Comments on: Going Down: Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events

By: James Hansen’s Former Boss Takes Him To Task Over Climahysteria : Stop The ACLU

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:56:41 +0000

[...] of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as [...]

By: Bill P

Bill P — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:51:25 +0000

“In addition, some state policies may inappropriately create a “moral hazard” situation in which individuals have incentives to bear less than their full burden of risk, effectively transferring portion of their risk to other segments of society; this may place even wealthier populations at greater physical risk (in addition to increasing financial risk; Goklany 2000).

Mr. Goklany: Would you give an illustration of what you mean by this?

By: Eduardo

Eduardo — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:58:35 +0000

Evan Jones (08:56:08) :

I think it’s important to point out that insofar as the data is unreliable, it is on the side of undercounting the further back one goes. Does this invalidate the conclusion on account of bad data, or does it perhaps make the point even more strongly?
I just Want to repeat what Evan Jones Did say back there!
Thats the Best I could come out with!!

By: CNN: “Climate Change Makes Island Kids Bony, Stunted”! Scientist: “Death Rates Due To Extreme Weather Falling Precipitously Since 1920s”. | THE POSTHUMOUS LUGER

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:43:35 +0000

[...] Going Down: Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events [...]

By: robert burns

robert burns — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:42:02 +0000

Mr. Penrose,

You are correct that no data is prefect. Are you saying that the data in this study, in your opinion, is good enough to base conclusions?

Let’s look at this study.

The question is whether or not the data is good enough to warrant a conclusion.

The study is titled “Death and Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events”. The data in Table 1 is mainly from Em-Dat, who runs a disaster database, not an extreme weather event database. I did not read the paper before I made my first comment. I had looked at table 1 and saw numbers that made no sense. I have now read the paper and the numbers still make no sense.

There is no definition of an “extreme weather event” in the paper. Without a definition, what is the author talking about? Without a definition, how can any of the numbers be verified? Mr. Goklany has questions (in the comments above) about the extreme temperatures deaths in WW2.
When are high temperatures an extreme event? When are low temperatures an extreme event? Is there such a thing as a normal hurricane? An extreme hurricane?

In Table 1 there is a line for Wild Fires. Is a wild fire an extreme weather event?

Table 1 shows 30 times increase (.03 vs .91) for the risk of death from extreme temperatures. Do you think that is reasonable estimate? Do you think this is a reasonable conclusion?
Do you believe that the 110 deaths per year is a realistic number?

That is the problem in a nutshell. Ironically, I agree with Mr. Goklany’s conclusion, but the data as shown is so flawed it should not be used.

By: Paul Penrose

Paul Penrose — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:00:14 +0000

Mr. Burns,
Since no data are perfect, you could say they are all “flawed”. Obviously this does not prevent us from making conclusions from such data; what we must do however, is make a determination as to how much the data is in error. Then we can decide how much certainty to place on the conclusions. Generally as one goes back in time, data is less and less accurate, which is to be expected. This does create problems, and statisticians continue to devise new ways to quantify these errors and uncertainties, but it’s not an insurmountable problem by any means.

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:56:08 +0000

By: Going Down: Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events - The Global Warming Skeptics Forum

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:50:30 +0000

[...] severe weather merely by their methods of reporting. Bottom line, though, is that it’s not true. Going Down: Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events Watts Up With That? __________________ "Skepticism is the highest of duties, and blind faith the unpardonable [...]

By: Kevin Johnson

Kevin Johnson — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:50:19 +0000

2:44 AM NW Washington State 07-07-08.Take that Gore.The real sadness to this AGW hype is I have some close friends that will not even open their minds long enough to see any other side to the story,especially the college educated ones.A mind is a terrible thing to close….Keep up the great work.

By: Evan Jones

Evan Jones — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 06:04:04 +0000

Evan Jones…please reread my post, i said per year. Yes, I know. But I was actually responding not to your post but to Chris D.'s comment (which I quoted verbatim). He had apparently missed the header. I was just stating that we have disrupted the natural selection process. We ARE the natural selection process!

By: K

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:17:15 +0000

Indur: Yes, much of what I said was about other causes of death. Someone had asked what was the cause of the huge numbers after 1920.

I saw no other explanation except that the numbers were in someway contaminated by deaths from war related problems such famine, disease, exposure, and poor medical care.

WWI ended in late 1918 but historians know civil society suffered more afterward than during the 1914-1918 war. And that lasted for decades.

Interesting study. I can’t believe the numbers from 1900-1960 accurately reflect natural disasters. But sobeit.

By: Mike Bryant

Mike Bryant — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 01:20:03 +0000

Tom, whenever anyone decides who lives or dies based on his or her genetics we have already all lost.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

By: Douglas Hoyt

Douglas Hoyt — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 23:48:09 +0000

Looking at my own data for the 1920′s, I see 6.5 million killed in China alone due to drought and famine. In contrast, the deaths in the 1910′s were about 0.2 million, so there was a real increase in reported deaths between these two decades. I have the increase by a factor of 30 or more whereas Goklany sets it at about 20. Reasonably close.

By: Ecotretas

Ecotretas — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 23:29:19 +0000

The whole 2003 heat wave numbers of Europe have been exagerated by Gore et al. They say Portugal contributed with 13000 deaths, when the real number was 14, and really only about 2000 excess deaths…
One more inconvenient truth…
ecotretas@gmail.com

By: Tom in Florida

Tom in Florida — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 23:09:32 +0000

MIke Bryant,
I hope you didn’t think I was a proponent of eugenics. I was just stating that we have disrupted the natural selection process. It may be for the good or it may not be. None of us alive today will ever know. .