Climate Change Stats Don’t Account For Inflation
Dear Editor,
Climate scientists use many ways to defend their beliefs. A few years ago, during a bad hurricane season, the number of hurricanes outside “normal” was used as “evidence of global warming.” Averages or “normal” include high and low periods. Fortunately for those living near the coast, the trend didn’t continue. As a result, we haven’t heard much about trends in the number of hurricanes proving global warming. However, we are seeing a growing number of costly weather disasters. According to a recent Scientific American article, a steady increase in the number of weather events exceeding $1 billion is caused by global warming. The argument is that while the number remains the same, the weather is more powerful.
These authors/researchers are too consumed with validating climate fears and bashing “deniers” to consider more logical explanations. As an example, inflation explains why the number of weather events exceeding $1 billion is steadily increasing. The cost of damaged property has steadily increased. Therefore, the number of storms reaching this magic threshold has increased. The exact same 1980 storm causing the exact same damage in 2023 would be more expensive due to inflation. These authors/researchers did not seem to correct for inflation.
Another factor affecting damage costs is population density. Our population continues to grow due to reproduction and immigration. The more people, the more goods. Population increase means more apartments, houses, stoves, televisions, computers, and vehicles destroyed by weather phenomena. Therefore, storms with the same power will cause more expensive damage as the population grows. There is no indication the data was corrected for population.
The author accidentally includes other causes of increased costs. Definitions and calculations have changed. Since damages have been historically underreported, experts recording this data are constantly looking for ways to increase cost identification. However, they seemed oblivious to the effects on the trend. As researchers continue to “improve” data capture, storm damage costs increase. More storms will therefore reach the study threshold. As an example of changing definition, fire damage now includes smoke damage hundreds of miles away. The record used in the analysis began to be compiled in 1980, when smoke damage data wasn’t considered. It is unlikely these new definitions/calculations can be applied retrospectively or removed prospectively. Without a standard definition/consistent calculation, the trend proves they have been successful in improving cost identification not that storms are more damaging.
Alan Burke
Lol, we HAVE heard about hurricanes this season being fed by the rising ocean temperatures…guess you didn’t hear about that watching foxnews.
Checking google only took a minute to find several reputable articles show the rising cost of weather-related disasters adjusted for inflation and population density. Here is one example…
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/calculating-cost-weather-and-climate-disasters#:~:text=The%20total%20costs%20for%20the%20last%20five%20years,in%20the%20chart%20below%20by%20the%20black%20line.
You will note that the article doesn’t bash climate deniers. It simply uses data gathered via the scientific method to build out a theory that can be validated or invalidated by others who believe in the scientific method and have the proper skills in data anlysis…(that excludes most climate change deniers).
You are very must like most climate change deniers. You offer no differing findings from alternative data analysis and only offer speculative (and most likely unqualified) criticism.
Let’s leave science to the scientists.
“Let’s leave science to the scientists”.
Little Chris believes that we really mustn’t think for ourselves because we are not “experts”. We must simply accept what we are told to believe, and swallow it hook, line and sinker.
Like him.
Well yes. I don’t operate on myself because an expert can do a far better job. And here, climate is a complex system that is difficult to model. Thankfully science has a check and balance system referred to as peer review.
But we understand you beleive demwormer is a.good anti viral treatment because ‘some guy’ says so online. (They guy died taking the drug amd you still beleive him…lol)
You be you.
I bet there’s one operation you perform on yourself… onanist.
And Joey has let some 7 plus million illegals take up residence. Guess we are in a hell of a mess with winter coming and all these ” extra” people.
Climate researchers make a great living $$$ by exaggerating global warming, especially if they connect extreme weather events to global warming as “the sky is falling.” Just like when a psychiatrist says you
need more therapy. It’s how they make their living.
Climate panic predictors have taken on many forms in the last 50 years, and they’ve all been wrong. The only constant is the ability of climate activists to change the rules and their guesstimates after every missed prediction. Just research Al Gore’s prophecies if you want a good laugh.
Scientific American is obviously right. I’m sure there has been ” a steady increase in the number of weather events exceeding $1 Billion”. All the million Dollar McMansions that have been built on the beach over the last 50 years are just asking to be destroyed. But in 1973 the storm would only rearrange the sand.
So even if the weather cooled, there would be greater financial damage now than then.
Conclusion.. –
“Climate Change” is a conspiracy theory.
Global warming activists believe they can adjust the climate and weather to reduce global warming.
Congress mandated a study on blocking sunlight from hitting the Earth’s surface as a solution to limit global warming, known as “solar radiation modification” or “solar geoengineering.”
The White House is currently coordinating a plan to study ways of modifying sunlight that reaches the Earth. Yes, let’s leave science to the scientist, like the good folks in the White House.
Technologies considered are injecting the atmosphere with an aerosol like sulfur dioxide and marine-cloud brightening.
But how would reducing sunlight affect the globe, change the ozone layer, upset weather patterns, change the oceans, increase plant die-offs, affect solar energy, moral issues, etc.?
The global warming activists have proven there is no limit to their idiocy.
The oceans are rapidly warming. In my opinion, global warming is happening now, faster & faster. Temps up to 60 & 70 degrees are recorded throughout the Arctic, Greenland & Northern Siberia included. India & China are the worst polluters.
Ready to move to Labrador or Tierra del Fuego?
After WWII, the population of the earth was less than 2 billion, now it is almost 8 billion. There are too many people polluting the planet. Any solution to that one? Band-Aids like EVs & wind do not save the planet, or make it better at this time.
Don’t worry Miller, Klaus Schwab and his buddies are working on the next pandemic. And that one will have teeth.