Global Risk of Deadly Heat
nature.com
nature.com
Also, never cross a river that is 4-feet deep on average. Lethal heat for enough time could be the end of it for too many people in a region, whatever the long term trends are. And we already hit nearly 50ºC at latitude 50 in Canada last year, even it being a La Niña year.
- coloring the sea to increase albedo
- pumping the water below ice layer to reduce the ice melt speed
- the incentives to reward carbon capture
Some actions (terrorism) introduce society changes:
- drone attacks on plane/ship using fuel to limit carbon transportation
- announcements of the contamination of animals with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease to reduce the meat consumption
- you mean heating up ice faster?
- the main incentive is to fake savings while emitting more, how do you beat that?
- better do these with empty ships and do not believe for one moment that more will not be spent to track you down, making it counterproductive
- didn't work then, won't work now
No, the idea in the book is to reduce/stop glacial motion (which is what causes friction and increases glacial temperatures) by pumping out the layer of water below glaciers (i.e. remove the cushion that prevents friction from actually stopping the glacier's movement).
"Researchers analyzed data on heat- and cold-related injuries that required a hospital visit in [Illinois] between 2011 and 2018. They identified around 24,000 cases each related to the cold and to heat.
"Of those, there were 1,935 cold-related deaths and 70 heat-related ones. The cold caused 94% of temperature-related deaths, even though hypothermia (a drop in the body's core temperature) was responsible for only 27% of temperature-related hospital visits."
And yes, increased warmth decreases cold deaths - about 2x (283k avoided cold deaths vs 116k increased heat deaths per year).
https://www.lomborg.com/the-heresy-of-heat-and-cold-deaths
This effect is probably magnified by the fact that more warming occurs in nighttime temperatures, winter temperatures, and polar areas.
So heating might well enhance the cold fatalities, much like ones due to other disasters like floods, dust, droughts, crop failures etc.
In the near term (next century) they may well increase in ferocity and intensity.
The physics is straightforward, "mean temp rising" across the entire Earth surface translates to more free energy trapped at the near earth land and water layers, that's more enery for winds (storm) and driving heat pumps (freezing cells).
A relevant overly simplified high physics question is:
There is a freezer with its door open in a sealed room .. over time does the room get hotter or colder?
AGW is projected to have many knock on effects about the globe, pinning down which of these will happen where and to what degree is harder than the simple conclusion that such things will happen - and they are all disruptive to life as we humans know it.
I imagine a dry ice pack and associated tech to slow release that coolness to exposed veins would work well.
See EVs for example, sold as a solution to global warming when it reality it's just ever so slightly displacing the problem and not actually solving anything besides car manufacturers from bankruptcy
Electric cars can and are routinely charged from solar panels.
Yes, solar panel production consumes a lot of energy; quite some of that energy is electric, and can be provided by solar panels. So yes, solar panels may be energy-positive, not just shifting consumption of fossil fuels to factories.
The sad truth is that we're over consuming energy, and until we consume less we'll just run in the same problems over and over.
What we are overconsuming is fossil hydrocarbons, and this has to stop.
As I said, it's all clean and nice on paper, once you take everything into equation we're faaaar of from that green future.
I think people simply don't understand the sheer scale of it all and the cost of externalities, from the mine to the landfill. Slapping a "renewable" sticker on it doesn't solve the root issues, it certainly is perpetuating the myth that energy and growth are unlimited though
Would be more realistic to expect evolving a pair of feathered wings than to reset our blood temperature to several degrees higher.
It doesn't matter if we are "adaptable". We are directly reliant on a functioning global biosphere. This ain't changing.
One of the scariest aspects of the current mass extinction is that other mass extinctions occurred on the timescale of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. That can be viewed as a proper timescale for overall evolutionary adaptation to occur in the global biosphere.
Our current mass extinction is really on the scale of a couple hundred years.
Previous temperature shifts likewise occurred on the scale of 10,000s of years. That provides time for adaptation, migration of entire biomes to shifting locations. See: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Our current one is ridiculously fast. Even if the biomes / ecosystems could migrate, humanity is industrializing all the possible locations for the biomes to migrate too with farming.
Unless you are a colonist from mars with experience in surviving in a world without a functioning biosphere, kindly never repeat this sentiment again.