this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
1698 points (98.5% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2504 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Clbull@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I think climate change is happening far sooner than scientists could have predicted. We focus on increased global average temperatures but I think that we are going to have insanely hot summers sooner. We're fucked.

[–] Sarcastik@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You don't need to guess. It was less than 3 months ago where scientists (on nearly every news/publication outlet that wasn't denying climate change) said we are going to blow by the 1.5C estimate we used as a threshold in our models.

Climate change is already happening exponentially now.

[–] Techmaster@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah just 20 years ago, much of the world was a bunch of primitive people living in jungles, and the planet could balance the relatively small number of industrialized nations. Today, way more countries have been industrialized. Countries like Vietnam, Thailand, etc are now concrete cities with massive highways and bridges, motorized vehicles everywhere, and factories manufacturing all kinds of stuff and pumping huge clouds of crap into the air. The EU and US try to pass laws and regulations to lower pollution output, but the factories just move to these other countries that have no or less regulations. We aren't at steadily increasing pollution levels, it's exponentially increasing.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

The last 20 years saw increased in emissions, but not the the way you claim. see this chart 1990 22 billion t CO2 2003 27.7 billion t CO2 2023 35? 36? Billion t CO2

Even more importantly you can check how the shares of emissions change: Here on this page. 20 years ago the regional emission shares were essentially the same. 30 years ago too. Pretty much only China got really bigger, EU and USA are fairly constant in that time, even tho they moved things like steel production to China.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If I recall they said in that report that we've managed to avoid +4C with our efforts so far, which prevents extinction. But, we've also learned that even modest increases are way more severe than we first thought.

It's a hell of a mixed bag :/

[–] MrDetermination@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] narp@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago

Maybe it's more about already being able to see the results of climate change.

Rivers drying out, ice sheets and glaciers melting, oceans heating up, desertification, water shortages, etc.

And with everything it seems like we're "nearly" at a breaking point. Cities running completely out of water, crops failing because of the heat or forests dying or burning, etc.

At least it feels like we're not that far away from a really bad time than anticipated.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think the problem is when you show them the projections people would say "you're just being alarmist, clearly you have an agenda"

So the messaging has been consistently toned down in the hopes people would listen.

They've been warning about water scarcity for decades, I think most people accept it's going to be a thing. Tell them this is going to happen in their country, this decade? Most won't believe you.

Doesn't matter that it's already at the breaking point, and that we have still growing populations that are already rationing water from sources that aren't just down due to drought. There's aquifers that would take centuries to fill back up to where they were decades ago

Scientists told us "your grandchildren will be screwed", then "think of the world you're leaving your children"... Well this generation, they're not saying "you're screwed", because people aren't ready to hear that

[–] AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

People don’t want to have to worry or deal with reality so they simply choose to believe otherwise.

Why do you think we still have rampant religion infecting the world.

[–] the_lennard@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

the messaging has been consistently toned down in the hopes people would listen.

My guess is its even more than this: deadlines were extended to not let people fall into inaction. The tipping point always close enough so that its dangerous, but still far away enough so that there is still hope. It is a ploy analogous to the fascist "the enemy is strong enough to be dangerous and weak enough to be thoroughly defeated."

This scene is far more realistic, I think. But as you can tell, it doesn't play very well with either the audience or the media.

[–] Sharkwellington@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

Imagine being that guy, telling people the same thing scientists have been saying for 100+ years and watching all of them put their hands over their mouths like it's an earth shattering discovery. If only someone had told them repeatedly over the course of multiple generations!

"Who cares?" I feel ya bud.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=6CXRaTnKDXA

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] andrei_chiffa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, no - it's just as scientists predicted. In the worst-case "no-mitigation" scenario and with attempts from them to explain that +2 global will likely be +10 in peak temperature increase over land (read US, Europe, Asia). As in, both mean and std will increase, but without ocean's mitigation over land.

Fucked is not the correct word - there is a +50 predicted before the end of decade in Strasbourg, where I am from. There is not a single building built there made to resist that kind of temperatures, nor a single tree or crop that could stand that for a day.

And it's a relatively "safe" area as far as long-term projections go...

[–] Clbull@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Fucked is not the correct word - there is a +50 predicted before the end of decade in Strasbourg, where I am from. There is not a single building built there made to resist that kind of temperatures, nor a single tree or crop that could stand that for a day.

And it’s a relatively “safe” area as far as long-term projections go…

I would love to read the source on this, not because I think it's bullshit but because that is pretty fucking alarming.

[–] jarfil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It was predicted, just labeled as "worst case scenario".

Everyone with a vested interest decided to look at the "best case scenario" instead, that predicted decades or centuries of slow heating. Well, nope, "worst case" it is.