Thus, researchers need to cover a lot of ground before they can make accurate influenza forecasts and give health officials detailed strategies. "We have a ton of work left to do," Shaman said. "These forecasts are in their infancy."

Right now, the CDC has no methods in place to forecast influenza outbreaks, according to Skinner. "Each season is unpredictable," he said. "They are unique in and of themselves."

But by tracing enough variables, scientists like Shaman and Towers hope to get a better handle on the infection and give better advice to the public. "It seems prudent that if you've had a really mild winter and mild flu [season], then the following season, get vaccinated earlier," Towers said.

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

6 Comments

1. 1. Sisko 12:40 PM 2/1/13

   Looking at 15 years of data does not seem to be a statistically valid sample size to reach the stated conclusions.
   
   If someone cares to actually read the study it states: “We posit that warm winters are more likely to be succeeded by early and severe influenza seasons due to fewer people being infected due to the warm weather, thereby leaving an unnaturally large fraction of susceptible individuals in the population going into the next season. The severity of the next season could potentially be exacerbated by the early onset, if the onset occurs before most of the population has had the opportunity to be vaccinated.”
   
   It is equally true that an alternate conclusion is accurate. This coming out of Climatewire is no surprise as they are a great source of climate propaganda. The study by ASU, where I received my undergrad in engineering is sad.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. thevillagegeek 03:05 PM 2/1/13

   "It is equally true that an alternate conclusion is accurate."
   That's easy to say, but impossible to verify, since you never state what that alternate conclusion might be. That's not helpful if the intent is thoughtful discussion, but possibly useful if the intent is to sow the seeds of doubt.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Travashamockery in reply to Sisko 03:54 PM 2/1/13

   "...does not seem..."? It "does not seem" to be a statistically valid sample size because you always look for any excuse to invalidate any study that remotely suggests global warming and the perils therein.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. greendoc 11:39 AM 2/2/13

   As a physician and a climate change activist, I am troubled by the publication and promotion of this flawed study. Please read by blog post to learn about all of the research problems with this study. Climate change is a major driver of health effects, so we need good research, not pop culture like this one. http://climate-md.com/
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. sault in reply to Sisko 12:32 PM 2/2/13

   Let me get this straight...you assert that 15 years is too small a sample size to determine any trends yet I CONSTANTLY see you and the other deniers around here screaming all this baloney about "Climate change stopped 15 years ago!"
   
   Double standard much?
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Nowsane in reply to sault 10:11 PM 2/4/13

   Didn't the Met Office say that we could expect five more years of no warming, and that is in addition to the 16 years already spent with zero warming.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this