I've written many times
that any wild guess
of the future climate,
is likely to be published
only if it claims
bad climate news ahead.
The following junk science study
got published -- that shows
the huge weaknesses of the
peer-review system.
The Seattle Times,
a major U.S. newspaper,
rushed to summarize
this junk science study
in a front page headline,
on June 14, 2019:
This is not
educating the public,
but attempting to
scare the public.
SUMMARY:
The paper quoted
in the headline
ignored the reduction
in cold-period mortality,
from future global warming !
The paper assumed
Seattle residents
would not buy
air conditioners
like everyone else does.
The paper did not separate
true heat-related mortality,
from unrelated deaths
such as from boat accidents
in warm weather,
and also made
simple extrapolations,
for which they had little data
on heat-related impacts.
The paper's climate projections
are based on
a single modeling system,
which, even if it was
close to being correct,
has a large grid spacing
resolution of roughly 150-200 km.
This paper uses
climate simulations
based on different
greenhouse gas forcing
that warm the planet by
+1.5C, +2C and +3 degrees C.,
by the end of the century.
Based on actual experience with rising
CO2 levels since 1940, we've had
less than +0.6 degrees C. warming
in the 78 years, from 1940 through 2018.
The paper assumes
future warming,
in the next 81 years,
will range from
2.5x the past 78 years
to 5.0 x the past 78 years.
Assuming just
+ 1 degree C. warming
in the next 81 years,
would be 30% more than
actual warming in the past 78 years,
but that would be reasonable.
+1.5 degree C., +2 degree C.
and especially +3 degrees C,
are NOT reasonable, unless
CO2 scaremongering is your goal.
For a number of U.S. cities,
the study looks at observed
maximum daily temperature
for only a short period (1987-2000).
Their observed daily maxima shows
Seattle cooler than San Francisco,
which is cooler than LA.
I've been in all three cities
-- that seems reasonable.
But their climate simulations
show that Seattle will have
more extreme warm days
than Los Angeles.
That makes no sense.
Boston's future extreme warm days
are claimed to be more extreme
than Dallas.
That makes no sense.
My "scientific conclusion":
Their climate simulations
are a steaming pile
of farm animal digestive
waste products.
DETAILS:
The front page of the Seattle Times
claims future Seattle heat waves
could kill hundreds of people
-- over 700 deaths per event.
The only solution is claimed to be
rapidly cutting greenhouse
gas emissions.
This story was based on a paper
in the journal Science Advances:
"Increasing mitigation ambition
to meet the Paris Agreement’s
temperature goal avoids
substantial heat-related mortality
in U.S. cities."
The paper is a wild guess estimate
of how temperature will change
this century, under global warming.
There is a shaky approach
for estimating the additional
deaths associated with
various levels of global warming
in the next 81 years, ranging from
2.5x to 5.0x more than the actual
global warming in the past 78 years!
For each city,
they completed
a statistical analysis
of the death rates
FROM ALL CAUSES
versus the average
daily temperature.
The study ignores the deaths
from cold temperatures,
and the fact that global warming
should reduce such mortality.
-- Seattle has a problem with
homeless deaths each year
due to exposure to cold weather.
-- There are also deaths
from automobile accidents
on icy roads.
Global warming should reduce both
types of cold weather deaths.
The study ignores that.
The study also assumes Seattle folks
will stubbornly refuse to purchase
air conditioners, which cost as little
as $100, for a 5,000 BTU window unit.
That makes no sense.
The study fails to determine
the cause of death for their
statistical analysis.
When temperature start warming up,
for one example, people rush out
for active outdoor activities,
which sometimes leads to loss of life.
Some people get killed while cycling,
hiking and boating during warm weather.
The study blames the warm weather.
The paper should have determined
the numbers of truly heat-caused deaths,
such as deaths from heat stroke.
In Atlanta and San Francisco,
mortality goes DOWN at
very high temperatures.
But their climates are very different.
Atlanta would get very hot,
but not San Francisco.
That doesn't make sense.
In Phoenix they claimed
the minimum mortality was when
the daily average temperature
was 34.5 C or 94F.
That doesn't make sense, either.