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 :/
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
- HN score
- 0
- Mentions
- 4
- Readers
- 3
- Months
- 3
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
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.
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...)
>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 researchMore from the same topics.
Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power worldwide
Dan Tong, David J. Farnham, Lei Duan +4
Abstract If future net-zero emissions energy systems rely heavily on solar and wind resources, spatial and temporal mismatches between resource availability and electricity demand may challenge system reliability.
How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge
Steven M. Paul, Daniel S. Mytelka, Christopher T. Dunwiddie +4