World Meteorological Organisation Weather Disaster Lies
A recent report by the World Meteorological Organization claims that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of natural disasters over the last 50 years.
According to the WMO Atlas of Mortality and Economic Losses from Weather, Climate and Water Extremes (1970 – 2019), there were more than 11,000 reported disasters attributed to these hazards globally, with just over 2 million deaths and U.S. $ 3.64 trillion in losses.
The report claims that the number of disasters “has increased by a factor of five” since 1970 and that human additions of carbon dioxide are to blame. Referring to this data, WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas stated:
“The number of weather, climate and water extremes are increasing and will become more frequent and severe in many parts of the world as a result of climate change. That means more heatwaves, drought and forest fires such as those we have observed recently in Europe and North America.” He further warned: “The warming of the oceans has affected the frequency and area of existence of the most intense tropical storms.”
The chart used to support their alarming claims of a five-fold increase of disasters is shown below and taken at face value appears alarming.
The claims of increasing numbers of these severe weather events should generate alarm if they were correct. Fortunately for the peoples of the world, the facts fly in the face of the reporting.
The WMO and its authors chose to misrepresent disaster data as gathered by one of the most reputable agencies in the world, the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) in their EM-DAT database.
The WMO based its reporting on the CRED data as shown below and displayed by Our World In Data.
The claims of a five-fold increase in the numbers of disasters appears to be supported by a significant increase in calamities from 1970 until 2000 and a decline over the last twenty or so years. Why the change from increasing disasters over the first 30 years of data and a decline thereafter?
It turns out that the period from 1970 to about 2000 are the years in which CRED was building a data collection system that depends heavily on external reporting. Please note that the title of the WMO chart is “Number of reported disasters,” NOT “number of disasters.”
As reported in an article in Forbes by Michael Shellenberger, Professor Roger Peilke, Jr, examined CREDs data set and what conditions qualified for reporting a natural disaster and found CRED missed many disasters in its early years of disaster detection and gathering.
“In 1962, the EM-DATA data set shows there were just 24 disasters worldwide,” Pielke noted. “In the 1980s there were just three floods reported for the entire continent of Africa.”
These are just two examples of the woefully incomplete recording of disaster data as CRED was beginning its work of data gathering.
That the chart was driven by reporting rather than numbers was confirmed by CO2 Coalition Science Research Journalist Kip Hansen when he first questioned the validity of the data after its publication in 2019.
At the time, he emailed Regina Below, CRED database manager and documentalist, asking her to confirm that the increase in the early period represented an increase in reporting, rather than an increase in actual natural disasters. Her response via email?
“Thank for your e-mail. You are right, it is an increase in reporting.”
In other words, the CRED system’s counts rose as it received reports from more and more sources over the years. Comparing totals from the 1970s with 21st century data is not only inappropriate, but also a blatant misuse of statistics to bolster a pre-ordained conclusion of increasing destruction.
Data from Our World in Data (OWD) confirms long-term trends concerning the declining impact of natural disasters. The OWD reports there has been 92 percent decline in the decadal death toll from natural disasters since its peak in the 1920s.
In that decade, 5.4 million people died from natural disasters. In the 2010s, 400,000 did.
As reported in an earlier Climate Realism article, the decline in deaths from natural disasters over the past century may be even greater than OWD reports.
As meteorologist Anthony Watts wrote, “[a]n update of the graph in the 2020 peer-reviewed article by Bjørn Lomborg: Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies,” shows deaths tied to natural disasters have declined by more than 99 percent.
Graph Lomborg, data The International Disaster Database
Lomborg reports:
“Back in the 1920s, the death count from climate-related disasters was 485,000 on average every year. In the last full decade, 2010-2019, the average was 18,357 dead per year or 96 percent lower. In the first year of the new decade, 2020, the preliminary number of dead was even lower at 8,086 — 98 percent lower than the 1920s average.
But because the world’s population also quadrupled at the same time, the climate-related *death risk* has dropped even faster. The death risk is the probability of you dying in any one year. In the 1920s, it was 243 out of a million people that would die from climate-related disasters.
In the 2010s, the risk was just 2.5 per million people — a drop of 99 percent. Now, in 2020, the preliminary number is 1 per million — 99.6 percent lower.”
This dramatic decline in weather related deaths occurred even as global average temperatures increased by a modest 1.3 degrees Celsius.
Digging deeper into the data, Pielke reports the global cost of natural disasters has also declined as a share of GDP between 1990 and 2020, even as the total costs of natural disasters has increased due to rising wealth.
In a 2020 review of 54 studies over the last 22 years, and published in the field’s leading scientific journal, Pielke found ‘little evidence to support claims that any part of the overall increase in global economic losses documented on climate time scales is attributable to human-caused changes in climate,’” writes Shellenberger reporting on Pielke’s findings.
To restate: The WMO released a “study” claiming climate disasters were increasing based on numbers that the authors knew were misleading at best.
The actual numbers of disasters since proper reporting has been in place show a decline in disasters over the last twenty years, the exact opposite of the hyperbolic claims of the WMO.
The World Meteorological Organization should immediately retract this flawed study and issue a formal statement publicly correcting the record.
See more here: climaterealism.com
Header image: Climate Green Fund
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Allan Shelton
| #
It is my understanding that the WMO was set up by Maurice Strong in order to obtain the data he wanted.
I am sure that those hired were Maurice and AGW supporters,
Does anyone truly believe that the WMO would publish UNTAMPERED data??
Reply
Andy
| #
No of course they wouldn’t, they produce data to support the AGW hypothesis in order to help the globalists take over.
Reply
Alan
| #
The younger generation have been educated to believe that nothing of any relevance happened before 1970. When looking at a graph they haven’t the sense to ask what happened before the start date on the graph. They are also infecting the minds of their parents and grandparents with their modern ideas of science.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alan and other PSI Readers,
I came to my computer this morning pondering how many (what percentage) people born after, say, 1970 have PUMPED UP A SWING STANDING UP??? So this comment is a POLL. Please respond.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Andy
| #
I can’t answer your poll as I’ve no idea what ‘pumped up a swing standing up’ means.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy,
You just answered my poll.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alan,
“The younger generation have been educated to believe that nothing of any relevance happened before 1970.” I would suggest a more accurate statement would be: The younger generation is not being educated about the CRITICALLY IMPORTANT HISTORY which occurred before 1970.
There are SINS of COMMISION and SINS of OMISSION.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alan and other PSI Readers,
This comment is to draw attention to this recent article and what can be read about SCIENCE PROJECTS at their site..I have experiences as both a Physical Scientist and as a Teacher. This comment is to explain the pressures being exerted upon students, parents, and educators by the nameless people involved with Science Projects.
“Since 1998, millions of students, parents, and educators have turned to ScienceProject.com for help with every step of creating a great science project: in selecting and planning projects, in designing experiments, in preparing and presenting them… and, above all, in learning how a science project is really done.” (https://www.scienceprojects.org/why-were-unique/)
I would like to ask these UNIQUE people to simply explain the extreme 40+ft high tide range observed at Bristol UK twice a day for several days leading to the maximum range. And what simple demonstration could be used to illustrate this explanation.
A. Einstein stated: “”If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” But he also cautioned: “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
An observed fact is that ocean tides are observed to be quite different from each other when only a moderate distance from each other. Yet, Newton claimed one of two of his greatest achievements was that he explained the ocean tides. So I ask: What about ocean tides that he did explain about certain sometimes observed tides? The question gives one a BIG CLUE!
And are you aware that Socrates, teacher, only asked his students questions without ever giving his answers to his questions.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Understanding the uplift and low pressure of a storm is the key to working
out the mechanics of the atmosphere. Meteorology offers us a vague,
dumbed down notion: convection. The slightest scrutiny reveals it as a
meaningless word salad of pretend causes and pretend effects. The net
effect of this pretentious rhetoric is to create cognitive dissonance that
brings nitwits to misidentify their deep confusion as deep understanding.
Their delusion is so deep that if they were to be put on the spot and forced
to explain the details of what they claim to deeply understand they could not
formulate even half of a sentence. Convection is just a word that can mean
anything to anybody but that will never mean any one thing to everybody. It
is just rhetorical candy for millions and millions of believer.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,
Welcome back. However, James, who is going to believe you when you deny there is any atmospheric fuel for the atmospheric heat engines which CAUSE (power) the WINDS of THE INTENSE ATMOSPHERIC STORMS which no-one can deny as occurring from TIME TO TIME???
This as you direct your (and our) attentions to these relatively rare very intense storms and ignore the very many, localized and short lived, THUNDER STORMS whose CLOUDS allow us to plainly SEE the VERTICAL CONVECTION occurring each and every time they occur. And why do we term this OBVIOUS VERTICAL CONVECTION–THUNDER STORMS? Because the thunder, which we hear, is produced by the bolts of lighting which we SEE.
One does not need to be a GENIUS to actually SEE and HEAR a THUNDER STORM!!!
However, I do BELIEVE you do UNDERSTAND SOME THINGS that are OCCURRING in the RARE INTENSE ATMOSPHERIC STORMS which OTHERS do not yet SEE (UNDERSTAND). But, we should always BEGIN at THE BEGINNING which occurs everyday!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi James and PSI Readers,
Welcome back. However, James, who is going to believe you
The world is full of loons who believe all kinds of dumbed down crap.
when you deny there is any atmospheric fuel for the atmospheric heat engines which CAUSE (power) the WINDS of THE INTENSE ATMOSPHERIC STORMS which no-one can deny as occurring from TIME TO TIME???
I will never understand why people from your generation employ such blatantly non-scientific language. I can only assume that you are unaware of the degree you are fooling yourself when you ihfer the existence of imaginary engines in the sky and imaginary fuel (water?) to run this imaginary engine.
This as you direct your (and our) attentions to these relatively rare very intense storms and ignore the very many, localized and short lived, THUNDER STORMS whose CLOUDS allow us to plainly SEE the VERTICAL CONVECTION
How many times do I have to explain this to you, you deluded fool. YOU CAN’T, I CAN’T AND NOBODY CAN SEE CONVECTION. All you can fucking see is air going up. The air going up DOES NOT have a fucking label on it that says it was caused by convection.
(Jerry, his has been explained to you over and fucking over again. You never learn. I think you are intellectually incapable of learning.)
My model explains the uplift without an imaginary engine and imaginary gasoline. Vortices are entities that function like the hose on a vacuum cleaner. At higher altitudes, vortices suck in air and shoot it into the flow of the jet stream. Thus my model explains the uplift in storms without inferring the existence of somekind of fucking silly engine. Moreover, this explains how the jet stream maintains its momentum, something your model fails to even address.
Also, my model explains the origins of the structural properties of vortices as being a function of the surface tension properties of H2O being amplified by the shear conditions to thereby produce a water based plasma that is the source of these structural properties that are witnessed in vortices.
occurring each and every time they occur. And why do we term this OBVIOUS VERTICAL CONVECTION–THUNDER STORMS? Because the thunder, which we hear, is produced by the bolts of lighting which we SEE.
One does not need to be a GENIUS to actually SEE and HEAR a THUNDER STORM!!!
One must be a moron to believe they see an engine and fuel.
Streaming (as we see in storms and jetstreams) cannot happen in an atmosphere that is 100% gaseous. It is the liquid water–it’s non-Newtonian capabilities amplified by wind shear–that produces the plasma that is the means by which flow is focussed to produce storms and jet streams.
Your model is nothing but a dumbed down analogy to automobile engines. It’s meaningless pseudoscience
However, I do BELIEVE you do UNDERSTAND SOME THINGS that are OCCURRING in the RARE INTENSE ATMOSPHERIC STORMS which OTHERS do not yet SEE (UNDERSTAND). But, we should always BEGIN at THE BEGINNING which occurs everyday!!!
Jerry, you are completely confused by belief oriented rhetoric that prevents you from thinking clearly.
James McGinn / GENIUS
Meteorology is Inundated with Superstition
https://youtu.be/lMQAhTc0hYk
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
HiJames,
Jupiter seems to have very pronounced jet streams and vortices without any water. ?? ?
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
interesting. Do the vortices emply into (shoot into) the jet stream?
Seems unlikely or even impossible that Jupiter doesn’t have some water. How did they infer/measure/deduce that it doesn’t have water?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
If you look at the images of Jupiter it looks like the vortices come from the bands of wind.
Since the temperature of Jupiter is -234 F there would be no liquid water.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
I’m showing average temp of atmosphere 800 F. IDK.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
What would be heating the atmosphere? Not the sun. Neither-234 F or+800 F would allow for liquid water and hydrogen bonds
Herb
James McGinn
| #
I don’t disagree. It would be somewhere in the middle. Also keep in mind that the pressure is much greater and therefore water would stay liquid at higher temps.
James McGinn
| #
Convection: Based on an analogy to a pot boiling on a stove. It is poorly defined, immeasurable, untested and untestable. It was proposed as a conjecture by Espy, pre civil war, and was accepted by consensus despite never having been tested empirically. It’s underlying theory is wrought with unverified assumptions, like the notion that H2O magically turns gaseous at temperatures far below what has ever been detected in a laboratory.
Dry layer capping: Based on observation of dry layers above flat moist layers. It explanation involves the blatantly stupid assertion that dry layers of gaseous air have structural capabilities. (Meteorologists are especially strict about maintaining the vagueness of this explanation.)
Latent heat: Based on the observation that evaporation produces cooling and the (not unreasonable) assertion that uplift of moist air and resulting condensation produce warming at higher altitudes. But–strangely–this notion is also harnessed to explain the cold gusty winds of storms and lateral flow (“advection). And so, in a desperate bid to explain the energy of storms, meteorologists dramatized latent heat as a kind of magic wand that they then wield to explain all of the remaining drama of storms.
Nothing about Meteorology’s theory on storms doesn’t maintain some degree of blatantly obvious stupidity–thus the reason none of these pretentious believers–virtually all meteorologists–will discuss it.
What is, in my opinion, an even more glaring shortcoming of this convection model of storm theory is what it fails to explain: 1) the spinning motion witnessed in storms, 2) the lateral flow associated with jet streams, and 3) vortices.
Why Meteorology (Storm Theory) is a Cargo Cult Science
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB … 10&t=16613
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
matina
| #
I was diagnosed as HEPATITIS B carrier in 2013 with fibrosis of the
liver already present. I started on antiviral medications which
reduced the viral load initially. After a couple of years the virus
became resistant. I started on HEPATITIS B Herbal treatment from
ULTIMATE LIFE CLINIC (www.ultimatelifeclinic.com) in March, 2020. Their
treatment totally reversed the virus. I did another blood test after
the 6 months long treatment and tested negative to the virus. Amazing
treatment! This treatment is a breakthrough for all HBV carriers.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You just gave me a context for observations which I have been pondering this morning. Thank you, thank you!
“Based on an analogy to a pot boiling on a stove.” Have you actually, starting with a pot of room-temperature water, actually watched and LISTENED, as the water is heated before its temperature reaches the BOILING TEMPERATURE of the water and continued to LISTEN as the water boils??? Now, answer this question: What is one HEARING???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
continued to LISTEN as the water boils??? Now, answer this question: What is one HEARING???
James:
You are hearing bubbles of steam (bubbles of genuinely gaseous H2O).
Now Jerry let me ask you what you are not hearing when that steam rapidly (almost immediately after it breaks the surface) is cooled below the boiling temperature/pressure of H2O.
Since I know you are an evasive POS who won’t answer the question, I will answer it for you now: It fuckin turns back into liquid H2O.
THEREIS NO FUCKING GASEOUS H2O IN EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE:
Deep Dishonesty About Water Has Rendered Meteorology Feckless
https://youtu.be/t38tSlrLoY4
James McGinn / Genius
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
When I boil water in my electric metal ‘tea kettle’ (looked up this correct term, pot is not really correct) I heat a sound well before the water begins to boil with a different sound. And I clearly stated; before the water begins to boil. Now, if I am deaf and blind, how could I tell when the water was boiling and turn the power off?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
You have neglected to answer my question about observations of your tea kettle. When the water comes out of the spout it is an invisible gas. On cooling it turns into visible droplets of water. On further cooling it again disappears then becomes liquid again before freezing. Why would water on cooling go from a gas phase to a liquid phase to a gas phase to a liquid phase to a solid?
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You asked: “Why would water on cooling go from a gas phase to a liquid phase to a gas phase to a liquid phase to a solid?
My answer is that the temperature of the environment’s atmosphere is regularly changing relative to time and location!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Since you are using an electric teapot with its own source of heat this means what ever room in your house (or even outside) where you use the tea pot has large changes in environment and temperature because of the teapot.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Nowhere in my answer do I attempt to explain how, or why, “the temperature of the environment’s atmosphere is regularly changing relative to time and location”
As a SCIENTIST, one must first establish WHAT IS before attempting to explain the HOW OR WHY of WHAT IS.
Newton, in the last page of ‘The Princplpia’ wrote (as translated to English by Andrew Motte): “But, hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities, have no place in experimental philosophy [SCIENCE].”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
You continue to evade. You speak of observations being the foundation of science. This is the observation, the water comes out of the teapot as an invisible gas. It cools and becomes visible liquid droplets. Those droplets then disappear. You maintain that the water again becomes a gas. In order for a liquid to become a gas the kinetic energy of the molecules must increase. If the water droplets are cooling (losing energy) how do they gain energy and convert to a gas?
Have a good day,
Herb
James McGinn
| #
We all grow up believing that the moisture in clear air is gaseous
Most of us have at least enough education to realize the boiling point of water is much higher than that of our ambient environment. And most of us realize that boiling has to do with a phase change from a liquid state of matter to a gaseous state of matter. Most of us reconcile this dichotomy by just not thinking about it. Some of us come up with rationalization to explain it away. But if you are going to do science you can’t fall back on these excuses. You have to see things for what they actually are.
There is no gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere.
Moist air is heavier than dry air.
Moist air convection is impossible.
Meteorology needs another way to explain the power of storms, why storms are wet, and how heavier moist air gets so high in earth’s atmosphere.
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/The-Momentum-of-the-Jet-Stream-is-Maintained-by-Vortice-Activity-e1bp597
James McGinn
Solving Tornadoes
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I know we discussed this before but I will,repeat myself.
The water in the air is rising from the surface to the top of the troposphere therefore moist air may have more mass but it is not heavier, because the upward vector causing it to rise is greater than the downward vector due to gravity.
This is true of the gas molecules also. If it were not for the kinetic energy of the molecules bouncing off the Earth’s surface or other molecules the atmosphere would be the top layer of the Earth. The inertial mass of the molecules going up is greater than the gravitational mass pulling them down.
Vectors have both direction and magnitude and they add (there is no average) geometrically. If there is a force acting on an object going in a horizontal direction the magnitude of the vertical vector decreases. This is why race cars must have an aerodynamic design to force the car down with increasing velocity in order to maintain control and traction with the ground.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Hi James,
I know we discussed this before but I will,repeat myself.
Herb:
The water in the air is rising from the surface to the top of the troposphere
James:
My advice: stop using the word rising. It is not applicable to much of anything that happens in earth’s atmosphere.
Vortices and currents created by vortices are what cause the uplift in earth’s atmosphere, most noticeably in the context of storms. Specifically, moist air is constantly being funneled or even pulled up by vortices–the other end of which are shooting into the jet stream (and are the reason the jet stream maintains its momentum).
Herb:
therefore moist air may have more mass but it is not heavier,
James:
It’s heavier.
There is no reason to be so obsessed with gravity. It is one of many factors.
Listen to this:
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/The-Momentum-of-the-Jet-Stream-is-Maintained-by-Vortice-Activity-e1bp597
James McGinn / Genius
James McGinn
| #
At first you are hearing some of the water boil–the water closer to the heating element.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Are you aware that water, either fresh or salt (ocean, sea) contains dissolved gases like oxygen and carbon dioxide and probably nitrogen also???. Another question: Have you heard, or read about the natural phenomenon of DIFFUSION???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
That’s right. I was the first person to see past this delusion.
Why is Meteorology so stuck on this notion?
Here is the answer:
Meteorology’s Achilles Heal
https://youtu.be/HeCMcVhoqi8
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Hi PSI Readers,
This morning I have observed something which needs to be addressed and right now I want to make it a matter of record and possibly later address this comment as an article.
My weather station reports an air temperature of 29F and a relative humidity of 77%..Which suggests there should be no frost on the vehicle parked along the curb outside of our home. However, there is plainly frost on its roof and sides. And according to my IR Thermometer its roof temperature is about 16F, which if one pointers these measurements, makes sense. For if the relative humidity were a 100? we would expect the measured temperature to be 29F
As you may know, I also point my IR Thermometer upward to measure the temperature of the clear sky and its temperature was neg. 33F. So it easy to explain the frost on the vehicle’s roof because the air’s frost point, at 77% RH and 29F was 21F.
Now, I must be honest and admit that maybe 30 minutes earlier ‘about 21F’ was the measured temperature of the vechile’s roof. So it is good that I need to clear up what have long considered that I understood.
First, it must be understood that IR Thermometer is only measuring the surface temperature of a few atoms (molecules) thick layer. Hence, this temperature can change quickly (depending upon a thin layer of the atmosphere in contact with this thin solid layer of the roof (frost) I have not yet reported that I would ‘judge the atmosphere to be CALM. So as the water molecules in this shallow layer of atmosphere condensed to form more frost, the dew point of the layer decreased, hence the RH of this layer quick decreased below 77%. But only a slight atmosphere breeze would replace the shallow layer with its decreased RH with fresh atmosphere whose RH was again 77%.
One has use one’s imagination to follow that of my imagination. What have proposed is commonly called ‘a mechanism’ to explain that which has actually been observed.
As one considers the nonsense I imagine, please remember that we know (due to the IDEAL GAS LAW that a cubic yard volume of space contains about 6 X 10^23 molecules of gas at the earths surface.outside my home.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply