Should We Be More Focused on Battling the Cold?

250,000 people dying is not a minor event.
If an engineer built a bridge that killed that many people hed be tarred and feathered.
Yet climate scientists make inane speculations of extreme weather being caused by CO2.
Climate scientists blame cooling on AGW is about the dumbest science imaginable.
If your inane science doesnt harm anyone then you can just be laughed at.
EXCEPT NOW YOU ARE KILLING PEOPLE.
I hope those who espouse AGW science will accept full responsibility for their action when it becomes apparent how full of BS your theories are.
If the Sun controls climate,this current cooling in Europe is the first vestige of a mini ice age.
As for your BS theory ,we know the temp in Greenland was warmer during the Medieval warm period.
Did this cause cooling in Europe?
No it coincided with a flourishing warm European climate.
So much for you "warming of the Arctic causes cooling" theory.
BTW Piers Corbyn can actually predict WHEN the jetstream will be blocked by observing the Suns effect on the magnetosphere.
It would be impossible to make predictions without knowing the cause.
Which is why climate scientists can never make correct predictions about anything.
They've been wrong about the Earths temp for the past 17 years.

 

Wait, what? The climate scientists are killing people because England's been cold lately?

 

Yup by raising the price of fuel .Which in turn raises the price of food.
If there is another mini Ice age.
Crops will fail.Lambs and calves are already freezing to death.

 

I'm not getting it. Didn't the politicians raise the price of fuel to make the government bigger? I didn't think the climate scientists did that. I thought according to grumpy they also subsidized insulation so you would need less fuel. Seems you should be mad at the people who didn't insulate their homes, and maybe some politicians for not having programs for the poor if that is part of the problem.

 

Oh, dear.

 

"If the Sun controls climate,this current cooling in Europe is the first vestige of a mini ice age." Mojo @21

Good to see that "if". It leads us towards deeper thinking. Received solar irradiance clearly controls glacial cycles. Reduced solar irradiance clearly contributed to the LIA. But we have to get time scales into our thinking. If the (about) decadal solar cycle had a strong effect on air temperatures on that time scale, I think we'd have noticed by now.

Direct observations of the solar cycle predate extensive instrumental temperature records. I think that's pretty neat. So much so, that I ask you all to collect a copy of this figure, or find an alternative on the web. It offers much perspective.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color_Small.jpg

The current cycle 24
NASA/Marshall Solar Physics
Is probably near a peak of about 70 sunspots. It may be most similar to (previous) cycles 5, 6 or 7. Those were 3 wimpy cycles, back-to-back. Predictions are not (yet) particularly reliable, but we can certainly ask 'what if?'

What if we had 3 wimpy cycles in row again? Perhaps global air T from 1800-1825 hold a clue. The BEST (Berkeley) reconstruction shows a co-occurring 0.5 oC drop. That may be the answer, or it may be that CO2 of 400 ppm will keep things just a bit warmer than the 290 ppm did back then.

Solar cycle #19 was the biggest in the record. So we can also ask if 1958-1959 were exceptionally warm years.
I suppose that PriusChat's climate watchers already know the answer to that one.

So, that is how I would approach the original "if". Sunspot cycles, by themselves, do not appear to have the power to bring on super winters or super summers. If they drop out entirely for more than 3 cycles (as appears to have happened during the LIA), along with a big volcanic injection to the stratosphere (also happened), and if 400 ppm if CO2 decides to stop absorbing outgoing radiation, then I'd also be concerned about "Iceagenow".

That is quite a string of ifs, for a currently cold European winter to presage (not vestige please, it means the opposite) a mini ice age.

 

Since more people die because of cold, and there are more injuries and illnesses, in the cold, I would think government policies would need to help people deal with the cold more than the hot.

That doesn't mean there are not severe hot weather catastrophes. Warm summers in France and Russia have killed many people, because they were not prepared, and it was different. Those same conditions that caused those deaths are easily dealt with in Hot places. It appears that in the UK the government is making insulation available at good prices, but public education to insulate homes is poor. In the NE US somehow many state governments and people have not gotten the memo to switch away from oil heat. Connecticut finally in 2013 is starting to make the change. As discussed previously Maine because of sparse population needs different solutions than laying natural gas pipelines.

 

Insulation for pensioners is FREE. Pensioners also get a cold weather payment on their pensions, they also get extra pension payments in winter to pay for extra heating. Other than just paying their full heating bills for them, what more can be done? If people don't want to have the FREE insulation and have it installed free, then more fool them.

Winter Fuel Payment - GOV.UK

Cold Weather Payment - GOV.UK


You can lead a horse to water.....

 

Well then the article is just said. If anything the UK government sounds like a nanny state, and the editorial writer thinks the government should tuck people in at night also.

 

lol over 10 years of a socialist government and many people think the government SHOULD tuck them into bed at night. The latest government we have isn't great but they're better than the last tax and spend idiots we had. Pensioners also get free bus passes too, plus other benefits. What do they want next, free food and beer? Sure they've paid tax and need looking after, but let's be realistic about where money comes from.

Social security has got well out of hand to the point its laughable if it wasn't so serious. Of course, those who benefit will vote the party who will provide and if they turn to a majority, then we have an issue. There was a massive uproar when it was suggested that social security payments should be LIMITED to £26,000/$39,400 per annum. So what incentive is there to earn MORE than minimum wage or even a reasonable income of £25,000 when you can earn more doing didly squat stuffing your face with pies?

BBC News - George Osborne: Benefit critics talk 'ill-informed rubbish'

That was restrict social security TO £26,000 pa, which is double the minimum wage. Why would you consider working?

Ever wondered why Europe is up **** creek?

 

Well this is serious! Let's go find the dead:

Source: Report: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030 - US News and World Report

Source: Climate Change Kills 400,000 a Year, New Report Reveals - The Daily Beast

Well apparently we losing almost twice as many dead from climate change as the 'cold'. Hummm, I guess we'll have to send teams out to bring out your dead:

GrumpyCabby, are you dead yet?

Bob Wilson

 

I think you read something into this as foolish as mojo.
From the executive summary
Report - DARA

Its the pollution they are accounting for, not the ghg.

 

Good grief, I thought over-population was a contributing factor to climate change/global warming/whatever,,, why would anyone get in their huggies in a bundle about a mere 100M by 2030?

 

lol, some days it feels like it

 

Again, from the report, the big numbers are from air pollution and indoor smoke. I'm not sure how people think these things are better served by regulating ghg, than air pollution and indoor smoke directly.

 

"Bring out your dead!" <boom>​

"Bring out your dead!" <boom>​

When our good friend "Mojo" post a claim '250,000 dead', well perhaps it is time to remember even before Global Warming, noxious gases, lead, and other toxins were in common use and they killed and injured huge numbers. It was the toxins and poisons of earlier decades that opened our eyes that abuse of the commons that can kill.

Today, our good friend "Mojo" wants to run around with his hair on fire and claim global warming is killing people as if we don't remember . . . he and his 'buddies' are more than willing to re-release the poisons and toxins into the commons of the past. So . . .

"Bring out your dead!" <BOOM>​

"Bring out your dead!" <BOOM>​

Let's face it, empiricists are not going to panic because some child-like mind thinks shouting 'the sky is falling, we're all going to die.' So instead, let's have some fun at his expense. Laugh at, mock, treat as what it is, a setup for a Monty Python skit . . . and pure nonsense.

So going back to the original post, an article by a right-wing nut-case, trying to make an obviously false and inflated claim. Let's start with basics:

"Where are the bodies?"​

In a world of Internet connectivity, ask the propagandist, 'bring out your dead!'

• What are their names?
• When did they die?
• What does their death certificate say?
• Can we get a copy?
• What do the civil reports about public deaths claim?

As for "Mojo", seldom can I remember as less effective, more clown-like nut-case . . . Glenn Beck comes to mind but Michelle Bachman is even better. What insulates us, inoculates us from their madness, is the scientific method.

Science works from:

• speculation and observations
• hypothesis
• testing with quantified observations
• repeat

In contrast, propagandists work from:

• I say 'this'
• 'This' must be true because I say it

Sad to say, it is impossible for propagandists to ever understand the scientific method. One might as well teach differential equations to a dog. Except for being the same species, we share nothing in our search for insights and truth. So let's have some fun with the clowns who volunteer to come here and be our sport.

So to answer the question: reducing green house gasses leads to technology that replaces the toxins of wooden stoves and coal with more efficient, less polluting sources. Instead of diesels emitting clouds of carcinogens and NO{x}, more efficient and less polluting power sources.

Looking at one narrow aspect, incremental cost per BTU, they are content to ignore the cost per shortened and limited human lives. They have no sympathy for those who suffer the abuses they ignore . . .

Bob Wilson

 

For those that think heat kills more in the US and britian than cold, you should look past the headlines. Having been born in the cold, and now living in a place many seem to think is so hot it will kill them, I can easily see how cold kills. We have airconditioning and sun tan lotion. Homes without air conditioning have fans and ventilation. Check out this wiki for information

Does Hot weather or cold weather cause more deaths

It does say such things as

Let's look at the english numbers

Cold kills the english much more easily than heat. But it appears that the deaths caused by cold weather are falling, not becoming more of a problem.

The study that seemed to claim global warming was going to kill many more in the world, seemed to get the high numbers from, get this, people burning fuel without proper ventilation to stay warm. I can see how that might mean cold weather leads to more death and ghg, but not how hot weather is the cause.

 

I wonder if temperate weather kills? Seriously, there has to be some effect due to folks being drawn outdoors where more accidents can happen then if they were confined inside.

 

OK Im a fool and you are all brilliant.
The Greenland ice cores prove the Arctic was warm when Europe was warm during the Medieval Warming Period.
The Greenland ice core proves the Arctic was colder during the European Little Ice Age.
But today a warm Arctic causes extreme cold in Europe.
Please show me how stupid I am, and explain how today a warm Arctic can cause a cold Europe, while for at least the past 1000 years we know that not to be the case.
Some magical power of CO2 that fools like myself cant perceive.
If you believe ocean currents have changed ,they havent.
Thats an Instant FAIL.

 

Well we all know breathing causes cancer. 100% of people that have died from cancer have breathed, so I'm sure someone will show us how temperate weather kills, but it won't be a very exciting article.