
Covid-19 is awful. Climate change could be worse - a_imho
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Climate-and-COVID-19
======
bsaul
otoh : it seems to me covid models used to dictate public policies proved to
be off by at least one ( if not two ) orders of magnitude. Countries that
didn't confined ( brazil and sweden) didn't show that much of a difference
compared to some others that did (france). The spread and impact of the virus
proved to be extremely hard to understand and model correctly.

Which of course, should have people wonder if climate change model couldn't
also be off by orders of magnitude ?

Now of course because one thing proves to be hard to model doesn't mean all
are.

But looking a the history of public climate catastrophic announcement, how do
we know that this time is the time when models of immensely complex phenomenon
will be correct ?

~~~
matthewdgreen
>Countries that didn't confined ( brazil and sweden) didn't show that much of
a difference compared to some others that did (france).

Huh? France had an early outbreak, instituted lockdowns and have since crushed
their numbers. Brazil is still on fire.

Here's a graph for Brazil: [https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-
visualization/?chart=countr...](https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-
visualization/?chart=countries-
normalized&highlight=Brazil&show=25&y=both&scale=linear&data=cases-
daily-7&data-source=jhu&xaxis=left#countries-normalized)

Here's a graph for France: [https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-
visualization/?chart=countr...](https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-
visualization/?chart=countries-
normalized&highlight=France&show=25&y=both&scale=linear&data=deaths-
daily-7&data-source=jhu&xaxis=left#countries-normalized)

These look nothing alike.

~~~
codemonkey-zeta
I agree that they are different graphs, but to the parent's point are they at
all concerning?

Here's the logarithmic graph for Brazil:

[https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-
visualization/?chart=countr...](https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-
visualization/?chart=countries-
normalized&highlight=Brazil&show=25&y=both&scale=log&data=cases-daily-7&data-
source=jhu&xaxis=left#countries-normalized)

It's a breatiful plateu, which indicates that we do not have the super-scary
exponential growth we were all warned about by these models. As the parent
said, the models were off by an order of magnitude at least.

~~~
matthewdgreen
It is not the case that Brazil (at a state level) is doing nothing. It is the
case that Brazil and France did things to very different degrees, and as a
result have seen stunningly different results, as evidenced by those graphs.
(And contradicting the assertion of the GP poster.)

~~~
codemonkey-zeta
Yes I totally agree with both of your comments. I wanted to change the topic
of conversation to the point the parent made. Maybe I should have replied to
parent with that point. Thanks for showing me that site!

I still want to know if anyone thinks the parent's skepticism of climate
change models is/isn't warranted given the fact that the scientific research
community (epidemiologists, virologists, and scientists generally [AFAIK])
basically aligned completely with the view that anything other than extreme
responses to Covid would end in disastrous ruin by generating and pointing to
these models. I want to be clear that I am not questioning the science of
climate change here, but how do we know that the models we rely on to predict
the future effects of climate change will be accurate? Could Covid really be
an indicator that the scientific community is the boy who cried wolf? I'm not
saying I think that, but I don't know enough to completely discredit the
position.

------
LatteLazy
I don't get why people are still underselling this. Coronavirus will be a
fucking walk in the park compared to the climate change that is already
inevitable. You think a few million dead and 6months of impaired economic
activity is a bad deal compared with what we're in for. Why are the major,
well informed sources defacto lying about it?

In case anyone wonders, conservative estimates put climate change at 150k
deaths a year and rising... In 2009.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-
an...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-and-health/)

~~~
imtringued
Well it has to do with money and bad journalism. Journalists love to talk
about potential natural disasters instead of co2 levels and global
temperature. People think the stuff journalists report on is "science" when it
is mostly some clickbait article. The number of times they cite a random
blogpost is quite shocking.

~~~
semaj111
If you are so critical of the big media, then don't read them! There is plenty
of other information that comes directly from scientists and is written for
policymakers so anyone on HN should understand it. For example: read the
summaries of ICCP Reports and please finally start taking climate change
seriously.

~~~
semaj111
Sorry I did not mean you specifically. But the HN readers. And i meant the
IPCC, not ICCP

------
cheezebubba
"Within the next 40 years, increases in global temperatures are projected to
raise global mortality rates by the same amount—14 deaths per 100,000."

This is the first I've heard this kind of statistic. Does anybody have a
reference for where this came from?

------
anarchop
Reminds me of this scene:
[https://youtu.be/l4UFQWKjy_I](https://youtu.be/l4UFQWKjy_I)

------
MuffinFlavored
what are your thoughts on
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c)

~~~
sputr
This seems like a good start:
[https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm](https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm)

------
ffggvv
he says climate change deaths will be 14 deaths per 100,000. how exactly will
it kill people?

is it increased mosquitos and malaria?

~~~
Valgrim
Heat waves, for starters. In 2003, a heat wave in Europe had a death toll over
70000. In 2010, more than 50000 people died in Russia during a heat wave.
Those will become more common and worse. Then you have crop failures, due to
drought and extreme weather. Food and water insecurity will force hundreds of
millions to migrate, fueling conflicts. You're also right that insect-borne
diseases are going to spread more. Prepare for the worst, but work toward the
best.

------
thelastname
Still, Vista was the worst.

------
acvny
Mr Bill please share your $100 000 000 000 so that we can buy 3 333 333
electric cars.

~~~
0_gravitas
This genre of comments are either intentionally disingenuous or simply
_significantly_ misguided. There has been little to suggest that Gates isn't
currently trying to help make the world a bit better off. If he thought that
would really solve all the world's problems than I'm fairly sure he'd give it
a shot, but even you and I know it would do little to truly halt climate
change on the large scale. CC is also not his only target of course.

Perhaps Gates is just a bit more thoughtful in managing his investments.

~~~
acvny
The point was that the article is just blah blah blah. The usual rhetoric
without any concrete proposals. So I offered a concrete solution. Looks like
some readers didn't appreciate the humor.

~~~
0_gravitas
(or lack thereof)

