Another day, another bit of cultish insanity
Dying Of Heat Could Soon Be A Reality For 30% Of The Population
If “dying of heat” was just an expression before, it has now become a sad reality due to the acceleration of climate change.
A team of researchers at the University of Hawaii in Manoa has examined the scientific literature and identified 783 cases of death due to extreme heat throughout the globe from 1980 to 2014.
People have always died from the heat. 783 cases over 24 years doesn’t seem like much.
They then analyzed the data using various weather parameters recorded during the heat waves, such as air temperature, humidity, and wind speed.
They deduced that high temperatures coupled with humidity were the determining factor in making a heat wave potentially deadly because it affects our body’s ability to regulate temperature.
The researchers determined that based on the temperature and humidity levels that can be deadly, about 13% of the world’s continental surface area is at risk, and that area contains about 30% of the world’s population.
Welcome to planet earth. But, this is not about that, of course: it’s about Hotcoldwetdry
According to the authors, if we don’t reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, three-fourths of the world’s population will be at risk of potentially deadly heat waves by 2100.
In the worst-case scenario, which is if we don’t get a hold on climate change, global warming will increase by 38 degrees in 2100, putting 47% of the world’s countries and 74% of the population at risk.
Um, what? 38 degrees? I’m assuming that’s a typo, and it should be 3 degrees, but, this is the Cult of Climastrology, so, you never know.
In the best-case scenario, supposing we can reduce our emissions to 1 degree, the potentially deadly heat zone would still affect 27% of the globe, and about half the world’s population by the end of the century. At this point, there’s nothing we can do to stop it, but we can certainly minimize the impact.
So a minor 1 degree (doesn’t specify whether C or F) could mean that 50% of the world’s population could be under threat from dying? Nutjobs. Pure and simple, nutjobs.
Wouldn’t that take care of the CO2 problem that the carbon religion is so worried about. 30% fewer CO2 producers would do the job. Most would be in Muslim countries so even more benefit.
Too late! My street is filled with bodies! People here are dropping like flies. Who can expect anyone to survive 68 degrees (F)?
Wait, the left, who celebrate the extinguishing of 1½ million American babies every year, are now worried that other people might die?
Dna typed:
Guttmacher Institute: 926,200 abortions were performed in 2014
The abortion rate has dropped since the peak during the Reagan administration, slowly during the 80s rapidly during the Clinton years, leveled off during the W years and dropped again under Obama. Why are there more abortions under Republicans? Is it their knee-jerk opposition to contraception? Their objective of making life even more miserable for the poor and working classes?
Anti-abortionists often refer to legal abortion as murder or extinguishing babies yet do little to stop what they claim is “murder”. Babies are babies and a fetus is a fetus.
Allah or god “murders” millions more “babies” in America each year than does legal abortion. Why?
And who exactly “celebrates” abortions?
The left celebrates shooting Republican politicians.
The left celebrates assassination of President Trump.
The left celebrates culling the herd by aborting millions of black babies.
The left celebrates winning big at three ballot box… oh wait…
Forgetting, of course, that cold kills about 20 times the number of people that heat does
Here’s the actual article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322.epdf?referrer_access_token=fbITF0t0FOZiKOJqQg9JPNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Nlcpopxh1V5GdQz8yAIWjCJTLLWvSl8fTgrzdXKT2AhP0HKKqdYlb26zzPZFMz3or_ywghNOsUEF–rds40ltaBU-GkP1kEm–CDUVWr8EIsuDT7xirXb8IRpU0GWnv5kDW9IreUdu8rflUNWWpQJ_Pz1JdsRchqWmVKdzJUe9n0NCMXRlEWqXxdwsCSsXLvFXfdScPuWyZzy62C6WtGZBHBJ4mk-R41_ieyIvlz1dTYZbIlRaoO6BHaV-4k5bRx4XH9jQ1vSq8kSul8zGM2kb&tracking_referrer=www.lemonde.fr
The heat associated with the warming Earth is not evenly distributed as 1C (or 2 or 3 or 4C) to all places at all times, and it’s inevitable that increased temperatures in some regions will have deleterious effects on human societies.
Jeffrey somehow left out any discussion of the phenomenon known as polar amplification.
If the world warms by 1 degree (on average), then there will probably be warming of 0.5 degrees (or less) at the equator, and warming of 2 degrees in the most poleward latitudes.
Therefore, the places that need warming the most, will get the most. The places that are already hot will warm up the least.
Idiot,
This is where you’d supply evidence to support your claim. But obviously, a 5 degree F increase in summer at the equator is more threatening to humans than a 20 degree F increase in Norway.
And really? The poles “need” warming?
Why? You never do, little jeffuckery.
Try not to shoot anyone today.
As nearly as we can tell, the poles have not been glaciated for most of earth’s history. Our best guess is that the North Poll started to become glaciated 2.7 million years ago.
Dana,
For the past million years or so the Earth’s climate has been marked by a series of glacial (ice ages) and interglacial periods. During this time, atmospheric CO2 stayed between about 180 ppm (glacial periods) and 300 ppm (interglacial periods). Now, atmospheric CO2 is at 400 ppm and increasing rapidly. During this million years, the mass of modern human biological and behavioral evolution took place, and in fact the whole of human civilization occurred during the very narrow window of the current interglacial, the Holocene (starting some 12,000 years ago). The Earth’s climate has been remarkably stable during the Holocene, varying by no more than 1C throughout (until now, as the Earth warms rapidly).
So during the evolution of humans and human civilization the poles have been glaciated. Deniers claim the loss of polar ice we’re now seeing is natural. Scientists point out that the evidence supports that greenhouse warming is causing the melting. Regardless, human societies are ushering in a new climate and will be forced to adapt (BTW, the scientists are right).
Jeffrey left his reading glasses at home:
The previous commenter referred to a 0.5º increase at the equator, not a 5º increase. Likewise, he referred to a 2º, not 20º increase near the poles.
Daan,
You clearly left your common sense at home. In fact, the local and temporal differences are much greater than the mean, especially over land, which is where most people live. Obviously, not every day will be 5F warmer, but a summer where more and more days are 118 instead of 113, and more 113s than 108s, etc, is more directly threatening than a summer in Hammerfest where it is 72F rather than 52F.
118 is more threatening than 72. A 1C increase in the global mean is translating into much warmer summer days in some regions.
Considering that my older daughter is living and working, working outside, in a place where 118ºF is not uncommon this time of year, I know that it’s miserable, but not lethal.
The simple fact is that human beings have chosen to live there: they could have not migrated there in the first place, or, once there, and discovered how hot it was, could have migrated back out. The same is true of people who have chosen to live in Siberia, the Northwest Territories, the Amazon rain forests, or New York City. Human beings have proven to be the most adaptable creatures on earth.
Jeffrey, clearly you left your math ability at home. A 0.5º F increase in the mean temperature does not mean that a 5ºF occasional daily temperature above the norm is significantly more likely than what can already happen today.
little jeffuckery has a reading comprehension problem.
He sees only what he wants to see.
Mr Puppies erred:
Fixed that for you.
Jeffrey is slaying the strawmen he has hastily constructed. To pick just one:
“118 is more threatening than 72. A 1C increase in the global mean is translating into much warmer summer days in some regions”
Yes, that statement is all true. However, the record low at Oslo, Norway is -21F. I will wager you $100,000 I can survive longer at 118F than you can at -21F.
Obviously, we should be naked – since you referred to the evolutionary history of modern humans, and we want to perform an honest experiment.
On the other hand, maybe we should both be allowed a pair of shorts since I have noticed on some other threads that you kind of engage in some homoerotic blatherings when it concerns conservative men.
Care to take my bet? We can publish the results of the experiment!
Idiot,
Do you have $100,000 to put aside? Show me the money, please.
Rather than naked as you conservative “men” prefer, we should both wear insulated jumpsuits, gloves, hats, insulated boots etc. Just to be fair. And no water, of course. No shade, either. No artificial heating or cooling, only simple wood fires.
Do you really think humans lived in Oslo without clothes or shelter or fire? It seems even ancient humans could adapt to cold conditions better than 118 daily temps.
More to the point, do you challenge the study or its methodology?
My point (which went over your head by at least a mile), is that ancient humans were certainly better adapted in the strictest evolutionary sense to 118F than to -21F. (Do you believe in the theories of East African origin?)
To use the “Jeffrey” method of high level debate – do you really think humans lived anywhere with no water and without the intelligence to seek shade in hot conditions?
Finally, yes I challenge the study and its methodology. It literally proves nothing. It was obviously designed ahead of time to exactly support the conclusion it reached.
They set the boundary for “deadly days” for both Jakarta and NYC at just beyond the current conditions. They then used a model that said it would be hotter in the future. Their study then showed both locales were expected to have more “deadly days” in the future. How could the study show anything but that result?
In my study, I set my “death condition” as occurring when the roll of a single die comes up to a seven. All previous rolls came up one to six, so everyone lived in blissful conditions. However, my model says to add a 10% multiplier for the next round of simulations. It then goes up another 10% for the next round, and it compounds from the previous round. As our simulation progresses it quickly becomes apparent we are rolling some “sevens” and conditions are now deadly.
Taking “snark” mode off. I agree that the planet has warmed since the depths of the Little Ice Age. I disagree that the latest warming is indisputably anthropogenic in origin. (That at least is a difficult problem to prove either way.)
However, I firmly believe that a warmer world will easily support more overall biomass than a colder world. I also believe this condition with additional biomass to be better for humans and the rest of life on the planet.
[I now bid you farewell on this thread. However, I know you will post the “last word” since you always seem to have time to do that on every single global warming thread.]