4 ms·

Temperature rise actually impacts humans overall in a positive way since more humans die on average from cold temperatures vs. hot. edit: I see people don't be

Temperature rise actually impacts humans overall in a positive way since more humans die on average from cold temperatures vs. hot. edit: I see people don't believe this which is surprising since it is overwhelmingly true, like not even close: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.h...

megablast 3y ago
[flagged]
- aeternum 3y ago
  What is the more complex view?
  - antisthenes 3y ago
    The complex view is that more humans die from cold than heat until they don't, and more start dying from heat than cold. And that people also die of starvation, cancers from fossil fuel extraction and a plethora of other things.
brucethemoose2 3y ago
I believe it... But it is not relevant. The consequence of global warming is not a uniform temperature rise, and not limited to an average temperature rise that may help people in cold climates.
- aeternum 3y ago
  Yet the article focuses entirely on temp rise and is somehow considered relevant? Let's be honest: Global warming/climate change will likely save human lives in the short term but could be quite bad in the long term if left unchecked. That however cannot be stated.
  - brucethemoose2 3y ago
    The vast majority of scientific literature suggests the disruptive changes will, at any point, outweigh the benefits of a warmer climate, and thats the conservative best case scenario, assuming we don't trip any "tipping points."
- thrawa8387336 3y ago
  Correct your terms bro, warming-out climate change-in
uoaei 3y ago
This comment is an exquisite demonstration of the limits of first-order thinking.
rewgs 3y ago
It's not that people aren't believing you or that it's not true, it's that it doesn't apply to the conversation at hand and so completely misses the point that it's kind of baffling that anyone would arrive at your conclusion that it's this simple with a straight face. The reality is that it isn't hot vs cold, it's all of the things climate change are affecting -- hotter weather, yes, but colder weather too, less predictable weather, more extreme/frequent storms and natural disasters, crop failures, the associated geopolitical fallout, loss of habitable land, water shortages, and the countless downstream effects of all of the above and more. And I'm pretty sure that all those things are deadly. Also, putting literally all of that aside, hot weather kills people too, so if it even were as simple as "hot vs cold," more frequent and hotter hot weather would also kill more people too. Look up wet-bulb temperature if you'd like to find a new source of nightmares. The fact that you apparently don't see any of this and just think "hot = better because more people die from cold weather than hot" is why you're getting downvoted to oblivion. It's a surprisingly braindead argument even by HN's all-too-frequent "can't see the forest for the trees" lapses in judgement.
- aeternum 3y ago
  It applies because the article exclusively discusses a 2 degree temperature rise. A 2 degree temperature rise is not enough to cause widespread crop failures, significantly increased natural disasters, nor the other things you mention. Everything in life has pros and cons, here a 2 degree temperature rise will result in 5 million humans saved, it's pretty disingenuous to not to at least mention that. I even generally agree that a large temp increase 10-20+ degrees super risky and not something we should experiment with, but this fear mongering about 2 degrees is ridiculous and not based in science.
  - magicalhippo 3y ago
    > It applies because the article exclusively discusses a 2 degree temperature rise. You are correct in pointing out that the headline is, at face value, incorrect. The context is that the 2 degrees C is a global average temperature increase compared to some fixed baseline. As an average it doesn't say anything about the variance. To illustrate, the average value of 4, 4, 5, 6, 6 and 1, 1, 5, 9, 9 are the same, 5. Our climate models however show that an increase in average temperature will most likely be accompanied by a fair increase in variance, meaning both much hotter and much colder weather. And it's this increase in variance that's the main issue.

megablast 3y ago

[flagged]

aeternum 3y ago
What is the more complex view?
- antisthenes 3y ago
  The complex view is that more humans die from cold than heat until they don't, and more start dying from heat than cold. And that people also die of starvation, cancers from fossil fuel extraction and a plethora of other things.

brucethemoose2 3y ago

I believe it... But it is not relevant. The consequence of global warming is not a uniform temperature rise, and not limited to an average temperature rise that may help people in cold climates.

aeternum 3y ago
Yet the article focuses entirely on temp rise and is somehow considered relevant? Let's be honest: Global warming/climate change will likely save human lives in the short term but could be quite bad in the long term if left unchecked. That however cannot be stated.
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  The vast majority of scientific literature suggests the disruptive changes will, at any point, outweigh the benefits of a warmer climate, and thats the conservative best case scenario, assuming we don't trip any "tipping points."
thrawa8387336 3y ago
Correct your terms bro, warming-out climate change-in

uoaei 3y ago

This comment is an exquisite demonstration of the limits of first-order thinking.

rewgs 3y ago

It's not that people aren't believing you or that it's not true, it's that it doesn't apply to the conversation at hand and so completely misses the point that it's kind of baffling that anyone would arrive at your conclusion that it's this simple with a straight face. The reality is that it isn't hot vs cold, it's all of the things climate change are affecting -- hotter weather, yes, but colder weather too, less predictable weather, more extreme/frequent storms and natural disasters, crop failures, the associated geopolitical fallout, loss of habitable land, water shortages, and the countless downstream effects of all of the above and more. And I'm pretty sure that all those things are deadly. Also, putting literally all of that aside, hot weather kills people too, so if it even were as simple as "hot vs cold," more frequent and hotter hot weather would also kill more people too. Look up wet-bulb temperature if you'd like to find a new source of nightmares. The fact that you apparently don't see any of this and just think "hot = better because more people die from cold weather than hot" is why you're getting downvoted to oblivion. It's a surprisingly braindead argument even by HN's all-too-frequent "can't see the forest for the trees" lapses in judgement.

aeternum 3y ago
It applies because the article exclusively discusses a 2 degree temperature rise. A 2 degree temperature rise is not enough to cause widespread crop failures, significantly increased natural disasters, nor the other things you mention. Everything in life has pros and cons, here a 2 degree temperature rise will result in 5 million humans saved, it's pretty disingenuous to not to at least mention that. I even generally agree that a large temp increase 10-20+ degrees super risky and not something we should experiment with, but this fear mongering about 2 degrees is ridiculous and not based in science.
- magicalhippo 3y ago
  > It applies because the article exclusively discusses a 2 degree temperature rise. You are correct in pointing out that the headline is, at face value, incorrect. The context is that the 2 degrees C is a global average temperature increase compared to some fixed baseline. As an average it doesn't say anything about the variance. To illustrate, the average value of 4, 4, 5, 6, 6 and 1, 1, 5, 9, 9 are the same, 5. Our climate models however show that an increase in average temperature will most likely be accompanied by a fair increase in variance, meaning both much hotter and much colder weather. And it's this increase in variance that's the main issue.