Claim: 'climate change' caused more deaths in Stockholm – but it may be due to flawed methodology

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:

Stockholm_data_GISTEMP

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:

Stockholm_GISTEMP

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.

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.

Stockholm_observatory_weather_station1

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.

stockholm_weather_station2

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

189 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DirkH
October 24, 2013 8:29 am

jam south london says:
October 24, 2013 at 8:12 am
“Anyone who didnt arrive in a private jet
“Twerking will not solve Climate Change”
Eco Hypocrisy at its grandest”
Hayden Panettiere is right. As the end of Climate Change predates Twerking by 17 years, there cannot be a causal link. Probably letsbuyit.com solved climate change inadvertently.

October 24, 2013 8:30 am

climate in no way killed anyone, WEATHER does……..and the climate in no way controls the weather, the climate is is simple honest FACTUAL terms only the average WEATHER of the previous 30 years…….
until the folks can grasp that reality and understand climate CHANGE is the 100% NATURAL state of this planet……the climate is always changing, again because the climate is simply the average of the previous weather.

Alan Robertson
October 24, 2013 8:33 am

Réaumur says:
October 24, 2013 at 2:58 am
Alan Robertson says:
October 24, 2013 at 1:04 am
“Compare this model output with the known tens of thousands of deaths in Great Britain which are attributed to attempts to mitigate climate change.”
—————————–
I’d like to see that data. Can you cite a reference?
___________________________________________
I have no link to studies, but to several news items detailing deaths due to pensioners in Great Britain being unable to afford heating bills. A large part of the cost is attributed to Green energy initiatives mandated by British Gov’t, with green taxes adding £112 to annual heating costs. This is not information which gov’t subsidized studies are likely to trumpet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20425364
http://www.ekprocure.co.uk/news-market-trends/
http://beforeitsnews.com/weather/2013/03/deaths-up-by-30000-in-big-freeze-by-nathan-rao-daily-express-2439760.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332343/Nine-pensioners-died-cold-hour-winter-prices-soar.html
http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-winter-deaths-30000-big-freeze/
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/301641/1M-Brits-dead-in-winter-scandal

David s
October 24, 2013 8:43 am

Well according to Accuweather, in the months of June, July and August of this year the temperature of Stockholm was 80F or above on only 6 days. And no days exceeded 83F. http://www.accuweather.com/en/se/stockholm/314929/july-weather/314929?monyr=7/1/2013
So are we to believe those old Vikings are dropping like flies because of this? Possibly they aren’t as sturdy a lot as we once thought.
Do the current occupants of Sweden think; OMG we’re having beautiful weather. We’re all gonna die!

David s
October 24, 2013 8:48 am

Sorry- make that 7 days when the temperature of Stockholm was 80F or above.

October 24, 2013 8:50 am

Its the COLD not global warming that we should be worried about

No one seems upset that in modern Britain, old people are freezing to death as hidden taxes make fuel more expensive
. . .
Each year, an official estimate is made of the “excess winter mortality” – that is, the number of people dying of cold-related illnesses. Last winter was relatively mild, and still 24,000 perished. The indications are that this winter, which has dragged on so long and with such brutality, will claim 30,000 lives, making it one of the biggest killers in the country. And still, no one seems upset. . . .
The reaction to the 2003 heatwave was extraordinary. It was blamed for 2,000 deaths, and taken as a warning that Britain was horribly unprepared for the coming era of snowless winters and barbecue summers. . . .
Since Sir David’s (2003) exhortations, some 250,000 Brits have died from the cold, and 10,000 from the heat. It is horribly clear that we have been focusing on the wrong enemy. . . .
Fuel prices have doubled over seven years, forcing millions to choose between heat and food – and government has found itself a major part of the problem. . . .
The average annual fuel bill is expected to have risen by £76 by 2020, it says. But take out Davey’s hidden taxes (carbon price floor, emissions trading scheme, etc) and we’d be paying an average £123 less.

LdB
October 24, 2013 9:00 am

The question no one has yet answered for me is how did this tripe get published in any science journal. I would laugh but it is actually a corruption of science integrity and science methodology whether you believe in climate change or not.
If a student actually gave me that I would grade it an F or UG because it really isn’t science and to publish it and promote it goes beyond belief.

tonyM
October 24, 2013 9:12 am

Obviously if people actually die then it is tragic.
But I am bemused in that I thought the Danes were made of sterner stuff than to be dying when there is a small frequency increase in avg T over two days in the 15 – 30 deg range. This is the most benign T range possible surely. Bit hard to analyse what they say without an actual extreme T distribution.
I don’t know of a city in Oz which does not regularly get well into the 30’s and often exceeds 40 deg C in summer. Few drop dead here due to the heat. One does not really need air con to survive; hop into the shower.
Perhaps people are just living longer now and their frailty is on display towards the end of their lives. This seems to be born out if the milder winters are also increasing the death rates. Again we are not told what “extreme” T means.
Will this gravy train of tall stories ever end?

DirkH
October 24, 2013 9:30 am

Now this one is a real gem:
“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.”
In other words, if 30 deg C kill you quickly, just wait what 20 deg C will do to you. You might not notice it and it might take 80 years but the 20 deg C is a silent killer…
Maybe this is the Sokal affair of climate change. This is basically too good to be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

October 24, 2013 9:39 am

This is indeed cause for grave concern. Similar studies should be immediately carried out for Glasgow, Murmansk, Anchorage, and Vladivostok.

Paul in Sweden
October 24, 2013 9:58 am

Living outside of Gothenburg I find it incredulous that there can be a heat related death here in Sweden outside of a sauna. My Swedish wife often wears Long Johns during the course of the summer(she is not the only one that I know of either).

Pamela Gray
October 24, 2013 10:04 am

Thinking out loud:
1. The temperature series posted by Anthony is spliced from two different stations or has been GISS “adjusted” by cooling the first half. Another thought: The upper half may have been adjusted warmer by a smear from a nearby station such as the one at the airport. In either case, look at nearby station data to see if anything matches that warmer upper half or the cooler lower half.
2. This study has no control. But it passed peer review.
3. This study did not provide any indication it was a robust significant conclusion by its lack of random sampling in other similar cities and the use of numbers of deaths versus percentage of population. But it passed peer review.
4. This study has such a poor methods section it cannot adequately or accurately measure cause and effect. But it passed peer review.
5. This study includes conclusions not supported by the research section. But it passed peer review.
So what is the most significant finding here? Pal reviewed to give a sympathetic warmer his Ph.D. “green” card so he could join the club.

October 24, 2013 10:25 am

Epidemiology study:

We collected daily mortality and temperature data for the period 1901–2009 for present-day Stockholm County, Sweden.

Nature study:

We collected daily mortality during the period 1980-2009 and daily temperature data for the period 1900-2009 for Stockholm County, Sweden.

Maybe Kristie Ebi’s background with the energy industry (EPRI) is the reason for the different emphasis.

Bruce Cobb
October 24, 2013 10:31 am

“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.”
WTF? What debate? The way they tell it, they are more certain than ever that climate change is man’s fault. So actually it is despite all the “certainty”, all the haranguing and hype about it, people still are ho-hum about it. Because realistically, they don’t see much if any change except perhaps in their ability to afford the very energy needed to help protect them from “extreme temperatures”.

Pamela Gray
October 24, 2013 10:47 am

The other researcher consultant was bemoaning about the fact that more people than they counted on to die, died in Chicago during a heat wave and they had to use refrigerated food trucks to keep the bodies cold while the morgues processed them for funeral homes. Here is the synopsis of the event. There was a festival in that city with lots of music, food, and drink. People came in droves to the festival, located in a part of the city particularly susceptible to urban heat island effects, mindless of the heat wave bearing down upon them. Some people died. More than they had prepared for. She states unequivocally that climate change was the culprit.
My question to her, had I been at the conference would have been: Was that climate change or stupidity? Chicago has had numerous heat waves over the decades and the more than a century it has existed as a large city. What did people do back then? My guess is that they stayed out of the heat and most certainly did not go to a music, food, and drink festival. So I ask again, are you claiming the cause of these unfortunate deaths to be climate change or human stupidity?

Pamela Gray
October 24, 2013 10:50 am

And by the way, the fact that the data was used in multiple published research reports is a common way of milking the data and pads the old citation log.

Jimbo
October 24, 2013 11:12 am

Let’s get this into perspective.

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,…

1,500 premature deaths in Sweden over 30 years is sad and regrettable.
30,000 UK excess winter deaths of 2012/2013 (a few months) is a travesty of monumental proportions! Should I multiply this figure by 30 years? This above paper belongs in the garbage.
Our Scandinavian friends need all the warmth they can get. 🙂
http://youtu.be/q5opSsAYQ3k
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229819/Excess_winter_mortality_2012.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html

lurker, passing through laughing
October 24, 2013 11:13 am

@LdB says:
October 24, 2013 at 9:00 am
The way this stuff gets published is that it is recycled out of Dr. Mann’s crock of sh*t.
AGW believers have an endless appetite for Mann sh*t. and are willing to spend great sums of tax payer money in order to consume more of it, prepared in endless varitety by other rent seeking scientists competing to make new recipes.

Perfekt
October 24, 2013 11:14 am

This is rubbish in so many ways, but it is enough to note that I and most other Swedish people try to spend as much time as possible in Thailand and places like that.

lurker, passing through laughing
October 24, 2013 11:23 am

@Berényi Péter says:
October 24, 2013 at 6:04 am
yes the failure of this paper to address the fact that Swedes are living longer is another great sign that the paper in question is actually yet another example of the endless production of AGW crocks of sh*t.
In reality the academies and instiutes that employ the authors should be lobbied to investigate them for malpractice. the process to challenge this paper until it is withdrawn should be undertaken.
It is difficult to tell the difference between this paper and a fabrication or deception.

Pamela Gray
October 24, 2013 11:26 am

O…M…G!!! Need windshield wipers for computer screen! Radi-aid for Norway??????

Johan Montelius
October 24, 2013 11:33 am

I think I have it, Swedes do die of heatstrokes in Sweden during summer. The better weather the better midsummer party!

JimS
October 24, 2013 11:41 am

According to this chart, about 4,000 people each year die in Sweden because of the cold, and this study was done during an alleged global warming period:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/goklany_winter_deaths_table1.png

F. Ross
October 24, 2013 11:42 am

” It also speculated that mortality associated with extreme cold could decrease as a result of a warmer climate.”
Translation: “We guess that if weather gets warmer, fewer will be die from the cold weather?”
Wow! Climate science at its best.

KNR
October 24, 2013 11:47 am

Its simple they knew a paper pushing AGW BS would always receive a ironic ‘warm welcome ‘ from Nature no matter how bad it was .
So you take some early work , so you got a two for one deal to start with , lose the bits that get in the way of what you need and push it out with heavy side order of models .
The authors get ‘another ‘ paper to their credit, and perhaps some more research cash . While Nature gets ‘proof ‘ of their beloved ’cause ‘ form a new source . Their winners all round , and even better its easy money .
And who in weeks time will even remember this BS ?
Think marketing pimping the latest fad and forget any’science’ then you will understand how this game works.