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. And there are other problems, such as their choice of temperature base period of 1900-1929 to compare against the study period of 1980-2009. See more at the end of the post, I need some reader assistance – Anthony
Press Release from Umeå University
Climate change increased the number of deaths
[2013-10-21] The increased temperatures caused by ongoing climate change in Stockholm, Sweden between 1980 and 2009 caused 300 more premature deaths than if the temperature increase did not take place. In Sweden as a whole, it would mean about 1,500 more premature deaths, according to a study from researchers at Umeå University published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Global warming does not only give a general increase in temperature, but it also increases the frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves. Previous studies have shown that these changes are associated with increased mortality, especially during extremely hot periods. It also speculated that mortality associated with extreme cold could decrease as a result of a warmer climate.
Researchers at the Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, conducted a study in which they examined the extent to which mortality associated with extreme temperatures occurred in Stockholm during the period 1980-2009. In order to assess what can be regarded as extreme temperatures, they compared temperature data from this period with the corresponding data for the period 1900 to 1929.
The study shows that the number of periods of extremely high temperatures increased significantly over the period 1980-2009, all of which contributed to about 300 more deaths during these heat waves than had been the case without climate change.
“Mortality associated with extreme heat during the relevant period was doubled, compared to if we had not had some climate change,” says Daniel Oudin Åström, PhD-student in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, who conducted the study. “Furthermore, we saw that even though the winters have become milder, extremely cold periods occurred more often, which also contributed to a small increase in mortality during the winter.”
Although the increase in the number of deaths due to extreme temperature overall is quite small over a 30 year period, Daniel Oudin Åström emphasises that the current study only includes the Stockholm area. If the method had been used in the whole of Sweden, or Europe, the increase in the number of deaths would have been much larger. For Sweden as a whole, it is estimated that about 1,500 extra deaths due to climate change had occurred over the past 30 years.
In addition, the researchers only examined mortality in really extreme temperatures. Therefore, the number of premature deaths caused by less extreme temperatures is not included in the study.
Daniel Oudin Åström says that despite the long-standing debate about climate change, Swedes have not changed their attitude and willingness to protect themselves against extreme temperatures.
“The study findings do not suggest any adaptation of the Swedes when it comes to confronting the increasingly warmer climate, such as increased use of air conditioning in elderly housing,” says Daniel Oudin Åström. “It is probably because there is relatively little knowledge in regards to increased temperatures and heat waves on health.”
###
Here is the paper:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2022.html
Attributing mortality from extreme temperatures to climate change in Stockholm, Sweden
Daniel Oudin Åström, Bertil Forsberg, Kristie L. Ebi & Joacim Rocklöv
Nature Climate Change (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate2022
Abstract:
A changing climate is increasing the frequency, intensity, duration and spatial extent of heat waves. These changes are associated with increased human mortality during heat extremes. At the other end of the temperature scale, it has been widely speculated that cold-related mortality could decrease in a warmer world. We aim to answer a key question; the extent to which mortality due to temperature extremes in Stockholm, Sweden during 1980–2009 can be attributed to climate change that has occurred since our reference period (1900–1929). Mortality from heat extremes in 1980–2009 was double what would have occurred without climate change. Although temperature shifted towards warmer temperatures in the winter season, cold extremes occurred more frequently, contributing to a small increase of mortality during the winter months. No evidence was found for adaptation over 1980–2009
===============================================================
More than a couple of things stand out that I’m looking into.
1. A paper they cite by Pat Michaels and Chipp Knappenberger found only one US city that had any mortality increase due to heat, and that was Seattle. Michaels opines that this was likely due to the city being such a cool climate that very little cooling infrastructure was in place in the city. This might also be true of the high latitude city of Stockholm.
2. A cursory check of climate data for Stockholm from NASA GISS shows that something curious happened around 1930. Notice the big step change then:
Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=645024640000&dt=1&ds=12
Note also how much more variance there is after 1930. To me this looks like a classic station move signal, though it could be related to something as simple as a building going up/torn down nearby that affected wind patterns near the station. The fact that they use 1900-1929 as the base period for the model comparison is troubling, since it seems to be the coolest, least variable part of the station record.
Also, for some reason, GISS can’t seem to get data updated for Stockholm past 1994, even though the station continues to produce data. I’ve asked Dr. Gavin Schmidt about this, but he has ignored my request. Perhaps he’s too busy on Twitter to bother.
Waymarking notes of the station:
“When the observatory was renovated and extended in 1875 the thermometer was moved to a metal cage outside a window on the first floor. The current observation site, from 1960, is only about 10 metres away. These few small relocations make Stockholm’s long observation series one of the world’s absolute best. The high quality of the series has recently been documented in several scientific studies.”*
*From Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute SMHI website.
With it being supposedly “…one of the world’s absolute best.” you’d think NASA GISS would want to get current data for it. It’s a travesty they have not updated it since 1994:
Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/find_station.cgi?dt=1&ds=12&name=stockholm
3. The authors cite the shift in temperature distribution during summer as being proof of more heat which would translate into greater mortality(see figure 2 below).
Figure 2: Temperature distribution of 2-day moving average of mean temperatures during summer months.

Grey distribution, 1900–1929; black distribution, 1980–2009.
Problem is, this data they are plugging into their mortality model appears to come from a single weather station, what I believe is the Stockholm Observatory, though they don’t actually name the station dataset in the paper that I’ve found. The Stockholm Observatory has all sorts of microsite issues that they have not accounted for, such as a brick building nearby and wind shading from rows of vegetation.
Image from Waymarking.com, taken July 30th, 2010 – more here
Here is the aerial view from Google Earth using the lat/lon provided by Waymarking.com You can see how wind sheltered the station is, especially during summer with all those broadleaf trees around it. One wonders what the site looked like in 1929 and if the weather station was in the same location.
The microsite issues coupled with whatever happened in 1930 (which looks like a station move to me) could easily explain a good portion of summer month temperature increases from 1980-2009 compared to 1900-1929
4. There’s other cherry picking going on; they cite Stockholm as being representative of the changes in Sweden, yet study no other cities or stations to test that theory. They are using mean temperatures, rather than looking at Tmax. Mean temperatures are sensitive to effects of microsite bias which mostly show up in Tmin. If heat waves are really increasing in Stockholm, affecting mortality, it should show up in Tmax, yet they didn’t test for this that I can find.
I think this paper is seriously flawed because the authors assume the temperature data is “near perfect” and chose an inappropriate base period which exacerbates the comparison differential. Whether this is incompetence or cherry picking remains to be seen.
I’m working on locating metadata for a detailed history of the station in Stockholm to test out what I have observed, but I need help.
Anyone reading who is familiar with the station and the meteorological service there, I ask that you weigh in with a comment below. I need the help since I’m not well versed in Swedish. Any help will be appreciated.
Related articles
- Stockholm heat toll ‘doubled in 30 years’ (climatenewsnetwork.net)




Wow, lot of angst in here. Just so everyone’s aware and on the level: Modeled death blame like this has been stock and trade in epidemiology for ages. Especially when it comes to moral opprobriums like tobacco, alcohol, and heating oil.
This is not only nothing new, this is Best Practices in the Science of bean-counting roadkill.
It appears that the same data was also used for another current paper in another journal (bold mine):
I was able to download this paper from the linked page above by clicking on “Article as pdf” on the right hand side of the page.
It appears that substituting Kristie L. Ebi for Sörenb Edvinsson produced a different spin on the situation. By eliminating the focus on the intermediate years of 1930 – 1979, the authors got the paper published in a climate change journal with what seems to be a different angle. However, there is also a somewhat odd difference found between the two papers. Figure 1 in this paper purports to be the same a Figure 3 in the current paper under discussion:
[http://statpad.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/figure-1.jpg , in case the image does not show up.]
The numbers of “extreme events” are generally higher for both “hot” and “cold” categories in the Nature version. Without seeing a copy of that paper, it is not possible to tell why. My guess would be that the definition of “extreme” might have been changed. A side effect of this would likely include more deaths attributable to those “extremes”.
So if this study is correct, then Sweden’s anti-warming budget should be about 1% of their anti-cancer spending.
I have a very simple test to recommend to Daniel Oudin Åström. First, it will require setting up two identical chambers. (I was going to write ‘room’ but ‘chamber’ sounds more scientificky.) Now, one room…oops, chamber… will have an ample heating system and be set with an air temperature of 105 degrees Fahrenheit (sorry Celsius, but I can’t figure out the difference right now). And, the other one will have an ample refrigeration system and be set with an air temperature of minus…repeat, ‘minus’ 30 degrees.
Now being the brave, creative, forward gazing, starving scientist. Ok, stop. Starving scientist? I know there used to be the phrase, starving artist, but after climate scientists’ wreck the world’s economy it’ll be starving scientist as well. Anyway, being the intrepid scientist that he is Daniel Oudin Åström can simply enter one of the chambers and then the other. To insure that any externalities do not taint the findings Daniel Oudin Åström will have to enter the chambers without any clothes on but don’t worry, the observers will not be able to gaze upon him because the chambers won’t have any windows-phew!
Now, for some inexplicable reason we will observe Daniel Oudin Åström entering the heated chamber first. Ok, it’s not inexplicable: he will enter that chamber first because we know, before we even conduct this experiment, that unlike the refrigerated chamber, he will actually be able to leave the heated chamber under his own power. At this point the experiment will become a gamble. We, the taxpayers, will wager a bet with Daniel Oudin Åström that if he is willing to sit in the refrigerated chamber (nude of course) for exactly as long as the heated chamber (minimum time 2 hours) we will continue to fund his silly research. Ok, he won’t take that bet because he’s probably not insane. So, instead we will ask him why morgues are refrigerated and not heated, and if his research was mistakenly intended to determine the lifetimes of dead bodies versus live ones, and if a cold snap preserves a dead body better than a heat wave, and if his research was really directed towards preserving a dead body so it can continue to have voting rights not just in Chicago but throughout the whole world, and…
Lots of StuffIt in English: http://bolin.su.se/data/stockholm/
Stuff – not Stuffit 😉
RomanM says:
October 24, 2013 at 6:33 am
“It appears that substituting Kristie L. Ebi for Sörenb Edvinsson produced a different spin on the situation. By eliminating the focus on the intermediate years of 1930 – 1979, the authors got the paper published in a climate change journal with what seems to be a different angle. ”
Hey great. After the slightly dull “Fatal Heat Effects” we got “Fatal Heat Effects Director’s Cut” with more screaming and sound and editing out the lengthy boring second act; now I hope for a sequel, maybe “Fatal Heat Effects After Tomorrow” with more CGI.
We’re going to need an app for that and database to keep track of what amounts to a global pandemic of faulty research tied to global warming political science objectives.
Haven’t you noticed the tremendous number of deaths when New Yorkers head to Florida. The tremendous change in temperature just makes them drop dead on the spot.
More info: 10 year temperature average in Sweden had its maximum in 2005 and has declined since then and in 2012 it was exactly the same as in 1935. http://www.smhi.se/polopoly_fs/1.2435!image/temp_ar_tom_2012.png_gen/derivatives/fullSizeImage/temp_ar_tom_2012.png
The figure for the 10 years average for both years is 0,78 above average 1961-1990
Jimbo, you were kidding weren’t you when you said “I’m sure some people die of heatstroke [in Sweden], just like in many other places …”? But heatstrokes at 80°F? Where’d you hear that? Don’t remember ever hearing 80°F as being “hot weather”. Where I live, when it’s hot, I mean it’s REAL hot weather!
Mayo Clinic:
Heatstroke is caused by prolonged exposure to high temperatures or by doing physical activity in hot weather. You are considered to have heatstroke when your body temperature reaches 104°F (40°C) or higher.
Regarding the report for the temperature serie for Stockholm 1756 to 2005 I mention earlier in this thread.
All temperature data raw as well as homogenised can be found here: http://bolin.su.se/data/stockholm/air_temperature.php
These studies remind me of how not to do science. So many illogical inputs and conclusions in one paper.
What year did Sweden adopt socialized medicine?
Ferd berple says:
October 24, 2013 at 5:25 am
Looking at the 2 day temperature distribution, at no time did the temperatures exceed 25C. Temperatures below 28C are fatal to unprotected humans. They cannot eat enough food to maintain body temperature and die from exposure.
28C ?! Presumably a typo, but what is the correct figure?
There are some remarkable statements in this thread!
Did I get this right? They did not use mortality data from the reference period, but somehow calculated the number of deaths based on assumptions? The same author(s?) DID use mortality data from the early period in another study. Why did they drop the mortality data and used a calculation instead?
Re: RomanM, the Epidemiology study:
This Nature study:
Watch the pea – only recent health data.
and
The question is, why did they erase the early health data? Or did I miss something here.
Modelling climate has become an unlimited deceitful endeavor that is metastasizing into every institution capable of pretending to be conducting science with objectives intended to contribute to global public manipulation.
It’s a disgraceful magnitude of institutionalized misrepresentation humanity as never seen before with participants’ displaying an attitude that their scurrilous behavior is somehow acceptable or even noble because everybody does it?
According to official statistics (http://www.scb.se/Pages/TableAndChart____91828.aspx) approx 90000 Swedes die every year. Times 30 years makes 2.7 million. An “extra” 1 500 during the same period means an increase with 0.00055 %. Statistically significant?
The first thing that hit me was 1900-1929. They are obviously ignoring the 1930’s and 1940’s which in the USA at least were warmer, but the temperatures are being conveniently suppressed.
Anyone who didnt arrive in a private jet
“Twerking will not solve Climate Change”
Eco Hypocrisy at its grandest
http://uk.eonline.com/news/472194/2013-environmental-media-awards-the-complete-list-of-winners
Copy and paste and get ready with the sick bag.
@Per T –
It’s actually 0.056%. But point well made.
Check out the coauthor Kristie L Ebi.
Science “was settled” before this publication.
Have the researchers ever looked at a Minnesota phone book? All those Swedish folks survived moving to the land of 10,000 lakes so I doubt some warmth in the home land would harm them.
ilmastotiede says:
October 24, 2013 at 7:58 am
“The question is, why did they erase the early health data? Or did I miss something here.”
Landed on the cutting floor to improve the overall flow of the paper.
If this was true for Sweden then people should be dropping like flies here in Florida.