Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom
...............
there is so much out there about this - I don't really need to provide a lot of sources - a quick google search will find you thousands of links
of course there are the climate change deniers
and there are those who say what little we can do won't be nearly enough
just one link:
from the article:
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "
couldn't resist one more link - story about Siberia, one of the coldest places on earth where there is human habitation - they now face 100 degree days and multiple wildfires caused by them
https://eos.org/articles/siberian-heat-w....
.
This whole "a lot more people die in winter than summer" line is stupid and irrelevant to climate change.
People in cold climates generally have heating systems to cope with drops in temperature, but many people who will experience a +10C rise in highs don't have AC or any way of escaping the intense heat.
A lot more people die in winter than summer is absolutely relevant, it means a warmer world would kill fewer people. Having milder winters and hotter summers would kill fewer people.
And you can provide AC to the poors at a small fraction of the cost the left asks for the "climate revolution" in the economy.
And unlike heating in winter, AC can very easily be 100% fully solar sourced, given you have peak solar productions (hours of exposure) at the same times of the year you need the AC. While for heating, unless the area is very well covered by wind, winter is not synchronous with peak renewable energy production.
absolutely not....
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/24/clima...
again you seem to think its about how hot or cold it is.
no...its about the intensity of bad $h!t happening to be more frequent which bring massive cost.
you can find studies agreeing with your wild claim, what you CAN'T FIND is a purported 97-99% consensus about THOSE studies, do you understand that part? it's NOT TRUE that climate scientists agree as much as you want to claim about those claims. It simply isn't. They don't agree.
A lot more people die in winter than summer is absolutely relevant, it means a warmer world would kill fewer people. Having milder winters and hotter summers would kill fewer people.
And you can provide AC to the poors at a small fraction of the cost the left asks for the "climate revolution" in the economy.
And unlike heating in winter, AC can very easily be 100% fully solar sourced, given you have peak solar productions (hours of exposure)
Provision of AC to poor people in countries at risk of escalating temperatures isn't going to happen and you know this. Those people will be left to fend for themselves with little or no government assistance, and many will die.
It doesn't take sustained temperatures much above the mid to high 30s for health effects to become significant.
People in cold climates generally have heating systems to cope with drops in temperature,
Well clearly they don't since they are dying en masse. incidentally, as per NASA temperature data, warming has thus far been concentrated in the colder, arid regions of the globe where we stand to benefit from it.
The way that the greenhouse effect works is greenhouse gasses trap the solar radiation that passes through the clouds and is reflected from the earth. instead of allowing that energy to escape they keep it trapped there. A lot of the warmer, more humid regions have already 'maxxed out' on the greenhouse effect through water vapor (a far more potent green house gas than Co2), and hence you do not expect temperatures to rise there.
who cares about wild fires? forests burn naturally it's no big deal. makes way for new growth. there is no real evidence that natural disasters are increasing in frequency or intensity, despite all the chicken little alarmism. but even if they are, the impact on the global population has been pretty much zilch. there is no uptick in deaths due to natural disasters. property damage is up a lot, but that's only because you can't destroy something that wasn't there in the first place IMO. aka we have a lot more valuable property to destroy these days. regardless it's a tiny fraction of the global productive capabilities of man. we're very good at adapting to adverse conditions, and that includes natural disasters.
i mean if it's a choice between slightly less blustery hurricanes and you know... having a functioning modern economy, I'll go with having a functioning modern economy
Provision of AC to poor people in countries at risk of escalating temperatures isn't going to happen and you know this. Those people will be left to fend for themselves with little or no government assistance, and many will die.
It doesn't take sustained temperatures much above the mid to high 30s for health effects to become significant.
We are discussing the effect on lives in western countries, because the claim i was countering was about the purported , completly false idea that the increase of heat waves (which is happening) and decrease of cold waves is going on net to kill people in UK, Germany, Italy and so on.
That's simply objectively false. The contrary is true, a warmer UK is a UK where people live longer, healthier lives, and that is uncontroversial and you know that.
If (when?) we can settle that as objectively 100% true, we can move to other discussions about other places. Until then i don't care about discussing completly different places all coupled togheter to deny objective specific realities of western countries, countries where a political side, helped by corrupt media, incessantly claim THE RESIDENTS THERE will suffer immensenly, their lives will get a lot worse, in a warmer world.
British people will gain in health and lifespan from a warmer UK. Anyone claiming the contrary is a bad faith manipulator of truth. And it's a very basic truth because people with money, who retire elsewhere, almost invariably go to WARMER PLACES with milder winters and hotter summers than the UK. Those are the revealed preferences of actual human beings, and it's OBVIOUS it's good for their health, for those who can.
As for the increase in energy consumption caused by broader access to AC, why would we care? it will be 100% renewable as i explained.
Unlike many other energy uses, which require a 24/7/365 source available (and/or immense storage capabilities), AC needs are directly correlated with peak solar energy production and normal wall batteries are enough to cover the use in the occasional day where solar produces a lot less than usual for the season.
Many die because of the cost of using their heating. They simply cannot afford to turn it on in winter.
Also the figures for the number of deaths caused by heat will never accurately reflect the dangers, because many heart attacks are recorded as such and not heat-related eg some guy collapses outside with a coronary in 45C heat.
Many die because of the cost of using their heating. They simply cannot afford to turn it on in winter.
Also the figures for the number of deaths caused by heat will never accurately reflect the dangers, because many heart attacks are recorded as such and not heat-related.
Lol almost 0 cold-caused deaths are recorded as such .
Which is why you just check total mortality rates per season, and everywhere in the west winter kills more people, which means COLD KILLS MORE PEOPLE.
Lol almost 0 cold-caused deaths are recorded as such .
Which is why you just check total mortality rates per season, and everywhere in the west winter kills more people, which means COLD KILLS MORE PEOPLE.
Nonsense, of course hypothermia is recorded as a reason.
And if far more people live in hot climates than cold, an x percent increase in mortality rate will result in far more deaths in hot climates.
Nonsense, of course hypothermia is recorded as a reason.
And if far more people live in hot climates than cold, an x percent increase in mortality rate will result in far more deaths in hot climates.
If you die more often from ANY pathogen because your immunitary system is weaker in the cold season (which it is), that's a death from cold but it doesn't get written as such.
Hypothermia lol, cold kills indirectly by making it more likely for you to catch diseases, and by making your response to them weaker.
if far more people live in hot climates than cold, an x percent increase in mortality rate in both climates will result in far more deaths in hot climates.
And that’s not even taking intoaccount the rise in flooding in some populated areas we’ve been seeing for several years.
if far more people live in hot climates than cold, an x percent increase in mortality rate in both climates will result in far more deaths in hot climates.
And that’s not even taking intoaccount the rise in flooding in some populated areas we’ve been seeing for several years.
again, i am talking western countries. After we settle western countries we can discuss the rest.
The fact that to counter my claim, which is that warming saves lives in the west, you constantly need to talk about other places, is kinda proof of the fact you admit i am right on the claim.
So, am i? does a warmer UK save british lives?
I don’t know why you’ve reduced it to western countries only when climate change is produced by and affects everyone on the planet.
Which countries are considered Western?
again, i am talking western countries. After we settle western countries we can discuss the rest.
The fact that to counter my claim, which is that warming saves lives in the west, you constantly need to talk about other places, is kinda proof of the fact you admit i am right on the claim.
So, am i? does a warmer UK save british lives?
You’ll be one of the first to complain when you’re no longer able to buy cheap clothes and goods from the Indian subcontinent because millions of people there have perished through excessive heat or floods, and even if that dependency didn’t exist it’s still the morally correct position to try to save populations from the worst of effects of change, for the same reason that if you see someone in difficulty in a canal you jump in to help them if there’s little danger to yourself, obviously.
You’ll be one of the first to complain when you’re no longer able to buy cheap clothes and goods from the Indian subcontinent because millions of people there have perished through excessive heat or floods, and even if that dependency didn’t exist it’s still the morally correct position to try to save populations from the worst of effects of change, for the same reason that that if you see someone in difficulty in a canal you jump in to hel
how are "millions" of deaths (which is a grotesque exaggeration ofc, but let's buy it for the sake of answering this) going to impact trade with india/bangladesh and so on in any meaningful way?
India is 1.41 BILLION people. Estimated growth rate of the population is 80M more in the next 5 years.
Even if 20M died of "climate change" in excess (an absurd, completly wacko number with no basis) there would still be more indians around that NOW, so why would that decrease trade vs the present? which model of the world do you operate with, how detached to basic logic is it?
You need something like 200m deaths from climate change in the next 25 years to even start thinking the population would shrink vs now, in the subcontinent. Do you realize this?
There is a lot of people in the world, "millions" of predicted deaths ARE NOTHING, completly insignificant, in terms of effects on people elsewhere , if it's poor people. You would materially not feel it in any way in your life, that's the reality.
And btw ofc it's TOTALLY ABSURD to even think millions would die "because of climate change" to begin with in the subcontinent. It's almost certain that mortality rates in 2050 in Bangladesh will be lower than today. If then the claim is that "they could be even lower than they will be" well then, the hell is your example of the person in the canal?
BUT, at least i see you finally admit climate change does NOT and will NOT kill people in western countries, rather the opposite, and so anyone who talks about "heat waves" as a negative without the countervailing amount of lives saved by milder winters is a completly bad faithed individual or totally ignorant, in either case someone whose opinion on the topic is toxic and who shouldn't in any way or form decide anything on the subject.
how are "millions" of deaths (which is a grotesque exaggeration ofc, but let's buy it for the sake of answering this) going to impact trade with india/bangladesh and so on in any meaningful way?
India is 1.41 BILLION people. Estimated growth rate of the population is 80M more in the next 5 years.
Even if 20M died of "climate change" in excess (an absurd, completly wacko number with no basis) there would still be more indians around that NOW,
We have no idea how widespread and deep the effects of climate change on populations will be, so "millions" could mean many millions.
And no of course I don't agree that it won't kill people in western countries because it undoubtedly already has.
We have no idea how widespread and deep the effects of climate change on populations will be, so "millions" could mean many millions.
And no of course I don't agree that it won't kill people in western countries because it undoubtedly already has.
There is uncertainty so it could be "many millions" so more socialism is needed i get it. In real life tough , the more future uncertainty the less you justify hefty costs today
As for the bold L O L, on net of course. More deaths from heat waves, less deaths from milder winters, total: more western people alive than it would have otherwise been the case with no warming.
I get it that you systematically give the impression of not liking western people very much but i still think you consider western lives have positive value, so you should be happy about the fact more of them last longer thanks to climate change.
I think it’s a rather myopic take to conclude that tens of millions of deaths would be of no consequence to the trajectory of humanity as a whole. Who could know what insights or innovations might be lost among the minds of the poor and “insignificant” who die unregarded deaths?
I think it’s a rather myopic take to conclude that tens of millions of deaths would be of no consequence to the trajectory of humanity as a whole. Who could know what insights or innovations might be lost among the minds of the poor and “insignificant” who die unregarded deaths?
Why' we are 8 bln right now.
Do you think the trajectory would be in any way different if we were 7.95 bln? why? what's the logic?
The expansion of the global population makes working toward common interests even more important, not less. You have it backward, ya know.. logically.
I get it that you systematically give the impression of not liking western people very much but i still think you consider western lives have positive value, so you should be happy about the fact more of them last longer thanks to climate change.
This is a false (or contrived) impression you have that I don't want to see repeated. I'm a "western" person myself and don't want unnecessary deaths anywhere in the world.
