Oh noes! Exposure of US population to extreme heat could quadruple by mid-century

From the National Center for Atmospheric Research/University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and the Department of “ignored data in favor of modeled simulations” comes this claim from Trenberth’s mountain climate alarm lair. Only one problem: actual data on U.S. Temperature Extremes does not support the claim. See below.

Interaction of warming climate with a growing, shifting population could subject more people to sweltering conditions

BOULDER – U.S. residents’ exposure to extreme heat could increase four- to six-fold by mid-century, due to both a warming climate and a population that’s growing especially fast in the hottest regions of the country, according to new research.

The study, by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the City University of New York (CUNY), highlights the importance of considering societal changes when trying to determine future climate impacts.

“Both population change and climate change matter,” said NCAR scientist Brian O’Neill, one of the study’s co-authors. “If you want to know how heat waves will affect health in the future, you have to consider both.”

Extreme heat kills more people in the United States than any other weather-related event, and scientists generally expect the number of deadly heat waves to increase as the climate warms. The new study, published May 18 in the journal Nature Climate Change, finds that the overall exposure of Americans to these future heat waves would be vastly underestimated if the role of population changes were ignored.

The total number of people exposed to extreme heat is expected to increase the most in cities across the country’s southern reaches, including Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Tampa, and San Antonio.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, which is NCAR’s sponsor, and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Climate, population, and how they interact

For the study, the research team used 11 different high-resolution simulations of future temperatures across the United States between 2041 and 2070, assuming no major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The simulations were produced with a suite of global and regional climate models as part of the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program.

Using a newly developed demographic model, the scientists also studied how the U.S. population is expected to grow and shift regionally during the same time period, assuming current migration trends within the country continue.

Total exposure to extreme heat was calculated in “person-days” by multiplying the number of days when the temperature is expected to hit at least 95 degrees by the number of people who are projected to live in the areas where extreme heat is occurring.

The results are that the average annual exposure to extreme heat in the United States during the study period is expected to be between 10 and 14 billion person-days, compared to an annual average of 2.3 billion person-days between 1971 and 2000.

Of that increase, roughly a third is due solely to the warming climate (the increase in exposure to extreme heat that would be expected even if the population remained unchanged). Another third is due solely to population change (the increase in exposure that would be expected if climate remained unchanged but the population continued to grow and people continued to moved to warmer places). The final third is due to the interaction between the two (the increase in exposure expected because the population is growing fastest in places that are also getting hotter).

“We asked, ‘Where are the people moving? Where are the climate hot spots? How do those two things interact?'” said NCAR scientist Linda Mearns, also a study co-author. “When we looked at the country as a whole, we found that each factor had relatively equal effect.”

At a regional scale, the picture is different. In some areas of the country, climate change packs a bigger punch than population growth and vice versa.

For example, in the U.S. Mountain region–defined by the Census Bureau as the area stretching from Montana and Idaho south to Arizona and New Mexico–the impact of a growing population significantly outstrips the impact of a warming climate. But the opposite is true in the South Atlantic region, which encompasses the area from West Virginia and Maryland south through Florida.

Exposure vs. vulnerability

Regardless of the relative role that population or climate plays, some increase in total exposure to extreme heat is expected in every region of the continental United States. Even so, the study authors caution that exposure is not necessarily the same thing as vulnerability.

“Our study does not say how vulnerable or not people might be in the future,” O’Neill said. “We show that heat exposure will go up, but we don’t know how many of the people exposed will or won’t have air conditioners or easy access to public health centers, for example.”

The authors also hope the study will inspire other researchers to more frequently incorporate social factors, such as population change, into studies of climate change impacts.

“There has been so much written regarding the potential impacts of climate change, particularly as they relate to physical climate extremes,” said Bryan Jones, a postdoctoral researcher at the CUNY Institute for Demographic Research and lead author of the study. “However, it is how people experience these extremes that will ultimately shape the broader public perception of climate change.”

###

About the article

Title: Future population exposure to U.S. heat extremes

Authors: Bryan Jones, Brian C. O’Neill, Larry McDaniel, Seth McGinnis, Linda O. Mearns, and Claudia Tebaldi

Publication: Nature Climate Change doi:10.1038/nclimate2631 


Actual data doesn’t seem to support the claim of increasing high temperatures

High temperatures from U.S. Historical Climate Network, data sourec NOAA National Climatic Data Center (graphed by T. Heller)

High temperatures from U.S. Historical Climate Network, data source: NOAA National Climatic Data Center (graphed by T. Heller)

statewide-record-high-temperatures-by-decade

Statewide record high temperatures from all U.S. weather stations, data source: NOAA National Climatic Data Center (graphed by T. Heller)

us_annual_heat_wave_index

Above, “Heat Wave Index” (yellow line) from the US COOP Network and CO2 level (red line, right scale). Orange line is the linear trend for the entire period., Data source: NOAA. Graphed by Willis Eschenbach

 

Advertisements

132 thoughts on “Oh noes! Exposure of US population to extreme heat could quadruple by mid-century

  1. Every time I see that something “could possibly” happen or “might” happen, I check for my wallet. The same claim could just as accurately be made using the words “could possibly not happen” or “might not” happen.

    • More like Probably not happen and will not happen.
      Here is a scary Twilight Zone. The Earth is heating up, then (spoiler alert) ……

      Its a dream and its actually going into a deep freeze. Globalclimatewierdwarmingdisruption.

    • Well by mid century, USA population will likely double anyway; just from illegal immigration, so I guess that means that the Temperature (anomaly) only has to double by that time, to quadruple the exposure.

      We only deal in anomalies in climate catastrophys; isn’t that true ??

  2. The final third is due to the interaction between the two (the increase in exposure expected because the population is growing fastest in places that are also getting hotter).

    And there was me thinking that climate change refugees would want to head somewhere cooler. That being said, after a decidedly cool spring, we could do with some extra heat.

  3. So…. California was not at the top of the list ? Because they are always so cool ?
    ……(:>))

    • The US Census Bureau reports
      More people are moving from New York to Florida than from Florida to Georgia. (53,000 to 43,000 in 2009)
      Even more are bailing out of Climate Change California to Texas, Arizona and Washington (~115,000).

      • Don’t tell me Californians are moving to Arizona, we certain don’t need to Californated, it never ceases to amaze me how someone voting habits screws up a state so he/she of it continue to vote for the same stupidity in their adopted state.

  4. Mind numbing stuff.

    From the highly scientific phrase ‘deadly heat waves’ to the assumption that people will continue to migrate to where such ‘deadly heat waves’ are most prolific, it is garbage from top to bottom.

  5. Who cares what the actual data says? It’s what their precious, all-knowing, all-seeing models say that counts.

  6. I think all of us have been exposed to quite a bit of hot air for over a 20 years now. I won’t disagree with this article.

  7. Tampa??? What if everyone moved to the Empty Quarter and Sinai peninsula? Now that’s a warming model.

  8. First, The historical trend has nothing to do with projections. The better criticism of this paper would focus on the faulty definition they used for heat waves. A while back, using the same models, a couple of us at BE
    had a look at the number of heat waves you would see GIVEN an increase in temperature.

    The first step is to use the right definition of a heat wave. we used one that is actually in use as a warning system today in about 40 cities around the world. Each city has its own set of important paramaters. Each had its own “death rate” based on past weather. The definition they use really is inadequate. Its not just temperature. Its temperature, humidity, duration of the extreme, and time of year. 100 degree day early in the year is more deadly than one later in the year.

    The next step is to see which of the NARCAP models does the best hindcast using that heat wave “detector”. In this step you downselect to the best model. Even then you have to “bias” adjust the hindcast
    because none of the NARCAP models I looked at hindcasted very well.

    Then you can get an “idea” about what the future may hold. Not surprising if you take a warmer world as a GIVEN ( as they do), then you will find increased death.

    The exact number is impossible to pin down. But the exact number really isnt important. What you hope to do with this kind of study is align priorities with possibilities and direct adaptation planning accordingly.

    • Not surprising if you take a warmer world as a GIVEN ( as they do), then you will find increased death.

      This is almost certainly untrue.unless you are envisaging a world with wild temperature fluctuations. Deaths from cold always outnumber deaths from warmth. The number of deaths saved in warmer (children won’t know what snow is) winters would far exceed any small increase due to warmth. Humans did not evolve in the poles or temperate regions they evolved in equatorial regions. Overall a warmer climate is more benign.

      • Well the death rate will double by then anyway just from population increase. People still do die, despite Obama’s efforts to stamp out dying.

    • A warmer world does not necessarily translate to increased death. My solution to a warmer world is cheaper, reliable, and more abundant energy to run more air conditioning. Cheaper, reliable, more abundant energy such as that provided by nuclear reactors, natural gas, oil and coal. Instead of wasting money on solar and windmills, spend it on improving coal combustion, oil and natural gas production, and lessening the cost of nuclear reactors.

    • “Not surprising if you take a warmer world as a GIVEN ( as they do), then you will find increased death.”

      I’m sure since people retire and move closer to the equator they are more likely to be there when they die.

    • There is much to agree with in your response. A 95 degree day in Atlanta is a totally different thing than a 95 degree day in New Orleans. And if someone has moved from Chicago to Atlanta it was likely to follow employment which means that it will be possible to sleep in air-conditioned comfort.

      The study provides no useful information because it takes flawed data and processes it with an obviously flawed methodology.

    • Steve Mosher says: “First, The historical trend has nothing to do with projections.”
      “…Each had its own “death rate” based on past weather….”

      =======

      Steve don’t historical and past mean the same thing. So you could not use past weather to do your projections of number of heat waves?

    • Things were even worse before AC. No-one had AC in the thirties which were the hottest part of the last century (before NASA adjusted the temperatures down).

      We adapted already, no need for further adaptation, the solution was implemented in 1933:

      the first private home to have air conditioning was built in Chapel Hill, North Carolina in 1933.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_conditioning

      • no, no , no… You see, due to AGW Mitigation requirements, they are predicting more folks won’t afford AC and so “exposure” will be higher… /sarc:

        Or maybe just that we will all be older and retiring somewhere warm….

    • The “assumption” that this kind of study can be predictive enough to even think about adaptation is basic “scientific arrogance.” And, I personally hope that for all of “the warmist’s” who are wrong, history will write a scathing rebuttal. But I fear a large number of good scientists will be caught in the “reversing of respect” that will ensue.

      The clamor of warmist’s claiming “our work is important.” Is really getting to most of us!

    • There is an even simpler explanation for why these projections are junk science:
      “Extreme” properly defined is relative to a mean. Increasing a mean does not necessarily increase variance, and the projections in any case are not to increase temperature variation by large amounts.
      There is by definition NOT going to be an increase in 3-sigma heat events (ie events that happen 0.03% of the time). Thus, ‘increase in extremes’ is not factually possible.

      The real reason ‘extreme heat’ kills people is because it is extreme – out of the ordinary and thus systems are not set up to handle such an event. Extreme heat kills the old and the sick because their bodies are not used to it and they dont have systems, like AC, to mitigate the 3 sigma events for which people are not able to adjust. That is why a heat wave in Paris in 2003 killed thousands while the SAME TEMPERATURE in Dallas, Texas (100F) is an average summer day that kills nobody. The elderly in Paris dont have the AC and other systems and adaptations that Dallas has and needs and uses on a daily basis.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave

      But what you see instead of properly defining extreme in terms of ‘how likely’ is a REDEFINITION of “extreme” to be “over 95 degrees” – an absolute. The Dallas/Paris dichotomy shows this is flawed. Are heat deaths greater in Atlanta than Chicago? Not by as much as the temperature is warmer. The populace adapts. In the unlikely event that Paris gradually became Dallas temperature-wise over 50 years, they too would “adapt”.

      The US Govt report put out this year on this was particularly egregious, in that they made projections that deliberately did NOT account for adaptation AND they incorrectly redefined ‘extreme’ as above an absolute number. This double heaping of junk science to sex up mortality rates is like estimating 100% mortality from a fire at a school by assuming nobody would choose to adapt and exit the building; you get scary, meaningless bogus projections.

  9. “….There’s a choice we’re now facing,
    While our opinions are free,
    Political pseudo-science,
    Or real science honesty?
    If we follow this new religion
    It comes at a terrible cost,
    The integrity of real science
    Could forever be lost!”

    Read more: http://wp.me/p3KQlH-JJ

    • Unless an unbiased system of funding scientific research and a requirement of transparency is established, I don’t see an end to this I’m the near future. Medical science is just as bad.

    • Yes, the integrity of real science
      Is certainly in peril,
      From folks without knowledge,
      Making the landscape more feral.

      For info on the latest papers,
      The blogs provide the gist.
      So that any ol’ web surfer,
      Can also claim to be a Scientist.

    • Interesting observation which I also spotted. Looking at the original published paper there is a supporting additional info pdf data file, which contains precisely zero/zilch/nada mortality information to support their assertion. My conclusion would therefore be that this paper is a pile of poo in search of a toilet.

    • With one simple link to a Government page, you have done more research than the authors of this paper.

    • Yes, and all of the various hysteria about warmth and heat has been repeatedly rebutted, but it is a meme that refuses to die, obviously because it is one of the shakiest underpinnings of the entire CAGW edifice, but also because there are several generations of people now who live in air-conditioned comfort 24/7, or as close to that as they can manage, and for whom, apparently, heat is some kind of demon to be avoided at all costs.

      I mean, who wants to watch TV when they’re feeling all hot & sticky, and just want to chill out?

    • Maybe he likes the chart that NOAA has better? You have to compile your own charts with the “facts” how you like them before you write papers about it. (Oh…and you have to give “heat” as only one big category and then separate cold and winter and winds from each other so they are smaller totals than the heat category)

      http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml

    • Well extreme cold means less than -94 deg. C, but extreme heat is only more than +60 deg. C, so I guess that means more people die at below -94 deg. C than die at above + 60 deg. C

    • Also, its not the heat that kills, that’s the result of heat stroke which is preventable. Otherwise the human race would have died out years ago. Heat stroke can and does occur in humans over a wide range of temperatures.

    • The paper (to summarise) says on P7 “Based on information from death certificates … Nearly one-third of the deaths were attributed to excessive natural heat, and almost two-thirds were attributed to excessive natural cold. “

  10. Interesting that the annual heat wave index also shows a small bump up in CO2 with the record heat of the 1930s. This period must have been a global heating event that resulted in some evolution of CO2 from sea water and fresh water. Wow, some proof that the 30s warmth was a global phenomenon. It is supported by Greenlandic and other nordic thermometers and SH (?)

  11. Hold everything! You mean people are actually moving to warmer climate locations. Who would have thought? The only problem with the warmer climate is people actually enjoy the nice weather.

    • Like I moved to Arizona in time to avoid the May snow North Dakota now gets, when I was young 1950-60s we never got measurable snow in May, now it seems to occur almost every year.

  12. The best way to mitigate the health effects of heat waves is air-conditioning. That requires higher uses of electricity. Making electricity more expensive will lead to more deaths related to heat waves as the poor are unable to pay their electric bills. For those who have to be outside, they should know how to avoid the effects of extreme heat.

      • I love the way they assume that the worst case assumptions of the CAGW crowd are true, but at the same time they completely ignore all of the well known positive externalities of CO2 when calculating the “true cost” of oil.
        They also assume that any tax rate less than 100% is a subsidy.

      • There’s an easy test for the assertion in that bizarre article which is packed full of l1es.

        If all fossil fuel companies stopped their activities immediately would governments be $10M/min better off? The answer is ‘no’ for two reasons – the first is that they don’t give fossil fuel companies this money, it is the assumed ‘damage to the environment’ and hence is not money or a subsidy at all and the second is that they would have been killed by the millions of people they deprived of fossil fuel energy.

  13. If more and more people are deliberately moving to the hottest parts of the country, then maybe, just maybe, heat is not that big of a problem?

    • I will take 105 over -anything anytime. Oh by the way I have been out in -50, and that was without wind chill. Westren North Dakota in the 1980s, Most of my life -20s -30s and -40s lots. Live in Arizona now and happy waiting for the +100s to show up. Those temps hurt a lot less than any below zero weather. You might burn your tongue if you place it on a hot pipe but it becomes attached to a very cold one after that the frost bite will set in.

  14. Dear Mr. Watts,
    You, sir, are a Grade A wordsmith.

    When I saw the phrase, “…the Department of “ignored data in favor of modeled simulations” comes this claim from Trenberth’s mountain climate alarm lair…” I confess that I immediately turned my attention to discovering who was the author of such delightfully crafted English.

    Bravo, sir. Bravo!!

  15. A heat wave that hits 90F in NYC will kill dozens.
    On the other hand day in and day out, temperatures hit 110F in places like Pheonix and Tucson, and they just consider it a normal summer.
    It’s not heat that kills, it’s sudden jumps to levels that the city isn’t prepared for that kill. IE, it’s the sudden increase, not the day to day temperature that matters.

    • “It’s not heat that kills, it’s sudden jumps to levels that the city isn’t prepared for that kills”
      Yes, I made the same point up-thread using the Dallas/Paris comparison. A heat wave killed thousands when Paris was subjected to temps that are an average summer day in Dallas (100F). Its not the absolute temperature, its the extreme relative to what people are able to handle.

      • patmcguinness: “Yes, I made the same point up-thread using the Dallas/Paris comparison. A heat wave killed thousands when Paris was subjected to temps that are an average summer day in Dallas (100F). “

        It wasn’t quite as simple as that though. was it?

        Had the event not occurred during a public holiday when most of the support services were non-functional, there would have been nothing exceptional about the death toll.

  16. The claim that more people are killed by heat than cold runs counter to everything I have read in the past.

    • It also runs counter to the first-hand experience of those who’ve experienced both extreme cold and extreme heat, such as yours truly, whose lifetime temperature exposure spans c145°F. I’ve ridden my bicycle in the hottest conditions, but feared for my life when it was 25 below.

  17. We should just give in. What’s it going to take to keep you “climate scientists” from starving a billion people? We’ll pay it. Just give us time to collect your money, but please no more senseless killing. You got us.

  18. Come on guys, don’t pick on ’em too hard. They’re just trying to justify their funding.

  19. Again AGW theory enthusiast do not use the data if it opposes their theory.

    The fact is CO2 is increasing but the global temperatures are not increasing.

    Once the climate trend reverses(a global temperature decline) the lessening of water vapor in the lower levels of the atmospheric due to less evaporation from cooler sea surface temperatures while the atmospheric dynamics should at least maintain the levels of water vapor in the upper atmosphere due to precipitation staying at the same levels or maybe increasing, will limit and keep water vapor from increasing in the upper atmosphere. This should then result in a weakening GHG effect even if CO2 levels stay steady or increase some.

    Will CO2 levels run counter to future temperature trends? So far it has not ,time will tell.

    The positive feedback (hot spot) between CO2 and water vapor is not present in addition to increasing amounts of CO2 having a lesser and lesser impact upon temperatures due to the saturation factor.

    This is the flaw in AGW theory and why it is not going to be correct.

  20. Well with all the densepack they are shoehorning in around here under the auspices of “Transit Oriented Development’ it will be a double whammy. UHI will get worse, and, more people will get to experience it.

  21. “Extreme heat kills more people in the United States than any other weather-related event, and scientists generally expect the number of deadly heat waves to increase as the climate warms.”

    Any fool can google and instantly find reality.

    Cold kills more than heat, CDC says; other researchers …
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…/cold-kills-more-than-...
    The Washington Post
    Aug 4, 2014 – A new report from CDC says cold killed more people than any other … deaths from U.S. weather events between 2006 and 2010 finds cold …
    Extreme cold kills more people than leukemia, homicide and …
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…/extreme-cold-kills-mo...
    The Washington Post
    Jan 7, 2014 – The number of annual deaths attributable to cold temperature is 27940 or 1.3% of total deaths in the US.
    Killer cold: Winter is deadlier than summer in U.S.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/…cold-heat/13323173/
    USA Today
    Jul 30, 2014 – Winter cold kills more than twice as many Americans as does summer heat, according to a report released today by the National Center for …
    Which is responsible for more US deaths — Excessive Heat …
    wattsupwiththat.com/…/which-is-responsible-for-m…
    Watts Up With That?
    Jun 2, 2014 – “U.S. Death Rates due to Extreme Heat and Cold Ascribed to Weather, 1979-1997.” Technology 7S: … It is quite obvious that cold in the US not heat kills more people. peter says: ….. Cold will kill more people than heat. Period.

    • Steve, looking at it from a pure statistics angle……it’s not much…..about 500 people die each year from heat….and about 1000 die each year from cold

  22. “and a population that’s growing especially fast in the hottest regions of the country, according to new research.”

    Big Science. Because without it, I wouldn’t be able to figure out that I would be exposing myself to extreme heat by moving from Minnesota to the topics in a few years, when I retire.

    Good Grief the stupid is bleeding with this one.

  23. The final third is due to the interaction between the two (the increase in exposure expected because the population is growing fastest in places that are also getting hotter).

    Doesn’t the population growth suggest people prefer to live where it’s warm? And if it gets too warm for a few days, heck, that’s what swamp coolers, fans, and air conditioners are for—so long as there’s cheap power and potable water, heat is no problem.

    • Max, please, please, pretty please with icing on top….would you, could you, won’t you remake that chart listing the punishments meted out to the sinful climate debate folk? You know…like the 8th circle could be “IPCC staff-Wrapped in Individual columns of flame” (instead of false counselors) and Micky Mann would be under “falsifiers” etc. Or perhaps you could mete out justice for all of us “lost” and unsaved skeptics….
      Come on…you know you want to! :)

    • I would never betray my benefactors (Judecca – bottom right).
      Are you accepting reservations in Second and Third Circles for climastrolgists?

    • The Tenth Circle of Hell is reserved for cartoonists.

      Punishment: Being forced to listen to NPR for one hour per week, for, like, three weeks.

  24. when the temperature is expected to hit at least 95 degrees….

    You mean like it does almost every where in the summer? These morons are in Boulder, no clue at all…….

    • Boulder has a severe climate, but not too many 90° days when I was there, and I never ran my air. Sometimes severe afternoon thunderstorms were a regular feature during the summer months, however, these suddenly jetting out into the crystal mornings from over the nearby Flatirons around lunchtime, and soon engulfing the entire Front Range with showers and storms, some bringing hail and tornadoes.

      Many of the residents like to play in the snow, and Boulder has one of the best bicycle infrastructures anywhere – truly awesome off-road “multi-use” paths, which are indeed a little too multi near town.

      Boulder is home to NCAR, NOAA, NIST, NSIDC, INSTARR among others, who may have a vested interest in promotion of the various hysterical alarms being sounded by some parts of the scientific community, but the local rag Daily Camera often has spirited debates over CAGW and such on the Letters to the Editor page, so it’s certainly not any one-note samba playing in the People’s Republic of Boulder.

  25. “High-resolution simulation,” as if. 95 degrees is an every-day, all-spring summer and fall-thing throughout much of America. They do not collapse on the street in Orlando or Houston or Tucson or Pascagoula from this, they just fan themselves and get back in the air conditioning. The language of fear, and our excellent Main Stream Media publishes every word.

    Yuck.

  26. “We asked, ‘Where are the people moving? Where are the climate hot spots? How do those two things interact?’” said an NCAR scientist.

    “While we laid the Tarot cards out on the table we employed a unique form of seance. Normally, one uses a seance to communicate with dead people,” said the NCAR scientist, “but in this case we actually communicated with not yet born, nor conceived, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of grandparents, many of whom have also not yet been born, nor married or hooked up. That’s what makes this research so cutting edge,” gushed the young, impressionable NCAR research fund grantee who was wearing an eery ‘Obama in 2016’ pin. “From our communications with these not yet born, nor conceived, grandchildren and great grandchildren we were able to determine their future career paths, mate selection patterns, and from this and other information (which is unavailable due to personal intellectual property rights) we were able to computer model where these not yet born, nor conceived, grandchildren and great grandchildren would choose to make their homes in the distant future” the scientist said. The exuberant NCAR scientist was adamant, “Yes, honest, we can actually do this. We can, I tell you. We can. It is actually easier, and more reliable than modeling the global temperature, and its regional impacts, 100 years into the future. You see, you can’t conduct seances with the temperature spirit.” The NCAR scientist, who goes by the name of Linda Lollypop, then explained how; by fitting the information on the areas where these not yet born, nor conceived, grandchildren and great grandchildren will call their homes; together with the distant future regional weather forecasts for those areas; they can then determine the number of heat related deaths. Doctor Lollypop then excitedly claimed that they actually had a way of actually backing up this research, “You see, we’re going to do something so extraordinarily cutting edge that it’s not only never been done before, it hasn’t even been conceived (did I say that word again?). What we’re going to do to verify our research is we’re actually going to conduct seances with these not yet born, nor conceived, grandchildren and great grandchildren after … they’ve …died. How’s that for cool?” gushed Lollypop. “That way we’ll be able to genuinely verify our research that they died from heat related deaths.”

  27. Seems silly to be moving to Tampa and Houston, wont they be under several meters of water by then?

  28. Authors: Bryan Jones, Brian C. O’Neill, Larry McDaniel, Seth McGinnis, Linda O. Mearns, and Claudia Tebaldi
    Question to the authors: Have any of you ever made a forecast that could be verified in real time where something like being right means you get paid? If you did, you would understand how absurd your projections are, given the real world data that is so devastatingly pointed out here. You come to a conclusion that is charitably..doubtful and most likely laughable, in real world terms

    • The study came from NCAR….”Trenberth’s mountain climate alarm lair”. Trenberth is one of the “Senior Scientists” there.

      • Kevin Trenberth is a ‘notable’ scientist there:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Atmospheric_Research

        He used to be ‘noted’ under the heading of ‘Funding and management’. I deleted the entry on the grounds that his ‘notability’ had nothing to do with the funding or management of NCAR. My edit was reverted a week later. I see now they have re-arranged the text and there is a heading for ‘Staffing areas and notable past and present scientists’ – in which he is included.

  29. The lefties are schizophrenics, hypocrites, liars and fools.
    On one hand they worry about the heat killing people. While at the same time working to cause the price of energy for AC to soar.

    As if their war against the CO2 boogeyman can address the heat better than cheap energy and AC?

    Hey lefty, shut your pie hole.

  30. Deaths, during a heat wave are almost entirely preventable with proper hydration. The most susceptible individuals are elderly, who tend to be in a constant state of dehydration. In the area where I live we have 16 trained and certified volunteer EMTs. Our standard kit contains IV saline, each of us also keeps a pack of cold compresses at hand. With the substantial distances where I live a volunteer is often the first responder at any scene, with the pros arriving anywhere from 8 to 15 minutes later. Over the past few years we’ve had several dozen calls that were due to heat related issues. In 100% of those cases ice packs and/or saline provided immediate and profound relief, to the point that by the time they reached an ER the subject’s vital metrics were within normal parameters, and the ER physician told them to go home, take it easy, and drink water.

    As the population gets older and we have more and more people who seem to be ignorant of basic health and safety issues I suspect heat related deaths will be on the rise no matter what happens to the climate

    • Exactly! In the National Health Statistics under “heat” related deaths it states-
      “Exposure to excessive natural heat, heat stroke, sun stroke or all were cited as either the underlying cause or a contributing cause of death.” I’m guessing that if you take the heat/sun stroke deaths out of the “heat related deaths” group and just try to pin down how many could ONLY be due to “excessive natural heat”…you’d have no statistic to report at all.

      A person can get heat stroke, or sun stroke WITHOUT “excessive natural heat” taking place…it does not have to be 95+ for it to happen. Heat/sun stroke happens all the time in temperatures lower than that due to simple over exposure or over exertion without increasing fluid intake. Both cause the body to be unable to regulate and cool it’s core temperature. Its a body overheat problem, not a globe overheat issue.

  31. Whenever a warmist brings up the deaths in France during the heatwave a few years ago, I always remind them that, unfortunately, heat waves tend to occur when most of France, including its state-run hospitals, is on vacation.

  32. Actually, he’s correct….he’s just deceptive. Temperatures ARE increasing in the cities, but ONLY in the cities. And that isn’t due to climate change, it’s the urban heat island. Get out of the city and there isn’t any change.

  33. My Sister lives in Ontario and gets frost bite walking to her post box, she cant wait for the next heath wave!

    • I’m just sure that after the AGW scientists save the world from it’s own climate, their pure, genuine, and obviously DEEP concern about preventing human deaths will drive them to immediately focus their skills on curing cancer, murders, and liver disease….and any number of other causes of death that kill millions of people every year. Uh huh. I’m positive. Yep. Gonna happen.

  34. Now here’s a good use for our statist government. First round up all of those confused people who inadvertently moved south, put them on the new Climate Train heading north, force them into factories to build air conditioners, and the rest of us down south here can try to hang on through one more normal 6-month summer.

  35. And we would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn’t been you people and your ability to produce graphs based on actual data.
    Just as with the primary preoccupation of the worried hoards of Blighty – where we have been told repeatedly that we face a future rain-o-geddon unless we mightily resist all flood defence and drainage projects and instead invest heavily in off-shore wind projects.
    But, apart from the fact that the proposed remedy is clearly ludicrous and counter to reason – the simple rainfall averages speak for themselves. And anyone can look them up and see for themselves.
    Inasmuch as – once again the unfabricated and unmanipulated data set plotted as a simple graph reveals that U.K. rain-o-geddon is no more than a figment of the popular imagination:
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/uk-winter-precipitation-as-unpredictable-as-ever/

  36. I am so confused. Most of the areas listed are the sowthwest US, and they mention people moving there. But by far, the largest factor in the demographics of that region is immigration. Most of the new arrivals are from Mexico and Central America, so they have moved from hotter areas to relatively cooler areas. So given that the authors consider migration patterns, should they not subtract degree-days to account for the experience of the immigrants, as they have moved to a cooler area?

    These authors need to be shown the lesson of the soldier in the foxhole. Instead of publishing furiously, it is best to keep your head down and stay as quiet as possible. For some government agencies, budget-cut time can not come fast enough.

    • It’s a good observation, but much of Mexico is mountainous and uplands where temperatures may be cooler than So. California and So. Arizona. I wonder too how many of the illegal immigrants who’ve died in transit to the USA are being counted in the mortality stats?

  37. I agree with your points but do note that the graphs are missing recent years, which would include 2012 and the 1 year spike higher.

    1 year of severe drought and intense heat is just weather of course, after 24 years with the best overall growing conditions in the US Cornbelt since the previous severe, widespread drought in that location in 1988.

  38. “Extreme heat kills more people in the United States than any other weather-related event…”

    Not according to the CDC.

    2006-2010:
    Excessive natural heat, heat stroke, sun stroke-
    3,336 (31%)

    Excessive natural cold, hypothermia, or both-
    6,660 (63%)

    I think I can safely stop reading there.

  39. a population that’s growing especially fast in the hottest regions of the country, according to new research.
    ============
    why are the hottest regions the fastest growing if warming is a problem? Why do people move to Florida and Texas? Why don’t they move to Alaska or Minnesota?

  40. This article makes the all too common mistake of assuming that a warming world will primarily manifest on top of the measured high temperatures rather than showing up at the bottom of the thermometer during winters and nights that aren’t quite as cold as in my grandpappy’s day. When the temperature goes from 110 to 115 degrees, people can die, but when they go from 60 to 65, nobody dies.

  41. “due to both a warming climate and a population that’s growing especially fast in the hottest regions of the country, according to new research”
    Are older peoble in US suicidal, since they move to Florida and other hot places.

  42. Extreme heat kills more people in the United States than any other weather-related event

    That is a flat out lie.

    Why are such people not prosecuted, punished, and banned from ever serving in whatever profession they pollute ever again?

  43. ‘Only one problem: actual data on U.S. Temperature Extremes does not support the claim. ‘

    Given the first rule of climate science is, if reality and models differ in value it is reality which is error , there is problem at all.
    There would only be a problem if they where doing good and honest science, and given they could never be accused of doing that , then they are home free.

  44. “However, it is how people experience these extremes that will ultimately shape the broader public perception of climate change.”

    The only thing to do then is to ban air conditioning and heating so people will be forced to experience these extremes. Then they’ll be convinced that extremes are actually getting worse even if they aren’t. Apparently, it’s “public perception,” rather than actual facts and observations that are important to these people.

    • With 50 – 75% wind/solar electricity genertion there will be no need to curtail the use of AC, you will not be able to afford it. Period.

  45. “the population is growing fastest in places that are also getting hotter”

    Why do all these stupid people keep moving to warmer climates when 97% of climate scientists know that a warmer climate is bad for you? Can’t they feel the extreme heat? Don’t they know they are doomed? /Sarc

  46. We’ve got to tell those old people to stop moving to Florida, Phoenix and Las Vegas! They could be affected by the heat.

  47. “due to both a warming climate and a population that’s growing especially fast in the hottest regions of the country,”
    Why would people move into an area that is increasing in temperature other than those moving from an area that is already hotter than that area now, Worse how many of those moving into the area that is a few degrees warmer then than it is now left from south of the boarder where it would be centuries before these extremes would be hotter/drier than where they live now. The prediction is pure B/S utter nonsense.

  48. Assuming “current migration trends within the country continue” and applying them to 26-55 years into the future counts as a “newly developed demographic model?” Really?

    Gives me an idea…how about we assume “current temperature trends within the country continue” and apply them to 26-55 years into the future using 11 high-resolution demographic models and see what happens.

  49. all hail to “The Models” they’re all seeing and all prevailing science

    (do i need to insert sarc tags here or is it obvious enough?)

    the more i read the alarmist side the more i think that they really should stick to the raw data which is showing something entirely different then their Models…

    Of course the mighty all saving term “adjustment” does still exist to have that inconvenient truth covered……..

  50. “Extreme heat kills more people in the United States than any other weather-related event”

    Searching the CDC database for cause of death one can find that 725 people died of excessive natural cold (x31) and 372 of excessive natural heat (x30).

    One has to ask in light of the data available from the CDC where the “Experts” get there data to support such statements.

    I’m not a scientist and looking at studies like this I don’t want to be one neither.

Comments are closed.