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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
From what the capitalists and their non-wealthy sycophants tell me, this is the only way, and we should stop complaining as they end the world to see who can get th highest ego score.
Most economist agree with externalities and wealth distribution. But people don’t like externalities and wealth distribution has nothing to do with capitalism and is to fo with politics.
I read it. I’m really not sure what I’m meant to be talking from it. I think a lot of Marxists don’t understand what capitalism is.
“Its very structure, therefore, deprives us of the ability to decide collectively exactly what and how much we want to produce, on what energic basis and through what kinds of social relations. It deprives us, too, of the capacity to determine how we want to use the social surplus we collectively produce; how we want to relate to nature and to future generations; how we want to organize the work of social reproduction and its relation to that of production. Capitalism, in sum, is fundamentally anti-democratic. Even in the best-case scenario, democracy in a capitalist society must perforce be limited and weak.”
Capitalism is entirely based on the the free hand of the market not on votes. People effectively vote with money. If people want more pears instead of apples, then more pears are planted than apples. The free hand of the market works without votes and infact is a lot lot more efficient than voting on everything or on trying to control these choices from a central government. Its fundamentally why (among other reasons) capitalism is so much more efficient than anything else.
Something that seems horribly missed by certain people that don’t understand capitalism is externalities. Most economists want these corrections made to prices. They want ways to fix the tragedy of the commons, they don’t want factories everywhere polluting they want the best use of capital, land and labour.
People get to vote on the limit of business. They can choose to have green spaces around cities and there is absoultely nothing a business can do about it. All the wealth made from capitalism that wouldn’t exist without it is taxed by the government and the government can use that money to better effect. Lots of countries and cities have green spaces and high environmental protection. Capitalist want the government to pay for education and the government wants to pay for education because it gets more money back from taxes.
If I have missed something please let me know. But I’m getting tired of people on this site no understanding basic economics so I’m not sure how long this conversation will continue.
There are so many engrained assumptions here that would take a long time to undo, a lot of reading, and they take a long time to digest. I went through the journey, and thought like this once, until I realised there was a lot more to this than this narrative that is classically taught. I’m sorry. We should leave it here, maybe you’ll find it eventually. I appreciate your consideration of the text. It’s a good starting place. Ps, I was not the one who down voted.
I wouldn’t call what has been tried communism as it was never a dictatorship of the proletariat, but I’m not convinced by orthodox communism either. That is also missing a whole lot of geopolitical nuance to what actually happened. Either way, what we have isn’t working and it’s time to find something new. Lemmy isn’t a good place for theory anyway, not that any other social media is much better.
The capitalists own major media, the capitalists influence curriculum, as they’ve captured the state governments that set them, from K-Colleges of Economics to say “free market” capitalism is the only way kiddies. It indoctrinates millions of non-wealthy Americans to advocate against their own interests. Hi.
They use their power over government not only to deregulate their own industries for profit, but to defund social supports and then use their media to shriek “see how government doesn’t work?! Privatize everything!”
You can sing the praises of capitalism if you want, but capitalism not straight jacketed/draconianly regulated is a social blight that removes all humanity from society. A society shouldn’t be in service to an economy, an economy should be a lowly tool to distribute goods and services for the benefit of society.
I will sing the praises of capitalism because I understand it in a way most people on this site do not. It has done more to improve the standard of living and bring people out of poverty than anything.
Yes there are poltical issues in our society, especially America which isn’t the world and isn’t the only capitalist country. But that is a political issue.
People just need to think more about politics and understand how the economy works more. That’s where the issues lie.
That’s fine. Our trajectory is pretty well set anyway. We’ll keep insisting more growth/metastasis is the solution for the consequences of reckless growth/metastasis.
Have fun blaming everything except the root cause on the way down.
Actually it was my economics classes in university that highlighted how bad things are and how corporations need to be highly regulated. Even the professor who attempted to show us we couldn’t regulate corporations and thus shouldn’t try used a simulation that made it apparent corporations would strip the land and ocean of everything if they could.
It definitely depends on the university you go to, there’s ideological differences in economic schools of thought. But the observed science is very simple and repeatedly proves demand driven programs at the bottom of an economy are far more powerful than supply driven programs at the top.
But you don’t understand, doing literally the bare minimum would mean 150 people only have 50,000,000x the average persons net worth instead of 100,000,000x!
And I’ll never be allowed to be in their club since they all work to make sure poors stay poors someday I might be one of them, so clearly I must defend this to the death of me and all my family and their children.
With more than $46 Trillion in assets worldwide, pension funds are one of the largest institutional investors in fossil fuels.
Given the growing financial risk facing fossil fuel companies, it is no longer a responsible investment to put our hard earned pension dollars into an industry that is wreaking havoc on our planet and frontline communities. Nearly 30% of fossil fuel industry shares are held by pension funds – with as much financial power as pension funds hold, they could be a force to reckon with in the battle to address the climate crisis.
Add comment