Global warming may have already passed irreversible tipping point

[PC2]

No surprises here;

Today’s kids will live through three times as many climate disasters as their grandparents, study says

If the planet continues to warm on its current trajectory, the average 6-year-old will live through roughly three times as many climate disasters as their grandparents, the study finds. They will see twice as many wildfires, 1.7 times as many tropical cyclones, 3.4 times more river floods, 2.5 times more crop failures and 2.3 times as many droughts as someone born in 1960.

These findings, published this week in the journal Science, are the result of a massive effort to quantify what lead author Wim Thiery calls the “intergenerational inequality” of climate change.

Unless world leaders agree on more ambitious policies when they meet for the United Nations climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, this fall, the study says, today’s children will be exposed to an average of five times more disasters than if they lived 150 years ago.

The changes are especially dramatic in developing nations; infants in sub-Saharan Africa are projected to live through 50 to 54 times as many heat waves as someone born in the preindustrial era.

The disparities underscore how the worst effects of climate change will be experienced in places that contributed least to warming, by people who have had little say in the policies that allow continued emissions to occur, Thiery said. More than half of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were generated after 1990, meaning that most of the disasters today’s children will experience can be linked to emissions produced during their parents’ lifetimes.

Fear not @Shadowferal, because even though there will always be new and growing problems there will also be ways to solve them. For example the climate has been warming for a long time and even though there may be more notable weather events since the Industrial Revolution that does NOT mean they will cause more death and damage every year. You should check out the link in my signature because they recently looked into this issue and here's what they found; The Collapse of Climate-Related Deaths:


---



---

So even if there was 3x more dangerous weather events people would still be much more safe and well-off compared to nearly every other generation that has ever existed.

Young people already say climate change has touched their lives and harmed their mental health. In a recent survey of 16- to 25-year-olds, scientists found that three quarters of respondents feared the future and more than half believed they would have less opportunity than their parents. Nearly 60 percent said their governments had betrayed them and future generations — making them feel even more anxious.

What poll respondents "believe" is irrelevant. There's no reason to think future generations will be in more danger nor have less opportunity going forward.

[Elegiac]

Fear not @Shadowferal, because even though there will always be new and growing problems there will also be ways to solve them. For example the climate has been warming for a long time and even though there may be more notable weather events since the Industrial Revolution that does NOT mean they will cause more death and damage every year. You should check out the link in my signature because they recently looked into this issue and here's what they found; The Collapse of Climate-Related Deaths:

Humanprogress.org is literally a mouthpiece for Cato Institute propaganda.

These numbers are also bullshit because it's conflating all natural disaster deaths with deaths due to natural disasters related to climate change. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your desperate attempt to stop the world from turning.

[Edge-]

These numbers are also bullshit because it's conflating all natural disaster deaths with deaths due to natural disasters related to climate change. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your desperate attempt to stop the world from turning.

Also, doesn't account for and ignores things like, I dunno...tornado warnings that save lives even if tornado's are more common and doing more damage.

[Elegiac]

Also, doesn't account for and ignores things like, I dunno...tornado warnings that save lives even if tornado's are more common and doing more damage.

Indeed, it's clear evidence that technological and administrative improvements to managing natural disasters have had manifest benefits.

Which, according to PC2, means we absolutely should not engage in any technological and administrative improvements to managing natural disasters - like, for instance, doing something about climate change to reduce their intensity.

Today on: "Libertarianism is a Social Cancer"...

[Endus]

Fear not @Shadowferal, because even though there will always be new and growing problems there will also be ways to solve them. For example the climate has been warming for a long time and even though there may be more notable weather events since the Industrial Revolution that does NOT mean they will cause more death and damage every year. You should check out the link in my signature because they recently looked into this issue and here's what they found; The Collapse of Climate-Related Deaths:


So even if there was 3x more dangerous weather events people would still be much more safe and well-off compared to nearly every other generation that has ever existed.



What poll respondents "believe" is irrelevant. There's no reason to think future generations will be in more danger nor have less opportunity going forward.

Continued Stage 3 climate change denial, with PC2.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-stages-denial

Keep pushing that disinformation agenda.

[cubby]

Humanprogress.org is literally a mouthpiece for Cato Institute propaganda.

These numbers are also bullshit because it's conflating all natural disaster deaths with deaths due to natural disasters related to climate change. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your desperate attempt to stop the world from turning.

Exactly - it includes earthquakes, which isn't a climate disaster. That alone makes the data worthless to this conversation.

[Elegiac]

Exactly - it includes earthquakes, which isn't a climate disaster. That alone makes the data worthless to this conversation.

It also excludes things which aren't natural disaster related - things like crop yields, for instance.

Basically it's an argument that because bad weather kills fewer people these days climate change isn't going to make natural disasters worse or have other impacts which...

Okay.

[Edge-]

Exactly - it includes earthquakes, which isn't a climate disaster. That alone makes the data worthless to this conversation.

Actually... https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2926/c...ections-shaky/

We're increasingly learning that climate change itself may be connected, and that human activities surrounding climate change, like CA pumping massive amounts of groundwater from aquifers, absolutely has an impact.

Plus, you know, other climate change related activities like fraking which is directly related to increased seismic activity.

[Shadowferal]

Cato won't even mention the clmate related deaths that happened in the past 12 months...idiocy.

More than one-third of heat deaths blamed on climate change

More than one-third of the world’s heat deaths each year are due directly to global warming, according to the latest study to calculate the human cost of climate change.

But scientists say that’s only a sliver of climate’s overall toll — even more people die from other extreme weather amplified by global warming such as storms, flooding and drought — and the heat death numbers will grow exponentially with rising temperatures.

Dozens of researchers who looked at heat deaths in 732 cities around the globe from 1991 to 2018 calculated that 37% were caused by higher temperatures from human-caused warming, according to a study Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress. Climate change affects many of the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.

Extreme high air temperatures contribute directly to deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, particularly among elderly people. In the heat wave of summer 2003 in Europe for example, more than 70 000 excess deaths were recorded.

Globally, the number of reported weather-related natural disasters has more than tripled since the 1960s. Every year, these disasters result in over 60 000 deaths, mainly in developing countries.

Increasingly variable rainfall patterns are likely to affect the supply of fresh water. A lack of safe water can compromise hygiene and increase the risk of diarrhoeal disease, which kills over 500 000 children aged under 5 years, every year. In extreme cases, water scarcity leads to drought and famine.

[cubby]

Continued Stage 3 climate change denial, with PC2.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-stages-denial

Keep pushing that disinformation agenda.

It's all climate science deniers have at this point. And PC2 has already proven beyond a doubt that data has nothing to do with his opinions.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually... https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2926/c...ections-shaky/

We're increasingly learning that climate change itself may be connected, and that human activities surrounding climate change, like CA pumping massive amounts of groundwater from aquifers, absolutely has an impact.

Plus, you know, other climate change related activities like fraking which is directly related to increased seismic activity.

Interesting. I stand corrected then. Damn...I knew that about fracking already, too.

[Edge-]

I knew that about fracking already, too.

It's these kinds of indirect activities that are hard to remember to connect the dots on, frustratingly. I probably didn't actively think about it until I went to find that piece (I remember seeing it a while back) and saw some fraking articles turn up in the search results. We've known it contributes to seismic activity and we connect those dots, we just forget to connect the further dot that it's related to climate-altering activities that are huge generators of carbon emissions.

[Endus]

Actually... https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2926/c...ections-shaky/

We're increasingly learning that climate change itself may be connected, and that human activities surrounding climate change, like CA pumping massive amounts of groundwater from aquifers, absolutely has an impact.

Plus, you know, other climate change related activities like fraking which is directly related to increased seismic activity.

Once you start connecting those dots, it becomes pretty darned obvious, too.

Ice weighs a lot. We know that some tectonic plates are still "rebounding" from the weight of the last major glaciation period; that's been recognized science for decades if not back into the 19th Century. The rapid deglaciation due to anthropogenic climate change is gonna have a similar effect; it's less ice, but the deglaciation is much faster.

Like, get a bucket of water and hang it on a tree branch. Branch hangs lower, right? Now put a hole in the bucket. Branch slowly raises, right? The bucket is glaciers or groundwater repositories, the branch is a tectonic plate. The branch moving and rubbing against another "branch" is what earthquakes are.

Human construction usually isn't enough to impact this stuff, because materials are generally located closely enough to the site that it's not overall affecting the dynamics of weight loads on tectonic plates. But water distribution? Water is heavy, and we use a ton of it, and it doesn't like staying in one place to begin with. Like anything else with ACC, it isn't that this doesn't happen naturally, it's that we're doing it so much faster than natural cycles.

Like you said, not something you go "well, duh" because it's not immediately obvious, but once someone connects a couple dots, the picture becomes pretty obvious pretty quickly.

[liamricci]

very sad topic. we are killing out planet every single day

[PC2]

very sad topic. we are killing out planet every single day

That is hyperbole... We're only killing some parts of the ecosystem. The planet overall is more hospitable to *humans* right now than it's ever been before. You can't name a time when civilization has been in a better position to make progress than it is now.

[s_bushido]

That is hyperbole... We're only killing some parts of the ecosystem. The planet overall is more hospitable to *humans* right now than it's ever been before. You can't name a time when civilization has been in a better position to make progress than it is now.

lol

This ridiculous statement wouldn't be nearly as funny if it came from people who weren't desperate to impede progress at every opportunity.

[Shadowferal]

lol This ridiculous statement wouldn't be nearly as funny if it came from people who weren't desperate to impede progress at every opportunity.

...scientific progress.

[PC2]

...scientific progress.

STEM can solve ACC. If you agree with me then we're on the same side so I don't know why you have to be so difficult.

Also at some point you're going to have to learn that Green Party policies aren't determined by science.

[Shadowferal]

Sorry, but anyone posting Cato bullshit isn't being honest

NOAA would like to have a word with you.

[PC2]

Sorry, but anyone posting Cato bullshit isn't being honest

NOAA would like to have a word with you.

What about the NOAA? My point earlier was that you seem to think science can have a methodology that can determine politics/policy. It's absurd, science is primarily about understanding the natural world, it has nothing to do with politics unless you specifically have a political explanation that can be physically *tested*.

[Endus]

What about the NOAA? My point earlier was that you seem to think science can have a methodology that can determine politics/policy. It's absurd, science is primarily about understanding the natural world, it has nothing to do with politics unless you specifically have a political explanation that can be physically *tested*.

Dishonest malarkey like this just demonstrates how little you bring to the conversation.

Science informs policy. Claiming science doesn't have anything to do with policy-making is just false, on its face.

Speaking as someone who's literally contributed to policy-making, by providing scientific analysis to justify my recommendations.