European heatwave death toll soars above 1,500 as temperatures soar across continent

I think that's all fine. As I said I'm on 2 cylinders at the moment but I think we both agree that it depends which part of the world you're in, your personal genetics, economic status and profession. For a farmer in Nebraska that doesn't like the cold and who gets an extra season in per year I guess global warming is a boon.

I unfortunately can't dig up a very neat map that I had, but also if my understanding is correct, the area above the Florida panhandle has actually cooled slightly, but other parts of America have warm significantly with global warming.

But also, I think a lot of the replies you've received in other threads have been sound in argument. There are so many factors to consider that I think it would be very presumptuous to say that global warming is going to be a good thing for humanity, including the fauna and flora that we share it with, based on temperature-related mortality alone. E.g. glaciers in the Himalayas, Atlantic currents. There are some pretty delicate ecosystems around.

Also finally, what is your thesis here. Are you saying that we should do the opposite to what the environmentalist suggest, put more "coal on the fire" and heat the planet even more? You are aware of some of the predictions of what might happen in a century or two if we keep on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere without abatement, right?

 

In relation to deaths from exposure to suboptimal temperatures it’s a boon to most everywhere/everyone. Deaths from suboptimal low temps are very high in places like sub Sahara Africa which is very different from Nebraska. They have a lot of benefit from less cold exposure. More than I.

I don’t get an extra season yet. Probably not in my lifetime. And I don’t have kids to benefit from it so my pointing out that possibility in the future isn’t about personal gain. But production increases due to longer growing seasons do benefit everyone I grow food for. Financially anyway. I suspect a lot of the people I grow for are over consuming….

I’ll certainly take your word for it in Florida.

Recent studies show the US corn belt temperatures are stable or have fallen slightly. And rainfall has increased in some places 35%. A testament to the climate change mitigating effects of plants. As I said before though the lengthening growing season from global climate change is nice as well.

I’m not sure about other corn belt states, but Nebraska has tripled it’s tree covered area since it was settled in the late 1800’s. Compare that to countries like Bangladesh that have destroyed most of their forests/trees.

I don’t consider arguments based on false premises to be sound. One dude is using the Himalayan glacial melting as an argument now. Just finished setting him straight. His argument was loss of glaciers in the Himalayas would make water unavailable to people in the watersheds originating in the Himalayas. Of course he was unaware the Ganges only gets less than 1% of its water from glacial melt. The other watersheds get from between 1% and 8% of water from glacial ice melt.

I’m sorry, but no, such false premises are not valid arguments. They are appeal to emotional wrapped in misinformation.

I’ve also had to point out today phytoplankton once thought to be in decline in lower latitudes will increase not decrease as was the “consensus” based on incorrect measuring of existing phytoplankton.

There is no starting or ending point on the false premises that have been woven into what amounts to urban legend at this point—but that is passed off as “climate science”.

My thesis never changes. Base decisions on actual science—not opinions of politicians or journalists or movie stars.

Since I’ve NEVER advocated for blowing up the planet with CO2 and warming I’m not sure why there is confusion. But I’ll explain my position.

Climate change is real. AGW is real. Climate change is not inherently bad. AGW and climate change have many very positive results as well as negative ones.

Many negative “ results” of climate change are not a result of AGW. The example of massive exacerbation of glacial melt from black carbon in the Himalayas is an example. It would be better to address black carbon pollutants specifically windward of the Himalayas than call someone on the Internet like me “ignorant or paid” as the Himalayan glacier poster did. We can’t address specific problems if we don’t identify them correctly. We can’t plan for water use in basins below the Himalayas if we incorrectly believe glaciers account for significant portions of water available now or in the future.

Another example is global warming being blamed for crop failure and flooding in Bangladesh when the culprit is deforestation.

I do almost everything in my power to decrease my carbon footprint. I use very little fossil fuel in my personal life. The fossil fuel I use in my business I do my best to ensure is more than offset by sequestration. I firmly believe most if not all of carbon being released from fossil sources could be used in the biological arena of the carbon cycle. But it’s obvious that is never going to happen so I’ll do what I can to keep emissions as low as I can.

I’m happy with 375 ppm atmospheric CO2–as long as you don’t expect huge increases in productivity from me to feed more people. I’m happy with 417 or whatever it is today. I’m prepared to leverage 600, 800 or whatever actually happens to my benefit and yours.

Short answer—we could offset carbon emissions with plants. We won’t at this point , so I support logical science based mitigations that don’t do more harm than good. But they MUST not be based on false premises like all the counter arguments I’ve received in response to facts about reduced mortality from warming here and in other threads. False premise has no place in science.

 

@Melb_muser
Forgot to add, hope you are feeling better!

 

Air conditioners are regulated in Europe.

 

yes, but we don't know what the temperatures will be. Perhaps they will have colder winters.

Sounds pretty good for Nebraska so far, even without a whole extra season. I'm happy for you.

What about drought in the South West aka. "more erratic precipitation and weather patterns". Do the benefits to Nebraska outweigh issues elsewhere? https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-07-26/drought-farming-central-california

Great news. Unusual. We have decimated our forests in Aus.

Well, I didn't cautiously say anything specific about the Himalayas, or the other examples. However, since you have opened the topic further, I do note that you are only pointing out aspects that support your argument. I find it hard to believe that you are aware that the Ganges receives most of its water from rain, yet somehow not aware that the Indus River "is most dependent on snowmelt and glacier melt, which contribute close to 80% of its water."

https://chinadialogue.net/en/climat...spell-more-disaster-for-china-and-south-asia/

Also, what will the effect be on the local flora and fauna if the Himalayas lose 50% or more of their glacier volume? Is that an important consideration or are viable analyses only about human welfare?

Fine, but I wouldn't take the argument too far. e.g. Do we blame sections of Miami flooding underwater in year 2100 on AGW, or is the culprit building too close to the sea? But I agree that there are multiple factors that contribute, and all are human, including AGW. And I welcome that you have reminded me to look beyond the AGW to other causative (local) factors. It would be a pity if AGW was solved yet Brazil somehow ends up deforested regardless...

Now there's a good idea.

 

Thanks!

 

And when the power goes out because the grid is overloaded?

 

For all the sadists here who can't even show the slightest sympathy for the dead

people acclimate to temperatures over long periods of time. If you've been living in a cold climate, sudden and dramatically high temps compared to your norm are far more impactful than to those accustomed to high temperatures.

I've lived in both hot and cold climates and the change over a decade or two is dramatic. There was a time when I worked out in the sun at 120-125 degrees F at times in the summer. Now I can walk around in the snow with nothing but a t-shirt on. And 80 F is too hot. 90 F is way too hot.

 

As documented, in the last two decades mortality from exposure has dropped 0.3%. This takes into account any increased cold exposure deaths. Perhaps in the unforeseen future we may reach a point where cold exposure deaths and heat exposure deaths are equal. Then we will have a pretty good understanding of what global temp/climate is ideal for humans. We are very certain that temp is not lower than today’s temp. The little ice age should be evidence for that. Most evidence points to the little ice age contributing to a large percentage of plague deaths.

Thanks. But it isn’t all luck. We’ve worked for it.

We leveraged atmospheric CO2 and managed to cool summer temps by 1°C, increase precipitation, and grow more food for a world with an increasing population. It’s not luck. It’s a model that could be replicated to varying extents globally. Unfortunately, plant based solutions are not popular.

Unfortunately I can’t access your link as its paywalled even in my private browser.

As far as CA I would point out they have mismanaged their resources while NE has not. Our main water source, the Ogallala Aquifer, is sustainable in Nebraska. While other states have depleted the aquifer in their states we have not. I wrote a good explanation of our approach and results here.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1073454206/

California’s bad decisions on deforestation, human population distribution, and water management are not climate related. I’m open to studies showing what’s happening in CA is unprecedented and that it is not being exacerbated by South American deforestation.

The percentage of contribution to total Indus flow from glacial melt is 3%. Here is data for all basins.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-018-1429-0/tables/1

I’m well aware, I posted the information on all watersheds from the Himalayas to the poster who claimed loss of glacial ice would severely impact billions of people. The highest percentage of any basin is 8% from glacial melt.

I was responding to the poster who claimed billions of people are dependent on glacial melt from the Himalayas. I pointed out glacial melt is an insignificant portion in most all watersheds of the Himalayas as well as provided information snowfall has in many cases increased.

Yes, other life matters to me to some extent, although I’m not egotistical enough to believe the current life forms on the planet should be maintained in perpetuity since 99.9% of all life forms that have existed are extinct and with no help or hindrance from man.

I suppose from an intelligent design or creationism worldview an argument could be made for preserving every life form in perpetuity, but I wouldn’t want to try from an evolutionary perspective. The logic breaks down pretty fast….

Well building too close to the sea certainly has consequences. I’m quite certain the fatalities resulting (if it happens) from Miami slowly turning into a submarine will be less than any number of documented tsunamis unrelated to climate change.

I suppose someone could try and compare the death rate of water in Miami to the deaths in third world countries that would result if we ceased fossil fuel use to save Miami.

Of course there are other solutions besides decreasing energy usage but again I don’t think anyone is interested.

Good point about there being multiple factors. And I probably give the impression sometimes I only care about some. But it’s just me trying to put information out nobody will see if I don’t do it. If I’m curating information it’s an attempt at rectifying the strict curation from media and politically motivated entities.

Well, we know it works. After all, fossil fuels are just “plants” and other organic matter after all. It’s almost like the carbon cycle is an actual cycle or something!

 

A true sadist bases their actions and beliefs on how what they do and believe makes them feel.

Those with compassion tend to use actual facts and realities to advocate for situations where the least amount of people suffer and die. The facts show a cooler or static planet will result in FAR more deaths from suboptimal temps than a warming planet. That’s not debatable. It’s more compassionate in my opinion to acknowledge and attempt to rectify all suboptimal temp deaths instead of focusing on the smallest proportion (extreme heat related) only. In other words, working to decrease overall mortality from suboptimal temps.

I’m sorry the media has given most people the opposite impression. That’s the danger of giving more credence to popular opinion than conclusions arrived at through rigorous application of the scientific method.

I’m pretty sure individual anecdotes do not invalidate multiple large scale peer reviewed studies that are all in agreement.

I can’t handle heat like I used to either. It’s part of the aging process and well documented by science. As is higher susceptibility to cold related injury and death in older folks.

 

No one needs fully automatic AC. Only the government.

 

I suspect the drop in mortality would relate to societal improvements. What do you think?

I had a bit of a closer look at your papers and your thesis - that "temperatures that are cooler than optimal for humans kills seventeen times as many people as temperatures that are warmer than ideal."

They are meaty studies, however I note that this study:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

doesn't control for the seasonal variation in death rates. So due to flue and other factors not related to weather deaths are always higher in winter.

Perhaps this one as well? Looks like a similar methodology

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

In fact it seems that differing methodologies have created some controversy, eg. CDC vs NOAA accounts of deaths. NOAA skews towards heat being the larger killer, CDC, the cold:

A paper tackles the methodologies here:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/86/7/bams-86-7-937.xml

"The use of gross mortality numbers appears to be one of the best means of determining temperature-related mortality, but those data must be detrended into order to remove a persistent winter-dominant death."

“Severe heat waves often produce large "spikes" in mortality, especially during the 1995 heat wave across the Midwest. However, abnormally cold conditions have little effect on the standardized daily mortality. "

Here's what a climatologist said in an interview: So in summary, it is all dependent upon definition, in my opinion. Comparing apples to apples, which would be to evaluate acute or short-term responses to weather, I would always give the nod to heat-related deaths. However, if you are considering the seasonal differences in daily mortality, rather than just the “spikes” that we find with acute deaths, I can see why one can argue that winter (or cold-related) mortality is greater.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-cdc-says-but-researchers-caution-it-depends/

There is more. Just thought I'd share my initial appraisal.

My delay in responding was in part because I didn't know how to respond to this. And I still don't know how. It's a bit of a discussion killer? California vs Nebraska has around 50 Million vs 22 million annual food value, so perhaps they are straining their resources. Perhaps they are drier? Perhaps their aquifers are smaller - or need to supply more water. Or perhaps Californians are just a bit hopeless. I don't know...but I think the line "Oh, those Californians, they are simply poor managers" is a bit dismissive. Happy to hear more, but nevertheless human factors and poor management are part of how the world is, including global warming. I don't think you can pick and chose. A drought is still a drought. You could argue that every locale in the world that has suffered drought are poor decision makers. They should have been better prepared, right?

But yes, happy to hear more about California (a summary). I'm sure they are doing as well if not better than Australia

While the numbers seem small, when you include snow on the ice, it seems a bit more. From my scant reading there is more to just melt. Glaciers help manage stochastic mechanisms in the water cycle.

Specifically, it is suggested that glaciers act as buffers and reduce extreme flooding. "in the Himalaya, precipitation from the monsoon system provides a deterministic element to the annual flow cycle, although the year-to-year variability will increase without the buffering capacity of glacial runoff"

a comment on:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022169404005207 (can't access the original unfortunately)

This article provides a good summary of potential changes, not all good.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619807114





And of course glaciers are just one random factor that we have focussed on. The point being there is so much that we don't' know and your conservative reassurance (it'll all be right) does not reassure me somehow! We have dug up more carbon than exists in all the plant life on earth and dumped it into the atmosphere at a lighting fast pace. I think we should be careful about our assumptions.

Well, I think we have a duty to mitigate unnecessary stress to the environment. I am certainly against the daft idea that we need to populate the earth with more people

Don't lose sleep over it.

p.s. you just admitted that you're curating too

I think it's a pity that you scare people off so easily with a few papers. It would be good to hear their refutations, because then everyone learns. I guess it does take a bit of work.

Yes, but it's all human interference. Digging deep into the earth and extracting billions of tonnes of organic matter seems a bit crude when we've got a permanent fusion reactor in the sky. 1400 Watts per square metre. We can do better!

 

Not in this case. Because societal improvements affect/reduce deaths from both heat and cold. And cold still kills more, even where there are societal improvements.

Who told you influenza deaths are not related to weather? Why are you concerned about influenza deaths that are known to increase during cool periods with low humidity (in temperate climates) but you have no interest in removing malaria deaths from the data even though they are known to be driven by warm damp conditions?

Also, in subtropical climates, influenza season peaks when temps and subsequent absolute humidity peak. And since subtropical environments are highly populated relative to other climate zones, statistically, seasonal influenza deaths would more likely skew the studies I presented towards heat related deaths, not cold related ones.

Weather affects infectious disease in various ways. But it’s certainly the weather, not the page turned up on the calendar that influences seasonality of disease deaths. For influenza specifically, since it’s the example you used here, a warming climate would decrease death rates in temperate climates and increase them in subtropical climates. So seasonal variations would be naturally “baked into the cake” so to speak, and not unfairly favor one side of the suboptimal temp divide. To be fair to the authors of your 2005 link below, this information on influenza being driven by both cold/dry and hot/humid scenarios didn’t exist in 2095.

I’m open to studies showing seasonal death rates from influenza (or malaria) are unrelated to the weather/climate.

I’m sure there are the New Years Eve drunk driving deaths in the temperate Northern hemisphere that don’t belong in the data, but probably statistically insignificant.

Yes, as the studies I’ve presented show, extreme temps are the minority of temp related deaths and more moderate suboptimal temps are the big killer. I’m glad at least that particular climatologist can acknowledge that fact.

As always, I’m very open to studies that come to different conclusions. Your link on methodology confirms what I’ve said—that gross mortality is the best method if we are interested in total deaths attributable to varying temps outside of optimum. Your link is from 2005 so it likely had some influence on the study design of the studies I’ve presented from 2015 and 2021 using gross mortality.

Well, in these threads I continually get people attributing locally caused problems to AGW. I think I’ve shared Bangladesh as an example. They cut down all their mangroves to farm shrimp and then some journalist blames climate change for coastal flooding. Then in PF I’m told Bangladesh is suffering from climate change when the example given has nothing to do with AGW.

I can’t take arguments based on false premises seriously. That’s why I can’t feel a lot of sympathy for people who CHOSE to live in a desert and CHOSE to over utilize existing resources and blame climate change for the predicable results. I think we’ve discussed this a bit before how water allocations were done incorrectly for parts of CA based on wet anomaly data.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1072836402/

My argument isn’t that drought doesn’t happen. It’s that we can’t just blame climate change every time it does. Especially when evidence points to similar drought before industrialization and to direct effects from local and South American deforestation in the CA case.

I’ve only used CA to contrast with NE to show things we do that are not directly related to AGW do make a difference. Even to the point of mitigating negative effects of AGW. It’s a fact NE has done things to create a more favorable climate. CA has done the opposite. I’m not judging, just pointing out realities. We can’t just blame AGW for problems we bring on ourselves with localized decisions on plant life management and water resource use.

I’m happy discussing all the effects of glacial loss. It’s an interesting subject. But I’ll again point out the claim I responded to was that over a billion people depend almost entirely on glacial melt for water. This is simply not true no matter how many lichens or skiers are affected etc. If we are moving goalposts for the sake of interesting discussion I’m fine with that. But my point was that the consensus beliefs of most people concerned about climate change are not based on science.

There are studies showing loss of glaciers may impact springs people in high elevations in the Himalayas depend on. The same studies admit these water sources are already negatively affected by local anthropogenic geological disturbances and current over utilization by increasing populations.

No, glacial loss is not a net positive in my opinion. But that was not the subject of my comments. Yes, glacial loss will have minute effects on seasonal flow patterns in some watersheds. But the notion a billion+ people rely on glacial melt is patently absurd. Yet that is what most people believe. I prefer we base our environmental beliefs on facts. Yes I know that turns people off.

I would point out again the watersheds most dependent on glacial melt are seeing stable or increasing glacial ice in the Himalayas.

I’m pretty sure I’ve never said “it will be alright “. I pointed out the notion people in Himalayan basins depend on glacial melt is anti science propaganda. I specifically stated to you we should reduce emissions when practical and use ALL mitigations available including the major ones most people don’t even know about.

Well I’m certainly not going to advocate for depopulation! The answer to stabilizing population locally is energy. Supply developing nations with sufficient energy and eventually replacement rates are not even met unless migration is used to fill the gaps.

The problem is a society that is affluent enough to decrease birth rates still needs population growth to fulfill the insatiable desire for products and services. So births must be outsourced to undeveloped or developing nations. If population is to be stabilized, even alternative energy isn’t the answer because consumerism requires population growth independent of energy source.

I don’t.

Sure. Unlike everyone else doing it I told you I was and why. Whoever told you influenza deaths should be removed from gross mortality data but not malaria deaths was attempting to snooker you. I told you why I’m presenting data others have curated from their argument.

Are you expecting me to regurgitate the same old false premises everyone else posts on PF? Or is it better I provide the other side of the coin you will not hear anywhere else so we can have the complete picture? I could do what other “environmentalists” do and regularly blurt out “AGW is consensus and if you don’t believe me go read the IPCC”, but I think we have plenty of that already.

I routinely ask people to critique studies I present or even better present studies with different conclusions. I agree it does take effort to find accurate comprehensive information. Most are happy with the journalist’s take on whatever the latest heat wave means—like this thread.

I could post unsubstantiated opinions based on my feelings like most who post about environmental issues. I could pick a tribe—the “AGW is fake” or the “AGW is the apocalypse” tribe—and rack up “likes” by posting opinions with appeal to emotion accoutrements. But I find little value in that. If actual references to empirical evidence put people off their feed, I’m unapologetic.

Well it’s all a bit relative I suppose. Plants and their symbiotic partners extract nutrients from “deep” in the earth. As do volcanoes. I don’t like to think of humans as aliens on the planet. Nor do I like to think of potential nutrients as default pollution.

We humans have developed the ability to foment more change than most species in the past with the exception of a few like cyanobacteria that are responsible for our planet having oxygen. I suppose our sentience could be a basis for “responsibility” when it comes to the environment, but it’s entirely self imposed or imposed by an authoritarian human. I don’t see any evidence humans have evolved to a god-like state where we are responsible for maintaining stasis in climate and evolution/extinction of all existing species.

We are very clever and adaptive however so I agree we can transition from fossil fuels to other sources. We could have long ago if there had been actual interest in doing so. Our “fear” of nuclear pollution has led to how many fossil fuel particulate pollution deaths?

We are also clever and adaptive enough to work at the “excess” carbon problem from both ends—not just the prevention of “repatriation” side. Carbon that was here before we were, was taken away, and has now returned can be put to good use by us. No matter what I do or what the US or Europe does, a lot of carbon is coming home after a short layover in developing nations. We better figure out how to make it a valuable member of society.

 

Dang it. The reference above to the 2005 study was erroneously typed as 2095 by me.

 

folks in London will be whining next week as it drops into the 50's at night and barely reaches 70's by day

 

That is assuming people have an AC. That's far from the case for people who live in a moderate climate.

 

While people may argue about climate change there’s no arguing that it’s getting hot outside. People don’t think about it, but excessive heat can kill just like any other extreme weather so I want to talk some more about how to deal with it.

Problems that can happen include heat exhaustion and heat stroke so it’s important to know how to tell them apart and how to deal with them. I also included a chart from the CDC below to help.

Between rising energy prices and blackouts, we also need to know how to deal with a potential loss of air conditioning, so I found articles about alternative ways to stay cold. I also found recipes for meals that don’t need a stove. More resources can be found here.

Bottom line, if you’re not feeling great and you’re experiencing dizziness, cramps for more than an hour, slurred vision, and nausea you should call a medical profession.

 

No! You can buy them everywhere. The EU even substitutes them.

 

Southern of Europe is being hit by 120 degrees F, and it wont sink under 80F during the night.
And that night temperature is apparently the killer. Something about unable to sleep properly when it is that hot.


And you can not really compare such temperatures well with each other.
The humility adds a whole new factor to this. Sweat doesn't really evaporate well when the humility is sky high. And so you won't cool down, since evaporating needs energy and that's soaked out of the temperature. I saw people wonder how people do this in the ME. Well, it aint humid there in that desert, so you'll be cooling yourself very nicely with your sweat.

 

In the UK, there's maybe a handful of nights where AC would be nice, but an electric fan does the job. So to pay for and maintain AC for just one or two weeks of the year doesn't make sense.

As temperatures fluctuate in countries, people will acclimatise. Brits often fly off to the sun, to warmer climates anyhow.

The first time I went to Florida in the 1990's, I lay on the bed thinking, "It's warm over here on a night". The next day, we were looking at the large electric radiator, turned it on and cold air came out!! We found it to be an uncomfortable coolness because it was a dry cold, if you know what I mean.

Plenty of drinks, and stay shaded. The planet is only gonna heat up one or two degrees.