• arymandias@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    If it was possible I would put quite some money on that geo engineering (like stratospheric aerosol injection) will be seriously discussed on a UN level within ten years. Climate change seems only to speed up and co2 emissions are still rising. At one point there is simply no alternative.

    • wischi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I also think that this is what will happen (not only discussed) but unless we master fusion it’s practically just fixing a symptom and we’d have to do that for quite a while and the oceans will probably become too acidic.

      • arymandias@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Fusion would solve a lot, but even if we invent room-temperature superconductors today, it would still take so much time to roll fusion out on a big scale and replace oil infrastructure with electric infrastructure.

        I tend to be very pessimistic about climate change, but I hope I’m wrong.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Greta Thunberg talks about it in her book - if the bathtub is overflowing in your house and water is spilling across the floor everywhere, step 1 for most people is to turn off the water. Yes sure it is fine to look for towels and buckets to try to contain the damage (and I don’t even disagree with you that it’ll be needed), but that also assumes that they’ll work and there will be political support to deploy them at scale, instead of mustering up the political support to turn the fucking taps down since at this point that’s clearly needed and is relatively speaking much much easier.

      • arymandias@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I was more stating what I think will happen rather than wat we should be doing.

        In terms of pure physics it is ofc easier to turn off the metaphorical tap, but in terms of power and politics we seem unable to transition to renewables. And I’m afraid once we switch on the geo-engineering button we still won’t transition. Only once oil is priced out of the market completely, be it fusion or abundant solar and wind (with energy storage), will we make the transition. But again I might be too pessimistic.

  • Eheran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    The color grading of the years is really bad. The last 20/30 years are all very low in contrast compared to each other, while 1940s and 60s are easy to tell apart, where it is least important. There are so many more colors than yellow/orange/brown, we can use them to get more information density.

    • wischi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Quite the contrary. I have a red-green deficiency (and so do about 6% of men). Viridis Color scale is pretty nice but two much colors are hard to read for a lot of people

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Actually, that’s a feature that was common going all the way back to the very earliest image file formats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indexed_color

          It’d be easy enough to make the chart a plain old GIF or indexed PNG; the only non-trivial part is that you’d need add some code to the page it’s embedded in to swap out the color palette. (You could also make it an SVG and manipulate it even more easily using the DOM.)

          • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Well, the image format is based on indexed color for compression purposes … But it’s not like it calls out “these indexes should be customizable”.

  • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Why does it seem like this is only the northern hemisphere and not truly “global”? Shouldn’t it be warm in the southern hemisphere when it’s cold in the north? So shouldn’t these groupings generally hover around an average between northern and southern hemisphere temps?

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      What’s your source that there’s not warming in the southern hemisphere?

      The temperature readings would look different because winter and summer are flipped, but they absolutely should be attributing a similar effect.

      • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s what I thought… But if it’s winter in the north then it’s summer in the south, so you’d expect them to average in a way that you wouldn’t see such stark differences between say January and July. In July it’s winter in the south, summer in the north. Intuitively I’d assume they’d average. Temps would still be rising year over year, but you wouldn’t see a difference between months. A couple people have answered that it has to do with the earths tilt and the fact that there’s more landmass in the north. Seems plausible I guess.