The hysteria keeps ramping up~ctm
From CNN
By Ashley Strickland, CNN
Updated 1:38 AM ET, Sat August 5, 2017
Story highlights
- Heat waves will be responsible for 99% of weather-related deaths in Europe by 2100, a new study says
- Climate change will be the dominant driver of these disasters
(CNN)By the end of the century, two out of three people living in Europe will be affected by heat waves, coastal floods and other weather-related disasters, largely due to global warming and climate change, according to a study published Friday in the journal Lancet Planetary Health.
That’s 350 million people in 31 countries subjected to an increased risk of death and health hazards.
Overall, weather-related disasters are expected to cause 152,000 deaths a year in Europe between 2071 and 2100, jumping from 3,000 weather disaster-related deaths a year between 1981 and 2010.
Deadly heat waves becoming more common due to climate change
The researchers estimate that 99% of future weather-related deaths will be due to heat waves. That could very well cause a spike in cardiovascular disease, stroke and respiratory diseases, the researchers suggested.
“This should be considered in light of the devastating effects of the 2003 European and 2010 Russian heat waves, where thousands died. The thought of such events occurring more frequently is frightening,” said Andrew Grundstein, a professor with the University of Georgia’s Department of Geography who was not affiliated with the new study.
Southern Europe is likely to be hit the hardest, based on projections for heat waves and droughts. Almost everyone living in Italy, Greece, Spain, Croatia, Cyprus, Malta, Portugal and Slovenia would be affected by weather-related disasters, causing 700 deaths per 1 million people annually.
Higher seas to flood dozens of US cities, study says; is yours one of them?
By comparison, one out of three people will be affected every year in northern Europe: Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden.
Other than heat-related deaths, annual coastal flooding-related deaths will rise from six to 233 by the end of the century. Droughts could also reduce the water needed for food production and basic needs for 138 million people, the researchers said.
Previous studies have pointed to population growth, urbanization and migration as drivers of disaster risk in the future.
“Our results show that for the future, climate change will likely be the dominant driver of the projected trends, accounting for more than 90% of the rise in risk to population,” said Giovanni Forzieri of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, lead author of the new study. “Population changes such as growth, migration and urbanization will account for the remaining 10%.”
Depression, anxiety, PTSD: The mental impact of climate change
Europe is expected to face major changes in the frequency of multiple climate extremes over the coming decades, Forzieri said.
To understand the future effects of extreme weather, the researchers combined projections on climate change and population growth with 2,300 records from 1981 to 2010 that identified disasters and death tolls across countries.
The disaster records also helped the researchers determine “human vulnerability” — the relationship between weather exposure and how it affects humans — to seven weather-related disasters: heat waves, cold waves, wildfires, droughts, river and coastal flooding and windstorms.
Al Gore presses on with climate change action in the Trump era
“This study shows that, unless global warming is curbed as a matter of urgency and appropriate adaptation measures are taken, about 350 million Europeans could be exposed to harmful climate extremes on an annual basis by the end of this century, with a 50-times increase in fatalities compared with now,” Forzieri said.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The stupidity burns like a magnesium flare. Maybe they should investigate cold-related deaths in Europe due to the inability to pay ones heating bill because of renewable energy subsidies?
In case anyone is thinking of citing Germany in that regard – i.e. quoting a figure for German households cut off from electricity annually – I urge them to compare their figure (there are a couple floating about with no good provenance) against the number of German households, looking at the resulting percentage, then comparing that against figures for US households cut off…
My electricity bills have gone up more than 100% in under 10 years Griff, in a period of nearly zero inflation and wage growth, and with falling wholesale electricity prices. If you think that isn’t a problem, you are even more of an idiot than I thought.
And if you think only renewable energy is the reason for that Mr G….
In Australia, the massive price rises in electricity has been because of renewables. There are two parts to that. The first is the carbon charges. The second is that the grid rules were changed so that the unreliable renewables were given must run priority and coal plants were put at the top of merit order, so they were last on first off. This meant they needed to ramp up and down and run for short periods. This makes them unprofitable. Their replacements are open cycle GTs. The problem with that is they are all sucking on the same gas line which has little storage. There is also a shortage of gas wells as the government has banned fracking and made coal seam gas drilling (the main supply) very difficult. That makes the gas very expensive so power is very expensive. At the same time coal plants are shutting down as they aren’t profitable or the state government (think SA) legislates them out of existence. SA has had to put GTs on must run to guarantee grid inertia and reliable power. These are run inefficiently at part load.
The government only mentions high gas prices as the cause of high power prices, without mentioning that it is renewables ARE the underlying cause.
So Griff, you are wrong yet again.
No Griff, just the main reason and a stated goal by Obama.
From the article…” The researchers estimate that 99% of future weather-related deaths will be due to heat wave”
Future historians….” 99 % of all CAGW disaster predictions never happened.”
What always amazes me in these projections is the number of significant digits used. “Other heat related deaths rising from 6 to 233” Eighty three years out, these geniuses are able to forecast 233 deaths. Not 232 or 234, no, there will be 233. Why, you could almost assume that they could even give you the age, gender and nationality of those unfortunate individuals. It’s amazing! And nobody in the media questions the validity of these absurd numbers?
That’s what you get (233) when you use fancy computers.
Why stop there? Let’s have the names, including those of currently-living ancestors. Of course, it’s pure guesswork, for which the guessers will receive both money and power.
Forget the subsidies and ideology Brad. Cold kills; many old folk are poor enough and ill or confused enough that they’re unable to heat themselves effectively in cold weather in various parts of the world. Many who’d be in that category in 2100 will benefit – probably more than 152k in Europe alone – if these dire predictions come true. If I was expecting to be alive 2100 I’d be hoping they did. But, alas,I think it’s very unlikely on both counts.
Global cooling exacerbates Tropic-Poles contrast, hence storminess. Global cooling reduces it, hence making for balmy weather.
Cold kills more than heat now , just another it’s Co2 wot dunnit send muney and lots of it story .
Agree Jim and Robert. The subject paper is false alarmist nonsense.
Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 2 million per year globally.
Reference:
“Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather”, September 4, 2015
by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
In the developed world, green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
In the developing world, global warming nonsense has thwarted the development of much-needed energy systems that would have greatly improved the quality of life and reduced illnesses and premature deaths due to energy poverty.
Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
I wish we could pass a law that would forbid politicians from dabbling in any infrastructure related issue.
I’m tired of the the leftist Chicken Littles constantly crying wolf.
Their predictions, going back decades, have NEVER come true. In fact they haven’t even come close to coming true. They’re just way off the mark, every time. So why are we to believe them now?
Here’s some of their failed predictions:
What’s more, they have, over and over again, EXPLICITLY said that they should make up bs predictions of doom:
“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Co-Founder of Greenpeace
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first ipcc chair
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Environmental Studies, UCSB
Their never ending crying wolf fear-mongering should be considered an absolute joke. But no, the leftist MSM takes them seriously and continues to give the laughable Prophets of Doom credibility.
Upton Sinclair said “It is hard to teach someone a concept when their salary depends on them not understanding it”.
“Their predictions, going back decades, have NEVER come true.”
Yeah, you would think that would count for something.
“Their predictions, going back decades, have NEVER come true.”
Well said Eric,
The essence of science is the ability to predict, and the IPCC and its minions have a perfectly negative predictive track record – NONE of their scary predictions have materialized. That means that the IPCC has NEGATIVE scientific credibility, and nobody should believe anything they or their minions say.
Regarding the frailties of humanity, and their tendency to believe false threats, that is simply a fact of life. The human race has survived through a long series of real threats, mostly caused by warfare through the ages. City-states formed for mutual defence, and many did not survive, while others were conquered and enslaved. Perhaps we are programmed to be fearful, and that is a characteristic of those who survived.
In any case, the promotion of false fears for personal gain is another reality of humanity, and should be severely discouraged.
Regards, Allan
Come now, Allan, we’re told repeatedly by the esteemed Mosher that as long as the models get the sign right they’re accurate.
“Chicken Littles constantly crying wolf”
Is this like the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show’s Fractured Fair Tales?
By 2100, it won’t be two out of three Europeans being impacted by weather, it will be two out of three Europeans being impacted by Sharia Law and Islam.
That is the real scare, we must be aware in Germany. In my State, Baden-Württemberg as a part of Germany, nearly the half of the inmates of the prisons are aliens. And by the other half, there it gives a real great amount of prisoners, who have had taken the German citizenship not long ago or are children of migrants. That is the really problem of Germany and also the other states in Europe. Not heatwaves from science fiction.
I have just returned home after a (nearly) four-week visit to Germany. One thing that struck me was that almost every town I visited had women dressed in Middle Eastern clothing. It was almost as if every town, no matter how small, had to have its quota. But I don’t know if these people were refugees or not. The possession of mobile phones was common. As far as Baden-Wuertemberg is concerned the town of Swaebisch-Gmuend had an interesting display of posters around the town. One showed the ethnic composition of the town’s population. It said that 72% of the population was ‘German’. It probably explained the meaning of ‘;German’ but my German isn’t good enough to understand it. It probably meant ‘born in Germany’. In which case the 72% would include people born to immigrants. Turkish names were common on, for example, taxis and groups of men speaking a foreign (non-German) language, possibly Turkish, were common. What with the recently arrived immigrants and the Turkish citizens, the Islamic population of the town must be quite large.
Merkel and her ilk have *seriously* damaged Europe’s security and national integrity with their open door policy on refugees.
And it is only going to get worse, because the political leadership seems oblivious to the problem they have and are creating for Europeans. This is a real crisis. An existential crisis for European societies.
What about the lack of deaths from “cold-waves”? (do they ever think to factor that in?)…
the most ridiculous thing is the 152,000 deaths are an estimate based on a guess aka a climate model
We have figures from the 2003 heatwaves in France and 2010 heatwave in Russia and no doubt shortly from the current heatwave which is giving 43C temps in a swathe of Southren Europe.
That’s called empirical data. What we don’t have are empirical data from 2100. We can’t even determine anywhere what the temperature will be within 2 degrees 83 days from now, much less 83 years in the future.
Yet figures lie, and liars figure.
We’ve got a lot of empirical data on climate….
for example arctic sea ice extent.
That Southern European heat wave looks pretty mild to me. Southern Spain has the only temps in the low 100s, and at the peak of the summer heat period. Here is Madrid temps for the last 14 days, http://www.intellicast.com/Local/ObservationsSummary.aspx?location=SPXX0050. I just experienced a hotter 3 day spell here in Northern California. Big deal had to check my garden at noon for water needs. The tomatoes are loving the heat along with the other vegetables. …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=35.24,40.11,497/loc=-5.604,37.466
Moronic. There is zero global increase in heat waves.
Yes, we do have a lot of empirical data but it doesn’t say what you want it to say.
Yes, except I don’t see the models as “guesses” per se. Rather, they’re fabrications, products not of science but of politics and public relations. Indeed, the models are little more than bullsh|t “scenarios of doom” which the lead IPCC author Stephen Schneider said in 1989 that they should make up (see my comment above).
Here’s an excerpt from a wuwt comment from Olaf Dahlsveen a bit ago:
What we now are faced with is a «gang» of sub-scientists who do «blatantly» disregard data … They (the gang) are «Model Makers» and as long as they put CO2 into their models as being responsible for any earthly temperature rise, then it is quite correct for them to say that “All our models show that CO2 is responsible for the recent warming.” Well, that was back in the ’80s and ’90s. But then the warming stopped…
Climate change was there in the past, is there now and will be there in future. The impact change with the intensity of destruction on climate system and human population growth and measures taken to contain or reduce the intensity. Climate change is not global warming. Poor rainfall/snowfall years temperature goes up and good rainfall/snowfall years temperature goes down — needs more heating. These cold and warm conditions depends upon the natural variability in rainfall/snowfall over different parts.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
There are 3 good reasons to ignore this study:-
(1) It contains the expression ” We modelled”…..
(2) It contains the word ” could”……
(3) ” Funding: European Commission”.
I hope that the Journal, Lancet Planetary Health, has nothing to do with The Lancet, the world’s oldest (1823) and best known general medical journal.
Finally, to quote Joe Biden,” Is this a joke?”
its science fiction …
poor sci-fi at that…
Three More: :
1. C
2. N
3. N
The issue is not the study. Who really cares about that in the real world? The issue is that the media does not know that a study is only hypothetical and instead believes this to be a valid prediction with large degrees of fact.
And that it’s CNN makes it all the more tasty. Channel 4 in the UK had a whole opening section about this and I simply turned it off. My wife is much happier when I don’t shout at the TV.
The BBC is also ramping up the same alarmism: “Extreme weather ‘could kill up to 152,000 a year’ in Europe by 2100”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40835663
And of course it features prominently in the Grauniad: “Extreme weather deaths in Europe ‘could increase 50-fold by next century’ ”
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/aug/04/extreme-weather-deaths-in-europe-could-increase-50-fold-by-next-century
Based on my computer model Preston North End could win the Champions League by 2100.
No, wait. There is empirical date to back up the possibility that Preston North End could win the Champions League by 2100. In 1888-89 they won the Football League without losing a game and the FA Cup without losing a goal. The only other teams to have done the double are Manchester United, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur, Aston Villa, Liverpool and Chelsea. All of whom, except Tottenham Hotspur, have won the Champions League or its predecessor. So therefore….
Moreover, in the current season Preston have a 100% record. They have won every game they have played and not lost a single goal. The fact that they have only played one game and won it 1-0 should not be allowed to undermine a cleverly-presented statistic.
Sorry Arsenal supporters. They have only ever been runners-up.
In terms of extreme weather events in Europe, you might want to look at the number of 1 in 100 year flooding events in the UK before and after 2000…
There is definitely a climate shift affecting the UK… places like Carlisle have seen 2 floods in the greater than 1 in 100 years category in a decade.
Much UK flooding was due to riverine dredging becoming impractically expensive thanks to EU regulations requiring the material to be dumped offshore.
but for the flooding to occur, there had to be record rainfall.
and no, it wasn’t ‘much’ due to lack of dredging, barely even ‘some’.
The post Somerset flood revue concluded that if the high power pumps had been in place and dredging had taken place, there would still have been substantial flooding.
The rivers in Cumbria were dredged after 2005 and new flood defences were put in place, only to be overwhelmed again.
and finally – EU regulation did not forbid dredging. How could it, since post Somerset floods there was dredging?
Wrong. For flooding to occur, there merely had to be normal heavy rainfall. Most of the flooding occurred in areas that had been dredged every year for centuries, other areas were swampland only built on after dredging had occurred. Flooding that occurs a decade after severely reduced dredging is still flooding due to reduced dredging.
There was no claim that the EU regulations forbid dredging, just that it made it expensive. Dredging restarted after the embarrassment of needless flooding.
And finally, if dredging wasn’t the major factor, why bother with the expense of restarting dredging again?
Here are comments I saved from 2015:
Roger
Let’s also not forget about the blog Inside the Environment Agency.
The Somerset Levels floods to all who can remember were not a series of flash floods but a steady encroaching body of water. It was a disaster in slow motion so you can imagine how residents felt.
Another case of academics and bureaucrats thinking they know best yet the generations who lived and maintained the Levels somehow didn’t. The classification of silt as toxic was another gem.
Are you suggesting then that a 1 in 100 year event is only supposed to happen every 100 years?
Too funny Griffie!
There were similar events in the Lake District in 1897 and 1898!
I’ve seen your fudged figures on Lake District rainfall and I wasn’t impressed.
The last flood of any magnitude in Carlisle was in the early 1800s and the 2 since 2000 were far worse
A warmer ocean and atmosphere does in fact result in higher precipital water values and an increase in high end rain events and in amounts. This is authentic meteorology/science.
The study discussed in this article,however is science fiction based on alarmism and feeding models selective data to get desired results……obviously intended to motivate others to take political actions.
It sure is not intended to objectively educate people on the effects of increasing CO2, . Continually ramping up the death and destruction forecasts to scare people into action, only makes the disparity between the predictions and observations greater. That trick has only managed to live it’s fraudulent life for so long because 2100 is so far in the distant future, that a reconciling of projections with reality never happens and there is never any legit accountability.
Most of us will be dead……of natural non human caused climate change causes by then. In very few realms, do people continually get away with being very wrong about predictions withought having to answer for it and it effecting their credibility.
We know that weather forecasters are wrong a lot but that’s the point. Everybody knows this. Meteorologists don’t pretend to be flawless prognosticators of future weather, they are rooted in the reality of a chaotic atmosphere and everybody knows that they will be wrong sometimes to frequently.
Climate projections are issued with impunity and treated almost like infallible scientific truths. Fact is, they are based on a speculative theory that so far has been too warm to much too warm…….and the infallibility treatment, allows the model projections to evade appropriate downward adjustments. This is profound evidence of them being rooted more in useful politics vs representing authentic science…….which continually tests theories and immediately adjusts when the empirical data/evidence leads in new directions.
Griff
Correct, there is a climate shift in the UK, but there is no credible, empirical evidence to suggest atmospheric CO2 is causing it, far less the minuscule amount man contributes.
In my area, Kent, the manifestation of climate change is that vegetation is growing faster than 30 years ago. And as anecdotal evidence of that, when we moved into our house, which has a large garden, 30 years ago, we might mow the lawn once a week, frequently though, once a fortnight.
We are forced to mow our lawn twice a week now and a third time occasionally.
And for scientific evidence for the cause of flooding, one only needs to seek the opinion of George Monbiot. George is a Zoologist who writes for the Guardian (amongst other things) and has studied the UK environment for decades, in particular, sheep farming on the uplands of England. His considered opinion is that floods are frequently caused by rain running, unhindered, off hills denuded of trees for the sake of sheep farming, across ground compacted by the hooves of the animals, into over dredged rivers, with no natural barriers to flash floods.
Your simplistic contention that “places like Carlisle have seen 2 floods in the greater than 1 in 100 years category in a decade.” utterly misses the point that it has more to do with man’s abuse of the surrounding environment than it has any amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Must try harder.
Terrif Griff and don’t forget to drop a line to James as you never know he may want to add one or two events to the next update edition-
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.htm
How’re you coming along with that history homework by the way? Always remember those sage words- ‘If one wishes to peer into the future, then a firm grasp of the past events is a key to that gateway. This is intrinsically true for the scientific underpinnings of weather and climate.’ Yep you can never do too much homework before flapping your gums about the future.
The last 500yrs in California were far wetter on average than the prior 500yrs. Could you point to the shifts in CO2 levels which controlled this? http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/20140127_031535_ssjm0126megadry90.jpg?w=620
What I have gathered over the years is that it is likely that one would find groups of above average rains within a period of several decades, often cyclical in nature. I said as much 3.5 years ago when I forecast the upcoming winters as 2 average to above average rainy/snowy winters which would be very likely be followed by a very heavy rain/snow winter for the West Coast of the US. Imo, there is about a 60% chance that this upcoming winter will be even heavier than this last winter for the coastal mountains of the West Coast. The rains will strike within a range between SF to Vancouver, or some significant portion of the coast line.
The reason for the forecasts are based on historically similar events as we;; as from studying many the many regional/area graphs available. For example, here in the Pacific Northwest there is a cyclical flood pattern. All of the biggest flood years have a history of having several average years prior to the Big One, and that is then followed by a fairly strong winter in the following year as well.The winter following can also be another Big Winter such as may occur as early as 3 months from now. There is a greater % increase in total precipitable water offshore in the eastern Pacific and even over the coastal lands as compared to conditions over the 3 years prior. This could lead to enhanced conditions for rain dropping out in the coastal ranges as systems move ashore. Last winter the main impact hit the Sierras. These very heavy rain winters on the West Coast also are an indicator for flooding in the middle of the US later on in the spring, as well as flooding further east into the summer.
current Tpw for the region, …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-151.91,28.34,497/loc=-146.383,33.313
It’s very interesting to examine the high-water marks on buildings close to German rivers such as the Rhine. Whether there are non-climate related explanations for the variations I do not know.
Here’s an example from Koblenz.
Here are figures for river levels at Cologne since 1819.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegel_K%C3%B6ln
Thanks, that is interesting. Over the years, I have come to think that the northeastern Atlantic coast line and the US West Coast have a correlation where the Pacific West Coast follows the pattern of the UK/Atlantic weather patterns by one or two years. I see further evidence in the picture which you show of the flood record.
Note that starting with the four records at the bottom of the scale, the next winter bought heavy rains to the West Coast of the US. Note the Jan 1955 flood, in particular, the next winter was the 1955/56 flood which centered between Northern California to Central Oregon. The next Cologne record is Jan 1995. That is followed by the semi biblical rain storm of 1996/97 from the SF/Bay Area. Then the Cologne 1926 record is followed by heavy West Coast rains in the winter of 1927/28. Then the high record at Cologne in Dec 1993 is followed by 3 heavy rain winters in the rainfall record for California, 1994/95, 1995/96, and the very big 1996/97.
Is that high record, Jan 1651? That would place it at the start of the Maunder Minimum. A 1400 year drought graph for California shows a well above average wet spell for 3 or 4 years right after 1650 AD.
Second try, unsure about the 1st….”Thanks, that is interesting. Over the years, I have come to think that the northeastern Atlantic coast line and the US West Coast have a correlation where the Pacific West Coast follows the pattern of the UK/Atlantic weather patterns by one or two years. I see further evidence in the picture which you show of the flood record.
Note that starting with the four records at the bottom of the scale, the next winter bought heavy rains to the West Coast of the US. Note the Jan 1955 flood, in particular, the next winter was the 1955/56 flood which centered between Northern California to Central Oregon. The next Cologne record is Jan 1995. That is followed by the semi biblical rain storm of 1996/97 from the SF/Bay Area. Then the Cologne 1926 record is followed by heavy West Coast rains in the winter of 1927/28. Then the high record at Cologne in Dec 1993 is followed by 3 heavy rain winters in the rainfall record for California, 1994/95, 1995/96, and the very big 1996/97.
Is that high record, Jan 1651? That would place it at the start of the Maunder Minimum. A 1400 year drought graph for California shows a well above average wet spell for 3 or 4 years right after 1650 AD.
The typical 1 in 100 year statistic is pure BS.
Even the hallowed IPCC state that changes in society and technology will outweigh any ‘projected’ changes in climate.
Will it help if we cut fossil fuel emissions?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3000932
Absolute nonsense
“More than one in 10 of the population of 700 is over 100 years old, and the hamlet has been the focus of a study to discover the factors that contribute to its residents’ longevity.”
so where is this hamlet?
just south of Naples
Another end of century so-called ‘study’, making Armageddon-style predictions for a time when every adult reading and acting upon the ‘study’ will be long-dead. Worthless.
It’s just so much bollox innit.
Those folks have it sorted already – they bugger off to their bedroom, pull the curtains and snooze when the sun is hottest (early afternoon)
Mad Dogs and Englishmen and all that?
But wait:
..could (see what I did there) not these things, respectively, be from eating too much sugar, sugar and plant-derived protein?
Not a chance.
Where’s Woody Allen’s Sleeper when we need him
Peta
“spike in cardiovascular disease, stroke and respiratory diseases, the resear…”
This might be contradicted by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a practising GP in Cambridge who maintains that CVD is, for a large part, caused by a lack of vitamin D, most easily and effectively gained by humans from regular exposure to sunlight.
The horrendous rate of CVD in Glasgow has been blamed on a bad diet, smoking and excessive alcohol consumption, which may be true, but Dr. Kendricks hypothesis also holds true as the place is notably devoid of sunlight for great parts of the year. https://drmalcolmkendrick.org
Perhaps more heat in Southern Europe may cause a rise in CVD, but it might also cause a drop in more northerly parts of the continent as well.
“We can’t make accurate predictions of climate 20 years out, but we know exactly what the climate will be like 100 years from now, 80 years after technological changes in energy and transportation render emission
rates that have no similarity to those assumed in the 100 year predictions.”
All this shows is that the AGW proponents have learnt to make their claims for so far ahead when these fall flat they not be around to be reminded of them. Model based BS that would be climate ‘science’
I’ll put this here =>
http://www.thelancet.com/cms/attachment/2036848067/2051599744/gr2.sml
(from http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/abstract)
sorry, mybad, maybe this is slightly better =>
http://www.thelancet.com/cms/attachment/2036848067/2051599742/gr2.jpg
+100
I am not a scientist but neither are most of the people who are reading this news story covered by CNN, BBC etc. If you see the word ‘will’ it means that something is definitely going to happen and there is no element of uncertainty. However, when I looked at the beginning of the actual study it says ‘could’ in connection with the dramatic statements about impacts on humans. The way the media has presented this seems to be a deliberate attempt to mislead those who don’t have time to fully look into the facts. I would be interested to hear what Griff thinks of this.
Sorry .Jane, I’m not even slightly interested in what Griff has to say about anything;-)
“Could” is actually the foundational principle of science by press release.
There are a lot of ‘coulds’ in climate predictions which are ignored/misrepresented.
there are some significant ‘coulds’ in statements on arctic sea ice which are frequently taken as ‘wills’
In the UK alone, there are over 20,000 excess deaths in winter every year. Death rates in summer are the lowest of the year.
Paul
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick https://drmalcolmkendrick.org contends that one of the biggest factor in CVD deaths is in fact lack of exposure to the sun and health giving vitamin D.
His science is way above my pay grade (which is tuppence ha’penny) but I suspect you will find his series of “What causes heart disease” compelling.
Excess winter deaths is a seasonal comparison and is not at all the same thing as ‘deaths from cold’.
The majority are flu or similar winter illness deaths -higher, for example, in years where the vaccine choice is wrong for the prevalent flu strain.
It is a distortion to go on to say those flue deaths are directly linked to cold homes.
Nonsense. Numerous studies show how ineffective the flu shot is. Beyond that why are there more flu deaths in winter if that is the case?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2015to2016provisionaland2014to2015final
“Excess winter deaths in 2015/16 were back in line with average trends. The large decrease in EWD from 2014/15 to 2015/16 can largely be explained by the higher than average number of EWDs in 2014/15 rather than unusually low EWDs in 2015/16. It can also, in part, be explained by a different predominant strain of the influenza virus that had a reduced effect on the elderly in 2015/16, with impact mainly seen in young adults ”
And see this on flu vaccine effectiveness and excess winter deaths
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/25/excess-winter-deaths-rose-more-than-150-43900-2014
“weather-related disasters are expected to cause 152,000 deaths a year in Europe between 2071 and 2100”
This is about the number of deaths by hunger in a single week.
But we speak more of climate than hunger.
Keep an eye open for governments issuing new instruction for doctors to start recording “climate change” as the cause on death certificates.
Surely we can avert this by paying some kind of tax.
Or build more windmills to blow on the Earth and cool it?
What is mankind supposed to do with weather or any statistic representation of it for that matter?
This is not the first time in the human history weather has been used for power grab.
‘Weather disasters to impact 2 out of 3 Europeans by 2100, study says’
Death to impact 2 out of 3 Europeans by 2100, Gamecock says.
83 years out? Make that death to impact 9 out of 10 Europeans by 2100.
CNN, the Scare the Children Network.
Yup also the other side of it,population growth or shrinkage.
Yep these blathering fools,sorry government funded experts, know all about the future 83 years hence.
So why for are they not fabulously wealthy today?
Surely such numerical superiority must transfer to systems so much smaller and less chaotic than weather/climate?