|
Post by rsmith7 on Jan 25, 2011 12:35:08 GMT 1
Louise, From your link: "Trends in natural disasters. With growing population and infrastructures the world’s exposure to natural hazards is inevitably increasing. This is particularly true as the strongest population growth is located in coastal areas (with greater exposure to floods, cyclones and tidal waves). To make matters worse any land remaining available for urban growth is generally risk-prone, for instance flood plains or steep slopes subject to landslides. The statistics in this graphic reveal an exponential increase in disasters. This raises several questions. Is the increase due to a significant improvement in access to information? What part does population growth and infrastructure development play? Finally, is climate change behind the increasing frequency of natural hazards?"
Answer: Yes, obviously - but to what extent and is it a problem that can be solved by demonising carbon? Obviously not.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 25, 2011 12:58:39 GMT 1
I agree with your "... Finally, is climate change behind the increasing frequency of natural hazards?"; Answer: Yes, obviously But in answer to the question I would say that the former is still unknown and the latter is political, not scientific.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jan 25, 2011 13:38:08 GMT 1
The fact that the climate has always changed and always will - together with the frequency of "natural hazards"- doesn't square with the current hysteria though, does it?
The demonisation of carbon is certainly political; it's just a shame that "science" has been politicised in order to support the political doctrine of the day. Isn't that anti-science?
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Jan 25, 2011 14:50:53 GMT 1
Louise, I think you are onto something;
Have atmospheric extremes increased at a greater rate than, say, earthquakes?
Clearly a no-brainer .....
The weather records should show it, as weather stations record not only temperature, but wind vector, cloud cover, humidity and rainfall.
Perhaps you ought to ask the UK Met Office, or the Climate Research Unit, if they have the analyses to hand .....
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 25, 2011 16:16:38 GMT 1
Louise, I think you are onto something; Have atmospheric extremes increased at a greater rate than, say, earthquakes? Clearly a no-brainer ..... The analysis is to hand here on page 5 of this very thread. You will see that the number of earthquakes has remained steady over the last 20 years yet the number of floods and cyclones has increased. maps.grida.no/go/graphic/trends-in-natural-disastersThe chart actually counts the number of events rather than trying to measure the severity as this latter is usually affected by the size of the population involved (which has probably risen over time).
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Jan 25, 2011 16:20:58 GMT 1
Louise,
Your graphic is clearly labelled 'Reported' .......
I'd like to see a graph based on the historical meteorological records, rather than a meta-analysis based on media reporting .....
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 25, 2011 16:29:02 GMT 1
Where does it say that it is 'media' reported?
I assumed 'reported' in this case meant reported to the UN as it is a UN website.
What makes you assume differently?
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Jan 25, 2011 22:01:07 GMT 1
Dear Oh Dear.. we need some science here ... from meterologists ... weather scientists if you like. The UN is a source of funds ... if you are a savvy thirdworlder, you will surely inform the UN that you need dosh 'cos the rain it raineth .... And, if you are an AGW scientist, then yo wil do the same .. But, Louise, here is an actual bit of science ... www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/cane/i1520-0442-3-1-113.pdf
|
|
|
Post by louise on Jan 26, 2011 12:35:32 GMT 1
Carnyx - you stated that you didn't believe the data I presented because it was a meta-analysis of media reports.
I asked how you came to that conclusion and you have now moved the goal posts to say that nothing the UN says is to be trusted.
No doubt if I were to refer to the Met Office you would similarly say that was not to be trusted.
Is the bottom line that you will not alter your views because you 'believe' them to be true and no amount of evidence will change your mind?
If not, what evidence would you accept (assuming we are discussing science and not beliefs)?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Jan 26, 2011 13:09:42 GMT 1
The UN, the Met Office and the "data" are certainly not to be trusted. They have shown themselves to be corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 31, 2011 20:16:32 GMT 1
Australian Bureau of Meteorology report conceals details of high rainfall in February 1893January 28th, 2011 by Warwick Hughes On 25 January 2011 the BoM published an amended SPECIAL CLIMATE STATEMENT 24 (SCS24) originally published on 7 Jan on the subject “An extremely wet end to 2010 leads to widespread flooding across eastern Australia.” The revised SCS24 is nearly doubled in size and is titled, “Frequent heavy rain events in late 2010/early 2011 lead to widespread flooding across eastern Australia.” The revised SCS24 downplays the huge rain events in Feb 1893 – on page 7 of 28 the BoM says – “Insufficient rainfall data exist for a comprehensive assessment of the 1893 event. However, the available station data indicate that peak rainfalls in the region during the 1893 event were much heavier than those during either the 1974 or 2011 events.” First I would say – there is plenty of rainfall data from 1893 to allow the Feb 1893 floods event to be realistically compared in various ways with 1974 and 2010/11 – for example on maps – or as I show below with a few examples – by way of a table. Second I would say that referring to “peak rainfalls” could leave an impression that overall the rain in the 1893 event was not so notable but there were heavy periods. Which is an incorrect impression for the BoM to leave readers with in terms of much of SE Qld. At the end of para 3 on page 6 of the SCS24 the BoM says about Dec 2010- “At some stations, particularly in Queensland (Table 2), it was the wettest month (i.e., compared against all calendar months) on record.” I would like to see that statement quantified – it looks dubious to me. The crux of my complaint is that having made that statement – the BoM should have gone on to say that in many stations in SE Qld and in the Brisbane catchment - rain in Feb 1893 was higher than that for Dec 2010 and was often the highest monthly rain on record. On page 20 of the BoM SCS24 – Table 2 commences which records “Selected record monthly rainfall totals which have occurred during December 2010 at locations with 50 or more years of data. Values shown in bold are records for any calendar month.” Queensland stations are mainly on pages 21 – 22 and 23 and note that on page 23 the BoM quotes Feb 1893 data for three stations – where it is lower than the Dec 2010 reading. I say to the BoM – “if you take the trouble to point out where Feb 1893 rain was LOWER than Dec 2010 (see page 23) – then why not tell us also when it was HIGHER – because there is an important national issue here of putting flood history and associated rain data correctly in perspective.”. As I write it looks clear that one political response to the Brisbane floods this month will be to rebuild on the floodplain and spread the cost over Australian taxpayers. Surely it is vital our leaders understand that rainfall as severe as Feb 1893 could hit Brisbane again. In my webpage table I go down the BoM station list adding alternative stations in the row beneath in italics – where I find the BoM report deceptive in not quoting rain totals from February 1893 – my examples are from SE Queensland obviously due to the huge flood issues. I have not tried to tabulate all Feb 1893 rain – but my time is limited – I am sure readers can find many other examples. My data comes from the BoM (thanks for website data) and Australian Weather News – I am in awe of the work Laurier Williams puts into this huge resource. www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=807
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 2, 2011 21:18:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 2, 2011 21:42:32 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 3, 2011 16:19:57 GMT 1
See reply#4 on this thread thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=climate&thread=262&page=1 for a connection between Munich Re and the LSE's Grantham Institute, a scaremongering AGW organisation. Just learned that Munich Re (involved in the Institutional Investment Group on Climate Change) and the source of Susan Watts' information attempting to demonstrate an increase in severe weather by correlating it with insurance payouts, also gave £3 million to the Grantham Institute at the LSE (where Bob Ward, formerly PR man at the Royal Society is now Policy and Communications Director).Judge an organisation by where it places its “charitable donations” ! Munich Re knows which side its climate bread is buttered. Isn't it obvious that for an insurer "the worse, the better"?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 12:53:35 GMT 1
Returning to the Australian theme an Oz commentator, amicus curiae, on WUWT says, wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/“get-carter”-and-his-supporters-part-b/#more-39946"How cold and how early the cold is [Southern Hemisphere's Autumn], is the main conversation round town. Rural people really notice as the lambs die, plants die off. Suburbia's UHI buffers that for city folk."-------------- Just weather, of course!
|
|