Global Warming Death Rate

[xelasnave]

I have been quiet for a while because I have limited net access and limited time but an important question needs to be raised.

I ask does anyone know what the daily death rate is, as it relates to global warming or as now called Climate change or as I like to call it Historic Climate Change, and indicate a figure for us to be appauled by.

I know we have figures for starvation, war, aids, and a multitude of other evils but I simply dont know how many die each day from global warming or as it is now rightfullt called climate change and could be more correctly called "historic climate change"...

I have a nasty feeling it will out rank war famine and aids

So what is the current death rate due to climate change or global warming...any ideas?

I know millions will die in the future but I thought we could get folk to better recognise the severity of the climate change problem if we can quantify the current death rate.

If you have views on the future projected death rate by all means put it here.

Given some have died in neuclear power plant failures and given NP seems to be one of the things we can do to save the planet do more die via NP or by GW????
alex
alex

[AstralTraveller (David)]

I really doubt the death rate has been calculated and I doubt it could be done to any sort of accuracy. One major problem would be to disentangle climate change fatalities from other factors such as desertification, soil degradation etc due to over-use. Then there is the problems of unequal distribution of food, medical care etc solely due to our economic 'system'.

Nuclear power is no panacea. While it is true that reactors don't produce CO2 during operation they produce a huge amount during construction because of the amount of cement they require - far more than a conventional power station. The production of cement from limestone is CaCO3 + heat -> CaO + CO2. So for every 56g of cement there is 44g of CO2 plus whatever is generated by the heating process. I haven't looked at the figures but someone I trust told me that, compared to a coal-fired power station, it takes a nuclear plant 15 years to pay off the CO2 'debt' from construction. That is a very substantial fraction of the operational life of the plant. Then there is a whole lot of dangerous waste that will need guarding for millenia. I think we have to look at energy efficiency and green power of various types.

[mick pinner]

you have got to be kidding, although l suspect probably not. how many pie in the sky figures do we need to scare people towards a certain point of view? l mean no offence but l find this one of the more out there questions l have read for a while.

[Rick Petrie]

I suppose it won't be long before (or is already happening)the soothsayers start to blame a lot of natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, drought, crop failures, volcanic eruptions and such on climate change.
The subjective thing is, how do they relate what actually occurs naturally to what would be directly attributable to climate change.
As for a figure -hard to evaluate I guess, but somebody may have verifiable records to associate them.
Good luck Alex that someone can give you the facts, but I honestly think it will be inexplicable.
Cheers

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

A frail person with a high fever dies on a hot, dry day of heat exhaustion. If the day had been cooler he might have lived. If he didn't have the fever, he might have lived. What killed him, the fever or the weather?

[Ian Robinson]

Well , this could be estimated from :

- deaths due to global warming caused famines and regional droughts
- deaths due to global warming causing more people to catch deadly deceases (ie malaria and other tropical desease , cholera , bird flu and the like)
- deaths due to global warming incited warfare and forced population displacements
- deaths due to more frequent and more powerful storm events.

These are all significant numbers and may be available from NGO's and the UN and Aid and Relief organisations.

These are all likely to become worse over the next few decades and much of the world will be a horrible place by the mid of this century.

[Ian Robinson]

Originally Posted by Rick Petrie

I suppose it won't be long before (or is already happening)the soothsayers start to blame a lot of natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, drought, crop failures, volcanic eruptions and such on climate change.
The subjective thing is, how do they relate what actually occurs naturally to what would be directly attributable to climate change.
As for a figure -hard to evaluate I guess, but somebody may have verifiable records to associate them.
Good luck Alex that someone can give you the facts, but I honestly think it will be inexplicable.
Cheers

Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions have NOTHING to with global warming.

[Rick Petrie]

Originally Posted by Ian Robinson

Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions have NOTHING to with global warming.

Thanks Ian. I agree with what you are saying but extremists and alarmists will blame anything on global warming as a cause of disasters.

[rally]

I vaguely recall the increased malarial type death rates being quoted in the millions pa due to the increased breeding habitat due to global warning.
No idea over what time scale that was.

The cost in life due to increased seasonal inundation in low lying areas such as Bangladesh due to slight ocean level increases was equally tragic.

Cheers
Rally

[Ian Robinson]

Originally Posted by Rick Petrie

Thanks Ian. I agree with what you are saying but extremists and alarmists will blame anything on global warming as a cause of disasters.

A slight rephrase is called for , my response meant to say :

Earthquakes have NOTHING to with global warming. They are not caused by global warming.

Volcanic eruptions do indeed influence global and regkinal climates

...I'm surprised no one picked me up on OBVIOUS error.

[Solanum]

Thought I'd chip my two penneth worth in here as I've been working on climate change effects on plants for the last ten years and although not a climatologist have obviously read a fair bit around the subject.

Firstly, if you don't think that climate change is a reality and is going to have a major impact on both the natural environment and our own civilisation then you are either deluding yourself or haven't read the evidence (probably both). It truly is over-whelming, the vast majority of scientists involved (I'm talking thousands here) agree on the general thrust, those that don't are very few and are generally in the pay of special interest groups (e.g. the oil industry - though I have to say that in my experience the oil industry are starting to accept what's going on and beginning to look to the future, moreso than most climate change sceptics).

Secondly, to the question in hand. I think that predicting what the impact of climate change on man and the natural environment is one hell of a lot harder than proving it is occurring. This is where I do think there are some alarmists and some wild extrapolations, though we don't know that they won't come to pass! Personally, and taking a longer term view, we aren't able to wipe out life on earth (not without physically breaking up the planet and I don't think we have enough nuclear weapons to do that), and it is very unlikely that man made climate change will cause species extinctions on a scale with the great extinctions of the past where over 95% of all species on earth have been wiped out. Also, whilst I think we should be looking to preserve biodiversity and our natural environment I think we should be honest and say that this is for our own benefit and not some mystical 'mother nature'. So given that, I think the most important impact of climate change is on mankind and in that respect Alex's question is an important one (if difficult to answer). As mentioned already increased flooding does result in large numbers of deaths in Bangladesh, heat waves do finish off the old and frail, not to mention crop failures lead to starvation. Though it is impossible to say that any one event is due to climate change.

If you go to http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm you will have access to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. This is the condensed knowledge that mankind has on climate change and it's likely effects, put together by an international group of scientists numbering in their thousands under the auspices of the UN. The working group one report details the science involved and the predictions that that science makes, the working group two report details the likely impacts of those changes on the world (and man). There is a synthesis report of the whole thing, there are technical summaries of each report and there are executive summaries for the really hard of understanding (e.g. politicians).

[xelasnave]

Hi all

Mick you can not offend me... no one can... so folks always be blunt...

I was being cute I though the answer would be a big no deaths..and so I thought I would focus attention on to matters that were causing deaths today...

But I have learnt something that there may be deaths due to climate.

anyways great comments.

alex

[NQLD_Newby]

Well, i agree that climate change is happenning. Where I have trouble is believing that climate change causes everything they say it causes. I could be wrong but I think people need something to blame. If they can possibly find a link, (no matter how thin), between a theory and a problem then they run with it. Now I'm not saying the attached story isn't true, who am i to discount it when my knowledge in this area is fairly limited, but this is just one example that highlights my coments above.

http://environment.newscientist.com/...7_head_dn15000

[JohnH]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

The production of cement from limestone is CaCO3 + heat -> CaO + CO2. So for every 56g of cement there is 44g of CO2 plus whatever is generated by the heating process. I haven't looked at the figures but someone I trust told me that, compared to a coal-fired power station, it takes a nuclear plant 15 years to pay off the CO2 'debt' from construction.

I am not a fan of Nuclear power generation (for other reasons) but that is complete baloney, consider this...

1 kWh of electricity produced from a coal powered station emits 0.97kg of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Nuclear power produces close to zero

So for a 150MW station run for 15 years coal will produce appox 150 tonnes of CO2 per hour, 24hrs per day, 365 days per year.

Total 19,710,000 Tonnes of CO2

Thus your statement if true means a nuclear station must use (56/44)*19,710,000 tonnes of additional cement. (Note most of the construction would not be pur cement either).

Use of the 2/3 (area to cubic volume) rule means the nuclear power plant would have an area of 85,692 times that of the coal fired plant....

Another apporach is here:

http://timjervis.blogspot.com/2007/0...struction.html

[xelasnave]

I personally think irrespective of why it is getting warmer we humans wont be able to fix the problem.

I think the uranium lobby have a vested interest in generating the fear of global warming as they can offer co2 free energy....and so NP seems like a safe clean option...and it may be that NP is not as bad as the various problems with past accidents are addressed and accidents will never happen again. But that is the nature of an accident really ..no one expect them and so that is why they are called accidents... maybe it is all good for NP but I wonder.


The waste of NP plants is a worry of course and one wonders if future generations may be in a hole because of the shortsightedness of the long term solution that is safe...at the moment.

I did hear that there is a mine somewhere in the Northern hemisphere stacked with neuclear waste in drums (medical or power station stuff I have no idea) and originally thought to be secure that now is getting water in the mine and the drums therefore are in danger of corrosion and the waste leaking into the system...I may be that they are already corroded but as it was in the North why should I worry..it will never effect us right I dont know more than that maybe someone else does.

That story could be a rumour circulated by anti NP folk or it could be a real concern.

Fear and concern will sell newspapers of that there is no doubt so one must regard everything as suspect if you can not nail it down.

There seems little question things are warming up be it man made or not that fact seems to be backed up by many observations.

I was talking to a chap today where they have ice fishing (Finland) and he said where he is the ice is getting a little more thin (or should that be less thin no that must mean it is getting thicker I guess) each year.

Al Gore has some evidence as well...that if you can take it that he has not been selective with the material for his movie...the inconvenient truth.
AND he does not really practice what he preaches when you think of how he gets around and how his home burns $30,000 odd a year in energy...


AND so maybe we just have to work at adjusting to a new hotter world where the seas are higher, the deserts are of greater extent the polar bears have to be kept in a fridge and some cities become skin diver attractions.

One would think as I have said many times if the problem is so great that city lights could be turned off and fridges in those blocks declared illegal.
Maybe car racing could be eliminated and in place cars on electricity powered by batteries charged by solar panels could be the go.

We can tax carbon and Governments love that but for us mugs at the bottom of the heap we all know up top tax is something to be avoided and even evaded...and those paying the tax pass it down to the mugs at the bottom..so we each pay more tax and polution goes on I would think.

Anyways as I said I was trying to be a little cute with my question and looking outside one may as well babble here as look at TV because no astronomy tonight.

Sorry this is rushed but I must go
alex

[BerrieK]

My personal opinion is that We are but blips on the face of the history of our great planet. The industrial revolution cannot be reversed - it is not in human nature. Whether it be thru global warming killing us directly or indirectly, us killing ourselves with our lazy overindulgent lifestyles leading to our obese population straining the health system in a plethora of health worries , or polluting our planet with plastics and other polymers that end up in our bodies causing sterility and congenital defects for ourselves and our animal neighbours, we will one day not be here! Green seems the safest way to go but as someone famous once said for every action there is an opposite reaction..we need to minimise our effects not only in the global warming stakes. One day our history will be ancient history, whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist...perhaps accretion will be reversed and our planet will return to the nebula from where it condensed...and someone 'out there' will be able to watch the whole process from giant scopes developed in their polar ice caps!

[xelasnave]

Happily evolution is the exception and extinction is the rule

the fact is even if we dont wipe ourselves out something from space will..a comet, an astroid or we could find ourselves within the danger zone of a super nova (now that is global warming that man wont fix)...so it is all good

And if will mange to hang on we will be swallowed by our Sun when it goes to a red giant... now that is not that far off maybe so a tax the proceeds thereof can fund ships to take us elsewhere...

Well specualtion can be fun.


So in some future a long way from here our species may find itself gone and the planet will bounce back to support the next privledged species.....

Bored as here

alex

[Harpspitfire]

from what i see in the US, the greedy economists wont do anything about -it will eventually have drastic consequences, hopefully it can be controlled (though non reversable) before the point of no return- but in the meantine, i think infected food, tainted water supply (namely chemicals and radioactive waste)- along with hazardous air pollution, diseases, will do in the human race, not considered is even nuclear warfare (terrorists) which have closer access day X day to mass destruction- really- i think humanity is near its peak now and in less then 50 years will start its own downfall and destruction, it may take 100 years-- 500 years, who knows, but the fact is habitability is currently on a dowmward slide

[NQLD_Newby]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

And if will mange to hang on we will be swallowed by our Sun when it goes to a red giant... now that is not that far off maybe so a tax the proceeds thereof can fund ships to take us elsewhere...

Alex I found a story about the ways they are thinking of to fix that problem. Sounds a bit far out, but they are thinking of ways to alter Earths orbit. They have basically said that we will need to be in an orbit similar to Mars when our sun is a red giant, to capture similar heat/energy to what we have now. Seems a bit far fetched to me, but who knows. You can view the thread here: http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=37111

[GrampianStars (Rob)]

Originally Posted by Solanum

...... Personally, and taking a longer term view, we aren't able to wipe out life on earth (not without physically breaking up the planet and I don't think we have enough nuclear weapons to do that), and it is very unlikely that man made climate change will cause species extinctions on a scale with the great extinctions of the past where over 95% of all species on earth have been wiped out.........

What a load
the US has the capability to wipe out 95% of the human population alone fallout from that will kill the rest of us with cancers etc over a relatively short time scale.
As for the bio-diversety of plants & animals they're being wiped out bloody fast estimates are around 95% GONE within 20 - 30 years
and that's without nuclear fallout intervention

back to your mythical studies

The only way in the short term is science develop a human "Calici" type virus to switch off the majority of us humans