not to mention with high humidity your own bodies cooling is compromised. Fans don't help as much either. At a certain temp/humidity, people just die unless they get to a climate controlled room.
Yeah just don't fall into the old mistake of weather = climate. Heat waves happened before climate change as well. But our current changing climate makes them more likely to happen more often and more intense, if I am informed correctly.
Its not one or the other, that's overly simplistic. Using this one data point to "prove" climate change is about as honest as someone bringing a snowball into congress to prove it's fake.
You need both to prove a sustainable point, otherwise it's forgotten with the next cold snap. This is one extreme data point, and it helps to showcase the problem, but it is not the only one. Use it as part of a whole, not as a singular showcase.
That they're outliers of what has been the norm for centuries is the entire point. Saying "this is the new normal" is, as you might surmise, normalizing it.
I mean, it is the new normal? None of us (hopefully) want it to be, but it's the reality we have to deal with, unless the laws of physics that make thermometers work suddenly changed and no one noticed
Lemmy users falling for the same logical fallacies they laugh at others for using challenge: impossible.
A single datapoint doesn't prove anything, but a pattern of change that can be proven to be influenced separately from typical weather variation does. Like it or not, it would also have to be proven that the pattern is being caused by something distinct from global climate patterns.
For the record, I firmly believe climate change is real, I just hate when people I agree with try using the same dumb arguments as the people I disagree with.
Look up how many heatwaves happened in France during the 20th century, and how many happened in the last 10 years. Yes, weather on any single day is not climate, but we are quite past "oh heatwaves happened before".
I'm in the northern us and traveled to Austin, TX for work recently.
I departed at 72 degrees and raining and landed in 98 degrees with a 78 dew point. It was a heat index of 116.
I understand exactly why the world is burning, watching all the people scurry from AC to AC in a state which derives most of it's power from fossil juice. And then of course, everyone is driving a monster vehicle and coal rolling pedestrians and e scooter renters.
This is not supposed to be personal, but an additional point is how it is completely natural to us as a society to fly somewhere. Even if it's for work.
I don't fly often, but my entire team travels for work, meaning they are on the road all day, everyday. We are a sales organization and that's what is expected by our customers.
I'm not exempt from blame here. I do what I can to reduce my footprint, sadly it's not much.
I fully understand. I did that for a long time, too (working and participating in a frequent flying environment). But that's really where we need to change society. The way we think about things that we have never questioned before.
And one additional thing should become very clear: it's not only about our footprint. Someone needs to stop others from destroying everything, from flying, from coal rolling monster suvs etc. And as there are too few people being that someone, we need to be that someone.
A lot will admit it’s real but then shift blame to China while overlooking the facts that chinas pollution is largely made by western countries outsourcing the dirtiest parts of their supply chain to China and that China is vastly outperforming and outspending literally every country in considerably bringing down their emissions
Sadly, most people are incapable (or unwilling) to think beyond maybe 2 links in the causal chain, the "in your face" immediatelly visible stuff and a simple explanation for it (generally of the "people I don't like did it" kind).
Faced with "this is happening" (or, worse, "somebody is telling me this is happening"), they'll generally accept whatever "explanation" they're fed and can't just keep asking themselves "Why?" ("Why are you telling me this (what's in it for you)?", "why would those people do this (what's in it for them)?", "is that the only reason?" and so on).
For example, if you dig down, in most countries in Europe the increase in immigration can be traced back to locals not having enough kids and thus the population is aging and you need to let in working age people to pay for retirement pensions of the locals, and that in turn digs down to massive realestate bubbles and stagnating salaries so that the profits of the fatcats are high (at the unspecialized level immigration does put downwards pressure on salaries, though the picture is less clear above that) making life way harder for young people so they have fewer children, and that in turn leads to how the parties in government (mainly the "mainstream" ones) have reliably enacted policies to favor very rich people (mainly making the income from Work be less and less whilst the income from Asset Ownership is more and more) and realestate investors and even the "fringe" "left" has just blindly parroted pro-immigration slogans from the American and British liberals (and ended up punished at the ballot for it, to the gain of the Far-Right), and that in turn leads us to just how many of those politicians have "realestate investestor" as their main source of wealth increase and to the massive levels of Corruption in the modern era (and on the "fringe" "left" parties we dig down to how those heading them grew up in the Neoliberal era, don't really have coherent leftwing ideologies unlike in the old days and thus think the moral liberalism of the Neoliberals is what being "leftwing" is all about).
IMHO Populism works because it just points at some issue (or makes one up) and then provides a single-layer immediate explanation (generally of the "they're bad people" kind), and all wrapped up in a nice bow and that totally satisfies many if not most people. The simplest way to disassemble that is just to ask "Why do you want me to believe that?", but those people refuse to do it.
Some have stopped denying the warming. But they've moved on to "humans can't cause enough pollution to affect the entire earth" and "It's god's will to bring the end times" fml
My favorite is "it's real, but it's the sun, so...what are we gonna do? Besides, humans can't possibly affect the earth!" as if things like aerosolized lead blanketing the planet for 60 years simply didn't happen.
Well its not the whole globe, just Europe here. There are people there I care about, but there's plenty of space for them over here when Europe becomes uninhabitable, and switching to renewables seems like kind of a pain.
I think youre right, most people are still too busy fucking around to notice finding out. But there will be a point everybody will see clearly how bad We've fucked up
I've accepted that we won't survive the coming storm. Covid showed us that people couldn't be bothered tonwear a mask or get a shot to fight off a disease that was visibly killing millions. If we can't come together on that, there's no way we'll come together to survive the climate crisis.
Do you mean 'we, society as it is right now' or 'we, the human species'. Because i don't really disagree, but at the same time i've seen people get through stuff i expected would kill them. I'm quite convinced some people will survive the storm. Might not be many if we continue this way though
Oh humans will survive. We're hands down the most adaptable species evolution ever spat out. Billions of us living as we have been? Definitely not. But make no mistake, it'll be humans, cockroaches, and whatever's going on on those deep sea vents left at the end.
It's the end for billions, possibly trillions of living beings though (remember not only humans are suffering from climate changes). There will be some sort of rebuilding sure, but the cost will have been unimaginable.
Oh I know. I worship nature. My god is being killed for Tiktok AI slop and Twitter incel CSA. It's the greatest blasphemy imaginable and there is no suffering great enough for its architects. I'm not naive enough to believe in any kind of inevitable legal justice, but I do believe they'll die hollow, even if it's of natural causes.
I wouldn't overestimate humanity's survival capabilities. There have been over a dozen known species of the genus homo, yet all but one are extinct. The rest have died out mostly due to natural changes in climate.
Sure, we can adapt, but we'd have to put in an actual effort to do so. Reducing emissions is an adaptation, but we're not doing enough in that regard.
The fictional one has something along the lines of "as usual" while in reality it's exceptional (for now). Though europe is especially affected by climate change, due to some meteorological phenomenas. And it's concerning that we get a few more over-30°C days each year.
Media in France keep repeating it's exceptional because it's hotter than previous years, but they also sometimes add that it's probably colder than all years to come.
Except that isolations keeps warmth in, or out in the winter, but not both. Not that simple.
But you're right about cities and AC, I was in Madrid in august last year, jesus it was hot. So hot it was probably dangerous, I wonder how much was caused by ubiquitous AC.
I beg to differ. A good insulation insulates two systems from another. In this case the air outside and the air inside. So with a good insulation you don't need as much heating when it is cold outside and cooling when it is hot outside.
This is the way. With good insulation doesn't matter if there's a heatwave or a coldwave. And there is the risk of the Gulf steam stopping and sending Europe to a mini ice age.
Actually, in line with what was actually anticipated and taught in science classes in 2000. People decided to go with the best case scenarios as if global emissions would go down for some reason. No one who has been paying attention should be surprised.
That graph doesn't show that emissions gone down, that shows the estimated effect on temperature growth based on targets agreed on by the Paris agreement. Neither the targets nor the temperature estimates in this graph have been met.
Per capita emissions growth has slowed, not reversed but the population has INCREASED. Not only is industry emitting more per person, but there are more people.
Every time the IPCC publishes a report it's like: oh yeah may have gone way past the most pessimistic option this year, yet again, for the seventh time in a row, so here's a new set of predictions that will surely not be overly optimistic this time round.
So I was curious about this, and asked my barber (yesterday) how much the aircon he had installed was.
I was told the unit costs (~£1600) were exceeded by the install/labour, and that all they did was the unit fitting & plumbing/pipe to the external unit. An electrician had to be separately hired to wire it all up.
So I’m conservatively guessing somewhere around 3.5k all in.
For one of those normal units, I’d estimate as about 70x25cm, cooling an area less than my living room.
I’d say anyone looking for a trade in the UK right now, would be wise to skill up on doing it as a one stop shop, and cash in for the next decade.
Portland, Oregon, in °C (cause I never learned Fahrenheit)
It’s not typically known for being a hot place, but this is just the weather report for today.
We’re so very fucked.
(yes watch is in Japanese cause that’s what I grew up speaking and I don’t want to lose it despite having pretty good English, get off my back)
Edit: and then I checked the weather report for later. We’re not cooked, temporarily. Grand scheme of things, thoroughly fucked. But the eye of the storm feels nice.
Hey friend, you sound like you’ve had a rough time with people trying to get you to “integrate” or some such. Your choices of how you experience the world and technology aren’t any one else’s concern and whatever they are, they are valid. I live and work in highly international environments and basically everyone prefers their native tongue for things like computer/phone interface.
I learned English when I was eleven and spent my twenties and thirties masking as yet another basic white American chick, and then in my late thirties I realized that just cause I’m not the exact ethnicity I needed to be for my childhood to be easily believable (white kid growing up on an Air Force base in rural Japan) that I didn’t need to hide it, and that I should celebrate who I was when I was barely a meter tall, thirty years ago. I try my best to keep up my Japanese, but I don’t look like someone who speaks it, which is great when I overhear people shit talking me for being trans or whatnot.
I could take an hour and learn Fahrenheit, but I just don’t want to. I know Fahrenheit for values over 300 anyway: set oven to the number on the box.
さあ、しょうがないね。
(dear solitary downvoter: I’m interpreting your solitary downvote as me explaining my reasoning for why I am how I am, and you just saying “no” with no further context or detail. It was folks like you that caused me to mask up and hide my past for so long. In conclusion, go fuck yourself, solitary downvoter. I’m not gonna fade out of existence, or go back to pretending I like cappuccino and Blazers, just cause you said “no.”)
Mozinor, la météo du futur.
Not a clip on climate, more a parody about canicule. France had gone through the 2003 heatwave with an awful lot of casualties amongst old people. Had cost his seat to an unskilled unqualified health minister (something Mattei) under Chirac last presidency.
The clip is typical of Mozinor with childish high-pitched voice and many video samples of blockbusters. In France there is no copyright when it comes to "détournement" of a scene from a movie.
I believe Mozinor is still active but I don't follow anymore.
300, dead zone, Olivier Besancenot, 007, baboulinet, search for any of these adding Mozinor to the request , if you are curious
Removal of subsidies for EVs, launching rockets for space garbage every 5 seconds, and bombing everything. I'm sure hitting the gas/fuel plant with missiles was especially great for greenhouse gases.
I think overall destroying gas/fuel plants will lower the amount of fuel entering the atmosphere overall. Sure the stockpiles will go up right then and there but that was going to happen anyway, and shutting production down for a few months will be a net benefit to the atmosphere (assuming they don't turn to a worse source of fuel, which they might.) The space industry also is still small enough that it accounts for a surprisingly small portion of emissions.
The EV issues and increasingly larger and larger vehicles I think account for a much greater portion of emissions.
Most people are sheep. They just follow the stream and eat what big tech serves. As long as the entertainment in the arena (tiktok etc) is good enough, nothing else matters. No need to think, no time to reflect. With AI you don't really have to think at all. (feels like this is true, but hope it is not)
It's meant to be a joke, it clearly didn't land like I thought, oh well.
The new map has no terrain detail, so I, jokingly, took to mean that they literally flatted out the terrain. Which would cause all sorts of climate change.
280 Comments
verstra@programming.dev · 159 pts · 60d
We could really use a covid-style lockdown for a few years.
mrmisses@lemmy.world · 87 pts · 60d
But this time no cure until we wipe out all the anti mask/ anti vaccine idiots first
mushroommunk@lemmy.today · 84 pts · 60d
And "AI" idiots who insist on burning entire areas just to generate shrimp Jesus memes
lemmyng@lemmy.world · 41 pts · 60d
And the fascist oligarchs. Maybe lock em in submarines and drown the lot of em.
MrLLM@ani.social · 22 pts · 60d
We don’t need a covid-style lockdown to do that. Just saying.
pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 59d
i know the perfect company for that one, im sure they still use a logitech controller.
FishFace@piefed.social · 5 pts · 60d
Ai data centres used about 0.5% of global electricity production last year. Electricity production is about 26,000 TWh annually, versus total energy production of 185 TWh annually, so AI was about 0.07% of all energy consumption. Energy production causes the bulk of greenhouse emissions: 73.2%, putting AI on 0.05% (this is unfair to AI, because electricity is cleaner than the average energy production which includes just burning gas for heat).
In comparison, trying to find something small on https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector my favourite comparison is that energy for making paper consumes more than 10x as much as does AI.
A large TV might consume about 100W while on, so 100Wh to watch for an hour. To reach the same consumption with AI, you'd need to run about 55 expensive (the upper estimate I found was 6700J - I assume this means long coding answers, research or image generation) chatgpt queries.
Personally I think it unlikely that someone would reach that 1 prompt per minute at that expensive estimate, so ask yourself: is AI really "burning entire areas" compared to just watching TV?
It has its problems but this is a moral panic.
If you're downvoting, leave me a comment to say why.
guywithadeathwish@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 60d
It all well and good comparing data centre energy usage with global production. But you miss out the important reality that a good chunk of the data centres running today and in the near future are using fossil fuel power on-site, without a grid connection, which is so much worse.
FishFace@piefed.social · -5 pts · 60d
Be honest. Even if every single data centre did that, would it worse enough to really change the picture? It's still going to be less than paper production by a long way for a long while.
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 60d
You're fighting a losing battle here, some people just have decided that AI is bad no matter what. There are quite many here on lemmy, which is a shame because there are good and bad sides about AI, but IMO it for sure is here to stay, so discussions would be interesting, again IMO.
7101334@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 60d
Correct, because outside of scientific and medical applications (run by actual scientists and medical professionals), all AI is bad no matter what.
Nothing it can possibly do for you justifies the harm it does, and your reliance on it atrophies your cognitive skills.
merdaverse@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 60d
AI is bad, but it's bizarre to point to its energy usage, out of all things. It's really missing the forest for the trees. As top commenter's data shows, even gaming on a gaming PC is so much worse (considering a 650W PSU, which is 6.5 times the TV example).
FishFace@piefed.social · 0 pts · 60d
Yep, I've not had a productive discussion about it that I remember. It's not just that people have made their minds up; they also will not hear anything that is misaligned with their belief, even if ultimately compatible: you don't need to think that ai is useful or good to realise its energy use is not especially important. But if it's bad everything about it must be bad.
mushroommunk@lemmy.today · 11 pts · 60d
I mean you're talking to a guy who has halved his total energy usage over the past four years including watching fewer shows, playing fewer games, and sharing more books with friends from our already existing libraries. Trying to convince me that AI isn't that bad because it only adds a little more energy usage is a real lost cause when I'm constantly trying to push things to less energy usage in every way I can because I hear climate scientists sounding all the alarm bells.
It's an extra 0.5% that didn't need to exist on top of everything else we need to reduce.
FishFace@piefed.social · 4 pts · 60d
Do you complain that everyone is being immoral for continuing to watch TV? Or do you accept that energy usage for entertainment is allowed?
How do you compare the relative moral value of using AI, watching TV, driving 10 miles, eating a steak and catching a flight?
If I wanted to halve my carbon footprint I'd further reduce my meat consumption. I would do nothing about gaming, safe in the knowledge that it's basically irrelevant.
mushroommunk@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 59d
Everyone should be doing what they can was more my point. I went for the biggest things for myself. I already was mostly vegetarian and didn't drive much so nothing to change there. Most of my carbon footprint was gaming, TV, and AC. Things I was able to work on easily. I do understand I'm fortunate enough to be able to add more insulation to my house and get more efficient appliances and so on. I do know we need to tackle things at the industrial level for best effect.
My point, again was that adding more power consumption and heat generation is definitely not the way.
FishFace@piefed.social · 2 pts · 59d
Sure, but everyone needs to stay sane and alive - so whether someone is generating a slop meme, or watching TV - or using Claude to keep their boss happy, or whatever, these are relatively morally equivalent things. Yet here, AI is singled out as if it were uniquely damaging, when in fact it's similar. Just more hated.
stsquad@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 60d
However there is sharp growth in demand being predicted and I don't see any sign of humanity trading in some other power usage to get their data center power allocation. Even if we're are greening the grid it is all for nothing if the extra capacity has to be filled in by more fossil fuels.
FishFace@piefed.social · 0 pts · 60d
Yes, about 12% per year these days. Not enough to really change the picture for a long time, though.
MBM@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 59d
And yet the data center lobby says the EU should abandon its climate goals for AI
FishFace@piefed.social · 1 pts · 58d
They seem to be talking more about reliability than capacity. And you've not commented on the numbers, and comparison with other activities, which I'd take as more reliable and significant than the pronouncements of a damn lobbyist.
ChicoSuave@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 60d
The anti-mask/no jab people were convinced to be dangerous by billionaire propaganda.
edible_funk@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 60d
So? Matrix rules motherfucker, I don't care if you've been manipulated into trying to kill me, I just care that you're trying to kill me and it's not my responsibility to deprogram your death cult ass. Fuck em, every last one.
7101334@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 60d
And also made to be susceptible to that level of stupidity by capitalists & their owned politicians gutting education / failing to fund it adequately to begin with. (For US anyway.)
Fermion@feddit.nl · -2 pts · 60d
Genocide is cool so long as it's targeting the people I think are vile and sub-human.
edible_funk@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 60d
Disingenuous bullshit for 300 Alex.
casualvagrancy@lemmy.world · -21 pts · 60d
Yeah, the people with the blood clots, myocarditis, infertility, and skyrocketing rates of ass cancer are the smart ones.
They knew that COVID is stopped by a mask, except you’re sitting down at a restaurant.
They get COVID again and again because the vaccine works!
jaybone@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 60d
Hmm. The Lemmy antivax crowd.
7101334@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 60d
"Crowd" being, in this case, one guy lol
casualvagrancy@lemmy.world · -11 pts · 60d
Decades of doctors, researchers, and Nobel prize winning immunologists willing to endure endless derision and destroy their careers.
Hundreds of thousands of parents with identical stories.
But we’re just the antivax crowd. Smart people believe the ads on TV.
oyo@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 60d
Decades is a way to count people now? I think the number you're looking for is 2%.
casualvagrancy@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 59d
I don’t know where you got the 2% number and I think the real number is probably a lot higher, but let’s assume that number is right for a moment. I know what you’re probably thinking because I used to think the same thing. IF vaccines were not as safe and effective as claimed, that number would be a lot higher than 2%. Four vaccines to cause SIDS, cancer, autoimmune diseases, autism, etc. that would mean that a massive amount of very smart people we’re either dumb or lying.
It seems inconceivable. But, the pharmaceutical industry is incomprehensively, wealthy and powerful in part because they own or effectively own pretty much every major scientific and medical journal and every med school and medical textbook. And they have a government that mandates their products and protects them from lawsuits. You can’t sue a vaccine manufacturer.
Under those circumstances, at least one and 50 medical professionals is screaming from the rooftops that vaccines are not safe, even when the industry is dedicated to destroying their careers and reputations for doing so and is willing to throw essentially unlimited money at it.
And there’s the fact that every study done that truly compared vaccinated and unvaccinated, such as the recent Henry Ford health study, has found that the vaccinated had significantly higher rates of every disease studied. Whereas the unvaccinated had close to zero.
7101334@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 60d
I didn't take the vaccine at first because they pushed it as having "no potential risks". Every medical procedure has risks, so I knew they were bullshitting and was therefore unwilling to risk it. Mind you I worked through the entire pandemic as essential medical personnel (running a weed dispensary lmao)
Eventually, accurate risk information about the myocarditis / etc became available. That actually made me more comfortable because at least it was fucking honest. So I could evaluate, what is likely to cause me more harm, the vaccine or COVID?
The clear, science-based answer is COVID. You aren't a free thinker, you just opted into a different lane of dogma.
casualvagrancy@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 59d
You know that phrase when people show you who they are believe them? You knew they were lying. They told you they knew for sure it was safe and you knew they couldn’t know that. Then they admitted a little bit that it might be a little bit unsafe, and suddenly you trusted them?
Imagine a wife, who knows that her husband has cheated on her with dozens of women. She knows that he is currently sneaking out behind her back again and confront him. After some arguing and denial, he eventually admits that he did see another woman, but insists that they only kissed. Should she believe him?
7101334@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 59d
That's
not a remotely comparable analogy lol
forbiddencherry@lemmy.today · 0 pts · 60d
The vaccine did not work well for me: I got COVID at least 3 times. Was wearing N95 masks from the start (happened to have some). Stayed at home except for vital shopping. Grew my hair out. Social distanced the best I could. Played a lot of Animal Crossing. But interacting with work and family is unavoidable, and that's who I believe I got it from every time, as they were generally not taking it seriously.
From what I read, when I got the shot and boosters I should have had some kind of mild reaction. Felt bad for a day or at least a few hours, something like that. But that never happened to me. However, others I talked to did have a reaction, and they also didn't seem to get COVID. So I'm inclined to believe that the vaccine probably did work, for at least some segment of the population, just not for me for some reason. It was a rush job, so it not working for everyone isn't a conspiracy, to me it's somewhat expected. And maybe one of the other brands would have worked, but I don't think you were allowed to mix them.
casualvagrancy@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 59d
The conflation of antivaxxers with tin foil hat conspiracy theorists is the product of huge marketing and PR budgets. I read that Pfizer had something like 112 employees just dedicated to Reddit.
It’s not a grand conspiracy theory. It’s just money and perverse incentives.
People like Biden and Fauci went on TV and said “when you get vaccinated, the virus stops with you… you can’t get it and you can’t transmit it.” They forced people to get the vaccine or lose their jobs.
And as you noted, it didn’t work, or at least not well. The data shows that it offered some protection to the initial variant, but the protection waned quickly, and once it wore off, your immune system was primed for a variant that no longer existed, which meant that you were actually at increased risk for new variants.
I know vaccinated people who have been hospitalized with COVID multiple times, and unvaccinated people who can’t seem to get COVID if they tried. It didn’t work. They lied and made billions on that lie.
Now think about what else they’re lying about.
TheBrideWoreCrimson@sopuli.xyz · 7 pts · 60d
Naaah. Get your lazy asses back to the office... so its market value doesn't decrease.
Also, no wind turbines or any such humbug in our neighborhood... so we can keep increasing rents. Which we, the boomers, decided ourselves, through collective hypnosis. Also, what's with this freeloader mentality? Imagine if any of the hoi-polloi could simply use wind and sun. Like, for themselves.
Iusedtobeanalien@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 59d
Nationalise essential services and rotate people in and out of those jobs for three months at a time, like jury service
Serinus@lemmy.world · 147 pts · 60d
I expect climate change to be consistently worse than the mainstream predictions.
There's a huge political incentive to err on the side of downplaying than to exaggerate, and those models should have been bad enough to make the point.
cynar@lemmy.world · 49 pts · 60d
About a decade ago a group did a study on it.
They first created a simplified model. That model was still a fairly good match with the fully featured models. They then varied the parameters around reasonable possible values. If scientists were using most likely assumptions, you would expect a 50/50 split of better/worse predictions.
In practice it was 93% worse. Scientists were (unconsciously) using a lot of best case figures, not expected case.
When I read about that, and the complete lack of follow-up coverage, I knew we were fucked.
Serinus@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 60d
Which I don't blame the original scientists or studies for. Their predictions were bad enough that we should have done something then. It's been clear for at least 30 years.
They did what they thought would have the most traction and not get them dismissed as crackpots. And, to be clear, they were still within a margin of error. They weren't generally wrong, considering their margins. It's just that they're not going to be perfect and they made the better choice.
Even now it would be easier to dismiss climate change if the reality ended up better than predicted, even if it was still bad.
HasturInYellow@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 60d
I came to the same conclusion after reading papers and articles for years and every year it got a little bit worse and a little bit sooner. Just following the trajectory of the changes in their expectations told me that we would hit ~+6°C by 2100.
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 59d
One simplified model is not the reason for this. They've been expected to use a number of different climate scenarios in their work for a long time. Stop making shit up.
cynar@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 59d
The point was to test for human bias in the data. The initial complaint was that scientists were cherry picking the data to make it look worse than it was. By looking at the spread, it showed they were minorly cherry picking to understate the problem. A fact that is now more and more obvious as it plays out.
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 59d
Funny you say that, my wife does climate change mitigation research. She definitely isn't cherry picking data. Climate change is just very uncertain.
cynar@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 59d
It wasn't deliberate. It was more likely scientists being overly cautious about overstating their case. The end results pushed the normal agreed values closer to best case predictions rather than middle.
This was back when the main models needed weeks of super computer time, so only a few were run, and everyone else analysed the shared results.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org · 88 pts · 60d
I am convinced all the climate change predictions were WAY too generous and reality is gonna be far worse.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 46 pts · 60d
They were
Scientists always were afraid to be too alarmist and be ignored, so they always went conservative with their estimates.
Now we are here
morto@piefed.social · 2 pts · 59d
Even when trying to be the most realistic, the climate is too difficult to accurately model, due to many variables and interactions between them, like feedback loops, which tend to make our models err on the generous side
LadyButterfly@reddthat.com · 14 pts · 60d
Yep that's my fear
ReHomed@lemmy.cafe · 12 pts · 60d
It will be even worse than what you're expecting right now
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 78 pts · 60d
The cynic in me imagines that the media purposely promoted the longer timelines to lull people into thinking we had more time, and so there was no rush.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 93 pts · 60d
I think it's more about scientists being extremely conservative with their estimates, because they know they'll get impaled over being 'alarmist.'
And then (effectively) fired from their job.
Also, you should check out conservative coverage. There is no timeline compression, its strait up cynicism, hostile denial.
EDIT: I forgot hand wringing. A perfect example: fairly scientific family showed me a WSJ article about how future geoengineering is going to make climate change a non-issue.
"Offended" did not begin to describe my reaction.
I've been reading geoengineering research papers for years, and they amount to things like:
jtrek@startrek.website · 15 pts · 60d
I feel like some counters should immediately banish the speaker to sitting in the corner. "Alarmist" and "divisive" are the top two that come to mind. It's almost always idiots not engaging with the material in good faith who pop those out.
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 60d
I dunno about "divisive." Sometimes thats a legitimate criticism, and pot-stirrers are little shits, IMO.
jtrek@startrek.website · 7 pts · 60d
If someone is just trolling, sure. But usually I hear it when someone's like "gay people should be allowed to live" and someone else goes "you're being diViSiVe"
brucethemoose@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 60d
Well there's no retort to that. If you're in a debate environment where an acceptable critique is "well, these people existing is not part of our beliefs, so its not okay," then the whole debate is rigged from the start.
Malyca@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 60d
The thing is each individual issue feeds the speed of the rest. Sun melting ice from above, rising sea temp melting from below and both speed the other up. There's thousands of things like this. I'm not an expert or anything I just remember reading something like this.
Doug@piefed.social · 70 pts · 60d
This is one of the reasons my spouse and I opted to not have kids. This place is doomed.
Malyca@lemmy.zip · 22 pts · 60d
Dude I feel so incredibly guilty for bringing my kids into this horror. You're doing the right thing.
Doug@piefed.social · 13 pts · 60d
Thanks; it’s a super depressing choice but I know it’s the right one.
taiyang@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 60d
Given that overpopulation likely contributes to climate change, you're also doing your part for those who do have to live through this hellscape!
errer@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 60d
Honestly having kids or not doesn’t make a huge difference since most countries are below replacement already anyway. Not like it’s normal to have 3+ kids anymore even if you do have kids.
fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 59d
I actually think it might even be worse to not have kids at this point, someone needs to fix all the issues previous generations have created. I'm pretty sure we need human intervention, some kind of Geo-engineering/Terraforming to avoid a runway hot house earth (something like effective carbon capture)... So I don't think antinatalism helps...
Ttangko@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 40d
brother, we have a couple years left. capitalism was and will be extremely efficient.
it actively even degraded people's intelligence level to maximize consumerism and most importantly the holiest of all: profit accumulation. education is completely indoctrinating us in every aspect to affirm the system.
change is completely out of reach to have every human being on earth to emancipate, so we'd dissolve all borders and switch from this hellscape of commodity based production to a to a needs based one.
its not going to work within national solutions, all those will have to play the game of the mightiest, we need all people to realize this but media already done its job to scare people out of reach for years. its literally the allegory of the cave, and people choose the chains.
fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 39d
I know we're fucked. But I refuse to believe that we cannot change. It will still get significantly worse, that I'm fairly sure of. But I also think that at some point for one renewables lobby is bigger than fossil and will actively fight fossilized lobby and that humans will see on a broader scale that we need to change. All of this is already in progress. I doubt doomerism does us any good. I'd agree that global collaboration would help significantly (and to a part this is happening already). Also keep in mind we're prone to talk about extremes, like capitalism, communism, socialism etc. While a mix of those is more accurate for most states (social market economy). USA is probably much closer to capitalism, but I doubt their system will work much longer it's too polarized to be "stable" much longer.
So while it will get ugly (and let's hope that climate scientists weren't too optimistic) I think we at least may be able too avoid a runway hothouse earth and stabilize the climate to at least human survivability (which is still sad...)
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it · 2 pts · 59d
It doesn't really make a huge difference tbf, also, most of the work is done by a few countries (see India, China and many african countries), countries like South Korea or Italy actually have the opposite problem, there aren't enough kids
shittydwarf@piefed.ca · 67 pts · 60d
Chat are we cooked??
Warl0k3@lemmy.world · 60 pts · 60d
Chat we're not just cooked we are battered and deep fried.
CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 60d
”salivates in southern US”
Klear@piefed.world · 38 pts · 60d
You shouldn't needlessly salivate. That water is needed for datacentres.
CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 60d
Oh yea my bad, umm what if I salivate Brawndo? It’s got electrolytes
DontTreadOnBigfoot@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 60d
Slow cooked until our meat falls off the bone...
terranoid@lemmy.cafe · 12 pts · 60d
ChatGPT, how do I cook a climate? Please respond in Old English and rhyme
tetris11@feddit.uk · 8 pts · 60d
Tis better the weather threw back into flight
A cyclone, a tempest, a sky without blight
tomiant@piefed.social · 5 pts · 60d
Thanks you just wasted 2 gallons of potable water.
tetris11@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 59d
(I wrote this myself 🥲)
forbiddencherry@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 60d
AI (specifically chatbots) is crap, has stolen and monetized work people shared for free, violates copyrights (including the GPL), has already caused job loss, is biased and bigoted, I'd even say somewhat unethical to use due to the aforementioned things. People are better off not using it (although it's basically forced on you now when you go to certain websites). But I'll just mention a couple things:
It takes around 200 ChatGPT queries to use 2 gallons of water for cooling(EDIT: seeing a lot of different answers on this, some as high as 2 gallons for only 15 queries. Lets go with that instead. It still means that taking a shower for only 4 seconds uses more water than a single ChatGPT query.)So to save water, taking a shorter shower, not having a swimming pool, not watering a lawn, not washing your car, not spraying driveways, flushing the toilet less often, washing a full load of laundry and running a full dishwasher instead of hand washing are all much more impactful than cutting out the occasional AI query.
I do hope that awareness of AI water waste will also motivate people to cut water use in other ways too, so it's good that the issue keeps coming up.
Gloomy@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 59d
Þæt weder wyrceþ þæt ymbhwyrft for þē. Nōht þæs micel is þæt þū scealt dōn.
BeUnique@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 59d
The only thing that can save us now is for the top governments across the world to work together on climate change. Most importantly they need to be proactive instead of reactive.
That being said, yeah, we are absolutely cooked. Even when people start dying they'll still just fight over resources instead of working together. You can already see signs of it like Trump having his grubby little fingers in Greenland.
The one thing that I look forward to is if I remain healthy and with a bit of luck, I'll live long enough to watch this dystopian shithole come crashing down.
troglodytis@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 60d
Boiling
sirico@feddit.uk · 63 pts · 60d
Doesn't matter what your intentions are.
Doesn't matter what earnings you posted this quarter.
Doesn't matter if you believe in climate change.
Doesn't matter if you need this truck.
You're on this rock of wind and water and it'll do what it needs, to get back to it's equilibrium. That might be at a level we don't exist anymore nature is emotionless and you can't control it.
7101334@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 60d
Humans existed in harmony with nature for a very long time, and in many places still manage to, despite the increasing challenges posed by climate change.
The human species isn't what's throwing the planet out of equilibrium. It's capitalism and the closely-related evils of white supremacy and war.
We can survive this if we kill capitalism, kill the notion of whiteness (and Zionism), return to listening to nature if we have strayed, and avoid war.
Though the human population is projected to begin shrinking very soon even without major environmental pressures, so "surviving this" might not look like the society we have today. Maybe we're maintaining our own equilibrium, at least a little bit.
Sylence@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 58d
While I agree that the capitalist requirement for unceasing exponential growth is at the heart of modern climate change, it is slightly disingenuous to claim that humans have been living in harmony with nature prior to the industrial revolution. There is a lot of evidence for pre-modern humans clear cutting swathes of land, wiping out megafauna, and treating the environment as an object for exploitation long before the notion of infinite growth became commonplace.
If we really want to get to the heart of it, it is the monotheistic notion that the world was created for us, that there is another (better) world for us after we die, and that therefore it is our birthright to use this land in any way we see fit. Capitalism and industrialisation have provided humanity with the tools to proliferate to such an extent that the scale of the damage we are causing is far greater than anything we were capable of previously, but the Christian imperative to reap the land has been around far longer.
More animistic cultures/religions tend to emphasise the importance of balance with nature and recognise humanity's place in the larger ecology, but they are therefore also less likely to propogate widely and become a dominant global force.
7101334@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 58d
Fair point with megafauna, but my counterpoint would be that we were struggling to exist, like any other animal, and extinction is a part of nature. Driving things extinct isn't inherently unnatural.
But then you could say, "Yes, but the same applies to climate change. The earliest oxygen-exhaling plants poisoned the atmosphere and lead to the extinction of more ancient plants." (Or was it the giant fungus? I forget.) And you'd have a point there too.
But I think the key difference is having a viable alternative and being aware of the suffering we're causing. We know what we're doing; the plants did not, they just evolved that way. We have alternatives to farming and hunting animals until their extinction; early inhabitants of Aotearoa, who drove the Moa to extinction, probably didn't. I will pick preserving megafauna over having my hypothetical preferred megafauna dinner, but I can't pretend I'd pick preserving megafauna over preventing my family from starving to death.
I agree so strongly that that philosophy definitely makes it much worse. My main issue with Abrahamic religions is the notion that god resembles man (and vice versa) instead of resembling forces of nature.
But I don't think monotheism was a prevailing philosophy when the megafauna were driven to extinction. Animals (and sometimes even plants) have driven each other to extinction many times in our planet's history, and we're just animals. I think the only thing that gives us the potential to rise above that status is knowledge, and that acting as caretakers to all other living beings on this planet is the highest application of that knowledge in the short-term. Long-term, the highest application is extending the reach of life to other planets, even if it's as simple as intentional panspermia with extremophile microbes.
Sylence@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 57d
Lots of good points here and well articulated. I agree that the critical difference between homo-sapiens and ancient forms of speciocide lies in our understanding of the consequences of our actions, and therefore (at least theoretically) having cognitive some control over our actions. I also agree that in most cases megafauna extinctions weren't driven by a monotheistic philosophy, however, I would argue that in those cases we were likely ignorant to the full consequences of our actions thereby mitigating culpability to some extent. Either way, I wanted to push back on the notion of preindustrial humans being in harmony with nature (and perhaps the idea of harmonious nature more broadly) as I don't think there is a lot of evidence for that beyond a few isolated examples.
I completely agree that we should be aspiring to the role of caretakers of this planet we've all found ourselves on, and to me the greatest tragedy of the human condition is the recognition of how much we've perverted that role. I find it hard to look forward to any kind of future for humanity when we are currently so at odds with that goal, and with seemingly no desire to alter course as a collective.
remon@ani.social · 4 pts · 59d
That actually matters quite a bit. If you have enough money you can easily deal with the consequences of climate change until you're dead.
scrotumnipples@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 59d
Nobody cares anymore now that datacenters and AI exist.
cannedtuna@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 59d
Corporations have never cared, it’s always deflection and distraction.
Example: the myth of recycling
Anomalocarididae@pawb.social · 5 pts · 59d
Apt observation, user scrotumnipples
Comrade_Squid@lemmy.ml · 39 pts · 60d
We're sitting in our rooms agitated, causing life long issue with sleepless nights, all while these fuckers that did this for greed sake are building climate controlled bunkers.
Fuck rich removed
see you next Tuesday is sencered? What else can we call them...
echodot@feddit.uk · 15 pts · 60d
I've said it before, we need to announce the revolution so all these idiots go into their bunkers, and then brick them up or something.
The concept of hiding out bunker is idiotic, if the world is truly dying then what are you going to do in a bunker? Sit there for the rest of your life, and then what, have your descendants emerge a century later to devastated world, what's the point? The sort of people who hide out in end of the world shelters are not the sort of people who want to get their hands dirty rebuilding civilisation.
Far apart from anything else it's going to be incredibly boring if you're used to the jet setting lifestyle.
qarbone@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 59d
They probably think the "cattle" will tire themselves out with revolution after a decade or so, and then they can reemerge to retake the reins of society.
It doesn't make the most sense but these people have more money than sense, almost definitionally.
HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub · -6 pts · 59d
"cattle" is neither capable of starting a revolution, not is it capable of sticking with it for more than half a year.
Tested and true in most first world countries
qarbone@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 59d
A cow can trample you, and a herd can absolutely stampede, if you agitate them enough.
HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub · -5 pts · 59d
For that the cow must start to move.
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 59d
.ml has a profanity filter for some reason
ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 58d
Then why didn't it filter profanity?
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 58d
only some of it not all
Geobloke@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 60d
Just attach a link to mudrat...
Comrade_Squid@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 59d
That's my work out song
Cattail@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 59d
Oh good we are ahead of schedule
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 36 pts · 59d
There's been a 73% decline in global vertebrate populations since 1970. We're in the beginning of a very serious mass extinction and it's kinda like we don't care which is interesting.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 16 pts · 59d
Well that's because we are the mass extinction event.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 59d
Yup, second organism to cause a mass extinction but the first to self proclaim it's intelligent.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 59d
The curse of interesting times strikes again.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 59d
I'm still pretty solid on the idea we're in an ancestor simulation or at minimum definitely not in base reality.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 59d
Whatever helps get you through it. Functionally it makes no difference. The simulation runs particles smaller than atoms and the maximum speed is still light. Our universe is too vast for us to explore and there's probably other life forms on planets too far away to matter. Our experience is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, yet the only thing we will ever do. Make it count while you're here.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 59d
I mean the probability isn't in our favor. As for us, yeah it doesn't change much. Same for a lot of epistemological arguments. Last Thursdayism, Descartes demon, Plato's cave, Chung Tzu's butterfly, solipsism, Boltzmann brains could all be bang on right on the money. I see you're taking the more so physical reality approach, even then if something like the holographic universe or some variation is correct then maybe distance doesn't exist like we think it does. If for instance we're in a black hole then there's a one to one representation of all information here in what we consider 3D space on the black hole's surface.
All the fun ideas aside I agree with you although maybe our definitions of fun may be different. That is I think the first goal is to reduce needless and avoidable suffering for all minds anywhere in existence whenever possible. Like even if it is a simulation of sorts or reality just started ten seconds ago or what I'm experiencing is a Boltzmann brain it still doesn't stop the first goal from at least being the best goal I've found so far.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 59d
Yeah that's pretty much where I landed too.
ConstantPain@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 59d
That's because a lot of money is being spent to keep us oblivious about it.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 59d
Not saying you're wrong but I don't see the point in letting the population collapse. It will just bounce back later and probably be far greater assuming humans don't go extinct before achieving sufficient space travel and colonies. That is also assuming we're the only ones here and this isn't like a controlled demolition of the human species by some other entity or force.
andicraft@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 59d
people can really just say anything they want on the internet huh?
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 58d
I haven't even ruled out last Thursdayism. Reality is strange, even in the most mundane interpretation.
shneancy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 58d
no no you don't understand, the billionaires want more money, the number simply must go up. and maybe they would care about the world if any of their workers would inform them of the consequences of each of their actions, but none that do stick around so the number keeps going up, fuck the consequences
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 58d
Possible but they're holding summits trying to figure out how to maintain control in their bunkers when money no longer has value. I think they're pretty aware of the situation at hand.
shneancy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 58d
yeah but you just said it, they feel safe with their bunkers, the rest of the world be damned
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 58d
Safe until there's a revolt and they become the bunker bitch or in a worse case tomorrow's dinner. You see the issue? Can't control people with money if money no longer has value.
shneancy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 58d
of course, though i bet they're working under the assumption that their defences are enough, or that they will be the last remaining humans out there. basically, hubris
greed and hubris are a powerful combo, unfortunately
omarfw@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 58d
Sociopathic billionaires with all of the power to do something about it absolutely don't care if the world ends. They only care if they were on top before the game ended.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 58d
I'm not absolutely sure if. That's true, seems to be more so a function of their age. Like if i'm 92 and the world ends then not so bad, but if I'm like 38 and the world ends then that's sad.
omarfw@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 58d
You're very right. We're dealing with mostly rich old people who never cared about others while they were young and certainly don't now that they're about to die.
People like elon musk will be around for a good while longer and I think people need to not underestimate just how mentally ill these people are. They're not capable of caring about other people as much as themselve like normal people are. This is a key feature of sociopathic narcissism, and people like that are well equipped to traverse our economic system more successfully than anyone else because they have no morals or empathy holding them back. After enough decades of capitalism, the only ones on top are people like this and then it devolves into neo-feudalism.
If any billionaire regardless of age cared about humanity, they would use their massive power and influence to help humanity and they simply choose not to.
arararagi@ani.social · 33 pts · 60d
That's 43 celsius? Holy shit, good luck to the french, it will soon be everyone.
Soup@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 60d
Last summer in Canada my car read 44C. Was fucked up.
zikzak025@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 60d
Was your username inspired by the air quality that day?
bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 60d
Nope, they turned into soup last summer and have been that way ever since
titanicx@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 60d
You know it's crazy. This weekend I drove through Southern Utah Arizona and Vegas in Southern California. It was 109° in Las Vegas 106 in St George Utah and 105 and Baker California. But it's expected in those areas during the summer. Canada that's insane to have those temperatures. It's hard to fathom that in France. Maybe in the south of France where it's closer to the equator. But it's still crazy to me. Well not crazy it's further proof of global warming. Not that anyone that can do anything cares.
Soup@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 60d
Paris is ~5deg more northern than Montréal, it’s just how the ocean currents work and stuff that makes the weather different. Kinda fucked up, eh?
titanicx@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 60d
Yeah I remember reading something about that at one point a couple months ago. They're talking about how the European settlers when they first came to the United States they looked at the latitude and longitude of it and we're absolutely dumbfounded at the difference in temperatures.
remon@ani.social · 2 pts · 59d
Well, that doesn't mean much. Cars in the sun are basically greenhouses.
Soup@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 59d
It had never read that high before. Also, the weather report was very nearly there, with the humidity, so do with that what you will.
I didn’t specify it was what my car read because I didn’t know that that could have an effect, Sherlock.
ieGod@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 59d
Temperature sensors in cars aren't accurate if your car is in direct sunlight or over hot asphalt. If you need accuracy (and in this case I'd argue we do) you should grab the data from environment Canada.
Soup@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 59d
No shit! Almost like I specified because I wanted transparency or else I would just say that it was 44C out. Also, it was very nearly there with the humidity.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 60d
at leas they can make baguettes and crossaints out in the open.
manxu@piefed.social · 33 pts · 60d
As a Person Living In France, I can confirm it feels like someone put an oven in every room. Even places with A/C mostly can't keep up with the heat. The only safe space is the car with working A/C.
We are rapidly reaching temperatures where life becomes impossible, and we'll need to be indoors from May to October. And we are just getting started.
ChicoSuave@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 60d
If people can live in the desert then life isn't impossible. Tear down the buildings built for the old climate and build new purpose built structures. Find new times of the day to get outside. It's not impossible unless you insist on not changing.
tetris11@feddit.uk · 8 pts · 60d
shades rigged up between opposing buildings over a street should be a thing
calcopiritus@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 60d
The problem with humid heat is that it doesn't give a fuck about shade. Europe in general is humid.
When it is humid, there's barely a difference of temperature between shaded areas and unshaded ones.
When it is dry, all you gotta do is find some shade and temperature drops fast, to the point where you might even have to wear a jacket because it's too cold. That doesn't happen with high humidity.
HasturInYellow@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 60d
Not to mention with high humidity your own bodies cooling is compromised. Fans don't help as much either. At a certain temp/humidity, people just die unless they get to a climate controlled room.
Rothe@piefed.social · 4 pts · 60d
A desert is dry. You can endure much higher temperatures in dry climates, but Europe is mostly humid.
bufalo1973@piefed.social · 3 pts · 60d
Not even that is necessary. Insulation works both ways. But a redesign could be a solution.
drcobaltjedi@programming.dev · 3 pts · 60d
Yeah, I've been checking in on my friends in europe, stay safe stay cool.
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 60d
Bordeaux here (coucou !) and it has been a couple of brutal days.
Zacryon@feddit.org · 33 pts · 60d
Yeah just don't fall into the old mistake of weather = climate. Heat waves happened before climate change as well. But our current changing climate makes them more likely to happen more often and more intense, if I am informed correctly.
Tabula_stercore@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 60d
It's not high summer, and 40C is crazy. This is climate chang. Saying it's weather is oil propaganda.
Zorque@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 60d
Its not one or the other, that's overly simplistic. Using this one data point to "prove" climate change is about as honest as someone bringing a snowball into congress to prove it's fake.
You need both to prove a sustainable point, otherwise it's forgotten with the next cold snap. This is one extreme data point, and it helps to showcase the problem, but it is not the only one. Use it as part of a whole, not as a singular showcase.
Thats my interpretation of OPs comment.
VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 20 pts · 60d
Idk when record-breaking high temperatures are showing up weekly I think they stop being "extreme" data points
Outliers aren't outliers anymore when all the measurements are in that range
Zorque@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 60d
That they're outliers of what has been the norm for centuries is the entire point. Saying "this is the new normal" is, as you might surmise, normalizing it.
VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 60d
I mean, it is the new normal? None of us (hopefully) want it to be, but it's the reality we have to deal with, unless the laws of physics that make thermometers work suddenly changed and no one noticed
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 59d
It looks like you both basically agree
Aeao@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 60d
I get what you’re saying. And you’re right. It about “how often”
Herr_S_aus_H@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 60d
If you have many outliers in rather small interval they stop being outliers and indicate a trend.
Zacryon@feddit.org · 1 pts · 60d
Yes.
BananaIsABerry@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 59d
Lemmy users falling for the same logical fallacies they laugh at others for using challenge: impossible.
A single datapoint doesn't prove anything, but a pattern of change that can be proven to be influenced separately from typical weather variation does. Like it or not, it would also have to be proven that the pattern is being caused by something distinct from global climate patterns.
For the record, I firmly believe climate change is real, I just hate when people I agree with try using the same dumb arguments as the people I disagree with.
stormdelay@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 60d
Look up how many heatwaves happened in France during the 20th century, and how many happened in the last 10 years. Yes, weather on any single day is not climate, but we are quite past "oh heatwaves happened before".
VAK@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 60d
Not just heat waves, average has also increased - https://showyourstripes.info/s/europe/france/all
bumblefumble@mander.xyz · 7 pts · 60d
We are projected to potentially have the warmest day ever recorded in Denmark this weekend, I would call that a direct sign of climate change.
Passerby6497@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 60d
At what point does constant heat records and deadly heatwaves move from 'weather' to 'climate'? 10 years? 20?
freebee@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 59d
wayward@sopuli.xyz · 31 pts · 60d
Truly wild.
I'm in the northern us and traveled to Austin, TX for work recently.
I departed at 72 degrees and raining and landed in 98 degrees with a 78 dew point. It was a heat index of 116.
I understand exactly why the world is burning, watching all the people scurry from AC to AC in a state which derives most of it's power from fossil juice. And then of course, everyone is driving a monster vehicle and coal rolling pedestrians and e scooter renters.
We're so fucked.
knomie@feddit.org · 21 pts · 60d
This is not supposed to be personal, but an additional point is how it is completely natural to us as a society to fly somewhere. Even if it's for work.
wayward@sopuli.xyz · 10 pts · 60d
Absolutely.
I don't fly often, but my entire team travels for work, meaning they are on the road all day, everyday. We are a sales organization and that's what is expected by our customers.
I'm not exempt from blame here. I do what I can to reduce my footprint, sadly it's not much.
knomie@feddit.org · 7 pts · 60d
I fully understand. I did that for a long time, too (working and participating in a frequent flying environment). But that's really where we need to change society. The way we think about things that we have never questioned before.
And one additional thing should become very clear: it's not only about our footprint. Someone needs to stop others from destroying everything, from flying, from coal rolling monster suvs etc. And as there are too few people being that someone, we need to be that someone.
osanna@lemmy.vg · 5 pts · 60d
Don’t forget all the animals people eat!
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 60d
Global warming or American degrees...
ButteredBread@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 60d
pressanykeynow@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 60d
I think he grew up and lived in Europe after his ancestors moved there from Africa.
ButteredBread@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 60d
jack_of_sandwich@lemmy.sdf.org · 31 pts · 60d
And people continue to deny that global warming is real...
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 34 pts · 60d
No, that was plan A.
Plan A: tell people there's no climate change
Plan B: tell people climate change is natural, not man made
Plan C: tell people climate change is man made but there's nothing we can do about it
We're at plan C now.
Diurnambule@jlai.lu · 4 pts · 59d
But not too much man made. Can't risk be sued
Ttangko@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 40d
systemically made, not man made
ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 25 pts · 60d
A lot will admit it’s real but then shift blame to China while overlooking the facts that chinas pollution is largely made by western countries outsourcing the dirtiest parts of their supply chain to China and that China is vastly outperforming and outspending literally every country in considerably bringing down their emissions
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 60d
Sadly, most people are incapable (or unwilling) to think beyond maybe 2 links in the causal chain, the "in your face" immediatelly visible stuff and a simple explanation for it (generally of the "people I don't like did it" kind).
Faced with "this is happening" (or, worse, "somebody is telling me this is happening"), they'll generally accept whatever "explanation" they're fed and can't just keep asking themselves "Why?" ("Why are you telling me this (what's in it for you)?", "why would those people do this (what's in it for them)?", "is that the only reason?" and so on).
For example, if you dig down, in most countries in Europe the increase in immigration can be traced back to locals not having enough kids and thus the population is aging and you need to let in working age people to pay for retirement pensions of the locals, and that in turn digs down to massive realestate bubbles and stagnating salaries so that the profits of the fatcats are high (at the unspecialized level immigration does put downwards pressure on salaries, though the picture is less clear above that) making life way harder for young people so they have fewer children, and that in turn leads to how the parties in government (mainly the "mainstream" ones) have reliably enacted policies to favor very rich people (mainly making the income from Work be less and less whilst the income from Asset Ownership is more and more) and realestate investors and even the "fringe" "left" has just blindly parroted pro-immigration slogans from the American and British liberals (and ended up punished at the ballot for it, to the gain of the Far-Right), and that in turn leads us to just how many of those politicians have "realestate investestor" as their main source of wealth increase and to the massive levels of Corruption in the modern era (and on the "fringe" "left" parties we dig down to how those heading them grew up in the Neoliberal era, don't really have coherent leftwing ideologies unlike in the old days and thus think the moral liberalism of the Neoliberals is what being "leftwing" is all about).
IMHO Populism works because it just points at some issue (or makes one up) and then provides a single-layer immediate explanation (generally of the "they're bad people" kind), and all wrapped up in a nice bow and that totally satisfies many if not most people. The simplest way to disassemble that is just to ask "Why do you want me to believe that?", but those people refuse to do it.
spicehoarder@lemmy.zip · 19 pts · 60d
Some have stopped denying the warming. But they've moved on to "humans can't cause enough pollution to affect the entire earth" and "It's god's will to bring the end times" fml
Nurgus@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 60d
In the UK they've moved on to "we're too small to make a difference, it's like pissing in the wind"..
Auli@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 59d
Canada is the same. Always the what about China. But they make the stiff for us what do people expect. We have outsourced our pollution.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 60d
seems like they are still ignoring BREXIT's fallout too.
jack_of_sandwich@lemmy.sdf.org · 13 pts · 60d
It's not happening.
It's happening, but it's not our fault.
It's our fault, but it's too late to do anything about it...
sonofearth@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 60d
GreenShimada@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 60d
My favorite is "it's real, but it's the sun, so...what are we gonna do? Besides, humans can't possibly affect the earth!" as if things like aerosolized lead blanketing the planet for 60 years simply didn't happen.
ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -8 pts · 60d
Well its not the whole globe, just Europe here. There are people there I care about, but there's plenty of space for them over here when Europe becomes uninhabitable, and switching to renewables seems like kind of a pain.
jack_of_sandwich@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 59d
Of course if Europeans refugees DID start fleeing here, they'd change their mind about how much space there is.
LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 59d
tamal3@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 59d
I keep wanting to make "we are flocked" signs with arrows pointing at the cameras, but I don't know if I should worry about putting them up.
tamal3@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 52d
...uh, should I worry?
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 60d
You can argue with scientists all that you want to, they're not infallible, it's true.
But you were warned for many decades, don't act all shocked and surprised.
Auli@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 59d
I love the futurama episode where it shows the actual data and the characters are like how could they have been so stupid an ignored that.
thecommonistagenda@lemmy.zip · 25 pts · 60d
This depresses me so badly. I don’t think we can fully grasp right now just how bad the next few decades are going to get
huppakee@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 60d
I think youre right, most people are still too busy fucking around to notice finding out. But there will be a point everybody will see clearly how bad We've fucked up
Karmanopoly@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 60d
Canada opened up some ski hills last week.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 60d
I've accepted that we won't survive the coming storm. Covid showed us that people couldn't be bothered tonwear a mask or get a shot to fight off a disease that was visibly killing millions. If we can't come together on that, there's no way we'll come together to survive the climate crisis.
huppakee@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 60d
Do you mean 'we, society as it is right now' or 'we, the human species'. Because i don't really disagree, but at the same time i've seen people get through stuff i expected would kill them. I'm quite convinced some people will survive the storm. Might not be many if we continue this way though
MintyFresh@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 60d
Oh humans will survive. We're hands down the most adaptable species evolution ever spat out. Billions of us living as we have been? Definitely not. But make no mistake, it'll be humans, cockroaches, and whatever's going on on those deep sea vents left at the end.
7101334@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 60d
If anything is left, it's not the end. Revolutionary optimism even in the face of extinction, man.
That and the willingness to throw every billionaire into a woodchipper.
Rothe@piefed.social · 3 pts · 60d
It's the end for billions, possibly trillions of living beings though (remember not only humans are suffering from climate changes). There will be some sort of rebuilding sure, but the cost will have been unimaginable.
7101334@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 59d
Oh I know. I worship nature. My god is being killed for Tiktok AI slop and Twitter incel CSA. It's the greatest blasphemy imaginable and there is no suffering great enough for its architects. I'm not naive enough to believe in any kind of inevitable legal justice, but I do believe they'll die hollow, even if it's of natural causes.
parlaptie@feddit.org · 5 pts · 60d
I wouldn't overestimate humanity's survival capabilities. There have been over a dozen known species of the genus homo, yet all but one are extinct. The rest have died out mostly due to natural changes in climate.
Sure, we can adapt, but we'd have to put in an actual effort to do so. Reducing emissions is an adaptation, but we're not doing enough in that regard.
Auli@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 59d
O think humans well survive not through any planing or anything just that there is so damn many of us and we are adaptable that some well survive.
Geobloke@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 60d
State where you're from, because we complained but largely adhered to the mask thing in Australia.
GodofLies@lemmy.ca · 23 pts · 59d
Climate change deniers: "I'll be dead by 2050, why do I care?" or "Fuck you, I got mine already."
Reality: FAFO.
someone@lemmy.today · 20 pts · 59d
You know what would help this situation?
AI
Lots and lots of AI.
Also more religion.
MisterD@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 59d
Don't forget more Trillionaires
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 59d
More religion? So just all, okay...guess the "life in balance with nature"-type of religions are also evil and protecting nature is cutting down trees
Noodle07@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 59d
Isn't Ai a religion already ? 🤔
ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 60d
But car goes WROOM WROOM!
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 59d
Ah, mais en France car goes «vroum vroum»
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 59d
Cars can’t vroom vroom anymore. There’s too much traffic.
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 59d
If it goes weeeez weeeeeeeeez is it any better?
MisterD@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 59d
A single private jet from a billionaire create way more CO2 than you'd think
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 16 pts · 59d
The fictional one has something along the lines of "as usual" while in reality it's exceptional (for now). Though europe is especially affected by climate change, due to some meteorological phenomenas. And it's concerning that we get a few more over-30°C days each year.
Edit: language. hard.
xav@programming.dev · 2 pts · 59d
Media in France keep repeating it's exceptional because it's hotter than previous years, but they also sometimes add that it's probably colder than all years to come.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 59d
they can bake baguettes out in the sun now.
rmuk@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 58d
qaz@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 60d
Just woke up. It's 6 am and 28 c.
FundMECFS@piefed.zip · 14 pts · 60d
Everything is fine...
AC is quite rare in France. So everyone is basically cooking alive. Except the politicians because of course their workspace has AC.
mEEGal@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 60d
AC could add like 10°C to the streets during a heatwave, + any emissions from faulty equipment is massively more powerful than CO2
Putting AC everywhere is not a solution by any standard...
What we need is thermal insulation for the buildings
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 60d
Except that isolations keeps warmth in, or out in the winter, but not both. Not that simple.
But you're right about cities and AC, I was in Madrid in august last year, jesus it was hot. So hot it was probably dangerous, I wonder how much was caused by ubiquitous AC.
Herr_S_aus_H@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 60d
I beg to differ. A good insulation insulates two systems from another. In this case the air outside and the air inside. So with a good insulation you don't need as much heating when it is cold outside and cooling when it is hot outside.
bufalo1973@piefed.social · 2 pts · 60d
This is the way. With good insulation doesn't matter if there's a heatwave or a coldwave. And there is the risk of the Gulf steam stopping and sending Europe to a mini ice age.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 59d
Faster than expected, and worse than anticipated. It will get much faster and much worse. Practice growing your own food and stay in shape.
hamid@crazypeople.online · 10 pts · 59d
Actually, in line with what was actually anticipated and taught in science classes in 2000. People decided to go with the best case scenarios as if global emissions would go down for some reason. No one who has been paying attention should be surprised.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 59d
Yeah limits to growth I think was in the 70s. Seems pretty accurate so far.
ziproot@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 59d
Global emissions did go down. https://climateactiontracker.org/media/images/CAT_2025-11_Graph_ParisProgress.width-777.png
hamid@crazypeople.online · 4 pts · 59d
That graph doesn't show that emissions gone down, that shows the estimated effect on temperature growth based on targets agreed on by the Paris agreement. Neither the targets nor the temperature estimates in this graph have been met.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions
Per capita emissions growth has slowed, not reversed but the population has INCREASED. Not only is industry emitting more per person, but there are more people.
Every single type of GHG has increased as well.
We're fucked.
MoffKalast@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 59d
Every time the IPCC publishes a report it's like: oh yeah may have gone way past the most pessimistic option this year, yet again, for the seventh time in a row, so here's a new set of predictions that will surely not be overly optimistic this time round.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 59d
It's designed to keep us passive while we continue to fail.
super_user_do@feddit.it · 12 pts · 59d
Idk how to convince people anymore. I am tired and sad
pseudo@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 58d
That's the hit.
Drink lots of water and try to di most of your errants and activity by night or early morning when temperatures are at the coolest.
thefluffiest@feddit.nl · 11 pts · 60d
People in Brittany in 2014: oh we’ll be fine no worries 😙
People in Brittany in 2026: what da fuk just happen? 🥵
ceenote@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 60d
I work in HVAC, maybe I should move to Europe...
foofiepie@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 60d
So I was curious about this, and asked my barber (yesterday) how much the aircon he had installed was.
I was told the unit costs (~£1600) were exceeded by the install/labour, and that all they did was the unit fitting & plumbing/pipe to the external unit. An electrician had to be separately hired to wire it all up.
So I’m conservatively guessing somewhere around 3.5k all in.
For one of those normal units, I’d estimate as about 70x25cm, cooling an area less than my living room.
I’d say anyone looking for a trade in the UK right now, would be wise to skill up on doing it as a one stop shop, and cash in for the next decade.
Gammelfisch@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 60d
43 Celsius...along the Atlantic coast too.
brbposting@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 60d
Someone linked this as the 2014 broadcast: https://youtu.be/_s55xNz26qQ
tanisnikana@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 60d
Portland, Oregon, in °C (cause I never learned Fahrenheit)
It’s not typically known for being a hot place, but this is just the weather report for today.
We’re so very fucked.
(yes watch is in Japanese cause that’s what I grew up speaking and I don’t want to lose it despite having pretty good English, get off my back)
Edit: and then I checked the weather report for later. We’re not cooked, temporarily. Grand scheme of things, thoroughly fucked. But the eye of the storm feels nice.
microcapybara@sopuli.xyz · 22 pts · 60d
Hey friend, you sound like you’ve had a rough time with people trying to get you to “integrate” or some such. Your choices of how you experience the world and technology aren’t any one else’s concern and whatever they are, they are valid. I live and work in highly international environments and basically everyone prefers their native tongue for things like computer/phone interface.
Fuck the haters, stay cool, peace out ✌️
tanisnikana@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 60d
I learned English when I was eleven and spent my twenties and thirties masking as yet another basic white American chick, and then in my late thirties I realized that just cause I’m not the exact ethnicity I needed to be for my childhood to be easily believable (white kid growing up on an Air Force base in rural Japan) that I didn’t need to hide it, and that I should celebrate who I was when I was barely a meter tall, thirty years ago. I try my best to keep up my Japanese, but I don’t look like someone who speaks it, which is great when I overhear people shit talking me for being trans or whatnot.
I could take an hour and learn Fahrenheit, but I just don’t want to. I know Fahrenheit for values over 300 anyway: set oven to the number on the box.
さあ、しょうがないね。
(dear solitary downvoter: I’m interpreting your solitary downvote as me explaining my reasoning for why I am how I am, and you just saying “no” with no further context or detail. It was folks like you that caused me to mask up and hide my past for so long. In conclusion, go fuck yourself, solitary downvoter. I’m not gonna fade out of existence, or go back to pretending I like cappuccino and Blazers, just cause you said “no.”)
DontTreadOnBigfoot@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 60d
I've lived within an hour or so of Portland for 40 years, and 24C (75F) has always been a reasonable temperature for late June
tanisnikana@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 60d
Yeah, I’m not looking forward to the oncoming parade of 40s in July though.
Highs in the 30s in June is icky though.
mrodri89@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 60d
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 60d
Future is way hipper than we expected it to be.
Fleur_@aussie.zone · 8 pts · 60d
No you just haven't adjusted the numbers for inflation
collectif_imaginaire@piefed.social · 7 pts · 60d
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4yrb8hRFKQ
Mozinor, la météo du futur. Not a clip on climate, more a parody about canicule. France had gone through the 2003 heatwave with an awful lot of casualties amongst old people. Had cost his seat to an unskilled unqualified health minister (something Mattei) under Chirac last presidency. The clip is typical of Mozinor with childish high-pitched voice and many video samples of blockbusters. In France there is no copyright when it comes to "détournement" of a scene from a movie. I believe Mozinor is still active but I don't follow anymore. 300, dead zone, Olivier Besancenot, 007, baboulinet, search for any of these adding Mozinor to the request , if you are curious
collectif_imaginaire@piefed.social · 2 pts · 60d
Well lol Not at all This is really a fanfic of tf1 😳🙃
collectif_imaginaire@piefed.social · 1 pts · 60d
Anyway https://youtu.be/G4yrb8hRFKQ
It's kind of fun ^^
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 59d
Why did they remove the relief? It helps orienting.
RichardDegenne@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 59d
Not the same channel! TF1 still has the relief map today
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 60d
I guess we should vote for fascists harder about it.
Carhv@thelemmy.club · 6 pts · 60d
Since the invention of the rock axe, there has been a continuous decline.
Agent641@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 60d
sad monke noises
AAA@feddit.org · 5 pts · 60d
So as per the predictions the temperatures will go down. /s
fox2263@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 59d
Do you reckon the USA actions in the last 2 years have contributed to the speed up?
glitch1985@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 59d
As someone who doesn't know much of anything about this topic could you elaborate on what actions the US has taken? I am genuinely curious.
ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 58d
Removal of subsidies for EVs, launching rockets for space garbage every 5 seconds, and bombing everything. I'm sure hitting the gas/fuel plant with missiles was especially great for greenhouse gases.
glitch1985@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 58d
Makes sense, thank you.
SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 58d
I think overall destroying gas/fuel plants will lower the amount of fuel entering the atmosphere overall. Sure the stockpiles will go up right then and there but that was going to happen anyway, and shutting production down for a few months will be a net benefit to the atmosphere (assuming they don't turn to a worse source of fuel, which they might.) The space industry also is still small enough that it accounts for a surprisingly small portion of emissions.
The EV issues and increasingly larger and larger vehicles I think account for a much greater portion of emissions.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 59d
Defenetly but its not the only thing
troglodytis@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 60d
This was an accurate representation of their report, 12 years ago.
Their latest report has moved on. Now focused on what it looks like if/when we finally decided to do something.
pyre@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 59d
DreadPirateSnuggles@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 60d
To be fair the chart on top suggests that it gets so much warmer that they had to revise the colours.
oyzmo@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 58d
Most people are sheep. They just follow the stream and eat what big tech serves. As long as the entertainment in the arena (tiktok etc) is good enough, nothing else matters. No need to think, no time to reflect. With AI you don't really have to think at all. (feels like this is true, but hope it is not)
helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world · -8 pts · 60d
Well of course major climate change occurs when you flatten all the terrain.
I hate modern graphics, it sucked the art out of everything digital.
Rothe@piefed.social · 2 pts · 60d
wat
helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 59d
It's meant to be a joke, it clearly didn't land like I thought, oh well.
The new map has no terrain detail, so I, jokingly, took to mean that they literally flatted out the terrain. Which would cause all sorts of climate change.
Krauerking@lemy.lol · 2 pts · 59d
Dude I am stuck on how terrible the numbers are to look at. Seriously how have all the graphic changes been this much worse?