Ocean Heat Has Shattered Records for More Than a Year. What’s Happening?

I asked if you could provide credible evidence that colder temperatures are resulting in more frequent and severe droughts, crop failures, floods, coastal inundations, and destructive extreme weather events that the world's climatologists and nations recognize are consequences of anthropogenic global warming.

Most folks recognize that anthropogenic global warming must be addressed.

Four in five people want their countries to ramp up efforts in the fight against climate change, according to a United Nations survey billed as the largest yet on the issue.

The UN Development Programme (UNDP) published the poll on Thursday, finding that a majority of people in 62 of the 77 countries surveyed said they supported a quick transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy.

These included the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters, with 80 percent in China and 54 percent in the United States supporting the move, though respondents in Russia were notably less keen, with only 16 percent approving.

“As world leaders decide on the next round of pledges under the Paris Agreement by 2025, these results are undeniable evidence that people everywhere support bold climate action,” said Cassie Flynn, UNDP global climate director.

Conducted in collaboration with Oxford University and GeoPoll, the survey posed 15 questions by randomised telephone calls to 75,000 people in 77 countries, the populations of which represent 87 percent of the world’s total – making it the biggest poll of its kind.​

 

Beryl set to strengthen on approach to Texas due to hot ocean temperatures

With its unprecedented tear through the ultrawarm waters of the southeast Caribbean, Beryl turned meteorologists’ worst fears of a souped-up hurricane season into grim reality. Now it’s Texas turn.

Beryl hit Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula as a Category 2 hurricane on Friday, then weakened to a tropical storm. It’s expected to reach southern Texas by Sunday night or Monday morning, regaining hurricane status as it crosses over the toasty Gulf of Mexico.

National Hurricane Center senior specialist Jack Beven said Beryl is likely to make landfall somewhere between Brownsville and a bit north of Corpus Christi Monday. The hurricane center forecasts it will hit as a strong Category 1 storm, but wrote “this could be conservative if Beryl stays over water longer” than expected.

The waters in the Gulf of Mexico are warm enough for the early-season storm to rapidly intensify, as it has several times before.

Beryl’s explosive growth into an unprecedented early whopper of a storm shows the literal hot water the Atlantic and Caribbean are in right now and the figurative hot water the Atlantic hurricane belt can expect for the rest of the storm season, experts said.

The storm smashed various records even before its major hurricane-level winds approached the island of Carriacou in Grenada on Monday.
https://apnews.com/article/hurrican...texas-update-808f7c122d8e202d738d709cb4a4062d

Of course hurricanes are routine this time of year. New records are also becoming routine due to the heat of the ocean waters driven by climate change.

 

Warm water in the Caribbean in summer is neither news nor alarming.

 

The EPA seems to be uninterested in providing data on cold-related deaths.
Hot Facts about Heat – Follow-up
Kip Hansen
“Heat is the leading weather-related killer in the United States” — which your Climate Indicator data on the Heat and Cold Deaths directly refutes. Cold is shown as have a…

In a recent essay, Hot Facts about Heat, I said:

“I have been communicating with the Climate Indicators team at EPA about this: they up-dated the Heat-Related, but not the Cold-Related, Deaths page. And yes, golly, it does suspiciously look like they have managed to change down-trending data into up-trending data. Not jumping to conclusions yet. I’ll let readers know when I have sorted it out with EPA.”

I wrote a pleasant inquiry to the Climate Indicators Team at the EPA: (excerpt):

“I am a Science Research Journalist and appreciate your reply. However, …we are counting on your team to keep these indicators up to date for all of us — the Cold Deaths data is now eight years out of date, or, being charitable, six years allowing for the two-year lag at CDC.

If you are familiar with the data on the two pages, Heat and Cold deaths, you will realize that the official statement made on the Heat Deaths page is in error. It states “Heat is the leading weather-related killer in the United States” — which your data on the Heat and Cold Deaths directly refutes. Cold is shown as have a death rate per million at 5.5 to 6 (even back in 2016) while even the updated Heat Deaths does not even reach 5 per million.

Given this, it appears that EPA is intentionally or negligently obfuscating the data to support a false claim.

I would appreciate a more thorough answer before I go to press.”. . .

 

As Javier Vinos points out, volcanic action was a very likely cause of 2023's record temperatures.

Hunga Tonga volcano: impact on record warming
Posted on July 5, 2024 by curryja
By Javier Vinós

The climate event of 2023 was truly exceptional, but the prevailing catastrophism about climate change hinders its proper scientific analysis. I present arguments that support the view that we are facing an extraordinary and extremely rare natural event in climate history.

Continue reading →

 

False! The degree of misrepresentation from you is impossible to ignore. This is the last one from me. I cited two EPA studies, one was cold-related deaths, the other, heat-related. The comparable that's problematic is the data prior to & after the change in methodology. But there's a whole quarter century of observable evidence to consider. This quote is from the cold-related study:

"... winter warming is expected to reduce the number of direct cold-related deaths, but the decrease is projected to be smaller than increases in heat-related deaths..." In your post you said the exact opposite of this, that deaths from declining cold-related events is decreasing slower than the increase of heat-related deaths. Now, what I cited is the U.S. & I assume you were referring to global figures. But, I'm finding the material to be full of holes. Below is a quote from the EPA Heat-related study:

"Heat is the leading weather-related killer in the United States, even though most heat-related deaths are preventable through outreach and intervention... The indicator shows heat-related deaths reaching new highs in 2021 and 2022, which were two of the hottest years on record in the contiguous 48 states..."

I linked up the chart of that study that encompasses 27 countries. I circled the figures I think are important. The starting point is all cardiovascular deaths. Typically, at the bottom are all the totals. The timeframes from each country are all different.The grand total of CVDs is over 32M. However, of those 32+M cases over 24M of them are in just three locations, the U.S., the U.K. & Japan. All of which are cold-climate regions. Meaning, the most relevant variable is proximity. This doesn't lend itself to the frequency of cold-related events or how extreme.

More junk, what you cited is what they document, not how.

More fail:

Where does the data come from?
"NCEI receives Storm Data from the National Weather Service. The National Weather service receives their information from a variety of sources, which include but are not limited to: county, state and federal emergency management officials, local law enforcement officials, sky-warn spotters, NWS damage surveys, newspaper clipping services, the insurance industry and the general public, among others."

How accurate is the data?
"Storm Data ... documents the occurrence of storms and other significant weather phenomena having sufficient intensity to cause loss of life, injuries, significant property damage, and/or disruption to commerce. In addition,... other significant meteorological events... Some information appearing in Storm Data may be provided by or gathered from sources outside the National Weather Service (NWS), such as the media, law enforcement and/or other government agencies, private companies, individuals, etc. An effort is made to use the best available information but because of time and resource constraints, information from these sources may be unverified by the NWS. Therefore, when using information from Storm Data, customers should be cautious as the NWS does not guarantee the accuracy or validity of the information. Further, when it is apparent information appearing in Storm Data originated from a source outside the NWS (frequently credit is provided), Storm Data customers requiring additional information should contact that source directly..." https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/faq.jsp

Your claim or source is baseless.

The following was found in the abstract of whatever the above "study" is:

"These datasets suffer from potential incompleteness of source information, long compilation times, limited quality control, and the subjective determination of a direct versus indirect cause of death. In general, these separate mortality datasets should not be combined or compared, particularly with regard to policy determination."

There's more but I've looked at enough. NG bud

 

Cold has always killed more than heat.

 

You make that claim, then offer no actual evidence for it.

The degree of misrepresentation from you is impossible to ignore.

"Projected" based on wholly implausible assumptions. Given that cold-related deaths are an order of magnitude more frequent, it takes truly heroic assumptions to contrive a larger increase in heat-related deaths than the decrease in cold-related deaths.

That's not the opposite; but in any case, there is a difference between what someone projected and what the data actually show.

Clear?

Which we already know is a bald lie.

There's more but I've looked at enough. NG bud

 

Sorry I missed your cold EPA study. Your formats are very hard to follow. Perhaps in the US, deaths coded heat and cold related death rates differ from the global studies I’ve presented. Perhaps the EPA knows more about mortality than the CDC internally reviewed study I presented. I really have no interest in arguing about what a US bureaucracy says about US deaths in the context of global all cause mortality related to suboptimal temperatures. I’m only interested in science. How the EPA sorts deaths is irrelevant to the fact peer reviewed research all shows 10-17 times more die from suboptimal cold temps globally than suboptimal hot temps.

Now, in your unsubstantiated attack on me, you have either erred or lied. I have NEVER claimed what you say I claimed in red above. I’ve been very clear that globally, deaths related to cold temps are DECREASING much faster than deaths related to hot temperatures are INCREASING. This has led to GLOBAL REDUCTIONS in net all cause mortality related to suboptimal temperatures. I’ve provided a large scale study with tens of millions of data points over many years to substantiate that. It’s not my claim. It’s the result of peer reviewed research.


Perhaps you missed these interesting pull quotes from your EPA sources of heat and cold.

Hmmmm. Which is more, 14,000 or 19,000? Real head scratcher.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the study. The results hold true when individual countries are examined and not pooled. Look at the higher RR from cold even in warmer climates.





Apparently you can’t accept results of peer reviewed studies that conflict with your preconceived bias. You are in the majority. This study is well designed, well controlled, and supplies risk ratios for all countries separately so we can see even in warm climates cardiovascular events are driven more by cold than heat extremes.

Dude. It’s from their website. If it’s junk take it up with them. They say ON THEIR WEBSITE their data comes partly from events that catch media attention. That’s not reliable data for scientific discoveries.

What? The peer reviewed study warns against Storm Data because it’s based partly on media. Your quote above admits there is no guarantee of accuracy or validly of information from storm data. But you want to use that ADMITTEDLY unverified data to say multiple global scale peer reviewed studies in journals of science are wrong.

Yes. As I said. The data set used in the National Weather Service graph you presented is incomplete, lacks quality control, and is subjective, not objective. That is my point and the point of the peer reviewed study I presented. Your opinions are noted, but irrelevant in the context of peer reviewed research in respected journals of science.

Go ahead and post some fallacies including ad hominem etc. It’s all you have left. You are unable to accept evidence produced through application of the scientific method. You believe your opinions are more valuable than research done by global experts in their fields.

Thanks for allow me to provide you with scientific evidence you reject based on preconceived bias. I’m always happy to let the real science deniers out themselves as you have done.

 

There is absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop the train at this stage. Just the USA making drastic moves banning stuff won't stop it. Maybe slow down the warming effect by a few percent at best.

 

Given the fact that the warming is almost all natural, there was never very much we could do to stop it.

 

The Paris Accord had 150 signatures from "nations" like Palestine so that could make it 3 out of 5 of the world. Barely just over half, but I'm hard pressed to see how the accords affect my daily life.

There are two main definitions of science, one is a method of inquiry and the other is the body of knowledge. I like the method of inquiry and following it makes me cautious w/ the AGW thesis. The body of knowledge is usually right but it can sometimes go very wrong before it corrects itself. Instead of us getting bogged down as to how many "scientists" vote which way, let's just think about reality.

If you read a report that said "scientists agree that water is not wet" you could just go to the tap & see for yourself. Then you could conclude that either those scientists are wrong or they really didn't say anything of the sort. My take w/ climate is that I've checked the AGW premise and have found that either the quoted scientists are wrong, or they're being misquoted.

 

This is a good place to be, knowing that while the scientific community may have amassed a body of knowledge, there are still times when it comes upon new information that impels a alternate understanding.

 

If you need to disregard some nations that are signatorees to the Paris Climate Accord, that's fine, but how do you dismiss all the advanced, democratic nations doing so?

Some are unable to accept the consensus of the world's climatologists and the correspondence of their conclusions with the unfolding consequences of anthropogenic climate change for ideological reasons, but ideology cannot inform us regarding climate and the impact of industrial greenhouse gases on the atmosphere. Science can - and does.

 

Okay, but why is that? Is it simply due to demographics? Proximity, that a majority of humanity are more likely subject to cold-related events? If so, proximity rather than severity is an entirely different conversation. The comment from the EPA, that heat is the greater weather-related killer pertains strictly to the U.S. Note also that it was a lead-in to record heat-related events & deaths in 2012 & '22. 557 cited content from the EPA I cited earlier which is in conflict with that contention. Important to consider perhaps is that BOTH studies note that the figures are understated.

Linked below is a '23 graph from NOAA, saying the same thing. Perhaps it's simply a matter of what's considered? Is NOAA & the EPA considering only extremes? You're far more likely to contract a cold or worse, the flu, in the winter. So the cold can more easily be a contributing factor. Perhaps situations like that are filtered out?

 

#759 is a superb reply.
Moreover:

Media Misrepresents Study Showing Cold Related Deaths Outnumber Heat Related Deaths Ten-to-One
Mortality July 9, 20211
A news release sent to media yesterday via the science press channel known as Eurekalert has been getting coverage, but not for the right...

 

No, you asked 557, and as neither of us ever said anything of the sort, it was just another bald fabrication on your part. You just make $#!+ up and falsely claim others have said it.

Yes, well, most folks are religious, too, and for the same reason: they have been told that is what they are required to believe. I'm not that interested in what most folks erroneously believe because they have been told they have to believe it.

 

Colder than optimal temps kill more than hotter than optimal temps because humans are genetically and therefore physiologically wired to survive temperatures much higher than global averages seen today. We are currently living on a planet where global average temps are far below temps in which we underwent speciation as mammals, primates, and humans.

For context for what follows we are at 423 ppm atmospheric CO2 and 15°C average global temp today.

When mammalian evolution occurred over 200 million years ago the atmospheric CO2 level fluctuated between 2500 and 1000 ppm and was on the high side of that range when mammalian speciation began. The average global temperature during that time period varied between 25°c and 17°C, again, with mammalian speciation beginning at the high end.

When primates split from other mammals in their evolution approximately 85 million years ago the global temperatures were still in the 25°C range and CO2 was around 1000-1500 ppm. These primates developed the ability to sweat to a small extent, but the more efficient human sweating physiological response to deal with heat developed around 2 million years ago.

We can’t handle cold because almost all of the selective pressure exerted on our genetic makeup occurred at FAR higher temperatures than we see today. Only a tiny insignificant fraction of our evolution has occurred at temps anywhere near as cold globally as today.



If not for our brains, humans would be limited to existing in only tropical areas of the planet like other primates. The ONLY way we can survive outside tropical areas is by using massive outside energy inputs. These inputs exist in the form of clothing, heat from burning biomass, fossil fuels or now solar electric or wind electric, massive fossil fuel inputs into agriculture, massive energy (fossil fuel mostly) inputs into shelter, and massive amounts of mostly fossil fuel energy into transportation. Again, without all these energy inputs you could only survive in the tropics (primarily, of course there are small exceptions).

As I’ve demonstrated with multiple examples, even warm climates expend FAR more energy to stay warm than to stay “cool”. And in those areas, rates of cold related temperature deaths are still FAR higher than heat related deaths.


It’s just simply evolutionary biology that I thought was taught in public schools. Apparently it’s not. This is very basic foundational knowledge everyone with a high school education should be aware of. Apparently what is being taught is that humans can’t adapt to higher temperatures. That’s not true as in fact humans have not adapted to today’s LOW temperatures. We are still genetically and physiologically adapted to HIGHER temps than today.

 

Hey don't take it out on me guy! You mentioned "virtually every nation on earth" and I tried to put that side note into perspective. Let's agree with the fact that the Accords were approved by representatives of the vast majority of the peoples of the earth. Maybe you'd also agree that it would be difficult to identify how they've changed anything in our personal lives.

Wonderful, this may be a very good turn for our convo! OK so we may have been butting heads here but right now I need your help. Seriously. You're talking about "the consensus of the world's climatologists" and that's something I've been having a bit of trouble finding and I'd be super grateful if you could help me out please.

The main concept I've been able to get is that over the past 150 years (or so) we've had 1.5C warming because of a man-made greenhouse effect. That may be what I've gotten but if you've gotten something else then PLEASE tell me what you've heard.

Many people say it's the globe that's warmed (hence the acronym "AGW") but lately many leaders of thought have backed off from that ridiculous idea and now they're saying it's just the oceans & atmosphere that are warming. Please let me know if that's your understanding of what the consensus is. Finally yet another approach is emerging that posits that not all the oceans are warming but rather it's some part of the oceans. Please let me know if you've also heard this and please tell me which part are most of them saying is warming while the rest stays cold.

 

All the advanced, democratic nations also use the debt-money system that weakens and destabilizes their economies, and caused the GFC as well as the financial crisis during the COVID pandemic, and will soon enough cause another one.

The economy and the earth's climate pose similar challenges to scientific inquiry in a number of ways: they are both enormously complex, probably too complex for the human mind to fully understand; it is not possible to perform controlled experiments on them; and there are powerful interests that would prefer science not understand them. With economics, it is easy to see why those interests prefer it not to be understood: it would threaten their unearned wealth and incomes. With climate science, it is not so clear why powerful interests have their thumb on the scale, but if you are paying attention, it is obvious that they do.

"Ideological" reasons like the facts that deserts are shrinking, agricultural yields increasing, deaths from temperature-related causes declining, arctic sea ice extent the same as it was 80 years ago, island nations not disappearing, climate refugees not appearing, and all the other actual empirical evidence showing there is no climate "crisis" or "emergency"? Those ideological reasons?

And actual science -- not the CO2 climate narrative -- shows that industrial greenhouse gases have minimal impact on the earth's surface temperature because they have minimal effect on the infrared absorption properties of ordinary sea level atmospheric air, a fact that has been known for over 100 years and can be confirmed by any competent physics undergrad with access to a university optics lab.

The consensus of economic science -- modern mainstream neoclassical economics -- holds that the banking, debt, and monetary systems are irrelevant to the "real" economy of production and exchange. The resulting public policy environment enables private commercial banksters to legally steal a double-digit percent of GDP by creating the money we all have to use and charging us interest on it. Maybe you don't know that. Maybe you will call it a conspiracy theory. But it is a fact.

 

Hypothetically It could happen... But it has NEVER happened after there is a scientific consensus. But it's as likely that it will happen to question AGW as it would be to question... Gravity. Epistemologically speaking, it's not impossible. However, it's laughably improbable.

 

That is uninformed nonsense.

 

Virtually all nations on earth and virtually all qualified climatologists who document the consequences of anthropogenic climate change cannot waste time patronizing the remnant of ideologues in denial.

 

Your inability or unwillingness to engage with the facts is noted.

 

The notion that the CO2 climate narrative is as well confirmed as gravity is deeply absurd.