• D06M4@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    Those could very well be some of the best places to be at if it wasn’t for the heat on the hottest days (10°C colder would be much better, obviously). It’s also important to keep in mind it’s not the same to have a single day at +40°C than a whole month at +40°C. It’s a common part of the narrative spread by negationists that we already had sudden temperature spikes recorded decades ago, conveniently ignoring the worsening sustained temperatures that have been recorded for years. Anyone with a pinch of curiosity can check the numbers.

    • BooBees@fedinsfw.app
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 day ago

      Maybe, but I’m of the opinion that the best places to be will be those with shade and working aquifers as those become fewer and fewer

      • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        To be fair, some of the marked locations are near the great lakes, so if having a large water source is one of the metrics those ones at least still fit.

        • bedwyr@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Except the lakes are polluted already and going to get far worse, as is the land.

          Bald Eagles on lake michigan only average I think like 7 or 10 years, the ones inland like 15 or 20 or something, if I recall the numbers exactly but it’s a big difference and it’s because of the pollution.