Explanation please

[Deathby]

Hi, I was talking to someone about climate change, and they showed me this quote from the Wall St. journal from a guy named Bjorn Lomborg. I know he's not a scientist, but he makes strong points which my scientific noviceness cannot refute although I assume there are explanations for these things. In particular, I'd like to hear an explanation for his points about Antarctica's snowfall and the sea ice.

 

Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case. According to him, Nairobi was founded right where it was too cold for malaria to occur. However, with global warming advancing, he tells us that malaria is now appearing in the city. Yet this is quite contrary to the World Health Organization's finding. Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920s and '30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly. Mr. Gore's is a convenient story, but isn't it against the facts?

 

He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those facts? Mr. Gore talks about how the higher temperatures of global warming kill people. He specifically mentions how the European heat wave of 2003 killed 35,000. But he entirely leaves out how global warming also means less cold and saves lives. Moreover, the avoided cold deaths far outweigh the number of heat deaths. For the U.K. it is estimated that 2,000 more will die from global warming. But at the same time 20,000 fewer will die of cold. Why does Mr. Gore tell only one side of the story?

[Glider]

The bit about Nairobi sounds very strange to me. Nairobi is the capital city of Kenya. It's a few miles south of the equator. No way is Nairobi too cold for malaria, nor has it ever been.

[Bluenoise]

I also doubt that that many people die of cold in the UK.

[insane_alien]

well, theres the usual run of old people dying when it gets particularly cold in the UK. but anyway, global warming is predicted to shutdown the gulf stream and leave us UKers a lot colder than we are just now. i don't think its 20000 that die of cold every year in the UK but if the gulf stream shuts down then it definately will be higher.

[Mokele]

The flaw of the arguement is that's it's nothing but picking at details, rather than the core of the issue.

[Deathby]

Aye, I agree Mokele most of it is picking at the edges. But the stuff on Antarctica isn't. The amount of sea ice and the amount of snow seem critical to how much Antarctica is warming (and to many that's where global warming will do the most damage).

[smartypant]

Hi, I was talking to someone about climate change, and they showed me this quote from the Wall St. journal from a guy named Bjorn Lomborg. I know he's not a scientist, but he makes strong points which my scientific noviceness cannot refute although I assume there are explanations for these things. In particular, I'd like to hear an explanation for his points about Antarctica's snowfall and the sea ice.

 

I beleive he's just a guy who wants to prove his point. I mean come on, you have to realise that neither global warming will kill 2,000. Not just right now I mean. And even though many people were killed by both heat and cold its not likely to increase largely. I think that this whole argument is pointless. He only shows one side of the story because this probably began from another argument. This argument would be pointless if you ask me. The answer is that both heat and cold will kill us. One or the other. (But then again no one did really ask me so...)