Deaths from climate change

[cyrano]

The real issues is what is the sensible response to this hypothetical threat.

My sense is that the anti-fossil fuel policy does more harm to more people than any climate change. The world can use that wasted wealth to adapt as needed.

We can't tell exactly how much influence emissions reductions will have and how long that is going to take.

What we can tell, is that without any measures, we'll be in deep trouble soon. We don't know if "soon" means in twenty years, or in two centuries, but it will happen. You can see that from history.

So the choice isn't about economy. It is about survival. We (as in you and me) will be dead by then, which is why the youngsters are mad. They might still be alive and if not, their children will be...

The thing that makes it uncertain for some is that we also don't know if the measures we can take, will avoid disaster. It could be to little, too late.

So, how do you wanna gamble with humanity's future?

 

[ruffrecords]

We can't tell exactly how much influence emissions reductions will have and how long that is going to take.

We can't even tell if it is necessary.

Cheers

Ian

 

[cyrano]

We can't even tell if it is necessary.

I think we can, Ian. How many people have died already because of elevated temperatures?

Of course, there are some, like a friend of mine who's a biologist, who wouldn't blink an eye if humankind disappeared from this planet. The cockroaches and ants will survive. Some other species too. That's enough for him...

 

[JohnRoberts]

I think we can, Ian. How many people have died already because of elevated temperatures?

The researchers looked at inpatient and outpatient heat- and cold-related injuries that required a hospital visit in Illinois between 2011 and 2018. They identified 23,834 cold-related cases and 24,233 heat-related cases. Among these patients, there were 1,935 cold-related deaths and 70 heat-related deaths.

Cold-weather accounts for almost all temperature-related deaths

Of course, there are some, like a friend of mine who's a biologist, who wouldn't blink an eye if humankind disappeared from this planet.

Where does he plan to be?

The cockroaches and ants will survive. Some other species too. That's enough for him...

Sweet...

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

I think we can, Ian. How many people have died already because of elevated temperatures?

Hardly any compared to other causes of death we might spend effort in mitigating.

Cheers

Ian

 

[cyrano]

Hardly any?

Tens of thousands in China and India. Even over here, where AC was hastily added to the old folks nursery homes, it's in the hundreds. Of course, Corona helped a bit, but those cases are easy to subtract in the stats.

Unless, of course, you estimate these older people had to die anyways. That's surely a possibility. But do we need to lessen our efforts to keep the elderly alive?

 

[ruffrecords]

Hardly any?

Please refrain from quoting me out of context. You know perfectly well what I meant since I stated it quite clearly.

So you understand, I will say it again "Hardly any compared to other causes of death we might spend effort in mitigating."

From the UK Office of Statistics:

The leading cause of death in the UK in 2018 was dementia and Alzheimer disease, accounting for 12.7% of all deaths registered.

In 2008, the leading cause of death for females aged 50 to 64 years changed from malignant neoplasm of breast to malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung, which accounted for 10.1% of deaths for this age group in 2018.

From 2001 to 2018, suicide and injury or poisoning of undetermined intent was the leading cause of death for both males and females aged 20 to 34 years in the UK, for all years observed, accounting for 27.1% of male deaths and 16.7% of female deaths for this age group.

So rather than bankrupt the economy on pointless net zero ambitions, we should spend the money fighting Alzheimer's, breast cancer and suicide.

Cheers

Ian

 

[cyrano]

I hear ya!

I don't trust these stats, though. Dementia and Alzheimer don't kill. I know a bit about Alzheimer, since my father has Alzheimer. It can kill, indirectly. If the patient forgets to eat, or take medicine he needs for other diseases. Given correct care, Alzheimer patients get very old.

There's a recent study that states that Viagra can avoid getting Alzheimer by getting more blood to the brain. I don't think any treatment can cure Alzheimer once it's settled in. Big pharma seems to think so too. The brain still is an area that's problematic if you want to get medicine in there.

A recent study about deaths due to heat:

The analysis, published in Nature Medicine, estimates 61,672 heat-attributable deaths between 30 May and 4 September 2022. The research team obtained temperature and mortality data for the period 2015-2022 for 823 regions in 35 European countries, whose total population represents more than 543 million people.

That's one summer in Europe.

Global:

Over two million deaths and $4.3 trillion in economic losses; that's the impact of a half-century of extreme weather events turbo-charged by man-made global warming, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Monday.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I hear ya!

I don't trust these stats, though. Dementia and Alzheimer don't kill. I know a bit about Alzheimer, since my father has Alzheimer. It can kill, indirectly. If the patient forgets to eat, or take medicine he needs for other diseases. Given correct care, Alzheimer patients get very old.

No, the brain damage continues and does eventually cause death as autonomic functions controlled by the brain are affected. 8-10 years from diagnosis is typical life expectancy. Sorry about your father. My mother has it and it got my grandfather in 2006.

There's a recent study that states that Viagra can avoid getting Alzheimer by getting more blood to the brain. I don't think any treatment can cure Alzheimer once it's settled in. Big pharma seems to think so too.

The problem has been that for the last couple of decades nearly all AD research has been focused on reducing or removing amyloid beta plaques. Recently the Stanford research that started that whole line of inquiry was called into question when falsified data were found. Finally some other avenues are being examined, but anything they might discover will be too late to help my mother or your father.

The brain still is an area that's problematic if you want to get medicine in there.

Definitely a complication for treatment.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The blood brain barrier is generally a good thing...

JR

 

[cyrano]

I'm an observer. Sometimes, all you have is a hunch, a feeling. You can't enumerate it, but you think you know...

My observations lead me to the conclusion that the world is changing, fast. The weather has changed. The soil is dryer. Storms are more frequent and more violent than before.

Obviously, my own observations are too short to draw conclusions about climate. Still, I can't shed the feeling that we need to do something to protect future generations. Other's observations point in the same direction.

I also see that the entire discussion about climate change is between young and old. Between caring and careless. Between educated and those who fear knowledge. And also between parents and childless. When I analyse the arguments used, those who deny seem to have none. They only resist change.

I know that a negative is way harder to prove than a positive. But still, that doesn't ease the feeling.

However, when I hear arguments from the deniers, more often than not, they play at the personal level. The case of Greta Thunberg is a clear example. Ridicule isn't an argument. It's proof that those who deny lack arguments. They don't have any comprehension why younger people are mad. And why some have lost hope. It's not that I agree with the "get rid of oil now" protesters, or with those who attack art in musea. But I understand why they are outraged.

It seems the last generation is causing a change in the workspace. They no longer want to work 60+ hours per week. They don't want some jobs. They don't even want a car. Go figure. They want a life. Can you blame them? The only ones who really benefit from the 60+ hours workweek, are the 1%. The capitalists.

Change is natural. If you stop evolution, revolution will take over.

NASA is thinking about a plan to deflect asteroids. We might need that. Yet, the chance we are hit by an asteroid is far smaller than the chance the earth is warming up. Nobody's protesting NASA's plan.

I am unable to understand why the deniers are blind. And deaf. And, maddening, ridiculing others.

I've had one discussion now at least hundreds of times: when you take the time to talk to others about the world, about nature, about the weather, they seem to have remarked it too. Only, they're so busy with other things, it's not a point to them. Let alone that they would raise their voice. They have lost their trust in our leaders, why protest? So they go solo. Sometimes they even don't care about family. And sometimes they don't have friends...

Are we all turning into individualists? No compassion. No solidarity. Just lonely bitter old people?

 

[fallout]

Are we all turning into individualists? No compassion. No solidarity. Just lonely bitter old people?

No, I think most people are more concerned with things that really matter.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I'm an observer. Sometimes, all you have is a hunch, a feeling. You can't enumerate it, but you think you know...

My observations lead me to the conclusion that the world is changing, fast. The weather has changed. The soil is dryer. Storms are more frequent and more violent than before.

Obviously, my own observations are too short to draw conclusions about climate. Still, I can't shed the feeling that we need to do something to protect future generations. Other's observations point in the same direction.

I also see that the entire discussion about climate change is between young and old. Between caring and careless. Between educated and those who fear knowledge. And also between parents and childless. When I analyse the arguments used, those who deny seem to have none. They only resist change.

I know that a negative is way harder to prove than a positive. But still, that doesn't ease the feeling.

However, when I hear arguments from the deniers, more often than not, they play at the personal level. The case of Greta Thunberg is a clear example. Ridicule isn't an argument. It's proof that those who deny lack arguments. They don't have any comprehension why younger people are mad. And why some have lost hope. It's not that I agree with the "get rid of oil now" protesters, or with those who attack art in musea. But I understand why they are outraged.

It seems the last generation is causing a change in the workspace. They no longer want to work 60+ hours per week. They don't want some jobs. They don't even want a car. Go figure. They want a life. Can you blame them? The only ones who really benefit from the 60+ hours workweek, are the 1%. The capitalists.

Change is natural. If you stop evolution, revolution will take over.

NASA is thinking about a plan to deflect asteroids. We might need that. Yet, the chance we are hit by an asteroid is far smaller than the chance the earth is warming up. Nobody's protesting NASA's plan.

I am unable to understand why the deniers are blind. And deaf. And, maddening, ridiculing others.

I've had one discussion now at least hundreds of times: when you take the time to talk to others about the world, about nature, about the weather, they seem to have remarked it too. Only, they're so busy with other things, it's not a point to them. Let alone that they would raise their voice. They have lost their trust in our leaders, why protest? So they go solo. Sometimes they even don't care about family. And sometimes they don't have friends...

Are we all turning into individualists? No compassion. No solidarity. Just lonely bitter old people?

Some odd observations/conclusions? Seems a little condescending and idealogical.
===
As I mentioned I recently finished reading Lomborg's book "Best Things First" and he details at least 15 things we should do before cutting fossil fuel energy use, that offer significant real payback.

JR

 

[cyrano]

Ideological?

We should do most of these things in parallel. With acid rain, it wasn't only sulphur in petrol. It was everything in parallel: the chemical industry, cleaner petrol...

We need to start using less oil. We'll probably not reach "the end of oil" this century, but one day, we'll have too. We could start by plugging the massive methane leaks. Those are much worse than CO2. And they usually contain hydrogen sulfide too, which could restart the acid rain problem. Right now, some oil companies in the US, the former USSR and a few other places are doing nothing to stop those leaks. That has been going on for many years. Yet, the oil industry knows it's bad. Their own scientists have told them so decades ago.

It's not so hard to be clean. Just like it's not so hard to be secure. But neither of those can show any ROI. So the big corporations ignore it.

 

[ruffrecords]

I'm an observer. Sometimes, all you have is a hunch, a feeling. You can't enumerate it, but you think you know...

My observations lead me to the conclusion that the world is changing, fast.

I agree. Umpteen genders, wokeism, erosion of freedom of speech and, worst of all, a complete lack of critical thinking or a rigorous analysis of data when it comes to climate change.

Cheers

Ian

 

[AnalogPackrat]

I agree. Umpteen genders, wokeism, erosion of freedom of speech and, worst of all, a complete lack of critical thinking or a rigorous analysis of data when it comes to climate change.

Cheers

Ian

We have entered what I call The Age of Incompetence. Few people under the age of 45-50 seem to be able to keep the basic societal systems functioning (or manage their own future). Be it an inability to make correct change as a cashier or show any forethought or initiative in life or work. It's pretty sad to see it happening. There's a lack of seriousness about everything.

Call me an old fart or whatever. There's no denying it. It's apparent to anyone paying attention over the last couple of decades.

 

[cyrano]

You need to ignore the extremes if you want anything done these days. The internet, the media and the propaganda machines each amplify some messages. A bit like an expander. And since most real people only react to extreme messages, these rise to the top. That's mostly Google's fault.

I guess it's hard to write an algo that avoids extremes if the extremes are lies. A problem that surfaces in every data collection. And it's up to the researcher to clean out the noise. Or inject noise if you're a propaganda outfit.

 

[JohnRoberts]

We have entered what I call The Age of Incompetence. Few people under the age of 45-50 seem to be able to keep the basic societal systems functioning (or manage their own future). Be it an inability to make correct change as a cashier or show any forethought or initiative in life or work. It's pretty sad to see it happening. There's a lack of seriousness about everything.

Maybe I am just lucky but I have worked with and met a handful of people younger than me who understand and can think critically. Sadly there are too many like you describe.

Call me an old fart or whatever. There's no denying it. It's apparent to anyone paying attention over the last couple of decades.

old fart...

You need to ignore the extremes if you want anything done these days. The internet, the media and the propaganda machines each amplify some messages. A bit like an expander. And since most real people only react to extreme messages, these rise to the top. That's mostly Google's fault.

I have tried to ignore extremes for years but these days some extreme views are gaining traction (like anti-semitism).

I guess it's hard to write an algo that avoids extremes if the extremes are lies.

AI appears to have problems with veracity

A problem that surfaces in every data collection. And it's up to the researcher to clean out the noise. Or inject noise if you're a propaganda outfit.

Unfortunately too much "cleaning up the data" goes on.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Maybe I am just lucky but I have worked with and met a handful of people younger than me who understand and can think critically. Sadly there are too many like you describe.

I have, too. But instead of being representative of their age group they are outliers.

AI appears to have problems with veracity

This.

Unfortunately too much "cleaning up the data" goes on.

And this.

JR

 

[cyrano]

Unfortunately too much "cleaning up the data" goes on.

We have accepted for years that frequency response charts are cleaned up. It doesn't bother me, except when it's done by the marketing dept.

As usual with stats, care needs to be taken not to introduce new errors while cleaning up the obvious errors from the data. It's a shame most medical researchers seem very bad at it. Again, I don't mind as long as they are good physicians...

There are good methods for visualising data that can help. Still, remaining sceptical is always required in science. It's one thing computers and AI aren't good at.