Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
Summary
Proponents of drastic curbs on greenhouse gas emissions claim that such emissions cause global warming and that this exacerbates the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including extreme heat, droughts, floods and storms such as hurricanes and cyclones. But what matters is not the incidence of extreme weather events per se but the impact of such events—especially the human impact. To that end, it is instructive to examine trends in global mortality (i.e. the number of people killed) and mortality rates (i.e. the proportion of people killed) associated with extreme weather events for the 111-year period from 1900 to 2010.
Aggregate mortality attributed to all extreme weather events globally has declined by more than 90% since the 1920s, in spite of a four-fold rise in population and much more complete reporting of such events. The aggregate mortality rate declined by 98%, largely due to decreased mortality in three main areas:
- Deaths and death rates from droughts, which were responsible for approximately 60% of cumulative deaths due to extreme weather events from 1900–2010, are more than 99.9% lower than in the 1920s.
- Deaths and death rates for floods, responsible for over 30% of cumulative extreme weather deaths, have declined by over 98% since the 1930s.
- Deaths and death rates for storms (i.e. hurricanes, cyclones, tornados, typhoons), responsible for around 7% of extreme weather deaths from 1900–2008, declined by more than 55% since the 1970s.
To put the public health impact of extreme weather events into context, cumulatively they now contribute only 0.07% to global mortality. Mortality from extreme weather events has declined even as all-cause mortality has increased, indicating that humanity is coping better with extreme weather events than it is with far more important health and safety problems.
The decreases in the numbers of deaths and death rates reflect a remarkable improvement in society’s adaptive capacity, likely due to greater wealth and better technology, enabled in part by use of hydrocarbon fuels. Imposing additional restrictions on the use of hydrocarbon fuels may slow the rate of improvement of this adaptive capacity and thereby worsen any negative impact of climate change. At the very least, the potential for such an adverse outcome should be weighed against any putative benefit arising from such restrictions.
The full study with diagrams is here, courtesy of the Reason Foundation. The press release, Extreme Weather Events Are Killing Fewer People Than Ever Before,
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Global Warming causes overpopulation.
We’re doomed.
The era of global warming is going to be the next 100 years… Global warming hasnt been around long enough ( or severe enough) to claim anything of consequence… Post this again in 2100 please…
Deaths are not a very good index due to large improvements in Health care, rescue, transport, building standards and Weather warning systems over the Century.
Wouldn’t this decline in disaster related deaths be due to things like our improved ability to deal with things like infection, injury and disease, improved advanced warning systems, better managed responses to disasters, better building codes, better transportation systems and the like? In other words, it would be difficult to conclude that there has been a decline in the severity of disasters from these numbers. There may have been, but there are too many other factors.
I find it interesting that ONE person (Indur M. Goklany) can write up a factual presentation about the effects of extreme weather on peoples lives.But most of the Media with their staffs can not.
To those of you attributing this decline to all the good things of modern civilization…that’s the point.
The increased wealth of the 20th century that allowed all these things to happen was largely a result of a fossil fuel economy.
We mess with it at our peril.
Pesky humans….like cockroaches…..can’t get rid of them. Must destroy the economy.
@Robb876: Global warming has been around for approx the last 11,000 years.
Robb, Global warming has been occurring for the last 300 years. I think that is plenty long enough to gauge how well humanity and other species are able to cope with it.
criminogenic says:
September 25, 2011 at 6:20 pm
=========================
This is specific as to what segment has been researched …
“Mortality from extreme weather events … “
Thanks you Mr. Goklany, for a thorough and impressive paper.
I believe not only is the reduced mortality rate due to the lesser amount of “extreme” weather events, ( as readers of WUWT know,) but due to the advance of technology in not only warning and preparing people for these events, but the technology used to help those after the fact. ( Medical, etc.)
I also read that deaths from extreme heat pale in comparison to those from extreme cold, which is just common sense. I’ll try and find the graph.
Sorry, my bad.
How is it possible that so many people still have such an abiding and solid faith in the trustworthiness of the global warming disaster scenarios? This still amazes me. Since when has any predicted long term disaster scenario based on a statistical/economic model ever come even close to being true? Not only have they been wrong but usually the condition predicted has moved in the opposite direction. The Simon–Ehrlich wager of 1980 comes to mind as a well-known example of someone challenging these silly doomsday predictions.
From the full study, Figure 1, showing extreme weather events. Another factor that might come into play during the first half of the tentieth century would be a couple of world wars. When societies become accustomed to deaths in the millions, a handful of deaths from an innocent flood would seem almost trivial and might never even hit the record books.
Humans are adaptable, so adaptable in fact that when all these dooms fall upon us we quickly fix the problem (or relocate) and keep on living.
Surprising how few people can see the obvious. Government control over fiscal decisions for the long term viability of a people, always leads to corruption and downright foolishness.
Anthony — Thanks for posting this.
J. Felton — I don’t know if in the long term (e.g., over the 110-yr period this study examined) that weather has become more or less extreme. The important thing is that whether it has become more extreme or otherwise, we are–as shown by declining deaths and death rates–coping with it much better than ever before, thanks to economic development (AKA wealth) and technologies (both of which depend directly or indirectly in large part on fossil fuel energy).
And these improvements have come despite the rapid increase in population.
Water quality has improved and TV shows are much better now so we don’t need to worry about anything.
Indur,
Any way to figure out death rate due to economic disruption?
Note that the peak in your figure 2 occured during the decade of The Great Depression. It went up like a rocket right after the end of World War I by more than an order of magnitude.
I would put forward that economic hard times drastically raise the death rate from extreme weather events by drastic reduction in proactive preparedness and reactive responses to such events.
This then raises the question of how many additional deaths there would be if arbitrarily large economic resources are diverted to reducing CO2 emissions.
What am I missing? Why the big increase from 1910 – 1919 to 1920 -1929?
Prof Muller, in one of his presentations “Physics for Future Presidents” (not the lecture series), also shows that damages in the US due to hurricanes did not increase over the decades, if you account for inflation.
Has anyone published an annotated list of the predictions (so-called) of catastrophe that have come from the American and EU Left in the last fifty years?
Indur Goklany said
“J. Felton — I don’t know if in the long term (e.g., over the 110-yr period this study examined) that weather has become more or less extreme. The important thing is that whether it has become more extreme or otherwise, we are–as shown by declining deaths and death rates–coping with it much better than ever before, thanks to economic development (AKA wealth) and technologies (both of which depend directly or indirectly in large part on fossil fuel energy).”
* * *
Thank you for your response, sir. ( Or is it Dr.? If it is, my apologies on the misuse of the title.)
Your use of statistics and graphs makes for an effective and easily understandable read.
I much agree with you, I believe that increased development and wealth have contributed to the lower mortality rate. To put it simply, it means we are able to better prepare ourselves, (and by proxy, increase our chances of survival during said weather event.)
Einstein said that ” those most likely to survive are the ones most able to adapt.” I think he was spot on.
As for the extreme weather argument, Mr. Watts has an excellent post on it,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/15/24-hours-of-climate-reality-gore-a-thon-hour-13/
detailing numerous events over a long term period. Anthony or others, if you have another link you feel would help, then this would be much appreciated, this link being the only one I remembered to bookmark regarding extreme weather. ( My memory, like my hair, seems fleeting these days 😉 )
Dave Springer said
“Note that the peak in your figure 2 occured during the decade of The Great Depression. It went up like a rocket right after the end of World War I by more than an order of magnitude.
I would put forward that economic hard times drastically raise the death rate from extreme weather events by drastic reduction in proactive preparedness and reactive responses to such events.”
* * *
Excellent idea, I hadn’t thought of that. It also makes you wonder during times like that if deaths due to extreme events were recorded correctly, and vice-versa.
In WWII, for example, there was a massive loss of life in the Soviet Union when the Germans invaded, ( Operation Barbarossa.) due to troops and civilians being unprepared for the harsh winter conditions of the USSR.
It’s debatable that a large number of the mortality rate during this period due to freezing temperatures and so forth were recorded simply as ” Killied in Action ” deaths. (KIA). Similarly, I’m sure in other times of strife gave way to imperfections in the recording system.
But that’s a whole other post….
Energy is where it’s at.
If everyone had all the energy they needed, the world wouldn’t suffer as much.
We would still be stuck with ingrates, alas.
John M,
The fact that a fossil fuel economy created and sustained our prosperity does not as a matter of course lead to the conclusion that only a fossil fuel economy can create and sustain prosperity into the future. We tend to forget that we have been a fossil fuel economy for only a very short period of time – around 200 years or so. Thus, while it may seem normal to those of us who live in it, in 200 years it is highly doubtful that our economy will be based on fossil fuels.