DESPITE concerns about global warming and a large increase in the number of reported storms and droughts, the world’s death rate from extreme weather events was lower from 2000 to 2010 than it has been in any decade since 1900, according to a new Reason Foundation study. Following is the media release:
THE Reason Foundation report chronicles the number of worldwide deaths caused by extreme weather events between 1900 and 2010 and finds global deaths caused by extreme weather events peaked in the decade running from 1920 to 1929, when there were 241 deaths a year per million people in the world. From 1930 to 1939 there were 208 deaths a year per million people. But from 2000 to 2010 there were just 5.4 deaths a year per million people in the world. That’s a 98 percent decline in the weather-related death rate since the 1920s. Extreme weather events were responsible for just .07% of the world’s deaths between 2000 and 2010.
The extreme weather categories studied in the Reason Foundation report include droughts, floods, wildfires, storms (hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, typhoons, etc.) and extreme temperatures, both hot and cold.
Droughts were the most deadly extreme weather category between 1900 and 2010, responsible for over 60 percent of extreme weather deaths during that time. The worldwide death rate from droughts peaked in the 1920s when there were 235 deaths a year per million people. Since then, the death rate has fallen by 99.9 percent. The study finds that global food production advancements, such as new crops, improved fertilizer, irrigation, and pesticides, along with society’s better ability to move food and medical supplies, were responsible for reducing the number of deaths in times of severe drought.
Floods were to blame for 30 percent of the deaths during the timeframe studied, making them the second most deadly extreme weather category. The death rate for floods topped out in the 1930s at 204 deaths a year per million people. Deaths from floods have fallen by over 98 percent since then and there was an average of approximately one flood death per year per million people from 2000 to 2010.
Deaths from storms spiked as recently as the 1970s, when there were 10 deaths a year per million people. But the death rate has dropped by 75 percent since then, with storms being blamed for two deaths a year per million people from 2000 to 2010.
The average number of extreme weather events recorded increased from 2.5 per year in the 1920s to 8.5 in the 1940s to 350 per year for the period 2000-2010. The study notes technological and telecommunication advances made it significantly easier to learn of and respond to weather events. Broader news coverage and an increased tendency by authorities to declare natural disaster emergencies have also contributed to the large uptick in the number of storms recorded.
“Overall mortality around the world is increasing, while mortality from weather events is decreasing,” said Dr. Indur Goklany, the author of the Reason Foundation study. “Despite the intense media coverage of storms and climate change’s prominent role in political debates, humanity is coping far better with extreme weather events than it is with other much more important health and safety problems.”
“The number of reported extreme weather events is increasing, but the number of deaths and the risk of dying from those events have decreased,” said Julian Morris, the study’s project director and vice president of research at Reason Foundation. “Economic development and technological improvements have enabled society to protect against these events and to cope better with them when they do occur.”
Full report here:
http://reason.org/news/show/decline-deaths-extreme-weather
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Here’s a graph to illustrate the point that global warming is nothing to be afraid of.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/extreme_wx_deaths.png
Something weird happened around the time of WW1…no severe weather events?
Wow! Some extreme stats. Especially considering that the measured decrease in mortality rates hasn’t even taken the logical step and turned that into a death rate per persion per weather event (which have grown by a factor of two) – making that a 99.98% decline in death rates (!?).
Given the extremity of the change it’s hard not to be sceptical of the results but no doubt the underlying point (that we shouldn’t just measure weather events, but their impact, and be aware of our progress in addition to where we have moved backwards) is true enough and worth keeping in mind.
It would be interesting seeing the geographic and socioeconomic distribution of these deaths as well – I suspect we’ve practically eradicated them from the developed world.
EG that graph is fascinating particularly the low numbers up to the end of ww1 and then the huge step up into the 1920s and the fall since until the very low levels today.
Perhaps communication via radio (plus more mobility) then tv to internet warnings may explain it a bit over that long period of time , who knows.
It would be interesting to get an idea from experts why they think we have less deaths today compared to earlier decades.
Obviously a small increase in temp doesn’t seem to be a factor at all or somehow the temp increase is beneficial.
If you take into account the huge population increase on this small planet, its not a bad effort.
Plan B has a lot to recommend it.
There could be something more obvious in operation.
I’ve just been discussing at another site how, according to official BOM records, just about every record extreme month – namely, lowest rain, highest rain, highest heat – occurred long, long ago. Recent decades hardly get a look-in for extreme months- except a couple of records for cold!
Needless to say, I keep a copy of such records from the Elders site. You never know when things could be smoothed, adjusted, corrected or proxied in the name of settled science.
I should have specified that the records I referred to were for the Mid Coast of NSW. This isn’t indicative of much, but we’ve been conditioned to believe that we’re in a period of climate extremes while it may very well be that this is as moderate as it gets. Because of enhanced reportage and the speed of communication, the New Puritans will never be short of preachable catastrophes. In reality, we should treating our families to Sunday drives and leaving lights on in the hall so our loved ones don’t trip in the night.
And we should clean our minds from this foul contagion of Global Ingratitude.
The facts don’t matter guys; what you are against is Orwellian:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/17661/global_climate_disruption.html
So would we believe this from an inactivist like Goklany. errrr – nuh !
Betcha it’s sus
luke, have you been moonlighting as Adam Smith at Jo’s recently?
This simply underscores the reality that extreme weather is not changing. Also, a wealthier world is better able to adapt to weather events.
And thanks to technology, we are able to detect many extreme events before they directly impact us.
Once again, a major claim by the AGW community is shown to be bs.
Of course the whole CAGW mitigation industry is an incredible fraud.
For a start Rudd, Wong, Gillard , Swan, Combet, Gore etc etc have all told us that this is the greatest moral challenge facing us in our lives.
But then a number of these idiots live the most opulent and extravagant lifestyles that could be imagined, extensive overseas travel, ownership of expensive seaside mansions built right on the shoreline and some even indulge in private jet plane ownership as well.
But the mitigation fraud is easily explained by reference to two simple ratios. We export three times more coal than we use in Australia and the Gillard govt is trying to increase exports every year.
Next the EIA projections show that the developed world will only increase co2 emissions by 0.1% per annum for the next 25 years while the developing world will increase emissions by 2% per year over the same period.
That’s a ratio of 20 to 1, so every increase of 1 million tonnes emitted by the developed world will be dwarfed by a further 20 million tonnes emitted by the developing world for decades into the future.
Therefore the Gillard govt and their supporters are just stupid bi-polar hypocrites who can’t even understand simple primary school maths or simple ratios of 3 to 1 and 20 to 1.
But where is the MSM media and why aren’t they exposing this fraud to the Aussie electorate? Why don’t they expose this mitigation lie at every opportunity when we all know that there is zero we can do to reduce future co2 emissions?
Of course using lateral thinking we could just subtract a few percent of the coal export tonnage every year and have the same result as this stupid co2 tax.
Cohenite – nope – is he good and giving you grief ? What thread ? Does he need a hand? What do reckon Joanne does as a day job?
Tell you what – Neville gets 10/10 for ongoing spiteful derision. I like it. “Therefore the Gillard govt and their supporters are just stupid bi-polar hypocrites who can’t even understand simple primary school maths” I kacked ! So if you are bi-polar are you also stupid or is this just Gillard supporters.
Cohers have you outed yourself over there? Anyway Adam looks pretty good. Running amok. I’m amazed he can be bothered being intelligent.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/09/27/here-an-activist-there-an-activist/
What may be kiilling more people than the marginal changes in extreme weather is the diversion of scarce funds from projects having a higher ROI/marginal utiility, into funding the hair brained antics of the AGW extremists.
Even more so when there are blatant conflicts of interest involved, such that scientists acting as advisers to the WWF are doing so whilst undertaking publically funded research here that will influence policy on carbon taxing etc in Australia. This is absolutely reprehensible.
BoM has finally realised we are in store for a double dip La Nina, but they can’t guarantee big floods.
‘If a La Niña does form, current indicators are that it will be weaker than the strong 2010-11 event. La Niña events raise the odds of above average rainfall across the north and east of the country, but don’t guarantee it. The Bureau’s National Climate Centre will monitor the situation closely.’
Plan B required now, floods are certain.
Will this be regarded as a severe weather event?
The CSIRO regard the 2010-11 floods as an extreme weather event.
The gatekeepers, of course, don’t want to know:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/09/gatekeeping-at-grl-you-be-judge.html
These extreme weather events have nothing to do with AGW, although Luke Walker would probably disagree.
‘Britain is set to sizzle again today as forecasters predicted that record-breaking temperatures will bake the country.
It is expected to be the hottest September 29 since 1895 – when the mercury peaked at 27.8C (82F).
‘If the temperature rises even higher, it will be the third time this year we have seen record-breaking weather. This summer was the coldest since 1993 while April was the warmest since records began.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2042838/UK-Indian-summer-Mini-heat-wave-sees-plants-blossom-2nd-time-year.html#ixzz1ZL7BDFTc
A decade of winter cooling in the USA.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/winters_last_decade_in_US.jpg
This will slip under the msm radar.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-800
So there was substance to the sceptics claims after all
Pity the USA / GOA and the Australian NOA and Auditer General didnt look into the the failure of peer Review to provide a reliable and credible process for ranking and reviewing publically funded science expenditure
Mind you with the blatant conflicts of interest involved with leading GW scientists here in Australia being involved in the WFF as scientific advisers, and the IPCC, …a review of this whole shonky mess was over due years ago.
Is it ever likely to happen? …nah too much vested interest and arse covering now
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/01/78-names/
How timely