Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[WolfStock1]

Holy moley - this thread is starting to get quite extremist, I have to say.

You folks do realize that a lot more people die of *cold* each year, than die of *heat* - right?   I don't think you really want to go where you're going.  

Let's be pragmatic here.   MMGW, while certainly an issue, is not a practical threat to human life, in any way, shape or form.   People are going to die from extreme heat waves - just as they have since the beginning of time.   As the planet warms *less* people will die (and have been dying) due to weather events, not more.

[frontranger8]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

It was a surreal day in France. The air was "a furnace breath." The "heatquake" toppled, shattered, and demolished more than 100 all-time high temperature records. June 2026 has surpassed June 2019 for setting the most all-time record highs in the month of June.

Is the 33 record breakers for stations with 80+ year histories all-time records or monthly records?

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, frontranger8 said:

Is the 33 record breakers for stations with 80+ year histories all-time records or monthly records?

Those were monthly records. 13 all-time records were broken at stations with 80+ year climate records.

[Brewbeer]

7 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

Let's be pragmatic here.   MMGW, while certainly an issue, is not a practical threat to human life, in any way, shape or form.

agree if we are referencing folks in the USA who have financial resources and air conditioning; elsewhere across the world?  too bad, so sad

[frontranger8]

6 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Those were monthly records. 13 all-time records were broken at stations with 80+ year climate records.

Thanks. That is important when comparing this event to historical ones. The big numbers in that graphic are obviously due in part to short period of records.

Not to say this event is not significant, it certainly is, but records have to be analyzed based on POR, etc. Context matters.

[bluewave]

End of August 2003. End of July 2019. The old heatwaves are being ridiculed when we're only in June! ➡️France has just experienced by far the hottest day ever measured since at least 1900, with an average national temperature around 30°C. ➡️With spectacular temperatures of 44 to 45°C across several French departments. ➡️131 absolute records broken. ➡️44 million people are overwhelmed by a red "heatwave" alert. ➡️Tomorrow, with the wind dying down, a "foehn wind" episode or so-called "flash drought" is expected in the Centre-West region, with a fire risk index at "extreme" to "very extreme." We've just rewritten history. Before tomorrow, when it could get even hotter.
 

[Brewbeer]

"The big numbers in that graphic are obviously due in part to AGW short periods of records. "

see how that works ?

 

[Brewbeer]

9 minutes ago, bluewave said:

End of August 2003. End of July 2019. The old heatwaves are being ridiculed when we're only in June! ➡️France has just experienced by far the hottest day ever measured since at least 1900, with an average national temperature around 30°C. ➡️With spectacular temperatures of 44 to 45°C across several French departments. ➡️131 absolute records broken. ➡️44 million people are overwhelmed by a red "heatwave" alert. ➡️Tomorrow, with the wind dying down, a "foehn wind" episode or so-called "flash drought" is expected in the Centre-West region, with a fire risk index at "extreme" to "very extreme." We've just rewritten history. Before tomorrow, when it could get even hotter.
 

I was on the phone with someone from the UK earlier today and he said that it has been so hot that most people are not going to their offices because most of the offices in the UK don't have air conditioning.  He also said he was working from home in front of the only small fan in the house, and that most homes in the UK don't have air conditioning.  

 

[Typhoon Tip]

By some small added amount... (if otherwise determined less significant, notwithstanding) this heat wave in N-W Europe is plausibly made fractionally worse by the fact that it's straddling the Solstice.  The idea being obvious, the sun surround this week to 10 days perennially reaches it's most intensity relative to all N. Hemispheric latitudes.  

July heat waves are within the solar Max period of the year, ~ May 10 to August 10... Not sure if this is a threshold argument, to be fair.  Like it doesn't matter for solar flux variances when above a certain value, as long as the region is above that seasonal value, the heat response is the same.  I'm not sure that makes physical sense because you are either dumping more, or less actual solar radiation into the system - 

The other complexity is 'prompting' overlapping with circulation modes of mid summer that are concurrent by July 20th..   Prompting comes from a kind of "non-Markovian" aspect of the hemisphere  

 (Non-Markovian refers to systems where the future state depends not only on the current state but also on past states, indicating the presence of memory effects in the dynamics of the system... )

So, that kind of trades off a slightly lowering solar rad count for the fact that the system is bias to get back to warmer states.  

The circulation mode addition is that the normal seasonal expansion of the HC and polarward retreat of the westerlies -->  the apex in seasonal-climate for heat reaching it's farthest N latitudes.   If  1 and 2 are constructively interfering ... it may be worth it to take a linear look at the statistics over the years, and see if there is a tendency to heat repeating when May/June are significantly above average.   That's the science approach... intuitively?  mmm we're doing that ( plausibly) when holistically ...the world is constructively interfering with any excuse to be warm at all.  

All of which begins to fade off circa mid August.  At which time solar dimming becomes significant enough that it just doesn't add as much, or enough to recover a hot hemisphere - prompting can't actually do it alone, and ambient troposphere begins to shrink (albeit less coherently at first) from losing diurnal thermal pressure.  

So a short version take away... You know, I can already see that D4 the the heat has relaxed due to downward/relaxation in the present circulation mode from the middle Atlantic Basic to Scandinavia.  However, all the ensemble main sources, EPS/GEFS/GEPS are more and less coherently already showing by 200 hours that a new ridge may be formulating W of the Iberian Peninsula.  That essence tends to presage a correction as the times near to go ahead and balloon that feature N-E to engulf as far N as the lower B.I region ... perhaps a resurgence is in the making. 

[frontranger8]

3 hours ago, Brewbeer said:

"The big numbers in that graphic are obviously due in part to AGW short periods of records. "

see how that works ?

 

No sh*t. It's also fair to point out that there were far fewer records from the stations with long periods of record.

Both things can be true.

[GaWx]

22 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

Holy moley - this thread is starting to get quite extremist, I have to say.

You folks do realize that a lot more people die of *cold* each year, than die of *heat* - right?   I don't think you really want to go where you're going.  

Let's be pragmatic here.   MMGW, while certainly an issue, is not a practical threat to human life, in any way, shape or form.   People are going to die from extreme heat waves - just as they have since the beginning of time.   As the planet warms *less* people will die (and have been dying) due to weather events, not more.

 
 Although US heat related deaths are rising and should continue to rise from GW, it’s true that far more people have died from cold than from heat (>10:1) and thus GW should in theory result in a net of fewer cold/heat related deaths there for a good while into the future. And this isn’t even taking into account any increases in food supply attributed to longer growing seasons and increased CO2 fertilization effect. So, CC clearly has some benefits regardless of the often emphasized harms that include rising sea levels, increased extreme flooding incidences, and more powerful tropical cyclone peaks/heavier rainfall from warmer temps holding more moisture and slower moving (on avg) TCs:

Heat- and Cold-Related Mortality Burden in the US From 2000 to 2020

The Yale University Institutional Review Board approved this case series

Findings  This case series of 54 223 429 deceased individuals found that both low and high temperatures were significantly associated with mortality burden, with low temperatures associated with more mean annual deaths (45 992) than high temperatures (3414). However, the burden from high temperatures increased by 53% from the 2000-2009 to 2010-2020 study periods.

 The annual mortality count attributable to low temperatures increased by 7% between the 2000-2009 and 2010-2020 study periods, from 44 278 to 47 551 annual deaths. However, the annual mortality count attributable to high temperatures increased by 53%, from 2670 to 4091 annual deaths.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2841063

[Brewbeer]

more people die from cold exposure per year than heat exposure, there isn't much to disagree about with that 

what we aren't going to agree on is that AGW is going to result in a neutral or net reduction in deaths, perhaps from believing that fewer people dying from cold exposure will more than make up for the greater number of people dying from heat related deaths ?

And this isn’t even taking into account any decreases in food supply attributed to changes in the locations of arable land and longer / more severe droughts disrupting water supplies.

 

 

[forkyfork]

wars because of said food/water shortages

[donsutherland1]

"Intense heat destroys even the temper of steel..."-George Prentice. It was that kind of day in France, Spain, and the UK today. In Paris, no relief was found under the trees of Jardin du Luxembourg as the mercury rose to 42.2C (108.0F). The UK recorded its hottest June temperature on record with a high of 36.1C (97.0F) at Gosport.

As a result of the ongoing heatwave, which is France's worst June heatwave on record, 2026 already accounts for the second most all-time record high temperatures for any calendar year.

[Typhoon Tip]

53 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

"Intense heat destroys even the temper of steel..."-George Prentice. It was that kind of day in France, Spain, and the UK today. In Paris, no relief was found under the trees of Jardin du Luxembourg as the mercury rose to 42.2C (108.0F). The UK recorded its hottest June temperature on record with a high of 36.1C (97.0F) at Gosport.

As a result of the ongoing heatwave, which is France's worst June heatwave on record, 2026 already accounts for the second most all-time record high temperatures for any calendar year.

sort of a secondary statistical remarkable nature here in that since these records in some cases are back-to-back consecutive days warmer than the prior record means that the aggregate exposure of this is unique.   It'll make the integrated heat wave energy probably a GOAT

[donsutherland1]

26 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

sort of a secondary statistical remarkable nature here in that since these records in some cases are back-to-back consecutive days warmer than the prior record means that the aggregate exposure of this is unique.   It'll make the integrated heat wave energy probably a GOAT

I agree. Indeed, one location in coastal France beat its all-time record that was set just yesterday by 4.0C (7.2F).

[Brewbeer]

unprecedented

[WolfStock1]

17 hours ago, Brewbeer said:

agree if we are referencing folks in the USA who have financial resources and air conditioning; elsewhere across the world?  too bad, so sad

Part of the means of having the resources to have AC is access to abundant inexpensive energy.   In less-wealthy countries that means one thing - fossil fuels.   

Deaths from heat are often caused by excessive strain from physical activity.   Activity that can be relieved by machines that are powered by fossil fuels.

But that aside - let me reiterate that more people die of cold than from heat each year.  You seem to be willfully ignoring that fact.

[WolfStock1]

2 hours ago, Brewbeer said:

more people die from cold exposure per year than heat exposure, there isn't much to disagree about with that 

what we aren't going to agree on is that AGW is going to result in a neutral or net reduction in deaths, perhaps from believing that fewer people dying from cold exposure will more than make up for the greater number of people dying from heat related deaths ?

And this isn’t even taking into account any decreases in food supply attributed to changes in the locations of arable land and longer / more severe droughts disrupting water supplies.

 

 

 

As the planet's been warming food supplies have been going up.   Way up.

https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/food-supplies-have-grown-even-faster-than-the-population-on-every-continent

Try again.

*Please* don't be so brainwashed by the scaremongers.   Look at the data behind the claims.   It simply does not support the claims of some growing apocalypse.

[GaWx]

  Does/will CC lead to more net harm or more net benefit? That depends on whom you ask as there are many different perspectives as well as biases. For example, AGW alarmists see only the bad effects and believe the worst case scenarios. OTOH, AGW deniers like Joe Bastardi don’t even acknowledge AGW!

 I don’t think it’s black and white. For example, I as a near coastal resident put more emphasis on past and progged sea rises as well as increased TC related rainfall/peak wind potential than many far from the coast since I see the direct effects close-up. The frequency of significant to major coastal flooding events nearby has increased greatly. This is both with tropical cyclones and without them including King tides on sunny days. Charleston, SC, is a great example of this. I see soooo many coastal flood advisories for there nowadays, including a large # on sunny days! It wasn’t anything like that in the past. However, I also acknowledge that a portion of this there and at places like Louisiana and even Manhattan is caused by sinking land. As a near coastal resident, I also have been seeing up close higher avg SSTs and accompanying higher dewpoints/heat indices making summers worse.

[frontranger8]

2 hours ago, Brewbeer said:

more people die from cold exposure per year than heat exposure, there isn't much to disagree about with that 

what we aren't going to agree on is that AGW is going to result in a neutral or net reduction in deaths, perhaps from believing that fewer people dying from cold exposure will more than make up for the greater number of people dying from heat related deaths ?

And this isn’t even taking into account any decreases in food supply attributed to changes in the locations of arable land and longer / more severe droughts disrupting water supplies.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, forkyfork said:

wars because of said food/water shortages

There's kind of a built in assumption in these posts that we don't have the technology to help with these issues. This isn't 1850...both from a global temps perspective or a tech one.

[frontranger8]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

"Intense heat destroys even the temper of steel..."-George Prentice. It was that kind of day in France, Spain, and the UK today. In Paris, no relief was found under the trees of Jardin du Luxembourg as the mercury rose to 42.2C (108.0F). The UK recorded its hottest June temperature on record with a high of 36.1C (97.0F) at Gosport.

As a result of the ongoing heatwave, which is France's worst June heatwave on record, 2026 already accounts for the second most all-time record high temperatures for any calendar year.

The official high for Paris was 105.6F. 

[chubbs]

3 hours ago, GaWx said:

 
 Although US heat related deaths are rising and should continue to rise from GW, it’s true that far more people have died from cold than from heat (>10:1) and thus GW should in theory result in a net of fewer cold/heat related deaths there for a good while into the future. And this isn’t even taking into account any increases in food supply attributed to longer growing seasons and increased CO2 fertilization effect. So, CC clearly has some benefits regardless of the often emphasized harms that include rising sea levels, increased extreme flooding incidences, and more powerful tropical cyclone peaks/heavier rainfall from warmer temps holding more moisture and slower moving (on avg) TCs:

Heat- and Cold-Related Mortality Burden in the US From 2000 to 2020

The Yale University Institutional Review Board approved this case series

Findings  This case series of 54 223 429 deceased individuals found that both low and high temperatures were significantly associated with mortality burden, with low temperatures associated with more mean annual deaths (45 992) than high temperatures (3414). However, the burden from high temperatures increased by 53% from the 2000-2009 to 2010-2020 study periods.

 The annual mortality count attributable to low temperatures increased by 7% between the 2000-2009 and 2010-2020 study periods, from 44 278 to 47 551 annual deaths. However, the annual mortality count attributable to high temperatures increased by 53%, from 2670 to 4091 annual deaths.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2841063

You have to be careful in extrapolating to the future because the relationship between temperature and mortality is highly non-linear. The curve for mortality is very flat in the middle and steep at the edges particularly on the hot side. The reason more people die due to cool weather is the average temperature in the US is below the optimum temperature for mortality of around 70F.  The problem is that warm side mortality  rises very steeply with temperature.  The more we warm the more likely that increased hot weather deaths are going to outstrip cold weather benefits. Per the chart you posted, hot-weather deaths already  tripled in the US in the past 20 years.  Going forward probably better to assume the same percentage increase, i.e. another tripling in 20 years rather than a linear increase. Just a swag of course. Note that the US will differ from the London chart I posted. Same shape but we are more used to extreme hot and cold weather.

https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/unraveling-the-debate-does-heat-or?r=27daj&triedRedirect=true

https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/unraveling-the-debate-does-heat-or-982

 

[donsutherland1]

31 minutes ago, frontranger8 said:

The official high for Paris was 105.6F. 

Paris, like NYC, has multiple sites. I referenced one such site.

[Brewbeer]

2 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

But that aside - let me reiterate that more people die of cold than from heat each year.  You seem to be willfully ignoring that fact.

calling me willfully ignorant is a bit ironic after missing this post I made before yours:

4 hours ago, Brewbeer said:

more people die from cold exposure per year than heat exposure, there isn't much to disagree about with that 

 

2 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

As the planet's been warming food supplies have been going up.

nice touch, but there are numerous and varied factors hat influence food production; specific evidence is required to conclude they are directly related 

2 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

*Please* don't be so brainwashed by the scaremongers.   Look at the data behind the claims.   It simply does not support the claims of some growing apocalypse.

look, I agree that the apocalypse (your word) isn't going visit you or me, largely because we both have the necessary resources to deal if it does.  the point I am trying to make is most of the human population around the world aren't in a financial position to manage an apocalyptic (your word) weather event statistically relatable to AGW

 

 

[Brewbeer]

1 hour ago, frontranger8 said:

 

There's kind of a built in assumption in these posts that we don't have the technology to help with these issues. This isn't 1850...both from a global temps perspective or a tech one.

half of the people on the planet don't have significant, or any, access to technology or electricity to operate the technology