this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
307 points (98.4% liked)

science

28261 readers
1010 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

dart board;; science bs

rule #1: be kind

lemmy.world rules

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/68763598

top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Addition@sh.itjust.works 73 points 2 days ago (3 children)

In my own lifetime, the summer highs have increased 20⁰F (mid 70's -> mid 90's) in 20 years. When I point this out to people and extrapolate a linear trend, another 20⁰ in 20 years, I get told I'm an insane doomer conspiracy theorist. Especially when I point out that another 10 degrees for a few weeks is all it takes to flash fry crops.

Yet these same people have been bitching nonstop about how hot it is this year. Yet apparently, I'm the crazy one. 🤪

Funny thing is that in my mind, I'm still presenting these people with a weenie hut jr vision of the future. As we all know, this heating trend is actually exponential, not linear.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The problem is that you're extrapolating linearly. I believe these scientists point out that it's an exponentially increasing positive feedback loop.

[–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 10 points 2 days ago

That just means he's underestimating and people are still saying he's overreacting.

[–] Archer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

The general public has already tuned out halfway through the word “exponential”

[–] RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The data above says it's 0.55 degrees C over the last 20 years. Not that I'm trying to downplay it. A couple degrees is all it takes to cause massive disruptions.

[–] LowtierComputer@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago

Average. Where they are, it could be more significant.

[–] Krusty@quokk.au 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's not linear. It's exponential.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 2 days ago

Shouldn't have stopped reading at "actually".

[–] BrightCandle@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

They have been using the minimum estimate for CO2 impact on heating since the 1970s. The level of pollution in the air has been hiding the true impact and as the various causes of pollution are removed the earth energy balance is changing such that it turns out that the highest end of the CO2 impact is actually correct, which doubles the heating effect. There has been about a third of climate scientists who have been warning about this but they have consistently been called the extremists or the doomers and they have been right all along. They were always right, the evidence was based on actual experiments of the impact of CO2 and not by measuring the planet.

[–] Syndication@lemmy.today 38 points 2 days ago (3 children)

It's been 100 degrees for days on end here. When do we start living underground? I don't want to live in hot miserable world for the rest of my life... HELP!!!!

[–] HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca 51 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Best we can do is pretend it's not happening and accelerate it.

[–] Goun@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 days ago

Best I can do is paper straws

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Drill baby drill!

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 3 points 2 days ago

Move to higher altitude. Or get solar panels, and air conditioning in a very small, well insulated room.

[–] Krusty@quokk.au 5 points 2 days ago

Take off your clothes and come in it. The water is 104F.

[–] hash@slrpnk.net 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It feels like sometimes we fail to comnunicate that while climate models are extremely rigorous and meticulously put together, there's always the possibility of unknown factors.

I appreciate scientists aversion to alarmism, and the difficulty of balancing effective communication on the topic. But if we're honest our species has been dicking around with the most complex system we know of. Even if we start doing everything right there are certainly any number of surprises lurking that we will need to deal with. And to some degree guessing at the scope of the unknown is impossible.

Can someone tell me I'm wrong and somehow we know where all the environmental landmines are? Cause I want to believe that the "this much inventment and change equals this much less warming" can be relied upon, but I worry it's tempering the apparent scale of the crisis.

[–] Krusty@quokk.au 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's fossil fuels. Something like a 100 million barrels of oil a day.

But people blame the cows. LMAO

[–] Captain_Buddha@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

It's BOTH of what you listed, and more, that are affecting climate. Just because something is a greater percentage of the cause, doesn't negate the other contributors.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's both. There are trillions of cattle producing an enormous quantity of feces every day that produce enormous quantities of methane, which is a far worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide per gram

[–] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

AFAIK there's actually less than a billion cattle

That’s why too many cattle, we need way less than that, a few hundred or thousand should be enough

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Man... I remember a few decades back when global warming seemed like some big scary possible thing. After living through living and events and news and happenings since then the cleansing, purifying flames are starting to sound more peaceful and serene than scary.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 6 points 2 days ago (3 children)
[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

Never. Venus, though....

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

When the core stops spinning and loses the magnetosphere.

Um, don’t be silly. We can just dig down and blow some nukes to fix it. I saw a documentary from the early 2000s about it.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 3 points 2 days ago

...and then wait a million years.

[–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] snoons@piefed.ca 1 points 2 days ago

how else are we going to get hydrogen fuel

[–] Krusty@quokk.au 8 points 2 days ago

Exponential change is exponential....

shocking..

[–] breezeblock@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago
[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Don’t they do this every week at this point?

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 days ago

That tends to happen with exponential acceleration.