Health impact of global warming

I would respectfully disagree with OSU Emeritus Professor Nebert  (GT Dec 29) about his conclusion that global warming is beneficial to human health, as he observed that cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses are more common during colder months, and that somehow population growth and vineyard expansion are historically associated with global warming.

Medical experts are still debating the multiple factors in the apparent seasonality of influenza illness in temperate climate, but most agree that the common denominator of morbidity and mortality of diseases is stress - and not thermal temperature.  Stress to our immune system, stress to our mental health, stress to our families not being able to afford healthcare when needed. There is no question that particulate matters from fossil burning contribute to the rise in cardio-pulmonary diseases, as reported globally in many respectable medical and public health peer-reviewed journals. Regional global warming trends in temperate zones have also been reported to enable the spread of disease-carrying mosquitoes and ticks, such as Dengue fever and equine encephalitis, outside of their native habitats.

The term “global warming” falls short at defining what science is describing. What is happening and most damaging is the extreme variation in regional temperatures, floods and drought, arctic vortex, hurricanes and wild fires, feast here and famine there, and the new ecology of zoonotic infectious diseases. These cataclysmic changes can cause population upheavals and geo-political insecurity. They are the universal stressors that can adversely affect our health, and even the most economically privileged individuals will feel them. There is nothing hysterical about acknowledging these problems and trying to work on solving them. Now.

(A shorter version of this letter was published on Jan 16, 2020 - Gazette Times, Corvallis)

Citing a multinational study reported in a 2015 Lancet journal that found an association (not causation) between colder temperatures and increased mortality, Mr Burreson (Jan 19), concluded that global warming is beneficial to human health. Conversely, should I link the recent increased mortality in US young adults to warmer weather? Obviously not!

I am weary of population studies that single out one variable (in this case, ambient temperatures) to correlate with one outcome measurement (mortality), while ignoring many important and complex co-determinants of health. The fact that this study also found substantial variations in mortality in different countries, yet tried to make a simple, over-reaching conclusion does not speak well for the quality of the data. Other studies cited in the Lancet suggest that specific periods of extreme temperatures are associated with increased mortality (by 12.1% for heat waves, 12.8% during cold spells), supporting my earlier remark that it is the extreme swings in weather that is stressful to human health.

Any clinic or hospital can tell us there are more sick patients and pneumonia deaths during winter, and yes, we should heed grand-ma's advice to bundle up when we go out in the cold. But to jump from there and ignore the negative effects of "global warming" on planetary and human health is beyond my humble reasoning.

Fro those seriously concerned with this issue, I recommend the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, published Nov 16, 2019; it uses 41 outcome indicators and lists 212 supporting scientific publications.

(Submitted Jan 20; published in the Gazette Times, Corvallis, Jan 29, 2020)

The title of Mr Petersen's letter (Feb 23) – "climate change science not settled" - definitely hit the right note. The virtue of science is to recognize that there is always data and dogmas to challenge, new observations to analyze, better models to reassess predictions, and therefore any scientific conclusion is but preliminary. That said, I know there are many cosmic forces of "nature" we can't control, but I am not ready to deny that human activities have accelerated our climate problem.

With more than 90% of world scientists agreeing with reports from many respectable institutions, where is the proof that they all collude "for money or power"? Even if only 4% of climate warming is anthropogenically driven, should we be paralyzed by cynically rejecting their warnings and proposals as "irrelevant"? Economists jump when the inflation rate rises over 2%, public health officials when influenza or COVID-19 mortality is 2%, and politicians when un-employment rate is above 4 or 6% (or pick a number). So what is so wrong about a global accord to prevent planetary warming rising 2% over pre-industrial level? What should our threshold be before calls for action get labeled as "hysterical?"

For myself, to combat climate warming is more about changing my own behavior: be less wasteful in my consumption of earthly goods; support resources that don't pollute or harm our health; and be mindful of other living creatures we share our planet with. Humanly possible and relevant things I can do, regardless of scientific controversies.

(A slightly different version was submitted on Feb 24 to the Gazette Times, and published on Mar 15, 2020)