"The Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters”

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

"Just about every type of extreme weather event is becoming less frequent and less severe in recent years as our planet continues its modest warming in the wake of the Little Ice Age. While global warming activists attempt to spin a narrative of ever-worsening weather, the objective facts tell a completely different story." Forbes Welcome

Well, given that you're citing a popular magazine piece written by a well known denier lobbyist, I think I'll go with the well-researched and supported study supported by internationally recognized experts. Thanks LS.

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Today, .....Social Media, Global Internet and a winning political strategy of encouraging "entitlement" has opened the floodgates of economic refugees whose masses now understand that national borders can no longer keep them from finding family security, if they arrive in the hundreds of thousands.

Yes ... we certainly don't want "...your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." How dare they feel they are "entitled" to a better life that they now see via the Internet, as opposed to newspaper stories and pamphlets of the past.

[four winds]

Don't forget "tempest tossed". It's a cruiser's forum.

New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Well, given that you're citing a popular magazine piece written by a well known denier lobbyist, I think I'll go with the well-researched and supported study supported by internationally recognized experts. Thanks LS.

Given that you're using the "denier" canard, how about telling us what this lobbyist denies?

[StuM]

Emigration is completely out of control in this country, and I’m sick of it.

I’m not staying quiet any more. You can’t walk down a street
in Jamaica or Hong Kong or India without hearing someone
speaking English, and in Canada and Australia we have even
introduced our own legal system, decimated local
communities and installed our own head of state!
DISGUSTING!
“English has now been imposed as the official language of
57 sovereign countries! FIFTY SEVEN!!! What the hell?
Who do we think we are?!
And the government is doing nothing: any British person
can just pack their bags and go and live anywhere in the
world at ANY TIME and nobody in the British government
will do anything to stop them.
“If I wanted to, I could just get on a plane to Germany
tomorrow, get a job in their booming economy and live there
for the rest of my life!
My parents could up and retire to Spain or Portugal at a
moment’s notice! Why should we have that right?
It’s political correctness gone mad! (And it’s also probably,
somehow, part of the war on Christmas, and health and
safety and women thinking it’s ok to wear comfortable,
unsexy clothing.)
The figures speak for themselves:
1,300,000 Britons live in Australia; 761,000 in Spain;
678,000 in the USA; 603,000 in Canada; 291,000 in Ireland
(11,200 of whom are drawing unemployment benefit from
the Irish state), and even 8,500 in Mexico and 7,100 in
Kuwait!
And quite a few in Sweden but goodness knows why?
We’re literally EVERYWHERE!
I bet there’s at least one branch of Greggs in the Falklands.
We need to close our borders immediately before the
situation gets even worse for everyone else.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes ... we certainly don't want "...your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." How dare they feel they are "entitled" to a better life that they now see via the Internet, as opposed to newspaper stories and pamphlets of the past.

Mike, if you re read my whole post the point I am making is that the world must focus on improving the infrastructure for everyone to handle any climate changes and rise above poverty.....which I believe is a GOOD THING!

It is only the rich who feel entitled, the poor just feel insecure.

I believe we are all entitled to live....without discrimination based on 'point of origin' .

But empowering people to rise above subsistence, usually means they try and do it on the backs of others less ambitious

That is the tricky part which confuses me also.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I don't normally (ever?) quibble with your factual statements Gord, but on this one I think you've may have missed. For the vast majority of Americans, their real wealth adjusted for inflation has barely changed over the last 50 years. It's true that the top quintile, and most especially the top 5%, have seen dramatic increases in real wealth over the last five decades, but that's not the case for most Americans:

Household Income Analysis

Globally it's certainly true there has been a huge lift in global standards of living and wealth for most people, but not for Americans. I'd bet Canadian trends are similar, as well as most Anglo-western countries.

One of the biggest gripes I have with this type of discussion is so many folks are not aware of the classical economic definitions of terms like wealth and money. In addition few folks even consider trying to measure the admittedly difficult to measure term "quality of life".

As a kid growing up in the 1950s and 1960s in Miami my Dad was a medical doctor and owned several nice boats, not to mention living in a nice house in a nice neighborhood on a canal with easy access to Biscayne Bay in a 12ft skiff with a 5HP outboard my brother and I shared. My Dad took us on regular trips to the Keys and less frequently to the Bahamas. We seldom saw other boats and the fishing and diving was great. I spend many weekends taking my skiff over North Biscayne Bay and loved spearfishing around Haulover Cut. There was little crime, kids played without adult supervision and felt safe.

I have been lucky in my work and have more income than my Dad. Sad to say the fishing and diving is not as good and sailing is much more crowded. I worry a lot more about crime than before. Miami is more crowded, polluted, and dangerous than when I grew up there. The Keys, where I base my boat, are a lot more crowded, lobster pots are all over the place, and crime is a serious matter. All over Florida there are questions about when and where you can anchor, something I never considered growing up. I have to pay the USCG yearly to document my boat, something my Dad did only once.

My grandparents lived in Miami in the 1930s and went through the hurricanes then. Sure there was damage, but nothing like what happened in Hugo. IMHO that was the result of too many folks building too many houses in places houses should not be build. The same can be said for much of the East and West coast of Florida, and probably a lot of other places as well.

So while I may have more money I am not sure I have more wealth, especially in terms of quality of life.

[rgscpat]

Another factor is increased fire risk and damage from people building many more houses in the trees and wildlands.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Well, given that you're citing a popular magazine piece written by a well known denier lobbyist, I think I'll go with the well-researched and supported study supported by internationally recognized experts. Thanks LS.

OK you've trashed the messenger but what about the numbers he is citing? Fewer tornadoes for example, even though better detection technology in modern times. Has he made that number up?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Mike, if you re read my whole post the point I am making is that the world must focus on improving the infrastructure for everyone to handle any climate changes and rise above poverty.....which I believe is a GOOD THING!

Yes, you're right, and I did understand your post. I found myself agreeing until you tossed in what appears to me as a rather odd and entitled comment about dissing economic refugees. The irony given the early development of your country seemed just too funny to me.

We agree (I think). The most vulnerable areas of our planet are the poorer countries with inadequate infrastructure. Enhancing these areas will help. Having people move to better-developed areas is also a good idea ... but you're right, too many people overwhelm the lifeboat and that helps no one. I too don't know how to find the right balance .

Originally Posted by Pelagic

But empowering people to rise above subsistence, usually means they try and do it on the backs of others less ambitious

OK ... I don't understand what you're saying here Pelagic. Who's trying to do what on the backs of whom? Are you saying that to raise most people's boats a few of us privileged ones who currently live high on the global hog need to start living within our planetary's needs by reducing our resource usage? If so, I fully agree.

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

OK you've trashed the messenger but what about the numbers he is citing? Fewer tornadoes for example, even though better detection technology in modern times. Has he made that number up?

Yes, fewer tornadoes in the US. But as is typical of those who deny climate change is happening, your author cherry-picks his data while ignoring the whole story. Here's the abstract from an actual peer-reviewed research paper on the subject:

"The authors analyze the historical record of tornado reports in the United States and find evidence for changes in tornado climatology possibly related to global warming. They do this by examining the annual number of days with many tornadoes and the ratio of these days to days with at least one tornado and by examining the annual proportion of tornadoes occurring on days with many tornadoes. Additional evidence of a changing tornado climate is presented by considering tornadoes in geographic clusters and by analyzing the density of tornadoes within the clusters. There is a consistent decrease in the number of days with at least one tornado at the same time as an increase in the number of days with many tornadoes. These changes are interpreted as an increasing proportion of tornadoes occurring on days with many tornadoes. Coincident with these temporal changes are increases in tornado density as defined by the number of tornadoes per area. Trends are insensitive to the begin year of the analysis. The bottom line is that the risk of big tornado days featuring densely concentrated tornado outbreaks is on the rise. The results are broadly consistent with numerical modeling studies that project increases in convective energy within the tornado environment."

Climate Dynamics
August 2015, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 651-659
First online: 06 August 2014
The increasing efficiency of tornado days in the United States

[Boathooked]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes ... we certainly don't want "...your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." How dare they feel they are "entitled" to a better life that they now see via the Internet, as opposed to newspaper stories and pamphlets of the past.

At some point those of us already here (by hook, crook, or luck) DO get to say who/how many we let in, period. No saying on a statue given to us (we did not write that statement!) changes that.

So no, at this time, I do NOT want the worlds poor, uneducated, tied masses. We have enough problems of our own to deal with.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes, fewer tornadoes in the US. But as is typical of those who deny climate change is happening, your author cherry-picks his data while ignoring the whole story. Here's the abstract from an actual peer-reviewed research paper on the subject:

"The authors analyze the historical record of tornado reports in the United States and find evidence for changes in tornado climatology possibly related to global warming. They do this by examining the annual number of days with many tornadoes and the ratio of these days to days with at least one tornado and by examining the annual proportion of tornadoes occurring on days with many tornadoes. Additional evidence of a changing tornado climate is presented by considering tornadoes in geographic clusters and by analyzing the density of tornadoes within the clusters. There is a consistent decrease in the number of days with at least one tornado at the same time as an increase in the number of days with many tornadoes. These changes are interpreted as an increasing proportion of tornadoes occurring on days with many tornadoes. Coincident with these temporal changes are increases in tornado density as defined by the number of tornadoes per area. Trends are insensitive to the begin year of the analysis. The bottom line is that the risk of big tornado days featuring densely concentrated tornado outbreaks is on the rise. The results are broadly consistent with numerical modeling studies that project increases in convective energy within the tornado environment."

Climate Dynamics
August 2015, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 651-659
First online: 06 August 2014
The increasing efficiency of tornado days in the United States

All that was said is that overall there are fewer tornadoes per year even with better observations. Even your reference agrees. How is that cherry picking the data? Jeeze let's let the data speak. There are fewer tornadoes these days.

So what if the spatial/temporal distribution is changing. I'll bet if I felt like paying the $40 bucks for the article that the changes are minimal or barely observable in the data. Plus he attributes the observed changes to global warming. Well isn't everything attributed to global warming?

Thanks for pointing us to a $40.00 article. Could you please let us know the magnitude of these distribution changes...1%, 10%,

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

OK ... I don't understand what you're saying here Pelagic. Who's trying to do what on the backs of whom? Are you saying that to raise most people's boats a few of us privileged ones who currently live high on the global hog need to start living within our planetary's needs by reducing our resource usage? If so, I fully agree.
[/URL]

Was not commenting on resource usage but the observation that the poor and desperate often are the worst at exploiting and brutalizing each other to try and get ahead.

It is the human dilemma, that when you help to empower one person, they often take advantage of the weakness of others.

In other words, the law of the jungle had no time for political correctness only survival of the fittest

Don't like it or condone it, just observe that morality is a luxury to some

[crabcake]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Weather-related disasters such as floods and heatwaves have occurred almost daily in the past decade, almost twice as often as two decades ago, with Asia being the hardest hit region, a UN report* said on Monday.

While the report authors could not pin the increase wholly on climate change, they did say that the upward trend was likely to continue as extreme weather events increased.

Since 1995, weather disasters have killed 606,000 people, left 4.1 billion injured, homeless or in need of aid, and accounted for 90 per cent of all disasters, it said.
The report found there were an average of 335 weather-related disasters annually between 2005 and August this year, up 14 per cent from 1995-2004 and almost twice as many as in the years from 1985 to 1994.

* "The Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters”
The Report ➥ http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb...2015_FINAL.pdf

Not disputing the conclusions - but the objective evidence presented doesn't take into account the explosion of communications from even the most underdeveloped countries.

I do believe that quite of bit of the increase is due to previously unreported incidents.

[Geitz]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-in...atology/trends

[tdoster]

The problem these days is there is no true unbiased science anymore. It all really boils down to being no more credible than late night infomercials with experts claiming a product works based upon studies. When the reality of a scientific study is you can change a baseline to determine or infer an outcome that sides with whoever is funding you. A figure could be correct, but the hypothesis bogus...

Now that we also have the Politically Correct litmus test on the outcome, there is no way to truly do root problem analysis.

Just as the OP cited figures, the figures are a marquee that only represents a simplification line in a complex equation.

For example. If we all were to agree that Global Warming is fact, AND we all agree that it is generated by man, the elephant in the room is the root cause - man. The end simplification of the equation is the problem equals overpopulation of the human species and the simple solution would be to stem population growth.

Instead, we blame the problem on consumption. and the solution is to reduce the consumption of each man by essentially adding a tax to it and delaying the inevitable outcome.

Using the OP's figures in a different analogy that people can relate to.

There are 200% more accidents on the street in front of my house than there were 20 years ago. I conclude cars are less safe today than they were 20 years ago.

Everyone would cry BS because we can actually personally visualize that analogy and know that 20 years ago there was 5 cars per hour on that road where today there are over 10,000 per hour. The reality is the rate has gone down and could conclude it is actually safer, even though the original figures I presented supported my conclusion that cars are less safe...