The International Disaster Database

By Paul Homewood

 

Ben Pile’s post  on Nick Stern’s ransom demand mentioned that it included this chart, supposedly showing climate disasters on the increase:

 

 

 

It is based on the International Disaster Database, which I wrote about last year. My post is worth revisiting:

 

 

image

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b093hf8v

 

 

The BBC ran a piece on natural disasters yesterday, which I have to say was a bit more balanced than most of their output on climate change.

It discussed claims that the number of natural disasters has been rapidly increasing in recent decades.

They quoted UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres as saying last week:

The number of natural disasters has nearly quadrupled since 1970.

According to the BBC, similar stories have cropped up across the media, from The Economist to Fox News.

These claims apparently originate from an Oxfam report in 2007, which in turn relied on data from CRED (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters).

To be fair to the BBC programme, it did raise question marks over the consistency of the data over time, but failed to really push this home. As even CRED readily admit, many more disasters get to be reported nowadays for all sorts of reasons. Instead the programme claimed that climate change could also be responsible for some of the increase.

So, let’s look at CRED, and how their data stacks up.

In 2004, they published this report:

 

 

image

http://www.emdat.be/publications

 

It included this comment:

image

 

And continued:

image

image

[EM-DAT,  the Emergency Events Database, was launched by CRED in 1988.]

 

 

Their graph makes all of this abundantly clear:

image

Nobody in their right mind would believe that there were hardly any natural disasters in the first half of the 20thC. Many disasters happened in the past, but which don’t appear in the official stats.

A clue to this is that most of the apparent increase is due to small disasters:

image

image

 

In fact, the criteria for what constitutes a “disaster” is set at a very low level indeed:

image

 

Thousands of such small events would have escaped official notice in the past.

There is one more clue in the 2003 report:

 

image

While the number of reported disasters has remained pretty much flat from disaster agencies and governments, there was a huge increase from specialised agencies in the 1998 – 2000 period, along with a steady increase from insurance companies.

This is clear evidence that the apparent trend is solely due to how the data is collected.

 

 

Now fast forward to their Annual Report for 2006:

 

 

image

http://www.emdat.be/publications?page=5

image

Note that CRED have only been publishing annual stats since 1998. Although the EM-DAT was begun in 1988, it would appear that the data can only replied upon since 1998.

We then find this graph:

image

image

 

So although the number of natural disasters appears to have doubled since 1987, in reality there was a big step change between 1997 and 2000.

Coincidence? I think not.

Again, nobody could seriously be expected to believe that the number of actual disasters suddenly shot up in 1998, and then stayed at that level.

We are entitled to be even more suspicious when we examine the number of victims (deaths plus affected):

image

The linear trend is highly misleading because of the anomalous spike in 2002. In reality, the trend is flat, and certainly does not support the message that the number of disasters is increasing.

 

 

If we look at their most recent report for 2015, we can see that the number of disasters has actually been trending downwards since 2000.

 

image

 

In summary, there is absolutely no evidence that natural disasters have become more common since 1970.

EM-DAT was specifically set up to provide accurate data on disasters, something that has improved as time has gone on. Prior to that, aid agencies and the like were too busy on the ground to bother with collating numbers.

EM-DAT may be a worthwhile exercise, but it should not be used for analysis of long term trends.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/2oPeUvG

September 7, 2018 at 06:12AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: