Cold kills far more humans than heat does

[irosie91]

You mean you don't believe the planet is headed for a climate catastrophe?

Some say the world will end in fire, some in ice.......
JFK's fave poet

 

[ding]

Some say the world will end in fire, some in ice.......
JFK's fave poet

This "world" will physically cease to exist when the sun engulfs it, so I'd have to say fire.

"Eventually, the fuel of the sun - hydrogen - will run out. When this happens, the sun will begin to die. But don’t worry, this should not happen for about 5 billion years. ​

​

After the hydrogen runs out, there will be a period of 2-3 billion years whereby the sun will go through the phases of star death. Once the hydrogen runs out, our yellow dwarf star will begin to swell. It will swell to a size that will cause it to swallow Mercury, Venus, and Earth. It may even grow to overtake more of the planets. When the sun increases in size it will become a “red giant.” After this, it will lose many of its outer layers and eventually shrink to become a “white dwarf.” White dwarf stars are still very hot, but not nearly as hot as the sun is now. Finally, our star will fade out and become a “black dwarf,” where very little is left of its original form. Black dwarf stars are not hot and don’t put off any energy."​

Will the Sun Ever Stop Shining?

The sun is a star that formed about 4.6 billion years ago. Scientists believe that a giant spinning cloud of gas and dust began to collapse due to its gravity. Much of the material that collapsed came together to form the sun. Gravity continues to create pressure, pulling the material that makes...

askanearthspacescientist.asu.edu

 

[irosie91]

This "world" will physically cease to exist when the sun engulfs it, so I'd have to say fire.

"Eventually, the fuel of the sun - hydrogen - will run out. When this happens, the sun will begin to die. But don’t worry, this should not happen for about 5 billion years. ​

​

After the hydrogen runs out, there will be a period of 2-3 billion years whereby the sun will go through the phases of star death. Once the hydrogen runs out, our yellow dwarf star will begin to swell. It will swell to a size that will cause it to swallow Mercury, Venus, and Earth. It may even grow to overtake more of the planets. When the sun increases in size it will become a “red giant.” After this, it will lose many of its outer layers and eventually shrink to become a “white dwarf.” White dwarf stars are still very hot, but not nearly as hot as the sun is now. Finally, our star will fade out and become a “black dwarf,” where very little is left of its original form. Black dwarf stars are not hot and don’t put off any energy."​

Will the Sun Ever Stop Shining?

The sun is a star that formed about 4.6 billion years ago. Scientists believe that a giant spinning cloud of gas and dust began to collapse due to its gravity. Much of the material that collapsed came together to form the sun. Gravity continues to create pressure, pulling the material that makes...

askanearthspacescientist.asu.edu

don't hold your breath,

 

[Toro]

Heat is the major thing discussed by Alarmists. But they ignore the major cause of deaths due to climate.
Did you know about that?
Here is a chart showing the facts.

View attachment 979448

IIRC, cold kills 4.5 million each year while heat kills 500,000

 

[Crick]

IIRC, cold kills 4.5 million each year while heat kills 500,000

Are deaths from cold decreasing? Are deaths from heat increasing?

From Google AI

Yes, deaths from cold exposure have been decreasing worldwide in recent decades. Between 2000 and 2019, researchers estimate that 650,000 fewer people died from temperature exposure than in the 1980s and 1990s. This decrease is larger than the increase in heat-related deaths during the same period.

From Google AI

Yes, heat-related deaths have been increasing in recent years:

• 2021: 1,563 deaths
• 2022: 1,702 deaths
• 2023: 2,297 deaths

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

HA HA HA, your link doesn't address the TRUE number of victims of heat and cold waves and it is obvious you didn't read your link anyway as it is gobblegeddlygook crap it must be the word Oxford that sent you into the rolling shakes....

From Post 14 you never addressed:


ANNUAL DEATHS DUE TO COLD TEMPS BY REGION:

• Africa – 1.18 million
• Asia – 2.4 million
• Europe – 657,000
• South America – 116,000
• UK – 44,600
• US – 154,800
• China – 967,000
• India – 655,400
• Australia – 14,200

ANNUAL DEATHS DUE TO HIGH TEMPS BY REGION

• Africa – 25,550
• Asia – 224,000
• Europe – 178,700
• South America – 25,250
• UK – 8000
• US – 18,750
• China – 71,300
• India – 83,700
• Australia – 2300

You can't discount this because there are real numbers.

You have seen this before from EMDAT the international disaster database:

 

[mamooth]

HA HA HA, your link

You didn't even try to address my point. You never do, because you never can.

It's not that complicated. A fourth-grader could grasp it, therefore you can't.

When making plans about a changing climate, it's not the number of deaths from each category that matter. What matters is how that number will change in response to a temperature change.

If there's warming, the number of heat deaths climbs more than the number of cold deaths drops, so the net result is more deaths. Thus, the warming should be avoided.

(I hope we all agree that more deaths should be avoided, and that you're not some sort of death-cultist who craves more deaths.)

If you need this explained in smaller words, I'm afraid you're out of luck, because I can't dumb it down any further.

 

[ding]

You didn't even try to address my point. You never do, because you never can.

It's not that complicated. A fourth-grader could grasp it, therefore you can't.

When making plans about a changing climate, it's not the number of deaths from each category that matter. What matters is how that number will change in response to a temperature change.

If there's warming, the number of heat deaths climbs more than the number of cold deaths drops, so the net result is more deaths. Thus, the warming should be avoided.

(I hope we all agree that more deaths should be avoided, and that you're not some sort of death-cultist who craves more deaths.)

If you need this explained in smaller words, I'm afraid you're out of luck, because I can't dumb it down any further.

So if there are 4 million deaths from cold conditions and only 400,000 deaths from hot conditions that doesn't mean the greater risk is from cold conditions?

 

[mamooth]

So if there are 4 million deaths from cold conditions and only 400,000 deaths from hot conditions that doesn't mean the greater risk is from cold conditions?

The fallacy of your logic has been explained to you multiple times at second-grade level, and you still fail to grasp it.

Back to the kiddie table with you. Here's a juicebox.

 

[ding]

The fallacy of your logic has been explained to you multiple times at second-grade level, and you still fail to grasp it.

Back to the kiddie table with you. Here's a juicebox.

So that's a yes? You believe that if there are 4 million deaths from cold conditions and only 400,000 deaths from hot conditions that doesn't mean the greater risk is from cold conditions.

 

[Crick]

So that's a yes? You believe that if there are 4 million deaths from cold conditions and only 400,000 deaths from hot conditions that doesn't mean the greater risk is from cold conditions.

Which Kills More People: Extreme Heat or Extreme Cold?

Extreme heat and extreme cold both kill hundreds of people each year in the U.S., but determining a death toll for each is a process subject to large errors.

www.wunderground.com

 

[ding]

Which Kills More People: Extreme Heat or Extreme Cold?

Extreme heat and extreme cold both kill hundreds of people each year in the U.S., but determining a death toll for each is a process subject to large errors.

www.wunderground.com

That's nice. How long does it take to die from hypothermia?

Hypothermia Stages: Symptoms, Definition, Death

Hypothermia is a medical emergency caused by prolonged to very cold temperatures and your body temperature drops below 95°F/35°C. A person can die from hypothermia in as little as under one hour.

www.emedicinehealth.com

 

[Crick]

That's nice. How long does it take to die from hypothermia?

Hypothermia Stages: Symptoms, Definition, Death

Hypothermia is a medical emergency caused by prolonged to very cold temperatures and your body temperature drops below 95°F/35°C. A person can die from hypothermia in as little as under one hour.

www.emedicinehealth.com

What does that matter? Looks like another strawman.

 

[ding]

What does that matter? Looks like another strawman.

It matters because colder temperatures are more deadly than warmer temperatures for life. A warmer planet is better for life than a colder planet. This should be self evident.

 

[Crick]

It matters because colder temperatures are more deadly than warmer temperatures for life. A warmer planet is better for life than a colder planet. This should be self evident.

If the planet were getting colder at the rate it's getting warmer, I might be concerned. But it's not. The planet is getting warmer and an increasing number of people are dying of excess heat.

 

[ding]

If the planet were getting colder at the rate it's getting warmer, I might be concerned. But it's not. The planet is getting warmer and an increasing number of people are dying of excess heat.

Is the per capita number of people dying from heat increasing or decreasing? No. It's decreasing.

It's an old wives tale that the rate of change is unprecedented. The rate of change of CO2 is unprecedented, but CO2 is a relatively weak GHG. The theoretical incremental change in surface temperature is 1C per doubling of CO2. You assume all warming is from CO2 which is idiotic. The geologic record is littered with natural warming and cooling trends. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty increased 3 million years ago. It's a hallmark of our bipolar glaciated planet where the temperature threshold for glaciation is different at each pole.

 

[ding]

Unprecedented rate of CO2 change? Sure. Unprecedented rate of temperature change? Not so much.

 

[Crick]

Is the per capita number of people dying from heat increasing or decreasing? No. It's decreasing.

Only if you pretend there's been no advancement in medicine, weather forecasting and technology in the last century.

Climate Change Indicators: Heat-Related Deaths | US EPA

This indicator presents data on deaths classified as “heat-related” in the United States.

www.epa.gov

It's an old wives tale that the rate of change is unprecedented.

An old wive's tale? I've never seen any old wives talking about it.

The rate of change of CO2 is unprecedented, but CO2 is a relatively weak GHG.

It is the second most powerful greenhouse gas and is responsible for one-third of all global warming. Your repeated claim that it is relatively weak is disingenuous bullshit.

The theoretical incremental change in surface temperature is 1C per doubling of CO2.

For the third time, surface temperatures have not been changing incrementally and this statement is FALSE. The best determination of ECS is 3.0C. The best determination of TCR is 1.8C. If you'd like to get into an actual conversation about this, you need to provide a great deal more information as to what you're actually claiming. Over what time span are you suggesting CO2 be doubled and over what time span is the delta-T measured? Given that we have more than 1C warming for only a 50% increase and are decades from theoretical equilibrium, your numbers simply fail.

You assume all warming is from CO2 which is idiotic.

I have never said any such thing. Again, you are knowingly lying about what I have said.

The geologic record is littered with natural warming and cooling trends.

Who gives a shit?

Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty increased 3 million years ago.

The glacial-interglacial cycle began 2.58 million years ago. What you might mean by "environmental uncertainty" like so MUCH of what you say, is completely undefined.

It's a hallmark of our bipolar glaciated planet where the temperature threshold for glaciation is different at each pole.

So if we lived on a planet that had only one pole we'd be okay?

 

[ding]

Only if you pretend there's been no advancement in medicine, weather forecasting and technology in the last century.

Climate Change Indicators: Heat-Related Deaths | US EPA

This indicator presents data on deaths classified as “heat-related” in the United States.

www.epa.gov

An old wive's tale? I've never seen any old wives talking about it.

It is the second most powerful greenhouse gas and is responsible for one-third of all global warming. Your repeated claim that it is relatively weak is disingenuous bullshit.

For the third time, surface temperatures have not been changing incrementally and this statement is FALSE. The best determination of ECS is 3.0C. The best determination of TCR is 1.8C. If you'd like to get into an actual conversation about this, you need to provide a great deal more information as to what you're actually claiming. Over what time span are you suggesting CO2 be doubled and over what time span is the delta-T measured? Given that we have more than 1C warming for only a 50% increase and are decades from theoretical equilibrium, your numbers simply fail.

I have never said any such thing. Again, you are knowingly lying about what I have said.

Who gives a shit?

The glacial-interglacial cycle began 2.58 million years ago. What you might mean by "environmental uncertainty" like so MUCH of what you say, is completely undefined.

So if we lived on a planet that had only one pole we'd be okay?

This is nonsensical. Can't articulate you position in a cohesive paragraph?

 

[Crick]

This is nonsensical. Can't articulate you position in a cohesive paragraph?

I don't lie about what you've said. I don't put up links and then lie about what is in them. I don't ignore real evidence. My position is simply that of mainstream science. Yours is not.