"Heatwave deaths will rise steadily by 2080 as globe warms up" Topic

"Published today in PLOS Medicine, it is the first global study to predict future heatwave-related deaths and aims to help decision makers in planning adaptation and mitigation strategies for climate change.

Researchers developed a model to estimate the number of deaths related to heatwaves in 412 communities across 20 countries for the period of 2031 to 2080.

The study projected excess mortality in relation to heatwaves in the future under different scenarios characterised by levels of greenhouse gas emissions, preparedness and adaption strategies and population density across these regions…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Here we go again…get the DH ready.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…………..

Ya Tango, these topics only cause mud slinging and also the science involved is never discussed. As the cliche goes, these topics produce a lot of heat but very little light.

I fully agree with Bowman.

But… they are for "Science" … or not?.

Agree or desagree is normal in a fórum… or not?

You can read it and made no comments… or not?.

Otherwise… is censure… or not? (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

And cold still kills more people than heat.

Additionally, making energy more expensive and less reliable will make air conditioning less affordable compounding the heat problem.

Has anyone ever done a study on human mortality increases due to the ban on Freon? Or how much GHG emissions increased due to the switch to less efficient refrigerants?

It is like the increased number of highway fatalities due to CAFE standards – nobody does the math or if done it is ignored.

But… they are for "Science" … or not?.

The topics are science topics, but the discussions they generate are anything but. Just check this board, on any climate topic. No science is being discussed. But there is plenty of acrimony. Do we need this?

Agree or desagree is normal in a fórum… or not?

Yes and if we were actually agreeing or disagreeing during a discourse on science then we would all agree. Again, read these climate discussions. This is not occurring.

You can read it and made no comments… or not?

Yes, but that isn't happening.

Otherwise… is censure… or not?

No one is being censured.

Censure or prohibit a thread because certain people can not restrict their comments or are not up to doing them in a civilized or interesting way … it does not seem logical in any forum … those who choose the confrontation without meaning are the ones who should be discarded … not those that publish valid news and that corresponds to the appropriate forum.

Civility and good manners are key to participate in any thread ….

For my part … I do not think I have incurred in any of such fault.

Call attention or complain about those who usually do it in this way.

Amicalement
Armand

With all due respect, no one is censuring or prohibiting anything. But posting something just to watch the ensuing car wreck could be construed as trolling.

I didn't that my friend… I do not enjoyed bad manners… I'm THE number one suffering on that matter in the history of TMP…

I like the theme and want to share it to those who could enjoyed it too…

If there is someone in this forum that I respect and admire, you are that person my good friend … it hurts me you prejudge my participation here … I am not that kind of person …

"Solo el ladrón cree que todos son de su condición"

"Only the thief believes that everyone is of his condition" … says the saying.

I do not think that's your case … but I assure you it's not mine.

Cordial greetings…
Armand

Thanks Armand, very interesting read.

With all due respect, no one is censuring or prohibiting anything. But posting something just to watch the ensuing car wreck could be construed as trolling.

Stating that it shouldn't be posted means…

Censuring/Prohibiting

Free Speech means

Free Speech

You might not like it but that is your right and if it bothers you so much don't read it.

So -

"Fuel-standard lethality is as obvious as a smashed windshield," J. R. Dunn observed in The American Thinker. He chillingly has detailed the mayhem that CAFE standards have unleashed:

According to the Brookings Institution, a 500-lb weight reduction of the average car increased annual highway fatalities by 2,200-3,900 and serious injuries by 11,000 to 19,500 per year. USA Today found that 7,700 deaths occurred for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards. Smaller cars accounted for up to 12,144 deaths in 1997, 37% of all vehicle fatalities for that year.

How many deaths have resulted? Depending on which study you choose, the total ranges from 41,600 to 124,800. To that figure we can add between 352,000 and 624,000 people suffering serious injuries, including being crippled for life. In the past thirty years, fuel standards have become one of the major causes of death and misery in the United States — and one almost completely attributable to human stupidity and shortsightedness.</Q>

link

Date:
May 20, 2015
Source:
The Lancet
Summary:
Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.

link

But socioeconomic status, and its effects on temperature-related deaths, presented the researchers with some confounding results: "Heat effects were higher in communities with higher income. Although this relationship might seem surprising," the researchers wrote, income is associated with mortality in adults older than 65 years, a group that represents "the majority of heat- and cold-related mortality."

Moving south

Age, then, causes more heat- and cold-related deaths than low income. But these weather-related deaths might have become less of a risk in recent years: Researchers have also found that, as more of the population moves to Sunbelt states like Florida and California, and with the near-ubiquity of air-conditioning, fewer deaths can be blamed on extreme weather — and Americans' mobility may be partly responsible for longer life spans.

"We calculate that every year, 4,600 deaths are delayed by changes in exposure to cold temperature induced by mobility," wrote the authors of a 2007 report from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

link

And as the last quote notes moving from colder climates to warmer climates where air conditioning is available saves lives – neither as likely to be occurring when energy becomes less available or is higher priced.

Stating that it shouldn't be posted means…

Your lack of reading comprehension is showing again.

For the record I am not telling Tango that he shouldn't post here. I'm suggesting that he consider the effect that some of his posts have on this site, which inevitably lead to acrimony, name calling and ill will. I enjoy Tango's contributions and would not want them to stop.

However a quick look at the history of the climate threads will bear out my concerns. Is any Science being discussed in them? Certain topics just seem to turn into car wrecks and I'd like that fact to be given consideration.

Goragrad, it's difficult to see what your point is. I don't think that anyone disputes the findings in the Lancet study. The OP shows that some groups are considering strategies for dealing with an expected rise in future heat related deaths.

Look heart and stroke disease kills about ten times as many people as diabetes. Does that mean we don't have to worry about diabetes? Of course not, especially with the diabetes related death rate on the rise.

A votre service mon cher ami!. (smile)

My friend Bowman… no harm here… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Same here, Armand.

a billion more people not going to help either.

For the record I am not telling Tango that he shouldn't post here. I'm suggesting that he consider the effect that some of his posts have on this site, which inevitably lead to acrimony, name calling and ill will.

That is still Censorship.

a billion more people not going to help either.

Well chances are good that we will see another World War by than.

So the total population is more likely to drop than increase.

That is still Censorship.

Oh grow up. It's making a suggestion. Tango can take it or leave it as he wishes. I'm not even in a position to censor anyone, even if that was my intention.

Maybe you should try to fully comprehend the conversation before commenting upon it.