Category: Uncategorized

New list of extreme weather mortality events shows events of the past were worse than today

New list of extreme weather mortality events shows events of the past were worse than today

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Measuring the human impact of weather

WMO issues new records of weather impacts in terms of lives lost

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has announced today world records for the highest reported historical death tolls from tropical cyclones, tornadoes, lightning and hailstorms. It marks the first time the official WMO Archive of Weather and Climate Extremes has broadened its scope from strictly temperature and weather records to address the impacts of specific events.

“In today’s world, it seems like the latest weather disaster is the worst,” said Randy Cerveny, an Arizona State University professor of geographical science and urban planning and chief Rapporteur of Climate and Weather Extremes for WMO. Cerveny is the keeper of the world’s weather extremes.

“Knowing exactly how bad various types of weather have been in the past has been an integral part of preparing for the future,” Cerveny added. “For example, I have often heard since 2005 that Hurricane Katrina was the deadliest tropical cyclone/hurricane to have ever occurred. While Katrina was bad (more than 2,000 died), it pales in comparison to the tropical cyclone that hit the area of present-day Bangladesh in 1970, that killed an estimated 300,000 people.”

“This type of extreme (mortality totals) provides a very useful set of baseline numbers against which future disasters can be compared,” Cerveny said.

“Extreme weather causes serious destruction and major loss of life,” added WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas. “That is one of the reasons behind the WMO’s efforts to improve early warnings of multiple hazards and impact-based forecasting, and to learn lessons gleaned from historical disasters to prevent future ones. The human aspect inherent in extreme events should never be lost.”

Cerveny convened an international WMO committee of 19 experts that conducted an in-depth investigation of documented mortality records for five specific weather-related events. The committee’s findings are:

  • Highest mortality associated with a tropical cyclone, an estimated 300,000 people killed directly as result of the passage of a tropical cyclone through Bangladesh (at time of incident, East Pakistan) on Nov. 12-13, 1970.
  • Highest mortality associated with a tornado, an estimated 1,300 people killed by the April 26, 1989 tornado that destroyed the Manikganj district, Bangladesh.
  • Highest mortality (indirect strike) associated with lightning, 469 people killed in a lightning-caused oil tank fire in Dronka, Egypt, on Nov. 2, 1994.
  • Highest mortality directly associated with a single lightning flash, 21 people killed by a single stroke of lightning in a hut in Manyika Tribal Trust Lands in Zimbabwe (at the time of incident, Rhodesia) on Dec. 23, 1975.
  • Highest mortality associated with a hailstorm, 246 people were killed near Moradabad, India, on April 30, 1888, with hailstones as large as “goose eggs and oranges and cricket balls.”

“These events highlight the deadly tragedies associated with different types of weather,” explained Cerveny. “Detailed knowledge of these historical extremes confirm our continuing responsibilities to not only forecast and monitor weather and climate but to utilize that information to save lives around the world so disasters of these types are lessened or even eliminated in the future.”

Cerveny said more event impacts could be added in the future for such weather-related events as floods and heat waves.

“I think that many people are unaware of exactly how dangerous certain types of weather can be,” Cerveny added. “The more that we are aware of the dangers, hopefully the less likely we will see repeats of these types of disasters.”

A full list of weather and climate extremes is available at the WMO Archive of Weather and Climate Extremes (wmo.asu.edu).

###

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

May 18, 2017 at 04:12AM

1/2000th Shutter Speed

1/2000th Shutter Speed

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O

May 18, 2017 at 03:16AM

Boulder Snow

Boulder Snow

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O

May 18, 2017 at 03:16AM

The Emissions Intensity Con

The Emissions Intensity Con

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://ift.tt/2pKCOvt

 

Jo Nova contrasted some apparently contradictory headlines the other day:

 

In the last day in the media, India is going to use coal as its backbone energy for the next thirty years, is buying coal mines all around the world, and will double production by 2020 to a massive 1,500 million tons per annum. At the same time India is meetings its climate goals early, and is likely to reduce emissions by 2 – 3 billion tons by 2030.

They can’t all be true:

Coal to be India’s energy mainstay for next 30 years: policy paper

–Economic Times, May 16th

China, India dominate coal ownership as some shun climate risks: report

– Reuters, May 15th

Coal Decline In China & India Likely To Reduce Emissions Growth By 2-3 Billion Tonnes By 2030

– Cleantechnica, May 16th

China, India to Reach Climate Goals Years Early, as U.S. Likely to Fall Far Short

-InsideClimateNews, May 16th

The top two headlines are backed by big numbers: India is the worlds third largest coal producer, and coal powers 60% of India’s energy needs. But the poor investors or readers of industry rags might think India’s coal use is falling. Read the fine print.

Lessons in spin:

It’s all in how an issue is framed. The third headline talks about “reductions” from forecast values, meaning theoretical savings of emissions “that might have been, but weren’t”.

The fourth headline tells us that the two massive coal producing nations are “meeting climate targets early” which just shows how pathetic the climate targets are.

If these countries are a “success” what does failure look like?

We have to teach children (adults) how to filter these contradictions.

http://ift.tt/2pKCOvt

 

 

The key clause in India’s climate pledge, the INDC submitted for Paris, is this:

 

image_thumb11

http://ift.tt/2riLNE4

 

And as their plan also stated, emissions intensity has had already dropped by 17% from 2005 levels, when it was written.

As I pointed out at the time, such promises of reducing emissions intensity are meaningless, since that is what naturally happens anyway as economies mature.

And it was not only India which made such commitments. Many other developing countries, not least China, also did the same, rather than agreeing to actual cuts in CO2 emissions.

 

To see just how far emissions intensity can fall, we only have to look at the UK.

 

Since 1965 real GDP, ie with the effect of inflation taken out, has increased from £590bn to £1832bn. Meanwhile emissions have fallen from 687 to 436 million tonnes, much of this drop occurring prior to 2000.

As a result, emissions intensity has fallen steadily, and is now just a fifth of what it was in 1965, with little input from government.

 

image

http://ift.tt/2jzWGdK

http://ift.tt/1RSrHnr

 

There are many reasons for this perfectly natural trend, but they include:

  • As economies mature, most of the growth tends to involve low energy consuming sectors, such as services, government and consumer products.
  • Technology brings higher productivity to industry, in other words getting more out for what you put in. This often means better energy efficiency, but also involves making more efficient use of materials and other inputs. Energy consumption per unit therefore falls both directly and indirectly.
  • Power production itself also becomes much more efficient in its use of fuel.
  • Products also become much more fuel efficient. You only have to look at cars to see that.

 

In short, pledges by developing countries to reduce emissions intensity per unit of GDP are worthless in themselves. And, at the level they have been set, they require little effort to reach them (which of course was the whole point).

Expect many more headlines claiming that they are set to reach their climate goals early.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

May 18, 2017 at 03:15AM