Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A new study claims a warmer climate is associated with higher rates of diabetes. But even if the authors are right, obesity, diet, age and heredity remain the dominant factors.
Diabetes incidence and glucose intolerance prevalence increase with higher outdoor temperature
Lisanne L Blauw, N Ahmad Aziz, Martijn R Tannemaat, C Alexander Blauw, Anton J de Craen, Hanno Pij, Patrick C N Rensen
Abstract
Objective Rising global temperatures might contribute to the current worldwide diabetes epidemic, as higher ambient temperature can negatively impact glucose metabolism via a reduction in brown adipose tissue activity. Therefore, we examined the association between outdoor temperature and diabetes incidence in the USA as well as the prevalence of glucose intolerance worldwide.
Research design and methods Using meta-regression, we determined the association between mean annual temperature and diabetes incidence during 1996–2009 for each US state separately. Subsequently, results were pooled in a meta-analysis. On a global scale, we performed a meta-regression analysis to assess the association between mean annual temperature and the prevalence of glucose intolerance.
Results We demonstrated that, on average, per 1°C increase in temperature, age-adjusted diabetes incidence increased with 0.314 (95% CI 0.194 to 0.434) per 1000. Similarly, the worldwide prevalence of glucose intolerance increased by 0.170% (95% CI 0.107% to 0.234%) per 1°C rise in temperature. These associations persisted after adjustment for obesity.
Conclusions Our findings indicate that the diabetes incidence rate in the USA and prevalence of glucose intolerance worldwide increase with higher outdoor temperature.
…
Read more: http://drc.bmj.com/content/5/1/e000317
The data seems quite noisy. For example, consider the following graph (Table 1 in the study) of diabetes incidence vs change in temperature.
The state of South Carolina (average annual temperature 63F) shows a strong correlation between diabetes and temperature, but the state of Louisiana (average annual temperature 69F) shows a strong negative correlation. Arizona (average annual temperature 75F) also shows a negative correlation.
In addition, the impact of the factors the study attempted to adjust for is likely significantly larger than the impact demonstrated by the study.
For example, the following, from a 2007 study of body mass index vs diabetes, shows a strong relationship between body mass and diabetes, ranging from below 5% for skinny people to around 25% for very fat people – a far more pronounced effect than the small difference claimed by the climate study above.
Note the substantial disagreement between the two studies in the graph above, of the impact of obesity on diabetes rate.
I’m not saying the authors are necessarily wrong, they appear to have made a credible attempt to tease out a small effect from a noisy data set. But even if they are right, factors other than temperature are far more significant predictors of whether someone is likely to suffer from diabetes.
Climate definitely is the cause of bathtub rings, ring around the collar, and the heartbreak of psoriasis, among other things. Science.
A couple of years ago I made the politically incorrect observation that climate science was a manly pursuit (humanities bandwagoneers don’t count because they are dominantly women anyway, which tends to make my upcoming point). Of course, always a few exceptions. But since climategate, the numbers of female graduate students putting out puffy papers in this science has been growing rapidly as the output from the team has dropped off steeply (fear of Steve McIntyre? No longer able to work in the dark?). This paper is another slack-brained example.
I had a certified genius of a sister and a very smart mother so I didn’t get a chauvinist start that was the norm over 3/4 of a century ago. My early observation of the change in gender of climate science was actually a tongue in cheek piece, but the evidence of the change has gotten too obvious to ignore. Okay, so I think women are as smart as men, but it raises the old question long buried (shallowly perhaps) about women being too nurturing and emtional to be in politics and other once manly pursuits. One line of evidence supporting this is the recent advent of climate depression neurosis caused by the pause. Most of these appear to have been female victims.
By the time the US election was underway, I noted that HC, outside of constantly smearing Trump as a misogynist and noncaring selfish brute, was pushing the nurturing caring stuff- she was ‘for the children, refugees blah blah’ type of thing and the percentage of women that went for this was high compared to that of men.
Now, I recognize there were Golda Meier, Thatcher, Z. Bhutto, Maria Curie, Indira Gandhi, Judith Curry (a hero of mine) and many others but my science on this is definitely stronger than climate science itself. I believe the strides made by women are colossal, but the need is for more confidence so they can let go of the nurture anchor and forget about glass ceilings, what men do or don’t, etc.
Diabetes must have been really high in the 1930s when it was especially hot in the US, because more states set their (still) record high temperatures in that decade than in any other decade (even with all the “adjustments” making the 1930’s cooler).
The US data is highly suspect for any link to temperature to diabetes risk.
As the pristine USCRN data shows, there has been no warming on average in the USA in the past 10 years.
So, the diabetes increase is from some different cause.
I guess that when they say “diabetes” they mean type II diabetes mellitus, and not the early onset type I diabetes mellitus which is a autoimmune disease. It is not diabetes insipidus either, where the problem is with the hormone vasopressin.
If this is a scientific paper, they should have used the proper nomenclature. Is this paper supposed to be peer reviewed? It seems that nobody reviews articles any more.
Diabetes started increasing long before the temperatures. Therefore diabetes is causing temperatures to increase as Temperatures cause CO2 to increase. Get rid of sugar and the temperatures will plummet. Did not those dough heads look at this?
I hope Trump stops the funding waste for these kinds of studies. End funding for these, PERIOD.
Please not before I get my grant to study how CO2 is causing an increase in dietary iron intake, (or was it air conditioning? whatever …)
No, it’s clearly dietary iron intake increasing CO2 concentrations ! … because iron lags CO2, as you will plainly see when you get your grant to do a higher resolution study.
Or the other way around, perhaps? That’s actually not entirely impossible if there are some sort of systematic effects in play. Just sayin’. (Improved diet due to prosperity brought about by warmer climate? Or something?)
Charlatan! Increased CO2 is caused by rising pork belly prices!
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/health/climate-change-type-2-diabetes-study/
On CNN
I guess we can blame the disappearance of diabetes on the widespread adoption of air conditioning in the late 20th century.
Doctors with computers. They may know medicine. They may know biology. They don’t know statistics. They don’t know data.
Doctors with computers produce the ecological correlation fallacy.
I don’t plan to read the details of this study because it sounds like the usual climate junk. The dog is more likely to eat my child’s homework if there is global warming, that sort of thing.
One of the major factors for type two diabetes is ethnicity, with South Asians being 6 times more likely to develop the condition, Africans and Africa–Caribbeans 3 times more likely, American Indians 2.8 times more likely, Hispanic Americans more likely compared to white Americans.
I don’t know the distribution of these ethnic types by state, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that is what is being measured indirectly in this study.
There are so many different variables in play here that they canot make the claims that they are making.
This diabetes “study” can’t hold a correlation candle to Jo Ann’s plain as the nose on your face classic –
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/temp-co2/us_post_causes_global_warming_lrg.jpg
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/
Doctors with computers.
It’s all the terrible damage done by AGW that forced the Post Office to raise its rate. All that increase in rain and snow and dead of night stuff. Therefore that graph supports the CAGW thesis.
(Now if there were just some way to hide that hump.)
Phil, does you brother Evan know you are posting under his name?
Humps are inconvenient. Best kept hidden.
I always like going south. Somehow… it feels like going.. down hill burarum.
?w=500
Global Warming / Climate Change also cause early onset Dementia. You can see it in the postings of the Warmistas.
Good grief – whotta crocka sh!t. These clowns are insane.
They find a correlation between 1 in 2000 and 1 in 5000 increase in diabetes per 1C warming. Less so for glucose intolerance. And their conclusion is: Our findings indicate that the diabetes incidence rate in the USA and prevalence of glucose intolerance worldwide increase with higher outdoor temperature.
Say, what?
I didn’t notice the word “teeny-weeny” in there anywhere. (Maybe I missed it; I’ll go through it again.)
Hmmnnn…
Incidence of Type 1 and 2 diabetes in 20 to 79 year olds in Benin [quite warm] 0.8%, In Saudi Arabia [also quite warm] 20%.
In Madagascar 4.4% and in not so far away Mauritius 22%.
International Diabetes Federation statistics show that the lowest diabetes rates are in warm countries, mostly in Africa [https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SH.STA.DIAB.ZS/rankings].
Genetics no doubt plays a part in your chance of developing diabetes but lifestyle / obesity might have something [a lot?] to do with it.
The Blauw and others paper is part of an approach to blame factors other than personal for all ills.
It’s not my fault, temperature is to blame.
B******T
What they have shown is that Urban Heat Island causes a rise in Diabetes. Which is reasonable when you think about it. People who live in high density housing do less moderate exercise like gardening, which is known to reduce the risk of diabetes. They are also more likely to eat fast or takeout food as it is more available than in lower density housing areas.
I was using a bit of literary license. Increasing urbanisation and urban density will cause both UHI and increasing diabetes.
I think people with diabetes have poor cold tolerance so they move to Florida.
Doesn’t that make more sense?
Ok, fine. I agree that there is more diabetes in warmer climes. But this has nothing whatsover to do with a hypothetical global warming. Leave such hypotheticals out of your paper which is not a treatise on global warming.
Just when you think there’s no more correlations to be made associated with AGW.
An example of an utterly discredited form of epidemiology, the “ecological study”. Any secular trend whatsoever can be claimed as having been caused by climate warming. The same claim could be made for the number of types of pizza available in high street pizzarias, the quality of computer animation in cinema and the number of recognised olympic sports. All driven by climate change.
To even approach credibility the authors would need to study periods of temperature stasis and declining temperatures, and demonstrate correlative trends in diabetes. But with all climate datasets in the hands of rabid AGW activists, “the only way is up” for recorded temperatures regardless of real world climate. Climate science is dead.
Arctic circle inhabitants didn’t have type II diabetes at the end of 1800’s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_of_1866%E2%80%9368
I doubt it’s the case now in South Sudan either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_South_Sudan_famine
No one wants to live in misery, except CACA movement for everyone else. Evidence is mounting.
I think there is some factor-interaction that is not being accounted for in this study…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction_(statistics)