You should probably learn the term compound climate event. It refers to the occurrence of multiple weather- or climate-related hazards happening simultaneously or in close succession, leading to amplified impacts.
Until recently, Seattle had about 30% air conditioning - now, due to increasing heat waves and smoke, that number is around 50-60%. So your estimate using Seattle is probably low - since with no power, the A/C rate is zero. But, order of magnitude - correct.
I did a back of the envelope a few years ago after the Texas heatwave saw 300-500 deaths. Europe saw 60,000 deaths. I wondered what was different, so I scaled by population and then by the percent air conditioned. That explained almost all of the difference. A/C is and will be a life-or-death necessity.
Certainly, the increase in air conditioning will modify the relative risk (RR) curves. However, it's generally the case that the people who die in extreme heat are the poorest individuals, and they are going to be the last people to get air conditioning. Thus, the RR curves may not be changing as much as one might think.
Thanks for attempting to make sense out of data that contain lots of uncertainty. The very important factor for me, as you point out by the RR curves,---- humans adapt to seasonal climates, which when shocked by extremes, are most at risk of excessive deaths beyond expectations.
Interesting, but I'd like for Dressler to have drawn some politic conclusions concerning:
a) need for investments in infrastructure to make it less vulnerable to weather-related events. [I have no specific Idea about what this means for Houston, but I'm sure there were opportunities.]
b) to the extent that Beryl adds a data point to the estimate of the the harm that net emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere causes, this should nudge us closer to enacting a tax on net emissions.
Thank you for saying what most won't.
Until recently, Seattle had about 30% air conditioning - now, due to increasing heat waves and smoke, that number is around 50-60%. So your estimate using Seattle is probably low - since with no power, the A/C rate is zero. But, order of magnitude - correct.
I did a back of the envelope a few years ago after the Texas heatwave saw 300-500 deaths. Europe saw 60,000 deaths. I wondered what was different, so I scaled by population and then by the percent air conditioned. That explained almost all of the difference. A/C is and will be a life-or-death necessity.
Certainly, the increase in air conditioning will modify the relative risk (RR) curves. However, it's generally the case that the people who die in extreme heat are the poorest individuals, and they are going to be the last people to get air conditioning. Thus, the RR curves may not be changing as much as one might think.
Absolutely. Even poor people with A/C may not be able to afford to run it. And renters have to depend on their landlord. And of course, prisoners.
Thanks for posting this. Most people have no clue about the sheer number of cascading-effect type deaths that will result from climate change.
Thanks for attempting to make sense out of data that contain lots of uncertainty. The very important factor for me, as you point out by the RR curves,---- humans adapt to seasonal climates, which when shocked by extremes, are most at risk of excessive deaths beyond expectations.
Interesting, but I'd like for Dressler to have drawn some politic conclusions concerning:
a) need for investments in infrastructure to make it less vulnerable to weather-related events. [I have no specific Idea about what this means for Houston, but I'm sure there were opportunities.]
b) to the extent that Beryl adds a data point to the estimate of the the harm that net emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere causes, this should nudge us closer to enacting a tax on net emissions.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/did-climate-change-cause-hurricane
Who's Dressler?