Climate Change Could Kill Off One-Fifth of the World By End of the Century

[Dashinka 24,871]

4 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2017-08-03/climate-change-could-ravage-areas-of-south-asia-by-late-21st-century

If global populations continue with a business-as-usual attitude toward greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, a chunk of the population could be in serious peril.

A new study finds that going outdoors could become deadly across areas of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh by the end of the century as climate change causes heat and humidity to spike, making widespread areas uninhabitable. The threat targets up to a third of the people living throughout the Indo-Gangetic Plain, which is home to some 1.5 billion people, according to findings published Wednesday in Science Advances, a peer-reviewed journal.

"The fertile valleys of the Indus and the Ganges, where human population is currently in the hundreds of millions, will likely experience some of the most severe projected hazard from heat waves," according to the research team.

 

[READ: The Top 5 Countries for Green Living]

 

Researchers based their findings on computer simulations that used global models to project a so-called "wet bulb temperature," which considers the actual temperature, as well as the humidity and the human body's ability to cool down through evaporation.

Humidity levels combined with heat play a major role in heat-related heath risks. In cases of high humidity, human sweat doesn't evaporate, making it difficult for people to regulate and release heat. At a wet bulb temperature above 35 degrees Celsius, or 95 degrees Farehenheit, the human body can't cool itself enough to survive more than a few hours without protection.

 

The findings are in keeping with widespread research on climate change that paints the issue as a major threat to mankind. One study found that nearly a third of the world's population is currently exposed to lethal global warming, while another suggests that thousands will die from climate change-caused air pollution if we can't cuThe threat is already proving deadly, albeit at a lesser rate.

One of the deadliest heatwaves in history swept across South Asia during the summer of 2015, killing an estimated 3,500 people in Pakistan and India

 

People in these high-poverty areas are particularly vulnerable because they rely on hours of hard labor in the open sun to fulfill an economic dependence on subsistence farming, according to MIT professor Elfatih Eltahir, who co-authored the report.

"With the disruption to the agricultural production, it doesn't need to be the heat wave 

 

 

BEST 
COUNTRIES

U.S. News in partnership with Y&R's BAV and Wharton

 

•  

So India and MENA are hot?  I never would have figured.  Maybe it has something to do with their location.  I also hear it is hot and humid in the Amazon basin.

[Dashinka 24,871]

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

Is that study approved by Al Gore? If not it's fake science.

Are you kidding.  There is no way Al Gore would approve of this study, but at least his house is cool and his pool is heated.

 

 

I wonder if Big Al bankrolled the first study in the OP to get more people to see his movie and just maybe he will get another Oscar and Nobel.

[jg121783 3,921]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

So India and MENA are hot?  I never would have figured.  Maybe it has something to do with their location.  I also hear it is hot and humid in the Amazon basin.

You mean there are actually places on Earth that aren't constantly 72 degrees? Must be man made global warming.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So India and MENA are hot?  I never would have figured.  Maybe it has something to do with their location.  I also hear it is hot and humid in the Amazon basin.

The simulation predicts that by the end of this situation large areas of India will be so hot that they will not be able to support their human population.

 

Clearly they aren't at that threshold yet since people continue to live there. They are taking current trends and extrapolating forward. Regardless of what is causing the current trend (human-derived or natural cycle), it is not unreasonable to plan for current trends to continue over the next 100 years since a century is a very very small amount of time on the global scale.

 

Honestly this sort of simulation should worry everyone, regardless of what you believe is the cause of "global warming". The article didn't look at what is causing the trend in rising temperatures, it was just using that trend to simulate the future as best they could.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Isnt New York under water know ?

[Dashinka 24,871]

Just now, bcking said:

The simulation predicts that by the end of this situation large areas of India will be so hot that they will not be able to support their human population.

 

Clearly they aren't at that threshold yet since people continue to live there. They are taking current trends and extrapolating forward. Regardless of what is causing the current trend (human-derived or natural cycle), it is not unreasonable to plan for current trends to continue over the next 100 years since a century is a very very small amount of time on the global scale.

 

Honestly this sort of simulation should worry everyone, regardless of what you believe is the cause of "global warming". The article didn't look at what is causing the trend in rising temperatures, it was just using that trend to simulate the future as best they could.

Yes, it is always a good idea to take a relatively small sample size and make the assumption that nothing will change that makes their extrapolation invalid.  I know when I have a dataset that I extrapolate from, there are huge risks as to the validity of the extrapolated predictions.

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Isnt New York under water know ?

They have tall buildings in NYC, so there should be no issues.  The subway system is another matter, but I understand that is falling apart.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Yes, it is always a good idea to take a relatively small sample size and make the assumption that nothing will change that makes their extrapolation invalid.  I know when I have a dataset that I extrapolate from, there are huge risks as to the validity of the extrapolated predictions.

By your same measure, the paper you quoted has the same issues.

 

I'm reading their methods now. I don't claim to be an expert in this area but from their explanation it seems the amount of data they have for the "pre-1973" era essentially falls off a cliff and becomes all "reconstructions" (simulations?).

 

EDIT:

 

Not to mention the datasets they use for pre-1979 are incredibly isolated. Two localized to Patagonia, 1 to the Arctic, 1 to the Antarctic. 1 in Central Europe. Just 1 could be considered broad (northern hemisphere)

Edited August 4, 2017 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

20 minutes ago, bcking said:

Ah yes. The best and the brighest. The expert scientific minds at Breitbart. 

 

Wouldn't be surprised if they borrow "Dr. Group" as their "expert" opinion on all things scientific.

i heard dr. oz is going to fill in. he's experienced weather before, like just about every time he goes outside, so he's very qualified to discuss the al gore/big oil conspiracy fantasy realm.

[jg121783 3,921]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

The simulation predicts that by the end of this situation large areas of India will be so hot that they will not be able to support their human population.

 

Clearly they aren't at that threshold yet since people continue to live there. They are taking current trends and extrapolating forward. Regardless of what is causing the current trend (human-derived or natural cycle), it is not unreasonable to plan for current trends to continue over the next 100 years since a century is a very very small amount of time on the global scale.

 

Honestly this sort of simulation should worry everyone, regardless of what you believe is the cause of "global warming". The article didn't look at what is causing the trend in rising temperatures, it was just using that trend to simulate the future as best they could.

Meterologists can't even get their computer model based forecast for tomorrow's weather correct half the time and we are supposed to take this model as gospel? 

[Dashinka 24,871]

Just now, bcking said:

By your same measure, the paper you quoted has the same issues.

 

I'm reading their methods now. I don't claim to be an expert in this area but from their explanation it seems the amount of data they have for the "pre-1973" era essentially falls off a cliff and becomes all "reconstructions" (simulations?).

I agree, so we have two scientific studies that show opposite conclusions using questionable data for future extrapolation.  Everyone is telling me that the science is settled, but it doesn't seem that it is.  

 

Here is is another story that says we need to get rid of dogs and cats since they are causing GW as they are meat eaters.  It is getting wacky.

 

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/ucla-study-dogs-and-cats-cause-global-warming-not-a-joke/

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, jg121783 said:

Meterologists can't even get their computer model based forecast for tomorrow's weather correct half the time and we are supposed to take this model as gospel? 

Real scientists don't take anything as gospel. That is not the purpose of scientific publications. This is why this sort of stuff shouldn't be disemminated to the general public. The general public don't have a good grasp of scientific literature and how it works.

 

It is published so that other people (actual experts on the subject) can review their methodology and results, possibly replicate the study or do further study to further corroborate their evidence.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree, so we have two scientific studies that show opposite conclusions using questionable data for future extrapolation.  Everyone is telling me that the science is settled, but it doesn't seem that it is.  

 

Here is is another story that says we need to get rid of dogs and cats since they are causing GW as they are meat eaters.  It is getting wacky.

 

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/ucla-study-dogs-and-cats-cause-global-warming-not-a-joke/

Opposite conclusions? How so?

 

The study you linked is suggesting that are current climate cycle has a solar origin.

 

The original study was showing that based on the current cycle (regardless of it's origin; solar, man-made, donkey-made), if it continues then millions will be displaced.

 

Even if the sun is responsible for the current rising global temperature trend, it is still worth trying to simulate/model future outcome so we can prepare for it. Maybe we can't completely prevent it, but we can try to slow it perhaps. Even if we can't do that, we need to be aware that it may be coming.

[smilesammich 10,727]

here's the gospel..

 

Quote

“As a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us,” Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) told constituents last week at a town hall in Coldwater, Mich. “And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it.”

Among conservative evangelicals, that is not an unusual opinion. Nearly all evangelicals — 88 percent, according to the Pew Research Center on Religion & Public Life — believe in miracles, suggesting a faith in a proactive God. And only 28 percent of evangelicals believe human activity is causing climate change. Confidence that God will intervene to prevent people from destroying the world is one of the strongest barriers to gaining conservative evangelical support for environmental pacts like the Paris agreement.

Climate change isn’t the first issue where such faith has presented itself. During the Cold War, premillennialist evangelicals, who believe that the Second Coming of Christ is imminent, argued that God wouldn’t allow humanity to destroy itself in a nuclear war. Tim LaHaye, co-author of the fictional “Left Behind” series, wrote in 1972 that although the world might be destroyed in a nuclear fire, it would be God who authored that conflagration, not humanity.

Why don’t Christian conservatives worry about climate change? God.

[jg121783 3,921]

What evidence? Some random numbers on a computer generated by strategically placed temperature sensors?

[Dashinka 24,871]

8 minutes ago, bcking said:

Real scientists don't take anything as gospel. That is not the purpose of scientific publications. This is why this sort of stuff shouldn't be disemminated to the general public. The general public don't have a good grasp of scientific literature and how it works.

 

It is published so that other people (actual experts on the subject) can review their methodology and results, possibly replicate the study or do further study to further corroborate their evidence.

So since the science isn't settled, why do we have this MDL narrative regarding Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change?  I agree, non-scientists in the press have no business with this, yet they still stick their nose in it.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Bill & Katya