I didn't do it!

 

Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of the Experts.

 

Always be a science skeptic:



Source:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00023-2/fulltext

 

What is your point with that chart? It seems to show that there are more excess deaths due to cold in northern regions and more due to heat in southern regions of Europe. Do you find that not credible?

 

What is your point with that chart? It seems to show that there are more excess deaths due to cold in northern regions and more due to heat in southern regions of Europe. Do you find that not credible?

Presentation, to support a narrative. Look at the X axis.

 

Ah, you are complaining about the scales being different on the left and right? I agree that is misleading.

 

Misleading? Imagine what the graph looks like if you shrink the red bars to 1/5th their length?

It seems they intend their readers to believe excess deaths by heat are as much a concern -- more so on account of AGW -- than excess deaths due to cold.

In fact! Look at how many lives can be saved if we just shift the world to overall warmer temperatures on average.

 

Just think how many lives could be saved by just lying about it on the TV .........

I think we should just abolish death !!!, that'd do it !!!
.
.
.

 

 

Ah, you are complaining about the scales being different on the left and right? I agree that is misleading.

I never noticed that
thats a terrible presentation,

 

It seems they intend their readers to believe excess deaths by heat are as much a concern -- more so on account of AGW -- than excess deaths due to cold.

So why is this their summary if they meant to emphasize deaths from heat?

Findings
Across the 854 urban areas in Europe, we estimated an annual excess of 203 620 (empirical 95% CI 180 882–224 613) deaths attributed to cold and 20 173 (17 261–22 934) attributed to heat.

Perhaps there was a different, less cynical reason for scaling the chart that way. Perhaps it was so half the page was filled by each.

 

So why is this their summary if they meant to emphasize deaths from heat?

Perhaps there was a different, less cynical reason for scaling the chart that way. Perhaps it was so half the page was filled by each.

Who reads text? Most humans (and the media who will use it as a source in the future) just look at the pictures.

This chart is literally porn for environmental activists.

Look how easily you were fooled in post #104!

 

Look how easily you were fooled in post #104!

I was not fooled. My comparison was not about hot vs cold, but rather north vs south.

 

Guys, that's very interesting and all, but it's gone too far off topic already.

 

MOD NOTE:

The TS has recently stated that the thread has gone far off topic. Now, maybe the TS can provide some guidance as to just what the scope of the thread topic is, but please respect their wishes to rein it in from where it has gone.

 

MOD NOTE:

The TS has recently stated that the thread has gone far off topic. Now, maybe the TS can provide some guidance as to just what the scope of the thread topic is, but please respect their wishes to rein it in from where it has gone.

Thanks W ... I do find the veered topic interesting, but if it were up to me, I'd open a new thread and move that conversation there. But I do wish to keep this thread to discuss the age of the universe, and anything related to the physics (or philosophy) that describes its origin.

 

Units of distance and time are human fabrications. We can only relate to things on a human scale.
Inch, foot, yard, furlong, rod, chain, are all units of length based on human experience.
Similarly, day, month, year, are based on human experience.

As a matter of scale, picoseconds to billions of years are unimaginable to most mortals.
The word aeon or eon represents a unit of time equaling a thousand million years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon

Sir Roger Penrose uses the word aeon to mean a cycle of the universe, from Big Bang to Big Crunch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycles_of_Time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

Attempting to imagine one aeon is incomprehensible to humans, whether it is 13.7 or 26.7 billion years.

 

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-wasnt-empty-before-big-bang/

Our Universe wasn’t empty, even before the Big Bang
All of the matter and radiation we measure today originated in a hot Big Bang long ago. The Universe was never empty, not even before that.

 

The actual age of the universe is near the bottom of the list of questions I would like an answer to.

 

Units of distance and time are human fabrications. We can only relate to things on a human scale.
Inch, foot, yard, furlong, rod, chain, are all units of length based on human experience.
Similarly, day, month, year, are based on human experience.

As a matter of scale, picoseconds to billions of years are unimaginable to most mortals.
The word aeon or eon represents a unit of time equaling a thousand million years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon

Sir Roger Penrose uses the word aeon to mean a cycle of the universe, from Big Bang to Big Crunch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycles_of_Time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

Attempting to imagine one aeon is incomprehensible to humans, whether it is 13.7 or 26.7 billion years.

View attachment 299108

Hi,

I am not sure it has to be comprehensible in the way that we usually need to comprehend things. In other words, it may be hard to imagine the scope of values from the very tiny to the very large, or even just the very large, but at some point in the future the presumed solution may fit in as part of another theory, and 2x the time is still 2x the time, whether it is a long or short time. That fitment may also fit into yet another discovered property that ends up solving some more practical problem such as time travel or something we don't yet have that would benefit mankind.
This might be read as the emergence of a new theory that actually helps us in some way rather than just stating a bunch of numbers for the sake of just stating numbers that sound good.