Climate Change Reconsidered–Serious Science that debunks IPCC Claims

So in July I am to lecture on human health issues in the debate on warming.

I will be the only physician lecturing at the Heartland Institute Climate meeting in Las Vegas, July 7-9 so I am studying up.

Now they call it change for the IPCC and the warmer fanatics so they can cover all forms of panic about the weather, but we all know it’s about carbon dioxide as a scary air pollutant that will kill us all.

I say warming will benefit human kind and the biosphere, that’s been my theme for many years. Easy for an old man to believe that–I wear socks to bed now and I used to sleep au natural.

But let’s assume that the warmer gang is still committed to carbon dioxide causing warming that causes misery, death and destruction.

They haven’t come up with a cogent argument that carbon dioxide in the range of 0.04 % is toxic, so they must to always return to the theme in their hymnal–carbon dioxide will cause warming, will cause an increase of 2 or 3 or 5 degrees Centigrade, and people will die and be displaced and predated by horrific climate disruptions.

I will stick to what I know, I will lecture and provide evidence and references that show that warmer by 3, even 5 degrees C will have a moderating affect on night and winter temps without causing terrible heat waves as advertised.

More important the average planet temp being about 57 F, the average is too low for humans for sure and causes stress and disease and deaths. Heat waves are weather phenomena that have effects on the health and lives of the poorly acclimated and seriously debilitated. Heat waves kill the very ill who have bad housing and no access to water and a cool place to sit. Cold, on the other hand cuts lives by years and there is no harvesting effect as in heat waves. Harvesting means death rate drops after the bump, in cold the death rate does not drop, the deaths are real, the effect is greater than heat and it coninues out for a time. The death effect of cold is greater by far than heat.

In addition I will point out that warming is healthful for endotherms or homeotherms that regulate their internal temp, birds and mammals, and poikilotherms, who depend on the temperature of the environment from invertebrates to fish,reptiles and amphibians.

Heartland Institute has sponsored a series of texts on Climate and warming issues called Climate Change Reconsidered now in a fourth edition, edited by Fred Singer and Craig Idso with the last book added Bob Carter and Craig’s dad Sherwood. All these Editors coordinated with a large international team of authors. All PhD in physical sciences, meteorologists and others.

The book I will use has a much expanded discussion of human effects from Chapter 9 of the first two editions. A fine chapter 7 on Human Health.

Here the link to the big book on biological issues:

http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/ccr2biologicalimpacts.html

The Human Effects issues are covered here:

http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/pdf/Chapter-7-Human-Health.pdf

So here is my crude draft of a short version of Chapter 7, I dropped off the nutrition stuff at the end, to emphasize the importance of the research on cardiovascular, respiratory, vector disease issues.

Some text is included for a flavor. Text is heavily referenced, as you can see–plenty of peer-reviewed research.
7

Human Health (Dunn short version)

Key Findings

Introduction

7.1 Hot vs. Cold Weather
7.1.1 Asia
7.1.2 Europe
7.1.3 North America
7.1.4 Other Regions
7.1.5 Multiple Regions

7.2 Cardiovascular Disease

7.3 Respiratory Disease

7.4 Stroke Occurrence

7.5 Malaria

7.6 Dengue Fever

7.7 Tick-Borne Diseases

7.8 Diet
7.8.1 Antioxidants
7.8.2 Common Food Plants
7.8.3 Medicinal Plants
7.8.4 Health-Harming Substances

Key Findings
The following bulleted points summarize the main findings of this chapter:

• Warmer temperatures lead to a decrease in temperature-related mortality, including deaths associated with cardiovascular disease, respir-atory disease, and strokes.
• In the United States the average person who died because of cold temperature exposure lost in excess of 10 years of potential life, whereas the average person who died because of hot tempera-ture exposure likely lost no more than a few days or weeks of life.
• Some 4,600 deaths are delayed each year as people in the U.S. move from cold northeastern states to warm southwestern states. Between 3 and 7% of the gains in longevity experienced by the U.S. population over the past three decades is due simply to people moving to warmer states.
• Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics. Coronary and cerebral thrombosis account for about half of all cold-related mortality.
• Global warming is reducing the incidence of cardiovascular diseases related to low tempera-tures and wintry weather by a much greater degree than it increases the incidence of cardiovascular diseases associated with high temperatures and summer heat waves.
• The adverse health impacts of cold temperatures, especially with respect to respiratory health, are more significant than those of high temperatures in many parts of the world, including Spain, Canada, Shanghai, and Taiwan. In the subtropical island of Taiwan, for example, researchers found low minimum temperatures were the strongest risk factor associated with outpatient visits for respiratory diseases.
• A vast body of scientific examination and research contradict the claim that malaria will expand across the globe and intensify as a result of CO2-induced warming.
• Concerns over large increases in vector-borne diseases such as dengue as a result of rising temperatures are unfounded and unsupported by the scientific literature, as climatic indices are poor predictors for dengue disease.
• While climatic factors largely determine the geographical distribution of ticks, temperature and climate change are not among the significant factors determining the incidence of tick-borne diseases.
• The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content is not only raising the productivity of Earth’s common food plants but also significantly increasing the quantity and potency of the many health-promoting substances found in their tissues, which are the ultimate sources of sustenance for essentially all animals and humans.
• Atmospheric CO2 enrichment positively impacts the production of numerous health-promoting substances found in medicinal or “health food” plants,
• There appears to be little reason to expect any significant CO2-induced increases in human-health-harming substances produced by plants as the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration continues to rise.

Introduction

Carbon dioxide (CO2) does not seriously affect human health until the CO2 content of the air reaches approximately 15,000 ppm (Luft et al., 1974; Schaefer, 1982), more than 37 times greater than the current concentration of atmospheric CO2.

Nevertheless, IPCC contends rising CO2 concentrations are causing several indirect threats to human health,

According to a draft from the Working Group II contribution to IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report,

The most important effect of climate change is that it will exacerbate current risks to health [very high confidence]. In recent decades, climate change has contributed to levels of ill-health (likely). If climate change continues as projected in scenarios in the next few decades, the major increases of ill-health compared to no climate change will occur through:
Greater incidence of injury, disease, and death due to more intense heat waves, storms, floods, and fires. [very high confidence]
Increased risk of under-nutrition resulting from diminished food production in poor regions. [high confidence]
Increased risks of food- and water-borne diseases and vector-borne infections. [high confidence]
… positive effects will be out-weighed, world-wide, by the magnitude and severity of the negative effects of climate change. [high confidence] ((IPCC-II, 2013a, Chapter 11, Human Health, p. 3; italics in original, bold removed and formatting changed).

We should note before going on that IPCC’s assignment of “confidence” levels to each of these claims is purely a rhetorical device and not based on any statistical tests. . . .

As shown in the material presented in this chapter, however, IPCC’s view of the impacts of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 on human health is simply wrong. Numerous peer-reviewed studies demonstrate a warmer planet is beneficial to humanity, as warmer temperatures in all parts of the world lead to decreases in temperature-related mortality. The medical literature shows warmer temperatures and a smaller difference between daily high and low temperatures, as occurred during the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, reduce mortality rates due to cardiovascular and respiratory disease and stroke occurrence.
Similarly, the research is quite clear that climate has exerted only a minimal influence on recent trends in vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and tick-borne diseases. Other factors, many of them related to economic and technological setbacks or progress and not to weather, are far more important factors determining the transmission and prevalence of such diseases.
Finally, and perhaps surprisingly, IPCC entirely overlooks the positive effects of rising levels of atmospheric CO2 on human diets.

7.1 Hot vs. Cold Weather

• Warmer temperatures lead to a decrease in temperature-related mortality, including deaths associated with cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and strokes. The evidence of this benefit comes from research conducted in every major country of the world.
Kan et al. say their data suggest “even a slight increase in DTR is associated with a substantial increase in mortality.” In addition, they note over the past century global warming has been characterized by “the daily minimum temperature increasing at a faster rate … than the daily maximum, resulting in a decrease in the DTR for many parts of the world.” Their results suggest that in addition to the reduction in human mortality typically provided by the increase in daily mean temperature, the accompanying decrease in DTR also should have been tending to reduce human mortality.
The data of Figure 7.1.2.1 clearly demonstrate the people of the Castile-Leon region of Spain are much more likely to die from a cardiovascular disease in the extreme cold of winter than in the extreme heat of summer. The same holds true with respect to dying from respiratory and digestive system diseases.

The international team of scientists—from Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden—found “a 1°C decrease in temperature was associated with a 1.35% increase in the daily number of total natural deaths and a 1.72%, 3.30% and 1.25% increase in cardiovascular, respiratory, and cerebro-vascular deaths, respectively.” In addition, they report “the increase was greater for the older age groups,” and the cold effect “persisted up to 23 days, with no evidence of mortality displacement.” Analitis et al. conclude their results “add evidence that cold-related mortality is an important public health problem across Europe and should not be overlooked by public health authorities because of the recent focus on heat-wave episodes.”

Xu et al. (2013) preface their work by stating, “previous studies have found that high and cold temperatures increase the risk of childhood diarrhea,” but much less is known about whether the within-day variation of temperature (i.e., the daily maximum minus minimum, or diurnal temperature range, DTR) has any effect on it. They write, “a Poisson generalized linear regression model combined with a distributed lag non-linear model was used to examine the relationship between diurnal temperature range and emergency department admissions for diarrhea among children under five years in Brisbane [Australia] from 1st January 2003 to 31st December 2009.”
The six scientists found “a statistically significant relationship between diurnal temperature range and childhood diarrhea,” such that “a 1°C increase in diurnal temperature range was associated with a 3% increase of Emergency Department Admissions for childhood diarrhea.”

Mrema et al. (2012) state “weather and climate changes are associated with a number of immediate and long-term impacts on human health that occur directly or indirectly, through mediating variables,” but “few studies to date have established the empirical relationship between monthly weather and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa.” Working with mortality data obtained from the Rufiji (Tanzania) Health and Demographic Surveillance System (RHDSS) for the period 1999 to 2010, Mrema et al. employed time-series Poisson regression models to estimate the association between monthly tem-perature—which ranges from 27.9 to 34.4°C in this tropical region—and mortality, adjusted for long-term trends, in three age groups (0–4, 5–59, 60+).
The four Tanzanian researchers report “mortality in all age groups peaked up at the mid of the year,” which is “the time when the temperature is relatively lower compared to other periods of the year in Rufiji.” If the monthly average temperature drops to a value of 24°C from the threshold, they state, “mortality will increase by 80.7%, 65.7% and 74% in age groups 0–4, 5–59 and over 60, respectively.” Mrema et al. note “Rufiji’s population is accustomed to a tropical climate and, like any other population, is exposed to cold temperatures relative to its average climate.

diarrhea? PLoS One 8: e64713.

7.2 Cardiovascular Disease

• Global warming is reducing the incidence of cardiovascular diseases related to low temperatures and wintry weather by a much greater degree than it increases the incidence of cardiovascular diseases associated with high temperatures and summer heat waves.
Keatinge and Donaldson report coronary and cerebral thrombosis account for about half of all cold-related deaths, and respiratory diseases account for approximately half of the rest. They say cold stress causes an increase in arterial thrombosis “because the blood becomes more concentrated, and so more liable to clot during exposure to cold.” As they describe it, “the body’s first adjustment to cold stress is to shut down blood flow to the skin to conserve body heat,” which “produces an excess of blood in central parts of the body,” and to correct for this effect, “salt and water are moved out from the blood into tissue spaces,” leaving behind “increased levels of red cells, white cells, platelets and fibrinogen” that lead to increased viscosity of the blood and a greater risk of clotting.

As to respiratory-related deaths, the British scientists report the infections that cause them spread more readily in cold weather because people “crowd together in poorly ventilated spaces when it is cold.” In addition, they say “breathing of cold air stimulates coughing and running of the nose, and this helps to spread respiratory viruses and bacteria.” The “train of events leading to respiratory deaths,” they continue, “often starts with a cold or some other minor infection of the upper airways,” which “spreads to the bronchi and to the lungs,” whereupon “secondary infection often follows and can lead to pneumonia.” They also note cold stress “tends to suppress immune responses to infections,” and respiratory infections typically “increase the plasma level of fibrinogen, and this contributes to the rise in arterial thrombosis in winter.”

Keatinge and Donaldson also note “cold spells are closely associated with sharp increases in mortality rates,” and “deaths continue for many days after a cold spell ends.” On the other hand, they report, “increased deaths during a few days of hot weather are followed by a lower than normal mortality rate,” because “many of those dying in the heat are already seriously ill and even without heat stress would have died within the next 2 or 3 weeks.”

With respect to the implications of global warming for human mortality, Keatinge and Donaldson state “since heat-related deaths are generally much fewer than cold-related deaths”—and, it should be noted, consist primarily of deaths that typically would have occurred shortly even without excess heat—“the overall effect of global warming on health can be expected to be a beneficial one.” They report, “the rise in temperature of 3.6°F expected over the next 50 years would increase heat-related deaths in Britain by about 2,000 but reduce cold-related deaths by about 20,000.”

Keatinge and Donaldson concluded, “even in climates as warm as southern Europe or North Carolina [USA], cold weather causes more deaths than hot weather.” They report “global warming will reduce this at first,” but “the improvement is not likely to continue without action to promote defenses against cold.” They report “people in regions with mild winters become careless about cold stress, protect themselves less effectively against cold, and generally have more winter deaths than people in colder regions,” noting “climatic warming therefore calls for action to control cold stress as well as heat stress,” and stating if appropriate precautions are taken, “rising temperatures could reduce overall mortality rates.” Consequently, they conclude, “the overall effect of global warming on health can be expected to be a beneficial one.”

These several studies clearly demonstrate global warming is beneficial to humanity, reducing the incidence of cardiovascular diseases related to low temperatures and wintry weather by a much greater degree than it increases the incidence of cardio-vascular diseases associated with high temperatures and summer heat waves.

7.3 Respiratory Disease

• The adverse health impacts of cold temperatures, especially with respect to respiratory health, are more significant than those of high temperatures in many parts of the world, including Spain, Canada, Shanghai, and Taiwan. In the subtropical island of Taiwan, for example, researchers found low minimum temperatures were the strongest risk factor associated with outpatient visits for respiratory diseases.

Bartzokas et al. (2004) “examined the relationship between hospital admissions for cardio-vascular (cardiac in general including heart attacks) and/or respiratory diseases (asthma etc.) in a major hospital in Athens [Greece] and meteorological parameters for an 8-year period.” Over the whole year, they found, “there was a dependence of admissions on temperature,” and low temperatures were “responsible for a higher number of admissions.” Specifically, “there was a decrease of cardiovascular or/and respiratory events from low to high values [of temperature], except for the highest temperature class in which a slight increase was recorded.”
Kovats et al. (2004) studied patterns of temperature-related hospital admissions and deaths in Greater London during the mid-1990s. For the three-year period 1994–1996, they found respiratory-related deaths were nearly 150% greater in the depth of winter cold than at the height of summer warmth. They also found the mortality impact of the heat wave of 29 July to 3 August 1995 (which boosted daily mortality by just over 10%) was so tiny it could not be discerned among the random scatter of plots of three-year-average daily deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory problems versus day of year. Similarly, in a study of temperature effects on mortality in three English counties (Hampshire, West Midlands, and West Yorkshire), McGregor (2005) found “the occurrence of influenza … helps elevate winter mortality above that of summer.”
Carder et al. (2005) used generalized linear Poisson regression models to investigate the relationship between outside air temperature and deaths due to all non-accident causes in the three largest cities of Scotland (Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Aberdeen) between January 1981 and December 2001. The authors observed “an overall increase in mortality as temperature decreases,” which “appears to be steeper at lower temperatures than at warmer temperatures,” and “there is little evidence of an increase in mortality at the hot end of the temperature range.” They also state “the observed relation between cold temperature and mortality was typically stronger among the elderly,” and “cold temperature effects on mortality persist with lag periods of beyond two weeks.” Specifically, “for temperatures below 11°C, a 1°C drop in the daytime mean temperature on any one day was associated with an increase in respiratory mortality of 4.8% over the following month.”
Noting “in temperate regions, respiratory disease adds greatly to the workload in general practice facilities and hospitals during the winter,” partly because of increases in cases of “bronchiolitis in young children caused by infection with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV),” Donaldson (2006) studied the effect of annual mean daily air temperature on the length of the yearly RSV season. He used weekly data on laboratory reports of RSV isolation by the Health Protection Agency and National Health Service hospital laboratories in England and Wales for 1981–2004, along with meteorological data from four surface stations (Ringway, Squires Gate, Malvern, and Rothamsted) that “are representative of a roughly triangular area of the United Kingdom enclosed by Preston, London, and Bristol.”

Reporting “climate change may be shortening the RSV season,” Donaldson found “the seasons associated with laboratory isolation of respiratory syncytial virus (for 1981–2004) and RSV-related emergency department admissions (for 1990–2004) ended 3.1 and 2.5 weeks earlier, respectively, per 1°C increase in annual central England temperature (P = 0.002 and 0.043, respectively).” Consequently, since “no relationship was observed between the start of each season and temperature,” he reports, “the RSV season has become shorter.” He concludes, “these findings imply a health benefit of global warming in England and Wales associated with a reduction in the duration of the RSV season and its consequent impact on the health service.”

The three researchers—from the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles, Harvard Medical School, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston—report the regression analysis found “annual temperature did not influence the prevalence of frequent otitis media,” “annual temperature did not influence prevalence of respiratory allergy,” and “annual temperature and sex did not influence seizure prevalence.” Miller et al. conclude their findings “may demonstrate that average temperature is not likely to be the dominant cause of the increase in allergy burden or that larger changes in temperatures over a longer period are needed to observe this association.” They conclude, “in the absence of more dramatic annual temperature changes, we do not expect prevalence of otitis media to change significantly as global warming may continue to affect our environment.”

Xu et al. (2013) state “childhood asthma is a major global health issue, affecting more than 300 million people worldwide (Baena-Cagnani and Badellino, 2011),” and it “is regarded as a national health priority in several countries,” citing Asher et al. (1995, 2006). They studied the relationship between diurnal temperature range (DTR) and the incidence of childhood asthma in Brisbane, Australia. For the study, “a Poisson generalized linear model combined with a distributed lag non-linear model was used to examine the relationship between DTR and emergency department admissions for childhood asthma in Brisbane from January 1st 2003 to December 31st 2009,” and daily maximum and minimum temperatures in Brisbane for the same time period were retrieved from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Each day’s DTR was calculated as the difference between its maximum and minimum temperatures.
The six scientists report “childhood asthma increased above a DTR of 10°C” and “was the greatest for lag 0–9 days, with a 31% increase in [hospital] emergency department admissions per 5°C increment of DTR,” further noting, “male children and children aged 5–9 years appeared to be more vulnerable to the DTR effect than others.” Since daily minimum temperatures have nearly always risen faster than have daily maximum temperatures in most locations around the globe whenever various regions have warmed, the study’s results indicate the decrease in DTR under global warming should lead to a decline in the number of cases of childhood asthma.

The five researchers discovered “mortality from [1] all causes and [2] circulatory diseases and [3] outpatient visits of respiratory diseases has a strong association with cold temperatures in the subtropical island, Taiwan.” In addition, they found “minimum temperature estimated the strongest risk associated with outpatient visits of respiratory diseases.”
The several studies described above clearly indicate a warmer world would be a much better world, especially with respect to the respiratory health of the world’s citizens.

7.4 Stroke Occurrence

According to IPCC, global warming will pose numerous challenges to human health, including the potential for an excess of deaths. This section examines the results of a number of studies conducted over the past decade or so that deal with this subject as it applies to strokes.
Feigin et al. (2000) conducted what they call “the first truly population-based study on the relationship between stroke occurrence and weather parameters in Russia,” working within the city of Novosibirsk, Siberia, which has one of the highest stroke incidence rates in the world. Based on analyses of 2,208 patients with sex and age distributions similar to those of Russia as a whole, they found a statistically signifi-cant association between stroke occurrence and low ambient temperature over the period 1982–1993. In the case of ischemic stroke (IS), which accounted for 87% of all stroke types, they determined “the risk of IS occurrence on days with low ambient temperature [was] 32% higher than that on days with high ambient temperature.” Given what they describe as “the highly significant association observed between low ambient temperature (< -2.0°C) and IS occurrence (P = 0.02), together with the proportion of days with such temperature in the region during a calendar year (41.3%),” they conclude the “very high stroke incidence in Novosibirsk, Russia may partially be explained by the highly prevalent cold factor there.” They suggest the implementation of “preventive measures in [the] region, such as avoiding low temperature.”
Hong et al. (2003) investigated the association between the onset of ischemic stroke and prior episodic decreases in temperature in 545 patients who suffered strokes in Incheon, Korea from January 1998 to December 2000. They report “decreased ambient temperature was associated with risk of acute ischemic stroke Finally, they explain the reason for the 24- to 48-hour lag between exposure to cold and the onset of stroke “might be that it takes some time for the decreasing temperature to affect blood viscosity or coagulation,” which is also suggested by the work of Keatinge et al. (1984), who found blood viscosity and the plasma fraction of platelets began to increase one hour after cold exposure and did not reach a peak until sometime beyond six hours later.

The six scientists report both “a one-day decrease in temperature and colder daily temperatures were associated with an increased risk of incident aSAH,” and “these variables appeared to act synergistically” and were “particularly predominant in the fall, when the transition from warmer to colder temperatures occurred.” Gill et al. add their study “is the first to report a direct relationship between a temperature decrease and an increased risk of aSAH,” and “it also confirms the observations of several reports of an increased risk of aSAH in cold weather or winter,” citing Lejeunne et al. (1994), Jakovljevic et al. (1996), and Nyquist et al. (2001).

7.5 Malaria

• A vast body of scientific examination and research contradict the claim that malaria will expand across the globe and intensify as a result of CO2-induced warming.
According to IPCC, ““If climate change continues as projected in scenarios in the next few decades, the major increases of ill-health compared to no climate change will occur through …increased risks of food- and water-borne diseases and vector-borne infections. [high confidence]” (IPCC-II, 2013). Chapter 11, Human Health, Working Group II, IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, dated March 28, 2013, p. 3, italics in original, bold removed). This section investigates the reliability of IPCC’s claim with respect to malaria.. According to the results of a vast body of scientific examination and research on this topic, there is little support for IPCC’s claims. The next two sections will address the related claims regarding dengue fever and tick-borne diseases.
In a research report in Science, Rogers and Randolph (2000) note “predictions of global climate change have stimulated forecasts that vector-borne diseases will spread into regions that are at present too cool for their persistence.” There are, however, several problems with this scenario.
According to Reiter (2000), claims that malaria resurgence is the product of CO2-induced global warming ignore other important factors and disregard known facts. A historical analysis of malaria trends, for example, reveals this disease was an important cause of illness and death in England during a period of colder-than-present temperatures throughout the Little Ice Age. Its transmission began to decline only in the nineteenth century, during a warming phase, when, according to Reiter, “temperatures were already much higher than in the Little Ice Age.” In short, malaria was prevalent in Europe during some of the coldest centuries of the past millennium, and it has only recently undergone widespread decline, when temperatures have been warming, Clearly, there are other factors at work that are more important than temperature. Such factors include the quality of public health services, irrigation and agricultural activities, land use practices, civil strife, natural disasters, ecological change, population change, use of insecticides, and the movement of people (Reiter, 2000; Reiter, 2001; Hay et al., 2002).

Two more review papers on the subject followed two years later. In the first, Zell et al. (2008) write, “it is assumed that global warming is forced by the anthropogenic release of ‘greenhouse gases,’” and a further “consistent assumption” has been a consequent “increased exposure of humans to tropical pathogens and their vectors.” They also note “there is dissent about this hypothesis (Taubes, 1997; Reiter, 2001; Hay et al., 2002; Reiter et al., 2003; Randolph, 2004; Zell, 2004; Halstead, 2008),” and they explore it in more detail, examining the pertinent literature and describing “those mechanisms that have led to an increase of virus activity in recent years.”
Based on their review, the three German researchers report “only very few examples point toward global warming as a cause of excess viral activity.” Instead, they determined “coupled ocean/ atmosphere circulations and continuous anthro-pogenic disturbances (increased populations of humans and domestic animals, socioeconomic instability, armed conflicts, displaced populations, unbalanced ecosystems, dispersal of resistant pathogens etc.) appear to be the major drivers of disease variability,” and “global warming at best contributes.”

In the second 2008 paper (Reiter, 2008), Paul Reiter—who works with the Insects and Infectious Disease Unit of the Institut Pasteur in Paris, France—writes, “man-made climate change has become a defining moral and political issue of our age,” noting “speculations on its potential impact often focus on infectious diseases, and on malaria in particular,” and “predictions are common that in the coming decades, tens—even hundreds—of millions more cases will occur in regions where the disease is already present, and that the vectors and the pathogens will move to higher latitudes and altitudes,” infecting even more people.
In analyzing these claims, Reiter first discusses the mathematical models employed in this endeavor, after which he discusses common misconceptions and the nature of malaria in temperate regions. In the latter discussions he mentions such items as ecological change, new farm crops, new rearing practices, urbanization and mechanization, human living conditions, and medical care. Then, in a discussion of malaria in the tropics, he considers stable endemic malaria, unstable endemic malaria, birth rate, forest clearance, agriculture, movement of people, urbanization, insecticide resistance, resistance to drugs, degradation of the health infrastructure, and war and civil strife. He then treats three additional topics: Highland malaria in the tropics, Kenya Highlands, and New Guinea Highlands.
Reiter concludes, “simplistic reasoning on the future prevalence of malaria is ill-founded; malaria is not limited by climate in most temperate regions, nor in the tropics, and in nearly all cases, ‘new’ malaria at high altitudes is well below the maximum altitudinal limits for transmission.” He further states, “future changes in climate may alter the prevalence and incidence of the disease, but obsessive emphasis on ‘global warming’ as a dominant parameter is indefensible; the principal determinants are linked to ecological and societal change, politics and economics.” Reiter’s conclusions have been borne out in additional studies of the subject.

Table 7.5.1. Effects of Climate and Socioeconomic Factors on the Projected Future Global Distribution of Malaria. From Béguin et al. (2011).
which explains “the malaria epidemics in the ‘unusually hot summers’ of 1848 and 1859.” Nevertheless, the long-term near-linear temporal decline in malaria deaths over the period of study, the researchers write, “was probably driven by nonclimatic factors,” among which they identify increasing livestock populations (which tend to divert mosquito biting from humans), decreasing acreages of marsh wetlands (where mosquitoes breed), as well as “improved housing, better access to health care and medication, and improved nutrition, sanitation, and hygiene.” They also note the number of secondary cases arising from each primary imported case “is currently minuscule,” as demonstrated by the absence of any secondary malaria cases in the UK since 1953.
Although simplistic model simulations may suggest the increase in temperature predicted for Britain by 2050 is likely to cause an 8–14% increase in the potential for malaria transmission, Kuhn et al. say “the projected increase in proportional risk is clearly insufficient to lead to the reestablishment of endemicity.” They note “the national health system ensures that imported malaria infections are detected and effectively treated and that gametocytes are cleared from the blood in less than a week.” For Britain, therefore, they conclude “a 15% rise in risk might have been important in the 19th century, but such a rise is now highly unlikely to lead to the reestablishment of indigenous malaria,” because “socioeconomic and agricultural changes” have greatly altered the cause-and-effect relationships of the past.

Paaijmans et al. (2012) state “the development rate of parasites and pathogens within vectors typically increases with temperature,” and, therefore, “transmission intensity is generally assumed to be higher under warmer conditions.” However, they note, “development is only one component of parasite/pathogen life history,” adding, “there has been little research exploring the temperature sensi-tivity of other traits that contribute to transmission intensity.”

Concerning the significance of these findings, Tuchman et al. write, “the indirect impacts of an elevated CO2 atmosphere on mosquito larval survivorship and development time could potentially be great,” because longer larval development times could result in fewer cohorts of mosquitoes surviving to adulthood. With fewer mosquitoes, there should be lower levels of mosquito-borne diseases.

Zell (2004) states many people “assume a correlation between increasing disease incidence and global warming.” However, he concludes after studying the issue in considerable depth, “the factors responsible for the emergence/reemergence of vector-borne diseases are complex and mutually influence each other.” As an example of this complexity, he notes, “the incidence and spread of parasites and arboviruses are affected by insecticide and drug resistance, deforestation, irrigation systems and dams, changes in public health policy (decreased resources of surveillance, prevention and vector control), demographic changes (population growth, migration, urbanization), and societal changes (inadequate housing conditions, water deterioration, sewage, waste management).” Therefore, he continues, “it may be over-simplistic to attribute emergent/re-emergent diseases to climate change and sketch the menace of devastating epidemics in a warmer world.” Zell states, “variations in public health practices and lifestyle can easily outweigh changes in disease biology,” especially those that might be caused by global warming.

The six scientists—from the Spatial Ecology and Epidemiology Group, the Malaria Public Health and Epidemiology Group, and the Centre for Tropical Medicine of the UK’s University of Oxford, plus the Departments of Biology and Geography and the Emerging Pathogens Institute of the United States’ University of Florida—report “comparison of the historical and contemporary maps revealed that endemic/stable malaria is likely to have covered 58% of the world’s land surface around 1900 but only 30% by 2007.” They report, “even more marked has been the decrease in prevalence within this greatly reduced range, with endemicity falling by one or more classes in over two-thirds of the current range of stable transmission.” They write, “widespread claims that rising mean temperatures have already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its endemicity and geographic extent.” Rather, “the combined natural and anthropogenic forces acting on the disease throughout the twentieth century have resulted in the great majority of locations undergoing a net reduction in transmission between one and three orders of magnitude larger than the maximum future increases proposed under temperature-based climate change scenarios.”
Gething et al. conclude there has been “a decoupling of the geographical climate-malaria relationship over the twentieth century, indicating that non-climatic factors have profoundly confounded this relationship over time.” They note “non-climatic factors, primarily direct disease control and the indirect effects of a century of urbanization and economic development, although spatially and temporally variable, have exerted a substantially greater influence on the geographic extent and intensity of malaria worldwide during the twentieth century than have climatic factors.” As for the future, they conclude climate-induced effects “can be offset by moderate increases in coverage levels of currently available interventions.”
The many findings described above make it clear a vast body of scientific examination and research contradict the claim that malaria will expand across the globe and intensify as a result of CO2-induced warming.

7.6 Dengue Fever

• Concerns over large increases in vector-borne diseases such as dengue as a result of rising temperatures are unfounded and unsupported by the scientific literature, as climatic indices are poor predictors for dengue disease.
According to Ooi and Gubler (2009), “dengue/dengue hemorrhagic fever is the most important vector-borne viral disease globally,” with more than half the world’s population living in areas deemed to be at risk of infection. Also, they note, “many voices have raised concern that global warming is likely to increase the geographic distribution of the dengue mosquito vectors and the frequency and magnitude of dengue epidemics.” Such concerns, as evidenced by the papers discussed below, are ill-founded.
In a major review of mosquito-borne diseases by one of the world’s premier authorities on the subject, Reiter (2001) analyzed the history of malaria and dengue fever in an attempt to determine whether the incidence and range of influence of these diseases would indeed increase in response to CO2-induced global warming. This review indicates the natural history of these vector-borne diseases is highly complex, and the interplay of climate, ecology, vector biology, and a number of other factors defies definition by the simplistic analyses utilized in models that generate predictions of future geo-graphical changes in these diseases under various global warming scenarios.

Russell et al. (2009) report similar findings. The team of scientists note “dengue has emerged as a leading cause of morbidity in many parts of the tropics,” and “Australia has had dengue outbreaks in northern Queensland.” In addition, they report, “substantial increases in distribution and incidence of the disease in Australia are projected with climate change,” or, more specifically, “with increasing temperatures.” Russell et al. explored the soundness of these projections by reviewing the history of dengue in Australia.
This work showed the dengue vector (the Aedes aegypti mosquito) “was previously common in parts of Queensland, the Northern Territory, Western Australia and New South Wales,” and it had, “in the past, covered most of the climatic range theoretically available to it,” adding “the distribution of local dengue transmission has [historically] nearly matched the geographic limits of the vector.” This being the case, they conclude the vector’s current absence from much of Australia “is not because of a lack of a favorable climate.” Thus, they reason “a temperature rise of a few degrees is not alone likely to be responsible for substantial increases in the southern distribution of A. aegypti or dengue, as has been recently proposed.” Instead, they note, “dengue activity is increasing in many parts of the tropical and subtropical world as a result of rapid urbanization in developing countries and increased international travel, which distributes the viruses between countries.” Instead of futile attempts to limit dengue transmission by controlling the world’s climate, therefore, the medical researchers recommend “well resourced and functioning surveillance programs, and effective public health intervention capabilities, are essential to counter threats from dengue and other mosquito-borne diseases.”
These several observations indicate concerns over large increases in vector-borne diseases such as dengue as a result of rising temperatures are unfound-ed and unsupported by the scientific literature, as climatic indices are poor predictors for dengue disease.

7.7 Tick-Borne Diseases

• While climatic factors largely determine the geographical distribution of ticks, temperature and climate change are not among the significant factors determining the incidence of tick-borne diseases.
Randolph and Rogers (2000) state tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) “is the most significant vector-borne disease in Europe and Eurasia,” having “a case morbidity rate of 10–30% and a case mortality rate of typically 1–2% but as high as 24% in the Far East.” The disease is caused by a flavivirus (TBEV), which is maintained in natural rodent-tick cycles; humans may be infected with it if bitten by an infected tick or by drinking untreated milk from infected sheep or goats.
Early discussions on the relationship of TBE to global warming predicted the disease would expand its range and become more of a threat to humans in a warmer world. However, Randolph and Rogers note, “like many vector-borne pathogen cycles that depend on the interaction of so many biotic agents with each other and with their abiotic environment, enzootic cycles of TBEV have an inherent fragility,” so “their continuing survival or expansion cannot be predicted from simple univariate correlations.”
Confining their analysis to Europe, Randolph and Rogers first matched the present-day distribution of TBEV to the present-day distributions of five climatic variables: monthly mean, maximum, and minimum temperatures, plus rainfall and saturation vapor pressure, “to provide a multivariate description of present-day areas of disease risk.” They applied this understanding to outputs of a general circulation model of the atmosphere that predicted how these five climatic variables may change in the future.
The results indicate the distribution of TBEV might expand both north and west of Stockholm, Sweden in a warming world. For most other parts of Europe, however, the two researchers say “fears for increased extent of risk from TBEV caused by global climate change appear to be unfounded.” They report, “the precise conditions required for enzootic cycles of TBEV are predicted to be disrupted” in response to global warming, and the new climatic state “appears to be lethal for TBEV.” This finding, they write, “gives the lie to the common perception that a warmer world will necessarily be a world under greater threat from vector-borne diseases.” In the case of TBEV, they report the predicted change “appears to be to our advantage.”
Noting “it is often suggested that one of the most important societal consequences of climate change may be an increase in the geographic distribution and transmission intensity of vector-borne disease,”

Summary

Warming reduces cold injury and Diurnal Temperature Range.
Death and disease impacts in moderate climes from colder or cooler changes are just as significant, partially because of less acclimation in climate not populations not acclimating to cold or cooler weather.

The death effects of temperature change correspond to DTR and have a high rate on the low end of temperature with a lesser rate at the high end. The shape of the death rates is a lopsided parabola with the lesser end on the high temperature side.

There is a harvesting effect of heat waves with a decline of deaths after—the deline or harvesting effect is not present in cold waves because the lost had a longer life expectancy.

The loss of life expectancy on the low end is 10 years wherease the los of life expectancy on the high end is less than a year.

The result is reductions in cardiovascular events like stroke and heart attack. Caused by increased blood viscosity and blood vessel sludging. Hemorrhagic strokes are increased as well as ischemic strokes.

Warming reduces respiratory disease including asthma, chronic lung disease excacerbations, RSV and other viral respiratory illnesses, and Pneumonia.

Diarrheal disease is reduced when DTR is reduced in warm climates.

Vector diseases carried by mosquitos are impacted more by socioeconomics than a temperature variation. Malaria and Dengue are both disease easily transmitted in moderate climes and are effected more by socioeconomics than a climate change to warmer.

Same with tick borne diseases.

About these ads

2 responses to “Climate Change Reconsidered–Serious Science that debunks IPCC Claims

  1. Warmist exhale CO2 from their lungs – use that same CO2 for their vocal cords, to badmouth CO2… a bit hypocritical, isn’t it?

  2. so you’re another Koch sucking paid shill of Big Oil, eh? Good!! We need more guys like you telling real science facts about ‘warming’ based on empirical evidence and not on PlayStation Climatology games on someone’s desktop computer written by guys with a vested interest in the outcome of the “model”.

    A hat tip and wishes for good luck in the den of the thieves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s