Temperatures above 50C used to be a rarity confined to two or three global hotspots, but the World Meteorological Organization noted that at least 10 countries have reported this level of searing heat in the past year: the US, Mexico, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, India and China.

In Iran, the heat index – a measure that also includes humidity – has come perilously close to 60C, far above the level considered safe for humans.

Heatwaves are now commonplace elsewhere, killing the most vulnerable, worsening inequality and threatening the wellbeing of future generations. Unicef calculates a quarter of the world’s children are already exposed to frequent heatwaves, and this will rise to almost 100% by mid-century.

  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Rivers in Alaska have been running bronzish-orange… because the permafrost is melting.

    The ‘perma’ frost, is melting.

    That has huge amounts of methane locked up in at.

    Which is 8 to 80x more effective at being a greenhouse gas than CO2.

    And also ancient bacteria that could cause previously unknown kinds of diseases in wildlife and possibly humans, they now may or may not be seeping into the environment.

    We have already had a consecutive 12 months at or above 1.5C global average temps, as of last month.

    Shit’s looking pretty bleak.

    • FollyDolly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Glaciers are reaching tipping points as well. Insane heat waves at both poles. It’s over guys. Most poeple don’t realize it yet but it’s over. Those glaciers and poles took an entire iceage to form, and they are not going to come back.

            • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              3 months ago

              Contraceptives exist, as do abortives in case the first ones fail.

              The only two reasons anyone would have kids as the world is going are ignorance, or a sadistic desire to watch said kids suffer. In which case the fun is certainly not consensual (or shared) on the victim’s part.

              • cheddar@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                21
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Let me tell you, most people don’t doomscroll 24/7. People have kids because that’s what chemistry in their bodies makes them want, that’s what drives us and other species to procreate. Things are bad, but these arrogant and condescending comments are extremely stupid. You aren’t better or smarter than people who have kids.

                • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Let me tell you, most people don’t doomscroll 24/7

                  That’s no excuse for wilful ignorance.

                  People have kids because that’s what chemistry in their bodies makes them want, that’s what drives us and other species to procreate.

                  Healthy people also have the ability to control their animal impulses. If you want sex, use contraceptives. If you for some reason want children, adopt.

                  Things are bad, but these arrogant and condescending comments are extremely stupid.

                  You’re projecting now. What’s arrogant, selfish, and extremely stupid (and downright sadistic) is to bring more children into this fucked up world.

                  You aren’t better or smarter than people who have kids.

                  At least I’m not responsible for the suffering and eventual death of any other human beings.

                  Having children is morally equivalent to murder by itself (you are directly responsible for your children’s future deaths, which wouldn’t be possible if you hadn’t caused them to be alive to start with), these days it’s murder and torture.

                  • rekorse@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    You must be tons of fun at…well pretty much anywhere.

                    Shouldnt you be abstaining from technology to postobn here since you are now responsible for at least someone’s suffering or death?

                    How can you even get past all your own faults and mistakes to pass judgment on people with kids in the first place?

                  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    Having children is morally equivalent to murder by itself (you are directly responsible for your children’s future deaths, which wouldn’t be possible if you hadn’t caused them to be alive to start with), these days it’s murder and torture.

                    I’m basically an antinatalist and even I think this is a stretch. There’s even a thing called the repugnant conclusion that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox says that having more people on Earth with a worse standard of living is preferable to having fewer with a better standard of living, because joy, goodness, whatever can only be experienced by bringing feeling beings into the world.

                    I know life can be hard sometimes but it has its pleasant moments as well, and appears to us based on pure instinct and everything else to be much preferable to non-existence.

                    Yes, we’re mortal beings, but the ending of a thing isn’t its entire story, and being so fixated upon that isn’t very healthy. Besides perhaps hyperbolic teenagers most people alive are grateful for the experience even knowing that it won’t last forever.

                  • histic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    You need help like actually. just because everything isn’t perfect doesn’t mean there isn’t beauty to still be seen in this world. Stop staring at the news all day and just enjoy life and help where you can until you can’t anymore.

        • superkret@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The entire point of trying to save the climate and environment is to keep the world a nice place for our kids.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I hated that goddamn news cycle. Conservatives poisoned the well so much that you couldn’t argue against that dumb, pointless policy without being labeled a Heritage Foundation shill.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I haven’t seen anything from climate scientists that agrees with that level of doomerisim. They want to keep fighting against every 0.1C of warming we can, because that’s a worthwhile fight. Succumbing to climate nihilism is unhelpful, unscientific, and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

        • FollyDolly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          With the release of this much methane this fast, we might as well be out of equation at this piont. And by this fast, I mean on a earth’s climate timescale, not a human one. How could we possibly stop what is already snowballing? We HAD our chance to stop this and we did nothing. It is too late now to do anything but survive the new world we have made.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            What climate scientist agrees that we should give up because of unleashing permafrost methane?

    • littlewonder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      3 months ago

      Definitely don’t watch the Arctic Sinkhole documentary from PBS Nova if you like sleeping at night. It’s all about the trapped methane in the permafrost and the trapped gasses under the permafrost. Shit is getting real scary. It wasn’t even sensationalist.

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      I can at least alleviate your worries of ancient bacteria.

      Even our weakest antibiotics could wipe them out as they have evolved zero resistance to it. That’s assuming they can even infect humans in the first place.

      • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m no microbiologist but couldn’t the ancient bacteria hybridize with modern bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance similar to a wolf and dog hybrid having a tolerance to humans?

        • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Horizontal gene transfer is a thing amongst bacteria, so yeah, possibly (except in no way whatsoever like a wolf dog hybrid, entirely different mechanism).

          There’s also ancient viruses, which are much more terrifying and probably have a better chance at having been preserved.

        • Enkrod@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          That’s not how bacteria multiply. There is horizontal gene-transfer, but that would be a very slim chance.

          No ancient bacteria aren’t the problem, multi-resistant strains that have already evolved and are evolving in our clinics are the real problem, some bacteria that haven’t been an issue for quite some time, because our antibiotics simply killed them, have now developed resistances and are suddenly becoming deadly again.

          E. Coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella, some of the most prevalent bacteria in humans are rapidly becoming multi-drug-resistant and resistant to desinfectants like chlorine. These superbugs already account for a shockingly high number of deaths in healthcare facilities and the situation is only getting worse as more and more countries use increasing amounts of antimicrobials, kickstarting microbial evolution into overdrive.

      • The_v@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Have you ever looked up how long it takes for bacteria to evolve resistance after exposure to an antibiotic?

        2-3 years… Yeah…

        More concerning is a virus in my opinion. Jumping species is common and it’s the novelty to the immune system thats the danger. How much damage would an influenza strain from 3-4000 years combining with modern strains cause?

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          If that was all there was to it, no bacteria would be affected by antibiotics anymore. And yes, they’re less effective, but it’s far from an obsolete tool. We just have to be smarter about using them.