One of the major drivers of the exceptional heat building within Earth’s atmosphere has reached levels beyond anything humans have ever experienced, officials announced on Thursday. Carbon dioxide, the gas that accounts for the majority of global warming caused by human activities, is accumulating “faster than ever,” scientists from NOAA, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the University of California San Diego found.

“Over the past year, we’ve experienced the hottest year on record, the hottest ocean temperatures on record, and a seemingly endless string of heat waves, droughts, floods, wildfires and storms,” NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad said in a press release. “Now we are finding that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing faster than ever.

  • Kalkaline
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Won’t save them from the mobs and pitchforks.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I mean, that’s great and all, but you can’t reappropriate corporate funds with pitchforks.

      We need punitive rulings and legislation.

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        BBQs would kill two birds with one stone: get rid of the stupid and feed the hungry masses.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          That still doesn’t address the need for funds to be redistributed from oil companies to the alternative energy industry or carbon mitigation projects.

          It’s not about revenge. We need to address the climate crisis, and they need to pay the fuck up.

          • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            based on the math, it’s likely too late and we’re all going to die. so given that, are you saying emotional catharsis of holding accountable the greedy religious idiots who have fucked the world is somehow bad?

            some would disagree and say let’s bring back moloch for all the religious flat-earth global-warming-isn’t-real-bibletard-oil-avaricious-fucktwads who destroyed us all and start our own warming

            some would say, if we’re all going to die, shouldn’t the global warming deniers at least make moloch happy with a feast?

            i wouldn’t say that, but some would

          • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            26 days ago

            If you were mathmatically certain we were all going to die as a result of their actions, would your opinion still be the same?

            I suppose I am more pessimistic when I look at graphs. It’s not even about the most blatant damage, a lot of my concerns is based on the damage we aren’t measuring. I think the game is over and we lost.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              26 days ago

              The pessimism is fair. I think the difference isn’t simply if we’re going to succumb to extinction, but also when and how. I’m going to die one day, regardless of climate change. If I have more money, I can extend that time and reduce suffering. The same can be said for humanity.

              For example, we’re very likely to face food supply constrains first. Since most food corporations turn their profits into shareholder value, they won’t have the means necessary to combat the inevitable climate obstacles, and will immediately turn to governments for assistance. The same can be said for insurance corporations and coastal residents or those in wildfire zones.

              • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                26 days ago

                you’re writing, on the one hand, “it’s not about revenge”

                and i’m writing, on the other, that these oil-executives could make “moloch happy with a feast”

                (i am not advocating for that specifically, but i am saying others could advocate for that)

                in a way, I think we are actually saying the same thing, only you’re saying it in terms of civil judgments and i’m saying it in terms of large hot statues of moloch filled with oil executives.

                what if it’s not 300 years until human extinction? what if it’s 30?

                Would you still be so civil?

                Perhaps the scientists lighting themselves on fire to try to get us to notice the problem weren’t protesting in a calm civil nice manner because it’s really that bad.

                What if we aren’t saying the same thing? What if you are part of the problem with your civility?

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  26 days ago

                  My civility can successfully reappropriate funds. Your oil boiling will only pass the funds to their beneficiaries and land you in prison.

                  • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    26 days ago

                    Beneficiaries? Reappropriation?

                    Although I appreciate all these big words, I am trying to point out that collapse could occur much sooner than we all realize.

                    I am not actually suggesting “oil boiling,” I was using the idea of a hot statue of moloch filled with oil executives as a allagorical simile and metaphor for people being upset.

                    My point is, civility may become more blatantly meaningless when the biosphere becomes more visibly in a state of complete collapse, and then all the buddhism and jesusism and sitting under a tree or behind desks and calmly talking about words isn’t going to undo a collapsed biosphere.

                    I get how jesusism and civil complaints and erudishun have a place in society, but many people may care about those things less when the biosphere reaches a tipping point and the collapse becomes undeniable.

                    You are saying the normal liberal socially acceptable thing, let’s have civil respectable accountability and change the future. But in the future, with a biosphere collapse, it may not be the normal thing to say. I’m sure when the new tropes come, you’ll be ready.

                    (Which is exactly when someone… not me… rolls in a giant metal hollow statue of moloch, conveniently on a pair of wheels… ready as a symbol… of accepting the future)

      • Kalkaline
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        I agree, I don’t think vigilante mob justice is the way to go. If the rule of law stops working for the people, they’ll find another way, that’s all I’m saying. The SCOTUS should do the right thing, appropriate assets should be seized for damages and distributed to those affected.

        • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          if the mob is big enough, and things are written down and symbols added to paperwork and ceremonial clothing added into the mix, is it really vigilantism still?

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      I think that’s a nice idea of a statement like Jesus loving you unconditionally.

      Not helpful really and probably not exactly true.