tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post7634453450988720252..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Uncritical thinking about climate change, from Andy May and WUWT fansSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7938835618485325362016-10-16T00:32:04.390+11:002016-10-16T00:32:04.390+11:00marke does sound like the Keyester, but so do a lo...marke does sound like the Keyester, but so do a lot of AGW-deniers educated beyond their abilities. Maybe they think more syllables per word will make their zombie arguments more convincing.Mal Adaptedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06123525780458234978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74545105931396920222016-10-14T22:11:46.332+11:002016-10-14T22:11:46.332+11:00Sounds like one 'Brad Keyes' (poshy terms ...Sounds like one 'Brad Keyes' (poshy terms like 'de rigeur'). Not interesting, that.<br />Also, I did not write to you or for you. You see, unlike so many other nice people around, I do not run around for trolls. I am sick and tired of debunking the same kind of crap since at least eight years now. I do something else. Accuse and point out, is what I do. You are killing the Barrier Reef, for instance.<br /><br />Your remark tells me the obvious: I hit target. But that is for me routine.<br /><br /><br />cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12600424640477094772016-10-14T15:50:15.645+11:002016-10-14T15:50:15.645+11:00Marke are you a professional idiot or do you just ...Marke are you a professional idiot or do you just try hard.<br /><br />By the way when I was your age the earth's population was barley three billion.<br /><br />I just do not know what you are arguing. Bert<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Bert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6478807910782003762016-10-13T17:33:34.473+11:002016-10-13T17:33:34.473+11:00By the way, thanks for that link. Quite fascinatin...By the way, thanks for that link. Quite fascinating.<br /><br />I've just plotted 'Total Affected' by continent. ('000s per continent)1900 to 2015 and have noted some interesting things:<br /><br />1. Just about no one was affected anywhere before 1964 (comparative to scale)<br />2. Since 1964 Asia contributed about 95% of the 'total affected head count' in despite (currently) having about 60% of the world's population.<br />3. The Americas and Europe barely show at that scale.<br /><br />4. If you leave all continents ticked and switch the plot to "Total Damages (Original Values)" the Americas then become a very significant contributor to the total. <br /><br />markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43414822026041655122016-10-13T17:02:11.627+11:002016-10-13T17:02:11.627+11:00Bernard J.
By 'gambit', you must mean ...Bernard J.<br /><br />By 'gambit', you must mean 'pertinent observation', right?<br /><br />The stable state of the geophysical data is interesting, given the huge population growth over that time. <br /><br />Millicent may have (accidentally) hit the nail on the head. Perhaps a good proportion of that geophysical data applies to Japan, which has had a stable/declining population since the turn of the century. <br /><br />They have had huge issues with urban sprawl in the latter part of the last century, but no doubt that is more of a flood risk than an earthquake risk.markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29544110892807952402016-10-13T16:01:12.241+11:002016-10-13T16:01:12.241+11:00Marke, thank you for your contribution to the stud...Marke, thank you for your contribution to the study of psychological strategies employed by the politically motivated in order not to understand the bleeding obvious. Can it really be that you actually can't understand that you want to believe one thing with regard to climate related events and another with regard to geophysical ones? Surely not? This is pure humbug - well, sophistry - do you imagine any onlooker is persuaded?billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79116130520720365962016-10-13T14:46:42.919+11:002016-10-13T14:46:42.919+11:00"Noting that world population increased from ..."<i>Noting that world population increased from about 4.5 billion in 1980 to about 7 billion in 2014 (a 55% increase) it would seem obvious this would have a significant effect on the total number of structures and people harmed by these events.</i>"<br /><br />No one is saying otherwise: you're engaging in a straw man argument. The issue is whether climate change is increasing the risk to humans by increasing the number and severity of climatic (-> weather) events, independent of human numbers and densities. Your earlier appeal to the use of proportions is another gambit to distract from the facts.<br /><br />For those interested, there's an interactive widget here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.emdat.be/disaster_trends/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.emdat.be/disaster_trends/index.html</a><br /><br />It allows for a range of breakings-down and it indicates, amongst other things, the impact of population growth. It also shows the trend in technological events, and if one toggles it's possible to see how changes in technology are reflected in natural events (both number of disasters and number of deaths). This spilling occurs to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the subgroup of events, and it shows that biological events have been most amenable to improved technology impacts, which would include vaccines, medications, and preventative technologies of a physical nature.<br /><br />And it also strongly suggests that climate change is having a real effect on the number of events - unless one wants to persist with the argument that geophysical disaster events are somehow more detached from human population than are the non-geophysical events...Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59333431246061156522016-10-13T13:50:12.777+11:002016-10-13T13:50:12.777+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45085278258993723912016-10-13T11:56:46.454+11:002016-10-13T11:56:46.454+11:00Noting that world population increased from about ...Noting that world population increased from about 4.5 billion in 1980 to about 7 billion in 2014 (a 55% increase) it would seem obvious this would have a significant effect on the total number of structures and people harmed by these events.<br /><br />Furthermore, in some situations the extent and type of development may exacerbate the problem:<br />Headline (Vietnam): <b>Urban sprawl causes floods</b><br /><br />http://vietnamnews.vn/society/275687/urban-sprawl-causes-floods.html <br /><br />The UN notes the increased risk of development in harm's way:<br /><br />Headline: <b>Unplanned urbanization increasing flood impacts</b><br />https://www.unisdr.org/archive/27965<br /><br /><i>"As the urban sprawl of rapid urbanization expands outwards and upwards, it provides ready opportunities for hazards such as floods, storms and earthquakes to wreak havoc. Half the world's population now lives in urban areas, and that figure is estimated to rise 70% by 2050. That's a lot of vulnerable and exposed people given that urban floods will represent the lion's share of total flood impact because of infrastructure, institutions and processes that are not yet up to the task ahead", warns Wahlström. <br /><br />Wahlström's observations find resonance in a new report just out by the World Bank and the Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction, Cities and Flooding -- A Guide to Integrated Urban Flood Risk Management for the 21st Century, which states that "poorly planned and managed urbanization contributes to the growing flood hazard due to unsuitable land use change. As cities and towns swell and grow outwards to accommodate population increase, large-scale urban expansion often occurs in the form of unplanned development in floodplains, in coastal and inland areas, as well as in other flood prone areas." </i><br /><br />markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4806636221711849172016-10-13T11:42:12.946+11:002016-10-13T11:42:12.946+11:00cRR Kampen:
This is HotWhopper, not some two bit ...cRR Kampen: <br />This is HotWhopper, not some two bit site where you can just throw around casual uneducated abuse!<br /><br />Please note it is absolutely de rigueur that one must <i>define</i> the troll one is referring to. <br /><br />Popular definitions are "tone", or "concern", however, as far as I am concerned, "big nosed, hairy, long-armed, short-legged" is perfectly fine.<br /><br />Other than that, thank you for your content free contribution to the discussion.markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64426435973142606022016-10-13T02:23:33.206+11:002016-10-13T02:23:33.206+11:00"...the important measure to look at is the p..."<i>...the important measure to look at is the proportions of each type of loss, not the total loss.</i>"<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />"<i>Geophysical has fallen to 8% (in 2014) compared to the long term (1980 to 2013)average of 12%.</i>"<br /><br />You're looking at proportions. That's meaningless when speaking about changes absolute frequency, which one should do when considering changes in climatic phenomena. The proportion of geophysical events is decreasing almost entirely because the number of weather-related (directly and indirectly) events is increasing. The number of geophysical events though is relatively stable, <b>even as <i>the total number of events almost triples in the period since 1980</i></b>. That doesn't come out in your spiel about proortions, does it?<br /><br />You're the classic example of a mathturbator.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12648339648078208552016-10-12T22:54:24.178+11:002016-10-12T22:54:24.178+11:00According to Munich Re, "All events were regi...According to Munich Re, "All events were registered that either resulted in direct property damage and/or at least one fatality". That sounds like a metric which should be fairly robust to trends in population and property values.MartinMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12378483250151121375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36587215117948804352016-10-12T21:05:56.788+11:002016-10-12T21:05:56.788+11:00I consider this trolling. And this thread bears it...I consider this trolling. And this thread bears it out again.<br />OTOH back in the years I did see bona fide scientists misread (or NOT read) the graph in the same way. This is shocking. Shows human cognition is not going to save 'the planet' (for all practical, human purposes that is what it's all about: saving the planet, no less).cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6201562141671573152016-10-12T16:51:52.410+11:002016-10-12T16:51:52.410+11:00Taking into account population growth and structur...Taking into account population growth and structural development, the important measure to look at is the proportions of each type of loss, not the total loss.<br /><br />Geophysical has fallen to 8% (in 2014) compared to the long term (1980 to 2013)average of 12%.<br /><br />Hydrological (floods) at 42% were higher than the long term average of 36%.<br /><br />Meteorological (storm) events remained at the long term average of 41%.<br /><br />At 9% the group labelled as climatological (extreme temperature, drought, wildfire)ws very slightly below the long term average. <br /><br />So, we are simply left with more, or more severe rainfall events....<br />..... or, more people and infrastructure in flood plains, and, as another factor, perhaps in some cases, less attention to flood control, dredging etc. <br /><br />...and less geophysical loss events, as already discussed.<br />markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68514692802822998032016-10-12T16:39:06.083+11:002016-10-12T16:39:06.083+11:00Bill, these are loss events which were recorded as...Bill, these are <i>loss events</i> which were recorded as such because they caused damage above a certain dollar value, or caused a certain loss of life. ie: Loss events <i>are</i> related to population and infrastructure.<br /><br />markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5889161711850297632016-10-12T13:07:54.583+11:002016-10-12T13:07:54.583+11:00Um, the loss events are individual events - you kn...Um, the loss events are individual <i>events</i> - you know, drought, flood, earthquake. <i>Losses</i> are what gets affected by infrastucture and population density.<br /><br />So the number of earthquakes loss events is remaining roughly stable, while the number of weather loss events is increasing. How astonishing in a warming world with a more energetic atmosphere containing significantly more water vapour!<br /><br />Why is this hard to understand? Could it be you don't want to?billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11587563125647867662016-10-12T12:21:57.170+11:002016-10-12T12:21:57.170+11:00Bernard,
Just to focus on geophysical events: You...Bernard,<br /><br />Just to focus on geophysical events: You are contending that the number geophysical loss events has remained stable in spite of a growing population and increased infrastructure in vulnerable areas.<br /><br />What would be your explanation for this?markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78564836794455730262016-10-12T01:36:47.859+11:002016-10-12T01:36:47.859+11:00Good news indeed, especially after the recent comm...Good news indeed, especially after the recent comments about exploration in the Bight.<br /><br />Another nail...Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49682842202890519052016-10-11T22:23:28.472+11:002016-10-11T22:23:28.472+11:00Munich Re's professor Dr. Eberhard Faust menti...Munich Re's professor Dr. Eberhard Faust mentions in the analysis (the Climate Change section)<br /><br />"There appears to have been a regime shift around the year 2000. This coincides with a phase shift in Arctic warming: until the end of the 1990s, the rise in temperature in the high latitudes was equal to that throughout the northern hemisphere."<br /><br />is this the "human fingerprint of AGW by the year 2000" that Hanson spoke of in the 80'sTadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39396688552615946422016-10-11T18:21:37.560+11:002016-10-11T18:21:37.560+11:00Bernard: No, but since when has that stopped him?
...Bernard: No, but since when has that stopped him?<br />Millicent: wins todays internets!billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88097543971354306442016-10-11T18:15:39.489+11:002016-10-11T18:15:39.489+11:00BP has pulled out of the Bight! A trifle OT, sure,...BP has pulled out of the Bight! A trifle OT, sure, but great news for both the environment all along Australia's south coast and anyone concerned with curtailing any further expansion of the FF industry! Woohoo!<br /><br />This is a grewat victory more specifcally for the SA branch of the Wilderness Society who've been at this one for a decade, the Mirning people, and more recently for Sea Shepherd.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67049373402777050132016-10-11T17:26:03.531+11:002016-10-11T17:26:03.531+11:00Yes this is why Japan is uninhabited.Yes this is why Japan is uninhabited.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69357201146182108382016-10-11T17:13:20.650+11:002016-10-11T17:13:20.650+11:00So population density hasn't increased in eart...So population density hasn't increased in earthquake, tsunami or volcano zones, but it has <i>outside</i> of these areas? Or it has, only to the point that it is balanced by increased protection offered by technology and management?<br /><br />What then about the non-earthquake, tsunami or volcano zones? Do you understand what you're saying?Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66404996009928945942016-10-11T16:44:07.930+11:002016-10-11T16:44:07.930+11:00Earthquakes, Tsunamis and volcanoes are limited to...Earthquakes, Tsunamis and volcanoes are limited to certain regions.<br /><br />People are careful of what they build there, and in developed areas, utilize construction methods and materials specifically designed to cope with earthquakes. markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37130920102136861932016-10-11T16:08:24.984+11:002016-10-11T16:08:24.984+11:00Marke, what is your explanation for the steady (po...Marke, what is your explanation for the steady (possibly decreasing*) rate of geophysical "loss events" whilst there is an ever-increasing rate for each of the other categories, that are all directly or indirectly related to climate change?<br /><br /><br><br />[*"Decreasing" only in a linear fit sense over the last 20 years - however the difference from steady-state is very likely statistical noise and not of any real-world significance.]Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.com