Cold kills way more than hot

[lwf]

Study: Cold kills 20 times more people than heat

The study analyzed over 74 million deaths across 13 countries.

www.usatoday.com

Study: Cold kills 20 times more people than heat​

The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.

Lancet went in the tank for lw advocacy a long time ago so it's definitely 'dog bites man' .

The concern of global warming isn't that more people are going to die of heat stroke.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The concern of global warming isn't that more people are going to die of heat stroke.

Are you afraid the greening effect will cause too much of a nice environment?

 

[lwf]

Are you afraid the greening effect will cause too much of a nice environment?

No, I am afraid the change in temperature and the resulting slowing of the ocean currents will be too rapid for ecosystems that evolved over millions of years to adapt to in only a couple of centuries, leading to a decline in algae, the acidification of the oceans, and a critical loss of sea life. That combined with changing weather patterns creating more severe and longer lasting droughts over formerly arable land will result in global famine. Not to mention the increase in severe weather creating a constant barrage of human catastrophe in the third world.

But I suppose on the bright side most of the suffering will be in third world shithole countries, and it won't be for a few generations down the road, right? Why bother planning for that now?

 

[longview]

No, I am afraid the change in temperature and the resulting slowing of the ocean currents will be too rapid for ecosystems that evolved over millions of years to adapt to in only a couple of centuries, leading to a decline in algae, the acidification of the oceans, and a critical loss of sea life. That combined with changing weather patterns creating more severe and longer lasting droughts over formerly arable land will result in global famine. Not to mention the increase in severe weather creating a constant barrage of human catastrophe in the third world.

But I suppose on the bright side most of the suffering will be in third world shithole countries, and it won't be for a few generations down the road, right? Why bother planning for that now?

Things that evolved over millions of years, also went through the last 8 or so interglacial periods,
Some of which were quite a bit warmer than where we are at now.
I added a red line to the image from BAS at ~1C to show that at least 4 other interglacial periods were warmer.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, I am afraid the change in temperature and the resulting slowing of the ocean currents will be too rapid for ecosystems that evolved over millions of years to adapt to in only a couple of centuries, leading to a decline in algae, the acidification of the oceans, and a critical loss of sea life.

Well, notice they frequently use the term "observed temperature." We have very few locations that accurately read the temperature that is far enough away from developments to make them accurate. Most monitoring stations are biased upward in temperature because of this proximity. The Urban Heat Island effect is real, and when you hear of record heats, they are measuring city heats that will grow as the city does. It is impossible to accurately derive a global temperature without relocating stations far away from any land use changes, and starting all over.

I don't remember hearing about declines in algae. I though the concern was increased algae. Do you have a reference? I would be interested in seeing the studies behind what you claim.

As for the "over a million years," what longview said is true. We have proxy evidence that shows we were warmer than today, and effectively remain within a 4 degree Celsius range during the interglacier periods. If you believe what the AGW crowd says with their claim that feedback to CO2 is over unity, then we cannot warm any more by longwave feedback than we already have. We would have hit a hardstop to longwave feedback warming. Otherwise, the earth would have spiraled out of control temperature wise and be another Venus long before mankind ever introduced CO2. We can most certainly still warm by the influences of insolation though.

That combined with changing weather patterns creating more severe and longer lasting droughts over formerly arable land will result in global famine.

The droughts aren't any more severe than the past is pertaining to precipitation. They are however worse for a few reasons. We have lowered the grond table waters with wells, meaning we have less surface cooling, and more water goes back into the surface than into streams and rivers top make up for it. We have kre people using such limited amounts of water, and pumping reservoirs dry becasuse of the increased population vs. the last time we had a similar drought condition.

Not to mention the increase in severe weather creating a constant barrage of human catastrophe in the third world.

Consider the roles that land use changes play.

But I suppose on the bright side most of the suffering will be in third world shithole countries, and it won't be for a few generations down the road, right? Why bother planning for that now?

They plan for an imaginary threat? Wouldn't it be better to spand money and resources on the real problems like actual pollution?

 

[lwf]

Things that evolved over millions of years, also went through the last 8 or so interglacial periods,
Some of which were quite a bit warmer than where we are at now.
I added a red line to the image from BAS at ~1C to show that at least 4 other interglacial periods were warmer.
View attachment 67439770

The warmth isn't the problem. The rate of warming is the problem. Ecosystems have time to adapt to gradual warming.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The warmth isn't the problem. The rate of warming is the problem. Ecosystems have time to adapt to gradual warming.

Can you show me the warming trend claimed is real, outside the influence of areas altered by man?

 

[lwf]

Well, notice they frequently use the term "observed temperature." We have very few locations that accurately read the temperature that is far enough away from developments to make them accurate. Most monitoring stations are biased upward in temperature because of this proximity. The Urban Heat Island effect is real, and when you hear of record heats, they are measuring city heats that will grow as the city does. It is impossible to accurately derive a global temperature without relocating stations far away from any land use changes, and starting all over.

I don't remember hearing about declines in algae. I though the concern was increased algae. Do you have a reference? I would be interested in seeing the studies behind what you claim.

The increase in ice algae is temporary. The rise in light levels as the ice becomes thinner increases it, but the eventual reduction of the ice itself will reduce or eliminate it.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sea-ice-climate.html
https://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?...ions, as increasing,ocean and to the seafloor.

As for the "over a million years," what longview said is true. We have proxy evidence that shows we were warmer than today, and effectively remain within a 4 degree Celsius range during the interglacier periods. If you believe what the AGW crowd says with their claim that feedback to CO2 is over unity, then we cannot warm any more by longwave feedback than we already have. We would have hit a hardstop to longwave feedback warming. Otherwise, the earth would have spiraled out of control temperature wise and be another Venus long before mankind ever introduced CO2. We can most certainly still warm by the influences of insolation though.

That isn't the fear. The worry isn't that the earth is getting too warm. It's that it's getting warm too fast.

The droughts aren't any more severe than the past is pertaining to precipitation. They are however worse for a few reasons. We have lowered the grond table waters with wells, meaning we have less surface cooling, and more water goes back into the surface than into streams and rivers top make up for it. We have kre people using such limited amounts of water, and pumping reservoirs dry becasuse of the increased population vs. the last time we had a similar drought condition.

The change in ocean currents and the rising temperatures are changing the weather patterns. While it rains more in some areas, other areas, some of which are arable land, it is raining less. More droughts means more food insecurity.

Consider the roles that land use changes play.

They plan for an imaginary threat? Wouldn't it be better to spand money and resources on the real problems like actual pollution?

Isn't that what we are doing? We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

[lwf]

Can you show me the warming trend claimed is real, outside the influence of areas altered by man?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/

 

[longview]

The warmth isn't the problem. The rate of warming is the problem. Ecosystems have time to adapt to gradual warming.

Actually our proxy records are not very good for rates of warming.
Quick changes could easily be missed.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The increase in ice algae is temporary.

I thought you were speaking of ocean and fresh water algae.

I doubt its temporary. The rise in ice algae corresponds with increased aerosols as it doesn't survive on water alone.

The rise in light levels as the ice becomes thinner increases it, but the eventual reduction of the ice itself will reduce or eliminate it.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sea-ice-climate.html
https://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=50534&pt=2&p=30978#:~:text=In polar regions, as increasing,ocean and to the seafloor.

Yes, as the ice diminishes, the waters absorb more heat from the sun. However, aerosols melt the ice far more than ambient warming. Do some math regarding the topic. Aerosols that fall on the ice dramatically warm and melt the ice far more than any changes in CO2 radiant forcing increases or air temperature.

That isn't the fear. The worry isn't that the earth is getting too warm. It's that it's getting warm too fast.

The earth will never get "too warm" from longwave forcing. There's a fourth power relationship between forcing and temperature.

The change in ocean currents and the rising temperatures are changing the weather patterns. While it rains more in some areas, other areas, some of which are arable land, it is raining less. More droughts means more food insecurity.

How do you know it isn't part of a natural long cycle? When such things are explored, we normally see a relationship that has naturally occurred in the past. A past where AGW didn't exist.

Isn't that what we are doing? We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

CO2 is not an actual pollution. Just because some entity claims it is, doesn't make it true.

Life would not exist on earth as we know it with little or no CO2. CO2 gives life to carbon based life.

 

[Lord of Planar]

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/

Hey, if you wish to believe the writings of agenda driven sources, rather than providing actual papers...

Wow...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually our proxy records are not very good for rates of warming.
Quick changes could easily be missed.

The AGW crowd just doesn't understand temporal resolution.

 

[longview]

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/

Your link has two ideas that are not really compatible.
The first statement,
"Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950,"
is likely very close to being true, but does not break down a ratio of emissions or activities caused how much warming.
Carbon Brief's statement,
"Since 1850, almost all the long-term warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities."
is less than accurate, because TSI increased between 1850 and 1958.
Also they do not break down the ratio of warming from emissions vs warming from other human activities.

 

[lwf]

Actually our proxy records are not very good for rates of warming.
Quick changes could easily be missed.

That doesn't change the scientifically proven fact that quick changes are damaging to ecosystems.

 

[lwf]

The earth will never get "too warm" from longwave forcing. There's a fourth power relationship between forcing and temperature.

That's why I said the earth getting too warm is not the fear. The fear is that the earth is warming too fast for ecosystems to effectively adapt.

How do you know it isn't part of a natural long cycle? When such things are explored, we normally see a relationship that has naturally occurred in the past. A past where AGW didn't exist.

The rate of temperature increase is historically unprecedented since we have been keeping records. And we know that when changes happen too quickly it damages ecosystems.

 

[lwf]

Hey, if you wish to believe the writings of agenda driven sources, rather than providing actual papers...

Wow...

What "agenda?" The agenda of climate science is to study the climate and the rate of change.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/12681/2015/acp-15-12681-2015.pdf
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/30/16/jcli-d-16-0803.1.xml
https://globalwarmingindex.org/
https://berkeleyearth.org/
https://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/gcm_guide.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4889348/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2888.epdf?sharing_token=9Vm802SvYk9jVZ7i2VfrGdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NRuT6U-Ghaf2jHHs9ZCSAfL8_PPVK3GnNqNoObruXu3EN0EEHghjWU5eglWIW814YZSE01eINVu_AZPLoMbfid9hry_zx3ZJqcAcrBUQllLqVGp8O-JieNlFbCm_COpjfCvPqjYMEEn6sL5TAwFtatoAQKguRMuwxfRjvcMz-HRYu-zfElA3aMs4PSphcG4Mo=&tracking_referrer=www.carbonbrief.org
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/#xj4y7vzkg
https://www.realclimate.org/index.p...-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/

 

[lwf]

Your link has two ideas that are not really compatible.
The first statement,
"Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950,"
is likely very close to being true, but does not break down a ratio of emissions or activities caused how much warming.
Carbon Brief's statement,
"Since 1850, almost all the long-term warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities."
is less than accurate, because TSI increased between 1850 and 1958.
Also they do not break down the ratio of warming from emissions vs warming from other human activities.

An increase in TSI is not incompatible with the statement "almost all long-term warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions and human activities." And how does not having a ratio make these things not compatible?

 

[longview]

That doesn't change the scientifically proven fact that quick changes are damaging to ecosystems.

The point is that we do not know if recent changes are unusual.

 

[longview]

An increase in TSI is not incompatible with the statement "almost all long-term warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions and human activities." And how does not having a ratio make these things not compatible?

Well consider that the warming between 1910 and 1944, which is not thought to be from added greenhouse gases,
is between 0.25 and 0.30C, so almost 1/3 of the total observed warming.
Cleaning up the aerosols (also a Human activity) could account for another 0.2C of the observed global warming.
How much do we attribute to land use changes?

 

[KingLeo]

Cold temps are much harder on your body.
No debate there.
But it does not appear that the study accounts for weather related deaths as a result of hotter temps, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, violent thunderstorms, flooding, etc.

 

[lwf]

The point is that we do not know if recent changes are unusual.

They are not unusual. Rapid climate changes have happened in the past, and it has resulted in extinction events.

What we don't know for sure is exactly how mass extinction and ecosystem disruption would affect human civilization. But we have a pretty good guess that it won't be good.

 

[lwf]

Well consider that the warming between 1910 and 1944, which is not thought to be from added greenhouse gases,
is between 0.25 and 0.30C, so almost 1/3 of the total observed warming.
Cleaning up the aerosols (also a Human activity) could account for another 0.2C of the observed global warming.
How much do we attribute to land use changes?

It seems like you don't have an issue with AGW, you are just quibbling over which human activities are causing more AGW than others?

 

[longview]

They are not unusual. Rapid climate changes have happened in the past, and it has resulted in extinction events.

What we don't know for sure is exactly how mass extinction and ecosystem disruption would affect human civilization. But we have a pretty good guess that it won't be good.

I think you are assuming facts not in evidence!
We have had extinction events and the past and we have also had some quick climate swings,
what we do not know is if the extinction events were a result of the climate swings, of if other factors that
caused the extinction events also caused the climate swings.

 

[longview]

It seems like you don't have an issue with AGW, you are just quibbling over which human activities are causing more AGW than others?

Almost no one including myself claim that added CO2 has no effect on the climate.
The question is how sensitive is the climate to added CO2, and the answer is highly subjective, and important.
Take the IPCC's most basic statement from the.

The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 is 0.8°C to
1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other
human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C, natural drivers changed global surface
temperature by –0.1°C to +0.1°C, and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to +0.2°C.

The 1850–1900 to 2010–2019 warming from added greenhouse gases is thought to be between 1.0°C to 2.0°C.
The NOAA AGGI shows that the CO2-eq level increased from 315 ppm to 500 ppm in that time frame.
This 1.0°C to 2.0°C range represents a 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of between 1.5 °C and 3°C.
A 2XCO2 climate sensitivity of would 1.5 °C make added CO2 of almost no concern, and while a 2XCO2 sensitivity of
3°C might be a concern, it does not look possible.