4 thoughts on “Models say global warming could double heat-related deaths by 2100”
There are two words that should always raise a red flag: “Studies” and “Model”. 10-22
A lot depends on the vulnerability curve, if I may coin a phrase. If the temps are in a steep part of a Bell curve of vulnerability, so that a slight increase in temps makes a lot more people vulnerable to heat illness, then the model is more plausible. If the temps are in a flat part of a Bell curve, then a slight change in temps will see very little change in heat illness.
Since most urban populations in industrial countries are aging significantly, and since elderly are generally more vulnerable to heat and cold stresses (Bob may be an exception, of course), the aging of the population may be a larger factor in increasing vulnerability to heat illness.
Since climates warm and cool, the best answer to weather stress illness is comfortable homes and that means cheap energy. Perhaps more important in compassion is this: cheap energy would make cooling more available to hospitals in tropical areas where the world’s poorest people live. Bad enough that your child shakes with malaria because of Carson’s believers; why should Gore’s believers force your child to swelter alongside of the malaria symptoms?
I’m officially a senior, I live in Virginia and I do things outside in temperatures higher than the terrible French heat wave. I’ve lived in the South for 46 of my 66 years (North Carolina, New Orleans, Virginia). I don’t recall recent epidemic deaths from heat nor do I recall epidemics of senior deaths when we didn’t have air conditioning.
I think the models need some more work.
You mean 30,000 French seniors will die the next time?!?!?!
It will be a lot more than that if there is no electricity to drive the air conditioning. NOT…. because its that much hotter, but because we’ve allowed the loons to run the place into the ground and the electricity will be way too expensive for the poor to use.
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
There are two words that should always raise a red flag: “Studies” and “Model”. 10-22
A lot depends on the vulnerability curve, if I may coin a phrase. If the temps are in a steep part of a Bell curve of vulnerability, so that a slight increase in temps makes a lot more people vulnerable to heat illness, then the model is more plausible. If the temps are in a flat part of a Bell curve, then a slight change in temps will see very little change in heat illness.
Since most urban populations in industrial countries are aging significantly, and since elderly are generally more vulnerable to heat and cold stresses (Bob may be an exception, of course), the aging of the population may be a larger factor in increasing vulnerability to heat illness.
Since climates warm and cool, the best answer to weather stress illness is comfortable homes and that means cheap energy. Perhaps more important in compassion is this: cheap energy would make cooling more available to hospitals in tropical areas where the world’s poorest people live. Bad enough that your child shakes with malaria because of Carson’s believers; why should Gore’s believers force your child to swelter alongside of the malaria symptoms?
I’m officially a senior, I live in Virginia and I do things outside in temperatures higher than the terrible French heat wave. I’ve lived in the South for 46 of my 66 years (North Carolina, New Orleans, Virginia). I don’t recall recent epidemic deaths from heat nor do I recall epidemics of senior deaths when we didn’t have air conditioning.
I think the models need some more work.
You mean 30,000 French seniors will die the next time?!?!?!
It will be a lot more than that if there is no electricity to drive the air conditioning. NOT…. because its that much hotter, but because we’ve allowed the loons to run the place into the ground and the electricity will be way too expensive for the poor to use.