Higher temperatures have been recorded last year but I think the heat is starting earlier this year?
Anecdotal, but high temps certainly stared early around here. 92 in May FFS.
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.
Jetstream? :)
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.
Meh, if your house is built correctly, it is not needed. And you also get used to it.
I just use a fan during the night, which does the job without having to use so much electricity.
Only in public buildings. We never needed AC with out relatively mild temperature, good insulation and it was seen as a waste of electricity.
I lived in Paris and no one had it besides commercial buildings. But with climate change causing higher temperatures across the region, I think AC modifications of some sort will become the norm. My friend in Spain recently got AC after one summer he had to stay with his friend in Denmark because his house became unlivable. Like it would’ve killed his cat it was so hot inside.
In southern parts of Europe maybe. But in Germany for example they are really rare.
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?
Humidity is a big factor, if humidity is low then evaporative cooling (e.g. sweating) is quite effective. Even more so in a breeze.
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.
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.
Oh… if only the scientists had warned us something like this could happen…
Oh… wait…
Well, if only the scientists had done something bigger and been louder to get everyone’s attention, like saying global warming is bad and self-immolating in a public place to try to warn people we’re all about to die…
Oh… wait…
Well, don’t worry, the magic sky gods will all take us to paradise once it gets too hot, and they lived happily ever after, the end, Yay! 🎈 🎉
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
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
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.
-
Hm, strange. I wonder if there’s anything we can do about it?
Nope. The shareholders are in needing of a 5th yacht
🔥🥵
Hats off to delivery people, soldiers, guards, roadside sellers for not dying in this heat apocalypse
Best keep the hats on, eh
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.
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.
And the disgusting irony that the ones being punished are the younger generation. I’m GenX. I apologize to my kids profusely for the mess I had a hand in making. It’s not getting fixed until it gets a lot worse. I’m scared for the future.
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.
So very true. The vast majority of the climate damage has come from the US, China, and Europe, but more equatorial regions are going to be crushed by the heat for an unknown time. The cost to humanity is likely going to be beyond anything our models have projected.
If they haven’t yet, they need to start emigrating north ASAP before the borders start shutting down (and they will).
My family: We should save the planet!
Me: great, let’s all eat less meat!
My family: . . . No
Greenpeace: we should save the planet!
Me: great, let’s build nuclear power so we can shut down fossile fuels
Greenpeace: …No
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
nuclear clowns are the least funny
Everything is a joke to you so no surprise that would be your standard.
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
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.
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.
FUCK OFF LIBS, I WONT EAT THE BUGS
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?
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
