6 ms·

The thing to think about, is how poorly developed, rural places, without ACs or stable grids, are much more likely to experience heat waves with universally fat

The thing to think about, is how poorly developed, rural places, without ACs or stable grids, are much more likely to experience heat waves with universally fatal wet-bulb temperatures. Places like parts of India or Bangladesh with high population densities, too. Further more, I think, we also need to consider how non-survivable conditions to humans, may play out for other animals we depend on. The cows, chicken, sheep and goats? All dead. But consider also the impact on ecosystems, when birds and predators may die in large quantities in a short time - these ecosystems may completely collapse. Great impact on food security in affected regions. Not to mention disease dynamics when pathogens experience body-like conditions outside the body, and all the decay and death around. I am not sure all plants would make it either, since they need evaporation of water from their leaves, too, to transport nutrients from the soil upwards - and with halted transport, may not be able to fight fungi and so on. Now, this threat may not come as a gradual trend, but may introduce itself as single (first) freak heat-wave killing hundred thousands of people all at once. A whole region may get the message their land is not habitable for humans anymore. Imagine the migration pressure as a consequence. I don't think a poor country could ever properly adapt to frequent non-survivable temperatures sustainably...

hackerlight 3y ago
[flagged]
- codebolt 3y ago
  Or the hysteria was overblown, and we instead sabotaged an opportunity for many of the people living near the equator to become more prosperous.
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    Easy gamble to make when you don't live in a country with regular 33'c temperatures at 60% humidity. And if your gamble turns out wrong will you compensate the victims? Will you advocate for borders to be opened up as they have to flee their countries?
    - masklinn 3y ago
      > Easy gamble to make when you don't live in a country with regular 33'c temperatures at 60% humidity. I’d call it short-sighted rather than easy, over the last pair of decades it’s become rather clear that temperate countries are suffering from worsening heatwaves (longer and with higher temperatures).
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - jijijijij 3y ago
    > an opportunity for many of the people living near the equator to become more prosperous Please tell us, what you have in mind. More economic growth?
    - varelse 3y ago
      Why the burgeoning economic development of full self-driving space needles! Sure, their former homes will be uninhabitable, but imagine how much they'll get selling the land? Why they'll be able to move to Antarctica if that's what it takes! I'm getting a tear in my eye right now over all that profit and shareholder value as we boldly evacuate the planet into the future!
      - thworp 3y ago
        I encourage you to take a crash course in Mooré, go to Burkina Faso and spread the word to the people. "You will not improve your cirumstances, any more prosperity will destroy the planet." I'm sure they will appreciate your wisdom, almost as much as Cubans appreciate their very eco-friendly economic circumstances. Good Luck.
        triceratops 3y ago
        Cubans are richer than the Burkinabe.
        thworp 3y ago
        I apologize for my parent comment, it was terrible. I just don't know how to respond to the the broad idea complex that we need less/no economic growth. The way I see it there are two ways it could go. Either the poor countries don't develop or we somehow transfer the economic resources from away from the countries that are currently rich. Non-development is cruel, redistribution is impossible politically and there is also a chance that the recipients go the way of South Africa.
        3y ago
- thworp 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - rapnie 3y ago
    It is text taken from a popular cartoon [0], with some stuff added by the OP. [0] https://ifunny.co/picture/yes-the-planet-got-destroyed-but-for-a-beautiful-moment-jTtugmip8?s=cl https://ifunny.co/picture/yes-the-planet-got-destroyed-but-f...
    - thworp 3y ago
      Oh god, there is another one of these further down the thread. I go to HN to escape the brainless quoters/referencers, let it stop please.
      - jajko 3y ago
        I go here to escape comments similar to yours, please stop too.
  - mempko 3y ago
    It's not that complex. We found a cheap source of carbon based energy. Growth based economics pushed us to use and exploit the source. This created a lot of pollution. And now the planet is getting a lot warmer. I think people say 'it's complex' to avoid talking about the obvious solution.
    - thworp 3y ago
      I'll assume the "obvious solution" is a cold-turkey (or over the next 10 years) complete or almost complete cessation of all CO2 emmissions. Where will the fertilizer come from? What happens to the parts supply chain and fuel sources of agricultural machines? How will we make concrete and steel in the quantities we need? How will we transport food across continents? In summary: How can we do that without a death toll of tens of millions? I mean we are slowly working on it, solar+storage is now just the most cost-efficient source of electricity. But anyone that thinks it is simple or obvious either doesn't inhabit the real world, or is a murderous psychopath.
huppeldepup 3y ago
The 2003 heatwave killed 70.000+ in Europe. But nobody seems to remember/know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heatwave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heatwave
- saalweachter 3y ago
  And also made European forests a net CO2 producer for the year, IIRC. Photosynthesis doesn't work well at high temperatures, so instead plants switch to respiration, burning their stored sugars for energy while taking in oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. Which, you know, is why plants produce those sugars in the first place, not to magnanimously produce oxygen/scrub CO2 for us. Heat-waves, with lots of days over 40C/100F, will also wreak havoc on our agriculture.
- cogman10 3y ago
  The issue there is a lot of homes throughout europe at the time had no air conditioning, just heaters. This included things like nursing homes. They were basically relying on the fact that historically above 90F (32C) temperatures were unheard of. Now it's so common that there's been a rush to install AC and heatpumps throughout. https://www.eurodev.com/blog/europe-hvac-market https://www.eurodev.com/blog/europe-hvac-market
  - tsss 3y ago
    They're pushing heatpumps out of some misplaced effort to reduce emissions, not to improve climate control in homes. Nobody I know in Germany has AC except commercial buildings and rich people. They couldn't afford to run it anyway with the highest electricity prices in the world.
  - throwaway392021 3y ago
    Most of the deaths happened in southern Europe, where temperatures above 32 °C are common in July and temperatures reaching 40 °C are not unheard of.
- richrichie 3y ago
  Extreme cold kills far more. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/07/19/excessive-summer-heat-can-kill-but-extreme-cold-causes-more-fatalities/?sh=590085951d88 https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/07/19/excessiv...
chasil 3y ago
As opposed to our current icehouse phase, plants have thrived during intense greenhouse periods of global climate. "Earth has been in a greenhouse state for about 85% of its history... Earth is now in an icehouse state, and ice sheets are present in both poles simultaneously." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Eart...
- ido 3y ago
  Did the livestock and cultivated plants we depend on for food exist during the greenhouse states? Did humans? There’s no doubt the earth and life will survive, but our civilization may see extreme turbulence (100s of millions of people dying). How much turbulence before our sophisticated society collapses? We don't know for sure but I rather not find out.
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    >100s of millions of people dying This seems optimistic to me. With the state of play of current politics across the globe, I think its going to be a ~billion once you tabulate second order effects. Already under current changing patterns of climate, there are areas of the world that if power simply went out for an extended period of time millions of people could die, and those areas are growing every year
- janice1999 3y ago
  Crops need water, stable climates and human intervention. Global heating is driving desertification, droughts and more extreme weather events.
- Qwertious 3y ago
  The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Over those billions of years, the sun has gotten ~40% hotter, which counteracted the reduced atmospheric greenhouse effect. We can't directly compare our current climate to billions of years ago with just atmospheric conditions. Also, I notice you said "plants have thrived", and not "major staple crops have thrived". Toxic algae bloom has its own sort of natural beauty I guess, but rice and wheat are both temperate crops and won't be able to grow near the equator if it gets much hotter. Please note that while hotter temps would warm up croplands near the poles, heat is not light and the tropics are so valuable for farming because they receive more light, not because they're hotter.

hackerlight 3y ago

[flagged]

codebolt 3y ago
Or the hysteria was overblown, and we instead sabotaged an opportunity for many of the people living near the equator to become more prosperous.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  Easy gamble to make when you don't live in a country with regular 33'c temperatures at 60% humidity. And if your gamble turns out wrong will you compensate the victims? Will you advocate for borders to be opened up as they have to flee their countries?
  - masklinn 3y ago
    > Easy gamble to make when you don't live in a country with regular 33'c temperatures at 60% humidity. I’d call it short-sighted rather than easy, over the last pair of decades it’s become rather clear that temperate countries are suffering from worsening heatwaves (longer and with higher temperatures).
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    [flagged]
- jijijijij 3y ago
  > an opportunity for many of the people living near the equator to become more prosperous Please tell us, what you have in mind. More economic growth?
  - varelse 3y ago
    Why the burgeoning economic development of full self-driving space needles! Sure, their former homes will be uninhabitable, but imagine how much they'll get selling the land? Why they'll be able to move to Antarctica if that's what it takes! I'm getting a tear in my eye right now over all that profit and shareholder value as we boldly evacuate the planet into the future!
    - thworp 3y ago
      I encourage you to take a crash course in Mooré, go to Burkina Faso and spread the word to the people. "You will not improve your cirumstances, any more prosperity will destroy the planet." I'm sure they will appreciate your wisdom, almost as much as Cubans appreciate their very eco-friendly economic circumstances. Good Luck.
      - triceratops 3y ago
        Cubans are richer than the Burkinabe.
        thworp 3y ago
        I apologize for my parent comment, it was terrible. I just don't know how to respond to the the broad idea complex that we need less/no economic growth. The way I see it there are two ways it could go. Either the poor countries don't develop or we somehow transfer the economic resources from away from the countries that are currently rich. Non-development is cruel, redistribution is impossible politically and there is also a chance that the recipients go the way of South Africa.
        3y ago
thworp 3y ago
[flagged]
- rapnie 3y ago
  It is text taken from a popular cartoon [0], with some stuff added by the OP. [0] https://ifunny.co/picture/yes-the-planet-got-destroyed-but-for-a-beautiful-moment-jTtugmip8?s=cl https://ifunny.co/picture/yes-the-planet-got-destroyed-but-f...
  - thworp 3y ago
    Oh god, there is another one of these further down the thread. I go to HN to escape the brainless quoters/referencers, let it stop please.
    - jajko 3y ago
      I go here to escape comments similar to yours, please stop too.
- mempko 3y ago
  It's not that complex. We found a cheap source of carbon based energy. Growth based economics pushed us to use and exploit the source. This created a lot of pollution. And now the planet is getting a lot warmer. I think people say 'it's complex' to avoid talking about the obvious solution.
  - thworp 3y ago
    I'll assume the "obvious solution" is a cold-turkey (or over the next 10 years) complete or almost complete cessation of all CO2 emmissions. Where will the fertilizer come from? What happens to the parts supply chain and fuel sources of agricultural machines? How will we make concrete and steel in the quantities we need? How will we transport food across continents? In summary: How can we do that without a death toll of tens of millions? I mean we are slowly working on it, solar+storage is now just the most cost-efficient source of electricity. But anyone that thinks it is simple or obvious either doesn't inhabit the real world, or is a murderous psychopath.

huppeldepup 3y ago

The 2003 heatwave killed 70.000+ in Europe. But nobody seems to remember/know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heatwave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heatwave

saalweachter 3y ago
And also made European forests a net CO2 producer for the year, IIRC. Photosynthesis doesn't work well at high temperatures, so instead plants switch to respiration, burning their stored sugars for energy while taking in oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. Which, you know, is why plants produce those sugars in the first place, not to magnanimously produce oxygen/scrub CO2 for us. Heat-waves, with lots of days over 40C/100F, will also wreak havoc on our agriculture.
cogman10 3y ago
The issue there is a lot of homes throughout europe at the time had no air conditioning, just heaters. This included things like nursing homes. They were basically relying on the fact that historically above 90F (32C) temperatures were unheard of. Now it's so common that there's been a rush to install AC and heatpumps throughout. https://www.eurodev.com/blog/europe-hvac-market https://www.eurodev.com/blog/europe-hvac-market
- tsss 3y ago
  They're pushing heatpumps out of some misplaced effort to reduce emissions, not to improve climate control in homes. Nobody I know in Germany has AC except commercial buildings and rich people. They couldn't afford to run it anyway with the highest electricity prices in the world.
- throwaway392021 3y ago
  Most of the deaths happened in southern Europe, where temperatures above 32 °C are common in July and temperatures reaching 40 °C are not unheard of.
richrichie 3y ago
Extreme cold kills far more. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/07/19/excessive-summer-heat-can-kill-but-extreme-cold-causes-more-fatalities/?sh=590085951d88 https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/07/19/excessiv...

chasil 3y ago

As opposed to our current icehouse phase, plants have thrived during intense greenhouse periods of global climate. "Earth has been in a greenhouse state for about 85% of its history... Earth is now in an icehouse state, and ice sheets are present in both poles simultaneously." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Eart...

ido 3y ago
Did the livestock and cultivated plants we depend on for food exist during the greenhouse states? Did humans? There’s no doubt the earth and life will survive, but our civilization may see extreme turbulence (100s of millions of people dying). How much turbulence before our sophisticated society collapses? We don't know for sure but I rather not find out.
- no_wizard 3y ago
  >100s of millions of people dying This seems optimistic to me. With the state of play of current politics across the globe, I think its going to be a ~billion once you tabulate second order effects. Already under current changing patterns of climate, there are areas of the world that if power simply went out for an extended period of time millions of people could die, and those areas are growing every year
janice1999 3y ago
Crops need water, stable climates and human intervention. Global heating is driving desertification, droughts and more extreme weather events.
Qwertious 3y ago
The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Over those billions of years, the sun has gotten ~40% hotter, which counteracted the reduced atmospheric greenhouse effect. We can't directly compare our current climate to billions of years ago with just atmospheric conditions. Also, I notice you said "plants have thrived", and not "major staple crops have thrived". Toxic algae bloom has its own sort of natural beauty I guess, but rice and wheat are both temperate crops and won't be able to grow near the equator if it gets much hotter. Please note that while hotter temps would warm up croplands near the poles, heat is not light and the tropics are so valuable for farming because they receive more light, not because they're hotter.