Increasing Extreme Weather Events?
By Paul Homewood
Re-posted from ManicBeancounter:
In this post I will briefly look at Figure 1 from the report, re-posted by Ben Pile.
Fig 1 – Global Occurrences of Extreme Weather Events from New Economy Climate Report
Clearly these graphs seem to demonstrate a rapidly worsening situation. However, I am also aware of a report a few years ago authored by Indur Goklany, and published by The Global Warming Policy Foundation – GLOBAL DEATH TOLL FROM EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS DECLINING
Figure 2 : From Goklany 2010 – Global Death and Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events, 1900–2008. Source: Goklany (2009), based on EM-DAT (2009), McEvedy and Jones (1978), and WRI (2009).
Note that The International Disaster Database is EM-DAT. The website is here to check. Clearly these show two very different pictures of events. The climate consensus (or climate alarmist) position is that climate change is getting much worse. The climate sceptic (or climate denier) position is that is that human-caused climate change is somewhat exaggerated. Is one side outright lying, or is their some truth in both sides?
Read the full post here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Whatever your view you can generate a graph purporting to support it. Graphs never reveal the underlying assumptions, definitions, visual manipulations etc.
I wonder how tsunami events are classified?
Tsunamis are classified under Earthquakes, as that is their cause.
I have made a little table of the EM_DAT records. The last couple of decades have had a quite high death toll due to major events. These include
Japan 2011 19,848
Haiti 2010 222,570
China 2008 87,564
Various (Indian Ocean) 2004 225,949
Many thanks Manic!
It doesn’t matter, extreme weather and all.
Dear selfish Occidentals,
The planet is doomed the IPCC said so today.
Ahem, unless, unless YOU all start to get serious, and get back to the Neolithic or summat.
Though for some, it’s a jolly jape of perma ‘crisis’… Strewth, by Jupiter it is, next conference coming up soon and 5 stars all the way and executive jet travel, business class for the apparatchiks, saving the world is a very labour intensive spiel-athon business, and don’t worry western taxpayers WILL be on the hook to pay for it all, #enjoytheUNIpccgravytrain, suck it up all you western orrible consumers – you.
regards,
on a south sea island paradise, all green NGOs and Penn state climate charity chuggers.
PS, we hate Trump.
Paul, I left a comment on his website about his final statement “The issue I have is not with EM-DAT,”.
The data is so obviously incomplete prior to the seventies it is laughable.
A C Osborn
I have replied
All the items (typhoons, floods etc.) are present in the database. The problem is that until the late 1980s only reported extreme events were recorded. So a flood that killed hundreds of thousands in China in the 1920s would have been reported, whilst one that killed hundreds would not. Since 1990 any flood that kills a few dozen will be recorded, as would floods with no deaths but substantial property damage.
What the database clearly shows is that deaths from extreme events (weather / earthquakes / famine / etc.) have fallen massively compared to 1900-1950. The database understates this fall. Anyone who looks at frequency of events without reading the documentation is not very bright, or are deceiving others.
Thanks for the reply here, I will have a look at your reply and respond on your site as well.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
GWPF has pointed out that the latest IPCC report does not claim confidence in increasing extreme weather attributable to AGW.
That is not surprising. The IPCC is looking at the effects of a rise in average global temperatures of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The report also states
How much confidence can you have in extreme weather becoming much more frequent with a temperature increase less than that observed when there is no clear evidence of a trend in the recent past?
The graphs are obviously bogus – why have different time periods otherwise?
Why not just show annual figures? Would that then not show the “trend” you can produce by having two columns? My bet is that an annual graph would show declines in the later years for some of these events.