El cambio climático mata a 300.000 personas al año, según un informe




Ampliar fotoUna lápida que reza: "El cambio climático, cuestión de vida o muerte". (Imagen: ARCHIVO) Un informe, del Foro Humanitario Global, alerta de que la cifra aumentará hasta las 500.000 muertes al año en 2030.La organización, presidida por el ex Secretario General de la ONU Kofi Annan, señala que provoca el aumento de la malnutrición, la diarrea o la malaria.Estas conclusiones serán presentadas en la cumbre sobre el clima, prevista para diciembre.
Minuteca todo sobre: Cambio climático, Kofi Annan, ONU EFE. 29.05.2009 - 16:40hEl cambio climático causa la muerte de 300.000 personas al año y supone un coste económico de 125.000 millones de dólares (unos 90.000 millones de euros), según un informe del Foro Humanitario Global que se presentó este viernes en Londres.



Este fenómeno afecta en la actualidad a más de 300 millones de personas, especialmente en las zonas más pobresEl estudio ha sido elaborado por expertos y agencias internacionales y pretende "presionar" a los líderes mundiales para que alcancen un acuerdo en la cumbre sobre el clima que se celebrará el próximo mes de diciembre en Copenhague.


El ex secretario general de la ONU y presidente del Foro, Kofi Annan, lamentó en la presentación del informe que la crisis económica haya relegado la lucha contra este fenómeno a un segundo plano y advirtió: "el cambio climático no va a esperar".

El informe señala que este fenómeno afecta en la actualidad a más de 300 millones de personas y que sus consecuencias perjudican especialmente a los países más pobres, que sin embargo emiten tan sólo "el 1 por ciento del CO2" .

Las proyecciones realizadas para el año 2030 apuntan a que, de seguir así, el cambio climático será el responsable de 500.000 muertes anuales, afectará a 600 millones de personas y supondrá un coste económico de 300.000 millones de dólares (unos 215.000 millones de euros).

"Algo terrible está pasando y tenemos que hacer algo", insistió Annan.

En el panel de asesores que ha participado en la redacción de este informe hay expertos del Instituto Internacional para el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo, del Panel Intergubernamental para el Cambio Climático, del Programa Medioambiental de las Naciones Unidas y de la organización no gubernamental Oxfam, entre otros.

Según precisaron los autores del informe, el 90% por ciento de las muertes contabilizadas como efecto directo del cambio climático se derivan del agravamiento de problemas como la malnutrición, la diarrea o la malaria.

El restante 10% se deben a la mayor frecuencia de los desastres naturales, que han aumentado un 40% en los últimos 25 años.




link:

http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/471314/1/

---

La noticia sale en todas partes..pero  el Periodico en concreto hace unas reseñas curiosas..
LAS CRÍTICAS
El informe, sin embargo, ya ha sido cuestionado nada más publicarse, y no solo por los escasos negacionistas de este fenómeno que todavía quedan. El economista Jeffrey D. Sachs, por ejemplo, dijo que las conclusiones del trabajo eran demasiado simplistas. Otros expertos señalaron que se trataba de una "vergüenza metodológica".

link
http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=617059&idseccio_PK=1021





Resulta que cuestionar el hecho de que el cambio climático sea el responsable de esos muertos es ser negacionista..se puede estar de acuerdo no el hecho de que existe un calentamiento global en los ultimos 30 años pero no estar conforme con la idea de que han aumentado un 40% los desastres naturales(en que sentido,¿mas desastres?,¿mas intensidad de los desastres?¿¡mas muertos por los desastres?) seria interesante saberlo.., o podriamos hablar de la malaria,que en el estudio es el causante del 90% de las muertes..aumenta la malaria con el calor..o por la falta de medidas para que no se propaguen los mosquitos,¿hubo malaria en inglaterra en la pequeña edad de hielo?,¿por que no hay Malaria en los estados del sudeste Norteamericano cuando reune las condiciones de temperatura? y tantas cosas que se me quedan en el tintero..

Que simplificación por dios,con lo complicado que es todo y nos siguen tratando como niños.. avergonzado

El otro día le digo a mi mujer, "Ya verás, en cuanto salga el sol nos acribillan". Hoy abro la página de Le Monde y como portada esa misma noticia.

La campaña de verano ha empezado

Claro, si es que ahora las sequías o lluvias torrenciales ya no son por la variabilidad meteorológica si no por causa directa del cambio climático... y punto.


Penitengiagite, fratelli, penitengiagite!

El problema es que los medios de comunicación se hacen eco de estudios de este tipo, bendiciéndolos y dándoles mucha importancia como si de un hallazgo científico capital se tratara, eso sí, cuando el estudio se demuestra que no es correcto y hecho con métodos dudosos o directamente erróneos, ya no se vuelve a hablar de él, no obstante ya se ha conseguido el objetivo.... que la masa social retenga lo que ellos quieren.

Como se llama eso.... engaño? sugestión?

Pués que cada uno se deje engañar si quiere.

Lo que no entiendo es como en tiempos de crisis mundial, gastan el dinero en estos estúpidos informes.

Comenzaron con el tema de la capa de ozono, se enriquecieron muchos a causa de eso. Como "la capa" sigue ahí, ya no es noticia. Luego las vacas locas (mas enriquecidos), las gripes varias, aviar, porcina....terror metido forzosamente en USA con el tema del terrorismo para que empresas amamentísticas (curiosamente propiedad de gente muy cercana a los mandamases) batan records en ventas de armas.....


Está claro que los grandes poderosos solo tienen que mover un dedo para que el mundo se estremezca y se hagan más poderosos aún.

Ya veréis qué poco tardan en sacar cremas "anti cambio climático" o gafas "anti cambio climático"....(3M ha hecho el agosto de su vida vendiendo mascarillas a causa de la gripe esa que resulta que es más inofensiva que la común)


La misma historia de siempre.

Beneficiados, políticos, grandes empresas famacéuticas, químicas y demás.

Por supuesto que todas las calamidades y hambrunas que ocurren en Africa no tienen nada que ver con el estado constante de guerra (civil y e incivil) y regimenes cleptocraticos que buena parte del continente sufre... 

Si, no son las condiciones sociales, es el cambio climático lo que nos mata  ,

no es la malnutrición, la diarrea o la malaria directamente, es el cambio climático,

y lo curioso es que "Este fenómeno afecta en la actualidad a más de 300 millones de personas, especialmente en las zonas más pobres",
un cambio climático selectivo (que no es global según esto),

las ayudas, por supuesto, no irán para solucionar estos problemas, irán directamente a "combatir" el cambio climático,...

Creando una amenaza, se buscan, y lo que es mas importante, se "eligen"  , salvadores.

Yo tengo topos en el jardin, estoy seguro que es por el cambiio climatico, antes no los tenia.

algunas reacciones ..

A Methodological Embarassment
May 29th, 2009 Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

I am quoted in today's NYT on a new report issued by the Global Humanitarian Forum which makes the absurd claim that 315,000 deaths a year can be attributed to the effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations. Here is what I said:

Roger A. Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, who studies disaster trends, said the forum's report was "a methodological embarrassment" because there was no way to distinguish deaths or economic losses related to human-driven global warming amid the much larger losses resulting from the growth in populations and economic development in vulnerable regions. Dr. Pielke said that "climate change is an important problem requiring our utmost attention." But the report, he said, "will harm the cause for action on both climate change and disasters because it is so deeply flawed."

Strong comments I know. Shoddy work on disasters and climate change is the norm, unfortunately, and something I've been closely following for well over a decade. I have no illusions that this latest concoction will be repeatedly cited regardless.

Below are my comments to the NYT upon reading the report (cleaned up and formatted). Caution, strong views ahead.

Let me apologize for the length of this reply. But it is important to be clear and to set the record straight.

Let me say first that human-caused climate change is an important problem requiring our utmost attention. Second, the effects of disasters, particularly in poorer countries, is also an important problem that to some degree has been overlooked, as I have argued for many years.

However, I cannot express how strongly I feel that this report has done a disservice to both issues. It is a methodological embarrassment and poster child for how to lie with statistics. The report will harm the cause for action on both climate change and disasters because it is so deeply flawed.

It will give ammunition to those opposed to action and divert attention away from the people who actually need help in the face of disasters, yet through this report have been reduced to a bloodless statistic for use in the promotional battle over climate policies. The report is worse than fiction, it is a lie. These are strong words I know.

1. Let me first start by noting that the same group that did the analysis for the UN, the Geo-Risks group in Munich Re, earlier this year published a peer-reviewed paper arguing that the signal of human-caused climate change could not presently be seen in the loss data on disasters. They wrote (emphasis added):

It should be noted when assessing the results of both this paper and Schmidt et al. (2008) that it is generally difficult to obtain valid quantitative findings about the role of socioeconomics and climate change in loss increases. This is because of criteria such as the stochastic nature of weather extremes, a shortage of quality data, and the role of various other potential factors that act in parallel and interact. We therefore regard our results as being an indication only of the extent to which socio-economic and climate changes account for the increase in losses. Both studies confirm the consensus reached in May 2006 at the international workshop in Hohenkammer attended by leading experts on climate change and natural catastrophe losses.

I co-organized the Hohenkammer workshop (referred to in the quote above) with Peter Hoeppe of Munich Re and that workshop concluded (among other things):

Due to data-quality issues, the stochastic nature of extreme event impacts, the lengths of the time series, and various societal factors present in the disaster loss records, it is still not possible to determine what portion of the increase in damage may be due to climate changes caused by GHG emissions.

and

The quantitative link (attribution) between storm/flood loss trends and GHG-induced climate changes is unlikely to be determined unequivocally in the near future.

On p. 84 the GHF report itself says:

However, there is not yet any widely accepted global estimate of the share of weather related disasters that are attributable to climate change.

One would think that would be the end of the story. However, to fill in for the fact that there is no accepted estimate, the report conjures up a number using an approach that is grounded in neither logic, science, or common sense.

2. Specifically, to get around the fact that there has been no attribution of the relationship of GHG emissions and disasters, this report engages in a very strange comparison of earthquake and weather disasters in 1980 and 2005. The first question that comes to mind is, why? They are comparing phenomena with many "moving parts" over a short time frame, and attributing 100% of the resulting difference to human-caused climate change. This boggles the mind. The IPCC itself says that 30 years are needed for the detection of changes in the climate system, and this time frame does not even reach that threshold. More to the point earthquakes and weather events do not have the same variability and earthquake disasters affect only a small part of the total inhabited area of the earth, whereas weather disasters occur much more widely. The assumption that weather disasters should track earthquake disasters is flawed from the outset for both geophysical and socio-economic reasons.

An alternative, more scientifically robust approach would be to look specifically at weather-related disasters, and consider the role of socio-economic changes, and to the extent possible, try to remove that signal and see what trends remain. When that has been done, in every case (US floods, hurricanes, Australia, India TCs, Latin America and elsewhere, all in the peer-reviewed literature) there is not a remaining signal of increasing disasters. In other words, the increase in disasters observed worldwide can be entirely attributed to socio-economic changes. This is what has been extensively documented in the peer reviewed literature, and yet — none of this literature is cited in this report. None of it! Instead they rely on this cooked up comparison between earthquakes and weather related disasters.

(Consider also that in no continental location has there been an observed increase in tropical cyclone landfalls, and yet this accounts for almost all of the windstorm disasters cited in the report. The increase must therefore be due to factors other than geophysical changes. This fact renders the
comparison with earthquakes even more meaningless).

Munich Re's own peer-reviewed work supports the fact that socio-economic factors can explain the entire increase in global disasters in recent decades.

Consider that in 2005 there were 11 earthquakes magnitude 7 or higher and in 1980 there were 14. by contrast, 1980 was a quiet weather year, and 2005 was very active, and included Katrina.
Source

3. The report cites and undates the Stern Review Report estimates of disaster losses, however, in a peer-reviewed paper I showed that these estimates were off by an order of magnitude and relied on a similar sort of statistical gamesmanship to develop its results (and of course this critique was ignored):

Pielke, Jr., R. A., 2007. Mistreatment of the economic impacts of extreme events in the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change, Global Environmental Change, 17:302-310. (PDF)

This report is an embarrassment to the GHF and to those who have put their names on it as representing a scientifically robust analysis. It is not even close.

Best regards,

Roger



link
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/a-methodological-embarassment-5314

---

U.N.'s 'Global Warming=300,000 Deaths a Year' Report – Kofi Annan implies: "close enough for government work"
30

05

2009


Many of you have probably heard by now of  the UN. Report saying that "global warming is killing 300,000 people a year". There's a Times Online Story (h/t to Gary Boden) about it today that has some startling admissions. Here are some excerpts:

Climate change is already killing 300,000 people a year in a "silent crisis" that is seriously affecting hundreds of millions more, an influential humanitarian group warned today.

A report by the Global Humanitarian Forum, led by Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General, says that the effects of climate change are growing in such a way that it will have a serious impact on 600 million people, almost ten per cent of the world's population, within 20 years. Almost all of these will be in developing countries.

"Climate change is the greatest emerging humanitarian challenge of our time, causing suffering to hundreds of millions of people worldwide," Mr Annan said.

"As this report shows, the first hit and worst affected are the world's poorest groups, and yet they have done least to cause the problem."

//



The report claims that 90 per cent of the deaths are related to gradual environmental degradation caused by a warming climate, which exacerbates existing threats — mainly malnutrition, diarrhoea and malaria. The rest are said to be the result of weather disasters.

But here is the kicker (emphasis mine):
Mr Annan said the report could never be as rigorous as a scientific study, but said: "We feel it is the most plausible account of the current impact of climate change today."

Translation: "close enough for government work" (click for definition)

Worse, the U.N. didn't even do the report themselves. The farmed it out:

The research was carried out by Dalberg Global Advisers, a consultancy firm, who collated all existing statistics on the human impacts of climate change. The report acknowledges a "significant margin of error" in its estimates.

But it is good enough for the MSM to use to scare the crap out of everybody and guilt the gullible into "action".

'Bogus', doesn't even begin to describe this political ploy.

For a real report, using real data, reflecting the real world situation, please read these reports by WUWT contributor Indur Goklany:

Going Down: Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events

How the IPCC Portrayed a Net Positive Impact of Climate Change as a Negative

Wrong: World Health Organization claims that health goes down as carbon goes up

Dealing with climate change in the context of other, more urgent threats to human and environmental well-being



link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/30/u-n-s-global-warming300000-deaths-a-year-report-kofi-implies-close-enough-for-government-work/

Extenso e interesante estudio del csccc en formato pdf donde se habla de muertes y tasas de mortandad provocadas por fenómenos meteorológicos extremos.



Con gráficas como esta..



Death and Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events
Global and U.S. Trends, 1900–2006

Death and Death Rates,estudio




Lo habra leido Kofi..

Os recomiendo estas reflexiones de Antón Uriarte, justo unos días antes de ver el famoso informe en prensa.

http://antonuriarte.blogspot.com/2009/05/con-gripe-en-copenhague.html


http://antonuriarte.blogspot.com/2007/08/mortalidad-y-clima-en-espaa.html

Básicamente es observar que la mortalidad es mayor en invierno que en verano, que cuanto más frio, más muertes y que  la relación aumenta drmáticamente para personas mayores de 65 años.