One of the thing apologists and promotors of global warming, or climate change or whatever they want to call it say when confronted with facts is to point at “increasing extreme weather events” and tell us rather apocalyptically that we can expect more.
Like most things they say those too are lies. I wonder how long before Kitchen and Cookware blogger Russell Brown, hate speech blogger and part time real estate agent Martyn Bradbury and our favourite arts and travel blogger David Farrar catch up. They are the real deniers now.
Time Magazine explains how the “extreme weather events” of 2013 were not even close to extreme.
Weather has been dominating the news cycle the past several days, as much of the U.S. has suffered through record-breaking cold. But while it might seem as if we’ve all been sucked into a polar vortex of weather news, 2013 was punctuated by coverage of major natural disasters like Supertyphoon Haiyan in November, massive floods in India in June and the Category 5 tornadoes in Moore, Oklahoma in May. No wonder so many people felt that extreme weather was on the rise.
Except that wasn’t the case—at least not in 2013. The reinsurance company Munich Re came out with its annual assessment of natural disasters, and found that 2013 was an unusually quiet year. Catastrophes like floods and storms claimed more than 20,000 lives around the world, and caused more than $125 billion in damages. While that’s clearly a lot—and the number of deaths from disasters rose over 2012—both figures are well below the 106,000 in deaths and $184 billion in losses that were experienced on average over the past decade. Though the total number of loss-causing catastrophes—880—was above the average over the past 10 years, the damages in both financial and human terms was less. “There was no large-scale natural catastrophe event in 2013,” said Carl Hedde, head of risk accumulation for Munich Re.
Gee wasn’t Kitchen and Cookware blogger Russell Brown going on about listening to insurers the other day…why yes he was. I guess he wasn’t reading Muncih Re’s report.
So what can we take from the unextreme weather of 2013? Not much. According to Munich Re the number of loss events—storms, quakes, volcanoes, tsunamis—has been mostly on the increase, from less than 400 in 1980 to more than 800 now. Economic losses from disasters have been increasing, from about $50 billion a year in the 1980s to on average just under $200 billion a year by the last decade, according to a recent World Bank study. But a significant portion of that increase is due not necessarily to stronger or more frequent extreme weather, but global economic growth. The global economy has more than doubled since 1980, which means there’s simply more to lose economically to a hurricane, drought or flood. At the same time global deaths from extreme weather have dropped precipitously, which again is less a factor of the number or intensity of extreme events, so much as it is a result of economic growth. Rich countries are simply better able to withstand extreme weather than poor countries, which is a major reason why Haiyan killed 6,000 people in the Philippines, while Hurricane Katrina—a powerful Category 5 storm—killed less than 2,000 in the U.S. (Greater population density in poor nations plays a role in higher death tolls as well.)
Right so the increase in damages from “extreme weather” is mostly because we are richer and more prosperous. Bugger…that is that excuse scotched…oh well there is stillt he IPPC to fall back on…
Exactly what impact a warming planet will have on extreme weather isn’t clear. While a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, which can mean more intense rainfall and storms, the most recent assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change didn’t find strong evidence that tropical storms were increasing in frequency or intensity as the climate changed. …
But regardless of the effects of climate change, a growing planet that puts more people and property in the way of storms and floods is one that is increasingly vulnerable to extreme weather.
Another shibboleth of the warmists is destroyed by facts and figures. There is more damage and more cost not because of intensity, but rather because there are more of us living in the wrong place and we have more stuff.