World Not Ready For Rise In Extreme Heat, Scientists Say (barrons.com) 96
Nearly 3.8 billion people could face extreme heat by 2050 and while tropical countries will bear the brunt cooler regions will also need to adapt, scientists said Monday. From a report: Demand for cooling will "drastically" increase in giant countries like Brazil, Indonesia and Nigeria, where hundreds of millions of people lack air conditioning or other means of beating the heat. But even a moderate increase in hotter days could have a "severe impact" in nations not used to such conditions like Canada, Russia and Finland, said scientists from the University of Oxford.
In a new study, they looked at different global warming scenarios to project how often people in future might experience temperatures considered uncomfortably hot or cold. They found "that the population experiencing extreme heat conditions is projected to nearly double" by 2050 if global average temperatures rise 2C above preindustrial times.
In a new study, they looked at different global warming scenarios to project how often people in future might experience temperatures considered uncomfortably hot or cold. They found "that the population experiencing extreme heat conditions is projected to nearly double" by 2050 if global average temperatures rise 2C above preindustrial times.
Of course we're ready (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Of course we're ready (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly all billionaires without any exception (Score:1)
Are evil! All their money should be seized and given to us the proletarian!
Regulations are written in blood. You can't just start slashing them and then pack the courts full of pro-corporate sycophants and not have consequences. But those consequences take a while to hit and since the media is controlled by billionaires it's easy to shift to blame around and confuse the issue.
This last year was especially bad when the billionaire it's just put their foot down and stopped allowing the journalism to happen at
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Of course we're ready (Score:5, Insightful)
Authoritarians rely on ambivalence just as much as they rely on out and out supporters. This farcical stance of being above it all helps them more than you realize.
As if billionaires will let you have that water (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically the classic Boomer I got mine fuck you approach. If you are under 60 that's probably not an option.
Re: (Score:2)
The boomers have been in charge for 30 years at least I think we're going on 40 now.
Not really. You're underestimating how long the old people holding the reins of power keep on holding power. Boomers didn't really get a majority of the positions that run things until I'd say the Obama administration, 2009, so that would be 17 years at most.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will be funny to see when they figure out their servants have families that need to survive too and that throwing money does not buy loyalty. Especially when that money stop being worth anything.
Re: (Score:2)
They will return to serfdom. Workers will live on the property.
And Trump has his oil (Score:2)
Perhaps he thinks if the human race is going out we should go out in style - completely fuck the planet for millions of years by burning everything that can be sucked out of the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
The billionaires have their Island bunkers
Concrete makes a good blockage for doors and air vents.
Re: (Score:2)
You would think that the billionaires would be smart enough not to build their bunkers on an island that will likely disappear over the next 50 years due to sea level rise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We are not at an end of an ice age, where sea levels indeed rose that quickly.
The next 50 years will perhaps be a meter/one yard ... if at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The next 50 years will perhaps be a meter/one yard ... if at all.
That's a severe issue for a lot of coastal or tidal cities, which is a large proportion of the most important cities in the world. It would have a large economic impact.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course.
However some idiots keep claiming there are forecasts of dozens of meters, or have been or is even plausible on short notice.
Sure, if all Greenland ice melts it will be about 15m, and if Antarctica melts another 100m ...
But not in 10 years, and likely not in 100.
To melt Antarctica, it needs a bit more than the current global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another chicken-little story (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the real world, anyone who knows about the "CO2 Global Warming" theory knows that it predicts most of the warming to happen in cold areas at night, so this is obvious nonsense.
Only for people with really simple minds. Things are a bit more complicated than that. You skipped over about 95% of the book and now think you understand the subject.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Some people can fake it well. I guess you fall into that group and now you have a swollen head.
Look up the reading level of the average American (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People are not ready to understand and think about thermodynamics. That is why all of the propaganda works. From an objective standpoint, we are increasing the amount of thermal energy trapped in our atmosphere. Sure, the atmosphere is large and the inputs are small, but small changes over long time periods result in amazing changes. In this case, not amazing in a good way.
Re:Another chicken-little story (Score:5, Informative)
The media hyped a few proposals for "global cooling" at one point but it was never anything like a scientific consensus. The majority of scientific studies have always argued for net warming from carbon emissions going back to at least the 1970s.
Science can only work to explain what is and attempt to predict may happen. It does not propose policies to deal with what might happen. "Give the government more power" is hardly the only potential reaction to global warming, but it is a political reaction not a scientific one.
Re: (Score:2)
Were you involved in scientific study at the time, or did you just read some newspaper articles? Nobody is denying that there were some reports of potential global cooling. But studies in the 1970s actually predicted the change in climate to-date remarkably well.
media hype [Re:Another chicken-little story] (Score:3)
Media hype.
Documented here: https://journals.ametsoc.org/v... [ametsoc.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is saying the event didn't happen. We're saying it was never a scientific consensus, just media hype that didn't last very long. And you're hallucinating everything else about it, because you are. If you weren't, you literally wouldn't be posting this bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's truly bizarre that people think they can tell people who lived through events that those events didn't happen.
I lived through it too. You are talking nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another chicken-little story (Score:5, Informative)
The odd thing is that when I was a kid and we were going to enter The New Ice Age, the solution was to... reduce hydrocarbon fuel usage, build more windmills, raise taxes and give the government more power.
None of this is true. Actual scientists did not predict we were going to enter an ice age [ametsoc.org], although there was some media hype [scientificamerican.com] about that (media loves catastrophe stories). And absolutely nobody ever suggested that the response to an incipient ice age would be to reduce hydrocarbon fuel usage and build more windmills. Nor, for that matter, to raise taxes or give the government more power.
Re: (Score:2)
> And absolutely nobody ever suggested that the response to an incipient ice age would be to reduce hydrocarbon fuel usage and build more windmills. Nor, for that matter, to raise taxes or give the government more power.
They might have done if the proposed cause of the (non-existent) upcoming ice age were the same as the actual cause of the upcoming out of control warming, which is too much CO2 in the air. But, honestly, the articles were mostly media hype, and quickly debunked, so it's hard to see how a
Re: (Score:2)
None of this is true.
Hm. Something is true because I heard the same thing in the 70s. It may not have been scientific consensus, but I very clearly recall people discussing how we were merely in the middle of a warm period inside of a larger ice age and that we were going to trigger the cooling part of the ice age with our emissions. Whether or not scientists actually agreed that this was true is completely irrelevant to whether or not we heard the message. We did hear that message.
Of course, now that I am older and have more e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> The odd thing is that when I was a kid and we were going to enter The New Ice Age, the solution was to... reduce hydrocarbon fuel usage, build more windmills, raise taxes and give the government more power.
Are you an AI? Because you clearly hallucinated most of that. The nearest you came to actually saying anything coherent is that, yes, there was, during the seventies, a single Time article on a theory that global cooling might be a thing, and it caused a sensation for about six months, before fading
Re: (Score:2)
The odd thing is that when I was a kid and we were going to enter The New Ice Age
Not according to science of the time (1970s), no.
Re: (Score:2)
Better solution: Put 10000% tariffs on anything! That way, it will be all scorched earth and nobody left to care when it becomes bad.
Re:This can be solve with... more taxes! (Score:5, Insightful)
More taxes yes, that is inevitable for America. There is another way without more restrictions, that's a whole idea behind abundance liberalism [theguardian.com].
That's been my argument for decades, even if the outcome doesn't change is that a huge sustained investment in the things climate change is asking for us will net us nothing but... a more robust and cheaper electrical grid, cleaner air, better and more reliable transportation choices, better buildings and homes and a ton of domestic economic growth as well as an opportunity to build up an entirely new domestic manufacturing base that the world will be asking for.
IMO America has squandered probably trillions of dollars of growth and development by letting stubborn liars steer us away from this path for bad faith culture war nonsense in service of craven political power.
Re: (Score:2)
While I generally recoil physically anytime I hear the word "liberal" and/or "progressive"...that article did pique my interest.
I've not read the book, but it seems even though written for the liberal leaning Americans, that it has some decent ideas about things..more common sense getting things done and not throwing in a lot of un-needed complications involving social agenda items...just get
Re: (Score:1)
Well, they "touched" my life most recently with I Obama's policies and even more so lately with the Biden admin policies....especially the illegal migrant repercussions that the current administration is having to try to clean up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet it isn't and are you capable of understanding why?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead and read the book or any of the other articles and interviews and see if your theory holds true then, particularly the parts of abundance liberalism that rely on an increase and expansion of state capacity and many other factors.
Conservatism doesn't believe in things like that. It does take some things conservatives support but it's called abundance liberalism for a reason and conservatives don't believe in small-l liberalism anymore, they are in fact decidedly illiberal today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Show us clear problems and achievable goals with cost effective solutions that have a meaningful impact, and you'll get somewhere.
It's 2026 and if you haven't heard these you are either so completely and purposefully ignorant that you should be deemed politically irrelevant or you are just lying.
Let's be real there isn't anything that would convince you so let's just stop playing this silly game.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trying to be rude, but could it be that the arguments you're thinking about are the ones I already said won't work on conservatives? We've both been here reading the same things and coming to different conclusions for how long?
Maybe, the reason I'm not convinced is because the arguments that have been presented are crap. Maybe it's because they are arguments that wor
Re: (Score:2)
See, I just don't believe you. I don't believe I could make an argument to you that would change your opinion. There's no magic way to phrase the facts that have been known for 30 years, the solutions that have been known, contorted and sugared for conservatives brains to comprehend and it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter because this is not a fact based discussion for you and conservatives, you simply do not believe in the facts because this is ideological. Your political ideology depends on liberals be
Re: (Score:2)
What if an increase in temperature is actually beneficial for more people than the opposite?
That has been heavily researched, and it's not even close. Change itself is the problem; it would be catastrophic if the world was cooling at this rate too. If we only had 100 million people on the Earth and didn't have large settlements that had been invested in, we could adjust to any of these changes with minimal problems. But our society is too hyper-specialized to the current climate to handle the kind of rapid climate change we are already starting to feel (with inflation-adjusted climate-related disa
Re: (Score:2)
For example, the housing price index in Miami has more than quadrupled since Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992. So, the same hurricane now would do 4x the damage.
Re:heat (Score:5, Insightful)
You really do not. But I guess you are not smart enough to understand that.
Re: (Score:2)
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
There are tons of cretins that are still denying it is even happening. Obviously the human race is not ready.
What this will eventually be is a global shake-out and those that can adapt will survive reasonably intact. The others will be wiped out or reduced to insignificance. Guess who will be on which side.
Re: (Score:2)
AI is the new hotness and AI data centres can't be powered by solar panels and windmills. So "Climate Change" is done.
Re: (Score:2)
AI is the new hotness and AI data centres can't be powered by solar panels and windmills. So "Climate Change" is done.
Hopefully AI will help us design the nanobots that can continuously capture the heat and send it back into space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't see anyone worry about affordability 40 years ago. Nobody I knew ever discussed it, and nobody was concerned about being able to buy food. Of course, I was in the 4th grade and none of my friends could even spell affordability. Point is, maybe what changed was your exposure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I say this because our observations conflict. You say denial is increasing and it hasn't looked that way to me. But maybe I'm the one who's w
Re: (Score:2)
You say denial is increasing
Yes, it looks to be a clear trend over the last 5 years. It's not just me that has noticed it.
and you correctly identified that people are finally pulling themselves out of the madness.
The madness of denial? Clearly not.
Re: (Score:2)
Not ready for extreme cold (Score:3)
We're not ready for extreme cold either.
2 KM ice wall (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With current CO2 levels that "brief pause" will be pretty long ... not a mere 100k years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We need more air conditioners (Score:1)
Or ... we can use these money to try to suppress the oil production...
Time for panic rooms (Score:2)
Labor is cheap in the third world, the materials to make rooms to escape the heat without grid dependence aren't especially expensive. Insulation (EPS) is cheap and if mass produced you could make an air conditioning kit running off PV with an ice battery and heat recovery ventilator for 500 bucks with some profit margin included.
Air-conditioning in terribly insulated homes relying on the grid is a recipe for disaster in the developing world.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you know that it is actually summer in Australia right now?
Re: (Score:2)
I well aware that is actually warm in Australia this time of year.
The problem is they are trying to panic people in northern North America about excess heat when the heat pumps have shut down from excess cold.
Panic people about the heat in the summer. Where I live summer time peaks out at about 105 F (40.5 C). Then "It's going to be even worse" might carry some weight.
Other numbers for consideration, summertime inside temp 80 F, outside 105, delta 25 F
wintertime inside temp 65 F, outside -5 F , delta 70 F.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think "they" (the world's scientists) are singling out USA for panic all.
The reality is that only about 2 or 3% of the world's climate scientists believe anthropogenic climate change is false (and of those that do, many have clear ties to the fossil fuel industry).
There are very real (and very measurable) consequences currently happening as a direct result of climate change. For example around 1 million plant and animal species are currently threatened with extinction, with climate change being the
Will Russia, Finland and Canada actually mind? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Finn and I do mind!
Finnish homes don't traditionally have cooling AC, because it hasn't been necessary. In the past, we might get a few days over 30 C (with high humidity) in the summer. In recent years, we've experienced much longer heat waves, such as a few weeks in a row. Consequently, a lot of people have fitted air heat pumps, and those can also be used for heating in the winter using reversed flow direction. But even now, cooling AC is rarely installed in new buildings, because apparently the
Re: (Score:2)