4 ms·

What you describe is equilibrium. What the article describe is not the shift of equilibrium but a departure of it that may eliminate cold deaths and start incre

What you describe is equilibrium. What the article describe is not the shift of equilibrium but a departure of it that may eliminate cold deaths and start increasing hot deaths without bound.

SiVal 5y ago
I'm not describing any equilibrium. Heat deaths and cold deaths move in opposite directions, but that does not imply that they are equal or produce any restorative force on one another that would lead back to an equilibrium state. Since death won't affect the weather, if temperatures change, both heat and cold deaths will change, with some net change in total deaths. With more cold deaths currently than heat deaths, an increase in average temperature is more likely to reduce total deaths than increase them. If saving lives is your real goal, net lives saved/lost should be your yardstick, regardless of your opinion about the relative magnitude of heat deaths and cold deaths. But if your real agenda is something else then, sure, talking about increased heat deaths without ever mentioning reduced cold deaths might better serve your needs.
- lb0 5y ago
  > With more cold deaths currently than heat deaths I disagree even to that. Any numbers for that statement, at least rough dimensions? And, given world average rising a few more °C, and we get a similar extreme weather condition persisting for few days like described here, but where wet bulb goes not just close/slightly but significantly over 35°C, what will that numbers be in poor.. but heck, even in rich countries? You cannot be serious.. (Adding: Btw.. after all what models tell and we already see, we are in general not getting rid of extreme colds as well, but even getting also more persisting ones of these.. )
  - SiVal 5y ago
    Whether you agree about the relative scale of cold and heat deaths doesn't matter. I say that all lives matter, so lives lost due to heat and lives saved due to heat should BOTH be included in the calculation. And, yes, I'm serious that a life saved due to heat matters just like a life lost due to heat. Are you arguing that lives lost due to warmer temperatures matter, but lives saved by warmer temperatures don't? Or just that the latter problem, say homeless and poor people dying of the cold, is too trivial in your opinion to matter in public policy discussions?
    - lb0 5y ago
      > Whether you agree about the relative scale of cold and heat deaths doesn't matter. > Are you arguing that lives lost due to warmer temperatures matter, but lives saved by warmer temperatures don't? I'm arguing that the scale matters, so please give me numbers, which you seem to know at least for the now? It is surely not a 1-to-1 exchange right now, and not in the future. So how many lives lost due to heat vs due to cold now? And what are your predictions for the future (that as far as I get it deviate extremely from scientific consensus)? > say homeless and poor people dying of the cold, is too trivial in your opinion to matter in public policy discussions? Oh come one, now you are trolling me. I didn't say and mean that at all..
  - rufus_foreman 5y ago
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60897-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Cold weather 20 times deadlier than hot. Moderately high/low temperatures responsible for most of the deaths rather than extremes.
lb0 5y ago
Without bound, exactly. OP cannot be serious or this is deep sarcasm, or another form of climate denial? Sure, you can die of cold, and given technology at some level it becomes really too cold for reasonable habitability, but that is quite low in relation to what we see around the world. And even our far ancestors could already "avoid" cold by just making fire, shelters, putting on cloth. Today we have whole cities built in permafrost, enduring -40°C temperatures just fine.. with the right clothing put on you can even survive outside for a significant amount of time. If it is getting too hot (imagine 5°C over wet bulb temperature or more) there is nothing we can do but shelter in with air condition and hope electricity keeps going (which also becomes a problem at certain temperature), no going outside anymore. AC is only omnipresent in the US, very recent modern technology, but even in the richest countries in Europe most have none at home or even work.. (it is just normal). Sure we riches can buy one, but situation around the world is very different. Ok clarified, I'm just being Captain Obvious here, and OP must be another form of climate change denial.
- Anunayj 5y ago
  Many people die of cold each year, many people die of heat. Therefore we should just cook this planet alive and die.
- SiVal 5y ago
  Sorry, but are you saying that, now that we have fire and clothing and "whole cities in permafrost", hardly anybody really dies of cold anymore? That it's mostly a myth? That the news and weather people on television who worry every winter about what they call "dangerous conditions tonight for homeless people" are just spreading "misinformation" as "deep sarcasm or another form of climate denial"? Large numbers of people really do, even today, die of both cold and heat. That's one of the dangers for for people who are homeless or too poor to pay to heat their homes properly. If temperatures change, the change in death rates should be measured using the overall change in death rates, not just the change in heat deaths. If that statement about measuring the overall impact of climate change on death rates using net change in death rates constitutes "climate change denial" for you, then a "form of climate change denial" is a form of religious heresy for you, and there's no point arguing mere statistical matters.

What you describe is equilibrium. What the article describe is not the shift of equilibrium but a departure of it that may eliminate cold deaths and start increasing hot deaths without bound.

SiVal 5y ago

I'm not describing any equilibrium. Heat deaths and cold deaths move in opposite directions, but that does not imply that they are equal or produce any restorative force on one another that would lead back to an equilibrium state. Since death won't affect the weather, if temperatures change, both heat and cold deaths will change, with some net change in total deaths. With more cold deaths currently than heat deaths, an increase in average temperature is more likely to reduce total deaths than increase them. If saving lives is your real goal, net lives saved/lost should be your yardstick, regardless of your opinion about the relative magnitude of heat deaths and cold deaths. But if your real agenda is something else then, sure, talking about increased heat deaths without ever mentioning reduced cold deaths might better serve your needs.

lb0 5y ago
> With more cold deaths currently than heat deaths I disagree even to that. Any numbers for that statement, at least rough dimensions? And, given world average rising a few more °C, and we get a similar extreme weather condition persisting for few days like described here, but where wet bulb goes not just close/slightly but significantly over 35°C, what will that numbers be in poor.. but heck, even in rich countries? You cannot be serious.. (Adding: Btw.. after all what models tell and we already see, we are in general not getting rid of extreme colds as well, but even getting also more persisting ones of these.. )
- SiVal 5y ago
  Whether you agree about the relative scale of cold and heat deaths doesn't matter. I say that all lives matter, so lives lost due to heat and lives saved due to heat should BOTH be included in the calculation. And, yes, I'm serious that a life saved due to heat matters just like a life lost due to heat. Are you arguing that lives lost due to warmer temperatures matter, but lives saved by warmer temperatures don't? Or just that the latter problem, say homeless and poor people dying of the cold, is too trivial in your opinion to matter in public policy discussions?
  - lb0 5y ago
    > Whether you agree about the relative scale of cold and heat deaths doesn't matter. > Are you arguing that lives lost due to warmer temperatures matter, but lives saved by warmer temperatures don't? I'm arguing that the scale matters, so please give me numbers, which you seem to know at least for the now? It is surely not a 1-to-1 exchange right now, and not in the future. So how many lives lost due to heat vs due to cold now? And what are your predictions for the future (that as far as I get it deviate extremely from scientific consensus)? > say homeless and poor people dying of the cold, is too trivial in your opinion to matter in public policy discussions? Oh come one, now you are trolling me. I didn't say and mean that at all..
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60897-2/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Cold weather 20 times deadlier than hot. Moderately high/low temperatures responsible for most of the deaths rather than extremes.

lb0 5y ago

Without bound, exactly. OP cannot be serious or this is deep sarcasm, or another form of climate denial? Sure, you can die of cold, and given technology at some level it becomes really too cold for reasonable habitability, but that is quite low in relation to what we see around the world. And even our far ancestors could already "avoid" cold by just making fire, shelters, putting on cloth. Today we have whole cities built in permafrost, enduring -40°C temperatures just fine.. with the right clothing put on you can even survive outside for a significant amount of time. If it is getting too hot (imagine 5°C over wet bulb temperature or more) there is nothing we can do but shelter in with air condition and hope electricity keeps going (which also becomes a problem at certain temperature), no going outside anymore. AC is only omnipresent in the US, very recent modern technology, but even in the richest countries in Europe most have none at home or even work.. (it is just normal). Sure we riches can buy one, but situation around the world is very different. Ok clarified, I'm just being Captain Obvious here, and OP must be another form of climate change denial.

Anunayj 5y ago
Many people die of cold each year, many people die of heat. Therefore we should just cook this planet alive and die.
SiVal 5y ago
Sorry, but are you saying that, now that we have fire and clothing and "whole cities in permafrost", hardly anybody really dies of cold anymore? That it's mostly a myth? That the news and weather people on television who worry every winter about what they call "dangerous conditions tonight for homeless people" are just spreading "misinformation" as "deep sarcasm or another form of climate denial"? Large numbers of people really do, even today, die of both cold and heat. That's one of the dangers for for people who are homeless or too poor to pay to heat their homes properly. If temperatures change, the change in death rates should be measured using the overall change in death rates, not just the change in heat deaths. If that statement about measuring the overall impact of climate change on death rates using net change in death rates constitutes "climate change denial" for you, then a "form of climate change denial" is a form of religious heresy for you, and there's no point arguing mere statistical matters.