Not a good week for deniers.

[wtmusic]

Climate Change Costs Could Top $8 Trillion by 2030: Report

"According to a report released this week, climate change will have significant structural impacts on the transportation, construction, and manufacturing industries over the next 20 years and could account for costs over $8 trillion by the year 2030. This comes quick on the heels of news that, as Fast Company reported yesterday, entire portions of coastal towns across the United States will be submerged in the coming decades.

The latest report, carried out by the consultancy group Mercer, along with the World Bank's International Finance Corporation, urges asset managers to take a long-term view on the impact of climate change on foundations, pension funds, and endowments, taking into consideration the relatively unstable landscape of climate change policy.

"Weather events like the recent floods in Australia will continue to impact infrastructure, food security and property, contributing to material portfolio risk for institutional investors," said CEO of the Investor Group on Climate Change in Australia, Nathan Fabian."

http://www.fastcompany.com/1728179/climate-change-costs-could-reach-trillions-by-2030

I think I just heard the sound of the "it's not worth making significant financial sacrifices" argument biting the dust.

[The Doctor.]

1. They don't care.

If it's not actually happening to them or something they hear from Wingnut News, they can't understand it.

The deniers are deliberately plug-stupid ignorant morons who believe all issues are are partisan.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. So long as they hear somethig which confirms their beliefs, they believe it.

Anything which contradicts those beliefs is clearly false.

You cannot reason against that.

[guardian]

27. Sounds like you are projecting to me.

And you are right that you can't reason against that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others have those feelings.

[pscot]

2. As Winston once said:

"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences."

[wtmusic]

5. Maybe calamitous circumstances bring great people to the forefront

but we sure could use a few right now.

[kickysnana]

3. "I think it's a farce. I think it's a fallacy.''

Ingebrigtsen, head of the Senate environment committee, had no patience for the recommended climate change proposals.

"If I have to go on record and say global warming? No,'' he said. "I think it's a farce. I think it's a fallacy.''

Ingebrigtsen and McNamara are two of eight new legislative members on the commission, which consists of 10 legislators and seven citizen members.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_17514886?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

Well the dumbing down of Minnesota under Pawlenty is complete (sigh).

[wtmusic]

4. Unbelievable.

We've entered the New Middle Ages.

[pscot]

16. Calamitous times

bring forth calamitous leadership. By the time these guys are done, the middle ages will look like a day at the beach.

[txlibdem]

18. Hear, hear!

The "leaders" who can't manage their own way out of a paper bag. We are all well and truly f**ked.

[txlibdem]

29. Reminds me of the Senator appologizing to BP for the gov't "shakedown" after they destroyed the gulf

Pukes have no shame, no moral center. :puke:

/edited title, replaced crackdown with shakedown as accurate quote

[Kurovski]

6. It doesn't matter. Even if they suffer from this, it will not matter

brainwashed is brainwashed. Dumb is dumb. And the kicker: tribal is tribal.

[Nederland]

7. There is no evidence that climate change results in more extreme weather

None.

You'll notice that this is a report that predicts what things will be like in 20 years. The reason this report presents a prediction rather than an analysis of actual data is because all of the actual data shows the entire idea to be complete hogwash. Even Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate recently was forced to admit that "There is no theory or result that indicates that climate change increases extremes in general." (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/going-to-extremes/).

In his film "An Inconvenient truth" Al Gore made the claim that "when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms". Ever since, climate change doomers have taken this factoid as gospel. The unfortunate thing is that it happens to be completely wrong. There is absolutely no evidence that warmer weather causes stronger storms. Here is the proof:

The frequency of ocean storms has actually declined slightly:



The total energy of storms shows no correlation between temperature and storm strength:



Look at the chart above on storm strength. Both 1998 and 2010 were record temperature years, and yet we see that 1998 was a rather bad year for hurricanes, while 2010 was extremely mild. Simple put, there is no connection between extreme weather and climate change. The entire belief is an unfortunate side affect of Al Gore uttering a mistake in a movie, and climate change doomers being completely incapable of contemplating that their hero Al might have gotten anything wrong (even if the movie as a whole is rather accurate).

If you want more proof, here is a paper that shows there is no connection. Unlike Al Gore's movie and the farce of a report in the OP, this went through peer review:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/05pielke.pdf

[wtmusic]

8. Atrocious science. But what did I expect.

1998 was a rather bad year for hurricanes, while 2010 was extremely mild. Simple (sic) put, there is no connection between extreme weather and climate change.

And to think somehow those legions of climatologists (who I thought had a handle on long-term trends ) blew it, while meterorologists (aka weather forecasters, who are great with letting you know whether to take your umbrella tomorrow) put the pieces together. Seems the climatologists had some silly notion about tying hurricane patterns to El Niño, where the...hey, what's this?

El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation, or ENSO, is a quasiperiodic climate pattern that occurs across the tropical Pacific Ocean with on average five year intervals. El Niño is credited with suppressing hurricanes and made the 2009 hurricane season the least active in twelve years...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation

and

There was a strong La Niña episode during 1988–1989. La Niña also formed in 1995, and in 1999–2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_nina

If I'm not mistaken, La Niña is also known as the anti-El Niño, implying that hurricanes would be stronger during those cycles - well I'll be damned. I guess they are onto something, and your meterologist is full of poo-poo (I understand that's a requirement to be a columnist for the Moonie Times).

Fact check:

1) What holds more water, cold or warm air?
2) What hold more energy, cold or warm air?
3) Where do the most violent storms occur, near the equator or near the poles?

If you answer these questions correctly, they should be inducing a queasy feeling in your stomach. To speed things along I'll throw in some applicable science, although I admit this has not been peer-reviewed by large-breasted television weather personalities:

Some Key findings include:

* Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow. Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow.
* Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged. Agriculture is considered one of the sectors most adaptable to changes in climate. However, increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes will pose adaptation challenges for crop and livestock production.
* Threats to human health will increase. Health impacts of climate change are related to heat stress, waterborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents. Robust public health infrastructure can reduce the potential for negative impacts.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts

Lots more where that came from.

[Nederland]

9. Thanks for proving my point for me

I completely agree with your analysis. The well known and cyclical ENSO pattern that has existed for thousands of years has and will always have a far greater effect on the strength of hurricanes than climate change. Simply put, climate change is a bit player in extreme climate. Thanks for providing this valuable insight into why your OP was wrong.

As for the link to another "report" you provided, I must point out that it is not a peer reviewed paper, but a "report" that claims to summarize the findings of peer reviewed papers. That being said, once again you are merely providing something that offers up projections of all the horrible things that doomers say will happen in the future. As I have noted before, they do this because they cannot point to any actual horrible things happening right now as a result of climate change. The massive death and destruction somehow always seems to be in the future, and the future never comes. Sure this "report" does point out the precipitation rates in the US have increased 5% over the last 50 years, but a quick survey of the actual peer reviewed literature on the subject shows that this is simple cherry picking. If you look at the entire global, there is no such increase. That is why NOAA summarizes by saying that "globally there has been no statistically significant change in precipation rates over the last 100 years." Those words can be found here in a NOAA summary on global warming that cannot possibly be construed as skeptical. You can read it here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q5

A series of charts supporting this position is here:



The peer reviewed papers that NOAA cites to support this conclusion are as follows:

Peterson and Vose, 1997 - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/Peterson-Vose-1997.pdf
Adler et al, 2003 - http://www.colorado.edu/geography/geomorph/geog_5241_f10/adler_03.pdf
Rudolf et al, 1996 - http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1996/96JD01553.shtml
Smith et al, 2009 - http://cics.umd.edu/~tsmith/PR/SEA.sub(2010).pdf
Hijmans et al, 2005 - http://www.worldclim.org/worldclim_IJC.pdf


So at this point I have provided 6 peer reviewed studies to back up my assertions and you have provided none.

[wtmusic]

13. Your "Trend in Annual Precipitation" graph has nothing to do with climate extremes

but, as Muriel Volestrangler is fond of opining, "I think you knew that".

As usual, you hang yourself by providing a source which directly contradicts your assertion. On the more apropos subject of climate variability:

"In areas where a drought or excessive wetness usually accompanies an El Niño or La Niña, these dry or wet spells have been more intense in recent years. Further, there is some evidence for increasing drought worldwide, however in the U.S. there is no evidence for increasing drought.In some areas where overall precipitation has increased (ie. the mid-high northern latitudes), there is evidence of increases in the heavy and extreme precipitation events. Even in areas such as eastern Asia, it has been found that extreme precipitation events have increased despite total precipitation remaining constant or even decreasing somewhat. This is related to a decrease in the frequency of precipitation in this region."

The report I cited is one of the most extensively peer-reviewed documents on the subject. Here is the stellar list of authors, each of which you apparently consider an ignorant "doomer":

David M. Anderson,
NOAA World Data Center for
Paleoclimatology
Donald F. Boesch,
University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science
Virginia R. Burkett,
U.S. Geological Survey
Lynne M. Carter,
Adaptation Network, Louisiana
State University
Stewart J. Cohen,
Environment Canada and University of
British Columbia
Nancy B. Grimm,
Arizona State University
Jerry L. Hatfield,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Katharine Hayhoe,
Texas Tech University
Anthony C. Janetos,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Jack A. Kaye,
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Jay H. Lawrimore,
NOAA National Climatic Data Center
James J. McCarthy,
Harvard University
A. David McGuire,
U.S. Geological Survey/University of
Alaska Fairbanks
Edward L. Miles,
University of Washington
Evan Mills,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Jonathan T. Overpeck,
University of Arizona
Jonathan A. Patz,
University of Wisconsin at Madison
Roger S. Pulwarty,
NOAA Climate Program Office and Earth
System Research Laboratory
Benjamin D. Santer,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Michael J. Savonis,
U.S. Department of Transportation
H. Gerry Schwartz, Jr.,
Consultant/Transportation
Eileen L. Shea,
NOAA National Climatic Data Center/
Integrated Data and Environmental
Applications Center
John M.R. Stone,
Carleton University
Bradley H. Udall,
University of Colorado/NOAA Earth
System Research Laboratory
John E. Walsh,
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Michael F. Wehner,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Thomas J. Wilbanks,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Donald J. Wuebbles,
University of Illinois

On page 169 of the report there is a list of exactly 569 peer-reviewed sources they used in arriving at the conclusions they did.

You used to provide some argument, which (even though it often involved tenuous conclusions) was thought-provoking because it actually related to the discussion. Lately your techniques involve:

1) Provide links or evidence which is unrelated to the point at hand, ostensibly hoping that no one will notice
2) Provide links to evidence which is from a practical standpoint unobtainable (for example, requiring payment)
3) Provide an avalanche of data without specific references, knowing your audience has not enough respect for your POV to bother

This is the modus operandi of the sophist, and it's getting boring. Provide something relevant or I'm done.

[Nederland]

15. It has everything to do with climate extremes...

...but I think you knew that.

I suspect that you didn't actually read your own report. :rofl:

[txlibdem]

17. How so?

The criticism is right on the money: your chart just shows hurricane frequency but not their relative strength.


"Strong Hurricanes Getting Stronger; Warming Is Blamed"
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080904-warming-hurricanes.html
... "Global warming is causing powerful hurricanes to become even more intense, a new study says."


"Hurricanes Are Getting Stronger, Study Says"
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0915_050915_hurricane_strength.html
... "Warming ocean temperatures appear to be fueling stronger, more intense hurricanes around the world, a new study suggests."


"Hurricanes Are Getting Stronger, Study Says"
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/hurricanestudy.shtml


"Strongest Storms Grow Stronger Yet, Study Says"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/science/04cyclone.html


"Hurricanes ARE getting Stronger — Thanks to Global Warming!"
http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/04/hurricanes-are-getting-stronger-thanks-to-global-warming/

[Nederland]

19. Are you talking about my post #7 or my post #9

The criticism is right on the money: your chart just shows hurricane frequency but not their relative strength.

Post #7 shows both hurricane frequency and hurricane strength (that's what accumulated energy is). Post #9 shows a global precipitation chart that has nothing to do with hurricanes at all. So either way, I'm confused by your statement.

[txlibdem]

20. I notice two things

1. The author of your posted "study" is a Meteorologist, not a climate scientist.
2. He is extensively quoted in climate denier sites.

That tells me all I need to know. I recommend you read the linked articles in my previous post.

[Nederland]

23. Interesting

I'm glad those two things tell you all you need to know. The fact that those two things tell you all you need to know tells me all I need to know about your ability to discern the truth about a subject or a person. It tells me that you let other people do your thinking for you.

In fact, Roger Pielke is not a denier or a skeptic on the subject of global warming. When categorized as such by the media, he complains as asks for retractions, and has done so on at least two occasions to my knowledge (here: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/correction-to-a-december-10-2007-bbc-news-article/ and here: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2006/07/25/misquotation-of-my-views-on-climate-science/). His self stated position on global warming is as follows:

Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. These assessments have also not communicated the inability of the models to accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate. The forecasts, therefore, do not provide any skill in quantifying the impact of different mitigation strategies on the actual climate response that would occur.

You see, Pielke believes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, he believes that humans are causing CO2 levels to rise, and he believes that global warming is a serious problem. However, his great crime in the eyes of dogmatic people like you is he believes that the IPCC has overestimated the role of CO2 in global warming and underestimated the role of deforestation. Is he right? I have no idea. However, apparently because he does not follow every jot and tittle of the catastrophic global warming cult you belong to, obviously he must always be wrong about absolutely everything--including his peer reviewed papers on precipitation, which have absolutely nothing to do with his disagreements with the IPCC. I'm sure if he stood up and said that 2 + 2 = 4, you'd be struggling for a way to say he was wrong.

Does it even occur to you that Al Gore, Jim Hansen, and the IPCC might have made a few mistakes--even mistakes that wouldn't affect their conclusion regarding the larger question of whether or not global warming is real and dangerous? Do you think that is possible, or is that just too hard for your brain to contemplate?

[txlibdem]

25. That name is not on the charts or the data

You are funny. DU needs some comedy relief every now and again. Thanks for the chuckle!

/added on edit:

I do agree with your statement that deforestation is just as serious a threat as higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Another culprit is Methane. You can see it bubbling up wherever the permafrost is melting. This is an even bigger threat as Methane is many times as potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 is. In a nutshell, it's the entire system that is teetering on the brink and that makes fighting global climate change even more critical.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. But if you carry on reading Schmidt's article

(after noting that 'in general' in his quote was in italics - because the point of his post is that some particular increases in extremes do have theories and evidence for them), you get:

The second paper is a more standard detection and attribution study. By looking at the signatures of climate change in precipitation intensity and comparing that to the internal variability and the observation, the researchers conclude that the probability of intense precipitation on any given day has increased by 7 percent over the last 50 years – well outside the bounds of natural variability. This is a result that has been suggested before (i.e. in the IPCC report (Groisman et al, 2005), but this was the first proper attribution study (as far as I know). The signal seen in the data though, while coherent and similar to that seen in the models, was consistently larger, perhaps indicating the models are not sensitive enough, though the El Niño of 1997/8 may have had an outsize effect.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/going-to-extremes/

And, yes, that's a peer-reviewed paper from Nature.

Thus your claim "There is no evidence that climate change results in more extreme weather None." is shown false by the page you linked to. But I think you knew that.

[Nederland]

12. Fair enough

In saying that there is "no evidence" I overstretched.

The paper that Gavin quotes from tries to show that there has been an increase in intense precipitation over the last 50 years in some parts of the land areas of the Northern hemisphere. I would make an important point about this study. Gavin asserts that the increase--7% over the last 50 years--is well outside the bounds of natural variability. This is not in the paper because it is not a provable assertion. No one can say what the "natural variability" actually is because the observed period is far too short--especially if you believe the last 50 years is tainted by global warming effects. If you believe that the 50 years of data has seen an increase in extreme precipitation due to global warming, you cannot use that period to determine what "normal" is. Since the vast majority of really good global data on weather comes from the modern satellite era, removing the last 50 years leaves you precious little data to work with. To really know what a "normal" 50 year period of weather looks like, you need several hundred years of good data, and we simply don't have that much.

That said, I will confess that there may be a paper here or there that tries to show that extreme weather has increased as a result of climate change, but the scientific consensus on the subject is clear. The whole RealClimate post is merely Gavin bringing to light two new papers that are trying to find a connection between climate change and extreme weather. These papers, however, do not represent the scientific consensus on the subject. This is why Gavin offers the disclaimer that "there is no theory or result that indicates that climate change increases extremes in general"--he knows the state of the research. Will further results by other people replicate the findings of these new papers? Maybe, we will have to see. Until then though, doomers need to be honest. They are fond of pointing out that the vast majority of peer reviewed material supports the notion that the world is warming and the man-made emissions are the primary cause. They are correct in that assertion. It is time for them to acknowledge that the same overwhelming percentage of peer reviewed materials on the subject of extreme weather says that there has been no observable increase in extreme weather events.

[guardian]

21. BUT BUT we have weather

therefore there must be DOOM. You are obviously on the payroll of ((pick a random target of doomers)). Another cup of Kiwi Strawberry maybe? You need to get your mind right a la Cool Hand Luke. Disagreement is not allowed.

[txlibdem]

22. Weather disproves global climate change? n/t

[Nederland]

24. No, weather does not disprove global climate change

Neither does weather prove global climate change. And all a picture of a guy in hip-waders walking through a flood zone proves is that the poster of the OP doesn't have a clue about climate change.

[txlibdem]

26. Weather statistics over the past decades paints a clear picture: climate change is happening

You don't have to believe it or accept it. It is happening and depending on where you live it has already affected you in some way. You can "deny" it all you like. Reality is knocking at your door. At some point you are going to open that door; and at that time we will welcome you to reality with open arms.

:hi:

[jpak]

28. I guess we can deny these two papers that appeared in a recent issue of Nature...lol

Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes

Seung-Ki Min, Xuebin Zhang, Francis W. Zwiers, Gabriele C. Hegerl (2011) Nature volume 470 pp 378-381

Extremes of weather and climate can have devastating effects on human society and the environment1, 2. Understanding past changes in the characteristics of such events, including recent increases in the intensity of heavy precipitation events over a large part of the Northern Hemisphere land area3, 4, 5, is critical for reliable projections of future changes. Given that atmospheric water-holding capacity is expected to increase roughly exponentially with temperature—and that atmospheric water content is increasing in accord with this theoretical expectation6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11—it has been suggested that human-influenced global warming may be partly responsible for increases in heavy precipitation3, 5, 7. Because of the limited availability of daily observations, however, most previous studies have examined only the potential detectability of changes in extreme precipitation through model–model comparisons12, 13, 14, 15. Here we show that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events found over approximately two-thirds of data-covered parts of Northern Hemisphere land areas. These results are based on a comparison of observed and multi-model simulated changes in extreme precipitation over the latter half of the twentieth century analysed with an optimal fingerprinting technique. Changes in extreme precipitation projected by models, and thus the impacts of future changes in extreme precipitation, may be underestimated because models seem to underestimate the observed increase in heavy precipitation with warming16.

and this...

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000

Pardeep Pall, Tolu Aina, Dáithí A. Stone, Peter A. Stott, Toru Nozawa, Arno G. J. Hilberts, Dag Lohmann, Myles R. Allen (2011) Nature volume 470 pp 382-385

Interest in attributing the risk of damaging weather-related events to anthropogenic climate change is increasing1. Yet climate models used to study the attribution problem typically do not resolve the weather systems associated with damaging events2 such as the UK floods of October and November 2000. Occurring during the wettest autumn in England and Wales since records began in 17663, 4, these floods damaged nearly 10,000 properties across that region, disrupted services severely, and caused insured losses estimated at £1.3?billion (refs 5, 6). Although the flooding was deemed a ‘wake-up call’ to the impacts of climate change at the time7, such claims are typically supported only by general thermodynamic arguments that suggest increased extreme precipitation under global warming, but fail8, 9 to account fully for the complex hydrometeorology4, 10 associated with flooding. Here we present a multi-step, physically based ‘probabilistic event attribution’ framework showing that it is very likely that global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions substantially increased the risk of flood occurrence in England and Wales in autumn 2000. Using publicly volunteered distributed computing11, 12, we generate several thousand seasonal-forecast-resolution climate model simulations of autumn 2000 weather, both under realistic conditions, and under conditions as they might have been had these greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting large-scale warming never occurred. Results are fed into a precipitation-runoff model that is used to simulate severe daily river runoff events in England and Wales (proxy indicators of flood events). The precise magnitude of the anthropogenic contribution remains uncertain, but in nine out of ten cases our model results indicate that twentieth-century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%.

<end>

Denier pseudoscience fail

yup

:rofl:

[txlibdem]

14. We could switch the world to renewable energy for far less than $8 Trillion

You could buy one heck of a lot of solar, wind, geothermal power, tidal power, and wave power with a few trillion dollars.

According to this article, solar panels can now be installed for $4 per watt and will be at grid parity by 2015:
http://www.twst.com/yagoo/zaman10.html

Worldwide energy usage was 15 terawatts in 2008 so it would cost far more than $8 trillion using 2011 costs of $4 per watt ($60 trillion total). But since costs are coming down fairly steadily the cost would end up being far lower than that.
ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

For instance, solar water heaters are far cheaper and still displace up to 10% of your annual energy usage. "the payback time for the initial investment in equipment and installation is just two years. This compares very well to a photovoltaic system used for electricity generation if it were only being used to heat water." --http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090309105021.htm

We can save a good percentage of our energy usage with improvements in energy efficiency. But that doesn't mean reading by candle light (or otherwise giving up our current standards of comfort and lifestyle):

ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2011) — A prototype of an energy-efficient house which can send alerts if its residents are ill has been developed by researchers at the University of Hertfordshire.

InterHome which is the first home in the UK which can learn from its residents and take decisive action and text if it is being burgled or the door has been left unlocked can now also monitor the health of its occupants.

"We developed it further with elderly people in mind so that the house can send alerts if the person has a fall or a stroke," said Mr Johann Siau, Senior Lecturer at the University's School of Engineering and Technology.

The researchers have developed a prototype device which can be strapped to a person's wrist and is equipped with various sensors which take readings of body temperature and pulse.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110127090154.htm