4 ms·

Yeah, delusional. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS254

Yeah, delusional. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5... > 8·52% were cold-related and 0·91% were heat-related [...] Eastern Europe had the highest heat-related excess death rate and Sub-Saharan Africa had the highest cold-related excess death rate. Or look here and show me the disasters we're likely to have: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ Cause a see a bunch of "not good", but I somehow fail to see any "billions will die". Or is that not an official enough source for you? But yeah, it's easy to say "delusional" and drop a bunch of scary words without context. Drought is the thing farmers deal with every few years for literally over 10 millennia. Fires? Extreme weather? yeah, we have that, daily. Without putting some numbers on that it's just fearmongering. But putting numbers makes your position vulnerable - because on one hand global warming does have some good effects, and also wealth and tech more than compensate the ill-effects. For example you may find numbers on extreme weather increasing - but if you look at people affected by it, it's steadily going down. Not exactly the picture you're trying to paint with the scary words.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tsimionescu 4y ago
> https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ You're linking the 1.5 degrees warming report, which is already known to be an impossible target, the warming we'll reach if we stop carbon emissions completely by 2050; 2 degrees is the new target. We are nowhere near to being on track for such a goal, so you should actually look at the 3+ degrees predictions. I should admit that I was somewhat wrong to bring up droughts - the report is much more concerned with flooding. I also forgot one of the most catastrophic predictions - the melting of the polar ice caps and resulting ocean level increase - but I suppose that's also a net positive in your book, somehow. Regarding the increased frequency of extreme weather, the reports are again very clear [0]: > It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes (including cold waves) have become less frequent and less severe, with high confidence that human-induced climate change is the main driver14 of these changes. Some recent hot extremes observed over the past decade would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system. Marine heatwaves have approximately doubled in frequency since the 1980s (high confidence), and human influence has very likely contributed to most of them since at least 2006. > It is likely that the global proportion of major (Category 3–5) tropical cyclone occurrence has increased over the last four decades, and it is very likely that the latitude where tropical cyclones in the western North Pacific reach their peak intensity has shifted northward; these changes cannot be explained by internal variability alone (medium confidence). > Human influence has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events18 since the 1950s. This includes increases in the frequency of concurrent heatwaves and droughts on the global scale (high confidence), fire weather in some regions of all inhabited continents (medium confidence), and compound flooding in some locations (medium confidence). [0] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...
- radu_floricica 4y ago
  I personally dislike replies like "you didn't even read my comment" because, let's be honest, I don't always read very carefully the comments I'm replying to. But I do have to quote my comment above :) > But putting numbers makes your position vulnerable - because on one hand global warming does have some good effects, and also wealth and tech more than compensate the ill-effects. For example you may find numbers on extreme weather increasing - but if you look at people affected by it, it's steadily going down. I really doubt you can find numbers of people suffering more than 20 years ago. You might be tempted to say that it isn't fair, that the developing countries are a lot less poor now - a lot less starving children in Africa, China is middle class and so on. Which is exactly the point - industrialization is more than compensating for anthropogenic changes, and it keeps doing that at an accelerated rate. I don't think raising ocean level is a good thing, but I do have to point out that Netherlands is dealing with sea level a lot better than West Africa would - and in another 50 years West Africa should be where Netherlands is now. Anyways, I'm not against limiting climate change. I am very much against knee-jerk reactions like the OP, because they do real harm. Post-Covid Europe went ahead and pushed climate legislation, ignoring the pandemic and the economic crisis that was already peeking from around the corner. They cut a lot of slack from the system, and the next shock sent energy prices and inflation soaring. A more informed and balanced policy would have prevented that. But comments that call an opposing view as "delusional" aren't really helping on the informed and balanced front.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tsimionescu 4y ago

> https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ You're linking the 1.5 degrees warming report, which is already known to be an impossible target, the warming we'll reach if we stop carbon emissions completely by 2050; 2 degrees is the new target. We are nowhere near to being on track for such a goal, so you should actually look at the 3+ degrees predictions. I should admit that I was somewhat wrong to bring up droughts - the report is much more concerned with flooding. I also forgot one of the most catastrophic predictions - the melting of the polar ice caps and resulting ocean level increase - but I suppose that's also a net positive in your book, somehow. Regarding the increased frequency of extreme weather, the reports are again very clear [0]: > It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s, while cold extremes (including cold waves) have become less frequent and less severe, with high confidence that human-induced climate change is the main driver14 of these changes. Some recent hot extremes observed over the past decade would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system. Marine heatwaves have approximately doubled in frequency since the 1980s (high confidence), and human influence has very likely contributed to most of them since at least 2006. > It is likely that the global proportion of major (Category 3–5) tropical cyclone occurrence has increased over the last four decades, and it is very likely that the latitude where tropical cyclones in the western North Pacific reach their peak intensity has shifted northward; these changes cannot be explained by internal variability alone (medium confidence). > Human influence has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events18 since the 1950s. This includes increases in the frequency of concurrent heatwaves and droughts on the global scale (high confidence), fire weather in some regions of all inhabited continents (medium confidence), and compound flooding in some locations (medium confidence). [0] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...

radu_floricica 4y ago
I personally dislike replies like "you didn't even read my comment" because, let's be honest, I don't always read very carefully the comments I'm replying to. But I do have to quote my comment above :) > But putting numbers makes your position vulnerable - because on one hand global warming does have some good effects, and also wealth and tech more than compensate the ill-effects. For example you may find numbers on extreme weather increasing - but if you look at people affected by it, it's steadily going down. I really doubt you can find numbers of people suffering more than 20 years ago. You might be tempted to say that it isn't fair, that the developing countries are a lot less poor now - a lot less starving children in Africa, China is middle class and so on. Which is exactly the point - industrialization is more than compensating for anthropogenic changes, and it keeps doing that at an accelerated rate. I don't think raising ocean level is a good thing, but I do have to point out that Netherlands is dealing with sea level a lot better than West Africa would - and in another 50 years West Africa should be where Netherlands is now. Anyways, I'm not against limiting climate change. I am very much against knee-jerk reactions like the OP, because they do real harm. Post-Covid Europe went ahead and pushed climate legislation, ignoring the pandemic and the economic crisis that was already peeking from around the corner. They cut a lot of slack from the system, and the next shock sent energy prices and inflation soaring. A more informed and balanced policy would have prevented that. But comments that call an opposing view as "delusional" aren't really helping on the informed and balanced front.