Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

2022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #42

Posted on 22 October 2022 by John Hartz

A chronological listing of news articles posted on the Skeptical Science Facebook Page during the past week: Sun, Oct 16, 2022  thru Sat, Oct 22, 2022. 

Mother Nature Always Bats Last!

‘Nature is striking back’: flooding around the world, from Australia to Venezuela

It has been a drenched 2022 for many parts of the world, at times catastrophically so. A year of disastrous flooding perhaps reached its nadir in Pakistan, where a third of the country was inundated by heavy rainfall from June, killing more than 1,000 people in what António Guterres, the UN secretary general, called an unprecedented natural disaster.

While floods are indeed natural phenomena, a longstanding result of storms, the human-induced climate crisis is amplifying their damage. Rising sea levels, driven by melting glaciers and the thermal expansion of water, are increasingly inundating coastal areas, while warmer temperatures are causing more moisture to accumulate in the atmosphere, which is then released as rain or snow.

Scientists have said flash floods are becoming a problem in some countries, with short, severe bursts of rain causing anything from annoyance to mayhem. Some places are whiplashing between severe drought and these sudden downpours, heightening the risk of mudslides and other knock-on effects.

As the world heats further, the sort of floods seen this year from Australia to Nigeria will probably become more common. “We have waged war on nature, and nature is striking back, and striking back in a devastating way,” Guterres lamented after visiting Pakistan in September.

‘Nature is striking back’: flooding around the world, from Australia to Venezuela by Oliver Milman, Ope Adetayo, Donna Lu, Fiona Kelliher & Luke Taylor, Environment, The Guardian, Oct 20, 2022


Links posted on Facebook

Sun, Oct 16, 2022

Mon, Oct 17, 2022

Tue, Oct 18, 2022

Wed, Oct 19, 2022

Thu, Oct 20, 2022

Fri, Oct 21, 2022

Sat, Oct 22, 2022

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Comments 1 to 27:

  1. An article in the Astrophysical Journal, 937:84 2022 October 1 'Total Solar Irradiance during the Last Five Centuries' shows that the enerigy the Earth receives from the Sun has been at its highest level for the last 50 years over the last 500 years. This is where the global heating is coming from and the warming oceans, which have 70 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, are releasing their CO2, like a warmed bottle of soda. 

    The Sun has entered a Grand Solar Minimum that will last from 2020-2053 and will result in significant global cooling that may threaten global farmland crop production.

    'Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling" by Valentina Zharkova, Temperature (Austin) 2020;7(3): 217-222

    from the article:

    In this editorial I will demonstrate with newly discovered solar activity proxy-magnetic field that the Sun has entered into the modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020-2053) that will lead to a significant reduction of solar magnetic field and activity like during the Maunder minimum leading to noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature...more

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Repeating a bogus claim on more than one thread does not make it any more correct. Oceans are currently warming, and they are absorbing CO2, not releasing it.

    And your "Grand Solar Minimum" myth has also been covered here.

    Any paper by Zharkova is one of the worst sources on this matter. One paper was retracted due to its serious errors, as discussed here. (Follow the links on that blog to other articles, too.) The paper you reference has no useful new information. It was already discussed here (briefly) at SkS in one of our New Research posts.

    ...and you were previously told about the problems with that Zharkova paper here.

     

  2. The Solar Irridiance data shows that the Sun has been emitting more energy in the last 50 years than at anytime in the last 500 years. That is where the warming is coming from, the Sun.

    The robot CO2 measurement experiments that circled Antartica  and the southern oceans clearly showed that the oceans were both emitting and adsorbing CO2.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL} You continue with incorrect assertions containing vague "references" to information of unknown origin.

    If you wish to continue to post in this forum, you need to provide explicit links to your sources of information. You have shown no indication that  you actually read any of the references provided to you, and you show no inclination to actually engage in constructive discussion.

    If you continue with this pattern, expect to see more and more of your postings edited or deleted, and eventually your posting rights will be rescinded.

    Up your game. Provide proper references. Engage in discussion, not assertion. This is a place for dialog, not monologue.

    And read the Comments Policy.

     

  3. I apologize, the site I have been posting on does not allow links so I got in the habit of not including them. 

    The error in the Zharkova article was a small error in the calculation of the Earth-Sun distance which was n0t a part of the main point of the paper. The error was fixed and did not effect the main point of the paper and a new version is available. 

    https://retractionwatch.com/2020/03/04/heavily-criticized-paper-blaming-the-sun-for-global-warming-is-retracted/

    The article 'modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling' wasn't retracted and is still in effect.

    I know the the 2.588 million year ice age called the Quaternary Glaciation is  the climate of the Earth as a whole and is in effect until all natural ice melts. The warm interglacial period where the Earth's orbit is more circular that we are in will come to an end sooner rater than later. The interglacial periods usually last about 10,000 years and this one has lasted 11,700 years. Then the Earth's orbit will get more elliptical under the influence primarily of Jupiter and we will get 90,000 years of a cold glacial period and the cycle will repeat. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

    Here in Cleveland, Ohio, we have had 136 days warmer than average and 160 days cooler than average so far this year using the weather underground figures. 

    https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/oh/cleveland/KCLE

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Links activated.

    The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.

    Your opinion that the Zharkova paper had a "small error" that "does not effect [sic] the main point" is not shared by the editors of the journal that made the decision to retract it. In their retraction notice, they state (emphasis added):

    The analyses presented in the section entitled “Effects of SIM on a temperature in the terrestrial hemispheres” are based on the assumption that the orbits of the Earth and the Sun about the Solar System barycenter are uncorrelated, so that the Earth-Sun distance changes by an amount comparable to the Sun-barycenter distance. Post-publication peer review has shown that this assumption is inaccurate because the motions of the Earth and the Sun are primarily due to Jupiter and the other giant planets, which accelerate the Earth and the Sun in nearly the same direction, and thereby generate highly-correlated motions in the Earth and Sun. Current ephemeris calculations [1,2] show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article. As a result the Editors no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented.

    In the And Then There's Physics blog post (the author of which is a Professor of Computational Astrophysics), it is stated (emphasis added):

    However, in the case of the Zharkova et al. paper, the error is completely elementary. It’s something we teach our first-year students.

    Papers do not get retracted for small errors that do not affect the main point of the paper. That Zharkova et al published a paper containing errors that a first-year student would fail on tells us that Zharkova basically has no idea what she is doing in this subject area.

    The second Zharkova paper you mention may not have been retracted, but it is just as useless as the first.

    As for the Grand Solar minimum, you should place your comments on this thread - after reading it first.

    https://skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-mini-ice-age.htm

    As for what is happening in Cleveland - Cleveland is not the globe, and this year is not climate. Over large areas, and many years, hot records are being broken much more often than cold records - exactly what you would expect in a warming climate. You can read about it more on this page (basic and intermediate versions):

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather-basic.htm

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather-intermediate.htm

    ...and counting the number of days above or below average does not tell you if this year is warmer or colder than average. You actually have to, well, average the daily values. It depends on how much the days are above or below the long-term average. A simple count of days throws out a lot of important  information. You have made an error that a first-year student would lose marks on.

  4. scvblwxq1.

    Your solar theory of the recent warming period since the 1970's is wrong. There is only a very poor correlation between surface warming and solar irradiance over the last 50 years. Solar irradiance increased early last century until about 1960, then levelled off or fell slightly for about 30 years, then fell sharply  from about 30 years ago to presently, but warming steadily increasing over that same total 50 year time frame. So you have a poor level of correlation.

    skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

    If global warming over the last 50 years was being caused by fluctuations in solar activity, you would expect a near perfect correlation  between solar activity and warming over that 50 years, because the effects of solar irradiance on surface temperatures are reasonably instantaneous. Instead we see a very low level of correlation if any.

    Fluctuations in solar irradiance over the last 50 years have also been quite small in terms of WM2, and not enough to account for the quantity of warming measured. So nothing in the way of causation.

    With the climate issue the devil is in the detail like this. The fact that solar irradiance is generally a bit higher than 100 years ago doesn't explain the recent warming trend when you look into the details. Thats why we have climate scientists to look at the details.

    The grand solar minimum during the little ice age is suspected of contributing to that cool period, but the little ice age only affected part of the northern hemisphere, temperatures dropped only about a degree c and over hundreds of years. So a similar thing now would clearly do very little if anything to offset the predicted 3 - 5 degrees of warming this century and 8 degrees of warming over 2 - 3 centuries. A grand solar minimum, If it actually happens, is clearly not going to save use.

    0 0
  5. The Solar Irridiance data shows that the Sun has been emitting more energy in the last 50 years than at anytime in the last 500 years. That is where the warming is coming from, the Sun.

    The robot CO2 measurement experiments that circled Antartica  and the southern oceans clearly showed that the oceans were both emitting and adsorbing CO2.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] You made these assertions in the exact same words less than 48 hours ago. It was moderated because you did not provide any link to any information to support your assertions.

    You have been pointed to threads where information is available that demonstrates your assertions to be wrong. If you know of measurements, you need to point to a source of those measurements. You need to discuss how those measurements support the argument you are making. You do not get to simply assert a conclusion.

    Note that the Comments Policy includes the following statements:

    • Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.
    • No sloganeering.  Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion. As such they will be deleted. If you think our debunking of one of those myths is in error, you are welcome to discuss that on the relevant thread, provided you give substantial reasons for believing the debunking is in error.  It is asked that you do not clutter up threads by responding to comments that consist just of slogans.

    You are violating the "excessive repetition" clause of the policy.. You are violating the "simple assertion of a myth" policy.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

  6. The Earth has feedback systems like clouds and rain and storage system like the deep ocean that can maintain the temperature of the Earth when Solar input increases for a time but Solar irradiance increases it will eventually increase the temperature. The Sun is by far the major source of heat to the Earth, radioactivity contributes a small amount but CO2 at best is only moving the heat around.

    Here in Cleveland we have had 161 days colder than average and 136 days warmer than average,  using the Weather Underground average daily temperatures, which suggests cooling supporting Dr. Zharkova Grand Solar Minimum. 

    https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/oh/cleveland/KCLE 

    Solar irradiance has increased greatly since 2020, warming the Earth even more than the 50 years of high irradiance reported by Dr. Penza. https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/tsis_tsi_24hr/

    We have 4.5 million people dying each year from moderately cold weather-related causes, mainly from strokes and heart attacks caused by the cold, while only about 500,000 are dying from heat-related causes and most of them were also from moderate heat.
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

    Half the energy we produce goes to heating. We live in heated houses, work in heated buildings, drive around in heated cars, wear lots of warm clothes and shoes much of the time so we probably don't appreciate how cold it is. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/we-need-to-rethink-the-way-we-heat-ourselves-heres-why/

     

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Your assertions about CO2 are false.

    Your statements about Cleveland temperatures do not mean what you claim them to mean,and you have stated them before.

    The link you provide for solar irradiance shows a change of about 1 W/m2 in the  past 4 years. After accounting for earth's albedo (0.3) and the 1:4 ratio between the area of the terrestrial disk and the spherical area of earth, this amounts to less that 0.2 W/m2 of radiative forcing. This is minor compared to the forcing by CO2 over the past 50 years. The data does not mean what you think it means. The variation you see in your own graph is simply part of the 11-year solar cycle, which last peaked in 2015 and is currently rising from the recent minimum. Look at figure 3 in the following paper.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87108-y

    Your repetition of the Lancet study still does not mean that your interpretation is correct. You have had responses to your first mention of that study that you have not responded to.

    We live in houses with air conditioning, work in buildings with A/C, drive around in cars with A/C. We probably don't appreciate how hot it is. {See how easy it is to turn your words around and use them against you?]

    Unless you change your posting style to follow the Comments Policy, expect to see increased deletions of your posts and eventual removal of your posting privileges.

     

  7. The comparison between heating and air conditioning is misleading. There is way more spent on heating than air conditioning. Around half the total energy used is spent on heating.  

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/we-need-to-rethink-the-way-we-heat-ourselves-heres-why/

    The Weather Underground history section averages the value for each day during the day so a person can look up the average for any day and compare it to the historical average, which is also provided. I went through all the days of 2022 and compared the average for that day with the historical average for that day of the year.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] You are still not turning your links into links, even though you have been told how.

    The wording of the AC issue I used in the moderator's comment on #6 is virtually identical to your own wording on heating. You now claim that it is a misleading comparison. This is because both statements are trivial - there is far more to it that the short talking points you are making.

    Costs associated with heating are a different issue than heat/cold deaths, and a different issue from temperature trends. You keep bouncing from one trivial argument to another, hoping something will eventually stick to the wall.

    Again, comparing daily temperature to the long-term mean, and simply assigning a "higher/lower" label to each day is an extremely poor way of trying to evaluate temperature trends. Consider the following two scenarios. In both cases, the long-term mean temperature we want to compare to is 10C. If we look at two 10-day periods:

    1. Eight days of 9C temperatures, two days of 16C temperatures, average of 10.4C for 10 days is warmer than long-term average.
    2. Two days of 4C temperatures, 8 days of 11C temperatures, average of 9.6C for 10 days is cooler than average.

    Yet your method of analysis says that the first case has many more days of cooler-than-average temperatures, and the second case has many more days of warmer-than-average temperatures. Your method gives the completely wrong answer to the question of whether the 10 days are warmer or cooler than average. Your method is too simplistic, and cannot correctly assess a simple example, and there is no way it would be able to handle a more complex example.

    Your trivial Cleveland example gets it horribly wrong. This is the problem with your trivial examples and talking points. Until you learn how to do a proper and through analysis, you will continue to fool yourself and come to incorrect conclusions.

    This forum is not Twitter. You are expected to provide a proper analysis, with proper sources to back up your claims.

  8. The TSI data linked by scvblwxq1@6  shows the TSI for sunspot cycle 25 to-date, so TSI for the period 2018-to-date. The same website also gives TSI data back to the start of the satellite record, so since the end of 1978 (sunspot cycles 21 to 24). Comparing the two data sets (they need splicing together) shows the rise in TSI so far for sunspot cycle 25 has yet to top the peak of sunspot cycle 24, itself a rather weak sunspot cycle, as the graphic of sunspot numbers below suggests.

    SSCs 21 to 25

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Thank you for your efforts. This is yet another case where the sources quoted by scvblwxq1 do not support the position argued by scvblwxq1. We are seeing out-of-context quotes, inaccurate descriptions of the contents of papers, and selective presentation of data.

    If scvblwxq1 was unaware of how the recent TSI data fit into the long-term trend, scvblwxq1 needs to reflect on why (s)he was unaware - and how to avoid such errors in the future. If scvblwxq1 was aware, then scvblwxq1 is not engaging in proper discussion.

     

  9. The 297 observations from the Weather Underground site is a large enough sample so that approximate methods, when other methods are not available, is a good way to analyze the data. Taking a small sample of 10 is definitely not a good way to compare categories. I am not saying that it is any kind of proof, next year might warm up, but it is suggestive of cooling rather than warming since the beginning of the year in Cleveland. I don't use Twitter for anything serious and seldom use it at all. 

    https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/oh/cleveland/KCLE/date/2022-10-27

    I've been through the Global Warming movement in the 80s that said that the world would be very hot by now and here it is 40 years later still saying it will be very hot sometime in the future. I'm skeptical. The Climate Change articles usually do not even mention that the current climate of the Earth, as a whole, is an ice age called the Quaternary Glaciation and that won't change until all the natural ice melts and we will probably have another glacial period before that occurs. 

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

    It should only take a few years to find out if Dr. Zharkova is correct or not. Dr. Zharkova was the one that asked for a retraction, the other authors disagreed, maybe they just wanted to add a correction.

     

     

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Sample size has nothing to do with the failures of  your "count days above or below normal" technique.

    You have been pointed to articles here at SkS that cover glacial climates. Here is another one:

    https://skepticalscience.com/from-email-bag-Ellis-Palmer.html

    The idea that people are ignoring glacial climates is absurd, and a figment of your imagination. In the above article, you will find additional links to SkS and other posts on glaciation. It also serves as an example of how "published" papers can be horribly wrong.

    Frankly, it is obvious that you will not read or cannot understand anything that does not fit your misconceptions.

    You are getting your Zharkovas mixed up. V V Zharkova is the first author, and did not agree to the retraction. S I Zharkov is the third author (VV's son), and agreed to the retraction. And none of the authors requested the retraction - it was the result of other pointing out the obvious gross errors, and the editors of the journal realizing that the paper was not worthy of publication. If you read the PubPeer discussion of the retracted paper, you will see that V V Zharkova doubled-down, tripled-down, and quadrupled-down on the legitimacy of the paper, in spite of people explaining her errors to her.

    https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24#

  10. https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/oh/cleveland/KCLE/date/2022-10-27

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL} Link-only posts are explicitly banned, according to the Comments Policy.

  11. 0 0
  12. Southern Ocean storms cause outgassing of carbon dioxide
    January 25, 2022
    University of Gothenburg
    Summary:
    Storms over the waters around Antarctica drive an outgassing of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, according to a new international study. The research group used advanced ocean robots for the study, which provides a better understanding of climate change and can lead to better global climate models.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220125112530.htm

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] After several attempts to get you to do so, you finally provide a link to your "robot CO2" claims.

    Now that we see the actual paper, we see that it refers to one area of the ocean (Antarctic), and refers to specific meteorological conditions (storms). A quote from the paper:

    "We show how the intense storms that often occur in the region increase ocean mixing and bring carbon dioxide-rich waters from the deep to the surface. This drives an outgassing of carbon dioxide from the ocean to the atmosphere. There has been a lack of knowledge about these complex processes, so the study is an important key to understanding the Southern Ocean's significance for the climate and the global carbon budget," says Sebastiaan Swart, professor of oceanography at the University of Gothenburg and co-author of the study.

    Once again you confuse a local pattern, under limited conditions, and treat this as if it represents a long-term global effect. You really need to read past the summary of the paper.

    And please turn your links into links. You've been told how.

  13. Americans are fleeing the colder northern states and moving to the warmer southern states a new study finds.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-01-03/americans-moved-south-in-2021-a-study-finds#:~:text=Americans%20flocked%20South%20%E2%80%93%20and%20to,a%20driver%20in%20moving%20decisions.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] If you have a point, make it. Simple assertions of irrelevant factoids will not be permitted.

    Final Warning

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.

  14. scvblwxq1

    "I've been through the Global Warming movement in the 80s that said that the world would be very hot by now and here it is 40 years later still saying it will be very hot sometime in the future. I'm skeptical."

    Please provide a link to back up your claims and precisely what you mean by very hot. There might have been some environmental activists and a couple of scientists thinking the world would be very hot by now , ( meaning I assume at least 2 or 3 degrees of warming above preindustrial?),  but there was no consensus of climate scientists back in 1980s predicting such a thing. 

    The first IPCC report was released in 1990. It reviewed the scientific work of thousands of scientists and concluded we could have several degrees of warming by the end of this century, and that warming between 1990 and 2025 would be about 1 degree C. Warming has been about 0.75 deg C over that period so not far off. And bear in mind the modelling back then was not very advanced. This is from the 1990 summary for policy makers:

    "Under the IPC C Business-as-Usual (Scenario A ) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global-mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade); this is greater than thaat seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in global-mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors"

    www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

    The full 1990 report is here:

    www.ipcc.ch/report/climate-change-the-ipcc-1990-and-1992-assessments/

     

    You basically dont know what you are talking about.

    0 0
  15. Also see the "Lessons from Past Predictions" series which compares predictions made by scientists to how it has panned out. I would say you are listening to peddlars of strawman fallacies because you like what they say instead of reading what the science actually says.

    0 0
  16. Here are two large international studies that show that deaths caused by excess cold substantially exceed deaths caused by excess heat.

    e have 4.5 million people dying each year from moderately cold weather-related causes, mainly from strokes and heart attacks caused by moderate cold, while only about 500,000 are dying from heat-related causes and most of them were also from moderate heat.
    RTICLES| VOLUME 5, ISSUE 7, E415-E425, JULY 01, 2021
    'Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modeling study'
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
    "Globally, 5 083 173 deaths (95% empirical CI [eCI] 4 087 967–5 965 520) were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year, accounting for 9·43% (95% eCI 7·58–11·07) of all deaths (8·52% [6·19–10·47] were cold-related and 0·91% [0·56–1·36] were heat-related)."
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

    Here is another recent study that found that the excess death caused by cold exceeded those caused by heat.
    ARTICLES| VOLUME 398, ISSUE 10301, P685-697, AUGUST 21, 2021
    Estimating the cause-specific relative risks of non-optimal temperature on daily mortality: a two-part modeling approach applied to the Global Burden of Disease Study
    Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
    "Acute heat and cold exposure can increase or decrease the risk of mortality for a diverse set of causes of death. Although in most regions cold effects dominate, locations with high prevailing temperatures can exhibit substantial heat effects far exceeding cold-attributable burden."
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01700-1/fulltext

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Repeatedly linking to the same articles constitutes a violation of the Comments Policy of excessive repetition.

    Your erroneous interpretation of one of those studies was pointed out by another poster earlier, on another thread. Until you return to that thread and address the criticisms, further posts that refer to the same paper will be deleted in their entirety.

     

  17. Dear negelj, I don't know the details of the past Global Warming movement or while they were formed but when it collapsed the next movement couldn't be called Global Warming since that name had already been used and Global Cooling had also been used they decided to use the slogan "Climate Change" for their movement. They basically are calling the weather the climate of the Earth which is false. The climate of the Earth is a 2.588 million-year ice age called the Quaternary Glaciation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] I will leave this intact, because your use of phrases such as "Global Warming movement", etc. give as clear an indication of your bias as could possibly be seen.

    And once again,  you have your "facts" wrong. "They changed the name..." is #89 on our list of most common myths.

     

  18. Dear Moderator,

    My only point about the robot CO2 sensor was that it measured both CO2 release and absorption by the ocean so both those two actions are happening. I saw it on a video a while back so I didn't have a link to post.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Oh, my! Stop the presses! Sometimes oceans absorb CO2, Sometimes they release it!

    I  would say that your point is trivial, but when you first brought up ocean CO2, you claimed that warmer oceans released CO2. Twice. No, three times. Then you made reference to the "robot CO2" stuff in an attempt to justify those bogus claims.

    You are back-pedalling, and it exposes your poorly-thought-out arguments.

     

  19. The climate of the Earth for the last 11,700 years has been an interglacial period within the Quaternary Glaciation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL} Excessive repetition of off-topic material deleted.

  20. Americans are up to 30 percent more likely to have a heart attack in winter because the cold weather narrows blood vessels which raises blood pressure and pulse rate, increasing the risk of a heart attack.

    https://www.healthpartners.com/blog/cold-weather-and-heart-attacks/#:~:text=Studies%20have%20shown%20that%20Americans,overall%20health%20are%20at%20risk.

    The increased blood pressure and increased heart rate from the cold of winter also raise the risk of stroke.

    https://www.heart.org/en/news/2019/01/31/chilling-studies-show-cold-weather-could-increase-stroke-risk

     

    Below 60 degrees people without much clothing on, can and do get hypothermia and freeze to death.

    https://survivaldispatch.com/freezing-to-death-in-60-degree-weather/

     

    In Cleveland, the average high temperature is 61 and the average low temperature is 44, so there is a significant risk of dying from hypothermia if a person is outside for a long time with few clothes on. There are homeless shelters to protect homeless people from the cold weather.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Until you address criticisms of your comment on the Lancet article on this thread, further posts on heat vs cold will be deleted.

  21. scvblwxq1

    "Americans are up to 30 percent more likely to have a heart attack in winter because the cold weather narrows blood vessels which raises blood pressure and pulse rate, increasing the risk of a heart attack."

    Factoid of no use because it doesnt say what climate change will do to cold and heat  related deaths. This proper study is far more relevant:

    "This winter warming is expected to reduce the number of direct cold-related deaths, but the decrease is projected to be smaller than increases in heat-related deaths (see the Heat-Related Deaths indicator) in most regions.2/08/2022"

    www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-cold-related-deaths#:~:text=This%20winter%20warming%20is%20expected,Deaths%20indicator)%20in%20most%20regions.

     

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Note that the portions of the comment you have responded to have been snipped, until scvblwxq1 responds to counterarguments made on this thread:

    https://skepticalscience.com/heatwaves-silent-killer.html

    Further note to scvblwxq1: you must respond to any criticisms such as this one before you will be allowed to make any further new assertions.

     

  22. scvblwxq1 

    "Dear negelj, I don't know the details of the past Global Warming movement or while they were formed but when it collapsed ..."

    Previously you implied you were quite involved in this alleged movement "I've been through the Global Warming movement in the 80s that said that the world would be very hot by now" and now you cant remember a thing about it. How convenient. Do you have a serious memory problem? Do you seriously expect anyone to believe a single thing you say after an answer like you just made? 

    0 0
  23. Scientists have attributed recent rain in Australia to the Tongan volcanic blast earlier this year.  The blast has temporarily increased stratospheric water vapor over the Antarctic, resulting in a strengening of the polar vortex - and a positive 'SAM'  "When the polar vortex and SAM are stronger than usual, like they are now, the powerful westerlies stay closer to Antarctica. Therefore, southern Australia sees fewer colder fronts and less windy weather.

    This allows the east coast, between about Brisbane to Hobart, to see more days with onshore winds bringing extra wet weather."

    Unfortunately this has conspired with La Niña as well as IOD (Indian ocean dipole) to increase the liklihood of rain across eastern Australia.

    https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/how-a-tongan-volcanic-eruption-almost-guarantees-a-flooded-summer-for-australias-east-coast/news-story/3b1be3a36b5681ce70d7327392ed0129 

    0 0
  24. The top 9 cities in the US had no warming last year and all were below their recent high temperature. There was no data on the NOAA site for San Jose, the tenth-largest city, so I stopped at nine cities.

    City, Recent High-Year, High-Temp, 2020-Temp, 2021-Temp (yearly averages)

    New York     2012 57.8 57.3 56.9

    Los Angeles 2014 65.1 63.8 62.7

    Chicago       1998 55.1 53.4 53.4

    Philadelphia 2012 58.4 58.1 58.0

    Houston       2014 74.5 73.4 73.0

    San Antonio 2006 72.1 71.8 70.4

    Phoenix       2017 77.3 77.2 76.3

    Dallas          2012 70.4 68.5 68.1

    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cag/city/time-series/USW00094846/tavg/12/12/1895-2022?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000

     

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] These useless trivia bits are not adding anything to the conversation.

  25. nigelj,

    1988 was the hottest year on record, up to that date. That probably helped spawn the Global Warming movement. It never warmed enough to matter to people much, so that movement didn't flourish, and we are still seeing lots of migration in the US to warmer cities.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about. I was an undergraduate student in the 1970s, when global warming and climate change was part of the curriculum.

    ..and the factors causing migration in the US have little to do with climate change.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/non_sequitur

     

  26. All the big cities in the US are seeing cooling and that is not relevant? Maybe if you are pushing a point of view and deceptively calling it science! My aim is to get facts to the readers and let them make up their own minds instead of having a fake website that is only interested in pushing false Climate Change dogma. I sure won't bother posting any more climate information since it will just get deleted 10-20 times as many deaths due to cold as heat isn't relevant if you are just pushing dogma. Goodbye.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] I'll leave this intact.

    Your assertion that "cities in the US are seeing cooling" is not supported by any sort of analysis. Looking at maximum temperatures is "not even wrong".

    You have been repeatedly shown that your "climate information" is wrong, and you cannot do anything more that regurgitate incorrect "talking points".

     

  27. scvblwxq1 - why dont you look at the actual temperature trends for those cities which your source helpfully provides that as well as deviation from long term average?  You seem to  missed showing that in what you posted.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] scvblwxq1 has chosen to continue to violate the comments policy and had now recused himself from posting here.

    To inform the casual readers, in portions of comments that were deleted, scvblwxq1 was under the misconception that he could determine warming vs cooling by whether or not a city had set a new record high temperature this year. scvblwxq1 does not seem to understand averaging, let alone trend analysis.

     

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2022 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us