| ▲ | sixtyj 5 hours ago |
| > Almost half of the global population will be living with extreme heat by 2050 if the world reaches 2C of global warming above preindustrial levels, according to a University of Oxford study published in January. |
|
| ▲ | imoverclocked 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Good thing we are working so hard to automate the kind of work where you sit in the shade at a desk. (/sarcasm) I think the disconnect between many people hearing "2C of warming" and the overall effects that will have is grossly underestimated. I kinda wish we could talk about how much raw energy that is ... even if we use American units of barrels of oil, or something. |
| |
| ▲ | bobthepanda 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We tried talking about sea level rise and land area inundation, and more severe storms, and amongst many the collective response was to stick their fingers in their ears. The real conversation we should have is about money talking; a huge amount of assets are facing being stranded by insurers. Insurance doesn't really care about ideology, they care about making money, and so the fact they are losing money to climate change is pretty irrefutable evidence. Though right now politicians are just reframing this as "greedy insurance", which isn't exactly untrue. | | |
| ▲ | derf_ 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > ...the fact they are losing money to climate change is pretty irrefutable evidence. Insurance prices risk. If risk goes up, so do prices. They will not lose (much) money (or not for long) [1], your insurance will just get a lot more expensive, maybe to the point you can no longer afford it. If the government tries to control prices, then insurers will just exit the market, or the only entrants will be severely under-capitalized, merely providing the veneer of insurance (e.g., because your mortgage lender requires it). This is already happening in Florida and Louisiana [2]. These insurers will simply go bankrupt in the event of a catastrophe, and you will be stuck with the loss. [1] Technically, in a competitive environment, many insurance companies will operate with a (small) underwriting loss, but they make up the difference by investing the float during the time between when they collect the premiums and when they pay out on claims. They will not operate with an unbounded loss. [2] https://www.wsj.com/finance/small-insurance-company-hurrican... | | |
| ▲ | warumdarum 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | How do you price in whole mountsin regions beeing in for repeatet flooding events basically forcing continuous rebuilds and thus having way overpriced houses? How do you price insurrance on objects that shouldnt exist ? |
| |
| ▲ | calvinmorrison 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Probably cause we bailed out south Jersey and instead of packing up and heading inland Margate boasts homes over 1.5 million dollars |
| |
| ▲ | zzgo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Number of tanks of gas for a Ford F-150 Supercab is the American standard unit. | | | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I think the disconnect between many people hearing "2C of warming" and the overall effects that will have is grossly underestimated. The problem is that the loudest voices in the global discussion are people living in relatively cold-ish Western climates because, well, we are the rich and powerful people. And for many of us (maybe bar the Southern-most part of the US), even 10 °C increase of yearly average temperatures or even peak temperatures would still be perfectly fine. The fact that 2 °C is probably enough to render the space of potentially billions of people uninhabitable is completely outside of the experienced reality in Western countries, we cannot relate from our lived reality to theirs. And that kind of disconnect is prevalent among any kind of discourse in humanity. The fact that we can even do so, that right here on this website we have people worth billions of dollars (e.g. sama is Sam Altman!) debating with people that barely scrape by on their national poverty level, is a wonder that would have been unimaginable 200 years ago. Human biology, human society hasn't evolved mechanisms to keep up with our technological progress, and it breaks apart everywhere. | | |
| ▲ | Asmod4n 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 10 degrees increase would collapse any industry, it would turn Norway into Italy. Do you drive to Norway for your beach holiday? | |
| ▲ | littlexsparkee 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Plants would just keep chugging at temps 10 °C hotter than they're evolved for? | |
| ▲ | asdff 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >And for many of us (maybe bar the Southern-most part of the US) Actually look at median temperatures in the US. Summers in Atlanta and Chicago are remarkably similar as it is. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | HerbManic 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have seen some Climatologists who are thinking we might hit the 2C mark by mid to late 2030's simply based on the exponential heating pace we are seeing decade over decade. Part of it being some feedback loops have arisen from our increased heating. It's wild to think that we might be only 10 years away from that line in the sand we marked. Hopefully they are wrong but I fear they are not. |
| |
| ▲ | nxm an hour ago | parent [-] | | Only a month ago:
Scientists Rule Out a Worst-Case Climate Scenario You’ll be allright |
|
|
| ▲ | joenot443 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| These metrics are hard to grapple with when "living with extreme heat" isn't something most people can conceptualize. Findings from 2025 - > Over the 12-month period, 4 billion people — about 49% of the global population — experienced at least 30 days of extreme heat (hotter than 90% of temperatures observed in their local area over the 1991-2020 period). [1] [1] https://www.climatecentral.org/report/climate-change-and-the... |
| |
| ▲ | mkl an hour ago | parent [-] | | That statement seems totally empty and could be true even if those 12 months in 2024-25 were cooler. 10% of days in 1991-2020 were hotter than 90% of days in 1991-2020, which is on average 36.5 days in a 12 month period. | | |
| ▲ | rileymat2 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I can't see the methodology, but it would shock me if they did not take into account the local high based on the time of year. Edit:
In the methodology section it is not clear whether they used one average or average for the date. | | |
| ▲ | mkl an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yes, I expect the problem is in this summarisation of the research, not the research itself. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | sieabahlpark 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
