Global Disasters in 2022–Roger Pielke Jr
By Paul Homewood
In September, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres made the following claims upon the release of a report — titled ironically enough — United in Science:
Floods, droughts, heatwaves, extreme storms and wildfires are going from bad to worse, breaking records with ever alarming frequency. Heatwaves in Europe. Colossal floods in Pakistan. Prolonged and severe droughts in China, the Horn of Africa and the United States.
There is nothing natural about the new scale of these disasters. They are the price of humanity’s fossil fuel addiction. The number of weather, climate and water-related disasters has increased by a factor of five over the past 50 years.
As I and others have documented, Guterres claim of an 500% increase in disasters is pure misinformation. You will never find a more obviously and egregious wrong claim in public discussions from a more important institution. Making matters worse, the false notion of a massive increase in disasters is legitimized by none other than the World Meteorological Organization, one of the founding bodies of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
I’ve spend almost 30 years working to understand trends in disasters, and the roles played by (a) societal vulnerability and exposure and (b) climate variability and change. Along the way I’ve observed a concerted and successful effort by climate advocates to create and spread disinformation about disasters, knowing full well that virtually all journalists and scientists will stay silent and allow the false information to spread unchecked — and sometimes they will even help to amplify it.
Readers here will well know that the actual science of weather and climate extremes and disasters that may be associated with them is far more nuanced and less apocalyptic than typically found in much of the public discourse. The scientific reality does not diminish the importance of climate mitigation policy, but it does say something about standards of scientific integrity.
In today’s post, I share some preliminary information related to global disasters of 2022. The information available today is incomplete — the year isn’t quite over and not all data analyses have been done and those that have are just a first cut. However, the information that is available today allows us to get a pretty good initial look at disasters of 2022 in historical perspective.
To be sure, 2022 saw some notable weather and climate-related disasters, including among them:
-
flooding in Pakistan, South Africa, Nigeria, India, United States, and Brazil
-
drought in Europe, Eastern Africa and China
-
Hurricane Ian in Florida
Preliminary estimates are that as many as 11,000 people died around the world in weather and climate-related disasters in 2022, which is just about the average of the previous decade, according to data of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. The overall 2022 death rate for weather and climate disasters was about 0.14 people per million, representing one of the 5 lowest annual death rates since data is available (dating to more than a century ago) — and I’d venture in all of recorded human history. The years with lower death rates are all recent: 2021, 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2014. It was just 30 years ago in 1992 that the global death rate from weather and climate disasters was more than 20x greater, at 2.90 per million. The diminishing human impact of disasters is a science and policy success story that is widely underappreciated.
Let’s take a look at some high-level initial data on disasters of 2022 to help get a sense of how the year fits into recent history. Here I focus on the total number of weather and climate disasters and their aggregate economic impacts. In a future post, I’ll discuss some specifics in more detail, including well-below average global tropical cyclone activity of 2022 and record-low emissions from forest and other fires. Detailed information on global floods and drought of 2022 will need to await further data and analyses. You can see my recent post with a detailed look at the U.S. specifically here.
The graph above shows that according to CRED EM-DAT — which is the same database that WMO and Guterres based their false claims on, but I digress — 2022 will see about 330 total disasters, under the EM-DAT criteria for inclusion. The 2022 count will be just about the average of the past decade and about 10% less than annual disaster counts of the first decade of this century. The broader impacts of these disasters (deaths, economic losses) are consistent with these trends as well.
Based on these data, which are viewed by CRED to be reliable since 2000, there is no indication that the number of global weather and climate disasters are increasing. That means that — undeniably — there is no evidence to support another false claim by the U.N that, “The number of disaster events is projected to reach 560 a year – or 1.5 each day, statistically speaking – by 2030.” (Have a look here.)
I am curious: When are journalists going to start reporting the facts about disasters and call out misinformation?
Full post here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Another piece of information that will be ignored by the pseudo-religio fanatics of the climate lobby, press and media as they continue to brainwash the populace with junk science. I think that the plebs are now beginning to question the drivel that is regurgitated daily and net-zero has now been appreciated as the cash-drain that it always was.
It’s a pity that some of our MPs do not read this blog!
“There is nothing natural about the new scale of these disasters. They are the price of humanity’s fossil fuel addiction.”
At the moment atmospheric CO2 from our “addiction” to fossil fuels for our energy needs is up by 50% since pre-industrial time. Two-thirds of that CO2 in today’s atmosphere is natural. Global temperatures are still less than about one degree C. warmer. Trying to lower that with energy intensive mitigations that will do nothing but add CO2 will be the disaster.
The atmospheric CO2 cycle – of which the atmospheric component is estimated to be 3% – 4% – means that as part of the cycle the 4% anthropogenic CO2 is removed from the atmosphere along with the other 96% – 97% and hence never reaches a higher level.
The concept peddled by the AGW hoaxers that anthropogenic CO2 resides and builds up in the atmosphere is unscientific alarmist rubbish.
Newell & Marcus, 1987: The correlation between the sum total of all human activities (global population) and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere (Mauna Loa Observatory) is almost perfect:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3514578
420 parts-per million times 66.6% equals 280 ppm…pre-industrial, natural?
First, repeat after me:
“Correlation DOES NOT imply causation”
Imagine you have a tank with two inlets and one outlet, one inlet 96% and the other 4% of the outlet so the level in the tank remains constant.
Imagine that the 4% inlet contains – say – red ink.
Do you consider the percentage of red ink in the tank as a whole is capable of increasing so as to exceed 4%, the fraction of the total input to the tank?
If you do, can you explain why?
Explain? Perhaps you should read the paper. The co-author is a statistician and fully understood your concern. Here’s what he wrote: “Of course, the increasing excess of carbon dioxide in the air is not caused directly by the population expansion, but by the activities of people….”
Sonnyhill on the Climate Change Dispatch blog made the poignant observation that Guterres is using numerical alliteration – ” 500% in 50 years ” – to create a soundbite slogan
Great to learn this. Thanks.
What does the photo “Public Enemy 1988” have to do with the topic. Maybe that the UN and friends are the World’s worst enemies?
{It is cold this morning and I’m a little denser than usual. 😁}
“Don’t, don’t, don’t don’t don’t believe the hype.”
Paul explained it courtesy of Flavor Flav’s lyrics : ” Dont believe the hype ” To quote another vintage hip hop artist – B Real of Cypress Hill – I think Guterres might be ” insane in the brain ” Or just a narcissistic liar Psychiatrists and psychologists representative associations are as delusional and mendacious as him on climate catastrophism so theres a guarantee Guterres will get a clean bill of mental health They are united in pseudoscience after all
” Floods droughts heatwaves extreme storms heatwaves and wildfires
are going from bad to worse breaking records with ever alarming frequency ” Antonio Guterres is an old Socialist so one should not hold the bar too high with expectations of fidelity to the truth .. ” increased by a factor of 5 over the past 50 years ” is not so much misinformation as a blatant lie .
Even the BBC admitted fires are not unprecedented and were worse in the past .[ When will you post the graphs in this BBC report Paul ?] The area burned by fire has decreased by 24% globally since 2003 as confirmed by satellite observations https://bbc.com/news/world-49515462 Guterres is essentially in denial of the IPCC’s 2021 WG1 verdict on floods and human attribution : ” In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on ..changes in high river flows on the global scale . Confidence is … low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence ” It is the same ” low confidence ” IPCC assessment regarding global drought trends . Extreme storms going from bad to worse ? According to the Global Accumulated Cyclone Energy index 2021 was the ninth weakest ACE year in the series and 24 of the 41 years in the time series are lower than the 764/765 four decade average . 2021 was the 2nd lowest ‘strong hurricanes ‘ year since 1981 . Have the scale and duration of heatwaves increased . ? Not according to the historical records and one only has to examine the U.S heatwave index to see the prodigious spike in the 1930’s I think that settles it .
Thanks to the 2 comments, I’ve learned something today:
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/public-enemy-black-steel-hour-chaos-classic-tracks
Another Guterres fib : “Prolonged and severe droughts in the Horn of Africa ”
” Despite Alarmist Reports , Droughts In The Horn of Africa Not From Climate Change ” https://climatechangedispatch.com/despite-alarmist-reports-drought-in-the-horn-of-africa-not-from-climate-change/
Before he reformed himself as a ” progressive ” Antonio Guterres told of his dislike of homosexuals that put him in the company of Fidel Castro and voted in defense of a law that would have imprisoned women who had abortions ……..
Just as well as Guterres is a Marxist climate evangelist otherwise the cancel culture mob would have shown him no mercy …..
Here in my home state of Victoria we are governed by a pious woke dictator who not so long ago scolded a Christian CEO of a football club for simply belonging to a church and I’m just wondering when he will make a public pronouncement urging Mr Guterres to step down as UN Secretary General .in light of his historic thought crimes
I find Pielke’s arguments convincing. On the assumption that his figures and graphs are accurate I see no reason to challenge him …..
And then he ruins all his good work (to my mind) with “Reducing greenhouse gases is crucially important, of course.”
Why? He has just told us that there is no increase in disasters, that we are coping with what there are better than ever before. We know that as a species we are healthier, wealthier, longer-lived, better-fed than ever in history. We know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has, to date at least, been wholly beneficial in greening the planet and improving crop yields.
Why does he believe that reversing that trend is “crucially important”?
To save himself from being banished to Room 101
Like Lomborg he has been mercilessly attacked for pointing out the truth and knows that if he doesn’t make a small concession to the narrative he will be ignored.
Better tell the BBC’s Disinformation Bureau!
Unfortunately you are permitted to disinform as much as you like, as long as it’s in the preferred direction.
This gives me the idea that sceptics should see how far they can exaggerate the threat of the “climate crisis” before someone notices! Stephen Hawking said that Earth might become like Venus, “with a temperature of 250 degrees and raining sulphuric acid.” He was not called out, as far as I know. Of course, it could have been a joke: he might have meant degrees K, and very dilute sulphuric acid.
At Roger Pielke: You Wrote:
Reducing greenhouse gases is crucially important, of course.
Why? You went down a list of their lies and showed how each was a lie.
I can think of one of their lies you did not cover, but I will do that one here.
They say and write that sea level is rising and that sea level rise is accelerating.
The Atomic Clock was put into service measuring time accurately in 1972. They added a bunch of leap seconds in the shorter decade from 1972 to 1980. There have been less leap seconds added each decade since. The last leap second was added in 2016 and there are no plans to add one anytime again. This means days are shorter now than in 1972. This means that sea level has dropped for fifty years and there has been no sea level rise and especially no accelerating sea level rise. Conservation of Momentum is a basic science. Dancers and Skaters spin slower with arms extended and faster with the arms in. Polar ice is close the spin axis and ocean is further, at the equator.
So, in addition to all you already wrote about, add sea level rise as another lie.
So, I ask you, if they lied about all the disasters that are supposedly caused by the CO2 increase we have had, why do you support their primary argument?
One possibility is you are invested personally in Green Energy Ventures.
One possibility is you write that so they will allow you to publish.
Bottom line is, they really love how you keep more people focused on CO2 as the only cause of Climate Change.
They win all the battles about climate change on the precautionary principles as long a people believe only CO2 matters.
For all your good work, I thank you, but natural factors caused natural climate change before man burned fossil fuels and you are not promoting study of natural causes of climate change.
You are playing on their home field with their umpires.
Interestingly, about ten or twelve years ago I had an argument with an American “climate scientist” on a blog because I claimed that LoD variation could be used a proxy for ice mass on the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps for exactly the reason you state above, polar moment of inertia and conservation of angular momentum.
After considerable discussion he (reluctantly) admitted that I was probably right – BUT…
As a (retired) engineer, it never fails to amaze me how many “scientists” with numerous letters after their name seem entirely unaware of the basic principles of physics and thermodynamics and possess an ability to relate them to real processes in the material world as opposed to equations in a text book…
Nor is this restricted to the realms of climatology, unfortunately.
“scientists” with numerous letters after their name only get those letters after their name if they do not question the consensus that is taught to them. I know some meteorologists who forecast the weather without invoking “alarmist climate statements”, have you noticed that and wondered if they don’t believe the alarmism but cannot say that and keep their jobs.
I am curious: When are journalists going to start reporting the facts …… and call out misinformation?
Don’t hold your breath on that one.
“As I and others have documented, Guterres claim of an 500% increase in disasters is pure misinformation.”
Call a spade, a spade. The man is a liar.
How cruel to resort to facts and knowledge in order to disarm force-initiating superstition and ignorance. Just because anonymous scientist impersonators can’t define energy doesn’t mean they’re wrong! Whutabout their altruistic motives, huh? huh?