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
“…and the fact that adaptation mechanisms .. have not been accounted for.”
When you do take into account that humans are very adaptable, every point in this article becomes mute!
Maybe we should be repenting in Mandarin.
“The largest study to date of the potential temperature-related . . . .”
How is it possible to “study” something that’s only “potential?”
Kurt, through mental masturbation and alarmist propaganda.
“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.”
If this was to occur it would have already happened now during so called global warming over the past number of decades. Populations have increased not declined and the change occurring is so small it has no noticeable effect on the rate during winter or summer. Seasonal random usually extreme weather patterns are highly related for summer and winter. The fact this has not happened only makes this quotation wrong, statistics don’t back it and human populations have always thrived during warming climate periods in history.
Taking any short period and assuming this trend will occur for eternity has always been nonsense in these studies.
For example in the UK shown below the lowest deaths are in Summer and the highest in Winter with the rate nearly doubling. One of the most excess deaths occurred during the severe winter of 1962/63.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/201415provisionaland201314final
Since the 1950’s the decline in excess winter deaths has fallen by around 50,000. There was a huge drop once central heating become established in most homes.
A clear case of green envy.
Gasparrini wants to get on the CAGW funding bandwagon.
Real data?
Attributing 85 millions deaths that are suddenly attributed to some version of “climate change”. Imagine falsifying 85 million death certificates to write in “died from climate change”.
So much for “real data”. Use falsified worst case projections as “real data”.
Use writing spin and sophistry to imply pure fantasy equals reality.
“Authors show the potential”, Really!?
The authors claim “the potential”; but do not attempt to demonstrate of prove their claims. More confirmation bias model self abuse.
Vague “warmer” and “cooler” insinuations.
Use of vague without context or actual measurement/observation word, e.g. “extremely large”. Using these false wordings to apply gross assumptions.
Then that last bit where any lack of temperature changes, or cooler temperatures have zero benefit.
That is when the researcher truly identifies himself as pure activist climate change religious disciple.
No, the paper does not show how heat related deaths will escalate. Instead the authors grossly assume deaths will escalate.
“It used real data from 85 million deaths. . . . ”
I see that as a Freudian slip – the implication is that the computer model projections used for the remainder of the analysis was not “real data.” That’s quite an admission, actually. Climate science seems to be the one field of science where relying upon fabricated data is acceptable practice.
Kurt:
If by “acceptable” you mean “preferred”, I whole heartedly agree.
Climate Science not only bases research claims and assumptions on models and guessed data; but without verification or proof, they happily feed that resulting false data into subsequent chained models as “data”.
False scientific results based on flimsy confirmation bias derivations. All they’ve actually proven to date is GIGO. A false science house of cards built on tidal sands.
‘if no action is taken by 2090-99 a net increase in deaths of +12.7% is projected in South-East Asia’
A decimal point. Now that’s funny!
I’m guessing that 0.7 was only sick and will die the next year.
How many of the deaths used in this ‘study’ had a cause of death noted as “persistent and long-term exposure to 2 degree temperature anomaly”?
I’m a little puzzled here as to why any models have to used at all to ascertain how the death rate will increase and by how much with a rise in global temperature, a temperature rise that is an assumption based on the output of unproven climate models.
A quick and dirty research project to check the validirty of this claim before the researchers suggest that they are total fools and then go onto prove it, is relatively easy to set up and run.
The USA has arguably the best records of the demographic characteristics for a nation of its geographical size as well as a number of relatively ethnically homogeneous groups such as african americans, white european type americans , Japanese and asian ethnic descended groups.
Plus its geographical extent caters for a very wide range of temperatures and conditions from north to south and does so also across all of the east / west longitudes the USA occupies.
The “average” temperatures across the American land mass differs by far more than just two degrees, the criteria used everywhere in climate change science where death and disaster will descend upon the planet if two degrees rise in temperate is exceeded buy more than few thousand’s of a degree C.
A far greater average latitudunal influenced temperature range than two degrees occurs going from the American northern regions to its southern regions.
The researchers could have simply look at the death rate data for each ethnic grouping and compared that death rate against temperature based on the rough north to south average latitudinal temperature changes to see what the death rates are in each ethnic grouping is, relative to the average temperature variations and increases that occurs as one moves from North to South in the USA.
Based on the repeatedly proposed and claimed increased death rates from increasing global temperatures , there should be a very marked increase in the death rate per thousand going from the colder average temperature northern regions of the USA to the much warmer and higher average temperatures of the southern regions of the USA.
The USA even has those various racial groups to do further comparisons on re death rates within ethnic and racial groupings relative to increase’s in temperature with changes in latitude in the USA..
Repeat with China, similar latitudinal increases in temperature from north to south and a homogenous racial grouping to reduce the racial factor.
Likewise the Russians / Slavs in Eastern Europe.
Much the same latitudinal changes in tempeerature there also and a racial profile that is similar from North to South.
Australia, again mostly a european based racial grouping and good records and big differences in latitudinal temperatures which should make any increased deathrates per thousand very obvious if death rates were influenced by increases in average temperature.
It seems that there are a number of locations around this planet where a small piece of research would either back up what these researchers are claiming , that death rates will increase with increasing global temperatures or completely disprove their claims.
Claims that I believe are totally and completely spurious and based on ignorance and incompetence.
But most of all on the isolated in their ivory towers, a closed door to the realities of the outside world, rigid silo mentality where nobody else’s input or suggestions are allowed or accepted as “We are climate scientists so we don’t need any suggestions or advice from that low level, ignorant and “deplorable” proletariat” from “Fly Over Land”.
Cold’s the problem……….
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268526005_Unusually_cold_and_dry_winters_increase_mortality_in_Australia
http://thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60897-2/fulltext
http://www.mississauga.ca/file/COM/Health%20Impacts%20of%20Cold%20Weather.pdf
The biggest problem with this garbage is that it fail the most basic of economic tests – the allocation of scare resources and the trade-offs that involves.
I can spend my resources preventing global warming, but those resources CANNOT then be spent elsewhere. To take a simple example, I can employ somebody making a windmill or I can employ that person finding a cure for cancer.
How many lives would be saved with each job? Of course we don’t know and cannot know, but if you want to work out what we should do in terms of “lives” then we need to attempt to know. More expensive energy means fewer resources into hospitals. What’s the trade-off there in lives?
This is typical non-economist, Leftist thinking, where using a resource for one thing somehow mans it can still be used elsewhere. And if you present work using that assumption, IT IS SIMPLY WRONG. I don’t even need to argue about hot or cold. It must be wrong.
So if it gets hotter and wetter in places hot and wet more people will die. Hmmmmm. Higher rice yields, more monsoon rains, more food. Reliable water supplies, increased production and wealth, more money for health and education. Back to kindergarten.
It’s not heat or cold that kills, it’s departures from the norm that kill.
If CO2 actually did cause the world’s temperatures to rise by 2C (no chance of that actually happening), then that would raise the norm, it wouldn’t cause more heat waves.
Chiquitita, you and I died, the sun still shines brightly in the sky and is shining above you.
Just returned from a trip in my turbodiesel Dodge dually delivering coal fired furnaces to Idaho via North Carolina. Burned MANY gallons of diesel fuel in an effort to return the carbon to the environment from which it came. Last night somebody hit a power pole cutting off power at home. Great another opportunity to fire up my diesel generator!! Later this winter I’m sure an Arctic Vortex will force me and fellow North
Carolinians to fire up our oil furnaces. E’ll be alive and warm that’s what I call ADAPTATION!!!!!!!!!!
In the real world, cold kills more than heat.
In the real world, warming results in warmer lows where it’s cold and barely changes the highs where it’s hot.
In the real world, poverty kills more than hot and cold together.
To produce this ‘study’, they must have assumed the opposite of all three.
They must know their recommendations will result in death, and they must not care.
There is always a name to cloak corruption. Here it is “mitigation strategies”.
I can ask how how Socialists can live with death and slavery, and I know the answer: they lie.
But I can’t see how a lie can be big enough to hide the real world.
I call this paper nonsense.
Now, cool and cold weather kills ~ 20 times more people than warm and hot weather.
It will have to become MUCH WARMER to change that fact.
Reference:
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf