This trend is continuing to show good news. How many of the media outlets or even social media outlets will show this as a featured article in their news lineup? If anyone sees this mentioned or featured, please include the link. I do not think that we will see very many links, as this does not meet the alarmist agenda.
I just saw an interview of Jean-Pascal Van Ypersele, Professor of Climatology and Environmental Sciences at Catholic University of Louvaine in Belgium. He listed a whole bunch of extreme weather trends that show increases. Heatwaves were the deadliest events in 2025, with 70,000 deaths in Europe, he says.
The obvious solution is air conditioning, which requires more power, and economic development, which also requires more power, so women don't have to work in the fields in Africa, S. Asia, etc.
The most quted number is 16.500. That may even be high. Giving a number of 70.000 seems very excessive, I would like to see how he came to that number.
Yes, thank you. It would seem to open up opportunities to play with the data, as in what level do they think is NOT anomalous and how do we know the increase is not part of natural variability?
Thank you for pointing out this information update and the chart webpage. My only disappointment is that the data doesn't show deaths due to cold weather, which (statistically) is much more deadly than hot weather.
People and policymakers don't need to be climate scientists to deduce from the data that humanity is capable of managing the effects of extreme weather without abandoning the enormous benefits of hydrocarbons, our most economical source of energy and crop fertilizer, not to mention the chemical foundation of an amazing array of thousands of modern materials like plastics, fabrics, lubricants, cosmetics, etc.
Next, I'd like to see per capita data that shows how many people have perished or suffered annually from a really big climate change, like moving from a cold climate to a hot climate, e.g., Minnesotans or New Yorkers retiring to South Florida. Policy makers need to know if such migration needs to be outlawed.
This question is not directly related to this topic, but I have been reading about the seriousness of the approaching "tipping point" for tropical rainforests. How serious do you see this threat?
Is no one going attribute this huge reduction in mortality to the herculean efforts of the emission reduction movement and their steadfast allies in the media? One need only chart the increase in spending on clean energy along side this mortality statistic to see the correlation. I wonder if I could sell this interpretation to the CBC.
Thanks, Roger. I have been following this good news with interest. One of the shortcomings of the University of Leuven’s dataset is that extreme cold and extreme heat do not seem well aligned with other data sources.
Hannah Richie covers this in Our World in Data (https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/heat-cold-deaths), but for the Leuven dataset this causes it to be lopsided to an increasing number of heat deaths - most of which happen in Europe (maybe because they are the only ones reporting?).
Great post, sir. thank you. Saw an article on CNN the other day, and actually thought of you, Roger. The headline ran, "Climate Change is causing increased volcanic eruptions." No shit! That was the headline.
And I thought the climate alarmists ignored geology!
This will not be good news to the left wing progressive socialist climate alarmists who count on death and destruction every year to accuse CO2 of all evil things. Too bad for them.
Maybe the poor people who just want to stay alive for a few more months or years vs the focus on 2100 have been adapting and mitigating. Yay! Imagine what we could do if the global political rhetoric and treaties were focused on adaptation and mitigation as well.
There's no question that the forecasts and warnings of storms in the United States and worldwide (in many cases, thanks to techniques and technology provided by the U.S.) have saved countless lives; with the number likely in the millions by now.
Weather science is clearly the Rodney Dangerfield of the Sciences -- we get no respect for our amazing accomplishments.*
We have made a lot of progress with non-meteorological warnings for events such as tsunamis and volcanoes. There are also some areas where you can even get few seconds of warning of ground shaking of earthquakes.
So, the next time you see your local television, NWS or private sector meteorologist, shake their hand, wish them "Happy 2026," and thank them for their work.
*Unfortunately (and this has nothing to do with President Trump, these issues began ~15 years ago), there are serious issues in the U.S. storm warning system. I'm hope that our new NOAA Administrator, Dr. Neil Jacobs -- the first with a weather background in 50+ years! -- can start turning the ship around.
The art of weather forecasting is primarily developed in Japan and some european countries, both for local, regional and global forecasts.
The US is more of a follower in that regard but has specialities in fields of their own interest: tropical storm/hurricanes, tornadoes and other weather extremes of particular interest to the US.
This trend is continuing to show good news. How many of the media outlets or even social media outlets will show this as a featured article in their news lineup? If anyone sees this mentioned or featured, please include the link. I do not think that we will see very many links, as this does not meet the alarmist agenda.
I just saw an interview of Jean-Pascal Van Ypersele, Professor of Climatology and Environmental Sciences at Catholic University of Louvaine in Belgium. He listed a whole bunch of extreme weather trends that show increases. Heatwaves were the deadliest events in 2025, with 70,000 deaths in Europe, he says.
The obvious solution is air conditioning, which requires more power, and economic development, which also requires more power, so women don't have to work in the fields in Africa, S. Asia, etc.
The most quted number is 16.500. That may even be high. Giving a number of 70.000 seems very excessive, I would like to see how he came to that number.
Congratulations to THB. This revelation was featured in a Wall Street Journal opinion column today. Well done.
I’ve been meaning to ask you, what is “Global Mean Surface Temperature ANOMALY”? It’s used by the climate panickers to show we’re all going to die.
Gary, in simplest terms, anomaly usually refers to a deviation from the statistical mean.
Yes, thank you. It would seem to open up opportunities to play with the data, as in what level do they think is NOT anomalous and how do we know the increase is not part of natural variability?
Thank you for pointing out this information update and the chart webpage. My only disappointment is that the data doesn't show deaths due to cold weather, which (statistically) is much more deadly than hot weather.
People and policymakers don't need to be climate scientists to deduce from the data that humanity is capable of managing the effects of extreme weather without abandoning the enormous benefits of hydrocarbons, our most economical source of energy and crop fertilizer, not to mention the chemical foundation of an amazing array of thousands of modern materials like plastics, fabrics, lubricants, cosmetics, etc.
Next, I'd like to see per capita data that shows how many people have perished or suffered annually from a really big climate change, like moving from a cold climate to a hot climate, e.g., Minnesotans or New Yorkers retiring to South Florida. Policy makers need to know if such migration needs to be outlawed.
This question is not directly related to this topic, but I have been reading about the seriousness of the approaching "tipping point" for tropical rainforests. How serious do you see this threat?
Is no one going attribute this huge reduction in mortality to the herculean efforts of the emission reduction movement and their steadfast allies in the media? One need only chart the increase in spending on clean energy along side this mortality statistic to see the correlation. I wonder if I could sell this interpretation to the CBC.
Thanks, Roger. I have been following this good news with interest. One of the shortcomings of the University of Leuven’s dataset is that extreme cold and extreme heat do not seem well aligned with other data sources.
Hannah Richie covers this in Our World in Data (https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/heat-cold-deaths), but for the Leuven dataset this causes it to be lopsided to an increasing number of heat deaths - most of which happen in Europe (maybe because they are the only ones reporting?).
Correct - the CRED time series is simply not useful for heat/cold. Richie’s work is excellent.
Great post, sir. thank you. Saw an article on CNN the other day, and actually thought of you, Roger. The headline ran, "Climate Change is causing increased volcanic eruptions." No shit! That was the headline.
And I thought the climate alarmists ignored geology!
This will not be good news to the left wing progressive socialist climate alarmists who count on death and destruction every year to accuse CO2 of all evil things. Too bad for them.
Maybe the poor people who just want to stay alive for a few more months or years vs the focus on 2100 have been adapting and mitigating. Yay! Imagine what we could do if the global political rhetoric and treaties were focused on adaptation and mitigation as well.
Excellent news (as much as most people are likely to hear about it).
Speaking of what most people are likely to hear--and feel--what do you think their perception of weather-related deaths, and trends, might be?
And what about emotional deaths blamed on weather?
And potentially the lowest recorded homicide rate in the old US of A 😇
There's no question that the forecasts and warnings of storms in the United States and worldwide (in many cases, thanks to techniques and technology provided by the U.S.) have saved countless lives; with the number likely in the millions by now.
Weather science is clearly the Rodney Dangerfield of the Sciences -- we get no respect for our amazing accomplishments.*
We have made a lot of progress with non-meteorological warnings for events such as tsunamis and volcanoes. There are also some areas where you can even get few seconds of warning of ground shaking of earthquakes.
So, the next time you see your local television, NWS or private sector meteorologist, shake their hand, wish them "Happy 2026," and thank them for their work.
*Unfortunately (and this has nothing to do with President Trump, these issues began ~15 years ago), there are serious issues in the U.S. storm warning system. I'm hope that our new NOAA Administrator, Dr. Neil Jacobs -- the first with a weather background in 50+ years! -- can start turning the ship around.
The art of weather forecasting is primarily developed in Japan and some european countries, both for local, regional and global forecasts.
The US is more of a follower in that regard but has specialities in fields of their own interest: tropical storm/hurricanes, tornadoes and other weather extremes of particular interest to the US.
Actually, basic weather forecasting was developed in Norway in the early 20th Century.
The U.S. invented numerical weather prediction but has now fallen far behind.
Great news, indeed! I expect the climate catastrophists will claim that, without warming, deaths would have been below 4,000.
2025 continues the trend that if co2 has measurable effect on climate the effect is all positive.
I celebrate co2.
Happy new year