More people and more wealth, yet less losses. That’s what the latest 2014 disaster statistics tell us. Bad news for the doomsday worshippers and cheerleaders.
The Geneva-Switzerland based International Federation of the Red Cross recently released its 2014 Natural Disaster Report, according to the German online daily BILD here. If anything, the news is very good – with huge drops in losses.
Moreover US hurricane and tornado activity trends since 1950 have remained flat or are decreasing respectively.
A copy of the report’s results is here. The AON Executive Summary writes (my emphasis):
Down Again: 2014 Catastrophe Losses Below Average
Global natural disasters1 in 2014 combined to cause economic losses of USD 132 billion, 37 percent below the ten-year average of USD211 billion. The losses were attributed to 258 separate events, compared to the ten-year average of 260. The disasters caused insured losses of USD39 billion, 38 percent below the ten-year average of USD63 billion and was the lowest insured loss total since 2009. This was the second consecutive year with below normal catastrophe losses. Notable events during the year included major flooding in India, Pakistan, China, and Southeast Europe; billion-dollar convective thunderstorm events in the United States, France, and Germany; winter storms in Japan and the United States; and widespread drought in the United States and Brazil. The top three perils, flood, tropical cyclone, and severe weather, combined for 72 percent of all economic losses in 2014. Despite 75 percent of catastrophe losses occurring outside of the United States, it still accounted for 53 percent of global insured losses, driven by a higher insurance penetration.”
According to the Red Cross data, many of the deaths were due to cold, with 505 alone occurring in one country – Peru! Among the top disasters were brutal winters in the USA and japan – hardly what one would expect from “global warming”.
90% less deaths
A total of 8186 people died in 2014 because of natural disasters. Bild reports: “2014 the number of deaths from natural disasters was almost 90 percent under the 10-year average of 76 500 deaths.” That’s hugely good news, but you’d never know it hearing the media!
Lowest in 10 years
According to the IFRC, in 94 countries there were a total of 317 floods, earthquakes, forest fires, cyclones and a number of other nature events with deaths. “But that was the lowest number in 10 years.“, BILD reports.
But the IFRC report insists that the news is bad no matter what, and warns that the good news won’t last, citing more severe weather events in the future (no date given) because of global climate change.
No Cat 3 hurricane landfall in 9 years
But data show the opposite. For example when it comes to hurricanes, the AON report writes on page 12:
The 2014 Atlantic Hurricane Season marked the ninth consecutive year in which the U.S. did not sustain a major Category 3+ landfalling hurricane, which extends the alltime record by another year. It was also the quietest season in terms of named storms since 1997.”
It’s stunning that some are actually out there screaming things are worse than ever when the opposite is the truth.
One of least active since Doppler radar began
On U.S. tornado activity it’s more of the same, with the AON report stating on page 17:
For the third consecutive year, tornado season in the United States was one of the least active since Doppler radar began being deployed in the early 1990s.”
Here’s the chart of the last 10 years – no change:
Also on page 18 the chart on acres burned by wildfire shows that 2014 was near a decade low:
The Appendix of the AON report also provides more charts on hurricane and tornado trends since 1950. What follows is a chart showing United States hurricane landfalls:
No trends in hurricane landfalls. Source: NOAA IBTrACS historical tropical cyclone database.
Violent tornadoes on the decrease
On violent tornadoes, the AON report writes:
Since 1950, the overall trend of higher-end tornadoes rated at F3/EF3 and above has remained nearly flat and shows a slight annual decrease of 0.8 percent. A comparable 1.2 percent annual decrease is also found when looking at dependable data since the advent of Doppler radar in 1990. When breaking down data to just the last 10 years, there has been a similar nearly flat growth at 0.5 percent.”
Here’s the chart:
Here we can see that violent tornadoes were considerably more frequent from 1950 – 1975 – back in the days of ice age warnings!
So the next time some hysterical alarmists insist weather extremes are getting worse, send the link to the AON report and tell them to look at the data for once.
Chart sources: AON Benfield
It is my considered belief that the spike in tornadoes in 2011 had to do with the descent of the Polar Vortex http://kajm.deviantart.com/journal/Speculation-Polar-Vortex-Tornados-CA-Drought-550624707
And the same thing happened with the spike in 1974 and the extreme winters which followed that.
Latest book and documentary.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
http://www.drtimball.com Latest book and documentary.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
http://www.drtimball.com
Of the 3 sorts of events mentioned, hurricanes and fires are problematic. The former because there are few and the latter because many are set or caused by people and their actions. Arson is one such thing. Electric wires shorting and trees falling on power lines also cause fires. It is also common in the western USA to burn fields and ditches to rid them of the wrong kind of vegetation. People cause fires but demand they be put out or prevented. We are getting better at both. Investigate the “firewise” programs. Also, much faster reporting because of cell-phones.
For extreme events, tornadoes (“no change“) are a good index because human activities can’t do much to cause or prevent them – and there are many. Technology and wealth can reduce the loses. Many people now have stronger homes with storm shelters. Those living in travel trailers on concrete blocks – not so good, but these sorts of units are increasingly toughened and strapped down.
There is a trend in the media reporting of these events though.
Thanks to 24hr news coverage and satellite communications what would have been nothing more than a meteorological statistic can now be as it happens propaganda.
I am sorry, but has anyone taken a look at the table on pdf page 4?
http://thoughtleadership.aonbenfield.com/Documents/20150113_ab_if_annual_climate_catastrophe_report.pdf
there are two big outliers: 2005 (Kathrina) and 2011 (Tsunami, Fukushima). You will struggle to find a trend in such a dataset (and even worse in the insurance one on page 6) because it is dominated by such special events.
So the claim” 2014 is x% below the average” mostly just says “2014 did not have a really special event” and basically is meaningless.
on a sidenote, mankind does not only add more stuff to destroy and to claim insurance for, but it is also building stuff that is harder to destroy , while insurers shy away from insuring certain risks. So those numbers and even trends need to be “manipulated” to get any meaningful comparison.
still, prediction-fail for warmunist endtimes prophets.
I’m sure you’d be pleased to ‘manipulate’ them to find whatever suits your agenda.
Another alarmist claim is debunked!!!! When is this nonsense going to end?
On a lighter note, I have worked out that if someone took Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, corrected his errors, and re-edited the movie such that the opposite to his claims are substituted for his actual claims (e.g. “when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer” changed to “when the temperature gets warmer, there is more carbon dioxide” … his movie could be rehashed and shown in cinemas as “A Convenient Truth”.
“Another alarmist claim is debunked!!!!”
No.
Wuwt also has an article along this line:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/10/usgs-puts-the-kibosh-on-1000-year-flood-and-caused-by-climate-change-claims-over-south-carolina-flooding/
The problem is, that it is difficult to find a meaningful trend or causal relationship in a set with very random data.
An example will illustrate that easily:
We try to measure the relevance of buying multiple lottery tickets by a comparison between the number of tickets bought and the number of (high) wins. so we look at 1000 people and try to figure out, if buying two tickets instead of one will increase their chance of winning a million. In this example, we know that it does (their chance actually doubles). But it is extremely unlikely, that we will get the same result from the statistical data, because the majority of those folks will score zero win, and it doesn t matter at all, whether they buy 1 ticket or two (we might not even find a difference to those who buy zero tickets).
So just wait and see. 100 years from now, the CO2 effect will be clearly visible in all datasets.
“So just wait and see. 100 years from now, the CO2 effect will be clearly visible in all datasets.”
Warmunist theory has fallen flat on its face and will not stand up. It hinges on positive water vapor feedback, which has only ever been observed in computer models designed to show it.
It has never been experimentally observed.
For the warmunists, this was never a problem: They thought their grip on governements and media would suffice to give them authority before anyone would uncover their fraudulent behaviour. This has failed as well.
Some lonely trolls still spout their message, maybe they depend on the warmunist fraud for their livelihood. Nobody cares.
Just wait a hundred years, and you’ll see! Yeah right…
So, sod, given that the warmunist models are full of holes , even admitted by the warmunist modelers, AND, the warmunists still control the science reporting of the shitstream media, WHY do we NEVER hear ANYTHING about “breakthroughs” (meaning, urgently needed fixes for the biggest holes) or “advances” in climate modeling?
I’m pretty sure the reason is that they’re so busy squandering their research money on the good life that they just can’t be bothered to touch their broken models any longer. Plus, nobody intelligent will still go down that career hole.
Way to go out on a limb. Wait 100 years? Pretty safe bet there, since neither you, nor any of the other doomsayers will be around to prove your point.
Sod, you poor old sod. Please stop being thick as a brick.. Nobody is isolating two people buying lottery tickets. So the CALW (Catastrophic anthropogenic lottery winners)are supposed to increase but the OVERALL data shows no such thing.
Look at the total data. It is flat to down. ACE is Extreme weather is down. Tornadoes are down.
Other then that, nice straw man you knocked down. Someday they will increase and you can shout “the end is near” all over again.
Sod, the problem with your comparison to lottery tickets is the simple fact that you wrote this on the wrong website. You should have done so on alarmist blogs. The point of the article is that alarmists claim that climate change is already severely impacting the world. They claim every bad weather event whether it is a tornado, blizzard, heavy rain(flood), drought, hurricane and etc., is evidence of the horrible climate change we are experiencing.
But the fact is that there is no evidence for an increase in bad weather events. Therefore, that alarmists claims about climate change are not supported by any evidence.
Even if the statistics showed a rise in the number of bad weather events, it could simply be that the number of events vary over time due to the impact of randomness in the system, the impact of various periodic cycles and etc., and have nothing to do with CO2. My guess is that if there was an increase in some statistic showing more hurricanes than usual for example that you would be arguing that the increase is statistically significant and very important and means that we are all doomed if we don’t reduce CO2 emissions.
Alarmists can’t have it both ways. If a decrease in bad weather events is not significant in any 100 year period, than an increase is in such events is also not significant and they must stop claiming specific hurricanes or other events have anything to do with CO2 and climate change.
“They claim every bad weather event whether it is a tornado, blizzard, heavy rain(flood), drought, hurricane and etc., is evidence of the horrible climate change we are experiencing. ”
Can you provide any links to any serious climate blog that does this? I am pretty sure, you can not.
“But the fact is that there is no evidence for an increase in bad weather events. ”
This is a claim, that is contradicted by the example i gave above with the lottery tickets. Exactly these connections are difficult to show.
By the way, what is bad weather? If place A gets more storms and place B less storms and a drought, we might not see a trend in storms, even though the situation gets worse.
For most places, a change in climate is a bad change, because it requires adaptation which will generate losers. Unless there is a massive change to a better situation, most changes will be bad.
“Can you provide any links to any serious climate blog that does this? I am pretty sure, you can not.”
There are no scientifically serious alarmist climate blogs that I’m aware of. Blogs like skepticalscience.com tries to link every bad weather event – such as the recent floods in South Carolina to CO2 and climate change. Before that it was the Typhoons in Asia. If weather makes the news and is bad, the alarmists do in fact try to link it with CO2.
“This is a claim, that is contradicted by the example i gave above with the lottery tickets.
No it isn’t.
“By the way, what is bad weather? If place A gets more storms and place B less storms and a drought, we might not see a trend in storms, even though the situation gets worse.”
For the alarmists, it is bad weather that makes the national headlines. They use most such events to try to claim disastrous climate change.
“For most places, a change in climate is a bad change, because it requires adaptation which will generate losers. Unless there is a massive change to a better situation, most changes will be bad.”
Changes to a cooler climate would certainly be on balance bad. Changes to a warmer climate such as existed in the Medieval Warm Period is probably on balance an improvement. Higher CO2 levels are already caused a greening of the planet. And in some areas, people are adapted to a bad situation. If the climate “improves” for them, then they can let go of some of the “adaptation” to climate that would be difficult or impossible to live in without the adaption. CO2 may on balance improve the overall climate of the world. This seems as likely as it causing it to be on balance worse.
sod, if all CHANGE is BAD, because it forces people to adapt, why is then the exploding energy costs through wind turbine subsidation GOOD?
In other words: If capitalism is BAD because it destroys the planet by using finite resources, why then is socialism GOOD? is it because
a) it is more efficient
b) it provides far less wealth to the socialist slaves, therefore uses less resources.
We know from all attempts of implementing socialism that (a) is to a 100% refuted so it must be b).
See, von Mises, the problem of economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth. You are 100 years late in understanding it.
“sod, if all CHANGE is BAD, because it forces people to adapt, why is then the exploding energy costs through wind turbine subsidation GOOD?”
I was talking about climate change. With completely unknown consequences.
Look at the current EEG discussion in Germany. People are in panic (mostly by a conservative press campaign) about a 9 Euro change per household, without even knowing, whether the final price of electricity will even rise at all (it might even fall, as the market price of power does).
I might actually spend more money on extra ice cream than on the additional EEG cost next year…
How dare they issue this report just before the Paris Conference?
sod’s recent comment about CO2 reminds me of —
Mark Twain’s Life on the Mississippi
“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”
The full quote is worth reading; it is here:
http://www.twainquotes.com/Mississippi.html
what about the volcanoes and earthquakes? a decrease or an increase. Are they going to say those decreased as well? Are we going to then believe them or believe somone is tampering with data to suit the climate changers.
Not sure weather you are earnest. Even under the warmunists only the craziest ones dare to postulate a connection between CO2 and earthquakes.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2015/10/10/inconvenient-truths-2014-global-natural-disasters-down-massively-… […]
I expect you know this?
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Crabtree's_Bludgeon
Crabtree’s Bludgeon is a foil to Occam’s Razor, and may be expressed so:
“No set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated.”
Its origin is obscure, but appears to be associated with R. V. Jones and may appear in the Crabtree Orations, a set of academic commentaries attributed to the fictitious poet, Joseph Crabtree, after whom the Crabtree Foundation is named.
[…] 2014 Natural Disaster Report. […]
[…] des cyclones et autres tornades, conséquence obligatoire d’un dérèglement climatique, n’existe pas. Il n’y a pas plus de tornades, mais moins, n’insistez […]
[…] des cyclones et autres tornades, conséquence obligatoire d’un dérèglement climatique, n’existe pas. Il n’y a pas plus de tornades, mais moins, n’insistez […]
[…] Break The Internet – Nicolas Hulot. COP21 – Conférence des Nations unies sur les changements climatiques. Inconvenient Truths: 2014 Global Natural Disasters Down Massively! …No Trend In Tornado/Cyclones S…! […]
[…] des cyclones et autres tornades, conséquence obligatoire d’un dérèglement climatique, n’existe pas. Il n’y a pas plus de tornades, mais moins, n’insistez […]
[…] The Geneva-Switzerland based International Federation of the Red Cross recently released its 2014 Natural Disaster Report, according to the German online daily BILD here. If anything, the news is very good – with huge … Article by natural disasters – Google Blog Search. Read entire story here. […]
[…] des cyclones et autres tornades, conséquence obligatoire d’un dérèglement climatique, n’existe pas. Il n’y a pas plus de tornades, mais moins, n’insistez […]
[…] Sur le web […]
Patricia is the strongest storm on record and if it does little damage, its just because it seems to hit a low population region.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/23/americas/hurricane-patricia/
[…] Fonte: Inconvenient truths 2014 global natural disasters down massively […]