• DrNeurohax@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    102
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • oo1@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • DrNeurohax@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • DrNeurohax@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

    • DakkaDok@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.

      • DrNeurohax@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        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!

    • IntrepidIceIgloo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      rates. I’m pretty sure a couple happened in just the last few weeks.

      I’ve heard of articles saying that global warming is already leading to more air turbulence and that it is only going to get much stronger by the mid century

      • DrNeurohax@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yes. Hot air is thinner, so there’s less lift on aircraft wings. There’s actually a conversion they’re supposed to use that basically says, 'At this temp, treat the plane as if it’s actually at this other, much higher, altitude."

        Here’s one of the recent videos I’ve seen mentioning it (around 5 min in they mention the “density altitude”). I’m not a pilot and just find the stuff interesting.

    • banditoitaliano@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • DrNeurohax@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      2 years ago

      Love the energy, but before posting anything on the internet you should imagine a prosecutor asking you to read it to a jury

      • jackoneill@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

        • PickTheStick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

    • mindbleach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

    • ShakyPerception@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      But… but without those heroic political figures, how will mega-corporations be allowed to continue maximizing profits.

      This type of shortsighted ignorance is what causes drops economic growth and allows communism to win.

      …. I’m being told that it’s now trans people, not communists that are the real threat.

      …. No, no wait it’s still communists. So both I guess?

      /s

  • LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 years ago

      I live in the southwest and it’s definitely something I worry about. Every year it gets worse in our apartment during the summer. Our cooling bill is ridiculous for ~1/3rd of the year. The amount of heat transfer coming in through our single pane windows is insane. The walls barely seem insulated at all. On most hot days (95F/36C+) with the A/C blasting we can’t get it below 80F/26C inside.

      Laws where I live require only minimum temperatures that must be met by residences, not maximums; almost nobody is freezing to death here (very rarely someone unhoused will), but people ARE dying of heat related illnesses. It makes me so angry, not only because it’s miserable to be hot all day and expensive to run the A/C as hard as we do, but because it’s so wasteful. The amount of electricity we have to use because our landlord is some bean counting, soulless corporation is sickening.

    • izzent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      The people who move south are the same people who don’t believe in science. So they have it coming. It’s actually good for the country.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        We’ll reach 100m by 2100 and it won’t be an evil plan or anything, just people forcing their way through the border because they can’t live down south anymore.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

    • talldangry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

  • DrNeurohax@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • AngryBear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • Misconduct@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I mean… They did do stuff like fix the ozone layer. Unlike us, they have the excuse of information being considerably harder to come by because they didn’t really have the internet. So far, for the most part, all we’re doing collectively is being mad about it online. Oh, yeah I guess we banned straws.

      Millennials have been adults for a while now and… Welp. I don’t think it’ll be long before the newer gens start heavy criticizing us and frankly we’ll deserve it. If we were any less apathetic than previous gens things would have already changed or be changing faster imo.

      • FoxAndKitten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 years ago

        On one hand yeah, I’d look at us pretty dimly from the outside

        On the other, we’ve been kinda fucked. Our mental health is in the gutter, we’re unable to make connections the way every other generation could, we’re missing all these milestones like buying a house and having kids and older generations keep telling us it’s our fault.

        Even as far as voting, we’ve been fucked. Previous generations had a choice - we get an ultimatum

        They just keep gaslighting us.

        We don’t have the money, we don’t have the power, but we do have the numbers and as a group we’re not ok… Frankly, there’s no way this ends well. It’s hard to comprehend how the powers that be haven’t realized that and thrown us a bone now and again

  • Old_Fat_White_Guy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 years ago

    NGL… First glance at the chart I thought the left hand scale was temperature with a sudden spike to 250°… no wonder people are dying when your iced tea boils in your glass as you try to drink it!

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    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

  • Ni@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

    We desperately need regulation for people and workers in extreme temperatures. We’ll be dealing with more and more of it as times goes on so the protections need to be in place.

    • Skunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 years ago

      And regulations for less pavement, concrete etc and more green and trees to provide shade and cooler temperatures.

      You can live in extreme temperatures, provided the infrastructures are built for that (ie. Ouarzazate in Morocco).

      But with the US urban planning and all for cars policy it won’t happen before it’s too late.

      • Striker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Trees and green in the US southwest a pipedream tbh. The only way that could possibly be achieved is by siphoning off a ridiculous amount of water from another location. Call it as it is. The US Southwest isn’t built to sustain human life.

      • ButtonMcLemming@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        In my opinion, the only solution, although radical, would be to make motorists’ lives a living hell (charging for road or parking lot use, lowering speed limits to increasingly slow levels, removing on-street parking lots, prioritizing bicyles and buses, reducing bus fare prices, and converting excess parking lots to new neighborhoods) that public transport (i.e. metro and local commuter trains) and bicycle paths can be considered to reduce road traffic with the budget allocated to making new roads or maintaining currently existing ones allocated to improving the public transport system and even providing a bicycle route network that can allow us to follow in the Netherlands’ footsteps.

      • Ni@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        There was an interesting study done on a city hear me which said that the lack of trees and general built design of the area had made the city’s temp go up by between 2-5C. Which is a big difference!

  • dgilluly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

    You can always count on the right winged politicians and voters to prepare for disasters instead of trying to prevent them.