We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
HEAT-RELATED DEATHS in Ireland could increase to as many as 1,413 per year this century under high levels of global warming due to climate change, a new study has found.
The new research has found that deaths due to heat in Europe could triple overall by 2100 as climate change worsens, with the exact impact depending on how much global temperatures rise due to climate change in the coming years.
It also dispels any misconception that climate change could eliminate the problem of people dying due to cold temperatures, instead finding that global warming could mean a small decrease in the number of cold-related deaths but that the toll would still remain high.
The study used data from 854 cities in 30 European countries, including Ireland, to estimate the number of deaths in the future that will be due to hot and cold temperatures.
It found that climate change and ageing populations will widen existing gaps between regions in terms of the mortality risk from heat and cold.
Deaths from heat are expected to increase in all parts of Europe, especially in southern regions, with worst-affected areas including Spain, Italy, Greece and parts of France.
Cold-related deaths are expected to decline slightly by 2100.
If global average temperatures rise by 3 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times, the number of heat-related deaths in Europe could increase from 43,729 to 128,809 by the end of the century.
Deaths due to cold (which are currently higher than from heat) would decrease slightly but remain high, dropping from 363,809 to 333,703 by 2100.
On average between 1990 and 2020, Ireland is estimated to have had one of the lowest rates in Europe of heat-related deaths – around 30 people per year.
However, that could rise significantly if further action is not taken to prevent global warming. The most likely projected scenario would be 563 heat-related deaths, or 8.2 per 100,000 people, but it depends on the amount of global warming that occurs and could reach as high as 1,413.
If global temperatures rise by 1.5 degrees Celsius on a sustained basis, Ireland could see that number rise to between 81 and 176 deaths each year due to heat.
At 2 degrees of warming, it could rise to between 121 and 298 deaths. At 3 degrees, it could rise to between 269 and 732 deaths.
And if global temperatures rise by 4 degrees Celsius, the number of people who die in Ireland annually due to heat could be between 472 and 1,413, according to the study.
Additionally, the number of cold-related deaths in Ireland are also projected to potentially increase from 3,974 to up to 7,696 under the most likely scenario (146.8 per 100,000 people) or even up to a potential 9,230.
Cold-related deaths overall are expected to decrease slightly but some countries, including Ireland, are more likely to actually see them increase with global warming, the study has found.
Explaining this finding, Dr Matteo Pinna Pintor of the Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research pointed to “age-dependent vulnerability to cold and with the persistence of a degree of excess mortality risk, notably due to respiratory tract infections and associated complications, over an extended range of so-called mild cold temperatures (approximately 9–18°C)”.
“This means that the mortality burden of exposure to cold in an ageing population will respond slowly to shifts in the temperature distribution,” he said.
Dr David García-León of the Joint Research Centre at the European Commission, said that the study finds that “deaths in Europe from hot and cold temperatures will rise substantially as many more heat-related deaths are expected to occur as the climate warms and populations age, while deaths from cold decline only slightly in comparison”.
“Our study also identifies hotspots where the risk of death from high temperatures is set to drastically increase over the next decade. There is a critical need for the development of more targeted policies to protect these areas and members of society most at risk from temperature extremes.”
Ireland’s Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) has previously released research about projected additional deaths and hospital admissions in Ireland due to high temperatures caused by climate change.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Average of 30 deaths per year due to heat in Ireland between 1990 and 2020? The so called scientists must be including victims if house fires in those calculations. Would like to see that one fact checked with references.
@declan costello: From this study:
García-León et al. (2024) estimated an average of 30 heat-related deaths per year in Ireland for the period 1991-2020, with an empirical 95% confidence interval of 21-42 deaths. This estimate was derived using a three-stage epidemiological modelling approach that analysed data from 854 European cities, which was then aggregated and extrapolated to regional and country levels. The study utilized climate data from 1991-2020 and population projections from EUROPOP2019.
That said, the small figures warrant careful interpretation due to statistical uncertainty, as evidenced by the wide confidence interval in the paper. The authors acknowledge these limitations in their methodology, including a focus on urban populations, which may not fully represent rural areas, and the use of extrapolation methods that introduce some uncertainty.
However, despite these limitations, the study’s authors out their findings are generally consistent with other research in this field. Additionally, the authors have enhanced the credibility of their work by making their work and data publicly available and by transparently reporting uncertainties and limitations. Finally, the study’s publication in The Lancet Public Health, a pre-eminent peer-reviewed journal, further supports its scientific rigour.
García-León, D., Masselot, P., Mistry, M.N., Gasparrini, A., Motta, C., Feyen, L. and Ciscar, J.-C. 2024. Temperature-related mortality burden and projected change in 1368 European regions: a modelling study. The Lancet Public Health, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00179-8
@David Jordan: more ppl die from cold in this country than from heat,,,
Comments are gold! Love the comment section. How this particular topic triggers people without fail, is just brilliant.
@james rowan: “more ppl die from cold in this country than from heat,,,”
Yes, García-León et al. (2024) provide extensive information on cold-related deaths alongside heat-related deaths. For Ireland specifically, the study reports the following:
Between 1991 and 2020, Ireland experienced an estimated median of 3,974 cold-related deaths per year (with an empirical 95% CI of 3,961–3,999).
The study projects that under various global warming scenarios, cold-related deaths in Ireland could decrease by 2100:
Under a 1.5°C increase scenario: 9,032 deaths (95% CI: 8,723–9,230)
Under a 2°C increase scenario: 8,648 deaths (95% CI: 8,360–9,163)
Under a 3°C increase scenario: 7,696 deaths (95% CI: 7,499–8,470)
Under a 4°C increase scenario: 6,817 deaths (95% CI: 6,491–7,611)
The study notes that Ireland has one of the highest projected increases in cold-related death rates in Europe, with an expected additional 39.5 deaths per 100,000 people annually by 2100 under the 3°C warming scenario.
Interestingly, Ireland shows the highest ratio of cold-related to heat-related deaths in Europe for the 1991-2020 period, at approximately 133:1. This stark difference highlights the significantly greater impact of cold temperatures on mortality in Ireland compared to heat, at least historically.
Furthermore, if global temperatures increase beyond 2 or 3 Celsius of global warming, there is a risk of triggering dangerous climate tipping points, the most important for Ireland is a possible weakening or collapse of a vital warm current, AMOC, the ocean current that ensures Northern Europe has mild climate; Northern Europe would be plunged into near Ice Age conditions if that happened.
@David Jordan: Your first link didn’t work for me, David. The study is available here:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(24)00179-8/fulltext
@David Jordan: if/when/maybe the temperature goes up by 2-3, per cent its all ifs and buts,fact more ppl die from cold than heat in this country,,,
@james rowan:”…fact more ppl die from cold than heat in this country,,,”
Which none one is disputing.
@james rowan: I now realise The Journal article is highly misleading
The Lancet paper in fact aims to predict overall trends in cold and heat related deaths under various warming scenarios, but the journalist chose to only report an extreme and unlikely scenario involving heat related deaths. This is very sloppy.
The journalist took the most extreme prediction (4 Celsius) and took the most extreme prediction of this extreme, for their headline i.e. there is a less than 2.5% chance, if there is 4 Celsius warming, that there will be 1,413 heat related deaths per year in Ireland i.e. this is a very, very remote scenario.
Also, importantly, when heat and cold deaths are combined, there is an overall decrease in weather related deaths in Ireland for higher ranges of warming. See here,
Cold related deaths (95%):
Present conditions, 1991–2020 : 3,974 (3,961–3,999)
1·5°C increase: 9,032 (8,723–9,230) by year 2100
2°C increase: 8,648 (8,360–9,163) by year 2100
3°C increase: 7,696 (7,499–8,470) by year 2100
4°C increase: 6,817 (6,491–7,611) by year 2100
Heat related deaths:
Present conditions, 1991–2020 : 30 (21–42)
1·5°C increase:134 (81–176) by year 2100
2°C increase: 210 (121–298) by year 2100
3°C increase: 563 (269–732) by year 2100
4°C increase: 918 (472–1,413) by year 2100
There’s increase in cold related deaths at the limited warming scenarios of 1.5°C, of 9,032 compared to 3,974 today.
But this not due to colder weather, it is linked to our ageing population 100 years from now, older people are more susceptible to the cold. But with 3 and 4°C, warmer winters, offset this ageing effect.
Deaths from heat are always less than deaths from cold, however.
Furthermore, this study in fact claims that at 3 and 4 Celsius warming, there may be an overall decrease in weather related deaths (that is, heat and cold combined). Yes, more people may die in summer, but even fewer people will die in winter.
Sloppy tabloid journalism like this undermines trust in climate change related research.
@smatrix mantra: because it’s pure pish
@David Jordan: ‘estimated’ on ‘aggregated and extrapolated’ data, is the scientific equivalent of plucking a number out of the sky.
The journal are then extrapolating the extreme worst case from that study without any counter arguments to scaremonger the people and provide opportunity to government to over tax the people due to this extremism.
Most of us will remember how our Taoiseach Simon Harris was able to tell us how there was 18 previous Covids when Covid-19 first reached our shores, so God knows how many legislators will take this newspaper article as a fact rather than an extreme possibility based on inaccurate data.
@David Jordan: There are lies, damn lies and statistics!
@David Jordan: Fair play
@smatrix mantra: I guess folk feel it’s important to call out fake news.
Had the central heating on the last few nights …. Mixed messages!.
More like global cooling here !
@paulinlavally@gmail.com: Holidays here is called Coolcation by those visiting from truly heated countries.
This article doesn’t really explain how climate related mortality will increase.
As an observation through living in Ireland, it’s looks as though we are getting milder winters and wetter summers as a result of climate change. Will that result in increases?
@Argus Romsworth: Ya, I don’t see heat related deaths going up in Ireland at all bar maybe a handful. I’m seeing the same weather patterns as you. However, heat related deaths are going to skyrocket in central and southern Europe. That’s before even getting to countries in Africa which will lead to massive displacement, many of whom will arrive on our shores. I suppose heat related deaths might increase when the lunatics try burn these people out of it.
@ecrowley ecrowley: I think maybe we are overly polluted with information on wild fires and drought and the devastation they cause in other parts of the world that when we here climate change in Ireland we think of these consequences and they cannot be associated with Ireland and will not be in our lifetime.
Reading the article again, “ age-dependent vulnerability to cold and with the persistence of a degree of excess mortality risk, notably due to respiratory tract infections and associated complications, over an extended range of so-called mild cold temperatures (approximately 9–18°C)”. I think they mean the milder winters will increase these respiratory infections and cause the increase. It’s not clear what they mean. If they could just say “milder winters will result in increased respiratory infections which will result in increasing deaths” it would make sense. Maybe that’s not glamorous enough however.
@ecrowley ecrowley: don’t forget the aging population. there will be many more elderly people in ireland, for whom temperature can be a problem
I didn’t factor in they could be talking about the milder/wetter winters and those respiratory infections. They will indeed increase and obviously the older population will be most susceptible.
How many people will be living in Ireland by 2100 though? At the current rate it will be probably 100 million
@common sense: It could be.
If significant parts of the planet become uninhabitable through climate change then those peoples will move to places that can support humanity.
@common sense: Would we be all standing on each others shoulders!!!!!
Yup politicians can’t seem to resolve the issues here and now, but they believe they’re going to change the climate.
Pure hubris.
@jiminybillybob: Politicians can’t change the climate. The population in general can change, and have changed, the climate.
@jiminybillybob: Politicians made laws that addressed the then significant and increasing problem oof Acid Rain.
Politicians made laws that addressed the then significant and increasing problem of a depleting Ozone layer.
Politicians make laws to prevent or ameliorate pollution, particularly of our waterways.
And Yes, politicians can make laws to address the pollution we put into our atmosphere to address human man global warming and the climate change(s) it will bring about.
Whatever happened to global warming. I’m just not sure which climate is changing.
@Johnny Lee:
Ireland has a maritime climate due to its proximity to the Atlantic, its geographical latitude, the variability in the jetstream, and multiple other factors. Our island climate can be compared with a tropical climate, a continental climate, a polar climate, and so on.
All this research was abandoned so experimental theorists could equate conditions in a greenhouse with the Earth’s atmosphere exclusively. By asserting that carbon dioxide levels act as a thermostat under human control, humanity can control the weather/temperatures by controlling human behaviour.
This conviction is the politics of the damned.
@Gerald Kelleher: Still don’t see how it changes anything apart from perception.
The biggest killer in the world is your self whether it through an accident or suicide which avgs 400 a year in Ireland. Yet the gov do very little cause they can’t tax it unless you well off and leave your wealth to someone.
@Be Lucky: That is very true. They might want to look into days with sunshine versus days with cloud cover as sunshine is vital to growth in plants and insects as well as to human well-being.
Climate change has been happening on this earth for the billions of years it has existed. It will happen long into the future, when the earth goes through cooling not warming. There is nothing we can do about it. Instead of trying to stop it, which is not possible, efforts should be put into dealing with temperature increases or more adverse weather.
@James Groden: There is something we can do about it: we can produce a lower volume of greenhouse gases.
@Brendan O’Brien: Peer review is a component of the scientific method. It protects awful convictions and lucratively exploits humanity by asserting that experimental hypotheses scale up to the solar system and Earth science research (Rule III). Rule IV surpasses Papal infallibility.
Yesterday, the Journal removed any comment demonstrating how experimental theorists, through clockwork solar system modelling, created a disruptive subculture of scientific method modelling in which the misadventure with climate is the latest monstrosity visited on research.
I don’t treat commenters like juveniles, as only considerate adults can reverse the presence of a subculture.
@Gerald Kelleher: Do you believe that the greenhouse effect exists, Gerald? A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’?
@Brendan O’Brien:
The damage is done by a weak opposition to the assertion that climate changes. It is a logical fallacy like asking you – “Do you beat your wife?” with a yes and no answer required.
The real issue is how a bunch of experimental theorists replaced genuine terms like maritime climate, continental climate, and microclimate with terms attached after the term ‘climate’, like climate action, climate change, climate justice, climate neutrality and so on.
Misguided people assert that climate constantly changes while you interject that humans are now causing climate to change; however, this false choice leads to the political conviction that humans control climate using carbon dioxide levels like a planetary thermostat.
@Gerald Kelleher: Either the greenhouse effect exists or it doesn’t. It is nothing at all like ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ (which is what you are thinking of: ‘Do you beat your wife?’ is also a simple yes-or-no question).
You lecture other people on logic when your own grasp of it is obviously tenuous.
@Brendan O’Brien: I see many people unwittingly fall for the introduction of a false choice.
For example, creationism or natural selection is a false choice. Evolutionary sciences existed as faunal succession many decades before the Victorian prejudice conviction applied it to the famine Irish and empire English.
Climate research was abandoned for modelling politics allied with social politics, where controlling human behaviour equates to controlling the weather.
The worst part of natural selection and its invasion and extermination application in WWII is that instead of dealing with the biological misadventure written as an evolutionary narrative, they still try to hide it.
This is why the latest monstrosity visited on climate research should never be allowed to settle.
@Gerald Kelleher: Natural Selection makes no mention of human exterminations.
Once again, Natural Selection posits that if a member of a species has a genetic mutation that gives it an advantage in the environment in which it finds itself then it is more likely to survive and pass on that genetic mutation, and if a member of a species has a genetic mutation that causes it to be at a disadvantage in the environment in which it finds itself then it is less likely to survive and pass on that genetic mutation.
THAT IS ALL.
Natural Selection makes no other claims.
Please STOP.
Please STOP spreading this nonsense.
Nonsense that you KNOW to be nonsense.
You are being deliberately dishonest.
Now, how about answering any of Brendan’s questions honestly?
Are you capable of any honesty at all?
Natural selection was always about permission to exterminate other humans by attempting to dehumanise them.
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” Charles Darwin
The Holocaust survivors tried to frame this permission as the only way to justify why so many died at the hands of others who were just as blind to the prejudice conviction as afflicted Irish commenters are here today.
Everytime these ridiculous articles are published it reconfirms the bias.
Die with the cold
The world is getting more like Southpark every day!
CLIMATE CHANGE….AAAGGGHHH
These climate change pseudoscientists with their Mystic Meg predictions are hilarious. They are like those guys on street corners with “the end of the world is nigh” signs with their stupid doomsday predictions that never happen.
@Science: Climate change *is* happening. Unfortunately, some intellectually challenged individuals are determined to be blind to it.
@Brendan O’Brien: Can any of those experts you claim you listen to found answer any of the Following, A. What caused earth’s climate changes that happened before. B. Can humans actually stop earth’s climate change?
@Ger Whelan: You could easily discover the answers to these questions if you were genuinely interested. Obviously, humans can’t stop climate change altogether, but by changing their behaviour they can limit its pace.
‘Over the course of Earth’s existence, volcanic eruptions, fluctuations in solar radiation, tectonic shifts, and even small changes in our orbit have all had observable effects on planetary warming and cooling patterns.
‘But climate records are able to show that today’s global warming—particularly what has occured since the start of the industrial revolution—is happening much, much faster than ever before. According to NASA, “[t]hese natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades.” And the records refute the misinformation that natural causes are the main culprits behind climate change, as some in the fossil fuel industry and conservative think tanks would like us to believe.’
@Brendan O’Brien: But then I wouldn’t find out what “you’re experts say” I already know a lot more than you. My job requires it. Unlike you I don’t come on here given the end of the world is near drama like you. You seem to think telling people on here means they listen to you and you are making a difference to earth’s climate, well you’re not. Especially since you clearly don’t take it seriously off the internet because you admitted you burn oil and wood and you even tried to claim the wood you burn is ok because it’s grown in your garden. You won’t answer what car you drive so I assume it’s petrol or diesel. There is so much more you could do Brendan that you won’t so don’t preach to others when you can’t do it yourself.
@Ger Whelan: Same old boring refrain from your ‘Roy Dowling’ days.
Climate change is a serious problem. You need to look at the real world and try to get over your petty personal dislikes and obsessions, which don’t amount to anything in the end.
@jak: Same old deliberate distortions from you.
@Brendan O’Brien: there is no ‘Roy Dowling’ days from me Brendan but love how you’ll go to slander and misinformation when it suits you. Yes Indeed climate change is a serious problem I have and will never deny that. I would lose a lot of work if I did. My company audits business and advises them on the best way to lower their energy usage thus helping the environment and saving money as well. As for you, from my experience of you only take climate change seriously only. Off the internet you’re happy to be part of the problem it seems because, you’ve no interest in reducing your impact and when asked why you insult others.
@Ger Whelan: Your problem is that you take issue with the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.
@Brendan O’Brien: No I take issue with people like you who preach one thing and practice another. You’re literally coming on here telling people how bad climate change is and we need to save the planet for future generations, when in reality off the internet you are doing very little. When questioned as to why you are doing very little you get all aggressive, insult and slander people. You actually seem to believe you are making some kind of difference here by trying to inform obvious fake accounts about something they don’t care about. They are doing it deliberately because it’s what internet trolls do. Have you actually changed one person’s opinion on here?
@Ger Whelan: Yes, Earth previous climate swings can be explained.
For the past million years or so atmospheric CO2 has been cycling up and down a little, bringing natural climate change with it. We humans have only been here for maybe a few hundred thousand years. We have been living in a climate sweet spot (for us) that allowed us to expand from maybe a few tens of thousands to now be approaching 9 billion, and expand across most of the planet.
We are now exiting that exiting that climate sweet spot, at the upper end. It will be increasingly difficult or impossible for many billions to continue to live where they are.
We are exiting that climate sweet spot now because we humans have put so much pollution into the environment that the planet is convulsing as it adapts.
Specifically, we have put so much CO2 (and other Greenhouse Gasses) into the atmosphere that the levels of atmospheric CO2 have increased by 50%.
That’s 50% more than the highest point of the previous CO2 cycle, or over double from the lowest point.
An increase of 50% is simply enormous.
The previous natural cycle from just under 200ppm to just over 250ppm happened over periods of about 200,000 years.
We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 50% (from its natural high point) in a mere couple of hundred years.
The energy from the sun arrives here in a broad spectrum. That warms the planet. The planet emits that heat in the infra-red range.
The atmosphere allows in the broad spectrum energy from the sun. Atmospheric CO2 does not allow infra-red out as easily.
The result is that the less atmospheric CO2 the more the planet cools, and the greater the level of atmospheric CO2 the more the planet warms.
When atmospheric CO2 increases, the planet begins to warm.
It will continue to warm until the temperature rises to a point at which the energy leaving the planet matches the energy entering. (Heat travels from warmer to cooler regions.)
These changes – in CO2 and resulting planet temperature – normally, naturally, have been happening over 200,000 years.
But we have increased atmospheric CO2 by an enormous amount in only a few hundred years.
That CO2 is already in the atmosphere.
The Earth will continue to warm until the temperature reaches a level at which the energy leaving the planet matches the energy arriving from the Sun.
So significant global warming is already baked in.
Even if we were to stop adding CO2 (and other Greenhouse Gasses) right now.
Which we wont.
All you human-made climate change deniers fail to understand one basic thing: the planet doesn’t care about us.
The planet will survive.
Just as humans would not have been able to exist in previous climates, we will not be able to survive future climates.
It is up to us if we being those non-survivable climates upon us now.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: Yea I’ve told you before. I don’t read anything you post. Can’t read anything from an individual who claims there is no such thing as innocent Russians or Israeli citizens, Dead russian and Israeli civilians are good because it means they are no longer killing Ukrainians and Palestinians. Post all the essays you want for me, I will not be reading them.
@Ger Whelan: You are not omniscient, therefore you can’t know whether I have changed anyone’s opinion or not. The truth is always worth telling, but your petty, begrudging nature compels you to obstruct that. It’s not my problem.
I don’t need your advice on how to behave on the internet. You don’t know what I am doing, and you have distorted my responses to ‘Roy Dowling’: I have retrofitted my house, and I do my best from day to day. I’m not answerable to you. Try to see the big picture, and take issue with the right people for a change.
@Brendan O’Brien: I didn’t distort anything if your responses I said you have very little not nothing which is correct. There is so much more you can do today if you were really interested but you make the decision not to do them. You have mentioned this ‘Roy Dowling’ a lot, am I assume he said similar things to what I’m saying now? And if so by saying the same things you assume I was that person before on here? If so then I can I assume you are D.peader and Kevin kerr etc that buster lawless calls you? Because you say the same thing they do? Quick to insult people like they do, so logically you use all 3 accounts the same way apparently I use ‘Roy Dowling’ account?
@Ger Whelan: You have quoted more than once from a conversation that you (mis)remember between ‘Roy Dowling’ and me. The conversation didn’t appear anywhere else. Your views on the matter and your tone are identical to those of ‘Roy Dowling’, and ‘Ger Whelan’ took no part in the conversation at the time: in fact I don’t ‘Ger Whelan’ was commenting at all back then; he materialised at the moment when ‘Roy Dowling’ disappeared.
Such are the vagaries of the online world. It’s not like it’s important. Climate change is important, though, and you ought to choose the right side of the fence.
@Ger Whelan: And yet I did not state that.
What I have stated is that all the death and destruction in Ukraine and the wider region is due to the tyrant.
And that all the death and destruction in Palestine is due to the israeli.
What’s really bugging you is that your posts are so easily shown to be nonsense.
@Brendan O’Brien: Ever think that people are aware of it but are tired of being lectured by the doom and gloom merchants.
It is “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” situation we are in now!!
People are tired of it all, the lectures, the attempted guilt trips etc
@Gary Kearney: So we should ignore it and hope it will go away of its own accord?
@Brendan O’Brien: I haven’t quoted you on anything that I didn’t ask myself. So why lie again? I asked you months back what you yourself are doing to save the climate. You told me Ger Whelan about your house retrofit. I asked you what heating system you used and what car you drive. You respond to me Ger Whelan you burn a small amount of oil and wood trimmings from trees and bushes in your garden. I asked you why you trim them it’s not good for the environment and eco system. I haven’t referenced any information you haven’t given me. I’m very much on the right side of climate change. As I said already a lot of my business is based on it. Simply disagreeing with a Hypo crite like you who says one thing and does the opposite doesn’t't put me on the wrong side. More information from you.
@Ger Whelan: The conversation I am talking about is on this post (responses to comment by Finn Barr). Roy Dowling’s comments have been deleted, but my responses are visible. That was the only previous time that I talked on this site about retrofitting my house and so forth. I did not have the same conversation twice. Therefore, I conclude that you and ‘Roy Dowling’ are the same person.
https://www.thejournal.ie/independent-tds-to-support-simon-harris-6344256-Apr2024/
@Brendan O’Brien: So ‘ Roy Dowling’ comments have been deleted?. Lmao. And yes you did have a conversation with me where you told me about retrofitting your him and burning oil and wood. I can’t post links which is very fortunate for you but you did. I’ll go back and find it and post the head line tell you it and see if you have the balls to admit your wrong.
@Ger Whelan: Yes, if you can demonstrate that I am wrong I will certainly admit it.
@Brendan O’Brien: Is there a way to filter out the articles to find what you’re for. I know it was in the first part of July but I can’t be bothered to scroll through every article and comments for half a month. How did you filter out to find what you want? I’m on the mobile app.
@Ger Whelan: Here, ‘Roy Dowling’ uses ‘hypo crite’ (two words) the same way as you just did (‘It’s showing you to be hypo crite you are’). Coincidence?
https://www.thejournal.ie/simon-coveney-address-buccha-5742327-Apr2022/
@Ger Whelan: ‘Roy’ and you also have identical views on Taiwan, drawing parallels with Scottish independence etc.
https://www.thejournal.ie/china-taiwan-united-nations-5584989-Oct2021/
@Brendan O’Brien: July 4th Reluctance of men to reduce eating meat and flying ect is the date and headline. Where i you what you have done to make the planet more sustainable. If I don’t use a space it won’t let me post it as it’s toxic. The fact you had to go back 2 years to link me to this ‘Roy Dowling’ is amazing. From now on I’m going to use your logic. Having a similar opinion to someone makes that person. You have a good Day once you apologize to me Kevin
@Ger Whelan: I’m not the only one to have noticed that you previously posted as ‘Roy Dowling’. Why keep lying?
https://www.thejournal.ie/fine-gael-overtakes-sinn-fein-business-post-poll-june-6423000-Jun2024/
@Brendan O’Brien: oh look no apologise from you I’m shocked. I’m not the only one who says you post as Kevin Kerr and D.peader does that must mean you are them right?
Ha .. I’ve had my stove on most of the summer ..
Far more people in Ireland are going to die from the cold and wet conditions than are ever going to die from heat. And let’s face it when it’s very very occasionally warm ( never hot) it only lasts a day or two before the rain returns. And if and I mean if it ever gets hot in north west Europe it will not be in the life time of anyone alive today. So please cancel the order for the air conditioner, it will never need to be unboxed.
@Neil Brooks: The journal article is very slippy and poor. The Lancet paper in fact attempts to predict trends in heat AND cold related deaths by 2100 under various warming scenarios.
On the contrary, it predicts fewer overall cold+heat related deaths by 2100 in Ireland at higher rates of warming, i.e. yes more people will die from heat, but even fewer people will die from the cold.
That, at least, it is the prediction for Ireland. That will not be the same in other countries. We’re at a sweet spot, out in the Atlantic.
However, above 2 or 3 Celsius of warming, if we see that, there will likely be catastrophic changes in the climate system.
We likely would not benefit from this warning.
For example, at warming above 2 and especially 3 Celsius warming, we risk weakening the warm current that ensures Northern Europe has mild weather. Other events, tipping points might be triggered, such as the drying of the Amazon jungle, the shift in climate zones, the failure of the Indian Monsoon, death of most coral reefs, melting of permafrost and release of methane, collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets etc.
The whole article is a supposition. It actually says nothing. It uses statistics based on other variables. Heat death is generally due to dehydration, possible heat stroke and a more lingering cancer. When Irish people go to Spain where it is much hotter we are advised to drink more water and stay out of direct sunlight without dermal/uv protection. The same would apply in Ireland if we get very hot days.
A few days ago, one commenter said he only accepts peer-reviewed pronouncements rather than what is presented in the comment section. I reminded him that natural selection is a peer-reviewed conviction responsible for the invasion and extermination imperatives and responsible for the deaths of millions.
“In 500 years how the Anglo-Saxon race will have spread & exterminated whole nations; & in consequence how much the Human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank.” Darwin
The 1930s German nation was taken in by this dehumanisation conviction and permitted to slaughter or exploit those who were helpful in their Aryan ‘race’ agenda.
The new peer-reviewed conviction based on the Earth science of climate is a global issue and equally as disruptive and dangerous.
@Gerald Kelleher: Natural Selection is simple common sense Gerald.
The planet is warming Gerald.
The medical community will not lift a finger to remove the extermination and invasion imperatives of natural selection. This leaves commenters here to see it as an opportunity to remove prejudice as a biological imperative.
“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” Darwin
@Gerald Kelleher: Natural Selection is simple common sense Gerald.
If you believe otherwise then let us have your reasoning why it is wrong.
Or perhaps you’d be so good as to tell us what you think it is.
It is painful for 21st-century commenters, especially Irish people, to revisit the Origin of Species conviction, which surfaced with Wallace in 1858 and a year before Darwin’s sanitised version in 1859.
“I thought of his [Malthus] clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”, disease, accidents, war, and famine which keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of civilised peoples. It then occurred to me their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also because in every generation, the inferior would inevitably be killed off, and the superior would remain–that is, the fittest would survive. I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the Origin of Species.” Wallace, 1858
@Gerald Kelleher: Please tell us all what you think Natural Selection means Gerald.
: I protect you and similar commenters when I see your reactions, so don’t expect a reply apart from this one. More considerate people at a higher level of reasoning would see favoured and less favoured ‘races’ in the main title of Origin of Species.
“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” Charles Darwin, 1859
It was a variant of Wallace’s civilised/savage ‘races’, where the island comparisons were famine Ireland and empire England, not the Galapagos. The people of both islands will have to face this, as the majority are fair people who can isolate prejudice convictions as dangerous and disruptive.
When people appeal to peer review, let them deal with this important matter first.
@Gerald Kelleher: OK, let me explain to you once again.
Natural Selection posits that:
a) if a member of a species has a genetic mutation that gives it an advantage in the environment in which it exists, that member of the species is more likely to survive and pass on that genetic mutation
b) if a member of a species has a genetic mutation that puts it at a disadvantage in the environment in which it exists, that member of the species is less likely to survive and pass on the genetic mutation.
THAT IS ALL.
Natural Selection makes no mention of Malthus. Of Anglo-Saxons.
Or little green lizard people from Alpha Centauri.
What you are trying to do is shoe-horn irrelevancies into an attempt to somehow disprove Natural Selection – and by extension The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection – because you have a religious conviction that evolution is not true.
You cannot dispute Natural Selection by simple reason and logic, so you try to conflate irrelevancies as if your nonsense could make sense to anyone.
You are being dishonest Gerald.
Most of all to yourself.
Genetic research relating to breeding began with Mendel and his 1865 work and long after the Victorian prejudice conviction in 1858.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
Mendel used pea plants while Wallace/Darwin misused the Irish and English cultures railroaded into Celt and Anglo-Saxon ‘races’ as a less favoured ‘race’ and a favoured ‘race’ respectively.
I have waited patiently for commenters to get a glimpse of the horror as the genetics community tries to bury the Origin of Species despite its main title.
The Human Race comes out the other side with its magnificent male and female biological distinctions intact, and that is worth all the effort.
@Gerald Kelleher: Natural Selection makes no mention of Mendel.
Natural Selection makes no mention of the Irish or the English, the Celt or the Anglo-Saxon, or that any are favoured.
Natural Selection merely posits one thing: that a member of a species that has a genetic mutation that gives it an advantage in the environment in which it finds itself will be more likely to survive and pass on that gene, and that a member of a species that has a genetic mutation that puts it at a disadvantage in that environment is less likely to survive and pass on that gene.
THAT IS ALL
Natural Selection makes no other claims.
If you can find fault with what Natural Selection actually posits, then let us all know.
But please stop trying to conflate it what rubbish.
“More considerate people at a higher level of reasoning”.. you mean ‘your level’ of reasoning, which is not only supremely arrogant and imagined but is a massive contradiction, the past is over, what is your ‘reasoning’ for the future?… if we recognised everything in accordance with your hypothesis will anything be different? (nope) What are the results of all this ‘research’ you’ve conducted, you have literally zero, because your introspective argument has created a wonderful fantasy for you to play with… reads like you’re desperately running out of time to actually resolve anything, and cat calling everything opn the way
That’s probably less than the number who currently die from the cold every year so a good news story?
The planet heating up is not an Irish concern. We are the exception to other places in the world quite clearly. We seem to be more likely to get cooler unsettled weather than hot weather seen in the likes of Greece, Spain. It really begs the question, with the size of our country, as to whether Ireland should be implementing global warming policies as other countries are doing or if we should be investing in dealing with cooler and unsettled weather?
@Lewis Armstrong: As this article points out, ‘In reality, as a small, open economy, our fate is closely connected to what happens elsewhere. No country is immune from the risks of economic collapse, mass migration, droughts, famine and deadly flooding events, despite what many people still believe.’
https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40962422.html
Also, as David points out above, any change in the AMOC, the ocean current that ensures Northern Europe has mild climate, would have a huge impact on Ireland.
The idea that we are somehow immune or exempt doesn’t hold water.
@Lewis Armstrong: Assuming we continue to have some form of mild climate, then a lot of the rest of the world will want o come here.
So, the planet warming affecting others will certainly affect us.
@Lewis Armstrong: Planet heating isn’t an Irish concern?!! Ukraine is technically not an Irish concern and yet can you not see how it has affected Ireland? Things will be far worse when hot countries become uninhabitable.
Ah here lads
It’s was like a winters day here in Limerick yesterday.
Ill take my chances with the heat if it ever arrives …
The scaremongering is mighty at the moment
I wish they’d make up their mind – isn’t it only the other week they were telling us Ireland and the UK would be plunged into colder temperatures if the Gulf Stream switches off as a result of global warming?
@Mark Eightfourone: Yes: where is the contradiction?
I’m always interested in who actually publishes this reports and look into them before reading the actual article. I would encourage others to do the same. Have a look at the parent company Elsevier. It makes for very interesting reading on who is actually publishing such reports
If we look at history, the planet flourish during times of heat. Crops need heat. Take the roman warm period. Heat is less of a problem. Now let’s look at cold periods. There were years when volcanic activities blocked out the sun. The result was famine and civilisations / empires collapsed. Wars started. People were hungry and desperate. Disease spread… humans can deal with the heat but we can’t manage the cold. This article is a waste of time.
@Washpenrebel: What you fail to understand is that the planet does not care about us.
Humans would simply not have been able to survive in the climates of most of this planet’s history.
We have been living in a climate sweet spot, for us.
We are now exiting that sweet spot, through our own doing.
We can ignore that, and hasten our extinction.
Or we can ameliorate the effects as much as we can, to keep as much of the planet habitable for us as we can.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: “We have been living in a climate sweet spot, for us.
We are now exiting that sweet spot, through our own doing.”
There’s no evidence of this. Ie humans have never had it so good as we do now. Climate-related disasters kill 99% fewer people than 100 years earlier. The ice caps aren’t melting, the sea levels are not rising.
You should go for a walk in the countryside, listen to the wildlife. Maybe leave your phone at home.
@Washpenrebel: There is every evidence.
We have been living in environments that allowed us to flourish.
We simply could not have survived at the time of the dinosaurs, as an example.
Last year the seas around Florida were so warm that they exceeded human body temperature.
If the human body cannot regulate its temperature then that human will die.
We are seeing that more and more, and are only at the beginning of what will result from the CURRENT levels of Greenhouse Gasses in the atmosphere.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: look you need to use factual data. The temperature of the sea surface in Florida means nothing. Why? Because there is no official keeper of ocean temperature records. The World Meteorological Organization tracks land surface temperature records, but not ones set at sea. There is no historical data on this.
Take also into account that since 2004 hurricanes in Florida have reduced by 20%. They haven’t gotten worse. Why aren’t the hurricanes getting more if there carbon in the air is increasing? Probably because there is no correlation between the two. One doesn’t affect the other.
One thing absolutely guaranteed is that ZERO people will die from heat in Ireland. People have a blue tint on their skin here from the 52 weeks of cold. The problem is that the green party love this type of sh. ite. Gives them another excuse to bring in a new tax.
Ha ha that’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in years, more chance of winning the lottery than dying from heat in this country.
“Could” is a friendly word for so-called journalists. Here’s a headline from me.
“Over 1,500 people in Ireland could be killed by falling space debris in 2026.”
However, if temperatures increase beyond 2 or 3 Celsius of global warming, there is a risk of a weakening triggering dangerous climate tipping points, the most important for Ireland is a possible weakening to collapse of a vital warm current, AMOC, the ocean current that ensures Northern Europe has mild climate; Northern Europe would be plunged into near Ice Age conditions if that happened.
Other dangerous tipping points kick in at >2 to >3 Celsius of warming include e.g. the drying of the Amazon, the shift of the climate zones, failure of the Indian monsoon, loss of the Greenland Ice and West Antarctic Ice sheets, Coral Reefs die off, methane release from thawed permafrost. We would have a lot more to worry about than hot summers if we warmed that much.
@David Jordan: these are all it’s and maybes. These are predictions. No one knows if they are going to happen. The problem is all of the predictions regarding climate change since the 1970s haven’t materialized. The models used by climate change scientists can’t take into account clouds which are critical to the weather and climate.
The coral reefs off Australia are doing fine. Ice caps are not melting, the sea level isn’t rising. The ocean currents will never change due to the earth’s rotation and the equator. Our summer has been colder this year due to the clouds not due to the climate.
Make a change from dying of hypothermia…
Does that include the temperatures in hell if so I’m doomed.
@noel donohue: hell will have frozen over due to climate change so you’ll be grand.
Yet June was the coldest month ever recorded, please stop with the bs you’re giving the gen z climate anxiety
Id say people are more fearful of dying in one of the rubbish run HSE hospitals in this country than climate change..
Guess its a coin toss which is reversed first, climate change or the 3rd world health service
I’m confused what heat. This is definitely the worst summer I have ever experienced weather wise.
Definitely not Ireland
I’ve read through most of the comments on here, very many are eloquent and erudite, with a good range of varied perspectives, but what I’ve found disappointing from the perspectives that align with the general view that human caused climate change threatening catastrophe in apocalyptic proportions, is nonsense, in terms of the scientific and empirical explanations given, just appear to be swimming around the effects part of the argument, with little to no attention given to the area of causes. Why was such a concocted, relatively new dogmatic religion of climate change devised??? Hmm could it be, that like any religion, it can prove to be a very effective tool
@Kev28: CO2 has been known to be a Greenhouse Gas for, oh, 150 years or so.
Basically the energy from the Sun arrives here in a broad spectrum, and heats the planet.
The parts of the planet not facing the Sun are warmer than space and should give up their heat to space.
That heat is given up – emitted – as infra-red, not the broad spectrum in which that energy arrived.
But although Greenhouse Gasses allow IN the broad spectrum energy from the Sun, they do not pass infra-red OUT as effectively.
The more Greenhouse Gasses in the atmosphere, the longer the Sun’s energy is retained, and the more the planet warms.
The less Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the shorter the Sun’s energy is retained, and the cooler the planet.
Adding Greenhouse Gasses to the atmosphere retains more of the Sun’s heat for longer. As a result, the planet will heat up. It will continue to heat until a temperature is reached where the amount of energy leaving the planet matches the amount that enters. (Heat travels from hotter to colder regions, the amount that travels is proportional to the difference in temperature.) In essence, Greenhouse Gasses behave like a blanket around the planet, but one that will let in heat better than let it out.
For the past million years or so, the planet has been in a phase where the CO2 was naturally cycling up and down, up and down, from something under 200ppm to just over 250ppm, as I remember, in periods of about 200,000 years.
Causing the planet to slowly cool and warm, cool and warm.
Those temperature ranges would have supported human evolution and human life.
The climates during most of the planet’s history would not have allowed humans to survive.
In the last 200 or so years we humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by about 50%, to over 400ppm.
An enormous increase, and in such a short time.
The planet is warming as a result, and will continue to warm until the temperature allows as much heat to leave as enters.
Significant Global Warming is already baked-in, from that 50% increase in CO2.
But we are still adding it.
And much of the planet will become uninhabitable for humans as a result. How much will depend on when we can stop our human caused planet warming.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: nice speal, your analysis leaves out one really important thing. Clouds! Clouds have a real impact on the weather and on climate.
Also you don’t mention in your comment that CO2 is also plant food. No CO2 no plants, no trees ect. We have more CO2 so the plant is getting greener than it used to be. Which is a good thing. Lastly CO2 is 0.04% of earth’s atmosphere. How does a gas with 0.04% heat up the entire planet. This Gas is always fluctuating. Ie the levels increase in winter time and they reduce in summer time. Plants/trees don’t grow when it’s cold.
@Washpenrebel: “the planet is getting greener”
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: I had hoped, perhaps unreasonably, my comments would just attract alternative, non mainstream points of view, as we’ve already way in excess your type of viewpoint, dominate on vitually every platform. If I sought your type of opinion, explanation and science, I could have just switched on the TV, watched any number of programmes by Attenborough, the BBC etc or any mainstream newspaper.
@Kev28: So, actually, you dont want the truth, even when presented in a non-scientific manner, when presented with simple established facts and with logic and reason?
You really just want something that will “confirm” your already religiously indoctrinated beliefs.
You cannot dispute any of what I said, but you dont want to accept it, for “reasons”.
Reasons you come up with to justify your denial.
@Washpenrebel: Plants did just fine over the last million years, when CO2 levels were 250ppm, or even 200ppm.
Humans will not do so well as the habitable regions of the planet become less and less.
What about clouds?
Are you trying to say that the planet wont warm because of clouds?
As the planet is warming right now, then that tells a different story.
As the planets CO2 varied in the past 1,000,000 years and the planets temperature followed it, simple logic should tell you that is what is happening now.
Read my earlier comment for how an increase of 50% in a Greenhouse Gas could heat up the planet.
Increases in CO2 resulted in past planet warming; reduction in CO2 resulted in past planet cooling.
Seriously, this is really not that hard.
Even an American should be able to follow it.
Even a right-winger should be able to follow it.
Even an American right-winger should be able to follow it.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: Thank you for helping me see the light, your right, so right, I’m glad you didn’t take my subtle hint, that I wanted alternative debate and that you persisted overzealously with me. You have been so compellingly convincing in your delivery and assertions, that you have succeeded where the globalist hypocritical, sanctimonious elites who like to talk down to people have failed. Thanks again. Parting is such sweet sorrow, but alas it must come. Bye now….forever
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: When you say “Plants did just fine over the last million years, when CO2 levels were 250ppm, or even 200ppm”. That’s not entirely true. We are today are one of the lowest levels of CO2 in the last few million years. The lower the CO2 levels the harder it is for plants to survive. That’s why in industrial greenhouses, CO2 is either pumped in or gas is burned inside the greenhouse. if CO2 levels are high its not a problem for plants. If its low. It is a problem. CO2 is the essence of life, without it we all die.
Regarding clouds. Clouds within a mile or so of Earth’s surface tend to cool more than they warm. These low, thicker clouds mostly reflect the Sun’s heat. This cools Earth’s surface. Clouds high up in the atmosphere have the opposite effect: They tend to warm Earth more than they cool. So without doubt Clouds have a huge effect on the earth. All the models you are referencing don’t take them into account.
Your are saying if the earth warms, humans are in trouble! Well 2000 years ago in the Roman Warm period the climate was 2 degrees Celsius warmer than today and is partly credited with Rome success and abundance. We know this from Tree Ring data. The climate is always changing. We still are technically in an ice age. Earth is currently in the ice age called Quaternary glaciation.
If you really want to know about the dangers humans face, its volcanos. Massive volcanos block out the sun, causing cooler temperatures which causes famines, there after society collapses. Many many empires have fallen because of this reason. Again we know this from Tree Ring data and historical accounts.
If anybody can remember Dads Army on the BBC. If not Google it.
The media and some politicians, now sound like Frazer from the show.
Same effect too.
April 1st again today?
And yet we have the musk rogan tate little manboys thinking because they made a few ?
@Robert Halvey: Musk is very much like Trump. Spew out some cobbled together words about his companies that don’t stand up to inspection. Look completely caught off guard by basic questions and stumble through an improvised answer. Throw up a cloud of lies and misinformation to distract from his own gross shortcomings. Thrive on the adulation of anyone who loves the red meat he throws them. Tesla has lost an enormous amount of its valuation in the last year……Musk will have to peddle his line of toxicity to the maximum extent to distract from that.
@Numinous20111: What Musk signally fails to understand is that the buyers of his electric vehicles are not right-wing-climate-change-deniers but those with some level of common sense.
As he continues to alienate his customer base, sales of his products will continue to fall.
There are plenty of alternatives out there; most better by all accounts.
It’s fierce mild!
Lies no such thing as climate change fact
It’s colder ireland is getting.
I think we have avoided that bullet.
You haven’t included those killed by lions and tigers roaming the Offaly savannah.
Only, the predictions of climate hysterics never seem to come to pass.
Is this article some kind of joke???? Take a reality check for yourself and just go outside and see what the weather is like and you will find that its Cold, wet and dull. Last summer was bad, this summer is worse. Also you guys in the media are sending out mixed information, just a few days ago I read a news article claiming that the atlantic ocean is rapidly cooling and that will the weather in ireland is going to get colder.So please less dramatic scare headlines about the weather based on computer modelling which can be made to predict anything you want. These climate scientists are paid to say what the powers that be want them to say.
have your say