- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
I’ll note that 2.5°C of warming by 2100 is a significant improvement over the trajectory we were on a decade ago, even if still far from where we need to be
You must log in or register to comment.
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
jesus christ :-(
In Córdoba Argentina weather has been getting crazy these last few years. We’ve been constantly getting 40°C+ temperatures in summer, an even in winter we’ve hit the 40°C mark (in the middle of July, mind you). Last year we only had like two days in the whole year where we managed to get minus 0°C temperatures
Almost 9 fucking months of summer here in Perth, with about 3 of those months being 30C and clear every single day. Forests and bushland are dying as a result, and water is scarce. I’ve never seen anything like it.
That’s 104° F for anyone wondering
The rest of the world understood 😆
American units 🤢
I don’t mean to downplay the situation at all but doesn’t that description pretty much match the world as it exists today? If anything I would expect their predictions to be more dire than that. The global south seems to have more than it’s fair share of pain and suffering already.
Oh sweet summer child…just wait. It hasn’t even begun to get bad.
Oh I know. I’m just saying I don’t think this particular quote really communicates that fact. It could just as easily be describing any point in the last 200 years as a future impacted by climate change.
“But line must go up! For the ecomony!”
I always replace “the economy” with “rich people’s yacht money” in such cases
Maybe the rich people will all get caught in hurricanes and their yachts will go down with them on them. Mother nature correcting course.
I wouldn’t count on that tbh, especially since it won’t solve anything…
We are not in the same boat at all (metaphorically and physically as well for the most part): The 90% have a little boat at best with most of the Global South being on a raft, with the rich basically being on a Dreadnought but in hysterical size of like cruiseships
Oh man, “For the economy!” is a really depressing war cry…
For our bosses yachts! For pizza Fridays! For unpaid overtime and less sick days! FOR THE ECONOMY!
charges into warehouse with debilitating knee pain I can’t afford to check out
Nope… Spreading that bullshit as a fact is part of the problem.
The economy isn’t the problem. We can adapt in a lot of ways that helps the climate while also having working economies.
The actual problem is that the people with money want exactly the kind of economy that makes them money for decades. So they will block any changes to keep everything as it is.
Really depends how you measure the economy. Gross national happiness seems like better way to judge the health of an economy than GDP, which has little bearing on the state of most people’s lives.
Humans make all this shit up, line goes up is a completely valid retort to how the economy is being mismanaged, because it is what is seemingly most important regardless of the quality of people’s lives.
Saying if the line didn’t go up, people’s live would be worse is true, but only because of who we are letting rule the playground, i.e. if they don’t have all the toys then nobody is getting anything.
It’s very revealing for their favorite lie: “Anyone can get rich. All you have to do is work hard like I do.” Then they do everything in their power to prevent anything that might impact their current money-making scheme.
If they’re working hard now and all you have to do is work hard to get rich, why not move their efforts to something that will make the world a better place… or at least stop making it a worse place?
2.5C is a conservative estimate.
Considering we’re essentially at 1.5c now (over a decade ahead of the IPCC’s estimates), I’m almost certain we’ll hit 2.5c well before 2050.
And we know conservatives are pretty much never correct.
They mean that literally, not politically.
I’ve heard it both ways. 🍍
You know that’s right.
deleted by creator
Out walking yesterday and I realized you can’t see around because you can’t see over these monstrous trucks and SUVs. You used to be able to see over the tops of sedans.
Fuel economy is still better than that of the 60s and 70s despite it though. I think height has little to do with it. We need more robus bike lanes and routes, better transit systems, and most of all: get the big ships under control. I remember reading somewhere that a few of the largest ships create a significant amount of our world pollution. For any gain we may make on automobiles, the top percenters will find a way to reverse that with more of their environmentally unfriendly garbage.
That’s my opinion.
Now imagine what the fuel economy would be without the monstrous height and weight.
It is glorious.
You miss my meaning. I’m not arguing that taller vehicles like a suburban are equivalent to a Nissan leaf.
That’s because I think you’re missing what’s relevant. Comparing it to fuel efficiency from the 70s is not the right metric. It’s meaningless.
You’re the one that mentioned now and what used to be.
Height. And I did not say the 60s or 70s either. I really don’t see this being productive anymore. (Well never was.)
Height absolutely matters because frontal area, along with Cd, affects drag directly. Drag is the primary force that needs to be overcome at higher speeds per the road load equation. Your opinion has nothing to do with it, it’s all just basic physics. You’re right though that fuel economy has been mostly increasing for decades, but that is in spite of vehicle largess, not because size is irrelevant. Imagine how much better off we’d be if folks didn’t commute in trucks for no reason at all. And a big yes to transit, biking, and human centered development.
I understand how drag works, I was more referring to what seemed to me as a comment on how increased height in vehicles has made fuel economy worse, when that is not exactly true. Yes it does decrease economy, especially if compared to the height of a car, but if we are referring to “used to”, the newer taller vehicles are still more economical than their shorter older predecessors
There are however billions more vehicles since the 70s, so I think it’s kinda a moot point.
VENUS SPEEDRUN ANY%
We probably can’t make it that hot. We can however make it too hot for us.
I’m wondering how bad the hurricane season will be this year with the turnover to El Nino and the heating of Atlantic Ocean.
Capitalism working as intended
So, so many people are going to die. The current upper class is making all the mass murderers of the past look like specks, and yet, I don’t see any more protests than I ever did. It’s… truly surreal.
Oh now, let’s not imagine the majority would say no thanks to profligate consumption if they had the means.
The problem is the system (or lack thereof) that allows it to happen, not so much which individuals win the absurd game.
And the threshold of consumption where you’re pay of the problem is a lot lower than most people want to face.
