Death threat: Climate study predicts drier, hotter West
By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published July 16, 2008 at 5:49 p.m.
A new climate-change report warns that in the near future heat-related deaths and illnesses could sharply increase in Western cities such as Denver and Phoenix in the grip of warmer temperatures.
The report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program also warns that much of the western United States will be hotter in the future, with more frequent wildfires and a marked change in quality of life.
It says that stream trout fishing in eight to 10 Western states likely will dry up, but doesn't say whether one of those states is Colorado.
The report was mandated by Congress and, unlike other recent governmental reports on climate change, wasn't edited by the White House before its release to the public, said Theo Stein, program director at the nonprofit environmental consulting group, Resource Media.
The fear, say the report's authors, is that the Western cities especially will see more heat-related mortalities because of something called the urban-heat-island effect, in which cities crisscrossed with asphalt and concrete are somewhat warmer than rural settings not so far away.
That, combined with decades of build-up of greenhouse gases such as coal and gasoline emissions, spells trouble, say the authors.
The extra heat can exacerbate heart, kidney and lung diseases, leading to more serious illnesses and increased deaths, says the report. It also can make things rougher for diabetics and those with central nervous system disorders.
The heat could especially harm the elderly, the poor, the very young, outdoor laborers and anyone without air conditioning, the report said.
Air pollution will get worse with the rising temperatures, say the authors. That will exacerbate heart and lung conditions and make it tougher for athletes to work out.
Dr. Kristie Ebi, lead author for the health-effects part of the report, said the authors examined the literature to arrive at assumptions on climate change and then analyzed what that meant for people.
"We saw in the 2003 heat wave in Europe significant mortality among people over 65," she said.
"What we learned is that the future is really going to be different than the past," she said.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
July 16, 2008
7:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
brcasey writes:
Wow. "What we learned is that the future is really going to be different than the past," she said. This article can't be serious can it?
"Healthy people ought to feel an obligation to drive fewer miles in their cars, walk more often, wear sweaters in the winter, turn the air conditioning down a few degrees in the summer — all to help their neighbors who are more at risk from air pollution and heat-related illnesses, he said." This isn't left of center this is off the cliff.
July 16, 2008
9:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
catlady writes:
Scanlon,
When you're done with the Kool-Aid could you pass some my way. I also want to be on the phony-baloney global warming band wagon. It's where all the popular people are, dontcha know.
Why tell the truth about climate change? Fact is the earth is actually cooling and has been for the last 10 years. Oh, and those nice solar flares that keep us toasty play a role in global warming and cooling...as to the giant volcanoes under the ocean. Did you know there are volcanoes under the Arctic melting the caps? Eighth Grade Earth Science Anyone?
July 16, 2008
9:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Houstongolfnut writes:
Soon the climate change reports will be talking about GLOBAL COOLING. But that too will be an opportunity to play with numbers. It will be learned that EVERY death during a short period of extreme temperature has been attributed to the weather. This makes for nooze and growing numbers of nooze customers.
July 17, 2008
1:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
longpasttime writes:
Predict the weather with TOTAL accuracy for, say New Year's Day 2009, and I might be more inclined to accept the prediction for the climate 10 years from now!
July 17, 2008
1:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
windbourne writes:
yup; you neo-cons type blame the messenger rather than listening to the message. No wonder we are running the deficits that we do.
July 17, 2008
4:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
longpasttime writes:
Non-sequitur...
July 17, 2008
7:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
jackson_foi writes:
I wonder if the study also said that killing people in the summer would be necessary to offset the extras available from the warmer winters. Or, that we should all flee to the suburbs to escape the heat island effects of high density in the cities.
The opportunity to make moralistic judgements about others has been missed as the price of transportation and temperature has gone up. Unfortunate, for those of you on the multi-billion dollar gravy train that the plan to save the planet has become. It is time to get a job.
July 17, 2008
8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Roader writes:
‘"We saw in the 2003 heat wave in Europe significant mortality among people over 65," she said.’
How can that be? Doesn’t Europe have universal health care?
Upwards of 70,000 mostly-elderly people died in Europe during the August, 2003 heat wave; 15,000 in France alone. Turns out that many health care professionals were on their government-mandated four week vacation (six weeks in France), so there was no one around to care for the sick.
Compare this to fewer than 2000 lives lost for Hurricane Katrina, which is held up as the prime example of federal government bungling.
Consider these facts when politicians and special interest groups scream for government mandated minimum vacation time and government controlled health care.
July 17, 2008
8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
Did you all graduate? Or is this the Colorado Paradox on display?
RMNP: to judge from these comments, your readers cannot stand anything remotely related to the subject of climate. Human beings crave stability; certainly conservative people don't like the idea of change, but simply denying its existence won't prevent it. If you ideologues are right, change is not only undesirable, but impossible. Being scientifically illiterate has terrible consequences: you can't understand or accept the conclusions of scientists, and our national security is put at risk. When the Russians launched Sputnik, America roused itself from its lethargy and tried to improve education in mathematics and the sciences. Try to think of the energy crisis and climate change as though they are the Bolsheviks.
July 17, 2008
8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
Wow, I wonder where they got their data. I just did a study and it predicts a decade of cooling.
July 17, 2008
8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cutler6 writes:
Yes, it is interesting how doom and gloom is presented, however I never hear any rational solutions to help the doom and gloom provided, just what the consequences will be.
July 17, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
enginerd writes:
During the Medieval warm period, the Anasazi were thriving in the southwest, due in part to consistent rainfall. This is a sharp contrast to the gloom and doom predicted by the climate forecasters. Can they explain the apparent discrepency between their projections and the historical evidence from the last period of global warming?
July 17, 2008
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
enginerd: Huh? You seem to want to ask whether climate models are consistent with past climate data -- more research is indicated. I am able to use Wikipedia, where, after ~45 seconds of research I came across the following: "NOAA states: 'records that do exist show is [sic; Wikipedia isn't perfect] that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century'". So much for your "sharp contrast", which you attempt to draw between a subset of past climate data and the predictions of climate models. The experience of the Anasazi doesn't begin to refute the warnings of climatologists, if anything, the opposite is true.
July 17, 2008
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
jackson_foi writes:
How long might it take to research the question by congress to our climate science modelers; is the current state of your science useful in making policy decisions?
July 17, 2008
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lonestar writes:
Wow, if it gets hotter there will be more heat related deaths and illnesses! I wonder how many tax dollars were spent to come up with that conclusion? Congress could have assigned this to any college science student for extra credit and come up with the same information.
“Dr. Kristie Ebi, lead author for the health-effects part of the report, said the authors examined the literature to arrive at assumptions on climate change and then analyzed what that meant for people.” Do you think if Dr. Ebi had arrived at different assumptions she would still have received funding for the study? The answer is no. I may only have a Masters degree in the field, but my examination of the literature shows that global warming is one of the greatest scientific overreaches in history.
July 17, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
jackson_foi writes:
The planet is a big place LoneStar. While it might not be the best way to pick neighbors, I think it is still possible to put every man, woman and child on a Denver lot in Texas, and the rest of the planet be empty. So it is difficult to follow that something as insignificant as our little infestation could have much effect on something so substantial. I think we should do what we can to be good stewards anyway, but paying for more of these studies is a waste of natural resources. Unless, of course, it is your study.
July 17, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
jackson_foi writes:
In which case it should be fully funded, with annual renewals, and an opportunity to attend the Bali conference next January, on expense account.
July 17, 2008
3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lonestar writes:
Good stewards, absolutely. There are plenty of legitimate environmental concerns to be dealt with, but when it comes to human produced CO2 destroying the planet, the science is far from settled. You don’t need a study from me. There are a multitude of world-renowned scientists who have done studies, which cast considerable doubt on the subject. These studies rarely end up in the paper and the scientists even sometimes end up in career jeopardy. That is too bad. Science is supposed to be about innovative ideas and challenging convention.