{"id":335721,"date":"2024-07-06T10:21:48","date_gmt":"2024-07-06T08:21:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=335721"},"modified":"2024-07-06T10:21:50","modified_gmt":"2024-07-06T08:21:50","slug":"hot-facts-about-heat-follow-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=335721","title":{"rendered":"Hot Facts about Heat \u2013 Follow-up"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Opinion by Kip Hansen<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a recent essay, Hot Facts about Heat<\/a>, I said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI have been communicating with the Climate Indicators team at EPA about this:  they up-dated the Heat-Related, but not the Cold-Related, Deaths page.  And yes, golly, it does suspiciously look like they have managed to change down-trending data into up-trending data. Not jumping to conclusions yet.  I\u2019ll let readers know when I have sorted it out with EPA.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I wrote a pleasant inquiry to the Climate Indicators Team at the EPA: (excerpt):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI am a Science Research Journalist and appreciate your reply.  However, \u2026we are counting on your team to keep these indicators up to date for all of us \u2014 the Cold Deaths data is now eight years out of date, or, being charitable, six years allowing for the two-year lag at CDC.   <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you are familiar with the data on the two pages, Heat and Cold deaths, you will realize that the official statement made on the Heat Deaths page is in error. <\/strong> It states \u201cHeat is the leading weather-related killer in the United States\u201d \u2014 which your data on the Heat and Cold Deaths directly refutes.  Cold is shown as have a death rate per million at 5.5 to 6 (even back in 2016) while even the updated Heat Deaths does not even reach 5 per million.   <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given this, it appears that EPA is intentionally or negligently obfuscating the data to support a false claim.   <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I would appreciate a more thorough answer before I go to press.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[ The Climate Indicators pages under discussion are Heat-related Deaths<\/a> and Cold-related Deaths<\/a> ]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite this being near-enough to the long 4th<\/sup> of July weekend (U.S. Independence Day), I received the following answer:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYour inquiry was shared with me. Please see our response below, on background.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yesterday, EPA released its updated Fifth Edition of its Climate Change Indicators report. As you saw, numerous indicators have been updated on EPA\u2019s website in anticipation of this release. EPA prioritized updating those indicators featured in the report, but we remain committed to keeping all our indicators updated. We plan on updating Cold-Related Deaths in our next set of rolling updates on the web.  <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The statement that heat is the leading weather-related killer in the United States is based on an analysis conducted by the National Weather Service. EPA provides this information in the \u201cBackground\u201d section as context for the discussion of heat. EPA does not use its indicator data as a basis for that contextualizing statement. We will further clarify this on EPA\u2019s website. We recommend that you follow up with the National Weather Service (NWS) if you have additional questions about their data or finding.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thank you again for your interest in EPA\u2019s climate change indicators.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Respectfully,  Shayla R. Powell  \u2014  Office of Media Relations and Risk Communications  \u2014  Office of Public Affairs<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[ The 5th<\/sup> Edition of EPA\u2019s Climate Change Indicators report , just released, is available as a free .pdf download here<\/em><\/a>.  I will look at that in detail another time. ]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It turns out that, just like the main stream media and all of the Climate Crisis Propaganda outlets, EPA uses the \u201canalysis conducted by the National Weather Service\u201d.  EPA has its own data collected from the CDC (via records of actual death certificates) but doesn\u2019t use it in \u201ccontextualizing\u201d <\/em>the statement that \u201cHeat is the leading weather-related killer in the United States\u201d. <\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let me be a little clearer on that:  EPA has its own data on Heat and Cold Related Deaths \u2013 these two statistics are official \u201cClimate Indicators\u201d.  The official Climate Indicators maintained by the EPA, with annual rates for deaths classified as \u201ccold-related\u201d by medical professionals in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, show that COLD is the leading weather related killer, <\/em><\/strong>with Cold-related  Death Rate exceeding that of the Heat-related Death rate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But they defer to the [known to be wonky]  National Weather Service little graphic of \u201cWeather Fatalities<\/a>\u201d [pretending that it is an \u201canalysis\u201d of some sort \u2013 when it isn\u2019t even a serious count of any kind.]  And when challenged on this point, their response is:  \u201cTake it up with the NWS!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EPA does promise that because \u201cEPA does not use its indicator data as a basis for that contextualizing statement. We will further clarify this on EPA\u2019s website<\/em>.\u201d  I will be holding my breath to see the updated Cold-related Deaths data and what the clarification will say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, where does the National Weather Service [NWS]<\/em> get the data for their \u201canalysis\u201d?  It is possible to find out, but \u201cIt ain\u2019t easy\u201d!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Storm Events Database<\/a>!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cStorm Data is an official publication of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which documents the occurrence of storms and other significant weather phenomena having sufficient intensity to cause loss of life, injuries, significant property damage, and\/or disruption to commerce.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is not an easy topic\u2026but the simple fact is that Cold-related Deaths will not be counted unless they have been entered into the Storm Events Database by a \u201c<\/em>Storm Data preparer\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSome information appearing in Storm Data may be provided by or gathered from sources outside the National Weather Service (NWS), such as the media, law enforcement and\/or other government agencies, emergency managers, private companies, individuals, etc. An effort is made to use the best available information, but because of time and resource constraints, information from these sources may be unverified by the NWS. Accordingly, the NWS does not guarantee the accuracy or validity of the information.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NWS does not directly collect deaths data, but only peripherally \u2014  from \u201cthe media, law enforcement and\/or other government agencies, emergency managers, private companies, individuals, etc.\u201d  <\/em> This means that the NWS Weather Fatalities<\/em> is a catch-as-catch-can compilation of reports about possible deaths that are recorded in a database about NWS recognized \u201cstorms or <\/em>other significant weather phenomena\u201d.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A happens-every-winter well-below freezing night in which a family freezes to death in their car after breaking down in a remote area will not be in the database and not in NWS Weather Fatalities<\/em>.  A senior citizen who quietly dies of hypothermia in her un- or under-heated apartment will not be in the database.  A homeless person dying on the streets of Chicago, the windy city, is not counted.  After all, it is expected to be cold in the winter and being cold is not a \u201cweather event\u201d.  However, declared Heat Waves<\/em> are weather events are entered in the data base, and reports in the media or from other authorities (hospitals etc) are search out and recorded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short,  the NWS Weather Fatalities<\/em> statistic is a non-scientific gathering of data only \u201cintended for internal NWS statistical review to assist NWS in its primary mission of issuing forecasts and warnings for hazardous weather events.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You can dig into this yourself at National Weather Service Instruction (NWSI) 10-1605<\/a> (.pdf).<\/p>\n\n\n\n