- cross-posted to:
- collapse@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- collapse@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
- Build cities in the desert
- Heat up climate
- ???
- Oh god what have I done
A few years of never going outside before the power infrastructure finally overloads and no more air conditioning.
Letting the days go by!
Let the water all dry up
Letting the days go by!
Water flowing underground?!
Into the alfalfa, until the money’s gone
Once in a lifetime! Lake Mead’s looking more like ground.
I’m 110% on board with global warming, but this graph is misleading.
The author needs to at least correct for population changes (heat deaths per X residents). Even better would be to account for changing demographics, like age and county. From this random stats website, it looks like there has been a dramatic increase in proportion of older residents since 1970. Old people are more likely to die, so more elders = more deaths.
If I wasn’t about to head to bed, I might try to fix it, but… sleep.
Oh, and I’m pretty sure there has been an increase in small plane crashes in AZ. The hot air is much thinner than most pilots are used to, so they tend to forget accounting for changes in thrust and climb rates. I’m pretty sure a couple happened in just the last few weeks.
And whenever you have a chart of historical data like this, you have to at least consider that an increase could be reflective of either improved diagnostic or record-keeping abilities.
If we stop testing we will have 0 cases!
More like you just died from old in 1970, versus acute heat stroke in 2023.
I say this being fully on board with the climate change. Charts like this serve little purpose when you don’t properly adjust for the myriad changes that have occured over the last half century. And before anyone says “you mean like global warming,” no, don’t account for that one, because that’s what we’re trying to see.
Yeah, it can be as simple as the death certificates requiring only a primary cause of death.
Old man collapses from a heart attack while trying to change a tire on a hot desert road? Cause of death: heart attack. If more details are requested, they could probably get away with just claiming age-related health issues. The guy is dead, no foul play, the case is closed.
Finally, someone gets it. We just need to ban thermometers.
The libs are making us slaves to those damn thermomasters! They better not take away my freedom to boil off those 3 remaining brain cells!
AKA the conservative COVID strategy.
As an analyst, this pissed me off. There’s like an oath to never fudge, misrepresent, or be selective with data to manipulate the viewer. We collect raw data for the purest source of fact. It is a single source of truth.
Just a quick Google on one of the glaringly obvious misrepresentations in this graph, and AZ’s population in 1970 was 1.77M; it is now 7.36M. Displaying this graph more truthfully would still highlight increased temperatures impacting increased rate of death to heat, but not at all dramatically, so the creator has misrepresented. Then there’s a lot more to factor in for proper analysis. Healthcare rate with growth? Infrastructure for the same? Why just Arizona?
Climate change science has fact and figure on its side. There is not need to misrepresent it like deniers do. Doing so dilutes and damages the cause by denying the one thing it has, truth.
Exactly. I stumbled across this report from the AZ Dept of Health which breaks it down into per 100k people and the data still supports the author’s point. The report then goes on to divide up the population by age, residents vs visitors, county, etc.
Hell, the FT author could have just included a plot of the population growth, which was pretty linear. Not great, but better than nothing.
Grinds my gears.
Here’s a version scaled by population (deaths per 100,000 residents). I’m no expert in this kind of thing, so I didn’t account for other factors, such as age groups. Also, the data I found using the source in the original graph only went up to 2021, and didn’t include 2017 for some reason.
Yeah, that looks more reasonable. The original graph makes it look like there have been ~5x the number of deaths in the last few years compared to ~10 years ago. Adjusted for population growth, it’s ~2-3x.
That’s still really concerning and makes the point the article was making, while being much more accurate and defensible when scrutinized. Thanks for that!
yeah, people lose so much credibility when they don’t even control for simple easy things.
there will always be some confounding factors, but doing rate per population, is rarely hard - andneeded over decade comparisons.
demographic risk adjustment is more complex, so i’d not expect that. but if it is at least acknowledged, then the article is more credible and will get more (of my) attention.
media (and i guess their audience) seem to enjoy hype though . . .
oh shit this is the f.t. i used to think they were among the more credible journo’s. pity.
I agree. And shit like this makes me trust financial reporting in general. It’s akin to not accounting for inflation in financial graphs.
And yes, the risk adjustment can be as complex as they want to make it, but when I clicked, I was expecting a study of some type. Probably my bias kicking in. My first thought was, “Are they kidding?” Then I saw it was from a news source and thought, “Oh, okay… no wait. Still, they know this is bad, right?”
Still gets those nummy clicks, I guess.
Hmm, but a big part of the problem here is that vulnerable places like Arizona are also those seeing such high population growth. I’m not sure correcting for that would make the graph “better”, it would just show something different.
I’m not advocating for better or worse. In the end, the data shows what it shows. I’m just saying that there was essentially no “analysis”, making any interpretation inappropriate.
Hey, more people should survive, thanks to newer medical treatments and more concentration of populations around cities.
On the flip side, there’s a larger portion of the population that’s older and from out of state.
In between there’s the chance that the threat of heat-related health problems should be much diminished due to widespread access to air conditioning. But, that also means more people haven’t had first hand experience with heat exhaustion/stroke, and don’t realize how quickly things can go from kinda bad to dead.
If only we had some kind of warning?!? If only there was something we could do about it?!?
I tried praying, don’t look at me I did my part
I did both thoughts and prayers.
You forgot the Thoughts!!
Typical
But my end of the boat is perfectly dry!
dr. david suzuki pours himself another scotch and sighs.
Wake me up when it’s guillotine day.
Day of the rope? The guillotine is too nice.
That has a different connotation. You might want to look where it came from.
Nah, fuck them both. Put the oil execs outside in the heat and let them roast.
Are you seriously referencing the neo Nazi Turner Diaries?
Climate change is just getting started and people should start suing cities and design firms for failing to include shade requirements in their standards and for making roads too wide to properly shade
Where natural shade can’t be sustained artificial shade needs to be provided.
The single family house on a grass lawn is such a stupid idea in many places
I wish, but I just know the segregationist city planners in my town will just lay down more asphalt and gated suburbs. We don’t even have sidewalks or crosswalks even though there’s people walking/biking everywhere. They intentionally make our towns unlivable.
Ironically the oil companies back in the 60’s, did an extensive research into what exactly would happen to the climate and ecology etc, if they kept drilling for and using fossil fuel etc. It’s so accurate that even todays models aren’t that good (I find that fact odd), but bottomline, they knew… they knew, but kept on doing it anyway.
This sounds interesting. Do you have sources for these studies and models?
They are likely referring to Exxon’s research. I think they started research in the 70s which spread the earth would warm with an increase in CO2. They did quite a few studies (that they kept internal) and a good chunk of them were as good of not better than NASA’s climate models. They are not as good as our current models though. But considering they have denied CO2 linked climate change despite their own research showing it for the past 60+ years, they can go fuck themselves.
A Dutch site, but with a bit of translation applied it should be perfectly readable from Dutch to English. Also you are not bombarded with ads unlike the original the guardian link, they link to that article and so it’s available if preferred.
Leuk, dank je
They’re just going to let the homeless die in the streets, aren’t they? 😑
They always were
Just thought I’d add this report from the AZ health department. This breaks down the factors MUCH better and comes to a similar, but not quite as extreme, conclusion. Only part is normalized for population, but it gives an idea of how to scale the numbers.
Maybe we should burn more fossil fuels about it
Just shoot at it with all the guns.
And keep eating meat. “Good karma”
I’ve been seeing a lot of “Eat Beef” bumper stickers in my area. Doesn’t give me any high hopes.
I mean sure, but greenhouse gasses from agriculture are tiny compared to fossil fuels.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
estation, which release carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O); production and use of fertilizers and other agrichemicals, which emit CO2, N2O, and methane (CH4); enteric fermentation during the production of ruminants (cows, sheep, and goats), which emits CH4; production of rice in paddies, which emits CH4; livestock manure, which emits N2O and CH4; and combustion of fossil fuels in food production and supply chains, which emits CO2. In total, global food system emissions averaged ~16 billion tonnes (Gt) CO2 equivalents year−1 from 2012 to 2017 (4).
Seems like going vegan wouldn’t help. Yours still have deforestation, fertilizer, rice paddies, and fossil fuels in production.
Plant based diets use 75% less land, less fertilizer, no manure which is destroying the water. With a plant rich diet we could reduce GHG from 1500 gt to 708.
I think you should re-read the paper.
Once the huge corporations do their part to stop killing the planet, I’ll consider going vegan. Until then I’ll put the pressure where it matters most.
Have you done your own research what matters most or do you go with science?
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
According to the IPCC going vegan is the biggest single step one can take.
B-b-b-but what about the bitcoins? Hurdur.
?
Sorry, I was adding to, not detracting from your statement. Consumer shaming runs deep in this era, and corpo greed fuels it, agreed.
I just want to say that graphs like this should be contrasted with the number of deaths from extreme cold. I know Arizona probably doesn’t have the numbers of say, Alaska, but it’s worthy of note to contrast the two.
I’d also point out that it is far easier for an individual to protect themselves against the rigors of cold than it is for heat; in the cold, with warm clothing, you can keep yourself warm, while the environment is very cold; fire is relatively easy to make, even if you have little more than sticks, and thus getting warm or keeping yourself warm is by and large easier to accomplish than staying cold.
When you’re in an extremely hot environment, it’s not like you can make yourself more naked than naked. You need some outside influence to keep you cool, like a swamp cooler, a misting sprayer, a cool body of water (like a river or lake), or some kind of man-made cooling device like an Air Conditioner, in a relatively sealed enclosure (which relies on consistent access to power to run it). most of these are either inaccessible to people in a city or built-up area; sure, there are fixtures, like fountains that contain water, usually not enough to keep them from heating up, and usually the water is recycled, so the heat stays with the water. all other water access is typically restricted to water lines, which usually someone is paying for, and nobody wants to pay to keep random people cool when they don’t have to. All man-made (air conditioner) type cooling is generally access restricted to either workplaces, homes, or businesses/storefronts, where the expectation is that you’ll be spending money there (which not everyone has).
I’m just saying, that the limiting factor to reducing death by extreme heat, is a far larger one, than death by extreme cold, where you should only need to hand out sweaters, gloves/mittens, jackets, blankets, etc, to keep people from dying from it. There’s far-end extreme cold that almost nothing will save you from short of a heated structure, but generally, places that are inhabited by people who don’t have access to safe heat and cooling (like a home), are more temperate than that extreme of cold… not exactly too many homeless people walking around the arctic or Antarctic circles…
Neither is good, but both seem inevitable; regardless we should be doing all we can to help to ensure the survival of everyone, as a species. Whether that’s saving them from the heat, the cold, from starvation or dehydration, we should be helping in any way we are able to.
To be honest, I lost track of what was your point except for the fact that we need to pair the graph with one about extreme cold deaths
Surely we can just pray for it to go away.
Or move away from the freakin hot ass desert.
Is there a source that doesn’t require me log into Twitter?
Sir, this is a screenshot
Mr. Nixon may want to sneak into Twitter and see it for himself
Here you are:
Courtesy of this Mastodon toot
Thanks. Some screenshot of a tweet isn’t a source, but what you posted was.
the screenshot says “Financial Times” at the bottom left and “Source: FT analysis of CDC WONDER” in the bottom right
Removed by mod
Between literal apocalyptic scenarios and open fascism, it’s hard not to picture the trolley problem. But we’re forced to pretend everyone’s acting in good faith. Like if we just try harder, words will work, all of a sudden.
At some point we’re telling people not to “escalate” to violence against people shoving them onto the train. The shovers aren’t the ones killing them… directly. They’re just public servants, doing their job! So relax, get along, kumbayah, and get in the fuckin’ train.
For some queer Americans that’s not an exaggerated comparison. The actual Nazis also targeted trans people, almost immediately. Decades of records on transition and therapeutic treatments were burned, by doctors, to protect those individuals from murderous bigots. Nowadays it wouldn’t even work because that’s all digital. And the elected bastards talking about accessing teen girls’ period apps to detect pregnancy are the exact same bastards talking about globe-spanning temperature data like detecting a trend is impossible.
I think I agree with you on all those points but that was one rollercoaster of a post.
Exciting times will do that.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Love the energy, but before posting anything on the internet you should imagine a prosecutor asking you to read it to a jury
Yes, judge, i said " we should just shoot the people who are actively killing us."
What’s the problem here? It’s stand your ground / self defense at its finest.
100% tax on anything past 100 million or 100% of their head gets lopped off. That’s still an absurd amount of money for you and your family. Put the rest into growing your businesses and thus the economy, or give it to Uncle Sam for some socialized healthcare and UBI instead.
Put the rest into growing your businesses
That’s what they currently do. All of them. That’s the whole point in them owning/investing in a business. That’s how they sidestep so many taxes. Aside from a few (relatively) toys and houses, do you really think Musk or Bezos keep billions on hand in liquid form or physically owned objects?
I have a friend with parents that owned their own business that wasn’t really all that large. It had a net profit of maybe $450,000 per year. They paid themselves enough to do whatever they wanted to that year, and the company “reinvests” the rest. It’s all a shell game to avoid taxes. They did it by buying real estate for the company to ‘eventually’ grow on, but just put five cows on and got themselves agricultural exemptions on taxes, then sold the land later. Repeat x100. That money from the sale could be shuffled into other ‘company’ assets. That’s super small time. They didn’t have fancy lawyers or investing agents to help.
Big, rich, asshole business does it by buying back stock, diversifying (do you really think the big contractor company wants to own a grocery store chain, or a bank wants to own restaurants?) into assets that can just be sold later to recoup the money, etc.
Owning a business is all about tax avoidance. An individual doesn’t have many ways to pump up deductions on taxes, but businesses have so many different avenues that even the IRS throws up their hands at some point. Requiring an individual to “put the rest into” their business won’t change anything, and god knows the economy improving is only going to help a small portion of society. That portion isn’t the portion that needs help.
Also, truthfully, I’d lower your number to $10,000,000. It’s enough to live on even in the ritziest of areas, in the fanciest of houses that aren’t mansions, and is still more per year than the highest of the middle-class will earn in their lives.
I’m stealing this. I’m seriously worried for the world. We are entering a new age of the diggers and levellers and that ended with the beheading of the king and no real change.
We have a segment of the population that’s exceedingly frothing at the mouth and in some cases for very valid reasons but at the same time they have no plan and that’s scary. They want to scorch the earth instead of fix it.
I would say the richest and most evil of us dooming our planet to a heated, hell hole of an apocalypse kind of deserves some emotional reaction. The lack of one by most of the population is probably why we won’t see change until it’s too late.
It already is too late.
The only thing we have left is to make sure the ones whi caused this suffer as immeasurably possible as the damage they’ve done. To make sure they do not enjoy one second of the remainder of their days.
This includes any and all o&g execs. Every last shareholder. Every politician who has done nothing or invited this. Every one of them.
Heads on sticks.
I’m stealing this.
Please do!
I’m seriously worried for the world.
Same :(
We are entering a new age of the diggers and levellers and that ended with the beheading of the king and no real change.
First of all, great reference, the English civil war is a fascinating period of history.
But second of all, it wasn’t the diggers who chopped off Charles’ head, they basically never had any real influence on anyone. It was the nobility in parliament that did that (and honestly, Charles did it to himself by being such a stubborn pain in the ass for the nobility), and they were the same ones who didn’t have a plan/couldn’t really imagine a world without a king, which is why they basically forced Cromwell to be king in all but name and then crowned Charles’ son when Cromwell died.
They want to scorch the earth instead of fix it.
I can imagine a lot of scenarios where a bit of scorching is a necessary first step in fixing (but I can also imagine a lot of scenarios where scorching goes off the rails and/or starts cycles of vengeance, so, yeah, we’re seriously worried for the world and for good reason).
Another amateur history buff?!
I wasn’t implying the diggers chopped off Charles’ head. I was more hinting at he political turmoil at the time was very similar to what we see now and it scares me. Those who don’t pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it and we are collectively horrible at teaching people history!
Fair enough, the emergence of groups like them is definitely a symptom of a stressed social system, it’s just I don’t think they’re often the actual cause of the stress, and sometimes listening to those radical groups is the only way to resolve the actual stress (e.g. abolitionists in the United States were right and we just needed to completely abolish slavery for moral and practical reasons but most everyone thought they were crazy until like 1863). I don’t think that really applies to the diggers (the English civil war was a bunch of rich people fighting for power by throwing mountains of poor people at each other who were never organized enough to have their own faction in that fight), but it might apply to our present-day situation (e.g. people like Pia Klemp make a lot of sense to me).
On a related note, if you’re into the history of political upheavals, I highly recommend this podcast called Revolutions1 that actually did a season on the English Civil war and is just absolutely fantastic throughout it’s whole ridiculously long run.
1 best links for finding it depends on if you’re on a desktop, iOS, or Android device,
Sheeeesh, reading y’all’s conversation was more enticing than any history class I ever attended.
I am glad we have lemmy. In Reddit you could have been banned even acting on a based self defense
On reddit I was banned for suggesting it would be better to force change now than wait until things are even worse.
Let’s just all agree as humans to never convict someone who’s on trial for that
Arizonans just need to learn to hop better. 😀 👍
Kids nowadays are so fragile with your participation trophies and dying from touching the ground. In my day, we pull up our bootstraps and head for the coal mines, then lie down on asphalt to nap like Real Men™ do.
/s if it isn’t blatantly obvious.
Every time I see crazy heat data for Arizona and other places like it in the US, it makes me wonder. When the fuck will we see a reversion of population trends of people moving south? Arizona, Texas, etc. are only going to get worse. Everywhere is going to get worse, but there’s a lot of rapidly growing areas that are on track to be non-viable for 1/3+ of the year within 10-20 years.
People should not be moving to Arizona, not with climate change as it is.
I don’t know that the northern U.S. will be that great either in the summer. I’m in Indiana and it’s been in the 90s for weeks. When I was a kid, it was a day here or there in the 90s.
