WHO Forecast Exaggerates Climate Deaths

New paper faults World Health Organisation’s wilful exaggeration

 

Deaths-extreme-weather

A new briefing paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation examines the World Health Organisation’s recent report on climate change and finds that its estimates of future mortality from global warming are grossly exaggerated.

The WHO report predicted that climate change would bring about 250,000 extra deaths annually between 2030 and 2050, but relied upon absurd assumptions to reach this conclusion. For example, the report assumes that the people affected by climate change will forgo commonsense steps to protect themselves, including several that are already in the works in some developing countries.

WHO-deaths-exagerate

Briefing paper author Dr Indur Goklany said:

“The idea that people would not, for example, react to higher sea levels by building higher sea defences or even moving away from the coast is preposterous, so for the WHO to suggest such a high death toll from climate change completely misleads the public.”

And as Dr Goklany goes on to explain, the WHO’s results use climate model results that apparently overstate the warming trend three-fold compared to observations despite using 27% less greenhouse gas forcing.

The WHO also assumes that higher carbon dioxide levels will have no beneficial effects on crop yields, despite scientific studies having confirmed that this is precisely what will happen in a wide range of crop species.

“Because of its willful exaggerations,” says Goklany, “the WHO study risks scaring people into taking ill-considered costly actions to limit greenhouse gases rather than focusing on higher priority global health issues such as hunger, malaria and diarrhoeal diseases, which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost”.

Full report (PDF)

Dr Indur Goklany is an independent scholar and author. He was a member of the U.S. delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as an IPCC reviewer.

GWPF TV: The WHO exaggerates future global warming mortality

Advertisements

89 thoughts on “WHO Forecast Exaggerates Climate Deaths

    • That is why you will stay forever ignorant. You are too lazy to search this site, to support your logical fallacy of guilt by (non-existant) association.

    • Barry, Have you ever been to coastal Bangladesh?
      They only have flooding problems when there are cyclones and in the last big cyclone (Sidr) damage and loss of life was less than one tenth of the similar sized cyclone that struck Myanmar a couple of years later.
      Why?
      Development – Bangladesh has developed cyclone defenses and has an infrastructure which can respond to such natural events. It is not perfect and many people still died (much more than in the US when hurricanes make landfall), but every time the damage is less and less of a disaster.
      Even if sea level increases, why would the people of Bangladesh stop developing to further reduce damage from cyclones? One reason only – if they can’t afford to because energy prices mean that they don’t have the resources.

      • Barry, sorry for the slow reply – I only get here once a day.
        Cyclone sidr in 2007 was responsible for 3,400 deaths, with 1000 listed as missing in April 2008. Let’s say 5,000. Cyclone Nargis which struck Myanmar further south was listed as responsible for “tens of thousands of deaths”. Tidal surge was similar – the two references below use different scales, but 5 meters and 12 feet are close enough in my book.
        http://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/cyclone-sidr-bangladesh-damage-loss-and-needs-assessment-disaster-recovery-and
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2700587/
        The area affected in Bangladesh could hardly been described as unpopulated with 1 million households seriously affected. The difference was the level of preparedness which the Bangladesh governments had been able to establish over the past 20 years. The Bhola cyclone in 1970 caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and the lack of preparedness had – in many people’s estimation – contributed to the demand for independance of what was then East Pakistan and led to the creation of Bangladesh as a country. Look up the history of Bangladesh some time and see how cyclones have been a regular feature and a major driver of the countries development. I was humbled by the way that the people there responded to Sidr and regularly point out to people just what development really means using this as an example.
        Although I admit that – as someone who has visited Bangladesh a number of times over recent years – I may have dropped facts in here without reference, but none of these details are hard to find and in no way in contention.
        If you want to drop a snarky comment into a discussion thread here at WUWT and then run around accusing people of making unsupported comments you show yourself to be little more than a troll. I see that many people have addressed the issue of land growth in the delta region – another well-know and uncontested fact – in response to your snark. I doubt that this response will change anything about your behaviour, but I will make it a policy to completely ignore your comments in future and I suggest others do likewise.

    • That’s a pretty vague statement. You’re welcome to bring data and make your case, if you think you have one.

    • Barry
      December 1, 2014 at 8:42 am
      Has Dr. Goklany ever been to coastal Bangladesh? He should go there and talk to folks.

      I don’t know about Dr Indur Goklany but I do know that some Bangladeshi geographers say that Bangladesh has gained landmass over the last several decades.

      Satellite images of Bangladesh over the past 32 years show that the country is growing annually by about 20 square kilometres (7.72 square miles), said Maminul Haque Sarker of the Dhaka-based Centre for Environment and Geographic Information Services.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7532949.stm

      • Well, with a huge river emptying gigantic masses of debris every year, it is obvious that Bangla Desh is gaining land. Look at a historical map which recreates the Nile delta some thousands of years ago.

      • Let’s hope Barry stops panicking now.

        Nature Reports Climate Change – 15 January 2009
        Gaining ground
        Considering elevation alone, even a one-metre rise would swallow about 15 to 20 per cent of Bangladesh’s land area, where about 20 million people live today6. But such estimates can be misleading, since they leave out some crucial factors. For one thing, Bangladesh’s delta is now expanding, as sediments settle along the coast and create new land (Fig. 1).
        It’s adding nearly 20 square kilometres a year in the coastal areas,” says Maminul Haque Sarker, a morphologist at the Center for Environmental and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) in Dhaka. His recent analysis7 of satellite images shows that Bangladesh has been gaining land for decades, and old maps from the early colonial era suggest the country has been growing this way for centuries, says Sarker….
        http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0902/full/climate.2009.3.html

        http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0902/images/climate.2009.3-f1.jpg

      • Its getting sediment. Dont they know about deltas, sand islands etc etc. land building and erosion long term used to be taught in Geograpy, what now?

    • Barry,
      the Ganges-Brahmaputra River delta (where Bangladesh is) was formed at a time of heavy monsoon rains and rapidly rising sea levels. It’s worse than you thought! We must not act now!

      Abstract
      Enormous Ganges-Brahmaputra sediment discharge during strengthened early Holocene monsoon
      ……….Development of the Ganges-Brahmaputra River delta began ca. 11000 yr B.P., when rising sea level flooded the Bengal basin, thereby trapping most of the river’s discharge on the inner margin. Chronostratigraphic data from these deltaic deposits are used to calculate the rates of sediment storage on the margin, which provide a minimum estimate of the river’s past sediment load. Results reveal that ∼5 × 1012 m3 of sediment was stored in the Bengal basin from ca. 11000 to 7000 yr B.P., which corresponds to a mean load of 2.3 × 109 t/yr. In comparison, modern sediment load of the Ganges-Brahmaputra is ∼1 × 109 t/yr, ranking it first among the world’s rivers and underscoring the significance of a two-fold increase sustained over 4 k.y. Furthermore, the timing of immense discharge in the early Holocene strongly suggests its relation to a stronger than present southwest monsoon in South Asia. …….
      http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/28/12/1083.short

      • Barry,
        How is lowering our co2 going to control subsidence?

        Abstract – July 3, 2013
        Rapid coastal subsidence in the central Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta (Bangladesh) since the 17th century deduced from submerged salt-producing kilns
        http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/41/9/987.abstract

        And so on. Barry, check your stuff first before firing off Warmist claims. It’s just not as simple as rising sea levels.

    • Google Pakistan weather history like I did and you see will how many centuries they had flooding and earthquakes….long before human made global warming

    • Bangladesh is far more worried about naturally occurring arsenic in their water than they are about CO2 in the air.

      • And also saltwater intrusion into freshwater sources and soils, requiring people to eek out an even more marginal existence or else migrate… where? Bangladesh is already the most densely populated country in the world, with up to 2/3 of the land area submerged during the flood season. I still contend Dr. Goklany should go there and present his thoroughly researched (8-page) paper.

    • I have heard about disatrous sea level rise in Bangla Desh, turned out to be shifting sandbanks in the Ganges delta…

    • Barry, the situation of Bangladesh is similar to The Netherlands also a delta of several large rivers. That made very good fertile ground where people did and do concentrate. The Netherlands has a history of coast and river flood control that spans over ten centuries. They have build dikes and flood dams to protect people and properties against storms with 6-7 meter increased sea level (you know that the current sea level rise is only 0.3 meter at the end of this century and not accelerating?). They even constructed a lot of new land where once the sea was. The lowest point in The Netherlands nowadays is 12 meter below MSL…
      They are now exporting their knowledge to other countries, helping New York and New Orleans to make plans to protect themselves and they help Bangladesh by building dikes and shelters against the inevitable next cyclone…
      The point is that it costs much less to protect people against natural disasters than killing their economies for something that hardly has a measurable effect within the large natural variability…

      • They have been exporting that expertise for a LONG time. Some of the most productive agricultural land in Britain is the fenland reclaimed by Dutch engineers over 300 years ago. An interesting by product is that the rivers and drainage channel are no ABOVE the level of the land. If you see what looks like a railway embankment its probably a waterway.

    • Dr. Goklany advocates policy commensurate with the actual threat. His is among the more moderate voices addressing global warming alarmism. It appears to me he recommends that marginalized societies, many of which exist in precarious balance with their natural environments, should take actions to secure their own safety. It is strange that that message should elicit an ad hominem.
      Cargo cults might wait for some sort of savior to arrive from on high, but (especially poor) people today can be expected to learn the difference between manna from heaven, and working to secure their safety.

  1. This is another inept piece of statistical manipulation. It’s the same problem as trying to separate human global warming from natural variation. Impossible. Just so much Crap

  2. I can believe it.
    Fuel poverty brought about by mandated abandonment of fossil fuels and replacement with unreliable ‘renewable’ energy will cause many unnecessary deaths. Keeping on our course of increasing reliance on wind and solar energy will results in people being deprived of warmth, hot water, and refrigeration. Death by freezing, poor sanitation, or malnutrition – take your pick.

    • Actually since the earth is obviously cooling again, we will have millions of deaths due to starvation and cold. As always: warm=happy times, cold=deathly times.

  3. I suggest a starting point: prove CO2 in the atmosphere causes a measurable warming…to have any credibility, STOP MONTHLY ADJUSTMENTS!!!!

  4. Dear Barry,
    Bangladesh is in no danger from rising sea levels. That is because the country is the delta region of the Brahmaputra, Ganges, and Meghna Rivers. Those rivers deliver silt from the Himalayas, silt which is deposited at sea level (where flow velocity diminishes).
    Due to the delta formation process (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_delta), Bangladesh has been exactly at sea level for millions of years. No matter what the sea level has been, Bangladesh assumes that position.
    If that were not the case, how do you explain why all the Earth’s deltas are at sea level today? Is that a giant mind-boggling coincidence? Do you think all the world’s deltas were high and dry a few millennia ago when sea levels were dozens if not hundreds of feet lower? And that they all are exactly at sea level today by magic? And that if the seas were to rise a few inches over the next 100 years, Bangladesh would be drowned?
    Because if you do, that’s not very good thinking on your part. Try some real science. It works.

  5. These misanthropes belong in the ninth circle of hell, accompanied by most of the anti science charlatans who claim to be “climate scientists,” along with their anti-nuclear, anti-vaccination, anti-fracking, anti-GMO, anti-development and growth, and anti-coal fellow travelers. If God be just, burn baby burn…

  6. “Grossly exaggerated” = completely made up out of whole cloth, and pulled from their arses, just like the whole notion of “climate refugees” is.

  7. Ironically the best protection from deaths from global catastrophes is economic growth. Climate related deaths in developed countries are a fraction of that in underdeveloped countries even for similar catastrophes because of better housing, infrastructure etc. Poverty kills. It leaves whole communities I’ll equipped to defend themselves from the forces of nature. If the funds that were being diverted into global warming schemes was used to improve living standards not only would the 250,000 additional lives be reversed life expectancy, child mortality and living standards would improve. If people remain in poverty because of stupid global warming policies which prevent for instance base load electricity in poor countries I know where the deaths ledger would lie. It would show a considerable deficit against alarmist policy.
    I estimate that the cost of the study this blog referred to has probably added 10-15 lives to the ledger.

  8. Frankly, I think they underestimated the number of deaths that will be caused by climate change. As we know, a new paper came out that proves that old age is primarily caused by climate change*. Millions of people die every year of old age.
    * – If no paper has yet come out proving climate change causes old age, wait a while. I’m sure it’s in the works.

  9. Ah, yes. The World Health Organization. Famous for, among other things, it’s thoughtful and careful handling of the swine flu pandemic.
    Oh, wait…

    • To say nothing of ebola. I was in Scotland in 1960 where an outbreak of foot and mouth was prevented from spreading by enforced quarentine. Now there are immune people who could be paid by aid agencies in the nursing needed for ebola and many people could be helped by a paid job and by help in home nursing and the food etc from the UN dropped off at homes to keep the people confined to home. Also having survived from ebola and knowing the language they bring HOPE. Survivors can also be paid to donate blood. That way the money goes to the poor directly. WHO has been a disaster so far. Where is Fred Hollows when we need him.

  10. Look, 250,000 people sounds like an awful lot, but that’s less than a thousand people a day, and around the world? The number of people who die every day is already up in the hundred thousands range when you consider the whole world.
    How many more people will die if McDonalds comes out with a tasty new high cholesterol menu item? Because no doubt some people will die because of it.
    I’m just saying, even if this was assumed to be correct, this is the noise level.

    • “Look, 250,000 people sounds like an awful lot, but that’s less than a thousand people a day, ”
      That 250,000 is over 20 years.
      So, 12,500 per year.
      So about 1,047 per month.
      So 35 per day.

  11. A main limitation of this assessment is the inability of current models to account for major pathways of potential health impact…

    Why oh why is a line like this ALWAYS somewhere in the rantings of the Climateers? Even if their video games of doom health models DID work, they are computer generated fantasy and NO ONE should be making any decisions based on their output. It’s not like these models are based on science, they are statistical grant generating engines, nothing more.

  12. For example, the Guardian reported here that dirty water kills 5,000 children a day in africa. Forget your paltry 250K a year, that’s almost two million kids. Would cheap energy not have a big impact on that problem?
    Get your priorities straight alarmists!

  13. According to the Guardian In 2009 Kofi Annan’s think tank said that climate change is already responsible for 300,000 deaths a year and is affecting 300m people. So the 250,000 deaths are on top of the 300,000? It’s could be worse than we thought!
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/29/1
    Others say 100 Million deaths by 2030
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/climate-change-deaths_n_1915365.html
    Some say climate change is killing 5 million people a year!
    http://mic.com/articles/21419/climate-change-kills-5-million-people-every-year
    As you can see these people are all talking out of their back sides. They pull facts right out of their arses and want more money. Garbage into their mouths, bullshit out.

  14. The IPCC is not the only UN agency scaremongering based on BS modelling
    The WHO is up to their eyeballs in the same .
    More Pathological Science. That another UN agency, the WHO (World Hysteria Organization?) is responsible for a lot of it should be a sobering wake up call for us all
    http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/19/peer-review-the-skeptic-filter/#comment-383149
    “Sometimes some of us think WHO stands for the ‘World Hysteria Organization,’” said Dr. Richard Schabas, who was Ontario’s chief medical officer of health from 1987 to 1997. “There seems to be a culture at WHO where they’ve convinced themselves that a pandemic is such an imminent danger that they overreact.”

  15. “the WHO study risks scaring people into taking ill-considered costly actions to limit greenhouse gases”
    that is the idea so the report ‘works’

  16. It’s just like the famous Mark Twain said, “The report of my death these future climate deaths was an exaggeration”.

  17. Yeah, but… “if shutting down the global economy by banning all fossil fuel use saves the life of just one child, it will be worth it.”
    Isn’t that the usual sales pitch? It makes shutting down the global economy to save 250,000 seem entirely reasonable.

  18. There is a fundamental problem with a paper that discusses increased deaths caused by global warming.
    Cold weather (aka Winter) kills many more people every year than warm weather. That is why there is a parameter called the Excess Winter Mortality Rate. This winter across Europe and Russia, Excess Winter Mortality will probably exceed 500,000 souls.
    Previously posted [excerpt]:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/21/will-green-politics-soon-be-a-thing-of-the-past/#comment-1796208
    This winter in the Northern Hemisphere is predicted to be quite cold in North America (Eastern and Central), Western Europe and very cold all across Russia, compared to seasonal norms.
    Energy costs in Europe are much more expensive than in North America, due to imbecilic European green energy policies to “fight global warming” and irrational green opposition to shale fracking. Many elderly and poor in Europe will not be able to keep warm this winter, due to the unnecessarily high cost of energy.
    I am concerned about a significant increase in excess winter mortality rates. Winter cold kills many more people than summer heat – typically about 15% more people die monthly in Europe during the four winter months than in the eight non-winter months. Excess Winter Mortality in Europe and Russia amounts to over 500,000 souls per year – these are real people, not just statistics.
    While other factors such as flu deaths contribute to Excess Winter Mortality rates, I suggest that the inability to heat their homes in winter due to high energy costs is a significant cause of death and illness, particularly among the elderly and the poor.
    I suggest we can thank the greens for causing widespread suffering and death among the elderly and poor. I further suggest that the greens should be held accountable as the consequences of their irresponsible conduct become fully apparent.
    Regards to all, Allan
    Excess Winter Mortality in Europe: a Cross Country Analysis Identifying Key Risk Factors
    http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/10/784.full
    Table 1 – Coefficient of seasonal variation in mortality (CSVM) in EU-14 (mean, 1988–97)
    CSVM 95% CI
    Austria 0.14 (0.12 to 0.16)
    Belgium 0.13 (0.09 to 0.17)
    Denmark 0.12 (0.10 to 0.14)
    Finland 0.10 (0.07 to 0.13)
    France 0.13 (0.11 to 0.15)
    Germany 0.11 (0.09 to 0.13)
    Greece 0.18 (0.15 to 0.21)
    Ireland 0.21 (0.18 to 0.24)
    Italy 0.16 (0.14 to 0.18)
    Luxembourg 0.12 (0.08 to 0.16)
    Netherlands 0.11 (0.09 to 0.13)
    Portugal 0.28 (0.25 to 0.31)
    Spain 0.21 (0.19 to 0.23)
    UK 0.18 (0.16 to 0.20)
    Mean 0.16 (0.14 to 0.18)

  19. WHO forgets about adaptation?
    Time for one of my favourite IPCC quotes.

    Differences in vulnerability and exposure arise from non-climatic factors and from multidimensional inequalities often produced by uneven development processes (very high confidence).
    These differences shape differential risks from climate change. See Figure SPM.1. People who are socially, economically, culturally, politically, institutionally, or otherwise marginalized are especially vulnerable to climate change and also to some adaptation and mitigation responses (medium evidence, high agreement).
    This heightened vulnerability is rarely due to a single cause. Rather, it is the product of intersecting social processes that result in inequalities in socioeconomic status and income, as well as in exposure. Such social processes include, for example, discrimination on the basis of gender, class, ethnicity, age, and (dis)ability.

    So mainstream science states clearly that poverty and injustice are a greater priority than climate change as the poor are especially vulnerable to “adaptation and mitigation responses”.
    But the WHO ignores mainstream science and just says they will die. They will if we listen to the WHO.

  20. Hmm my comment disappeared into the aether. [de-aetherized. ~mod.]
    It was just referring to page 7 of AR5 WG2 SPM.
    Basically, it showed that the policies of the WHO are expected to kill lots of people.
    Addressing poverty and injustice is expected to save those lives – but it seemed the WHO didn’t read the IPCC.
    By the way, quoting the IPCC on the Guardian is now considered to be denying the science.
    Let me quote this compliment I received on HotWhopper out of vanity (sorry dbstealey):

    MCourtney (who also denies science on The Guardian climate site) breathes the same toxic air as that desperately unattractive specimen, dbstealey, yet Courtney is unfailingly and insanely civil.
    At first I thought it might have been an act but it didn’t take too long to realise that Courtney is governed by a ridiculously resilient ridge of decency.

  21. When will WUWT get it?
    THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT EXAGGERATING. They are calling black white and up down. As to climate (temperature) change, there has been none for 14 years, which is an unusual situation. But both warming and carbon dioxide mean more Life, including more and healthier human life. They have succeeded in badly damaging the economy and promoting corn ethanol, which helped cause the “Arab Spring” food riots that killed 10s of thousands of people at a minimum. THEY ARE KILLERS.
    Dr. Goklani is one of my favorite heroes after watching him speak about human life versus extreme temperatures at a Heartland Climate Conference. He is old and his voice was shaky and I want him alive and energetic for the next 100 years. He is likely to read this comment and learn from a biologist that the first rejuvenations have already begun. This desire can happen.
    A couple decades ago, I looked at hundreds of people walking out of Wild Oats markets (now part of Whole Foods) versus regular grocery stores. I was interested in pot bellies, and there were about the same percentage either place, but there were far more super-fatties and super skinnies in the regular markets, not to mention oxygen tanks (in mile-high Denver, these are common) and people needing store help to get their grocery carts to their cars. The difference in posture and energy levels was unmistakable. I lost the data, so I could not publish it–but good science is repeatable. Look for yourself.
    That study could not tell me whether the Organic customers were really healthier from organic versus conventional carrots–or whether the Whole Foods customers were buying carrots, while the supers customers were buying cookies. But it DID show me that if you research and TRY to improve your physical well-being, you will succeed.

  22. It’s not the message, it’s how it’s delivered that matters these days. It could be rephrased as follows and have a totally different emphasis.
    The WHO estimates – Between 15 and 40 years from now deaths due to climate change would (could) increase by 0.4%.
    WHO Estimates of 15 – 40 years into the future combined with the certainty of WOULD doesn’t make any sense to me.

  23. The crude death rate is about 8 people per 1000, which given a population of 7Billion means about 56million per year or about 150,000 per day. Even if what they are claiming is true, and even if they could prove definitively that some deaths were caused by climate change, it is completely lost in the noise. Another piece of Hiroshima Bomb FUD. Bad WHO.

  24. WHO are into scare campaigns. I am old enough to remember when we were all going to die of HIV-AIDS.

  25. No question, climate change is a disaster for humanity. And it is certainly man-made (or Mann-made?)
    But it’s not the climate that’s the problem, in fact the mild 20th century warming has almost certainly been a great benefit. Far more people are killed by the cold than by warmth. And increased CO2 is making the world greener and more productive. History repeatedly shows that mankind prospers during the warm period. The periods between the last few warm periods were named the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age for good reason.
    The climate change catastrophe is purely man-made: the corruption of science, trillions of dollars squandered on things like wind farms that don’t work most of the time, pushing up the cost of energy that must have killed many old people who couldn’t afford their bills, the obscene switch from food production to biofuels, the increased destruction of forests again due to biofuels.
    It’s not just wrong, it’s criminal.
    Chris

  26. WHO’s estimates are indeed absurd, and of course they don’t include any positive impact of “climate change”. So far, almost 100% of the effect of climate change has been beneficial. As it has warmed and atmospheric CO_2 has increased:
    * Plant growth per annum (all other things being equal) has increased, by 10 to 15%. This alone is huge, with an enormous impact on both food supply and the ongoing competition between deforestation and reforestation.
    * Later frosts, earlier last frost, has increased the growing season in many areas by at least a few days. Again, significant positive impact on the food supply and general biosphere, although the impact on growing zones is far smaller than the media hype makes it out to be. First/last frost dates haven’t really changed much in NC over my lifetime or residence, and they are scattered all over the place and not systematically changing with time in any way that can easily be extracted from the data. In 2014, the “hottest year on record” in the making (really?) we’ve had some of the earliest significant snowfall (in October!) and temperatures in the teens (in November!) ever recorded in North Carolina, even though yesterday and today it is back to balmy perfect. Which is pretty normal, on the cooler side of things. But regardless, longer growing season is a net positive, not a net negative.
    * A shorter cold season also means less cold-weather-linked disease. Reducing e.g. the flu season by a single day would save an enormous number of lives, because flu can be 7 to 9% fatal and hundreds of thousands of cases are reported every year. It is one of the deadliest infectious diseases, and kills predominantly the very young or very old. With a season on the order of 100 days, every day it is shortened saves 1% of all of those lives, and a truly fabulous amount of money in lost work, human suffering and medical expense.
    * Cold weather is a direct threat to human life and kills a lot of people every year from pure exposure, especially the homeless and poor. It is true that peak hot weather is also a threat, but global warming so far has generally raised daily low temperatures but not significantly raised daily high temperatures, and it is the peaks either way that are dangerous, so thus far the balance is entirely positive, with fewer people that are dying because of any increase in summertime high temperatures (which pretty much isn’t happening) than are not dying because of slightly warmer wintertime low temperatures (which is happening).
    * It is a simple fact that so far, global warming has either left the frequency and strength of severe weather events alone (statistically this is pretty much the case) or perhaps reduced them — there are arguably fewer, weaker, severe weather events. This actually makes physical sense, and even James Hansen pointed this out in one of his many propaganda appearances, although he somehow made it sound like a bad thing. Storms are driven by temperature differences, not absolute temperature, and warming the poles while holding the equator nearly constant should reduce the violence and frequency of storms, not increase it. It’s basic physics. There is weak evidence that this is actually occurring, but of course the WHO report is going to be based on the exact opposite.
    There is not one single death that can be directly attributed to global warming/climate change as a proximate cause. The reason for this is simple — if one plots the daily temperature minimax (range) and average as a function of annual time and then displays the expected shift from global warming on it, the shift is utterly lost in the normal noise of extremes around the mean. Trying to detect a shift in mortality from some sort of “warming signal” buried under the normal climate noise is utterly impossible — it becomes a matter of trying to guess the impact of things like reducing flu season, subject to a small pile of Bayesian priors with pretty much arbitrary probabilities assigned to them on the basis of the projections of computational models that suck at describing the actual progress of the climate so far and which hence should have little confidence attached to them.
    This process is not helped if the authors of a study ignore positive outcomes and concentrate solely on negative ones. The only thing one can say when one reads such a study is to utter “statistical bullshit” loudly or under your breath as circumstances and location dictate, crumple it up, and pitch it into the trash.
    rgb

  27. Hydro Nano Gas could be the Answer for Neutralizing Carbon Fuel Emissions
    Hydro Infra Technologies (HIT), a Swedish clean tech company based in Stockholm, has developed an innovative patent pending approach for neutralizing carbon fuel emissions by generating a novel gas called Hydro Nano Gas (HNG).
    In spite of all the advancement happening in the energy sector, global economies are still dependent on fossil fuels as the interlinked chain of costs to completely replace the burning of fossil fuels with more clean and sustainable options is beyond the financial resources of even the richest nations.
    This in turn effects the climate change scenario which has been continuously increasing as more pollution and green house gases are created from burning fossil fuels on a daily basis.
    This dilemma requires a new approach with safe, cost effective and smart solutions; the solution in sight? Making any fossil fuel climate neutral – and this is exactly what HIT’s Hydro Nano Gas proposes to do.
    Water contains 2 basic elements, Hydrogen and Oxygen. These 2 basic elements can be split, divided and utilized. Splitting water (H2O) is a known science. But the energy costs to perform splitting outweigh the energy created from hydrogen when the Hydrogen is split from the water molecule H2O. This is where mainstream science usually closes the book on the subject.
    HIT took a different approach by postulating that it was not only possible but indefinitely sustainable to split water in an energy efficient way to extract a high yield of Hydrogen at very low cost.
    The process of creating HNG involves pulsing an range of low energy frequencies in a very specific sequence into water. The pulsing treatment effectively manipulates the molecules to line up in a certain structure which are then put through a splitting process. The result is HNG.
    Being exotic as it is, HNG displays some very different properties from normal hydrogen. For instance: HNG instantly neutralizes carbon fuel pollution emissions; HNG can be pressurized up to 2 bars; HNG combusts at a rate of 9000 meters per second while normal Hydrogen combusts at a rate 600 meters per second; oxygen values actually increase when HNG is inserted into a diesel flame; and finally, HNG acts like a vortex on fossil fuel emissions causing the flame to be pulled into the centre thus concentrating the heat and combustion properties.
    Injecting HNG into a combustion chamber produces several effects that increase the burn efficiency of the fuels. HNG gasification effectively burns unburned residue/cluster while completing the burn process quicker. The long term impact of using HNG in the burning of fossil fuels can provide the balanced solution for the on going economic-climate change debate.
    The new technology is also found to be effective in the treatment of polluted water; when HNG Nano bubbles are injected into polluted water, a microbe chain reaction is initiated that rapidly triggers and boosts the waters’ own organic repairing process. While further testing and validation are required, the discovery creates new potential in providing solutions to critical areas of global pollution.
    HIT is also developing a Smoke Eliminator for all sorts of plants and facilities. The process reduces the need for smoke analysis as it results in a clean wet scrubber technology where CO2 becomes a clean by-product ready to be reused.
    Further, a miniaturized version of the standard HNG reactor will help HIT achieve its goal of gassing 9,000 cubic meters of smoke volume per second. Using Nano technology, the reactor will see the beginning of a new technology phase for each HNG application, reports HIT.
    The HIT innovation story begins in the 1980’s when a small team of dedicated technicians, researchers and engineers came together to innovate real world solutions based on the theoretical research conducted by Nobel prize winner Professor Yuan Tse Lee. The goal was clear – to ‘crack’ the Hydrogen code.
    In late 2012, after years of on / off research and experimentation, they finally cracked the code and HNG was born.
    HIT was formed to spread their discoveries to the world as Information Technology via joint venture partners.
    HIT has also selected SGS – the worlds leading testing/validation and certification company – to be its’ permanent testing-validation protocol partner, providing certification that enables HIT to expand into global markets.
    Read more about HIT: http://www.hydroinfra.com

Comments are closed.