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.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by curunir_wolf on Monday July 20 2015, @09:37PM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday July 20 2015, @10:39PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Troll) by curunir_wolf on Monday July 20 2015, @10:51PM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday July 20 2015, @11:01PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Disagree) by curunir_wolf on Monday July 20 2015, @11:08PM
What are you going on about? The article is about a study on global warming to determine whether a warmer climate might increase mortality. As the study I posted pointed out, all else being equal, colder temperatures = more deaths.
You seemed to want to talk about weather. Weather != climate.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday July 20 2015, @11:22PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Troll) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:14AM
You said the global temperature increasing would prevent those deaths, your study only said the mortality rates changed while being above and below the optimum temperature.. which is weather, not climate. The higher the global temperature, the more extreme the winters get.
That's speculative, and inconsistent (some places will have more extreme winters, some will have milder ones) - that's what a global average temperature means. You can't have more extreme winters everywhere AND warmer global average temperature.
Your real issue, as one of the disciples of the Global Warming religion, is that I have presented peer-reviewed studies that show some benefit to global warming - something that, like the Catholic church's view of Satan, there can be no positive benefits, it must all be viewed as pure evil. And the SoylentNews hive mind agrees, as if I post anything questioning the religion, the mods don't even bother with "disagree" - only "flamebait" and "troll" modes will do. While any response in support of the religion, even it is only a curse-filled vindictive personal attack of no substance but name-calling and vacuous rhetoric, is quickly modded to + 5 "Insightful". The evidence of this is all over this site.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:24AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:28AM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:37AM
Clearly having warmer temperatures would not mean less people would die of cold temperatures.
No, it isn't that clear. If the winters end up with harsher cold snaps as a result of the increased temperatures, more people can potentially die. It's the short term exposure to cold that kills people, not the average year-long temperature.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:31AM
You did not post a study that shows a benefit to global warming, you posted a study that says cold kills more people than heat.
I guess I was assuming that less premature deaths was beneficial. If you want more people to die, then, you're right, it's not a benefit.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:46AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:52AM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 21 2015, @01:14AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by dboz87 on Wednesday July 22 2015, @01:46PM
I really don't understand why this is getting modded "Troll".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2015, @01:55AM
I don't think that makes much sense. The whole idea is that CO2 is increasing the heat capacity of the atmosphere. This will smooth daily and latitudinal temperatures (make earth more like Venus):
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324v1.pdf [arxiv.org]
However, note this paper was published before data was available and appears to be incorrect regarding the average temperature of the moon (http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml)
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 21 2015, @02:11AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2015, @02:46AM
A quick search lead to this paper (Francis and Vavrus, 2015) which says the opposite of what you claim:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/1/014005/article [iop.org]
They also appear to agree with the simple model I linked to: The atmosphere will become more stable with smaller temperature gradients (which is then proposed to lead to more extreme events). Do you have an alternative source?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 21 2015, @04:06AM
I do want to ask: Where exactly are we differing in opinion? Are you saying the paper says the temperature will rise and weather shifts will end up more mild than they are now? I feel like you're saying the weather will vary more wildly but I don't think you intend to say that. I do apologize for being dense, but one thing that's bugging me about this whole discussion is that I have trouble imagining how taking a very complicated mechanism and dumping more energy into it will result in anything but more chaos.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2015, @04:36AM
That paper says "amplified jetstream trajectories". I couldn't find any mention of the "weaker" jetstream you mention. Granted that term was used in a news article referencing this so it is probably just a vague, undefined concept.
We might be butting up against the same problem. What do you mean by "chaos"? Venus is much warmer than earth at the surface and has a much more stable atmosphere, it also has very strong winds. It seems to be explained quite clearly by these simple models. The higher the heat capacity of the system, the more uniform and stable the atmosphere:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324v1.pdf [arxiv.org]
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 21 2015, @04:57AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2015, @05:09AM
Yes, the model presented there accounts for rotation. All things being equal, a slower rotation (relative to the energy source: the sun) tends to cause more extreme differences, eg as seen for the moon.