The world has experienced its hottest day on record, according to meteorologists.

The average global temperature reached 17.01C (62.62F) on Monday, according to the US National Centres for Environmental Prediction.

The figure surpasses the previous record of 16.92C (62.46F) - set back in August 2016.

    • meeeeetch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      These temperatures will kill people. They will cause crop failures. The death, hunger, and hardship will cause people to leave their homes to come to more habitable regions.

      But there will still be habitable regions for generations still to come. A lot has been lost, and more will be before we fix what we broke, but plenty can still be saved as long as we don’t just give up

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        So would you say morale is a really important factor in our global warming response?

        Maybe these scientists should stop talking about hopelessness and death sentences and start talking about challenges and hardship.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So you have all the moral justification of a person fighting for his life here? That’s a pretty significant level of moral authority to wield.

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean, pretty much anything goes then right? Like, if I crush a puppy’s skull with my foot it’s a horrible thing to do. But if that was the only way I could avoid dying people would understand.

                So basically being in fear of your life means “I get to do anything to anyone and it’s justifiable”

                • queermunist@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well, no, I’m not that greedy for life. After a certain point it’s not worth it and I’ll just make it quick and painless. Life isn’t always preferable to death, I’d need to be able to live with myself afterwards!

                  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Damn I am. I’ll rip the belly out of a live kitten if it’s truly the only way to live. I’ve been afraid for my life before and I never blame anyone for doing what it takes to survive.

                    What I take issue with is the level of certainty that such an abstract, complex thing is the same class of threat as someone firing a gun at you or a lion charging you.

                    Elevating long chains of logical reasoning, and not applying a mitigating layer of uncertainty to each step to reflect the possibility of mistakes or misinterpretations, so that full-on motivation comes out the other end, strikes me as unwise.

        • tlf@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Depending on who you ask it’s the most important. Once people are educated they can make informed decisions themselves. Just do what you can and are willing to do and don’t wait for the governing bodies to change their pace. The IPCC report actually contains solid Data on what individual behavior change is most effective, this article lists a few things https://news.sky.com/story/climate-change-what-does-the-ipcc-mean-by-choice-architecture-and-can-it-change-our-behaviour-12582739

          • ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Now we watch in horror as corporate lobbyists and their lackeys prevent such measures from being implemented at any wide scale, especially in countries and regions that produce the most pollution and still choose to keep fracking and all that. ~Strawberry

            • tlf@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They are unlikely to actually stop any individual from becoming vegan or at least making an effort to become one. The attitude that it is to öate and we can’t do anything about the catastrophe is precisely the feeling they are hoping for so we continue to consume their products. You can however at any time just stop.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        So it’s inaccurate to say that it’s a death sentence?

        I wonder if there’s any loss of trust that results from saying false things?

        • meeeeetch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are people alive today who will witness entire countries disappearing beneath the ocean, so it’s not wrong to describe the climate crisis as a death sentence of sorts.

          It’s difficult to explain how dire things have already gotten and how much worse they will keep getting while still acknowledge that even worse outcomes can still be averted.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The death of some land I guess?

            It’s difficult to explain how dire things have already gotten

            I mean, being able to articulate your argument is a key point of determining whether it’s a position worth defending right?

            I think you should get really concrete about what exactly’s going wrong and how it weighs against other things happening in the world. Like with COVID we’ve got numbers. With obesity and crack we’ve got numbers. With tsunamis we have numbers. And they’re pretty well-defined (despite some controversy in attributing deaths to covid).

            What are the numbers with regard to climate change? I think it’s much harder to define a climate change death, or a climate change life disruption, than it is to define a heart attack death, or a crack addiction.

            while still acknowledging that even worse outcomes can still be averted

            I feel like that would be easier if we clearly defined it. Like “5 million people have lost their homes to rising sea levels, but if we slow it down we can prevent another 2 billion from losing theirs”.

            It’s not that hard to conceive when you get it defined clearly.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        As long as I know how to love I know I’ll stay alive.

        Hell no I haven’t lost hope. But I’ve heard from climate scientists on this who assure me that this isn’t a civilization killer.

        Nuclear war could be, as could AI. But global warming isn’t a matter of the survival of the civilization. It’s a matter of completely survivable hardship.

    • queermunist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      We should give up hope that things are going to be fine and it’s all going to work out paintlessly.

      That isn’t necessarily the same as giving up hope that we’ll survive and adapt.

      • ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How do we do that? How do we prevent further damage to the environment by fossil fuel companies and such? It doesn’t feel like that’s feasible… ~Strawberry

        • tlf@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Keep yourself occupied and do the best you can. Informed descisions of individuals can bring more change than governments. You might not stop the oil from being sold, but if there is less demand for it, profits go down and that has great effect on the rate at which oil is pumped out of the ground.

          • ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know what decisions I can make that would make any significant impact on this. I mean private jets, for example, produce more emissions than any other part of the aviation industry. If some billionaire who took private jets regularly chose to stop doing that, it’d have a much more significant impact than me eating vegan hot dogs instead of meat hot dogs. And that’s not accounting for how many run massive polluters like Exxon-Mobil and actively lobby against measures to combat climate change. And this isn’t some abstract, random, unchangable force of nature. They are making the choice to do these things and could easily choose to stop at literally any time they want and still have their dragon hoards afterward. But they don’t. What kind of choices could I make that could have anywhere near that kind of impact? ~Strawberry

        • queermunist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not everyone sentenced to death has been executed, so it implies survival is difficult rather than impossible.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not really how the phrase is used colloquially. It means a person is gonna die.

            It probably comes from earlier periods of history when if you heard someone pronounce a death sentence, your head was getting chopped off within a few minutes.

            • queermunist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Okay, but this isn’t the 1400s

              These days people recognize a death sentence as an injustice that can be stopped.

                • queermunist@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sure, but that’s the point - a death sentence isn’t certain death anymore, so saying this milestone is a death sentence is completely accurate.

                  Or do you think these scientists actually meant “we are all 100% going to die”?

                  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yes I think the scientist meant that, because that is what those words mean.

                    When a person says “Doing X is a death sentence” they mean it makes you die. Nobody says that skydiving is a death sentence. They say that being in a car whose locks freeze as it sinks into water is a death sentence. It’s a phrase used to indicate that a situation has no outcome other than death.

                    Despite the fact that meaning conflicts with how the other thing referred to as a death sentence in our present society, it is nonetheless what the phrase means when used figuratively.

                    This is ridiculous.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you want some optimism, read How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place by Bjorn Lomburg.