• potopato@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    43 ºC in my town today. Now we are at 32 ºC and is 23:00.

    This is hell.

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

    It is totally terrifying but also very strange to read about the record heat everywhere while we here in Germany had probably the coldest July in a decade. We had 16C where we should have had 30C. And we had rain, a lot of rain.

    Still, I’m terrified.

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

    What the Fossil Fuel Industry Doesn’t Want You To Know | Al Gore | TED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgZC6da4mco

    Oil barrons merely see global warming as yet another catastrophe to take advantage of for power and profit, they will have their companies pump oil til there’s not a single drop left to pump anywhere, using every excuse they can find to keep pumping and polluting while evading taxes and regulation as much as possible. They are evil scum and belong in jail for their lies and behavior.

  • barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fun fact: All this probably happened because we stopped to geoengineer by outlawing ships blowing sulphur into the air which created additional cloud cover. That is, this year isn’t really exceptional climate-change wise, it’s just that we could witness, by fortuitous natural experiment, how much worse it actually already is… as well as that we can limit the impact by geoengineering. It works, and without wrecking havoc on the overall system.

    And the good news is that we don’t need to blow sulphur into the air to generate clouds, the same effect can be had by blowing salt water into the air, just strap a couple of water cannons to every cargo ship. No I’m dead serious.

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

      All this probably happened because we stopped to geoengineer by outlawing ships blowing sulphur into the air which created additional cloud cover.

      You have your causality running backwards… this was already here, and the sulfur was masking it. This happened because we put so many GHG in the air.

      It works, and without wrecking havoc on the overall system.

      Europe is the one that initiated the sulfur reductions. With the additional dimming data now available, they reviewed it to determine how much damage had been caused. The conclusion? The benefits of reducing sulfur actually outweigh the damage of unmasked warming. The plan for further reductions was upheld.

      If we mask radiative forcing, we don’t want to be doing it with sulfur. That leads to acid rain, ocean acidification, and asthma and other diseases. CaCO3 is a candidate. The long-term consequences of any candidate is unknown. Except that we know that the less sulfur raining down on us and the fish in general, the better.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You have your causality running backwards… this was already here, and the sulfur was masking it.

        Which is what I said?

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

          It was probably framing it like

          Fun fact: All this probably happened because we stopped to geoengineer by outlawing ships blowing sulphur into the air which created additional cloud cover.

          Instead of something like “we noticed the effects of climate change exceptionally this year because we stopped blowing sulphur (…)”. Yes, this is probably pedantic in a room where everyone understands anthropocentric climate change. Still, I can understand why some people might want to be extremely clear with how we use language regarding this topic, given… Everything that’s going on.

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

          Lemmy is acting weird so I can’t go back and quote, but no, you phrased your attribution in reverse at least once.

  • jeanma@lemmy.ninja
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Couldn’t the massive fires (energy and compounds generated) exacerbate these values?

    Don’t make me say what I didn’t say.

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

      No actually fires have an overall negative (lowering) effect on temperatures, because the smoke reduces the sun energy from reaching land over large areas, it’s been well established that areas affected by smoke will have lower peak temps than they otherwise would have. Except it can cause temps to stay higher overnight by preventing the heat from escaping into atmosphere.

      But in terms of highest temps ever recorded… it doesn’t seem fires would contribute to that at all, more just a consequence of the high temps (drying effect).

      • jeanma@lemmy.ninja
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thank you, but I was talking about heat generated by the fires and compound build-up (eg: co2), while the last one might bring its effects later.

        Just to be sure, I talk about these figures, not the global climate deregulation.

  • mookulator@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    …since 1979

    Edit: not saying there’s not a climate change disaster happening, but some of these analyses are a little misleading.

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

      I can’t find any indication that 1979 had a 36-day heatwave with anything approaching the temperatures we’re seeing.

      • Malfeasant@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the significance of 1979 is that’s when we started keeping track of an overall global temperature day by day…

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

          Not terribly significant. The length, number of heat records broken, and sheer catastrophic scale of this heatwave is unprecedented. We don’t have any reason to think anything remotely like this has happened in human history, and the fact that we didn’t have the means to track the entire planet’s average temperature prior to 1979 doesn’t negate that.

          Hawaii is on fire. Oregon is on fire. Canada is on fire. California is on fire. The winter in the southern hemisphere is unprecedentedly warm, and much of Australia burned over their summer. It’s going to burn again.

          This is an emergency.

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

        You’re downvoted because you’re comparing one day record temp to a full month of record highs.

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

          Also, a large part of the reason the global average temperature is high is because the Southern hemisphere is having a very warm winter.

          Comparing global average to local max temperatures is also wrong.

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Much of eastern North America is having a relatively cool summer thanks to the smoke from the Canadian wildfires. Temps in my area have barely broken 85F/30C all summer

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

      not saying there’s not a climate change disaster happening, but some of these analyses are a little misleading.

      Except that to only say “…since 1979” is to comment in either ignorance or bad faith (your pick). We maintained record breaking temps ALL above the prior record for 36 is the damn point, and to miss that is to miss the entire thing.

      There have been 44 years since 1979. Lets say the probability of getting 1 day above the 1979 record in a given year is 1/44 (uniform). The probability of even getting a week of the hottest days in one year would be (1/44)^7, would be a one in 300 billion chance. There are some issues and some assumptions I’m making for convenience, but its not ok to make idle comments with no comprehension of the scale of extremity this event represents.

      As in, do you have any fucking idea how unlikely that is? This isn’t an ‘oopsie poopsie’ funny record event.

      • bloodfoot@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not to be too pedantic but your back of the envelope probabilities are based on inaccurate assumptions and probably several orders of magnitude off. Specifically, your not just assuming uniform but also independent from one day to the next. A more accurate treatment would be to assume conditional dependence from one day to the next (the Markov property). Once you have a record hot day, you are significantly more likely to have another record hot day following it.

        That said, it’s still low probability, just not as low as what you’re saying.

          • bloodfoot@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            If we stick with your 1/44 assumption, we can then assume 50% chance that the following day will also be a record setting day (probably too low still but the math is easier). Your one week estimate would be (1/44)*(1/2)^6.

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

      While the data presented here only goes back to 1979, I seem to recall that some scientists worked out global average temperatures based on coral reef core samples and ice core samples. I think there were some other samples too but I can’t remember what they were. So they are the hottest ever

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

    36 days… July 3rd to August 6… is 34 35 days.

    I find it very hard to believe anything that makes such a simple mistake doesn’t have other mistakes.