France and Europe Have Hot Days And Some Predict More Frequent Heat Waves

Hot days in France are a big concern because the country does not have much air conditioning and 15,000 people died in a heatwave in 2003.

The French national weather service activated its highest level heat danger alert for the first time.

School and many other events were canceled.

Temperatures in Paris, France are forecasted to drop to the low 80F by Sunday.

The South of France is where the record temperatures are occuring (reaching 115F). Gallargues-le-Montueux has the highest temperatures but those have eased in the 90F and will drop to daily highs of 88F in one week.

117 thoughts on “France and Europe Have Hot Days And Some Predict More Frequent Heat Waves”

  1. I’m often to blogging and i really appreciate your content. The article has actually peaks my interest. I’m going to bookmark your web site and maintain checking for brand spanking new information.

  2. naturally like your web site however you need to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very bothersome to tell the truth on the other hand I will surely come again again.

  3. This is really interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger. I’ve joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your magnificent post. Also, I’ve shared your site in my social networks!

  4. naturally like your web site however you need to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very bothersome to tell the truth on the other hand I will surely come again again.

  5. You’re so awesome! I don’t believe I have read a single thing like that before. So great to find someone with some original thoughts on this topic. Really.. thank you for starting this up. This website is something that is needed on the internet, someone with a little originality!

  6. You’re so awesome! I don’t believe I have read a single thing like that before. So great to find someone with some original thoughts on this topic. Really.. thank you for starting this up. This website is something that is needed on the internet, someone with a little originality!

  7. naturally like your web site however you need to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very bothersome to tell the truth on the other hand I will surely come again again.

  8. For the reason that the admin of this site is working, no uncertainty very quickly it will be renowned, due to its quality contents.

  9. naturally like your web site however you need to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very bothersome to tell the truth on the other hand I will surely come again again.

  10. İşlerini her zaman samimi ve güvenilir bir şekilde gerçekleştiren ve bunu müşteriye daima yansıtan bir firmadır. Çelik konstrüksiyon proje ve desteklerinden dolayı teşekkür ederim.

  11. I think I see the problem here. You think I am listing my beliefs.
    I am listing the Climate Change story as it is depicted in popular media.

  12. Everyone who lives in the tropics would be surprised to find that their food crops haven’t been growing.

  13. They both say that positive feedback will result in damaging climate change.

    Look again, it’s saying a doubling of CO₂ will result in a certain range of warming. You may see that as a distinction without a difference, but it’s there and it’s large.

    The only prescription you will find in climate science is along the lines of how much/fast you must reduce CO₂ to avoid a certain range of warming. Exactly how you do that is up to the imagination of every meatbag and their belief system, that has nothing to do with AGW.

    You need to identify the sources of your beliefs and attribute them to the correct sources.

  14. I was just talking trees. CO2 is much more. A huge amount of energy goes in to the food and other products we buy, the electricity we use directly, and the fuel we use to warm our houses and transport ourselves and our junk.

    I am not saying we should not have warmth, AC, transport, goods, even luxuries that makes life more enjoyable.

    I am not a fan of taxing or carbon economies stuff. We just need more good tech, the investment to bring this stuff to market, and regulations to encourage their wide adoption and efficiency level.

    And globally, we must make nuclear clearly cheaper than coal for electricity production.

    It will be easy to get nuclear powering most of what hydro is not, if it is cheaper, and the loans are available and such.

    And nuclear need to power all energy intensive industry and mining/refining/forging. We need it to be making cement, aluminum, steel, iron, glass, titanium, copper, synthetic rubber, plastic, precious metals, ceramics…

    Those places that have made a political thing out of not using nuclear hopefully will come around eventually. New Zealand can probably meet demand with hydro…so no big deal (that is already true mostly). Germany, I don’t know. I guess they have to vote out the idiots.

  15. DrPat is right: You just repeated #4 in greater detail, you didn’t contradict it.

    That there are feedbacks is hardly disputed. Some of them are even negative…

    That we know of all of them, and that the scale of the feedbacks is actually known, IS disputed.

  16. I agree with most of your post, but the remark about “kosher people” might be misconstrued.

  17. I fail to see any difference between my point #4 and your summary above.

    They both say that positive feedback will result in damaging climate change.

    And your claim that #5 and #6 are not presented as part of the overall AGW “package” is totally contrary to the mass media that I have experienced.

  18. our analysis suggests that even in the absence of human perturbations no substantial build-up of ice sheets would occur within the next several thousand years and that the current interglacial would probably last for another 50,000 years. However, moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO₂ emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years

    doi: 10.1038/nature16494

    I think you can safely save worrying about the next ice age until much later, it would pointless if CO₂ emissions continue till then.

  19. Which of my points is a misrepresentation of what is presented as the theory of AGW?

    #4, #5 & #6

    The problem is that, while the CO2 mediated warming is both obvious AND extremely limited, the positive feedbacks are both large and highly speculative.

    Unlike your #4 and the sort of cartoon(quoted above) Brett & Goat et al subscribe to, positive feedback is not “highly speculative”, it is in fact basic physics. Positive feedback is only mysterious to those who choose to avoid the science. #5, #6 has 0(zero) relation to AGW.

    A doubling of CO₂ on its own would cause warming of just over one degree c. If you increase global average temps by ~1c, several things respond to that warming and increase the temperature even more.


    1. As global temperatures increase more water evaporates.
    2. Warmer air can hold more water vapor.
    3. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas(goat thinks we should worry more about this instead of CO₂)
    4. So, from a ~1c rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO₂, the water vapor content of the atmosphere will increase causing further warming.

    Is that due to “highly speculative” daydreaming or basic principles physics? The real uncertainties lay not in “is positive feedback imaginary”, but in “which end of the temp scale(2–4.5c) will the needle eventually settle”


  20. Future reactors use cooling towers. Baby fish problem solved.

    Am I in the minority for thinking that it’s just fine for the grid to be maxed out for AC in the summer?

    In my version of the future, Indonesia and the Philippines consume 50% of a massive baseload just on AC – and since this future is powered by the descendants of Shippingport LWR, there are lots of jobs too.

    Cool those huts, baby!

    Split baby, split [atoms]!*

    *A Sarah Palin-esque rallying cry for nuclear power.

  21. Personally, they lose me at step 4. There seems to be a large component of, “The climate was at optimum about the time I was a child.” in step 4.

    And last I heard, we still haven’t identified exactly what triggers the departure from an interglacial period, and so can’t rule out that human influence on climate isn’t the reason North America isn’t under a mile of ice.

  22. That there ARE feedbacks is not highly speculative. The exact nature of them, to the precision that you can predict future climate outside the domain of CO2 concentrations we have data on? Yeah, speculative.

  23. You just need to look at our climate history to know these feedbacks are not highly speculative. Why cherry pick your evidence? Ideology in plain sight.

  24. Sea level is predicted to rise 3 meters 10 foot over the next hundred years so we need to be building walls on the east coast not the Mexican border. I cannot see how we could save Florida unless we turn it into a sort of Venice. Food crops stop growing at temperatures over eighty two fahrenheit. We also get more insects at higher temperatures.

  25. Old folk dying of heat exhaustion, and having to install air conditioning everywhere and run the grid flat out in summer, is not the only effect of heat waves. France is an agricultural country, and changing climate will also change what crops can be grown where. Notably, some of the large wineries are already planting vines adapted to hotter regions like Spain, and buying new ground further north and at higher altitudes. Even, perish the thought, in England. Shortage of water could become a problem too. Some of the nuclear reactors have already had to cut output during heatwaves, as the rivers they use for cooling reach temperature limits set to protect the fish in them.

  26. Which of my points is a misrepresentation of what is presented as the theory of AGW?

    I thought I was being fairly even handed (except for the last section of point 6 which clearly is a partisan interpretation).

  27. Im guessing Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys is out of the question then? Besides the way things are going, im guessing they will soon be called The Nation of Islam.

  28. Remember that I was just answering to this statement.

    If you are breathing, you guilty of having “carbon footprint”

    A single tree would redeem the CO2 we generate directly while breathing.

    Although you are right, of course, that indirectly we generate far more CO2.

  29. “…as it it presented to us today…”

    If people would only look the evidence that under pins “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change”, they will see most of your points many attribute to AGW or climate science is a gross misrepresentation. I have trouble attributing anything pass #3 to what little i know of AGW.

    dispute step 2 to avoid 6.

    I cant see why it’s preferable everyone think them a buffoon vs just selfish.

  30. If you’re paying attention to such things, you’ll have seen recent reports that one of the effects of a warmer Arctic is a slower jetstream, which reacts by meandering more. The northward and southward loops of the jetstream can become stationary for longer than usual, meaning that rainy or hot spells persist for longer – hence floods or droughts, sometimes at the same time on different sides of a continent.
    I don’t know about ‘ record breaking cold in Queensland ‘ – when I stayed there years ago, the Kiwis would be off to the pool for a nice morning swim, while the locals claimed it was far too cold. New Zealand is so far having one of its warmer early winters – shortage of snow on the skifields, weeks of sunny frostless weather in a row.

  31. The average car puts out about 12,000 times as much CO2 in a year as a person breathing does. I think we can agree that, to save paperwork, you could skip the meter on your chest, and just pay at the petrol pump.

  32. The great story in all this CO2 reduction nonsense is look at how much GDP has gone up over the same time! Population too. The market, when allowed to work, has such great effects. The richer people get, the less tolerant they are of pollution and they can afford higher costs to lessen the pollution. I don’t buy the CO2 is pollution BS tho. Its an output from processes, but not a pollutant.

  33. They actually don’t like to be called “frogs”. They prefer “French” or “Francais” or “Francaise”

  34. In many way the problem is that AGW, as it it presented to us today, is not a single theory you can agree or disagree with. It is a chain of proposals.
    1. Carbon dioxide absorbs infra red radiation of the frequency radiated by warm bodies such as planets.
    2. Carbon dioxide produces a greenhouse effect and keeps the Earth (and other planets like Venus) warmer than it would otherwise be.
    3. Human industrialization has increased CO2 levels to the point where it will increase the heat retained on Earth.
    4. Because of some positive feedback effects and tipping points, this will result in damaging climate change.
    5. The best way to deal with this is reduction of CO2 production.
    6. The best way to achieve CO2 reduction is a package of social, legal and political changes that would result in a radical restructuring of our society with massive transfers of money and power to the groups calling for such changes.

    As you go down the list, the proposals become less and less “science” and more and more “politics”. 

    Of course the way humans operate is that most people are just going to bundle all these steps into one concept: AGW. If you agree with steps 1-3 then this is taken as support for step 6. And if you disagree with step 6 the reaction is usually to keep insisting on the proof for steps 1 to 3, and if anyone disagrees they are denying proven science. 

    Likewise, some people will agree with steps 1 to 5 because they like step 6, and other people will dispute step 2 to avoid 6.

  35. This has been the warmest autumn and winter I can remember here in Southern Brazil.

    And to think that in the 19th century, German immigrants were almost buried under two meters of snow.

  36. I posted it because that’s what the science is saying, not the caricature of climate science everyone rages against.

    …While global production appears stable, regional differences in crop production are likely to grow stronger through time, leading to a significant polarisation of effects, with substantial increases in prices and risk of hunger amongst the poorer nations, especially under scenarios of greater in equality…

    One does not need to believe nonsense that AGW is fake or has no serious negatives in order to not give a damn about vegetarians, Florida etc.
    Life is short, I much prefer to spend my disposable income on the 4 very nice vacations i take every year.

    It all smells of intellectual dishonesty, the subculture whose world view depends on the belief that AGW is fake or not a serious problem. Their modus operandi is more often than not ignoring or otherwise pretending a supporting body of scientific evidence does not exists, the same evidence that says it is a serious problem. Rage against that evidence, not some easy fantasy.

  37. Well IPCC ar5 is 74cm by 2100.EDIT: so that cite comes across as alarmist cherry-picking /EDIT
    If somebody lives at 30 meters why should they care?
    World GDP will be 4x what it is now by then. Why not just hit snooze and wait until we’re richer to start spending on this?
    Yes Florida is screwed due to porous ground but how is that my fault for them not following the science? Once the insurance and underwriting companies refuse to write mortgages the problem fixes itself – people move out.
    Beef takes seven pounds of grain to make a pound of beef. All you’re really saying is there will be more financial incentive to be a vegetarian? EDIT: your cite has food supply as stable so WTF did you cite it for?/EDIT
    These are responses I’ve seen and they are neither disingenuous nor uninformed. They are very well reasoned “so what?” responses.

  38. We use a heck of a lot more than 1 tree per person. Your house is probably 25-50 trees. Then there is toilet tissue, napkins, cardboard packaging in almost everything you buy, furniture, occasional fireplace/fire-pit stuff, books, magazines, mail/stamps, schoolwork, legal stuff, currency/checks, some sporting goods (bats, basketball floors, bowling lanes and pins, lawn bowling and other bowls sports gear, pool/billiard tables, Foosball tables, table tennis tables, other game/gaming tables, croquet mallets and balls, dartboard cases), art+frames, charcoal for your grill, gazebos, Jacuzzis, wine barrels, fencing/gates, maybe some trim in your car and work stuff.

    Probably over 100 trees in a lifetime.

    Every tree helps, I suppose.

  39. Air conditioning is uncommon in many area of Europe, even all of Germany.
    Germany has A/C in motor vehicles and some shops and few offices. Homes very rarely have A/C.
    Southern France is Mediterranean and should be prepared (also by appropriate architecture), but Northern France had little reason to expect troublesome heatwaves during the 90’s.

  40. It’s easy to rail against some nonsense you read online, but not
    so easy when it comes to actual climate science.

    I really curious, just like goat et al, you appear to have a strong interest in this subject, yet you appear to be aware of little of what actual climate science has to say. Why do you view this subject through the lens of every online crank giving their unsupported beliefs?

    It would be more beneficial to rail against wild assertions such as:

    Sea level rise is projected to be between ~2.5ft to ~6.5ft -depending on the levels on continued emissions- by the end of the century.
    DOI: 10.1126/science.1159099

    Drought, flooding and heat stress will more than offset the benefits derived from higher concentrations of CO₂ on plant growth, over the next ~60 years.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.008

  41. There’s two big questions when costing what your opinion translates into into cost per tonne of CO2 impact. What is the discount rate going into the future and what is your expected impact you should target (95th percentile IPCC aka high or normal).
    If somebody thinks the discount rate is high and impact normal, then in 2007 dollars you’re at $12 per tonne CO2 equivalent. This is probably what you (Brett Bellmore) are at. If you believe high impact (95th percentile) and 3% discount rate, then you’re at $123 per tonne – a 10x difference….but keep in mind at $123 per tonne is only $1.08 per gallon added to gasoline prices, while jacking up coal prices by 6.6x.
    The 5% discount rate is correct, though, based on over 100 years of data on investment returns. For the record my opinion rests at high impact (not because I believe there will be runaway effects but because I strongly believe biosphere impact is vastly under-costed) but 5% discount rate so about $41 per tonne.

  42. Those without also, at least relatively. France in 2003

    1. had to shut down 4GW of nuclear due to high river temps which aren’t an issue this year and
    2. Europe has a ton more solar now than 2003 so it still wouldn’t be an issue if that did happen
    3. 2003 heatwave was unprecedented for France; a lot of people died because they were uneducated on what to do
    4. also in 2003 it was in August where the government basically shuts down in France. They’d be emergency called in if a heatwave happen again in August.

    I expect the deaths to be more like Italy’s or Spain’s in 2003 now that the French know what to do in those temperatures – so maybe 1,200 instead of 15,000.

  43. CO2 actually cools the mesosphere by radiating heat into space (unlike in the lower atmosphere, where it heats it up). Noctilucent clouds were first ever observed in 1885, very probably due to CO2. UK CO2 emissions in 1890 were the same as UK in 2017.

  44. Meanwhile, at Rabbit Ears Pass (Baker Mountain, Colorado, USA), on June 23rd, almost ¾ of a METER of snow fell. 2½ feet worth. Now, granted, … it is “The Rockies”, and an elevation exceeding 3,500 meters (i.e. Summer snow is not uncommon), but apparently all the way down in Denver, the temperature that same day had a challenge exceeding +3°C. The coldest first-day-of-Summer since 1893.  Dang!

    The point being, that just as in former years, when Europe has had cold-snaps (in the Spring and early Summer), while simultaneously we on this side of the Big Billiard Ball have had heat-waves on the same days, so it is now.  

    It really isn’t all that surprising (is it?) that a big old patch of hot air … there … seems to require a big ol’ patch of cold air … here … and a whole lot of patches of varying temperature a’tween here ‘n’ there and there ‘n’ here by the other route(s).

    PS: Queensland is at the official start of Winter, its people tenaciously hanging upside down below the Equator (LOL), and they’re having one heck of a Cold pitch. Record breaking. 

    PPS: As I might have noted here some time back, on-or-about June 5, at latitude 35.5° in California, I personally observed a broad display of highly unusual noctilucent (mesospheric) clouds one evening. The display last week in Paris was more grand than any in living memory recall. The mesosphere is definitely drawing to an unusually cool and compact phase.  

    All Hail Sol!
    All Hail Sol!

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

  45. Calling 113 degree days “hot days” is an obscene understatement. I’m sure it doesnt bother the traitor in the white house that wants to dismantle the NATO alliance.

  46. Yes, that’s true, and the same reasoning demonstrates that the response to CO2 in the atmosphere is basically saturated at this point, and only responses logarithmically to increasing concentrations.

    Which is why global warming alarmists have to posit that positive feedback mechanism have the climate teetering right on the edge of thermal runaway, so that the tiny, tiny degree of warming CO2 would cause gets amplified enormously.

    The problem is that, while the CO2 mediated warming is both obvious AND extremely limited, the positive feedbacks are both large and highly speculative.

    Which is why people like you pretend that when somebody doubts the latter, they’re doubting the former…

  47. The conclusion that CO₂ concentration affects global temperature was made 123 years ago and confirmed in the 1930s and 40s. In the 1950s it became known as the carbon dioxide theory of climatic change or climate change for short. The term “Global warming” describes the global warming that causes this climate change.

    On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
    Svante Arrhenius
    Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science
    Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.

    The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change
    GILBERT N. PLASS, May 1956
    doi: 10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x

    Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.
    Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.

    Unlike your beliefs, climate science is very well supported.
    Try and understand the actual causes and consequences of this subject, it may help you avoid your current irrational conclusions.

  48. My grandmother used to say that everybody should have planted a tree at least once in its life. Looks like she was more right than she even thought, it’s a good way to redeem ourselves, as you put it.

Comments are closed.