• ewe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Every time I see these I see these climate change related issues (which is now multiple times a day), I get the same sinking feeling in my stomach like I’m behind on work and don’t have enough time to do it and I’ll soon be in trouble for letting things get too far behind. That feeling keeps me up, causes me stress, and is generally not a comfortable way to live. This just fucking sucks.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I hate to say it, but I keep avoiding articles about climate change for this reason. I can’t do it every time, obviously, but it just gives me such stress. We’re all so powerless while corporations destroy our planet.

      • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Have you tried separating your recycling out? It’ll help offset the cruise ships that each put out around 250,000 cars worth of straight up pollution a year, without factoring in other impacts.

        • vaultdweler13@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          And thats just the cruise ships imagine how much cargo ships output, admitedly cargo ships actually serve a purpose. Cruise ships are idols to our decadence and hubris.

          I dream of bloody knives and car bombs.

          • Praise our cargo ship overlords for bringing clothes that rip after the third wash and electronics that malfunction after half a year to us!

            Joke aside, they are integral to the global economy, but we could cut back a lot on wasteful production and consumption, reducing the transportation needed.

        • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          The solution to that, the systemic impersonal solution, is going to be ending the production of single use plastics. While there’s little you can do about recycling, you can imagine if you’ll be complaining about that.

          • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Also if we removed single use plastics, but didn’t dramatically cut back on everything we do that uses them, then we’d create more pollution with alternative methods trying to fill the gap. A global change is unavoidable, whether it is chosen or forced upon everyone by circumstance.

            • jasondj@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              This is part of the issue that a lot of people don’t get.

              Plastics are, largely, petrochemicals. We have plastics because we have oil.

              Use glass because it’s more recyclable? Glass is heavier and more fragile, meaning more cost to ship and more breakage in transit.

      • penguin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I largely tuned out of climate change news a long time ago. I still care about it. I vote for it and have donated relatively large amounts of money to environmental charities. But otherwise nothing I do makes a difference.

    • gosling@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      11 months ago

      Don’t be too harsh on yourself, big corporations are the main cause of climate change. Unless we all collectively decide to give these companies a wake up call, I’m afraid there’s very little you can do alone

      • dangblingus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Big corporations…that we keep rewarding with our money, incentivizing them to not change what they’re doing. Human consumption is the largest driver of climate change.

      • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Corporations can’t do these things with the public being complicit.

        We don’t hold politicians accountable and we just consume consume consume like crazy.

      • IrrationalAndroid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Is there anything reasonable that we (those who have interest in living “like before” and won’t die of age within 30 years) can achieve? I feel like many things are very out of reach, and the population is just too heterogeneous to agree on something. Older folks where I live just do not give a fuck, and elected someone whose major interest is in removing rights from people they actively hate. At least one big city where I live has been without water nor electricity for several hours (days?) because the heat has messed out the infrastructure, and I feel like even in my country barely anybody is talking about it… It’s just very discouraging, I want to shift my perspective, but it’s not easy.

        • 🦘min0nim🦘@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yes, there are things you can and should be doing.

          People blaming ‘corporations’ while not doing anything themselves are a huge part of the problem. Out of the 100 largest corporations contributing the most CO2, almost all of them are fuel and energy based.

          So, number one - drives less, or don’t drive at all. This might change where or how you live.

          Number 2, buy 100% green power or install your own PV.

          These 2 things alone can be contributing up to 50% of your own greenhouse emissions. This isn’t ‘corporations’, it’s us buying power and driving around.

          After that everyday consumption is huge. So don’t buy shit to just throw it away. Only buy what’s necessary. Spend more on fewer things, and things that will last.

          And finally, do these things because you care. If enough people make some changes. It starts to seem normal. Then others do it too. And vote.

          The number of smart, tech savvy people here who think some boats and random companies are the source of impending catastrophe are sadly mistaken. The actual information on what’s causing and contributing is well researched and easy to find. You’ll be able to find an online calculator for your country which will give an averaged breakdown of your own emissions. You can use that to keep drilling into what actions will have the biggest impacts.

          Everyone needs to make changes to the way we live. Some need to go first for others to follow.

          • FlowVoid@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            Or switch to a seafood-based diet, which has a much smaller CO2 footprint than land-based agriculture.

            • such_fifty_bucks@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              11 months ago

              “just eat seafood”. Brought to you by the comment thread on the article about the fact that the oceans are half way to literally fucking boiling.

            • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              We already massively overfish, is that really your solution? It’ll mean more intense factory farming of seafood, creating huge amounts of water based pollution.

              • FlowVoid@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Not all types of fish are overfished, some (like haddock) are sustainable. Just as some crops are farmed responsibly, and others (like California almonds) are not.

                • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I see you noticed that mackerel had it’s “sustainable” status removed. Sad times. ^^’

                  I didn’t think Haddock had gotten back on the sustainable side either, most things can be done sustainably up to a certain volume. If the entire population turns it’s eye on it then demand far outstrips supply and goodbye sustainability.

        • LucidNightmare@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          “Big companies only do what they do when the governments that they paid with bribes or “lobby” money look the other way while they fuck the planet up left and right like it’s a race to the end”

          Fixed it for you. Stop excusing the rich, and trying to place the blame on the consumers, friend. It’s disgusting.

        • dangblingus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          You’re being downvoted, but why? Human greed also extends to consumers. We don’t have to buy a thing because it was paraded around in front of us. I hate the “consumers have no agency, they have to buy stuff!” mentality. It’s morally bankrupt and just results in more finger pointing and zero action. Stop buying crap.

    • sharpiemarker@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      And the worst part is, average citizens like yourself aren’t a massive burden on the environment. It’s people like Elon Musk flying personal jets across the world for dinner, who are actively contributing to the death of the planet.

      • golamas1999@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        The jets are bad but what is worse are the handle full of billionaires and csuite execs who have the money and power to decide company policies and bribe politicians and governments: lobbying, independent expenditures, gala dinners, super pacs, incentives, revolving doors, private fundraising, paid speeches; to look the other way so they can pollute however much they want.

        Nothing is Ethical under Capitalism.

        Social Democracy is better but still exports the suffering to the global south.

        Workers of the world must unite to over come the absolute insanity of the capital class.

      • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Unfortunately, everyone participates and it adds up. If you want to compare such personal consumption like jets, then the rich account for about 15% of the global emissions.

        Here’s a chart:

        from this report: https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/carbon-inequality-in-2030-per-capita-consumption-emissions-and-the-15c-goal-621305/

        The share of total global emissions associated with the consumption of the richest 1% is set to continue to grow, from 13% in 1990, to 15% in 2015 and 16% in 2030.

        If you want to include the rich’s capital, which you should, because that has to change:

        the bottom 50% of the world population emitted 12% of global emissions in 2019, whereas the top 10% emitted 48% of the total. Since 1990, the bottom 50% of the world population has been responsible for only 16% of all emissions growth, whereas the top 1% has been responsible for 23% of the total. While per-capita emissions of the global top 1% increased since 1990, emissions from low- and middle-income groups within rich countries declined. Contrary to the situation in 1990, 63% of the global inequality in individual emissions is now due to a gap between low and high emitters within countries rather than between countries. Finally, the bulk of total emissions from the global top 1% of the world population comes from their investments rather than from their consumption. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00955-z

        But if you imagine that the petite bourgeois lifestyle of McMansion in suburbia, cars and driving around everywhere, and the rest of the consumption isn’t contributing, you should read more. Here’s a start: https://www.versobooks.com/books/3691-the-imperial-mode-of-living

      • aport@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        Sorry but this is not true at all. Your regular average citizen demands products whose production, transportation, and disposal is responsible for massive amounts of emissions.

        If you buy cheap Chinese shit off Amazon, or Big Macs, a new phone every year, you’re part of the problem.

        • PM_ME_YOUR_ZOD_RUNES@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          11 months ago
          1. Be big business
          2. Spend decades chasing profits using any means necessary.
          3. Make so much money that the average person can barely get by.
          4. Sell them the cheapest shit possible that they have no choice but to buy cause they’re poor as fuck.
          5. Have morons on the internet blame the average person instead of greedy corporations/billionaires/government.
          6. ???
          7. Profit!
    • Monkeyhog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Really? The feeling I get when I read articles like this is a resigned feeling of “No shit, we’ve only been hearing warnings of this for the past 30 years. People are fucking stupid”

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        There used to be plausible deniability. “Maybe it won’t really be that bad, even though we should be acting in case it is.”

        Now it’s more of a “I wonder where the various lines are and how many we’ve already crossed, which one will be next, and how soon we’ll notice it.”

        Have you noticed the number of insects is way down this year? Maybe I’m wrong. They do still gather in the lights (which might be another part of the fucking problem…) but there just doesn’t seem to be as many as there used to be this year.

        • jasondj@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          The irony is that if we did act as if it would be that bad, it wouldn’t be that bad because we would have mitigated the worst of it, and it’d become a laughing-stock for non-critical thinkers.

          See also: Y2K…or more recently, comparing COVID death rates for vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations.

    • Parallax@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      You can only do so much. Life was set up this way for us by countless generations before us. You can reduce your energy requirements, reduce/reuse/recycle, but it will only help so much at the individual level. Never stop trying. Never stop trying to convince your friends and family to reduce their footprint. I bug my SO every time they put something recyclable in the trash or they buy something we don’t need.

      But the world is burning because of greed and we can’t individually put an end to that. Live your life, do what you can, share love. It’s the best we can do right now.

    • Art35ian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I like to look on the bright side, in that climate change will either wipe humans off the map or send us back to the Stone Age so we no longer have any real impact.

      Both scenarios will heal the planet, animals will re-populate, and homeostasis will again be restored. Checks and balances. We’ll just be another animal that that got out of control, which nature corrected, like it’s done thousands of times over with every animal that’s ever been out of control.

      A healthy world. I like that outcome, with or without us.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t think you realize how much even stone age humans fucked up the planet. Half of Australia’s forests were burned down and most of America’s megafauna was hunted to extinction and the people who did it had little more than stone tools.

        • Art35ian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yeah, I read Sapiens too.

          Still, I suspect it’ll shift the balance of power away from us for long enough to allow nature to take back some control. As a species we’ve lost our way and we won’t stop until the planet is dead or it wipes us out. That’s the bottom line.

          This could be the only planet within a million light years with complex, conscious life and we’re systematically destroying it for conveniences like single serve ketchup.

          • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            This could be the only planet in the universe with any kind of life, but humans have never been good at working together in large groups, we just can’t really deal with more than a few hundred people at most.

          • darthfabulous42069@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s amazing how positive solutions never come to the minds of anyone who talks about this.

            Human expansion into space is a likely outcome too. Haven’t you considered that?

            • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              Hope in space industry being developed by the so hated corporations from the internet? Spear headed by capitalism? In a thread about climate change? On this site? You surely jest

              • darthfabulous42069@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                Unironically it’s probably our only hope to save ourselves and nature itself, or what will be left of it if predictions pan out.

    • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      We? No. We’ll just be uncomfortable. Our kids? They’re going to slowly cook to death as they’re running out of food/water/oxygen. Or, y’know, get blown up in one of the wars fighting over scraps of food/water/oxygen.

      But look on the bright side: we’re on track to beat last fiscal year’s profit margin! If we do that, we’ll get a free company branded pencil and one ticket to use some leave-without-pay at you manager’s discretion – and the regional manager gets another vacation home!!

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      Mass famines and heat that kills without AC coming summer of 2024 or 2025. Won’t kill the global north too much yet, but it will be one of the biggest deadly events in history for the rest of the world.p

      • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Military journalist Gwyn Dyer reported on this almost 2 decades ago.

        The global militaries have been planning for this for years. You see those ships with refugees from northern Africa? That volume is going to ramp up plus Mediterranean countries are going to exodus north to the Nordic states and immigration is going to lock the fuck down. People are going to die by the millions. Maybe not in 2 years but this is our future.

        On the plus side, and I am fucking saying this sarcastically, at least it’s the “right people” dying which is to say those not white and those not rich.

    • SasquatchBanana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      No. We have a long ways away before the human population will be wiped out due to climate change. Most likely around 100 or so years. The issue is what happens before then. Increasing temperatures will mean less water for crops creating food crisis. It will mean rising water level which means people living in low coastal cities will have to move. There is going to be mass migration which people do not like (Conservative fearmongering and look at how the homeless are treated). The food shortages and migration will cause unprecedented poverty. Poverty is correlated to crime so there is going to be an uptick of it. If we don’t cut our carbon emission by 2030, we are going to see water wars and food wars by 2050.

      What do these food and water wars mean? It can mean a lot. The rich will most likely be fine and continue with their yachts and private jets which are the biggest contributors carbon emissions. There will be more and more wars breaking out and even 1st world countries will be affected. This can lead to use of nuclear weapons which will continue to cut the human population and make things less inhabitable. Over time the human population will be cut and climate change acceleration will most likely slow down but not fully stop. There’s also a feedback loop to the planet heating up. As polar ice caps melt and the planet heats up, it may naturally continue on its own until it equalizes. It can go up to like 10 degrees which, well, I hope i am not on the planet at that time.

      Not everything is hopeless. We have a lot of bright scientists and we are in an era of unprecedented wealth. I do believe when it comes down to it, the world will unite and we will be able to mitigate enough of it and create solutions. Mass solar panels is a good one. Building nuclear reactors for the future use is another. Some solutions have been suggested like turning the sky white and other stuff. Public transit is another thing picking up and will greatly reduce carbon emissions. Just remember, a majority of the pollution comes from the use of private jets, yachts, and cruise ships. People will get hungry. There is one group of people who are at fault and I think the French found the solution to it.

      • solstice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        No. We have a long ways away before the human population will be wiped out due to climate change…Not everything is hopeless. We have a lot of bright scientists…

        I said something similar in a thread yesterday and got savagely shat on by everyone. The thread was about people literally not having children because they’re worried about climate change. I said have kids if you want, don’t if you don’t, but it’s insane to make such a major life decision based on some nebulous calamity that may or may not happen in your lifetime, or at all. I’m extremely concerned about climate change but goddamn some people are nuts.

    • VentraSqwal@links.dartboard.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      People are already dying to the effects. We know climate change can cause more and higher intensity hurricanes, more droughts, fires, famines, wilder weather swings, floods, and wars and refugee crises, etc. We know these things are increasing and we know people are already dying to them now.

      So while you can’t pin any individual disaster to climate change, we already know it’s causing deaths.

      As for if we’re all going to die? Probably not all of us, so if you’re lucky and don’t mind you or your kids living in a Mad Max world, you can relax a little.

    • moitoi@feddit.de
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      No, we won’t. At least, the millennials are the last safe generation.

      What will slowly die at 38°C are sperm. Hopefully, it will affect the reproduction of some roten brain about climate change.

    • GustavoM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Spoilers: Third world war will start at October, to go through clueless and senseless deaths all around the world, for uhhhhhh…6 years’ish.

      Then (not really sure beyond that tbh) we will have a worldwide apparition of Our Lady of Garanbandal… something something “folks will die of shame by witnessing their sins being committed”, etcetc. The antichrist will come, christians will be hunted like animals.

      Demons will manifestate, wander around. Everyone will accept em as saviors, praise em, etc. Lucifer will claim victory, etc.

      Then, 2nd cometh of Christ, etc, judge everyone, etc. Hell will close, etcetc. New Jerusalem, etc.

      So um… yeah. 10 years at best, 20 years at worst.

      • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The flying spaghetti monster beckons: we shall all return to the sauce! Some time after dinner, most likely.

        R’amen.

  • Arsenal4ever@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    11 months ago

    Oil and gas companies are awesome at branding. We need to be better. We should name the heatwaves after oil companies.

    We should also name the hurricane season. So the Exxon Mobile Heatwave, and the British Petroleum Hurricane Season. The Suncor Forest Fires.

    etc.

  • fearout@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 months ago

    Holy crap. So coral bleaching in that area is basically guaranteed at this point. And some plankton and algae can’t really survive if those temperatures persist.

    Also, as temperature rises, water holds less and less dissolved oxygen. At the same time metabolic rates of fish increase, which makes them require even more oxygen. The scary thing about that is at some point they lose the ability to get enough oxygen to sustain life, and then bam — the whole species dies in a day.

    Remember those rivers of millions of dead fish? Yeah, it’s like that.

    • Uli@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      All of these things are bad, but the effect on phytoplankton is most frightening of all. Diatoms provide 50-85% of our global oxygen supply. Not only are rising temperatures a problem for them, but ocean acidification also eats away at their silica-based shells. But it does it slowly so by the time they die, they are in deep water where no other diatoms are around to reuse the silica.

      Luckily, there are other ways of recycling diatom remains. The most notable example is the dried lake bed that used to be part of Lake Chad when that lake was far bigger and held many living diatoms. Due to natural changes in climate, the water dried up and that area is now part of the Sahara Desert. About 100 days a year, winds kick the ancient diatom dust high into the atmosphere where it is carried across the Atlantic Ocean and then it settles across South America.

      This is a big reason the Amazon Rainforest is so lush. Diatomaceous fertilizer carried all the way from Africa. And since more plants means more photosynthesis, it causes a lot of water that would have otherwise been locked away in the ground to evaporate through transporation. All of this excess water is blown westward towards the Andes mountain range. In narrower parts of the Andes, the dense Amazonian clouds overcome the rain shadow effect to precipitate across the west side of the Andes.

      This rainwater causes erosion of quartz, which is ground into fine silica dust. As silt, this dust is washed into the Pacific Ocean, where diatoms absorb the silica and use it to reproduce. In a beautiful global balancing act, as diatom-heavy lakes in Africa dry up, the remains of those diatoms cause a chain reaction that ends up causing a huge increase of diatoms on the opposite side of the globe.

      Great, right? It would be if we weren’t replacing so much of the Amazon Rainforest with monoculture farms which don’t have nearly the same evapotranspiration effect at the flora of the natural ecosystem. So, not only are we baking the diatoms, not only are we dissolving them with acid, we’re also removing one of their most critical reproductive resources.

      It’s like we discovered how resilient the planet is and how hard it is to kill, and humans took that as a challenge.

      Enjoy the oxygen while it’s plentiful.

      • fearout@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s a great write up, thanks. Haven’t heard about the connection between the Amazon rainforest and African diatoms, that’s fascinating.

        I thought lake Chad started to dry up mostly in the 60s. I went to read some more about that and I just can’t not mention that the original lake is apparently called Mega-Chad :)

        Anyway, in case anyone else is interested to read about ancient microorganisms fuelling Amazon’s growth, here’s a really interesting paper that describes this system in great detail.

      • FlowVoid@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The only realistic way to “lose” O2 is to convert it into CO2. And even if enough CO2 were produced to extinguish all life on earth, there would still be plenty of O2 left over. So “running out” of O2 is not a serious concern.

        • Uli@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yes, in the long term, the planet will be fine. But bear in mind, our entire biology is based on converting O2 into CO2.

          I mean, sure, a couple billion years ago, the global ecosystem had the opposite problem and single-celled archaea was suffocating the planet with too much O2. Those are the conditions that allowed animal life to evolve.

          So, I take your point that the planet will still have O2 long after we flood the atmosphere with the millions of tons of CO2 that used to be buried deep underground. Plankton will have a comeback even if the vast majority of animal life on the planet dies of asphyxiation first. But at that point, the argument of whether we’ve “run out” of O2 is really semantics, right? If we haven’t “run out” of it, but our supply gets low enough that virtually all of us are dead as a result, I don’t place a lot of value in making that distinction.

        • Uli@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s encouraging, but we shouldn’t rely on it to fix our problems. The good thing is that there are many thousands of varieties of diatoms, each with their own odds of adapting and overcoming the situation we’ve put them in. I have confidence that the planet will survive. But whether enough of these phytoplankton will evolve in time to keep catastrophic extinction events from occurring is still very much in question. We should do everything we can as a species to protect their health.

          • FarFarAway@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            No, we cant rely on it to fix our problems. Hell if anything it will adapt and then get exploited later on. Humans just ruin everything…

            I wish we were better and hope that we will do a 180 and try to preserve what is left, but I wouldnt bet on it.

            As much as I’m genuinely fearful of what we are going to endure in the coming years, especially the next generation, part of me feels like we deserve what we get. All we can do is prepare the best we can, cross our fingers, and ride the ride.

            It’s pretty shitty that we’re taking everything else down with us, but it does give me hope that maybe nature will surprise us, and not all will be lost, even if it seems that way.

    • such_fifty_bucks@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Or the 2000 dead penguins washing up on the coast of Uruguay just a few days ago. Apparently starved to death, though the cause is still being investigated.

      But yeah the phytoplankton and algae boiling to death is triggering a catastrophic change in the ocean that is going to domino in horrible ways and I feel like I don’t often see a lot of people mentioning it. It’s very scary how the collapse of aquatic ecosystems is playing out.

    • Balthazar@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      What… … … … Why is it soo warm? Iirc sea animals can’t live with temperatures like that!?

      • MercuryUprising@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t think humans can live in that very long either. 38 degrees is the temperature you have when you have a fever. I’m pretty sure if you expose yourself to that for a while you will die. Maybe a doctor can verify this, but it doesn’t sound good at all.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          I don’t think humans can live in that very long either.

          Humans have been living in places like the Sahara, which is even hotter, for millennia. It’s uncomfortable and requires adaptation but it’s perfectly doable.

        • jerkface@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          You can survive in a hot tub at much higher temperatures for hours, and people do it because they enjoy it.

    • SlowNoPoPo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      The Fahrenheit scale actually makes a lot of sense, unlike some other us units

        • NoGoodDevGuy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Because we have used it all our lives, that’s really it. We know water freezes at 32f and our body temp is around 98.6. The weather channel says it’s 70,80,90 every day and we know what that feels like. In a day to day contact we don’t have to covert to Kelvin or anything so the standard Fahrenheit scale works fine

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              There are more degrees of lived temperatures, and the difference between 68 and 73 is whether or not you need a jacket.

              Inches and ounces are different forms of measurement so I’m not quite sure of the comparison.

              • orrk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I have been and lived in both the FREEDOM land and the rest of the world for a significant period of time 10y+, the “it has more marks on the thermometer” isn’t really a good argument, turns out there is no “71° time for a slightly warmer jacket” in reality.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  there is no “71 time for a warmer jacket” in reality.

                  As an ohioan I strongly disagree with this statement

            • Skyketcher@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Meters and grams are a decimal system which makes more sense than non decimal systems.

              The difference in temperature units is just the somewhat arbitrary starting points. And there are valid arguments for both.

        • steltek@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It’s about as equally arbitrary as describing Celsius in terms of 101325 Pa (“standard pressure” boiling point).

          Americans are more used to switching units and scales as they relate to the topic at hand. Describing distance between cities in inches is dumb. Using Celsius for the weather is equally unwieldy as the units are not fine grained and despite the headline, we’re not even halfway to the boiling point of water on the Celsius scale. And likewise, if you live in a cold climate, even 0C isn’t super relevant as a floor. Things don’t even get uncomfortable until -10C anyway.

          Speaking of Pascals, I feel “conversational” in Celsius and it kinda works but Pascals are even more irrelevant to daily tasks. Things don’t even get interesting until you get to 200 kPa and jumps of less than 100kPa aren’t very noteworthy. It’s like currency after massive inflation.

        • jerkface@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It doesn’t “make sense” in a day to day sense. It made sense to researchers first investigating the properties of heat and temperature. 0F is a benchmark temperature that can be reliably produced with a mixture of water, ice and salt. The mixture will moderate itself by melting the ice such that the temperature stays at exactly 0F until the ice all melts. Why 1/180 the interval between freezing and boiling was chosen for the value of one degree, I dunno, but it’s probably similar to the reasons we use 360 degrees.

          • Ratys@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Celsius is the same, except with just water and ice - you don’t need to get some salt concentration right to reliably reproduce the zero, eliminating that as a variable. “Moderating itself until ice melts” is just something water does, no salt required.

  • Johem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    You know what would really help? Not showing a nice happy vacation beach image with that headline. How about some dead fish, people sweating while doing manual laboue or bleached corals? For fucks sake.

    (I know NBC doesn’t read Lemmy, just frustrated)

  • o0joshua0o@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    I believe it. I’m not even in Florida (thank God), but my pool temp is 95F today. It’s literally too hot to swim.

    • Cossacks@lemm.ee
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I live in this shit hole state and it js miserable how hot it is. Our inside temperature for my house is like 84 during the day…