I know this isn’t politics or nation state news, but it is deeply troubling for all of us who live on planet Earth. Six standard deviations is mind boggling.
Mods, please remove this if you feel it isn’t news worthy. I know it breaks rule 1, but wanted to share.
I’d say this is valid world news. And it’s scary as hell. :(
I don’t have a car and I’m separating my trash but it doesn’t seem to do anything
There is other more insidious trash that needs separating
I bet we could compost that.
We need something new
It’s my fault, I forgot to turn off the tap while brushing my teeth yesterday.
Sorry everyone.
I’m sorry I forget the source, but I once read something from a scientist that in your entire life, if you reuse/recycle/protect the environment,etc for your own single entire life, you will have starved off climate change for 1 whole second. Mind boggling to know your entire existence comes down to that litter of a difference. The point of what I remember reading was not that individuals are the problem, but that corporations and big industries were the worst offenders doing little to help change.
I mean if every single person on earth did this, it would equate to about 253 years. (8 billion seconds is about 253.68 years) combine that with other efforts could really make a difference. Granted this is a hypothetical number and there are far more factors at play, it’s obviously not as simple as each person doing this = 1 second saved, but just throwing out there that there are a lot of people on earth…
It is still worth it to recycle, reduce, don’t be wasteful, eat less meat, all those things.
The idea that doing little things yourself adds up to much bigger and more cumulative impacts is lost on most people. Instead they tend to fixate on the idea that if no one else is (visibly-to-them) making sacrifices, and my own personal effort is so small, why should I bother?
Why account is marked as bot?
Should be fixed now, not sure why it was set to that.
Now not bot
Just personal responsibility harder, it’ll happen if you try.
I like your optimism, but this is a sinking ship… I support not having a car and recicling though
Oh no that was sarcasm.
You won’t change shit doing those things, you need to go arrest a CEO or something to start making some changes.
Oh good, I was worried there were individual lifestyle changes that would be helpful but inconvenient or expensive for me. Knowing there’s nothing I can do individually makes me feel much better about doing nothing. Thanks, internet stranger!
Sorry, I was a little asleep
The trash bit is better solved by not buying stuff in the first place (reduce).
Personal emissions exist, but are small. They add up when multiplied by millions or billions.
The company I work for uses gigantic barrels of oil to lubricate our AC motors. We’re one company in North America out of thousands. There isn’t anything you can do.
Lubricating oil isn’t quite so bad (extracting and refining is bad, but so too for a lot of minerals).
Breaking up the hydrocarbons leaking CO2 is a big problem, as is leaking methane.
You’ve taken some right steps, but there’s still s long way to go. Various industries, companies and individuals do what makes economic sense to them. Governments decide what makes sense and what doesn’t, but you can influence that by voting.
For example, many industries have used coal and gas, because it made economic sense at the time. Now that emissions trading is in place, using polluting energy sources is less and less appealing. The same sort of shift should take place in other areas as well, and politics is the way to get there. Climate change isn’t a technological problem as much as it’s a political one.
These are rookie numbers, now make it to 10 sigmas. But seriously, the biggest problem is that global warming is happening very slowly (in human years) and we are kind of normalising it and concentrating on more pressing topics.
I guess our kids or grand kids will read in their history books about our ignorance and scratch their heads wondering how stupid we might have been to allow all this to happen. And they will be absolutely right of course.
We are more concerned about our well being and our consumerism while wanting bigger cars, bigger toys, share prices etc. instead of trying to lead a sustainable life.
We’re fifty years into this. You might be new. Nothing changes except the right-wing’s hypocrisy and idiocy. Nothing. Changes.
Indeed. It’s depressing growing up, and the only thing that changes is the severity of the prognosis. We still travel around the world because we’re bored. Hours long roundtrip flights are sold at 20-30 USD, probably because of tourism subsidies. Not to mention the many business trips just to “meet in person”.
We have all this technology to work from home, to reduce our footprint. But, we don’t give a fuck. And this is just travel. Capitalism needs to be curtailed to factor in the long term destruction of the planet, or we’ll head there as fast as profit margins allows.
A world that lets this happen is a world that won’t have history books in the future, or accurate ones at least
I often wonder where we’ll be in 2000 years.
Will our descendants look open our great works like how we’ve looked at Roman works, in awe of what we achieved with “primitive” tools. Or will they look at it in awe due to not having any understanding of how such a thing was done at all.
Will we have colonized the solar system and left earth to stabilize itself, or will we be back to city states, warring over scraps of land and access to water that is slightly less polluted. Or will it be both? The rich with their space empires and the poor left to fend for themselves amongst the corruption.
Will there be any of us left at all? We could wipe out all human life right now with a bio weapon or nuclear war. We’re like children playing with their Father’s gun, maybe nothing bad happens and we put it back where we found it, or maybe it’s going to be a tragedy. We’ve only had these tools for barely a century, who knows what we’ll do in 20 of those.
Will we have colonized the solar system and left earth to stabilize itself
Definitely not that. Any technology that would allow us to colonize other planets would be much easier to use on Earth no matter how bad it gets.
It can also be argued that the continued trend of having an increasing human population is only going to keep accelerating the decline of earth’s biosphere.
We’re already seeing an apocalypse in the insects, and that’s going to lead to a decline in plant life.
Our carbon emissions are rapidly increasing ocean acidity and temperature, which will kill off huge swaths of the planktons that produce much of the oxygen we breathe. Biodiversity is approaching mass extinction level lows, and we’re barely figuring out how to slow it down.
I’m sure life on earth will survive it, it survived the impact that killed the dinosaurs, and that was an incredibly rapid change. But human civilization as we know it may not be able to adapt quickly enough to the damage we’ve done.
Humanity may end up as mole people living in carefully life support controlled bunkers if we continue. If earth is nearly as inhospitable to large terrestrial life as mars, what’s the benefit to one over the other? Might as well just leave the earth to the million year process of fixing itself and expand outwards if we can.
Earth still has plenty of benefits:
- Things will grow outdoors, even if they’re not the things we want growing.
- We already know where major deposits of natural resources are.
- There’s an ionosphere, meaning the surface isn’t bathed in deadly radiation.
- Parts of it, such as the poles, will likely remain habitable.
The big issue, though, is that transporting any substantial number people to Mars would require many trillions of dollars of investments in space transportation. It’s just not feasible to ship a large number of people to another planet. Even if we could start a colony on Mars, most of humanity will still be stuck on Earth and they won’t have much interest in supporting a colony on another planet if they’re being left to die.
The thing is that even with catastrophic global warming, earth would still be tons more habitable than Mars. Any structure that could allow survival on Mars would also allow survival on this hypothetical future earth.
We either fix it or we are screwed. So we are probably screwed. Anyone seeking to build a Mars colony as an “escape” would probably fare better building similar stuff in earth deserts, or something somewhat different underwater. Still not the most sane places to go for, but more sane than Mars if the goal is “most survivability”.
I read/watch high fantasy about thousands, maybe tens of thousands, year old dynasties, let alone civilizations, and it just doesn’t even make sense to me. We can barely keep a world system in place for a few decades.
Have you watched The 100?
Are today’s history books accurate? History has been used for ages to fuel the country’s propaganda and are rarely if ever critical to some shameful moments of one’s history.
There are some exceptions but they are rather rare I would say.
History has always been written by the victors. Next time there might not be anyone alive to write it tho.
There was a hank green video about this a year back. Video link here, the tldr was that container ships used to use a type of fuel that was both bad for the environment but also really good at cloud seeding. More clouds shielded the oceans surface from the sun, artificially reducing its temperature. But in 2020 regulations made container ships move to a fuel that didnt seed clouds as much, so fewer clouds, higher temperature.
So i guess one potential take away from that, if its right, is that the temperatures are not “suddenly” getting worse, but rather have been artificially depressed and we are only now going to what it should be.
Actually it’s currently being looked at. The basic idea is to add sulfur to kerosine for airplanes to spray that into our atmosphere.
Bad side is it will cause acid rain, but the good side is that it will buy us a few decades that totally won’t be abused to speed even more CO2 in the air
And the millions of people who’ll die from the air pollution are, of course, of no consequence.
This has real ‘Operation Dark Storm’ vibes.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Hey, you know that tipping point that everyone was talking about? Yea I think we’ve passed that
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=wCo3XwTRg9o&t=10
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Cool cool cool cool cool
Actually: warm warm warm warm warm
This is not a news article, it’s a picture of a graph.
In the interest of discussion here, I’ll leave it up this time.
Please report this to us earlier, or, if you think our rule about articles only is unfair, I would like to hear your thoughts on if this should be allowed in the future.
Id like to see documemtation for graphs that are quantifying something or apealing to emotion deeper than a meme.
HELP US
A lot of us want to make change but a lot of people are trying to stop it…
God, Gods, someone!
^help…
Hurricane season is going to be a fucking rollercoaster.
Some of You Guys are Alright, Don’t go to Florida next Autumn.
Are you doing anything in particular to try to stop it?
Writing to politicians that cover my area. Actively recycling and reusing things. Trying to control my personal footprint. Pushing for and using electric when possible or simply avoiding gas use.
I’m not sure what else I can do to make a more significant impact. I have thought about it for a while and I always come to the same conclusion that mega corporations and the like, should have accountability for what they create, rather than push it to the consumers who purchase.
Sun chips used to use biodegradable bags but stopped due to complaints of noise? I never experienced it so I’m not sure. But seems dumb.
As with any heavy lifting, a team makes the workload easier. Unsure how to press everyone to come together as we did with the ozone layer.
To be fair the chip bags were really loud…
I never got to experience them. Minor inconvenience for a better environment.
Well, I bet they didn’t lobby for fossil fuels at COP28.
Thank you kind internet person
I use Nitter Redirect (Firefox addon), but I do appreciate seeing a nitter link in the wild, thanks!
Recorded history = a period of 12 years in this case? The phrasing is confusing to me.
Yes, that’s correct. We have not had the technology to accurately track this kind of data until 1982. Essentially the ~30 years of data from 1982-2011 is being used as a baseline. The past ~12 years or so have seen increasing levels of warmth compared to this baseline, and 6 standard deviations in statistics is usually “where did I fuck up my calculations” levels of absurdity. I think it is something like 1 in 500 million odds? I may be wrong, but it happening twice is not a miscalculation.
We could chalk it up to this being a natural phenomenon, but it’s more likely that we have reached tipping points in the climate that are now being seen in the data.
And while we don’t have the data it is very reasonable to assume that if we did have data going back 150 years the results would be stunningly worse.
Which is what we “knew” in the 70s. Yay we’re more accurate in counting, but the solutions are exactly the same now as they have always been. Renewables, less poison, better infrastructure. All of which are violently opposed by one of the political parties.
How can standard deviation be negative?
It’s deviations from the mean, so if the deviation were “3” for example, values of 6, 3, 0, -3 and -6 would be 2, 1, 0, -1, and -2 deviations away from the central line, respectively.
Deviation != standard deviation
Standard deviation is square root of sums of squared deviations divided by number of samples. Only complex numbers can result in negative values when squared. Negative amout of samples makes even less sense.
Deviation from mean is
x - μ, standard deviation is this abomination:The standard deviation is not negative, that data was just that many standard deviations below the mean. Think “this data point is below the mean by 0.5 standard deviations” not “the standard deviation is 0.5”. They are using standard deviation as a unit rather than, say, degrees Celsius.
Then why yellow line doesn’t touch time axis? Function cannot always be bigger than its own mean. If there is point above mean, than there should be at least one point below mean. I’m assuming here mean is of temerature in that year.
The chart could stand for some clarification, but it looks like the mean and standard deviation refer to statistics covering all the years from 1982 through 2011. However, it does not explicitly state the dataset over which the standard deviation is calculated, but it seems reasonable to assume that the same aggregate cited for the mean is also the same aggregate used for the standard deviation.
Each line in the graph represents a single year of data. It’s kind of messy and only two of the years are actually labeled, 2023 and the partial data for 2024. So that bottom-most line represents some unspecified year that was consistently 1.5 to 2 standard deviations below the mean for the 30 year analysis.
The data is at https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/json/oisst2.1_world2_sst_day.json, but alas, I’m too lazy to try to reproduce this sort of analysis to verify my guesses.
I will say it’s a peculiar approach and visualization. Including a subset of the data in the mean/standard deviation and then plotting the entire data. Also impossibly jumbled line graph visualizations of most years instead of something easier. I’d imagine you could convey the point with each year consolidated to a single data point and have a much easier to follow graph.
So, a little while ago climate change deniers used the fact of fluctuations in temperature throughout the year as a basis for a false claim that climate scientists were hiding the ‘real’ data in the less jumbly plots you suggest the use of. (And any sensible person would see the benefits of).
Whoever produced this is likely aware of those cynical and false claims, and decided they don’t want any risk the point they are making, being similarly undermined.
Thanks
It isn’t, but some data are a negative multiple of standard deviation away from the mean.
Same question as in another subthread
Global sea temperature affects things like hurricane strength. Buckle up.
bro these seats are only equipped with 2 sigma buckles.
Fun fact you don’t need the to specify “recorded” history. The term history already takes that into account. Prehistoric refers to things before records were kept.
This is not a fact. This is a fun opinion, and it’s wrong.
Sure if you wanna be really nit picky but is a widely accepted opinion.
It’s recorded sea temperatures that allowed us to track changes like this over time that I was referring to. I know that wasn’t super clear by the title.
For the second recorded time in history…
