Climate change: Study warns deadly humid heat could hit billions as wet-bulb temperatures soar

Billions of people could struggle to survive in periods of deadly, humid heat within this century as temperatures rise, particularly in some of the world's largest cities, from Delhi to Shanghai, according to research published on Monday.

The study built on past research by Huber, George Mason University climatologist Daniel Vecellio and other scientists on the point at which heat and humidity combine to push the human body beyond its limits without shade or help from technologies such as air conditioning.

It found that around 750 million people could experience one week per year of potentially deadly humid heat if temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.

At 3C (5.4F) of warming, more than 1.5 billion people would face such a threat, according to the paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The world is on track for 2.8C (5F) of warming by the year 2100 under current policies, according to the 2022 United Nations Emissions Gap report. — Reuters

Just to be the devil's advocate here, but doesn't it seem plausible that only animals have the capacity for "qualities" (experience, a point of view)? — schopenhauer1

A plant (e.g. a tree) can produce toxic chemicals as a response to being eaten. Isn't this an example of experience?

Some of these trees can communicate with nearby trees and pass on the message about the risk of being eaten. The nearby trees produce the toxic chemical even though they haven't been eaten yet.

Doesn't a Venus flytrap show some of the qualities of an animal carnivore. It just can't walk around. :grin:
There are some fish and animals which work in a similar way to a Venus flytrap. They lure the "food" close and then eat it.

This will not be solved individually. We need collective action and governmental action. — Mikie

I agree with this statement.

Collective action = lots of people reducing their carbon footprint.

Straight from Big Oil’s boardrooms to your brain. What a shocker. — Mikie

I will use the abbreviation CC/GW to stand for Climate-Change/Global-Warming.

Your comment Mikie (which is shared by many people who are concerned about CC/GW) is why I am so confident that CC/GW won't be "solved".

If whining and complaining and blaming others could solve CC/GW then there wouldn't be a problem.

The oil companies want to maximize profit. They don't want to over supply because that would mean less profit. They make maximum profit by matching demand. Reduce the demand and they will reduce the supply. Demand will be reduced if everybody reduces their carbon footprint. This is a simple and obvious fact which is not understood, or is ignored (possibly deliberately to avoid taking personal responsibility) by many/most people who are concerned about CC/GW.

Mikie, the solution to CC/GW is in your hands, and the hands of people like you. Stop blaming others and start taking personal responsibility. Who knows, you might make a difference?

Imagine if every asshole didn't need a new iphone every 2 seconds because they added a new pubic hair behind the camera. Apple is one of the most profitable industries ever because of the mythical upgrade - just another tragedy of brainless compulsory consumption. — Merkwurdichliebe

As I have said before, the way to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used is for consumers to reduce their demand (individually or as a group). There is little point in blaming the oil companies for supplying a product that people want.

Individuals need to look at their own carbon footprint, not blame others (e.g. oil companies) for their own use of fossil fuels.

I can give you an example related to Merkwurdichliebe's comment. Apple have just released the iPhone 15. I am still using my iPhone 8. My iPhone 8 works as well as it did when I bought it, and it still does everything that I want it to do. I have avoided 7 new releases and have used the same iPhone for about 7 years.

You don't have to be a slave to Apple's upgrades. Apple products are usually very high quality and will perform well for many years. I suggest that you look at this webpage to see what the carbon footprint of an iPhone is:
https://www.compareandrecycle.co.uk/blog/iphone-lifecycle-what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-an-iphone

Now I can feel sanctimonious because I have kept my carbon footprint down. :halo:

In the same way, you don't have to be a slave to the oil companies. The oil companies are not holding a gun to your head to force you to use fossil fuels. Grow some balls (or ovaries if you are female) and reduce your own carbon footprint. Force the oil companies to reduce the supply of fossil fuels by reducing the demand for fossil fuels.

You, on the other hand, have contributed nothing except “I don’t feel it’ll happen.” — Mikie

Okay Mikie, I will rephrase it for you. I don't think it will happen.

Who gives a damn about how you feel about this. — Mikie

I could say the same to YOU Mikie. Who gives a damn about how you feel about this.

I would like to raise another aspect of time. I think that time is meaningless without change. So if nothing changes, or nothing exists, then time is meaningless. Others have already posted about this.

If time exists then the concepts of past, present, and future emerge

- in order to perceive the past (what has already happened) we must have memory, or imagination (to create memories which could be accurate or inaccurate)

- in order to perceive the present we must have senses and the ability to "process" the information produced by the senses. Memory of the past may help to understand the present. How long is the time interval for the present (1 minute, 1 second, 1 nanosecond, etc)?

- in order to perceive the future we must have imagination (to create ideas about what will happen or might happen). Having memory of the past and an understanding of the present helps to imagine the future

My question is, "Is time meaningless without memory and/or imagination?"

Consider for example how Eskimos have many words for the one concept we have for snow. Because Eskimos have so many words to distinguish between different types of snow, they are able to notice things about snow that we can't. — punos

This is a common belief but it is not true. In english we have different words for different types of snow and we can add additional words if we don't have a suitable single word. For example, "yellow snow" (should be avoided). :grin:

Here are some types of snow (from Wikipedia):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classifications_of_snow
- Cornice
- Finger drift
- Pillow drift
- Sastrugi
- Snowdrift
- Wind crust
- Wind slab
- Firn
- Névé
- Penitentes
- Suncups
- Yukimarimo
- Base snow – Snow that has been thoroughly consolidated.
- Frozen granular – Snow whose granules have frozen together.
- Loose granular – Snow with incohesive granules.
- Machine-made – Produced by snow cannons, and typically denser than natural snow.
- New snow – Snow that has fallen since the previous day's report.
- Packed powder – Powder snow that has been compressed by grooming or by ski traffic.
- Powder – Freshly fallen, uncompacted snow.
- Wet – Warm snow with a high moisture content.
- Corn snow – Corn snow is coarse, granular snow, subject to freeze-thaw.
- Crud – Crud covers varieties of snow that all but advanced skiers find impassable.
- Packing snow – Packing snow is at or near the melting point, so that it can easily be packed into snowballs and thrown or used in the construction of a snowman, or a snow fort.
- Slush – Slush is substantially melted snow with visible water in it.
- Snirt – Snirt is an informal term for snow covered with dirt.
- Watermelon snow – Watermelon snow is reddish pink, caused by a red-colored green algae.

Mach’s dictum states that “where neither confirmation nor refutation is possible, science is not concerned.

There is no test that allows us to confirm or refute the existence of God. So the question of whether God exists or not is not something that science can answer. Belief in God is a matter of faith.

Religion can specify rules about what is right and wrong, which science can not prove or disprove.

Science can test the validity of some statements. It is possible that a statement made by a religion can be shown to be incorrect by science (i.e. there is a contradiction).

So science and religion can contradict each other for some statements. But there are other statements that science can't test (e.g. moral rules) so there can't be a contradiction for these statements.

I believe the most fundamental level of existence is time.
— punos

It’s debatable if time really exists fundamentally as it’s very different to the types of measurements of length, height and width.

Time only occurs in terms of events happening even the ticking clock is itself an event and if you had no dimensions what is it that would be ticking ? It wouldn’t be the clock as it wouldn’t exist. — simplyG

I think that time does not exist fundamentally. Time comes into existence when things change in the other dimensions. If nothing changed in the other dimension then time would not exist. Time is related to the speed of changes in the other dimensions.

Imagine that everything in the universe changed so that they were happening at 2x the original speed. Our perception of time would not change (things would not seem any faster or slower) because things are happening at 2x the original speed but we are measuring time with a "clock" that is running at 2x the original speed.

8) Our shape is a cube. The cube is the only solid that is regular and leaves no gaps when stacking them, no matter how many of them you stack. — AlienFromEarth

The fundamental unit of the universe is wombat poop.

Wombats produce cube-shaped poop - the only known species to do so.

The Australian marsupial can pass up to 100 deposits of poop a night and they use the piles to mark territory. This also explains how the universe was created in the first place. The original poop is called the "big bang".

The shape helps to stop the poop rolling away (there is nothing worse than having your fundamental unit of the universe roll away).

I am not saying that there is a worldwide conspiracy. I was just making the point that a very large amount of money is required to "go green" and fight climate-change/global-warming.

One of the problems that I have with your question is that there are many different religions in the world. Are you referring to just Roman Catholicism, or all Christian religions, or some/any of the other religions in the world?

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1201781387/climate-change-emissions-report-offers-hope — Mikie

Yes, that report does offer some hope.

But I don't have faith that humans will achieve what they hope for.

I would be happy to be proved wrong.

Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels) — Isaiasb

Not all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped. Examples from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_featuring_external_asymmetry

Birds
- the crossbill has an unusual beak in which the upper and lower tips cross each other
- the wrybill is the only species of bird with a beak that is bent sideways (always to the right)
- many owl species, such as the barn owl, have asymmetrically positioned ears that enhance sound positioning

Beasts (Mammals)
- Honey badgers of the subspecies signata have a second lower molar on the left side of their jaws, but not the right
- the caribou or reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) has asymmetrical antlers. Adult males, in particular, usually possess one brow tine formed into a "shovel" shape
- the narwhal has a helical tusk on its upper left jaw
- the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) has a single nostril on its upper left head. The right nostril forms a phonic lip. The source of the air forced through the phonic lips is the right nasal passage. While the left nasal passage opens to the blow hole, the right nasal passage has evolved to supply air to the phonic lips
- the fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) has complex and asymmetrical coloration on its head, with the jaw dark grey on one side and white on the other

Men (Humans)
- Humans show a systematic aurofacial asymmetry, meaning that the face (eyes, nose and mouth) are displaced to the left with respect to the midplane between the ears. In young children this asymmetry is on average 4 degrees and is easily recognized

Given that preaching, protesting, bullying, and insulting are not winning the war on climate-change/global-warming, is there a better way to get people's support?

Does daftness get tiresome? — Mikie

Yes, you are tiresome Mikie. :rofl:

The US government is NOT spending 2.2 trillion on climate change. Not even close. — Mikie

What’s the price of a green economy? An extra $3.5 trillion a year

Getting to net zero by 2050 will cost an extra $3.5 trillion a year, according to a new study by McKinsey.

Consultancy firm McKinsey says total global spending by governments, businesses and individuals on energy and land-use systems will need to rise by $3.5 trillion a year, every year, if we are to have any chance of getting to net-zero in 2050.

That’s a 60% increase on today’s level of investment and is equivalent to half of global corporate profits, a quarter of world tax revenue and 7% of household spending. A further $1 trillion would also need to be reallocated from high-emission to low-carbon assets. — World Economic Forum

This quote states that $3.5 trillion a year is a 60% increase on todays level of investment.

So todays level of investment = $3.5 trillion divided by 1.6 = $2.1875 trillion

$2.1875 trillion is very close to $2.2 trillion, the amount that I mentioned

[added after the original post - I just realised that these numbers are for the whole world, not just the US]

In 1900 the biggest problem was horse shit.

Nowadays the biggest problem is bullshit.

It is worth remembering that oil, and cars, saved humanity from drowning in horse shit. :grin:

Let’s think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn’t know what an atom was. They didn’t know its structure. They also didn’t know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet, interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS. None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn’t know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it’s even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They’re bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment’s thought knows it. — Dr. Michael Crichton

Kevin Trenberth — Agree-to-Disagree

At least 2 of my comments have been removed.

They were about the climate scientists Kevin Trenberth and Judith Curry.

Can anybody please tell me why these comments were removed?

But in this case, of course, Do not follow the money. — unenlightened

From your link:

Climatologist Judith Curry has already billed the state around $30,000 for a report filed in the case Held v. State of Montana, according to the deposition she made in December to an attorney for the 16 young Montanans suing the state. Curry also claimed that she charged $400 an hour for her consulting work, although she did not disclose the full amount Montana will pay her for appearing in court.

Are you seriously comparing the $30,000 paid to Judith Curry with the $2.2 TRILLION that the US is spending to slow global warming?

Seriously ???

$400 an hour seems like a very reasonable rate for an expert's time.

Do you expect Montana to not use any expert witnesses to support their case? How much money do you think California has spent promoting climate alarmism?

The lawyers for the Montana youth, who first filed their complaint in 2020, intend to bring a dozen expert witnesses to the stand.

How much do you think the dozen expert witnesses will be paid to support the other side of the case?

Yes. Please follow the money. For Judith Curry AND the other expert witnesses working for the other side of the case.

Mikie has absolute faith in climate scientists.

But do climate scientists have absolute faith in themselves?

These quotes come from Wikipedia's "Model accuracy" section of the "General circulation model" webpage"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model#Model_accuracy

The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report asserted "very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period". However, the report also observed that the rate of warming over the period 1998–2012 was lower than that predicted by 111 out of 114 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project climate models.

AOGCMs internalise as many processes as are sufficiently understood. However, they are still under development and significant uncertainties remain.

A debate over how to reconcile climate model predictions that upper air (tropospheric) warming should be greater than observed surface warming, some of which appeared to show otherwise, was resolved in favour of the models, following data revisions.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE MODELS WERE WRONG. BUT INSTEAD OF CORRECTING THE MODELS THEY "DOCTORED" THE DATA TO MAKE IT LOOK AS IF THE MODELS WERE CORRECT.

Cloud effects are a significant area of uncertainty in climate models. Clouds have competing effects on climate. They cool the surface by reflecting sunlight into space; they warm it by increasing the amount of infrared radiation transmitted from the atmosphere to the surface. In the 2001 IPCC report possible changes in cloud cover were highlighted as a major uncertainty in predicting climate.

However the simulated change in precipitation was about one-fourth less than what was observed. Errors in simulated precipitation imply errors in other processes, such as errors in the evaporation rate that provides moisture to create precipitation. The other possibility is that the satellite-based measurements are in error. Either indicates progress is required in order to monitor and predict such changes.

THEY EVEN ADMIT THAT THE SATELLITE-BASED MEASUREMENTS COULD BE IN ERROR.

The precise magnitude of future changes in climate is still uncertain

My house burning down has positive aspects too— like creating lots of briquettes. — Mikie

The Earth is much bigger and more complex than a house. We have been burning parts of the Earth (e.g. wood, coal, gas, oil, etc) for a long time, and this has improved the quality of life for most people (including you).

Nearly forgot about him. God and free markets. Two foundational beliefs. — Mikie

What you did forget about Mikie is that MANY locations on Earth will be better because of a little global-warming.

Notice that this statement is NOT denying global-warming. It assumes that global-warming is happening.

Did you have a look at this website? As far as I know the republican party is not connected with this website. :grin:

https://weatherspark.com

Mikie, you suffer from the worst case of "black-or-white" logical fallacy that I have ever seen. Compared to you devout christians are tolerant and reasonable. :grin:

It doesn't make 'follow the money' sense because no one has a money motive for doing it. — unenlightened

Again, from the same article I linked to before:
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

Now here’s the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry’s own admission there has been almost no progress worldwide in actually combatting climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse not better and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.

Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such miniscule returns on investment? After three decades of “research” the only “solution” is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.

If nearly a trillion dollars has been spent, and almost no progress has been made, who has been getting lots of money for producing next to nothing. We definitely need to follow the climate change money.

Have they simply been groomed by Koch propaganda? Sure. But it goes beyond climate denial. — Mikie

From the same article I linked to before:
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.

Mikie, thank you for showing that this statement is true. :100:

Naomi Oreskes has documented this very well. — Mikie

:rofl:

Here is an interesting article to read :grin:

Follow the (Climate Change) Money
(Mikie - comment on what is said, not on who said it)

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

Here are a few quotes:

In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.

A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.

Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.

This doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather.

If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.

But if you’ve built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion dollar grant.

scientists who are funded by "Big Climate"?
— Agree-to-Disagree

Who are they? Multi-National windmill manufacturers? — unenlightened

The World Bank Group delivered a record $31.7 billion in fiscal year 2022 to help countries address climate change.

The New York Times says that the US “took a major step toward fighting climate change” on Friday when the House of Representatives approved a $2.2 TRILLION spending bill that “includes the largest expenditures ever made by the federal government to slow global warming”.

Unless of course you deny what scientists are telling us because they’re bought off… — Mikie

It is often claimed that the "science" produced by scientists who are funded by "Big Oil" is biased and not valid.

So what sort of "science" is produced by scientists who are funded by "Big Climate"?

But god doesn't explain anything. When we say god created the world, it's equivalent to saying, 'the magic man did it.' God as a (pseudo) explanation does not tell us how or why, it answers nothing. — Tom Storm

Scientists and belief in God

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, [...] According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. [...] Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power [...] — Pew Research

Thinking about that Im curious whether more people believe in ghosts or aliens. — Apustimelogist

Many people seem to have a "need" for the paranormal.

ESP (extrasensory perception like telepathy), spiritualism, ghosts, cryptozoology, UFO's, telekinesis, poltergeists, life after death, reincarnation, faith healing, human auras, clairvoyance, prophecy, astrology, witches, etc.

There are probably many reasons for this "need". Here some quotes from Wikipedia:

- The number of people worldwide who believe in parapsychological powers has been estimated to be 3 to 4 billion.

- A survey conducted in 2006 by researchers from Australia's Monash University[86] sought to determine the types of phenomena that people claim to have experienced and the effects these experiences have had on their lives. The study was conducted as an online survey with over 2,000 respondents from around the world participating. The results revealed that around 70% of the respondents believe to have had an unexplained paranormal event that changed their life, mostly in a positive way. About 70% also claimed to have seen, heard, or been touched by an animal or person that they knew was not there; 80% have reported having a premonition, and almost 50% stated they recalled a previous life.

Wikipedia shows a number of "Belief Polls" which report on the belief/unsure/disbelief percent for a number of different beliefs.

- A survey by Jeffrey S. Levin, associate professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, found that more than two thirds of the United States population reported having at least one mystical experience.

A 1996 Gallup poll estimated that 71% of the people in the U.S. believed that the government was covering up information about UFOs. A 2002 Roper poll conducted for the Sci Fi channel reported that 56% thought UFOs were real craft and 48% that aliens had visited the Earth.

A 2001 National Science Foundation survey found that 9% of people polled thought astrology was very scientific, and 31% thought it was somewhat scientific. About 32% of Americans surveyed stated that some numbers were lucky, while 46% of Europeans agreed with that claim. About 60% of all people polled believed in some form of Extra-sensory perception and 30% thought that "some of the unidentified flying objects that have been reported are really space vehicles from other civilizations."

In 2017 the Chapman University Survey of American Fears asked about seven paranormal beliefs and found that "the most common belief is that ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis once existed (55%). Next was that places can be haunted by spirits (52%), aliens have visited Earth in our ancient past (35%), aliens have come to Earth in modern times (26%), some people can move objects with their minds (25%), fortune tellers and psychics can survey the future (19%), and Bigfoot is a real creature. Only one-fourth of respondents didn't hold at least one of these beliefs."

Its just like... what kind of super advanced alien civilization would do that. Its like bizarre trolling behavior just basically spamming space craft all over earth for decades on end for no apparent reason. Just doesnt make any sense to me that UFOs are actual intelligent aliens. — Apustimelogist

I said in an earlier post,

What if the Aliens are following the Prime Directive?

In the fictional universe of Star Trek, the Prime Directive (also known as "Starfleet General Order 1", and the "non-interference directive") is a guiding principle of Starfleet that prohibits its members from interfering with the natural development of alien civilizations. Its stated aim is to protect unprepared civilizations from the danger of starship crews introducing advanced technology, knowledge, and values before they are ready.

But the Aliens are not perfect and sometimes they make mistakes. — Agree-to-Disagree

Maybe the Aliens are becoming bored with watching us and are deliberately making appearances to annoy and upset us. If I was an alien then that is what I would do :grin: . I have often thought that it would be fun to put on a bigfoot costume and hoax people.

People usually think that Aliens will be wise, serious, and do things for our benefit. What if Aliens have a sense of humor like us?

What if making appearances is part of a social experiment that they are doing on us?

The most important question is why these Aliens have travelled billions of kilometers in order to abduct people and "probe" them. Abduction and probing is reported frequently. There must be an explanation for this. Does anybody have any ideas?

To the tune of 'Bad Moon Rising' by Creedence Clearwater Revival

I see CO2 a-rising
I see trouble on the way
I see earthquakes and lightning
I see bad times today

Don't go 'round tonight
It's bound to take your life
I see CO2 on the rise

I hear hurricanes a-blowing
I know the end is coming soon
I fear rivers over flowing
I hear the voice of rage and ruin

Don't go 'round tonight
It's bound to take your life
I see CO2 on the rise

I hope you got your things together
I hope you are quite prepared to die
Look's like we're in for nasty weather
One eye is taken for an eye

Oh don't go 'round tonight
It's bound to take your life
I see CO2 on the rise — Based on 'Bad Moon Rising' by Creedence Clearwater Revival

But god doesn't explain anything — Tom Storm

In some ways God explains everything. Believing in God lets people accept the good and the bad things that happen without the need to agonize excessively about them. God knows the reasons for things even if people don't understand them. The belief can help people accept things. For example, how does a person cope with the death of their child? It is probably of some comfort to think that the child is now in heaven with God. God knows why the child died and people have faith that there was a good reason. It was God's will.

MATTHEW 10:29 - Yet not a single sparrow falls to the ground without your Father’s knowledge.

Conclusion: We do not believe because God obviously exists; we believe in God because we have been so taught. Were God-teaching to eventually end, God/god would fade and end as well. — BC

If God teaching ended then I think that God/god would not fade. The human mind "wants" explanations for the unknown, and meaning for events, and god provides these.

Also I think that the idea of a god originates in the experience of a child with a parent. The parent is "all powerful". When the child finds out that the parent is not "all powerful" then they look for an entity that is "all powerful".

What if the Aliens are following the Prime Directive?

In the fictional universe of Star Trek, the Prime Directive (also known as "Starfleet General Order 1", and the "non-interference directive") is a guiding principle of Starfleet that prohibits its members from interfering with the natural development of alien civilizations. Its stated aim is to protect unprepared civilizations from the danger of starship crews introducing advanced technology, knowledge, and values before they are ready.

But the Aliens are not perfect and sometimes they make mistakes.

Why is our vision hard wired to like beauty ? — simplyG

What is beauty is subjective. What you find beautiful I might find ugly. Is a pack of wolves hunting and killing a bison beautiful or not beautiful?