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.
Happy New Year and thanks for a great year of truth telling. So refreshing to get reasonably unbiased reporting on such an important issue. Also thanks for the recommendations of other weather Substack authors. So very helpful. Peace in the New Year.
I made the mistake of trying to make any logical sense of the World Weather Attribution after their recent press release of gloom and doom. I could find no real descriptions of their criteria and, when I attempted to follow their references its just the same folks doing self references. That is some really bad voodoo science. Noce to know there is important work that is happening to improve saving of lives and property. But clicks=money, so gloom and doom is big business.
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.
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
Happy New Year and thanks for a great year of truth telling. So refreshing to get reasonably unbiased reporting on such an important issue. Also thanks for the recommendations of other weather Substack authors. So very helpful. Peace in the New Year.
I made the mistake of trying to make any logical sense of the World Weather Attribution after their recent press release of gloom and doom. I could find no real descriptions of their criteria and, when I attempted to follow their references its just the same folks doing self references. That is some really bad voodoo science. Noce to know there is important work that is happening to improve saving of lives and property. But clicks=money, so gloom and doom is big business.
Happy New Year to you and Sr!
Curious what portion of the 2025 extreme weather deaths will be attributed to climate change.
I very much doubt we will be reading about this in the NYT or any other legacy media, whhich seems to have "climate change" mapped on their keyboards.