Remember those claims of 'global warming will increase dengue fever risks'? Never mind…

From AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY and the National Geographic, wrong again department comes this bit of good news.

Warmer climate could lower dengue risk

This image shows one of the mosquitoes (Ae. aegypti) that carries dengue and Zika viruses. CREDIT Oregon State University on Flickr.
This image shows one of the mosquitoes (Ae. aegypti) that carries dengue and Zika viruses. CREDIT Oregon State University on Flickr.

Health researchers predict that the transmission of dengue could decrease in a future warmer climate, countering previous projections that climate change would cause the potentially lethal virus to spread more easily.

Hundreds of millions of people are infected with dengue each year, with some children dying in severe cases, and this research helps to address this significant global health problem.

Co-lead researcher Associate Professor David Harley from The Australian National University (ANU) said that dengue risk might decrease in the wet tropics of northeast Australia under a high-emissions scenario in 2050, due to mosquito breeding sites becoming drier and less favourable to their survival.

“While climate change generally poses a major threat to humanity, it also may reduce the incidence of dengue in some areas,” said Dr Harley, an epidemiology researcher at the ANU Research School of Population Health.

The findings are also relevant to other mosquito-borne viruses including Zika because the mosquitoes that carry dengue also transmit the Zika virus.

“There is significant concern in countries on the margin of the tropical areas where dengue is mainly found, that with global warming dengue and other mosquito-borne viruses such as Zika will encroach and become common,” Dr Harley said.

“Previous projections have suggested that climate change will increase transmission of mosquito-borne diseases globally.

“Our work, using a mathematical model based on Queensland conditions, suggests that dengue transmission might decrease with greater warming.”

Dr Harley said the research findings did not suggest authorities could be complacent about climate change’s effect on people’s health.

“Generally, health and other impacts of climate warming will be negative in Australia and elsewhere in the world,” he said.

“While we could see some reduction in dengue in Far North Queensland in a future warmer climate, the disease is widespread elsewhere in the world where outcomes would be different.”


This study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and involved ANU, University of South Australia, James Cook University and Australian Red Cross Blood Service.

It is published in the latest issue of Epidemiology and Infection:

Of course, it’s all just a model output, like so many of the early claims that were opposite, so who knows what will really happen?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pa Greer
August 10, 2016 11:36 am

Wait a minute. Don’t areas like “wet tropics” typically get wetter when they get warmer?

michael hart
Reply to  Pa Greer
August 10, 2016 11:57 am

For crying out loud, don’t ask them to try and be self-consistent.

Reply to  michael hart
August 10, 2016 1:20 pm

They do tend to be all wet in anything they say though. Personally, that leaves me a bit cold.

David Smith
Reply to  Pa Greer
August 10, 2016 12:09 pm

Areas always get whatever is worse. If wetter is worse it gets that; if drier is worse it gets that; warmer is worse; colder is worse and so on.
Clearly ANU has failed to frame this as something worse. It is obviously worse for the mosquitos so we must all rally around the plight of the poor mosquitos. I am sure, somewhere, someone is sticking themselves with pins out of sympathy for the poor theoretically absent mosquitos.

John M. Ware
Reply to  David Smith
August 10, 2016 5:58 pm

Let us be glad that this publication did not originate at the Australian National University-South, or ANUS. That might have made it easier to justify the weasel-words.

Reply to  Pa Greer
August 10, 2016 3:52 pm

Yes, but predicting wetter conditions in dry Australia might make global warming seem a good idea 🙂

Pat Kelly
Reply to  Pa Greer
August 10, 2016 4:55 pm

Actually, the alarmists have been saying that our globally warmed lands would be turned into a parched desert. Desert = no standing water = no mosquitos… Ipso facto.

August 10, 2016 11:41 am

Never mind dengue, I’m surprised that Zika mosquitoes are not yet blamed on the CAGW.

Reply to  vukcevic
August 10, 2016 11:48 am

Guess my comment showing the claims had too many links, so will take a while to appear.

Reply to  vukcevic
August 10, 2016 12:00 pm

They’ll get around to it, someday. They were too busy discovering a catastrophic rise in sea level from 25 years ago. I sleep better at night just knowing these dedicated people are working on these major problems. ( do I have to add sarc here)

August 10, 2016 11:58 am

I really think this important issue needs more $tudy.

August 10, 2016 12:00 pm

Some folks have claimed that malaria will return to the UK because of global warming. However,

The history of the disease in England underscores the role of factors other than temperature in malaria transmission. link

Factors other than temperature determine the spread of mosquito borne diseases. Period. Give the alarmists a Valium.

Svend Ferdinandsen
Reply to  commieBob
August 10, 2016 12:44 pm

But what then about climate change! Temperature alone is so old school.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  commieBob
August 10, 2016 1:46 pm

no swampy and stagnant waters certainly helps

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
August 11, 2016 7:18 am

England has drained untold scores of swamps. That is likely the reason malaria left.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  commieBob
August 10, 2016 2:52 pm

There is no such thing as a tropical disease. Malaria is a good example.
Malaria is a disease of poor drainage and and poor insect control. It was pandemic in Russia in the 19th Century. In that Century it was pandemic in Italy, even though it was not a problem during the Roman Empire. The Romans were wizard hydraulic engineers and drained the malaria swamps (what we now call “ecologically important wetlands”). Daisy Miller the eponymous subject of Henry James, 1879 novel, dies from malaria caught on a moonlight walk through the ruins of the Roman Colosseum.
Malaria remains a pandemic in Africa because of poverty and poor government, and because Western “Environmentalists” succeeded in banning DDT. Yet more proof that “environmentalism” is the last socially acceptable form of racism.
Other so called tropical diseases are in the same class as malaria, their vectors persist because of poverty and bad government.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
August 11, 2016 7:22 am

Well, places like Florida are susceptible to zika because they are just one big swamp. If you tried to drain the swamps in Florida, I’m sure it would just sink into the ocean.

August 10, 2016 12:01 pm

From the internet I understand that Costa Rica is malaria free but has risk of dengue and zika.
If they can control the mossie that spreads malaria, I would think that they can control the mossie that spreads the other two.
I fail to see what this has to do with temperature. Mossies live in all climates.

george e. smith
Reply to  Oldseadog
August 10, 2016 1:06 pm

I would like to spend a winter relaxing with the Russkies at Vostok Base, far from the bustle of Si Valley.
But I’m afraid of catching Antarctic Whirling Fever.
They need to spray the standing water holes there before I would take a chance on going there.

Reply to  george e. smith
August 11, 2016 7:55 am

Cold marshes are a thing.
If anything, I’d say a cold climate makes it easier for the ‘skeeters to find you. They’re drawn to heat sources and your nice warm blood-filled body would stick out like a boiled lobster.

Ross King
August 10, 2016 12:02 pm

And the answer in general is: “What do you want to hear?”
I was *shocked* many years ago when I consulted a Consultant Hydrologist about a river flood-plain management issue in an urban envt. I said: “Obviously, there’s a Solution A or a Solution B, mutually exclusive. What is your Professional Opinion on the relative merits? His answer? “What do *you* want me to say?” Now, I was completely neutral, but I had to make a civic presentation in which I wanted his Professional Opinion to stand as the Objective Optimum. He couldn’t get his head round this ‘obstacle’: “I can prove this either way — just tell me which way, for Chrissakes!” It was an impasse.
this was circa 1987. I am ‘Old School’ and there used to be — remember? — the Principle of Intellectual Honesty. In an essay, to argue the merits as well as the dismerits of both propositions.
So now, perception is all, and the best propagandist wins. And “Follow the money!”
Since Society has obviously moved-on (backwards towards the Unenlightenment?), maybe I should not be surprised at today’s ‘anything goes’ shenanigans in the AGW field when it comes to the antediluvian(?) principles of Objectivity, Intellectual Honesty (and the concomitant ability to say “I retract — I was wrong” and be proud of it), Scientific Integrity (including adherence to the time-honoured principles of the Scientific Method & the pursuit of the Ultimate Truth). And — yes! — personal integrity at the end of the day, when all you have is your reputation.
The tombstones of many of the Alarmist Spin-Meisters will not make for pretty reading … one can only hope that their Hell is being condemned to re-reading it 24/7/52. “I sold my soul to the Devil.”

Reply to  Ross King
August 10, 2016 12:19 pm

The new Era of Unenlightenment. Climate science is leading the way.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  rishrac
August 11, 2016 3:23 am

If there are already thoroughly prepared and tested concepts there’s no need for asking A or B.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Ross King
August 11, 2016 3:07 am

What did you want him to say? New or used car? Rent, buy, leasing. Small or flat slicks. Crossroads or fast lane.
The decisions pyramid
_________________2 2
_______________2 2 2 2
_____________2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

August 10, 2016 12:09 pm

But even though our findings indicate the spread of disease would decrease in a warming world, something else bad has gotta happen … we just feel it in our hearts.

Bruce Cobb
August 10, 2016 12:17 pm

Wow, in the pile of garbage they call “climate change”, they actually found an edible corn kernel.
Sound the trumpets.

August 10, 2016 12:25 pm

I suppose global warming will be blamed when federal agencies drag their feet in the deployment of this new technology to block Dengue transmission and other viruses in the gut of the mosquito using bacteria.

Mike Maguire
August 10, 2016 12:53 pm

It’s all starts with their assumptions based on climate model projections. If climate models have skill forecasting regional climate(and weather) to the year 2050, then this study has potentially useful information. This is what becomes misleading at times.
Projecting what might happen “IF” conditions(regional climate) were to follow a certain path stating that uncertainty clarifies it. However, starting with the assumption that conditions “WILL” follow a certain path(regional climate in 2050 based on model projections) starts off with a “known” factor that is actually unknown and just theorized.
It’s still good information if applying it to the case of models having reasonable skill at forecasting regional weather/climate.
No need to poll readers on this skeptical site on that issue, so on this site, one assumes that this study has less value.

August 10, 2016 12:55 pm

when you are up to your ass in environmentalists it’s hard to remember your intention was to drain the swamp!
[In today’s world, the enviromentals are hugging the trees, kissing the alligators, saving the mosquitoes, importing new crocodiles (that were not there before you began digging), and draining oil from your bulldozers. .mod]

Alan Robertson
August 10, 2016 1:17 pm

If the dengue don’t getcha then the Zika will.

Myron Mesecke
August 10, 2016 1:25 pm

“While climate change generally poses a major threat to humanity, it also may reduce the incidence of dengue in some areas,”
Waiting on proof of this so called major threat.

John in Oz
Reply to  Myron Mesecke
August 10, 2016 9:28 pm

This comment stood out for me as well.
Should someone tell the many people who retire from the Southern States to more tropical Qld that they are putting themselves in danger due to the ‘major threat(s) to humanity’ that must exist in this warmer climate?

William R
Reply to  Myron Mesecke
August 11, 2016 9:56 am

That’s just so he can retain good standing in the clan, so that future grant money is not jeopardized.

August 10, 2016 1:41 pm

northeast Australia = tropical
What happened to climate change will have the least effect on the tropics?

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
August 10, 2016 1:42 pm

Summary from the abstract:

Dengue is the world’s most prevalent mosquito-borne disease, with more than 200 million people each year becoming infected. We used a mechanistic virus transmission model to determine whether climate warming would change dengue transmission in Australia. Using two climate models each with two carbon emission scenarios, we calculated future dengue epidemic potential for the period 2046–2064. Using the ECHAM5 model, decreased dengue transmission was predicted under the A2 carbon emission scenario, whereas some increases are likely under the B1 scenario. Dengue epidemic potential may decrease under climate warming due to mosquito breeding sites becoming drier and mosquito survivorship declining. These results contradict most previous studies that use correlative models to show increased dengue transmission under climate warming. Dengue epidemiology is determined by a complex interplay between climatic, human host, and pathogen factors. It is therefore naive to assume a simple relationship between climate and incidence, and incorrect to state that climate warming will uniformly increase dengue transmission, although in general the health impacts of climate change will be negative.

(emphasis added).
Summary for the layman:
1) We didn’t actually count any mosquitos.
2) We used models to make predictions about mosquito populations starting 30 years from now.
3) No matter how we tortured the models the output still predicted lower mosquito populations
4) But we’re certain climate change will have negative health impacts anyway
“And that’s the way it is. Good night”.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
August 10, 2016 4:45 pm

3) No matter how we tortured the models the output still predicted lower mosquito populations in Australia only.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Seth
August 11, 2016 4:14 am

Set /sɛt/ or Seth (/sɛθ/; also spelled Setesh, Sutekh, Setekh, or Suty) is a god of the desert, storms, disorder, violence and foreigners in ancient Egyptian religion.
You’ve already established findings about the sequential in Egypt.

Tom Halla
August 10, 2016 1:44 pm

The models they use seem to connect drought with warming, not the reverse. GIGO 🙂

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 10, 2016 6:18 pm

Do you remember about 4 years ago? The rage among CAGW people was the ” worst drought on record” in the American West. Daily reports of how bad it was. It’s amazing how fast it disappeared from the conversation. The fact is that the American West is a semi arid area and drought will be back. Even in a state like NJ that has ample rainfall, there are times that there are droughts. When I was a kid, we walked across the Delaware River at Trenton in 1963. It was a small trickle . I can’t imagine if another event like that were to happened what would be said. Or even happen, so many people depend on that River. The last numbers I saw for the Delaware River Valley was about 18 million people.
I’m putting that out there because it will happen again.

Mark - Helsinki
August 10, 2016 1:48 pm

Some think the Zika came from the GM mosquitoes released in South America.
You can buy Zika freeze dried $599 from ATCC 😀

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
August 10, 2016 2:36 pm

Only if you have an established purchase certificate at ATCC.
Easier just to fly to PR and spend a week sleeping sans clothes in the jungle. When the fever sets in, use your phlebotomy skills to draw some blood to vacutainers. Spin the blood down, draw off the plasma, 10 mL per epitube.
Viola, Live Virus infected plasma, probably will keep at 4C for a week in fridge with about a 1 log10 drop in titer.
Now you’ll have to do an ELISA to confirm DENV or ZIKV and titer, but at the current transmission rates in PR, its most likely ZIKV.

August 10, 2016 1:55 pm

I don’t know how you fight a disease…when you can’t even talk honestly about it
There is zika in Miami now…in a neighborhood they are calling Wynwood in the news. We had to look it up because no one had every heard of that neighborhood.
All of our lives it’s been “Little Haiti”….even though that’s a nationality…..the PC press must have decided it’s racist…
They travel back and forth all the time…flights are cheap, fast, and easy

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Latitude
August 10, 2016 5:32 pm

Eh, according to the 2000 census, Little Haiti is 65% black and 15% Hispanic or Latino. Wynwood is south of Little Haiti, 59% Hispanic or Latino, and 18% black. Supposedly used to be known as “Little San Juan” and “El Barrio.” Wynwood had a higher non-Hispanic white population in 2000 than black. Doesn’t sound very Haitian. Seems like a distinct difference between the two neighborhoods in 2000 and much more different now. If you want to be really technical, Wynwood is separated from Little Haiti/Lemon City by the neighborhoods of Buena Vista and the Design District (which used to be part of Buena Vista).

Curious George
August 10, 2016 4:23 pm

As usual, pompous fools are babbling about things they don’t understand. Sometimes they get too transparent.

August 10, 2016 7:03 pm

“While climate change generally poses a major threat to humanity, it also may reduce the incidence of dengue in some areas,” said Dr Harley, an epidemiology researcher at the ANU Research School of Population Health.

Notice the difference between the two parts of this sentence?
Part 2: “climate change … may reduce the incidence of dengue in some areas.” This is a factual result from this researcher’s work.
Part 1: “climate change generally poses a major threat to humanity.” This is a descriptive and subjective evaluation of research into the entirety of climate change consequences. Two points: (1) This researcher is not an expert in all those other areas that fed into this summary; and (2) his own work in his specialist field contradicts this evaluation.
How many times do we see this? “Overall the results will be TERRIBLE but in my little corner things are either good or not so bad.” The scare is entirely flim-flam. Every little individual bit is disproven but all these researchers continue to believe because they think their corner is the exception. And the entire thing is made up of exceptions. Not one part of the overall “IT’S TERRIBLE!!!” assessment is ever proven.

August 10, 2016 7:12 pm

So we’re doomed from Zika instead of dengue. Meh. We’re doomed anyway.

August 10, 2016 7:13 pm

IPCC’s 2013 AR5 Report (Chapter 2, pages 165~285) admits NO evidence of global severe weather trends for the past 60~100 years for: hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, droughts, floods, tornadoes, thunderstorms, tropical storms, subtropical storms, hail, etc…
CAGW is starting to implode with NONE of their dire climatic predictions coming even CLOSE to reflecting reality…
Why is a hypothesis so devoid of reality still be taken seriously???
A rhetorical question… The answer is very simple: government and grant-grubbing “scientists'” insatiable and craven desire for more money, power and control.

Reply to  SAMURAI
August 11, 2016 7:13 am

….and about to be re-elected power and control

August 11, 2016 2:37 am

When Al Gore came to Australia we were warned that the North would get drier and our dams would not fill and the water from rain would evaporate on the ground and not run off.
Tough on mozzies.
So they must still be using that model.
Pity the climate is wetter and our dams are full.
At least the federal government is funding the CSIRO to produce predictive climate models out to 10 years.
I hope they choose Australian continental climate, publish the algorithms, data input, results and compare them to the predictions and the actual climate.
If they don’t it will be another $36 down the gurgler.

Jeff in Calgary
August 11, 2016 7:14 am

Why do they always assume warmer = drier? 70%(?) of earth is covered by water. I believe warmer = wetter!

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
August 11, 2016 8:18 am

Jeff in Calgary

Why do they always assume warmer = drier? 70%(?) of earth is covered by water. I believe warmer = wetter!

It is a mental image carefully cultivated by the simple-projections and simplified Mercator image of “their world” they got back in elementary school.
“Warmer” is associated with the Sahara Desert.
… Therefore a hotter world will resemble the Sahara Desert … in the UK. New York, and north Europe.
Today’s world has mosquitoes in jungle Africa.
… So a hotter world will have disease-bearing mosquitoes in North America, in Siberia, in Scotland, in New York. (Never mind the thousands lost to mosquito-carried diseases in upstate NY while digging the Eire Canal, the millions killed in Siberia and St Petersburg by Russia slave-masters, the hundreds of thousands lost in France, England, Scotland, and Sweden ….)
Today’s world has hurricanes in the “hotter Caribbean,
… So a hotter world will have more hurricanes hitting North America (New York City = North America in a liberal’s mind!) and hitting London and flooding Paris.
Today’s world has beaches where (gasp!) the water hits the land.
… So ANY sea level rise WILL submerge entire cities and all of the islands and half of Florida all islands across the Pacific.
Forget logic and mathematics. You are fighting their second-grade mental images of disaster.

Matt Bergin
August 11, 2016 10:41 am

Funny we are being told that Zika is going to infect us all and we should be very afraid but they neglect to inform us of what this infection is supposed to do. My research shows that it is not much of a threat since most people won’t even notice the symptoms. There was some vague link to baby’s with small heads but overall this seems to be the same bogus crap like the failed H1N1 scare a few years ago. Why do most people keep falling for this crap

Brian H
August 13, 2016 2:09 am

Generally, health and other impacts of climate warming will be positive in Australia and elsewhere in the world.
There FIFY.

August 15, 2016 5:22 am

Misleading headline. Anthropogenic climate change deniers fail yet again.
[??? .mod]

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights