Climate-gate

[Quantum Quack]

SUMMARY: Mother Nature's greatest mistake was the evolution of man's big brain. He will make most of her prior work go extinct with him.
The Bible is correct: "The meek* will inherit the earth."
* ("The meek" are the tiny nocturnal mice that live in much cooler burrows during the day and have huge surface to volume ratio for dumping metabolic heat.)

Allow me to rephrase my question:

How long do humans have before your "death by hyperthermia" experienced by humans is witnessed and acknowledged as the start of a human extinction event?
An extinction of 8+ billion people by hyperthermia doesn't typically happen over night. In what year do we start to see this hyperthermic human extinction period start, according to your opinion?
Do you believe it is avoidable given social inertia to change?

 

[Billy T]

Some answers to QQ's post 1925 questions:

2010 was chart's most recent year and significantly higher and the 10-year average. More recent data is needed to know if AGW's killing has started in US.(Chart is just for the USA.) Quote below (based on 5th IPPC data) states: "Heat waves will kill about ten times more people in the Eastern United States in 45 years than they did at the turn of this century. In 2002-2004, an average of 187 people in the eastern third of the U.S. succumbed to heat waves. By 2057-2059, that number will rise to over 2,000."

Note the more recent 187 deaths (annual average) IN JUST THE EASTERN US is much greater than the not much earlier 115 deaths annual average FOR THE WHOLE USA! Thus I think we can safely say that AGW's heat wave deaths have already started and are accelerating rapidly.

Chart caption was: If you take out Katrina with over 1000 deaths from 2005 Heat still is far and away the #1 weather related cause of death in the U.S.
Also from http://wxbrad.com/tag/heat-wave/ is a heat stress index:

I guess value of 100 in table is 50% chance of death if exposed for an hour.
Not stated is how long the exposure is. I think near chart's red zone is "your dead" as an hour at 95F = 35C wet bulb will kill you unless in tube of cool water, etc.

The 5th IPCC report findings are sobering. The study results were published online this week in the journal Environmental Health

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, 660 people die nationwide from heat waves each year, making it the leading cause of weather-related mortality in the country. The CDC defines heat waves as “several days of temperatures greater than 90° F; warm, stagnant air masses; and consecutive nights with higher-than-usual minimum temperatures.” The severe heat wave of July 1995 in Chicago was blamed for 700 deaths and perhaps as many as 333 people died in California in July 2006 as the state was gripped in unrelenting heat.

Under the “low-medium” scenario, heat wave-related deaths would increase by 1,403 per year. If current emissions continue, however, there could be an additional 3,556 deaths. The number of deaths is linked to the frequency of heat waves.

This article issued 8 Nov 2013, I forget when the 5th report issued, but data in it was from about end of 2012. So 2012 had almost five times (660 vs 139) more heat death than 2010 in US but as they come during "unusual events" it is hard to know if that factor of five increase in only two years is correct, but certainly 2012's 660 US heat deaths were more than five times the 10 year average of US heat wave deaths (115) shown in first chart.

London had 760 die from heat wave in 2013. - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...atures-above-30c-set-to-continue-8718171.html They had 6 days with day's peak temperature, T in this range: 32 > T > 30C. For Yanks, I note 30C = only 86F but in "foggy London town" the humidity can be high. From table above, the relative humidity was less than 80% as deaths were not well above million Londoners. - Wait a decade or so for that to happen. (Table is 100 for T= 86F & RH= 80%.)

SUMMARY: Heat deaths are insignificant now (unless yours or that of a friend's). "Hit by bus" deaths are probably at least a close second as they can happen 365 days / year. This accelerating trend is the clear and expected result of AGW, with no known limit (other than extinction). - That is the concern. As to when they will displace heart disease as Number One killer, your guess is as good as mine; which is: before 2100, I would guess.

As far as your final question: "Do you believe it is avoidable given social inertia to change? " I don't want to comment except to say I never have believed in miracles. Its too depressing for my grand kids to think about why "business as usual" is so strong. At least I find some comfort in knowing they will say: "Grand dad did all he could."

 

[billvon]

Allow me to rephrase my question: How long do humans have before your "death by hyperthermia" experienced by humans is witnessed

It's happening right now. People are dying during heat waves. This will get worse as the climate warms.

and acknowledged as the start of a human extinction event?

Never. No rational researcher has claimed that hyperthermia will cause a human extinction event - at least in the next few centuries. (Of course, on a scale of billions of years, the Sun will accomplish that event for us.)

 

[Quantum Quack]

SUMMARY: Heat deaths are insignificant now (unless yours or that of a friend's). "Hit by bus" deaths are probably at least a close second as they can happen 365 days / year. This accelerating trend is the clear and expected result of AGW, with no known limit (other than extinction). - That is the concern. As to when they will displace heart disease as Number One killer, your guess is as good as mine; which is: before 2100, I would guess.

As far as your final question: "Do you believe it is avoidable given social inertia to change? " I don't want to comment except to say I never have believed in miracles. Its too depressing for my grand kids to think about why "business as usual" is so strong. At least I find some comfort in knowing they will say: "Grand dad did all he could."

There was a report published in 2012 that stated :
Total global deaths due to climate change events approximately 400,000 persons.
Total global economic loss approx: $1.5 trillion usd.
The veracity of the report is not the issue for me as I take all data with a grain of salt these days however the point that comes to mind is that the sheer weight in US Dollar terms of global disaster relief and repair is enormous. Displacement of persons, refugees etc. all add to the picture.

What this begs, is the question:

How long can the world endure the cost of climate change to infrastructure and general economy?

When you consider, in an over populated world, the significant link between financial resource, rebuilding and health ( cost of air conditioning/heating for the poor for example) and the inevitable lack of financial support due to negative net global growth etc... add to this the devastation of food supply etc due to those CC events, things can deteriorate rather dramatically and rapidly.

The total cost of the current winter chill in the USA for example will run into billions most likely...I would think...

I do not believe that the economies of the world are robust enough to endure much more in terms of CC disasters and the inherent cost of rebuilding. Maybe I am wrong. I am not sure how many economies are budgeting for CC events properly. I am not sure how they can.

The telling sign I believe is in the preparedness of insurers to continue insuring against the significant greater risk of disaster on such scales as recently seen. If the insurers decide to NOT insure then most "structural" investment will vanish and economies will most likely collapse globally.

So for me the key sign in all this is the advisories given off by the various insurance councils and bodies.

 

[Billy T]

Caption is: Residents wade through a neighbourhood flooded by the Acre river, which continues to rise from weeks of heavy rainfall in the region including northern Bolivia, in Rio Branco, Acre state March 4, 2015.

Mayor estimates it will take five years for this poor town, which is entirely flooded, to recover. More than 2000 families living in public tents on higher ground as water level is near the roof of their home.

Brazil has large fraction of world's fresh liquid water - but with AGW's changes, rain is not falling where needed. Saô Paulo's main reservoir is now at about 16% of capacity - more than double what it was, but not enough for next few months. Plans for rationing are being developed: Water in the pipes of various areas for two days, then five with none each week.* A crash effort is now starting to repair leaks in distribution system - perhaps 1/3 is lost. Pressure has periodic reductions - That lets ground water enter from higher pressure in ground around the leaks. We have been boiling all we drink for more than a month. Keeping my bottled water reserve in case stove gas is cut off. As Brazil gets at least 85% of its electric power from hydroelectric dams, normally more is now generated by fossil fuels and power goes off (in the poorer areas, of course) for hours at a time.

Long term California is in much worse shape than Brazil - we have some of the world's largest and best water aquifers, that are little used (One of the beer companies make beer with one.) California already is getting more than half its consumed water from the ground - water table falling as a result. Most is used for irrigation - food prices in all the US will soon rise more rapidly than now.

* My grocery store has long shelf of large plastic trash cans with lids - they are selling well.

 

[Billy T]

... How long can the world endure the cost of climate change to infrastructure and general economy? ...

Even if there were no AGW, modern society is very likely doomed (Only crash program to switch to the various forms of solar energy could save it. Most rapid and economical is the sugar cane based alcohol.)*
Please read: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...r-more-worse-news.105212/page-49#post-3281948
To under stand why drastic changes are coming even if no more CO2 is released!

* I only know the EROI for it - making wind macines and solar cells takes a lot of energy - I don't know how many years needed to get to EROI > 10.
Comparing "economy" in dollar terms can be very misleading. - Not of much value, except to the customer, but not for social planning.

 

[wellwisher]

Climate change appears more drastic, today, than in the past, because of the large number of media outlets, and the competition for human drama stories, to satisfy the needs of an entertainment culture. The effect is similar to buying a new car of a given color. Once you start to drive it, you will start to notice the same model and even color car, appearing more often in your travels. These cars were always there, but your mind was not yet conditioned to notice.

When there were only 5 stations, before cable and internet, only the worse of the worse weather would be broadcasted nationally. Today a legion of reporters will come out for an inch of snow to entertain for market share. Now it appears to be everywhere.

From the POV of media news, something bad will keep people watching longer than something good. This why most of the news will be bad. A longer audience viewing time means the station can sell more soap for station revenue. With the bad news, such as a flood, people want to know about it. The stations will parade experts, who have so much to say, about so little, giving the audience bits and piece to appease their own fears and/or satiate rubberneckers. With the good news, one will notice there is no lineup of experts to discuss the reason for the good. They will not go to station break, for a commercial, then and come back for more discussion. Good news creates a clarity that needs no experts because there is no fear or outrage.

The Global warming now called Climate change angle has been a blessing for the media industry, because it allows tragedy to come closer to home (same car is now everywhere) so even the local stations get to parade experts and sell more soap. Even an inch of snow now has a storm name, because this is now so much more important than in the past. At one time, names were only given to the real intense hurricane type storms. With even little weather systems having a name, this will create more drama. They would not give it a name if it was not important!

This entire loop back has to do with emotional thinking, where the audience thinking is induced via the induction fear. The fear aligns personal and collective thinking, to the propaganda that is used to sell soap and political power. Liberals buy into this more, because they stress feeling over thinking. They are easier to induce, because they are half way there, already. They believe what they feel which makes it harder to clarify reality for them.

 

[sculptor]

Le us all fear those who would sell anything using fear as a sales tool.

 

[wellwisher]

The earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling, as well as cycles of climate change, in its long past. We have hard data to prove this happens without man. This ancient data is inferred, indirectly, because we did not have thermometers 1 million years ago, nor did we have video of weather events, with expert analysis. We also don't have hourly weather samples, from every city location, in real time, like today.

The question I have for the experts is, what would happen if we stopped using modern tools of science so we can level the playing field withe past. We would use only the inference methods like we use for 1 million years ago. Does modern climate illusion need all the new tools and wider range of data, so apples can be compared oranges, thereby making use of subjective feelings?

Would the experts be willing to put all funding into this for 1 year? The inference data is harder to collect and will need full funding to get even a fraction of the current data. This will get rid of apple and orange subjectivity, unless that is needed for some reason; Emotional thinking induction?

 

[wellwisher]

Le us all fear those who would sell anything using fear as a sales tool.

This is true. Both sides of the political divide use this. However I tip my hat to the democrats, since they are the experts in fear. They have developed a tactic that divides people so they can create boogeymen to spook their side with compounding fear. They divide rich and poor, then tell the poor to fear the rich less they stick it too you. They divide black and white and teach their side they need to fear white or he will get you. They divide police and citizens and say the police are all out to get you, so fear the boogey man. Fear the Tea Party, since they are being paid by the Koch brothers. Fear the Republicans, less they take away rights and benefits. Fear the climate less the earth be destroyed. Fear the industrialists less he destroy nature. Fear the work place because it has hazards. Fear the males less they will form a glass ceiling and all the best jobs go to men.

This world of democratic and liberal fear induces emotional thinking centered on fear which dissociates the mind into diversity. The world appears to be relative, except that which is feared. Only the things that are feared become the absolutes, since these pillars hold the weight of the fear.

 

[Photizo]

Le us all fear those who would sell anything using fear as a sales tool.

Bingo.

 

[PhysBang]

So, the argument of the anti-GW nuts is that we should never do anything to protect ourselves from things that we should be afraid of.

Do you guys wear seat belts?

 

[Kristoffer]

So, the argument of the anti-GW nuts is that we should never do anything to protect ourselves from things that we should be afraid of.

Do you guys wear seat belts?

Can't recall who said something along the line of 'remove all warning labels and let the stupid die off naturally' or something to that effect, but I'm agreeing with it more and more.

 

[Trippy]

Climate change denial level: 'Murica.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html

 

[Photizo]

'Murica.

 

[Quantum Quack]

An interesting video just published about what the authors contend are the 6 major issues concerning climate change prediction and action.
It also suggests as I have been suggesting for ages that the Earth's situation is not in isolation to the rest of our solar system.
Take the video's message in any way you see fit...IMO it has some valid points but also some weak ones.

 

[Billy T]

... It also suggests as I have been suggesting for ages that the Earth's situation is not in isolation to the rest of our solar system. ...

Only someone very ignorant of physics would disagree or argue that gravitational events, not even in our galaxy, but thousands of light years away do drive Earth's Global Warming (as you have). Yes; The sun is by far the dominate factor in determining Earth's temperature.

On the video's #1, 2 & 3 (rest are basically just more of the same): The changes are not accurately predictable. That is true - to large extent local temperature records being set (both high temperate in Alaska greater by 40F in some cases than the old record and cold records in the US.) are caused by the predicted greater wander of the "polar vortex." It is of course only new cold records that the denier publicize.

After long discussion of "climate change" on all the planets, he shoots himlf in the foot with:

"No part of the solar system is changing as rapidly than the sun."

Man accurately measures that daily with satellites and changes as percent of solar output are very small and to large extent cyclic and mainly tied to the ~11 year sun spot cycle, which has been observed and recorded for >100 years.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Only someone very ignorant of physics would disagree or argue that gravitational events, not even in our galaxy, but thousands of light years away do drive Earth's Global Warming (as you have). Yes; The sun is by far the dominate factor in determining Earth's temperature.

You still consider events in isolation and I wonder why?
In case you haven't noticed the entire planet including humanity has experienced a significant increase in dynamics, not just weather.

You only have to look at recent human behaviors starting with the race riots outside London 2011 and onto West Africa and the Middle East and recent demonstrations there to see a pattern of increase dynamics with in humanity itself. ( the main issue is paranoia IMO)

Gosh, even our own normally conservative Governments here in Australia are going nuttso...


The insanity of the Ukraine war, the insanity of what is happening at Fukushima currently and so on...
There is ample evidence that all on this planet are suffering an increase in dynamic range, From extraordinary empathy to outright and extreme organized socio/psychopathy.

Also the increase in the brutality used in violent crime appears to have risen dramatically.

On the video's #1, 2 & 3 (rest are basically just more of the same): The changes are not accurately predictable. That is true - to large extent local temperature records being set (both high temperate in Alaska greater by 40F in some cases than the old record and cold records in the US.) are caused by the predicted greater wander of the "polar vortex." It is of course only new cold records that the denier publicize.

Yet you feel capable of predicting a planet that has only mice as it's inhabitants with in 100 years using a flawed data science to start with. Little wonder people are going nuts.

After long discussion of "climate change" on all the planets, he shoots himself in the foot with:

"No part of the solar system is changing as rapidly than the sun."

One of the best features about this video, I felt, was that he attempts to include other planets in this solar system in the climate change debate ( first time I have seen this published in context). Yes there is significant evidence to suggest that all planets, with an atmosphere, are undergoing change and rather dramatically. Yet you still seek only to treat planet Earth in some sort of heliocentric isolation.
Jupiter's recent changes are absolutely incredible and so to are Saturn... yet you refuse to consider the truth about the entangled reality of this universe, when YOUR OWN physics demands that this universe be entangled (inertia, gravity, universal constants, laws of physics etc)

Man accurately measures that daily with satellites and changes as percent of solar output are very small and to large extent cyclic and mainly tied to the ~11 year sun spot cycle, which has been observed and recorded for >100 years.

And now that man has only access to satellite data as it's only source of credible info, we are dependent upon the leadership and ethics of those controlling that data.

Basically whomever controls the satellites also controls the data.
Example: It is not the images and science that the Hubble Telescope Program publishes we need to be concerned about but the images and science that is not published.

As the video points out it is in the manipulation (deliberate or accidentally paranoia based) of the climate data, that makes the difference.

 

[Repo Man]

Vice just had a great segment about ice melting in the antarctic, and it went up in YouTube today.

 

[iceaura]

And now that man has only access to satellite data as it's only source of credible info

Say what?