Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
One of the major reasons why extreme weather events are of abiding interest to both the public and policy makers is the potential loss of life that they can cause. Imagine, therefore, writing a “Special Report” on managing the risks of extreme weather and climatic events but being virtually silent on whether deaths from such events had increased or decreased over the recent past. Who knows, but that information might even be useful in helping identify factors that could help manage those risks in the future. Yet, the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the IPCC’s Special Report on extreme weather and climate events (SREX) does precisely that.
Its main text mentions fatalities and deaths precisely twice:
“Fatality rates and economic losses expressed as a proportion of GDP are higher in developing countries (high confidence). During the period from 1970 to 2008, over 95% of deaths from natural disasters occurred in developing countries.” (SREX SPM, pp. 5–6).
[A digression: “Fatalities” are also mentioned in footnote 4 explaining that the above figures are based on data for “all disasters associated with weather, climate, and geophysical events.” (Emphasis added.) Why are geophysical events—earthquakes and landslides—included in the death tally in this climate change report? But back to the main story.]
More importantly, the SPM SREX fails to inform the public and policy makers that, as many readers of this blog probably know, empirical data show that deaths and death rates from extreme weather and climatic extremes have declined over the past few decades (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Global deaths and death rates from extreme weather and climatic events, 1900–2010 Source: Goklany, Wealth and Safety: The Amazing Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900–2010.
This is very much like writing a treatise on the impacts of climate change on agricultural yields but failing to mention that agricultural yields have, as shown in Figure 2, increased more or less steadily for the past half century—oh, wait, the IPCC has done this in each of its reports.
Figure 2. Cereal yield and production, 1961–2008, for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and globally. Source: Food and Agricultural Organization (2010).
By contrast, the SREX SPM deals at substantially greater length with economic losses than with losses of human lives. But which is more important—lives or economic losses?
It is conceivable that the full report (which is unavailable to the public) gives more space to empirical data on deaths and death rates but I suspect most people—and, certainly, policy makers—will not read beyond the SPM. But policy makers are owed basic empirical information on what is the problem and whether the problem has been getting better or worse before being presented with speculative model results (which are addressed at great length).
Such information would provide context, and raise at least a few important—and inconvenient—questions.
First, since deaths from extreme weather events have declined despite any global warming that may have occurred, how much resources should we expend on this issue given other priorities?
Second, are empirical trends for the losses of life consistent with model projections? If not, why not? And can these models reproduce past trends?
Third, if deaths have declined despite any global warming, what is it that we are doing right, and how can we ensure we keep doing it?
George Santayana is quoted as having said “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Sometimes history is worth repeating. Certainly, we could do worse than repeat history with respect to trends in deaths/death rates from extreme weather events.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You mean they would have to report a benifit to a slight rise in temperature! Have you lost your mind man? What about all those modelled deaths from spontaneous human combustion and big red buttoning deniers, they could get a computer to model that and tie it in along with the 100,000 climate refugees that are overdue? /sarc off
How long can the IPCC keep going surley it jumped the shark after cop15?
Roger Pielke Jr. has some several insightful and interesting things to say about this too. Worth a read. Seriously now, how forthcoming do you expect these people to be? They know they will be hammered no matter what they do. I am not suggesting that no justification for hammering them will be present. They will get it from both sides so being political people they will try and please the greater power group. Policy makers want to know dollars, lives are simply expendable when it comes to lining your own pockets and keeping yourself in office.
“Imagine, therefore, writing a “Special Report” on managing the risks of extreme weather and climatic events but being virtually silent on whether deaths from such events had increased or decreased over the recent past…”
That’s because they haven’t made up their data yet.
Would the big Tsunami in Malaysia, rate as a natural climatic event. Or earthquakes. Didn’t they try to tie these in at one time to ‘climate change’.
How well does the decline in death rates from extreme weather events correlate with the increase in CO2 over the same time period? Could it be that increasing CO2 saves lives? There is more evidence for that than there is for CO2 causing more extreme weather.
On the subject of earthquake fatalities this passage from Wikipedia might be of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake
“One of the most devastating earthquakes in recorded history occurred on 23 January 1556 in the Shaanxi province, China, killing more than 830,000 people (see 1556 Shaanxi earthquake).[53] Most of the population in the area at the time lived in yaodongs, artificial caves in loess cliffs, many of which collapsed during the catastrophe with great loss of life. The 1976 Tangshan earthquake, with death toll estimated to be between 240,000 to 655,000, is believed to be the largest earthquake of the 20th century by death toll.”
I cannot imagine how there could be a connection between climate change and earthquakes (although a lack of imagination does not prove anything). However the devastating losses caused by the 1556 and 1976 earthquakes in China should discourage people from linking earthquakes and climate change.
The IPCC only ever,ever release “data” showing the negative effects of “global warning”. In all the years I have taken an interest in the biggest scam ever to have been perpetrated on mankind, I have never seen or heard anything positive about AGW. The closest was that we would have vineyards here in NE England in 2025, but, and there is always a but, southern Europe and Africa would be uninhabitable due to drought and extreme heat. They seem to have a never ending supply of scare tactics.
2011 a big year for geological events have these UN IPCC people no shame. Anything to create an uptick.
@louis you would probably find that there would be a strong correlation between fuel use per capita and survival rates. Example a category 5 cyclone slams into Queensland and -1 death is reported. However, to admit that might mean admitting that using fuel actually has benefitted humanity. Hmmm i wonder what the comparative stats on that would be.
bushbunny, they did attempt to tie the tsunami to CC. They said the effects of the tsunami were made worse by sea level rise
Jason F. @ur momisugly 10;05 pm: It was 50 million climate refugees by 2010, as forecast by the UN in 2006. None of ’em have been passing my home.
One of the main problems imposed by bad weather/heavy rain is flash flooding which in many cases is easy though costly to mitigate against. Flooding over flood plain, though a common problem can be reduced by the correct river maintenance, dredging in other words, which again is costly. All flood mitigation is costly and seldom carried out because tax payers see no obvious benefit in the period after the work is carried out. It is only after heavy rain that the cost benefit can be appreciated.
Indur –
a bit of a panic has set in amongst the CAGW crowd. the IPCC has written the entire summary with the sceptics in mind. that the sceptics will notice lack of supporting data does not matter, because the IPCC’s audience is elsewhere, with the pollies/MSM/scientists who will make of it what they will, in order to keep the scam going.
Third, if deaths have declined despite any global warming, what is it that we are doing right[?}
======
Better communications and learning from the past. Deaths from the 1927 tropical storm in Vermont – 84. Deaths from the very similar Tropical Storm Irene in 2011 – 4. In 1927 people found out about the flood danger when the water came in their door. In 2011, with forewarning, people in flood prone areas moved to higher ground (which takes between 2 and 5 minutes in most of Vermont).
And, being perhaps a bit less obtuse than people in some other areas, Vermonters often didn’t rebuild in the exact same places after the 1927 storm — except the roads and bridges — which, surprise, washed out in 2011 just like they did in 1927.
Dear Willis, aka Thorn in the Flesh… or mebbe just Saddle Burr?
Please ignore my “Dear Willis” line above. The sentiment remains (admiration) but I cross-threaded it. Apologies.
Hmmm, extreme weather events is supposed to cause crop losses, yet yields in the less developed countries are sill going up. More people, fewer deaths. More crops, fewer loses.
Thanks Indur,
We appreciate you putting the facts on the table in numerous venues. The IPCC and the pro-AGW set claim more disaster, more disaster, more disaster. Yet the data says there is less and less impact and a more improved environment over and over again.
They have a problem sorting out factual information from what their emotions want it to be.
Just off the top off my head, but historically, doesn’t the increase in CO2 levels coincide with dramatic improvements in life expectancy and living standards? Now that would a nice hockey stick graph to put on a t-shirt!
Policy makers already know how to protect lives and property. The sticking point, as always, is where to get the money. CAGW is just a means to an end, having nothing to do with truth, science or facts.
Despite what the AGW crowd and the IPCC think, we can’t now, nor will we be able to in the future, stop or modify the severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and all other NATURAL phenomena. Fortunately, because of satellite surveillance, better forecasting and better communications, deaths from natural disasters like hurricanes, floods and tornadoes are decreasing. That’s the positive side. Unfortunately, because of stupidity and arrogance, economic loss from hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, etc. is increasing. We can tell people to get the heck out of town in time for them to escape injury or death (at least those who listen), but we persist in building in areas prone to damage from these catastrophic natural events.
Roy says:
November 20, 2011 at 12:54 am
“I cannot imagine how there could be a connection between climate change and earthquakes (although a lack of imagination does not prove anything).”
Perhaps not the earthquake itself but the aftermath can be changed. An earthquake can trigger mudslides, for instance, and the severity of those depends on how wet the soil which in turn depends on recent rainfall amounts. Or an earthquake can trigger power outages and in extremes of heat or cold people die from exposure.
Underwater earthquakes produce tsunamis and of course every bit of sea level rise gives the tidal wave a bit more reach inland.
Granted it’s a stretch of the imagination but the climate does influence the difficulty in dealing with the secondary effects of an earthquake or even magnification of the primary effect in some cases. Where imagination fails for me is climate causing more or fewer earthquakes or making the magnitude more or less severe.
”Why are geophysical events—earthquakes and landslides—included in the death tally in this climate change report? ”
I would hazard a guess that a large proportion of landslides are caused by heavy prolonged rainfall which would certainly be relevant. Just saying.
When President Obama was running for office, he mentioned the weather disaster in Greensburg Kansas as having 10,000 dead. My cousin who lives there as I recall said it was 11 or 12.
Weather “disasters” are now used for political leverage. Weather disasters are abused in terms of accuracy of information and causes. I am sad to see that weather has extremes and is churned into drama.
John Marshall says:
November 20, 2011 at 2:49 am
One of the main problems imposed by bad weather/heavy rain is flash flooding which in many cases is easy though costly to mitigate against. Flooding over flood plain, though a common problem can be reduced by the correct river maintenance, dredging in other words, which again is costly. All flood mitigation is costly and seldom carried out because tax payers see no obvious benefit in the period after the work is carried out. It is only after heavy rain that the cost benefit can be appreciated.
____________________________________
It is not at all costly. As my Geology Prof said “Building your home IN a river is the decision of a fool and the 100 year flood plain IS the river.” Nature gives “Darwin Awards” to fools.
The rebuilding of New Orleans when the USA has plenty of land is typical. Holland has no choice and takes flood mitigation and maintenance very seriously. I would never trust the
buffoonspolitian in the USA to do the same.