We do not have to look to the future to know the horrors of climate breakdown. It is here, now. According to a study at Monash University, extreme weather can account for 9.4% of all deaths across the globe between 2000 and 2019.
There is absolutely no way at all I’m going to believe that. Sorry, nope. And the link?
More than 5 million people die each year globally because of excessively hot or cold conditions, a 20-year study has found – and heat-related deaths are on the rise.
The study involving dozens of scientists around the world found that 9.4% of global deaths each year are attributable to heat or cold exposure, equivalent to 74 extra deaths per 100,000 people.
Now that I do believe. -Ish, at least. And Jezza is strictly true by saying “extreme weather” but untrue in that that’s not, at all, the way everyone’s going to read it. They’ll all be going heat, right?
Lying bastard.
People have been dropping dead of Indian heat for centuries before Gerbil Worming was invented.
Extreme weather would include storms and floods drowning people as well as cold and heat. But this whole claim is the kind where the response should be “What are their names?”
How lucky were our ancestors in their time of nice friendly weather.
I would like to see a time series of that statistic. I’m 99% certain that it would be a decreasing trend as % of deaths and 80% that it would be decreasing also in absolute terms.
jgh mentions India, even there deaths from cold seem to outnumber deaths from heat.
What pliz is a global death?
@jgh, @KJP. Cold-related deaths in India, 655,400. Heat-related deaths in India, 83,700. Global total 6.1m vs. 0.6m respectively. Look at https://climateataglance.com/climate-at-a-glance-temperature-related-deaths/, for example.
The relative numbers are approximately half a million heat deaths and 4.5 million cold deaths annually (with emphasis on approximately).
Extreme is not the same thing as unusual, is it? Friend grew up in Siberia. Minus 44 has to be pretty extreme but in a Siberian winter, commonplace. I can remember driving past Cordoba with the outside temp gauge on the car showing plus 44. Fairly normal for Cordoba in August.
In a warming world you’d expect more deaths from heat and fewer from cold. A growing human population will have a larger number of annual deaths from these causes.
What these monkeys don’t tell you is that since the beginning of the 20th century the number of people killed annually by extreme weather events has gone down by around 98%.
Yes. For every 100 killed by hurricanes, tsunamis etc in 1900, two die today thanks to all the protections provided by modern (largely Western) technology, social and logistics structures.
You’re welcome.
Cold kills more than heat.
So IF its getting hotter then at least for the next few degrees that is going to reduce cold deaths more than it increases heat deaths. burn coal and save thpusands of lives*!
*of course quite often it’s not the hot or cold per se that does them in. same as with covid, its just the last spin of the wheel and pick a reason.
Every time you look at cold-related deaths vs. heat-, the former is an order of magnitude higher.
There was a bar graph a while back that tried really hard to make it look like they were about equal. They did this via using different scales.
And no, the ratio isn’t changing over time. Anything published to the contrary should be looked at very skeptically.
Paris and Berlin will bake under heatwaves. New York will be hit by frequent storm-surges. Coastal towns will be submerged; 800 million people are living on land that will be underwater.
Some say the end is near
Some say we’ll see Armageddon soon
I certainly hope we will
I sure could use a vacation from this
Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
Freaks
The climate emergency is a global problem that requires global solutions
Ban green parties globally and kill their leaders for being wreckers and saboteurs after a fair 15 minute trial. Problem solved.
@ M
The ratio *should* be changing over time because we now spend billions (hundreds of millions in UK alone) on trying to protect the poor and elderly from dying of cold,
@ bis
It still get down to -60C in parts of Siberia but Lake Baikal acts as a moderating influence for a large area around it and the reservoir (made by expand a natural lake) near Novosibirsk has made a significant difference for the largest population centre so the winter temperature only hit -35C when I was there.
On a tangent – the rise in global temperature has increased the wheat production in Siberia and, as a consequence the ability of Russia to export wheat (pre-Gorbachev, it was unable to feed itself without Australia’s help thanks to Stalin’s policy of enforcing Collective Farms)
john77 – if we had scientists, it might be useful to try to estimate how much of increased Russian grain production is due to Siberia recovering from the last Ice Age, and how much is due to generations of soil improvement, infrastructure build, better seeds and mechanisation.
Apparently Russia is warming “2.5 times as fast” as global average. If there’s massive, continental sized disparities like that it’s even less likely that human CO2 production is the cause. Because Brownian motion.
“Coastal towns will be submerged; 800 million people are living on land that will be underwater.”
Better tell Barry then, his house is in danger……….
@ Steve
Nowt from generations of soil improvement in Siberia as the “Virgin Lands” programme was a Gorbachev initiative less than a generation ago.
IMHO virtually all of it is due to the abolition of Collective Farms (I hope that you remember that they created Band Aid by causing The Ethiopian Famine) as Tsarist Russia was a major food exporter. Under Brezhnev, over one-third of wheat crops were lost to rats and other storage and transport failures. I should hope that the post-Communist window to the West allowed imports of better seeds and – probably more important – the use of better seeds developed by Russian scientists who were not members of The Party, but that is secondary.
Mechanisation? – didn’t you read the tractor production statistics?
The disasters of the Stalin and Brezhnev years demonstrate that mechanisation is not a solution to low yields – it is, as it was always intended to be, a means of reducing the labour content of production. Infrastructure build likewise.
Human CO2 production *per head* in Russia is significantly greater than the global average – but human CO2 production per acre in Russia is below the global average. That does NOT mean that human CO2 production is irrelevant since Chinese CO2 production will have an impact on Siberia since winds there are blowing in from the south
Jezza is talking rot in his first sentence. A rise in temperatures of 3.1C is not incompatible with human survival.
Think about it (I assume that you can, whereas the Grauniad assumes that its readers cannot) – if the UK was as warm as Italy or Spain, would we all die of heat-stroke and would all our wheat and vegetables perish before ripening? Would we starve or die of vitamin deficiency if we ate grapes instead of blackberries? We now get red mullet and more sardines but less herring off Cornwall – is that a sufficient change that we shall all starve to death?
I once ducked out of an ultra-race when the weather forecast read +35C but that was because I am are significantly more sensitive than the average human to heat – others competed and completed it (does Jezza think they were non-human rather than super-human?)
john77 – Mechanisation increases the amount of land you can plant and harvest, and increases average productivity. Everybody laughs at Commie tractor production stats but for countries that hadn’t previously known electricity and had relied on animal power to assist with agriculture, a basic tractor was The Future.
Central planning didn’t work, but technology does.
That does NOT mean that human CO2 production is irrelevant since Chinese CO2 production will have an impact on Siberia since winds there are blowing in from the south
We are told that the Little Ice Age wasn’t a global phenomenon because it was localised across much of the planet and not all of it.
We are told that excess warming of the Asian continent is a global phenomenon even though it is localised across much of the planet and not all of it.
Steve @ 2.36, the global warming blob will twist any and every thing to support their belief. They are not interested in Mr Feynmans’ truism, they are religious cultists and expecting them to face facts, evidence and reality is a waste of time. Do not entertain them* – they are mad.
* Ditto, those on here who espouse ever more fanciful notions to solving the ‘climate crisis’, but who will have to accept the fact, sooner of later that they have been duped. Hopefully it will be sooner……………….
Presumably, the greenies ignore China’s emissions because China is already communist…
The climate hysterics said the Maldives would have vanished under the waves by 2018. Instead their surface area has slightly increased.
Interesting intretation of siberian warming which I once read, probably at wattsupwiththat.com. In Soviet times the temperature records in remote settlements in Siberia were the same when reporting for international weather info or for reporting to the Soviet government. For the settlement a colder record would increase the ration of heating fuel in the plan. So it was in the interest of the local authorities to exaggerate on the low side. When the regime collapsed that incentive was reduced, and the records became patchy. Large numbers of weather stations in the North were removed for the internationally accepted list of thermometers for climate measurements. Temperatures now are interpolated rom records tken up to 1200km away. So the effect of the fiddled cold temps in the past with no records more recently produced a warming effect where none really existed. That may be why Siberia is warming more rapidly according to the anointed. In fact it’s bloody cold and has been for a looooong time.
@ Steve
If you would take the trouble to read what I wrote above, you would realise that, since the amount of potentially cultivable land is not changed by the increase in the number of tractors, mechanisation only increases the amount of land that you can plant and harvest with a *limited and predetermined amount of labour* – it does *not* change the amount of land that you can plant and harvest if you direct labour to do so.
The applicatiion of fertilisers will improve yields so Krushchev imported know-how from the UK to build factories to produce fertiliser but it is only since the fall of the Soviet Union that more wheat has reached the bakers and the export terminals.
Addolff – they are religious cultists and expecting them to face facts, evidence and reality is a waste of time. Do not entertain them
Greenies are demonstrably more extreme and more dangerous to our national security than Islamistic and Extreme Right Wing grouplets that are routinely banned by the Home Office.
They are mad and bad and sad, let’s ban them to make us glad.
john77 – we may be talking at crucified purposes here, but the Virgin Lands scheme was from 1953. Pendantry I know.
More pendantry. You said : mechanisation is not a solution to low yields
But shirely some mistake? Every historical advance in agricultural technology has led to higher yields. This research paper agrees:
For every 1% increase in the level of mechanization, the yields of all crops, grain crops and cash crops increase by 1.2151, 1.5941 and 0.4351%, respectively
According to the School of Economics, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang, China, no less.
since the amount of potentially cultivable land is not changed by the increase in the number of tractors
But if labour supply is one of your limiting factors, of course it is. Tractors let you do more farmer stuff than you could before. Tractors aren’t driven just for the fanny magnet factor, you know.
Steve,
“Apparently Russia is warming “2.5 times as fast” as global average. If there’s massive, continental sized disparities like that it’s even less likely that human CO2 production is the cause. Because Brownian motion.”
It could be anything. Like maybe Russia has more weather stations at airports and growing traffic has heated them up. Or they’re even worse than we are at positioning them incorrectly (but they still get included in the data, like happens here).
I was in the Yukon a few years back and it hit -58 nobody seemed bothered apart from the comments it was a slightly chilly winter.
They were much more annoyed last year when it was a warmer winter and the ice wasn’t thick enough for an ice bridge on the river
@ Steve
Apologies for typo – I know “Virgin Lands” was Krushchev. I was going to add something (I cannot now remember what) about Gorbachov’s (much later) failure with agriculture. I remember “Virgin Lands” being a success in the short term until the soil was degraded.
@ Steve
In the Soviet Union, mechanisation of agriculture was not a result of any initial shortage of serfs to plough the land but was introduced to release labour from agriculture to take part in the rapid industrialisation. In the UK the move from farm to town after the agricultural revolution that facilitated the Industrial Revolution was a gradual process resulting from economic preference butin the Soviet Union it was state policy and rapid.
Whatever the research paper may say about the results in China, the introduction of Collective Farms in the Soviet Union led to famines and turned one of the world’s largest exporters of wheat into the world’s largest importer of wheat – mechanisation is not a silver bullet. Of course Mao’s agricultural policies killed even more than Stalin’s, so any data from China is going to be very sensitive to the starting point of the comparison
john77 – Yarp, central planning was pretty much an unmitigated, slow rolling disaster. Except maybe for military stuff, where the USSR managed to accumulate the biggest and baddest armed forces in history, that still wasn’t enough to defeat illiterate Afghan tribesmen carrying Lee Enfields.
The Chinese economists are talking bout modern China, not the self-inflicted insanity of Mao and the gang.
Something that has always puzzled me about Red China, the USSR, and modern Western governments is how little they value their own people. Your people *are* your nation, why on earth would you want fewer of them around? Why would you want them to be poor and desperate?
WB – it strikes me that apparently the Russians are untrustworthy, imperialist liars, except when it comes to global warming, in which case their data is unquestionably legit and we’d better abandon the socio-technological basis of our entire civilisation without ado.
It also strikes me that you can have a social order based on contempt for people and lies about the nature of reality, but it won’t endure.
If we had a social order based on love and truth, it would be indefatigable.