"The Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters”

[boatman61]

These things are nothing new... I saw serious annual flooding every year during the 1950-1964 period when I lived on the Indian sub-continent..
November 1867 Great Calcutta cyclone
<LI class="toclevel-2 tocsection-12">3.3 October 1874 Bengal cyclone <LI class="toclevel-2 tocsection-13">3.4 October 1876 Backergunge cyclone <LI class="toclevel-2 tocsection-14">3.5 June 1885 Aden cyclone <LI class="toclevel-2 tocsection-15">3.6 1885 Odisha cyclone <LI class="toclevel-2 tocsection-16">3.7 June 1890 Muscat cyclone <LI class="toclevel-2 tocsection-17">3.8 1895 Odisha cyclone <LI class="toclevel-2 tocsection-18">3.9 1895 Balochistan cyclone <LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-19">4 Early 1900s

• 4.1 May 1902 Karachi cyclone
• 4.2 June 1907 Karachi cyclone
• 4.3 October 1942 Bengal cyclone
• 4.4 July 1944 Karachi cyclone
• 4.5 November 1946 Andhra coast cyclone
• 4.6 1948 Balochistan cyclone

<LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-26">5 1950s

• 5.1 Tropical Depression Vae
• 5.2 May 1959 Salalah cyclone

<LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-29">6 1960s

• 6.1 1960
• 6.2 1961
• 6.3 1962
• 6.4 1963
• 6.5 1964
• 6.6 Indus valley cyclone
• 6.7 Ceylon cyclone
• 6.8 1965 Bengal Cyclones
• 6.9 December 1965 East Pakistan cyclone
• 6.10 November 1966 Madras cyclone
• 6.11 October 1967 Odisha cyclone
• 6.12 1968 Myanmar cyclone
• 6.13 1969

<LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-43">7 1970

• 7.1 1970 Bhola cyclone

<LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-45">8 1971

• 8.1 1971 Arabian Ocean Cyclone
• 8.2 1971 Odisha cyclone

<LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-48">9 1972

• 9.1 December 1972 Tamil Nadu cyclone

<LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-50">10 1973

• 10.1 May 1973 Arabian cyclone
• 10.2 June 1973 Arabian cyclone
• 10.3 October 1973 Bay of Bengal cyclone
• 10.4 Early November Bay of Bengal cyclone
• 10.5 Mid November Bay of Bengal cyclone
• 10.6 December 1973 Bay of Bengal cyclone

<LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-57">11 1974

• 11.1 April 1974 Arabian Sea cyclone
• 11.2 May 1974 Arabian Sea cyclone
• 11.3 August 1974 Bay of Bengal cyclone
• 11.4 September 21–24, 1974 Arabian Sea cyclone
• 11.5 September 26–29, 1974 Bay of Bengal cyclone
• 11.6 November 23–28, 1974 Bay of Bengal cyclone

<LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-64">12 1975

• 12.1 May 1–12, 1975 Arabian Sea cyclone
• 12.2 May 5–8, 1975 Bay of Bengal cyclone

<LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-67">13 1976

• 13.1 Late April/Early May Bay of Bengal cyclone
• 13.2 September Bay of Bengal cyclone
• 13.3 Mid-October Arabian sea cyclone
• 13.4 Mid-October Bay of Bengal cyclone
• 13.5 Early-November Bay of Bengal cyclone
• 13.6 Mid-November Bay of Bengal cyclone
• 13.7 Late-December Bay of Bengal cyclone

<LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-75">14 1977

• 14.1 May Bay of Bengal cyclone
• 14.2 June Masirah cyclone
• 14.3 Andhra Pradesh cyclone

<LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-79">15 1979

• 15.1 May 1979 Tamil Nadu-Sri Lanka (Ceylon) cyclone

[Pelagic]

How are the ocean temps?

http://gcaptain.us11.list-manage.com...e&e=0a4d88d4b5

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

How are the ocean temps?

Pacific Ocean Is Abnormally Warm But Don't Panic Yet - gCaptain

Scary red colours with no key.
3 degrees "above normal" with no indication of what they base "normal" on.
No indication of how common or unusual such a variation is.

It really tells us nothing.

Added: Oh yes, and a map which wraps the area under discussion around the ends and shows the irrelevant Atlantic front and center.

Then there's " one of the strongest on record." with no indication of how long that record is.

[Pelagic]

I know.... Comforting isn't it?

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by StuM

Scary red colours with no key.
3 degrees "above normal" with no indication of what they base "normal" on.
No indication of how common or unusual such a variation is.

It really tells us nothing.

Added: Oh yes, and a map which wraps the area under discussion around the ends and shows the irrelevant Atlantic front and center.

Then there's " one of the strongest on record." with no indication of how long that record is.

(Anomaly from 1961-1990 climatology, 1 degree, weekly resolution)



Don't tell me, I already know, this is fake. Please re-link to the Heartland Institutes' 'Climate Change Reconsidered' for the truth....

[Terra Nova]

So many good posts.

Originally Posted by GordMay

...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...

We must accept the fact that there are those whose agenda is to get us to believe this is all due to man-made global warming, which they insist is the world's biggest problem. Their solution is more bureaucracy and the imposition of new "carbon" taxes (as if more and bigger pork barrels are the answer).

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Terra Nova

We must accept the fact that there are those whose agenda is to get us to believe this is all due to man-made global warming, which they insist is the world's biggest problem. Their solution is more bureaucracy and the imposition of new "carbon" taxes (as if more and bigger pork barrels are the answer).

Yes ... b/c "more bureaucracy and the imposition of new "carbon" taxes" is the secret drive of 98% of climate scientists Really? This is truly what you believe . Maybe ... just maybe, they are following the science and going to where the research points, which is that the planet is undergoing rapid climate changes brought on by a planetary warming that is most likely caused, in whole or in major part, by our species.

This is one of the problems I have with climate change deniers, most of whom have now shifted to anthropogenic climate change deniers (b/c the fact of rapid climate change is becoming almost impossible to deny anymore); they blame it on some nefarious imposition of communist or fascism politics, on the "lame-stream media", on some other sort of political conspiracy. As with all such conspiracy theories, reality is usually more mundane, and in this case, more significant.

[Cheechako]

it would be interesting to see it adjusted for population density for sure. I remember a lot of disasters from many years ago. Like the big Mississippi flood etc. Havent seen that happen again.
have there been more hurricanes ? Doesn't seem like it.... guess I better look it up!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes ... b/c "more bureaucracy and the imposition of new "carbon" taxes" is the secret drive of 98% of climate scientists Really? This is truly what you believe .

The 97% meme has been demolished so many times that I won't bother to try again.

But to answer your question, No, the not so secret drive of the cabal of alarmist climate "scientists" is for more and more government grant funding.

This is one of the problems I have with climate change deniers, most of whom have now shifted to anthropogenic climate change deniers (b/c the fact of rapid climate change is becoming almost impossible to deny anymore); they blame it on some nefarious imposition of communist or fascism politics, on the "lame-stream media", on some other sort of political conspiracy. As with all such conspiracy theories, reality is usually more mundane, and in this case, more significant.

The denier canard again! Please tell us what you believe is being denied by "climate change deniers". The real climate change deniers are the ones who still believe in the "hockey stick" graph which purported to show that climate was static until the 1950s.

Please show us any real evidence of this "rapid climate change" over the last 20 years which is different to pre 1950's climate change. Or even of your alleged planetary warming over the last 20 years.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by StuM

Please show us any real evidence of this "rapid climate change" over the last 20 years which is different to pre 1950's climate change. Or even of your alleged planetary warming over the last 20 years.

Stu, I'm simply not going to play your game. You appear to be a smart cookie, so you look up the current peer-reviewed research which will actually answer your question.

As for the your comment: "the cabal of alarmist climate "scientists" is for more and more government grant funding." This is beyond laughable. You are aware that government funded science has been on the dramatic decrease in North America (Canada and USA) for at least 20 years. No one gets rich on government grants. That's the purview of private funders. This is why the special-interest cabal that supports politically & financially-motived "research" has been able to distort the public dialogue on this, and other issues. It's the same tactic that was used around the tobacco fights ... but you know this already.

[jimbunyard]

Well certainly the human related costs of anything are going to go up if you increase the number of humans...

If you go through this short video,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur..._EQzU_qI#t=579

to about 9:38, the presenter, a representative of the re-insurance company Munich RE (the guys who insure the insurance companies) shows a graph of natural catastrophes divided by category. If we assume that for them natural catastrophes are only those that affect humans, then the increased population would show increases in all categories of catastrophe. It does not, the weather related incidents have increased by a factor of 2.5, although over an admittedly short sample time of 35 years., while the other natural catastrophes remain relatively constant.

So we're left with either that the increased population somehow decided to
move to areas only susceptible to weather related catastrophes, or that weather related catastrophes have increased relative to catastrophes in general, and that it might be a good idea to try and find out what's going on...

The re-insurance guys have been planning for it since 1973, the often heard 'follow the money' mantra from the conspiracy crowd seems rather relevant here....

[StuM]

> "No one gets rich on government grants."

Roger Pielke Jr recently made the remarkable discovery that, in addition to his university salary from George Mason University (reported by Pielke as $250,000), Jagadish Shukla, the leader of the #RICO20, together with his wife, had received a further $500,000 more in 2014 alone from federal climate grants funnelled through a Shukla-controlled “non-profit” (Institute for Global Environment and Security, Inc.), yielding total income in 2014 of approximately $750,000. Actually, the numbers are even worse than Pielke thought.

• Pielke had quoted Shukla’s 2013 university salary, but his university salary had increased more than 25% between 2013 and 2014: from $250,816 in 2013 to $314,000 in 2014.
• In addition, the “non-profit” organization had also employed one of Shukla’s children (not reported, but say $90,000); and,
• IGES transferred $100,000 from its climate grants to a second corporation controlled by the Shukla family (the Institute for Global Education Equality of Opportunity and Prosperity, Inc.), which in turn transferred $100,000 to an educational charity in Shukla’s home town in India, doubtless a worthy charity, but one that Shukla could have supported from his own already generous stipend.

Over a million dollars in total in 2014 alone.
In addition, Shukla’s long-time associate, James Kinter, participated in the same double dip, though on a less grandiose scale. Kinter, also a Professor at George Mason, doubled his 2014 university salary of $180,038 with $171,320 from IGES, for a total 2014 income of $351,358.


Shukla’s Gold « Climate Audit

[StuM]

More on Shukla:

It turns out that heading up IGES is nice work if you can get it. The Washington Free Beacon reports that since 2001 the organization has received more than $63 million — 98 percent of its total revenue — from taxpayers, mainly in the form of grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. And an astonishing amount of that money has ended up in Dr. Shukla’s pocket.

That’s largely because the IGES has a tight-knit staff — very tight. The “business manager” is Jagadish Shukla’s wife, Anastasia, and the “assistant business manager”/”assistant to the president” is their daughter, Sonia. According to the Shuklas’ tax filings, they have pocketed $5.6 million in compensation from IGES since 2001 (not including Sonia’s earnings, which have gone unreported). That is on top of Jagadish’s salary from George Mason — a public university, by the way — which paid him $314,000 in 2014.


A Climate Extremist Is Taxpayer-Funded | National Review Online

[Terra Nova]

Stu--good posts.

[StuM]

> "You are aware that government funded science has been on the dramatic decrease in North America (Canada and USA) for at least 20 years."

Not for the "US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)"

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...o-congress.pdf

Summary of Federal Climate Change Expenditures:

US Global Change Research Program:
2012 - 2.506 Billion
2013 - 2.509 Billion
2014 - 2.658 Billion