Di Baldassarre, G., A. Montanari, H. Lins, D. Koutsoyiannis, L.
Brandimarte, and G. Blöschl (2010), Flood fatalities in Africa: From
diagnosis to mitigation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L22402,
"Based on the results of both continental and at-site analyses, we find
that the magnitude of African floods has not significantly increased
during the Twentieth Century (Figures 2 and 3), and that climate has not
been a consequential factor in the observed increase in flood damage.
This is consistent with the results previously obtained [Kundzewicz et
al., 2005; Bates et al., 2008; Petrow and Merz, 2009; Lins and Slack,
1999; Mudelsee et al., 2003] in different areas, such as North America,
Europe, and Australia."
So if floods haven't increased, the cause of increasing damage must lie
in factors other than climate:
". . . the intensive and unplanned urbanization in Africa and the
related increase of people living in floodplains [Hardoy et al., 2001;
Douglas et al., 2008] has led to an increase in the potential adverse
consequences of floods and, in particular, of the most serious and
irreversible type of consequence, namely the loss of human lives
[Jonkman, 2005]. This can be shown, at the continental scale, by
analyzing the dynamic of African population and the most recent deadly
floods. For instance, Figure 4 shows the spatial distribution of
population growth [Nelson, 2010] and the location of the latest floods,
and deadly floods, in Africa (Dartmouth Flood Observatory, Global
Archive of Large Flood Events, 2010). It can be seen that most of the
recent deadly floods have happened where the population has increased
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
>"Based on the results of both continental and at-site analyses, we find
>that the magnitude of African floods has not significantly increased
>during the Twentieth Century (Figures 2 and 3),
>So if floods haven't increased...
The quotation doesn't say that floods haven't increased. It says they
have not significantly increased.
Splitting hairs to prop up the socialist agenda are we?
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
KTIV NewsChannel 4
Jan 29, 2011 10:56 AM
Akron, Iowa (KTIV) - Just 4 m ago the waters of the Big Sioux were
rising out of their banks in Northwest Iowa.
After all was said and done, the river reached its 4th-highest level in
Akron, Iowa's history.
Now, a new model from the National Weather Service shows folks in 2
communities can expect the river to rise again threatening those record river
Folks in Akron, Iowa aren't surprised to hear the Big Sioux River will likely
see flooding this spring.
"If we need to buy some flood insurance we will otherwise that's about it I
mean we're kind of used to it," David Dirks, Sales Manager of Dirk's Motors in
Akron, Iowa said.
And that's really all they say they can do in Akron to prepare... wait and see.
But in Hawarden, Iowa it's another story. The city built a levy around the
town in the 60s. And they have a flood gate at the end of their creek channel.
"We haven't had a lot of flooding in town since then," Tom Kane, Hawarden
Public Works Director said.
But the National Weather Service released spring flooding predictions this
wk saying the Big Sioux River in Akron has a 98% chance of major flooding,
and in Hawarden a 65% chance.
Both cities say they are ready.
"We haven't sandbagged since probably the levy has been in so but we have them
available but we haven't done it for years," Kane said.
"Just kind of a bad feeling there's not much you can do about it other than
sandbag so..." David Dirks, Sales Manager of Dirk's Motors in Akron, Iowasaid.
City officials also have an eye on rising water tables, especially when the
snow starts to melt.
"It's up real high right now and we keep close track of it in our wells and we
know kind of where it's at and it gets pretty close up to the basements at
times," Kane said.
Flooding is nothing new to either city, it happens every year usually more
than once. But with the National Weather Service predicting a 55% chance of
seeing a record flood; they start to wonder how much of a mess they will have
this time around.
"We had water on our lot across the street that must have been 20 years ago
but its kind of scary," Dirks said.
But for now they'll just have to wait to till the river begins to rise.
[Before the flood:]
The recent Murray Darling run-off since the floods would have provided
enought irrigation water to last at least 15 years.
Instead it has all run out to sea!
Crazy anti-dam greenies!
-- "BONZO"@184.108.40.206 [82 nyms and counting], 12 Nov 2010 14:05 +1100
Weather Batters US Economy
PHOTO: A lone US flag waves over massive piles of debris following an EF5
rated torando that struck Joplin, MO on May 22, 2011.
Irish Weather Online
03:31 pm - Sun 26 June 2011
Everything has its price, even the weather. New research indicates that
routine weather events such as rain and cooler-than-average days can add up to
an annual economic impact of as much as $485 billon (EUR337 billion) in the
The study, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR), found that finance, manufacturing, agriculture and every other sector
of the economy is sensitive to changes in the weather. The impacts can be felt
in every state.
The results, published with co-authors from the University of Colorado at
Boulder, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Stratus Consulting, appear
in this month's issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
The research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), which is
NCAR's sponsor, and by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"From wind-driven wildfires, to the timeliness of airplane take-offs and
landings, to peak demand for electricity in a hot summer, weather affects
every aspect of our lives-and our economy," says Sarah Ruth, program director
in NSF's Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences.
"This research shows that a substantial percentage of the US economy is linked
to variability in weather."
This is the 1st study to apply quantitative economic analysis to estimate the
weather sensitivity of the entire US economy.
"It's clear that our economy isn't weatherproof," says NCAR scientist Jeff
Lazo, the paper's lead author. "Even routine changes in the weather can add up
to substantial impacts on the US economy."
The research could help policymakers determine whether it is worthwhile to
invest in enhanced forecasts and other strategies that could better protect
economic activity from weather impacts.
The authors caution that the study should be viewed as an initial estimate,
which they plan to refine in subsequent research. Lazo and his colleagues did
not calculate additional costs associated with extreme weather events, such as
this year's tornado outbreaks, since data on extreme events were not available
for the time period covered by their economic model. Nor did they evaluate the
possible impacts of climate change, which is expected to lead to more
flooding, heat waves and other costly weather events.
Still, the study concludes that the influence of routine weather variations on
the economy is as much as 3.4% of US gross domestic product. Weather can
affect both demand and supply of various sectors, with complex and sometimes
countervailing influences on the overall economy. A snowstorm, for example,
may disrupt air travel and drive up heating costs while boosting subsequent
attendance at ski resorts. A prolonged dry spell can affect supplies of crops
while enabling construction projects to remain on schedule.
Previous studies looked at weather influences on particular economic sectors
or produced subjective estimates of overall weather impacts. In contrast,
Lazo and his colleagues combined historical economic data with economic
modeling techniques to produce a detailed analysis of the US economy's
sensitivity to temperature and precipitation.
The results indicate that the mining and agriculture sectors are particularly
sensitive. Routine variations in weather may take a toll on the mining
economy of 14% each year, perhaps because of changing demand for oil, gas and
coal. Agriculture ranked second at 12 percent, conceivably because of the
many crops that are affected by temperature and precipitation. Other
sensitive sectors include manufacturing at 8 percent; finance, insurance and
retail at 8 percent; and utilities at 7 percent. In contrast, wholesale trade
at 2 percent, retail trade at 2% and services at 3% were found to be least sensi
The study also concluded that the economy of every state is affected by the
weather. Although the state-level findings were more subject to error than
national findings, the study indicated that New York was most sensitive with a
13.5% impact on the gross state product and Tennessee was least sensitive with
a 2.5% impact. However, sensitivity to weather variation did not seem to
follow a particular geographic pattern, and Lazo says more research will be
needed to determine why the economies of certain states are more affected by
"A key point here is that when aggregated across all 11 sectors, no one part
of the country appears significantly more weather sensitive than another
region in relative terms," the authors wrote in their paper.
The United States as a whole is less sensitive than individual states because
economic production can shift from one region to another, according to the
study. Lazo and his colleagues drew on 70 y of weather records through 2008
from across the contiguous United States.
The researchers focused on variations in temperature (heating-degree days and
cooling-degree days that denote temperatures above or below 65 degrees), total
precipitation and deviation from average precipitation. They also studied
economic indicators for major economic sectors over 24 years, the period for
which detailed state-level data were available and consistent for major
economic sectors. They then conducted a regression analysis, a statistical
technique for comparing multiple variables, to examine the impacts of weather
on 11 non-governmental sectors of the economy in every state.
The team constructed a computer model in which other key variables-labor,
capital and energy-were held constant based on a five-year average. The
researchers produced the estimated range of $485 bn in potential economic
impacts by applying their weather sensitivity findings of 3.4% to the 2008 US
gross domestic product of $14.4 trillion.
As the economy grows, costs of weather variability can be expected to increase a
MYREF: 20110627040002 msg2011062713471
[220 more news items]
"Global warming" refers to the global-average temperature increase
that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more.
-- Dr Roy W. Spencer, "Global Warming", 2008
This is what the real climate scientist Dr Roy Spencer said.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [100 nyms and counting], 3 Mar 2011 16:29 +1100