From the LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE & TROPICAL MEDICINE and the “who needs death certificates when you have RCP models?” department.
Study of impact of climate change on temperatures suggests more deaths unless action taken
The largest study to date of the potential temperature-related health impacts of climate change has shown that as global temperatures rise, the surge in death rates during hot weather outweighs any decrease in deaths in cold weather, with many regions facing sharp net increases in mortality rates.
Published in The Lancet Planetary Health, the study compared heat- and cold-related mortality across 451 locations around the world, and showed that warmer regions of the planet will be particularly affected. For instance, if no action is taken by 2090-99 a net increase in deaths of +12.7% is projected in South-East Asia, and mortality rates would also rise in Southern Europe (+6·4%) and South America (+4·6%). Meanwhile, cooler regions such as Northern Europe could experience either no change or a marginal decrease in deaths.
Encouragingly, the research, led by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, also showed these deaths could largely be avoided under scenarios that include mitigation strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and further warming of the planet.
Antonio Gasparrini, Associate Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and lead author of the paper, said: “Climate change is now widely recognised as the biggest global threat of the 21st century. Although previous studies have shown a potential rise in heat-related mortality, little was known about the extent to which this increase would be balanced by a reduction in cold-related deaths. In addition, effects tend to vary across regions, depending on local climate and other characteristics, making global comparisons very difficult.
“This study demonstrates the negative impact of climate change, which may be more dramatic among the warmer and more populated areas of the planet, and in some cases disproportionately affect poorer regions of the world. The good news is that if we take action to reduce global warming, for instance by complying with the thresholds set by the Paris Agreement[1], this impact will be much lower.”
The research, funded by the Medical Research Council, involved creating the first global model of how mortality rates change with hot or cold weather. It used real data from 85 million deaths between 1984 and 2015, specific to a wide-range of locations that took into account different climates, socioeconomics and demographics.
This enabled the team to estimate how temperature-related mortality rates will change under alternative scenarios of climate change, defined by the four Representative Concentration Pathways[2] (RCPs) established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for climate modelling and research in 2014.
Under the worst-case scenario (RCP 8.5), which assumes that greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century, the authors show the potential for extremely large net increases in temperature-related mortality in the warmer regions of the world. In cooler areas, the less intense warming and large decrease in cold-related deaths may mean no net change or a marginal reduction in temperature-related deaths.
Under the strictest pathway (RCP 2.6), which assumes an early peak of greenhouse gas emissions which then decline substantially, the potential net increases in mortality rates at the end of the century be minimal (between -0.4% and +0.6%) in all the regions included in this study, highlighting the benefits of the implementation of mitigation policies.
Sir Andy Haines, Professor of Public Health & Primary Care at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and study co-author, said: “This paper shows how heat related deaths will escalate in the absence of decisive action to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide and short-lived climate pollutants such as methane and black carbon. Such action could also result in major health benefits in the near term by reducing deaths from air pollution.
“It is imperative that the actions are taken to build on the achievements of the Paris Treaty as the commitments made there are insufficient to prevent warming above 2 degrees C compared with pre-industrial temperatures.”
Antonio Gasparrini said: “The findings of this study will be crucial for the development of coordinated and evidence-based climate and public health policies, and for informing the ongoing international discussion on the health impacts of climate change that is vital for the future health of humanity.”
The authors acknowledge limitations in the study, including the lack of data for some regions of the world, and the fact that adaptation mechanisms and potential changes to demographics have not been accounted for.
###
The paper: : http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(17)30156-0/fulltext?elsca1=tlxpr
“Study of impact of climate change on temperatures suggests more deaths unless action taken”
Now balance that silliness with a rigorous study of the impact of prescribed “action taken” on mortality.
Looks like they are claiming more people have access to heat sources in winter….than have access to air conditioning in summer.
….and making a strong argument for more access to electricity
except many people, perhaps most people, in SE Asia are too poor to even be on the grid. Cheap elect won’t matter to them.
So cheap electricity won’t make air conditioning more affordable? Like most liberals, you failed to learn anything in ECON 101, or perhaps you chose to take some kind of minority victimization reinforcement class instead. You also have zero clue about life in SE asia. I travel there often, perhaps you should actually go there once before opening your mouth and removing any doubt about your ignorance and stupidity.
The lack of cheap, reliable electricity is one of the things that keeps people in developing countries poor. Poverty really does shorten lives by a lot, so a poor country that develops economically while generate vast increases in emissions will see a *large* increase in well-being.
The funny thing is that the unrealistic RCP 8.5 explicitly depends on this development, a vast increase in emissions driven by a massive increase in the fossil-fueled economy. The global per-capita income in 2100 under RCP 8.5 is many times higher than todays. Using RCP 8.5 as a basis for action presumes it is rational for us to damage our own economy for the benefit of future generations that will be much wealthier and well-able to afford adaptation.
Any estimates of damage that does not consider adaptation, as this one apparently explicitly does not, is worthless.
My understanding of ECON 101? So how do you plan to get the elect so cheap that people with no $$ can buy it? There is a reason that only 3% of the people in India pay taxes.
There is more to poverty that feeding it electricity.
And the reason they are so poor is that their leaders are more interested in preserving power and lining their own pockets than in improving the standard of living of their countrymen. Keep in mind that these same corrupt leaders are to be the recipients of unjustifiable climate reparations.
ReallySkeptical
“So how do you plan to get the elect so cheap that people with no $$ can buy it?”
What do you imagine they are doing with all the energy they will get from the 700 or so power stations China is building? Hoarding it all for the wealthy?
Where do you think virtually every component in your PC comes from, your TV, mobile phone and innumerable other consumer goods.
China is the biggest market Rolls Royce cars has.
The Chinese and the rest of SE Asia invest in energy to generate wealth and income from employment. That’s how the ‘poor’ can afford employment.
Never mind ECON 101, how about common sense 101.
That’s how the ‘poor’ can afford
employment.energyYes, SE Asia needs some affordable energy and economic growth, i.e. coal. India does not need a fu… naughty word deleted… a satanic emissions reduction in the West, but growth. Poverty is not gonna go away with taxes or wellfare, but after growth makes them possible.
And the poor will always be with us.
ReallySkeptical
November 14, 2017 at 9:49 am
My understanding of ECON 101? So how do you plan to get the elect so cheap that people with no $$ can buy it? There is a reason that only 3% of the people in India pay taxes.
There is more to poverty that feeding it electricity.
=======================================================================
Yes, it invariably means not implementing socialist/command economic policies. If you allow the market to operate freely with basic rule of law to enforce contracts and deal with fraud not only will electricity become cheap enough for the poor to afford, but the poor will no longer be so.
Not to throw water on a good fire, but AGW will cause the most warming at the poles and during the nights. So by my understanding the warming will be less pronounced in the tropics and during the days.
I guess they took this into account…….
You need to brake out the sarc tag pilgrim. 🙂
Reasonable Skeptic,
“I guess they took this into account…….”
Of course they failed to take this into account. This temperature dependence of the sensitivity is a consequence of the SB Law and the 1/T^3 dependence on the sensitivity it demands. The minute they accept a temperature dependence on the sensitivity they will be forced to discount everything else that they believe in. For example, a nominal sensitivity 3-4 times what the SB Law constrains it to be.
The ‘scientists’ that had no shame of putting their names on such garbage should move to Antarctica and stay there, maybe the cold will keep them alive to verify their claims in 2099.
“…for instance by complying with the thresholds set by the Paris Agreement[1], this impact will be much lower.”
He obviously doesn’t understand even the IPCC’s pseudoscience. If he did, he’d know like Dr James Hansen has noted, that the Paris Agreement carbon emission INDCs will have no discernible impact on temperature trajectories when uncertainties are included in those regions he noted effects. The biggest impacts to regional temps according to the IPCC will be the higher latitudes where he notes, “could experience either no change or a marginal decrease in deaths.”
Nassim Taleb of course came up with a moniker that describes Antonio Gasparrini and his ilk: Intellectual Yet Idiot. (IYI).
Apparently Dr..Gasparirini sees all those SE Asians, Southern Europeans, and South Americans as his version of red-neck hicks. They are his unwashed masses upon which he knows what is in their best interest.
What most interesting is his exclusion of Africa which has some of the highest birth rates in the world for the 21st Century. Of the world’s top 30 birth rates, all are in Africa, except for two: Afghanistan (4), and the Gaza Strip (25). How very white of him. How very IYI of him.
Top 30 birth rates by country:
1 Niger 50.16
2 Mali 49.61
3 Uganda 48.12
4 Afghanistan 46.21
5 Sierra Leone 45.41
6 Burkina Faso 45.28
7 Somalia 44.6
8 Angola 44.51
9 Liberia 43.75
10 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 42.96
11 Yemen 42.67
12 Chad 42.35
13 Congo, Republic of the 42.16
14 Malawi 42.09
15 Burundi 41.97
16 Guinea 41.53
17 Zambia 40.78
18 Mauritania 40.56
19 Mayotte 40.35
20 Nigeria 40.2
21 Rwanda 40.16
22 Sao Tome and Principe 39.72
23 Djibouti 39.07
24 Kenya 38.94
25 Gaza Strip 38.9
26 Gambia, The 38.86
27 Madagascar 38.6
28 Mozambique 38.54
29 Benin 38.1
30 Senegal
my comment appears lost in moderation. sigh…
Thanks Mods.
The bozos who write this grade of toilet paper display an unbelievable level of self-unawareness by showing that they have no inkling of how foolish they make themselves appear to so many thinking people.
“For instance, if no action is taken by 2090-99 a net increase in deaths of +12.7% is projected in South-East Asia, and mortality rates would also rise in Southern Europe (+6·4%) and South America (+4·6%).”
Au contraire. By 2090-99, compared to today, the death rate is going to be well beyond a measly +12.7% let alone a pathetically minute +6.4%, or even more pathetic +4.6%. In fact, I can just about guarantee them that the death rate will be orders of magnitude greater than what they’re claiming. I predict the death rate, by 2090-99 will be quite close to 100% of everybody alive today.
Of course that may not be what they mean. But, I don’t see how it can’t be because there’s no way to possibly predict when members of future generations will kick the bucket, give up the ghost, meet their maker, or kiss their a.. goodbye. I mean, have these researchers factored in the possibility of nuclear war? After Iran gets the bomb Saudi Arabia and Egypt are gonna want their’s and they can buy them from Pakistan. If China doesn’t put the screws to Rocketman, Japan might want the big bomb as well. And, the more nukes, the greater the likelihood someone somewhere lets the genie outta the bottle. Have those eminent researchers factored that in to their statistical analysis or is it too minor a problem? Have these ERRORS (Eminent Researchers Researching Obviously Ridiculous Stuff) taken into account potential pandemics tween now and 2099? After, all AIDS sprang up as a surprise. And, of course, lots of germs are now resistant to antibiotics. Have these ERRORS factored in changing demographics, migratory patterns, societal collapses, technological changes, political changes, increases in non-child bearing gay marriages, teleconferencing, alien contact? Sure, some of the foregoing is silly (but, in the end, no sillier than research that so totally lacks foresight), but some is deadly serious. And far more serious than any CAGW death rate changes 100 years from now.
Tom Judd
Brilliant.
Like most low grade scientists, they assume time stands still for everything except their precious experiment.
Surely mortality rates are 100% everywhere ?
“The research, funded by the Medical Research Council, involved creating the first global model of how mortality rates change with hot or cold weather.”
Model love. They think their projections into the century are data.
Actually this love of models is the new post-modern science. The climate modelers have been doing this of course for decades. They are using computer clusters to perform untold amounts of complex computer calculations to generate their income stream. Doesn’t matter that it’s all virtual reality.
In this regard, these guys are no different from the cryptocurrency miners who “create” Bitcoins by running complex computer calculations. Their profit is simply running computer algorithms to create a virtual product. What a hustle.
Its called ‘Economic Productivity’
Like Bitcoin, the value of Gasparrini’s product it can disappear in an instant.
I guess you all know that the only remaining hope of ever breaking the cycle of ignorance, witch doctor level voodoo pseudoscience and despair lies with God Emperor Trump and his America don’t you? No politician, institution or journal in Europe, Australasia or Canada is ever going to break ranks on this. I cannot see any possibility of a non-career political maverick like Trump gaining power anywhere else. Even if a right wing party get voted in somewhere – like Austria for example – they will just keep quiet on this issue so their detractors cannot use the hysterical and risible yet universally accepted “science denier” slur.
Even now with all the evidence piling up on the side of the sceptics and not a whiff of significant warming happening or accelerating sea level rise or more extreme weather or ocean pH and on and on and the models completely discredited the UK government has placed a windmill-loving, true-believing eco-loon in the position of Environment Minister. Right at the time we need to be accelerating away from the doomed EU and going full-on fracking and nuclear the ‘government’ appoints a moonbat to cover all the lands in useless windmills and solar panels to drive up electricity prices and drive industry away.
Go Trump!
“God Emperor Trump.”
WTF?
Now I like Trump’s kicking the bejeezers out of Liberals and all their media liars. But myself and no one else I know who likes Trump would use that description or even think its appropriate.
Oh it’s just my warped sense of humour joel. Some react with ‘hell yeah!’ others with laughter thinking I’m taking the p!ss, others again like yourself with ‘WTF?’ and last but not least the Libtards with screaming, frothing at the mouth, rolling around on the floor spasming and death threats. It’s mainly for this last group that I do it 🙂
cephus, I understand your warped sense of humor, but it is a slap on President Trumps base.
When you slam American voters with those ‘lines’, it’s rude to us.
We ( I, and assuming others) do NOT think or refer to Our President as G-D. Because he is not, and we would never put him over our Lord in any fashion.
cephus0
I get the feeling our UK government is playing the game with the rest of Europe relative to climate change, until we split from the damn place. Why else would they make a ridiculous pledge that we’ll be entirely EV by 2040, I mean, it’s not like we have any significant British car manufacturers any longer, so how can that possibly be controlled? If the Germans or Japanese change their minds on the subject, we have to go with the flow.
And I watched an interview with the head of Nuclear energy in the UK and it appears he is gearing up for a major program of construction over the coming years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltfa8sSwZTA&feature=share
I don’t think we’ll moving anything else forward until Brexit is over, Anna Subrey today on Jeremy Vines show seemed entirely honest when she said Brexit was overshadowing everything else domestic and there’s a lot of stuff piling up. I would imagine the climate is one of those things and considering May’s precarious position right now, she doesn’t need to rock the boat by bringing it up.
We’re politically becalmed at the moment but when Brexit is over I don’t think we have much choice but to cosy up to the US, no bad thing in my opinion, as negotiations will be faster, not least because we speak the same lingo and are culturally very close.
Then we’ll really see what our governments position will be on climate change, especially if Trumps policies start bearing fruit in terms of employment. If positive, I think a second term will be a landslide as I believe (no real evidence though) he’s gained a lot of support for standing up to N. Korea.
Our ludicrous energy policy may be shorter term than we are led to believe.
Thanks for this. It lends some hope in dark and difficult times. You may well be right and I of course truly hope you are. It’s notable that one of May’s first moves on taking office was to scrap the Klimate Change Department and this was a fantastic moment as it appeared that she actually *KNOWS* it’s a pile of bs. In addition they are dishing out fracking licences and what with background nuclear planning perhaps they are indeed paying lip service only in the foreground. Oh yes, and the renewables subsidies are tumbling too – much to the horror of the Grauniad and Griff.
If the current government is hamstrung by the disastrous performance in the last election and Corbyn clawing at their heels then putting Gove in as Environment Minister to make foreground squawks about eliminating ICE vehicles by 2040 and such like patent green absurdities with a view to boat stabilisation then perhaps that’s a half-decent strategy.
There! I feel better already. Sometimes difficult to stay rational on these issues.
I
cephus0
It’s still a madhouse mate. I don’t see the Conservatives coming out of Brexit well, there will be too short a period before another election for anything positive to turn up to save them. And of course, they will have to make unpopular changes in the interim that’ll be spun to Corbyn’s advantage.
I heard on Radio 2 today, some left wing female spinning the fact that a Labour politician had called a black Conservative MP a “ghetto poster boy”, but it was the Conservatives that were racist because he didn’t last too long as an MP and the Cameron camp got rid of him. I couldn’t get my jaw off my desk. And a rabid lefty caller accused the BBC of being right wing sympathisers, all within 2 hours! But of course no mention, nor challenge from Jeremy Vine about Labour being anti Semitic.
None of it gives me much hope that we won’t have Corbyn as the next PM with that syphilitic, poisoned, communist sidekick of his, McDonnell egging him on.
What the country needs is a Conservative version of Farage; straight talking, logical, articulate and brave. My vote would be for Daniel Hannan who is almost there, close enough I think, but we’re likely to get Jacob Rees-Mogg, another plummy ex Eton, wealthy, tax haven busines type who won’t appeal to many Conservative voters never mind attract any from the left. David Davis should have TM’s job as he is a far more competent speaker and debater, but of course the powers that be thought TM would attract the women’s vote the same way Maggie did. When will they learn to elect a leader on competence rather background or shaky vote chasing?
According to the various datasets, how much has the planet warmed so far this century? It must only be a few hundredths of a degree.
Do we even have the data to answer that question?
“the lack of data for some regions of the world, and the fact that adaptation mechanisms and potential changes to demographics have not been accounted for.”
Hey, we got the answer we wanted. Who needs real data and why include all those extraneous factors? It just confuses people.
So, on a hypothetical planet something may happen under certain well defined but hypothetical scenarios. Sounds plausible. But can they now explain why humans on the very real planet of Earth should care one bit about this make-believe planet their paper discusses?
ddpalmer
Money for old rope.
What on Earth is ‘planetary health’? Is Lancet trying to sell their readers simethicone?
They have a rich readership, if those are interested in saving the planet …. then milk the suckers why you can. Selling magazine business school 101.
Here we go again. All of their assumptions are based upon Global Warming caused by Humans emissions of CO2. Ignoring that CO2 has increased steadily and no significant warming has occurred. Ignoring that the Earth is becoming greener and the population growth of Fauna – including billions of Humans has doubled since the 1960’s. That longevity has outweighed mortality rates. While ignoring that affordable energy from Fossil Fuels would reduce the mortality rates in the areas they are talking about.
This is not the first study that the Lancet has published about the so-called health dangers from climate change.
Earlier this month they published “Health & Climate Change”, which contained a pack of misinformation about heatwaves, agricultural productivity, weather related disasters, dengue fever and food security. All easily disproved, as I showed here:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/11/03/climate-change-is-already-causing-damaging-effects-on-health-worldwide-the-lancet/
They have been on the global warming bandwagon for a while now, and as someone else mentioned, Christina Figueres is now Chair of the Lancet’s High-Level Advisory Board.
The Lancet has clearly lost any scientific objectivity and now has its own political agenda
Paul
“Christina Figueres is now Chair of the Lancet’s High-Level Advisory Board.”
That’s what sealed it for me when I read it earlier. The woman is hell bent on promoting her agenda rather than listen to anyone else.
You repent first with your dime while the rest of us study science and the methodology that was used in undermining science and science policy during the dark ages of global warming policy distortion—one released document at a time.
“Climate change is now widely recognised as the biggest global threat of the 21st century.” They are right, but for the wrong reasons. Well, that would be true if they were talking about a massive cooling event, such as a major strata volcano going off in a deep El Nina and we lose most of the crop in the northern hemisphere. If the same events happened in 1815 like with Tambora, and the resulting following year ‘without a summer’ in 1816, the ability to support 7.5 billion people now would be precarious at best. This is truly a nightmare scenario, and why any such attempts at reducing planetary temperatures should be dismissed. This is the only insurance policy we have, and if Earth’s temps have increased .8 degree in 150 years, then we should be very, very glad that it went this way and not going back into the depths of the LIA.
““Climate change is now widely recognised as the biggest global threat of the 21st century.” ”
There is no doubt in my mind that the Climate Change AGENDA is among the biggest global threats of this century.
AndyG55
You’ll be banished to climate change room 101 with no supper for that heretic comment.
🙂
Climate change has been going on for eons and will continue to go on for eons whether Mankind is here or not. The climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero.
The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect which has not been observed anywhere in our solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction as is the AGW conjecture.
Even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events are part of our current climate and would continue to happen. We do not know of any optimum climate that would stop weather cycles and extreme weather events. So if we could change our climate to whatever we wanted we do not know what climate to change it to.
Where are we going to go for studies we can trust when all the formerly objective institutions have thrown their lot in with the marxbrothers.
We need more studies and research like this one funded by oil (midnight oil) .
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/major-research-mission-to-save-great-barrier-reef-kicks-off/9150970
Cold weather kills more people than warm weather. Everybody knows that stupid… Some 350 years ago we experienced the little ice age on this planet. Crops failed, hunger was widespread, people died…
And there’s a good change that it will be happening again real soon. No doubt the lunatics will come up with some cockamainy model supporting the idea that mankinds CO2 emissions have shut down the sunspot cycles.
“The authors acknowledge limitations in the study, including the lack of data for some regions of the world, and the fact that adaptation mechanisms and potential changes to demographics have not been accounted for.”…..TRANSLATION: “This is just a wild stab in the dark intended to support CAGW propaganda and our incomes.”
If people die, just reboot the X-Box climate program.
In all future temperature estimates as in real measured temperature, the tropics warms least. It is allways the poles and the temperate areas that should be warmer. How could that influence the tropics most?
The mention of the Paris treaty gives a clue.