• ClickToDisplay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Slight inaccuracy, the data only goes back to 1979 and has not yet been verified by NOAA which has data going back to 1880.

    It’s also worth noting that this is based on the Climate Reanalyzer which is intended for forecasting temperatures, not record keeping.

    It would be more accurate to say it was the hottest day ever recorded by the Climate Reanalyzer.

    Source: https://time.com/6292103/worlds-hottest-day-preliminary-record/

    • bric@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      This. It’s also not accurate to say it’s the warmest we’ve been in the past 10,000 years, it was likely warmer during the roman warm period, and potentially a couple of other points. So we can only really say it’s the warmest we’ve seen in the last couple hundred years.

      That’s not to say this isn’t concerning, we’re on track to smash the roman warm periods average temperatures within our lifetimes and make the earth the hottest it’s been since the paleoscene, which would have massive ramifications. But we’re not there yet, the problem is that we will likely get there in the next few decades.

        • bric@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you want some more optimism, we actually have slowed the rate of warming from what was predicted 20 years ago. The reality we are living in would have been considered an “optimistic prediction” at one point. We are still warming, things are still going in the wrong direction, but the changes that people have been making to mitigate global warming are making an impact. We might still be going over the cliff, but at least we’re doing it with our brakes on instead of full speed ahead. So yes, I do think it will be decades before we truly break temperature records that have been seen by humans, maybe even several decades. That doesn’t downplay the significance of the need to stop it though

          • GitProphet@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            From what I’ve heard about our current climate warming situation I’d downgrade the metaphor from using breaks to taking the foot off the pedal a bit.

            • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can slam the brakes on your Camry but there’s an oil tanker behind you and all they’re doing is laying on the horn and pointing at their green logo while shoving your car off the cliff.

              • abbadon420@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s what the oil industry likes to think, but they’re actually with us in the Camry. There is only the Camry, we’re all on the Camry together, good and bad.

          • pbkoden@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What about tipping points? I hear about ice cover, ocean currents, and other systems where once we get past a tipping point, additional warming is self sustaining. At that point it doesn’t matter if we have our brakes on, we’ve gone over the cliff right?

            • trafguy@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If we end up triggering a self-sustaining feedback loop, that’s how I understand it, yeah. We still do have some very high risk strategies we could implement, like solar shielding to reduce total light reaching the earth, or bioengineering plants that suck up carbon super efficiently, but it’s hard to say what the impacts of those would be

              • toxic@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t see either of those happening because there’s no short-term profit. Also, unintended consequences.

      • efiler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        At least the “medieval warm period” which gets cited a lot, was a regional phenomenon and global temperatures are higher today. The Wikipedia page seems to suggest the same for the Roman warm period.

        • bric@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Roman warm period was about 2 degrees F warmer than today when you’re measuring global average temperatures, not just in europe, although it was more pronounced in europe. At current rates though, we’ll break that bar in 40 years or so though

      • LifeBandit666@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You act like you use the word Paleoscene like you know when it was.

        I don’t.

        I did however hear on the BBC News Podcast that Nerds are saying we should change the name of the period we’re in now to be the “Time of Man” and I realised that I have no idea what Epoch we are currently in.

        So I thought I’d ask you. Then I’ll memorise your answer and be less dumb.

        Please help.

        Edit: I know how to use Google but this way is more fun sometimes.

        • CMLVI@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If I were to pick one, I’d call it the Menocene. Seems apt.

          I did Google it though, if you want the actual answer.

        • Entropywins@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Holocene is the current geological time it cover from now to a out 11,000 years ago from the last glacial period… The Paleoscene was about 66-56 million years ago.

        • bric@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Paleocene was the time right around when the dinosaurs died, so about 65 million years ago. you’ve heard of Jurassic, and maybe you’ve even heard of cretaceous, this is the one that comes right after those two. Right now we’re in the Holocene. The reason I mentioned it though is because (as far as we can tell) it was the hottest period in earth’s history, with average temperatures 8 degrees Celsius higher than today (which is a ton, the fact that it’s an average makes it seem less insane than it actually is). we’re nowhere close to getting as warm as it was then, but even if we got half that hot in a relatively fast amount of time (like we are) it could still cause mass extinction.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      the data only goes back to 1979 and has not yet been verified by NOAA which has data going back to 1880.

      There’s a whole hot world outside of America who don’t need to wait for its underfunded organizations to get around to validating the data.

      But I get it. The news is dire. It’s neat to cling to uncertainty in times like this unless you lived in Lytton

  • Juan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    And just a week ago I was talking to these boomers that were explaining me how “we should all stop being so attached to climate fear” and that “everything will just sort itself out and we’ll live just fine”.

    Yea, no shit boomer

    • scottyjoe9@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They meant that they’ll live just fine. You see, they will be dead before climate change decimates our planet. 🤷‍♂️

      • BeeOneTwoThree@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It won’t decimate the planet, but it will make the planet a lot less habitable for humans.

        So yes depending on where they live they will be just fine, but a lot of people will die. Because of this there will be huge migrations and struggels with having enough resources…

        • pchem@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          but it will make the planet a lot less habitable for humans.

          And, unfortunately, for a wide range of other species.

        • TheFriendlyDickhead@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And that is already happening in a small scale. All those natural disasters that are happening all over the world. And especially the poorer country’s on the south half of the globe are struggling with stuff like wood fires, smaller harvests because of the heat. And it’s all just going to get worse. I hate humanity.

    • Nilz@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Boomers: “We had hot days in the 60’s and 70’s as well and you didn’t hear us complain”

      • Obsession@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        My parents’ go-to is that everyone was freaking out about an incoming ice age in the 60s (they weren’t), and thus climate experts are all completely clueless and have no clue what they’re talking about.

        And they wonder why I visit less than before.

  • ThoranTW@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think, as individuals; we all need to pick up our game and do our part in polluting and destroying the planet more. We can’t let the corporations do all the heavy lifting after all.

    Edit: I don’t think I came across properly here, given the replies. This was sarcasm saying we need to fuck up the planet more to keep pace with the rate the corporations do.

    • Zippy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly corporations are only producing what consume. We are using corporations as scapegoats. If we don’t realize this soon and don’t change it ways…

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you haven’t seen it, The Good Place is a great show and they discuss this basically. Should we be responsible for tracking the output of every company before we buy any product?

        (The answer is: of course not. We don’t have enough time in the world for that. The correct solution is regulation and taxing for negative externalities during the production process. If the cost of negative externalities is built into the cost of the product, then it will be less benificial to purchase a product with a dirty supply chain.)

        • Zippy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          How do you tax Saudi Arabia corporations? How do you tax Russian corporations? They just make up the difference we don’t produce. Is it wise to send all that money to those countries because we won’t stop consuming? How is taxing our corporations helping them be competitive on the world market? We give everyone else a free pass but bill our corporations.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. Our 12% will really make a difference vs corporations’ 80%. And we can get to that 12% if so 8 billion of us work together. I’m doing my 0.0000001% part!

      • exi@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You know corporations build shit people buy, right? It’s not like they pollute for the fun of it. They pollute because we give them money to do it…

  • Metallibus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    OK, now point me to the place I can give money for the food that doesn’t pollute/throw it all away.

  • Nonimouse@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The company I work for makes power infrastructure for data centres and the like, 3 phase 400v conductors, the smallest we make is 1000 amp rated and we go up to 6000 amp rated, that is a hell of a lot of power and we run 24 hours a day 7 days a week pumping out miles of these to power the data centres that run the internet so we can be shitty to each other

  • empireOfLove@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t just single out meat. All of industrialized agriculture is massively carbon and energy intensive and built on gradual topsoil depletion.

    • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Shipping can certainly be made much less impactful, if that’s what you are thinking. A lot of shipping is overland trucking, and a lot of overland trucking can be replaced with trains, and a lot of trains can be replaced with electrified trains. That would make quite a bit of difference