A bunch of people weren't killed. You should feel happy.
I'm not a therapist, so I can just tell you the answer.
Were there any reports of confused people that hung around because they were excited to try a Mocha Cyclone?
If the cyclones keep getting stronger, will there still be enough safe zones to move people to?
Economic losses increased b/c economic development increased. Not really a measure of anything else.
The number of extreme weather events increasing is a good measure of the number of extreme weather events.
5: You just assume world economic growth must be at least 7x since 1970?
In constant dollars, it appears to be about 4x.
If the cyclones keep getting stronger, will there still be enough safe zones to move people to?
In this particular region there are some pretty big mountains not too far away.
It is worth keeping in mind for all the bitching people do about weather forecasting, it is really impressive how good the forecasts usually are.
Yes, weather forecasting is really quite good these days. It's an impressive accomplishment for such a complicated system.
@8 Did you just assume that the economic losses were quoted in constant dollars? :)
Also, the relevant comparison is "economic losses in areas affected by extreme weather events." Those areas may have developed faster. For example, the per capita income of India and Bangladesh in nominal dollars is nearly 20 times greater than it was in 1970.
And god only knows how many other confounders.
@8 And i shouldn't have used per capita gdp - since we are not talking about per capita losses. The nominal gdp of india in 2021 is 3.176 trillion. The nominal gdp of india in 1970 is 62 billion. That is a factor of 51.
It is 2018 dollars (p. 8 footnote). I did assume it was before checking, but I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption for an organization in the international governance complex.
The weather is like a box of chocolates. If you want to know what you're going to get, you just need to do some reading.
It might be useful to find the non-linked source for the AP "According to WMO..." claim. From a quick perusal of the WMO website, it's not obvious to me where the source might be, but I'm multitasking.
16: One of the great moments in adapting a novel into a movie -- "bein a idiot is no box of chocolates" turns into "life was like a box of chocolates".
From the pdf, the economic losses are predominantly the US, China, and Europe, pretty much in that order. The US alone is 38% of the global economic losses over the period. Given that the global economy in 2019 was about 5 times the value of the global economy in 1970, a 7 times increase in economic cost is probably due to stupid development decisions in Florida and the Gulf Coast states and China going from an economic backwater to the 2nd largest economy in the world.
So feel better Heebie-Geebie!
Big PDF is holding all of our document formats hostage.
1 is right. We already knew that extreme weather events were going to get more common and worse due to global warming. That's not news. It's news that even in a poorer country, weather forecasting and general infrastructure has improved enough to reduce deaths. It's hard to reduce economic losses because a lot of that stuff is attached to the ground but that's not as important anyway.
More bad weather gives your more data which gives you better prediction.
a lot of that stuff is attached to the ground but that's not as important anyway.
Don't know if there's room for that kind of talk at the leadership retreat. Mange up
Anyway, it's obviously good that fewer people are dying because of improved technology, but this kind of thing reminds me that power differentials will eventually erode the gains from improved technology that are captured by the poorer or weaker.
28 is about prevalence - percentages - and this misses the point that there are far fewer coal miners in the US now than previously, and therefore the absolute number of miners with black lung is much lower than in previous decades. It is worse, in human welfare terms, to have 200,000 miners working in splendidly safe mines with 5% black lung prevalence, than to have 40,000 miners working in terrible highly mechanised unsafe mines with 20% black lung prevalence.
People are being killed by rock dust to increase profitability for owners who, at least the ones who talk publicly, are the biggest shits it is possible to be.