Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5240 readers

726 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net

116

‘Unbearable’ heat in Delhi is testing limits of human survival (wapo.st)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Note that there are two common "wet bulb" temperatures used in discussion:

Wet Bulb Globe Temperature - this tells you that physical activity (including work) in unshaded locations can kill healthy adults and is used in this article
Wet Bulb Temperature - this tells you whether it is hot enough to kill the bulk of the population for just sitting still in the shade with access to plenty of water

A Washington Post analysis found that the wet-bulb globe temperature, which measures the amount of heat stress on the human body, reached 97 degrees to 100 degrees (36 to 38 Celsius) in Delhi on Tuesday. That is higher than the 89.6 Fahrenheit (32 Celsius) threshold that researchers have identified as posing a risk to human survival if such heat is prolonged. The wet-bulb globe temperature is based on a combination of factors including temperature, humidity, wind and clouds, and was calculated by The Post using data from a nearby weather station.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 53 points 5 months ago (2 children)

We need the rich to accept making less money, worldwide.

That's really it.

We can probably slow the rate of increase and even begin to reverse it, but we need to convince the rich that they need to accept making less money.

[–] zcd@lemmy.ca 28 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I believe there's a mediaeval device that suitable for convincing billionaires to not be billionaires anymore

[–] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 11 points 5 months ago

Medieval? It was invented in 1789.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Bro its probably too late for that. We might be committed to 5 degrees total warming at this point. Thats like, infrastructure failing levels of heat.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yup, but it's possible to slow that rate and (if we're smart and motivated) geoengineer ways to reverse it.

Again, though, it would require the rich to make less money.

But yes, in general I agree with you; even if we pull out the stops we're already locked into some kind of increase, but that worse part is that it seems like we're going to do is go hell-for-leather because the rich don't have all the money yet.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago

Not defending billionaires here, cause fuckem.

But it would also mean complete upending of what everyone "normal" expects out of their lives too.

No more cars, no more bananas, no more Amazon, no more Netflix, etc.

Every normal thing people expect would have to go, and be replaced with whatever local version exists,if it relies on global trade.

Again, I'm not defending anything in particular, but highlighting that getting general consensus will be very, very hard.

I personally believe most humans are good with billions dying if it means they can try to live on in their "normal" fashion.

When it really gets to their doorstep, the option to make changes will be fully, fully gone