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This discussion has been archived.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: 2, Disagree) by curunir_wolf on Monday July 20 2015, @09:37PM

    by curunir_wolf (4772) on Monday July 20 2015, @09:37PM (#211597)
    It's the Climate Change version of "turtles all the way down"
    --
    I am a crackpot
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Disagree=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday July 20 2015, @10:39PM

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2015, @10:39PM (#211628)
    I'm sorry if bringing that up was inconvenient.
    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 1, Troll) by curunir_wolf on Monday July 20 2015, @10:51PM

      by curunir_wolf (4772) on Monday July 20 2015, @10:51PM (#211635)
      I don't consider it inconvenient, just off-topic, misdirection from the issue, speculative on its face, and excessively redundant in general.
      --
      I am a crackpot
      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday July 20 2015, @11:01PM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2015, @11:01PM (#211643)
        Ah. So you unless you see the mercury go up it's unrelated. Oookie, got it.
        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 2, Disagree) by curunir_wolf on Monday July 20 2015, @11:08PM

          by curunir_wolf (4772) on Monday July 20 2015, @11:08PM (#211646)

          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

            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 20 2015, @11:22PM (#211653)
            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.
            --
            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
            • (Score: 1, Troll) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:14AM

              by curunir_wolf (4772) on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:14AM (#211676)

              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

                by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:24AM (#211678)
                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.
                --
                🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:28AM

                  by curunir_wolf (4772) on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:28AM (#211681)
                  Oh, yes, I'm sorry, my mistake. Clearly having warmer temperatures would not mean less people would die of cold temperatures. I don't know what I was thinking that lead me to such a ridiculous conclusion. Thanks for pointing out my error. I'll be sure to be extra generous when the plate is passed, sir!
                  --
                  I am a crackpot
                  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:37AM

                    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:37AM (#211684)

                    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

                  by curunir_wolf (4772) on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:31AM (#211682)

                  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

                    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:46AM (#211689)
                    And you wonder why people have to keep repeating things at you.
                    --
                    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                    • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:52AM

                      by curunir_wolf (4772) on Tuesday July 21 2015, @12:52AM (#211692)
                      No, I don't wonder. Because it's always just "turtles all the way down". Most people just have talking points that they repeat over and over. It's boring, but I understand there are lots of people like that - no wondering necessary.
                      --
                      I am a crackpot
                      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 21 2015, @01:14AM

                        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 21 2015, @01:14AM (#211698)
                        Okie doke.
                        --
                        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
              • (Score: 1) by dboz87 on Wednesday July 22 2015, @01:46PM

                by dboz87 (1285) on Wednesday July 22 2015, @01:46PM (#212316)

                I really don't understand why this is getting modded "Troll".

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2015, @01:55AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2015, @01:55AM (#211706)

              The higher the global temperature, the more extreme the winters get.

              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

                by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 21 2015, @02:11AM (#211709)
                The change in temperature weakens the jet-stream. The warm air doesn't make it as far as it used to, resulting in colder winters. That is a really really basic explanation but hopefully it helps you picture how that could happen.
                --
                🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2015, @02:46AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2015, @02:46AM (#211721)

                  A quick search lead to this paper (Francis and Vavrus, 2015) which says the opposite of what you claim:

                  These results reinforce the hypothesis
                  that a rapidly warming Arctic promotes amplified jetstream
                  trajectories, which are known to favor persistent
                  weather patterns and a higher likelihood of
                  extreme weather events. Based on these results, we
                  conclude that further strengthening and expansion of
                  AA in all seasons, as a result of unabated increases in
                  greenhouse gas emissions, will contribute to an
                  increasingly wavy character in the upper-level winds,
                  and consequently, an increase in extreme weather
                  events that arise from prolonged atmospheric
                  conditions.

                  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

                    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 21 2015, @04:06AM (#211754)
                    Nah, I don't have a better source of data. And, hey, my description of the temperature swings is probably wrong.

                    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

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2015, @04:36AM (#211764)

                      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.

                      I have trouble imagining how taking a very complicated mechanism and dumping more energy into it will result in anything but more chaos.

                      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:

                      The examples of these simple models show that vertical energy transport for a planet with a transparent atmosphere
                      only smooths out the daily temperature curve, without being able to bring the surface temperature higher than the
                      effective radiative temperature. The same is true if we were to add in more realistic horizontal energy transport from
                      larger-scale atmospheric and oceanic circulation - of course getting much more realistic means entering the realm of
                      more full-scale general circulation models5, which we have no intention of doing here.

                      http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324v1.pdf [arxiv.org]

                      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 21 2015, @04:57AM

                        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 21 2015, @04:57AM (#211768)
                        I'm sorry I don't have time to read the study right now, but I did want to mention that a Venutian day more than half a year long. True, it is warmer, but we've got a lot more motion happening over here.
                        --
                        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2015, @05:09AM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 21 2015, @05:09AM (#211772)

                          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.