*edited to correct conversion in title

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

      More like over 200 years ago. There was a french female scientist that discovered the greenhouse effect before John Tyndall but I forgot her name and I’m at work rn, can’t search for it.

    • alcamtar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah they were predicting an ice age. And technically we’re still in an ice age, so the planet has to get warmer to reach it’s natural balance point. But it could also get cooler, because we’re in an interglacial period. If we don’t want continental glaciation maybe we should be thankful that the planet’s warming and not cooling.

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

        That’s a myth perpetuated by oil companies to discredit climate science. There was a single paper about it that was widely rejected as a crackpot theory by the larger scientific community. The consensus then was the same as it is now.

  • BNE@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    New normal, folks. So begins the era of climate migration.

    A reminder that this is why we should never tolerate selfishness. We’re now largely screwed because we, as a species, valued our individual comfort over expert research.

    We knew what we needed to do - but no, profits. Such a dumb way to die.

      • criticon@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        This has been the mildest summer in my 5 years living in the area, I’m loving it

        Tornado watches are becoming more frequent tho

        • desmaraisp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Same here in montreal, my grass has never been this green in the middle of july. Kinda weird that we had all those forest fires when the summer’s been pretty damn mild for now

          • evranch@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Mild in Montreal, maybe, but check out the Canadian Drought Monitor as the rest of Canada is in drought. Like, the entire rest of Canada. https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/agricultural-production/weather/canadian-drought-monitor/current-drought-conditions

            Over here in the west it’s never been so dry. Pastures are brown, hay and crops aren’t just stunted but are dying before maturity. Trees are yellowing and dropping leaves. Plague of grasshoppers eating everything that was still green. Every day is hot and the air is full of smoke, it feels like the end of the world over here.

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

              That isn’t “just” climate change though, it’s also urbanisation and the way you guys over there use ground water. It’s a combination of a lot of things, climate change is only one puzzle piece in the whole scheme of things.

              Also, the drought thing is easily combatable with desalination, which has a few other benefits. The main caveat is, it’s expensive. But, it’s a lot cheaper than having to deal with various other things due to the droughts.

              • evranch@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Guessing you’ve never been to Western Canada. We only have a couple major cities, and we don’t use that much groundwater both as it tends to be saline and because we have plenty of surface water to use due to snowmelt runoff. Also we don’t have anything to desalinate, unless we’re talking about that low-quality groundwater, which is a very expensive proposition as you say to get any significant volume.

                We’re not concerned about water for drinking, city usage etc. Most cities are on major rivers that are running near normally. Hydro dams have tons of storage to run until next winter’s snow. On my farm I have dugouts that capture runoff, they are full. I have shallow wells on GUDI aquifers where the water is near the top of the casing! I’m irrigating my garden and my orchard like mad out of my yard dugout and that usage isn’t even noticeable compared to evaporation losses.

                We’re concerned that our crops are dying, our livestock are starving (sold mine already) and almost none of our land is irrigated. In BC the trees are dying and burning for lack of rain and there is no way to irrigate them of course. This part of the country has long relied on a steady cycle of June and July thunderstorms for moisture - but the thunderstorms have dried up.

                It just won’t rain, that’s all.

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

      I really think this narrative is counterproductive. It’s not like corporations produce greenhouse gasses because they think it’s fun. They’re doing it to produce goods that people want at the absolute minimal price possible.

      No corporation is going to choose more environmentally friendly practices out of the goodness of their own hearts unless those practices are cheaper. And given that that is very rarely the case, we have to look at things like carbon taxes to actually price in the externalities of climate damage. But that is going to increase the prices of some goods, and that requires a level of political will that has proven very difficult to come by. “Just make corporations pay” to fix things, whether that’s a carbon tax or taxes on oil company executive pay or dividends or whatever else the proposal may be is always going to mean “increase prices to compensate for climate-related externalities”.

      That doesn’t necessarily mean that all costs of addressing climate change must directly fall on consumers; government subsidies to reduce the costs of environmentally sustainable practices can also be extremely beneficial. But ultimately, this is a problem that we’ve all created, and we’re all going to have to be part of solving it. Blaming corporations, even if partially accurate, doesn’t actually get us any closer to solving things.

      • DrunkenPirate@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes and No. Yes, it’s not only corporations and we must act ourselves.

        No, it’s the rules that set the game. Corporations play within the rules. Politics is owning and can change the rules. The society and corporations will follow accordingly. If we really want to change we can. Look what happened during Covid. In retrospect, some insane rules (eg Germany kids not allowed to enter playgrounds. Kids couldn’t play to save the elderly). However, society obeyed to those rules.

        It’s not us, it’s the rules that must change. In my view this should be the priority.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..

      Climate change is real, but not sure how useful is thinking about it without carefully measuring your options.

      When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.

      I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.

      That’s simplifying life to a neanderthal level.

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

        That’s simplifying life to a neanderthal level

        Is exactly what’s wrong with your argument. Your logic smells kinda…brown.

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think my logic is still sufficient, and your comment is still insufficient.

          You see, “neanderthal” is a metaphor, it doesn’t mean an actual neanderthal-level person can argue with me.

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

            In my case I’m using it as a hyperbolic simile to indicate that your “shouldn’t use green stuff because some might use brown stuff to make it” argument is simplistic to the point of being primitive and regressive.

            It relies on a false assumption that progress can’t be achieved because anything that’s good for the planet is created by processes much worse than what’s currently destroying the planet.

            • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh, I’ll write it even simpler.

              What matters is how much brown stuff you spend total. So if you directly spend less brown stuff, replacing it with green stuff, but indirectly more brown stuff, then you are making things worse. Because the goal is a good total of carbon emissions or whatever else for the whole planet, not just for your own western country where the dirtier parts may not be done.

              • Chunk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Your argument is clear. There’s an opportunity cost to Green.

                What you’re missing is the momentum of green. A single solar panel in a sea of coal power plants is certainly dirtier than coal in the short term. For the exact reasons you outlined.

                But you have 2 flaws in your logic.

                1. we aren’t in that situation right now and I’d like to understand why you think we are. As we become more green then green things result in less brown, so there’s a snowball effect you’re ignoring here. Furthermore that snowball effect has already begun!

                2. Renewable energy, like panels, result in brown during manufacturing and installation. Once they’re up they generate power for, on average, 25 years. The electricity-per-co2-ton is better than coal over 25 years.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Everything is fine, the earth simply won’t be habitable for humans. The Earth will spin on without us when we inevitably allow industry to destroy humanity by making earth uninhabitable by human life.

    It’s what we deserve for being so stupid as to see this happening and doing nothing about it to stop it or slow it down. There’s plenty of climate change advocates which are almost always drowned out by the chorus of companies and climate deniers who believe propaganda over science.

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Never said they did.

        What people deserve, and what’s going to happen to them are not mutually inclusive.

        I’m also going to state that IMO, it’s not just a few corrupt men. There’s lots of them… Lots and lots of them… Not the majority by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly more than a few

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

      No. That’s simplistic and wrong. Huge swaths of the planet will remain nicely habitable. But large swaths won’t, and disease increase and economic failures will make things very terrible.

      But this “all gonna die” stuff is dumb and wrong. Sorry.

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

        Once we have nations fighting for water resources (tied directly to food production) it wouldn’t take long before the entire population is at risk

        Ontario’s great lakes have been threatened with receding volume, pollution, and mass algae blooms that show how fragile even that massive resource is

        Ground water across the globe has been mass polluted and drained to nothing in large areas.

        We are a lot more vulnerable than it seems

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

        It won’t matter if a small area is still habitable. The resolution of 7 billion people trying to fit into a space that fits a fraction of the population will end the species.

        It took less than 1% of the population of Europe moving around to nearly break the EU. Watch what happens when it’s 10 to 20% of everyone everywhere.

        • Hup!@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Will end the current age of civilization? Most definitely.

          Will it end organized societies as we know them? Probably?

          Will the human beings go extinct? Probably not. Its not crazy to think that we’d face a bottleneck of only a few hundred million humans or less. But there are people all across the economic and geographic spectrum who are prepping. The rich will survive at their polar fortresses. The poorer will survive underground, or at high altitudes.

    • Nelots@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You make it sound like humans are the only ones affected by climate change. Sea turtles, elephants, polar bears, pandas, there’s a fuck load of animals we’re directly killing off. Everything is most certainly not fine, even if you don’t give a single shit about innocent human lives.

      • billytheid@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How many insects do you remember seeing around stadium lights as a kid? Look now. We will not last another two generations

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

      We will take a large chunk of the planets life with us. I don’t think we can destroy it all however, the planet will get to intelligent life eventually.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly I will never forgive people who STILL continue to deny climate change is happening and refuse to legilslate on it.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.” - Jean-Claude Juncker.

      Career politicians will never fix anything. They’re only interested in not rocking the boat and keeping themselves in office.

      And the steps we would need to take to fix it would surely not be popular among the masses, even as they sit dying of heatstroke and starvation. People want magic pills that fix problems, and no such thing exists for this.

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

      The infuriating part is people denying the change is happening. I could at least hear an argument on whether or not you think it is due to human involvement and what we could do to stop it (I’d still think you’re wrong). But to deny the existence of climate change is asinine.

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

        No, it’s not. If we started large scale changes now, we would have to endure years of terrible condition with the slight hope that things will improve afterward. Saying “it’s too late” equals to saying we’ll have to endure years of terrible condition while expecting even worse afterward. It’s still a bad posture, no matter how you spin it.

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

          Totally correct. We live now, act now. The future remains not determined, but damn right paths and options are rapidly closing.

          Probably something like an inhabitable band will form over continents; the US southwest and south gulf, for instance.

          All humans won’t die. That’s silly. But very many can, and the rest, degraded.

          • billytheid@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The US will be lucky if much survives, as will Europe; once the Gulf Stream breaks down both regions will freeze

        • billytheid@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You need to see this through the eyes of a psychopath, because those are the ones we’ve put in charge; from their perspective, mass deaths on a global scale mean more resources for them.

          Look at the bunkers they’re building… they’re relishing the notion of genocidal control

          • dexx4d@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Mass death will also slow down global climate change.

            Keep in mind that the “them” that gets more resources includes most of the western world, traditionally.

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

    I’m Italian myself. The issue with this heat is that it’s humid too, I live in the riviera and we’ve had constant 35-37°C weather with high humidity for a week now

    • Kajo@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What RH% were you reaching? In the UK we have been spared the high heat (for now, it will probably come later) but we had 70%+ and it’s not nice that high as everything feels damp.

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

        I just spent a week in Sorrento (South West Italy), we could not handle the outdoor weather of 35-38C + 70-80% humidity for more than an hour tops.

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

    Where I stay these temperatures can be quite normal in summer. I’m now just worried that a hot summer’s day here will now go from 45 to 55. I’ve felt 50 before. It’s not fun. But besides that, I think of the implications for the agricultural sector. Good luck my European friends. I’ll report back in our summer.

    • 8275232@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the lack of sure conditioning in Europe that makes it especially brutal.

      Sure, there are hotter climates but they are usually more prepared with AC. Certainly not always, I know.

  • Carlos Solís@communities.azkware.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let’s be honest, this will end up with only the ultra-rich surviving in the last few strips of livable surface of the planet - and them elated to have finally “culled the undeserving” as they have been hoping for for millennia.

    • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nah, the rich will be eaten. Since their power completely relies on society. Taliban in the Mountains of Afghanistan will be fine and will be fighting off a alien occupation in 1000 years.

      • nexusband@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, we. While some are of the impression, that climate change is only because of a select few, it’s because every single one of us consumers is to blame as well.

        We have the option to buy climate friendly stuff, lots of times it’s just more expensive or maybe a little bit inconvenient. Also, why does one need the next new iPhone after owning the last one for just over a year? Why do we have to eat Avocados in some cases a few times a day, that are shipped around the world and need heaps of water to grow? Same as Bananas or Strawberries in Winter…the list is very long. Same as plastic free vegetables - “the cucumber has a brown spot? Nope, not getting that, I demand it’s spotless!” So companies wrap them in plastic.

        If there’s demand, companies will fulfill that demand, if there’s no demand, companies stop doing that shit, because it doesn’t make any money. Every single one of us is responsible in some way or another, even if the percentage is very miniscule.

        • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I just wanted to say, this is a very good comment.

          When people say it’s not “we” and it’s just a few people, or just companies, it always seems to me that they are - consciously or subconsciously - just making excuses for not having to actually do anything and hoping someone else will solve the problem for them. They want the problem to be solved, while not having to do anything or change their lifestyle.

          There are some very obvious and clear examples of this; here’s two of them:

          • Studies have shown most people are in favour of carbon taxes. But with carbon taxes, companies would just shift the extra cost onto the consumers by increasing prices. One thing affected by carbon tax, would be the price of gas itself. And when prices (especially gas prices) increase, that usually results in a lot of anger and protests. So why would any democratically elected politician ever implement a carbon tax? If they did, they would be voted out, and the next one to come in would just undo it.

          • Another obvious example, is meat. We know one of the major protagonists in CO2 emissions is animal farming. Red meat especially is responsible for a huge source of those emissions. And yet most people don’t even wanna think about eating less meat, and they will still crack jokes about vegans and look at them sideways. And as for regulations regarding meat, the example from before still applies.

          As you seem to be implying, what really needs to happen is a whole cultural shift. Trying to shift blame onto to a few people and hope they get the guillotine, won’t change anything as long as people keep demanding all the same things because then someone else will come in to fulfil that demand. Whether we like it or not, we have to accept that it’s the sum of all our actions that will determine the future, and our actions can influence other people’s actions; therefore, one way or another, we are all responsible.

          Sorry for typing some much at you since you’re basically making the same point already, but I just felt like adding on.

  • iByteABit@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The EU needs to wake up and go hard on companies and industries. No mercy, no half-assing, just legislate the absolute shit out of them for once so that maybe our children can survive and live in not so terrible conditions, because not so terrible is the best we can hope for at this point.

    The rest of the world too obviously, but the EU seems the most likely to do so.

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

      I been following Tony Seba for years.

      He puts good videos out on YouTube.

      People naturally are unable to understand exponentials but he goes through the maths and shows that the world is going to change fast.

      I have more faith in mathematics and economics than I do in massive societal change.

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

      That’s what we are trying to do. But the fossil fuel lobby is still very strong and parties on the right are weaponizing every legal decision to polarise the people. Take the new (still in progress) german heating law for example; It wants to replace the installation of older oil/gas heaters with efficient heating pumps/district heating/hybrid (among other things, but that is the most important thing).

      Populist media and right wing parties used this to stir up the people. (“the goverment is outlawing your heater, you need to replace it now or loose your home…” etc.) Simple stuff like that; but it’s working - the right is on the rise. And they are, of course, completely against man made climate change.

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

      You want the EU to go hard because you’ve given up on the rest of the world?

      I mean I get where you’re coming from but that’s not even remotely resembling a solution.

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

        I don’t know if you’ve noticed but as far as U.S.A. is concerned, it’s not a nation anymore it’s a corporation. U.S.A. rewards the worst of the worst and it’s too late for anything to change here.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most of the air pollution happens in the developing countries. The EU would have to go imperial to force industries in such parts of the world under similar regulations.

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

        Innovation and investment is the way to go.

        In a lot of countries the electrical supply is unreliable, going down regularly

        Innovate to create full-scale renewable grids (best if they can run decentralised when necessary) and invest in implementing these solutions world-wide

        Use incentives, like trade agreements for countries, regions, or companies that implement the green tech to make it worthwhile

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

    Don’t worry guys, everything is fine. We just need to [redacted] and this will all go back to normal in no time.

    • artifice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hello my name is [redacted] I work for [redacted], all we need to do is [redacted].

  • ax1900kr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    When talking with a past university professor, he told us a big part of the global warming problem was actually a natural cycle the earth goes through every certain period of time.

    • max@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is a natural cycle, yes. But if you look at the graphs, we’ve given that natural cycle a rocket boost to Let’s get fucked town and it’s happening a whole lot quicker than it should.

      • ax1900kr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        A rocket boost? C’mon bro. Al Gore said parts of Florida would be underwater yet he and other companies were buying beach real estate in the early 2000s

    • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was having a conversationg with some red necks a few years ago. They were all talking about winter’s not the same here anymore, above freezing half the winter, not as much snow, summer is weird is goes right through October now and we don’t really get an autumn anymore.

      “Weather’s not like it used to be,” one of thems said, and I said, “yep the climate is changing.” They stared at me with their mouths open.

      These retards are literally watching it happen with their own eyes and they still won’t believe it. It’s insane.

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m no climate scientist, but from the research I’ve done, there are phases like this to Earth’s natural climate cycle… Earth has gone through very warm eras, and very cold eras, aka ice ages.

      If you look back at our modern history closely enough, climate science in the early years of the industrial age showed that we were headed towards a new ice age with lower than normal global mean temperatures… Clearly that didn’t come to pass.

      There’s also an unprecedented amount of mammal biomass on the planet (Hank Green did a yt short talking about this recently); and I think it goes without saying that, there’s an astronomical amount more pollution than before.

      Examining the evidence, the climate is changing more rapidly and more extremely than before and the causes for this are obvious to anyone paying attention… Simply, more people & mammal biomass, more industry, with next to no environmental protections that actually make an impact, with massive deforestation and destruction of sea life, where a significant amount of oxygen producing and CO2 filtering is happening.

      So what I’m saying is, yes, there are “warming phases” to Earth’s natural ecosystem, however this rapid and drastic of a change is uncharacteristic of the natural changes or planet naturally goes through. At the very least, people should recognize that the amount of pollution and destruction of the natural ecosystem is damaging our planet’s ability to sustain life… Like human life. So whether the environmental protections are because of climate change or simply a self serving goal of trying to keep our planet habitable by humans, long-term, honestly, everyone should support environmental protections.