Cold kills far more humans than heat does

[MarathonMike]

I have two wells on my property. The closest one to my house is about 3/4 mile away. The other is further and just feeds a ground tank for the cattle. The water is so alkaline that I get my drinking water from a RO outlet in St Johns and keep 150 gal jugs filled with that. I do use my well water for my plants and I'm the house tank. But I buffer it with sulfuric acid whenever I fill the tanks.
There is a capped well on another parcel I own closer to Navajo springs. But it was capped because it showed too high a radiation content. It was capped when I bought that parcel.

Very interesting thanks for sharing that.

 

[ozro]

Very interesting thanks for sharing that.

No problem.

 

[mamooth]

Talk is cheap.

Never a problem. Remember, you're not talking to a fellow cult imbecile. You're talking to me, so it's a given I can always back up what I say. Years of humiliation should have taught you that, but you're a slow learner. It will be amusing to see all of your excuses now.

Valuing the Global Mortality Consequences of Climate Change Accounting for Adaptation Costs and Benefits*

Abstract. Using 40 countries’ subnational data, we estimate age-specific mortality-temperature relationships and extrapolate them to countries without data

academic.oup.com

Summarized in this table:

https://academic.oup.com/view-large/413145435

It says that, even with increased income and adaption reducing the number of additional heat deaths, the net change due to global warming is still slightly towards more net deaths. (Yes, with a fairly high uncertainty.)

Point is, that kills the denier "DERP! WARMING WILL SAVE SO MANY LIVES!" talking point. Not that having their points debunked by science has ever gotten deniers to stop parroting the debunked point.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Ding adores being humulitated for his faith.

It's like a horsehair under shirt he wears next to his skin.

It's similar to self flagellation he does to himself.

It's what he is.

 

[ding]

Never a problem. Remember, you're not talking to a fellow cult imbecile. You're talking to me, so it's a given I can always back up what I say. Years of humiliation should have taught you that, but you're a slow learner. It will be amusing to see all of your excuses now.

Valuing the Global Mortality Consequences of Climate Change Accounting for Adaptation Costs and Benefits*

Abstract. Using 40 countries’ subnational data, we estimate age-specific mortality-temperature relationships and extrapolate them to countries without data

academic.oup.com

Summarized in this table:

https://academic.oup.com/view-large/413145435

It says that, even with increased income and adaption reducing the number of additional heat deaths, the net change due to global warming is still slightly towards more net deaths. (Yes, with a fairly high uncertainty.)

Point is, that kills the denier "DERP! WARMING WILL SAVE SO MANY LIVES!" talking point. Not that having their points debunked by science has ever gotten deniers to stop parroting the debunked point.

Dear, how many people in India die from the heat as opposed to the cold? That was what you were discussing, right?

 

[strollingbones]

cold and heat are both sneaky killers....but lets point out...if you are found cold and dead...they will warm
you up...no one is dead until they are warm....no way back with the heat death

what amazes me is people thinking to die in the cold it has to be freezing...it does not ...

hypothermia temperature - Google Search

 

[mamooth]

Dear, how many people in India die from the heat as opposed to the cold? That was what you were discussing, right?

Well, no. That's you just deflecting after seeing one of your dumb talking points debunked.

The fake point that all of the deniers were trying to make is that warming will supposedly save lives. I showed that point is false. My mission is accomplished.

I'm not interested in your dumb deflections, because they're not relevant. It's not the "x" (deaths) that matters here, it's the "x-prime", the derivative of deaths with respect to temperature change. If someone doesn't understand that, they need to head back to the kiddle table pronto.

 

[otto105]

As I sit here hugging my swamp cooler it's already over 90 outside. No, it isn't unusual for this time of year in Arizona.
You might be correct but right now a few snowflakes would be very nice.

300+ dead in Phoenix due to the heat wave this Month.

 

[ding]

Well, no. That's you just deflecting after seeing one of your dumb talking points debunked.

The fake point that all of the deniers were trying to make is that warming will supposedly save lives. I showed that point is false. My mission is accomplished.

I'm not interested in your dumb deflections, because they're not relevant. It's not the "x" (deaths) that matters here, it's the "x-prime", the derivative of deaths with respect to temperature change. If someone doesn't understand that, they need to head back to the kiddle table pronto.

This is pretty simple. State the deaths in India from heat and state the deaths in India from the cold.

Or fuck off from back whence you came because I'm done pulling your pants down, dear.

 

[mamooth]

This is pretty simple. State the deaths in India from heat and state the deaths in India from the cold.

More from cold. Why do you think that matters? Explain your hilariously stupid reasoning there.

In order to continue in discussion with the grownups, you have to demonstrate to the grownups that you're smart enough to hang with the grownups. Thus, you need to explain what this simple statement means, in your own words:

"It's not the "x" (deaths) that matters here, it's the "x-prime", the derivative of deaths with respect to temperature change."

Remember, I answered your question, so now you have to answer mine. If you cry and run, you're telling the board "I really am a cult imbecile, and a gutless one at that."

 

[ding]

More from cold. Why do you think that matters? Explain your hilariously stupid reasoning there.

In order to continue in discussion with the grownups, you have to demonstrate to the grownups that you're smart enough to hang with the grownups. Thus, you need to explain what this simple statement means, in your own words:

"It's not the "x" (deaths) that matters here, it's the "x-prime", the derivative of deaths with respect to temperature change."

Remember, I answered your question, so now you have to answer mine. If you cry and run, you're telling the board "I really am a cult imbecile, and a gutless one at that."

It matters because life on the planet is much more challenged by colder temperatures than warmer temperatures. The planet is 2C away from extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation.

 

[mamooth]

It matters because life on the planet is much more challenged by colder temperatures than warmer temperatures.

So according to your logic there, a 3000C surface temperature would help life.

And this is why nobody takes you seriously. You can't think above childlike levels.

A person of normal intelligence would ask "would a change help or hurt?", instead of using your false "DERP! WARM GOOD!" reasoning. And they'd note that the data says warming would hurt.

 

[ding]

So according to your logic there, a 3000C surface temperature would help life.

And this is why nobody takes you seriously. You can't think above childlike levels.

A person of normal intelligence would ask "would a change help or hurt?", instead of using your false "DERP! WARM GOOD!" reasoning. And they'd note that the data says warming would hurt.

That's idiotic. Are you expecting a 3000C surface temperature?

If the planet drops 2C then that will trigger extensive NH glaciation and drop the planet's temperature another 10C.

 

[mamooth]

That's idiotic.

And it's your logic, so yes, I agree it's idiotic.

Are you expecting a 3000C surface temperature?

So you're taking back your false claim that more warming is always good?

It appears you are, so now you lack any sort of point to stand on.

 

[ding]

And it's your logic, so yes, I agree it's idiotic.


So you're taking back your false claim that more warming is always good?

It appears you are, so now you lack any sort of point to stand on.

All of Canada, the NE US, Midwest US, Northern Europe and Northern Asia will be under thousands of feet of ice.

 

[Crick]

All of Canada, the NE US, Midwest US, Northern Europe and Northern Asia will be under thousands of feet of ice.

When? In twenty thousand years?

 

[ding]

When? In twenty thousand years?

Whenever the ocean's currents which distribute heat to the Arctic changes.

 

[Robert W]

As I sit here hugging my swamp cooler it's already over 90 outside. No, it isn't unusual for this time of year in Arizona.
You might be correct but right now a few snowflakes would be very nice.

We have been in higher heats now for several days but we know for a fact that very quickly the area chills back down and repeats this cycle. The Alarmists pronounce the heat goes up, but leave out that it also vanishes for large amounts. And snow and ice show back up. It is just a normal cycle.

 

[Robert W]

It matters because life on the planet is much more challenged by colder temperatures than warmer temperatures. The planet is 2C away from extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation.

He has been shown that cold kills far more humans than heat can or does.

 

[ozro]

We have been in higher heats now for several days but we know for a fact that very quickly the area chills back down and repeats this cycle. The Alarmists pronounce the heat goes up, but leave out that it also vanishes for large amounts. And snow and ice show back up. It is just a normal cycle.

Exactly. Here it rained Friday night, bringing temps down considerably. But along with that it seems to have woke up the snakes. I killed a western diamondback on my doorstep yesterday morning and another in my dog pen this morning.