Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A new study published by the US National Bureau of Economic Research claims that every day over 80F per year dramatically reduces your chances of getting lucky.
According to the NBER;
Maybe Next Month? Temperature Shocks, Climate Change, and Dynamic Adjustments in Birth Rates
Alan Barreca, Olivier Deschenes, Melanie Guldi
NBER Working Paper No. 21681
Issued in October 2015
Dynamic adjustments could be a useful strategy for mitigating the costs of acute environmental shocks when timing is not a strictly binding constraint. To investigate whether such adjustments could apply to fertility, we estimate the effects of temperature shocks on birth rates in the United States between 1931 and 2010. Our innovative approach allows for presumably random variation in the distribution of daily temperatures to affect birth rates up to 24 months into the future. We find that additional days above 80 °F cause a large decline in birth rates approximately 8 to 10 months later. The initial decline is followed by a partial rebound in births over the next few months implying that populations can mitigate the fertility cost of temperature shocks by shifting conception month. This dynamic adjustment helps explain the observed decline in birth rates during the spring and subsequent increase during the summer. The lack of a full rebound suggests that increased temperatures due to climate change may reduce population growth rates in the coming century. As an added cost, climate change will shift even more births to the summer months when third trimester exposure to dangerously high temperatures increases. Based on our analysis of historical changes in the temperature-fertility relationship, we conclude air conditioning could be used to substantially offset the fertility costs of climate change.
Read more: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21681
The press release in Reuters;
Control over the climate at home might make a difference. The researchers suggest that the rise of air conditioning may have helped offset some heat-related fertility losses in the U.S. since the 1970s.
The paper’s title is about as lascivious as the National Bureau of Economic Research gets: “Maybe Next Month? Temperature Shocks, Climate Change, and Dynamic Adjustments in Birth Rates.” The researchers assume that climate change will proceed according to the most severe scenarios, with no substantial efforts to reduce emissions. The scenario they use projects that from 2070 to 2099, the U.S. may have 64 more days above 80F than in the baseline period from 1990 to 2002, which had 31. The result? The U.S. may see a 2.6 percent decline in its birth rate, or 107,000 fewer deliveries a year.
Just when you thought climate change policy couldn’t get any less sexy (PDF).
The main paper is paywalled, but it seems bizarre to conclude that high temperatures reduce libido and birth rates, given that the highest birth rates in the world are mostly found in tropical countries. I can believe that an abrupt transition from cold to warm weather has an impact, warm weather can knock you about until you acclimatise – but to try to infer an absolute temperature scale from seasonal variations seems a bit of a stretch.
negative feedback
But…As the doomsters want to reduce the world population, isn’t it a win/win for their predictions?
Quick, tell Paul Ehrlich and the other anti-population folks!
Of course. This is precisely why tropical nations have such low birth rates compared to temperate climate nations. Wait a minute…
Is that why the birth rate in Third World African countries is so high?
Margaret Stanger and Prescott Bush would both be warmers
Let’s see, both my kids were born in April. April – 9 = JULY !!! (for you Oz’ies, I live in the NH). Looks like my wife didn’t get the memo.
Hmmm.
In 1960 the pill was approved by the FDA for contraception (against conception). That is about the same time as Michael Mann’s hockey stick was apparently in full force.
Fake warming superimposed on fake hormones, with the reality of reduced birth rates among westerners, then the correlation is quite easily misrepresented as causation.
Sounds to me like the modern idea of science. BS piled on politics with the lure of money and depravity.
Aren’t we such advanced and objective creatures? Yes, we are gods aren’t we.
Thus spoke Zarathustra.
Birth rates have a lot to do with finances, the more money=fewer children except with Saudi royals.
Sorry, I can’t read the rest now. I have a headache.
Fertility per woman is mostly income based — the higher the income, the fewer the children.
http://www.gapminder.org/news/children-per-women-since-1800-in-gapminder-world/
Play with the graph. Fun and educational.
The article claims that temperature spikes cause a drop in birth rate, therefore if temperatures go up permanently, birth rates will also drop.
Even a warmist should be able to spot the problem. People react differently to short term changes compared to more permanent changes.
Now, whenever I read an article in the news that says “scientists have proven…”, “a new study shows…”, “research indicates…”, I roll my eyes and wonder how facts, data, and research have been twisted and contorted to support some predetermined end. While I understand that anecdotal observations cannot replace actual science, on the face of it, given the birth rates and populations in tropical climes versus colder ones, one really has to question this kind of pop science/research.
Do these “scientists” ever go out into the real world ??? All the hottest places on the Earth have OVERPOPULATION problems due to high birth rates !!!! Fracking nuts !!!
It is quite incredible that Alan Barreca, Olivier Deschenes, and Melanie Guldi would put their names to this tripe. It would take a matter of 15 seconds to look at the Wiki entry on fertility rates as I did to see that if there is any correlation, let alone causation, it is higher birth rates with higher temperatures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate
Give them a dustpan and brush each and put them to something useful.
Hmmm, at least in the US, the most popular birthdate is Oct 5th. Guess what was 40’ish weeks before that? New Years.
If one were to take this paper to it logical but absurd conclusion, that would have to be the cold day of the year, rather than the largest party day.
so with the worlds population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, must be cooler than we thought.
Wee p-values! Where are the Wee p-values? I am so disappointed, They do not show their Wee p-values. They found out so many new things, they must be sure! Or at least 95% sure.
They also did not make any sense at all in that blockquote.
I am going to have to do my own research on this. I will need multiple ‘research’ assistants as soon as possible. I don’t have any particular preference between blonde, brunette or redhead.
Results should be available within a year or so, depending on my survival. 😉
So birth rates have been plummeting since 1970.
CO2 concentration has been increasing since 1970.
The causation is dead certain- CO2 emissions reduce birth rates.
Extrapolation predicts that CO2 of 450 ppm will cause birth rates to go to zero.
Can’t our government find a better way to spend our tax dollars? Better yet reduce spending!!
It seems as though any fool can get government funding if he links his stupid theory to global warming.
Our government is void of common sense.
Hey, when you are hot and sweaty already, what’s to stop them from having some fun? It’s getting hot and sweaty when they spend most of their time not hot and sweaty that puts many women off getting intimate.
This reminds me of a poem a friend used to say…something about “When the frost is on the Pumpkin”…!
I suspect that this is a study of correlation, not of causation. Correlations show up between the most unexpected pairs of things but they certainly do not imply direct causation. In this case, it might suggest that a medical study to find a possible causation chain such as reduced fertility in at least one of the sexes that could be caused by the hot days would be of interest. This correlation might have a correlation chain through behavioral patterns. This does not necessarily imply causation. For example, wet or icy roads have a correlation with vehicle “accidents”, but they do not cause them. They do offer expanded opportunities for people to cause vehicle “accidents” through unsafe driving. My opinion that this example is primarily behavioral is bolstered by my observational experience is that the more capable vehicles (for example 4 wheel drive vehicles–especially shiny ones with lots of chrome, big bumpers, and a winch) seem to be involved in a higher percentage of slick road “accidents” than dry clean road “accidents”.
Of course, as has been pointed out before at this web site, not all correlations have any direct (or even indirect) relationship with each other. For example, the older I get, the more intrusive government gets. Also, the older I get the larger our population gets. The population and intrusiveness may have a very definite relationship, but their relation to my age is sheer chance.
This claim actually has a basis in biology, however weak it might be. Overheating of the testicles is a well-known cause of temporary male infertility.
http://www.dontcookyourballs.com/causes-infertility-heat-and-male-fertility
There might also be physical exhaustion preventing intercouse in extreme conditions but that is unlikely due to cooling off and resting during night hours and the peaking of testosterone in the hours following sleep.