No, those are still completely made up numbers. The estimated number of excess deaths under the worst case scenario range from 7 to 15 million people annually by 2100.
You do know that until 2100, there is still very little effect of climate change?
The actual timescale for most of the effects is in the span of hundreds of years. Because the catastrophic effects are so far in the future is why people do so little about it.
You do know that until 2100, there is still very little effect of climate change?
The actual timescale for most of the effects is in the span of hundreds of years. Because the catastrophic effects are so far in the future is why people do so little about it.
There was no attempt to compare this to anything. It’s a stand alone claim, which you then later attempted to contextualize.
Let’s not claim this is my fault because I don’t read carefully enough. You made an imprecise statement and I corrected it.
Which scenario are you referring to? IPCC? Because one of the possibilities I’ve seen is that clouds will stop forming over land. Not to mention ocean acidification. That will kill far more.
It’s true that even the worst case IPCC projections are woefully optimistic. They almost completely fail to account for impacts beyond emissions or feedback loops or loss of keystone species, etc.
No, those are still completely made up numbers. The estimated number of excess deaths under the worst case scenario range from 7 to 15 million people annually by 2100.
You do know that until 2100, there is still very little effect of climate change?
The actual timescale for most of the effects is in the span of hundreds of years. Because the catastrophic effects are so far in the future is why people do so little about it.
We’re seeing effects now.
Yes, but compared to what humans later will see, that is very little.
No shit, but that doesn’t mean there’s “very little effect.” It doesn’t take a lot of warming to cause billions of people to die.
Yes, but if you read my statement carefully, I ever only speak about “very little” in the context of “compared to what will still happen”.
There was no attempt to compare this to anything. It’s a stand alone claim, which you then later attempted to contextualize.
Let’s not claim this is my fault because I don’t read carefully enough. You made an imprecise statement and I corrected it.
Which scenario are you referring to? IPCC? Because one of the possibilities I’ve seen is that clouds will stop forming over land. Not to mention ocean acidification. That will kill far more.
It’s true that even the worst case IPCC projections are woefully optimistic. They almost completely fail to account for impacts beyond emissions or feedback loops or loss of keystone species, etc.
This is just heat/cold related deaths.