Every time I think about the climate and events like these, I'm reminded of when it rained for two million years - "About 232 million years ago, during a span known as the Carnian age, it rained almost everywhere. After millions of years of dry climates, Earth entered a wet period lasting one million to two million years." (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03699-7)
Interesting! I wonder when reading things like that about our resolution when discussing such grand scales of time, and the effects of generalization/abstraction on our personal conclusions.
For example, it likely didn't really rain 24/7 ~everywhere on the planet for ~2 million years straight, but, that was my initial picture upon reading what you said. I said out loud to myself, "wow", and then read the article you linked.
Rather, it seems more like: over that period of 2 million years, across the exposed land mass of Pangaea (which was large, but only covered ~1/3rd of the planet) the climate was overall much more humid than most places are today, and it likely rained often.
That is not anywhere near as absurd to imagine, though it's still pretty darn cool.
We've only had industry 250 years. Give it 250 million, maybe we sort that out, or most industry moves off planet as in Jeff Bezos vision with blue origin.
Why not just in orbit? Can take products back to earth on returning rockets pretty much for free, or drop them in disposable vehicles if there is more traffic going down than up.
People might ask why do that at all. There are lots of metals in space in concentrated form, solar energy is uninterrupted, and if a large part of your market is off earth it starts to make lots of sense.
Not anytime soon mind you, but one could imagine a future like that pretty easily.
Robert Heinlein’s The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress explored this concept of the low cost of transporting packages from the lunar surface to earth. Now mind you the “packages” were moon rocks shot by catapult at the Earth in a war of independence, but still a really interesting plot point. Everyone should read this book!
Well, it starts at "Not actually as bad as I thought", especially when using ISRU; to actually very cheap indeed if you build local infrastructure. (eg. linear accelerator direct to earth's surface is an actual realistic option).
[Assuming people invest in infrastructure], In the mid- to long-term you might be able to ship goods to earth from a moon based factory cheaper than you could from some earth-based locations.
This isn't really anything special about the moon either, mind you. It's the facts that:
* In comparison, Earth has extremely strong gravity;
To get to the moon from earth, you need the whole thing. To get back, you just need the top half of the lunar module (to get to lunar orbit) the service module (to get to reentry) and the Command module (to survive the reentry). A tiny part of the entire assembly!
(purists might point out that the system could be rather smaller if there was no intention of a return mission... which is fair enough. It's just to get an initial intuition across here!)
An event like this, or anything else with a significant impact on food production is something many people should be absolutely prepared for. A bulk of countries, including where I live, are completely dependant on importing food. What do you think will happen if the net exporters experience a global supply crisis?
Always be cognizant of events that are improbable but have a high impact on survival.
I was not acutely aware of this, but is a perfect example of what will happen in severe crisis scenarios: countries will ensure their own survival over others'.
"Not needed" by the people of doing the large-scale economical decisions, obviously. There is, of course, some level of poverty where the non-deciding people get fed up (heh) and revolt, but you have to just keep slightly above it, and things will be fine, as the most of the human history shows.
Well, if an event like this happens, even agriculturally self-sufficient countries won't be self-sufficient anymore. The only advantage we have compared to our ancestors 1500 years ago is that we could import food from the Southern Hemisphere (because the ash clouds will mostly stay in the hemisphere they are produced in). But still, there would be drastic food shortages everywhere...
Is it feasible for many countries - particularly small, densely populated ones - to be self-sufficient in food?
In the UK, at least, I'm not sure there's physically enough space to farm enough food to supply the population. About 50% of food is imported and basically all the agricultural land is already used.
The amount of food that a country exports is orthogonal to its capacity for self-sufficiency. Your example of the Netherlands is a perfect illustration of this. In monetary terms it's a net exporter, but in caloric terms it's a net importer. The latter is a better metric for potential self-sufficiency, and by that measure, the Netherlands is actually the eighth least self-sufficient country in the world[1].
Yes, the UK could undoubtedly reconfigure its agricultural sector to become more self-sufficient. But even on a wartime footing, doing so would take several years. Meanwhile, the slack in food reserves is several weeks. It's that differential between weeks and years where there's the potential for malnutrition and starvation.
I wonder how much of that caloric deficit is due to economic reasons (low calorie vegetables are a lot more profitable) and how much of that is due to biological reasons (you need a lot of sunshine and land to grow calorie rich crops).
Interesting! As a Dutch person I've never heard of this before. I'm not quite sure what numbers I'm looking at though, is it just because the Netherlands mostly exports cucumbers and watery tomatoes?
Yep, you export a lot of nice flowers and vegetables, and import a lot of meat.
This makes fine economic sense in the context of well-functioning system of global trade. But if that system were to shut down and you had to produce all that meat locally... it wouldn't work so well. And the flowers wouldn't make a good replacement.
Is there more info on how your fao source performed the calculations? The Netherlands is actually a very significant meat exporter (78% of poultry and beef, 95% of calves, and 43% of pork is exported [0]). As a matter of fact, meat is the most valuable export product after flowers.
A lot of the exported animals are first imported, are then held and slaughtered in the Netherlands, and then the meat is exported again for financial gain. So in terms of meat,
I'd think they are a caloric exporter but still highly dependent on other countries.
Hence my question: how were the fao numbers calculated?
I would imagine that caloric figures would tend to gravitate towards staples, such as wheat, rice and corn, which are high in both calories and in volume consumed.
Every time this comes up I have to remind people that not all land that farms meat can be made arable.
There is a lot of arable land in England itself that can be used, (and, currently used for meat production); however this is not true for many parts of wales and most of Scotland. (which combined make up a about 100,000 sqkm vs Englands 130,000 sqkm)
Cows and sheep happily graze on moors and other rocky areas that could not be suddenly used to grow any kind of plants for food.
Harry Metcalfe has a good video[0] about it - he keeps cows on the fields that are just too steep and too rocky to grow anything else - but it doesn't bother animals. Same applies to sheep. I imagine animals like chickens will have different considerations, because farm buildings do take land that can be used for something else.
True, though in some cases (The Burren in Ireland for instance) it was sheep that stripped the land of vegetation, then topsoil, and left it rocky, in the first place. Whittled Away, by Padraic Fogarty, is a good read on this.
That's over grazing. That's lazy, over zealous and/or careless herders who fucked up. You rotate your herds on different land so they don't strip the vegetation. Allowing it to regrow quickly. You're managing the land just as much as your flock. This has been known for thousands of years by people who actually farm and not armchair farm.
Yea, but that's not a "farming" or "meat" problem. That's a human problem. A well known one for a long time at that. If everyone owns it, no one takes care of it. Someone has to be responsible and thus, manage it. There are people who will always abuse a system because they simply don't care. The same as people litter. Pretending to be surprised and blaming anything else is fruitless. "Well, it's the bag's fault for existing, that's why there's trash." or "It's the consumption of meat's fault that the land was stripped bare". No, an asshole did it. An asshole is responsible. Hold particular humans responsible for their personal actions. Don't blame someone or something else.
In Norway, sheep herds are typically sent off into the mountains during summer and left to fend largely for themselves, so not even fenced in land. I'd expect that is the same many other places too.
If people ate money, that would be true. But the important thing for self-sufficiency is not the monetary balance of trade, but the caloric value of trade. It is typical for smaller countries to export high-value refined agricultural products (wine, cheese, etc.) while importing lower-value bulk commodities (grains, oilcrops, etc.) This can cause a vast disparity between the economic and caloric balance of trade. In the case of the UK, it imports about twice as many calories as it exports, so the disappearance of trade would have a major impact. If food waste were eliminated, starvation could probably be avoided. But a few years of malnutrition, while the domestic agricultural sector reconfigured itself for self-sufficiency, would probably be unavoidable.
Part of the problem is that the figures are apparently percentage of value, which might give misleading figures if a country produces a lot of its high-value requirements: producing all your own asparagus isn't much use in a famine if you still rely on 90% imported wheat.
Unfortunately I don't have a good answer, but I suspect it doesn't need to be a 0 or 1 situation -- having a decent percentage of the needs covered is better than having very little.
Unfortunately a trend I'm seeing in my country is that some people are calling for crippling the in-country farming industry because it is "inefficient" due to subsidization and would be cheaper to import food from elsewhere. The trend should be upwards, reducing dependence on importing and focus on local produce. Gut feeling is also that it would be more ecologically efficient although I don't have any concrete numbers on it.
One of the problems is that people normally do not want to pay for that slack. Getting them on board with spending more probably needs some convincing.
It can be done, see fairtrade coffee/cocoa. (I know that it has some problems, too, but it shows in principle that people can be persuaded to pay more for stuff, if the reason is good enough.)
Supposing that it was an isolated 'the skies go dark' scenario, then being self-sufficient in food is quite a complex question to try to answer, as most food chains require the skies to not be dark, at least not all the time.
An interesting (and today, happily, academic) question is what happens to the UK in the event of, say, AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation -- aka the gulf stream that sends warm air up from the equator) shutting down. Noting that London's only 4 degrees latitude away from, say, Moscow.
And then it becomes a much more fascinating question.
Oddly, as an exception, the Netherlands would probably go a long way even if the skies went dark, due to the large surface area of artificially lighted and heated greenhouses.
> An interesting (and today, happily, academic) question is what happens to the UK in the event of, say, AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation -- aka the gulf stream that sends warm air up from the equator) shutting down. Noting that London's only 4 degrees latitude away from, say, Moscow.
Probably not that much because the notion that the gulf stream shutting down would send Northern Europe into an ice age is mostly a fiction:
Simply being next to an ocean with prevailing winds off that ocean is what gives the UK an oceanic climate, if the gulf stream vanishes there might be some slight cooling but it isn't going to make Glasgow have the same climate as Moscow because Glasgow won't be far inside a continental landmass.
Author doesn't mention rainfall impact at all - but my understanding is if AMOC shuts down completely (highly unlikely) UK's arable land drops significantly, because of the reduction in predicted rainfall.
Author also sounds a bit hand-wavey with the claim that '50% of heat comes from east-ward wind patterns, the other 50% comes from stationary waves of atmospheric flow'.
I guess it's feasible that the gulfstream provides zero warmth to the air above it as it flows north and around the UK, but this is a challenging claim.
It's odd the author didn't put in any estimates on temperature change from AMOC shutdown -- elsewhere I'm seeing an expected average delta in the south of perhaps 1 or 2 C, and in the north of Scotland, up to 4C.
I found author's actual paper [1] but that doesn't mention rainfall either, and I can't find any estimated ranges on temperature impacts for the UK.
That all depends how you want to look at it. It's a fun thought experiment but extremely problematic since we're talking about the interaction of global supply chains and how other countries fair/react, which then requires countries to react, and then other countries react to that and so forth.
Could small countries grow the current plethora of fresh fruits/veg that would be technically out of season? Not at all.
Calorically adequate, yet boring, repetitive foods along with preserved? Probably.
Very, very, very few countries are at agricultural limits. Prepped and ready to go? Maybe you can argue that. A month or two of razing? They got it.
If it was a decade long issue, and be foreseeable as a decade long, I'd imagine you'd see more farming gluts of grains and easy to preserve fruits and veg. A lot of fun, exotic foods would go bye-bye. Then lots of canning. Short term, man... that's a hard call. I don't know if most countries are prepped for such shocks to the system. Some will fair better than others, but just like how Covid proved some things did better than others, don't really know until it happens. Problem would be, with huge spikes of global starvation, war is a real threat. That's going to throw some extra problems into the mix.
Meat will go up in price, but won't disappear. People like to think that animal husbandry is meaningless. Literally their poop will be black gold. Thousands upon thousands of years we relied on animal husbandry for good reason. People need to get off their vegan high horse. Meat production levels will probably maintain, maybe lower a little, but not by much. To maintain those crop production needs, because there would be a panic and lower crop rotation rates, you'll need to fertilize like hell. Depending on worldwide logistics and that country's natural resources, artificial fertilizers may not be as readily available as today. At that, the price would skyrocket due to the crazy demand and strategic stockpiling (toilet paper crazy times 100). Locally sourced fertilizers, cow/chicken/sheep/goat shit, will be more valuable and available. It's still an active industry in the USA, but small. I know there are some startups in Africa using rabbits for both meat and fertilizer production. So I assume there are plenty of places worldwide doing it. So that ramp up would not be too far off. Maybe though, the price of meat won't increase by much. If a majority of value from the animal will come from their poop, instead of meat, the meat prices might be slightly stable (still go up in a famine of course). Breed reliance would probably change. Less broilers (chickens) since you need a slightly active chicken if you're going to have them produce compost. That'll increase harvest time though as modern commercial broilers are like 8 week birds while a normal breed is like 20 weeks (depends on breed of course). Eggs would probably become a bigger staple since chickens are good at making lots of compost rather passively.
I'd bet this, pork will be the first to go up in price and by a lot. Unlike most other common livestock, a good amount of feed for pigs comes from taking food waste. They're straight up trashcans and can eat anything without worry. Chickens and ducks too depending on the farm. But you see it more in pig farmers. Famine like conditions, there would presumably be less food waste in general. Then more would be spent on pig feed, thus pork prices go up.
That and Victory Gardens will be a thing again. That'll be nice. Any home owners association or city ordinance that reframes from farming on a lawn/city limits would be told to stfu. That'll be nice too. In truth, you'll see a decent CO2 drop just because the logistics of moving food would diminish drastically. Homesteading will be a big thing again.
Generally, there are ways for people to adapt to this.
Food... or fresh/unpolluted water. For food, I think it's a little easier but societies that have a hard time producing would have to adjust what they eat and how they eat it. Also, less meat, less red wine, more beer and more potatoes. The latter are much more sustainable.
E.g., In Canada, we'll have to accept we can't have bananas, pineapple, kiwis, mangos any time. We'll have to stick to locally grown apples, way fewer (but higher quality) blueberries and probably eat all the things Icelanders eat like smoked fish.
There's a course on Coursera called The Nordic Diet which is about Scandinavia as a whole adjusting its national diet to eat more local produce. Talk about foresight! That's just one of the principles at least. It's a Danish-run program. E.g., They eat more lingonberries since they grow all over the place?
There is definitely a possibility to go much more local by just foraging. I ate probably tens of kilograms of golden chanterelle, bilberries (local equivalent of blueberry)& lingonberries last fall - the forests are spilling with food and a lot of it rots because people don't take advantage of it.
Healthy, free, very tasty food - and you get exercise and fresh air while foraging. Clears your head very nicely too if you do computer work. Almost makes me wish summer was over already and I could be in the woods picking mushrooms and berries.
Foraging can't sustain the current population levels. People in Europe were foraging after WW2. Population was much lower than today, people still starved.
If you're in a situation where you would need alternative ways to feed current population levels then foraging will be required even if it's not enough on it's own. It's a matter of adding whatever can be added to the total pool of resources, and not about finding a single source.
Post WWII, didn't just forage, they also rationed food, bred rabbits in parks, went fishing, planted potatoes in their backyards and so on. If any of those options hadn't been available things would have been much worse.
In Norway, there is a large import tax on foods like cheese and meat, to encourage buying locally. This seems to work, as most shops only sell Norwegian produce.
This is also motivated by local food monopolies where they don't want competition from cheaper and higher quality cheese producers in the rest of Europe.
It's certainly maintained by that, but Norway has a couple of centuries history of political focus on food security, ever since the British naval blockade of Denmark-Norway during the Napoleonic wars, and then strongly reinforced by the nazi occupation. The strong focus on keeping the rural areas settled also in large part stems from that, though of course it is also self-reinforcing in that people who now benefit from policies designed to do so tend to want it to continue for their own reasons too.
There's a lot of cultural significance of food security, going back to e.g. decades of making primary school children learn about Terje Vigen (Ibsen's epic poem about someone trying to brave the blockade to feed his family), coupled with a lot of cold war thinking that at least up to the end of the 80's saw food security as part national defence during a time where we still had air raid siren tests many times a year in case of Soviet invasion.
While that has certainly softened up since, most Norwegian politicians still grew up with that.
The EEA Agreement provides for a free trade area covering all the EEA States. However, the EEA
Agreement does not extend the EU Customs Union to the EEA EFTA States. The aim of both the free
trade area and the EU Customs Union is to abolish tariffs on trade between the parties. However,
whereas in the EU Customs Union, the EU Member States have abolished customs borders and
procedures between each other, these are still in place in trade between the EEA EFTA States and the
EU, as well as in trade between the three EEA EFTA States. Furthermore, the common customs tariff
on imports to the EU from third countries is not harmonised with the customs tariffs of the EEA EFTA
States
> A bulk of countries, including where I live, are completely dependant on importing food.
Which countries are those? Because I'm pretty sure that no developed country is dependent on importing food to meet the basic caloric needs of its population.
Also, a fair amount of food gets fed to animals, which are incredibly inefficient at turning grain calories into meat calories.
Many will be, since you have to factor that it is not only the raw produce of food that needs to be calculated in the equation, but also all inputs needed in producing that food, e.g. fuel, fertilizers, equipment, energy.
Take Finland as an example (where I live.) In pure food output terms, we produce 80% of our consumption within the country, and import 20%. However, the means of production are very much dependent on importing - for example, energy from Russia. As a comparison, the import to export ratio for pure food output is only 50% in Sweden.
It is quite more complex than just looking at the output, and it wouldn't be uncommon to be caught with your pants down in a crisis situation. We had a minor scandal over here during COVID where the government National Emergency Supply Agency claimed to be 'all good' with the highly increased need for medical equipment - except turns out a lot of the protective equipments such as masks had been rotting in the various warehouses to the point they were unusable.
Many governments (including Finland) subsidize national farming for the express purpose of maintaining emergency food production capability regardless of markets. That is, governments pay people to keep farming.
It's true, no country is fully self-sufficient in producing all the inputs for food.
The thing is, you're unlikely to be in a food, and fertilizer, and a heavy machinery, and an energy crisis all at the same time. Putin cuts off the gas? Just buy apples from Poland, etc, etc. Generally, the failure modes for trade in all of these are not correlated.
Some foodstuff that goes into animal feedstock, or into wasteful refinement processes (say, beer) can also be eaten directly.
Now, I'm not saying that the government should do nothing about food security... It should encourage domestic production.
At least for Germany it appears we produce 89% of the food we consume[1]. Assuming we have enough calorie rich foods in that percentage (e.g. potatoes and wheat are grown locally, rice and corn probably not), we would easily be able to survive or even thrive on 89% of the calories. Looking into the details of [1] we overproduce potatoes, pork, milk and cheese. These are all highly calorie dense, and if we mandated more vegetarianism we could get a lot more calories out of the same arable land.
The question is mostly how hard we'd be hit by the immediate effects that caused the global food shortage.
People might need to adapt to different/fewer vegetables, but the average BMI tells me that we're way over the caloric needs currently.
Germany is also one of the more densely populated countries. [2].
Yeah, as a mass extinction event it is. However, I figured that took longer to escalate than one year, so it wouldn't quite work when answering the question of worst year to be alive
Ah, yes, the timescales may differ. I've always wondered how the estimates of those work for these geological events, as in, how do we estimate the "one-year-damage" curve or something like that. You're most likely right that the K-T may have had a higher peak in this respect.
It's so weird to try to reason about deep time, isn't it? It just goes beyond human intuition due to it's scale.
Also, thanks to your comment I double-check out the wiki page for the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event[0], and meteors being the cause hasn't been ruled out yet as a potential cause, in which case it might still win out!
i read this and think, well small wonder Christianity persisted all this time. the baseline level of suffering they endured is something most of us reading this will never know in our lifetimes, if we’re lucky. (though the hounds of climate change howl outside our doors)
skies go dark, plagues. it’s literally biblical. what comfort could anyone turn to when it seemed like the very land and sky around them wanted them dead? Must have been terrifying on some level to feel God in nature all around you and it was so hostile.
and just think of the psychic trauma that gets passed down the generations from that. How it shaped society. How it maybe helped religion take hold. People have seen in their lifetimes, or their parents, grandparents and so on have seen in theirs, the terror of biblical plagues. So you want to do right by your God.
Mhm. Tough times drive you to a strong trust in whatever authority you think can keep you safe. The Church, the State, the Academy, the Army, your Tribe etc. I can only speculate that a person who truly believes nothing can save them will be driven into profound despair, limping along between sessions of something like excessive fantasy or drug use to cope.
You could at least say we have made material progress, but as one of the millennial generation.
I have already seen like 3 major economic crashes, the west devolving into neo feudalism with how much house prices and rent has skyrocketed.
We are now living through what would have been a plague like situation, if it wasn't for the technological progress we made.
Imaging not knowing what we know today yeah people would have said God has forsaken us,
what sins have we done to receive the wrath of God.
if you haven't read Immanuel Velikovsky, you should. start with "Worlds in Collision". he talks about this exact phenomenon.
disclaimer: his work is widely cited as pseudoscience. it's a good read if you're looking for entertainment value, but try not to take it too seriously :)
The Hekla-3 eruption likely ended the Bronze Age c. 1100 BC, wiping out 95% of all Mediterranean cities. The first crop failure was bad enough, but the second year's starved almost everybody.
Note that all societies were very religious (superstitious) whether Aztec, Mayan, Mediterranean or African.
Christianity largely grew after the Byzantine Roman Emperor, Constantine, converted around AD 312.
(The Roman Empire was so large that it had two capitals, Rome in the west, and Constantinople (Byzantium) in the east. The latter became Istanbul in AD 1453.)
I did not expect to read such an insightful, well-researched and well-written article from Accuweather.com.
I stand corrected.
EDIT: Seems to largely be the work of "Harvard University medieval historian Michael McCormick," cribbed from elsewhere (with permission). Still, higher quality than expected.
I think the Covid response has been quite something to watch. There's obviously been some pressure on governments to put their own citizens first, sometimes to the detriment of other nations. But there's definitely been some incredible collaboration.
Would this be a situation where the 'top people' across the world put their heads together super quickly and come up with something? Cloud seeding? Underwater vegetables? More freedom to trade? Perhaps it would be harder to act as a solo nation because weather travels pretty quickly and there'd be more impetus to work together?
The evidence is still iffy... but my money is on the end of the younger Dryas being even worse. Fire from the sky over a large chunk of the planet, rapid melting of the Laurentian ice sheets, rapid extreme rise of sea levels.
I think there’s a disproportionate number of people who take that approach among people who consider themselves smart, maybe because they assume they know better by default. Most people don’t try to operate by thinking on that scale because it isn’t conducive to daily life and happiness, and most people are just seeking out happiness (no matter how possibly misguided their approaches might be).
I think it’s more of a lens effect. Cynicism in concentrate, my friend!
(I think a person is finally “old” when they realize old platitudes aren’t just platitudes. “Take time to stop and smell the roses” is both literal and allegorical ageless wisdom in aphorism. Wisdom we forget to apply too often for our own good)
If you’re interested in knowing more about how this event and other ecological factors influenced the decline and fall of the Roman Empire (to coin a phrase...), “The Fate of Rome” by Kyle Harper is a great read or listen, if you prefer audiobooks (ignoring every time the narrator mistook causal for casual...)
While the empire continued until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 (depending how you define "empire") the Justinian plague did effectively end the campaign to retake Italy and reunite the Mediterranean under Roman rule. But it marked the beginning of a prolonged slow decline rather than a collapse.
We’d probably handle it much better. I’m generally a pessimist but I have to give modern civilization some credit; food can be shipped over huge distances and plagues handled much better than in the past.
Did you miss the part where the federal government of the U.S. went around seizing shipments of PPE to the point that governors had to facilitate private deals and then guard them with troops and secrecy of logistics to supply their own states? As one member of the presidential envoy stated "they're our masks" - not for the serfs of the nation, apparently.
As much as I'd like to see things in the light you are, I'm just unable after the entirety of the shitshow that was the US handling of Covid-19
Fortunately for Americans the shots are no longer being called by someone from reality TV, so governmental responses to future nationwide disasters should be marginally less pathetic.
It was indeed a shitshow, as you point out. But I would still argue that the most incompetent mishandling of the situation today is better than the most competent handling possible back then, because we have electronic communications, germ theory of disease, it’s just a different world now. That’s not to minimize how abysmal the trump reaction to covid was. But we have built in advantages now.
As the article mentions there's extensive records of the climatological effects in the Middle East and China, and there's also recordings of drought affecting populations in South America at the same time.
The headline is far worse than the article. The historian behind the work is a medievalist, so naturally his focus will be somewhat limited. His actual quote is less extreme and focused more closely on just Europe.
> CORRECTION: The smog caused by the volcano caused temperatures across Eurasia to cool by 2.7 to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit, not 36 degrees Fahrenheit as a previous version of this story stated. The error was the result of a conversion mistake.
I find it hilarious that a weather site made this mistake.
Someone hand-converted 2°C to 3.6°F and missed the decimal point, yielding 36°F. Also, almost certainly classic precision blunder--the original source material is probably using 1 significant figure but it's being reported as 2 because the calculator reported it as having 2 digits.
Good catch they searched for a unit converter online but didn't realized they confused absolute temperature with a relative difference of temperatures.
Care to fully explain your argument rather than writing three click-bait sentences and a link?
Additionally, much of the CSS on that site fails to load for me. Might just be because I'm using various privacy extensions, but if a website needs to go to a tracking service to load CSS, then it isn't a website I want to use.
So let me get this straight, I linked to PopularMechanics and you didn’t use it or read it, but then you’re asking me to summarize it? Try googling “bill gates dimming the sun” for any other site
