It is a staple of alarmist climate advocacy that global warming will lead to heat related deaths. The problem with that theme is that cold is much more dangerous. Warming, in fact, saves lives. New Study: A Warmer London Has Reduced The Winter Death Toll By 447 Per Year Since 1976 By Kenneth Richard on 25. April 2024 A warmer world lengthens human life, whereas a cooling world may result in “orders of magnitude” higher excess death rates. A 2022 Lancet study reported 791 heat-related excess deaths and 60,753 cold-related excess deaths in England and Wales each year during the years spanning 2000-2019. That’s an excess death ratio of about 85 to 1 for cold vs. hot temperatures. Adjusted as deaths per 100,000 person-years, the annual ratio is 1.57 heat-related deaths vs. 122.34 cold-related excess deaths throughout the 21st century. “Our analysis indicates that the excess in mortality attributable to cold was almost two orders of magnitude higher than the excess in mortality attributable to heat.” Image Source: Gasparrini et al., 2022 And now a new study reports that, due to warmer urban temperatures, the number of premature cold-related excess deaths avoided averaged 447 per year from 1976-2019 in the city of London alone. The annual lives saved by warmer winter temperatures rose to 639 during the winter of 2018-2019, which is the equivalent of 70.1 lives saved by “climate change” per million Londoners. “Since 1976, we estimate 447 (95% confidence interval 5 330, 559) annual cold-related all-cause deaths have been avoided because of milder temperatures associated with climate change.” “In the most recent winter in our dataset (winter 2018–2019), we estimate 639 fewer cold-related deaths in London associated with counterfactual temperature, amounting to 70.1 wintertime deaths per million people in the population avoided because of climate change.” Image Source: Hajat et al., 2024 Across the world the cold-death vs. heat-death ratio is less stark than it is in the UK. Still, since the 1980s, cold weather has killed 20 times as many people as hot weather has (Gasparrini et al., 2015). The stated goal of “net zero” emissions is to reduce warming. And yet warming can be shown to save far more lives than it harms. Image Source: Gasparrini et al., 2015 and Science Daily
There's an entire continent we're not able to inhabit possibly resplendent in its resources because it's too cold.
Warming feeds the world. New Study: Warming Temperatures In China The ‘Main Factor’ Explaining Rising Crop Yields By Kenneth Richard on 24. May 2024 In what shouldn’t even be news, scientists have discovered warmth and rising CO2 are beneficial to crops, whereas cold and falling CO2 lead to declines in crop production. Scientists have determined the “main factor” directly improving post-1960 crop yields across China is a warming climate (Chen and Sun, 2024). Warming expands the growth area for late-maturing plant varieties, reduces damage from cold temperatures, and extends growing seasons. The authors point to a link between warming, declining sea ice, the Arctic Oscillation, and East Asian winter monsoons. Then they extend these relationships to crop growth trends in China. Rising CO2 and its photosynthesis enhancement is another factor driving China’s rising food production. “The effect of Arctic sea ice on Chinese crop yield is an indirect process, while the main factor that really affects China’s crop yield directly is the local air temperature change. When the air temperature in China is high, the yield will show an increasing trend, and vice versa. [T]he change in thermal conditions may also reduce the low temperature and cold damage and increase the area of late-maturing crop varieties.” “Besides, CO2 is an essential element of crop photosynthesis and a major climate change scenario construction indicator. Increasing CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere can increase the photosynthetic rate of crops, which directly stimulates crop growth and increases the dry matter content, resulting in increased food production.” Image Source: Chen and Sun, 2024
We don’t want Chinese people to have more food. We just want them to rape the planet to build us cheap EVs!
Warming is good for you. Global Warming Myths Debunked by IPCC Expert Gregory Wrightstone Charles Rotter What if more CO2 in the atmosphere is good for Mother Earth and beneficial for all life on the planet? What if global warming is not an existential threat to…
But think of the coastal cities! They'll literally drown ...in the hundred years it takes for oceans to rise, because they're not capable of moving inland ...or something. Seriously though, this notion that we can't adapt as a culture to temperatures that are, on average, more suitable for our survival is some pretty extreme gaslighting. Average overall global temperature is something like 60F ...which is 10 degrees lower than room temperature, and room temperature is only comfortable because we wear clothes.
Warming should be greeted as a good thing. New Study: ‘Carbon Dioxide And A Warming Climate Are Not Problems’ By Kenneth Richard on 8. July 2024 Instead, warmth and elevated CO2 are a boon for humanity. A new peer-reviewed paper published in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (May and Crok, 2024) counters the prevailing “wisdom” that says a warmer climate and greener vegetation are problematic. The authors detail the horrors of the much colder Little Ice Age that destroyed civilizations (crop failures, summerless years). Half the population of Finland and 15% of Scotland’s citizens died off in the 1690s due primarily to the cold-induced famines and frozen-over water supplies. Elevated CO2 and warmth are 70% and 8% responsible, respectively, for a much greener, more vegetated landscape across the world since the 1980s. The incidence and severity of storms, hurricanes, floods, and extreme weather in general have undergone flat to declining trends over the last several decades. Thus, “it is hard to find any unusual weather or weather-related disaster that can be blamed on climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic.” “52 of 53 studies of disaster losses due to extreme weather were unable to attribute the events to human causes…” The US government estimates the warming since 1950 has reduced the country’s gross domestic product by less than 0.5%, and an estimated 3°C of warming by 2100 still only reduces the GDP by less than 1%. Considering the US economy grew by 800% from 1950 to present, this means any assumed “damage” from warmth and elevated CO2 would not be detectable. The quest to “save” the world from warming and elevated CO2 is devoid of scientific and socio-economic merit. Image Source: May and Crok, 2024 Image Source: May and Crok, 2024
We have to wonder what the real goal of climate religion is. Is it really just a death cult that is designed to commit mass genocide across the planet so that the lucky few who remain can do so in bucolic splendor until the ice cube covers them over?
It is a typical Socialist goal. That if we allow them to control everything in the way they want, it will create a utopia. Of course, most rational people know that what is utopia to some is dystopia to others. And all it requires is for you to do only as they say as they remove a lot of choice from your life so you have no option but comply.
Here in Florida, landlords are legally required to provide heat but not AC. That seems very backwards. The chances of someone freezing to death in Florida are far less than the chances of someone dying of heat stroke.
And you would be wrong. On average, 35 people per year in Florida die of heat. 53 die per year of cold. And in the Panhandle they can get some pretty brutal cold snaps.
Well, one of our recent Presidents loved to go on and on about 'global warming' and 'rising sea levels', and when he left office after two terms he promptly dropped a few million on this place: https://www.homesandgardens.com/news/president-obama-new-house-marthas-vineyard Apparently he wasn't serious and didn't believe his own BS.
You found a graph? Awesome... I am born and raised in Florida and I can tell you that the heat is deadlier than the cold by far
And yet another cherry pick from “Kenneth Richard” who it seems has no tertiary education in anything at all Lols! About NTZ http://redgreenandblue.org/2021/02/...kszone-actually-tricks-bad-faith-distortions/ But let’s look at the latest picked cherries first cursory assessment - these studies are from England which last I looked was not exactly sitting on the equator https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-...-related mortality for people,% in Europe (2). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01058-x Rapid increase in the risk of heat-related mortality https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-40599-x There is also a high probability that heat related deaths are underreported https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9095294/ And while concentrating on mortality we are ignoring morbidity https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/injury/extreme-weather-injuries/contents/extreme-heat https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9738283/
Kenneth Richard is a moderator, not an author. If you want to discuss credentials, I suggest you focus on the authors of the peer-reviewed papers he presents. Is it your claim that London is somehow exempt from global climate and morbidity dynamics? You can't make a claim to science-based argumentation when your response to data is to wave them away. Is an attempt to smear NTZ really your best argument? Please see the link to peer-reviewed research in #8, which elaborates on the benefits of warming.
No he is cherry picking papers he knows nothing about and THIS is what you consider “aggregation” of science?? And I stand by my point that areas not within the tropics are going to have a different morbidity and mortality than areas outside the tropics. Plus you or rather your favourite cherry pickers have not addressed comparative morbidity. Then there is the issue that many of the countries lying within the tropics have little definitive data on martality due to the fact that they are predominantly third world economies
Certainly countries in the tropics will have fewer cold deaths, but they are also likely to have fewer heat deaths as well because of acclimatization and adaptation in the population. You have no idea what Kenneth Richard knows or doesn't know and neither do I. It doesn't matter. Your post is essentially a showcase for your own prejudices. I'm just following the research.
Right, that is why more people die each year from cold than heat. Got anything other than your beliefs? You know, like actual proof or science? Because this is the wrong area if you only want to talk about your beliefs, that is what the Religion threads are for.
But you do not know that and have no research backing in relation to the degree of acclimatisation and adaptation so after me posting several research papers…… oh! And here are more https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01208-3/fulltext Heat related deaths are often underreported as the patients primary diagnosis may ne cardiovascular event but that event was triggered by heat https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...(22)00117-6/fulltext?dgcraven_jbs_etoc_email= https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GH000234 You are cherry picking data and results if you are only looking at mortality and not morbidity
Sorry, but that's just more arm waving and special pleading; neither forms a serious argument. Let me know when you can substantiate your prejudice with peer-reviewed research. To this point the research outcome is clear and unchallenged: cold kills more than heat, by an order of magnitude.
Which is a denial not a considered argument. I quoted peer reviewed research from the Lancet no less and linked to three different papers. If you want to debate this then address the points that morbidity is more important than mortality and that since 40% of the worlds population live in the tropics https://geographical.co.uk/science-environment/geo-explainer-the-tropics, where heat stress is likely to be enhanced, that the current research focussing on subtropical and temperate climates may well be misleading. You also have yet to address morbidity versus mortality and let’s not go there with the economic impact of heat stress. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001393512100075X
Co2 may increase crop growth but it is not going to do any good if your workers are passed out in the fields https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abeb9f/meta
