A TOP Indian advocacy group that monitors climate change in south Asia warned last night that the Nargis cyclone that devastated Burma was “a sign of things to come”, as climate change caused extreme weather to increase in intensity.
“Nargis is a sign of things to come. Last year, Bangladesh was devastated by the tropical cyclone Sidr,” CSE director Sunita Narain said in a statement.
“The victims of these cyclones are climate change victims and their plight should remind the rich world that it is doing too little to contain its greenhouse gas emissions.”
The Australian: Cyclone ‘is a sign of things to come’
Meanwhile:
The 20 Deadliest Tropical Cyclones in World History
Notice: All but one or two occurred before so called “global warming”.
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/deadlyworld.asp
Rank: Name / Areas of Largest Loss: Year: Ocean Area: Deaths:
1. Great Bhola Cyclone, Bangladesh 1970 Bay of Bengal 550,000
2. Hooghly River Cyclone, India and Bangladesh 1737 Bay of Bengal 350,000
3. Haiphong Typhoon, Vietnam 1881 West Pacific 300,000
3. Coringa, India 1839 Bay of Bengal 300,000
5. Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1584 Bay of Bengal 200,000
6. Great Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1876 Bay of Bengal 200,000
7. Chittagong, Bangladesh 1897 Bay of Bengal 175,000
8. Super Typhoon Nina, China 1975 West Pacific 171,000
9. Cyclone 02B, Bangladesh 1991 Bay of Bengal 140,000
10. Great Bombay Cyclone, India 1882 Arabian Sea 100,000
11. Hakata Bay Typhoon, Japan 1281 West Pacific 65,000
12. Calcutta, India 1864 Bay of Bengal 60,000
13. Swatlow, China 1922 West Pacific 60,000
14. Barisal, Bangladesh 1822 Bay of Bengal 50,000
15. Sunderbans coast, Bangladesh 1699 Bay of Bengal 50,000
16. Bengal Cyclone, Calcutta, India 1942 Bay of Bengal 40,000
17. Canton, China 1862 West Pacific 37,000
18. Backerganj (Barisal), Bangladesh 1767 Bay of Bengal 30,000
19. Barisal, Bangladesh 1831 Bay of Bengal 22,000
20. Great Hurricane, Lesser Antilles Islands 1780 Atlantic 22,000
21. Devi Taluk, SE India 1977 Bay of Bengal 20,000
21. Great Coringa Cyclone, India 1789 Bay of Bengal 20,000
Death counts from large killer cyclones are highly uncertain, particulary for those before 1900. The above rankings are somewhat speculative. Information sources: Banglapedia, Wikipedia, and Encyclopedia of Hurricanes, Typhoons, and Cyclones (1999), by David Longshore.
Talking carbon claptrap isn’t helping the victims of the natural disaster in Burma.
Donate via the Network for Good here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“Talking carbon claptrap isn’t helping the victims of the natural disaster in Burma.”
AGW predicts an increase in weather events. No one event can be attributed to AGW. CO2 as a forcing agent in the atmosphere is not claptrap, as you yourself have acknowledged, the science is quite sound. It’s only the magnitude of the change that is under debate.
“AGW predicts an increase in weather events. No one event can be attributed to AGW.”
“Nargis is a sign of things to come.”
Rank: Name / Areas of Largest Loss: Year: Ocean Area: Deaths:
1. Great Bhola Cyclone, Bangladesh 1970 Bay of Bengal 550,000
2. Hooghly River Cyclone, India and Bangladesh 1737 Bay of Bengal 350,000
3. Haiphong Typhoon, Vietnam 1881 West Pacific 300,000
3. Coringa, India 1839 Bay of Bengal 300,000
5. Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1584 Bay of Bengal 200,000
6. Great Backerganj Cyclone, Bangladesh 1876 Bay of Bengal 200,000
7. Chittagong, Bangladesh 1897 Bay of Bengal 175,000
8. Super Typhoon Nina, China 1975 West Pacific 171,000
9. Cyclone 02B, Bangladesh 1991 Bay of Bengal 140,000
10. Great Bombay Cyclone, India 1882 Arabian Sea 100,000
11. Hakata Bay Typhoon, Japan 1281 West Pacific 65,000
12. Calcutta, India 1864 Bay of Bengal 60,000
13. Swatlow, China 1922 West Pacific 60,000
14. Barisal, Bangladesh 1822 Bay of Bengal 50,000
15. Sunderbans coast, Bangladesh 1699 Bay of Bengal 50,000
16. Bengal Cyclone, Calcutta, India 1942 Bay of Bengal 40,000
17. Canton, China 1862 West Pacific 37,000
18. Backerganj (Barisal), Bangladesh 1767 Bay of Bengal 30,000
19. Barisal, Bangladesh 1831 Bay of Bengal 22,000
20. Great Hurricane, Lesser Antilles Islands 1780 Atlantic 22,000
21. Devi Taluk, SE India 1977 Bay of Bengal 20,000
21. Great Coringa Cyclone, India 1789 Bay of Bengal 20,000
This cyclone that hit Burma is a “consequence” of global warming? Al Gore should die of shame to peddle such self-serving deceptions. What’s worse is that Gore’s blundering attempts to blame global warming for Burma’s agony distracts attention from the real causes of this catastrophe – despicable causes we may at least hope to do something about. If Cyclone Nargis had struck not Rangoon, but Melbourne or Tokyo, it is unlikely more than a few dozen people, if that, would have died. And that’s because we are free, and rich – as free people tend to be with capitalism. But in Burma as many as 100,000 are now feared dead – victims not of global warming, but of a tyranny that has left them poor and defenceless. Let us not be sidetracked. These are people killed not by Gore’s global warming, or even by Friday’s Cyclone Nargis – but by a filthy band of rapacious dictators who have left their people beggared and blinded, at the mercy of even the wind and waves.
–Andrew Bolt, The Herald Sun, 9 May 2008
Also from the media release of India’s Centre for Science and the Environment
“Tropical cyclone Nargis, which has killed over 20,000 people and reportedly left 40,000 missing in its wake, is not just a natural disaster, says Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). “While we can never pinpoint one disaster as the result of climate change, there is enough scientific evidence that climate change will lead to intensification of tropical cyclones,” says Sunita Narain, director, CSE.
The media release http://www.cseindia.org/AboutUs/press_releases/press_20080507.htm also quotes the IPCC
“The 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had clearly observed that cyclones will increase in their intensity as a result of global warming. According to the IPCC: “There is observational evidence of an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures”.
The IPCC also notes that “based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures”.
According to its web site the CSE is an independent, public interest organisation which aims to increase public awareness on science, technology, environment and development.
They were not wind and waves, that was a powerful tropical storm and an exceptional storm surge.
The IPCC has pointed out that people in low lying delta areas are at risk, neither Melbourne nor Tokyo meet that criteria. It points out that the poor will suffer the most, as well. It has not made any judgement on why they are poor, it just points out that if you are in a poor, low lying area you will suffer more. For Bolt to jump up and argue something that they have not is just his usual MO, and a disgrace.
Like with Katrina, the real failure is one of government.
As I have repeatedly shown and said, there is no established link between global warming and cyclonic activity. Chris Landsea resigned form the IPCC in 2005 due to the wording of AR4 by lead author Trenberth. Even Kerry Emanuel’s latest work suggests lttle or no increase in intensity.
It is shameful that climate alarmists exploit the victims of natural disasters.
In Katrina, the real failure was that of people who took up residence on land lower than sea level and didn’t leave town when adequately warned.
No government can protect stupid people from themselves, and it takes a while for good people to stop a stupid government, like that of Myanmar which forbids outside help and confiscates aid shipments. This article shows the complete disgrace of that government. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90I5P2G0&show_article=1
But, when there are record deaths caused by that corrupt military junta, Al Gore will overlook the obvious and shamelessly say that global warming was responsible and that the death records prove him right.
Even the BBC admits that land use changes were a contributor to this disaster. What is so unusual about a category 3 cyclone in the Indian Ocean?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7385315.stm
Better advance warning would have made little difference. The population involved had no means to evacuate and could have done nothing significant to prepare. The tidal surge amounted to a localised tsunami.
The real human caused tragedy is the one now being created by the Burmese government in obstructing aid efforts.
I thought Jurassic-type climate with temperate poles and balmy tropics and 2000ppmv CO2 was supposed to be devoid of climate extremes like cyclones.
SJT, AB may be somewhat wrong but he is not as wrong as Al Gore.
These are people who need the rich, disaster-prone, alluvial, delta lands to produce their rice and staples and they are aware of the historical dangers.
Was the 2004 tsunami caused by ACO2 too?
“As I have repeatedly shown and said, there is no established link between global warming and cyclonic activity. Chris Landsea resigned form the IPCC in 2005 due to the wording of AR4 by lead author Trenberth. Even Kerry Emanuel’s latest work suggests lttle or no increase in intensity.”
You had a topic here that clearly stated that force 5 tropical storms had statisticlly increased. Since it is the force of a storm that dramatically increases the damage, that is significant.
“You had a topic here that clearly stated that force 5 tropical storms had statisticlly increased.”
On what planet?
http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm
‘Is the frequency of hurricanes increasing?
Globally (not just in the North Atlantic), there is an average of about 90 tropical storms every year. This average changes very little over time and there has been no detectable change over the 20th century overall, although we do not have good historical data for all regions where hurricanes occur.’
http://www.erinthead.com/hurricanes/category5.htm
‘There have been only 29 reliably measured [Atlantic] Category 5 hurricanes since 1928, and very few of these made landfall at Category 5 intensity. This page contains detailed information about each storm.’
Quit making stuff up.
On this planet, on this forum. 🙂