- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Fun fact: 52 degrees Celsius for 3 hours makes a great medium rare steak in a sous vide cooker.
Jesus. Anything over 20c is too much for me. I can’t even fathom what 50c feels like and I hope I never have to experience that.
Man, you really like your steak rare.
Edit: Does this show as a gif for anyone else? I’m using sync and that just shows a static picture unless I click on it.
Show as a non functional play button for me. Voyager on iOS.
I have to click on when using Boost for Lemmy. Otherwise it looks like a broken font.
Voyager client on Android, autoplayed the autorepeating gif for me.
Comes through as a gif for me on Voyager app fwiw
It’s a .webm. Paused video for me.
Huh interesting, it shows up as a gif when I send it as a text, guess I’ll have to upload gifs to a 3rd party website next time.
My bad.
A webm video on firefox.
We adapt. Whenever I have my relatives from Brazil visiting, they’re always wearing coats indoors while I’m wearing short sleeves and shorts. A few years ago, I endured 40-45 C summers.
Pretty sure that this is close to unlivable.
The world will adapt.
Especially when it’s rid of the pesky parasites running around and ruining everything.
Us.
Oh I meant from 20-25C to 40-45. 52C is indeed close to unlivable. And yeah, we’re fucked.
20 is my good spot too, like 24 and I’m dying. We had a heat wave in BC, Canada last couple of yeara and it hit 38-40 most days during the 2 weeks. The amount of sweating and fatique were exhausting. 52 would have killed me.
+20 is too cold for me personally, I prefer +25 to +30. And I’m originally from Northern parts of Europe.
Higher temperatures have been recorded last year but I think the heat is starting earlier this year?
Texas had its hottest May in recorded history this year. I have to assume we’re not the only ones.
And yet the UK is cold AF this year…
Shifted jetstream will do that. But while the UK gets an unseasonably cold summer, Alaska is under a historic heat wave. Not enough cold air to go around.
Anecdotal, but high temps certainly stared early around here. 92 in May FFS.
Welcome to Pakistan, we have:
- drunken COAS with nukes
- smog
- the hot
- fresh fruit
mmm fruit
mum nukes
That was a risky click
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.
Genuinely curious. Is it safer to stay inside without AC or go outside in shade? Isn’t the ambient air temperature still too dangerous in the shade?
Anyway whoever starts selling AC to Europe is going to print money.
Is AC not common in Europe?
I’ve never had AC at home, and that’s also the case for most people I know. I live in the south of France.
80-90°F during August. I’d want to have AC for those temps.
In southern parts of Europe maybe. But in Germany for example they are really rare.
My family: We should save the planet!
Me: great, let’s all eat less meat!
My family: . . . No
First step: just eat less beef.
Even that alone is enough to make a quite decent impact.
that image is based on poore-nemecek 2018 which has terrible methodology.
Hm. I would be interested to learn why, exactly. If it has terrible methodology, why is it constantly referenced and why hasn’t a better one been done since then?
Or is there a better one that nobody just uses?
And how should the data look, because most of every other source I can find also agrees that beef is the worst (or possibly on the second spot after lamb) as it comes to CO2 per kg.the sources on that paper are labyrinthine, but i recall pulling up the water use for cattle out of it, and they attributed all of the water used in the production of all the food given to cattle to the production of the cattle, which might make sense if you don’t think about it for even a few seconds more. we know that there are things that we grow that we use, and then discard other parts. maybe crop “seconds”; that is things that we grew thinking we would eat it but we pulled it to early or too late or mashed it up pretty bad during harvest or whatever. we are actually conserving water use by feeding these things to cattle, but it isn’t credited to cattle, it’s counted against their total water use.
that was just the water use for california dairy cattle. if even 10% of the study is done this sloppily, how much do you trust that study?
Greenpeace: we should save the planet!
Me: great, let’s build nuclear power so we can shut down fossile fuels
Greenpeace: …No
Greenpeace: …No
Senator Greenpeace and President Sierra Club made Westinghouse bankrupt itself trying to build the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors in Georgia.
Meanwhile nobody ask who is blazing a trail into the modern nuclear age
It’s China! (Said like Trump saying China)
Ghina
Too late. Somewhere so sunny can get a lot of solor quickly. Building nuclear power plants takes time and releases a lot of CO2. Batteries and solor now now. Cheapest power too.
Only too late because Greenpeace stopped it for decades. Hope you have a plan for your solar waste. Cheapest because you just let China throw it away for you.
Cheapest because the fuel is for free. Waste plan should be recycling.
Go ahead and show me your solar recycling plant. I want to see it. Must have a carbon footprint lower than nuclear or you lose.
It’s a new area, but there are companies : https://www.recyclesolar.co.uk/
Life cycle comparing isn’t as simple as your thinking: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421506002758 Happy to look if you have a unbiased source for life cycle emissions comparison.
But costs and time is a no brainer: https://www.energysage.com/about-clean-energy/nuclear-energy/solar-vs-nuclear/
You as also don’t want to be burning coal for a decade while you build a nuclear power plant. Then it’s expensive to run compared to solar too. The CO2 costs of waiting for nuclear should be included for nuclear too.
I know it’s a new area. I am involved with it. Now show me the one that has a lower carbon footprint today. Including batteries btw no cheating
Those nuclear power plants won’t come online for a decade at least. It’s better to spend the money on renewables and storage.
Greenpeace advocated for this back in the 1970s and that’s why we have an enormous wind and solar industry today. The Greenpeace lobby was just too damned powerful.
The reason we didn’t build any reactors after the 1970s is a combination of nuclear disarmament and slow return on investment, not Greenpeace. If Greenpeace had that much power they would have been able to shut down the oil and gas industry, too.
And if we started building them a decade ago we would have them now. We need to start building them now, because it’s only gonna be worse in 10 years.
By then it will be too late, especially considering the extra CO2 that building them will create with no electricity provided at all
Yet another reason to invest most resources into nuclear worldwide.
That is hilariously naive. The world is gonna keep turning either way. People aren’t just gonna suddenly all up and disappear. And the climate isn’t like a thing where you reach a certain point and you just give up. We can lessen how bad things will be. Making nuclear now is the right choice, so that in 10 years we can cut as many polluting forms of energy as we can.
I’d rather spend $10 billion on renewables that would start coming online almost immediately than lock that money up in a plant that won’t start recouping the carbon debt from its construction in a decade.
Renewables don’t work and produce too much waste.
nuclear clowns are the least funny
Everything is a joke to you so no surprise that would be your standard.
This one bugs me so much. Like I’m not even aiming for full veganism. Just… less meat.
No.
“But I like it!” Irrelevant to the problem.
“Other people are worse”. Irrelevant to the problem unless you want to go start doing vigilante justice.
“Other people are worse”. Irrelevant to the problem unless you want to go start doing vigilante justice.
I wouldn’t say irrelevant to the problem… Most of the stuff we as individuals can do, amount to trying to put out a tire fire by clapping… Even millions of us won’t make almost any difference, specially when you have 10 assholes who, instead of clapping are actively pouring gas on the fire
I’m 100% on board with the clapping… But I’m not kidding myselft that we are going to save ourselves until we eliminate the firebugs
Well, according to kissmyOSfeddit, we don’t even need to eat less meat. We can sous-vide it on the sidewalk now! Sounds like a serious win-win to me.
It’s the raising of the animals before they’re slaughtered that’s the problem, not the cooking after they’re dead.
I have decreased my meat consumption to about a third than it used to be in recent years. I’m not qualified to do an in-depth study about all the ramifications of the CO2 emissions, but agriculture being just about 11.2% of all emissions sounds like eating less cow won’t cut it to “save ourselves”
I have a hunch that shit will hit the fan and there will be a massive reduction in CO2 emissions because of a supply chain failure. Third world countries produce the vast majority of “low manufacturing complexity” products, which will be made even more unsustainable if those regions become a scorched earth. That, coupled with a lesser incentive to travel due to an adverse climatic situation, and a trend in population decrease due to an overall quality of life degradation, will really be the reason why we will reduce emissions, simply because things stop working and become unsustainable
Either way, I don’t think it’s possible to really predict the future and even less so in such a complex society where technology might be a game changer all of the sudden, so my opinion is not really that valid. Even educated estimates using proper statistics/data cannot guess the implications of new wars, AI, new scientific breakthroughs etc
Hm, strange. I wonder if there’s anything we can do about it?
Nope. The shareholders are in needing of a 5th yacht
Sure hope we don’t get temperatures like this over water for any prolonged period…
Don’t worry Pakistan Greenpeace banned nuclear power and brought back coal, that will save you from the ravages of global warming
Greenpeace banned nuclear power and brought back coal
-
Centuries of colonial rule
-
Decades of military dictatorship
-
Enormous domestic fossil fuels and chemicals industry (see: Pakistan’s fuel oil exports surge to record high on muted domestic demand )
-
Decades of nuclear non-proliferation policy at the UN driven by fear of rogue states using the weapons to terrorize civilians
-
Billions spent on media campaigns to influence fossil fuel policies
You know that small American-based environmental organization that did a few high profile stunts back in the 1970s? They did this.
-
Hats off to delivery people, soldiers, guards, roadside sellers for not dying in this heat apocalypse
Best keep the hats on, eh
Hey look, that FO stage of FAFO is well underway. Hold onto your butts people, there’s going to be some serious self punishment for our generations of polluting the world for personal convenience and money.
It will be felt most by those least responsible.
The Pakistanis who can’t afford air conditioning and have to do manual labor outside weren’t the ones who FA.
Percentage wise, Pakistanis and other peoples living in equatorial regions definitely aren’t the major contributors to this catastrophe, but they’re going to be the spearhead of the FA phase. It’s going to be one of the most unjust repercussions of the actions by the most industrialized and wealthy nations upon the less wealthy ever in the history of mankind (and maybe the end of mankind in the process).
Remember this the next time you get the chance to punch a racist in the face who thinks brown Islamic people are poor because they have “backwards tribal beliefs” or that the Middle East is always a hopeless mess because people there are dumb and can’t work together.
Life is short, you could die in a car accident tomorrow, who knows? Don’t miss your chance while you have it.
The poor and low-polluting people of the world are being punished for the actions of the wealthy and highly polluting.
Nah, more SUVs
I mean yes, but no.
Try corporate factories and industrial farms.
nah, try transportation and personal vehicles https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
I’m with you, but it’s not the SUVs that are causing the problem, it’s the fucking corporations that contribute over 80% of the harmful emissions.
But fuck SUVs and big ass trucks.
it’s not the SUVs that are causing the problem, it’s the fucking corporations
The corporations are the ones that block mass transit infrastructure and extract subsidies for increasingly oversized vehicles. American car companies basically don’t bother making sedans anymore.
I don’t think there’s a bright line between the two problems. More SUVs = Corporate profit $$$ = More lobbying = No Mass Transit = More SUVs
What do this corporations do to cause 80% of emissions? Just burn it for fun?
No. They make products and services that people buy. Making out people play no part in this doesn’t help anyone.
It’s not just “they make products and services that people buy”, it’s that “they maximize their personal profit at the expense of people and the environment”.
It’s easy but reductive to blame consumers for consuming, when it’s worth noting that biodegradable packaging costs more than plastics that will never break down, so corporations will choose cheap plastic over environmentally friendly packaging 99.9% of the time.
The incentives are wrong. Instead of maximizing profit we need to ensure that profit is not maximized at the expense of sustainability, at the expense of pollution, and at the expense of the entire future of our planet.
That’s a government issue.
E.g. a carbon tax will solve a lot of problems, or a tax on waste like plastic. It is very very unpopular with the public though so the government can’t put it in place for fear of being voted out.
That’s… Really passing the buck though.
Nothing is stopping corporations from doing The Right Thing right now except their own desire not for profit, but for maximized profit at all costs. Dare I say it, but if a company can’t make a profit without creating harm, it doesn’t deserve to make a profit.
The us government has said corporations are legally required to maximise profit for the shareholders.
Again government issue.
Just burn it for fun?
The degree to which businesses prioritize political patronage over economic efficiency can’t be overstated. From Shitcoins to Big Box Retailers, we expend enormous amounts of carbon in pursuit of flights of fancy.
And all those private jets and helicopters out to remote ecologically preserved vacation spots could definitely be defined as “burning fossil fuels for fun”.
I start to wonder if corporate executives themselves arent responsible for this myth that the meaningful bulk of emissions comes from them. So consumers can feel guilt free about buying these gas guzzling chunkers, after all their choices dont have any meaningful effect on emissions.
But no, corporate headquarters doesnt have a giant smokestack spewing out those corporate emissions you hear about. Those emissions are coming from…SUV tailpipes! Transportation is the highest emissions sector in the US, and personal vehicles make up the bulk of those emissions, especially trucks and SUVs.
Actually, it’s electricity and heating:
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
Transportation is number two (by quite a bit) but don’t forget that Transportation of goods is also part of transportation.
Not saying we shouldn’t give up the SUVs, just that maybe we should use less power and heat with something cleaner as well.
I did say in the US. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
50C is near OSHA’s max limit to touch safe zones which is 60C. At 60C, no matter how many seconds, you will get burnt. At 50C you can hold an object for a few seconds safely.
But also keep in mind that it’s usually air temperature being measured, with surface temperatures being even worse than that!
Hottest I’ve ever been in is 114f iirc in a dry heat. It was brutal like “you can feel moisture evaporating out of your eyes”, I felt like just sitting around I couldn’t drink water as fast as I was losing it. 125 is bonkers
125° F that’s above boiling temperature in Flaffenfeit!!! But boiling what is the question? Probably somebody’s temper.
That’s a common misunderstanding.
125°F means it is 25% hotter than 100% too hot.
So 125° F is like saying it’s WAY TOO HOT! Thank you, I think I’m beginning to understand Flaffenfeit better now.
It’s a bit like measuring in yards, but they never say whether it’s front yards or back yards, which is quite significant IMO. But even a hundred yards isn’t very far, so I guess they must have some pretty funny small yards over there.
