From the UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL and the “missed solutions that don’t fit the narrative” department
Adhering to Paris Agreement climate goal could significantly decrease heat-related summer deaths
The paper, published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change, demonstrates that, all else being equal, mortality due to high temperatures could be significantly reduced (15-22 per cent per summer) in London and Paris if we stabilise climate at the lower of the Paris Climate Goals, 1.5°C, as compared with the higher temperature goal.
In London, currently around 10 per cent of summers are free of any heat-related mortality, but this research has shown that under potential future climate change virtually all summers will have some heat-related mortality.
Researchers from Bristol who lead the HAPPI project (Half a degree Additional warming, Prognosis and Projected Impacts Model Intercomparison Project) simulated future climate under climate goals consistent with the 1.5°C and 2°C global warming Paris Agreement climate goals. The project utilised researchers and citizen scientists from around the world to help run the experiments.
Dr Dann Mitchell, lead author of the study, and a lecturer in climate physics at the University of Bristol, said “Our results show a clear increase in heat-related mortality which can be avoided by adhering to the Paris Agreement goals.
“Together with the recent publication of a wealth of evidence presented for climate drivers of other impact sectors (such as the crop sector), it is becoming evermore clear as to how crucial these climate goals are.
“We need to understand the magnitude of these health impacts, so we can plan suitable adaptation strategies to prevent them.”
The research comes at a time where much of Europe is undergoing a heatwave, and the public are being advised to take care and check more regularly on vulnerable relatives and friends.
###
The research was carried out in collaboration with researchers at Public Health England, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Oxford University, the University of Washington, The European Centre for Environment and Human Health, ETH Zurich, and the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Tsukuba, Japan.
Deaths can also be reduced by lowering electricity prices, especially for the poor and elderly, so that air conditioning can be used. Often people in these low-income demographics have to make a choice between fuel and food, as illustrated in the UK during the winter. The same holds true for the summer.
But, that doesn’t fit the narrative, so is excluded as a solution by these climate campaigners with tunnel vision who’d rather focus on cute but useless programs named “HAPPI”.
What I would be interested in is the annual total. Does the annual total of temperature related deaths go up or down with a 2C increase? I bet it is still the case that there are more deaths due to cold than heat.
An interesting question , chadb, and you will be pleased to know that it was answered last year in an impressive collection of modelled results of the consequences of global warming on both cold and heat related mortality and published in the Lancet
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(17)30156-0/fulltext
It is open access.Take a look at their Fig 2 in which the curves for the reduction in cold related mortality and the increase in heat related deaths for all parts of the world and under emission scenarios RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 8.5.
Only in the highest emission scenarios do the heat related deaths exceed the cold related deaths , and only in the tropical areas . Other posts here in the past have regarded the highest emission scenario as very unlikely .
So it is possibly not the bad news that the U of Bristol are predicting .
Bear in mind also that the editorial group at the Lancet in which the paper appeared is now led by one Christiana Figueres , of whom you will have read much in these pages .
“only in the tropical areas “…I find that hard to believe
For one thing, the tropics would be affected the least….
…for the other, we’re used to it
It was 91F this morning, I worked in the yard for over an hour and didn’t even sweat….93 94 95…I would not even notice the difference…and no one else would either
I do not know if the Fig2 will come out
but for the Northern hemisphere and even Australia under the high , and least likely, RCP 8,5 scenario , heat related deaths do not exceed cold related deaths .
It is central america , south east asia , and ( admittedly not tropical) southern Europe where heat deaths predominate – by 2099.
These are of course modelled predictions but the Lancet stable of publications are highly respected. The abstract does hype the high emission scenario, but the diagrams tell a somewhat more realistic and more reassuring story .
And of course it comes after a( 2016?) article , same group, same journal , which points out that moderate cold is far more dangerous than moderate heat ( has been quoted here in the past I seem to remember ).
I think the second sentence here is the relevant issue, but the third sentence is what the responses heretofore appear to focus on.
I would argue that it doesn’t matter whether there are more cold-related deaths or heat-related deaths. What matters is whether TOTAL temperature-related deaths, including both extremes, goes up or down. Or put another way, whether the increase in heat-related deaths exceeds the decrease in cold-related deaths.
If we take the MODEL results (thanks, Mike) as fact, it appears that, at least for RCPs 2.6 and 4.5, the number of cold related deaths decreases more than the number of heat-related deaths increases, though the difference is small to non-existent in some regions. The results are more mixed for RCP 8.5, but at a glance, it appears the increase in heat-related deaths will exceed the decrease in cold-related deaths. But folks in Northern Europe and Australia should definitely be rooting for RCP 8.6.
A study published during a heat wave? What a happy coincidence. Just like Hansen’s Senate testimony.
“if we stabilise climate at the lower of the Paris Climate Goals, 1.5°C”
And we know exactly how to do that. Of course we do! Settled Science!
/s
My sentiment as well.
If the world adhered to the Paris accord where is the evidence that these heat waves wouldn’t occur regardless?
Such proclamations fall into “Bell-the-Cat” solutions. Simply by dictating that an end result will occur does not actually make it occur, nor has it solved anything.
Thinking humans can “stablilise climate” disqualifies the authors from voting.
Was the HAPPI project developed during HAPPI HOUR?
David S
Consultation with a delightful, but bewildered lady, at the local care home, during HAPPI CLAPPI hour.
My understanding is that observed temperatures are just (other than the 2016/2017 El Niño blip) bumping along the bottom of the IPCC predictions.
If they fall any further, or the “hiatus” (alarmist term for pause) continues on it’s merry way, won’t the world be conforming to the 1.5°C target, whilst CO2 emissions continue to increase in the rest of the world, whilst falling in America.
So what use is the Paris agreement?
Or have I got all this completely wrong?
Spot on Mr Scot. They also ignored the fact that the bulk of global temperature rise has occurred at extreme latitudes, not tropical latitudes, and exclusively during the hemispheric winters for the last several decades. This is easily explained by the extra water vapor from warmer SSTs due to multi-decadal oscillations and recent ENSO trends.
The Arctic as well as eastern Canadian temperatures are presently below normal for summer, even though the MSM and alarmists are ignoring this and focusing their tunnel vision on Antarctica during its winter while discounting volcanic influences from below the western continent.
I have my ceiling fan running now which is keeping me a bit cooler in my flat , I have found that it uses very little electricity because it makes no difference to my weekly fuel bill. The council have sent me a letter saying that they are looking at fitting cavity wall insulation to my block. I have been told that Dyson coolers and heaters are very good and very quiet but the problem with them is they are very expensive three hundred to four hundred pound to buy. I have a portable air conditioning unit which you fill with water I bought this when I moved into my flat it is absolutely useless it just blows hot air around the room while I sweat, it is very noisy also.
We used to get by running fans during the day, and putting them in windows at night to bring in cooler air. But mostly, we were uncomfortable a lot of the time in Summer. And the fans made quite a bit of noise, and the electricity added up. About four years ago, we broke down and got a 10k btu AC window unit, for perhaps $250. Never regretted it. Noticed perhaps a $15/month increase (if that) during July and August. And now, we don’t have to dread heatwaves, like the one coming to New England soon.
I live in SW Florida and I don’t use AC at home at all. I have windows open and ceiling fans running when I’m in the room. The only time the heat hurts me is after I’ve spent time in buildings in which the AC is turned to 71 degrees and then I have to go outside into the 95 degree heat. It’s not the temperature that hurts, it’s the sudden difference in temperature between what you’ve acclimated to and what you change to.
You seriously needed to run models and simulations to conclude this?
If you assume that heat causes excess deaths and then you assume that you will get more heat with no mitigation, you have to conclude that you will get more excess deaths. Then saying that without the extra heat there will be fewer deaths is simply restating your assumptions
Does these people really, actually believe they are doing science?
Another point is that it’s not so much heat that kills, it’s abnormal heat. Heat above what is commonly found in a region.
If the world did get 1C warmer, then normal would go up as well, and it would still be heat waves that kill, it’s just the definition of a heat wave has changed.
They do. They don’t get out much.
Soooo, what microscopic difference would the Paris agreement have made to the daily temperature? Even possible to measure?
THESE are the returns we can expect from greenie policy.
Versus what cost? To the economy? To freedom in general? To the actual ability of humans to adapt their environment to their comfort?
Pretty expensive warm fuzzy for the self-indulgent delusion of doing ANYTHING proactive or positive – because I can’t remember the last time any greenie did anything that was genuinely positive or helpful for anyone, other than just providing some abstract perception of ‘mitigating’ climate change.
Adherence to the Paris Climate Non-agreement will increase both summer and winter deaths, as a result of reliance on unreliable, nondispatchable, expensive solar and wind electrical generation. The grid supply failures and high electrical costs driven by unreliable ‘renewables’ means the poor will be forced to choose between ‘cooling/heating or eating’.
Freezing, overheating, or starving, because…… Climate Change.
The anti-human CACA conspiracy has already caused tens of millions of excess human deaths. Not to mention the untold destruction of billions of birds and bats.
Supporting links for those figures?
Death rates trend up during heatwaves, but in the weeks following a heatwave the death rates trend down, so it appears to be a case of heat hastening an impending death, rather than purely a causal issue.
I can’t dig out the exact citation for this, but it’s somewhere in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality sections by standard metro areas for death rates, and I’m sure you guys know where to find temps by metro
The willful blindness of those who cling to the false perception that rising CO2 causes significant warming is disturbing.
So, where in the developed world is it hot? How about Amman Jordan. link As far as I can tell, nobody’s dying of heat.
People can adapt to life in hot climates. If people are not ready for the heat, plenty of folks die. 2003 European Heat Wave
I have heard stories about the wretched state of the British housing stock. Single pane windows, very drafty, etc. Is it really that bad? In that case, they could save lives, and money, by fixing their homes.
One of my friends was raised in Baghdad. He remembers being quite comfortable without air conditioning. The houses were built in such a manner that they stayed cool.
The greenies don’t seem to have clued into adaptation. Maybe they’ll go extinct. In the words of Nassim Taleb, they are intellectual yet idiot.
They are like parrots with extremely large vocabularies… No original or critical thought, they just say what they’re told to.
The life cycle of the CO2 MEME:
It seems from recent Greenblob outpourings that this Meme is in the next phase of its life cycle, having morphed from Greenhouse Effect to Global Warming and then to Climate Change. I detect the next one emerging will be a piebald temperature soundbite based on the Paris predictions. Can’t home in on one myself. Any suggestions?
Perhaps?: 2degree crunch. or Degrees of fault, or maybe Hothouse Horror.
But none of these grab me. I just watch with interest and note it’s struggles to shed its skin.
As an aside; I am currently building on my little lathe a working model of a Stirling Engine driven fan, which used to be used fairly extensively in the days of nil electricity. Totally useless these days; but who knows perhaps could keep me cool when the wind packs up someday. I just love it’s political statement whereby fossil fuel drives the windturbine.
How about Anthropo-Genesys
Well I won’t be popular with them as tomorrow some nice men are coming to fit an AC unit at home, I was pleasently surprised at the price.
It is more for my wifes benefit as she has MS and the heat makes her symtoms worse but she will be at a much more comfortable temp.
James Bull
Not only temperatures that are more comfortable, more comfortable humidity, around 45% which is just perfect for humans and deadly to mould, fungus and mites, too.
Well it’s in and running, can hardly hear it and it’s good for Mrs Bull.
Will have to wait and see what the power consumption is like but I’ll probably go with it’s worth it and as a friend of mine used to say “Blow the expense give the cat a goldfish”
James Bull
The reality is that based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Hence sticking to the Paris Climate Agreement will have no effect on climate.
They deserve punishment just for that acronym.
Adhering to the Paris monstrosity would do nothing except make people poorer, which would in fact make both heat-related and especially cold-related deaths increase significantly. So they have it exactly backwards. As usual.
condintioning
should be
conditioning
The Paris agreement assumes/asserts the validity of the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. We should probably throw out this outlier belief and focus on development to to sustain and grow the population.
“Point: summer deaths can be avoided by sticking to Paris agreement Counterpoint: so would cheap electricity and air condintioning(sp)”
But one is a long term solution, the other not.
Don’t be ignorant.
Since CO2 is not going to cause dangerous warming why bother?
Heck, it still hasn’t caused measurable warming.
“But one is a long term solution, the other not.”
Because if the earth warms, we’re all going to toss our A/C’s into the bin in protest?
Cheap electricity and air conditioning IS the long term solution.
Long term solution to what problem? Can you define the “problem” that is not a hypothesis, conjecture or theory? Can you define the “problem” that is not based on corrupted input data or computer model?
I did’t think so!
Life expectancy has risen alongside CO2 and global average temperature.
In London, currently around 10 per cent of summers are free of any heat-related mortality
So, currently, 90% of summers ALREADY have heat related mortality. So they want to mitigate the extra 10%? Even if their presumed warming happened, the measures to mitigate heat related mortality would still be needed for the 90% and would cost very little extra to cover the additional 10% if it actually happens.
10% free of, LOL. So we have 90% of the problem. Weasel words.
I am wondering how they define ‘heat-related mortality’. I know London is relatively hotter than the rest of the UK but I don’t think we get extreme heat in nine summers out of ten. Even here in East Anglia.
No. There is a concept called increased levels of heat related mortality.
“…mortality due to high temperatures could be significantly reduced (15-22 per cent per summer) in London and Paris if we stabilise climate at the lower of the Paris Climate Goals, 1.5°C…”
Well let’s assume (incorrectly) that CAGW is real. If so, the Paris Accord, fully implemented, would not stop temperature rise, it would barely slow it. To stabilize temperatures at 1.5 degrees above LIA would take drastic cuts in emissions that are not required by the Accord, who’s real purpose is to transfer money and wealth from successful capitalist nations, especially the USA.
It seems the authors of the study are living in an alternate reality.
Just look what happens when you don’t have enough CO2!
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44628993
Hispanics adapted the the heat by taking afternoon siestas since for the last 2000 years or so