If global warming is nothing to worry about, why was the 2003 European heatwave so catastrophic?

Question

During the 2003 European heatwave, temperatures on the continent were only 2.3 deg C warmer than the 1961-1990 mean.

http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2004/Human-Contribution-Heatwave2dec04.htm

Yet this heat wave killed 35,000 people

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4259

Wildfires in Portugal alone caused 1 billion Euros of damage. France lost 20% of its grain harvests while wheat harvests in Ukraine and Moldova were down 75 and 80% from normal, respectively. Overall, wheat production in the European Union was down 7% from the previous 5-year average.

http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/cid/Sep2003/impacts.html

Given these losses of life, crops, and money from a mere 2.3 deg C summer warming above average, does this dispel the myth that 'warmer is better' or that a few degrees of global warming is nothing to worry about?

Answer 1

If heat waves become the norm, people will invest in air conditioning.

Answer 2

We need to be concerned about global COOLING..... NOT warming:

The Sun Also Sets

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.

In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.

As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.

Answer 3

Europe did not experience this as global warming.

Europe was not as hot as middle Sahara at any time during that heat wave.

Europe is accustomed to having far more water being evaporated, and so absorbing the heat. People living there have not learned to live the way the people of mid Sahara do.

Now, Europe could not feed itself if temperatures were to remain that hot. The Sahara  likewise does not provide much food.

So, A long running heat wave, enough to suppress food production, would be a significant challenge.

This could be managed if we could ensure that the croplands have adequate water. Recall that the temperatures very close to the equator, the tropical rain forest zone, does not get incredibly hot. They do not because of natural irrigation, so much rain.

If we can not stop global warming, we will need to mitigate it by managing water so that we can irrigate far more land than we do yet. The alternative is expansion of the Sahara to north of the Alps, expansion of the deserts of the US South west through to the Canadian border and beyond. ( Iowa becoming a major lake.)

Answer 4

This happens every year to thousands of people all over the world-- they die from the summer heat. Usually affects laborers working outdoors, the elderly, and others that may be in poor health-- it has nothing to do with GW-- here is an old story not widely published about the 700 heat related deaths in Chicago in 1995.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chica...

This happens every summer (and in winter if the person is without heating)-- just one of the facts of life.

BUT------ just imagine how many people would be saved GLOBALLY from exposure to excessive heat or cold! a more worthy goal than wasting funding on supposed GW --- where not ONE person has died.

Answer 5

What happens in Europe is of no concern to the US .

It is only catastrophic if it happens here .

The floods in Chiapas and Tabasco recently,because of super evaporation ,that made over a million people homeless overnight ,was not even covered by the media.

35.000 people killed is a godsend for people who want to bring the world population down by 60%.

Just like  millions of  people who are starving ,because more than half of the world food production is diverted for the production of ethanol..Which incidentally causes more  carbon offset than all of the worlds industry combined.

A brilliant plan that takes care of a lot of people and makes money on the way.

One degree rise in temperature already means 10% crop loss

Depending on ones point of view

Global Warming is definitely an economic way of  culling humanity much cheaper than bombs.

And nothing to worry about ,It is all for the best ,

trust me.(that was a joke)

Answer 6

The truth is, we have ALREADY passed the "Tipping Point" !

http://www.yahoo.com/s/903298

Are you ready for the next round? This gonna be bad "my friends" A "hundred years " of bad weather!

Answer 7

'Cause old people can't take the heat.

Answer 8

Because if the heat gets to high like over 108 degrees its deadly cause our body can't handle so much heat so we die. Scientist didn't believe in global warming so they care but didn't know how to solve global warming. now its a little to late  to sove global warming now that scientist believe.

Answer 9

If you've ever been to Europe most do without any type of modern heating/COOLING. So as everyone has already stated; the elderly and those predisposed are naturally going to be effected.

The Gulf stream provides Western Europe with a 1/3 as much warmth as the sun. If it stalls, think (mini ice age).

Two schools of thought on temperate/mesothermal climates. Both have different means for summer and winter. If you consider Portugal as a Mediterranean climate, it's not that unusual to experience extremes. Fog impedes precipitation.

According to the Larc study made by NASA 85% of all fires are man made. You already know this, so where's the punch line?

Answer 10

Leading sciencetists all over the world do not believe in global warming.

Let me explain.

Weather is a cycle - ever heard of 100/500 year floods( like the one in Iowa right now)?   The same goes for warm/hot and cold weather.  If you simply go back 100+ years you can see that we had the same weather.

Plus, if there is such a thing as "global warming" then please tell me why the middle east, Iraq and Israel are having snow in their "winter" times?

Al Gore is a fruit cake.

Answer 11

Of course GW is something to be concerned about.  Not only is a couple of degrees significant for the reasons you mentioned, it is also certainly enough to melt Arctic ice and raise sea levels, causing flooding in coastal cities all over the world.

The earth has gone through climate change before, as many like to point out, apparently believing that fact makes the current warming okay.  AGW is not going to destroy the world, but it's definitely going to cause some major problems for mankind.

EDIT:  Evans said "BTW: What do you typically say when a skeptic attempts to use a single year as proof against global warming?"

The question Dana asked was not "Does this prove global warming?"  The question was "Does this dispel the myth that 'warmer is better' or that a few degrees of global warming is nothing to worry about?"

Answer 12

I saw one guy post that warmer weather meant more habital land (Iceland or Greenland) I'm not sure if he was being sarcastic or was serious and didn't realize what havoc already habitated land would go through.

Answer 13

You are ridiculous to suggest that one heat wave is a result of global warming.  Heat waves have been happening forever.  

Buy yourself a book or two on world geography and geographical history.  Maybe one about world history, basic weather phenomenon and world climate.  You'll be amazed at what there is to learn.  You clearly need some education on this topic.  

Just another lefty mouth-spoutin' more garbage.  When will you people ever learn?

Answer 14

As some pointed out to me, lets be aware of the differences between weather and climate.

The earth's weather will indeed fluctuate.  Can this be bad?  You bet there is tremendous energy in weather.

Global Warming is a climate issue, which most evidence suggests comes and goes in large cycles (thousands and millions of years).  We have been in a warming trend for the last 1000 years.  Before that we were in a cooling trend (the folks in Germany in the 1600's would probably call it an Ice Age – though we might call it a mini-ice age sense we were not there).

Can Global Warming be bad?  Yes, just the same can be said for Ice ages.  Can we do anything to slightly modify these events?  Maybe, if we know what we are doing, which I personally am not sure we do.

The references to wild fires is not valid (notice how diplomatically I said that).  Fires and floods are weather conditions that occur in medium cycles (10 to 30 years).  Growing up in an area where we had to deal with both, I have witnessed these events and their cycles.

If you find this answer does not speak to the topic, please feel free to ignore it or stamp it as thumbs down, otherwise have a good day.

davidW

Answer 15

Because the greenies over their were biased against A/C units, duh!

From the exact same summer:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...

"In the United States, almost three of every four homes has some kind of air-conditioning. In Europe, people have traditionally just slowed down and baked in summer. "

"The engine of this growth is in part the global economy, which is forcing more and more Europeans to work summers."

BTW:  What do you typically say when a skeptic attempts to use a single year as proof against global warming?