Posted on 11/29/2005 4:04:26 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.
The best way to garner headlines in the global warming game is to generate scary scenarios. While many people view climate change as some esoteric concern of environmentalists, they still raise their eyebrows when they hear a phrase like "global warming deaths."
It's little surprise then that a recent article in Nature magazine has caught so much attention. Written by Jonathan Patz, an associate professor of environmental studies and population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin, and three of his colleagues, it is a selective culling of the scientific literature -- some recent, some not -- on climate change and possible health impacts across the planet. The article's claim: global warming kills 150,000 people each year.
Patz begins with the 2003 heat wave in Europe. First, it is not possible that any heat wave was caused by global warming, despite some climate modeling efforts that, according to Patz, demonstrates "a causal link." It is impossible, and in fact is irresponsible, for any climatologist to claim that any given weather event could not have happened if not for increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases. Yes, 2003 was a very warm summer in Europe, but the fact that similar conditions occurred there in the very distant past pretty much debunks the "global warming" hypothesis.
The more relevant question is why so many Europeans died in August 2003. Here culture conspires with climate. The month-long August vacation is a cherished European tradition. It's not unusual then for many countries to effectively shut down while the epicenter of the population shifts southward to Mediterranean beaches. This includes a reduction in medical staffing, less oversight of one's elderly parents, etc. The French government caught flak for the high death toll, and rightly so. Undoubtedly the same weather conditions in July would have produced substantially fewer deaths. But the cultural factor is never mentioned in Patz's global warming hook.
The "theory" that leads to such sloppy thinking about heat waves is that climate will be more variable with global warming. While the jury is still out on this, there is plenty of evidence in the United States that the opposite is true. In an extensive series of studies by Indiana University's Scott Robeson, he found that in U.S. cities where warming had taken place, most of the cities exhibited less temperature variability, not more. Regrettably, these and other key papers were not part of Patz' review.
Patz continues by talking about impacts that urban "heat islands" -- the heat trapping effects of buildings and paved surfaces combined with less vegetation -- result in most large cities being significantly warmer than the surrounding countryside. He is correct. In fact, the urbanization effect exceeds the background rate of global warming significantly, in some cases by an order of magnitude or more. If this is a problem, however, we should expect people living in cities to be dying in droves from heat exposure.
The graph below shows the aggregate heat-related death rate toll for 28 of the largest U.S. cities from 1964–1998. There is a statistically significant decline in heat-related mortality over the period. During the same time, temperature increased by an average of almost 1°C, partly and probably mostly, due to heat island effects. So why aren't more people, instead of less people, dying from heat exposure, as postulated by Patz?
Figure 1. Annual population-adjusted heat-related mortality averaged across 28 major U.S. cities. Each bar represents a different decade, beginning in the mid-1960s and ending in the late 1980s. Heat-related mortality has been steadily declining (adapted from Davis et al., 2003).
It's simple. People, by and large, are not stupid. If it's too hot, they go into air conditioning. If it's too cold, they turn up the heat, go into the sun, put on a jacket, etc. The fact that Phoenix has a thriving population in a valley that is essentially inhospitable to human life speaks volumes for the adaptability of humans to overcome the limitation imposed by nature. In fact, most elderly people move to Phoenix or Miami thinking they might prolong their lives by living away from harsh winter weather -- not so they could die sooner. But global warming scaremongers depend upon the "stupid people" hypothesis to generate high mortality figures.
Later in the review, the authors discuss the potential health impacts of El Niño across the globe: epidemics of malaria and Rift Valley fever, Dengue hemorrhagic fever in Thailand, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome in the Desert Southwest, waterborne diseases in Peru, cholera in Bangladesh, etc. One teensy problem: El Niño is not related to global warming. The author admits this (sort of). He writes, "Although it is not clear whether and how [El Niño] dynamics will change in a warmer world, regions that are currently strongly affected by ENSO [another name for El Niño]…could experience heightened risks if ENSO variability, or the strength of events intensifies." Sure. An equally likely scenario is that the impact of all of these diseases will be reduced if global warming generates fewer and weaker El Niños. But this was not discussed. It is not scientifically rigorous to write a paper about global warming impacts and to spend pages talking about impacts from something that is unrelated to global warming.
Finally, Patz refers to a three-year old World Health Organization study, suggesting that climate changes that have occurred in the last 30 years could have caused 150,000 deaths per year worldwide. However, rough calculations using current global population and mortality rate estimates show that "global warming" is responsible for 0.2 percent of all deaths. This is a remarkably small number based upon WHO estimates that are undoubtedly an exaggeration in the first place. Another way to look at this is that during the last century, primarily as a result of technologies developed in a world powered by fossil fuels (the emissions from burning them are the presumed culprit behind the 150,000 annual deaths), average human expectancy in the developed democracies roughly doubled. Posit that two billion people lived in these areas in the 20th century, doubling their life expectancy is the equivalent of saving a billion lives. While one could quibble about the specifics, it is clear that fossil fuels have been responsible for longer lives, not shorter ones.
The most interesting aspect of the Nature article is that Patz, whose primary expertise is in vector-borne diseases like malaria, has the least confidence about the global warming-malaria link. His discussions and review of the vector-borne disease literature is fairly balanced and contains many of the key caveats. Unfortunately, this balanced tone does not permeate most of the report.
There is no doubt that climate change will have some impacts, both positive and negative, on global health. One could just as easily write a review about how a warming planet is producing myriad health benefits. It would not be published in Nature magazine, however, and rightly so, because it would not represent a fair, accurate, and thorough overview of the scientific literature. But, after reading the Patz review, it's clear that this standard of objectivity is selectively applied.
related story
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1530333/posts
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051128.wxemissions28/BNStory/National/
comments:
Francis Twyman from Montreal, Canada writes: Well look at this, Canada 24%, USA 13%. I am wondering whatall the anti-yanks who have been blasting Bush and the Americans over the past couple of years for not being part of Kyoto have to say about this. Or are they just cringing and hiding in embarassment? Well they should be , because it seems to me the US is doing a better job controlling the growth of greenhouse gases than Canada.snip
LOL! Martin said Canada is the "conscience of the world".
How many people die when it's 75 degrees, the sun is shining, birds sing and happy bunnies are in the field munching clover? Maybe we can start a new category called "Pleasant Weather Deaths."
I have always wondered how the "excess deaths" from a heat wave are determined.
Actuarially: you compare the number of deaths in the region affected by the heat wave during the heat wave with the number of deaths from otherwise similar periods in the same region. With high probability, difference between the average for your sample of other similar periods and the number of deaths during the heat wave approximates the number of people whose death was due to the heat. One can even get confidence intervals for the number of excess deaths by using the student's t-distribution.
You can gussy up the statistical techniques to account for population changes or demographic shifts which change normal mortality rates, but the outline of the idea is still the same.
Yup. They're the same crowd the Club of Rome, with their amazingly robust computer models which "proved" in the 1970's that we're all dead now (from overpopulation, pollution and running out of natural resources).
That being said, once one gets a good climatological model which correctly accounts for increased solar output (the cause of Martian and terrestrial global warming), it is still reasonable in the short-run to expect warmer temperatures (increased solar output, and yes, greenhouse gasses--mostly from non-industrial sources: there is a peat bog fire in Indonesia which alone outstrips the entire devoloped world's industrial base as a source, not to mention thawing methane hydrates).
The anti-human left's prescription for this circumstance is exactly the wrong one. Deindustrializing is flat wrong, and pushing all of our ingenuity into avoiding CO_2 emissions, is a waste of effort. If the climate is going to change radically (and I only pointed to a short-run prediction, in the long run, melting enough of the north polar ice cap could shut down the thermohaline currents in the Atlantic, and trigger an ice age), we want as much industrial capcity as possible to deal with it.
Human-caused global warming, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny - - -
Yay! You said it like (as) it is! Thank you.
"State of Fear" by Crichton is a good read!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.