• red@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    One day in our lifetime will be the last day we see ice that doesn’t come out of a freezer.

    • qooqie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately might be true. I was listening to an episode of radio lab and they even pointed out that we’re in a solar cycle right now that is supposed to be cold and the peak was in 2019. So as the solar cycle swings back it’ll only get worse and worse… not all doom and gloom, humans will adapt we have the brainpower to do it. But I’m gonna miss the wildlife we have today

      • Lojcs@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Solar cycles repeat every 11 years 5-25 years. It’s not a situation where the sun will give off more and more heat for a long time. For the purposes of climate change, effects of the hot cycle is miniscule compared to what greenhouse gasses do.

        • qooqie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I understand this, however when you’re in the middle of a cold cycle and we’re setting record temps daily. That’s a bit worrisome for just how much we’ve fucked up. There are also different kinds of cycle larger ones spanning decades and the mini ones you mention, on the podcast they mention we’re in a mini cold cycle

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, you can only sort-of make that argument about the last couple of centuries, and you have to say that all the genocides were worth it for vaccines and a steady food supply to do so.

        I’m not convinced civilisation could collapse entirely do to climate change, though. Break into small warring pieces maybe, but as long as there’s still arable land somewhere people aren’t just giving up. And even in the crazy 10C scenarios Antarctica stays on the cool side of temperate.

        • Cybersteel@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Modern infrastructure will collapse in very extreme climates. Even if humanity survives tribally, there is no way for civilization to develop. Easy access to all those sweet sweet oil is long gone. Alternate forms of energy won’t be possible for future tribal man without the steppingstone that is oil.

        • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh good, the evil narcissists with the armies of bootlickers will be able to survive by enslaving their followers and using their wealth to retreat to bunkers or uninhabited land masses. That sure bodes well for the future of humanity.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Same as it’s always been, right? I hold onto hope that the enlightenment will stick, but I can’t guarantee it.

  • I_Miss_Daniel@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The cars are out to kill us. In 2020 it was 19 Toyota Coronas. Now it’s five Mitsubishi Sigmas!

    On the plus side, Musk killed the Bluebird.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sigma balls. Am I doing this right?


      For seriously though, its explained in the article:

      For those of you who are interested in statistics, this is a five-sigma event. So it’s five standard deviations beyond the mean. Which means that if nothing had changed, we’d expect to see a winter like this about once every 7.5 million years.

    • fearout@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As was mentioned in another comment, it’s a statistical term that measures the standard deviation. It basically tells you how “far” from the center of the bell curve you are with your data points. The higher the sigma, the less likely it is that an observed event was a fluke.

      For example, 1-sigma event has a ~37% chance of being a “coincidence”, and 2-sigma has a chance of about 4.5%.

      In science, 3-sigma (0.135%) is the first publishable certainty, it’s when something becomes significant enough to start a discussion.

      And 5-sigma is the most common threshold for claiming discovery. 5-sigma events have a 0.0000287% chance of being a coincidence or some random happenstance. Or one in 3.5 million.

      Higgs boson discovery was announced after 5-sigma certainty was reached. It means that if that particle didn’t actually exist, the chance of the experiments producing observed results would be 1 in 3.5 mln.

        • fearout@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Interesting, haven’t heard about that. Can you give an example of how it’s used in business? What is actually measured?

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

              Thanks. So I guess it doesn’t really measure anything in that field. Looks more like a strategy guideline and a set of techniques.

              • enkers@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                If you read the section on etymology of the business term, it was referring to the metric of quality control. Basically it means your QC is so good that a bad unit gets shipped only a tiny fraction of the time.

                Processes that operate with “six sigma quality” over the short term are assumed to produce long-term defect levels below 3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO). The 3.4 dpmo is based on a “shift” of ± 1.5 sigma explained by Mikel Harry.