Asia faces climate-induced migration 'crisis'

Feb 06, 2011 by Martin Abbugao
Pakistanis displaced by floods line up for water at a makeshift tent camp on the outskirts of Karachi, in September 2010. Asia must prepare for millions of people to flee their homes to safer havens within countries and across borders as weather patterns become more extreme, the Asian Development Bank warns.

Asia must prepare for millions of people to flee their homes to safer havens within countries and across borders as weather patterns become more extreme, the Asian Development Bank warns.

A draft of an ADB report obtained by AFP over the weekend and confirmed by bank officials cautioned that failure to make preparations now for vast movements of people could lead to "humanitarian crises" in the coming decades.

Governments are currently focused on mitigating climate change blamed for the weather changes, but the report said they should start laying down policies and mechanisms to deal with the projected population shifts.

"What is clear is that Asia and the Pacific will be amongst the global regions most affected by the impacts of climate change," said the report entitled "Climate Change and Migration in Asia and the Pacific".

"Such impacts include significant temperature increases, changing , greater monsoon variability, sea-level rise, floods and more intense tropical cyclones," it said.

An aerial photo taken on February 3, shows the aftermath of Cyclone Yasi at the Hinchinbrook Marina, Australia. Asia must prepare for millions of people to flee their homes to safer havens within countries and across borders as weather patterns become more extreme, the Asian Development Bank warns.

The report, expected to be released in the next few weeks, comes as flooding overwhelms parts of Asia-Pacific, most recently in Australia, where a powerful cyclone worsened the impact of weeks of record inundations.

"Asia and the Pacific is particularly vulnerable because of its high degree of exposure to environmental risks and high population density. As a result, it could experience population displacements of unprecedented scale in the next decades," said the report, primarily targeted at regional policymakers.

Research carried out for the United Nations showed that 2010 was one of the worst years on record worldwide for .

Asians accounted for 89 percent of the 207 million people affected by disasters globally last year, according to the Belgium-based Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED).

Summer floods and landslides in China caused an estimated $18 billion dollars in damage, while floods in Pakistan cost $9.5 billion dollars, CRED's annual study showed. Not to mention the catastrophic human cost.

"Governments are not prepared and that is why ADB is conducting this project," said Bart Edes, director of the Manila-based lending institution's poverty reduction, gender and social development division.

"There is no international cooperation mechanism established to manage climate-induced migration. Protection and assistance schemes to help manage that flow is opaque, poorly coordinated and scattered," he told AFP.

"Policymakers need to take action now," he stressed, noting that negotiating treaties and efforts to raise funds takes time.

This photo, taken in August 2010, shows an aerial view of Zhouqu county after a deadly flood-triggered landslide in northwest China's Gansu province. Summer floods and landslides in China last year caused an estimated $18 billion dollars in damage.

Last year's natural disasters in the Asia-Pacific, including millions of people displaced in Sri Lanka and the Philippines, "give us a flavour of what to expect in the future", said Edes.

"Migration in general is not being properly addressed and the situation is going be made worse," added Edes, referring to the additional impact of climate change on migration patterns, fuelled by economic needs and armed conflicts.

"Now we have another driver of migration."

The draft ADB report said the people forced to leave due to the extreme weather changes "have come to incarnate the human face of " and while many of them will return home, many will be displaced permanently.

Those expected to suffer the most will be the poor as they lack the means to easily pack up and leave for safer havens, the report said.

"The issue of climate-induced migration will grow in magnitude and will take different forms," the report added, urging national governments and the global community to "urgently address this issue in a proactive manner."

"Failure to do so could result in humanitarian crises with great social and economic costs," it warned.

Explore further: More management needed for Rottnest marine debris

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN: Growth of slums boosting natural disaster risk

May 17, 2009

(AP) -- The rampant growth of urban slums around the world and weather extremes linked to climate change have sharply increased the risks from "megadisasters" such as devastating floods and cyclones, a U.N. ...

UN warns of 'megadisasters' linked to climate change

Jun 17, 2009

The United Nations on Tuesday raised the prospect of "megadisasters" affecting millions of people in some of the world's biggest cities unless more is done to heed the threat of climate change.

UN sketches countries with climate risk profile

Jun 11, 2009

Disasters caused by climate change will inflict the highest losses in poor countries with weak governments that have dashed for growth and failed to shield populations which settle in exposed areas, a UN report ...

Study: SE Asia will be hit hard by climate change

Apr 27, 2009

(AP) -- Southeast Asia will be hit particularly hard by climate change, causing the region's agriculture-dependent economies to contract by as much as 6.7 percent annually by the end of the century, according ...

Climate change could drive vast human migrations

Jun 10, 2009

By mid-century, people may be fleeing rising seas, droughts, floods and other effects of changing climate, in migrations that could vastly exceed the scope of anything before, says a major new report. The ...

Environmental exodus

Nov 26, 2007

Climate change is the largest environmental change expected this century. It is likely to intensify droughts, storms and floods, which will undoubtedly lead to environmental migrations and potential conflicts in the areas ...

Recommended for you

New Marine Protected Area proposed for Myanmar

1 hour ago

The proposed establishment of a new Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the Myeik archipelago has received enthusiastic support by participants in a workshop held recently in Myanmar's Tanintharyi region.

Beijing's focus on coal lost in haze of smog

6 hours ago

The soaring, grimy chimneys of the coal-fired power station have belched the last of their choking fumes into Beijing's air, authorities say—but experts doubt the plan will ease the capital's smog.

User comments : 43

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Quantum_Conundrum
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 06, 2011
floods and more intense tropical cyclones," it said.


Uh huh, wanna bet?

wunderground.com/hurricane/deadlyworld.asp

Only 11 of the 31 most deadly cyclones in world history happened in the past 110 years. By the time you figure most of the world population increase(75%) occured in the past 110 years, this number 11 is almost certainly statistically below average of what you would expect for massive loss of life, given the other 21 storms and their locations. Particularly since many of the most deadly storms hit the exact same areas over and over...which makes you wonder how they repopulated that fast only to be killed again...

These data prove the Bay of Bengal has never been a safe region for human habitation. After seeing those statistics going back 426 years, only a lunatic would choose to live there...

AGW alarmists are morons.

Read a history book. This stuff is nothing new.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 06, 2011
Since global population is 4 to 6 times greater and additionally far, far more people live on the coast and in cities, you would expect death tolls to be at least 4 to 6 times greater in the 20th century compared to the 19th even if no GW was occuring at all.

You would expect death tolls in the 1700s to be half the 1800s, and in the 1600s to be half the 1700s, if no GW happened at all...yet 6 of the ten worst (numbers 2 through 7,) happened before 1900.

Statistically, all 30 of the worst should be since 1900, even if no GW happened. Modern meteorology, and later satellites, have helped alleviate much of these death tolls.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 06, 2011
I wonder what the death toll from 2005 atlantic hurricane season would be if there was no satellites and no radio and no modern NHC?

Anyone want to take numbers?

Katrina, Wilma, Rita, Dennis, Emily...

Right there might get to a million or more in US, Mexico and the Caribbean...maybe 2 or 3 million...

Little or no satellite warning, nobody boards up, nobody leaves town...NOLA floods and kills 500k in one day, not counting Slidell,LA and Mississippi towns and the surrounding regions...Heck special K might have killed over a million without satellites and television...people would have just woke up that morning with 15ft of water in their house...well, actually they wouldn't have woke up...
Quantum_Conundrum
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 06, 2011
Volcanic winters, droughts, earthquakes, and tsunamis cause more death than storms. three of the 4 basicly can't even be prevented.

Droughts at least can be prevented through modern technological means through desalination and irrigation.
sams
3.4 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2011
Reposting this to get past the "spam" filter:

How "deadly" these events is is largely a matter of where they hit, and the nature and preparedness of the areas they hit. This measure is way too fuzzy to indicate correlations with climate change. More interesting are the fairly consistent observations like this:

"Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger on average, with a 30-year trend that has been related to an increase in ocean temperatures over the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere" [The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones, James B. Elsner et al, Nature 455, 92-95 (4 September 2008)]

There are easy to find papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals that show trends such as a 70% increase increase in the total amount of energy dissipated by cyclones etc. over the past few decades.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2011
The data is biased by our better detection.

We can classify a category five storm within about an hour of it reaching 156 sustained, through microwave, radar, infrared, visible, and endless lines of buoys and UAVs.

the zeros was the most active cat 5 decade, with 25 percent of all cat 5 on record.

the 1960's was the second most active with ~19 percent of all cat 5 on record...yet world population was half, and world energy consumption was 1/3rd what it is now, and they hadn't experienced the alleged cumulative "Keeling curve" warming of the 70s, 80s, or 90s which supposedly contributed to the "evil" zeros...explain that one...

Before 1924, there were probably countless cat 5, just nobody would know the diffrence between 155mph and 170mph anyway, as either storm would annihilate almost anything built then anyway.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2011
Also, in modern "ACE" and "IKE" intensity indexes are also biased towards making modern storms look worse than historical storms, because again, we have more sensitive instruments, such as ASCAT and other satellites and radars, which can often single-handedly measure the entire extent of a hurricane accurate to within a half kilometer or so for each respective wind force radius, and measure wave action from space accurate to within a half foot.

100 years ago people didn't have that. A storm hit, killed everybody, and then within a few generations everyone except the historians forgot it even happened. About the only thing remembered is, "There was a badass storm that killed everybody on such and such a day/year. Yup, that was the day we lost a whole territory/province;" particularly in places like the Bay of Bengal...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2011
"Asia must prepare for millions of people to flee their homes to safer havens within countries and across borders as weather patterns become more extreme" -This will happen, and is already happening at any rate as religionist population growth causes strife, persecution of minorities, and conflict:
http
://m.timesofindia.com/india/Huge-spike-in-illegal-Indian-traffic-to-US-via-Mexico/articleshow/7440241.cms

-Strange influx of Sikhs to the US across the mex border illegally. Just one of many examples. This is happening all over the globe as excess peoples flee north.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2011
Come to think of it, there were ZERO category 5 hurricanes in the past 3 years, and 15 category 4 hurricanes in the past 10 years.

So this is well above the long term average for what is RECORDED, but again, records are biased by the satellite and radar era.

The 40's and 60's also had a high number of cat 4 storms with 8 each. The long term average is 6 per decade. No satellite before Camille

The 50's had 9 category 4 storms...that we know of...no satellite

The 20's had 7...that we know of...no satellites or radar.

See how false the AGW claims are? They probably had just as many storms as we have, they just didn't detect them all because some were at sea. Probably as many as 1 or 2 hurricanes per year would have gone un-noticed before the satellite era. Of these, 1 or 2 per decade might have been a category 4 or 5 at some point...
Quantum_Conundrum
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2011
Let's look at some other facts:

The three strongest landfalling atlantic systems are, in this order:

Labor Day 1935 (lf 892mb...30mb below Katrina)
Gilbert 1988 900mb ( 2mb below K peak intensity)
Camille 1969 905mb

Note that Labor Day and Gilbert landfell as more intense than Katrina ever became. Note that Labor Day landfell almost as strong Wilma's peak intensity over open water.

Note that Camille landfell more intense than any storm ever became over open water, except six storms, including labor day and gilbert.

The strongest landfall on record was 75 years ago, and the third strongest landfall on record was 41 years ago...

What we can take from this is the fact that there is no correlation between the Keeling Curve and the number of hurricanes nor their landfall intensity.
sams
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2011
"The data is biased by our better detection."

Oh wow, I bet they didn't think of checking that (not). If you want to write a paper disputing the large body of evidence, then probably best to go to a climate science journal, not a comments sections of a news site, eh?
Quantum_Conundrum
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2011
"The data is biased by our better detection."

Oh wow, I bet they didn't think of checking that (not).


Actually, they do, but they "conveniently" rarely, if ever, mention such things in their "findings", that is, unless you directly confront them about it.

The other thing this article conveniently doesn't mention is the fact that hurricane experts actually predict, as did I, that global warming would actually DECREASE the number of hurricanes, due to increased wind shear and certain thermodynamic issues.

While it's popular for "climate change" alarmists to blame bad hurricanes on GW, anyone who has read a few leading papers on thermodynamics and hurricane intensity and how this works, knows that GW would in no way increase the average power of hurricanes. It may even decrease the average power. The increased shear would destroy many storms or weaken them more than average.

Try learning something from someone who doesn't have an agenda.
soulman
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2011
QC is working himself up in a lather at cyclonic speeds!
Quantum_Conundrum
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2011
I just kinda get sick of the AGW idiots coming out in force.
sams
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2011
"Try learning something from someone who doesn't have an agenda."

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the incredible theory that all of the climate scientists, science institutions and political parties in the developed the world have miraculously joined together to form one massive global conspiracy. That is simply ridiculous tin foil hat stuff.

"anyone who has read a few leading papers on thermodynamics and hurricane intensity and how this works, knows that GW would in no way increase the average power of hurricanes"

The actual real climate scientists disagree with you there, sorry. As a PhD holding physicist myself, I tend to side with them . The fact that you try to lay down you argument here instead of a peer-reviewed climate science journal tells me that you wouldn't possibly want your your scrapbook of factoids cobbled together from shady websites and a vast array of apocrypha from ever reaching the scrutiny of those scientists with any expertise in this field.
Quantum_Conundrum
2 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2011
sams:

My data came from well established public domain, such as the actual facts from the NHC, wikipedia, and leading weather sites.

If you like, you can try contacting someone like Dr. Jeff Masters or Dr. Kerry Emanuel or even Steve Lyons, because last I heard, which was about 6 months ago, the consensus between them was that if GW is real, it would most certainly cause increased wind shear, which would decrease the number of hurricanes.

Hurricanes intensity is based off the DIFFERENCE between surface temperature and cloud tops, which means that if the ATMOSPHERE heats up, the maximum potential intensity of hurricanes goes DOWN, not up. The maximum intensity is limited by how cold the top of the troposphere gets even much more so than surface temperatures.

You can find the formula here:

wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/holem/holem.html

Save link. The site is a bit buggy when you are trying to back up...make sure you read it all and check the figures.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2011
So if the top of the trophosphere was to heat up by a few degrees celcius, then the maximum potential intensity of hurricanes goes down by about 5 to 10m/s, or more, depending on exactly where you are in the SST axis.

The tropopause is at minus 100 celsius.

But a greenhouse effect traps heat in the ATMOSPHERE from the top down, like in a...yeah...greenhouse... and NOT from the "surface up".

So GW would actually tend to heat upper layers of the troposphere more than the surface layers or oceans, both because heat rises anyway, and because greenhouse effect is in the air, not the water, and because it's far easier to heat -100C air than it is to heat +28C water anyway, specific heat capacity being 4 times smaller and all...

So basicly your peak intensities go down significantly when atmospheric (upper troposphere) temperatures go up.

Sorry, this is the leading expert's data. Hell, he even programmed some of the models the NHC uses...

Learn something new every day, maybe
Quantum_Conundrum
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2011
So for example, in the case of Wilma, the reason Wilma became so powerful in October was NOT due to hoter than average oceans.

It was because the upper troposphere was COLDER than average, combined with ridiculously low shear, which made the "cold reservoir" much more efficient as the storm was forming.

When you look at infrared, the brighter the clouds the COLDER they are, which means they are either higher up, or the atmosphere itself is just colder, which happens. With Wilma, it so happened to be that the surface low hit this anomaly under all the right conditions, and it exploded in power.

It would be like comparing a liquid CO2 refrigerant vs water cooling or something. When it hit these abnormally cold troposphere, it went nuts.
sams
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2011
"My data came from well established public domain" LOL

Drop the strawman about frequency. At no stage did I say that the number of hurricanes increased, and nor does the article for that matter. It says "more intense tropical cyclones" which agrees with every peer-reviewed climate journal paper I have read on the topic (even Emanuel's).
sams
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2011
"Learn something new every day, maybe"

Yeah, sure, because people flock to comments sections to learn science (or factoid/pseudo-science in this case).
ekim
4.5 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2011
I just kinda get sick of the AGW idiots coming out in force.

You do realize your the one "coming out in force". You have 13 posts on this story in the last 10 hours. There are only 5 posts, not including this one, that aren't yours.
scidog
2.4 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2011
maybe they are getting ready for this.check out the posts about the new and as yet unpopulated cities in China,high rise apartments,roads,public buildings and just a few car parked outside what are thought to be goverment offices.the tinfoil hat gang thinks they are for pre/post atomic war resettlement.climate induced migration seems to be a
real world answer.photos are via Google Earth.
Moebius
3.3 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2011
I just kinda get sick of the AGW idiots coming out in force.


QC, I hope you are young enough to live long enough to see how wrong you are, which will be in about 30 years considering how sadly misinformed you are. Your facts may be right but your conclusions aren't.

Truly intelligent people already know the truth. We are overpopulated by about 5 billion people for long term survival of the race. The title of this article is almost correct but it isn't climate, that is just a symptom. Overpopulation is going to be the cause and will cause migration due to lack of food, drought, rising sea level and climate change. All brought about by there being too many people for the ecosystem to handle. Want to see the future as it will be and as it could be? Compare Haiti to the Dominican Republic for a rough analogy. They occupy 2 halves of the same island. Haiti has denuded their half due to overpopulation and caused all the problems the planets overpopulation will cause eventually.
Paljor
not rated yet Feb 07, 2011
But of course people get SOOOO funny about population control.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2011
Population is a function of technology. With fusion, and mature nanotechnology this planet could sustain an arbitrarily large number of human beings. 15 trillion would be no problem.

"Overpopulation" is the biggest envirowacko red-herring there is...including "climate change".
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2011
It says "more intense tropical cyclones" which agrees with every peer-reviewed climate journal paper I have read on the topic


Okay try the following sources. Just google the phrases I give you and take the first real link (not the google link to another search for scholarly articles):

The first is from Florida State University. Note 2010 is a record low since satellite records began:

Global Tropical Cyclone Activity Dr. Ryan N. Maue

This one is from MIT, but it is a little dated and does not have data from the past 3 years. Note the conclusion that the data and models do not show enough evidence to draw any statistically significant conclusions:

Anthropogenic Effects on Tropical Cyclone Activity

Finally, this page from NOAA shows conflicting results, but with a slight leaning towards an increase in storms. Once again, they find that more study is needed:

Global Warming and Hurricanes An Overview of Current Research Results

Hard to draw conclusions.
GSwift7
1.5 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2011
One thing I've noticed is that it's hard to say if we are seeing trends or just noise in the data because our records are so short. Another thing that's clear is that the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans are not affected in the same ways, so regionally, one area may increase and another decrease. Only about 10-15% of tropical storms are in the Atlantic, so the Pacific activity is a much larger contributor to global averages. The ENSO cycles creates a lot of noise in the Pacific data on long time scales compared to the length of our records, though a direct link is not statistically certain. I would say the smart stance is to wait and see, but have plans in place in the case that Asia will see more storms. They already are ill prepared for the weather they have had for the past century, as they have one disaster after another. It's in our best interest here in the US to try to help in that regard, as our economy continues to become more global. That just seems like common sense to me
co2good
1.3 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2011
How PhysOrg.com, supposedly a science news source, can link to this ADB rubbish is beyond me. I do look forward to reading the actual report to see if it has references supporting its claims.
Moebius
3 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2011
Population is a function of technology. With fusion, and mature nanotechnology this planet could sustain an arbitrarily large number of human beings. 15 trillion would be no problem.

"Overpopulation" is the biggest envirowacko red-herring there is...including "climate change".


This comment is so ignorant it doesn't even merit a rebuttal. Do you live under a rock? Probably not, you would have noticed species disappearing even there.
Quantum_Conundrum
3 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2011
Dr. Jeff Masters was a hurricane hunter for 8 years and is one of the leading experts on hurricanes.

Dr. Kerry Emanuel wrote the book on hurricane intensity, and the intensity models...

The reason I had more posts is because I needed more space to write in because I used FACTS, including links to real experts peer reviewed papers, instead of the bullshit comments other people made.

It is a fact that hurricanes require COLDER cloud tops to intensify. Warming the upper troposphere, which is what GW would do, will WEAKEN hurricanes.

If we were seeing a Wilma or a "Labor Day" every year you people would have an argument.

There has been one t-7.5 in the Atlantic since Wilma, and no t-8 since Wilma. The last t-8 before 2005 was Gilbert, and there have never been any other t-8 hurricanes in the atlantic on record, based on pressure. Though pressure estimates based on dvorak technique can be off by a margin of plus or minus ten to fifteen millibars...
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2011
This comment is so ignorant it doesn't even merit a rebuttal. Do you live under a rock? Probably not, you would have noticed species disappearing even there.


You're right about the species disappearing, I did not consider this in my original comment.

However population is a function of technology, that was the main point I was making.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2011
Since there was nobody flying inside of Wilma for about a 12 hour period during it's peak, it's peak intensity is an estimate based on satellite data. The pressure could have been off and it may have "only" been a t7.5...on the other hand, it could have just as well been off the other way, being the equivalent of an t8.5.

Wilma made landfall as a t-6.5, category 4 hurricane. However, the labor day hurricane and Camille made landfall as a t7.5, while Andrew, Felix, and Dean made landfalls as t-7.0 storms..."barely" category 5...However the info on Labor Day is spliting hairs, because that pressure was only missing t-8 by 2 millibars...on land...so it may have been stronger over water...

There are 7 t-7.5 on record in the atlantic, and half of them happened at least 30 years ago: 31, 42, 76 years.
Moebius
3.8 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2011
This comment is so ignorant it doesn't even merit a rebuttal. Do you live under a rock? Probably not, you would have noticed species disappearing even there.


You're right about the species disappearing, I did not consider this in my original comment.

However population is a function of technology, that was the main point I was making.


And you may be right on a technical level but I am talking about long term survival of our species with a quality of life that is better than a hive civilization. To have as many people as we have now means crowding out almost every other species that we don't derive a direct benefit from, and that isn't many. Let alone 10 billion or more like the idiot economists say we can do. We were given a paradise. What's more I believe we CAN"T survive without most of the current species diversity. Call it Gaia, call it mother nature, I just know deep down that we won't outlive other species for very long if we destroy them all.
GSwift7
1.9 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2011
What's more I believe we CAN"T survive without most of the current species diversity. Call it Gaia, call it mother nature, I just know deep down that we won't outlive other species for very long if we destroy them all


I don't agree with that at all. That's just rediculous fearmongering, and I challenge you to support it with any kind of evidence. You are letting your emotions override reason and evidence to the contrary. It was once feared that the Gray Wolf and Mountain Lion would both be driven to extinction by human expansion. Unfortunately, the wolf is so numerous now that they are spreading into new areas and mixing with urban areas that have never been part of their range. Mountian lions repopulated unbeknownst to wildlife experts all the way to Kansas City, and several have been photographed by traffic cams in recent years there. The DNR at first denied the claims, but they now estimate a sustainable population there. Imagine that. They didn't even know. Always be open
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2011
QC,
Only 11 of the 31 most deadly cyclones in world history happened in the past 110 years.

You do realize that this has much more to do with building codes than with storm intensity, right?

If you don't think so, compare the Chilean quake with the Haitian quake and tell me why Haiti had many magnitudes more casualties.

Basically, you're comparing infant mortality from the 1600's to infant mortality today and assuming that since the population is larger, more children should die at birth. No where do you take into account any of the technological and social advances that specifically counteract the deathtoll of natural events.
BrianH
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2011
This comment is so ign***** it doesn't even merit a rebuttal. Do you live under a rock? Probably not, you would have noticed species disappearing even there.


You're right about the species disappearing, I did not consider this in my original comment.

However population is a function of technology, that was the main point I was making.

Actually, he's wrong about that, too. The disappearances are almost entirely within "Ecologists'" computer models.

The current population of Earth could be entirely housed in families/groups of 4 on 4300 sq' lots in Texas.
IAC, the most accurate UN Population Projection tool, the lowest edge of the lowest band of their models, indicates pop. will peak at under 8Bn by 2030. And then decline slowly.
overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth#FAQ1

Oops!
GSwift7
2 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2011
I did a term paper on overpopulation back in the late 80's. I used all the most current research material and projections of the time. The projections were stark and dire. National Geographic had a whole issue on the subject, as did Time. There were peer reviewed studies published in major journals. They were all wrong. Turned out to be a money grab by the UN, and it worked. Now they are doing the same thing with climate change. Turns out that when you offer millions for research, you'll get the results you want, or rather you won't get any results that are contrary when you don't offer any money for contrary studies. We are so gullible. Did you know that the word 'gullible' isn't in the American English Dictionary? Look it up!! (my ex wife actually did. lol)
Moebius
3.2 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2011
Gswift7, almost every species of animal and many plants depend on other animals and plants for survival. Sooner or later the fabric of the ecology, which is getting more torn and tattered every day, will fall apart. How much common sense does it take to figure out that there aren't enough self-sufficient species to keep this planet functioning, let alone us, if we kill the species that was the straw that breaks the ecology's back? Forget the land, just what we are doing to the ocean is enough to do us in. You are short sighted and a fool to think we can keep kicking this planet and expect it to not kick back, there's a reaction for every action. Even more foolish if you think we aren't kicking it, real hard. The human race can't survive fools like you, at least not as a technological civilization.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2011
Sooner or later the fabric of the ecology, which is getting more torn and tattered every day, will fall apart

You are short sighted and a fool to think we can keep kicking this planet and expect it to not kick back, there's a reaction for every action


Ah, now I see where you are coming from. You are one of those people who think anything humans do is bad, and that if something is ugly or smells bad, then it's bad for this concept you call 'nature', which is seperate and opposed to 'humanity'. You made several wild claims in your post. In stead of arguing with you, I will simply say that you have an extreme view of things and that you are way outside the mainstream scientific view and public opinion. I will politely disagree with your view, and you can continue to believe what makes you feel better. I would suggest that you go for a drive in the mountains sometime though, or take a boat out of view of the coast and look around. Walk the Appallacian trail sometime. Open mind
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2011
My girlfriend has a view similar to yours, especially in regard to animals. She has this disneyland view that animals are 'good' and that only humans have the capacity to do 'bad'. When she starts to get preachy, sometimes I'll point out something about nature that she ignores. Usually something in her back yard, as an example. She's learned that she has an unrealistic view of some things. She has asked me to 'let her keep her rose colored blinders on' and I try to do that when she isn't trying to force me to wear them too. You can keep your blinders on, but don't ask the rest of us to wear them. We are part of nature too, and even without us, nature is constantly at war with itself. One part is always trying to obliterate another part. When trees take over an area, types of grass can go extinct, for example. "Nature" is a violent process of death and destruction then regrowth. Niches are hotly contested by any species that can take advantage of them. One prospers, another fails.
Moebius
3.2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2011
You are the one that believes what you believe to feel better. My beliefs make me sad because I know they are right and we are destroying this planet's ability to support us as a free technological civilization.

We are coming closer and closer to destroying the chain of life in the ocean. If it dies, we will follow sooner or later. All it will take is killing the plankton. The Plankton are the foundation of oceanic life, if it dies so does everything else. That is the chain of life and it is similar on land except that there is more than one foundation. You may think we can treat the ocean as humanities personal toilet, I don't.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2011
we are destroying this planet's ability to support us as a free technological civilization.

We are coming closer and closer to destroying the chain of life in the ocean


Really? Do you seriously believe this nonsense? That is totally absurd. Destroying the chain of life in the oceans? You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Are you a member of PETA, by chance? It's possible that we are actually increasing the strength of the base of the ocean food chain. There isn't any accurate way to measure it, so your claims are as baseless as the one I just made.

You say it makes you sad. I say it makes you feel good to be sad. I happen to like movies that make me cry. It's the same thing.
Howhot
3 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2011
Hay. I have a GREAT IDEA! Lets all hold hands an be depressed! Great idea doing nothing Swifty. I'm all for it. And while I'm on a sarcasm bent, how about the whole chain of life thing there. Seems to be dying. You know, starting with acidification of the oceans as observed by coral bleaching. Yep. When I was young, we loved our coral bleached. The young wipper snappers, they want coral colored for some dang reason. Why when I was young we had a fish kill a week, now these young ones want them alive for some reason.

Oh come on. Weak argument from the Denier class.