With all the concern about global warming resulting in more deaths due to climate-related disasters, I thought I would see if I could find some statistics on the subject.
Since 1988 the WHO Collaborating Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) has been maintaining an Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT). EM-DAT was created with the initial support of the WHO (World Health Organisation) and the Belgian Government, see http://www.em-dat.net/who.htm .
Following is a graph from this site showing total number of deaths due to disasters from 1900 to 2004,
View image (75kbs).
Many would have anticipated that the graph would trend in the opposite direction.
There is a graph on page 5 of a booklet titled ‘Climate change and sustainable development’ based on this and other information that shows death rate per year and death rate (per thousand) from 1920 to 2003 due specifically to climate-related disasters. The trend is also one of reducing global deaths and death rates, see
http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/cc_sd_final.pdf (750 kbs).
It is predicted in the booklet that “All indicators suggest that similar reductions in deaths from natural disasters will continue as societies become more technologically and economically sophisticated.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Sorry Jennifer,
what do you want to tell us with this graph??? You always ask for scientific evidence! So what is this graph telling us??? Global warming does not result in natural desasters?? Whether or not, the graph can not show it. Mayby help is just better organised nowadays, maybe people have better access to warning (radio, TV) maybe medicine is just better today….
So, tell me what it means, or is it just poor propaganda??
Hi Peter
There are two graphs – and both indicate that a lot fewer people are being killed by climate-related disasters and other types of disasters. This is perhaps counter intuitive as news reports and reports from environmental organisations suggest things are getting much worse.
As you indicate it could all be to do with being better organised … this is what the booklet also suggests. This is good news and worth noting.
There is also an argument that ‘global warming’ has so far resulted in minimum (night) temps increasing more than max (day) temps and that this is good for people because cold related stresses (eg. influenza) are alliviated without heat related stresses (eg. heat stress) getting worse.
This is also potentially good for food production because there may be fewer frosts and there is an argument that it will generally get wetter as it get warmer.
Why do you see the graphs as potentially ‘just poor propaganda’?
Careful Jen – dangerous line – you’re arguing that we have a warming effect ? But eastern Australis is also drier so we have more dust, asthma and allergic rections would also be another line.
I think epidemiology of flu pandemics which bias one graph, simply means that now and again get a super-bug evolves that nukes us.
Does the report also not say that economic losses from climate related disasters has gone up?
Phil,
1. I have always acknowledged that there has been a general warming trend – 0.6C when averaged over last 100 odd years.
2. Last time I looked eastern Australia had got wetter – but I appreciate many are saying the opposite. Why do you say eastern Australia has got drier? Probably we could agree the first half of last century was generally dry, then the second half generally wet?
3. Economic losses have gone up because we are building more and larger in flood and cyclone prone areas.
4. I would like to see the first graph redrawn without the spanish flu pandemic – and other pandemics. And I would
like a better handle on ‘what comprises’ the second graph.
5. Do you know of other similiar ‘studies’ with comparative data?
JEn, we discussed this in an earlier thread. CSIRO modelling does not unequivocally say that rainfall is expected to increase/decrease, however it does find that evaporation will increase across the country, with a net result of deteriorating moisture balance across the country.
When you say that eastern australia is wetter, are you referring just to rainfall, or do you include evaporation and overall moisture balance?
I had forgotten the evaporation bit – even with increased cloud cover?
But, my preference would not be to now get into a discussion of whether or not it is going to get wetter as it gets warmer – we have been there.
But I am interested in the two graphs and any other studies that give insights into whether or not we are coping better with natural disasters.
Economic losses have increased, but are we really better at saving lives?
Jen I sense you’re feeling my frustration at thread/topic drift.
Jen I think you’ll find the basis for being drier is from BoM spatial graphs previously referenced other thread (and from looking out the window in the last decade or so). 1950s and 1970s were wet decades – probably decadal Pacific oscillations had some impact. But since 1976 lots has changed. Again … http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi
Have you any data for saying eastern Australia is wetter ?
In terms of coping with climate disasters we have global communications, remote area satellite comms, jet aircraft, helicopters, trucks, modern medicines, experience with previous disasters (well sometimes), global pooling of aid, and forecasts of major storms. You would think in general we would do a lot better at saving lives. at least in the developed world.