427
submitted 1 year ago by schizoidman@lemmy.ml to c/world@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Goodie@lemmy.world 75 points 1 year ago

Gonna be a fun next century or so

[-] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 75 points 1 year ago

Not if all the capitalists get their shit together and see that short term profits aren't worth the mid term extinction of humanity.

Which should happen any moment.

Aaaaaaaany moment.

[-] NumbersCanBeFun@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

Self preservation is a strong motivator. It just has to make the right people uncomfortable enough to take action.

[-] fiat_lux@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago

Self-preserver capitalists are more along the hoarding supplies and creating fortified bases variety. Even Steve Huffman got his laser eye surgery for prepper reasons, according to him. No idea how much that was just a cover story for the pure vanity.

But the amount of preppers in the tech world are increasing, and they're not looking at ways of keeping anyone else safe but themselves and their families.

[-] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

They would rather live underground in a bunker in luxury, then share just a litte percentage of their wealth that would benefit more people than themselves.

[-] fiat_lux@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Most of them aren't billionaires though. They just own a little land and can afford to build on it, which is high-salary rich but nothing like billionaire rich. They might have a couple of years of comparative comfort at best. The billionaires are on a different level of entirely.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Saracha@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Self preservation is a good motivator, self sacrifice on the behalf of others isn't unfortunately.

[-] jalda@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

They'd rather self-preserve themselves to Mars than do anything that could self-preserve all humanity

[-] DFTBA_FTW@lemmy.fmhy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

Even at +4c there will still be plenty of "nice" places for billionaires to fuck off to and build a nice little rich people commune. Hell, a +6c world is still the garden of eden in comparison to Mars.

Yes there's a lot of interest in Mars right now, but it's really is just mega rich nerds. Hell, if I was mega rich, I'd make an aerospace company too, space is cool.

The rich peppers are buying up land and building compounds in climate safe havens, like New Zealand.

[-] kale@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 year ago

Musk said something about how terraforming Mars to be habitable shouldn't be difficult, and I was thinking "well then getting CO2 from 400+ ppm to 300 ppm should be a cake walk for you! Why haven't you done that yet!"

[-] DFTBA_FTW@lemmy.fmhy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I believe, and I'd have to go find the quote, but he meant/said simple. Simple =/= easy, just that there are a few things you can do that have a huge impact. Like you could bombard the polar caps and release a shit ton of Co2 and water which would thicken the atmosphere, trap some heat, and start a rain cycle. That's conceptually simple but practically hard. To keep on with Musk, he's also been quoted multiple times saying that living on Mars is gonna suck for a long long time.

I guess in the same way climate change is conceptually simple but practically hard. Cutting out 90% of Co2 emissions pulling existing Co2 out is simple, most of the tech is already developed, it just would cost hugely insane amounts of money to do it quickly. We have direct air capture, we could build dedicated nuclear power air capture plants above existing limestone/granite deposits and pump them full. It just would cost $$$$/kg.

[-] r_wraith@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Humans on Mars seems to be a pure fantasy fueld by old SF. Technically it seems to be easier (and more viable) to build floating cities on Venus than for humans to live (on the surface of) Mars

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Goodie@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Oh, people have long since realized that they have to do something about it.

The problem is they've realized that it's far cheaper to prepare for their own survival than fix the fuck ups of the world.

[-] fearout@kbin.social 63 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ok, so it doesn’t mention wet bulb temperature anywhere, so I went to figure it out. The first thing I was surprised with is apparently most of online calculators don’t take in values higher than 50C.

I couldn’t find the exact data about humidity for that day, but it has been 35-40%+ at a minimum for most days in that region, sometimes even reaching 90%.

So, 52C at around 40% humidity is 37.5C in wet bulb temp. The point of survivability is around 35, and most humans should be able to withstand 37.5 for several hours, but it’s much worse for sick or elderly. 39 is often a death sentence even for healthy humans after just two hours — your body can no longer lose heat and you bake from the inside. That’s like having an unstoppable runaway fever. And with that humidity it’s reached at 54C.

We’re dangerously close to that.

[-] IndiBrony@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Just out of interest, what would be the wet bulb temperature at 90% humidity? I'm not familiar with that temperature scale.

[-] fearout@kbin.social 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wet bulb temperature is basically converting to 100% humidity equivalent, so as you get closer to 100%, WBT approaches measured temperature. We use this metric because our bodies cool mostly via evaporation, and no evaporation is possible at 100% — the air is already fully saturated. So in general, WBT means minimum possible temperature that can be reached by evaporative cooling. Once your body loses the ability to cool, it rushes to match surrounding wet bulb temperature (or even exceed it, since we produce about 100W of heat energy by simply existing).

So 52C at 90% is about 50C WBT. Survivable for mere minutes for some, and probably for about an hour or so for most humans. Definitely not survivable for a full day.

[-] IHeartBadCode@kbin.social 32 points 1 year ago

To put this into perspective, a humid 60°C are conditions where hyperthermia (getting too hot) can take effect within 10 minutes of exposure.

We're 8°C from that point. We are within arms reach of creating conditions so hostile to human life that survivability for most people will be unimaginably low.

[-] Col3814444@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago

Hottest day ever.

Until next year.

[-] Spiracle@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

With how cyclical heat seems to be, probably the hottest year until ~4 years from now.

Just long enough for sceptics to dismiss it again, because any day without high heat means climate change is fake.

[-] the_itsb@midwest.social 11 points 1 year ago

According to this informative video about the "super El Niño" we're heading into, next year is going to be worse. Less easily dismissed, not that it'll help. If we get any kind of extreme weather this winter before next year's even hotter summer, that'll be fodder for them, too. As we all know, anytime it snows, that proves climate change is a myth. 🙄

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 6 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/2cxWf5yA9so

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

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] GustavoM@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Just imagine how summer temps will be in 10 years from today.

Hoooooo boy... it's gonna be HOT eh

[-] profdc9@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

By the end of the century, there's going to be a lot of places abandoned to heat and sea level rise.

[-] DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Incidentally, China is the single largest contributor of GHGs in the world. Their coal fired power generation is immense and incredibly damaging.

[-] JohnEdwa@kbin.social 40 points 1 year ago

Because China is a country with the third largest land mass with the second largest population in the world. But per capita, they produce half of what an American does.

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago

Both need to significantly reduce their emissions. We do not need deflection for either.

[-] ZombieTheZombieCat@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Thank you, I'm so sick of hearing it. It's just another cop out from climate change deniers.

[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago

2 things about this; the planet don't care about per capita numbers - 52.2 is gonna drop that population real quick. I doubt that would even slow their ruling class down

Second fuck is America a bad comparision. Those 2 will race to a scorched earth quicker than a nuclear war ever could

[-] JohnEdwa@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Exactly, the world doesn't care. The average co2 footprint per person globally is around 5 tonnes and as we've noticed, that is way too much for our planet to handle, one estimate is that we would need to drop that to below 2.5 tonnes.
China at 7.5 per person is a lot closer to than Canada at 18, Australia at 17, US at around 15 or Russia at 12. EU on average is close at around 8 I believe.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You have to measure per capita. A population 4 times the size of the US, you can't compare straight numbers.

Their one child policy is probably the best thing that ever happened to reduce greenhouse gas emissions too.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Mothra@mander.xyz 14 points 1 year ago
[-] Col3814444@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

People and native animals start dying en-masse around the 50Deg mark, it’s horrific this is becoming normal.

[-] iamsgod@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

and here I thought 33 C is already hot enough

[-] NotSpez@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Maybe a stupid question, but is this measured in the sun or shade?

[-] fearout@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago

Temperature reports like this always use in-the-shade measurements. You can get much higher temps when measuring in direct sunlight, like easily 100C+, depending on the material of your measuring device.

[-] NotSpez@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks. So the 60 degrees in Spain were also in-shade. That is truly messed up.

If politicians didn’t reassure us frequently there is nothing going on I’d really start to think we are in real trouble.

[-] DFTBA_FTW@lemmy.fmhy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

60deg in Spain was ground surface temp not air temp, air temp was like 40deg.

[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

I love that last paragraph lmao, imma steal that

[-] NotSpez@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Nice. You have my blessing!

[-] Charliebeans@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago

We should start calling climate news hot news!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
427 points (99.3% liked)

World News

38500 readers
3289 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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