A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lynnvinc said:
“A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change: Study shows risks have climbed steadily since 1980, and the number of people in danger will grow to 48% by 2100 even if emissions are drastically reduced” at theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/19/a-third-of-the-world-now-faces-deadly-heatwaves-as-result-of-climate-change
Click to expand...
By 2100, I predict that upwards of 99% of current CAF posters will be dead. I bet my prediction is more reliable than theirs.
 
I’m sure somebody or other has come up with whatever they base this kind of thing on.

But I was somewhat amused by the observation that nobody goes outside in Houston in the summertime. Going through some of my grandmother’s old stuff, I discovered some brochures printed by what was then the Frisco railroad. Apparently back then it was deadly hot in the summertime in Houston and other parts of Texas and Louisiana, so there were special “through trains” running regularly from there to the Ozarks, where it’s plenty hot enough in the daytime, but fairly cool at night, and where cold streams are plentiful.

So, heat in the southwest is nothing new. I guess people who could also abandoned NYC in the summer and went to Maine before air conditioning. I think there were special trains for that as well.
 
Will someone make a prediction on lack of heatwaves this coming winter?
 
Tomorrow will be the first day of Summer in the Northern Hemisphere. It’s going to be hatter than it’s been – **all year long. **
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Will someone make a prediction on lack of heatwaves this coming winter?
Click to expand...
Might be some in the Rio Grande Valley. Perhaps also in Florida. Without question there will be some in southern Africa. Likely in Brazil as well.

One wonders how many of the people who died of the heat were in cities versus the countryside. If you don’t have AC in a city, it’s murder, and always has been. If you’re in the country, you would almost have to try. I do remember “bucking bales” in the summer as a teenager, and that was miserable. But if you didn’t exert yourself in the direct sun, there was no hazard.

Interesting thing about the humidity. There are people in the world (people of Celtic ancestry being among them) who have a special way to get rid of body heat. Typically, those people are in extremely humid environments where sweating does little good. People in drier climates generally don’t have it. It appears to be inheritable.

It’s called the “wash down reflex”. If sweating does no good, you get a tremendous thirst. You drink something cool and immediately your body processes it, and you urinate faster than anybody else would. You keep drinking until you cool down, which you do because you’re taking in fluid at lower temperatures than you’re getting rid of it. Unfortunately, alcoholism is high among such people because alcohol also triggers it and you dehydrate while building up body discomfort that’s temporarily relived by alcohol, but comes roaring back.

It’s inheritable because people in extremely humid environments die off more readily from heat if they don’t have that reflex, while people who have it survive to pass on their genes.
So, it’s obviously a very old thing.
 
The propaganda machine never stops working does it? Think of how many carbon emissions are caused by all this prattle about climate change. 😉
 
Ha-ha-ha, y’all.

What I was thinking is they may have missed an important point – that the minimum diurnal (night) temps are warming faster than the maximum diurnal (day) temps, which is a clear signal of global warming. This has an even more harmful affect on people, other animals, and plants. It seems many people (and plants) can stand the extreme heat of the day during heatwaves, but need some cool time at night to recuperate. For instance, I read an article that mentioned how it was the high night temps that contributed more to the high level of deaths in Europe during the 2003 heatwave.

So, yes, we have always had heatwaves, but these are different now and more deadly. Plus CC has increased the frequency and length of heatwaves – which is a well known fact.

Of course we all can afford ACs and won’t be affected much. It will mainly affect the poor.
 
peter26 said:
The propaganda machine never stops working does it? Think of how many carbon emissions are caused by all this prattle about climate change. 😉
Click to expand...
This always gets me about these claims about this being propaganda WHO has much to gain from this? Virtually all of the world is moving forward on reducing CO2 emissions. Is this a vast conspiracy by maybe the few million people who have direct employment gains? Why would many major governments be willing to take on the societal costs?
 
Are you saying this is going to be a cause and effect from global warming that we otherwise wouldn’t have?

Or is this because people are moving to warmer spots and since people have always died from over-heating, this phenomenon will worsen.

Or are you saying you don’t know the future?

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
peter26 said:
The propaganda machine never stops working does it? Think of how many carbon emissions are caused by all this prattle about climate change. 😉
Click to expand...
Its sad that you think the Holy Father has succumbed to propaganda. 🤷
Even if you deny the science…it is your obligation as a Catholic to take steps to protect the environment. This isn’t new to Pope Francis either…though he has reaffirmed the obligation as binding on all Catholics with his encyclical Laudato Si.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I’m sure somebody or other has come up with whatever they base this kind of thing on.

But I was somewhat amused by the observation that nobody goes outside in Houston in the summertime. Going through some of my grandmother’s old stuff, I discovered some brochures printed by what was then the Frisco railroad. Apparently back then it was deadly hot in the summertime in Houston and other parts of Texas and Louisiana, so there were special “through trains” running regularly from there to the Ozarks, where it’s plenty hot enough in the daytime, but fairly cool at night, and where cold streams are plentiful.

So, heat in the southwest is nothing new. I guess people who could also abandoned NYC in the summer and went to Maine before air conditioning. I think there were special trains for that as well.
Click to expand...
In St. Louis, before A/C, people used to sleep outside along Highway 66.

stltoday.com/news/local/metro/a-look-back-relentless-withering-heat-wave-of-killed-in/article_3821b7be-14c4-5fef-b0c9-bc383d50aafd.html

I guarantee you that I spend a lot less time outdoors during heat waves now, than I did as a kid with no A/C.
 
twf said:
Its sad that you think the Holy Father has succumbed to propaganda. 🤷
Even if you deny the science…it is your obligation as a Catholic to take steps to protect the environment. This isn’t new to Pope Francis either…though he has reaffirmed the obligation as binding on all Catholics with his encyclical Laudato Si.
Click to expand...
Yes, I take my duty to protect the environment seriously. There’s a difference between pollution and the global warming mitigation ideology put forth by the elites who can afford it. The poor will suffer for it.

And what Pope Francis wrote in Ladato Si - how is that binding? He wasn’t speaking ex Cathedra.
 
qui_est_ce said:
In St. Louis, before A/C, people used to sleep outside along Highway 66.

stltoday.com/news/local/metro/a-look-back-relentless-withering-heat-wave-of-killed-in/article_3821b7be-14c4-5fef-b0c9-bc383d50aafd.html

I guarantee you that I spend a lot less time outdoors during heat waves now, than I did as a kid with no A/C.
Click to expand...
I mentioned this before in this or some other thread, but I spent a summer in St. Louis years ago. I was astonished that it’s no cooler in the shade there than it is out in the sun. Humidity from the rivers, I guess, and radiation from all the masonry. Here, the difference is very significant, and at night it’s almost never hot. Just after dusk, the cool air would start pouring down the hills into the valleys, and if there was a stream in the valley, a thick fog just over the water would come rolling down stream in a wave, and pretty quickly. Beautiful to watch, particularly with fireflies everywhere.

When I was a kid visiting my grandmother in town, she didn’t have AC. We would sit out in the yard until the house cooled down enough to go indoors. It got cool right away outside, but the house took awhile. She had one of those old-style houses with lots of big windows, transoms and all that. Even then, it took awhile.
 
lynnvinc said:
Ha-ha-ha, y’all.

What I was thinking is they may have missed an important point – that the minimum diurnal (night) temps are warming faster than the maximum diurnal (day) temps, which is a clear signal of global warming. This has an even more harmful affect on people, other animals, and plants. It seems many people (and plants) can stand the extreme heat of the day during heatwaves, but need some cool time at night to recuperate. For instance, I read an article that mentioned how it was the high night temps that contributed more to the high level of deaths in Europe during the 2003 heatwave.

So, yes, we have always had heatwaves, but these are different now and more deadly. Plus CC has increased the frequency and length of heatwaves – which is a well known fact.

Of course we all can afford ACs and won’t be affected much. It will mainly affect the poor.
Click to expand...
I agree many of the comments are amusing!
 
qui_est_ce said:
Yes, I take my duty to protect the environment seriously. There’s a difference between pollution and the global warming mitigation ideology put forth by the elites who can afford it. The poor will suffer for it.

And what Pope Francis wrote in Ladato Si - how is that binding? He wasn’t speaking ex Cathedra.
Click to expand...
Considering the following:

foxnews.com/us/2015/01/19/pope-statement-on-climate-change-following-john-paul-ii-benedict-xvi-tackling.html

catholicclimatemovement.global/statements-on-climate-change-from-the-popes/

So you have two Popes acknowledging climate change and the need to reduce CO2, especially in the name of social justice. One that’s pretty conservative too. We also have a saint imploring us to reduce the damage caused by the burning fossil fuels, which I’m sure would include climate change had it been well understood then.

Besides what other teachings of the Church do you follow that are not ex Cathedra? This is a basic, though possibly not an exact list of the few times Papal pronouncements have been considered ex Cathedra. Note that they essentially center on defining Christ, Counter Reformation, or Mary.

Tome to Flavian, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

So what is enough for you; or is this just an inconvenient truth?
 
PJH_74 said:
This always gets me about these claims about this being propaganda WHO has much to gain from this? Virtually all of the world is moving forward on reducing CO2 emissions. Is this a vast conspiracy by maybe the few million people who have direct employment gains? Why would many major governments be willing to take on the societal costs?
Click to expand...
It’s cozy being part of a worldwide “conspiracy.” [sic]
 
qui_est_ce said:
Yes, I take my duty to protect the environment seriously. There’s a difference between pollution and the global warming mitigation ideology put forth by the elites who can afford it. The poor will suffer for it.

And what Pope Francis wrote in Ladato Si - how is that binding? He wasn’t speaking ex Cathedra.
Click to expand...
I said binding, not infallible. We’re not only bound by infallibly defined dogmas. The opening paragraphs state that the encyclical is to be considered Magisterial.
 
PJH_74 said:
So you have two Popes acknowledging climate change and the need to reduce CO2, especially in the name of social justice. One that’s pretty conservative too. We also have a saint imploring us to reduce the damage caused by the burning fossil fuels, which I’m sure would include climate change had it been well understood then.
Click to expand...
The US has been reducing CO2 emissions, significantly, but apparently, that’s not good enough because the reductions have benefited consumers rather than punishing them. By switching from coal to natural gas, the US has both reduced carbon emissions, and made electricity cheaper for the consumer. This should be cause for celebration, but instead we get nothing but weeping and gnashing. This is why I call “climate change” religion, not science. It’s more concerned with repentance and wearing hair shirts than actually doing anything meaningful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top