Weather Disasters Getting Deadlier, Say Experts, As Death Tolls Plummet!
By Paul Homewood
https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/10/1075142
Every year official agencies like the UN and WMO tell us that weather disasters keep getting more frequent. Their evidence, they say, comes from the disaster database WM-DAT.
And every year I and others inconveniently point out that the apparent increase is not due to disasters becoming more common, but that we are now much better at recording them.
EM-DAT know this full well, because they wrote about it in their Annual Review for 2006:
https://www.emdat.be/publications?page=5
Critics have hit back by noting that the number of deaths from weather disasters has massively shrunk over the years, something EM-DAT admit themselves, hardly supporting those hysterical claims of the UN.
How Dare We Criticise The Experts!
EM-DAT were not having this. So in their new review for 2022, they wrote this:
https://cred.be/sites/default/files/2022_EMDAT_report.pdf
In short, they argue that if we exclude all of those mega disasters, the mortality trends have actually been increasing. Take that, you stupid deniers!
But what they fail to point out is that the number of recorded disasters has been rising exponentially since 1900, for reasons already outlined. If they worked the average number of deaths per disaster, they would see a drastic reduction.
https://www.emdat.be/publications?page=5
The death toll appears to be rising for the same reason as the number of disasters does, the fact that we now religiously record them all, something we have only been doing since the 1990s. And, as their chart also shows, the death toll has been declining since then.
To be fair they do acknowledge this problem, and advise that it is “impossible to draw conclusions”:
But that does not stop them from publishing these sort of misleading charts year after year, or allowing the UN to use them to spout lies.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Send more money.
#ItsAllAboutGovernance
‘Every year official agencies like the UN and WMO tell us that weather disasters keep getting more frequent.’
Actually, they say ‘climate disasters.’
‘The first 20 years of this century have seen a “staggering” rise in climate disasters’
‘Climate disaster’ is utter ignorance of what ‘climate’ means. From the geniuses in charge.
Nothing like UN agencies with seemingly unlimited funding and MSM / political adulation, beclowning themselves regularly but still being “credible”, apparently.
Which is strange as the first 20 years or do haven’t seen much, if any, increase in warmth. Of something is changing when something else isn’t, the second thing is unlikely to cause the first.
“… from the 1920s through the 1960s, there were five drought-induced famines, killing more than one million each. Do these include the famines created by the USSR and Communist China? Or were they in addition to the ones counted here? The famines in the Communist countries killed tens of millions.
Also, in addition to the increase in collecting of weather data due to the internet (in the last quote in the post), the use of smart phones has been a major contributor. Tornadoes lasting for minutes can be captured and the photos (with location and time data) sent to the weather station immediately.
Hoisted by their own petard. Expect a convenient revision of data to contort inconvenient figures to fit the disaster narrative.
“And every year I and others inconveniently point out that the apparent increase is not due to disasters becoming more common, but that we are now much better at recording them.”
And much of what passes for “climate change” begins in 1979 with global satellite coverage. Anything before that is inconveniently ignored… or conveniently adjusted.
If I may repeat part of my recent comment on the last post.
2015 Professor Tim Flannery told ABC NewsRadio that the number of severe cyclones is predicted to increase as the warming affects the ocean surface. “Sadly we’re more likely to see them more frequently in the future.” But over the very next year something astonishing happened. We actually got not one strong cyclone in Australia for first time in many decades:
Ocean surface temperatures are NOT a limiting factor in cyclone formation. The seas are plenty warm every year.
‘the number of severe cyclones is predicted to increase as the warming affects the ocean surface’
Spoken by people IGNORANT of the science of cyclones.
When you heat seas that are warm enough, nothing changes.
Paul,
Is there any evidence of increased seismic activity? Such as volcanoes, lava flows, earthquakes large and small even hot spring temperature rise?
My reason for asking is obvious but it rarely seems to be addressed.
Thank you.
There is no doubt that historically there have been ‘flood’ and ‘drout’ periods of seismicity and volcanic activity.
Why?
Well, the short answer is that there are several hypotheses but, I am sure, no generally accepted answer.
Examples include Christchurch NZ, I have an excellent, strongly scientific study of the Geology of NZ which confirmed the general view of experts (back when ‘expert’ had yet to become a term of abuse), that Christchurch wasn’t at significant seismological risk. Just then….
There are loads of similar examples. And obviously, this ties in with the obvious fact that even the very best boffins are still unable to predict major earthquakes or volcanic eruptions much before they occur.
Not significantly different from MET Office weather prognosticators or our chums the Climate Modellers, in fact.
If I may? I worked at the Canterbury Museum as a volunteer at the time you refer to. There was a move to strengthen the Museum , Art Gallery and Arts Centre because the faults, which were found in Pegasus Bay were expected to fail as they had in the 19thC. The long fault at Rolleston which caused a tremendous earthquake was not known. There turned out to be many faults which being buried under the city and the Port Hills were not detected before we had a year and a half of earthquakes large and small as one after the other shifted releasing the energy built up over centuries http://canterbury.quakelive.co.nz/
Great information, thanks, M E.
Of course, the major fault across Anatolia was well enough known but had been fairly inactive for many years. That is exactly why when enough potential energy had built up for a very long time, the Quake that hit South Turkey and North Syria was vicious.
I have a particular interest in the Austro Hungarian Empire and note that although there were violent earthquakes in the past (e.g. Hall in Tirol in 1640 ish), violent quakes in Zagreb (Agram, Hungary) in 1880 and Ljubljana (Laibach, Austria) both sparked off interest and funding to start efforts to measure seismicity scientifically.
Then there was the very famous Earthquake in San Francisco, others in Sicily and so on.
It occurs to me that the political brouhaha that the egregious Potato Ed Davey and his incompetent MP chums used to ban Fracking in the UK is precisely the opposite of the common sense approach that more trivial, cup rattling tremors which, at worst might put a crack in plaster over a door, seems to me much preferable to a proper earthquake demolishing buildings and killing people. For many years, deep mined coal and the associated subsidence caused damage which was a nuisance but mostly properly repaired. Almost always it was the subsidence over the edge of a panel of coal which caused a tension wave in the strata and differential settlement which caused most problems. I could take you to an old pub just outside Barnsley where, if you order a bowl of soup, wherever you sit, it is absolutely obvious that the soup is deeper at one side of the bowl than the other.
No-one got hurt!
Even removing part of a coal seam, maybe one and a half metres thick and 100 metres wide, perhaps only 300 metres below the ground surface never “caused” an earthquake, although it might well relieve stress that had built up in adjacent strata faults. (Mining Engineers and surveyors obviously set out planned extraction as best they could to avoid known significant faults).
How much less could fracking cause an earthquake! But they might trigger a tremor that would eventually happen in the future. So what is more scarey? A few trivial tremors or less frequent more powerful tremors? Even an earthquake?
Thank you Paul.
<
div>Your reply to my questi
“The multiple manslaughter convictions on Monday of six Italian seismologists (and a government official), on the other hand, remind many of a time when scientists were treated in a less enlightened manner.” – 2012
Met Office trials, anyone?
MB: The rewport by the UK Geophysical Society submitted to government last October should have been the final word on the subject. Unfortunately it pulled its punches but it did make clear that surface disturbances can occur with intrusions of 2.5 LM and above. The extensive literature on US shales makes clear that intrusions of more than 3.0 LM have caused surface damage and damage to the wells themselves. Cuadrilla fracked to 2.7 LM before they were stopped due to tremors (and still the gas didn’t flow). They are now asking for approval for 4.0 LM which is far into the danger zone but I suspect that this is just a ploy to get the government to refuse so they can build a case to reclaim past costs. Conclusion: our shale, like most shales. is too tight to deliver viable gas.
If 4.0 LM (which is far into the danger zone Yeah? In which universe?) is good enough for fracking for Geothermal (and for Quarrying, Piledriving, Explosive Demolition, effects from High Speed Rail, etc etc etc) why do we have to adhere to 0.1 (Thanks, Potato Ed!) for fracking?
Surface damage at 3.0? Yeah, maybe, rarely, a little crack in some old plaster somewhere?
So on this basis, after half a single trial, you decide “Conclusion: our shale, like most shales. is too tight to deliver viable gas.” Wow. Did they check how long it took for the “complaints” to be made by GangGreen residents miles away responding to smartphone alerts from protestors on site?
I think that the only thing demonstrably “too tight” in this sorry comment, is you, Vernon!
MB: Where did you get the 0.1 from? Cuadrilla’s test was permitted to 0.5 – ridiculous in itself – but they fracked to 2.7 (some reports say 2.9) before they were stopped.
TWO corrections need to be added:
1 – Improved communications enable weather incidents to be recorded which in the past would have was passed unnoticed.
2 – Many more people are alive today, so a flood affecting 100 people in 1900 would probably affect 1000 people in 2000.
Regarding your second point, it’s arguably even more dramatic than there being more people on the planet today, therefore all things being equal, more people would be likely to be affected by weather-related disasters. When it comes to things like flooding, there is a second factor likely to increase the numbers affected, namely that as the population of humans on the planet has massively increased, the best and safest places to live are no longer available for new populations, thus making it inevitable that they build homes in places that were previously unoccupied by humans, such as flood plains.
The fact that numbers affected by such disasters are going down, despite that, completely pulls the rug from beneath claims of increasing disasters.
Also, more people living in areas prone to flooding, deforestation leading to more flooding, plus multiple other factors.
Reducing energy security is a very serious threat to people’s safety. Australian politicians have lost the plot.
“Climate activists are ‘killing off our energy supplies’: Andrew Bolt”
While in the UK energy security is trying to be maintained by providing second rate gas apparently :-
(Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall)
Lower quality gas to be pumped into households to boost energy security” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/03/17/lower-quality-gas-pumped-households-boost-energy-security/
Another stroke of genius, completely unchallenged by the Telegraph’s Journos.
So why is the gas 13% less energy rich? What replaces these CH4 molecules? How do they know that most customers won’t see a difference? Sez who?
Will this second rate Methane be cheaper for the consumer? (Ho Ho. Answers on a postcard, please.)
When did our doughty, constituent defending MPs debate this gem?
Yes, I noticed that. The very questionable Rachel at the Telegraph again. Presumably the diluent left in the gas will be noitrogen or even maybe CO2 but since our gas bills are calculated on calorific value anyway what difference does it make? Or are the energy companies going to cheat us?
Just incase :-
“Make a complaint about your energy supplier | Ofgem” https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/information-consumers/energy-advice-households/making-complaint-about-your-energy-supplier-or-network-operator
Just read this morning on the BBC news website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64999417
“A siren-like alert will be sent to mobile phone users across the UK next month to test a new government public warning system.
It allows the government and emergency services to send urgent messages warning the public of life-threatening situations like flooding or wildfires.
The test is expected to take place in the early evening of 23 April.
Phone users will have to acknowledge the alert before they can use other features on their devices.”
So if you haven’t got the climate-crisis message yet, y’all will soon have it ringing in your ears. Just make sure you’re not driving in the early evening of 23 April, or the distraction may cause a life-threatening situation….
Fortunately, you will be able to turn the ruddy thing off in phone settings.
Covid (or more likely, the jabjabs) has destoyed my powers of imagination.
I challenge y’all. Who could make this sh1t up every morning?
Your powers of imagination are fine, just not in the same league as the Beeb. You couldn’t make it up —but the BBC can.
….and no, the test date isn’t right for it to be an April Fool’s prank.
The tech works. We have it in U.S.A.
‘It allows the government and emergency services to send urgent messages warning the public of life-threatening situations like flooding or wildfires.’
First. Then campaigners lobby government to use it for their cause.
Noticeable application here is Amber Alert, where child kidnapping is alerted. So, an estranged father takes his kid from the mother 150 miles from here, and my phone blasts at 2 AM to let me know to BOLO.
I have turned the sound off after repeated Amber Alerts. Which functionally destroys the purpose of the tech.
Gotta hand it to government – they can FU anything.
Somewhat off-topic but I was on the Tube yesterday and counted 12 warnings or threats notices in just my single carriage. From standing in the doors (apparently they close) to reporting “hate crimes” it just went on and on. When did the safest society mankind has ever known become one riddled with so many alarms, dangers and perils?
When I read about this in the Mail my first reaction was to check the date….
Do see Tucker Carlson on Fox News two days ago whose devastating exposure of failed alarmism since the 1960 with all their inconsistencies and failed scares is actually quite funny! Obama is going to save the world! But he ends by saying that not even the alarmists believe what they say SO WHAT’S IT ALL FOR? Sinister,
Should the Danes be paying us reparations?
As previously covered on here, the problem with Puffins/sandeels (as mentioned by DA on Wild Isles yet again) is not so much climate change as past industrial over fishing.
On Climate File today they were on the Wye blaming the low Salmon numbers on pollution and climate change, yet again it is mainly industrial overfishing by the Danes off Greenland. The warning was sounded in parliament in 1965, eventually the stocks were so decimated that they evidently could not even reach the (by then) low quotas.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1965/jul/05/greenland-fishing-of-atlantic-salmon
https://nasco.int/regulation/west-greenland-salmon-fisheries/
Very well said Mr Nasty. My very first instance of realising the corruption of the “global warming” claims were way back when I read that it was being blamed for fish stocks, esp sand eels, moving north without a single reference to the industrial over-fishing (in this case I think the Dutch were the protagenists). Since then, via WUWT, Bishop Hill and later Paul et al nothing has changed my opinion – whatever they like to call it , its corrupt bollocks.
An interesting and relevant essay today on Notrickszone :
https://notrickszone.com/2023/03/19/rainfall-cyclone-data-show-no-clear-upward-trend-contradict-opcc-claims/
Do they adjust for the increased population?
What they don’t get is people live in some vary dangerous places
People live on the side of active volcanoes
People live in flood plain as in areas of India, Pakistan.
They live in areas prone to tornadoes , areas prone to earthquakes. drought.
This has always been the case but there a lot more people now.
The good news is weather monitoring and communication is a lot better.
So less people die than would otherwise be the case.
What you going to do about it . Do you think you can control any of this.
You mostly can not control where people live anymore than you can control these natural events.
Net Zero policies will have Net Zero results on any of this.
However, Net Zero policies will impoverish millions, taking societies into ever increasing retrograde conditions. Not being able to keep warm because of fuel poverty is first and foremost. Plus the attacks being carried out by governments on farming and agriculture is threatening food supplies. Almost everything government does seems to be detrimental to the people they’re supposed to serve. Net Zero is decimating any remnants of industry in the UK, along with the corporation tax hike.
I recently watched a UK parliamentary debate on Net Zero policies. A group of mindless politicos with tunnel vision, endlessly wasting public funding on their pointless schemes to extort even more public funding. All of which will have net zero effect on weather and climate.