tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post56082219972075394..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Death from cold and heat - it's differentSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21495015458865187622015-05-26T01:37:26.796+10:002015-05-26T01:37:26.796+10:00Their total ought to be ignored, as it isn't r...Their total ought to be ignored, as it isn't representative of anything meaningful, but the details are interesting. Especially the supplementary materials, which has graphs for every location and some useful regional charts.<br /><br />One striking feature of the graphs is that most cold Northern sites (Canada, Sweden, Northern US) have very flat cold weather RR curves. Shifting Montreal warmer won't change the cold RR much at all, but looks to increase the hot RR rapidly. Apparently wealthy Northern climes have effective adaptations to cold weather, so mortality there won't benefit much from a reduction in cold extremes. OTOH, places like Okinawa, Hong Kong, Palermo, etc. have a doubling of RR at lows of 5C or 10C, where Montreal is flat down to -20C, so they aren't as well adapted/prepared for cool weather.<br /><br />Looking at Table S3 (mortality fraction by country by temperature percentile range), the cold weather mortality for most locations is pretty evenly distributed in a broad range up to the 50th cold percentile. On the hot end, the mortality is heavily clustered above the top 90th percentile, so a shift upwards could conceivably increase hot weather mortality more than it decreases cold weather mortality.<br /><br />Of course, it isn't that simple, as changing conditions will change the resource allocation for adaptation. Especially in poorer countries, that could mean less resources available for cold weather adaptation, so it's possible warming could increase cold weather mortality in some regions. The shapes of the relative risk and adaptation cost curves really do matter.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867691959969270844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41849941786480898012015-05-23T06:42:08.705+10:002015-05-23T06:42:08.705+10:00In the original article, it appears that classic h...In the original article, it appears that classic heat waves (hot nights are incorporated in 24 hour temperatures, but also presumably with duration and humidity) are included with the extremes (97.5 percentile).<br /><br />From Figure 2 (leaving out '=' Canada and '=' Spain) it would seem that generally HUMID countries have their higher mortalities in HIGHEST temperatures:<br />Brazil, Italy, Taiwan, Thailand<br /><br />While LESS HUMID countries have their higher mortalities during MODERATE temperatures:<br />Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, UK, USA<br /><br />Forgive my prejudice, living in a dry heat, and facing another summer's comfortable confinement within air conditioning; but I expect that the humidity plays an important role, which will have to await the next paper.Same Ordinary Foolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07688744006745904247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7235547084551920312015-05-22T15:38:58.048+10:002015-05-22T15:38:58.048+10:00I think many deniers use the "everything incl...I think many deniers use the "everything including the kitchen sink" approach. If they can twist it so it appears to support their position they'll use it regardless of how much it contradicts other arguments they've used. They use everything in the hope that something sticks.riveratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7442747396930924262015-05-22T12:27:06.625+10:002015-05-22T12:27:06.625+10:00I don't think it's just laziness. I think ...I don't think it's just laziness. I think a large part of the problem is that the whole thing is counter-intuitive. If the world is only going to be "a little bit warmer", then people instinctively think that this will only be "a little bit of a bother". They just don't understand the feedbacks and escalations that will result.Contrail Chooknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81582412093971201232015-05-22T12:09:50.692+10:002015-05-22T12:09:50.692+10:00One of the reasons that many deniers don't gro...One of the reasons that many deniers don't grok the seriousness of heat stress is laziness. ANd I don't just mean intellectual laziness, I'm referring to physical laziness.<br /><br />Most modern Western humans sit on their arses far more than evolution intended, and use fossil energy to do what ATP is supposed to do. Consequently most people don't generate the sort of heat bursts that a biophysically-functional human should be generating, and with which non-human animals have always had to contend.<br /><br />When one removes the basic sensory feedback that would otherwise occur with appropriate exercise (and the sort of exercise that will be necessarily revisited upon humans when the fossil fuel runs out...) it's easy to see why the harrumphers don't understand that heat is actually a problem for all who are not indolently cloistered in cooled bubbles that won't be around forever...<br /><br />Sherwood's and Huber's paper made an important point at the time about physiological tolerance of extreme heat events. It seems that the lesson still hasn't disseminated widely, especially as many denialists think that the issue is with mean temperature increase rather than extreme temperature events - as with many environmental insults it's usually not the press events that catastrophically terminate populations, but the occasional intolerable pulses.<br /><br />And the intolerable heat pulses are becoming more frequent and more extreme, in exponential proportion to the increase in mean global temperature. The <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-climate-club-adopts-eli-rabetts.html?showComment=1432224307939#c5757670403905285211" rel="nofollow">calculus that arises is simple</a>.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89800644848886594452015-05-22T12:04:40.260+10:002015-05-22T12:04:40.260+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26363989984606690092015-05-22T11:57:54.106+10:002015-05-22T11:57:54.106+10:00Anthony might be arguing that it's warming tod...Anthony might be arguing that it's warming today, or a couple of hours ago. He puts up articles ranging from the greenhouse effect is real to it's not warming to an ice age cometh. So it depends on the day and the hour of the day. It's pot luck. (There aren't very many articles at WUWT where it's admitted that global warming is real. Can't upset the WUWT audience too often or they'll drift away.)<br /><br />BTW sorry for the delay - Google has a mind of its own.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4362190648151556522015-05-22T09:13:55.514+10:002015-05-22T09:13:55.514+10:00Interesting. I can't help thinking that if the...Interesting. I can't help thinking that if the average temperature goes up a few degrees, the number of days above the optimum is going to increase substantially (we've all seen the graphs for that) and the large number of days below the optimum weights the past deaths more to the cold side.<br /><br />So, even though a few degrees rise in average temperatures would reduce the larger numbers of deaths due to moderate cold, looking at it just within the limitations of this data set, substantially increasing the number of days above the optimum, combined with the greater escalation of risk above the optimum point, could easily result in the total number of deaths remaining unchanged. Even if it doesn't increase, it may be unlikely to decrease. You'd have to do a new study to work out the likely effects.<br /><br />Obviously this ignores the limitations of this data set, as noted in Laden's article, and ignores all the other detrimental effects of higher temperature.<br /><br />And on the subject of Watts, is he now arguing that climate change is happening? I ask merely because if he's banging on about higher temperatures being better, that would imply an acceptance of climate science. Contrail Chooknoreply@blogger.com