EPA U.S. Heat Wave, Heat & Cold Death Rate Data Exposes & Destroys Biden & Democrats “Extreme Heat” Propaganda

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

Biden and his climate alarmist Democrats have falsely claimed that increasing heat waves in the U.S. caused by climate change require that new government actions will be needed to protect people from heat related illnesses with these heat waves leading to increased heat related deaths and emergency room visits. 

The Democrats alarmists claims of increasing heat waves occurring across the U.S. because of climate change are unsupported by Biden’s own EPA data which shows that the U.S. in not experiencing increased occurrences or intensity of heat waves based on EPA’s 125 years of extreme heat event trending data across the U.S. from 1895 through 2020 as shown below.

Note EPA’s comment in the diagram – “These data cover the contiguous 48 states. An index value of 0.2 (for example) could mean that 20 percent of the country experienced one heat wave, 10 percent of the country experienced two heat waves, or some other combination of frequency and area resulted in this value”.

This EPA data showing that extreme heat waves are not increasing across the U.S. is further supported by NOAA’s contiguous U.S. temperature anomaly measurement data (Parameter: Maximum Temperature Anomaly: Time Scale: 1 Month; Month: All months) showing that the maximum U.S. measured temperature anomaly is not increasing and in fact has declined since the highest measured temperature anomaly months of January 2006 and March 2012 as shown below.

Additionally Democrats claims that increasing heat related death rates are occurring across the U.S. because of more heat waves (which has been shown to be false) are unsupported by EPA’s own data which shows that U.S. heat related death rates (underlying and contributing cause of death) are declining. (Note EPA’s comment in the diagram – “The blue line shows deaths for which heat was listed as either the underlying or contributing cause of death during the months from May to September, based on a broader set of data that became available in 1999″.)

Even more embarrassing to Biden and his climate alarmist Democrats is that EPA data shows that cold related deaths (underlying and contributing cause of death) are increasing as shown below. Furthermore, comparing the latest year EPA rates of heat and cold related deaths in the U.S. reveals that cold related deaths are nearly twice (5.5 deaths per million versus 2.9 deaths per million) that of heat related deaths.

Where is Biden’s and the Democrats “extreme cold” campaign to stop the increase in cold related death rates due to global warming?   

This EPA and NOAA data exposes and destroys the credibility of Biden, his Democrats and the incompetent and purely politically driven climate alarmist media that falsely and erroneously claim that the U.S. is experiencing increasing occurrences of heat waves and extreme temperatures and increasing rates of heat related deaths due to “climate change”.

This EPA and NOAA data also completely exposes how ridiculous and incompetent the efforts of the L A Times are (with its reporters trying to “adjust” official cause of death findings to manufacture higher heat related death rates) in attempting to manufacture “extreme heat” climate alarmist support for Biden and his Democrats scientifically unsupported (by his own EPA and NOAA data) political propaganda campaign as discussed above and as address in a prior WUWT article here.

4.6 37 votes
Article Rating
165 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ResourceGuy
October 12, 2021 10:07 am

I’m glad I got to see it before it got airbrushed from history.

n.n
Reply to  ResourceGuy
October 12, 2021 10:21 am

Adjusted, infilled, corrected, inferred, conforming and a diverse assortment of other euphemisms.

Vuk
Reply to  ResourceGuy
October 12, 2021 10:27 am

Don’t be so sure. BBC: ‘Adapt or die’ warning from UK watchdog“The apocalyptic tone is deliberately intended to startle governments, companies and communities into preparing for global warming effects such as higher sea levels and more extremes of rainfall and drought.

  • By the 2050s, peak river flows could be up 27% while summer flows could be down as much as 82%”

‘Learn to swim’ say I

n.n
Reply to  Vuk
October 12, 2021 11:19 am

Yes, as [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] global warming… climate cooling… warming… change ebbs and flows, rises and falls, cools and warms, changes and mutates identities with a fluid dynamic, it is only rational and reasonable that people who sincerely believe that they are at risk, should adopt personal adaption practices and equipment.

Last edited 1 month ago by n.n
griff
Reply to  Vuk
October 12, 2021 11:40 am

I suggest you look at the Met Office’s current state of the UK climate reports… UK already 6% wetter with more extreme rain events than 30 years ago (fact, not modelling!)

Vuk
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 11:48 am

Griffo
you need a new hat
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/OxfordRain1.gif

Last edited 1 month ago by Vuk
Philo
Reply to  Vuk
October 12, 2021 3:58 pm

Good job, Vuk. Griff seems to misunderstand the old saying “What Goes Up Must Come Down” .

AndyHce
Reply to  Vuk
October 12, 2021 10:02 pm

Is this a report of one specific place or about the entire country?

Robert Hanson
Reply to  AndyHce
October 13, 2021 1:49 pm

Yes, even though I don’t question the chart, some documentation would be nice. Measured where, by whom, and published by?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 12:22 pm

UK already 6% wetter with more extreme rain events than 30 years ago (fact, not modelling!)

6%! A whole 6%! We’re all going to die!

Or, it could be a rounding error, or is probably caused by the dramatic increase in bed-wetters like yourself.

Last edited 1 month ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
John Peter
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 13, 2021 1:21 am

That will be right. I remember that there were demands for more water reservoirs then. They used that dry period to justify building on flood plains and now they have the problems with flooding – man made, but not because of CO2 in the air.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 12:36 pm

If the vest the Met Office can manage with all its new rain gauges in remote wet places like he Honister Pass is 6% then nothing much is happening.

Geoffrey Williams
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 12:54 pm

6%? . . Clutching at straws I’d say . .

Oldseadog
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 12:55 pm

griff,
Please supply a link for this, I can’t find one.

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 1:18 pm

If you go back further than 30 years you find that your terrifying 6% of wetness evaporates.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 2:11 pm

Utter, utter BS.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 3:34 pm

I’ve asked you before Griff but, you still haven’t told us what the correct amount of rainfall is for the UK. How do I know if a 6% increase is more than the correct amount, or still less than the correct amount. Maybe it’s right on target? What makes “30 years ago” a standard baseline?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 4:14 pm

There is not lie so discredited, that griff won’t regurgitate it on cue.
1) 6% is less than the error bars on that data.
2) 30 years is half the AMO cycle, if there actually is any change, it’s more likely due to the AMO than it is CO2.

Herbert
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 8:23 pm

griff,
Amusing.
So when all those alarmists keep telling me in Australia that the planet is getting “warmer and drier”, I can tell them that there is “a far corner of a foreign field that is forever England” and which is warmer and 6% wetter.

n.n
Reply to  griff
October 13, 2021 10:41 am

Ah, the peat. The wetness of bogs that are native to the isles, the dry point events that are transitive, and the fogs that roll in on cue. Elementary.

J Mac
October 12, 2021 10:17 am

We are experiencing an extended political crisis, not a ‘climate’ crisis. The Biden regime is telling bald faced lies about ‘climate change’, denying illegal aliens are flooding our borders, over bearing energy regulations crippling our reliable energy supplies, ignoring the 100’s of Americans stranded by ignoramus Joe in Afghanistan, etc., ad nauseam. Feel free to add to the list.

Last edited 1 month ago by J Mac
n.n
Reply to  J Mac
October 12, 2021 10:22 am

A political climate (PC), social, in general, that is divergent from normal.

Reply to  J Mac
October 12, 2021 10:33 am

Joey flew in a large helicopter recently from Camp David to the White House to read a teleprompter speech and then fly back to Camp David. These big pols don’t give a crap about environment except to pretend they are “environmentalists”.

SxyxS
Reply to  Anti-griff
October 12, 2021 1:15 pm

Wait,you mean he wasn’t able to read the text his billionaire masters gave him at camp david?

Damned – It’s about time they install a TelePrompTer at his basem… Camp david.

Thomas Gasloli
Reply to  J Mac
October 12, 2021 11:37 am

Exactly. Facts have nothing to do with policy and Big Corp, Big Media, and Big Tech are all in on the lies. No institution is trustworthy, and no one is every held accountable for lies, incompetence, or negligence.

Philo
Reply to  J Mac
October 12, 2021 4:05 pm

Thanks J Mac. I feel compelled to apologize to all the US residents, and the people in in the UK for our current US government! Hardly an honest one among them. There are some decent Elected Senators and Representative in the US Congress, but many of the state governments are hopelessly locked into the Leftist realm.

Maybe we can fix that over the next couple of years.

bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 10:23 am

Thanks for showing us that the increase in temperature extremes – the trend that climatologists have actually been predicting – has been indisputably increasing US death rates since ~2000. This, in spite of better indoor climate control, increased affluence (but admittedly more income disparity).

Climate believer
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 10:32 am

LOL! let’s go Brandon!

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Climate believer
October 13, 2021 2:04 pm

Actually it’s never done like that. It’s more like this:
let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon!
let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon!
let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon!
let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon!
let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon!
let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon!
let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon!
let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon!
let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon!
let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon!
let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon!
let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon!
let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon!
let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon! let’s go Brandon!
and on and on, with feeling….
🙂

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 10:41 am

I guess you must be looking at different reports? Other than the step change discontinuity in both hot and cold death graphs around 2000, the heat death graph shows an overall flat or slight downward trend while cold shows up trend.

The heat wave trend is up slightly but only compared to the 50’s-80’s, an historical cool time.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
October 12, 2021 11:14 am

“Other than the step change discontinuity in both hot and cold death graphs around 2000…”

I bailed on the explain for the pre and post ’99 data. My carelessness.

Bigger pic, both these annual stats are, of course, prone to big, one time events. Just the Texas ERCOT gas to electric prep failure in February will raise the 2021 stats by quite a bit. And as a country, we are (or should be) doing more to counter these deaths, so even a flat line is unacceptable.  

What is unassailable is that both kinds of extremes have almost 40 years worth of statistically durable increase. If you can make the case that Biden is not prepping well enough for cold weather deaths, then he should do so.

Last edited 1 month ago by bigoilbob
n.n
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 12:51 pm

40 years of statistically significant anomalies. preceded by 40 years of statistically significant anomalies, which on a durable basis have a statistically negligible effect.

The ill-conceived transition from gas sourced and driven energy energy production to intermittent/renewable energy failure as primary and supplementary source.

Yes, planned projects, whether planned power (e.g. intermittent/renewables), or planned parent/hood a wicked solution with unprecedented consequences, are equally intolerable.

bigoilbob
Reply to  n.n
October 12, 2021 1:14 pm

40 years of statistically significant anomalies. preceded by 40 years of statistically significant anomalies, which on a durable basis have a statistically negligible effect.”

Nope. The 1940-1979 period was not the same. The increase in frequency of extreme temperature events was a vanishingly small 0.09%/year, with a standard error of that “trend” of 0.17%/year. Meaning that the “trend” was so tiny that there was a ~30% chance that it was flat/down, instead. Refreshing you, that same parameter for the 1980-present period was 0.43%.

Sing along with me. “One of these is not like the other…”.

Derg
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 1:20 pm

“extreme“ Skateboarding term

Matt K
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 1:23 pm

Increasing the price of gas by shutting down pipelines, etc , trying to rely on Wind and Solar power for heat in the winter. Trying to get rid of ICE cars and trucks. Creating supply shortages. All these things will increase cold related deaths.

PCman999
Reply to  Matt K
October 12, 2021 9:51 pm

They will also increase heat related deaths as the Climate Emergency imposed poverty will make it difficult to afford and run an air conditioner.

Robert Hanson
Reply to  PCman999
October 13, 2021 2:08 pm

Reports from Germany are that folks at the lowest income level are having to choose between their energy bills or groceries.

Tom Morrow
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 3:20 pm

40 years is a meaningless amount of time when it comes to actual changes to global climate of a 4 billion year old planet. Statistically, it is but a pimple on the butt of a blip, and means nothing, except to us who live during that particularly small global period of time.

Trying to extrapolate something meaningful from such a minuscule period of observed data is an exercise in silliness. Especially when the models fail spectacularly to match the observed data. [hint: that means they don’t fully understand the system, don’t know all the factors that influence the system, and that the science, far from being ‘settled’ is actually in its infancy].

Just sayin’…

bigoilbob
Reply to  Tom Morrow
October 12, 2021 3:30 pm

40 years is a meaningless amount of time when it comes to actual changes to global climate of a 4 billion year old planet.”

Nice and touchy feely, but irrelevant. No, we will ultimately survive AGW, and the planet will trend back towards natural forcings after the fossil fuel era.

But the point is, why we are screwing ourselves and our kids avoidably? 40 years (more often 30) during a physically significant time period is plenty long enough to assess the impacts of both natural and man made forcings. From these we can – yes – extrapolate a range of climactic outputs and trends from various forcing scenarios. Our emissions being amongst them. The benefits of rational changes are far greater than the minimal inconveniences of achieving them. Especially since carbon footprint closely correlates with wealth and income, so by paying their fair share they suffer hardly at all.

Matt K
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 3:35 pm

“Especially since carbon footprint closely correlates with wealth and income,”

That is exactly the point, We will all be POOR if we rely on wind and solar power.

Derg
Reply to  Matt K
October 12, 2021 3:54 pm

BigOil is anti human…he wants you to die so he live a luxurious life

Streetcred
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 9:16 pm

Crap. You and your kids are screwing their grandchildren’s future … by which time you’ll be long gone.

You will agree that CO2 is a “well mixed” gas ? So, by transferring emissions to China or India or anywhere else is doing exactly bugger all next to nothing. China’s emissions won’t start to level off for another 20 or more years and they are showing no signs other than propaganda of slowing down their industrial expansion.

That we need to transition to other forms of energy is not argued, but blaming it on CO2 from “fossil fuels” is plain BS.

Last edited 1 month ago by Streetcred
Pat from kerbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 9:16 pm

“ But the point is, why we are screwing ourselves and our kids avoidably?”

I keep asking that question but it really refers to the massive borrowing we are doing everywhere that will definitely negatively impact the future wellbeing of my kids, grandkids, etc.

As to CO2 I guess I’ll go with the IPCC that says we’ll only be 394% richer in 2100 instead of 400%.
Sure sounds like he!! To me
Right Bob?

PCman999
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 9:56 pm

You’ve been brainwashed. In spite of the fossil fuel extravaganza these past 200 years, the planet is cooler than it was in the time of Vikings or Ming Dynasty, or the time of the Roman Empire, or especially that of the Minoans. And certainly cooler than say 6000 BC when the Sahara was a forest.

PCman999
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 10:00 pm

CO2 is not a climate control knob, it is plant food.

The past 40 to 50 years has shown us definitively that the increasing CO2 has greened the whole world by about 15-20%

We owe it to our children and grandchildren, and even to our pet puppies and kittens to continue the CO2 fertilization, and the huge poverty reduction that the fossil fuel economy gives.

Tom Schaefer
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 11:23 am

bigoilbob is demonstrating gas lighting for those who can’t make out the graphs on their phones, won’t bother to read the text of this article, and/or are scanning through the comments for bias confirmation. I think there is a better than even chance his is paid to follow and comment on WUWT articles by a leftist think tank.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Tom Schaefer
October 12, 2021 11:45 am

bigoilbob is demonstrating gas lighting for those who can’t make out the graphs on their phones, won’t bother to read the text of this article, and/or are scanning through the comments for bias confirmation. “

Without any expansion on how I’m doing so. A hipper way of pointing and shouting “liar, liar”….

Lrp
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 10:58 am

By peddling garbage

meab
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 11:37 am

BigOilyBoob,

Temperature extremes are only increasing if you include cold extremes. You’re claiming that this was predicted but you’re cherry picking from just a few models (known to be faulty). Other models don’t predict this. Deaths are only increasing if you include cold related deaths. You’re claiming that this was predicted, but there was NO quantitative prediction of increasing deaths from cold that could be compared to actual deaths, NONE. An intentionally misleading statement like your statement rises to the level of an outright lie.

You’ve let on that you’re a brain-dead liberal. Increasing affluence is what allows more of the poor to afford heating and cooling. The increase in heating and cooling costs from Biden’s poorly thought out energy policies work in the opposite direction – they hurt the poor. Income disparity has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with whether the bulk of people can pay their bills. You alarmists continue to be a laughing stock.

bigoilbob
Reply to  meab
October 12, 2021 11:51 am

Temperature extremes are only increasing if you include cold extremes.”

Heat extreme event frequency, post 1980 has increased by ~2.43%/year, with a standard error of that trend of ~0.86%/year. The chance of that trend actually being flat/down is ~ 0.23%

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/us/01-12/1c

If you don’t know how to download the data and do the proper evaluation yourself, don’t beat yourself up. Most posters here don’t. Don’t be skeered to aks for hep.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 12:33 pm

BOB displays his swollen hat size.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
October 12, 2021 5:40 pm

Are you suggesting that he is from Texas? All hat and no horse(sense).

Citizen Smith
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 1:14 pm

You missed out on some cherries starting in 1980. 1940 could have been sweeter but wait, that doesn’t fit the narrative.

Seems that exposure deaths, both hot and cold should be adjusted for the huge increase in homeless people. And to be clear, homeless numbers are a direct result of government policy. Only government policy. There is no other entity to point blame at.

meab
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 10:52 pm

BigOilyBoob,

You obviously didn’t look at the very first figure in the original post. You do know that this figure was recently removed from the EPA’s web site because it didn’t fit the narrative. If you think the 30’s weren’t hotter than now, read “The Worst Hard Time” written by Timothy Egan in 2006. Actually read it, even the big words. If you think that book is a recent fabrication, read “The Grapes of Wrath” written by John Steinbeck in 1939. Learn something. Stop parroting the crap you get from the Climate Alarm Cabal.

PCman999
Reply to  meab
October 12, 2021 10:04 pm

I would argue that a lot of the increase in cold related deaths has to do with the wealth reduction plans of various governments under the guise of “saving the environment”.

Forrest
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 12:42 pm

<sigh> Please send over the ‘real’ report.

Also there is more income disparity but the poor are richer than what they were. So let me ask you a question. If the average poor person makes $30,000.00 per year but 100 people make a billion is that better than no-one making a billion dollars the poor making on average $20,000.00 per year?

Income disparity DOES NOT MATTER. Unless you have wealth envy in which case it does.

P.S. one person making a BILLION a year translates to $about $75.00 per household. ALSO this is not in income but typically in wealth as the VALUE of the things they created go up in value not the amount of money they actually make.

Seriously, who taught you economics? I want to give them a serious scolding.

Derg
Reply to  Forrest
October 12, 2021 1:23 pm

BigOil wants us to be poor but not him. He wants all that fossil fuels provide and make the deplorables poop in the street.

He is anti human

bigoilbob
Reply to  Forrest
October 12, 2021 3:11 pm

 Please send over the ‘real’ report.”

NO clue what you are referencing. Are you on the right thread? I scrolled back and have NO idea what you are referencing in this particular rant. Certainly none of my comments.

Unless you have grabbed onto my parenthetic comment about income disparity. It had nada to do with any of my points, and I just included it to fend off any “BBUUUTTT” point free rejoinders.

No wealth envy here. I am happy with any private jet setters who are willing to pay for the FULL costs of their fuel.

But since you carried on about it, income disparity in and of itself is no problem. It’s usual causes are. System gaming (per 2017 tax law), no/little taxation of the INCOME that is inherited wealth, educational disparities, all are corrosive for American society.

Emory
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 13, 2021 5:13 am

“no/little taxation of the INCOME that is inherited wealth”
You are not entitled to the fruits of my labor and what I pass along to future generations. Sadly, without context, you sound very envious. The root of your issue is you want the same who created this tax law to fix it again. Lobbyists are responsible for over 96% of legislation. Recycling pols from both sides of the same coin won’t fix your issues.

Lrp
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 14, 2021 11:07 am

Inherited wealth has been taxed already; why should you want to tax it again?

bigoilbob
Reply to  Lrp
October 14, 2021 11:30 am

Money is taxed whenever it changes hands. I.e. “again” and “again”. That’s why we call it income. Why should the unearned income from inheritance be treated any differently? Especially when the cost of necessary government functions correlates so closely with monetary velocity. And because inherited wealth is actually corrosive to our society.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/01/30/wealth-inheritance-and-social-mobility/

It’s no coincidence that most Western European countries with the highest estate and inheritance taxes are also those with the highest rate of economic mobility. I.e. they are the countries where it’s easiest to get ahead, which is a goal of an egalitarian society….

https://taxfoundation.org/estate-taxes-inheritance-taxes-in-europe-2020/

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Forrest
October 12, 2021 5:49 pm

Have you noticed that a lot of the ‘poor’ illegal aliens flooding our southern border have smartphones and the wherewithal to pay for the monthly carrier charges? Sometimes ‘wealth’ expresses personal choices about priorities, and may help explain why some have fewer options after making choices about what to spend their limited resources on.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Forrest
October 12, 2021 10:24 pm

Forrest,
The BigOilyBlob is a committed Marxist! He doesn’t believe in economics; only what his dear leaders tell him to think!
That’s why trying to educate him about REAL science, like geology, is so futile! He doesn’t believe in any science that can’t be squeezed into his Marxist religious beliefs like a contortionist into a suitcase!

Derg
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 1:19 pm

Be careful of your neighbors spewing CO2 your way 😉

DrEd
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 2:10 pm

Bullshit.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 4:22 pm

1) It’s been warming since 1850. For the first 100 years of that warming, CO2 could not have been a factor. The warming over the last 70 years is the same as the first 100 years.
2) “climatologists” have been predicting over 3 times more warming than has actually occurred.
3) There is no evidence that there are more heat deaths since 2000, or any other times.
4) Around the world, the thing drives income inequality is government. The bigger, more powerful a government gets, the greater income inequality gets.

Dean
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 13, 2021 12:24 am

So what is your explanation of the higher number of temperature extremes in the first half of the previous century?

How could there be those extremes with lower levels of CO2?

Robert Hanson
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 13, 2021 2:00 pm

more income disparity” means if the rich get 20% richer, and the poor only get 15% richer, there is more “income disparity” (sic). But trust me the poor will take their increased income. Which of course purposely neglects the increased government handouts that make them “progressively” better off. Special unemployment payments, new child credits, etc, etc, are never included in the reports.

Grant
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 13, 2021 7:40 pm

In the same period, cold death which far outnumber heat deaths have fallen dramatically, saving about with a net of 150,000 saved each year world wide.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Grant
October 14, 2021 4:24 am

True. As I said before, exponentially improved responses to more weather extremes. Both extreme heat and cold events.

Now, if we could just get Abbott and ERCOT do do their jobs and gird up the Texas natural gas to electric infrastructure, along with some semblance of interconnection, the risk of losing hundreds of Texans and hundreds of billions of Texas dollars would fall precipitously…

October 12, 2021 10:25 am

In UK the difference is even starker, something like 9:1 cold to hot deaths (in Koonin’s rebuttal of ‘fact’ checkers). Activist EPA clearly cooked up a 2:1 cold to hot death ratio. Still…

PCman999
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 12, 2021 10:09 pm

Britain’s more heavily taxed and regulated, and the population probably older (a guess there), so less able to adapt to the cold. Canada and northern States export their aged to Florida and Arizona, helping to reduce cold related deaths.

October 12, 2021 10:26 am

Crazy Joey Biden’s credibility cannot be destroyed…he has never had any…he is unaware what planet he is living upon.

Vuk
Reply to  Anti-griff
October 12, 2021 12:27 pm

Joe Biden: “My grandfather was was an old man called Michael Finnegan,
He grew fat and then grew thin again. Then he died and had to begin again. Poor old Michael Finnegan….. I think he made that up”.

Philo
Reply to  Vuk
October 12, 2021 4:28 pm

No, like most of Biden’s little teasers, My grandfather is based on English lore, limericks, and children’s poems.

Rod Evans
October 12, 2021 10:30 am

Have the EPA offered any explanation for the suspicious jump in heat related deaths /million that happened between 1998 and 1999? There was a clear downward trend unto that point with about 0.7 deaths/million in 1998 jumping to about 2.1 deaths/million just one year later? Then, there is a definite downward trend thereafter all be it at a higher base level virtually the same decline rate as before the jump?

Pat from Kerbob
October 12, 2021 10:32 am

Actually, i do expect to see an increase in heat related deaths in the USA, California in particular.
But these deaths will be related to climate change POLICY and the rolling blackouts caused by reliance on RE leading to loss of air conditioning when its most needed. Look especially for an uptick in older and generally unhealthy individuals. Correlate uptick in death to loss of power.

Need to keep a close eye out for that

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
October 12, 2021 10:39 am

Some of those deaths will be caused by the IC engine edict: Heart attacks due to chopping the tall grass with machetes….

SxyxS
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
October 12, 2021 1:26 pm

The only way they can fake increase is the standard trick

Using 1978/79 as starting points ,as they do with arctic ice extent (by lying to people that there was no satellite data before 1979, but spmehow there is ozone satellite data since at least 1969 and the ozone holes are straight above the arctics and arctic satellite goes back to 1966 ).
So if we use the coldest year on record as starting point + some data adjusments we may get a warming / + heat victim etc trend.

DrEd
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
October 12, 2021 2:19 pm

So much depends on who defines “hear related deaths” and has that changed? Probably.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  DrEd
October 12, 2021 9:21 pm

The people who scream heat related deaths will scream
Just need to look at waves of deaths if they occur and see if they occur in conjunction with rolling blackouts
Especially the poor and elderly, those unlikely to afford emergency generators

RobR
October 12, 2021 11:01 am

Note the flatline in the first graph from 1956-1980. This period coincides with the “We may be entering an ice age” scare that was roundly entertained by the media and the majority of Climate Scientists.

The current crop of doomsayers want us to believe only a small minority supported the ice age meme. This is rubbish, and the esteemed Dr. Hubert Lamb often weighed in on the subject.

Ron Long
Reply to  RobR
October 12, 2021 11:42 am

I like that “entering a glacial epoch” event leading into the early 1970’s. The other big event is the “Dust Bowl Years”, the 1930’s. I wonder how the CAGW crowd reconciles both of them, ie, how extreme normal events of cold and heat can be explained?

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Ron Long
October 12, 2021 2:12 pm

Just adjust them away, nothing to see here. This is not the data you are looking for….

Petit_Barde
October 12, 2021 11:04 am

Ya but, in the new Normal, aren’t Heat Waves the cause of Cold Snaps ?

SxyxS
Reply to  Petit_Barde
October 12, 2021 11:23 am

Well ,before the new normal 10 days with 27 degrees Celsius were not considered a heatwave but since the new normal 26 degrees for 3 days are a heatwave,an unprecedented record breaking one.

Mr.
Reply to  SxyxS
October 12, 2021 1:49 pm

If I had 26 C for 3 days all I’d be saying is –
“what a beautiful spring / summer / autumn spell of weather”

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  SxyxS
October 12, 2021 9:25 pm

It’s a “heat dome”, you have to have $100 words to succeed in sales, and this is definitely sales.
Of course a heat dome is simply a summer high pressure system (hot no wind), similar to a “polar vortex”, a winter height pressure (cold with no wind). Like in Texas.

So when you needed it the most, summer or winter, wind goes AWOL

The very definition of useless

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 12, 2021 11:20 am

Climate alarmists are not interested in data. Facts are just a social construct. With this delusion comes the assertion that we are sitting at the same table as the good Lord, that we can control the climate. It’s the ultimate decadence a society indulges in before it collapses. Look it up in Genesis, that story about the building of a tower reaching for the sky.

griff
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 12, 2021 11:38 am

climate science is all about data!

Data which, from observation, demonstrates climate change is a reality.

Alan Millar
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 12:04 pm

Hi Griff

I keep giving you data and you keep refusing to reply. I think I know why.

You have not answered my previous posts, so here it is again. Indeed I might post it after each of your comments until you do reply.
Might be good for you to realise that each time someone reads your posts they get to see this at the same time…………………………….

“I can see that you are fond of deferring to ‘authority’, obviously this saves you the trouble of doing some logical thinking for yourself.

Let’s just review the situation, CO2 has been increasing and temperatures have been rising, there is a recognised mechanism for this, the Greenhouse Effect. I accept that, all other things being equal, a rise in CO2 leads to higher radiative forcing on the Earth and therefore higher temperatures.
However, this depends on ‘all other things being equal’. So have they been? A pretty key question don’t you think?

What is the main component of the Greenhouse Effect? Well that is overwhelmingly water vapour. CO2 is only a minor player compared to this.
So you would think any scientist worth his salt would have looked at trends in atmospheric water vapour over the so called problem period. I think that would be hard to disagree with, what do you think?

Well if you bother to look at such a thing some scientists have looked at it. Also and this is right up your deferring to authority strasse, it is the World Metrological Organisation, through their Global Atmosphere Watch programme.
Mind you, it seems very few other scientists have been minded to look at atmospheric water vapour, probably because of this statement in the report.
…………………….

“It is impossible for us to control directly the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere since water is found everywhere on our planet – it covers 71% of Earth’s surface.”
……………………………………..

Not much money to be made studying something we have no control over is there?
So what did they find has been happening to water vapour over the so called problem period?
………………………………

“Research has found that a 10% decrease in stratospheric water vapour between 2000 and 2009 acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over this time period”
” More data suggest that stratospheric water vapour probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s. These findings show that stratospheric water vapour is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.”
………………………….

They also say.
………………………………..

“A recent study showed that reanalysis data on high-altitude atmospheric water vapour, critical for the greenhouse effect, are not as accurate as previously thought. Water vapour data for the UTLS region from these reanalysis data sets have been compared to water vapour data from the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) on the AURA satellite. These satellite data have not been used in the production of these reanalysis, so they represent an independent data set well suited for validation. The study found that the reanalyses differed quite a lot from the MLS observations, overestimating the annual global mean water vapour in the upper troposphere by about 150%”
…………………………………

Oh dear, what does this mean for the modellers who have been plugging this data into their models?
The report states……..

………………………………

“More accurate data with better geographical coverage is needed. The observed temporal trends in stratospheric water vapour are poorly understood and this demonstrates our lack of understanding of how water vapour enters the stratosphere.”
……………………………………………

Oh dear again! To finally put the cherry on the cake.
……………………………

“The models that are used to predict future climate use reanalysis data to verify that the current climate is modelled correctly. The lack of accurate water vapour data in the important UTLS region will therefore limit the ability of these models to predict future climate.”
…………………………………

Of course the WMO couldn’t help themselves when they said…………

“Research has found that a 10% decrease in stratospheric water vapour between 2000 and 2009 acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over this time period”

What they should have said, of course, is that ‘CO2 rose and water vapour fell and temperatures decreased’.

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2009/compress:12/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2009/trend

Best not to set the sheeple thinking, eh Griff?

So what do you think Griff? (do you think or are you currently going La La La in your head.)

I bet you wish you could claim that atmospheric water vapour and atmospheric CO2 are in lockstep with each other but the report kiboshes that as it states water vapour fell between 2000 and 2009 whilst CO2 continued its upward march, so there is no lockstep relationship between CO2 and water vapour they can alter independently of each other.
So what do you think Griff?

Water vapour rose and temperatures increased and CO2 rose at the same time. Water vapour fell and CO2 rose and temperatures fell.
Given that water vapour is by far the stronger of the two in the greenhouse effect which would you think was responsible for the vast majority of the temperature rise?
Care to give an opinion based on logic not faith?

Now this might involve thinking for yourself, alternatively you can just defer to authority and accept the WMO report, which completely undermines any reliance you can put on the model predictions.

https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/observing-water-vapour

Mr.
Reply to  Alan Millar
October 12, 2021 12:43 pm

Griff responds to informative questions just like Joe Biden does –

“They told me I’m not supposed to take any questions”

Which, in every meaningful way, is all the answer you need.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mr.
October 12, 2021 7:37 pm

Can you imagine a real mam like President Trump saying ““They told me I’m not supposed to take any questions””

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Alan Millar
October 12, 2021 1:29 pm

“I bet you wish you could claim that atmospheric water vapour and atmospheric CO2 are in lockstep with each other but the report kiboshes that as it states water vapour fell between 2000 and 2009 whilst CO2 continued its upward march, so there is no lockstep relationship between CO2 and water vapour they can alter independently of each other.
So what do you think Griff?”

Don’t know – but I tell you what I think ….

comment image

It did (above Boulder Col).

Increased WV in the upper atmosphere acts to cool that region and conversely warm the lower troposphere – so a reduction in it will act to suppress warming from other causes.

There are influences on the GMST other than the steadily increasing radiative forcing of CO2.
Ever noticed that peeps here are inordinately keen on La Ninas?
Maybe even you.
I wonder why that is?

Meaningless in terms of a climatic trend anyway of course, but this shows GMST vs ENSO/PDO.

comment image

Notice the big El Niño event late 1990’s?
Followed by a lengthy -ve PDO/ENSO.

And of course WV and CO2 “can act independently of each other”.
CO2 is increasing at around 2-3 ppm annually.
A small percentage increase – whereas WV  is massively influenced by ENSO. Just look at the UAH/RSS data as satellite radiometers are very sensitive to WV.
Notice the massive leaps in computed temp in an EN?
That is what produces the large natural variation in atmospheric WV. Caused by the large sensible and latent heat transport aloft convectively during an EN.

That’s why denizens, really, really luurve La Nina’s and why the period 2000-2009 that you think will scuttle 150 years of climate science … doesn’t.

Alan Millar
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 12, 2021 2:48 pm

What question were you answering, it certainly wasn’t the one I posed.

Put simply Water Vapour is by far the stronger greenhouse gas compared to CO2. Are you disagreeing? Obviously not.

From 1980 to 2000 water vapour rose and so did temperatures. CO2 rose as well.

From 2000-2009 water vapour fell and temperatures fell notwithstanding CO2 continued its strong climb.

What, logically, would you say was causing the temperature changes from 1980 to 2009, water vapour or CO2?

Then, what do you think about the WMO declaring that the modellers have been using the incorrect data in their models and that overall, until we have a much better data on quantity and on the mechanisms of how water vapour gets into the higher atmosphere, that the models cannot be relied upon to be accurate?

PCman999
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 12, 2021 10:41 pm

When you say climate science, it seems to mean real science, taking in all kinds of variables like ENSO and PDO and water vapour. Good. When government and media talk about “climate science” they mean that Lysenko-like cult that only believes in CO2.

WV is supposed to run out of control due to increasing warming due to increasing CO2. Yet your own graph shows Boulder barely affected compared to the big change in CO2 over that time frame – and that’s probably because temps have hardly changed compared to say 1998, or even 1940, or even 1040 or what the heck, AD40.

But even if you won’t listen to reason, and you have the mantra of “CO2 causes warming” drilled into your head, take solace in the fact that the increased heating will cause increased evaporation leading to more clouds, which will BLOCK further heating. This happens regularly in an extreme example in the tropics – the ocean heats up steadily up to about 30°C and then levels off as increased cloud cover and tropical storms block solar input.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 12:31 pm

climate science is all about data!

Says the kook who is always banging on about what models predict.

Climate Scientology only likes data when it had been abused and tortured enough to say exactly what it wants data to say.

Derg
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 1:25 pm

climate change is a reality 😉

Odd coming from a science denier

Abolition Man
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 1:41 pm

griffter,
Please, oh please, tell us just WHEN you are going to come out and condemn the killing of additional people from energy poverty due to idiotic climate policy!? You continue to push RE despite the failures already obvious in Germany, England and Commifornia!
I know that it is difficult for you to conceive of a time before you were born, much less the broad sweep of geologic history, but could you please explain why you’re upset about the current mild warming cycle when the planet has been locked in a 50,000,000 year COOLING TREND!? Do you believe that geology and the Eocene Thermal Maximum are just heretical ideas that must be erased!?
You KNOW that at least 10X as many people die from cold as from heat, yet you continue to bloviate about extreme heat! It sounds like a small Canadian child throwing a tantrum over having to take a winter trip to Disneyworld in Florida!

Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 1:43 pm

griffter…try to pay attention….everyone knows climate changes…the next change is likely a return to Little Ice Age temps…are you ready?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 4:39 pm

Says the guy who proclaims that anytime something is different from last year, that’s proof of global warming.

PCman999
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 10:23 pm

Yes, and our climate is too cold when compared to the time of civilization’s peaks like the Middle Ages/Ming Dynasty, Roman Empire, Minoan period. Certainly colder than the past 200 million years when most of the time the world was up to 10°C warmer, yet the world was teeming with life even at the poles.

Only an insane maniac would prefer a colder world.

Think of the children!

n.n
October 12, 2021 11:23 am

Point events that are observable over hours, days, weeks, but not discernible in the physical record, nor inferred through proxies in absentia, which forces a social contagion effect that is amplified by special and peculiar interests with a hope and dream of redistributive change and lowered expectations. That is to say a consolidation of capital and control under a democratic/dictatorial/monopolistic regime with a religious (i.e. moral, its relativistic sibling ethical, and politically congruent cousin legal) fervor.

Last edited 1 month ago by n.n
Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  n.n
October 12, 2021 12:33 pm

That’s impressive gobbledygook. Sir Humphrey would be impressed. Have you ever considered a career in politics?

Last edited 1 month ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
n.n
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 12, 2021 12:38 pm

Where do you disagree? Point events, proxies, natural vs social contagion driven disasters, special and peculiar interests, or religious/behavioral protocols?

Last edited 1 month ago by n.n
Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  n.n
October 12, 2021 1:12 pm

No, no. I was merely remarking on the impressive level of waffliness. And all of that in just two sentences, too!

Last edited 1 month ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
MarkW
Reply to  n.n
October 12, 2021 4:43 pm

Since you never came to a point, what is there to disagree with?

PCman999
Reply to  n.n
October 12, 2021 10:45 pm

How can anyone agree or disagree with what you said when you haven’t really said anything.

MarkW
Reply to  n.n
October 12, 2021 4:43 pm

A lot of words without ever once, making a point.
That takes skill.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
October 12, 2021 5:59 pm

The makings of a politician!

Duane
October 12, 2021 11:25 am

It is more than interesting that the biggest decade for extreme heat waves was in the 1930s, the “dust bowl days”.

Just think, in the 1930s, nobody drove any SUVs, being the depression years few people could afford to own and drive any vehicle at all, and economic activity all over the world was greatly depressed by the worldwide Great Depression. As big as the armies of Hitler and Stalin were in those days during the runup to WW Two, most of their hauling was done in horse drawn carts and wagons, not trucks. Much of the USA still had not been electrified in the 1930s, and huge areas of the world had little to no electrical power at all, such as China, the Soviet Union, Africa, Latin America, central and western Asia.

So where was the carbon effect on heat waves 90 years ago?

bigoilbob
Reply to  Duane
October 12, 2021 12:45 pm

As with AGW, the dust bowl was predominantly man made.

https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/dust-bowl

aussiecol
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 1:23 pm

Lol. Caused by drought. A natural weather event.

Derg
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 1:26 pm

Yep and so were the temps 😉

Duane
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 2:55 pm

The fact that dust was readily transported by winds was caused by ag practices of the day. But the extreme heat and dryness were obviously NOT caused by man or by CO2. And that is what precipitated the dust bowlZ

bigoilbob
Reply to  Duane
October 12, 2021 3:18 pm

Nope. To all:

However, SSTs alone do not suffice as an explanation. Without land-surface coupling an atmospheric model did not reproduce a strong drought…”

https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.522

But to an actual, relevant point. Even if you had a combo of natural forcings that caused an extreme weather event (the ’30’s NOT being such an example) that doesn’t let us off the hook for ours. It’s like saying that, “Because almost everyone who ever lived is dead, why do we have these burdensome regulations on murder?”

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 4:45 pm

Now that’s funny. Using models to try and prove weather events.

PCman999
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 10:48 pm

Poor farming techniques had nothing to due with the heat during the 30’s

griff
October 12, 2021 11:35 am

And 2021? 6 heatwaves in US/Canada in 2021, one setting new records…

(And just look at the number and intensity of heatwaves round the world this year)

Alan Millar
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 12:16 pm

Hi Griff

Here is more data for you to actually use your brain on.

https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

It records all deaths resulting from natural disasters, floods, droughts, extreme weather, extreme temperatures, wild fires etc

As you can see the number of deaths have been on a severe downward trend over the past 100 years or so. A time when the human population has exploded and surely floods, hurricanes, fires, landslides etc would kill far more people even if their frequency had remained the same.

So tell us Griff how can these natural disasters have increased significantly whilst deaths resulting from them have collapsed?

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Alan Millar
October 12, 2021 12:31 pm

As you can see the number of deaths have been on a severe downward trend over the past 100 years or so.”
”So tell us Griff how can these natural disasters have increased significantly whilst deaths resulting from them have collapsed?”

So it’s got nothing to do with living standards?
IE Infrastructure allowing easier movement of emergency services and transport to hospital.
Medical services/treatments
Improved insulation in homes.
A/C in rich countries.

in short it is a multi-variate issue and you can’t isolate the weather from the time-period.

Alan Millar
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 12, 2021 12:49 pm

Living standards stop you drowning in a flood, being buried in a landslide, burning to death do they?

The trend is downwards from 1980.

If you think it is all about living standards and man’s ability to mitigate climate disasters, then going forward it should be all about improving economies.
We would have shown that we can completely overturn any adverse effects from climate change, not just keep the status quo but collapse the number of deaths arising from all the things that are supposed to be a disaster for humans, severe weather, floods, drought, extreme temperatures etc.

Forget diverting trillions away from improving and growing economies to just change our energy sources.
Instead continue as we have been and continue to crush any adverse outcomes arising from so called climate change.

If what you say is true, about living standards, then any change that would lead to a reduction, or even a reduction in the rate of increase of Man’s living standards, would lead to a massive increase in deaths.

What do you think?

Mr.
Reply to  Alan Millar
October 12, 2021 2:03 pm

If I may venture my observation Alan, it is this –

All the notions of “sustainability” of environments (incl the planet’s 30+ climates) are unachievable unless nations’ economies and financial balances are firstly “sustainable”.

All the well-meaning plans of hand-wringers mean squat if there’s bugger all in the national kitty to pay for activities and materials.

Any small business operator with clever, well-researched plans will tell you –
nothing can happen unless you can come up with the dough.

Lrp
Reply to  Alan Millar
October 14, 2021 11:29 am

Bartons don’t think. Logic is not his strong suit.

aussiecol
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 12, 2021 1:27 pm

”So it’s got nothing to do with living standards?”

Yes Anthony, an improvement all brought about by fossil fuels.

garboard
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 12:19 pm

in 1936 13 states set all time high temperature records that still stand today !. in 2021 no new state all time heat records were recorded . in the 30’s 23 all time state high temperature records were set that are still standing . it is either a joke or fraud that noaa claimed 2021 the all time hottest summer . no where even close to the nationwide 3 month long heat wave of 1936 . they just assume they can lie with impunity when it comes to climate change apparently .

n.n
Reply to  garboard
October 12, 2021 1:52 pm

The record high temperatures in the early 20th century were unlikely to be anthropogenic, but the response and sustained volatility until and including the great reset (WWII) was.

Last edited 1 month ago by n.n
Mr.
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 12:47 pm

Cliff Mass provided evidence that even if we allow 2F for global warming since records began in the Pacific NW, the June heatwave would STILL have provided records temps in most affected areas.

Natural variability wins out again as the dominant player.

Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 1:59 pm

griffter…how about that new record cold temp in Antarctica? Every year there is a new record some where…so what? Of course if there were accurate records going back tens of thousands of years, there would be fewer records being recorded now because almost all areas have had colder and hotter temps some time in the past.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 2:18 pm

More utter, utter BS.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
October 12, 2021 6:02 pm

If you called it “udder BS,” then it would be an oxymoron.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 3:33 pm

“And 2021? 6 heatwaves in US/Canada in 2021, one setting new records”

Heatwaves happen every year in the US/Canada. Nothing to see here. Griff.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 3:54 pm

Same question Griff, what is the correct number of heatwaves and the correct intensity for the world? If it is more than in the past, which is wrong, now, or the past? What is your standard and why should I believe you?

MarkW
Reply to  griff
October 12, 2021 4:46 pm

In griff’s world, prior to evil CO2, heat waves never happened.

TonyG
Reply to  griff
October 13, 2021 9:01 am

How many heatwaves SHOULD there be per year, griff?

bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 11:43 am

The Democrats alarmists claims of increasing heat waves occurring across the U.S. because of climate change are unsupported by Biden’s own EPA data which shows that the U.S. in not experiencing increased occurrences or intensity of heat waves based on EPA’s 125 years of extreme heat event trending data across the U.S. from 1895 through 2020 as shown below.”

Not even a clever deflection. The linked EPA sites show trends trans modern warming. I.e. around and since the end of the aerosol era. Just eyeballing them is confirmative of the upward trend. They are backed up by the data on extreme weather frequencies. Since 1980, the change in the frequency of max temp extreme events has risen by 0.60%/year, with a standard deviation of 0.23%/year. There is a ~0.43% chance that the trend is, in fact, flat or down.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/us/01-12/1c

But the justifying reference in the post is to 125 years worth of “trending” data, which is meaningless w.r.t. the subject at hand.

Alan Millar
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 12:20 pm

So you like data, just like Griff. So have a go at us telling us why the data is telling us this?

https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters

It records all deaths resulting from natural disasters, floods, droughts, extreme weather, extreme temperatures, wild fires etc

As you can see the number of deaths have been on a severe downward trend over the past 100 years or so, or even a clear downward trend since 1980 if you will.

A time when the human population has exploded and surely floods, hurricanes, fires, landslides etc would kill far more people even if their frequency had remained the same.

So tell us how can these natural disasters have increased significantly whilst deaths resulting from them have collapsed?

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Alan Millar
October 12, 2021 12:32 pm

As my post above.

Alan Millar
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 12, 2021 12:56 pm

And my follow up.

Oh by the way, how about you have a go in answering my posts to Griff, he seems reluctant.

“Let’s just review the situation, CO2 has been increasing and temperatures have been rising, there is a recognised mechanism for this, the Greenhouse Effect.
I accept that, all other things being equal, a rise in CO2 leads to higher radiative forcing on the Earth and therefore higher temperatures.
However, this depends on ‘all other things being equal’.
So have they been? A pretty key question don’t you think?

What is the main component of the Greenhouse Effect? Well that is overwhelmingly water vapour. CO2 is only a minor player compared to this.
So you would think any scientist worth his salt would have looked at trends in atmospheric water vapour over the so called problem period. I think that would be hard to disagree with, what do you think?

Well if you bother to look at such a thing there is some data and information out there.
Also and this is right up your deferring to authority strasse, it is the World Metrological Organisation, through their Global Atmosphere Watch programme.

Mind you, it seems very few other scientists have been minded to look at atmospheric water vapour, probably because of this statement in the report.
…………………….

“It is impossible for us to control directly the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere since water is found everywhere on our planet – it covers 71% of Earth’s surface.”
……………………………………..

Not much money to be made studying something we have no control over is there?

So what did they find has been happening to water vapour over the so called problem period?
………………………………

“Research has found that a 10% decrease in stratospheric water vapour between 2000 and 2009 acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over this time period”

” More data suggest that stratospheric water vapour probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s. These findings show that stratospheric water vapour is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.”
………………………….

They also say.
………………………………..

“A recent study showed that reanalysis data on high-altitude atmospheric water vapour, critical for the greenhouse effect, are not as accurate as previously thought. Water vapour data for the UTLS region from these reanalysis data sets have been compared to water vapour data from the Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) on the AURA satellite. These satellite data have not been used in the production of these reanalysis, so they represent an independent data set well suited for validation. The study found that the reanalyses differed quite a lot from the MLS observations, overestimating the annual global mean water vapour in the upper troposphere by about 150%”
…………………………………

Oh dear, what does this mean for the modellers who have been plugging this data into their models?
The report states……..

………………………………

“More accurate data with better geographical coverage is needed. The observed temporal trends in stratospheric water vapour are poorly understood and this demonstrates our lack of understanding of how water vapour enters the stratosphere.”
……………………………………………

Oh dear again! To finally put the cherry on the cake.

……………………………

“The models that are used to predict future climate use reanalysis data to verify that the current climate is modelled correctly. The lack of accurate water vapour data in the important UTLS region will therefore limit the ability of these models to predict future climate.”
…………………………………

Of course the WMO couldn’t help themselves when they said…………
“Research has found that a 10% decrease in stratospheric water vapour between 2000 and 2009 acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over this time period”.

What they should have said, of course, is that ‘CO2 rose and water vapour fell and temperatures decreased’.

https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2009/compress:12/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2009/trend

Best not to set the sheeple thinking, eh?

So what do you think

I bet you wish you could claim that atmospheric water vapour and atmospheric CO2 are in lockstep with each other but the report kiboshes that as it states water vapour fell between 2000 and 2009 whilst CO2 continued its upward march, so there is no lockstep relationship between CO2 and water vapour they can alter independently of each other.

Water vapour rose and temperatures increased and CO2 rose at the same time.

Water vapour fell and CO2 rose and temperatures fell.

Given that water vapour is by far the stronger of the two in the greenhouse effect which would you think was responsible for the vast majority of the temperature rise?

Care to give an opinion based on logic not faith?

Now this might involve thinking for yourself, alternatively you can just defer to authority and accept the WMO report, which completely undermines any reliance you can put on the model predictions.

https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/observing-water-vapour

bigoilbob
Reply to  Alan Millar
October 12, 2021 12:38 pm

So tell us how can these natural disasters have increased significantly whilst deaths resulting from them have collapsed?”

Several reasons come to mind, but goal posts in motion, as expected. My critique was of the bogus claim that the frequency of extreme temp events has not increased. Since 1980, the period of modern warming, along with that of increased atmospheric [CO2] for which Biden was probably referring, there is an over 99.5% chance that it has. Do you have any data based critique that counters my (relevant) data based rebut?

Alan Millar
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 1:12 pm

No, I have not looked at it and will accept you are correct for the period since 1980. Though why you would not consider the fact that this period has less extreme events than similar periods well prior to that and indeed prior to the growth in CO2 emissions, I am not clear.

Are you claiming there is a difference in the cause of the prior heat events? If so please let us know and give the actual specifics with data.

Also have a go with the reasons why there has been a collapse in natural disaster related deaths, concurrent with an alleged huge increase in the number of these events, all of which are impacting on a much enlarged and crowded population?

bigoilbob
Reply to  Alan Millar
October 12, 2021 1:23 pm

Are you claiming there is a difference in the cause of the prior heat events?”

Well the ’30’s events were certainly man made. Which other “prior heat events” do you have in mind?

“Also have a go with the reasons why there has been a collapse in natural disaster related deaths, concurrent with an alleged huge increase in the number of these events, all of which are impacting on a much enlarged and crowded population?”

You forgot the part about how our response to these events has been transformative over these same periods. Kind of channels those who equate a hot house response to increased [CO2] with increases in post WW2 ag yields. They space on the inconvenient, concurrent ag revolution….

Derg
Reply to  Alan Millar
October 12, 2021 1:31 pm

All the CO2 prior to 1980 started an attack in 1980 and we have been suffering from extremes and evahs ever since 😉

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 12:37 pm

around and since the end of the aerosol era

And now we’re firmly into an era that is named very similarly, but different…

Mr.
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 12:52 pm

What would the reports look like if only rural, unadjusted actual temps measurements over the past say 100 years look like?

(my cherries are just as appetizing as yours, BoB)

bigoilbob
Reply to  Mr.
October 12, 2021 1:16 pm

More goal posts in motion. In this case, the reliable oldie, the fact free whining about “adjustments”. With a twist that only rural temps are valid. Kind of like the electoral college…

Mr.
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 2:09 pm

Do you take coaching in dialogue skills from the same crew that manages Joe Biden?

Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 2:26 pm

There are zero record temps during the last centuries anywhere. Every part of the earth has experienced both hotter and colder temps than today. There are crocodile fossils and tree stumps near the arctic circle…the entire earth was once..twice….”Snowball” Earth…completely covered in ice. As the sun runs out of fuel, the earth will again set record hot temps…really hot.

n.n
Reply to  Mr.
October 12, 2021 1:48 pm

The urbane heat island a la blocking event that distort records and inference thereof in both time and space.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  n.n
October 12, 2021 4:05 pm

that distort records and inference thereof in both time and space

And, according to Bistromathics, the observer’s movement in restaurants.

Douglas Adams posited that the mathematics on a waiter’s pad is entirely different from all other mathematics. I’m sure that he would have been fascinated by Climate Scientology ‘mathematics’!

MarkW
Reply to  n.n
October 12, 2021 4:51 pm

If you are going to have a heat island, it’s best to have one that’s urbane.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
October 12, 2021 4:49 pm

A 125 year trend, starts about 55 years prior to the point where CO2 could have been having any impact.

Anthony Banton
October 12, 2021 12:21 pm

“This EPA data showing that extreme heat waves are not increasing across the U.S. is further supported by NOAA’s contiguous U.S. temperature anomaly measurement data (Parameter: Maximum Temperature Anomaly: Time Scale: 1 Month; Month: All months) showing that the maximum U.S. measured temperature anomaly is not increasing and in fact has declined since the highest measured temperature anomaly months of January 2006 and March 2012 as shown below.”

Really?

From the US EPA ….

comment image

“This graph shows the percentage of the land area of the contiguous 48 states with unusually hot daily high and low temperatures during the months of June, July, and August. The thin lines represent individual years, while the thick lines show a nine-year weighted average. Red lines represent daily highs, while orange lines represent daily lows. The term “unusual” in this case is based on the long-term average conditions at each location.”

It is immediately obvious that the hot daily Lows have inceased markedly.
That is the nights during hotspells have dont cool off as much as they used to.
This is know extreme risk in heat-related deaths (where ac is not available) as there is no relief from the heat making sleep very difficult.

comment image?itok=x9qVJYix

“Red bars show the percent of the U.S. Southwest (Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico) having extremely warm days–daytime high temperatures in the top ten percent of the historical record–each summer since 1910. The footprint of extreme heat in the Southwest has exploded in the past 30 years. NOAA Climate.gov graph, based on data from NCEI’s Climate Extremes Index.”

comment image

“Observed changes in the occurrence of record-setting daily temperatures in the contiguous United States. Red bars indicate a year with more daily record highs than daily record lows, while blue bars indicate a year with more record lows than highs. The height of the bar indicates the ratio of record highs to lows (red) or of record lows to highs (blue). For example, a ratio of 2:1 for a blue bar means that there were twice as many record daily lows as daily record highs that year. Estimates are derived from long-term stations with minimal missing data in the Global Historical Climatology Network–Daily dataset.
(Figure source: NOAA/NCEI).”

Notice that during the period of the US “Dustbowl”, there were an equal numbr of cold and hot records made.
Now (since mid – ’80’s esepcially) hot records greatly outnumber cold – just 9 years out of the 36 from 1985 on the graph.

And because of the “G” in AGW here is the global picture ….

comment image

n.n
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 12, 2021 1:46 pm

Fractional anomalies, not absolute extremes. The data showing extreme highs in the early 20th century, the extreme lows past the mid-century mark, and the variability since, indicates that natural processes and phenomena are the only globally sustainable/viable first-order forcings, and that 30-years is both an arbitrary and inadequate period to assess “climate change”, let alone attribute to minority sources.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
October 12, 2021 4:10 pm

It’s funny how it all became much hotter after 1990. It’s also funny how the number of weather stations measured fell dramatically (by about 60% iirc) in 1990*. I’m sure that those two are in no way related.

(*I don’t have it to hand, but a gif showing the global weather stations used and it gets amazingly darker in 1990 as most of the rural stations get dropped. I’ve no idea why…)

Last edited 1 month ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Dave Andrews
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 13, 2021 7:53 am

A post on Climate Audit in 2008 details the huge decline in station coverage from 1985 to 2005.

‘Historical Station Distribution’

https://climateaudit.org/2008/02/10/historical-station-distribution

Geoffrey Williams
October 12, 2021 12:51 pm

Clearly the democrat alarmists mantra is untrue.
And that is a nice way of saying it . .

2hotel9
October 12, 2021 1:39 pm

This means little if it does not become widely, publicly known. Linking it through email really just don’t have the pizzazz to give it legs.

Clyde Spencer
October 12, 2021 5:31 pm
TonyG
October 13, 2021 7:00 am

And none of it matters because it doesn’t fit the narrative so the media won’t report anything different.

Slowroll
October 13, 2021 8:17 am

Between the inflated death rates from covid and “extreme heat” we will soon have catastrophe related deaths that exceed the actual total mortality from all causes. Maybe when the claimed death rates exceed the population people will wake up to the official codswallop.

Doonman
October 13, 2021 2:41 pm

This EPA and NOAA data exposes and destroys the credibility of Biden

Oh please. Biden destroyed his own credibility years ago when he claimed he was at the top of his graduating class, had three degrees and plagiarized foreign politicians speeches.

His latest lies are just more of a 45 year long habit of mendacity. Why anyone would ever believe anything Biden says is beyond me. I think he thinks people are stupid and don’t notice.

Mike Maguire
October 13, 2021 7:40 pm

Summers in the Midwest have featured cooler daytime readings and more rain, thanks mostly to the transpiration from 90 million acres of tightly packed rows of corn.
Summer Climate Change in the Midwest and Great Plains due to Agricultural Development during the Twentieth Century   
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/32/17/jcli-d-19-0096.1.xml

America’s Corn Fields Are Making the Weather Really Weird
https://www.wired.com/story/corn-fields-are-making-it-rain-more/?mbid=social_twitter_onsiteshare

Americans Have Planted So Much Corn That It’s Changing the Weather
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/corn-belt-weather

Climate change should help Midwest corn production
https://weatherfarm.com/2018/05/climate-change-should-help-midwest-corn-production/

The United States’s Corn Belt is making its own weatherhttps://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/america-s-corn-belt-making-its-own-weather

‘Corn sweat’ adding to heat misery in Midwesthttps://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2016/07/22/corn-sweat-iowa-midwest-heat-wave-evapotranspiration/87442376/

Why is the humidity so high? The answer is pretty corny.https://addins.wrex.com/blogs/weather/2011/07/why-is-the-humidity-so-high-the-answer-is-pretty-corny

Mike Maguire
October 13, 2021 7:58 pm

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/71468/#71518

Let’s look at 424 cities(most of them) in the US, to see what the pattern has been. It actually shows us something that is very surprising. I was not even expecting the extent of it. There has NOT been an increase in record highs going back to 1960. In fact, there has been a DECREASE in daily record maximums over the past 60 years.
 Outside of the major Midwest drought year 2012, when we had the 3rd highest bar on the graph, the top 2 record high setting years were 1962/63 and 9 of the top 10 years with the most record setting highs were from 1990 or earlier. Only 1(2012) since then.
This is the complete opposite of what everybody thinks. 
Like you mentioned, it’s the nighttime lows that are being affected the most with a well defined drop in the number of record cold daily lows.
The 1960s(coldest decade) featured around 4 times (4,000) as many record lows as the last decade(1,000) has recorded.
The graph below is updated thru 2018 because the study was done in 2019.

https://www.axios.com/climate-change-warm-cold-temperature-records-ratio-02f86e11-5d83-47d4-944b-5856745c1d2b.html

Screenshot 2021-10-13 at 21-57-05 June 2021 historic heat W US - MarketForum.png
Joe Gordon
October 14, 2021 3:22 am

Pretty soon, people will be going to jail for printing charts like these. The official government position is that the 1930s were marked by an epidemic of amateur weather hobbyists who couldn’t read thermometers and the 1970s is the proper baseline for everything.

Before the ’70s, the temperature never changed once in the entire 7,000-year history of the universe. And Polar Bears lived everywhere, including Hawaii and the Papal apartments in the Holy See. So sayeth our glorious leader.

In related news, Greta finally reached the pre-algebra unit where they hand out graph paper and learn about the number system. Her resulting climate model, of course, shows a 5,000-degree rise in temperature over the next five years if we don’t convert all automobiles into giant battery-powered “whale-bus-trains” (I think this term loses something in the translation from the original Swedish). She just received a PhD from Harvard and the United Nations immediately adopted her chart as the basis of their next series of recommendations. Because Science.

%d bloggers like this: