The Deadliest U.S. Natural Hazard: Extreme Cold

Almost all mortality studies show that mortality rates are ‘displaced” during heat events, and are increased during cold events.
Simply put, this means that people that were going to die anyway, die a little quicker during heat events.
e.g. An area’s mortality rate for a given month is 100.
During the first 2 weeks, there is a heat event, and the mortality goes to 60 for the 2 weeks. For the remaining two weeks, the mortality is 40, giving an total of 100 for the period. Mortality increases during the heat event, then decreases after the event, giving roughly the same mortality rate for the period.
Conversely, in a cold event during the same month, the mortality goes to 60 for the two weeks of the event. For the remaining two weeks, the mortality remains at 60, giving a monthly rate of 120. Mortality rates in cold events increase during and after the event, effectively increasing the mortality rate for the entire period.
Note that some of the events below (in Israel and California) define a cold event as 10 deg C or less. I wish.
Also note that the NHS in the UK, puts the death toll from cold at 20,000, or more, a year. The BBC had one estimate of 35,000. PER YEAR
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Science/story?id=990641
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4369842.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3226897.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4382044.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7240463.stm
http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf
http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/58/2/129
This report says 50,000 per year die in the UK alone, from cold.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/298533.stm
This study says that your chance of a heart attack doubles under 4 deg C.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/08/31/sci_bp_cold040831.html
And these are the published references:
Alberdi, J.C., Diaz, J., Montero, J.C. and Miron, I.  1998.  Daily mortality in Madrid community 1986-1992: relationship with meteorological variables.  European Journal of Epidemiology 14: 571-578.
Behar, S.  2000.  Out-of-hospital death in Israel – Should we blame the weather?  Israel Medical Association Journal 2: 56-57.
Eng, H. and Mercer, J.B.  1998.  Seasonal variations in mortality caused by cardiovascular diseases in Norway and Ireland.  Journal of Cardiovascular Risk 5: 89-95.
Feigin, V.L., Nikitin, Yu.P., Bots, M.L., Vinogradova, T.E. and Grobbee, D.E.  2000.  A population-based study of the associations of stroke occurrence with weather parameters in Siberia, Russia (1982-92).  European Journal of Neurology 7: 171-178.
Goklany, I.M. and Straja, S.R.  2000.  U.S. trends in crude death rates due to extreme heat and cold ascribed to weather, 1979-97.  Technology 7S:165-173.
Huynen, M.M.T.E., Martens, P., Schram, D., Weijenberg, M.P. and Kunst, A.E.  2001.  The impact of heat waves and cold spells on mortality rates in the Dutch population.  Environmental Health Perspectives 109: 463-470.
Keatinge, W.R., Donaldson, G.C., Cordioli, E., Martinelli, M., Kunst, A.E., Mackenbach, J.P., Nayha, S. and Vuori, I.  2000.  Heat related mortality in warm and cold regions of Europe: Observational study.  British Medical Journal 321: 670-673.
Kloner, R.A., Poole, W.K. and Perritt, R.L.  1999.  When throughout the year is coronary death most likely to occur?  A 12-year population-based analysis of more than 220,000 cases.  Circulation 100: 1630-1634.
Kunst, A.E., Looman, W.N.C. and Mackenbach, J.P.  1993.  Outdoor temperature and mortality in the Netherlands: a time-series analysis.  American Journal of Epidemiology 137: 331-341.
Martens, P. and Huynen, M.  2001.  Will global climate change reduce thermal stress in the Netherlands?  Epidemiology 12: 753-754.
Rooney, C., McMichael, A.J., Kovats, R.S. and Coleman, M.P.  1998.  Excess mortality in England and Wales, and in greater London, during the 1995 heatwave.  Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 52: 482-486.
COLD IS BAD. VERY BAD.

From New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/commenting/browse?id=dn16292&page=6
The Consensus Is Fake – Scientists Do Not Agree
Fri Dec 19 15:59:50 GMT 2008 by Benfranklin
I am a skeptic.Global warming has become a new religion. – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.As a scientist I remain skeptical. – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.
Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesnt listen to others. It doesnt have open minds. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity. – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don buy into anthropogenic global warming. – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will. – Geoffrey G. Duffy a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet. – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact. – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined. – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. Every scientist knows this, but it doesn pay to say so Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver seat and developing nations walking barefoot. – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds. – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

Just found this today. Happened yesterday and is about time. Following is the link and the first 2 paragraphs.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08121803.html
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
POZNAN, Poland, December 18, 2008 – The UN global warming conference which concluded Friday in Poland faced a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. A newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report was released last week featuring the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN.
The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

I think that most of us here understand that humanity prospers during warm climate episodes and suffers greatly during the cold episodes. I also think that most of us here would agree that when our planet warms, there isn’t a darn thing we can do about it (not that we would want to). But what if the opposite happens? Our planet has seen some cooling as of late. What if this were to continue and we plunged into another LIA, or worse yet, a full-blown IA similar to the Wisconsin glacial episode? Could we do anything to stave it off, or attenuate it?
Suppose we were to mine (with explosives) the methane clathrate deposits along the continental margins and release the methane to the atmosphere? Methane is supposed to be 25 times stronger (by weight) as a GHG than CO2. The half-life of methane in the atmosphere is only seven years, so it wouldn‘t stay there too long. The clathrate deposits are estimated to be around 1-5 quadrillion m^3 in size. Would it work? Or would it be offset by the reduced atmospheric humidity due to the cooling of the oceans? Maybe we could deal with a LIA, but a full-blown IA would be too much. Of course, in the beginning, we wouldn’t know which we were dealing with. Could any other idea work? I don’t know. Someone smarter than I am will have to weigh in on this. Of course the ethics of the situation are an entirely different matter. I am focusing on the science of the question.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t go anywhere near tin-foil. This is a serious question and I would like to know what others think. I’ve thought about this for some time and this seems to be an appropriate thread. Hands-down the last IA was the greatest climatic event to ever affect humans. Humans spread into Europe (and elsewhere) once before and prospered, only to be pushed out by advancing glacial conditions. Could we prevent that from happening again, or are we just at the mercy of our planet’s cold climate episodes? I think this is a much better question than this silly AGW nonsense.

Thanks for that crosspatch,, seems like a valid explanation.
Richard:
If they used October’s “record ice growth” data it would be shooting up. I reckon that they are using the data from August/September 2007! haha

If I have a choice between dying from the Heat or Cold, I would take Cold because once you get past the shivers, the Body goes into protection mode and all body heat is concentrated for the internal Organs. Your Mind transcends into sleep mode. Literally shutting down and you loose Consciousness, never to wake up! Not bad, I think!
One has to remember, a lot of the Deaths from cold are Senior Citizens that do not have good circulation. Hence they feel cold all the time. The cost of heat one’s Home is beyond what they cane afford, so they run electric heaters in specific areas to keep warm. If they loose power, they die! Another is Heart Attacks, people not use to shovelling snow. I think another one, one which you do not hear much about is People drinking alcohol. A drunk walking home, thinking he can make it but passes out in sub zero temps.. This is NOT good for He is already cold in the extremeties as soon as He walks outside. Alcohol induces a false feeling of warmth where circulation actually speeds up taking Heat away from the Skin; thus Hypothermia. Again, not a bad way to die because after the shivers, you don’t feel a thing!

I wish we had statistics on winter killed wildlife, fish, and plants too. I suspect the numbers are huge compared to warm seasons.
My yard is a cemetery for expensive trees, my wife goes shopping at a nursery then I start the backhoe and we hold a funeral.
Wind is currently pelting the house with blowing snow.

Ah…it was reforestation that caused the Little Ice Age…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218094551.htm

“IMHO, the root cause of our Ice Ages (including the rapidly approaching next glaciation) is the tectonic positioning of Antarctica over the South Pole.”
The only problem with that is that we have only had ice at the North pole for about the last 2 million years or so. The current period of glaciations appear to have begun only 2 million years ago in the NH. Antarctica has been continuously iced over for about the past 12-14 million years.
One hypothesis is that it was the completion of the isthmus of Panama that caused a change in Atlantic ocean currents.
But in any case, if there were no land near the poles, there would probably be no ice near the poles either. If the Southern Ocean were completely open waters, water would cool, sink, and be replaced by warmer water. Any ice forming would be blown across the ocean. It is only the land mass that allows ice to accumulate. And if the Arctic ocean were not nearly completely bound by land, we would have the same situation there. The Arctic is extremely sensitive to sea level changes, too, because the Bering Strait is only 30-50 meters deep. A drop in sea level or a rise in sea floor due to Pacific plate subduction cuts off a source of circulation.
But still nobody has explained to my personal satisfaction how things manage to suddenly switch so rapidly, within only a decade or two, from glaciation to interglacial.
For example … when we are in a glaciation, salt water to the arctic from the Pacific is cut off. As sea levels drop, less of the ice floats on water and becomes anchored on land. Florida becomes enormous. The Gulf of Mexico shrinks and islands appear that would disrupt the Gulf Stream and the Caribbean Current. An absolutely huge land mass appears off the coast of Newfoundland (about as large as Newfoundland itself) , what we call the Grand Banks becomes a large, flat, and probably pretty swampy island (I would look there for oil). The US coastline extends all the way out to the Continental Shelf. Under these conditions, it should be very difficult to suddenly, within 10 to 50 years time, go from a North American continental climate with year round permafrost as far South as the Kansas/Nebraska state line to a temperate climate like we have today. Which is pretty much what happened. The change is very abrupt.
There is a piece of the puzzle that is missing that is not explained simply by orbital mechanics. Somehow the snowstorms are replaced by rainstorms melting huge quantities of ice. Vast inland lakes would appear because the crust would still be depressed and hadn’t had a chance to rebound yet and a lot of ice would be melting quite suddenly.
Europe would see permafrost as far South as the Mediterranean coast of Spain, across Greece and Albania, the entire country we know as Russia would be unfit for farming and tundra would extend to Turkey and the former Soviet Asian republics. Basically look at a globe and follow the 40th parallel around the world to see the permafrost line at greatest advance during the last glaciation. And it reached that greatest advance JUST before things very suddenly switched the other direction.
When this happens again. When we go into another 100,000 years of glaciation, our world as we know it is going to turn absolutely upside down as far as political and social fallout. And it *will* happen again and considering the length of this interglacial already, it is probably going to happen quite soon in geological time (in the next 10 to 20 centuries).

Its interesting to see that the total death rate for the US of 2 million is equal to the total yearly deaths from malaria of about two million.
The most cost effective way to prevent malaria is with a $15 mosquito net per family, good for a couple of years. How many deaths could have been prevented if the 40 billion wasted on AGW had been spent on mosquito nets!

Mike D. (13:39:16) :
IMHO, the root cause of our Ice Ages (including the rapidly approaching next glaciation) is the tectonic positioning of Antarctica over the South Pole. That continental land mass accumulates H20 in the form of ice and prevents moderating oceanic circulation from the Pole to the Equator.
I also used to think this. Turns out open water at the poles causes the Earth to lose heat quicker than ice stored up on land at the poles. For instance, the “Frozen Earth” ice age happened when the poles were both ocean. Our current ice age is perhaps caused by the uplift of the Himalayas, which give the Earth a lot of low latitude ice. Polar ice reflects very little sunlight. Equatorial ice reflects a lot. Earth has been steadily cooling since India rammed into Asia.
The glacial advances and retreats during our current ice age correlate with the changes in geometry of Earth’s orbit and spin. See MacDougall, “Frozen Earth”, a history of ice ages from the perspective of geologists. The big question for (distant?) future generations is: Will the Earth continue to gradually cool until the oceans freeze again?