Reply: Fixed. ~ ctm

I agree with you regarding the fact that there is a large human element that can convert an extreme event into a disaster. Hurricane Katrina is perhaps the poster child for this. I also agree that as vulnerability increases so does the susceptibility of people to disasters. However, I do take issue with a couple of your comments. But before getting into the particulars, let me put this post into context.

Specifically, the post notes that the Economist printed my letter responding to its article, provides links to both the article and the printed letter, and it then provides the original version of my letter. Unfortunately, a letter to the editor necessarily has to be brief, if one hopes to get it printed. This means nuance and well developed arguments and counterarguments have to be eschewed. I wish it were otherwise but these are the (unwritten) rules of getting a letter published in any newspaper.

Let’s now get to the specifics of where we disagree.

Firstly, you take me to task regarding the statement in my original letter, “They also state that they are unable to say whether the latter increases are due to climate change”, for not “putting forth an alternative argument rather than just pointing out problems in data.” You’ll note that “my” statement is really a quote taken from reference 1 (in the original letter) which was based on Andy Revkin’s report of what CRED had told him. At least in Revkin’s account, CRED did not offer any alternative hypothesis. He specifically quotes CRED as saying: “We estimate that the data in the most recent decade present the least bias and reflect a real change in numbers. This is especially true for floods and cyclones. Whether this is due to climate change or not, we are unable to say.” Revkin’s account is available at http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/gore-pulls-slide-of-disaster-trends/.

Secondly, you claim that “In short, climate change excarbates (sic) these inequalities and will change the intensity and impact of climatic disasters.” But I don’t see on what basis you have made this claim. You may be right, but it hasn’t been proven that climate change exacerbates inequalities or that intensity and impact of climate disasters will increase. If anything, the empirical information that exists indicates that fewer people die from such disasters. See reference 4 above.

Thirdly, you claim that the number of “non-mega disasters” are increasing according to CRED data. But I point you to the full quote from CRED, according to Revkin:

“CRED is fully aware of the potential for misleading interpretations of EM-DAT figures by various users. This is a risk all public datasets run…. Before interpreting the upward trend in the occurrence of weather-related disasters as ‘completely unprecedented’ and ‘due to global warming’, one has to take into account the complexities of disaster occurrence, human vulnerabilities and statistical reporting and registering.

“Over the last 30 years, the development of telecommunications, media and increased international cooperation has played a critical role in the number of disasters that are reported internationally. In addition, increases in humanitarian funds have encouraged reporting of more disasters, especially smaller events. Finally, disasters are the convergence of hazards with vulnerabilities. As such, an increase of physical, social, economic or environmental vulnerabilities can mean an increase in the occurrence of disasters.

“We believe that the increase seen in the graph until about 1995 is explained partly by better reporting of disasters in general, partly due to active data collection efforts by CRED and partly due to real increases in certain types of disasters. We estimate that the data in the most recent decade present the least bias and reflect a real change in numbers. This is especially true for floods and cyclones. Whether this is due to climate change or not, we are unable to say.

“Once again, we would like to point out that although climate change could affect the severity, frequency and spatial distribution of hydro-meteorological events, we need to be cautious when interpreting disaster data and take into account the inherent complexity of climate and weather related processes — and remain objective scientific observers.”

Based on the above, I am not convinced that non-mega disasters are indeed increasing. In fact, I just finished a paper that, among other things, looked at this matter. In it I note that the average number of weather event records in the CRED database increased from 2.5 per year in 1900-09 to 8.5 per year in 1940-49, after which the records escalated rapidly, reaching 354 per year in 2000-08! [Talk of hockey-sticks!] Note that the escalation began before any significant global warming. Moreover, the criteria that CRED uses to include events in its disaster database are likely to have been triggered more frequently as the 20th century advanced.

For a disaster to be entered into the CRED database, at least one of the following criteria must be met:

• Ten (10) or more people should be reported killed.
• Hundred (100) people should be affected.
• There should be a declaration of a state of emergency.
• There should be a call for international assistance.

But these criteria are likely to have been tripped with increasing frequency with the march of time, because of (a) the advance of telecommunications, (b) broader news coverage, (c) the globalization of international aid, and (d) an increased tendency by authorities to declare natural disaster emergencies for a variety of reasons. First, as nations become wealthier — and almost all have during the course of the twentieth century — political leaders have more resources to afford emergency declarations. Second, the number of democracies has also increased during this period, and in democracies it behooves political leaders to declare emergencies early and often. The latter tendency is probably reinforced by the attraction of a “photo-op,” so frequently craved by politicians, intrinsic to a helicopter trip to the scene of a disaster. Moreover, one should also expect that since global population has sextupled since 1900, the number of recorded events should increase at least proportionately — “at least”, because not only are there six times as many people potentially exposed but also because there are six times as many observers. Thus, the number of events — and associated mortality — is likely to have been systematically under-reported in the early decades of the 20th century in the CRED database; the further back we go, the greater the under-reporting.

Just to pick up one point you made:

‘They also state that they are unable to say whether the latter increases are due to climate change’

So to take your statement one step further and to strengthen your analysis; it might be worthwile putting forth an alternative argument rather than just pointing out problems in data (as commonly recognised in disaster community with climate change/disaster statistics).

Firstly, while you do highlight important points, the theory behind climatic disasters needs to be incorporated into any analysis. A disaster is not a natural event created by the environment, it requires a human part. The interaction between a hazard (the event created by the environment) and vulnerability (poor people/ poorly constructed buidlings/ lack of resources to protect people form disasters) is what actually creates the disaster. As vulenrability increases so to does the susceptability of people to disasters. In short, climate change excarbates these inequalities and will change the intensity and impact of climatic disasters.

In the last quarter-century, 98 percent of the people injured or affected by natural disasters were living in 112 countries classified as low income or low-middle income (World Watch Institute, State of the World Report 2007).

Lucky for us, the development community has moved a long way forward and recognises that climate change is changing the nature of the disasters and numbers of people affected. This, in turn, impacts other sectors including education, health, infrastrucutre, governance and can cripple an economy.

Secondly, what about figures for the number of slow onset non-mega disasters like droughts to which you refer. I think you’ll find that the number of slow onset disasters is increasding- which means less people die but more people cant earn a living or continue their daily lives. These disasters typically dont grab the headlines in the media and are very difficult to report and measure. The data available (just look at CRED) suggests that these are increasing.

Similarly, the numbers of weather related disasters are increasing. During the period 1987 to 2006, the number of reported weather-related disasters increased significantly from an average of 195 per year between 1987 and 1998 to 365 per year between 2000 and 2006 (Hoyois, P, Scheuren, JM, Below, R, Guha-Sapir, D 2007, Annual disaster statistical review: numbers and trends 2006. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters).

Rather than dismiss arguments due to some inaccuracies, it is important to understand the basic theory behind disasters and underlying reasons for the severity of these climatic events. This would strengthen your case.

Also, the science behind climatic disasters is increaisngly becoming more accurate. Slow onset disasters which impact more people as a result of weather related disasters are increasing. Take heed to the words in the article, even if they overlook some inaccuracies in data.

BTW, I am touched by your faith in the projections alluded to in the Economist. Is it because these projections (not predictions) are:

• Based on models — plural, because it’s not one model that is used to develop these projections but several concatenated models “with the uncertain output of each model serving as the input for the next model” — that have been carefully and successfully validated and verified against real world observations at the scale they are being employed? Just with respect to climate change models, the IPCC 2007 report notes : “Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller [than continental] scales” (WG I, SPM, p. 10) But impacts analyses (except possibly for sea level rise but even that is debatable ) must necessarily be done not at continental scales, not even at national scales, but at more like county level (or smaller) scales. And no matter how good our ability to simulate temperature, the ability to simulate precipitation — which is probably more critical to vegetation and most life as we know it — is worse.

• Spot on in their future projections of the drivers of emissions such as growth in population, economic development, and technological change?

• Based on plausible estimates of changes in adaptive capacity that should occur consistent with the economic development used to generate future emissions trajectories (see here)?

• Based on plausible estimates of changes in adaptive capacity that should occur if the rate of technological change approaches historical rates seen over the past century (see here)?

Pardon me if I’m a little skeptical.

Poor countries’ economic development will contribute to climate change. But they are already its greatest victims

Note the present tense in the second sentence.

And the byline is an accurate portrayal of the article. First, it talks about a number of ongoing problems implying or explicitly trying to connect them to global warming, and then it tells us about all the things that could or will go wrong. Consider the following extracts:

“Mostafa Rokonuzzaman … gave an impassioned speech at a public meeting in his village, complaining that climate change, freakish hot spells and failed rains were ruining his vegetables. He didn’t know the half of it. A month later Mr Rokonuzzaman was chest-deep in a flood that had swept away his house, farm and even the village where the meeting took place. Cyclone Aila (its effects pictured above) which caused the storm surge that breached the village’s flood barriers, was itself a plausible example of how climate change is wreaking devastation in poor countries.”

“ … one indication of [global warming’s] rising costs is the number of people around the world affected by natural disasters. In 1981-85, fewer than 500m people required international disaster-assistance; in 2001-05, the number reached 1.5 billion. This includes 4% of the population of the poorest countries and over 7% in lower-middle-income countries (see chart 3).”

“In all, reckons the World Health Organisation, climate change caused a loss of 5.5m disability-adjusted life years (a measure of harm to human health) in 2000, most of it in Africa and Asia. Estimates by the Global Humanitarian Forum, a Swiss think-tank, and in a study in Comparative Quantification of Health Risks, a scientific journal, put the number of additional deaths attributable to climate change every year at 150,000. The indirect harm, through its impact on water supplies, crop yields and disease is hugely greater.”

“The poor are more vulnerable than the rich for several reasons. Flimsy housing, poor health and inadequate health care mean that natural disasters of all kinds hurt them more. When Hurricane Mitch swept through Honduras in 1998, for example, poor households lost 15-20% of their assets but the rich lost only 3%. … Global warming aggravates that. It also increases the chances of catching the life-threatening diseases that are more prevalent in poorer countries. In many places cities have been built just above a so-called “malaria line”, above which malaria-bearing mosquitoes cannot survive (Nairobi is one example). Warmer weather allows the bugs to move into previously unaffected altitudes, spreading a disease that is already the biggest killer in Africa.”

“Climate change is overwhelming the social and other arrangements that in the past allowed countries and people to cope with floods. National budgets can ill afford the cost of improving defences. The Netherlands is also affected and is spending $100 per person a year on flood defences. In Bangladesh that sum is a quarter of the average person’s annual income.” [Note the present tense]

“The biggest vulnerability is that the weather gravely affects developing countries’ main economic activities—such as farming and tourism.” [Again, note the present tense.]

“In India the gains from the Green Revolution are already shrinking because of local pollution, global warming and waning resistance to pests and disease.”

Interesting to see that I’m not alone in having the impression that the once shining beacon is slowly fading into the fog.

H.R. (06:01:03):
“Yeah, when Newsweek became Newsweak, I quit subscribing.”

Now the Economist is becoming the Economissed. :-(

This is an article about future development. There isn’t any mention of recent or present development–such as successes or failures.

“By 2030 climate change may expose 90m more people to malaria…”
“Diarrhoea is forecast to rise 5% by 2020 in poor countries because of climate change.”
“…60% of the world’s population will be exposed to (dengue fever) by 2070.”

“Ten of the developing world’s 15 largest cities are in low-lying coastal areas vulnerable to rising sea levels or coastal surges.”
When currently melting mountain glaciers are gone, the water storage they had provided will be lost.

“…world farm production could fall by 16% by the 2080′s, and possibly by as much as 21% in developing countries. Although the timescale makes such figures no more than educated guesses, there is not much doubt that climate change is undermining the gains from intensive farming in developing countries–at the very time when population growth and greater wealth mean the world will need to double food production over the next three or four decades. By 2050 the world will have to feed 2 billion to 3 billion more people and cope with the changing (water-hungry) diets of a richer population…”

“These arguments use data from the recent past to criticize projections into the future. There is an underlying assumption of relevancy: that the climate won’t change.
“I presume that everyone agrees with me, this time.”

*******************************
1. The Economist claims recent events show matters are getting worse and offers examples. Hence, I deal with those.
2. Regarding the future, read the last para.

Unless of course the game is called off because of the ice age. :-)

And along comes White House science czar John Holdren, who claims that 1 billion people will die in “carbon-dioxide induced famines” in a coming new ice age by 2020.

I am glad the Obama Administration has it’s priorities straight.
I am also amazed to hear that this ice age is triggered by CO2 and Global Warming!
In what way you may ask? Read the article.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2357965/posts

Earlier, this man Holdren thought we were headed for an ice age caused by all the particulates mankind was putting into the atmosphere.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=112073

Now he’s covering all bets. We are either going to freeze to death or cook to death, both caused by global warming.

This Sunday I have a sure thing on the Broncos. They will either win or lose (maybe tie).