On Thu Jan 11 05:48:45 2024 Fred Bloggs wrote:
> And these estimates by NOAA are considered conservative.
>
> All the while U.S. is racing to produce as much gas and petroleum as possible. Manmade GHG emissions are increasing. Morons are doing as much as possible to obstruct conversion to renewable energy, defame new technologies, such as cold weather heat pumps, defame EVs.
>
> Democracy is clearly not working, or, maybe it is if you allow for people getting their just deserts as a benefit, some kind of correction as the finance industry describes disaster.
>
> https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/2023?disasters[]=all-disasters

There's at least one report, not peer reviewed yet, that severely criticizes that report. See https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/study-finds-problems-noaas-scientific-integrity-reporting-billion-dollar for one article, I'm sure there are others. Quoting justthenews:

The studys author, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has done extensive research over nearly three decades into the trends of disaster costs over time, which show the trends are actually declining.
Pielkes research normalizes the disaster costs, which means he adjusts for differences in wealth over time. Pielke explains why this is important in an article on his The Honest Broker Substack. If a category 3 hurricane hit Miami Beach in 1926, it would impact far less development than a storm of equal intensity hitting the beach today. Without controlling for these differences, Pielke writes, its impossible to reliably determine trends.
In a preprint released last week, Pielke evaluates the methods NOAA uses to calculate billion-dollar disasters. He finds that the data NOAA publishes lacks transparency that would allow the sources of the data to be verified. This doesnt follow the agencys own guidelines for scientific integrity, the study notes. Likewise, the cost figures are not normalized, which produces misleading results. The agency is also, according to the study, incorrectly attributing the trends to changes in climate over time.

Regards,
Carl

On 12/01/2024 11:01 am, Carl Ijames wrote:
> On Thu Jan 11 05:48:45 2024 Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> And these estimates by NOAA are considered conservative.
>>
>> All the while U.S. is racing to produce as much gas and petroleum as possible. Manmade GHG emissions are increasing. Morons are doing as much as possible to obstruct conversion to renewable energy, defame new technologies, such as cold weather heat pumps, defame EVs.
>>
>> Democracy is clearly not working, or, maybe it is if you allow for people getting their just deserts as a benefit, some kind of correction as the finance industry describes disaster.
>>
>> https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/2023?disasters[]=all-disasters
>
> There's at least one report, not peer reviewed yet, that severely criticizes that report. See https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/study-finds-problems-noaas-scientific-integrity-reporting-billion-dollar for one article, I'm sure there are others. Quoting justthenews:
>
> The studys author, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, has done extensive research over nearly three decades into the trends of disaster costs over time, which show the trends are actually declining.

He's a climate change skeptic. He's not flagrant about it - his
criticisms are carefully couched so that his partisanship isn't obvious,
to maximise his credibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke_Jr.

> Pielkes research normalizes the disaster costs, which means he adjusts for differences in wealth over time. Pielke explains why this is important in an article on his The Honest Broker Substack. If a category 3 hurricane hit Miami Beach in 1926, it would impact far less development than a storm of equal intensity hitting the beach today. Without controlling for these differences, Pielke writes, its impossible to reliably determine trends.
> In a preprint released last week, Pielke evaluates the methods NOAA uses to calculate billion-dollar disasters. He finds that the data NOAA publishes lacks transparency that would allow the sources of the data to be verified. This doesnt follow the agencys own guidelines for scientific integrity, the study notes. Likewise, the cost figures are not normalized, which produces misleading results. The agency is also, according to the study, incorrectly attributing the trends to changes in climate over time.

He's nit-picking. The kind of nit-picking makes you popular with the
fossil carbon extraction industry, but he's careful not to take direct
pay-offs from them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney