Record Levels of Heat-Related Deaths in 2023 Due To Climate Crisis, Report Finds (theguardian.com) 161
Heat-related deaths, food insecurity and the spread of infectious diseases caused by the climate crisis have reached record levels, according to a landmark report. The Guardian: The Lancet Countdown's ninth report on health and the climate breakdown reveals that people across the world face unprecedented threats to their health from the rapidly changing climate. "This year's stocktake of the imminent health threats of climate inaction reveals the most concerning findings yet," warned Dr Marina Romanello, executive director of the Lancet Countdown at University College London.
"Once again, last year broke climate change records with extreme heatwaves, deadly weather events, and devastating wildfires affecting people around the world. No individual or economy on the planet is immune [to] the health threats of climate change. The relentless expansion of fossil fuels and record-breaking greenhouse gas emissions compounds these dangerous health impacts, and is threatening to reverse the limited progress made so far and put a healthy future further out of reach."
The report finds that in 2023, extreme drought lasting at least one month affected 48% of the global land area, while people had to cope with an unprecedented 50 more days of health-threatening temperatures than would have been expected without the climate crisis. As a result, 151 million more people faced moderate or severe food insecurity, risking malnutrition and other harm to their health.
"Once again, last year broke climate change records with extreme heatwaves, deadly weather events, and devastating wildfires affecting people around the world. No individual or economy on the planet is immune [to] the health threats of climate change. The relentless expansion of fossil fuels and record-breaking greenhouse gas emissions compounds these dangerous health impacts, and is threatening to reverse the limited progress made so far and put a healthy future further out of reach."
The report finds that in 2023, extreme drought lasting at least one month affected 48% of the global land area, while people had to cope with an unprecedented 50 more days of health-threatening temperatures than would have been expected without the climate crisis. As a result, 151 million more people faced moderate or severe food insecurity, risking malnutrition and other harm to their health.
Consequences of economics? (Score:2)
Whatever. (Score:2)
The camps are divided. Nobody's listening.
I think that to graduate high school you should need to select a position that you subscribe to. Then you should have to research and author a paper on five arguments why the contrary position may be true.
In the end the climate will do what it will, irrespective of the opinions of one species inhabiting it.
Re:Whatever. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the end the climate will do what it will, irrespective of the opinions of one species inhabiting it.
It's not about opinions, it's about actions. Some of us believe in doing more than hoping and praying.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us believe in doing more than hoping and praying.
That is fine. Whatever you are doing is not making a difference. You have no power and the people who do, don't care at all what you think or do in this regard. Have fun going to hell with the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end the climate will do what it will, irrespective of the opinions of one species inhabiting it.
Irrespective of the opinions yes. But not irrespective of the actions those people take.
And those actions will be influenced by their opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end the climate will do what it will, irrespective of the opinions of one species inhabiting it.
More exactly, in the end, the climate will do what we are making it do, irrespective of the opinions of the people arguing about it.
Fossil fuels corporations (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
With enough political pressure, we can get them to stop.
LOL. WTF? Are you serious? This is money we are talking about. People will continue doing it until there is no profit left. These are people who would sell their own grandma for a dollar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As the climate heats, it's getting less & less hospitable not only to humans & the food we grow, but also to a wide range of species on which our ecosystems depend. We're already witnessing extraordinary rates of species extinction. Burning fossil fuels & releasing methane into the atmosphere is causing climate heating. These are facts. Your comments haven't addressed these facts. It's just more hot air in an attempt
Re: (Score:2)
That would be because governments [boop]
Liar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"A 2020 study commissioned by Natural Resources Canada found that based on federal electric vehicle targets, EVs will consume 156.5 terawatt-hours of electricity per year by 2050 — equivalent to 22.6 per cent of electricity consumed in the country in 2020."
The site-c dam produces 5100 gwh, or 5.1 twh. 156.5 / 5.1 = ~30 actually. In the original article they must have been factoring in a lot of wind and solar as well, or th
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of available capacity at night, when most EVs are charged.
You therefore didn't address the question.
Re: (Score:2)
Wording (Score:2)
If (and it's not really an if) global warming is happening, then we shouldn't be calling heat waves and hurricanes and such 'extreme' events. They're not, they're the start of the new normal.
There's also the issue of death count not mattering much. First, the numbers are amazingly low. "Hundreds dead in head wave" doesn't mean much when you're talking millions of people. For a population of a million, we lose an average of 21 people a day under normal circumstances. Sure, you can point to 'this person
Re: (Score:2)
There is no new normal, because there is no longer any normal.
There will only be more and more chaos, because that's how chaotic systems work when you add energy. They never spontaneously generate order.
What we should be focusing on is how climate change will lead to mass starvation by causing crop failures.
climate or urbanization? (Score:2)
There have been lots heatwaves in the past.
Another thing that is different is we have larger urban populations and a larger part of the population urban than ever. Well there is a lot less options for escaping the heat when you live in a 400ft apartment on a treeless street.
I remember my grandfather actually telling me about how amazing air-conditioning is when I was kid. His story was pretty much how when he was a boy, on really hot days he and his mother would go outside walk a little ways into the woods
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There have been lots heatwaves [boop].
Delusional liar
Re: (Score:2)
I know you are but what am i?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently illiterate AND a delusional liar
Why are you lying? What does this do for your damaged ego?
Wet bulb (Score:2)
Keep an eye out for wet bulb temperatures in your area. They are already becoming common in southern parts of the USA and can easily kill people.
We are deeper into the FO phase than I thought we would be at this point. Drought, wildfires, unprecedented flooding, plants no longer able to take up carbon, the poles and oceans 20 degrees hotter than what used to be normal... and it's going to continue to accelerate as the profiteers are still fucking around as hard and fast as possible.
Definition of "Food Insecurity"? (Score:2)
I wonder how the report defines "food Insecurity"?
Also, notice there isn't one word about "record-levels of heat-related deaths" in TFS, just a lot of talk about increased threats and 151 million people at risk.
I suspect the report, somewhere in those many pages, talks about actual deaths rather than just increased threats, but I'm not going to read the whole thing to find out - I'd appreciate it if someone that had gone through the report could provide a summary (quoting the report) that supports the headl
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how the report defines "food Insecurity"?
Liar masquerading as non-liar. But liar.
An Inconvenent truth (Score:2)
4-10 times as many people die from cold related stuff than excess heat
The Guradian article on the Lancet study is politically driven silliness. here's some more from the Lancet
"Between 1991 and 2020, we estimated 363 809 cold-related deaths (empirical 95% CI 362 493–365 310) and 43 729 heat-related deaths (39 880–45 921), subject to substantial geographical heterogeneity."
It may or may not have crossed the author's minds that if more people are dying from heat, it is likely that fewer are dying
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Found the MAGA.
Re:"study finds" ... "climate crisis" (Score:5, Informative)
Please tell me you're trolling, and not proof of Idiocracy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What on earth are you talking about?!? Seriously, "the connection with carbon is being disproven" is some level 11 trolling, right there. Also, "scientists finding a higher correlation with solar activity and orbit change" is not how "science" works, but yeah,...
Please tell me you're trolling, and not proof of Idiocracy.
He can't answer right now, Ancient Aliens is having a series marathon.
The energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere has been shown for a few centuries now, and is proven again and again in grade school science fairs. We even use the very effect commercially in greenhouses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere has been shown for a few centuries now [...]. We even use the very effect commercially in greenhouses.
Interesting. How does that work? I know greenhouses use high CO2 levels to boost plan growth, but to increase energy retention? I mean, I can see how it could add a small amount of insulation, but enough to make that the purpose of adding CO2?
Re:"study finds" ... "climate crisis" (Score:5, Informative)
The energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere has been shown for a few centuries now [...]. We even use the very effect commercially in greenhouses.
Interesting. How does that work? I know greenhouses use high CO2 levels to boost plan growth, but to increase energy retention? I mean, I can see how it could add a small amount of insulation, but enough to make that the purpose of adding CO2?
The energy retention is in the medium. Heat is energy, so if an atmosphere retains more energy, it is in the form of heat. Some places also use the term radiative forcing.
I tend to use energy retention wording, mainly because I'm so tired of things like AGW, or global warming or the other overused words for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I was specifically asking about how/why the greenhouse gas effect is used commercially in greenhouses. Are you saying that your commercial greenhouse gas comment wasn't about greenhouse gases being used in greenhouses, but about glass, etc., being used to make greenhouses and that the atmospheric effect is the same?
Building with glass walls and roof (sometimes polyethene plastic) The main thing is a level of transparency or translucence.
Sun comes into the building. There is an energy transfer to the interior of the building, heating it.
Now to get the idea of the greenhouse effect, let us take what happens is nothing is inside the building. It will heat rapidly. When the sun goes down, it will cool rapidly. This is not unlike how deserts with their dry air will get very hot during the day, yet cool significantly
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I fully understand how greenhouses work.
So the water vapor in the greenhouse absorbs the infrared energy from the sun, and warms the interior, and keeps it warmer after sunset.
I strongly doubt that the amount of water vapor in a greenhouse has a significant effect on the temperature of the greenhouse. In fact I've been in an empty greenhouse, one with no plants and insignificant amounts of water present, and it warmed during the day and retained heat at night just as an in-use greenhouse does.
So, my conclusion here is that, no, greenhouse gases -- while they indeed play a crucial and significant role in atmospheric temperatures -- a
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"study finds" ... "climate crisis" (Score:5, Informative)
It's very easy to find out who studied this stuff and where their funding comes from. It's on the website.
https://lancetcountdown.org/wh... [lancetcountdown.org]
It's is funded by the Lancet and the Wellcome Trust. The individuals who wrote it will be funded by their individual institutions. There is a list of these as well.
Re:"study finds" ... "climate crisis" (Score:4, Informative)
I'd like to know studied this stuff:
Your wish is granted. Look at the list of references found in the article, here: https://www.thelancet.com/jour... [thelancet.com]
and where their funding comes from.
Open the referenced papers and you will find that.
It's not the orbit [Re:"study finds" ... "clim..." (Score:4)
Also the connection with carbon is being disproven, scientists finding a higher correlation with solar activity
Huh? No.
We measure the sun. The Earth's temperature is rising during high solar activity, it is rising during low solar activity, it is rising during average solar activity. The sun is not getting hotter. The climate is.
Ever since sunspots were discovered in the 1600s, scientists have been trying to find a correlation between solar activity and climate. So far, none of the hypothesized correlations have held up.
and orbit change,
You are aware that orbit changes happen on a time scale of ten thousand years to a hundred thousand years, right?
They are not responsible for climate change over a time scale of decades.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to know [boop]
Liar
Re:"study finds" ... "climate crisis" (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you don't understand it, don't assume other people don't. That's why there is higher education.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or higher education.
Related science (Score:2)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Exploring 167 years of vulnerability: An examination of extreme heat events in Australia 1844–2010
> via PerilAUS natural hazards database.
> 1896 (450 heat-associated deaths for that year), followed by 2009 (432) and 1939 (420).
> Highest ranked in terms of death rate are 1896 (12.66 deaths per 100,000 population), 1908 (5.81), 1939 (6.00) and 2009 (1.99).
Re: "study finds" ... "climate crisis" (Score:2)
"Peer reviews validate the data, not the conclusions you make interpreting the data."
Oh man, this is going on my wall of shame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Numbers like those are easily manipulable. [boop]
Liar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
There's absolute assloads of money out there for anyone who can convincingly suggest that AGW is occurring.
FTFY.
[citation needed]
poor baby fee fees (Score:2, Flamebait)
I triggered some cuckservative[s] who want[s] to pretend AGW doesn't exist and/or that there is a conspiracy to lie about it.
The proof is in the downmods on this comment and several others as well:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
You denialists are pathetic cowards who know you're liars whose ideas cannot win because they are (of course) lies. That's why you have to try to cancel my ideas with moderation while crying about how you are always
Re: (Score:3)
We should try to reduce both.
Ground-source heat pumps can store the excess heat in the summer and use it to warm buildings in the winter.
Heat pumps reduce carbon emissions, especially if powered by renewables, and work better as the climate warms.
Re:Lie of omission (Score:4)
You got both math and location wrong. First, it would be "so what if ten Europeans die to save one African". Second, it's not Africans who are dying cold related deaths, but people in temperate and cool temperate regions, i.e. places like North East Asia, Eastern Europe, and US.
A few years back, there was a real heat wave in Chicago. A fair number of people expired. IIRC, it was a lot of seniors that wanted to save money. Wouldn't even turn on a fan. Now when heatwaves hit, many cities send out H&W checks for people.
Protip for everyone - if you don't have air conditioning, but do have a fan, water and a washrag, take the wet washrag and rub it on yourself. Be in front of the fan.
Not high tech, but might save your life.
Re:Lie of omission (Score:5, Informative)
Protip for everyone - if you don't have air conditioning, but do have a fan, water and a washrag, take the wet washrag and rub it on yourself. Be in front of the fan.
Not high tech, but might save your life.
Good tip, but with an important caveat. As overall temps rise, summertime humidity is rising too. This results in higher wet-bulb temperatures. Once the wet-bulb reading reaches a certain level, all the evaporative cooling in the world won't save you, because evaporation is no longer occurring at any meaningful rate.
Evaporative cooling [Re:Lie of omission] (Score:3)
Protip for everyone - if you don't have air conditioning, but do have a fan, water and a washrag, take the wet washrag and rub it on yourself. Be in front of the fan.
Note that this depends on evaporative cooling, so it doesn't work when humidity approaches 100%.
But, yes, swamp coolers [howstuffworks.com] substitute for air conditioners in poor regions.
Re:Evaporative cooling [Re:Lie of omission] (Score:4)
Protip for everyone - if you don't have air conditioning, but do have a fan, water and a washrag, take the wet washrag and rub it on yourself. Be in front of the fan.
Note that this depends on evaporative cooling, so it doesn't work when humidity approaches 100%.
But, yes, swamp coolers [howstuffworks.com] substitute for air conditioners in poor regions.
Yes, there are limits to evaporative cooling here in the Northeast. Another tip would be to run a tub of cold water. I do have some neckerchief type things filled with water absorbing beads. You soak them in water, the beads swell up, then you wear it around your neck, and as they evaporate, they cool. Cooling the blood to the brain seems to help a good bit.
Another trick that some motorcyclists use for crossing the desert is evaporative or even frozen water filled vests. When you are looking at spending a couple really hours with no shade, they are lifesavers.
Another thing used in the middle east is windcatchers. Reaching up to a height above the ground temperatures, they function surprisingly well. An interesting architecture element in addition.
Re:Lie of omission (Score:4, Interesting)
For those unaware heat will kill a lot more people than cold did. And the heating has hardly even become noticeable yet.
Luckyo is pretending cold is safer because he is only counting the direct deaths of freezing or heatstroke. But heating will change the climate in ways that will cause many more natural disasters such as floods, fires, hurricanes etc. He doesn't want you to include those, even though the heat will make them worse.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We evolved to have airconditioned cities? That's a new one.
We evolved to migrate. How are you going to do that with most people living in cities. And most countries not allowing people to move there.
So what if an ice age killed most people. That's a strawman, we're not going to be having an ice age. And the experiment wasn't done with massive extra heating. That would have killed of most of the humans too. Heat and humidity kill just as well as cold.
Re: (Score:2)
We evolved to have airconditioned cities? That's a new one.
No. He didn't say that. He didn't say anything remotely like that. He said:
"...our species has evolved for a much warmer climate".
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence says the opposite.
Show your work.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence says the opposite. So does evolution, as our species has evolved for a much warmer climate. We are a tropical animal, that got utterly brutalized by the currently receding Ice Age.
Gah - you are such a masterful troll that you've trolled yourself into believing your own bullshit. Well done, I guess...
Re: (Score:3)
We are still in an ice age. This currently interglacial is roughly 10,000 years old, but it's still an ice age we're in. But then we evolved during an ice age. You might do well to learn the difference between ice ages and glacial maxima and interglacials.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence says the opposite.
Liar
Re:Lie of omission (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the reduction in cold related deaths due to climate change or better insulation, heating, and clothing?
It doesn't really matter, because even if what you claim were true, the fact is that people who find the place they live in becoming uninhabitable are going to migrate, and we all know how much conservatives like you love migration.
Re: (Score:2)
We can generate heat, we can not generate cold. Cold is a lack of heat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Straw man. The issue is not that the planet is going to die out or some nonsense like that, it's that the areas where people currently live are becoming too hot for *human* habitation.
The fact that people are already dying of climate change and migrating because of it is undeniable. Actually that's not true, the far right is denying it and claiming it's some sort of Marxist conspiracy theory to replace them with brown people.
Re: (Score:3)
Never seen before in human history? The rules they are crossing under were created after WW2 because of how refugees had been abused and even used as weapons before and during that conflict.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus! You do realize that slashdot shows the history of the comments above yours?
This is the comment you replied to in full (it's short)
Re: (Score:3)
Moving goal posts (oh no, caught in a lie about planet being uninhabitable),
Jesus! You do realize that Moving goal posts (oh no, caught in a lie about planet being uninhabitable), I'm lost for words at this point. This entire thread is 27 minutes according to the slashdot posting times. Are you a goldfish perhaps?
There are groups that want to take the most alarming things that one person - or perhaps a few - say, then claim that everyone believes that. Happens both far left and far right.
That is how deniers will post orgasmically about that Time Magazine article from the 1970's that "claimed" that we might be slipping into an ice age, as the Northeast was dealing with a lot of snowfall - as proof that all scientists are stupid, and can't make up their minds about anything, so there is no AGW.
So anyone claiming t
Re: (Score:2)
The person you responded to never said the earth would become uninhabitable, they were pointing out that the person they were responding to (Luckyo) put that point up as a strawman.
Glad to know I'm not the only person you respond to whose posts you dont read all the way through though!
Re: (Score:2)
The person you responded to never said the earth would become uninhabitable, they were pointing out that the person they were responding to (Luckyo) put that point up as a strawman.
Glad to know I'm not the only person you respond to whose posts you dont read all the way through though!
I read the whole thing, silly lad. And speaking of poor parsing, I wasn't disagreeing with him or anyone else. Do you disagree with what I wrote? Correct it, and we can have a conversation. I was adding to the conversation - and not engaging in personal attacks, which seems to be what you think "wins" the conversation.
While perhaps you find it very enriching to be the topic police, you are probably not much fun to have a conversation with, because you're brittle. My guess is you just don't like me. Wh
Re: (Score:2)
Animals may or may not migrate. It's hard for some of them to move any further South than Tierra Del Fuego, or futher North than Tunisia. Geography can get in the way. If a plant depends on particular set of alpine conditions and the mountains aren't tall enough, that's also an issue. Or maybe the place they might migrate to is full of humans, or the required plants will take longer to mature than the rate of change of climate. Sadly, we can't just assume that species can just migrate out of harm's way. Humans might have the intelligence to move, but where people might want to move to is probably home to some people who don't want to move. And even if they did, where do the Norwegians ultimately move to? Unlike the Dutch, they haven't learned to make more country yet.
Yes - very good correction, q_e_t. I thought I had noted some animals cannot. But I didn't even write that - that's what I get for posting 5 minutes after waking up!
My best guess is that specialist plants and animals may have a rough time, and generalists will be able to adapt with less problems.
Re: (Score:2)
My best guess is that specialist plants and animals may have a rough time, and generalists will be able to adapt with less problems.
Such is often the case, but it would be a shame to lose even more species in the wild. The generalists par excellence are humans, at least of the higher animals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is of course the exact opposite. Planet is more inhabitable than it ever was. Because we're recovering from an ice age.
Quick reminder, the glacial retreat was 10,000 years ago, and the present climate established by 8,000 years ago. We are not "recovering" from an ice age; we did that before the start of recorded history.
Nevertheless, no, the planet is not becoming "uninhabitable." There will be adverse effects of climate change, but it won't make the planet uninhabited.
...
We even have a name for it. "CO2 fertilization effect". This is so uncontroversial,
Bonus points here; this is real:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-a... [nasa.gov]
https://earthobservatory.nasa.... [nasa.gov]
that even far left wikipedia has an article on the topic that hasn't been banned or hasn't had hate facts changed for politically correct misinformation.
Bizarre. Wikipedia is "far left"?? If y
Re: (Score:2)
Ice age [Re:Lie of omission] (Score:2)
Technically, we are still in an ice age and this is just an interglacial period.
Right; which is why I referred to "the glacial retreat" 10,000 years ago, not "the ice age".
To be fair, when Agassiz coined the term "ice age" (borrowing from Schimper's earlier German term "Eiszeit"), he was thinking of what climatologists now call a glaciation, and in common parlance, that's still what the term means. (In the current scientific terminology, an ice age is any epoch in which any part of the Earth has permanent ice cover.)
Indeed, temperatures were gradually trending down for 7800 of the last 8000 years, with the last 200 bucking that trend.
Not entirely clear. Here's a graph of temperature (or, temperature pro
Re: (Score:2)
I was just emphasising the definition of ice age, not criticising, as many don't know the distinction in modern climatalogical usage
The trend over the last 8000 years is there, it's just very slight.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is of course [boop].
Liar
CO2 fertilization [Re:Lie of omission] (Score:2)
Same lie you always tell about Chlorophyll. Not once backed up by you.
I hate to reply to anonymous cowards, but in fact the CO2 fertilization effect is a real effect, it is indeed well known, and it is being observed as a result of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. There was just a recent review paper about this: https://phys.org/news/2016-04-... [phys.org]
CO2 is rarely a limiting factor for plant growth. Water and other minerals will limit plants even with you "magical CO2 levels"
Yes, increasing CO2 will only increase plant growth in locations where CO2 is the limiting factor, not water or other nutrients. Nitrogen or phosphorus are often the limiting factor: https://climatemodeling.scienc... [energy.gov] , and, of co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 fertilisation effects depends on biology as there are multiple photosynthetic pathways. Some are relatively weakly affected by CO2 concentration changes of the type we are seeing.
Right you are. CO2 fertilization only has a beneficial effect on some vegetation in some locations.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the reduction in cold related deaths due to climate change or better insulation, heating, and clothing?
It doesn't really matter, because even if what you claim were true, the fact is that people who find the place they live in becoming uninhabitable are going to migrate, and we all know how much conservatives like you love migration.
And let's face it, we can always put more clothing on. After wearing nothing, not much further can be done.
And yes, heat and other changes will result in climate refugees.
Out of curiosity, what about that post of mine is flamebait?
Re: (Score:2)
When it is cold, you can always put more clothes on.
When it gets too hot (and humid), you can't take any more clothes off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For those unaware, this is one of the biggest benefits of global warming. We currently have about ten cold related deaths for every heat related death.
Of course if I lived in Finland where it was farking cold I'd say the same thing too. Brings down the cost of my heating bills, doesn't matter if people die from heatstroke because of it right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now ask yourself why anyone would try to amplify the danger of heat deaths when the actual science is so obviously and radically the opposite?
Because as global warming gets worse so will these heat deaths (as they already have). Or is that too simple for you?
Re: (Score:2)
But the point is, that it is simultaneous reducing the number of cold deaths--which is a much worse problem.
So your point is exactly what the above said and that I've already addressed?
Hot weather is becoming more dangerous, it's a growing problem that people should be aware of. The fact that the shrinking number of cold deaths still outnumber heat deaths is irrelevant, no one is contradicting that point by pointing to the growing problem of extreme heat.
Re: (Score:2)
"The fact that the shrinking number of cold deaths still outnumber heat deaths is irrelevant,"
Oh bullshit. No adult with a brain reading that article takes the impression that "oh dear, they're warning us about a tiny risk that's growing".
Did you even read it?
Funny that the article focuses on the threat from the smaller thing, not the reduction in threat from the bigger thing.
Re: (Score:2)
you're confusing deaths with delta-deaths
Re: (Score:2)
The linked article makes no attempt to show that "cold days cause more death"; it just shows that "cold days correlate with more death." It might be (speculating here) that there are simply more cold days every year than "just right" or
Re: (Score:2)
The Lancet original research was clear: cold is much more harmful to humans than heat.
9x.
Or are you insisting you're better informed than the Lancet?
The Lancet study showed LITERALLY that extreme cold causes 9x the deaths of extreme heat.
For every 100 people who die from extreme heat, 900 die from extreme cold.
In case you missed it, cold and heat are OPPOSITES.
A 10% change in climate to warmer would ostensibly increase heat deaths by 10%, and decrease cold deaths by 10%.
That means +10 to heat, and -90 to co
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, fuck you science denying pieces of shit.
You INSIST your conclusions are science based, you INSIST this is all fact. It isn't. Here's a case where the panickmongers are crying about increasing heat yet - quite literally- the danger is ALL the other direction.
And you fucking downmod to troll. You assload of hypocrisy. Don't you ever, for a second, doubt that religion? Maybe wonder "am I the baddy?"
Re: (Score:2)
When the ratio is 9:1?
Yes, yes, I affirm that I believe 9 people are more important than 1 person, regardless of where they're from you moron.
Re: (Score:2)
I like that you jumped from "an effect of weather" to ACTIVE BUTCHERY. Yes, that is completely a logical conclusion.
What a disingenuous fuck.
And for what it's worth, I'd be delighted that if I die parts of me could save 9 random humans of any origin.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
At the same time, it should be acknowledged that those numbers are dwarfed by the number of cold related deaths, amputations, and severe injuries we still have every year.
Why should that be acknowledged? Do you think AGW is going to reduce those deaths any time soon? Because it will do the opposite by creating more severe weather events.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only The Guardian (Score:3)
Scroll one line further down, and the reference is the Lancet [thelancet.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As reliable as [boop]
Liar
Re: (Score:2)
apparently the sky is [boop]
Liar