A recent study published in Nature Medicine warns that Europe could face up to 2.3 million annual heat-related deaths by 2100 unless drastic emission reductions are implemented. The dire prediction, eagerly echoed in headlines, paints a catastrophic future for the continent. However, closer examination reveals that this projection rests on the RCP 8.5 scenario, an extreme and discredited emissions pathway. The continued reliance on this outdated model isn’t just misleading—it actively distorts the climate debate.
The Problem with RCP 8.5
RCP 8.5, the foundation of this study, assumes an improbable future of runaway coal consumption, stalled technological progress, and unmitigated population growth. Under this scenario, global CO₂ emissions would triple by 2100, driving a temperature increase of over 4°C. But here’s the reality:
- Global Energy Trends: Coal consumption is declining in many major economies, while renewables are expanding rapidly. Even in countries like China and India, where coal use remains significant, cleaner energy alternatives are gaining ground.
- Population Dynamics: Population growth is slowing worldwide, with many countries projected to experience declines by mid-century.
- Technological Advances: Energy efficiency, urban planning, and adaptive technologies are evolving far faster than the pessimistic assumptions baked into RCP 8.5.
These facts render RCP 8.5 not just unlikely—it’s a fantasy. Yet it continues to be used in studies like this one, inflating risks and misleading policymakers.
A Flawed Vision of the Future
The study assumes that Europeans will fail to adapt to rising temperatures, ignoring humanity’s demonstrated ability to innovate and adjust. Historically, societies have employed technologies like air conditioning, improved building designs, and urban greening to mitigate heat-related risks. By disregarding these realities, the study portrays a static population incapable of adapting, which is both unrealistic and irresponsible.
Moreover, while heat-related deaths are emphasized, the study conveniently omits the larger issue of cold-related mortality. Currently, cold kills far more Europeans than heat, and a warming climate could result in a net decrease in weather-related deaths as winters become milder. But such context doesn’t fit the narrative of impending disaster and is often excluded from the discussion.
The Bigger Picture: Heat vs. Cold
To grasp the true implications of climate change, it’s critical to consider both heat and cold. Currently:
- Cold-related deaths outnumber heat-related deaths by a factor of 10 in Europe, according to Eurostat.
- Warmer winters have already reduced cold-related mortality in many regions.
- Adaptation measures, like affordable heating and cooling, remain the most practical solutions for addressing both heat and cold risks.
Ironically, climate policies inspired by studies like this may worsen cold-related deaths. For example, Net Zero-driven policies that increase energy costs—such as phasing out natural gas or subsidizing expensive renewables—make it harder for vulnerable populations to afford heating.
Why These Alarmist Projections Persist
The continued use of RCP 8.5 in studies serves a clear purpose: fear sells. Apocalyptic predictions generate headlines, mobilize funding, and provide justification for costly climate policies. But this approach does little to solve real-world challenges. Instead, it:
- Distorts Public Perception: By focusing on implausible worst-case scenarios, these studies obscure more likely and manageable outcomes.
- Misguides Policymakers: Resources are diverted toward combating hypothetical extremes rather than addressing pressing energy and adaptation needs.
- Erodes Trust in Science: When the public learns that RCP 8.5 is a relic of outdated thinking, it risks undermining confidence in climate science as a whole.
A Better Way Forward
If we want to protect populations from heat-related deaths, the solution lies not in alarmist modeling but in practical adaptation strategies:
- Expanding access to affordable air conditioning.
- Designing cities to reduce the urban heat island effect.
- Improving public health systems to better handle heatwaves.
At the same time, policymakers must acknowledge that warming isn’t all bad news—milder winters will reduce cold-related deaths and energy demand. Balanced, evidence-based approaches are essential to managing the risks of climate change without succumbing to hysteria.
Conclusion: Enough with the Alarmism
The Nature Medicine study’s projections of millions of heat-related deaths in Europe are rooted in the flawed and discredited RCP 8.5 scenario. This isn’t science—it’s scaremongering dressed up as research. By exaggerating risks and ignoring humanity’s capacity to adapt, such studies do more harm than good.
Rather than fixating on improbable doomsday scenarios, we should focus on resilience, innovation, and pragmatic policies that address both heat- and cold-related risks. The public deserves climate discussions rooted in reality, not fear-driven narratives built on outdated models.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“But here’s the reality:
True, but not what I always hear here.
I read this just about everywhere, Nick
[taunting ~ctm]
[taunting ~ctm]
[taunting ~ctm]
And yet coal use is still increasing. So-called ‘cleaner energy alternatives’ may be ‘gaining ground’, but coal use is still increasing in these countries. So your statement is intentionally misleading, at best.
This is often mentioned here. Mainly when the doommongers claim that populations will continually increase, so we’re all doomed and must change our lifestyles to survive. So your claim is just wrong.
I think you will often see the claim that our changes in society and technology will evolve far faster than any attempts to stop using fossil fuels (ie not attempting is the supposed basis of RCP 8.5). Heck, even the IPCC themselves state this. So your claim is just plain wrong.
So, two wrongs and a misleading. Must try harder, Nick!
“So, two wrongs and a misleading. Must try harder, Nick!”
I was quoting directly from the head article. Take it up with Charles.
[taunting ~ctm]
Pathetic nick, pathetic.
The lies are your claim that these “quotes” are not what you hear, here.
Your attempts to duck and dodge are usually better than this.
Huh? Charles says:
“Coal consumption is declining in many major economies, while renewables are expanding rapidly. Even in countries like China and India, where coal use remains significant, cleaner energy alternatives are gaining ground.”
That is not the common stuff of WUWT articles.
Good point, Nick. (I’ll get downvoted for this.) The statement that “Coal consumption is declining in many major economies” is trying to paper over the issues. Coal use in China, India, and other Asian countries completely overwhelms whatever power they get from renewables.
“And yet coal use is still increasing.”
New global coal use record in 2024 !
[taunting ~ctm]
The 2nd and 3rd are discussed here at least weekly. The first has also been acknowledged many times here.
Why do you have to tell such blatant lies?
The idea that ruinables are cleaner is absurd when you look at all the details of how their produced, the land damaged by their installation, the increased cost, etc.
Tunnel vision. They can only see what they focus on and ignore the bigger picture.
I wouldn’t mind so much if they just said “I prefer to see more wind and solar energy. I think there are some advantages to them.” OK, that’s their privileged to believe that- then they can make the case. But to call wind and solar “clean” really shows the religious angle- it’s like priests saying you should struggle to be free of sin. It implies all other energy is filthy and disgusting.
“They can only see what they focus on and ignore the bigger picture.”
They? This is Charles the Moderator writing.
Misleading Models and Statistical Fearmongering
Tautology / redundancy?
Very nice Charles. A couple things.
Number one hoping the other side will magically see the light and only use proper scientific methods and figures is a pipe dream. They aren’t going to do it. It is up to us to shine the light on them publicly. Make a big deal out of them accepting and using things like RCP 8.5. Go after the authors, those funding the study, the reviewers and the publishers.
Number two we must broadcast far and wide that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas but not a powerful one compared to water vapor. That adding, let us say, 50 more units of CO2 won’t have the same affect as the previous 50 units of CO2. That adding more CO2 doesn’t make it more effective rather additional units are less effective. In other words CO2 can not cause the crisis the other side making such a fuss about.
The earth’s environmental energy system is nothing like a greenhouse, does not operate like a greenhouse and the term is invalid.
CO2 is only a greenhouse gas when added to the air in a greenhouse to augment plant growth.
By coincidence, WUWT accepted today my article on heatwaves in Australia. The raw data do not suggest the problem that is related for Europe.
Geoff S
Based on atmospheric physics the radiative forcing caused by doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration results in +1C of global warming.
For CO2 to force +4C of warming by 2100 the atmospheric concentration would have go from currently ~400ppm to ~ 6400ppm.
All the efforts of the net-zero brigade…
… all the money wasted..
… all the damage done to industrial economies…
.. and atmospheric CO2 level continues to climb at a slightly accelerating rate.
Yeah, it’s a lost cause.
There is no evidence that this amount of CO2 will cause a 4C increase in temperatures.
People are assuming too much. Assumptions and speculation do not equal science fact.
Climate Alarmists can’t tell us how much warmth a given amount of CO2 adds to the atmosphere, and they can’t tell us what happens with negative feedbacks after that, so their claiming a 4C increase in temperatures is just pure speculation. It’s anti-scientific.
I bet that was just what Nick was expecting to hear over here at WUWT. Glad to help/straighten you out, Nick.
I was thinking the same thing, Tom. What about the saturation of IR energy absorption in the CO2 wavelengths? Is the 4C figure derived from linear calculations? I thought absorbance was logarithmic and diminishes with increasing concentrations.
If one ignores this and this and that and that, one can construct a model which, when curve-fitted (hind casting) that shows a 4C increase.
The real truth is that humans can’t survive without fossil fuels almost anywhere on the planet. In fact, if you add in any communities larger than a tiny village, there are zero places on the planet where humans can survive without fossil fuels. Even electric cars, windmills and solar panels cannot exist without fossil fuels.
No fossil fuels, 8 billion deaths. I will take the purported heatwaves instead.
Coal Continues to Dominate China’s Energy Landscape | OilPrice.com
By the IPCC themselves, no less, but as one climate scientist said to me in private correspondence:
“We appreciate RCP8.5 is a high end scenario, with lower emissions scenarios now considered more likely “
@Charles rotter,
I’m sorry, mate, where does the nature paper mention RCP8.5 (SSP-5.8.5)? I can only find SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, and SSP3-7.0.
Not that the authors using SSP3-7.0 makes much difference to their fantasies.
Thanks
Quote
So the three used for adaption are SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, and SSP3-7.0, deaths used 4 and the 4th is a 4C rise in temps which is RCP8.5.
Again, sorry to be pedantic; Masselot et al. used SSP3-7.0 for their scary guesses, which, while still unlikely, is 3.6C.
I think the error is the reporting by the Nature News article.
Either way, as we all know, it’s BS.
I came across Masselot et al a couple of days ago, and was struck by the fact that it did not use RCP 8.5, or even SSP5-8.5.
From their “Study Design” section (on page 2 of the PDF file) :
For reference, this is what the IPCC had to say about how “realistic / feasible” the SSP3-7.0 scenario was, in the AR6 WG-I assessment report, section 1.6.1.4, “The likelihood of reference scenarios, scenario uncertainty and storylines”, on page 239 :
SSP3-7.0 isn’t just “unlikely”, but actually “contrary to the facts“.
NB : The “old” RCP 8.5 emissions pathway is neatly bracketed between the “new” SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 ones. If SSP3-7.0 is above the “counterfactual” threshold, so is RCP 8.5.
.
The headers for the main data table and the 3 figures in Masselot et al :
Note that 4°C (or even 3°C) by 2100 simply isn’t going to happen, it’s yet another “counterfactual” compilation of computer model runs.
I’m based in France, and was already here in 2003. The deaths from that extended heatwave resulted in major “adaptation” by the French authorities.
For the last couple of decades every time the temperatures go above 25°C we are bombarded with “Alert canicule !” warnings on all television channels. Among the list of warnings is one to “check on your elderly neighbours”.
If temperatures go above 30°C every evening news program leads with reporting on the “high” temperatures, and systematically includes teams of reporters filming residents of old-peoples homes being plied with glasses of water by their carers
The notion that after a one-off “large” death toll from an “exceptional / unfortunate” combination of circumstances there will subsequently be “no adaptation” is ludicrous.
From the article: “A recent study published in Nature Medicine warns that Europe could face up to 2.3 million annual heat-related deaths by 2100 unless drastic emission reductions are implemented.”
2.3 million ANNUAL deaths!
So, these fools are claiming that hot weather in the future will kill MILLIONS of people EVERY year!
Were millions of people dying in Europe from last summer’s heat? Hundreds of thousands of deaths from last summer’s heat? I seem to have missed this horrible tragedy. I don’t recall reading about hundreds of thousands or millions of heat deaths in Europe lately. Is this only confined to the year 2100?
How many people died in Europe last summer from heat?
I’m skeptical of all these numbers.
It would appear that the “journalist(s)” who copied the original press release didn’t bother to “fact check” it first.
The “2.3 million to die” number is actually the cumulative death toll (from 2015, for some obscure reason … when the SSP scenarios / emissions pathways start from ?).
I am shocked, shocked I say, to discover journalists who don’t know what the adjective “investigative” means.
.
From the “European-level results” section of the paper (on page 2 of the PDF file) :
So it’s “only” 70 thousand or so per year around 2100 (plus or minus a lot …).
Thanks for all that good information, Mark.
I thought 2.3 million deaths per year was kind of high. 🙂
“The continued reliance on this outdated model isn’t just misleading—it actively distorts the climate debate.”
Disinformation (intended to deceive) at its finest!
“…closer examination reveals that this projection rests on the RCP 8.5 scenario, an extreme and discredited emissions pathway.” It also rests on the assumption that the resulting temperature increases predicted by climate models are correct. History, experience, Dr. Happer and others have given us good reason to disbelieve that.
According to the IEA the following coal mining for export projects are currently underway
Australia 46 projects 16 new, 28 expansion, 2 reopening
Botswana 2 projects both new
Canada 9 projects all new
Colombia 1 project expansion
Indonesia 6 projects all new
Mongolia 4 projects 3 new, 1 expansion
Mozambique 2 projects 1 new, 1 expansion
New Zealand 1 project reopening
Poland 1 project new
Russia 5 projects 2 new, 3 expansion
South Africa 14 projects 9 new, 4 expansion, 1 reopening
Ukraine 1 project new
USA 4 projects 3new, 1 expansion
That’s a total of 96 mining for export projects underway with Australia responsible for nearly half of them. Australia obviously loves coal!
IEA ‘Coal 2024 Analysis and Forecast to 2027’ (December 2024)
Actually the study in question does not use the RCP8.5 scenario, but the SSP3-7.0, which was introduced in the latest IPCC report. It’s still on the alarmist side of alternative futures, but referring to RCP8.5 gives the impression that somebody did not bother to read the whole thing. A correction might be in order, no?
Charles, you missed one big issue that is never addressed. Everywhere I look winter temps are increasing and Tmin dominates the growth that is occurring. I really don’t see how these can lead to more deaths, more energy use for heating and cooling, destroyed crops.
People using these projections need to also be required to discuss the attribution of the range of temperatures they are forecasting. The earth isn’t going to boil, not soon anyway.