• tallwookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        ok, but only a very small percentage of the global population gets to visit the entire earth on a yearly basis - I mostly only care about where I live.

            • Vik@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s acutely disappointing to see people care so little about others & the world in general.

              But I don’t want to waste energy being mean to people on the internet. I hope you have a change of heart.

    • fearout@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Remember that since this is a planet-wide average, it includes places like the North Pole and Antarctica. Or just look at the graphs — it’s a pretty visual demonstration of how extremely abnormal recent temperature changes are.

      • tallwookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        yes the graphics are very shocking, to be sure - why is it only limited to 44 years though? do records not extend back further than that? I seem to remember reading somewhere that there’s climate records from as early as the 1880s but maybe that was in England only.

        though, even 44 years, while easily half of a human’s lifetime, it’s just a tiny blip on a geologic time scale.

        • fearout@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Air temperature graph starts from 1940, that’s 83 years. Enough to gauge trends, since industrialization and copious CO2 emissions in particular are a pretty new thing.

          But here’s some data starting from the year 0, in case you’re interested.

          • tallwookie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            ah, some actual data, thanks! still, it looks like an average variance of 1 degree celsius over 2000+ years.

            let’s be honest though - nothing is going to change in the next ~50 years or so, not enough to stop the slight raise in temperature. no one is willing to go back to living like medieval peasants prior to the industrial revolution. no one politician is going to enact any laws that will return society to that state. no coalition or governmental body is going to do it either. not in America, not in China, not in India, not in Europe.

            we would need most of northern africa and all of central australia covered by solar panels, wind turbines everywhere, and probably actual fusion reactors generating power in order to markably decrease global temperatures.

            • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Let’s be honest though, actually solving this problem is pretty much unachievable given the lack of motivation and interest on the part of the populace, so why bother taking any action to mitigate the problem at all?

              I’m really only interested in punchy 3 word concepts like “stop abortion now” or “fix gay people”.

              The whole idea of investing some effort now so that the world is better off to some unknown extent later is pretty much Socialism. We won the cold war.

    • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A global average of 17c doesn’t even mean it’s necessarily 17c anywhere in the world. That’s not how averages work. It could be 0c in half the world, and 34c in half the world, and the global average would be 17c (and yet it would be 17c nowhere).

      The point of global averages is to identify trends, which are not isolated to a particular region.