Summer Heat-Related Deaths Expected To Triple By 2100

[Trakar]

I believe that it is getting warmer, and in addition I believe that due to this increase in overall temps, the weather will continue to get wilder and weirder.

What's more I believe that the recent statistics (say the last 30 years or so) support this contention.

Will this trend continue?

I have no idea.

Do we have a clear picture of what the root cause is?

I seriously doubt it. We have theories.

Actually, you don't "have a clear picture" but that is because you
a) have your head stuck in a hole in the sand
b) are brainwashed by the propaganda
c) are clueless, scientifically illiterate and kind of gullible

Climate scientists have a very clear and well verified picture of what "the root cause is" and that is the 40% increase in atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, that mankind has created, primarily by burning fossil fuels and deforestation. The physics of all this are quite clear and "this trend" will inevitably continue for a long time even if the world immediately begins reducing carbon emissions. The longer we wait to begin that effort, the worst things will eventually get. Our descendents will curse this generation's stupidity, shortsightedness and greed.

Just like I'm still cursing those damned Dinosaurs for not plugging up all those Volcano's when they had the chance.

And exactly what did volcanoes have to do with the extinction of the dinosaurs..., on second thought, never mind I'm sure it's quite entertaining but regardlessly irrelevent.

 

[alan1]

Nuclear is fought by environmentalist that don't want nuclear in their back yard.
Hydro is fought by environmentalists that don't want dams in their back yard.
Wind solar is fought by environmentalists that don't want windmills in their back yard.
Tidal is fought by environmentalists that don't want generators on their beach.
Geothermal is fought by environmentalists that don't want holes drilled in their back yard.

anyone who does that is not an "environmentalist."

Funny thing is, most of the people that promote your above things over fossil fuels suddenly sing a different tune and scream NIMBY as soon as action is taken on them.

I fully and completely support all of the above, I would personally prefer to have 100% of our electrical and transportation energy be provided by and through the application of advanced design, government operated and secured, modern nuclear power reactors.

But, it does seem a waste not to utilize alternative energy technologies where they make sense (ie., solar in the desert southwest, and as supplemental roof-top end-user power throughout most of the country, hydro in the mountainous regions, wind and tidal where geography dictate, and geothermal where-ever crustal warm pockets exist). I am not alone in these beliefs.

reference:
"Nuclear Energy Insight" - Nuclear Energy Institute - Power Player: Environmentalist Jesse Jenkins: Nuclear Energy Consistent With Clean Air Goals

"Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy" - Frame Page

But they clam to be, and the media, politicians and other "environmentalists" listen to them.

 

[Trakar]

In the 70s, they told us that the whole of North America was going to be under ice.

Please cite and reference any scientific study or report which concluded that N. America would likely or probably be covered in ice any time in the next 20,000 years.

In the 90s they told us that there would be no more snow in the US by 2010.

Again, please cite or reference any scietific study or report which even suggested that there would be no more snow in the US by 2010.

 

[alan1]

In the 70s, they told us that the whole of North America was going to be under ice.

Please cite and reference any scientific study or report which concluded that N. America would likely or probably be covered in ice any time in the next 20,000 years.

In the 90s they told us that there would be no more snow in the US by 2010.

Again, please cite or reference any scietific study or report which even suggested that there would be no more snow in the US by 2010.

Time magazine, reported in 1974. Another Ice Age? - TIME

And Newsweek, http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

 

[Old Rocks]

In the 70s, they told us that the whole of North America was going to be under ice.

Please cite and reference any scientific study or report which concluded that N. America would likely or probably be covered in ice any time in the next 20,000 years.

In the 90s they told us that there would be no more snow in the US by 2010.

Again, please cite or reference any scietific study or report which even suggested that there would be no more snow in the US by 2010.

Time magazine, reported in 1974. Another Ice Age? - TIME

So, you get your science from Time or Newsweek?

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

 

[Trakar]

...The cold is a bigger threat. Sensible people can survive the heat if they have shade and water.

Nobody can survive the cold if they don't have heat.

Though this is a commonly repeated trope in some circles, there is no conclusive evidence compellingly supporting this concept, at the least, none that I've been able to locate. I did locate this study rather easily:

"HEAT MORTALITY VERSUS COLD MORTALITY - A Study of Conflicting Databases in the United States" - http://geosciences.msstate.edu/faculty/dixon/reprints/2005bams.pdf

Studies of heat- and cold-related mortality in the United States produce widely ranging results due to inconsistent data sources, and this paper describes the methods, assets, and limitations of the most common temperature-related mortality sources...

...Interestingly, depending on the database used and the compiling U.S. agency, completely different results can be obtained. Several studies show that heat-related deaths outnumber cold-related deaths, while other studies conclude the exact opposite. We are not suggesting that any particular study is consistently inferior to another, but, rather, that it is absolutely critical to identify the exact data source, as well as the benefits and limitations of the database, used in these studies...

...CONCLUSIONS. Depending on the compilation nature of the dataset, the numbers of heat- or cold-related mortality are quite divergent. Consequently, in general, these separate mortality datasets should not be combined or compared in policy determination, and the specific dataset used in a given study should be clearly identified. All of the datasets suffer from some major limitations, such as the potential incompleteness of source information, long compilation time, limited quality control, and subjective determination of the direct versus indirect cause of death. These factors must be considered if the data are used in policy determination or resource allocation.

Thus, I would actually be very interested in examining any study which claims or supports the idea that cold is worse than heat with respect to human mortality issues.

 

[Meister]

Actually, you don't "have a clear picture" but that is because you
a) have your head stuck in a hole in the sand
b) are brainwashed by the propaganda
c) are clueless, scientifically illiterate and kind of gullible

Climate scientists have a very clear and well verified picture of what "the root cause is" and that is the 40% increase in atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, that mankind has created, primarily by burning fossil fuels and deforestation. The physics of all this are quite clear and "this trend" will inevitably continue for a long time even if the world immediately begins reducing carbon emissions. The longer we wait to begin that effort, the worst things will eventually get. Our descendents will curse this generation's stupidity, shortsightedness and greed.

Just like I'm still cursing those damned Dinosaurs for not plugging up all those Volcano's when they had the chance.

And exactly what did volcanoes have to do with the extinction of the dinosaurs..., on second thought, never mind I'm sure it's quite entertaining but regardlessly irrelevent.

I find you quite entertaining beating a dead dog Trakar....nobody really cares anymore, they have moved on. Just sayin....

 

[Trakar]

...But they clam to be, and the media, politicians and other "environmentalists" listen to them.

People label themselves and others according to their own internal understandings and biases, regardless of the quality and character of the rationale.

I understand the term environmentalism to mean a philosophy emphasizing the economy and efficiency of generating maximum human benefit through methods of interaction with the natural world in a manner that strives to produce the minimal possible human impact upon that system.

modern design nuclear power plants (gen III+, gen IV) systems are generally very safe, very efficient, and of a very low anthropogenic fottprint upon the environment. Many of the designs can also be used to "burn" many radioactive "wastes" thus addressing waste storage issues that seem to be one of the last substantive resistance arguments left to anti-nuke radicals, who have infiltrated many of the reasonable and sensible ecological management groups.

That there are people who cannot distinguish between those that are trying to maintain and enhance the human environment from those who are limited issue advocates finding/conflating common ground with environmentalists is not a problem with envirnomentalism. This really speaks only to the level of successful broad-brushstroking being done by those seeking to demonize, or pander to, groups like this.

Every group has their lip-service constituency, who superficially advocate their ideology until someone who wants to build a prison complex or nuclear power plant in their back yard converts them into NIMBY advocates.

If the new nuclear power plants are government "owned and operated" (say a quazi-governmental power agency that handles base-load power production and controls/maintains the interstate power grid) Imminent Domain laws could allow them to locate and acquire the land necessary for say 500 new nuclear facilities over the next century. Individuals would be free to decide whether or not they wished to live near those facilities. We'd still need additional energy production systems and facilities but that would establish a core back-bone energy structure that could gradually support not only the added national security of sustainable energy independance into the future, but also a national confidence inspired by the commitment to a long term sustainable energy-growth environment for our nation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Summer Heat-Related Deaths In US Expected To Triple By 2100 As Temperatures Soar: Report - http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/345108/20120524/climate-change-summer-related-deaths-triple-2100.htm

...The annual number of heat-related deaths in the United States is expected to triple by the end of the century, according to a new report, which predicts more than 150,000 Americans could die by 2100 from dangerously high summer temperatures resulting from climate change.

Currently, there are about 1,300 heat-related deaths in an average U.S. summer. Climate change will make that number rise to more than 4,600 by the end of the century, according to an analysis of peer-reviewed scientific data from the Natural Resources Defense Council, which reports extreme temperatures typically exacerbate already life-threatening conditions such as heat stroke, cardiovascular disease and kidney disease...

How many fewer cold-related deaths can we expect world-wide?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Better cut down on air conditioning because that burns "fossil fuels" and that creates more imaginary manmade global warming...so, the only way to counteract these deaths is with more death and declining Western civilization

Air conditioners don't run on fossil fuels, they run on electricity. We simply need to produce electricity with carbon neutral technologies. When your boat is leaky, the first reasoned option is to fix the leak, not scuttle the boat.

Air conditioners don't run on fossil fuels, they run on electricity.

Here in my country, we generate half our electricity by burning coal.
I'd like more nukes countrywide, like here in Illinois, but some idiot politicians, almost all Dems, have ignorantly prevented that carbon neutral energy expansion.

 

[Trakar]

Here in my country, we generate half our electricity by burning coal.
I'd like more nukes countrywide, like here in Illinois, but some idiot politicians, almost all Dems, have ignorantly prevented that carbon neutral energy expansion.

Then vote them out of office,
along with anyone from any party who votes against building our way to a cleaner, sustainable, energy independant, and energy sufficient future.

 

[flacaltenn]

...But they clam to be, and the media, politicians and other "environmentalists" listen to them.

People label themselves and others according to their own internal understandings and biases, regardless of the quality and character of the rationale.

I understand the term environmentalism to mean a philosophy emphasizing the economy and efficiency of generating maximum human benefit through methods of interaction with the natural world in a manner that strives to produce the minimal possible human impact upon that system.

modern design nuclear power plants (gen III+, gen IV) systems are generally very safe, very efficient, and of a very low anthropogenic fottprint upon the environment. Many of the designs can also be used to "burn" many radioactive "wastes" thus addressing waste storage issues that seem to be one of the last substantive resistance arguments left to anti-nuke radicals, who have infiltrated many of the reasonable and sensible ecological management groups.

That there are people who cannot distinguish between those that are trying to maintain and enhance the human environment from those who are limited issue advocates finding/conflating common ground with environmentalists is not a problem with envirnomentalism. This really speaks only to the level of successful broad-brushstroking being done by those seeking to demonize, or pander to, groups like this.

Every group has their lip-service constituency, who superficially advocate their ideology until someone who wants to build a prison complex or nuclear power plant in their back yard converts them into NIMBY advocates.

If the new nuclear power plants are government "owned and operated" (say a quazi-governmental power agency that handles base-load power production and controls/maintains the interstate power grid) Imminent Domain laws could allow them to locate and acquire the land necessary for say 500 new nuclear facilities over the next century. Individuals would be free to decide whether or not they wished to live near those facilities. We'd still need additional energy production systems and facilities but that would establish a core back-bone energy structure that could gradually support not only the added national security of sustainable energy independance into the future, but also a national confidence inspired by the commitment to a long term sustainable energy-growth environment for our nation.

You do have some sense afterall.. You're just fuzzy on the threat from CO2.. We could probably find A LOT of common ground.. And you;ve probably have been scared shitless about how we're all goin to die by reading too much leftist nonsense..

Part of the problem with nuclear was the mistakes in the siting of 60's era plants. Planners plopped them down in urban area as tho they were the same as fossil plants. In addtion, the fuel design created hard to manage multi-ton rods -- rather than more easily managed smaller pellets or chunks. We KNOW how to do better. 10 countries now STILL scheduled to complete or build nuclear plants. We should be doing a technology demo run-off for the available next-gen technologies. Provide a site for the demo units -- cut thru the approvals and get it gone.. Oh -- and fulfill the promise of Yucca mountain. 0.7 ounces of nuclear waste per household per year.. We can't handle THAT? A lot less material than the toxic batteries that household throws into the dump each year. And those toxics have half-lives LONGER than the nuclear waste..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here in my country, we generate half our electricity by burning coal.
I'd like more nukes countrywide, like here in Illinois, but some idiot politicians, almost all Dems, have ignorantly prevented that carbon neutral energy expansion.

Then vote them out of office,
along with anyone from any party who votes against building our way to a cleaner, sustainable, energy independant, and energy sufficient future.

Maybe you need to rub 2 balloons on your head for static electricity

 

[Katzndogz]

I spent last summer in the Mojave Desert where heat related deaths rise every year. Mostly because people demand that it not be hot, then act like their demands have been met.

In every country and region that has seasons, summer will be hot. Some days will be quite hot. The sun will not change it's agenda to suit you. Every winter, cold related deaths rise. Some days are cold and some are really cold. Demanding that it not be cold then acting like the demand has been met is what kills people.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So meteorologists can't manage to accurately predict the weather from day to day, yet expectations 100 years from now should be taken as gospel.

Yeah, no.

 

[freedombecki]

...The cold is a bigger threat. Sensible people can survive the heat if they have shade and water.

Nobody can survive the cold if they don't have heat.

Though this is a commonly repeated trope in some circles, there is no conclusive evidence compellingly supporting this concept, at the least, none that I've been able to locate. I did locate this study rather easily:

"HEAT MORTALITY VERSUS COLD MORTALITY - A Study of Conflicting Databases in the United States" - http://geosciences.msstate.edu/faculty/dixon/reprints/2005bams.pdf

Studies of heat- and cold-related mortality in the United States produce widely ranging results due to inconsistent data sources, and this paper describes the methods, assets, and limitations of the most common temperature-related mortality sources...

...Interestingly, depending on the database used and the compiling U.S. agency, completely different results can be obtained. Several studies show that heat-related deaths outnumber cold-related deaths, while other studies conclude the exact opposite. We are not suggesting that any particular study is consistently inferior to another, but, rather, that it is absolutely critical to identify the exact data source, as well as the benefits and limitations of the database, used in these studies...

...CONCLUSIONS. Depending on the compilation nature of the dataset, the numbers of heat- or cold-related mortality are quite divergent. Consequently, in general, these separate mortality datasets should not be combined or compared in policy determination, and the specific dataset used in a given study should be clearly identified. All of the datasets suffer from some major limitations, such as the potential incompleteness of source information, long compilation time, limited quality control, and subjective determination of the direct versus indirect cause of death. These factors must be considered if the data are used in policy determination or resource allocation.

Thus, I would actually be very interested in examining any study which claims or supports the idea that cold is worse than heat with respect to human mortality issues.

Just about any self-respecting Nursing manual that deals in geriatrics will tell you cold weather has a deleterious effect on persons older than 55 years old, Trakar, and nursing manuals after 2002 might carry the item you are seeking, since that is the year that keeps coming up as the year a study showed cold to be a factor in pneumonia in older adults:

HYPOTHERMIA
Keeping older people warm is more than a comfort measure; it is essential to their health and well-being. Accidental or inadvertent hypothermia can lead to confusion and disorientation, amnesia, cardiac arrhythmias, loss of consciousness, irreversible coma, and death. Those people who cannot generate enough heat to maintain normal core body temperature through shivering are at greatest risk for developing hypothermia. Patients who are confined to bed or to a wheelchair are particularly vulnerable. According to CDC (2006), “Older persons with preexisting medical conditions such as congestive heart failure, diabetes, or gait disturbance are at increased risk of hypothermia because their bodies have a reduced ability to generate heat and because they are less likely to recognize symptoms of hypothermia and seek shelter from the cold.”
Signs and symptoms of hypothermia include:

• Shivering
• Sensation of cold, exhaustion, and numbness
• Confusion and disorientation, slurred speech
• Amnesia
• Pallor or flushed skin
• Decreased hand coordination

Older adults undergoing surgery are also at risk for hypothermia related to medications such as muscle relaxants, narcotics, vasodilators, anesthetics, and room-temperature parenteral fluids. Older adults and their care

http://www.wildirismedicaleducation.com/courses/344/index_nceu.html

 

[Trakar]

...The cold is a bigger threat. Sensible people can survive the heat if they have shade and water.

Nobody can survive the cold if they don't have heat.

Though this is a commonly repeated trope in some circles, there is no conclusive evidence compellingly supporting this concept, at the least, none that I've been able to locate. I did locate this study rather easily:

"HEAT MORTALITY VERSUS COLD MORTALITY - A Study of Conflicting Databases in the United States" - http://geosciences.msstate.edu/faculty/dixon/reprints/2005bams.pdf

Thus, I would actually be very interested in examining any study which claims or supports the idea that cold is worse than heat with respect to human mortality issues.

Just about any self-respecting Nursing manual that deals in geriatrics will tell you cold weather has a deleterious effect on persons older than 55 years old, Trakar, and nursing manuals after 2002 might carry the item you are seeking, since that is the year that keeps coming up as the year a study showed cold to be a factor in pneumonia in older adults:

HYPOTHERMIA
Keeping older people warm is more than a comfort measure; it is essential to their health and well-being. Accidental or inadvertent hypothermia can lead to confusion and disorientation, amnesia, cardiac arrhythmias, loss of consciousness, irreversible coma, and death. Those people who cannot generate enough heat to maintain normal core body temperature through shivering are at greatest risk for developing hypothermia. Patients who are confined to bed or to a wheelchair are particularly vulnerable. According to CDC (2006), “Older persons with preexisting medical conditions such as congestive heart failure, diabetes, or gait disturbance are at increased risk of hypothermia because their bodies have a reduced ability to generate heat and because they are less likely to recognize symptoms of hypothermia and seek shelter from the cold.”
Signs and symptoms of hypothermia include:

• Shivering
• Sensation of cold, exhaustion, and numbness
• Confusion and disorientation, slurred speech
• Amnesia
• Pallor or flushed skin
• Decreased hand coordination

Older adults undergoing surgery are also at risk for hypothermia related to medications such as muscle relaxants, narcotics, vasodilators, anesthetics, and room-temperature parenteral fluids. Older adults and their care

http://www.wildirismedicaleducation.com/courses/344/index_nceu.html

The same manuals also generally note heat stroke, heat exhaustion, etc.,.
I am not arguing that cold causes no problems, I'm asking you to support your contention that cold problems are more prevelant and more likely to cause harm and death than excessive heat conditions.

 

[Trakar]

So meteorologists can't manage to accurately predict the weather from day to day, yet expectations 100 years from now should be taken as gospel.

Yeah, no.

Actually, skilled meteorologists with necessary data, are safe-bet (80-90% on average) accurate day-to-day, and increasingly accurate (60-70% on average) in the 5-7 day forecasts given the same qualifications. But climate isn't weather. Climate is an average mean trend of weather, over large regions, over long periods of time (the minimum interval of climate is ~30 years). Climatologists are not saying that on August 6, 2120 America's southwestern states will be in the midst of a record heat-wave where temperatures will average over 110º for more than 100days straight. What climatolgists are saying is that at the current levels of accelerating increase in atmospheric CO2, given the known feedbacks from paleoclimate research, and assuming that we continue on the current path without any major changes, there is a very good chance that global average temperatures will be 4-6º C warmer than they are now. How that plays out in day to day differences for any given spot on the surface of the earth is a lot more complicated and subject to a lot more uncertainty.

 

[Meister]

Though this is a commonly repeated trope in some circles, there is no conclusive evidence compellingly supporting this concept, at the least, none that I've been able to locate. I did locate this study rather easily:

"HEAT MORTALITY VERSUS COLD MORTALITY - A Study of Conflicting Databases in the United States" - http://geosciences.msstate.edu/faculty/dixon/reprints/2005bams.pdf

Thus, I would actually be very interested in examining any study which claims or supports the idea that cold is worse than heat with respect to human mortality issues.

Just about any self-respecting Nursing manual that deals in geriatrics will tell you cold weather has a deleterious effect on persons older than 55 years old, Trakar, and nursing manuals after 2002 might carry the item you are seeking, since that is the year that keeps coming up as the year a study showed cold to be a factor in pneumonia in older adults:

HYPOTHERMIA
Keeping older people warm is more than a comfort measure; it is essential to their health and well-being. Accidental or inadvertent hypothermia can lead to confusion and disorientation, amnesia, cardiac arrhythmias, loss of consciousness, irreversible coma, and death. Those people who cannot generate enough heat to maintain normal core body temperature through shivering are at greatest risk for developing hypothermia. Patients who are confined to bed or to a wheelchair are particularly vulnerable. According to CDC (2006), “Older persons with preexisting medical conditions such as congestive heart failure, diabetes, or gait disturbance are at increased risk of hypothermia because their bodies have a reduced ability to generate heat and because they are less likely to recognize symptoms of hypothermia and seek shelter from the cold.”
Signs and symptoms of hypothermia include:

• Shivering
• Sensation of cold, exhaustion, and numbness
• Confusion and disorientation, slurred speech
• Amnesia
• Pallor or flushed skin
• Decreased hand coordination

Older adults undergoing surgery are also at risk for hypothermia related to medications such as muscle relaxants, narcotics, vasodilators, anesthetics, and room-temperature parenteral fluids. Older adults and their care

http://www.wildirismedicaleducation.com/courses/344/index_nceu.html

The same manuals also generally note heat stroke, heat exhaustion, etc.,.
I am not arguing that cold causes no problems, I'm asking you to support your contention that cold problems are more prevelant and more likely to cause harm and death than excessive heat conditions.

How many gardens have you planted in freezing weather, Trakar.
How many gardens have been planted in Las Vegas?
Get your head out of your peer reviewed studies and use a little common sense, dude. sheesh

 

[Trakar]

You do have some sense afterall.. You're just fuzzy on the threat from CO2.. We could probably find A LOT of common ground.. And you;ve probably have been scared shitless about how we're all goin to die by reading too much leftist nonsense.

From my perspective it is the politicization that has kept you from giving the science a seriously close and critical inspection. I came to my current understandings after starting as very distrustful and doubtful of the problem and issue, and such was much easier at the time because the state of available data and understanding was significantly lower. As I investigated the mainstream science slowly and carefully, however, over about a ten-year period, I gradually evolved from cynic to advocate for change based solely on the science.

Part of the problem with nuclear was the mistakes in the siting of 60's era plants. Planners plopped them down in urban area as tho they were the same as fossil plants. In addtion, the fuel design created hard to manage multi-ton rods -- rather than more easily managed smaller pellets or chunks. We KNOW how to do better. 10 countries now STILL scheduled to complete or build nuclear plants. We should be doing a technology demo run-off for the available next-gen technologies. Provide a site for the demo units -- cut thru the approvals and get it gone.. Oh -- and fulfill the promise of Yucca mountain. 0.7 ounces of nuclear waste per household per year.. We can't handle THAT? A lot less material than the toxic batteries that household throws into the dump each year. And those toxics have half-lives LONGER than the nuclear waste..

I read it 3x and I don't see anything I would substantively disagree with or quibble about.