Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom

by jalfrezi k

More LOL Luciom

Deaths from extreme heat to ‘far exceed’ fall in cold weather deaths across the continent by the end of the century, researchers say.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/madrid-mediterranean-london-school-of-hygiene-and-tropical-medicine-london-rome-b2687156.html

The Independent

Climate study warns of 2.3m more temperature-related deaths in Europe by 2099

Ye i got that in my feed as well, required just 5 min to debunk the article (not the study).

The article, as usual for climate porn outlets like the guardian (which is what i read about it), of course uses the worse case scenario in the study not the mid one. Sad to see the independent is on board with the catastrophic headline writing as well

The mid one sees *lives being saved because hotter winters kill less than hotter summers*

.

So let's debunk the article (again NOT THE STUDY: let's pretend the study is perfect, then we add something on that).

The Article tells you London SAVES LIVES. So you would literally assassinate british people if you try to reduce emissions, according to that study. Do you understand that part jalfrezi? you are actively asking for british people to be killed if you want lower emissions.

That is, if you believe that study.

The study is here

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03452-2?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=organic_social&utm_content=null&utm_campaign=CONR_JRNLS_AWA1_GL_PCOM_SMEDA_NATUREPORTFOLIO

Nature

Estimating future heat-related and cold-related mortality under climate change, demographic and adaptation scenarios in 854 European cities - Nature Medicine

But it doesn't matter, you might accept to assassinate londoners to save people in Naples. Not sure that's legal under british law to operate as a british politician with those tradeoffs, but let's pretend it is.

The article does tell you the only data it discusses are under these scenario (the worst case one in the study):

/ In a scenario with low efforts to curb global warming and low adaptation efforts, deaths could increase by 50%, leading to a cumulative 2,345,410 deaths due to climate change between 2015 and 2099. /

That to be clear would mean among other things, no massive increase in AC use in southern europe (where AC is not used very much for now) even if temperatures and summers get far worse than today. I hope you agree that's a completly ******ed assumption with 0% chance of happening. IF summers get far hotter, it's automatic, certain, absolutely guaranteed, AC would be used a ton more down here ok? So the scenario has 0% chance of being the actual future, because low adaptation is a physical impossibility IF the world gets much hotter.

I don't blame the researchers too much for having built a worst case which is absolutely impossible can happen, but i actually know they do that ON PURPOSE, so that articles like these can be written, the worst-case theoretical possibilty is always the only thing climate porn journalists care about in all studies.

But anyway, let's discuss the *literally impossible scenario anyway and it's consequences*. Rather, LET's ONLY DISCUSS IT?

This is from the study

Fig. 1: Projection of net changes in temperature-related excess death rates from 2015 to 2099 under no adaptation to heat for three SSP scenarios across 854 cities.

This means at SP2 -4.5 (THE CURRENT PATH OF THE WORLD) the blue line (saved lives thanks to warmer winters) is almost the same as the lost lives (lost lives because of hotter summers), IN THE STUDY, IF NOT A SINGLE HOUSEHOLD IN THE NEXT 75 YEARS DOES ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING TO MAKE LIFE BETTER DURING HOTTER SUMMERS.

That's what the study is telling you, that's the midpoint estimate, AT NO ADAPTATION.

How is a study that proves beyond reasonable doubt (if you believe the data) that a warming world isn't a disaster for europe being used to claim it is? how horrifically evil and in bad faiths can those climate porn journalists be?

The study is cristal clear, even under fully ******ed assumptions, even telling you they only account for cities and cities are hotter (*they tell you that*) because of urban island effect, in the CURRENT PATH OF WORLDWIDE EMISSIONS, a nothingburger happens.

Do you realize though that, those researchers are paid to produce the most insane worst case scenario, those journalists are paid to produce the most insane headlines possible given the worst case scenario, those media companies earn money by doing that, while i am not paying to debunk this obvious, face up, redicolous bullshit which we get bombarded by daily?

Oh btw jalfrezi, do you see that the study PROVES to you it's false to claim people died more already because of climate change in europe? the blue line is negative since 2015, winters are warmer and that saves lives, so everytime you or anyone else has focused on summer heatwaves to claim a warmer planet killed europeans, without acknowledging lives were saved by warmer winters, you lied , according to THAT STUDY which you think proves you are right (it doesn't).

This, from the study, is with heat adaptation (ie installing AC, going to the hills/mountains in the summer, improving building efficiency, eating better during the summer, and everything else)

at mid attenuation (mid-adaptation) we already GAIN LIVES every year, and we gain even more if it's hotter yet (because of the huge reduction in winter death)

So what's more expensive, to retool our entire economy or to install some ****ing AC?

I hope it's the journalists asking misleading questions because the "experts" lying about in one case the paper they wrote, in another the paper they read (ie not adding the exceptionally important caveat of "no adaptation") should be ground for a ban of research funding for life

For reference, for people who don't know what the modeled scenarios are

SSP2-4.5: This is a “middle of the road” scenario. CO2 emissions hover around current levels before starting to fall mid-century, but do not reach net-zero by 2100. Socioeconomic factors follow their historic trends, with no notable shifts. Progress toward sustainability is slow, with development and income growing unevenly. In this scenario, temperatures rise 2.7C by the end of the century.

SSP3-7.0: On this path, emissions and temperatures rise steadily and CO2 emissions roughly double from current levels by 2100. Countries become more competitive with one another, shifting toward national security and ensuring their own food supplies. By the end of the century, average temperatures have risen by 3.6C.

idk why you ever expect people to take you seriously when you write complete junk like this.

Do you have any estimations on the increase in AC and extra emissions it would cause across Southern Europe and large parts of Africa, Asia and South America? Because all those billions of people would, in your chosen scenario, also be installing some AC.

no, because it's offset by massive reductions in energy needed for heating in winter elsewhere in Europe.

you always fail to think about that

man the study tells you that warming saves lives in London.

so opposing warming kills people in London, if you want to claim that opposing emission reductions kills people in Naples.

so you either don't claim that emissions kill people in Naples, or you accept the corollary that reducing emissions kills people in London.

we are doing Europe, the study is about Europe.

and AC is easily covered by solar, it's one of the few things solar can reliably cover 100% or close to it.

unlike heating in winter, which gets reduced needs thanks to warming.

so increasing AC (solar powered) and reducing heating (gas powered) IN EUROPE REDUCES EMISSIONS

I doubt that very much. Do you have any numbers on the people around the world who will be installing AC in your scenario versus those who will be reducing their heating in winter and what the emissions difference will be?

The study is about the effect on Europe of climate change brought about by GLOBAL EMMISSIONS which currently come mainly from the US and China, and you trying to crowbar the RoW's behaviour out of the equation by pretending that hot countries won't be installing AC because it shows how stupid your argument is, is just plain dishonest. As always.

Europe.

EUROPE.

You are doing it again. You post a study about europe, that purportedly denies my claim that warming is beneficial to europe. I debunk the ARTICLES which report the study in a mischievious way. I take the study and show you why inside the study, my claim that warming is beneficial is true, provided you install AC in southern europe.

You then claim doing that is terrible because emissions. I claim no, because IN EUROPE heating needs get reduced a lot as well and AC can be powered by solar. So EUROPE will emit LESS in a warmer world.

You then pivot elsewhere in the world, even if it all started with you attempting (and failing completly) to deny that warming is BENEFICIAL TO EUROPE.

And you even tried this with an article that tells you warming SAVES LIVES IN LONDON lol.

Increase in AC needs worldiwde IS INCLUDED IN THE EMISSION SCENARIOS FOR THE WORLD, in SSP 2 -4.5 and SSP 3 -7 .0

It's already baked in.

What they show you is what happens in terms of deaths under both scenarios with or without adaptation (IN EUROPE).

But even imagining 0 adaptation is complete fraud, it's impossible to even contemplate nothing changes in human behavior in a place if summers regularly are much hotter. It's disingenous, disgustingly made ON PURPOSE to come up with a number that is impossible, that will never happen with100% certainty , but which climate porn people like you can link to the sheep that will never read all the assumptions

Anyway the study objectively confirms my claim that warming is *beneficial for european lives*, the only added caveat is "if southern europe installs more AC and the like in the next 50+ years".

So the proper policy response for europe should be to completly stop any emission reduction effort, and subsidize air conditioning installation, maintenance , and other adaptations

WOW!

The man with the highest level of intel in the world agrees with me and other global warming deniers.

/

coupled with the lowest level of intelligence

Luciom you are so funny you don't even realise you are undermining yourself constantly.
People might entertain the idea you are right if only you also didn't claim you don't give a **** about the futur, other people or your kids.
Why would you need to justify or try any argument on the matter of climate change since your whole stance is you don't care about the future?

pretty much the same about all your thoughts when you interject every other sentence with *evil marxists * stuff.

? I care about my kids and family in general and friends.

IF someone isn't able to distinguish a claim from the person making it , he is already completly lost intellectually and i don't care about his opinion about anything.

If my claims debunking the article above are true, they stay identically true no matter what i express in terms of personal preferences.

And btw you , like many others, can't read. I wrote a logic corollary of believing the singularity is near is to disregard the future. I personally am not so sure the singularity is very near.

I care about avoiding a disaster today to "reduce emissions" exactly because i am NOT sure 20 years from now we will have solved material scarcity.

But anyone who is cannot logically give any **** about the future, simple as that. I am describing as fully incoherent and untenable any set of ideas that both believe the singularity is very near AND cares about the future decades after the singularity

This is bullshit. It is NOT baked in.

Nowhere does the study mention the effect of widespread installation of AC across hot countries by billions of people and the effect the jump in emissions will have on climate change. In fact they go so far as to say it's outside the scope of the study.

It's a study on how Europeans will cope and attempts to include its population adaptation to heat. It does NOT take into account the extra warming caused by a jump in emissions from AC installation.

Oh sorry I was under the impression you wanted to be taken seriously

They made an effort to shift to green energy. What did they do? How did it work out? Any idea?

If you have a sober take I'd be glad to explain why I think this is an important lesson but if you want to deflect on to buses running on time or whatever, have fun being taken seriously. Might as well start gluing yourself to things as far as I'm concerned