• Jumi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I don’t have a car and I’m separating my trash but it doesn’t seem to do anything

    • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s my fault, I forgot to turn off the tap while brushing my teeth yesterday.

      Sorry everyone.

    • Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Limit@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • mansfield@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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?

      • Siegfried@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I like your optimism, but this is a sinking ship… I support not having a car and recicling though

        • Deceptichum@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

          • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            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!

    • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

    • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

  • FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Hey, you know that tipping point that everyone was talking about? Yea I think we’ve passed that

  • forksandspoons@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

  • Might Be@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Id like to see documemtation for graphs that are quantifying something or apealing to emotion deeper than a meme.

  • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    HELP US

    A lot of us want to make change but a lot of people are trying to stop it…

    God, Gods, someone!

    ^help…

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Hurricane season is going to be a fucking rollercoaster.

      Some of You Guys are Alright, Don’t go to Florida next Autumn.

      • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

    • KnowledgeableNip@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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:

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

            • jj4211@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

              • Gorgritch_Umie_Killa@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                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.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      It isn’t, but some data are a negative multiple of standard deviation away from the mean.

  • Shanedino@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.