.
Climate change might not kill you in the short term, but it’s not going to be great for your health.
Especially the health of our most vulnerable like babies and the elderly. That’s the message from the Climate Commission’s second report The Critical Decade: Climate Change and Health which looked at the link between rising global temperatures and the health of Australians.
The biggest factor would be deaths from heatwaves rising to between 8000 and 11,000 projected per year by the end of the century, up from around 6000 per year in 1990.
When Melbourne endured three days with temperatures above 43 degrees in 2009, 980 people died – 374 more than the average number – and in the 2004 Brisbane heatwave, the average rate of death rose 23 per cent.
Climate Commissioner and co-author of the report Professor Lesley Hughes said the biggest finding of the report is that, “climate change is one of the most serious threats to Australians’ health, especially those in our community who are already most vulnerable.”
“We often think about climate change as something that affects the environment. But of course we depend on the environment, for clean air, safe water, tolerable temperatures and good food. Climate change is putting pressure on the systems that support us and our health.”
“It is important that Australians are aware of the risks of climate change to their health and the health of their family and community. That is why we have produced this report”.
“Climate change related injury, disease and deaths will continue to grow in decades to come unless sustained action is taken by Australia and other nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is the critical decade for action.”
A graph from the report showing projected heatwave deaths
The projected number of days over 35 degrees in the coming years rise for each capital city, increasing by weeks in 2100. For Darwin in 2100 the projection is 312 days over 35 degrees.
The report also warns that some infectious diseases like Dengue fever will spread as the rest of Australia warms. It is currently confined to north-east Australia.
The report also makes note of increasing, more intense extreme weather events.
“There is evidence that climate change has already led to a change in the frequency, duration and intensity of extreme weather
events (IPCC, 2011; Pall et al., 2011; Rahmstorf and Coumou, 2011; Trenberth, 2011), such as temperature extremes, storms and floods. These events have health, social and economic costs.
Natural disasters cause injuries, disease and death; they also cause social disruption and cost billions of dollars in damage. The December 2010 and January 2011 flooding in Queensland and tropical cyclones Anthony and Yasi demonstrate the catastrophic effects that extreme weather events can have on life, health and infrastructure. More than 78% of Queensland was declared a disaster zone and 35 people were killed by the floods; in total, about 2.5 million people were affected.
It is difficult to directly attribute individual extreme events, such as the Queensland floods or cyclones, to climate change because these kinds of events occur as part of natural climate variability. However, recent changes in our climate, such as the warming of the surface of the ocean are creating conditions that are more favourable for generating extremes such as floods and intense cyclones.”
There is also, the report says, a link to increased instances of poor mental health in the future, especially in rural areas, as livelihoods depend on the land and the agricultural economy. Extended and more intense droughts would be the obvious cause of income stress for farmers and graziers.
The ultimate message from the report is this: be alert, but not alarmed.
And most of all, be prepared. That one’s mostly aimed at the authorities who will be responsible for the services to help the country cope.
The report was reviewed by experts of the Climate Commission Science Advisory Panel, which includes members of the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology and was launched this morning.
What’s your take on the report?
Comments
57 Comments so far
Rick, you are too young to be a scaremonger, please open your mind to both sides of the discussion. Since I last commented here, there has been considerable water under the bridge, literally and metaphorically. Your gurus have failed with their inane predictions. The models are flawed, being designed by those who desire a certain outcome. Unfortunately, that outcome hasn’t eventuated. While the 90s got hotter, this decade has increasingly become colder. That’s the way climate works.
Don’t listen to me. Read further than just your IPCC report and the Gillard government’s policy statements. Also examine your precious IPCC for evidence of falsification of results. Donna LaFramboise’s excellent exposé of the IPCC’s modus operandi is a good start. It’s a best seller on Amazon.
But don’t stop there, read the newspapers about the recent party central in Durban. Thousands of freeloaders flew in, in carbon-emitting airplanes, across the world, in a display that should have shocked true environmentalists. They partied for fourteen days, or thereabouts, and then, on the last day, found the wherewithal to actually agree on something.
Their agreement? To agree to meet in four years’ time, to decide to agree on a decision to tackle so-called climate change in 2020.
So much for this being ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’. (Rudd, 2007)
loading...
It’s all so funny. Look at Tim’s previous predictions and compare them to the reality. Oh dear, dear! In 20 years time people will be saying, how could they have been so stupid to believe all that rubbish. Climate Changes. Always has. Always will. The Climate Change Gravy Train? Great for people who managed to get a ride. What a joke.
loading...
you got that right, great, great grandmother scientist, it will be laughable in 20 years. What won’t be laughable will be the economic damage done by Labor’s knee-jerk reaction to this supposed catastrophe. The Carbon Tax, the Ponzi emissions trading scheme, these will live in memory as proof of the folly of this inept government.
And future generations, rather than saying thank you for supposedly ‘stopping climate change’, will be cursing their forebears for the mountain of debt they have to pay off.
Thanks, Labor
loading...
I think the problem is that when they started reporting these occurences they called it “Global warming”. So when we have unusually cold days people scoff at global warming, thinking it means its only going to be hot. I think “climate change” is a more appropriate term as there are unusual changes occuring everyday. Extremes in weather that we haven’t seen before. Apparently in the last 15 years 13 of those have been the warmest in recorded history. Information is power and we can start to prepare for the future, unfortunately the damage is already done.
loading...
You are so right. I can’t understand the denials at all. Study after study is showing more extreme weather globally and more than a few studies have been done by companies that would love to disprove climate change but can’t ( it’s very early, I will try and find links after I have my tea). I am friends with quite a big deal environmental scientist ( whose money is earned from something else entirely, so he has no agenda) and he and all his colleagues feelings on the matter are ‘ it’s happening, fast, and it is influenced by us’. With the oceans acidity rising, due to warmer water ( killing coral reefs and many species with it), whole islands getting swallowed by rising water, ice caps melting, extreme floods, massive droughts etc etc how can anyone say this isn’t happening? I can only assume fear of having to change lifestyle? Im sure the industrial revolution caused fear in hearts too. Yes weather has
always happened but not this fast.
I saw a great cartoon-’what if we have it wrong and we try to create a better, cleaner world for nothing?’
loading...
‘Extremes in weather that we haven’t seen before’
lacer, we have seen today’s weather before, even in my lifetime. There is no evidential apocalyptic climate change happening right now. We have experienced it before, and will again. It’s called climate, not anthropogenic induced climate change.
To jump at the first sign of a cyclone or flood, is to be jumping at shadows. We have a far more immediate and far-reaching media than in the past, and for the younger generation, this could construed as an increase in natural disasters. To old fogies like me, and anyone over forty it is just ‘same old, same old’.
Live and learn.
loading...
Sensationalist popycock…..
loading...
Recent reports have recognised that due to environmental change, the Australian population will continue to be exposed to high levels of UV (ultraviolet) radiation with catastrophic health consequences. When ozone levels are depleted, the atmosphere loses its protective filter resulting in more solar UV radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. Discussions of the impact of climate change on human health typically focus on heat waves, floods, and droughts and while the potential for an increased burden from skin cancer is not as commonly discussed, it is expected to present a significant public health burden. The predicted effects of ozone depletion, global warming and climate change will have real ramifications for skin cancer incidence and mortality in Australia. Given that Australia still has the highest skin cancer rates in the world, it is important for governments to recognise the potential impact of the high levels of UV and take steps to motivate the public to protect themselves in this continued high UV environment.
loading...
Thanks Rick, top work as always x
loading...
I will make a point of adding this to the now debunked Tim Flannery predictions of doom and gloom. I notice they have stopped giving indications of when these things will occur so at least they are learning how to tailor these pathetic predictions more effectively. Hopefully the whole of this Climate Commission will be included in the public service job losses that Wayne Swan has promised. (now ask me about my IQ).
loading...
Possibly not high. ‘Taylor’ in the sense that you meant it, is spelt ‘tailor’.
loading...
There is a world of difference between Tim Flannery getting caught discussing possibilities in a ‘gotcha’ interview and climate change modelling.
loading...
The real problem is that there is a world of difference between climate change modelling and reality and there always will be.
loading...
Incorrect. See my comment about Muller below.
loading...
What do you think goes into models if not ‘reality’. If you expect predictive models to be flawless, then you will get the disappointment you hope for. That’s not their intended use.
loading...
This is a chilling report about the catastrophic effects that extreme weather events can have on our health, our lives and where we live. However, married to a geologist, I’m always being warned that changes to our earth are inevitable, it’s the rapidity with which they are happening that are unusual and which we should be concerned about. I also think that there are just so many more of us living on this earth that we are more and more likely to be affected by natural disasters. As the report says, “about 2.5 million people were affected in the Queensland floods”, might have been a different story a couple of decades ago perhaps?
loading...
Very good point Zigazag
loading...
Here we go again, more self serving BS doomsday predictions from the good folk at the Climate Commission. Yawn. Now it is raining again, drought over, they have to find ever new doomsday angles.
For a start, more people die of cold in the world by far, than from heat. Therefore, surely the headline should be pushing the health benefit.
God, the 1000 employees of the climate machine in aust get paid an average of $140k a year. You dont think they have a nice cushy interest in foretelling doom. Spare me the sesationalist rubbish please MM.
loading...
I’ve never understood why these reports make people so angry. It’s just a report, WB. It may be true, it may not be, but they’ve based it on fairly solid evidence. And sure, cold is a problem around the world … but this is an Australian report focusing on Australia. I’m not sure how much of it is right, but surely it pays to be thinking ahead about the potential problems a changing climate (man-made OR not) might have on the country? Spare me the anger and contribute to the debate, it’ll be better for everyone.
loading...
So when it suitts the argument, it is an australian problem, otherwise a global one. I hate one sided research – those that set out to convince of a set position, rather than those that present both sides impartially. And you cant tell me a commission whose entire existance relies on a problem existing presents both sides impartially.
loading...
No, climate change is a global issue and there are global bodies dealing with the science but this particular report came from the Australian climate commission looking at Australia’s projected course over the next few decades.
In any case, I reeeeeeally truly do like reading what people have to say in opposition to the science and the assumptions but it’s just a lot nicer to do without the agro. Shouting at people never makes them want to listen, is all I’m saying.
loading...
Who was I shouting at?
loading...
Your ‘tone’ is aggressive TWB, you KNOW that – your user name isn’t an accident after all. You can’t call yourself ‘the wounded bull’ with all that implies and then come over all ‘who, me, aggro?’ at us. Bless.
loading...
If we are being quite so literal on names on here, I assume idle dad does nothing and you are an insect. Re read my post, my gruff is with the commission. I fail to see any of what you and rick see. I can only therefore assume its because you disagree with me.
loading...
I worry about the future for my children – especially when it is a fact that 50% of the population have an IQ less than 100. These people often do not realise that they lack intellectual prowess; and go on to attack scientists who spend their careers studying climate science amongst other things. Unfortunately, this army of slightly dim ‘average aussies’ has political clout beyond the taxes they pay. Because of this sizeable proportion of less evolved humans we have to justify treating refugees like humans, explaining why climate change is real even when some days are cold, and that if no-one pays taxes then Australia might not be so nice.
Wounded bull – if you are not a climate scientist, then I suggest you have a talk to one. Please forward your statistics on deaths from hypothermia as compared to deaths related to heat. In the meantime, stop trying to destroy the planet that my children and grandchildren will inherit. Even if you are right (and you are most certainly not), the Earth is being assaulted and destroyed by humans, and any measures we can take to slow this down are to the benefit of all humanity.
loading...
Um, I have a masters in mathematics and a career in modelling natural systems including wildfire. I, probably more than most, know the complexities in modelling systems with so many inputs. Thanks anyway.
loading...
So you are not a climate scientist. And for someone with an education, you’re not keeping good company.
loading...
So are you saying your wildfire modeling is a completely useless excersise with no relavancy to reality?
Shouldn’t be done? Shouldn’t be used to make firefighting decisions for the future?
loading...
No, rather that I can spot self serving, biased one sided ‘research’ from a mile away.
To use just one example ID, it is likely that increasing humidity that comes with temp increases, and increased greening of the fuel loads due to increaded co2, could see a reduction in catastrophic wildfire events. You never ever hear other views like this though, you are considered a heretic to even put the idea forward.
loading...
And you never mention that climate modelling has accurately ‘predicted’ already observed climate change. Most recently, Richard Muller, after the so-called climategate scandal was funded by the famous denialists the Koch Brothers to determine climate change to date. He found that global and local temperature had risen exactly as claimed by the IPCC and other climate change studies.
(The Earth isn’t cooling. The temperature increase isn’t faked or not real. Climate change didn’t stop in 1998. Or 2005. Or the next year that you selectively pick where one year is cooler than the next.)
Also, model predictions are tested. James Hansen’s 1988 projected temperature was shown to be highly accurate in 2006, when it was revisited.
IPCC climate change models don’t work – and can’t be made to work – if you ignore CO2 warming.
It isn’t made up. Predictions are tested against results. The same models are reset to the last century and predict 20th Century climate change with reasonable accuracy. Without CO2, nothing can make the same predictions that matched the actual change.
Lastly, like evolution climate change modelling isn’t the single ‘proof’. Multiple lines of evidence support the theory that climate change is highly driven my human activity and that CO2 & other greenhouse gases are the main contributors.
Your ‘they are untested and corrupt’ line doesn’t stand up.
loading...
I am not disputing a warming trend. The climate always changes, always will. I do question the proportion that is due to mans co2. I also stand by the fact that there is an entire beurocracy built around the premis now that are all singing for their supper. Why didnt the commision say that net deaths fron cold/heat will fall under a warming trend. See, you only hear half the story because this is now about populist alarmism, not science.
loading...
I can’t prove or disprove your humidity idea (especially ideas like increased humidity ‘greens’ the fuel load enough to suppress fires) or know if such a study has occurred. I also don’t know, offhand, if areas like the Victoria highlands are predicted to have an increase or decrease of humidity from climate change.
I’m aware that plenty of studies have shown that higher humidity adds to storm strength, making storms like hurricanes more intense.
If you’re asking if an economist has compared who wins in a less Victoria bushfires/more Queensland hurricanes scenario, I don’t know that either. A recorded death rate during heatwaves, in line with a prediction of more heat waves concerns me.
Saying don’t worry about an increased death rate from increased heatwaves because climate change won’t happen is like saying in your wildfire forecasts “Don’t worry, if we dial the wind back zero, nothing happens!”. That is a failure to assess and prepare.
It’s time to prepare. The more challenges climate change are uncovered, the better we can do so.
loading...
The science pre-dates the bureaucracy. The science necessitated the creation of the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy did not invent the science.
loading...
Climate changes – always has, always will? That’s the level of interest you display? Seriously?
Not interested in causes? Don’t see the need to understand what’s happened in the past, what’s happening now and what’ll happen in the future?
You don’t dispute a warming trend, you don’t know why it is occurring, you just reckon its not CO2?
See, that’s a fanatic. I can say exactly what would cause me to change my mind: scientific consensus changes to a new consensus, most likely that climate drivers are not made made (I’d still want to understand what that would mean, and prepare though).
You can’t make that statement. And the real answer is that nothing will make you change your mind, because you believe.
loading...
“I am not disputing a warming trend”.
The models are crap but you agree with the forecasts?
I’m so confused.
loading...
Spare the lecture please, if you cant see one sided interest in the material put out by the commission, then you are as much a blinded convert as them. I do not say dont research this stuff, just that in doing so, we dont research to pre-determined populism because our funding relies on it, or only highlight those forecast outcomes that are negative while ignoring other outcomes. Open your mind id, dont be a populist doomsday sheep.
loading...
“increasing humidity that comes with temp increases”
It does? Or does that depend on location & local climate?
loading...
Increased temperature does not correlate to increased humidity. If you fire modelling is making that assumption you are dangerously wrong. The worst fires happen when you get extreme temperature and very low humidity as demonstrated by the 2009 Black Saturday brushfires. Increased CO2 may increase fuel loads depending on if you get more rainfall allowing extra growth in any given area. Extra CO2 does not necessarily lead to higher humidity. It’s preposterous to say that extra CO2 will automatically green an area.
Stop letting your biases get in the road of rational thought.
loading...
I will happily debate you on both issues, you are very wrong.
loading...
OK, so your argument is climate change is occurring and is warming. It’s going to get hotter. The death rate of past heat waves is higher than the background death rate.
You dispute none of this, including that more people will die but object because you believe reporting it is a self serving task to mention it.
My question is: Should we prepare for this? Discuss mitigation options?
loading...
ID, in a warming world, more people will die from heat over time, obviously, but as I stated at the start of this thread, way way more people around the world die every year as a result of cold than heat. This was my initial point.
A self intersted mob like the Climate Commission will only ever tell the story that supports their position though. Again this is my point. Why else would they not balance their story with the stats on people around the globe that die every year from exposure to cold???
Obviously any deaths are bad and in a perfect world, nothing would change, nobody would die. But it shits me no end when only one side is told.
On a pure humanitarian ‘heat deaths vs cold deaths’, the case is clearly that warming is a positive. Nobody can argue that. It is like the stats that more deseases like Dengue will result from Global Warming. Well what about the drops in things like flu in a warmer climate. Again, only the one side is told to support the doomists position.
Any sane person can not argue that these interest groups push a certain line (to keep the cash flowing), rather than searching for balance and truth.
loading...
TWB, I think you and I have discussed this before. Although, you, I think, were using a different name at the time. I’m fascinated by your claim that increasing temperatures will be accompanied by increasing humidity and therefore reduced wildfire behaviour. Can you give me a reference to a peer-reviewed article that supports that, cause I still haven’t come across one?
loading...
There was a major study published in the journal Nature (Oct 2007), that found that the overall increase in worldwide surface humidity from 1973-99 was in the order of + 2.2% due primarily to warming.
There are other studies that found similar. I dont have the links but can dig them out tomorow if you wish.
loading...
The article is pretty clear that while specific humidity is rising, relative humidity is constant. I don’t see why that would reduce catastrophic wildfires (especially in Australia, where even the increase in specific humidity is not apparent), and the article doesn’t seem to suggest such a thing. Interestingly, it is very clear that the cause of change is anthropogenic.
loading...
Well, reference Wang et al. (2001) f
who found an increasing trend of 1 to 5% per decade in relative humidity during 1976 to 1995. I am sure this is boring everyone stupid by the way.
loading...
Oh looky here: p13 of the report:
***************************
However, projected changes in death rates are likely to vary widely between locations, reflecting the fact that fewer people will die from the effects of cold and more will die from the effects of heat (Bambrick et al., 2008).
Under a worst-case scenario, unmitigated climate change may modestly reduce temperature-related deaths in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and NSW, due to reductions in the number of cold-related deaths; but, deaths could increase markedly in Queensland and the Northern Territory (with 10 times as many deaths by the end of the century compared with no climate change) and in Western Australia (twice as many deaths) (Bambrick et al., 2008).
At the national level, reductions in cold related deaths are likely to be significantly outweighed by heat-related deaths by midcentury (McMichael et al., 2003; Bambrick et al., 2008). For example, under the scenario of unmitigated climate change mentioned above, the balance of national annual temperature-related deaths was estimated to increase from around 5,800 in 1990 to 6,400 in 2020, 7,900 in 2050 and 17,200 in 2100 (Bambrick et al., 2008). By comparison, with effective international climate change mitigation, these estimated numbers of temperature-related deaths would increase by considerably smaller amounts during this century (see figure 6).
***************************
I know, you’ll fall back to ‘they are lying’ default emergency standpoint, I’m just pointing out they did compare a reduction in cold deaths against increase in heat related deaths and net deaths rise.
loading...
On a global level way more people die of cold. I assume therefore that in those countries, warming is a positive, and a net positive for the world. Stop trying to pretend that they are not telling things from one angle only based upon their self interest, sheesh, nothing more obvious.
loading...
Obviously not currently employed.
loading...
I totally agree with you KateA, I also worry about the future for my children.
You don’t have to have a science degree to believe in climate change.
loading...
Pro tip: weather =/= climate
loading...
This is so true. I can only laugh when I hear people say, “look it’s raining, what happened to climate change”.
loading...
Climate Change/ Global Warming, one of the greatest hoaxes of modern times. It’s starting to unravel. The carbon chickens are coming home to roost. Follow the money. Good on you TWB.
loading...
Only time will tell…I like the be alert but not alarmed concept.
loading...
Right. So I guess it’s time to be alarmed when a tsunami sweeps your children away. No point trying to prepare and avoid this situation. Especially when it will initially be mostly poor third-world citiziens who bear the brunt of it.
loading...
Lol, so climate change is also causing earthquakes now is it. Amazing. See how silly this all gets.
loading...
Climate change will cause more extreme weather, and it appears likely that it does influence tectonic plate movement (G.Iaffaldano, L.Husson & H-P Bunge, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 304 (2011) 503-510)
But in any case, it was an example aimed at highlighting a ridiculous statement.
loading...
“The ultimate message from the report is this: be alert, but not alarmed”
I agree with this statement, how is this ridiculous?
loading...