Skip to content
Back to the collection

Global risk of deadly heat

Camilo Mora, Bénédicte Dousset, Iain R. Caldwell

Show all 18 authors

Farrah E. Powell, Rollan C. Geronimo, Coral R. Bielecki, Chelsie W. W. Counsell, Bonnie S. Dietrich, Emily T. Johnston, Leo V. Louis, Matthew P. Lucas, Marie M. McKenzie, Alessandra G. Shea, Han Tseng, Thomas W. Giambelluca, Lisa R. Leon, Ed Hawkins, Clay Trauernicht

2017 · Nature Climate Change

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
4
Readers
3
Months
3
What’s in a score?

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

4 selected excerpts · 4 total mentions

RGamma
Neutral mention · rule
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322 (open via sci-hub) has a map that shows predictions which regions will become uninhabitable (deadly heat/humidity ~year round). The equatorial regions are basically fucked. This will trigger mass migration on the scale of billions with everything that entails :/
revax
Neutral mention · rule
Here's one of many examples https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322 >Around 30% of the world’s population is currently exposed to climatic conditions exceeding this deadly threshold for at least 20 days a year. By 2100, this percentage is projected to increase to ∼48% under a scenario with drastic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and ∼74% under a scenario of growing emissions.
Certhas
Neutral mention · rule
No, he said that 3 billion people will be subject to heat events that can be lethal. He's not saying 3 billion people will die. That's not controversial, he worded it more dramatically than the scientists would, but the core is absolutely correct. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/19/a-third-... https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322 Your second point, that cold deaths are also an issue, isn't in any way relevant to the discussion of pollution. You can go on denying the science, and/or being upset that people care too much about these issues. But you wont be right, or savy, or pragmatic for it. You'll just be part of the problem instead of the solution. (n.b. benefits of climate change due to milder winters are looked at in the IPCC as well 11.4.1.2: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Cha...)
revax
Neutral mention · rule
>It's not an existential threat For the human kind, no there is no doubt that we will survive. But don't act like it's nothing. Here's one of many examples https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322 >Around 30% of the world’s population is currently exposed to climatic conditions exceeding this deadly threshold for at least 20 days a year. By 2100, this percentage is projected to increase to ∼48% under a scenario with drastic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and ∼74% under a scenario of growing emissions.

Keep following the thread.

More in Other research

More from the same topics.