The doom and gloom, hell and high water howling seems to have hit a traffic obstacle in the form of a new paper in the UK that shows warmer weather saves lives. I really liked this part:
…they found there were only 0.7 death per million people per year due to warming in the hottest part of the year, but a decrease of fully 85 deaths per million people per year due to warming in the coldest part of the year, for a phenomenal lives-saved to life-lost ratio of 121.4.
From CO2 Science:
Lives Saved per Life Lost Due to Global Warming
Reference
Christidis, N., Donaldson, G.C. and Stott, P.A. 2010. Causes for the recent changes in cold- and heat-related mortality in England and Wales. Climatic Change 102: 539-553.
Background
The authors write that “the IPCC AR4 states with very high confidence that climate change contributes to the global burden of disease and to increased mortality,” citing the contribution of Confalonieri et al. (2007) to that document.
What was done
In an effort handsomely suited to evaluate this very-high-confidence contention of the IPCC, Christidis et al. extracted the numbers of daily deaths from all causes from death registration data supplied by the UK Office of National Statistics for men and women fifty years of age or older in England and Wales for the period 1976-2005, which they divided by daily estimates of population “obtained by fitting a fifth order polynomial to mid-year population estimates, to give mortality as deaths per million people,” after which they compared the death results with surface air temperature data that showed a warming trend during the same three-decade period of 0.47°C per decade. In addition, they employed a technique called optimal detection, which they describe as “a formal statistical methodology” that can be used to estimate the role played by human adaptation in the temperature-related changes in mortality they observed.
What was learned
As expected, during the hottest portion of the year, warming led to increases in death rates, while during the coldest portion of the year it lead to decreases in death rates. More specifically, the three scientists report that if no adaptation had taken place, there would have been 1.6 additional deaths per million people per year due to warming in the hottest part of the year over the period 1976-2005, but there would have been 47 fewer deaths per million people per year due to warming in the coldest part of the year, for a lives-saved to life-lost ratio of 29.4, which represents a huge net benefit of the warming experienced in England and Wales over the three-decade period of warming. And when adaptation was included in the analysis, as was the case in the data they analyzed, they found there were only 0.7 death per million people per year due to warming in the hottest part of the year, but a decrease of fully 85 deaths per million people per year due to warming in the coldest part of the year, for a phenomenal lives-saved to life-lost ratio of 121.4.
What it means
Clearly, the IPCC’s “very-high-confidence” conclusion is woefully wrong. Warming is highly beneficial to human health, even without any overt adaptation to it. And when adaptations are made, warming is incredibly beneficial in terms of lengthening human life span.
For more on this important topic, including results from all around the world, see the many items we have archived under the subheadings of Health Effects (Temperature) in our Subject Index.
Reference
Confalonieri, U., Menne, B., Akhtar, R., Ebi, K.L., Hauengue, M., Kovats, R.S., Revich, B. and Woodward, A. 2007. Human health. In: Parry, M.L. et al. (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Lives Saved per Life Lost Due to Global Warming
Reference
Christidis, N., Donaldson, G.C. and Stott, P.A. 2010. Causes for the recent changes in cold- and heat-related mortality in England and Wales. Climatic Change 102: 539-553. Background
The authors write that “the IPCC AR4 states with very high confidence that climate change contributes to the global burden of disease and to increased mortality,” citing the contribution of Confalonieri et al. (2007) to that document.
What was done
In an effort handsomely suited to evaluate this very-high-confidence contention of the IPCC, Christidis et al. extracted the numbers of daily deaths from all causes from death registration data supplied by the UK Office of National Statistics for men and women fifty years of age or older in England and Wales for the period 1976-2005, which they divided by daily estimates of population “obtained by fitting a fifth order polynomial to mid-year population estimates, to give mortality as deaths per million people,” after which they compared the death results with surface air temperature data that showed a warming trend during the same three-decade period of 0.47°C per decade. In addition, they employed a technique called optimal detection, which they describe as “a formal statistical methodology” that can be used to estimate the role played by human adaptation in the temperature-related changes in mortality they observed.
What was learned
As expected, during the hottest portion of the year, warming led to increases in death rates, while during the coldest portion of the year it lead to decreases in death rates. More specifically, the three scientists report that if no adaptation had taken place, there would have been 1.6 additional deaths per million people per year due to warming in the hottest part of the year over the period 1976-2005, but there would have been 47 fewer deaths per million people per year due to warming in the coldest part of the year, for a lives-saved to life-lost ratio of 29.4, which represents a huge net benefit of the warming experienced in England and Wales over the three-decade period of warming. And when adaptation was included in the analysis, as was the case in the data they analyzed, they found there were only 0.7 death per million people per year due to warming in the hottest part of the year, but a decrease of fully 85 deaths per million people per year due to warming in the coldest part of the year, for a phenomenal lives-saved to life-lost ratio of 121.4.
What it means
Clearly, the IPCC’s “very-high-confidence” conclusion is woefully wrong. Warming is highly beneficial to human health, even without any overt adaptation to it. And when adaptations are made, warming is incredibly beneficial in terms of lengthening human life span.
For more on this important topic, including results from all around the world, see the many items we have archived under the subheadings of Health Effects (Temperature) in our Subject Index.
Reference
Confalonieri, U., Menne, B., Akhtar, R., Ebi, K.L., Hauengue, M., Kovats, R.S., Revich, B. and Woodward, A. 2007. Human health. In: Parry, M.L. et al. (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Lives Saved per Life Lost Due to Global Warming
Reference
Christidis, N., Donaldson, G.C. and Stott, P.A. 2010. Causes for the recent changes in cold- and heat-related mortality in England and Wales. Climatic Change 102: 539-553. Background
The authors write that “the IPCC AR4 states with very high confidence that climate change contributes to the global burden of disease and to increased mortality,” citing the contribution of Confalonieri et al. (2007) to that document.
What was done
In an effort handsomely suited to evaluate this very-high-confidence contention of the IPCC, Christidis et al. extracted the numbers of daily deaths from all causes from death registration data supplied by the UK Office of National Statistics for men and women fifty years of age or older in England and Wales for the period 1976-2005, which they divided by daily estimates of population “obtained by fitting a fifth order polynomial to mid-year population estimates, to give mortality as deaths per million people,” after which they compared the death results with surface air temperature data that showed a warming trend during the same three-decade period of 0.47°C per decade. In addition, they employed a technique called optimal detection, which they describe as “a formal statistical methodology” that can be used to estimate the role played by human adaptation in the temperature-related changes in mortality they observed.
What was learned
As expected, during the hottest portion of the year, warming led to increases in death rates, while during the coldest portion of the year it lead to decreases in death rates. More specifically, the three scientists report that if no adaptation had taken place, there would have been 1.6 additional deaths per million people per year due to warming in the hottest part of the year over the period 1976-2005, but there would have been 47 fewer deaths per million people per year due to warming in the coldest part of the year, for a lives-saved to life-lost ratio of 29.4, which represents a huge net benefit of the warming experienced in England and Wales over the three-decade period of warming. And when adaptation was included in the analysis, as was the case in the data they analyzed, they found there were only 0.7 death per million people per year due to warming in the hottest part of the year, but a decrease of fully 85 deaths per million people per year due to warming in the coldest part of the year, for a phenomenal lives-saved to life-lost ratio of 121.4.
What it means
Clearly, the IPCC’s “very-high-confidence” conclusion is woefully wrong. Warming is highly beneficial to human health, even without any overt adaptation to it. And when adaptations are made, warming is incredibly beneficial in terms of lengthening human life span.
For more on this important topic, including results from all around the world, see the many items we have archived under the subheadings of Health Effects (Temperature) in our Subject Index.
Reference
Confalonieri, U., Menne, B., Akhtar, R., Ebi, K.L., Hauengue, M., Kovats, R.S., Revich, B. and Woodward, A. 2007. Human health. In: Parry, M.L. et al. (Eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wonder when we’ll read this on theSkepticalscience blog?
He is still pretending that somehow warming is harmful to life. I’ve offered to help him find beach property in Siberia but he doesn’t seem interested. I can’t imagine why.
The saddest part is that this is even considered an open question. For anyone who isn’t suffering from cranial-rectal insertion syndrome the conclusion is obvious.
But since they already believe the planet is overpopulated, this will be spun as another reason to fight AGW.
Malthusians are nothing if not predictable.
So we could have a T-shirt or bumper sticker:
GLOBAL WARMING SAVES LIVES
Any word from Chris Huhne (the ecoloon) on the beneficial effects of Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption which he and the rest of the ecoloon coalition want to halt or, worse still, reverse?
Thought not.
Last winter was the coldest in the UK for 30 years. In 1981 I remember statistics coming out about the weekly death rates. Last year nothing. There were statistics about accidents through slipping on the ice. Maybe it is another area where the government has stopped caring, along with the increase in fuel poverty as a result of paying for green energy.
I would be interested in reading what Steve McIntyre would say about this method…
“a technique called optimal detection, which they describe as “a formal statistical methodology” that can be used to estimate the role played by human adaptation in the temperature-related changes in mortality they observed.”
And this is why we heat our houses during winters.
HAHAHAHAHA, is it ok if we gloat for a minute and say “Told ya so!”? I know it isn’t very sporting to say “Told ya so!”, but maybe we can make an exception this once and say “Told ya so!” to all of the warmistas that thought we’d all die a painful death due to milder winters. OTOH, maybe we should be more gracious than to say “Told ya so!”. But, I think there may be some sorted satisfaction that comes with saying “Told ya so!” I just can’t make up my mind as to whether we should say “Told ya so!” or perhaps we shouldn’t say “Told ya so!” and just soak it in for a moment.
This is not news for anyone that has been paying attention….
To be precise, this latest study looks only at England and Wales. It is not immediately clear over what geography the IPCC was referring to, but it was presumably the entire globe.
One would expect warming to be more benficial (and thus less dangerous) in colder climes like England/Wales vs tropical or equatorial desert climes.
So apples to oranges to some extent.
I would expect the global result to be a net positive as well, but until it’s analyzed I don’t think one cam say this study proves anything about global effects.
SandyInDerby says:
November 23, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Any word from Chris Huhne (the ecoloon) on the beneficial effects of Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption which he and the rest of the ecoloon coalition want to halt or, worse still, reverse?
Getting information from Mr Huhne is not easy, so it would seem. I wrote to Mr Huhne a month ago requesting information. So far no reply of any kind.
Anthony,
Here is another take on the same issue: http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2010/08/climate-common-sense.html
Happy Thanksgiving!!
Mike
Coincidentally, the yearly statistics for excess winter deaths in England and Wales were just updated today.
It says the figure for 2009/10 is provisional and it really beggars belief. The winter before was balmy in comparison and that number is 50% higher. Did tens of thousands of people lose their lives to that barbecue summer?
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=574
Global Warming……have to wait more than 50 years, if lucky.
Not really a surprise, but nice to see a group of academics go to all this trouble to prove the patently obvious. Seems to be the only method there is to drive all the nails home in the AGW coffin/gravy train.
This topic begs a question I have been mulling recently.
For all of the BILLIONS of dollars in Climate Ca$h that we’re spending annually, what societal benefit have we seen? Have the AGW science advocates provided anything that has benefited someone other than themselves? Has global warming research saved any lives, led to better crop production, forecast any change in hurricane activity that has actually come true, … ANYTHING?
In my opinion, it has been a colossal WASTE OF MONEY, and in fact, has done nothing but enrich the ruling class elites (e.g. Al Gore and Jim Hansen). Career government scientists have boarded the Climate Research gravy train seeking nothing more than to fund themselves for an extended period of time and to delude themselves into thinking they were benefiting society. If they are helping society in some way, I’d like to know how…
FergalR,
ONS always revise their figures at a later date and the revision often bears little relation to the provisional figure.
Aha!
New peer reviewed study: global warming lowers death rates
So that is Dr. Holdren’s problem with Global Warming! Too many people live longer!
This just won’t do…!
Bearing in mind the authors explicitly state “This analysis is specific to England and Wales and one could expect attribution results to vary in parts of the world with different adaptive capacity to heat and cold and different effects of climate change.”
and also say that…
“However, even if climate change significantly
decreases cold-related mortality, this benefit should be considered alongside the
other, predominantly detrimental, health impacts discussed in Section 1”
Namely:
Detrimental health impacts of floods.
Detrimental health impact of storms.
Increased likelyhood of variability of food crop yields as a precursor to the detrimental health impact of malnutrition and hunger.
Sea level rise coupled with storm surges and related mortality.
Detrimental health impact of drought.
Sanitation issues associated with drought / flooding and associated health impacts.
“Moreover, even if the synergy between adaptation and milder winters decreases the
total mortality related to cold and heat, extreme events like heatwaves may still exert
a stress beyond the adaptation limits on the population. Such events are accompanied
by sharp increases in daily mortality which cause public concern and attract ample
media attention. A well studied example is the 2003 European heatwave which cost
the lives of more than 30,000 people”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h410p635k3830865/
Despite the abundance of caveates to conclude from this paper, as you seem to have, that …”Warming is highly beneficial to human health, even without any overt adaptation to it. ”
Is absurd.
http://www.searo.who.int/LinkFiles/Regional_Health_Forum_Volume_12_No_1_Protecting_human_health.pdf
https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/h75307h030424404/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=t4wequ2yldx5kieqebzw3syx&sh=www.springerlink.com
The problem is there might not be room for any more scientists on the Black- List.
What about UHI?
If they are using adjusted temperature data, they are correlating rising temperatures that are mostly due to UHI with the survival/ death rate. Does the phenomenon occur mostly in large urban areas?
Should old people move near the airport?
Maybe it is overall energy usage that correlates to greater survival.
Are they looking at specific causes of death?
There are many pitfalls here.
I am absolutely astonished that some folks on this website, (including you, Mr Watts) claiming to have a science background, which would imply at least a modicum of basic understanding on basic principles of comparative analysis, would choose to compare the results of a study based on a population of approx 60m people at latitudes 50-55 degrees (i.e. England and Wales) to an IPCC report which addresses the impacts of global warming across the planet. This is cherry picking at its most blatant and absurd, and serves only to show the lengths that the denialist camp will go to in attempts to create confusion around such a serious issue.
REPLY: Be as astonished as you wish. Question: Do you heat your house up there in British Columbia? And if so why?
Second question: do you think it is OK to divine the temperature of the MWP from just a handful of tree ring samples? Such as those in Yamal? – Anthony
This is why you see old people moving to Florida, Texas & Arizona, not North Dakota, Montana & Alaska. Warmer = better.
People intuitively know warmer is better – we didn’t need a study to prove it.
Food plants love global warming … Why do you think there are real greenhouses?
Ice not so much goodness for food growing.