Death toll from climate change

The number of people dying each year due to human created climate change is already massive and will only grow over time as the impacts become more severe.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy

Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study. The impacts are being felt most keenly in developing countries, according to the research, where damage to agricultural production from extreme weather linked to climate change is contributing to deaths from malnutrition, poverty and their associated diseases.
The financial cost is also huge, about $1,500,000,000,000 a year. The fossil fuel companies are making a literal killing, spending tens of millions of dollars a year often laundered through "charities" that hide the source, to carry out a disinformation campaign to continue to deny any responsibility for what will almost certainly be the greatest tragedy in human history. It may very well end human civilization itself and possibly our species. All because a tiny percent of our population have become so attached to the virtually unlimited wealth and power they derive from extracting and selling billions of tons of fossil fuels a year.
The number of people dying each year due to human created climate change is already massive and will only grow over time as the impacts become more severe. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy
Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study. The impacts are being felt most keenly in developing countries, according to the research, where damage to agricultural production from extreme weather linked to climate change is contributing to deaths from malnutrition, poverty and their associated diseases.
The financial cost is also huge, about $1,500,000,000,000 a year. The fossil fuel companies are making a literal killing, spending tens of millions of dollars a year often laundered through "charities" that hide the source, to carry out a disinformation campaign to continue to deny any responsibility for what will almost certainly be the greatest tragedy in human history. It may very well end human civilization itself and possibly our species. All because a tiny percent of our population have become so attached to the virtually unlimited wealth and power they derive from extracting and selling billions of tons of fossil fuels a year.
Doug, I understand your point. I would like to make say that your data is from 2012, when Climate Change included Global Warming. Today the two are separated and to get a clear understanding of the problem you need to separate the two. Global Warming has been costly and is going to be more costly in the future. Climate Change is the manmade heat or cold added to Global Warming. Global Warming has always been a problem, even back in the 1800’s there were times millions died in a year from the causes of agricultural production.
The number of people dying each year due to human created climate change is already massive and will only grow over time as the impacts become more severe. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy
Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study. The impacts are being felt most keenly in developing countries, according to the research, where damage to agricultural production from extreme weather linked to climate change is contributing to deaths from malnutrition, poverty and their associated diseases.
The financial cost is also huge, about $1,500,000,000,000 a year. The fossil fuel companies are making a literal killing, spending tens of millions of dollars a year often laundered through "charities" that hide the source, to carry out a disinformation campaign to continue to deny any responsibility for what will almost certainly be the greatest tragedy in human history. It may very well end human civilization itself and possibly our species. All because a tiny percent of our population have become so attached to the virtually unlimited wealth and power they derive from extracting and selling billions of tons of fossil fuels a year.
Doug, I understand your point. I would like to make say that your data is from 2012, when Climate Change included Global Warming. Today the two are separated and to get a clear understanding of the problem you need to separate the two. Global Warming has been costly and is going to be more costly in the future. Climate Change is the manmade heat or cold added to Global Warming. Global Warming has always been a problem, even back in the 1800’s there were times millions died in a year from the causes of agricultural production. Despite what this denier spambot keeps trying to claim - it obviously doesn't get my point or it would just go away- climate change and global warming are two separate but related phenomena, both in this context the result of human activity. To be precise the addition of several hundred BILLION tons of CO2 to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels has created a radiative forcing that is warming the entire globe, climate change is the result. And no, it's not part of some "natural" cycle, it's a radical human forced departure from the natural cycle. https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326
Global Warming vs. Climate Change Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, which you can see here:
'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc. These projections of future global precipitation changes from the 2007 IPCC report are an example of climate change:
Thus while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing. Human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate change. However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications.

Doug you use the phrase “human created climate change" and then add the 2012 data leading to the belief that 400,000 people may have died in 2011 due to man-made heat alone. Is that correct?
I ask if that is the point you are trying to convey and you call me names. Shame on you.

Why climate change deniers have no credibility.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
99.87% of the peer-reviewed science is in support of human created climate change.
Which according to the evidence is already killing about 300,000 people a year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/5406487/Climate-change-kills-300000-every-year.html
So anybody screwing around with this topic is operating on the consciousless level of a piece of malware. Which is why the responses of the poster above resemble the bizarre nonsense that is generated by that kind of spambots. So there are no feelings there to hurt, just contempt for all life to counter with facts. Because that’s what this kind of denial is at its roots, contempt for all life.

So anybody screwing around with this topic is operating on the consciousless level of a piece of malware. Which is why the responses of the poster above resemble the bizarre nonsense that is generated by that kind of spambots.So there are no feelings there to hurt, just contempt for all life to counter with facts. Because that's what this kind of denial is at its roots, contempt for all life.
Yeah, I know what you mean. In trying to "debate" or exchange ideas with contrarians, I've often felt like my words simply get processed through some algorithm rather than a conscientious thinking human mind.
Why climate change deniers have no credibility. http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart 99.87% of the peer-reviewed science is in support of human created climate change. Which according to the evidence is already killing about 300,000 people a year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/5406487/Climate-change-kills-300000-every-year.html So anybody screwing around with this topic is operating on the consciousless level of a piece of malware. Which is why the responses of the poster above resemble the bizarre nonsense that is generated by that kind of spambots. So there are no feelings there to hurt, just contempt for all life to counter with facts. Because that's what this kind of denial is at its roots, contempt for all life.
Sorry Doug, you struck out on your data. The article states that 300,000 die every year as a result of global warming. Now they use the spin “Climate change ‘kills 300,000 every year". That alone should have been a clue that you were using old data that did not separate Climate Change from Global Warming. And now you are trying to back up your statement “…..due to human created climate change…" which is very clear and understandable. Can you answer the question, if man-made Climate Change is killing 400,000 people a year, how many people are being killed in the same year by Global Warming? What is the total number of people killed each year by the combined Climate Change and Global Warming?

For anyone really interested in the science of this.
Global Warming- is the effect of human activity adding hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide to the Earth’s atmosphere. It means the global average temperature has been rising as a result.
Climate Change- is the response to this trend of rising global average temperature. They haven’t “separated”, as long as we keep adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere then the global average temperature will keep rising and climate change we be more and more catastrophic.
This is also an illustration of how global warming and climate change denial work, take well established principles and twist them until they’re recognizable.
It’s been well established that Mike Yohe is in fact a climate change and global warming - they’re both part of the same thing, they haven’t “separated”- denier and anything he posts on this issue is meant to confuse not illuminate what is actually occurring. The same for stardusty psyche, they both refuse to defend what they post with evidence and make scientifically unsupported posts.
If this site had any real scientific credibility they would both be banned.
As that doesn’t seem to be happening I’m no longer going to lend my voice here, it indirectly validates the worst fraud and conspiracy in history. One that is already killing hundreds of thousands of PEOPLE every year and that death toll will continue to rise until our civilization then possibly our species are at risk of collapse.
Shame on whoever runs this forum for not taking responsibility for what’s being posted…

Global Warming and Climate Change meaning have been changing over time. What I simply did was point out the meaning that was in use when the article that was written in 2012 was in use. The reason for this is that by using it in today’s meaning is misleading. For example the term “Global Warming" is not even used today by the leading authority on the subject, the IPCC. The closest term in use today for Global Warming is Global Warming Potential (GWP). The term now in use for “Global Warming" that is used in the article is “Climate Variability" according to the UNFCCC, Article 1.
There are no rules or regulations that require what the scientists or journalists have to use unless they are part of an organization that has adopted meanings for the terms. And I see articles and reports by scientists who have not yet adopted the IPCC’s meanings. And they need to use a standard meaning so the data can be understood and not misrepresented.

Oh for gosh sake grow up >:-(
Global Warming is what happens when we increase our planet’s atmospheric insulation.
Climate Change is what global warming causes.
It really is that simple, er fundamental. :long:

. . . data that did not separate Climate Change from Global Warming.
I'm curious how would YOU separate Climate Change from Global Warming?
. . . data that did not separate Climate Change from Global Warming.
I'm curious how would YOU separate Climate Change from Global Warming? Good question. Most of the time I don’t. Why waste time on dead words like “global warming" when I could be looking at naked girls on the internet or a million other things more constructive. To answer your question. I don’t separate the two because “global warming" is not even a word today. People have screwed the meaning up so bad that the word had to be trashed. It will take a while for the alarmist to catch up and start using the term “Climate Variability". But given time they will. Remember we talked about the computer models and the datum line. Until the computer models are finished and the datum line is established there is no possible way to separate today as well as in 2012 the heat difference between GW and CC. At 2011 point in time GW was all the heat and CC was only that part of the heat created by the actions of mankind. The article that Doug was using was saying 400,000 people were dying because of the heat and the causes of the heat in the time period close to 2011. I brought up the fact that history shows us that heat has always been a problem and there were times that over a million people died in a year because of the heat. Doug responded with the phrase “human created climate change". Therefore there was no question on how Doug was using the article. The article was clear that “human created climate change" was only contributing to the death toll. Therefore as we would expect without an established datum line by the computer models that there is no way to know how many of the 400,000 deaths were to blame on the manmade heat. Back at you with a question. Is it right to blame mankind for the heat deaths that are from natural causes? Because Doug was doing that. And blaming it all on mankind. Bad or twisted data is not the direction to solving the problem. Following the guidance of the IPCC I think is the best path.
Following the guidance of the IPCC I think is the best path.
What is that guidance we should follow?
Following the guidance of the IPCC I think is the best path.
What is that guidance we should follow? I wish the IPCC would publish a guide book. But they don’t. In the memos it is easy to understand that they want to avoid public controversy. For example, they instruct the scientists to avoid any claims of 100%. Even if it is 100%. They want to leave a margin to avoid any controversy. Therefore you can be 99% sure, but being 100% sure is forbidden. They never talk about deniers. They focus on the computer models. The way I view the project is, it is one of the most important projects of mankind. Climate research has now reached the same engineering levels as quantum mechanics, oil and gas exploration, weather forecasting and molecular modeling. I am willing to bet in the next couple of years climate research will pass these other areas of research. I got to say that the IPCC is doing a great job and hopefully their work will save many species and people.
Following the guidance of the IPCC I think is the best path.
What is that guidance we should follow? I wish the IPCC would publish a guide book. But they don’t. In the memos it is easy to understand that they want to avoid public controversy. For example, they instruct the scientists to avoid any claims of 100%. Even if it is 100%. They want to leave a margin to avoid any controversy. Therefore you can be 99% sure, but being 100% sure is forbidden. They never talk about deniers. They focus on the computer models. The way I view the project is, it is one of the most important projects of mankind. Climate research has now reached the same engineering levels as quantum mechanics, oil and gas exploration, weather forecasting and molecular modeling. I am willing to bet in the next couple of years climate research will pass these other areas of research. I got to say that the IPCC is doing a great job and hopefully their work will save many species and people. So you say we should follow the IPCC guidelines but cannot cite any guidelines. The IPCC has stated quite clearly that mankind's emissions are driving climate change. From the 2014 Summary for Policy Makers.
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmo- spheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic driv- ers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
No quibbling about Climate Change v Global Warming. No stating we need to wait for further data before taking action. Just a very clear statement about what is causing climate change. BTW, the IPCC does not issue guidelines or make policy recommendations.
I got to say that the IPCC is doing a great job and hopefully their work will save many species and people.
Man you are great at blow jobs. I mean no slight to IPCC but do tell us Yoke what this "great job" is. From the way your words often come off, it's as though you think they do climate research. They don't. Like the old adage "IPCC reports you decide" Get it, or did I confuse you?
I got to say that the IPCC is doing a great job and hopefully their work will save many species and people.
Man you are great at blow jobs. I mean no slight to IPCC but do tell us Yoke what this "great job" is. From the way your words often come off, it's as though you think they do climate research. They don't. Like the old adage "IPCC reports you decide" Get it, or did I confuse you? Be glad to answer, but you will need to ask again in a proper manner.
No quibbling about Climate Change v Global Warming. No stating we need to wait for further data before taking action. Just a very clear statement about what is causing climate change.
You could apply that same thinking to starving people in the world. We know what is causing the problem, we know where the problems are located. There is no need to wait for data before taking action. Yet 1,250,000 children die every year from hunger. It is called the human factor. I personally think that we need to have the computer models operating before we attempt to deal with the human factor. It sure would have helped Al Gore. But you are right, the IPCC doesn’t care if you or any county, city or state wants to take actions to stop climate change. Ever notice how the IPCC rates the climate change science? Likely, very likely, extremely likely. It was just in the last report that CO2 causing warming went to extremely likely. Without the computer models there is no real unquestionable data. Nobody is forcing the countries of the world to spend money on building the computer models, yet they all are. If you got a method or idea how to fix the problems, let’s hear them. Remember the fix needs to be applied worldwide. And the fix is going to cause huge sacrifices in the standard of living worldwide.
BTW, the IPCC does not issue guidelines or make policy recommendations.
Let’s try and keep this as simple as possible and use the IPCC as the face of the Climate Change. Without the IPCC, the progress most likely would fall into disarray. No different than Homeland Security, if we started using the titles of the seventeen departments that are just involved in data collection alone, no one would know what we were talking about. An example would be the Air Force just built a new jet. People understand that. But in reality the Air Force don’t build planes. People give the Air Force credit, and that credit covers the builders of the planes.

Good job of evading your ridiculous statements, Mike. This is why trying to discuss anything with you is so frustrating. When called out on one of your stupid statements you simply deflect the discussion to another point, or refuse to answer until asked nicely. My point was you said we should follow the IPCC’s guidance. I asked what that guidance is, and you said you wished the IPCC would provide some guidelines. Do you not see the irrationality in your statements?
When confronted with the direct statement that the IPCC does not issue guidelines or make policy statements you go off into bizarro land about Homeland Security and the Air Force as if that has some relevance to this discussion. BTW, I’m still waiting for the citation where the IPCC defines the differences between Climate Change and Global Warming. You were quite adamant and even condescending about it in another thread until I challenged you to back up your statement, then you went silent. If you can provide such a citation I will apologize publicly. Until then, you have zero credibility on any subject.

Good job of evading your ridiculous statements, Mike. This is why trying to discuss anything with you is so frustrating. When called out on one of your stupid statements you simply deflect the discussion to another point, or refuse to answer until asked nicely. My point was you said we should follow the IPCC's guidance. I asked what that guidance is, and you said you wished the IPCC would provide some guidelines. Do you not see the irrationality in your statements? When confronted with the direct statement that the IPCC does not issue guidelines or make policy statements you go off into bizarro land about Homeland Security and the Air Force as if that has some relevance to this discussion. BTW, I'm still waiting for the citation where the IPCC defines the differences between Climate Change and Global Warming. You were quite adamant and even condescending about it in another thread until I challenged you to back up your statement, then you went silent. If you can provide such a citation I will apologize publicly. Until then, you have zero credibility on any subject.
Darron the whole job of the IPCC is to create the guidance needed for scientists from around the world to work together. When the IPCC was formed I thought it was going to be a waste of time and money. Just another government department that in the end just wanted to have power and grow in size. To my surprise this is not the case. For example they provide a “Summary for Policymakers". They are the storage and distribution network for all the data. I got to say I am very impressed with the quality of work and progress they have done so far. But to say that the IPCC does not provide guidance is like saying NASA does not do space flights. Example all the reports have the IPCC letter head. Yet, the IPCC does not directly do the research itself or fund any research. You could say they are in a way the figurehead of climate change research. Sorry you don’t understand how the Homeland Security or the Air Force operate, I never considered that in my example. As I pointed out the IPCC controls the data. Therefore they have to standardize the data or they would be just a warehouse. As I have said before go to the IPCC site and look up the term “global warming". There is none. That has not always been the case. When the meanings of words change over time, then one should use that meaning as it was meant in the time it was written. In the case of global warming, for the last several years it was being used several different ways. The IPCC tried to put a standard scientific meaning to the term, but it looks like they saw it was not working and to fix the problem they discarded the term altogether. Point being it is very important to check the meaning of the term as to how it is being used. It was almost funny to watch as people were claiming the term global warming had been around for hundreds of years. And some scientists were using the term climate change in referring to changes in the Ice Cores. Then we had core members of the IPCC like the NCAR start using the term anthropology climate change. It seemed the only way to get the data out without confusion was to add the word anthropology to the terms. Today without the term global warming we do not have to use the word anthropology with the term climate change anymore. Which I bet helps with teaching the children. As far as not answering your posts. Do you read the posts you write? It is like you get involved not to be part of the topic. But to create an opportunity for mocking. And it is not only me, you do the same thing to Dusty. Right now I am answering your post because you are being civil. As far as you giving me zero credibility, means I must be doing something right.