Global Warming, the Great Lifesaver, More die from excess cold than heat Options

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

"For Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat each year.

However, about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold."




Global Warming, the Great Lifesaver

Bjorn Lomborg says balmier weather could ward off millions of deaths.
by Bjorn Lomborg


Yes, Bjorn Lomborg, the controversial Danish economist, believes that “global warming is real and man-made.” But he is convinced that we are not thinking the problem through correctly and are, in fact, lost in a kind of green fog about how best to deal with global warming and other major environmental threats. In this excerpt from his new book, Cool It, Lomborg illustrates how a major climate-related killer goes underreported, while human deaths from heat waves make front-page news.


The heat wave in Europe in early August 2003 was a catastrophe of heartbreaking proportions. With more than 3,500 dead in Paris alone, France suffered nearly 15,000 fatalities from the heat wave. Another 7,000 died in Germany, 8,000 in Spain and Italy, and 2,000 in the United Kingdom: The total death toll ran to more than 35,000. Understandably, this event has become a psychologically powerful metaphor for the frightening vision of a warmer future and our immediate need to prevent it.


The green group Earth Policy Institute, which first totaled the deaths, tells us that as “awareness of the scale of this tragedy spreads, it is likely to generate pressure to reduce carbon emissions. For many of the millions who suffered through these record heat waves and the relatives of the tens of thousands who died, cutting carbon emissions is becoming a pressing personal issue.”
While 35,000 dead is a terrifyingly large number, all deaths should in principle be treated with equal concern. Yet this is not happening. When 2,000 people died from heat in the United Kingdom, it produced a public outcry that is still heard. However, the BBC recently ran a very quiet story telling us that deaths caused by cold weather in England and Wales for the past years have hovered around 25,000 each winter, casually adding that the winters of 1998–2000 saw about 47,000 cold deaths each year. The story then goes on to discuss how the government should make the cost of winter fuel economically bearable and how the majority of deaths are caused by strokes and heart attacks.
It is remarkable that a single heat-death episode of 35,000 from many countries can get everyone up in arms, whereas cold deaths of 25,000 to 50,000 a year in just a single country pass almost unnoticed. Of course, we want to help avoid another 2,000 dying from heat in the United Kingdom. But presumably we also want to avoid many more dying from cold.
For Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat each year. However, about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. That is more than seven times the total number of heat deaths. Just in the past decade, Europe has lost about 15 million people to the cold, more than 400 times the iconic heat deaths from 2003. That we so easily neglect these deaths and so easily embrace those caused by global warming tells us of a breakdown in our sense of proportion.
How will heat and cold deaths change over the coming century with global warming? Let us for the moment assume—very unrealistically—that we will not adapt at all to the future heat. Still, the biggest cross-European cold/heat study concludes that for an increase of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the average European temperatures, “our data suggest that any increases in mortality due to increased temperatures would be outweighed by much larger short-term declines in cold-related mortalities.” For Britain, it is estimated a 3.6°F increase will mean 2,000 more heat deaths but 20,000 fewer cold deaths. Likewise, another paper incorporating all studies on this issue and applying them to a broad variety of settings in both developed and developing countries found that “global warming may cause a decrease in mortality rates, especially of cardiovascular diseases.”
But of course, it seems very unrealistic and conservative to assume that we will not adapt to rising temperatures throughout the 21st century. Several recent studies have looked at adaptation in up to 28 of the biggest cities in the United States. Take Philadelphia. The optimal temperature seems to be about 80°F. In the 1960s, on days when it got significantly hotter than that (about 100°F), the death rate increased sharply. Likewise, when the temperature dropped below freezing, deaths increased sharply.
Yet something great happened in the decades following. Death rates in Philadelphia and around the country dropped in general because of better health care. But crucially, temperatures of 100°F today cause almost no excess deaths. However, people still die more because of cold weather. One of the main reasons for the lower heat susceptibility is most likely increased access to air-conditioning. Studies seem to indicate that over time and with sufficient resources, we actually learn to adapt to higher temperatures. Consequently we will experience fewer heat deaths even when temperatures rise.

[-priority(+)target-]

Well, I guess if someone writes it, there will be a audience. I suspect the consumers of this book will be those looking for reasons and excuses not to do the right thing.

There is always an excuse. Seems like the wrong attitude to me. I look forward to the day that I don't have to inhale disgusting diesel exhaust on the way to work. I look forward to the day that the city isn't covered by a brown smog fog and be concerned about the health of my family. I hope someday the sensible and responsible people reach critical mass and we can move to a society that encourages sustainability rather promoting consumption as a principle.

As for whatever is written in that book, I am sure he didn't make the connection that global warming would cause a cooling of Europe which is a fairly common scientific estimation of what will happen. But hey, we are on our own to discern what is fit to print and what provides the truest representation of the situation. The rest of it, like this book I suspect, is better for starting fires.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

Err, OK. So, let's ignore the fact that the concern with global warming is that it will change weather patterns drastically and quickly, meaning places where we grow our food and expect to be able to find suitable amounts of water, etc. will suddenly not be suitable. Thus, large scale crop failures, etc. In costal areas, especially many cities, flooding is likely to occur. Many of the cities largest cities are along coastlines.

So, while it is conceivable that more people die from freezing then heat stroke, I don't think the concern simply is that global warming makes it too "hot" to live, more that it make will too quickly change the places that are livable year round or suitable for large scale crop growth. It's about famine, flooding, larger hurricanes (the warmer the water, the bigger the hurricane), etc.

Of course, I've seen the right wing argument again global warming morph from denying it, to more recently arguing it isn't man-made so get used to it, to the latest one, that it'll be good for us! LOL!

Anyway, I don't even understand why this is a left/right issue in the USA. In the rest of the world, it is a science issue, and when 90% of scientists say one thing 5% another, and 5% in-between, us non-scientists pretty much have to go with the majority opinion. It could be wrong, but IMO I'm more likely to take the word of 90% of people trained in something than the smallest majority...unless I only listen to what I want to here.

[Capt. Andtennille]

Err, OK. So, let's ignore the fact that the concern with global warming is that it will change weather patterns drastically and quickly, meaning places where we grow our food and expect to be able to find suitable amounts of water, etc. will suddenly not be suitable. Thus, large scale crop failures, etc. In costal areas, especially many cities, flooding is likely to occur. Many of the cities largest cities are along coastlines.

So, while it is conceivable that more people die from freezing then heat stroke, I don't think the concern simply is that global warming makes it too "hot" to live, more that it make will too quickly change the places that are livable year round or suitable for large scale crop growth. It's about famine, flooding, larger hurricanes (the warmer the water, the bigger the hurricane), etc.

Of course, I've seen the right wing argument again global warming morph from denying it, to more recently arguing it isn't man-made so get used to it, to the latest one, that it'll be good for us! LOL!

Anyway, I don't even understand why this is a left/right issue in the USA. In the rest of the world, it is a science issue, and when 90% of scientists say one thing 5% another, and 5% in-between, us non-scientists pretty much have to go with the majority opinion. It could be wrong, but IMO I'm more likely to take the word of 90% of people trained in something than the smallest majority...unless I only listen to what I want to here.

Oh mighty Master of Disaster expert on every subject. I don't think your numbers of scientists is in any way correct. Check again. BTW, do you have any idea what it takes to be one of the "scientists" in your statistics?

If it weren't for global warming we would still be in the last ice age, but I'm sure that THIS warming period is because of man. LOL

BTW, wasn't global cooling all the rage just a couple of decades ago? As the champion of your political soulmates once said: " A lie told often enough becomes the truth".



Basic References:

• Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears
• The Year the Global Warming Hoax Died
• Hostages to a hoax
• Water Experts Find Earth's Warming, Rainfall Linked to Sun
• Global Warming and Solar Radiation
• Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation
• The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change (PDF)
• Up against the warming zealots
• When Physics Trumps Hysteria in Global Warming
• Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
• Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts
• Geophysical, archeological and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change (PDF)
• Gamma rays and climate (PDF)
• Temperature vs. Cosmic Ray Flux
• Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development (PDF)
• Proof on Ice: Southern Greenland Was Once Green; Earth Warmer
• Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat
• The Past and Future of Climate (PDF)
• Global warming is not a crisis
• The Great Global Warming Swindle
• IceCap

Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"):

• Science, not politics
• Statistics needed
• The original denier: into the cold
• End the chill
• They call this a consensus?
• The limits of predictability
• Unsettled science
• Models trump measurements
• The ice-core man
• The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science
• Polar scientists on thin ice
• The sun moves climate change
• Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
• Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
• Read the sunspots
• Forget warming - beware the new ice age
• Little Ice Age is still with us
• Fighting climate 'fluff'

Other References:

• Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny
• The Global Warming Myth
• Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
• Strong Evidence Points to Earth's Proximity to Sun as Ice Age Trigger
• THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW!
• Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'
• IPCC Scientists Challenge Al Gore's View of Global Warming Consensus
• Swedish Scientist Accuses UN's IPCC of Falsifying Data and Destroying Evidence
• CO2 Science
• Global Warming and Climate Forcing by Recent Albedo Changes on Mars
• Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
• The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
• New findings indicate today's greenhouse gas levels not unusual
• Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2
• Global Warming as a Religion
• I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train (By David Evans)
• Global Warming: it's not caused by greenhouse gases says academic
• Still Waiting for Greenhouse
• GREENIE WATCH
• Why Global Warming Would be Good for You
• Global Warming Primer (PDF)
• Global Warming: An Official Pseudoscience
• Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
• Fiddler On The Roof
• Debating Global Warming
• Climate Resistance

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

Beauty of a post Captain!
I don't think these "what he says" - "global warming" followers even know what to say to a post like that. If they only follow the coverstory on Newsweek or watch CNN they don't have a clue there is another story to tell out there. I think they just dismiss those that question Global Warming as freaks or wacko's.

Of course , to be constistant, they must also believe the world is flat and the Sun revolves around the Earth.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

Beauty of a post Captain!
I don't think these "what he says" - "global warming" followers even know what to say to a post like that. If they only follow the coverstory on Newsweek or watch CNN they don't have a clue there is another story to tell out there. I think they just dismiss those that question Global Warming as freaks or wacko's.

Of course , to be constistant, they must also believe the world is flat and the Sun revolves around the Earth.

OK, I was going to let it die, but since you called it out, 133 countries (or something like that) signing the Kyoto Deal in my mind trumps 30 propaganda articles probably collected from a website that puts that stuff together.

I could just as easily find a site that'd give you as many links to why Jews or Blacks ar inferior. Or I can find numerous links as to the "proof" the the Twin Towers was actually a conspiracy of th Isreali's or the American government. I was in a book store the other day and perused the "new age" section. There were 4 books on how the world is going to end in 2012 (no lie). So there's a market out there for any sort of truth you want, the question becomes, does it hold up to a hard look by the majority of experts?

Anyway, like I say, I see the global warming deniers constantly switch stories...from non-existant, to not-our-fault, to now it's-a-good-thing. That makes me pretty suspicious. The only thing they seem to refuse to believe is that it is both real, and we could do something about it.

I'll admit, no one can know for sure what's going on, but please, tell me what other arguments there are out there where you believe the minority of scientists studying an issue as opposed to a majority. And tell me, if this is a BIG lie, who is the big "winners" supposed to be by telling this lie? Who are the powerful people who could tell and sell such an enormous lie? How can it be that the oil and gas industries, with more money than anyone, are "losing" this propaganda war, to what, the wind mill manufacturers?

Anyway, in the end, someone will be right, and someone will be wrong. I sure hope thew global warming deniers are right actually, since the one country where the debate mattered most, the USA, the global warming deniers are winning. The biggest polluter in the world won't sign on, the rest of the world isn't going to knock itself out while the US basically does no more than a few token gestures. So whatever is going to happen, will happen, there's no doubt. Man made or not, the globe is warming up, and there's no evidence the trend is reversing. In fact, the evidence is that it is speeding. I guess we'll just have to hope it means longer summers, less cold days, and heck, maybe more lives saved! However, despite not being an expert, I do continue to have a hard time believing that something like 90% of scientists have been bamboozled by some tree huggers and the wind-mill lobby!


Anyway, as a FINAL note, I do not consider myself a know-it-all. But I'm not the one who keeps bringing right-wing pieces into the forum for debate. If you want to bring this stuff in here, be prepared for the alternative view to be presented with roughly as much certainty as you present yours. The rest of the people can make up their opinions from that, but let's stop with the "we're right, you're arrogant and pompous" attitiude.

Personally, topics like this just aren't that great for a clan forum. They're devisive and people rarely agree. I think that's why most people, wisely, are avoiding these debates. Sometimes I wish I did.

This post has been edited by M@ster of Dis@ster: 09/20/07 9:05pm

[UNDEAD 1]

so you question that man has not messed with our enviromet ,its just a cycle? amarica is the only one whos still debating (including our two republican friends) its not just emmisions but as a whole we are screwing our childrens future . its all about the here and now-lets spray pesticides now so we can have decent crops even though its poison to ingest and has tainted the soils in amarica to the point where there is not one body of water ,river or stream that isnt tainted-were fine now but our kids will have to deal with that . lets cut all the trees down for building or palm farms for fuel now because WE dont have to worry about it ,our kids wont need a rain forrest or everglades ,wet lands etc...in some places theres so much garbage buried theres no where else to put it . all of this combined alon with emissions is killing this planet. if you dont want to believe it ,shore , you can find 1000s of links to back yourself up buuuut-



what if you debators are wrong? i guess it wont matter because when it really gets bad youll be dead and the next generation will have to deal with it .the technology is there and CHEAP why not utilize it to try and help rather than argue? i agree with some help ,it would be nice if you could not smell smog or if your hiking far from where man lives you could drink from the stream .christ i caught a massive bass in the everglades and had to throw it back-not eat it- because its a known fact the mercury levels are extremely toxic (sugar mills).we always wait till alot of people die before passing a law to change something -FACT- this isnt something were going to be able to change .

mod 2012 is end of all days-its a clander year the aztecs have chose . ive actually watched a segment on history channel which was interesting.

This post has been edited by UNDEAD 1: 09/20/07 9:10pm

[Genocide Junkie]

If Al Gore says it IT MUST BE TRUE

[-priority(+)target-]

The debate is over. Denial... is unfortunately the kind of attitude the cigarette companies had... hmmm. I can't remember did smoking cause cancer on not? If you look hard enough I am positive you could find a 90 year old guy that smokes a pack a day and is 'healthy as a horse' but that doesn't really speak to whether smoking causes cancer.

[shazbot]

I've been sucked in again. Yes there was a global warming to end the last Ice Age. If you look though, it 60,000 years for the ice to fully recede. If you compare that to the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf in the Artic which in 3000 years hadn't split at all and in 2 years it has totally split through. Found many sources that estimate the decline of polar ice at 9% every decade. When the ice melts it also releases trapped CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. Less ice also means for light being let in, thusly warming the Earth. The stats are directly from NASA, not a left wing entity the last i checked.

As far as adpating to the heat, come live in Phoenix for a summer. I've lived in AZ my whole life and Phx the last 10 years and has def. gotten warmer, nay hotter. We had at least 30 days of 110 degree weather and something like 100 days of 105+.

That's all i will say on this subject.

[UNDEAD 1]

I've been sucked in again. Yes there was a global warming to end the last Ice Age. If you look though, it 60,000 years for the ice to fully recede. If you compare that to the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf in the Artic which in 3000 years hadn't split at all and in 2 years it has totally split through. Found many sources that estimate the decline of polar ice at 9% every decade. When the ice melts it also releases trapped CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. Less ice also means for light being let in, thusly warming the Earth. The stats are directly from NASA, not a left wing entity the last i checked.

As far as adpating to the heat, come live in Phoenix for a summer. I've lived in AZ my whole life and Phx the last 10 years and has def. gotten warmer, nay hotter. We had at least 30 days of 110 degree weather and something like 100 days of 105+.

That's all i will say on this subject.

OR florida where we normally get an extreme amount of rain,instead none,infact ,our only water source lake okechobee (sp?)has dropped 4 inches and is drying up as we speak. its happening too quick to be a cycle.there finding all the bodies and vehicles from the 80s drug years-not good.

[Barkmann]

Global Warming, is it real? YES! End of story.
I be more worry about one of these hitting the earth >>>again<<<



This post has been edited by Barkmann: 09/21/07 9:26pm

[Goosefly]

Why do we do nothing to change the way our governments looks at Global Warming?

CAPITALISM, you will see that it is not easy fighting Capitalism (money isn't everything, it's the only thing)......do you really think they will do away with OIL or any other form of energy used for propulsion that we are currently using..............think again.

There are and were scientists that actually figured out how to make a car run entirely on water with no emissions, do you see any of those cars around? NO, because the auto manufacturers suppress developements like this, not to mention the governments of the world especially those that have an abundance of oil fields. The prototype cars (Hybrids etc.) are just there for our peace of mind, "to calm the angry mob" if you will. Don't think for a second that we will all be driving "Green" cars in 10, 20, 30 years from now, because those that control the fuel control what we drive, and as long as there is fuel left on the planet we will be driving gas guzzling cars.

You see, as long as someone can make money from fuels like the ones we are using now they will do everything in their power to prolong and even avoid switching over to "Green" vehicles, be it cars, bikes, boats or whatever.

I must say that I don't see anything good happening within the next 50 - 100 years unless there is a major environmental disaster ( that leads to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the west (the east, what's the east?), as long as the west comes out on top.....no problem!! ) that can be directly linked to our insane cunsumption of the planets natural resources.

from a pessimistic skeptic.

[shazbot]

I am not a environmentalist, not even close. In fact i live in a city (Scottsdale/Phoenix) that must have the largest fleet of Escalades and Hummers (asst. other SUVs) in the western U.S. Just seems like the documented fndings from varied sources are kind of hard to deny. Sources that often back the claims through photographic evidence.

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

I think most of you missed the point of the original post.
'Global warming is real but is it good'
This is the arguement made by Bjorn Lomborg

More warmth = More life

Fact is when the earth was hotter animals and plants grew to huge sizes



Less cold = Less deaths

People die from cold much more than from heat.