I don't think so. If cold kills younger people, that means that each death from cold eliminates more years of life than each death from heat, hence should be more heavily weighted in the calculation of lost years of life.
Thank you for this reference. Buried in it is this statement:
"long-term climate change is expected to increase the mortality burden because hot-related mortality would be continuing to increase”.
Following Friedman's logic, the long-term burden may not be as severe because of the shortcomings mentioned about Dr. Gasparini's paper (adaption, income, technology).
Thank you again.
So again we have policy recommendations supported by incomplete analysis.
The adjustment reduces the size of the effect, both loss from heat and from cold. Cold related mortality decreases with warming, heat related mortality increases. For RCP 2.6 the net effect is a reduction due to warming, and the adjustment makes that reduction smaller.
It doesn't produce higher mortality, it produces a lower gain in mortality from warming. When it gets warmer, adaptation means people take fewer precautions against cold than if there was no adaptation. So mortality from cold goes down by less than it would have if people were still taking the precautions that would be worth taking when it was colder. Adaptation is reducing mortality both before and after warming, but it reduced mortality from cold more before warming when it was worth doing more things to reduce it, so the gain from warming is less than if there was no adaptation before or after. The opposite is true for mortality from heat.
"When it gets warmer, adaptation means people take fewer precautions against cold than if there was no adaptation".
I guess my question then will be why should we expect people to adapt in a way that reduces precautions. But perhaps that's simply built into the model you're assuming.
Fewer precautions than they took earlier, when it was colder. Do you find it puzzling that people take more precautions against cold the colder it is, hence fewer the warmer it is?
The comparison isn't the level of precautions people take in 2100 with adaptation vs the level they take without adaptation, which I think is what you are assuming. It's the change in the level of precautions between now and 2100 with adaptation to the change in the level of precautions without adaptation. Without adaptation people take the same level of precautions now as in 2100 when it is warmer. With adaptation people take more precautions against cold (and fewer against heat) now than then.
"If cold kills younger people, on the other hand, the effect of warming is worse than the articles imply."
I think you mixed up cold and warm in that whole paragraph.
I don't think so. If cold kills younger people, that means that each death from cold eliminates more years of life than each death from heat, hence should be more heavily weighted in the calculation of lost years of life.
But then the effect of warming (preventing this higher loss) is better than what what the articles imply, not worse.
I think you are right and I was wrong.
Thank you for this careful analysis of a very important set of articles.
This is an article that offers more information on the subject: https://www.monash.edu/medicine/news/latest/2021-articles/worlds-largest-study-of-global-climate-related-mortality-links-5-million-deaths-a-year-to-abnormal-temperatures
Thank you for this reference. Buried in it is this statement:
"long-term climate change is expected to increase the mortality burden because hot-related mortality would be continuing to increase”.
Following Friedman's logic, the long-term burden may not be as severe because of the shortcomings mentioned about Dr. Gasparini's paper (adaption, income, technology).
Thank you again.
So again we have policy recommendations supported by incomplete analysis.
Thank you for clarifying an important aspect of the situation.
I don't understand one thing in the first table. How can the adjusted mortality decrease (in RCP 2.6) be lower than the unadjusted one?
Shouldn't adjusting for adaptation be strictly not-worse in every case (by definition)?
The adjustment reduces the size of the effect, both loss from heat and from cold. Cold related mortality decreases with warming, heat related mortality increases. For RCP 2.6 the net effect is a reduction due to warming, and the adjustment makes that reduction smaller.
But why would adaptation produce higher mortality than in the counterfactual?
Wouldn't adaptation produce the lowest mortality possible (subject to the constraints)?
It doesn't produce higher mortality, it produces a lower gain in mortality from warming. When it gets warmer, adaptation means people take fewer precautions against cold than if there was no adaptation. So mortality from cold goes down by less than it would have if people were still taking the precautions that would be worth taking when it was colder. Adaptation is reducing mortality both before and after warming, but it reduced mortality from cold more before warming when it was worth doing more things to reduce it, so the gain from warming is less than if there was no adaptation before or after. The opposite is true for mortality from heat.
Thanks. I think the key sentence is this:
"When it gets warmer, adaptation means people take fewer precautions against cold than if there was no adaptation".
I guess my question then will be why should we expect people to adapt in a way that reduces precautions. But perhaps that's simply built into the model you're assuming.
Fewer precautions than they took earlier, when it was colder. Do you find it puzzling that people take more precautions against cold the colder it is, hence fewer the warmer it is?
The comparison isn't the level of precautions people take in 2100 with adaptation vs the level they take without adaptation, which I think is what you are assuming. It's the change in the level of precautions between now and 2100 with adaptation to the change in the level of precautions without adaptation. Without adaptation people take the same level of precautions now as in 2100 when it is warmer. With adaptation people take more precautions against cold (and fewer against heat) now than then.
Thanks, I think I get it now.
Interesting analysis.
The effects of technology are at least partly accounted for through income.
Perhaps a way of accounting for both is to assume constant progress and use both year and income as the independent variables.