Over 4.5 Billion to die by 2012

[westwall]

Is this going to be like the heat wave in Britian where 700 people died during the days of heat and asphalt melted?

Then we find out that the temperature was 76F.

Up to 760 people have reportedly already died as a result of the increasingly hot weather.

Figures by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine estimate that between 540 and 760 lives have been taken in the first nine days of the heatwave alone. The death toll is expected to increase as temperatures continue to rise.

Britain has already had the hottest day of the year so far on Wednesday with temperatures soaring to 32.2C (90F) in south-west London.

Heatwave warning extended across England as up to 760 deaths linked to high temperatures | Metro News

That's terrible.... It truly is. However 160 a DAY die due to cold every winter. That equates out to 14,000 every winter. There are estimates that the total is closer to 35,000.
Of course they're old so you probably don't really care anyway....


"180 pensioners died every day as a result of cold conditions during the 2010-11 winter months in England and Wales.

The annual ‘Excess winter mortality’ report found that an estimated 21,800 people over the age of 65 died as a result of adverse conditions, on top of the average mortality rate for the same period of time (4 months from December 2010 to March 2011)."


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/cold-kills-180-british-pensioners-a-day-during-winter.html#fbRMl85

 

[westwall]

Is this going to be like the heat wave in Britian where 700 people died during the days of heat and asphalt melted?

Then we find out that the temperature was 76F.

Up to 760 people have reportedly already died as a result of the increasingly hot weather.

Figures by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine estimate that between 540 and 760 lives have been taken in the first nine days of the heatwave alone. The death toll is expected to increase as temperatures continue to rise.

Britain has already had the hottest day of the year so far on Wednesday with temperatures soaring to 32.2C (90F) in south-west London.

Heatwave warning extended across England as up to 760 deaths linked to high temperatures | Metro News

That's terrible.... It truly is. However 160 a DAY die due to cold every winter. That equates out to 14,000 every winter. There are estimates that the total is closer to 35,000.
Of course they're old so you probably don't really care anyway....


"180 pensioners died every day as a result of cold conditions during the 2010-11 winter months in England and Wales.

The annual ‘Excess winter mortality’ report found that an estimated 21,800 people over the age of 65 died as a result of adverse conditions, on top of the average mortality rate for the same period of time (4 months from December 2010 to March 2011)."


Yahoo! News UK & Ireland - Latest World News & UK News Headlines

 

[SSDD]

It's not my fault that basic English is just one of the many things your cult hasn't educated you on. Or maybe you're just deliberately lying. It's always hard to tell with you, whether it's insanity, stupidity or dishonesty driving any particular statement. In any case, I'm in no mood to parse the meaning of "is" with you. I'm just going to point out what a weasel you are for going that route.

So now you are claiming that you didn't mean what you quite clearly stated when you said:
"Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics."?

You clearly stated that statistics is the fundamental mechanism that drives energy transfer.

The statistical claim of two way energy flow is taken on faith by those who believe...not on any actual hard evidence.

You understand you're completely detached from reality, right? No matter. Everyone else understands that. It would account for all the laughter you're hearing.

So show me an observable, repeatable experiment that proves it. You would think that such a profound "truth" as you claim could be demonstrated out here in the real world as opposed to only within the ether of theoretical mathematics.

But congratulations on that Nobel Prize you'll no doubt be getting, for rewriting most of physics as we know it.)

Alas, it is you and yours who are rewriting. I accept the second law when it says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from a state of higher entropy to a state of lower entropy. You don't accept that and instead believe in theoretical mathematics which have not and can not be proven in the real world. A nobel certainly awaits the one who can prove what you believe to be true.

 

[PMZ]

It was your claim. You said, and I quote:]"Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics."

It's not my fault that basic English is just one of the many things your cult hasn't educated you on. Or maybe you're just deliberately lying. It's always hard to tell with you, whether it's insanity, stupidity or dishonesty driving any particular statement. In any case, I'm in no mood to parse the meaning of "is" with you. I'm just going to point out what a weasel you are for going that route.

The statistical claim of two way energy flow is taken on faith by those who believe...not on any actual hard evidence.

You understand you're completely detached from reality, right? No matter. Everyone else understands that. It would account for all the laughter you're hearing.

(But congratulations on that Nobel Prize you'll no doubt be getting, for rewriting most of physics as we know it.)

Reality has never been kind to conservatives. It virtually always is in the way of them having the world that they've been told that they're entitled to.

 

[SSDD]

(But congratulations on that Nobel Prize you'll no doubt be getting, for rewriting most of physics as we know it.)

Reality has never been kind to conservatives. It virtually always is in the way of them having the world that they've been told that they're entitled to.[/QUOTE]

Still waiting on a link to that observable experiment that proves that you are operating from a position of knowing as oppose to a position of believing. We both know that no such experiment as been, nor will be done so you are stuck believing like any other religious zealot.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Still waiting on a link to that observable experiment

I posted it four times. You ignored it each time.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Still waiting on a link to that observable experiment

I posted it four times. You ignored it each time.

So you have said before except like the other 4 times you were lying. I went back and looked and can find no experiment ever posted by you, much less one that proves your claims. If such an experiment existed, it would be posted daily.....everywhere.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Why would I lie about what has been posted? Anyone can check back if they wanted to.

Here is it for you for a FIFTH time!

Some of Earth’s accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields&#8230. The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earth’s previously exported energy back to Earth – this is a feedback. Does precipitation then falsify the 2nd Law? It doesn’t, of course, since Earth is exporting more heat than it is receiving via feedback and heat flow is still from warmer to cooler but undeniably the atmosphere is returning some energy to Earth and thus keeping it from cooling as rapidly as it otherwise would.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Why would I lie about what has been posted? Anyone can check back if they wanted to.

Here is it for you for a FIFTH time!

Some of Earth’s accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields&#8230. The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earth’s previously exported energy back to Earth – this is a feedback. Does precipitation then falsify the 2nd Law? It doesn’t, of course, since Earth is exporting more heat than it is receiving via feedback and heat flow is still from warmer to cooler but undeniably the atmosphere is returning some energy to Earth and thus keeping it from cooling as rapidly as it otherwise would.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com

Do you know what an experiment is? Do you have any idea what is and is not an experiment? Do you understand that the word has an explicit meaning? Here is a clue...your link is not to an experiment. Your link is to a few paragraphs of someone voicing an opinion.

Here, let me help you out. From the science dictionary.

experiment - A test or procedure carried out under controlled conditions to determine the validity of a hypothesis or make a discovery.

Next time you are asked for an experiment, don't claim to have posted one when you haven't. Again, you are caught in either a bald faced lie or being ignorant in the extreme of the actual practices of science.

And if you had the first clue, you would understand that the circumstance you highlight is not the greenhouse effect as described by climate science. Again, you are clueless. Here is how climate science describes the greenhouse effect:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html

The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet) part of the spectrum. Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

Does that sound to you like rain falling on ice? There is no conflict with the laws of thermodynamics when warmer water falls on ice...there is, however a conflict when it is claimed that the cooler atmosphere RADIATES energy back to the warmer surface of the earth. Get a clue.....and learn what the fuck an experiment is.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Yes, that's fairly much the standard or response I would have expected from you.

The good thing is - you now understand that backradiation exists, and you can easily test the idea in your back garden next time there is snow on the ground. You can conduct your own experiment if you don't believe this one.

And best of all - the Second Lawof Thermodynamics no longer needs to be rewritten.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Yes, that's fairly much the standard or response I would have expected from you.

The good thing is - you now understand that backradiation exists, and you can easily test the idea in your back garden next time there is snow on the ground. You can conduct your own experiment if you don't believe this one.

And best of all - the Second Lawof Thermodynamics no longer needs to be rewritten.

Do you think rain is radiation? Easy question...just requires a yes or no answer. Is rain radiation?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

You denied that feedbacks exist.

You now know they exist.

Nothing to do with radiation, but nice red herring.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

You denied that feedbacks exist.

Again, you are a bald faced liar. I have never denied that feedbacks exist. In fact, if you do a search for me, discussing temperature inversions, you will see that I have pointed out the fact that they exist.

Here for example is a post where I was discussing the topic with you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7082796-post803.html


So again, we have demonstrated for everyone to see that you are a liar.

You now know they exist.

Of course I do. I explained the phenomenon to you months ago.

Nothing to do with radiation, but nice red herring.

Idiot. Look above at the link to what climate science describes as the greenhouse effect....it is in fact radiation, not rare temperature inversions or other such scarce feedbacks, but radiation from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth. On this one, I think you are a liar and just that stupid and uninformed. You believe in a thing and don't even grasp the mechanism by which the thing is supposed to work.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

There are two kinds of posters - those genuiely interested in knowing the facts, and those prevented by pride from doing so.

You are in the latter camp.

On the upside, you also know that you are wrong. I would never have expected you to admit it.

 

[gslack]

SSDD -

There are two kinds of posters - those genuiely interested in knowing the facts, and those prevented by pride from doing so.

You are in the latter camp.

On the upside, you also know that you are wrong. I would never have expected you to admit it.

Finnish Fraud -- there is a third kind.. The kind who cries incessantly and complains about everyone who doesn't conform to his liking...

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

Please check the statement by moderators on the "16% of Americans..." thread. It's on the 2nd to last page.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

There are two kinds of posters - those genuiely interested in knowing the facts, and those prevented by pride from doing so.

You just described yourself. I gave you the very words climate science uses to describe the greenhouse effect. They state explicitly that the greenhouse effect is backradiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth....not scarce temperature inversions and the like.....and what do you do? You ignore the fact that the greenhouse effect is radiation and cling to your claim that it is rain on snow.

On the upside, you also know that you are wrong. I would never have expected you to admit it.

And to ice the cake, you prove that you are to stupid to know that the description of the greenhouse effect does not mesh with your claims and apparently don't realise you are wrong even when given undeniable proof. Congratulations.

 

[SSDD]

Gslack -

Please check the statement by moderators on the "16% of Americans..." thread. It's on the 2nd to last page.

Finnish Fraud -- Quit crying, I saw it.. The fact your proxy says Finland NOW means squat to me... As I told you once already.. Now, if you feel that a mod stating, at your request, or should we call it incessent whining, that your IP (proxy) states you're in Finland NOW, is some kind of reprimand at anybody (me) that doubts your honesty, please feel free to whine to the mods again.. You crybaby...ROFL..

You should probably provide him a definition of proxy. In speaking to him I find that he has a terribly deficient vocabulary. Did you take a look at what he thought was an experiment.....absolutely laughable that anyone could think that was an experiment.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Do you now accept that backradiation exists, and that climate change is thus NOT incompatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

btw. I have a better vocabulary in 5 languages than you do in one - and I'd be delighted to prove it.

 

[PMZ]

SSDD -

There are two kinds of posters - those genuiely interested in knowing the facts, and those prevented by pride from doing so.

You are in the latter camp.

On the upside, you also know that you are wrong. I would never have expected you to admit it.

Finnish Fraud -- there is a third kind.. The kind who cries incessantly and complains about everyone who doesn't conform to his liking...

Yours is the first name that comes to mind that fits your description.