Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday July 20 2015, @12:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the or-not dept.

New research suggests that U.S. climate change, and the unpredictable temperature swings it can bring, may boost death rates in seniors.

"Temperature variability emerges as a key feature in the potential impacts of climate change. The take-home message: Unusual temperature is bad for people's health," said study author Liuhua Shi, a graduate student in the department of environmental health at Harvard's School of Public Health in Boston.

Scientists have long been debating the health effects of climate change, and the general assumption is that it will make people sicker through more extreme heat, more flooding and more polluted air.

Shi and colleagues launched their study in the New England area to better understand how weather affects death rates. "Many studies have reported associations between short-term temperature changes and increased daily deaths," Shi said. "However, there is little evidence to date on the long-term effect of temperature."

The researchers looked at Medicare statistics regarding 2.7 million people over the age of 65 in New England from 2000 to 2008. Of those, Shi said, 30 percent died during the study.

The researchers found death rates rose when the average summer temperature rose significantly, and death rates dropped when the average winter temperature rose significantly.

The researchers believe the increased risk in the summer is due to an increase in the variability of temperatures. According to Shi, "climate change may affect mortality rates by making seasonal weather more unpredictable, creating temperature conditions significantly different to those to which people have become acclimatized."

On the other hand, warmer winter temperatures caused by climate change could actually reduce deaths, the researchers added.

The study appears in the July 13 issue of Nature Climate Change.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday July 20 2015, @01:09PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2015, @01:09PM (#211394) Journal

    Kind of a shallow interpretation.

    The problem with analyzing the existing climate change effects is that they need to be compared to a hypothetical world where it's 1 C cooler. We don't know exactly what that's like, and denialists have a (arguably almost justifiable) free pass to dismiss all analyses like this one as conjecture.

    And denialism is no longer just a political maneuver by those few in industries who would actually lose out by doing something about climate change. It's become a collective identity. A self-sustaining morass of idiots who don't want to admit their mistakes, least of all themselves.

    Bringing this back to being a response to your post: there are people for whom these deaths are meaningless, for whom holding politicians accountable for them is a personal insult to their intelligence. They're really fucked up and they're going to be in this thread.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @01:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @01:51PM (#211415)

    denialists have a (arguably almost justifiable) free pass to dismiss all analyses like this one as conjecture.

    These people are destroying our society's scientific establishments by pushing wild speculations and meaningless correlations as science (yes everything is correlated with everything else, you can stop checking whether p is less than 0.05 now). This problem goes well beyond the area of climate, that is just one the areas it is most visible because the media likes to hype it. Most doing this stuff are just very poorly trained in math, logic, and history/philosophy of science.

    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Monday July 20 2015, @01:55PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2015, @01:55PM (#211417) Journal

      What an absolute shit opinion, with shit justification. And I can't even tell what "side" you're arguing.

      Come on man, separating statistical noise from observational study is important. We aren't talking about spurious correlations, we're talking about correlations with well-understood causative factors.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @02:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @02:28PM (#211432)

        I just checked the paper. Amazing they can publish a paper on the correlation between temperature and mortality without any plots of temperature vs time, mortality vs time, or temperature vs mortality. They have not even tried to find the functional form of this relationship, or anything. It is nothing but seeing that two cyclical phenomena are correlated with each other.

        I happen to be very interested in relationships between weather and human mortality/births/migration/etc right now, this paper is not helpful. It is trivial to realize that everything is correlated with everything else when you start looking at that type of data. Instead of the one paper necessary explaining that, we get decades and tens of thousands about these "important" discoveries.

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday July 20 2015, @02:45PM

          by sjames (2882) on Monday July 20 2015, @02:45PM (#211443) Journal

          The correlation between temperature extremes, temperature swings, and mortality is already well documented and understood.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @03:01PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @03:01PM (#211449)

            Seasonality is a fascinating topic. My specific interest is regarding infectious disease, which is often seasonal. At least in that case, the driving force behind the cycle is not clear. However, writing a paper merely noting the existence of the correlation between temperature and mortality once again is ridiculous.

            If you are going to bother collecting the data together, etc you may as well come up with some theory to fit the relationship. I am sure if they did do that it would be way overblown and hyped though. People forget the point is to then compare that explanation to future data.

          • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday July 20 2015, @03:02PM

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2015, @03:02PM (#211450) Journal

            Not that I think you're wrong, but this would a great time to demonstrate this documentation. I don't actually know what kind of medical literature to look for.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @03:14PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @03:14PM (#211454)

              Just look up seasonal mortality, you will find tons of papers. However, it is better to get the data and plot it for yourself. There are many interesting patterns (age, birth cohort effects, etc):
              http://www.nber.org/data/vital-statistics-mortality-data-multiple-cause-of-death.html [nber.org]

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Monday July 20 2015, @07:58PM

              by sjames (2882) on Monday July 20 2015, @07:58PM (#211546) Journal

              Start here [wikipedia.org]. Then google "Heat related deaths U.S."

              • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday July 20 2015, @08:11PM

                by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2015, @08:11PM (#211551) Journal

                Ouch. I was hoping for a bit more than "here's an example and google it".

                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday July 20 2015, @08:24PM

                  by sjames (2882) on Monday July 20 2015, @08:24PM (#211556) Journal

                  I don't really have time to cut/paste a thousand google hits.

                  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday July 20 2015, @08:38PM

                    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2015, @08:38PM (#211564) Journal

                    And it wouldn't. I'm sorry, but this isn't the kind of record I was hoping for. I'm looking for rigorous science and not news articles. It's okay. I'm not trying to extract what you don't have, nor am I trying to defend the opposite point from what you're presenting.

          • (Score: 1) by Roger Murdock on Monday July 20 2015, @11:18PM

            by Roger Murdock (4897) on Monday July 20 2015, @11:18PM (#211651)

            That's what Shi said!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @04:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @04:58PM (#211481)

    You mean, like we can't know whether that guy who just got shot wouldn't have died from a heart attack a few seconds later anyway?

    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday July 20 2015, @05:27PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2015, @05:27PM (#211485) Journal

      Well, nominally speaking, that's a bit apt.

      The problem is that framing is that it represents a single discrete death. A case where we can really dig in and examine everything involved. Here, we're talking about a trend modeled against a hypothesized trend. Keep in mind here, I don't think the analysis is particularly flawed, just that the obvious objections aren't completely without merit. Those dropping them are giving them a lot more credit than they're due, but they're real concerns.