Report: Climate change crisis 'catastrophic'

[gauguin57]

Source: CNN

"LONDON, England (CNN) -- The first comprehensive report into the human cost of climate change warns the world is in the throes of a "silent crisis" that is killing 300,000 people each year. ...

" ... 'No matter what," ' the report concludes, 'the suffering documented in this report is only the beginning.' A rise of two degrees, it says, 'would be catastrophic.'

"Of the 300,000 lives being lost each year due to climate change, the report finds nine out of 10 are related to "gradual environmental degradation," and that deaths caused by climate-related malnutrition, diarrhea and malaria outnumber direct fatalaties from weather-related disasters.

"The vast majority of deaths -- 99 percent -- are in developing countries which are estimated to have contributed less than one percent of the world's total carbon emissions.
..."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/29/annan.climate.change.human/index.html

---

This is absolutely appalling. Hey, global warming deniers: 300,000 people die each year for your sins!

[SpiralHawk]

1. "Developing countries don't count. Smirk." - Rush DraftDodger Limbaugh (R - propagandist)

"Developing countries and their, um, so-called people are just a pimple on the ass of the republicon elite. Smirk. I am getting paid 30 million bucks a year to spew my anti-fact, anti- environment, anti-democracy, pro-torture, pro-pollution republicon propaganda, so you know you are getting nothing but the finest BS from me and my republicon propaganda cronies. Smirk."

- Rush DraftDodger Limbaugh

[Delphinus]

2. People are dying from lack of health care too,

in this country, fellow citizens, but it seems to make no difference. I doubt 300,000 of the poorest of the poor, in countries most don't care a whit about, will give rise to change.

I often wonder why I am here in this world, as I certainly don't feel I belong to the race of man that has wreaked so much havoc and destruction.

[wildflower]

3. This is urgent and should be at the top of the news everywhere

Instead they argue about things like whether curbing emissions is "realistic"...

[earth mom]

4. Instead of bailing out the fucking banks, every home & building in this country should have been

set up with solar or wind power with that money. :argh:

I'm so upset about this issue that I could barely bring myself to click on this thread. :cry:

[Chemisse]

10. I totally agree

I was so hoping the stimulus money would be used for a sweeping alternative energy initiative. My high hopes from Obama are faltering.

[earth mom]

20. I knew we were in trouble when Gore stepped away from the race because of the hype of an "historic"

presidential race.

But the nails were hammered firmly in the coffin when Obama did not pick Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for the EPA. :cry:

[GoddessOfGuinness]

5. But if we don't spend money on fixing the environment,

we'll die richer.

[hatrack]

6. And what is America REALLY bent out of shape over?

The possibility that American Idol may have been rigged.

Ever wonder how a species too stupid to survive behaves? Well, now you know.

[look_to_the_future]

7. Really????

I hate to be untrue to the cause on this one, but this seems absurd. SO FAR we have had very little warming (less than .5 degrees above the natural high in the 1940's and the continuing rise in temperature has gone away for the last 10 years). We have yet to break out of the normal range of natural variability of temperatures. The sea level hasn't risen any significant amount yet - compared to it's rate for the last 10,000 years.
While future climate change may very well eclipse this in the near future, the belief that current changes in climate has caused that much hardship is ridiculous. This sort of hysteria takes away from any real issue we have with climate change. Let's keep our eye on the ball and not get dragged into stupid hyperbole from an extreme side of the debate that will likely alienate many of the people we need to convince of the validity of our views.

Having read the works of the reviewers, they are not mainstream either. Nor are they scientists in the traditional sense. If you wanted to spend $125 Bil a year on the extreme poor, fighting climate change would be a poor use of that money (google copenhagen consensus).

I'm just saying...

[hatrack]

9. You're just saying . . . a bunch of denialist shit

No, no, we wouldn't want to get all bent out of shape when you have a soft downy comforter of bullshit in which we can wrap ourselves, now would we?

[look_to_the_future]

11. Huh??

Have you actually ever read the papers and projections on this stuff? Do you do your homework and learn the material or do you just prefer to flame anyone who writes something that you don't agree with.
The body of work on Climate Change is pretty clear that so far we have had maybe 5% of the effects so far, with 95% of the effects to come. That's were this 'study' gets lost. It uses creative statistics to paint an unlikely and far-fetched image of what's happening NOW.
This is not to say that the effects aren't coming, but instead to take issue with absurd statements like the one at the top of this post. One can agree with the need to address Climate Change without agreeing with all the ridiculous statements that come out of the environmental movement - many statements aren't ridiculous, but let's call the ridiculous ones what they are.
The propaganda that gets spouted on the extreme of this issue is no different than the BS we were used to from the Bush administration on topics that they 'knew' the right answer to and instead of giving us the facts, they gave us crap to try to lead us to the conclusion they thought we 'needed' to come to. Either way, it's wrong to do and anyone who believes in the facts should reject this approach because it backfires eventually. If you believe the science is correct, stick to the facts.
Don't act like an idiot and reject this because it's uncomfortable to read what I'm writing. Try coming up with a real reason using facts and logic.

[Barrett808]

12. One need only look at Australia to see the future of the US West:

http://desdemonadespair.blogspot.com/search/label/Australia

[XemaSab]

17. Welcome to DU!

You should know that Hatrack is one of our resident climate gurus.

That being said, I hear what you're saying.

You should come hang with us in the environment/energy forum.

We're a big tent! :hi:

[NickB79]

18. You are telling Hatrack to read more on global warming?!?!

You are new here, so maybe you can be cut some slack. Hatrack is THE premier poster here on DU, IMO, when it comes to anything related to climate change. Just spend 10 minutes scrolling through the Environment/Energy board and let it sink in for a bit.

[XemaSab]

19. Usually I am behind you 100%

but I think CNN is not a reliable source for information about climate change.

I smell hyperbole here.... which is generally an easy segue for denialist nonsense.

[time_has_come]

8. This is why climate change deniers are akin to Holocaust deniers. nt

[fascisthunter]

14. there are consequences for denial

and the grown ups want to deal with it. I wish the deniers would just get the f#&k out of the way.

[gauguin57]

13. kickin' for the night shift

Was just listening to the folks on right-wing radio denying climate change all over the place yesterday. May the souls of the 300,000 haunt them.

[CHIMO]

15. Forget Optimists Predictions

His prognosis is that the Earth will only support perhaps one billion people. It is now inevitable. Our efforts may slow it down to allow us to adopt.

Gaia hypothesis

The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis. Originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis,<1> it was named—at the suggestion of his neighbor William Golding—the Gaia Hypothesis, after the Greek supreme goddess of Earth.<2> The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism. Lovelock and other supporters of the idea now regard it as a scientific theory, not merely a hypothesis, since they believe it has passed predictive tests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

[XemaSab]

16. There's a BIG difference between

environmental degradation and climate change.

I am truly skeptical of this 300K figure.

[Barrett808]

22. Here's their methodology:

C. Gradual environmental degradation due to climate change

Basic reasoning

Gradual environmental degradation due to climate change has a range of human impacts, including water stress, food insecurity, poverty and displacement. Several of these are linked to measurable health outcomes. Some of these have been linked to the effects of climate change, particularly malnutrition, diarrhoea and malaria. It is these health outcomes that are used as the basis for estimating the human impact of climate change in terms of seriously affected and deaths. These are certainly not the only human impacts of gradual environmental degradation due to climate change but they represent a reliable starting point for estimation.

Poor health outcomes frequently have a dynamic effect by exacerbating other areas of human development, including poverty and security. These effects are difficult to measure and current scientific research does not do this in detail and reliably enough to apply in global estimates. It is evident that populations that are vulnerable to the human impact of climate change often live in regions that are already affected by general development challenges and often also complex emergencies.

Model and approach applied

The estimates used in the Human Impact Report of the health outcomes that can be attributed to gradual environmental degradation due to climate change are based on the Global Burden of Disease Study by the World Health Organization. The study uses existing models that describe observed relationships between climate variations, either over short time periods or between locations, and a series of health outcomes. These climate–health relationships are extrapolated and linked to climate change projections and compared to a 1961–1990 baseline, as the climate are assumed to be more significant after this period. This, in turn, allows for estimation of the likely future health consequences of gradual environmental degradation due to climate change.

The results of the study are presented in terms of climate change risk factors per region – i.e. the factor by which climate change is increasing the underlying disease burden. A risk factor of 4 percent means that 4 percent of the overall disease burden (total number of cases) can be attributed to climate change. The WHO model is widely regarded to be the only model that provides a global estimate of the impact of the health consequences of climate change. It is a widely acknowledged model, and during the course of consultations, a majority of experts have indicated this as the most reliable study.

Key indicators

• Climate change risk factor for malnutrition - i.e. the percentage by which climate change increases the risk of malnutrition

• Climate change risk factor for diarrhoea- i.e. the percentage by which climate change increases the risk of diarrhoea

• Climate change risk factor for malaria- i.e. the percentage by which climate change increases the risk of malaria

Assumptions and calculations

• The risk factors, which are computed for lives lost, are also applied for the number of people affected. The original study describes climate change induced disease burden in terms of number of lives lost and disability adjusted life years, (DALYs – a time-based measure combining years of life lost due to premature death and disability, see further details in Glossary). To estimate the number of people affected, this report applies the same risk factors to the number of people seriously affected by disease, such as people who contract malaria, people suffering from malnutrition, and the number of diarrhoea
incidences.

• The number of cases approximately equals the total number affected: (1) Malnourishment cases over one year equal about the total number of people affected by malnutrition, (2) recorded malaria cases approximately equal the total number affected by malaria each year (and assumes some potential underreporting of cases due to data availability challenges), and (3) diarrhoea incidences approximately equals the number of people affected by diarrhoea. Results are based on best estimates available currently.

• Any overlaps, whereby the same individual suffers from malnutrition and also diarrhoea or malaria could lead to some overestimation. This is likely offset by potential underreporting of overall disease levels, possible underestimation of climate change risk factors and having the health impacts account for all impacts of gradual environmental degradation.

• All health consequences measured refer to the gradual impact of climate change and no major additional gradual onset impacts are left out.

• The global disease burden is kept constant as it is assumed that future population growth will counteract intervention gains.

• The climate change scenario used is the mid range of the HadCM2 global climate model (i.e. one of several alternative global climate models) used previously by the IPCC.

Human Impact Report, page 88
http://assets.ghf-ge.org/downloads/humanimpactreport.pdf

[XemaSab]

23. I don't care for their methodology at all

It looks to me like they took the growth in diseases such as malaria, stuck them as one axis on a chart, stuck a MODEL projection of regional change in climate on the other axis, and drew a line out from there.

If it was tacked to something observable, like desertification or flooding, then sure, okay, that works, but a model of projected regional change? Notsomuch.

I hate models.

[Barrett808]

21. Report is available here:

Human Impact Report
A comprehensive report documenting the global impact of climate change on human society today
http://www.ghf-ge.org/programmes/human_impact_report/index.cfm

[ohio2007]

24. New Solar Cycle Prediction

The sun is entering a "passive" period

New Solar Cycle Prediction

May 29, 2009: An international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle. Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots.

snip




Above: Yearly-averaged sunspot numbers from 1610 to 2008. Researchers believe upcoming Solar Cycle 24 will be similar to the cycle that peaked in 1928, marked by a red arrow. Credit: NASA/MSFC


snip


Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earth’s atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract. Space junk accumulates in Earth orbit because there is less aerodynamic drag. The becalmed solar wind whips up fewer magnetic storms around Earth's poles. Cosmic rays that are normally pushed back by solar wind instead intrude on the near-Earth environment. There are other side-effects, too, that can be studied only so long as the sun remains quiet.

Meanwhile, the sun pays little heed to human committees. There could be more surprises, panelists acknowledge, and more revisions to the forecast.


Above: This plot of sunspot numbers shows the measured peak of the last solar cycle in blue and the predicted peak of the next solar cycle in red. Credit: NOAA/Space Weather Prediction Center

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm

jmo,
as indicated by the lack of cat.5 hurricanes that were predicted to number between five and nine a year after Katrina the forcast oulook has changed;

The global warming debate should be put on the back burner for a few years followed by peak knee jerk ominous forecasts in and around 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj-4t9drUlM