I’m returning to an old subject because the Guardian won’t leave it alone. In Losing the Plot I criticised a potentially misleading Guardian headline (“Extreme temperatures kill 5 million people a year with heat-related deaths rising, study finds”) by pointing out that the study referenced by the Guardian in that story actually demonstrated that a human inhabitant of planet earth is almost 10 times more likely to die of cold than of heat. Another study on the same topic has just been published, and unfortunately for the Guardian’s climate doomsayers it also undermines the narrative that rising temperatures (this time specifically in Europe) will lead to more deaths.
What, then, is to be done? Why, the answer is obvious. It’s to do what the Guardian always does in these cases, namely to choose a headline that spins the study’s findings in the desired direction, and then to cherry-pick the findings so that the required impression is created in the mind of the reader. Thus we find an article with the heading “Heat deaths in Europe may triple by end of the century, study finds” and the sub-heading “Countries in south most at risk, with rise likely to outstrip fall in cold-related deaths if global heating hits 3C or 4C”.
Having got off to this good start, the article proceeds to build upon these foundations. As always, it’s cleverly done, and the data cited do appear in the study. The problem is the way in which they are presented, which creates a different impression from the one justified by an objective reading of the study. Thus the Guardian concentrates on soundbites such as these:
Heat deaths in Europe could triple by the end of the century, with the numbers rising disproportionately in southern European countries such as Italy, Greece and Spain, a study has found.
If global heating reaches a catastrophic 3C or 4C, the researchers concluded, the rise in heat deaths will greatly outstrip the fall in cold deaths.
Deaths from warm weather could kill 129,000 people a year if temperatures rise to 3C above preindustrial levels. Today, heat-related deaths in Europe stand at 44,000. But the yearly death toll from cold and heat in Europe may rise from 407,000 people today to 450,000 in 2100 even if world leaders meet their global warming target of 1.5C, the study found.
That last one is particularly clever, with its talk of 44,000 heat-related death, followed by a neat segue into ten times as many cold and heat related deaths by 2100.
The research comes on the back of a series of scorching heatwaves that have wreaked havoc across the continent. Its results challenge arguments from climate deniers that global heating is good for society because fewer people will die from cold.
And so, job done. The claims of evil climate deniers are undermined very successfully. Even modest warming will cause more heat-related deaths. More people will die. If temperatures rise by 3C or 4C more deaths from heat will outstrip the reduced deaths from cold. Whichever way you look at it, warming is bad news. Game over. Take that, deniers everywhere.
There’s just one problem – the detailed findings of the study itself. Shall we take a look at what it says?
Probably the main thing to note is the methodology:
Mortality was projected for present conditions observed in 1991–2020 and for four different levels of global warming (1·5°C, 2°C, 3°C, and 4°C increase) by regions, and subregions using an ensemble of 11 climate models produced by the Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment-CMIP5 over Europe, and population projection data from EUROPOP2019.
The key findings are helpfully summarised near the beginning of the study:
Our results highlight regional disparities in temperature-related mortality across Europe. Between 1991 and 2020, the number of cold-related deaths was 2·5 times higher in eastern Europe than western Europe, and heat-related deaths were 6 times higher in southern Europe than in northern Europe. During the same time period, there were a median of 363 809 cold-related deaths (empirical 95% CI 362 493–365 310) and 43 729 heat-related deaths (39 880–45 921), with a cold-to-heat-related death ratio of 8·3:1. Under current climate policies, aligned with 3°C increase in global warming, it is estimated that temperature-related deaths could increase by 54 974 additional deaths (24 112–80 676) by 2100, driven by rising heat-related deaths and an ageing population, resulting in a cold-to-heat-related death ratio of 2·6:1. Climate change is also expected to widen disparities in regional mortality, particularly impacting southern regions of Europe as a result of a marked increase in heat-related deaths.
Let’s pause for a moment. Between 1991-2020 across Europe as a whole an average of 8.3 people died from cold for every one who died from heat. If temperatures rise by 3C by 2100 then that ratio shifts to 2.6 cold deaths for every heat death, and more people will die overall from a combination of heat and cold, but this will be due both to temperature changes and an ageing population. In fairness, the Guardian report does mention this latter (and very significant) factor, but does so almost in passing and mentions it only once, while the entire article is dedicated to climate alarmism.
The detail within the study offers some curious insights. For instance, between 1991-2000, in the Netherlands cold-related mortality was 25 per 100,000 deaths, while in Bulgaria it was 300 per 100,000 (in other words, cold-related mortality was 12 times higher in Bulgaria than in the Netherlands). No doubt this is related to lots of factors (sadly, not explored by the study, so far as I can see, but I assume wealth/poverty and access – or not – to central heating, played a substantial part in those results). Perhaps surprisingly the lowest numbers of cold-related deaths were found to be in central Europe (due to wealth again?) and in parts of southern Europe (presumably due to a warmer climate).
Heat-related deaths were six times more common in the south than in the north. Not surprisingly the risk of heat-related deaths in Scandinavia was low, as it was in the British Isles too (which isn’t a surprise if the non-existent summer of 2024 is anything to go by). Highest risk values from heat were to be found in southern areas and in Croatia.
The ratio of cold-related deaths to heat-related deaths in 1991-2020 is confirmed – approximately 8.31:1 across Europe, but with significant disparities, from 3.3:1 in Slovenia to 132.5:1 in Ireland.
Next follows a very interesting table analysing projected deaths separately from cold and from heat by individual country, in the four scenarios considered (temperatures rising by 1.5C, 2C, 3C and 4C) compared to deaths from those causes in 1991-2020. This is where it gets really interesting, because it illustrates (without separating out and separately identifying) the extent to which an ageing population leads to more deaths from extreme temperatures (both cold and heat). Taking the first few countries alphabetically, the point rather jumps out. The number of cold-related deaths in Austria is projected to be higher under every increased temperature scenario than in 1991-2020, with the greatest increase being from 3,742 (1991-2020) to 5,018 (1.5C), then declining steadily as the temperature rises, but still (at 4C) projected to be 3,846, i.e. more than without any temperature rise. To this curious bystander, it seems obvious that an ageing population is a significant factor in the projected increase in temperature-related deaths, if the number dying from cold is significantly higher after a 1.5C increase in temperature, and is still higher after a 4C increase. Naturally, the numbers projected to die from heat increase with every rise in temperature. The same is true for Belgium, though with a slight decline in cold-related deaths only once the 4C threshold is broached. Bulgaria and Croatia show declining deaths from cold under all temperature scenarios, but Cyprus shows significant increases. The narrative does make the point about ageing, but so far as I can see, the relative importance of ageing and temperature changes aren’t stripped out:
The number of deaths will be highest among people aged 85 years and older. This age group, in addition to having greater vulnerability to extreme temperatures compared with other groups, will also increase in size substantially by 2100 due to the expected rise in life expectancy. The overall net effect on mortality (increase in heat-related deaths minus reduction in cold-related deaths) is expected to remain highly positive for this age group, especially in warmer climate scenarios. [My emphasis].
A follow-on paragraph, related to the above analysis, makes interesting reading:
The direction of the projected change in cold-related mortality risk is mixed depending on the area considered. Under the 3°C increase scenario, standardised death rates due to cold would vary from 80 fewer to 80 additional deaths per 100 000 people compared with the 1991–2020 scenario. Moderate declines in deaths would be observed in regions in eastern Europe (eg, –62·1 in Yambol Province, Bulgaria), with mild reductions in some parts of Germany (eg, –5·4 in Hannover), France, Italy, and Portugal. Moderate to high increases are projected in Poland, Czechia, Ireland, and some Scandinavian regions. In contrast, heat-related standardised rates would univocally increase in all European regions, with increases ranging from 0·5 to 92 additional deaths per 100 000 people in regions of Spain. For heat-related deaths, the pattern of the projected increases follows a north–south gradient, where southern European regions will have the highest increase in excess deaths attributable to heat.
The curious thing is that the population will have aged successfully, despite the supposed threat of growing age-related mortality due to extreme temperatures. This is another fascinating (and rather curious) paragraph:
The role of climate is projected to vary depending on the considered temperature risk, showing a negative contribution to cold-related deaths and positive contribution to heat-related deaths. The size of contribution of warming differs by geographical location, with net negative effects (ie, lower mortality) observed in the north and intensified positive effects (ie, higher mortality) in southern latitudes. The contribution of demographic forces was strongly driven by the ageing component and was much more pronounced for cold-related mortality, since the relative risk of cold is notably higher than that of heat for all age groups, especially for older age groups. Overall, a small negative effect (2·4 fewer deaths per 100 000 people) on the cold-related death rate would be expected in Europe, since the positive impact of ageing on the risk will be outweighed by the negative contribution of climate. Notable increases in cold-related death rates by country are expected in Ireland (39·5 additional deaths per 100 000 people), Slovakia (19·0 additional deaths per 100 000 people), and Norway (17·5 additional deaths per 100 000 people), all of which have a strong ageing population. Conversely, cold-related mortality rates would decrease in Bulgaria (39·2 fewer deaths per 100 000 people) and the Baltic countries (35·8 fewer deaths per 100 000 people in Latvia and 29·7 fewer deaths per 100 000 people in Lithuania), due to a stronger decline in total mortality rates that would compensate for the ageing component.
One more long quote from the study (this time with respect to heat-related deaths) again illustrates the extent to which an ageing population is a factor:
We identified areas of future heightened risk of heat-related mortality (termed hotspots) where marginally greater susceptibility (ageing), greater hazard increase (warming), or a combination of the two are expected to result in a larger increase in mortality risk by 2050. These hotspots are primarily concentrated in southern latitudes, particularly in regions of Spain, Italy, and Greece, but also extend to more northern areas, significantly impacting a substantial part of France. The most eastern regions will be affected by an intensification of warming, but total death risk attributed to heat will be mitigated mainly by a strong decline in total mortality in these areas. In northern Europe, mean heat during summer will increase but not enough to cause additional deaths. However, the expected ageing of the population will make this area more susceptible to extreme heat episodes
The reference to a strong decline in total mortality in eastern Europe suggests in addition, to my untutored eye, that assumed growing wealth (or reduced poverty) in those regions might have a role to play. My suspicion in that latter regard is reinforced by a sentence in the discussion section of the paper, which refers to “the positive association between mortality risks and regional income (a proxy for these risk-moderating drivers), particularly evident in the case of cold mortality.”
In essence, the statistics seem to be heavily driven by projections of an ageing and growing population (of course more people will die every year if there are more people and if a growing proportion of that increased population is older than now):
The evolution of cold-related mortality suggests a more complex interplay between the effect of warming and demographic shifts, which can push cold mortality risk downward or upward (eg, –20·5 expected deaths in Croatia, benefiting from lower overall mortality rates, compared with +39·5 deaths in Ireland, disadvantaged by a marked ageing of its population). The total effect for each region will depend on which of the forces dominates.
Also this:
There are two main factors driving these shifts: climate and demographic changes. Climatic drivers relevant to this impact assessment include the generalised increase in average temperatures, coupled with the proliferation of longer, more intense, and more frequent extreme heat episodes.
Demographic shifts in Europe are predicted to be characterised by three processes: (1) an overall mild decrease (about –5%) in the total European population by the end of the century, subject to strong spatial variability; (2) a general and sustained population ageing process affecting all countries and regions, with the European share of the population aged 85 years and older increasing from 2·9% (1991–2020) to 9·3% in 2100; and (3) a projected increase in life expectancy, indicated by a decrease in the total mortality rate across all age groups. Ageing and warming will be generalised and will extensively affect all the studied regions. However, these effects will be particularly pronounced in the identified hotspots, which can serve as focal points for targeted interventions and actionable adaptive measures. Other factors, such as the evolution of socioeconomic developments or other secondary consequences of climate change on demography—such as the effects of net migration—could influence total temperature-related deaths. Consequently, it should be noted that the projections presented in this study should be interpreted as conditional on current adaptation policies and socioeconomic characteristics.
As the authors of the study acknowledge, their analyses have several limitations, not least of which is the extent to which their results will be distorted by the urban heat island effect:
The results presented are based on observations from a sample of the urban population living in medium to large cities. Consequently, not all regions were adequately sampled (particularly in eastern countries), and results do not cover rural populations. Urban populations typically face higher levels of temperature stress, particularly from heat.
Consequently, they acknowledge that their results might be “slightly overestimated”. In addition, they took no account of possible acclimatisation to warmer summers on the part of European populations, nor did they take any account of possible adaptation measures that might be put in place. With 76 years to go until 2100, my money would be on both of those being significant omissions from the analysis.
Be that as it may, it seems to me that the best way of stripping out the distorting effect of an ageing population on the numbers is to see whether, under any of the hypotheses, more people are projected to die from heat than from cold in Europe by 2100. The answer to that question is a resounding “no”. Across Europe as a whole, the ratio between cold-related and heat-related deaths unsurprisingly drops with every increase in temperature, but the results stubbornly point to more cold-related deaths than heat-related ones under every scenario (6.7:1 if temperatures rise by 1.5C); 4.9:1 if temperatures rise by 2C; 2.6:1 of temperatures rise by 3C; and 1.4:1 if temperatures rise by 4C). Only in Malta are more people projected to die from heat than from cold with a 3C increase (and even then the ratio is just 0.9:1). With a 4C increase, a few extra countries fall into that category, namely Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland. Even with a 4C increase in temperatures, the numbers dying from cold are still projected massively to outstrip deaths from heat in many countries. For instance, in that scenario, the cold/heat deaths ratio would remain 4.7:1 in Estonia, Latvia and Finland (and 4.8:1 in Lithuania); it would be 7.4:1 in Ireland; 5.3:1 in Norway; 3.8:1 in Sweden and 4.9:1 in the UK. Stripping out demographic factors, it’s obvious that we have an improving position all the way to a 1:1 ratio.
Finally, I note that although the study refers to the effects of rising temperatures in Europe, a number of European countries appear to be excluded from the analysis, notably (but not exclusively) in eastern Europe. Admittedly, political issues might have been an issue in respect of some of them, but I suspect that the omission of such countries distorts the narrative towards that of heat becoming more of a problem than cold. The study never mentions, so far as I can see, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Moldova, Bosnia, Serbia, Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Iceland or the Faroe Islands. In all of those countries, whether because of climate or poverty or both, I suspect that cold is more of a problem than heat, such that rising temperatures will benefit their mortality rates.
In short, the study provides us with a great deal of interesting information and food for thought. It has shortcomings, however, some of which its authors acknowledge and others of which they may not be aware. None of them are mentioned by the Guardian, with its fixation on the “climate crisis” narrative. My conclusion is that it remains legitimate for sceptics (who are not “deniers”, Guardian please note) to point to the beneficial effect of reducing numbers of cold-related deaths as temperatures rise. This narrative holds good in Europe specifically, and across the world more generally.
Climate Scepticism 
You don’t need sophisticated analysis to know whether the elderly prefer heat or cold.
People with the money to do so retire to heat (Florida, Cote d’Azur) not cold (Vermont, Brittany).
LikeLiked by 4 people
It is clear that the largest industry in the world today is deception. Thank you for having the fortitude to dissect this highly pure ore of deception that climate mania implicitly depends on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought climate deniers deny that global heating exists, not that they declare it to be beneficial?
There are a number of problems with studies such as this, before even reaching the Guardian’s reporting of them. An important problem is that no-one knows what life is going to be like in 2100, and all of us will be dead by then so will never find out. Are people going to be rich, or poor? For that is a determinant of how easy it is to modify our immediate environment to suit our needs. How expensive will electricity be? Will it be available cheaply 24/7 or will there be variable tariffs deterring the poor from using it when they need it? We also know that cities are already several degrees warmer than the countryside, so what proportion of people will live in cities? Also, I do not rate the de-scaled climate models to tell us anything of importance.
And you can tell how seriously folk in the UK take home heating over cooling by considering how many of us have home heating, and how many home cooling. Does this analysis propose that we refuse air conditioners in the face of crippling heat waves?
LikeLiked by 3 people
I should add that the stats here are not about healthy people who have been struck dead, but moribund people whose lives have been marginally shortened. If you mangle statistics enough, you can hammer them into a shape to suit your needs.
LikeLiked by 4 people
An appropriate and accurate headline for the Guardian article might have been “More people will die every year in Europe as its population both increases and ages”. But that’s a “No sh*t, Sherlock” statement, and furthermore it doesn’t support the narrative.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As I’ve said elsewhere, I can’t see the point of all these scary articles. What do they hope to achieve? Do they really think that those responsible for most global emissions – e.g. the Chinese politburo, the Indian government, the Kremlin and the Iranian mullahs – read this stuff?
All they can expect to achieve is an increase in anxiety, especially for the young. Perhaps that’s their intention. I don’t get it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
Do you think that any of the journalists who report upon such studies actually bother to read them? I’m guessing not. If they ever did, and if they understood the first thing about the assumptions, caveats and uncertainties involved, they might begin to better understand their true value and what they are saying exactly. That said, I think anyone would struggle to get their heads around statements such as, “..deaths could increase by 54 974 additional deaths (24 112–80 676) by 2100…” It always makes me smile to see huge uncertainties expressed with absolute precision.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin,
All they can expect to achieve is an increase in anxiety, especially for the young. Perhaps that’s their intention.
Yes, I think that is precisely their intention. Convincing the public that climate change is dangerous is a key tactic in nudging people into accepting climate change policies. As the IPCC put it in AR5:
LikeLiked by 2 people
How about a good old fashioned graph of the data, like this one previously
A 2015 study by 22 scientists from around the world found that cold kills over 17 times more people than heat. Thus the planet’s recent modest warming has been saving millions of lives.
LikeLiked by 2 people
How long before Starmer Troopers go after The Guardian for its disinformation? Hell freezing over?
LikeLike
So Lancet 2024 is a modelling study, and this is the best they show:
At least the nearly 10 times greater cold deaths is apparent. Do note that moderate warming somehow increases cold deaths. And even 4C warming results in only a 17% reduction of cold deaths, but increase heat deaths by 470% Wow. Those are some models they have there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not to mention that modern warming in the temperature records is mostly in higher minimums (cold temps) while maximums (highs) are declining on average, and cooler in many places. But damn the data, full speed ahead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Given that cold kills many more people than heat, in the UK, in Europe, and globally, and will continue to do so for many decades to come, and given that poor people are the ones who struggle to heat their homes, one might expect studies into the link between fuel poverty and deaths from cold, and what we might do to resolve the problem. (Stop making energy needlessly expensive as a result of a slavish obsession with net zero might be a good start). Instead we get this:
“Poorer people bear brunt of extreme heat in Europe, say Spanish researchers
Madrid study finds people from below-average income groups more likely to die in heatwaves”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/28/poorer-people-bear-brunt-of-extreme-heat-in-europe-say-spanish-researchers
LikeLike
Now we have a study about US heat-related deaths (with no interest being shown in cold-related deaths:
“Heat-related deaths have increased by 117% in the US since 1999 – report
More than 21,500 US deaths over last two decades were connected to heat, top medical journal finds”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/27/us-heat-related-deaths-report
The article talks only of heat-related deaths, but in fairness, that’s because the study deals only with those:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2822854
However, if one visits the website of the US Environment Protection Agency, one discovers a different truth:
“Climate Change Indicators: Cold-Related Deaths”
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-cold-related-deaths
Between 1979 and 2016, the death rate as a direct result of exposure to cold (underlying cause of death) generally ranged from 1 to 2.5 deaths per million people, with year-to-year fluctuations (see Figure 1). Overall, a total of more than 19,000 Americans have died from cold-related causes since 1979, according to death certificates.
Compare and contrast:
“Climate Change Indicators: Heat-Related Deaths”
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heat-related-deaths
Between 1979 and 2022, the death rate as a direct result of exposure to heat (underlying cause of death) generally hovered between 0.5 and 2 deaths per million people, with spikes in certain years (see Figure 1). Overall, a total of more than 14,000 Americans have died directly from heat-related causes since 1979, according to death certificates.
In other words, more people die from cold than from heat in the US, and while heat deaths might be on the increase, deaths from cold are declining too, which is very much the other (and more positive) side of the coin. So why the relentless negativity and alarmism?
LikeLiked by 1 person
As regards the heat-deaths study in Spain, it’s worth noting that the (almost) Europe-wide study that was the subject of the Guardian article and my piece above, suggests that currently deaths from cold in Spain are running at 22,508 a year, while from heat they are running at 4,414 per annum. Again, then, why the obsessive alarmism focussed solely on heat, and why no recognition that so long as cold deaths exceed heat deaths, warming is a positive rather than a negative?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – I notice Ireland gets mentioned a lot
Partial extracts from your post –
“The evolution of cold-related mortality suggests a more complex interplay between the effect of warming and demographic shifts, which can push cold mortality risk downward or upward (eg, –20·5 expected deaths in Croatia, benefiting from lower overall mortality rates, compared with +39·5 deaths in Ireland, disadvantaged by a marked ageing of its population). The total effect for each region will depend on which of the forces dominates.“
So If I understand correctly, in a warming world Ireland is (disadvantaged by a marked ageing of its population) which will die “of cold-related mortality“?
LikeLike
“‘Will we freeze to death?’: trepidation in England’s snowiest village over loss of winter fuel payment
Pensioners in Copley, which has 53 days of snow a year on average, say plan to limit help will be a ‘big loss’”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/06/england-snowiest-village-copley-winter-fuel-payment
Ray Watson smiles, but he’s only half joking in the answer he gives about what losing the winter fuel allowance potentially means for him.
“That’s right, we have a reputation as the snowiest village in England, so we will freeze to death?”
The former Black & Decker factory worker and his wife live in Copley, a tiny County Durham village on the edge of the North Pennines which has no shop or pub or, crucially, any gas supply.
Most of the houses, built for miners, are stone and difficult to heat. Plus Copley’s snowy reputation is in no small part due to its position in the Gaunless Valley, 253 metres above sea level.
According to the Met Office, Copley has an annual average of 52.7 days of snowfall, the highest in England. In the UK it is surpassed only by the Cairngorms, Shetland, Fair Isle and Orkney.
When it is cold in Copley, it is really cold….
...When the local MP, Sam Rushworth, raised Copley in the Commons, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, spoke of insulating 5m more homes over the next five years. Watson smiles at such a prospect.
“These stone houses don’t have any cavities so you can’t get any insulation in them,” he said. “They pester the life out of you coming round, saying: ‘We’ll do your loft’. I’ve got that much insulation [gesturing around a foot with his hands] in the loft and it is doing nothing.”
MPs will vote on the issue on Tueday. Watson said he and his wife, who has cancer, would have to find a way to afford it. “If we don’t get it, we don’t get it and we will be cold,” he said....
...Dixon said he could not claim benefits. “I’m being strung up because I’ve saved for my retirement. I’ve done all the right things.”
Copley was snowy but not every year, he said. “We didn’t get a lot of snow last year, to be honest, but it was a long winter last year. It was cold all of the time.”...
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Temperatures drop across UK as arctic blast brings more snow”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3104v552jo
...The amber cold health alerts cover the whole of England but are not in place for the rest of the UK.
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) issues the alerts when temperatures are likely to affect people’s wellbeing, in particular those who are elderly or have health conditions.
The alerts provide early warning to healthcare providers, and suggest actions such as actively monitoring individuals at a high risk, and checking that people most vulnerable to cold-related illnesses have visitor or phone call arrangements in place....
...Age UK’s director Caroline Abrahams said the cold weather would bring the government’s decision to limit winter fuel payments “into sharp relief”, and added that the charity had already been contacted by people “worrying about what to do”.
She urged older people “to do everything they can to stay warm” including risking spending more on their heating. Ms Abrahams added that energy companies had “an obligation to help” those struggling and there may be support from local councils too.…
In an article about a cold snap amid warnings that old people will die (played down in the BBC report), even I was surprised that the BBC shamelessly inserted it’s global heating narrative at the end of the article:
...The cold weather is a sharp change from December which was the fifth warmest on record, according to Met Office figures released on Thursday.
This was the general trend across the whole of 2024, which it confirmed was the fourth hottest year for the UK.
“With 2024 joining the top 10 warmest years for the UK’s annual temperature series, once again this is a clear illustration that our climate is changing, right now, and we continue to head up this warming curve,” said Met Office Senior Scientist Mike Kendon….
As Jaime and Mike H have pointed out on another thread, the UK’s warming is most evident in less cold rather than greater heat, and this is a positive, given the cost of heating our homes and the fact that many more people in the UK die from extreme cold than from extreme heat.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why was December mean diurnal temperature quite high?
UK – Mean temperature
December
Could it have something to do with the fact that it was very cloudy throughout the day and night?
Yes. December was historically an extremely dull month – only 1956, 1934 and 1912 were less sunny. Cloud cover during the day and the night prevented the escape of long wave infra red radiation from the surface, elevating temperatures. Also, cloudier skies generally (but not always) means a warmer, more maritime air mass is prevailing across the UK. The December Dunkelflautes were however cold and dark. It’s bright and sunny in January right now – but very cold! 2024’s weather has virtually nothing whatsoever to do with man-made climate change. The BBC and others are lying and they know they are lying about the British weather in order to ‘nudge’ the population into acceptance of the Net Zero eco-austerity agenda.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark – from your earlier Guardian link from Fri 6 Sep 2024 – “The former Black & Decker factory worker and his wife live in Copley, a tiny County Durham village on the edge of the North Pennines which has no shop or pub or, crucially, any gas supply.”
Well yes, a gas supply is crucial if you want instant hot water & heating. But never mind, have a outdoor heat pump.
LikeLike
“Cold weather health alert extended for England as -20C forecast
Officials say impact of freezing temperatures likely to be felt across health service and amber alert to stay until Tuesday”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/10/uk-cold-weather-health-alert-extended-england
...The UK Health Security Agency extended the alert, which was previously in place until Sunday, meaning that cold weather impacts are likely to be felt across the whole health service.
“This weather can have a serious impact on the health of some people, including those aged 65 and over and those with pre-existing health conditions, and it is therefore vital that we continue to check in on friends, family and neighbours that are most vulnerable,” the agency said.
“These people could be more at risk of heart attacks, stroke and chest infections as a result of cold temperatures.”…
Which is all more than a little ironic on the day that this is the Guardian’s headline:
“Hottest year on record sent planet past 1.5C of heating for first time in 2024
Highest recorded temperatures supercharged extreme weather – with worse to come, EU data shows”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/10/world-temperature-in-2024-exceeded-15c-for-first-time
LikeLike
They’re at it again:
“Dangerous temperatures could kill 50% more Europeans by 2100, study finds
Net increase of 80,000 deaths a year projected in hottest scenario, with milder winters failing to redress balance”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/27/dangerous-temperatures-kill-50-percent-more-europeans-end-century-climate
Read the study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03452-2
It’s nothing like as scary as the Guardian would have you believe, with many caveats, and like the study on which it builds (the one which formed the basis for my article) it deals only with urban areas, so that skews the result immediately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To those who insist that rising temperatures will kill more people, here’s a not-so-gentle reminder of the reality of cold temperatures (which kill many more people than hot ones, and are likely to do so for decades to come):
“UK weather: health alerts issued for spell of subzero temperatures
Met Office says temperatures could reach as low as -7C in rural parts of Scotland from Friday into the weekend”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/06/uk-weather-cold-health-alerts-subzero-temperatures
Temperatures are expected to plummet as low as -7C (19F) in parts of the UK and cold-health alerts have been issued.
Subzero overnight temperatures are likely in many areas over the coming days, with a risk of icy patches developing and a chance of snow in the south, the Met Office said.
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has issued yellow cold-health alerts for England in the north-east, north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the south-east, from 9am on Friday until 9am on Tuesday.
This means the weather is likely to lead to an increased use of healthcare services by vulnerable people, and a greater risk to life for vulnerable people.
A lung charity warned people with conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to be on their guard….
…Temperatures are expected to plummet as low as -7C (19F) in parts of the UK and cold-health alerts have been issued.
Subzero overnight temperatures are likely in many areas over the coming days, with a risk of icy patches developing and a chance of snow in the south, the Met Office said.
The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has issued yellow cold-health alerts for England in the north-east, north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the south-east, from 9am on Friday until 9am on Tuesday.
This means the weather is likely to lead to an increased use of healthcare services by vulnerable people, and a greater risk to life for vulnerable people.
A lung charity warned people with conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to be on their guard….”…
LikeLike
Do you recall that supposedly rising temperatures will lead to more heat deaths among old people in southern Europe? Perhaps the Guardian might like to join some dots:
“Italy’s centenarians grow in number as another 2,000 reach the milestone
Southern European country has more than double the number of people aged over 100 than it did in 2009″
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/07/italy-centenarians-amount-milestone
The number of people in Italy living to aged 100 continues to grow sharply, with more than 2,000 reaching the milestone age in 2025, the vast majority of them women.
There are now 23,548 residents in Italy who are 100-years-old or over, compared with 21,211 in 2024, according to the latest figures from Istat, the national statistics agency. Italy has more than double the number of centenarians than it did in 2009, Istat said….
…The centenarian population is rapidly growing across EU countries, with the number of people in the bloc aged 100 or more forecast to reach almost half a million by 2050, up from 96,600 in 2019.
France, Italy and Greece have the highest ratio of centenarians per capita…
LikeLike