this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2026
574 points (99.0% liked)
Mildly Interesting
27906 readers
358 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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
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.
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.
Most of the marked locations have significant and worsening wildfire risk