Rebuttal to Åström et al. Attributing mortality from extreme temperatures to climate change in Stockholm, Sweden., published in Nature Climate Change by Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels, and Anthony Watts
Last fall, the press pounced on the results of a new study that found that global climate change was leading to an increasing frequency of heat waves and resulting in greater heat-related mortality. Finally a scientific study showing that global warming is killing us after all! See all you climate change optimists have been wrong all along, human-caused global warming is a threat to our health and welfare.
Not so fast.
Upon closer inspection, it turns out that the authors of that study—which examined heat-related mortality in Stockholm, Sweden—failed to include the impacts of adaptation in their analysis as well as the possibility that some of the temperature rise which has taken place in Stockholm is not from “global” climate change but rather local and regional processes not related to human greenhouse gas emissions.
What the researchers Daniel Oustin Åström and colleagues left out of their original analysis, we (Chip Knappenberger, Pat Michaels, and Anthony Watts) factored in. And when we did so, we arrived at the distinct possibility that global warming led to a reduction in the rate of heat-related mortality in Stockholm.
Our findings have just been published (paywalled) in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change as a Comment on the original Oustin Åström paper (which was published in the same journal).
We were immediately skeptical because the original Oustin Åström results run contrary to a solid body of scientific evidence (including our own) that shows that heat-related mortality and the population’s sensitivity to heat waves was been declining in major cities across America and Europe as people take adaptive measures to protect themselves from the rising heat.
Contrarily, Oudin Åström reported that as a result of an increase in the number of heat waves occurring in Stockholm, more people died from extreme heat during the latter portion of the 20th century than would have had the climate of Stockholm been similar to what it was in the early part of the 20th century—a time during which fewer heat waves were recorded. The implication was that global warming from increasing human greenhouse gas emissions was killing people from increased heat.
But the variability in the climate of Stockholm is a product of much more than human greenhouse gas emissions. Variations in the natural patterns of regional-scale atmospheric circulation, such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), as well as local impacts associated with urbanization and environmental changes in the direct vicinity of the thermometer are reflected in the city’s temperature history, and the original Oudin Åström et al. publication did not take this into account. This effect is potentially significant as Stockholm is one of Europe’s fastest growing cities.
But regardless of the cause, rising temperatures spur adaptation. Expanded use of air conditioning, biophysical changes, behavior modification, and community awareness programs are all examples of actions which take place to make us better protected from the dangers associated with heat waves. Additionally, better medical practices, building practices, etc. have further reduced heat-related stress and mortality over the years.
The net result is that as result of the combination of all the adaptive measures that have taken place over the course of the 20th century in Stockholm, on average people currently die in heat waves at a rate four times less than they did during the beginning of the 20th century. The effect of adaptation overwhelms the effect of an increase in the number of heat waves.
In fact, it is not a stretch to say that much of the adaptation has likely occurred because of an increased frequency of heat waves. As heat waves become more common, the better adapted to them the population becomes.
Our analysis highlights one of the often overlooked intricacies of the human response to climate change—the fact that the response to a changing climate can actually improve public health and welfare.
Which, by the way, is a completely different view than the one taken by the current Administration.
References:
Knappenberger, P., Michaels, P., and A. Watts, 2014. Adaptation to extreme heat in Stockholm County, Sweden. Nature Climate Change, 4, 302-303.
Oudin Åström, D., Forsberg, B., Ebi, K. L. & Rocklöv, J., 2013. Attributing mortality from extreme temperatures to climate change in Stockholm, Sweden. Nature Climate Change, 3, 1050–1054.
The paper:
Adaptation to extreme heat in Stockholm County, Sweden
Online at: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2201.html
============================================================
Further detail by Anthony:
It should be noted that Nature Climate Change, which tends to be a fast track journal, took months to publish our correspondence, going through a longer than normal review process for such a short correspondence, and only did so along with a reply from Åström et al. Despite this uphill slog, we persevered.
Personally, I think the response from Åström et al. is ludicrous, especially this part:
“Our data indicate that there is no adaptation to heat extremes on a decadal basis or to the number of heat extremes occurring each year. “
Basically what they are saying is the people of Stockholm are too stupid to use an air conditioner or electric fan when it gets hot, and are incapable of any adaptation.
The other part of their response:
Our method of comparing the climate during two 30-year periods is valid for any two periods.
Well no, not really, and it is this flaw in their method that was a central point of our paper.
Variations in the natural patterns of regional-scale atmospheric circulation, such as the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) as well as local impacts associated with urbanization and environmental changes in the direct vicinity of the thermometer are reflected in the city of Stockholm temperature history, and the original Åström et al. publication did not take this into account. By not looking at these factors, and by just taking the Stockholm temperature data at face value, assuming all of the heat extremes in it were “climate change” induced instead of being partially influenced by other effects, including the AMO and the city itself, allowed Åström et al. to become victims of their own confirmation bias.
For example, look at the GISTEMP record from Stockholm (which ends before 2000, not my fault). Note the 1900-1929 period.
Åström et al. compared two periods of Stockholm temperature data: 1900–1929 and 1980–2009, and used them as the basis for their entire paper. Here is their method from the abstract posted on the NIH website:
Methods: We collected daily temperature data for the period 1900-2009 and daily mortality data for the period 1980–2009 in Stockholm, Sweden. The relationship between extreme temperatures and all-cause mortality was investigated through time series modelling, adjusting for time trends. Attribution of mortality to climate change was calculated using the relative risks and baseline mortality during 1980-2009 and the number of excess extreme temperature events occurring in the last 30 years as compared to our baseline period 1900-1929. Results: Mortality from heat extremes doubled due to warming associated with climate change. The number of deaths attributable to climate change over the last 30 years due to excess heat extremes in Stockholm was estimated to be 323 (95% CI: 184, 465) compared with a reduction of 82 (95% CI: 43, 122) lives saved due to fewer cold extremes.
Only one problem, a big one, note that right after 1929 there was a big shift in the AMO data – what happens to the AMO in 1930 is essentially a “sea change”.
After 1930, the AMO was positive (warm phase) for over 30 years, went negative (cold phase) again around 1963-64, and stayed negative until a big uptick around 1998.
The AMO was primarily in its cold phase during the 1900–1929 period, and primarily in its warm phase during the 1980–2009 period — a difference likely to be responsible for some portion of the increase in extreme-heat events identified by Åström et al. and inappropriately attributed to global climate change. See Sutton and Dong 2012 for an explanation as to why the AMO affects the temperature record of Europe.
Then there were the changes/growth in the city itself, some movements and encroachments on the Stockholm observatory station, plus the fact that the mortality numbers they cited didn’t make sense when compared to other studies of trends in heat-related mortality across the United States and Europe which have reported declines in both total mortality and the sensitivity of urban populations to extreme heat,despite an increasing frequency of extreme-heat events.
Despite the long review, to the credit of Nature Climate Change, they recognized that we had a valid argument that mostly nullified the Åström et al. paper. Otherwise we’d never have gotten this published. Unfortunately, we can’t counter all the media hype from the original publication, but I hope readers will cite our rebuttal when appropriate.
Knappenberger_Michaels_Watts_Correspondence_original (PDF)
– Anthony
does anybody know how can a global phenomenon be pinpointed to “Stockholm”, an area that is 0.0000376% of the world?
Anthony, why don’t you post the entire review correspondence. An example of such a correspondence is here http://www.leif.org/research/Review-History-1850.pdf and can be very illuminating.
@leif that decision is up to the corresponding author, Knappenberger
Perseverance paid off! Congratulations. And book marked!
omnologos says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:06 am
does anybody know how can a global phenomenon be pinpointed to “Stockholm”, an area that is 0.0000376% of the world
Well, during the last global ice age [some 25,000 years ago] Stockholm’s pinpointed 0.0000376% of the world was under ~2 km of ice…
that doesn’t answer my question…what is the validity of the original paper, looking for climate change at the most local of levels?
during the last ice age ice wasn’t just in Stockholm…
Anthony Watts says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:11 am
@leif that decision is up to the corresponding author, Knappenberger
Then pass it by him…
Note that surface station in the picture is a Class 4 for heat sink proximity (Leroy (2010). That would likely cause an spurious exaggeration in trend.
Leif,
The papers are paywalled at Nature Climate Change. I don’t have the option of posting them.
-Chip
Chip Knappenberger says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:24 am
The papers are paywalled at Nature Climate Change. I don’t have the option of posting them.
The papers, yes, but the referee’s reports and your response are not paywalled. And even if they were, people with access to the papers could read the correspondence as well and assess to what degree the objections reports were valid. Looking forward to your next excuse 🙂
omnologos says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:17 am
during the last ice age ice wasn’t just in Stockholm…
That is my point: Stockholm was fairly representative of the icy conditions over a large part of the globe, in spite of covering only 0.0003…%.
We have to send out an urgent government warming for the people of Stockholm to STOP getting onto planes and visiting countries on the equator. They also need to stop taking saunas.
If I lived in Stockholm and the weather got really hot I would open my triple glazed windows.
——
Leif,
The reviews are confidential, according to an agreement I signed.
-Chip
Chip Knappenberger says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:40 am
The reviews are confidential, according to an agreement I signed.
I have submitted scores of papers and never had to sign anything….
so why you?
Congratulations Anthony.
I had a look at the authors’ reply (before reading what you have written here), and the claim that “there is no adaptation to heat extremes” jumped out at me as being a rather absurd statement.
“For example, look at the GISTEMP record from Stockholm …”
I’d like to, but you didn’t provide a link. Is it this?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_645024640000_14_0/station.txt
Let’s not forget our old friend UHI in all this.
Would be great if someone could extend the “GISTEMP record from Stockholm” graph to current date, living in Sweden I got a feeling that there’s a small decline hiding.
Leif, am I missing something? What are you suggesting that Chip is hiding?
I wonder when they added the driveway next to the Stevenson screen.
This can’t be right, max temperature appears to be 24C (75.2F) during these heat waves? What was the max temp during the heat waves?
250 Years of Weather Observations at the Stockholm Observatory
http://www.smhi.se/polopoly_fs/1.17736!webbNr27_eng_ver.pdf
In 1977 strict new standards came into force in Sweden and almost all new homes have triple glazing. If you are elderly or infirm please don’t forget to open your windows during a heatwave.
http://www.homebuilding.co.uk/advice/key-choices/green/triple-glazing
Dave Yaussy says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:51 am
Leif, am I missing something? What are you suggesting that Chip is hiding
I’m not suggesting he is hiding anything. It would be of great interest to see the objections that the reviewers had and how the authors countered them. If reviews were published along side with the paper we might get better reviews and attempts of the ‘establishment’ to block or delay worthy papers that do not follow the party line would be severely hampered. What is not to like about this?
OK, now I understand. Thanks.
What rising heat??
Unless I’m missing something, you don’t even need AC at these “heat wave” highs. Its in the 70s F.
The elderly in the danger zone
“The researchers defined a heat wave in Stockholm as a period of over two days with an average 24-hour temperature exceeding 19.6° C.”
It hadn’t particularly struck me before that UHI becomes ‘self sustaining’ and results in its own growth, But of course the more people fit air conditioning then the more hot air is expelled from buildings raising temperatures locally within the city …. and so climate scientists blame global warming and more people fit air conditioning raising local temperatures within the city …. etc etc etc
Sorry, here’s the source for the quote in my last comment:
http://sciencenordic.com/heat-waves-take-toll-stockholm
lsvalgaard says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:14 am
omnologos says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:06 am
does anybody know how can a global phenomenon be pinpointed to “Stockholm”, an area that is 0.0000376% of the world
Well, during the last global ice age [some 25,000 years ago] Stockholm’s pinpointed 0.0000376% of the world was under ~2 km of ice…
———————————
People are there…the ice is gone…
Ah ha…proof of cagw.
cn
Leif,
I appreciate that the reviews and reviewer comments are potentially important/interesting pieces of information (see here for example, http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/05/02/attempts-to-box-us-out/)
How do you interpret the “confidentiality” portion of Nature’s publication policies:
http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/confidentiality.html
-Chip
Chip Knappenberger says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:13 am
How do you interpret the “confidentiality” portion of Nature’s publication policies
As I read it, they apply to all material during the review period. After the paper is published I don’t see any continued confidentially is stipulated.
@ lsvalgaard says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:01 am
Totally agree with Leif Svalgaard. Making the reviews accessible to public is a first step that is badly needed to counter recent hijacking of sciences by incompetent or politically motivated people. Not limited to climate sciences… State of physics is similar… Never encounter restrictions on publishing the reviewer’s comments either.
What stands out in the temperature graph is the drop in annual mean temperature during the war years. Twelve degrees colder _on average_.
Congrats Chip, Pat, and Anthony. I’m hoping you will clarify a few points for me.
(1) If no adaptation had occurred between the 1900-1929 and 1980-2009 periods, then there would have been 2,993 heat-related deaths in the latter period instead of 689. Correct?
(2) What was the aggregate heat-related death toll during the 1900-1929 period? According to Åström et al., the aggregate death toll in 1980-2009 was 689, of which they attribute 288 to global warming. So my simple arithmetic suggests the death toll in the “baseline” period was 401. Is that correct?
(3) How much bigger is Stockholm’s population in 1980-2009 than in 1900-1929? Presumably if we adjust for population, 401 heat-related deaths in 1900-1929 is a much higher mortality rate than 689 heat-related deaths in 1980-2009. Is that the basis for your statement that the current heat-related mortality rate is four times lower than the rate at the start of the 20th century?
Leif – it appears obvious that Stockholm represented a fairly bigger areas when it and the surroundings were covered by ice.
the same is not obvious now and ought have been demonstrated in the original paper – just like too short a time tells weather from climate, too small an area does the same.
with regional models useless for the foreseeable future, city studies sound risible wrt global warming
Killer heat waves in Sweden? Hard to imagine…
omnologos says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:25 am
the same is not obvious now and ought have been demonstrated in the original paper –
Then the rebuttal is also not valid generally and may only be relevant for the 0.000376% that is Stockholm. This is the obvious implication of your [perhaps] flippant comment. I would, as is clear, disagree with that harsh conclusion and suggest that the rebuttal has wider implications and is valid not just for Stockholm.
“as people take adaptive measures to protect themselves from the rising heat” debunked already there is no rising heat….
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
Dismiss the trend line its not valid. Its a curve and it ain’t going up LOL..
Curious what qualifies as a heat wave in Stockholm/Sweden? How hot does it get? Are we talking about 80 degrees F, 90F, 100+F? For a week or more at a time?
lsvalgaard says:
“Well, during the last global ice age [some 25,000 years ago] Stockholm’s pinpointed 0.0000376% of the world was under ~2 km of ice…”
“That is my point: Stockholm was fairly representative of the icy conditions over a large part of the globe, in spite of covering only 0.0003…%.”
What 2 km of ice that accumulated over a period of what could be thousands of years tells us is something totally different than what comparing temperatures during 2 different 30 year periods at one location in the same century.
Jimbo
“In 1977 strict new standards came into force in Sweden and almost all new homes have triple glazing. If you are elderly or infirm please don’t forget to open your windows during a heatwave.”
It’s often better to keep the windows closed since our houses are well insulated.
Thank you!
It looks like a typo here with 64:
“After 1930, the AMO was positive (warm phase) for over 30 years, went negative (cold phase) again around 1964-64, and stayed negative until a big uptick around 1998.”
To answer my own question, from the paper it says:
Heat extremes were defined as days warmer than
the 98th percentile of the 2-day moving average of daily mean
temperatures (lag0-1). The second percentile for cold corresponds
to temperatures below – 6:3 C and the 98th percentile for
heat corresponds to temperatures above 19.6 C.
So anything about 67 F is a heat wave?? Really?
Mike Maguire says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:41 am
something totally different than what comparing temperatures during 2 different 30 year periods at one location in the same century.
See my reply to omnologos at 8:32
John–are you kidding? Many old people are cold at 19.6 C
lsvalgaard:
I would like to see the review process correspondence also. However, I have to agree with Chip that there is a requirement of confidentiality. Look at this portion of the page Chip linked to:
“After a manuscript is submitted, correspondence with the Nature journal, referees’ reports and other confidential material, whether or not the submission is eventually published, must not be posted on any website or otherwise publicised without prior permission from the editors.”
You need permission from the editors for anytime after the manuscript is submitted. I read “after” to cover even after publication.
Perhaps the Authors will request permission?
Chip Knappenberger says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:13 am
“How do you interpret the ‘confidentiality’ portion of Nature’s publication policies…”
Shouldn’t the question be: how does Nature interpret Nature’s publication policies?
I thought Swedes adapted to cold weather by taking off their clothes, working up a really good sweat in a sauna, and then running outside and rolling in the snow? If this works for them, then in hot summers they should put on warm coats, play a couple of rounds of curling in an especially frigid ice rink, then lay outside in the sun.
Has anyone studied excessive mortality in Stockholm from the wintertime sauna practice?
Actually I think Swedes take saunas in the summer as well. I don’t know whether this is because they like to be clean, like to sweat, or like to be naked. But if people are sweating [ha!] about the mortality effects of 0.8° C of global warming, then I would think EU would quickly move to ban saunas, assuming the national health ministry of Sweden doesn’t do it first.
Anthony
Coincidentally one of the first articles I wrote on Historic temperatures back in 2009 was a study of Stockholm.
Even more intriguing was that nearby Uppsala had a longer temperature record than Stockholm which showed the warmth of the 1730’s and put the modern period into its proper context
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/how-long-is-a-long-temperature-history/
Included in the article is a study on the considerable effects of UHI in both cities. Not all the links now work but most do.
Phil Jones also noted the warmth in both the Swedish record and CET . Here is my comment quoting Phil jones that the 1730′s was the warmest decade until the 1990′s and that natural variability might be underestimated.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/phil-jones-2012-video-talks-about-adjusting-sst-data-up-3-5c-after-wwii/#comment-1539164
‘UNUSUAL CLIMATE IN NORTHWEST EUROPE DURING THE PERIOD 1730 TO 1745 BASED ON INSTRUMENTAL AND DOCUMENTARY DATA’. Jones and Biffa. Revised version published 2006.
http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9078-6
tonyb
19.6 is below “standard” temperature…some heat wave.
Stockholm at 0.0000376% of the world. Never again will a Warmist tell me that the USA is only a small part of the world – I will point them to this thread.
Knappenburger: Publish the correspondence. Leif is right.
Alf says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:47 am
John–are you kidding? Many old people are cold at 19.6 C
Exactly Alf,
I just found this on Found this on myweather2.com:
Home > Holiday Destinations > Sweden > Stockholm > Climate Profile
June and July are the 2 months for high temps.
excerpts:
June Temperature
Throughout the month of June daytime temperatures will generally reach highs of around 19°C that’s about 67°F. At night the average minimum temperature drops down to around 10°C, that’s 50°F.
In recent times the highest recorded temperature in June has been 30°C that’s 87°F, with the lowest recorded temperature 0°C, about 32°F.
July Temperature
Throughout the month of July daytime temperatures will generally reach highs of around 23°C that’s about 73°F. At night the average minimum temperature drops down to around 13°C, that’s 56°F.
In recent times the highest recorded temperature in July has been 41°C that’s 106°F, with the lowest recorded temperature 6°C, about 43°F.
Relative Humidity
The average daily relative humidity for June is around 63% and July 66%.
I guess the key question is the frequency. High 80s – 100+ F with over 60% humidity is a heat wave.
RickA says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:51 am
“After a manuscript is submitted, correspondence with the Nature journal, referees’ reports and other confidential material, whether or not the submission is eventually published, must not be posted on any website or otherwise publicized without prior permission from the editors.”
The paper itself is confidential until published and thus belongs in the same category as all the other material. After publication, the paper is clearly not confidential and thus also not all the other material in the same category.
You need permission from the editors for anytime after the manuscript is submitted. I read “after” to cover even after publication.
Having dealt with such matters for over 40 years it is clear to me that the editors are concerned with the confidentially of the material during the review process in order not to damage the process or to ‘scoop’ the authors’ findings. On the other hand, lawyers are clever in writing ambiguous conditions hoping to deter otherwise reasonable behavior. I will doubt that Chip had to actually ‘sign’ any agreement in longhand.
John McClure and UAN.
I feel the same as you. Most Americans in the States in the hottest areas of the country, set their air conditioning somewhere around 78F, so 25.6 C. That means many of us here in the states live in a constant heat wave all summer. This might be apples to oranges, and maybe Sweden just needs more air conditioners?
But I agree with the rebuttal, the original paper is comparing grapes to watermelons.
I’m sorry, but calling anything over 19.7º C extreme heat is ridiculous on the face of it. They were trying to get enough bodies to have something to write about, not doing science. If they had targeted 30º C and above maybe, but that temperature isn’t too frequently experienced in Stockholm.
I’ve tried to find the record high temperature in July in Stockholm, with no success – my Google-fu left me. With an average of maximum highs of 17º+ C for July, 30 is looking like a real stretch. I wonder, were any “heat related” deaths skateboard accidents, etc?
The temperature in Sweden in the 1930s was about as warm as it has been now. Here is a study of the temperature in the city of Uppsala which is located only 60km north of Stockholm:
http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2014/04/08/uppsalatemperaturer/
It’s in swedish, but here is the google translation:
http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.klimatupplysningen.se%2F2014%2F04%2F08%2Fuppsalatemperaturer%2F&edit-text=&act=url
The conclusion is that the urbanization effect in Uppsala is about 1.2 degrees C/100 years from the 1950s to now. Please see figure 5 for the temperature of Uppsala from 1722 and onwards. The red line is how the temperature should have looked like if they (Uppsala University) had compensated for the urbanization effect.
How much of the Stockholm heatwave can the elderly tolerate?
[my brackets & bolding]
Actually there is a very strong connection between global warming and heat related deaths.
The global warming scam has caused countries to dramatically increase the cost of energy.
As energy costs go up, families are forced to choose between feeding their families and using the air conditioner.
As fewer people use their air conditioners, more people die from heat stress.
Chip,
Does the confidentiality agreement prohibit you from posting the text of confidentiality agreement? If not, it would be an interesting contribution to my understanding of how the publication process works.
Thanks
Lief,
“I will doubt that Chip had to actually ‘sign’ any agreement in longhand.” Electronic signatures are so very common these days.
Regards
[Reply: Per the UCC, electronic signatures are legal, and have the same effect as signing in person. (UCC does not apply in Louisiana) ~mod]
My interpretation is in agreement with RickA’s.
Honestly, the reviewers didn’t ask for much from us, and much of what they did ask for we successfully argued for only minor changes.
We are allowed to post our original submission. So, if interested, I can make a copy of that available which you could compare to the final version to see what we had to change.
Perhaps of greater interest is that I opted for a double-blind review–an experiment that Nature Climate Change has been running for a few months. My guess is that helped us out (although obviously the editors knew who we were).
-Chip
PeterinMD says:
April 30, 2014 at 9:12 am
…
I think they got caught by surprise. Its tough to cost justify an AC unit when the average highs are 19° to 23°C in June and July.
Though it does seem odd to define heat wave above 19.6°C when July generally reaches 23°C in Stockholm.
RobertInAz says:
April 30, 2014 at 9:24 am
Electronic signatures are so very common these days.
Depends on what you consider a ‘signature’. The ‘click here if you accept our conditions’ is not enforcible. Like for the End-User-Licence-Agreements. A binding ‘contract’ is supposed to be a ‘meeting of the minds’, not a one-sided, hamfisted, dictate.
RobertInAZ,
I had to agree to the Nature publication policies: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/authors/gta/index.html
-Chip
Chip Knappenberger says:
April 30, 2014 at 9:26 am
Honestly, the reviewers didn’t ask for much from us,
Then how do you explain the ‘lengthy review process’?
Chip Knappenberger says:
April 30, 2014 at 9:29 am
I had to agree to the Nature publication policies
I don’t see any obvious place in your link where you have to agree. Perhaps help me out on that.
The link refers to another link which has this:
“Material submitted to Nature/ Nature journals must not be discussed with the media, except in the case of accepted contributions”
Great work Anthony et al!
Gistemp has major differences from CRUtem3
https://www.flickr.com/photos/7360644@N07/14074783055/
Here in Florida a lot of natives pull out parkas when the temps go down to 70…
@Tim Obrien – Natives? Or Snow birds? 😉
19.6c is a heat wave?! My furnace at home doesn’t kick OFF until 20C (68F)! In the summer time (NJ, USA) my wife let’s the house get up to 76-78F before thinking about turning on the AC. I guess I’m a little less heat-tolerant, I prefer 72F. She humors me after I get home and wears a sweater when I turn the dial down to 72F. So she’s putting on extra layers more than 4F degrees above the start of a Swedish “heat” wave! Go figure.
Leif: Thanks for the link to your review process correspondence. It is fascinating and instructive. I hope Chip will get permission to post his correspondence.
A song for Astrom et al
I would like to do a study on heat related deaths in the US comparing 1910-1940 to 1980-2010.
I think a good place that would represent, not just the US but the entire planet would be Dodge City Kansas.
What’s that? There was a Dust Bowl and record heat during the 1930’s because of a strong local climate effect that lasted much of that decade?
OK, let’s expand that to include all of the state of Kansas.
What’s that? The climate was effected over a much bigger region than just 1 state?
OK, let’s include a bunch of states, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and let’s go farther north to Nebraska, South Dakota.
What’s that? The regional climate was effected on a scale large enough to effect all those states and more for much of that decade?
OK, let’s find a place that had a bunch of ice 25,000 years ago, since that would better represent global conditions for any 30 year period in the last century!!!!
Get the point?
Leif,
Looking back through my correspondence with Nature, I can’t find where I formally agreed (via a signature of some kind) to the publication policies, but I do know that acceptance of the manuscript was conditional on all authors’ agreement with Nature’s publication policies. I suppose that agreeing to have them publish the paper was implicit acceptance of the publication policies.
In any case, I feel they apply and will comply.
In our case, the lengthy review process just described the length of time from submission to acceptance, rather than any undue hardships imposed upon us by the reviewers. Apparently, at least one reviewer was tardy with their initial review.
-Chip
“John–are you kidding? Many old people are cold at 19.6 C”
Hey, who you callin’ “old”??
I’m a Texan, we don’t start to feel happy unless it’s in the 80’s. (Fahrenheit, that’s roughly 26 – 33 on the Celsius scale.) Seriously, in summer, I never turn the AC below 81. (27 Celsius) I guess the scandi’s would be droppin’ like flies around here, maybe that’s why they all went to Minnesota.
It’s well known that you can get pretty much whatever result you want with statistics.
If you define 19.6 deg C as a “heat wave” and then pretend that any deaths that happen during that period are “heat related” where are your controls?
Presumably July is warmest , most tourists come in July, tourist cause accidents. More tourism now than in 1920’s , more “heat related deaths”.
It’s just so stupid it was not even worth going to all the trouble to rebut.
There is now a whole industry churning such spurious garbage. The media have had their field day with it and aren’t going to pop up and cover the rebuttal.
Sadly, I suspect such noble efforts to ‘set the record straight’ are a waste of time and energy.
Some info relevant to this discussion.
I live 15 miles north of Stockholm . 30 years of commuting to Stockholm city has showed me that the UHI value is approx 2 degrees Centigrade in the winter.
Summer highs :
we usually have 1 or 2 weeks with temperatures in the 85F to 95F each summer.
but normal summer temp is in the low 70:ies. F.
Because of these circumstances houses are not fitted with air-conditioning.
Adaption , as technical term seems be, is therefore mostly non-existent or impossible.
I myself do not have a Fan in the apartment. why should I ? to use it 2 days a year ?
Stockholm’s Observatorium where the temperature is measured is on a hill in the middle of the city ( in the middle of the UHI )
Population history.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Folkm%C3%A4ngd_Stockholms_l%C3%A4n_1700-2025.png
Blue graph is the county of Stockholm with suburbs .
Red graph is the City of Stockholm.
Is there a looming disaster in the pipeline?
using an
“electric fan when it gets hot”
is a not necessarily a good idea and it can lead to death and injury
1. In many cases the fan just recirculates hot air
2. Moving air over the skin can increase evaporation leading to dehydration, dizziness and
injury from falls or death.
In visiting death scenes medical staff would find a person dead by their running
fan. Cause of death in these cases were related to dehydration.
here is snipping from Larry Kalkstein, currently we are working on heat wave projects with him,
all adaptation related.. he builds heat wave warning systems for about 40 cities.
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/08/02/us-climatology-expert-fan-death-is-real/
However, A review of the medical research on the issue was inconclusive . There is no consensus on the benefits or harms from using a fan.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009888.pub2/abstract
MSBriggs.
Use the Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm
Average high is 19.7C. Record high is….
Chip Knappenberger says:
April 30, 2014 at 10:07 am
I suppose that agreeing to have them publish the paper was implicit acceptance of the publication policies.
A bit far from ‘I had to sign’ wouldn’t you agree?
Anyway, my plea for transparency has [sadly, but predictably] been thwarted. One last attempt: clearly your response to the reviewers cannot be said to be confidential in any shape or form. Perhaps you could post that?
Sorry ws.
The_Swede says:
April 30, 2014 at 10:15 am
Some info relevant to this discussion.
Hi The_Swede,
So 1-2 weeks of temperatures 85F to 95F each summer isn’t a new occurrence since the turn of the century?
lsvalgaard says:
April 30, 2014 at 9:09 am
All of us stand to benefit from Leif’s knowledge of the editorial process. Traditionally, all submissions were “double-blind” until the authors received a review. What this journal apparently did is just too cute.
Leif,
I appreciate your quest for transparency and agree that it would improve the peer-review process (I said as much here http://www.masterresource.org/2009/12/climategate-is-peer-review-in-need-of-change/). Some journals are taking the open review route. Nature Climate Change doesn’t appear to be one of them.
The most insight I can offer is our original submission compared with the final publication.
In general terms, the biggest concern was over our contention that climate change itself could spur an adaptive response. We won out.
-Chip
John McClure says
Hi The_Swede,
So 1-2 weeks of temperatures 85F to 95F each summer isn’t a new occurrence since the turn of the century?
No John not at all. Its pretty normal for all the 53 summers I have experienced.
Of course as you back down into the 19:th century you eventually encounter the little ice-age conditions….. which were drastically different .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_across_the_Belts
““After a manuscript is submitted, correspondence with the Nature journal, referees’ reports and other confidential material, whether or not the submission is eventually published, must not be posted on any website or otherwise publicised without prior permission from the editors.”
Seems clear to me too, Chip.
Now, I’m sure we would all agree that you should provide all of the data and methodologies, which you no doubt have, since that is the way of proper science.
While I agree with Leif that what he’d like to see would be interesting, being a “fly on the wall” during a lot of climate change “peer review” would probably cause us all to eat a lot of popcorn.
🙂
Regarding your published article: People adapt?
Who knew?
Supporters of CAGW by CO2 still haven’t figured it out, probably because they’ve over rated the atmospheric CO2 forcing on human adaptability.
When I was a child, few of us had air conditioning. If we had an A/C, it was a window unit that cooled a few rooms of the house. It was noisy and expensive to run and we only used it during the hottest times. Very few had A/C in their cars and only some had air-conditioned workplaces.
Now, thanks to greater prosperity, central A/C is standard in many parts of the country as well as in even our entry-level economy automobiles. I won’t claim that most workplaces are climate controlled, but many are.
Technology, greater energy efficiency, prosperity have all made climate control affordable to most people in this country. If global warming comes back, the biggest problem I can see is energy will be too expensive for the poor or the working class to be able to afford the comforts most of us now enjoy. Let the climate alarmists have their way and you won’t be able to properly heat or cool your homes. Energy will be rationed. New automobiles will be too expensive and we will go back to the days when the average person bought used.
The_Swede says:
April 30, 2014 at 10:51 am
Thanks for the reply.
Did the heat-related mortality rate increase recently for some reason or is this rate typical of the 1-2 weeks of high summer temp?
Swedish “scholars” and scientists aren’t better in CO2/temperature studies than rest of the world’s….
Please read and notice the low quality in form of the input values underlying used to support the unproven hypothesis:
”Our reconstruction of the winter and spring variations over half a millennium is shown in Figure 1. Measured temperatures from 1860 are corrected due to the artificial heating caused by the city of Stockholm, so that the curve shows the more natural change. ”Forskning och Framsteg, maj 2008 [Forskning och Framsteg is a scientific journal here in Sweden]Fiction or facts, Climate Threats readings, Norah4history 2009/05/19
“lsvalgaard says:
“April 30, 2014 at 8:01 am
“Dave Yaussy says:
“April 30, 2014 at 7:51 am
“Leif, am I missing something? What are you suggesting that Chip is hiding
“I’m not suggesting he is hiding anything. It would be of great interest to see the objections that the “reviewers had and how the authors countered them. If reviews were published along side with the “paper we might get better reviews and attempts of the ‘establishment’ to block or delay worthy “papers that do not follow the party line would be severely hampered. What is not to like about this?”
****
There’s nothing that succeeds like good ol’ common sense.
“The researchers defined a heat wave in Stockholm as a period of over two days with an average 24-hour temperature exceeding 19.6° C.”
19.6° C = 67.28° F
Interesting The_Swede,
I wonder if an aging population trend is the actual upshot of all this.
In a location where its common to experience 1-2 weeks of high summer temp along with 60%+ humidity and a shortage of adaptation like AC units… the heat-related mortality rate would logically increase with an aging population trends.
John McClure says:
April 30, 2014 at 11:01 am
Did the heat-related mortality rate increase recently for some reason or is this rate typical of the 1-2 weeks of high summer temp?
No ,
“The age standardized incidence of Acute Myocardial Infarctions ( AMI decreased during the period
1987-2000 with between one and two per cent per year. Due to new diagnostic
criteria in hospital care introduced in 2001, the age standardized incidence
increased this year, and in 2001-2003 it was about 8 per cent higher
than in 2000. In 2004 the incidence fell to the same level as before the introduction
of the new criteria. Since then the incidence of AMI has decreased
each year. The level in 2011 was 32 per cent lower among men
and 30 per cent lower among women compared to the year 2001.”
http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Lists/Artikelkatalog/Attachments/18921/2012-12-21.pdf
Part of this text is in English . there is an English index over the static charts shown at
the end of the paper.
So if the warming was caused by population growth industrialisation, heat exchangers, BBQs, then what happened 17 years ago to all this growth and BBQs – did it suddenly stop? Because the temperature rise has been non existent for this length of time!!
Great work, as usual!
Just one comment. You state, “…on average people currently die in heat waves at a rate four times less than they did during the beginning of the 20th century.”
Four times less? That gives a negative death rate! For example, if the rate were previously 100 deaths per year, “four times less” would presumably be -300 deaths per year (100-400). Is this some kind of new math? Do you mean “a rate 75% less” or “a rate one-fourth of the early 2oth century rate”?
http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/temperatur/stockholms-temperaturserie-1.2847
Just after the war British Colonial administrative building in the colonies had fans. Today, air-conditioners are everywhere. Public buildings, banks, private offices etc. They were a rare luxury 30 years ago but are expected today. Your business would go out of business if the reception had just fans. This is how we adapt and continue to adapt.
The_Swede says:
April 30, 2014 at 11:32 am
Thank You for the great insights!
The only conclusion I can then reach, Åström et al. Attributing mortality from extreme temperatures to climate change in Stockholm, Sweden is complete nonsense.
Actually I’ll up that to “40 years ago”.
What?!? You mean to suggest people try to get out of the heat when it’s hot?!?
Next you’ll be telling me farmers will change their crops depending on conditions, or that animals will change their habitats and behaviors instead of meekly dying out in situ.
/sarc
Nice work Chip, Anthony and Patrick.
!! New Septic Publication: Knappenberger, Michaels,Watts (NatCliChange 2014) !!
Guys, your spirit of critical dialog impresses and inspires me . . . . thanks for that.
Footnote: Skeptic publication? Nah, I would say you guys were not being skeptical, I say you were just doing the normal job expected by healthy science to continuously correct past science. {Note: I think the word ‘skeptic’ is self-limiting, see Lindzen’s position on a significant limitation of the word ‘skeptic’ wrt CAGW.}
John
UAN says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:44 am
This is a critical point. For effects of heat on the human body, you can’t look at just ambient temperature; you must also consider humidity and wind or other airflow. At some combination of temperature, humidity and airflow the average human body will generate more heat than it can dissipate. This is “extreme heat”; not some arbitrary point on the thermometer.
In most cases, effective adaptation to heat simply involves staying out of direct sun, reducing exertion and hydrating sufficiently. With high humidity and no active airflow, other measures may need to be taken. This kind of adaptation is as old as civilization — wealthy Romans left Rome in the summer for villas in the surrounding hills in places like Frascati and Arpinum. Wealthy Chinese did likewise.
I suspect the Swede’s adaptation to cooling will not involve windmills and solar arrays. But I could be wrong.
==============
The Astrom et. al. paper to me is just another example of the burgeoning pile of paper dung purported to support the human caused climate change extreme weather hoax.
A “heat wave” at 19.6 deg C and less than 1 deg C rise in temperature since 1850 – what nonsense.
Oops!! Edit needed on my comment John Whitman @ April 30, 2014 at 12:19 pm.
Edit:
!! New
SepticSkeptic Publication: Knappenberger, Michaels,Watts (NatCliChange 2014) !!Although, certain IPCC subservient researchers might think septic is accurate wrt your publication. : )
John
kim says:
April 30, 2014 at 12:27 pm
I suspect the Swede’s adaptation to cooling will not involve windmills and solar arrays. But I could be wrong.
==============
Don’t flame The_Swede!
He’s the only one in here who is posting 1st hand information and its insightful!
Heh, JayMac, “the Swedes'” struck me just as I posted. Preview, and review, are for the stung at heart.
========
I adapt to climate change at home by opening the windows and using a fan, all this talk of air-conditioning is a Swedish red herring.
A little pickled herring is good for a heat wave. Or try some with jalapenos for a cold spell. A dual threat aperitif. Mean school, Dean’s school, all the awkward flickers scroll. Oops, if this is Woden’sDay, I thought we were supposed to be going to Sweden.
===========
kim says:
hmmmm, a little pickled this evening?
Since the original paper was a epidemiological study. Why wasn´t published in a medicinal journal?
My guess is because no medicinal journal would have admitted calling a heat wave something below 20 degrees celsius.
It would be interesting to compare the reviews made by a MD to the reviews received at Nature climate change.
@Kim
It’s actually fun, I find your muse and amusement in this let’s do the data dance floor-play great fun.
Please be carful with the jalapenos!
Gazpacho is taken around here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazpacho
lsvalgaard says:
April 30, 2014 at 10:29 am
Chip Knappenberger says:
April 30, 2014 at 10:07 am
I suppose that agreeing to have them publish the paper was implicit acceptance of the publication policies.
A bit far from ‘I had to sign’ wouldn’t you agree?
Anyway, my plea for transparency has [sadly, but predictably] been thwarted. One last attempt: clearly your response to the reviewers cannot be said to be confidential in any shape or form. Perhaps you could post that?
====
etc. etc. ….
me thinks lsvalgaard has prior knowledge of the review comments. 😉
Chip Knappenberger says:
April 30, 2014 at 9:26 am
“My interpretation is in agreement with RickA’s.”
Why not ask Nature for their interpretation or even for their permission? You never know how someone else will answer a question until you ask them. Early in my career I was told “don’t put yourself in jail; make them come and get you.” Just my respectful opinion.
With Respect Greg,
Lay off the Tolkien and find some factual basis…
Chip Knappenberger says:
April 30, 2014 at 10:07 am
. . .In our case, the lengthy review process just described the length of time from submission to acceptance, rather than any undue hardships imposed upon us by the reviewers. Apparently, at least one reviewer was tardy with their initial review.
——————————————————————————
In case there are folks who don’t know, nearly every area of science has its orthodoxies that control access to journals, grants and jobs. Try to publish something unorthodox and it is very common to have the review drag on and on and on without any substantive criticism returned to the authors. It is also common to get recommendations against publication without any accompanying valid criticism. The peer review process has been broken for a long time. The present system only works well with good, honest, conscientious editors; something not every journal possesses.
lsvalgaard …. a response from the skeptic side is successful made and published, a rare occurrence. Interesting or not, the Nature rules seem clear to me. I see little value in risking these guys hard fought win in getting a skeptic response published by challenging those rules.
If the authors are willing to ask for permission great … otherwise – to me at least – it seems unwise to risk the gains over “interpretation” of the journal’s rules.
“That’s it! Now, complete the device! Do it!”.
😀
Fans of BO2 will recognize this.
Ha ha
I live in a suburb 13 km north of downtown Stockholm and I have lived in Stockholm in more than 70 years. Last time when I found that the temperature here reached 86 F was two days in the summer of 2010. People here usually go to Thailand or some other warmer places in order to enjoy a more decent weather.
I appreciate your rebuttal, which disproves the negative effects of heat on mortality. Surely this summer’s El Nino will be the hot topic for the CAGW-ers, and mortalities from heat will be examined. So, before we’ve entirely forgotten last winter’s cold, I think that the converse argument needs to be employed. Warmists should be forced to re-examine the devastating effects of the winter of 2014 on mortality in the U.S.
My instincts tell me that the numbers of cold-related deaths are going to be higher than heat-related, notwithstanding the difficulty of finding recent data.
Some of the finer details of what constitutes a cold-related death might be hair-splitting (e.g., it wasn’t the cold that killed her – it was that hypothermia; or, must have been the alcohol, flu, heart, etc.) But every extenuating circumstance the warmists use to calculate heat-related deaths is implicit in determining deaths from cold. In the end, I suspect, there will be a larger numbers of cold-related deaths.
The Northeast and Midwest regions just endured one of their harshest winters, and if city and state governments there keep any kinds of data, they ought to be able to tell if the numbers seemed higher than normal – and how high.
Finding homeless death statistics might be one way to go about this, but I have a hunch that this data may be closely-kept among city governments since it reflects badly on the administration’s ability to care for its people, not to mention its anti-warming “message”. I requested data from one homeless shelter administrator in Chicago (which suffered a record-long cold spell this winter), and was advised to file a foi request to the city morgues. “We used to do this,” she told me, “but it was difficult getting data and being sure it was correct.”
Meanwhile, records of last winter’s devastation have not yet been expunged from search engines where the sad accounts continue to haunt the headlines, as this one from last month:
Man’s death is 29th cold-related death in Cook County
March 21, 2014
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-21/news/chi-mans-death-is-29th-coldrelated-death-in-cook-county-20140321_1_cold-exposure-death-cook-county
Anthony’s orig response to the Stockholm paper:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/24/claim-climate-change-caused-more-deaths-in-stockholm/
Lots of good commentary back then – in particular RomanM points out another paper by same principal author on the subject with somewhat differing results:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/24/claim-climate-change-caused-more-deaths-in-stockholm/#comment-1457013
Another comment from that thread:
A handful of days in the low 80’s – with nights in upper 40’s to upper 50’s.
While they may well have found some evidence of increased mortality – causation is not correlation. With average day time temps around 70 deg F (or lower) and peak daytime temps in low 80’s F – it simply is not credible that these moderate temps were the cause of increased deaths.
kim says:
April 30, 2014 at 12:27 pm
I suspect the Swede’s adaptation to cooling will not involve windmills and solar arrays. But I could be wrong.
————–
Actually windmills produce approx 5% of the power here.
nuclear power and hydro power approx 40% each . we are to far north for solar power to
play a major role. remain 15% are a mixture of many types of furnaces that heat water to steam to drive turbines. Things like waste from sawmills are burned. household waste too. And some Oil ofcourse.
Re publishing the reviews: Nature’s rules are crystal-clear and forbid publishing the reviews without explicit consent by the editors, at any stage.
If the authors themselves state that there were no unreasonable or unanswerable requests made by the reviewers, then I don’t see why that would not be good enough for us. Honestly, that is more than I can say about many of the reviews I receive, and I work in a far less politicized field.
I’m not convinced that making the review process more “transparent” will do that much good. I have reviewed for some journals that encouraged you to reveal your identity to the authors of the manuscript. I never saw the point of that and never did, and I don’t want to know for sure (although I can very often guess) who is reviewing my papers. If people want to be a-holes, I want them to feel no inhibition and be open and blatant a-holes, rather than uptight and sneaky ones because of “transparency”.
Living in Australia, with local summer temperatures between 18-32 deg C every single day, I can relate to the fear that Swedish people must feel when their weather bureau warns them of extreme temperatures over 20 deg C in coming days!! This paper also makes me marvel at the suicidal stupidity of the Scandinavian backpackers on working holidays, picking fruit in the blazing sun of an Australian summer, with shade temperatures of 30-40 deg C. In Astrom’s view of the world, dozens should drop dead every day, leaving their families back home in the frozen north bereft.
“Experts warn of a growing fragility as coal-fired plants are shut down, nuclear power is reduced and consumers switch to renewable energy.”
Note where natural gas in storage has been drained to from a record(as in the most ever in history) used for residential heating this past Winter season:
http://ir.eia.gov/ngs/ngs.html
So that we are better prepared for this kind of extreme cold in Winter that Obama’s climate change expert, Dr. John Holdren, says will be more likely from global warming and also the increase in heat waves from global warming that they insist are coming………….they are shutting down coal fired power plants that generate electricity.
The political solution is to spend massive amounts of money in a fight against CO2 that involves making the problem MUCH worse.
This would be like a person, who has been weakened already by slow internal bleeding, going to their doctor. Instead of getting a needed transfusion to increase vital blood supply in their body so it can function better, they have blood let out because the doctor diagnoses them with iron poisoning.
If we need more heat in the Winter and more cooling in the Summer why is the solution to take out a part of the source we use to generate it(coal)?
When the temperature here hits 19C I put on long trousers, socks and a fleece!
I’ve been on the road today, and made a stop to make some edits in the last couple of paragraphs for clarity/grammar. Thanks to everyone for all the comments. I’m off again.
“You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
But this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.
====================
No ones tried to falsify it.
Lately.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
30 April: Reuters: World Cup visitors can have their carbon footprint offset for free
Individuals who score tickets for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil but worried that the jet travel required to get to matches will contribute to global warming can rest easy.
FIFA, soccer’s governing body, on Wednesday said it will cover the cost of programs to neutralize carbon emissions related to travel.
FIFA and BP Target Neutral, a not-for-profit carbon management program run by British energy company BP Plc, on Wednesday launched an online system where ticket holders worldwide can sign up to have their carbon footprints neutralized…
BP said it expects to have some 50,000 ticket holders joining the initiative.
The World Cup in continent-size Brazil will probably produce a record volume of carbon emissions for such events, mainly due to the traveling among venues, which in some cases are 5,000 kilometers apart.
Initial estimates have put total emissions of heat-trapping gases at 3.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), compared to around 2.7 million tonnes in South Africa four years ago…
BP Target Neutral, which also worked on the program to partially neutralize the London Olympics emissions, is in charge of selecting those projects and will announce the chosen ones in June…
Brazil announced two weeks ago a program to swap publicity in the event for carbon credits…
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/carbon-worldcup-idUKL2N0NM2VW20140430
Using the KNMI NL data (which goes back to the 1700’s here:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/teca10.dat
I gathered the daily mean temperature for the 1900-1929 and the 1980-2009 periods. The average daily mean temp for the warmest 100 days 1900-1929 was 22.65 deg C (72.78 deg F). The average daily mean temp for the warmest 100 days 1980-2009 was 24.22 deg C (75.60 deg F).
These are again the average daily mean temp for the 100 hottest days for each period. No one should be perishing as a result of a change in average daily mean temps in the low to mid 70’s deg F.
This study on mortality in Stockholm, published recently, also finds similarly to Astrom et al. – that there was a very small increase in deaths associated with
http://www.globalhealthaction.net/index.php/gha/article/download/22737/pdf_1
They show the Jun-Aug mean temp as 19.6 deg C +/- 3.2 …. and a maximum temp of 27.1 deg C (80.78 deg F) during the period.
They ridiculously claim that it is a “heat wave” when temps exceed 17.4 deg C – 73.41 deg F. How can anyone claim with a straight face that temps above 73 deg F – and maxing at 80 deg F – can be considered a heat wave?
So, did like 1 person die from heat-related exposure in Stockholm per year or was it 2?
The record highest temperature ever is 36C, I suppose there are a few days a year when heat exposure and the very long length of daylight could pose a problem for the elderly (if they didn’t open their windows) but it has got to be an extremely low number.
Bill Illis says:
April 30, 2014 at 4:28 pm
So, did like 1 person die from heat-related exposure in Stockholm per year or was it 2?
The record highest temperature ever is 36C, I suppose there are a few days a year when heat exposure and the very long length of daylight could pose a problem for the elderly (if they didn’t open their windows) but it has got to be an extremely low number.
=======================
Even better, just run a cold bath ?
30 April: UK Daily Mail: Sarah Griffiths: Forget global warming and melting polar caps – groundwater extraction is causing cities to SINK beneath sea level
Ground is dropping up to 10 times faster than the sea level is rising in coastal megacities, a new study says
Scientists at Deltares Research Institute in Utrecht studied subsidence in five coastal cities, including Jakarta, New Orleans and Bangkok
North Jakarta has sunk four metres in the last 35 years – a fall of 10 to 20cm per year and experts have called on governments to take action
Land subsidence is contributing to larger, longer and deeper floods
Total damage due to subsidence worldwide is estimated at billions of dollars a year and is set to increase
Dr Erkens, who presented the study to the European Geosciences Union, explained that the consequences of floods increase due to subsidence, as areas remain deeper under water for longer…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2616714/Forget-global-warming-groundwater-extraction-causing-megacities-SINK-beneath-sea-level.html
Unless Swedes have changed a over the last half century, their main adaptive mechanism to warmer weather will result in many earlier deaths from liver failure, rather than from any other morbidity.
VIDEO: 29 April: CBS Minnesota: Angela Davis: Lake Mille Lacs Residents Dealing With Walls Of Ice
With the month of May just two days away, trees should be showing some signs of spring, but trees along Lake Mille Lacs are showing signs of distress. They’re split and shoved by creeping ice.
“[The ice] will take them right out by the root. They’ll tear the roots out, and (move) rocks, tear up the whole shore line really – wherever it comes in,” William Anderson of Onamia said…
Over the weekend when it was windy, the ice crept up to the Highway 169 and heavy equipment had to be used to clear it, since it was blocking traffic.
“Mother nature at its finest. That’s what happens,” Anderson said…
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/04/29/lake-mille-lacs-residents-dealing-with-walls-of-ice/
30 April: Marketwatch: Jeffrey Bartash: U.S. GDP posts smallest gain in three years
Scant 0.1% gain a residue of bad weather, but spring may revive growth
Growth in the U.S. economy almost came to a halt in the first quarter, a bout of weakness spurred by one of the worst winters in years…
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-gdp-posts-smallest-gain-in-three-years-2014-04-30
30 April: Forbes: James Taylor: 20 Years of Winter Cooling defy Global Warming claims
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data, presented by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, reveal this winter’s exceptionally cold winter was merely the continuation of a long-term cooling trend. The trend line for the past 20 years shows more than two degrees Fahrenheit of cooling in U.S. winter temperatures since 1995…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/04/30/twenty-years-of-winter-cooling-defy-global-warming-claims/
“Accu”weather often tells me it’s raining in my rural zip code when it isn’t, and vice versa. I don’t trust ANY weather forecasting as far as I could comfortably spit out an elephant.
“Curious what qualifies as a heat wave in Stockholm/Sweden? How hot does it get? Are we talking about 80 degrees F, 90F, 100+F? For a week or more at a time?”
A heat wave if not defined by temperature alone. It is a function of
temperature, humidity, clouds, the type of air mass, and the time of year, and the population.
such that a hot day in Las vegas in July doesnt kill anyone since..
A) the humidity is low B) the residents are aclimated.
Whereas, pick a different location and different time of year and you will get heat related deaths at lower temperatures. It typically also takes consecutive days.
The exposure of the station is really a non issue since one of the contributing factors IS UHI.
when you study heat related death you WANT stations that are exposed to UHI because the people are.
A. Scott says:
April 30, 2014 at 1:35 pm
I see little value in risking these guys hard fought win in getting a skeptic response published by challenging those rules.
A good example of the chilling effect the suppression of science discourse can have. Are we now supposed to be afraid of telling the truth? I admit defeat but am saddened by it. I had hoped for a better outcome. The authors are cowed into silence for the sake of expediency. Shame.
Chip Knappenberger says:
April 30, 2014 at 10:40 am
We won out.
And now you cop out.
lsvalgaard says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:14 pm
“The authors are cowed into silence for the sake of expediency.”
==============
Are you speaking for authors ?
If so, how “cowed” ?
u.k.(us) says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:32 pm
Are you speaking for authors ?
Not ‘for’ but ‘about’
If so, how “cowed” ?
Since not ‘for’, the ‘if so’ does not apply.
What about Chicago. People die from heat waves, in Paris for example, and unexpected heatwave killed 100s, and they nearly had to shut down one nuclear reactor.
lsvalgaard says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:37 pm
u.k.(us) says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:32 pm
Are you speaking for authors ?
Not ‘for’ but ‘about’
If so, how “cowed” ?
Since not ‘for’, the ‘if so’ does not apply.
============
Yes, I can’t even complete one sentence.
But, you didn’t answer my question.
Cowed how ? 🙂
u.k.(us) says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:46 pm
Cowed how ? 🙂
Should be obvious: they are intimidated by the perceived threat of legal action [and many commenters seem to be as well] such that they dare not provide the necessary transparency. Chip says he agrees with me, yet does nothing. It is ‘do as I say, not as I do’ attitude. Shame.
Leif,
We willingly went into someone’s backyard and agreed to play by their rules.
Alternatively, we could have blogged about what bothered us about the Astrom et al. article. In fact, Anthony did.
Or we could have tried to write a response to Astrom et al in a differnt journal, but that more than likely would have failed (after all, Comments are almost always made to the publishing journal).
What was not an option was to go to Nature, agree to their rules, and than break that agreement for the sake of the way we think they ought to be running things.
Perhaps that’s the way you operate, but it is not how I prefer to.
-Chip
lsvalgaard says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:50 pm
============
Ready for the response to that comment ?
It’s coming !!
The problem is when people are living in very cold climates, the cities are ready for this, but when it gets really hot for ‘them’ air conditioning breaks down, water starts to be used up, and people in ill health really suffer.
In Paris in August 2003 it was stifling hot, humid, but only 40C. Those most effected were the elderly, the poor, and young children. It followed a heat wave that affected parts of Europe.
Mortuaries filled up. Inside temps were 30 C and people couldn’t sleep. Even in Uk temps rose to 38.C, that was a record high.
If anyone had lived in the Middle East these temps are not unusual, and people have an afternoon siesta, and start work early (westerners not locals) and finish around lunch time. Then you go home, have a snooze with a fan on you. There is some sound sense ‘Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun’. Even in Australia, if we get a hot one, we tend to favor beaches, or turn on the air conditioning unit, drink water regularly, or like me, once in a blue moon do I turn on a fan. It’s a matter of acclimatisation. Extreme cold or heat has to be one of the factors when faced with this, and can’t adjust soon enough, kills you. \
But I think I could cope with 40 C rather than a tornado.
What constitutes “extreme heat” in Stockholm ?
I’m willing to bet it’s not much more than a warm spring day for many other places on the planet, for instance California, Miami, Mediterranean coastal areas, southern Australia and similar areas that people “avoid” in summer because they might die of heat exhaustion !!!! Really ?
In contrast to the effects of “extreme heat” many countries in Europe show “excess” mortality rates in winter.
http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/10/784.full
Possibly not the Swedes. They may have worked out appropriate housing and clothing for winter in addition to spending summer in Crete [cooler than Stockholm ?]
u.k.(us) says:
April 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm
Ready for the response to that comment ?
It’s coming !!
You want to comment on my humble opinion?
The thing I have noticed in really tropical climates or heat waves, animals are also effected. And the deadly mosquitoes, that kill more people than humans do from malaria, and other diseases.
To me a hot climate or monsoon climate has many other problems for humans than a cold climate or temperate one.
lsvalgaard says:
April 30, 2014 at 9:20 pm
u.k.(us) says:
April 30, 2014 at 9:00 pm
Ready for the response to that comment ?
It’s coming !!
You want to comment on my humble opinion?
=====================
As a lowly commenter I think you might have raised the ire of some.
Maybe I’m mistaken.
Transparency, doesn’t seem to have the same connotation as it used to.
Slightly warmer weather in Stockholm during a “heat wave”
The weather is nice for jogging.
Decide to finally get fit so go for a run or play a game of tennis.
For someone it’s a bit more than the heart can take.
People swimming. More than usual. Someone drowns.
More people travelling. Maybe a traffic accident or two more than in cooler weather.
More people out wining, dining, carousing politely or impolitely.
Perhaps a bit more to drink than usual..
Maybe a drunken confrontation that wouldn’t have happened if the protagonists had not left home.
That’s all increased the mortality rate.
Will Nature give permission to release reviews etc; seeing as that may be what is required?
So? He’s so anxious they be published, he should.
===========
Sorry to be pedantic…but it’s a ‘Paper’. A publication is a journal or magazine.
Still great news though. Science is winning.
Greg says: “me thinks lsvalgaard has prior knowledge of the review comments. ;)”
===
John McClure says
With Respect Greg,
Lay off the Tolkien and find some factual basis…
===
It seems odd that about half the comments here seem to be about publishing the review comments rather than the content of the “comment” article in Nature CS. That is mostly due to _heavy_ insistence by Leif.
I’m not sure why this is such a key issue that supplants discussion of the published “comment” itself.
Probably the main achievement here is getting something of a sceptical nature published in a Nature title. The publisher seems to be experimenting with things like double blind review process in an attempt to address criticisms of the review process. Both would seem to be positive moves by the publisher and should be applauded.
I don’t see that it helps those attempts, if the first thing done when such an article gets published is the authors flout the rules or otherwise try to get around them as Lief is demanding they do.
He is also suggesting bad faith in the Chip’s responses. So what is driving this insistence?
It was a simple speculation, but this suggested to me that lsvalgaard may have himself been part of this double-blind process or may have professional contact with someone else at Stanford that was, and was trying to “out” something contained in that correspondence.
Suggesting that the authors are being intimidated by fear of legal proceedings seem ludicrous. More likely they don’t want to dump on the publisher the first time they manage to get a correction to a ridiculous biases piece of AGW non-sense into print.
lsvalgaard got out of bed on the wrong side today.
I read the entire article and methods from a medical standpoint. Causes of mortality in the population have profoundly changed in the last 2′ years. In this article there is no correction for changing causes of mortality (i.e. reduction of cardiovascular mortality and infectious diseases, increase of colon cancer, diabetes etc), aging and working conditions. There is no a-priori statistical power calculation.
No information on actual causes of mortality is provided.
In order to analyze the mortality rates related to temperature, the pathophysiological correlation between temperature and each specific cause of death has to be empirically verified and quantified to be able to establish the attributable risk for each event.
I would than had expected to see a univariate analysis first and a multivariate analysis as second step to identify all independent predictors and hazard ratio(s) (including temperature and heat waves and different temperature-related cause)
BTW The same authors also published a similar paper for Entire Europe (free access here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3563142/) . These guys would have never been able to publish such a study on a medical journal they need a good doctor to advise them.
Greg says:
May 1, 2014 at 12:28 am
It was a simple speculation, but this suggested to me that lsvalgaard may have himself been part of this double-blind process or may have professional contact with someone else at Stanford that was, and was trying to “out” something contained in that correspondence.
Not so, sorry.
Suggesting that the authors are being intimidated by fear of legal proceedings
precisely so.
From that linked “paper”.
” For example, the heatwave that occurred in Europe 2003 could be expected to return every 46 000 years, based on the temperature distribution for the years 1864–2000.15 However, such extreme hot conditions may become much more common at the end of this century due to anthropogenic climate change.16 The uncertainty in this estimated return time is quite high, with a lower bound of the 90% CI of 9000 years.”
Jeezus .H. , what are these guys smoking?
We will very likely be in another frigging glaciation by then, not worrying about a 2003 “heat wave”.
Chip Knappenberger says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:53 pm
What was not an option was to go to Nature, agree to their rules, and than break that agreement for the sake of the way we think they ought to be running things.
1st: you did not have an ‘agreement’. You did not ‘sign’ anything, although you explicitly claimed you did (lying to us is bad !!!).
2nd: you would not be arguing with them about now they ‘run things’, but simply serve science rather than serve Nature (which is a business that does not give a rat’s ass about the science).
3rd: you could be more forthcoming, e.g. ask Nature if you may discuss your answers to the reviewers [without revealing who they were – you probably don’t know yourself].
4th: trying to frame the issue as one of moral high road [you] versus a low-life lack thereof [me] is inappropriate and offensive.
5th: you sacrifice science on the altar of expediency even after having paid lip-service to openness
6th: In view of your attitude I admit defeat, and you are right I don’t operate like you: I would never stoop that low.
Worlds population increasing a 100,000 a day and the top, hot , three countries to be hit by extreme weather over the last 20-30 years, Honduras, Burma and Haiti have all nearly doubled their populations in this time frame.
Makes you wonder how the British did back in the 18th, 19th century moving from a fairly cold climate to India and in the clothes of the day, Disease was a problem but the hot, humid climate? There again it’s not like they had to move around much with all that cheap labour at their disposal.
A. Scott says:
April 30, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Anthony’s orig response to the Stockholm paper:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/24/claim-climate-change-caused-more-deaths-in-stockholm/
======
Thanks A. Scott.
excerpt:
This is one of those publications where I look at what was done in the paper and just shake my head in disbelief. For starters, according to the data listed in the SI, the supposed extra deaths due to climate change manifesting itself as increased summer temperatures came from model output; they didn’t actually have health services data/coroner data that showed causes of death. They simply assume the model output is valid.
Isn’t the real question, why was Åström’s paper allowed to be published? Is the review process this bad at Nature Climate Change?
Chip Knappenberger says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:53 pm
What was not an option was to go to Nature, agree to their rules, and than break that agreement for the sake of the way we think they ought to be running things.
===
Sounds reasonable, even if it’s just implicit agreement about sticking to the rules of the journal.
I don’t see anyone getting sued over this but crapping on them or being a PITA may make it hard next time something is submitted.
lsvalgaard says:
May 1, 2014 at 3:16 am
1st: you did not have an ‘agreement’. You did not ‘sign’ anything, although you explicitly claimed you did (lying to us is bad !!!).
…..
6th: In view of your attitude I admit defeat, and you are right I don’t operate like you: I would never stoop that low.
====
Why all the vitriol and strong language? Clearly you have some other issue here , either the contents the review correspondence that you say you don’t have any knowledge of, or some other issue with Chip Knappenberger . It does not look like lsvalgaard is being too “transparent” about his motivation here.
lsvalgaard says: 4th: trying to frame the issue as one of moral high road [you] versus a low-life lack thereof [me] is inappropriate and offensive.
Projection.
Hear, hear, Greg. So wussup leif & chip? You think we can’t handle the truth? Well, you’re right.
============
Leif might help untie the hand strapped behind the back rather than slap the face in front.
=============
Greg says:
May 1, 2014 at 6:26 am
Why all the vitriol and strong language?
I don’t like to be lied for starters. I see no vitriol beyond what the situation calls for. The language is strong because I see this issue as important.
Clearly you have some other issue here
You are being very presumptuous. My goal is simple: it would serve the science to know what objections or issues the reviewers had and how the authors responded to those. In my humble opinion that would be as illuminating as the paper itself. Here are two examples that illustrate my point: My review of a paper submitted to Nature http://www.leif.org/research/Nature-Review.pdf and my response to reviewers of a paper I had submitted to Nature http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Doubling%20of%20Open%20Flux.pdf
That paper was rejected although later developments have shown that I was correct after all.
If the authors are intimidated by the excessive demands for secrecy they could always paraphrase the review using their own words. Chip is himself not being consistent: he proposes to show us the original submission which is also confidential according to Nature’s rules [“All material submitted to Nature is confidential”]. I don’t believe there is any foul play behind his reluctance, but weaker souls might wonder.
Leif,
I think the part of the argument you’re missing is that if the authors release information, it might dissuade Nature from publishing similar papers in the future. It’s a matter of a long-term view vs. an immediate view.
We can disagree whether that’s the case or not, but that doesn’t appear to be what you’re arguing.
Leif,
Read the “pre-publicity” part of the Nature publication policies. Here is an excerpt:
“1. You are welcome to post pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript on a personal blog, a collaborative wiki or a preprint server at any time (but not subsequent pre-accept versions that evolve due to the editorial process).”
Also, I already did (up thread) paraphrase the major comments from the reviewers.
I hardly see that abiding by an agreement that I willing entered into is being intimidated.
-Chip
Chip Knappenberger says:
May 1, 2014 at 8:09 am
Also, I already did (up thread) paraphrase the major comments from the reviewers.
Where? I don’t see any. and where are your responses to the reviewers?
I hardly see that abiding by an agreement that I willing entered into is being intimidated.
summarizing the objections and your responses would not violate the ‘agreement’ that you didn’t sign. Your reluctance is not becoming for a scientist.
Leif,
I wrote previously:
“In general terms, the biggest concern was over our contention that climate change itself could spur an adaptive response. We won out.”
How did we support our argument? With a few literature citations and an appeal to common sense.
Another reviewer concern was that Astrom et al did not claim (in their paper) anthropogenic global warming was behind the temperature rise. We responded that we never claimed they did.
The same reviewer was concerned that an urban heat island was already accounted for in the data used in the Astrom et al. study. We argued that at least some portion of it of it may have been missed.
The second reviewer’s comments were in the realm of asking us to re-write to improve clarity in some passages.
Overall, as you can tell by comparing our submitted version with the published version, our changes were minor and did not substantially alter the intent of our Correspondence.
-Chip
Nice precedent setting rebuttal guys!
This blog could do without the bickering over the insignificant.
I did garner some interesting insight from this comment :
————————————————–
Steven Mosher says:
April 30, 2014 at 10:26 am
————————————————–
Sooooo,,,,,
Apparently,,,,, using a fan causes paralysis and you die from dehydration.
Did I read that right or did I miss the homogenization or extrapolation used on the data to arrive at that conclusion?
Obviously you cannot engineer common sense.
Chip Knappenberger says:
May 1, 2014 at 8:09 am
Also, I already did (up thread) paraphrase the major comments from the reviewers.
Chip Knappenberger says:
May 1, 2014 at 8:30 am
I wrote previously:
“In general terms, the biggest concern was over our contention that climate change itself could spur an adaptive response. We won out.”
You claimed to have paraphrased the major comment [plural], but you only did one and your response, “we won out”, is hardly illuminating. So again, you are a bit economical with the truth.
This whole thing is like squeezing blood from a stone. You say ‘we argued…” but you do not tell us what the argument was, etc. The purpose of releasing the review and [at least] the response would be to tell the reader if the objections were relevant and how well they were met. In other words: was the review addressing the issues raised by the paper, and did the responses have merit. In this way the reader who most likely is not an expert on the topic may feel comfortable about the alleged findings. You see, it is not about beating the editor and the reviewers into the ground in order to get published at any cost, but about helping the readers to assess the paper, and you have failed in this regard. Please try to rectify this.
Leif,
The things you are arguing for are available from open review journals. Nature Climate Change isn’t one of them.
If you think I made a bad choice by submitting to them in the first place, then so be it. Maybe you would be right.
My justification is that is where the original paper was published and I was approached to submit a response. Otherwise, I probably would have just written blog post about it (one of a large series of blog posts I have done on trends in heat-related mortality). Maybe Anthony would have cross-posted my post and then you (and everyone else) would have seen the critiques and response (if they were to come).
Certainly, an open review process is a transparent and illuminating one, and almost certainly a better one. However, that is but one factor which comes in to play when deciding which journals to submit to (as you certainly know).
You can continue to berate me about my choices. But they have already been made. I am sorry that they didn’t meet your expectations.
-Chip
Leif and Chip
While I very much think open review would be a good thing we agreed to play in their sandbox by their rules and to violate them now would do nothing other than reflect badly on us.
While the review process was overly long it was not overly contentious and there is no “smoking gun” in the review to expose.
lChip Knappenberger says:
May 1, 2014 at 8:09 am
Also, I already did (up thread) paraphrase the major comments from the reviewers.
Chip Knappenberger says:
May 1, 2014 at 8:30 am
I wrote previously:
“In general terms, the biggest concern was over our contention that climate change itself could spur an adaptive response. We won out.”
You claimed to have paraphrased the major comments [plural], but you only did one and your response, “we won out”, is hardly illuminating. So again, you are a bit economical with the truth.
This whole thing is like squeezing blood from a stone. You say ‘we argued…” but you do not tell us what the argument was, etc. The purpose of releasing the review and [at least] the response would be to tell the reader if the objections were relevant and how well they were met. In other words: was the review addressing the issues raised by the paper, and did the responses have merit. In this way the reader who most likely is not an expert on the topic may feel comfortable about the alleged findings. You see, it is not about beating the editor and the reviewers into the ground in order to get published at any cost, but about helping the readers to assess the paper, and you have failed in this regard. Please try to rectify this.
Huge svalgard flare narrowly misses chip of Earth. Sunspots still going out of the visible spectrum except for large, sparse, and hemispherically asymmetrical ones.
===============
Chip Knappenberger says:
May 1, 2014 at 9:27 am
I am sorry that they didn’t meet your expectations.
I am sorry about that too. I had expected more. 🙁
Anthony Watts says:
May 1, 2014 at 9:56 am
While I very much think open review would be a good thing we agreed to play in their sandbox by their rules and to violate them now would do nothing other than reflect badly on us.
Their rules do not prohibit an informal, paraphrased general description of what the objections and the responses were, so you are just hiding behind them rules.
While the review process was overly long it was not overly contentious and there is no “smoking gun” in the review to expose.
this is not your conclusion to make, it is for the readers to decide, but now you have cut your readers off, and that already reflects badly on you. But, as I said, I admit defeat, but allow me to stand up for my principles.
Leif I have no problem publishing paraphrased comments but that is still for Chip to decide
Anthony,
I already did this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/30/new-skeptic-publication-in-nature-climate-change-rebuts-strm-et-al-claims-of-increased-deaths-due-to-heat-waves/#comment-1626275
This seems plenty sufficient.
-Chip
For those wondering why the original Astrom et al. results that climate change was leading to an increase in heat-related mortality initially caught our attention, see this new paper in Environmental Health Perspectives (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307392/) that includes:
“This study provides strong evidence that acute (e.g., same-day) heat-related mortality risk has declined over time in the US, even in more recent years. This evidence complements findings from US studies using earlier data from the 1960s through mid-1990s on community-specific mortality rates (Davis et al. 2003a; Davis et al. 2003b), as well as European studies that found temporal declines in heat-related mortality risk (Carson et al. 2006; Donaldson et al. 2003; Kysely and Plavcova 2011; Schifano et al. 2012), and supports the hypothesis that the population is continually adapting to heat.”
(FWIW, I was a co-author on the two Davis et al. studies which were the first to look a trends in heat-related mortality instead of temporal averages).
-Chip
Chip Knappenberger says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:48 am
supports the hypothesis that the population is continually adapting to heat
How does that square with the 2003 Eoropean heatwave?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave
Leif,
From Fouiltte et al. 2006 (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/2/309.full and cited in our Nature Climate Change piece):
“Conclusions The excess mortality during the 2006 heat wave, which was markedly lower than that predicted by the model, may be interpreted as a decrease in the population’s vulnerability to heat, together with, since 2003, increased awareness of the risk related to extreme temperatures, preventive measures and the set-up of the warning system.”
-Chip
Heh, guilt from ’03 engendered more caring in ’06. Manifold and mysterious are the ways adaptation manifests.
=================
Chip Knappenberger says:
May 1, 2014 at 11:17 am
“Conclusions The excess mortality during the 2006 heat wave, which was markedly lower than that predicted by the model, may be interpreted as a decrease in the population’s vulnerability to heat, together with, since 2003, increased awareness of the risk related to extreme temperatures, preventive measures and the set-up of the warning system.”
Another example of the half-truths around this subject. Taken at face value it would say that your claim of a dramatic decrease shown by your analysis of the Stockholm data 1980-2009 all occurred in the six years since 2003. Could you direct me to a link showing us the warning system that the Stockholmers benefited from since 2003.
Chip Knappenberger says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:42 am
Anthony, I already did this
As I pointed out upstream, that was not informative and sufficient. Your readers [e.g. me] are the judge of that, not you. And this reader is not satisfied with your performance.
Leif,
Do you have a specific question that you’d like me to address that I haven’t already? If so, please ask it (I can’t guarantee that you’ll be satisfied by the answer, but I’ll try, just as I have been doing all along).
It would be nice to reach closure on this.
-Chip
Chip Knappenberger says:
May 1, 2014 at 12:48 pm
Do you have a specific question that you’d like me to address that I haven’t already?
Since you have not been specific in your report on the objections and your responses it is somewhat hard to put the burden on me. Now, I could play reviewer of your paper http://www.leif.org/EOS/ncclimate2201-Stockholm-Chip.pdf and then see what questions I would ask, as we obviously are not going to get anything more from you. Give me a moment to do this.
lsvalgaard says:
May 1, 2014 at 12:56 pm
Now, I could play reviewer of your paper
My review would start out like this:
[Confidential 🙂 NOT]
Review of ‘Adaptation to extreme heat in Stockholm County, Sweden’:
Your lead-in line: “Oudin Åström et al. argue that global climate change has doubled the incidence of heat-related mortality in Stockholm County, Sweden” is misleading because they do not claim that *global* climate change is responsible for the climate change in Stockholm. Climate changes all the time, also in Stockholm and, clearly, to assess the impact of climate change in Stockholm one must compare with the climate observed in Stockholm [only]. Any other reference to what happened elsewhere is not relevant. I suggest you change the lead-in sentence to “Oudin Åström et al. argue that the local climate change observed at Stockholm has doubled…”
Further in the same paragraph you claim that “Such findings indicate that adaptation has more than kept pace with climate change”. One of the key events in this field is the heat wave in France [and elsewhere] in 2003 where it was concluded that “most people did not know how to react to very high temperatures”. You lack needed discussion of this clear contradiction of your claim. Has much changed in the six years until 2009 [the end year of Åström et al.’s paper]? and where is the documentation of that? apart from the fact that six years hardly is sufficient to build credible statistics upon.
In paragraph three you say “They identify 220 extreme-heat days from 1900–1929 and conclude that *large-scale* climate change was responsible for the additional 158 occurrences…” but the clause ‘large-scale’ occurs nowhere in the Åström et al. paper and sounds like your [additional, and I believe, from the evidence, unfounded] opinion not based on fact. Again, replace with ‘climate change in Stockholm County’ in order to not mislead your readers.
Etc, etc.
—–
needless to say I could go on and on, but you may get my drift before I waste more of yours and my time on this.
jeez Leif. what is your problem? I don’t understand how non access to reviewer comments has turned into such a pssing match.
Anthony Watts says:
May 1, 2014 at 2:08 pm
jeez Leif. what is your problem? I don’t understand how non access to reviewer comments has turned into such a pissing match.
It takes two to have a match, so you may also ask what is the problem of the other pisser(s).
My problem is simple: in order to assess if the paper has been properly peer-reviewed it is necessary to see the reviews AND your responses or at least some paraphrased version if you dare not show the real thing. Especially in this field of hostile opposing views. We have Astrom’s paper and we have yours. Both peer-reviewed. Which one to believe? If you are among the faithful of either stripe you believe what the party line compels you to. If you are a skeptic you want to assess the matter on your own [assuming that you have the scientific training to attempt to do so]. Your attitude prevents me [and other readers] to do so and thus simply lead to dismissal of the whole thing, which is sad. Now it is true that I don’t have access to the reviews of Astrom et al.. That may make we lean more towards the paper with a known review, but in the present situation not even that is possible.
Leif, there’s no “attitude” here on my part. I said I’m fine with reviewing paraphrased comments, and it was up to Chip as lead author to make the decision. I won’t burn my bridges with NCC by violating the rules I agreed to just to satisfy your curiosity.
You are behaving in a way that is not constructive, IMHO.
I’m about to board a plane and will be offline until tomorrow morning, though may have option during layover to check commensts
Leif,
Fair points. My responses are cut into your comments below.
-Chip
[Confidential 🙂 NOT]
Review of ‘Adaptation to extreme heat in Stockholm County, Sweden’:
Your lead-in line: “Oudin Åström et al. argue that global climate change has doubled the incidence of heat-related mortality in Stockholm County, Sweden” is misleading because they do not claim that *global* climate change is responsible for the climate change in Stockholm. Climate changes all the time, also in Stockholm and, clearly, to assess the impact of climate change in Stockholm one must compare with the climate observed in Stockholm [only]. Any other reference to what happened elsewhere is not relevant. I suggest you change the lead-in sentence to “Oudin Åström et al. argue that the local climate change observed at Stockholm has doubled…”
RESPONSE: The term “climate change” is introduced by Oustid Astrom et al. in the opening paragraph of their paper. The references cited throughout that paragraph regard global-scale climate change and include a tie-in to anthropogenic causes (primarily well-mixed greenhouse gas emissions which are global by their nature). Further, a primary justification for their analysis is found in the lead sentence of their paragraph 6 which is “A key policy-relevant question is the extent to which changes in climate-sensitive morbidity and mortality can be attributed to historic climate change [ref 19].” Reference 19 is to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report—a report largely focusing on anthropogenic impacts on the earth’s climate for which the cause is global in nature. Further, the press release issued by Umea University to publicize the findings by Oustid Astrom (http://www.medfak.umu.se/english/about-the-faculty/news/newsdetailpage/climate-change-increased-the-number-of-deaths.cid223558) link “global warming” to increases in “the frequency and intensity of heat waves.” So while Oustid Astrom et al may not explicitly use the term “global climate change” the association between “climate change” and “global climate change” is strong in their paper and in their public comments.” So we feel the term “global climate change” is a fair description of those associations. We leave that phrase unchanged.
Further in the same paragraph you claim that “Such findings indicate that adaptation has more than kept pace with climate change”. One of the key events in this field is the heat wave in France [and elsewhere] in 2003 where it was concluded that “most people did not know how to react to very high temperatures”. You lack needed discussion of this clear contradiction of your claim. Has much changed in the six years until 2009 [the end year of Åström et al.’s paper]? and where is the documentation of that? apart from the fact that six years hardly is sufficient to build credible statistics upon.
RESPONSE: As you point out, six years is hardly sufficient time to build credible statistics upon. A single event, like the heat wave of 2003, is even less so. The citations we provided (which were necessarily limited in number by Nature’s restrictions on Correspondence) examine trends in heat-related mortality over several decades. They all find that despite a warming climate, the population’s sensitivity to heat waves (as measured by mortality rates) is declining. (for other references see the recent publication by Bobb et al. and citation therein, http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1307392/). For references which show that adaptive measures to reduce mortality during heat waves can occur over the very short term (a few years), see Palecki et al and Fouillet et al which examined the effects of heat waves which occurred is rapid succession from the deadly 1995 heat wave in the U.S. Midwest and the 2003 heat wave across Europe, respectively (citations 10 and 11 in our Correspondence).
In paragraph three you say “They identify 220 extreme-heat days from 1900–1929 and conclude that *large-scale* climate change was responsible for the additional 158 occurrences…” but the clause ‘large-scale’ occurs nowhere in the Åström et al. paper and sounds like your [additional, and I believe, from the evidence, unfounded] opinion not based on fact. Again, replace with ‘climate change in Stockholm County’ in order to not mislead your readers.
RESPONSE: See our Response to your first comment.
Etc, etc.
RESPONSE: Etc., etc.
Anthony Watts says:
May 1, 2014 at 2:27 pm
Leif, there’s no “attitude” here on my part. I said I’m fine with reviewing paraphrased comments, and it was up to Chip as lead author to make the decision. I won’t burn my bridges with NCC by violating the rules I agreed to just to satisfy your curiosity.
Then the blame will fall on Chip. But I believe that it is not just my curiosity that needs to be satisfied. Other commenters have agreed that they have the same view. And in any event, I don’t need to lose sleep over this. The solution is simple: dismiss your paper. Of course, you may not care and I can live with that. Most people don’t care what I say, so what is one more?
You may ask: why you? why don’t I demand this of everybody? Because I’m versed enough in most other things that catch my interest to not need any further expertise. On the subject of your paper I’m less sure and I was hoping that the editors of NCC would have found experts that could, at least, raise issues that needed to be addressed [and that I might not be able to see], hence the interest in what the reviewers would have to say, if only in meaning fully paraphrased outline. But, alas, no joy.
Now, Chip is a slick operator, perhaps pissing harder than I, since I have admitted defeat. The last few comments were more by way of clarification than for any hope of turning the yellow tide.
Chip Knappenberger says:
May 1, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Fair points. My responses are cut into your comments below.
It is amazing that things have to be wrung out of you. Now were any of my comments also in the reviewer’s secret, confidential reports?
If you answer that, then I have a way of slowly, painstakingly to find out what those reviews were. You see, I’m a bit of an expert on cryptography and decoding of secrets and some techniques from that field are applicable here. There is, of course, a much easier way: you just tell me up front.
Chip Knappenberger says:
May 1, 2014 at 2:31 pm
So we feel the term “global climate change” is a fair description of those associations. We leave that phrase unchanged.
It is not about what you ‘feel’, but about what the paper actually says. Clearly, the climate in Stockholm is what is important for the study, not the climate in Timbuktu. If you would deny that fact and insist that you would not change the lead-in and thus give your paper a slant the Astrom paper does not have [as I read it], then that alone would be reason enough to reject your paper.
Leif,
I don’t have a confidentiality agreement in place with you. So its is easier to wring things out of me :^) But we have beaten that horse pretty much to death. You know where I stand, if you want the last word, go ahead.
As to the term global climate change, we are refering to responses from a common global forcing. Yes the response is different in Stockholm than in Timbuktu. But the initial impetus for the change was the same. It is pretty hard to make an argument that Oustid Astrom et al did not have a global scale forcing response in mind when they interpreted there results.
-Chip
Chip Knappenberger says:
May 1, 2014 at 4:18 pm
As to the term global climate change, we are refering to responses from a common global forcing. Yes the response is different in Stockholm than in Timbuktu. But the initial impetus for the change was the same. It is pretty hard to make an argument that Oustid Astrom et al did not have a global scale forcing response in mind when they interpreted there results.
I don’t need the last word, but only want to express my sadness about your decision, having reached the point of no scientific return. To me, it is obvious that to study things in Stockholm, only Stockholm matters, but then your paper was more of a political than scientific statement anyway, as also evidenced in the very title of this post, and discussing politics or politically flavored issues is not really my cup of tea. We can let it rest there.
Please, please, no blood on the white togas.
==========
Oh dear, I do hope the double blind review will protect the Journal editor from being sacked for allowing the truth to be spoken. It’s a rather grievous offense.
I just spotted this passage in the original Åström paper (p. 3): “The negative effects of heat in the Stockholm region are apparent during a short summer season and the adaptive measures taken in, for instance, the warmer regions of the United States with an increased use of air conditioning, are not used to the same extent in Sweden. There is very low awareness of the negative health effects of heat in Sweden. Future changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves might be of a magnitude large enough to overwhelm the ability of individuals and communities to adapt.” Ridiculous. The passage implies that even if, summer after summer, Swedes are dropping like flies from the heat, their “awareness of the negative health effects of heat” will remain “very low” and they won’t use “adaptive measures,” i.e. “air conditioning. Wittingly or otherwise, the researchers reach an adverse judgment about the intelligence of their compatriots.
I have read all of the exchanges between the two principal ‘players’ of this mini –drama, and have nothing but admirations for the Mr. Chip Knappenberger’s conduct.