Deaths from climate change

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I know the success stories; I also know the other side. One that's going awfully wrong atm, is this one:

https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/05/birmingham_city_council_oracle/
Oh, and why is the US govt selling the Helium system, incl. it's contents?

https://disposal.gsa.gov/s/property...stem-and-800-million-cubic-ft-of-crude-helium
That looks like more evidence for procurement reform.

Sadly I was involved in a major ERP software upgrade cycle back a couple decades ago and still have the scars. As I recall I was one of only two people on the entire executive committee in charge of managing the transition who voted against the software vendor that they went with. I had managed to mostly scrub this unpleasantness from my memory thanks (not) for dredging it back up. There were a lot of bad decisions made back then fearful about of a year 2000 computer crash. Now the merchants of change are using different fear invoking bogeymen.

A question I asked more than once was it possible to patch our existing ERP system for the inadequate date field. It was possible, but I was outvoted for the promise of new shiny software that would require a major behavior adjustment in hundreds of employees. Not easy to forget and replace an archaic business culture that was less than best practices :rolleyes: . If anything it was like trying to force square pegs into round holes.

JR
 
Some basic climate science.

The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data

And here is the abstract:

"

Abstract​

A statistical analysis was applied to Northern Hemisphere land surface temperatures (1850–2018) to try to identify the main drivers of the observed warming since the mid-19th century. Two different temperature estimates were considered—a rural and urban blend (that matches almost exactly with most current estimates) and a rural-only estimate. The rural and urban blend indicates a long-term warming of 0.89 °C/century since 1850, while the rural-only indicates 0.55 °C/century. This contradicts a common assumption that current thermometer-based global temperature indices are relatively unaffected by urban warming biases. Three main climatic drivers were considered, following the approaches adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s recent 6th Assessment Report (AR6): two natural forcings (solar and volcanic) and the composite “all anthropogenic forcings combined” time series recommended by IPCC AR6. The volcanic time series was that recommended by IPCC AR6. Two alternative solar forcing datasets were contrasted. One was the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) time series that was recommended by IPCC AR6. The other TSI time series was apparently overlooked by IPCC AR6. It was found that altering the temperature estimate and/or the choice of solar forcing dataset resulted in very different conclusions as to the primary drivers of the observed warming. Our analysis focused on the Northern Hemispheric land component of global surface temperatures since this is the most data-rich component. It reveals that important challenges remain for the broader detection and attribution problem of global warming: (1) urbanization bias remains a substantial problem for the global land temperature data; (2) it is still unclear which (if any) of the many TSI time series in the literature are accurate estimates of past TSI; (3) the scientific community is not yet in a position to confidently establish whether the warming since 1850 is mostly human-caused, mostly natural, or some combination. Suggestions for how these scientific challenges might be resolved are offered.
"

Cheers

Ian
 
Last edited:
This morning I read the next chapter in Lomborg's book. This chapter is about "nutrition" and he posits that childhood nutrition is most important from conception through the first 1,000 days. Vitamin supplementation is relatively inexpensive compared to the benefit.

Stunted growth is a visible symptom of this nutritional deficiency, pretty much non-existent in the wealthy western world while still a serious problem in the poverty afflicted world. The benefit from healthier pregnancies, and improved childhood growth and mental development pays huge dividends over their lifetimes. The cost/benefit for this one is calculated to deliver a 14x payback.

Some of this stuff sounds too good to be true, but even if it only pays back half that rate, it seems far smarted than the tilting at climate change windmills spending billions/trillions of dollars. Of course we are wealthy enough to do both, but I wouldn't want to give Lomborg's short list short shrift.

JR
 
The government at work again with early tax credits create a situation where the blades are rebuilt to ge more credits from government. Article says another 2 decades of life are left in the blades but the money runs out in 10 year so tear them down and build new ones to recapture Gov funds. This is the inflation reduction act at work.
 
I'm shocked... (not) .

I just saw an article about new company IPOs raising money to form EV battery recycling companies.... also to get a lip lock on the inflation reduction act huge government teat.

JR
 
It is important to note that not only is fiberglass difficult (possibly not viable) to recycle, epoxy resins used to manufacture it are petroleum derivatives. So it's even more "green." Same goes for carbon fiber. TANSTAAFL.
 
Finished another chapter from Loborg's book.... This chapter was about chronic diseases not as large and obvious payback's as other chapters but there was still some remarkable payback examples. Apparently taxing cigarettes to discourage consumption delivers a 100x payback. Of course smoking is already down in a lot of the west. I seem to recall EU countries continuing to smoke after the US had already slowed.

I have strong opinions about smoking, I lost both an older brother and younger sister to cancer (RIP), both were heavy smokers. It was sad to hear my sister offer me advice about diet etc, after she was already on her way out. She ignored my advice for decades, but that is how siblings relate, or don't.

[TMI warning]
I was lucky to have a mean uncle who let me OD on nasty cigarette butts. As a young puke, momma sent me and my sister to spend a summer on the family farm she grew up on. We rode a Greyhound bus from NJ to NC a relatively safe way to travel back then. I bought a small (toy) corn cob pipe in the bus terminal knick knack shop. My mean spirited uncle watched me fill up the pipe with tobacco I harvested from old butts in his ashtrays. Then he cheerfully gave me a light. As expected I turned a new shade of green, and hugged the throne in the bathroom puking up my guts. While my uncle got a good chuckle out of my discomfort, I learned a powerful life lesson. In addition my dad a pipe and lucky strike smoker also died with throat cancer back in the 1950s, so I got to watch him slowly die at home.

I can't explain how my sister and brother could ignore our shared life experience.
[/TMI]
Another correlation with cancer is obesity, while Lomborg does not make this connection but I am optimistic that the success of GLP 1 agonists that are showing so much success at helping Hollywood actors lose weight, might eventually help reduce rampant obesity. This weight loss would have wide ranging health benefits, but for now the drug industry (Lilly and Novo Nordisk) need to make their $Ts first.

These drugs are already showing great promise to combat type II diabetes caused by obesity and lack of exercise, but weight loss will help reduce heart disease, and numerous other systemic issues (including cancer) exacerbated by being overweight.

JR
 
Last edited:
Funny. Don't change. Just add another pill. That'll fix everything.

The sad part is that you obviously can't see how absurd this is. The only way to stay healthy is eating and living healthy. No HFC, no artificial sweeteners, no "light" products. Etc. etc.
 
Funny. Don't change. Just add another pill. That'll fix everything.
I have been struggling with my weight since I was a teenager.... I have also paid some attention to the science.

A good book about human appetite is "The Psychology of Eating & Drinking" by AW Logue. c.1986. Read the book, then we can discuss. 🤔
The sad part is that you obviously can't see how absurd this is.
? I will not share my first thoughts in response because they were not civil.
The only way to stay healthy is eating and living healthy.
It is the best way but not the only way.

The impact of hormones (like gut peptides) on appetite has long been studied.
No HFC, no artificial sweeteners, no "light" products. Etc. etc.
Read my mind... :mad:

The human digestion system is actually smart enough to not be fooled by artificial sweeteners but they don't hurt to make low calorie food more palatable. I have been using Sucralose as a non-nutritive sweetener for years (decades) to make some good tasting zero calorie lemonade and to punch up my Kefir (fermented milk) with frozen fruit blended in.
====

This is an old story but our ancient ancestors who ate as much as they could when food was plentiful, survived to reproduce when food was scarce, thus passing along their hungry genes. Today as the world's wealth is constantly improving our evolutionary programming keeps us hungry and the vast majority overweight.

I am not obese but could easily get there if I relaxed my dietary discipline. Back before my knee abandoned me, I jogged 15 miles a week to support my eating and drinking habit. I miss those calories. ;)

JR

PS; For chuckles I like to check out actors in futuristic sci-fi movies. Very rarely do we ever see overweight normal characters. Of course villians are occasionally morbidly obese for impact. I am not bold enough to predict the future but I see obesity as ultimately manageable, and all the associated maladies will not be missed by anybody.
 
I think I've read that book, but it doesn't ring a bell. I've written for nearly 30 years about food and health and the connection between them. That certainly doesn't mean I know it all.

The most important thing that I learned, was not to trust dietitians, the industry and anything the media produced about healthy food.

The biggest threat to your health, food-wise, isn't salt, fat or anything you'd naturally find in that food, unless you have already some ailment or disease.

The biggest threat is the industry itself.

An example I like to use, is Heinz Ketchup. At one moment in time, it was an exemplary product. In some ways, it still is. It was exemplary because there were no food additions at all. These days, I fear in most ketchup variations there's added sugar. In most there are stabilisers or other unwanted chemicals added. Not that these make Heinz products into something to avoid, but it isn't progress either.

On the other side of the scale, there are numerous wannabe ketchup makers who'd throw anything into that sauce if it stands a chance of improving profits.

You mention Sucralose. Are you aware it can be detrimental to your gut bacteria?

Your gut bacteria are the center of your health. They are responsible for your vitamin intake and regulate your happiness and health. And this is different for most folks. While one can eat most anything and still won't get fat, most westerners need to take care because their gut flora is poor. The average African will have between 5 and 10 thousand species in their gut, most westerners only have a few thousand at best.

A popular concept is that we live too cleanly. That's only partially true. The main reason our gut biology is poor, is because of unknown, unwanted effects of food additions. The science behind that mechanism is only recently being discovered.

If you have healthy gut flora, you can eat almost anything and you won't get obese. That's because these bacteria also regulate your appetite and probably even your likings.

I also don't think looking at what mankind ate thousands of years ago is the ideal reference. After all, humankind almost vanished in the past.
 
I think I've read that book, but it doesn't ring a bell. I've written for nearly 30 years about food and health and the connection between them. That certainly doesn't mean I know it all.
I used to write a column for a Peavey in-house publication about health last century... At least once I got pushback from the company nurse because I pointed out some good effects from consuming alcohol (like increased HDL), I was not very PC but mostly shared health/nutrition news items of interest.
The most important thing that I learned, was not to trust dietitians, the industry and anything the media produced about healthy food.
What? don't trust the science? :rolleyes: For a chuckle look at the food pyramid (thanks Sweden).;)
The biggest threat to your health, food-wise, isn't salt, fat or anything you'd naturally find in that food, unless you have already some ailment or disease.

The biggest threat is the industry itself.
1- first threat is not enough
2-next threat is too much

An example I like to use, is Heinz Ketchup. At one moment in time, it was an exemplary product. In some ways, it still is. It was exemplary because there were no food additions at all. These days, I fear in most ketchup variations there's added sugar. In most there are stabilisers or other unwanted chemicals added. Not that these make Heinz products into something to avoid, but it isn't progress either.

On the other side of the scale, there are numerous wannabe ketchup makers who'd throw anything into that sauce if it stands a chance of improving profits.
Like sugar? I have been cooking since I was a teen (mom had a full time job so we kids took turns cooking the evening meal). The government has done one thing right with label regulations forcing the food industry to list ingredients. I used to buy commercial tomato sauce as a base to cook with until I studied the label.🤔 Of course we need to be alert to games they play with serving size etc...
You mention Sucralose. Are you aware it can be detrimental to your gut bacteria?
So far my gut biome seems to tolerate it well but I do not consume very much. Sucralose is 600x sweeter than sugar. I was a big fan of cyclamates, banned in 1969 because of the Delaney amendment that bans any food that is found to cause cancer. I don't recall the details but I think the experiment that banned cyclamates used a dose big enough to choke an elephant. Later in the 70s they tried to ban saccharin that is actually more carcinogenic than cyclamates but the public pushed back. Another factor that does not appear in this zero cancer risk calculation is that being overweight promotes cancer (doesn't literally cause it, but energy surplus promotes cancer growth).


Your gut bacteria are the center of your health. They are responsible for your vitamin intake and regulate your happiness and health. And this is different for most folks. While one can eat most anything and still won't get fat, most westerners need to take care because their gut flora is poor. The average African will have between 5 and 10 thousand species in their gut, most westerners only have a few thousand at best.
when I was a kid I'm told that I ate dirt.... I bet my gut flora was pretty diverse back then. 🤔

I get a kick out of all these TV commercials for fruit and vegetable pills/capsules...and the truly remarkable claims they make for eating them

I expect that everything we eat (and drink) affects our gut biome, and they are constantly in competition with each other. I will occasionally snack on a clove of raw garlic that I expect favors some and distresses others. I also eat Kefir (fermented milk) that I suspect similar to yogurt, is considered good gut food.
A popular concept is that we live too cleanly. That's only partially true. The main reason our gut biology is poor, is because of unknown, unwanted effects of food additions. The science behind that mechanism is only recently being discovered.
Processed food (crap) is engineered to make us eat more, duh its a business. Salt content is high because apparently humans (and deer) like salt. Since I don't eat any processed foods (I cook everything I eat from scratch), during hot summer months like now if I sweat a lot, I sometimes find myself salt deficient. It starts with cramps in my small fingers but if untreated I can get painful cramps in larger leg muscles later that night... A few grams of table salt in a glass of water usually squares me away. Oddly when I'm salt deficient the salt doesn't taste as salty as normal, but I guess that is just my body trying to get more of something it needs.

Talking about salt... In the Lomborg book talking about addressing chronic health problems he mentioned that the UK has legislated a reduction in salt content in processed foods and they smartly tapered it down over several years so the public didn't notice a huge difference all at once.
If you have healthy gut flora, you can eat almost anything and you won't get obese. That's because these bacteria also regulate your appetite and probably even your likings.
I expect my gut flora is average (or better), and I am not obese, but i could easily be if I ate ad libitum. About 50 years ago I weighed 35# more than I do now. For pretty much my entire adult life I have had to manage my weight by controlling my energy balance (eating less and exercising more). Since my knee went arthritic several years ago and I stopped jogging my 15 miles a week, that's over 1,000 kCal :cry: I can no longer eat/drink.

If you have a secret mix of gut flora that allows people to eat all they want without getting fat, put it in a capsule and sell it. You would surely get rich, if such a thing actually worked. 🤔 You could get that company that sells fruit and vegetable capsules to market it for you.:rolleyes:
I also don't think looking at what mankind ate thousands of years ago is the ideal reference.
It informs us about the diet our ancestors evolved while consuming. Some (paleo diet crazies) take this too far. We are omnivores so can eat pretty much anything, and do.
After all, humankind almost vanished in the past.
Those that perished during lean times did not pass along their genome, it was our well fed ancestors that passed down their healthy appetites.

JR
 
there are some interesting studies recently that suggest that the body actually puts fat on the liver in response to triggering of the sweet receptor (same as in your mouth) so artificial sweeteners don't actually help with NAFLD. Neither does calorie reduction necessarily. You literally have to eat fewer things that taste sweet. period.
 
there are some interesting studies recently that suggest that the body actually puts fat on the liver in response to triggering of the sweet receptor (same as in your mouth) so artificial sweeteners don't actually help with NAFLD. Neither does calorie reduction necessarily. You literally have to eat fewer things that taste sweet. period.
I had to search NAFLD (metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease). Not only am I not up on the latest research, I am not up on the latest jargon.

I don't remember if it was in the Logue book but there was some old experimental research done using dogs where they literally disrupted the food flow between a dogs mouth and stomach, so they would "think" that they ate food that their stomach never received. IIRC this research was focussed on energy balance and insulation resistance (metabolic syndrome) but my recollection was that the body responded longer term to actual energy intake, so it could be fooled in the short term but not longer term.
===
BTW our evolutionary reward for desiring to eat sweets was getting vitamins from fruits.

JR
 
Mankind developed agriculture some 12 to 15000 years ago. Our brain grew faster in size than in any other period. The cause is that we started to grow wheat and other grains and these are a source of starch, which converts fast to sugar. And wheat could be stored for long periods, avoiding famine.

That happened again in the 17th and 18th century when sugar became available to most people. Before, sugar was too expensive and only available to pharmacists and rich people. This might have lead us to the industrial revolution.

The only organ in our body that runs on sugar is our brain.
 
Mankind developed agriculture some 12 to 15000 years ago. Our brain grew faster in size than in any other period. The cause is that we started to grow wheat and other grains and these are a source of starch, which converts fast to sugar. And wheat could be stored for long periods, avoiding famine.
Or is it that agriculture enabled a more stable food supply. It is well established that malnutrition during pregnancy and in early childhood retard brain development (which cannot be "made up for" later in life). The hunter-gatherer lifestyle is anything but stable w.r.t. dietary intake.

It is also well known that stress during pregnancy affects brain development of the baby. Agricultural society, while difficult, is a lot lower stress than nomadic hunter-gatherers had.

Early agriculture was not just wheat/starch. Beans, berries, tubers, and other plants were also grown which provided nutritional benefit.

That happened again in the 17th and 18th century when sugar became available to most people. Before, sugar was too expensive and only available to pharmacists and rich people. This might have lead us to the industrial revolution.
What happened again? Brain development? The elightenment? Because of cane sugar? LOL. Why not tobacco or chocolate? Or potatoes? All of these new world plants became more commonly used around the same period. <sarcasm>

The only organ in our body that runs on sugar is our brain.
All of our cells run on glucose when it's available and other metabolic pathways when it isn't.

https://hms.harvard.edu/news-events/publications-archive/brain/sugar-brain
https://theconversation.com/your-brain-on-sugar-what-the-science-actually-says-126581
 

Latest posts

Back
Top