A Single, Striking Image

June 20, 2023 10:34 AM

Each stripe represents the average temperature for a single year, relative to the average temperature over the period as a whole. Shades of blue indicate cooler-than-average years, while red shows years that were hotter than average. The stark band of deep red stripes on the right-hand side of the graphic show the rapid heating of our planet in recent decades. Also: Biodiversity Stripes
posted by chavenet (33 comments total)

I don’t get why they’re using two dimensions to convey one dimensional data.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:40 AM on June 20, 2023 [5 favorites]

I had a water bottle with that image on it for a while.

I eventually donated it to a water bottle drive (it gets hot here, and there are a lot of unsheltered people), because, while it was a nice water bottle, I don't really enjoy the reminder.
posted by box at 10:42 AM on June 20, 2023 [2 favorites]

I think the use of a second dimension in the layout is justified by the static dimension in the data (location) being the entire surface of the planet Earth.
posted by sixswitch at 10:53 AM on June 20, 2023 [1 favorite]

It's amazing how many ways they can represent the data...and yet, forwards we go off the cliff...
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:53 AM on June 20, 2023 [6 favorites]

I'd say they are using three dimensions (width, height, color) to represent two dimensional data (time, temperature). The height is just there to make each point visible.
posted by bit101 at 11:00 AM on June 20, 2023 [3 favorites]

scan barcode or text ''hot'' to 911119
posted by clavdivs at 11:02 AM on June 20, 2023 [2 favorites]

Here's one i "like"

How much energy does the world consume?


Note that while the proportion of renewables is increasing, the total use of energy is increasing faster. Thus the total fossils increases year after year on the current trajectory.

In other words, every year we use more energy than the year before (pandemic blip notwithstanding), and the adoption of renewables isn't even keeping our fossil fuel use at the steady, unsustainable quantities we've had over the last few decades
posted by lalochezia at 11:08 AM on June 20, 2023 [4 favorites]

At what point will governments begin taking actual restrictive action against carbon extractors? They won't do it on their own. Yeah, economic pain, but planetary ruin awaits without that.
posted by hippybear at 11:08 AM on June 20, 2023 [1 favorite]

We basically need to have our own Butlerian Jihad, an event in the Dune universe were intelligent machines were destroyed and outlawed, against carbon energy production. But we refuse.
posted by hippybear at 11:09 AM on June 20, 2023 [1 favorite]

Wait, someone would actually prefer this visual data to be presented as... a single row of pixels?

I think this is in two dimensions to reflect that the human visual field responds more reliably to colors in contrast to one another.
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 11:43 AM on June 20, 2023 [1 favorite]

At what point will governments begin taking actual restrictive action against carbon extractors? They won't do it on their own. Yeah, economic pain, but planetary ruin awaits without that.

Indeed, oil and gas companies are happily opening up new fossil fuel sources, some 20 billion barrels' worth in 2022 alone. The world already has ~50 years worth of proven reserves of oil and gas at current consumption levels, levels which absolutely must come down precipitously anyway. There is no need for further oil and gas exploration, either because we rapidly decarbonize or because we don't and thus wreck the planet and the economy. If we plow through 50 years worth of fossil fuels at current consumption levels, then we'll be so far into SSP5-8.5 that the global economy will undergo a "dramatic forcible contraction" (I'm being extremely euphemistic here) and there won't be much of a market (or functional supply chain) for fossil fuels anyway.
posted by jedicus at 11:48 AM on June 20, 2023 [3 favorites]

there won't be much of a market (or functional supply chain) for fossil fuels anyway

A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies: a chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

Let's go to the colonies!
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:52 AM on June 20, 2023 [6 favorites]

If we plow through 50 years worth of fossil fuels at current consumption levels, then we'll be so far into SSP5-8.5 that the global economy will undergo a "dramatic forcible contraction" (I'm being extremely euphemistic here) and there won't be much of a market (or functional supply chain) for fossil fuels anyway.

I've been saying for literally years we need to cut our carbon consumption to zero yesterday if we want to mitigate catastrophe. I guess achieving the catastrophe would mitigate carbon consumption.
posted by hippybear at 11:55 AM on June 20, 2023 [4 favorites]

I guess achieving the catastrophe would mitigate carbon consumption.
Yes, if looked at that way, it's a self-serving problem.

Or to get all Carlinite about it: "Save the Planet?! The planet's going to be fine. It's the people who are fucked. Big difference! The planet isn't going anywhere. WE are."
posted by bartleby at 1:54 PM on June 20, 2023 [1 favorite]

> At what point will governments begin taking actual restrictive action against carbon extractors? They won't do it on their own. Yeah, economic pain, but planetary ruin awaits without that.

the carbon extractors are the government. the state, with its nominally democratically-elected representatives, is an organ within the government tasked with carrying out the government’s dictates and has no independent decisionmaking powers.
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 2:02 PM on June 20, 2023 [4 favorites]

the carbon extractors are the government. the state, with its nominally democratically-elected representatives, is an organ within the government tasked with carrying out the government’s dictates and has no independent decisionmaking powers.

To revise my question, then... At what point will the general populace rise up against its carbon oppressors and demand a different economic basis for their wellbeing?

The point is, regardless of your point about carbon-intensive industries having captured the global economy, when do the people whose succeeding generations will suffer and die stop those industries from continuing to enact global genocide?

I'm sure the answer is "the market will deal with this", but the market won't.
posted by hippybear at 2:27 PM on June 20, 2023 [1 favorite]

The Market will solve it. The demand for non-renewable CO₂ releasing goods will diminish as demand shrinks to a negligible level. This can happen through market controls (i.e. governmental regulation), consumer choice, or market shrinkage. Governments are by and large unlikely to do anything until there are regularly large protests and citizens take action, in large numbers, to force changes, which is already too likely to be too late. Consumers of petroleum based fuels like airlines, long-haul truckers, coal plant based electricity users, etc…have market preferences that can not yet be met by renewables, and as long as their livelihoods depend on it don't expect them to stop their demand on our march to hell. Once people start migrating away from the coast and from now temperate regions that are going to become uninhabitable and resource collapse and wars get going, the population will eventually fall to a level that demand for non-renewable CO₂ releasing goods will reach a level that allows the biosphere to recover.

The recovery should only take a few thousand years. If there is any sentient life left maybe they will have developed a functional distribution system that doesn't end up looking like a mad drive to suicide.
posted by Ignorantsavage at 2:55 PM on June 20, 2023 [4 favorites]

Note that while the proportion of renewables is increasing, the total use of energy is increasing faster.

I'm really struggling to parse this. If the proportion of renewables is increasing then its share must be growing faster than overall energy consumption. So I may be misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

The data source you provide makes it clear renewables is growing as a share, and going faster than overall growth.
posted by biffa at 2:59 PM on June 20, 2023 [1 favorite]

If the proportion of renewables is increasing then its share must be growing faster than overall energy consumption.

I haven't looked at any graphs, but if renewable consumption is growing at 2% a year and overall energy consumption is growing at 4% a year, then renewable consumption is not growing faster.

Even if renewable consumption is growing at 3% a year, that's not growing faster.

You can increase a percentage of something but still not have it grow faster than the overall growth. You could add 1tsp to a cup of water every year, but if that cup is draining at 2tsp a year, you still lose water over time.
posted by hippybear at 3:03 PM on June 20, 2023 [1 favorite]

Meanwhile, international travel is up, mostly by air. People buy big gas-guzzlers by the thousands. I read a lot about how dire things are, but I don't hear about solutions, just finger-pointing.
posted by theora55 at 3:07 PM on June 20, 2023 [1 favorite]

Well, that's really why we need governments stepping in between people and their natural decision making power and stopping these choices from even being possible. If we don't have Major Power Interventions, and the subsequent constraints on capital, commerce, and personal choice that requires, we won't have a planet for the children alive today.

I mean, I don't have children, but I'm trying to do my tiny part. None of the bigger powers are even trying, but I'm doing my tiny part.
posted by hippybear at 3:15 PM on June 20, 2023 [4 favorites]

I haven't looked at any graphs, but if renewable consumption is growing at 2% a year and overall energy consumption is growing at 4% a year, then renewable consumption is not growing faster.


But that's not what is happening. And as I say if the proportion of renewables is increasing, ie the share that comes from renewables, then it must becoming up faster. This tallies with the link provided by lalochezia. The second sentence is directly at odds with the first sentence I quoted.
posted by biffa at 3:32 PM on June 20, 2023 [1 favorite]

The key metric is: how much carbon are we releasing into the atmosphere? This number is increasing every year, because renewable growth is not enough to make up for overall energy use growth.
posted by lalochezia at 3:45 PM on June 20, 2023 [2 favorites]

We basically need to have our own Butlerian Jihad, an event in the Dune universe were intelligent machines were destroyed and outlawed, against carbon energy production.

Isn't that also the event where they literally nuke the entire surface of the earth from orbit, carpet-bomb style?

I guess the eradication of everything on the earth's surface, all life, probably would stop anthropogenic climate change, but it seems something of a pyrrhic victory...
posted by Dysk at 7:40 PM on June 20, 2023 [1 favorite]

The Dune Fandom wiki doesn't describe the Butlerian Jihad in those terms at all. Perhaps you're thinking of an event earlier in the Dune timeline, which does span millennia.
posted by hippybear at 7:45 PM on June 20, 2023 [1 favorite]

Try this page:

The Battle of Earth was the climactic outcome of the first rebellion that started the Butlerian Jihad.
[...]
Then, the atomics detonated[...] Planet Earth was completely irradiated and turned into a burnt husk and the machines on the planet were no more.

I recall it being a fairly major plot point in the novel, though it's a good few years since I read it.
posted by Dysk at 8:15 PM on June 20, 2023 [1 favorite]

The Market will solve it

Phew, close one!
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 8:16 PM on June 20, 2023 [2 favorites]

I recall it being a fairly major plot point in the novel

Certainly not any Frank authored novel. Maybe Brian came up with this.
posted by hippybear at 8:22 PM on June 20, 2023 [2 favorites]

Yeah, it was a year 2000ish release, I think?
posted by Dysk at 8:25 PM on June 20, 2023 [1 favorite]

Ah, Brian. Bless his heart, he did try.
posted by hippybear at 8:40 PM on June 20, 2023 [2 favorites]

and resource collapse and wars get going, the population will eventually fall to a level that demand for non-renewable CO2 releasing goods will reach a level that allows the biosphere to recover.

...JACKPOT!
posted by pompomtom at 11:59 PM on June 21, 2023 [3 favorites]

We'd just hit other planetary boundaries faster if renewable growth kept up, lalochezia. We're anyways too dependent upon "hard to abate" fossil fuel usage in transport, manufacturing, and even fertilizer.

I've honestly no idea if the "general populace" could "rise up against its carbon oppressors", hippybear. At a personal level, it feels more plausible after post-growth woodstock, although intellectually I'm fairly sure the the maximum (em)power principle runs the show here. And see Nate Hagens comments too.

We've little historical evidence for democracies limiting their own consumption, so realistically our best bet remains "populists rise up against other peoples' carbon emissions", or at least against them using up oil. We're nowhere near even doing that dark version right now, because economically we live under one world government which ensures all peoples collaborate to maximize energy and resource use.

We need some partial trade collapse which breaks up this de facto economic world government, so then individual human governments have more freedom to act against one anothers' carbon emissions. Ain't easy though, witness American companies flagrantly disobeying Biden during his trade negotiations with China, aka even a loyal oil man like Biden cannot buy much negotiating room vs the de facto economic world government.

Also, if they wished to do so, then could China and India stop most of Asia and maybe Africa from trading with the US?
posted by jeffburdges at 5:55 AM on June 25, 2023 [1 favorite]

We need a "where is their exit?" project which documents where leaders in the global south have begun building connections, sending their families, etc.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:28 PM on June 25, 2023 [1 favorite]