Part II: Where does global warming rank among future risks to public health?
Guest essay by Indur M. Goklany
In Part 1, we saw that at present climate change is responsible for less than 0.3% of the global death toll. At least 12 other factors related to food, nutrition and the environment contribute more. All this, despite using the World Health Organization’s scientifically suspect estimates of the present-day death toll “attributable” to climate change,
Here I will examine whether climate change is likely to be the most important global public health problem if not today, at least in the foreseeable future.
This examination draws upon results generated by researchers who are prominent contributors to the IPCC consensus view of climate change. I do this despite the tendency of their analyses to overstate the net negative impacts of climate change as detailed, for instance, here, here and here.
Specifically, I will use estimates of the global impacts of climate change from the British-government sponsored “Fast Track Assessments” (FTAs) which have been published in the peer reviewed literature. Significantly, they share many authors with the IPCC’s latest assessment. For example, the lead author of the FTA’s study on agricultural and hunger impacts is Professor Martin Parry, the Co-Chairman of the IPCC Work Group 2 during the preparation of the IPCC’s latest (2007) assessment. This Work Group was responsible for the volume of the IPCC report that deals with impacts, vulnerability and adaptation.
I will consider “the foreseeable future” to extend to 2085 since the FTAs purport to provide estimates for that date, despite reservations. In fact, a paper commissioned for the Stern Review (p.74) noted that “changes in socioeconomic systems cannot be projected semi-realistically for more than 5-10 years at a time.” [Despite this caution, Stern’s climate change analysis extended to at least 2200.]
In the following figure, using mortality statistics from the WHO, I have converted the FTAs’ estimates of the populations at risk for hunger, malaria, and coastal flooding into annual mortality. Details of the methodology are provided here.
In this figure, the left-most bar shows cumulative global mortality for the three risk categories in 1990 (the baseline year used in the FTAs). The four “stacked” bars on the right provide mortality estimates projected for 2085 for each of the four main IPCC scenarios. These scenarios are arranged from the warmest on the left (for the so-called A1FI scenario which is projected to increase the average global temperature by 4.0°C as indicated by the number below the stacked bar) to the coolest on the right (for the B1 scenario; projected temperature increase of 2.1°C). Each stacked bar gives estimates of the additional global mortality due to climate change on the top, and that due to other non-climate change-related factors on the bottom. The entire bar gives the total global mortality estimate.
To keep the figure simple, I only show estimates for the maximum (upper bound) estimates of the mortality due to climate change for the three risk factors under consideration.
This figure shows that climate change’s maximum estimated contribution to mortality from hunger, malaria and coastal flooding in 2085 will vary from 4%-10%, depending on the scenario.
In the next figure I show the global population at risk (PAR) of water stress for the base year (1990) and 2085 for the four scenarios.
A population is deemed to be at risk if available water supplies fall below 1,000 cubic meters per capita per year.
For 2085, two bars are shown for each scenario. The left bar shows the net change in the population at risk due to climate change alone, while the right bar shows the total population at risk after accounting for both climate change and non-climate-change related factors. The vertical lines, where they exist, indicate the “spread” in projections of the additional PAR due to climate change.
This figure shows that climate change reduces the population at risk of water stress! This is because global warming will decrease rainfall in some areas but serendipitously increase it in other, but more populated, areas.
The figure also suggests that the warmest scenario would result in the greatest reduction in net population at risk.
[Remarkably, both the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers and the original source were reticent to explicitly point out that climate change might reduce the net population at risk for water stress. See here and here (pages 12-14 or 1034-1036).]. Thus, through the foreseeable future (very optimistically 2085), other factors will continue to outweigh climate change with respect to human welfare as characterized by (a) mortality for hunger, malaria and coastal flooding, and (b) population at risk for waters stress.
In the next post in this series, I will look at a couple of ecological indicators to determine whether climate change may over the “foreseeable future” be the most important problem from the ecological perspective, if not, as we saw here, from the public health perspective.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is far better to have your neighbor think you are a fool than to open your mouth and prove it. Blame statements based on belief is the hallmark of a fool. Blame statements based on knowledge derived from serious objective study is the hallmark of wisdom. Ask yourself, is the statement I am about to make (IE, “its education, the Sun, CO2, no work ethic, poor parenting, liberals, conservatives, soot, corn for ethanol, whatever) based primarily on my belief? Or have I spent the time necessary to study the issue, (IE its history, research, observation, objectiveness, etc)? To be sure, if I do the former, learning will not occur thus there is no risk involved. If I do the latter, newly acquired information may force me to change my views, thus much risk is involved. Only timid people make statements based on beliefs. Courageous leaders risk learning something that has the potential to change their thinking.
The trouble is that their PROPHET and their apprentices predicted high temperatures, big showers, gigantic hurricanes, etc, but, reality is telling themselves (because of the PDO and La Nina) that these ARE NOT GOING TO HAPPEND but instead drought, and nothing of the kind of an armaggedon, but drought as the one in the 1930´s and will probably affect much less because of irrigations developed in all these years.
However they are prepared to blame (you won´t believe it) GLOBAL WARMING as the cause, and cry aloud that the world is about to end if we don´t stop burning fossil fuels.!!!!
Smokey (03:31:43) : [My only quibble: Krakatoa erupted in the 1800’s].
FYI: True, 1883 was the biggest known event, but Krakatoa/Krakatau has had a lot of other activity, including April of last year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa#535_AD_event
.
>>You raise some very good points however, Africa is a
>>problem *created* largely by the “west”. African’s did
>>not know what “borders” were until the whiteman arrived.
This is Liberal naivety in its extreme. Africa has always had borders – tribal borders – with border disputes and tribal wars the same as any other group of nation states. Besides, Africa has had self-determination for over 50 years, and if it were the utopian nirvana you appear to describe it could have formed a United States of Africa long ago. The reason it has not is that tribal animosities are as strong now as they were before the Empire. Indeed, it was the Empire that unified large parts of Africa, rather than the pre-Empire tribal societies.
.
>>Australia, *also* cannot compete with EU farmers with
>>EU subsidies and, by your logic, that’s not a “western”
>>problem either. What ignorance!
I would dispute that statement. If you are talking about grain, the problem Australia has is climate, which is not so conducive to grain production as temperate Europe or America.
However, if you are talking about wine, then Australia has all but decimated many of the European wine producing regions. Australian wine is now the biggest supplier of wine to the UK market.
With regards to lamb, Aus and NZ between them control 85% of world lamb exports. I call that competing effectively.
http://www.nzfarmersweekly.co.nz/article/5236.html
What is the scale of African wine and lamb exports in comparison? And where do those small ‘African’ wine exports come from. Yes, precisely.
.
Good post Indur, I am looking forward to Part 3.
Re: ralph ellis (03:31:13)
Well stated sir, well stated.
crosspatch (23:04:53) : “Our species has not faced a turn from interglacial to glacial before. The impact will be dramatic.”
If our species has been around for 2 Ma, we most certainly have survived the transition from interglacial to glacial before.
Perhaps not in our current numbers, nor as a civilized society per our modern condition, but we have survived a good portion of the Quaternary by adapting better than whatever hominid preceded us.
As a species we might reasonably be called homo climaticus for our adaptive traits. AGW certainly argues against using homo sapiens.
I’ll paraphrase something I read:
Your ability to persuade somebody using logic and reason depends upon how much logic and reason were used to form their opinion.
There are far greater problems in the world than warming. Let’s say the climate warms as predicted. Then what, Kansas City becomes as warm as Dallas? People seem to live OK in Dallas, so I’m sure Kansas City can cope with some warming. Is it really that bad if the northern plains have the same climate that the southern plains have now?
Warmer means a longer growing season. Warmer means less home heating in winter, less energy and less emissions. The USA actually lowered it’s CO2 emissions after warmer winters earlier this decade but emissions bounced back after the last few winters.
Stopping greenhouse gas emissions is just tilting at windmills. The air and water in this country are cleaner than a century ago. There more acres of forest. As our wealth increases, so does our ability and desire to clean up the environment.
Fighting climate change is just nonsense. The very words are meaningless. The climate is supposed to change and our ability to stop it is limited to the amount that it’s man-made.
Countries that embrace Capitalism create wealth, those who don’t are poor.
Africa after the Imperial age embraced socialism and now suffer the consequences.
Maybe the return of a new kind of Empire, based on constitutional law and order and capitalism can renew Africa once again.
People are people and if given the right tools can do wonders no matter where they live. IMHO.
That the AGW fear mongers are now calling their apocalyptic belief system ‘climate change’ proves how unimportant in the objective, fact based world, their hysteria is.
To imply that the climate has been unchanging is as stupid as Mann’s hockey stick- iow, very.
Do not even give the AGW fear machine the credibility they seek by letting them call AGW- which everyone sees as not happening- ‘climate change’ which is so generic, so undefinable, and even more non-falsifiable than most of the rest of AGW hype.
crosspatch (23:04:53): “An eruption of Krakatoa in 535 probably led to the Dark Ages.”
Smokey (03:31:43) : “And a very good post, crosspatch (23:04:53). [My only quibble: Krakatoa erupted in the 1800’s].”
The fine point, fellas: The two events are related. The Sunda Caldera set off in 535 (estimated, possibly 416). Krakatoa was a relatively small volcano that arose in what was left in the Sunda Caldera. The best known eruption of Krakatoa was in 1883, but it also set off in 1680. David Keys’ excellently researched book, Catastrophe, chronicles the worldwide social upheaval in the wake of the Sunda event ostensibly in 535 (including the conditions that led to the establishment of Islam and the collapse of several civilizations in Central and South America).
Dr. Goklany, thank you for the extensive research into U.N.-defined global problems and the various climate change scenarios — mostly warming — that involve false claims. I am grateful to Anthony for bringing your research and publications to us and have ordered two of your books for further reading.
Something rankles, however, and it is the global world view, the envision-for-everyone, analyze-for-everyone, speak-for-everyone perspective that most economists-scientists coming from your background take. One quote: “Specifically, climate change is easily outranked by threats such as hunger, malnutrition and other nutrition-related problems, lack of access to safe water and sanitation, indoor air pollution, malaria, urban air pollution”.
There are so many complexities involved in the issues you are researching and they all begin with the way each society (and their governing elites) organizes its natural resources, education, opportunity for enterprise and inventiveness, rewards for diligent labor, and health practices.
I think Crosspatch, D. King, Ralph Ellis, Smokey, and Pat express some of my consternation. The issues you investigate have been “globalized” and corporations, governmental elites, NGO managers — through the United Nations — are hoping to make their fortunes by “solving them”, aka, eliminating individual societies and individual initiative. Unfortunately, the majority involved in global-speak have authoritarian tendencies, no matter how well intentioned.
Population is one of the key issues. I respectfully disagree with Robert Bateman (23:01). Everywhere that all citizens — this means including women equally with a recognition of what it takes for families to raise children well — have had access to opportunity for education and economic resources, the birth rate has declined to something like “sustainability”. It is not simply a warm earth and development that have permitted so many billions of us. Authoritarians and patriarchal religions (Catholics, Muslims, etc) are responsible for most of the world’s “overpopulation”.
P Folkens, Denis Hopkins, MikeW,
Well, I learned something new. Thanks for that. I guess crosspatch was right after all. Shoulda known.
deadwood (06:56:25) : “If our species has been around for 2 Ma, we most certainly have survived the transition from interglacial to glacial before.”
Another fine point . . . “Our species” has NOT been around for 2 Ma. Anatomically modern humans only go back to around 180 Kya; the genus (Homo) may reach back 2 Mya. But you are correct about surviving an interglacial/glacial transition before. The important period is the Eemian Intergacial around 135 Kya – 105 Kya which preceded the deepest glacial of the Pleistocene. This is a bit OT, but . . . the Eemian saw the first signs of human culture in the area of the Es Skhul cave system in Mt. Carmel in Israel. Back then, the sea level was quite a bit higher than now, perhaps five meters higher, and the sea shore was nearer the caves than now. If the definition of history begins with the earliest signs of culture, then Mr. Gore’s statement that the past few years have been the warmest in history doesn’t hold. Also, “our species” almost didn’t survive the Toba pyroclastic event around 74.6 Kya and the cataclysmic affect that had on the world climate.
Pat: Australia, *also* cannot compete with EU farmers with EU subsidies and, by your logic, that’s not a “western” problem either. What ignorance!
What ignorance???? What kind of comment is that?
Does it come from a now well-established tradition of moralising indignation?
Empathy is not something you can lay claim to by self-righteous whining, but since the height of the British empire a sentiment has bubbled through ‘Western’ culture, that is fraught with guilt and always couched in the language of earnest concern for the well-being of others.
It seems that prosperity affords us the luxury of self-examination. That can give rise to philosophical insight, philanthropy, and many good works, but it also seems to produce, in some, a dread of losing what they have, combined with an overly apologetic, finger-pointing inability to dispassionately look at a problem and think of a solution.
A slight correction: Our species, homo sapiens sapiens, has only been around for about 120,000 years. Our genus probably began around 2 million years ago with homo habilus.
Tamara,
An even slighter correction: homo habilis
Tamara: Check out Tim White’s Herto fossil, reliably dated to 160 kya. It is anatomically modern. New dating of Richard Leakey’s Omo fossils is putting it back to 195 kya. There is some controversy about that date. 180 kya is a nice middle ground since the existence of the Herto fossil suggests its origins may go back at least that far.
.
>>Countries that embrace Capitalism create wealth, those
>>who don’t are poor.
Not entirely true. Many countries that have adopted a semi-socialist/capitalist model have also prospered. I am thinking here of Sweden and France, who have integrated both systems quite well.
It is true, however, that a socialist/communist economic model has proved to be an absolute failure, as the system does not provide enough motivation for people to work harder and succeed. Surprisingly, most of the communist Israeli kibutzes have also failed and now become farmers cooperatives instead, and this despite the high ideals of a strong and historic culture and religion.
.
At this time, the political corruption of science is the “Defining Challenge of Our Age.”
——————————————————-
Obama’s energy, climate plans would drag U.S. back to 1905 – or 1862
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamas-energy-climate-plans-would-drag-US-back-to-1905–or-1862–44042137.html
Few Americans will be thrilled with returning to 1905 – or the impact that climate change laws will have on their freedoms, budgets, jobs, living standards and environment.
Interesting link, Ed Scott.
In 1905 “Coal and wood heated homes. Few had telephones or electricity. New York City’s vehicle emissions were 900,000 tons of horse manure annually. Life expectancy was 47.”
That’s what the Waxman/Obama/Gore/Hansen proposal could do to us.
Good writing contains straightforward declarative sentences. Not everything in this should be so elliptically-phrased as to “prove” the complexity of its subject. I’m trying to read it carefully – and not getting much.
A persuasive essay should have comprehensible graphs. Mr. Goklany, are you answering questions?
Are you assserting that mankind is better off in a warmer or cooler world?
As someone who lives in an endemic malaria climate, I must point out that any attribution of excess deaths to malaria is spurious. Malaria deaths track much more closely the abatement of mosquitos and the rapid treatment of folks who do become ill (so they don’t become carriers), that is, public health, rather than temperature.
When I grew up (in N. California) we had regular rants from the mosquito abatement district about what we ought to be doing. We had spray trucks driving the streets of town making toxic fog (that we kids would go play in despite the admonishment not to…). We had free mosquito fish programs.
The result? Despite the climate being the same (or slightly warmer, LIA and all) malaria has gone from the scourge of the ’49ers gold miners to a minor issue in the awareness of the general public. Few folks think of Sacramento as the capital of a Malaria State.
Notes from when this topic came around on a prior thread:
Malaria is not about the temperature (as historic malaria outbreaks in Europe, Britain and Russia attest) and is all about the public health and mosquito abatement efforts.
The history of malaria in California is long, strong, and interesting, and the native mosquito is quite a nice vector.
Since I live in a historic malaria area (every year their are still a few cases) I can assure you that the present lack of malaria here (and in Europe for that matter) has NOTHING to do with temperature and everything to do with pesticides and antibiotics; and a wee bit with draining swamps. Period.
I have lived in areas with a long history of malaria but at hospital we saw only a few cases each year. The reason was not nets; it was spray trucks, water trap draining, swamp draining, mosquito fish, and antibiotics. Good public health systems and mosquito abatement districts. This in a place where winters were in the teens F. Hardly ‘warm’. Summers were 100F+ though.
The AGW Malaria thesis amounts to asserting that malaria is running rampant in Florida and the rest of the southeast states along with the central valley of California. They all have plenty of warmth and humidity. And please explain the historic malaria outbreaks in cold climates, like Britain and Russia, if it’s about the warmth.
The notion that a warmer planet means more malaria is fundamentally broken. It’s just scare mongering.
(Then, jcbmack did a very nice job of demonstrating how malaria can easily over winter in cold places and cause malaria even in cold climates when public health systems are lacking:)
From jcbmack (23:05:22) : I can explain in detail why malaria can, has and will at times spread in cold northern climate regions and potentially other cold areas as well: summer dormancy of hypnozoites and transmission of sporozoites indoors by semiactive hibernating mosquitoes. Variable climate conditions did not change this relationshipe textbook […]
-end jcbmack quote
(The central valley of California can be either dry or humid depending on weather. It always has mosquitos though, unless controlled.)
From: http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/ucmrp/news/malariaawarenessevent.html
UC Davis’ first chancellor, entomologist Stanley Freeborn (1891-1960), wrote the first comprehensive review of mosquitoes in California, Vanderhoef noted. A California mosquito that transmits malaria (Anopheles freeborni), bears Freeborn’s name.
UC Davis spearheaded the formation of the statewide UC Malaria Research and Control Group, part of the UC Mosquito Research Program, both directed by Lanzaro. The group, formed in February 2006, is comprised of 21 scientists from five UC campuses, partnering with MVCAC, which includes more than 60 mosquito abatement districts in California.
[…]
UC Davis medical entomologist Robert Washino, introduced as “the person who knows more about mosquitoes than anyone else in California,” said that six U.S. presidents, from George Washington to John F. Kennedy, contracted malaria.
“Malaria was introduced in California in 1833,” Washino said, “and it shaped the history of our state.”
Malaria swept through fur trapper, native Indian, pioneer and gold miner populations, Washino noted. It was eradicated in the 1950s, but outbreaks still occur; the most recent outbreaks surfaced in San Diego County in 1986-89.
[…]
“We have to be vigilant,” Washino warned. “Five of the Anopheline mosquitoes that transmit malaria are still here in California.”
and
Lanzaro predicted the UC Malaria Research and Control Group, with its noted scientists and mosquito abatement experts, will be hugely successful in combating malaria in Africa. “The Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California has the most sophisticated mosquito-control program in the world, and we’re taking that over to Africa,” Lanzaro said.
and further down
Mosquito abatement experts helped wipe out malaria in California and Mulligan predicted “we can do the same in Africa.”
I’m sure you are aware of why California has such a capable vector control program.
From: http://iier.isciii.es/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000251.htm we have a couple of cases of malaria from the 1980’s in the central valley of Ca.
Editorial Note: Considering the average 14-day incubation period for vivax malaria, and the travel history of the 2 patients, the infections reported here were most likely acquired in the northern part of California’s Sacramento (Central) Valley. Historically, mosquito-transmitted malaria in California has been confined to the Central Valley where ecologic habitats provided by irrigated farmlands–including fruit orchards and rice fields–are ideal for the breeding of A. freeborni, a highly susceptible vector of vivax malaria. In addition, non-refugee agricultural workers from malarious countries provide a reservoir of vivax parasites in such areas as Sutter and Yuba counties.
and
The patient lives 3 miles south of Marysville in a semi-rural setting next to the Feather River and within 1/4 mile of rice fields and orchards. He had not been employed regularly since December 1980. In the spring and summer of 1981 he did extensive fishing and camping throughout Sutter and Yuba counties, and often received many mosquito bites.
Yes, C.V. California IS a malaria zone, though controlled via pesticides, water control, and (as the cases in the above link demonstrate) prompt control of active cases with antibiotics (antimalarials) to control sources of parasites. And we’re taking that road show to Africa.
[…] We clearly both agree that malaria can live in cold and warm, wet and dry, and that good public health and modern medicine are more important to disease control than anything else.
Robert Bateman (23:01:02) : the Earth’s energy reserves are finite in terms of how much population it can support.
Robert, while I agree with much of your posting, we are simply no where near a limit in the energy available for our consumption by several orders of magnitude. Energy is just not a limitation for hundreds, thousands, or perhaps even millions of years:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/
By the time we are consuming energy at anywhere near the upper limit on earth, we will have the ability to move large parts of the population into space colonies and get another few orders of magnitude increase in energy available to us.
Dr. Tim Ball has written a series of articles, published in the Canadian Free Press, that outlines the history of the global warming alarmism initiated by the UN/IPCC.
——————————————————-
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3618
At a 2004 conference of the Russian National Academy of Sciences Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to Tony Blair’s government made the startling statement that, “Global warming is worse than terrorism.” He was right, but not as he intended. The false premise promoted by the IPCC that human CO2 was causing global warming was being used to terrorize and undermine developed nations in pursuit of Maurice Strong’s goal of getting rid of them.
“I am afraid there are people who want to stop the economic growth, the rise in the standard of living (though not their own) and the ability of man to use the expanding wealth, science and technology for solving the actual pressing problems of mankind, especially of the developing countries. This ambition goes very much against past human experience which has always been connected with a strong motivation to better human conditions. There is no reason to make the change just now, especially with arguments based on such incomplete and faulty science.” (The Australian)
“Maurice Strong is the fox that was invited into the henhouse—and given the tools to redesign it for his own interests.”
Actually, he invited himself in and his redesign through the UN and the IPCC did not stop global warming or climate change, but has brought serious global problems. IPCC identification of CO2 as the major culprit of environmental damage has;
Allowed an unfounded and unwarranted attack on fossil fuels and exploitation of the false idea we are running out, especially of oil.
Caused governments to promote alternate fuels as if they are the replacement solution when most are not viable alternatives.
Caused governments to provide massive direct or indirect subsidies that distort the value of these alternatives so that accurate cost benefit analysis is essentially impossible.
Caused governments to provide subsidies for biofuels so world food production is seriously impeded and people are starving.
Caused governments to identify CO2 as a pollutant and seek its reduction when it is essential to plants and a reduction would put them in jeopardy.
Caused many governments to restrict or ban development of most fossil fuel energy sources.
Caused governments to spend billions on climate research to stop climate change when it is impossible.
Caused diversion of money to climate research better spent on real and identified pollution problems.
Allowed environmentalists to bully whole societies into adopting inappropriate policies and ideas.
Caused unnecessary increases in transportation costs that results in a higher cost of living that especially impacts the poor and middle class.
Caused increase in travel costs that were beginning to become affordable for most people.
Caused extensive and unnecessary fear among people, but especially children.
crosspatch (23:04:53) : Also, we are but a single volcanic eruption away from mayhem. We basically live “hand to mouth” as a people on this planet. We do not have enough food stored, collectively, to last us through a widespread failed harvest.
Absolutely! See:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/food-storage-systems/
for a simple and cheap way you can be prepared for the normal cycle of crop crisis that happens when a volcano burps, a rock from space hits, or some bug figures out how to eat our monocultured crops. (There was a corn rust plague that broke out one year in the midwest somewhere around the ’70s. It was demolishing the corn crop at nearly 100% effectiveness. We managed to get a new cultivar planted the next year that was resistant; but the world was basically 1/2 season away from a global corn (maize) failure. Things are somewhat worse now, with more concentration of food in fewer varieties and much lower stored grain inventories…)
The Climate Change I worry about has nothing to do with people, and everything to do with sudden cold from a volcano, an asteroid, or similar completely nature events that are guaranteed to happen again as they always have.