Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Natural disasters are more widely reported due to advanced technology, dumbass.Population growth has nothing to do with climate, pinhead!!!!!Great increase in population growth and buildings in storm and flood zones since 1920, but that reality would zoom over your head.
Building codes are much stricter since 1920 also, the fact remains that natural disasters have INCREASED dramatically since 1920 and the source of the chart is listed under the chart, are you blind as well as deaf and dumb???
Natural disasters are more widely reported due to advanced technology, dumbass.Population growth has nothing to do with climate, pinhead!!!!!Great increase in population growth and buildings in storm and flood zones since 1920, but that reality would zoom over your head.
Building codes are much stricter since 1920 also, the fact remains that natural disasters have INCREASED dramatically since 1920 and the source of the chart is listed under the chart, are you blind as well as deaf and dumb???
Can you tell me how many tornadoes ripped through tornado alley or how many earthquakes there was( and their magnitude) in California in the year 1458 CE?
Can you tell me how many tropical storms rolled through the Caribbean in 1092?
Of course you cannot.
You LWNJs have no understanding of science. You're easily brainwashed idiots.
We have no idea due to lack of relevant data to scrutinize.Natural disasters are more widely reported due to advanced technology, dumbass.Population growth has nothing to do with climate, pinhead!!!!!Great increase in population growth and buildings in storm and flood zones since 1920, but that reality would zoom over your head.
Building codes are much stricter since 1920 also, the fact remains that natural disasters have INCREASED dramatically since 1920 and the source of the chart is listed under the chart, are you blind as well as deaf and dumb???
Can you tell me how many tornadoes ripped through tornado alley or how many earthquakes there was( and their magnitude) in California in the year 1458 CE?
Can you tell me how many tropical storms rolled through the Caribbean in 1092?
Of course you cannot.
You LWNJs have no understanding of science. You're easily brainwashed idiots.
Or how many homes were destroyed by wildfires in California in 1502?
I named the source and even an idiot like sunset was able to find it, so you are more STUPID than an idiot!YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!And deaths are NOT directly related to climate. As I showed you there are many other factors that effect deaths from natural disasters, more and better rescue equipment since 1920 and much better trauma medicine since 1920 and stricter building codes since 1920 for a few, but you are too miserable a thinker to understand that. But the number of natural disasters IS directly related to climate, which is why you dishonestly want to ignore it.Now here is why I can prove that you are a miserable thinker, YOUR chart only covers NUMBER OF EVENTS, no deaths mentioned at all.
My chart is about NUMBER of DEATHS, no mention of events at all.
Events rule, and you are a fool!
People are reading your continuous deflection from MY chart, which is about the number of climate related deaths, that have dropped rapidly over the decades, as I posted this about it:
" "NASA data show that since 1920, the earth’s temperature has risen by 1.25 degrees Celsius. Since 1920, world population also has quadrupled from less than two billion to over seven and half billion. Yet during this period, EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year. SeeData vs. Models #3: Disasters"
Your very first response to this quote above, that was about climate related deaths, and it rapid drop over the decades, backed by sources:
"What a totally moronic stat!!!
Natural disaster deaths has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with improvements in medicine and technology!!!
The number of natural disasters IS related to climate change and are INCREASING dramatically since 1920.
YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!"
===
Your shift from climate related deaths, to something else without any evidence presented....., which means you made no viable counterpoint at all, then when I repeated that quote added the climate related deaths CHART to my next POST 6, your reply was more of the same:
"Repeating your BULLSHIT does not make it any less BULLSHIT. Deaths have nothing to do solely with natural disasters and climate, there are other factors involved in total deaths. But natural disasters ARE related to climate change and they have increased dramatically since 1920 as my real chart showed.
YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!"
Still no counterpoint at all, STILL no link to your chart and to the paper, this means you still posted nothing but anger and hot air. You have a serious inability to carry on a real discussion, just scream and run, ignore the sourced evidence I actually posted, ignore my repeated mention of YOUR failure to post a source for your chart and paper.
===
Then I searched for this paper, which I duly found and posted, you ignored it to scream yet again.
Here is what you IGNORED in POST 9,
"I dug up your report, it doesn't even support your argument at all, because the number of deaths from YOUR reports actually agree with my chart quite well. (Of which you completely ignored in your next two replies.)
I never found your chart in the report, but found THIS CHART (page 78) showing total number of deaths for 2016, go see it, it doesn't contradict my chart number of deaths for the time frame.
Go to page 18, where it shows the number of deaths for 1990-2016:
"Figure 1: Numbers of disasters and people deaths (x1,000): 1990-2016"
Again it matched quite well with my chart.
" Yet during this period, EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year. "
The chart ends in year 2016, same year as yours.
My chart says less than 10,000 deaths for 2016, your chart on page 78 says about 8,000 deaths for 2016 ( Map 2 - Total deaths per sub-continent in 2016)"
=====
It is clear you can't handle it, when I present evidence that even YOUR paper (the one you refused to post the link for) supports my charts on the number of deaths. I haven't once disputed the paper (the one you refused to post link for), my argument all along has been the reduction of climate related deaths over the decades, an argument YOU keep avoiding over and over, with deflective screaming.
YourBULLSHIT has been thoroughly debunked.
You have provided no links to back up your claims.
That has to be the most idiotic claim even for YOU to swallow!!!!!The data also show that “moderately hot and cold temperatures” caused 88.85 percent of the temperature-related deaths, while “extreme” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent.
Sunset used 1920 as the starting point and I showed the contradicting data starting there.Natural disasters are more widely reported due to advanced technology, dumbass.Population growth has nothing to do with climate, pinhead!!!!!Great increase in population growth and buildings in storm and flood zones since 1920, but that reality would zoom over your head.
Building codes are much stricter since 1920 also, the fact remains that natural disasters have INCREASED dramatically since 1920 and the source of the chart is listed under the chart, are you blind as well as deaf and dumb???
Can you tell me how many tornadoes ripped through tornado alley or how many earthquakes there was( and their magnitude) in California in the year 1458 CE?
Can you tell me how many tropical storms rolled through the Caribbean in 1092?
Of course you cannot.
You LWNJs have no understanding of science. You're easily brainwashed idiots.
Self published crap from climate deniers.Science Matters
Climate Problem? Data say no.
by Ron Clutz
June 20, 2020
Excerpt:
An recent article is The Crucial Question That Requires Asking: Is There a Climate Problem? As David Simon explains, so many take the “climate problem” as a given without looking at the evidence. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.
In “Coronavirus and the Climate,” Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead swallows the big lie about global warming.
Mead’s column posted on June 15 begins by sharing a projection that draconian coronavirus lockdown measures will reduce 2020 global CO2 emissions by about the amount that the United Nations Environment Program has determined is supposedly needed annually “if the world is to have any chance of keeping the average temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
Mead then laments that most of these measures “aren’t economically sustainable.” Teleworking adopted during the lockdown may become the norm for many rather than the exception, but “[a] campaign to ‘cut the commute’ globally won’t solve the climate problem.”
But Mead never considers the key question: is there is a “climate problem”? He simply accepts as undeniable scientific truth that keeping the earth’s temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees is necessary to prevent catastrophic harm.
The scientific evidence does not support this proposition. There are speculative, pseudo-scientific projections and models that purport to show that global warming will lead to climate doom. But actual scientific data instead show that global warming has not been harmful and presents no danger to future generations.
First, rather than imperiling human life, the data show that global warming saves lives.
A 2015 study by 22 scientists from around the world found that cold kills over 17 times more people than heat.
The scientists examined over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012. The data they compiled show that cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent. The data also show that “moderately hot and cold temperatures” caused 88.85 percent of the temperature-related deaths, while “extreme” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent. See Climate Medicine
LINK
=======
Data set after data set after data set, shows there is no dangerous climate changes for the bad into the future.
Can you name a single person who argues that the Earth's climate does not change?Self published crap from climate deniers.Science Matters
Climate Problem? Data say no.
by Ron Clutz
June 20, 2020
Excerpt:
An recent article is The Crucial Question That Requires Asking: Is There a Climate Problem?As David Simon explains, so many take the “climate problem” as a given without looking at the evidence. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.
In “Coronavirus and the Climate,” Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead swallows the big lie about global warming.
Mead’s column posted on June 15 begins by sharing a projection that draconian coronavirus lockdown measures will reduce 2020 global CO2 emissions by about the amount that the United Nations Environment Program has determined is supposedly needed annually “if the world is to have any chance of keeping the average temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
Mead then laments that most of these measures “aren’t economically sustainable.” Teleworking adopted during the lockdown may become the norm for many rather than the exception, but “[a] campaign to ‘cut the commute’ globally won’t solve the climate problem.”
But Mead never considers the key question: is there is a “climate problem”? He simply accepts as undeniable scientific truth that keeping the earth’s temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees is necessary to prevent catastrophic harm.
The scientific evidence does not support this proposition. There are speculative, pseudo-scientific projections and models that purport to show that global warming will lead to climate doom. But actual scientific data instead show that global warming has not been harmful and presents no danger to future generations.
First, rather than imperiling human life, the data show that global warming saves lives.
A 2015 study by 22 scientists from around the world found that cold kills over 17 times more people than heat.
The scientists examined over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012. The data they compiled show that cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent. The data also show that “moderately hot and cold temperatures” caused 88.85 percent of the temperature-related deaths, while “extreme” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent. See Climate Medicine
LINK
=======
Data set after data set after data set, shows there is no dangerous climate changes for the bad into the future.
There is no more debate, climate change is real.
Deal with it.
/low-angle-view-scarecrow-against-cloudy-sky-562838541-5aaf18adfa6bcc00360a609c.jpg)
Interesting straw man.Can you name a single person who argues that the Earth's climate does not change?Self published crap from climate deniers.Science Matters
Climate Problem? Data say no.
by Ron Clutz
June 20, 2020
Excerpt:
An recent article is The Crucial Question That Requires Asking: Is There a Climate Problem?As David Simon explains, so many take the “climate problem” as a given without looking at the evidence. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.
In “Coronavirus and the Climate,” Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead swallows the big lie about global warming.
Mead’s column posted on June 15 begins by sharing a projection that draconian coronavirus lockdown measures will reduce 2020 global CO2 emissions by about the amount that the United Nations Environment Program has determined is supposedly needed annually “if the world is to have any chance of keeping the average temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
Mead then laments that most of these measures “aren’t economically sustainable.” Teleworking adopted during the lockdown may become the norm for many rather than the exception, but “[a] campaign to ‘cut the commute’ globally won’t solve the climate problem.”
But Mead never considers the key question: is there is a “climate problem”? He simply accepts as undeniable scientific truth that keeping the earth’s temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees is necessary to prevent catastrophic harm.
The scientific evidence does not support this proposition. There are speculative, pseudo-scientific projections and models that purport to show that global warming will lead to climate doom. But actual scientific data instead show that global warming has not been harmful and presents no danger to future generations.
First, rather than imperiling human life, the data show that global warming saves lives.
A 2015 study by 22 scientists from around the world found that cold kills over 17 times more people than heat.
The scientists examined over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012. The data they compiled show that cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent. The data also show that “moderately hot and cold temperatures” caused 88.85 percent of the temperature-related deaths, while “extreme” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent. See Climate Medicine
LINK
=======
Data set after data set after data set, shows there is no dangerous climate changes for the bad into the future.
There is no more debate, climate change is real.
Deal with it.
Crepitus is a ridiculous moron.
Interesting straw man.Can you name a single person who argues that the Earth's climate does not change?Self published crap from climate deniers.Science Matters
Climate Problem? Data say no.
by Ron Clutz
June 20, 2020
Excerpt:
An recent article is The Crucial Question That Requires Asking: Is There a Climate Problem?As David Simon explains, so many take the “climate problem” as a given without looking at the evidence. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.
In “Coronavirus and the Climate,” Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead swallows the big lie about global warming.
Mead’s column posted on June 15 begins by sharing a projection that draconian coronavirus lockdown measures will reduce 2020 global CO2 emissions by about the amount that the United Nations Environment Program has determined is supposedly needed annually “if the world is to have any chance of keeping the average temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
Mead then laments that most of these measures “aren’t economically sustainable.” Teleworking adopted during the lockdown may become the norm for many rather than the exception, but “[a] campaign to ‘cut the commute’ globally won’t solve the climate problem.”
But Mead never considers the key question: is there is a “climate problem”? He simply accepts as undeniable scientific truth that keeping the earth’s temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees is necessary to prevent catastrophic harm.
The scientific evidence does not support this proposition. There are speculative, pseudo-scientific projections and models that purport to show that global warming will lead to climate doom. But actual scientific data instead show that global warming has not been harmful and presents no danger to future generations.
First, rather than imperiling human life, the data show that global warming saves lives.
A 2015 study by 22 scientists from around the world found that cold kills over 17 times more people than heat.
The scientists examined over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012. The data they compiled show that cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent. The data also show that “moderately hot and cold temperatures” caused 88.85 percent of the temperature-related deaths, while “extreme” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent. See Climate Medicine
LINK
=======
Data set after data set after data set, shows there is no dangerous climate changes for the bad into the future.
There is no more debate, climate change is real.
Deal with it.
Crepitus is a ridiculous moron.
This isn't art class.
Dismissed.
Can't get your head to start?Interesting straw man.Can you name a single person who argues that the Earth's climate does not change?Self published crap from climate deniers.Science Matters
Climate Problem? Data say no.
by Ron Clutz
June 20, 2020
Excerpt:
An recent article is The Crucial Question That Requires Asking: Is There a Climate Problem?As David Simon explains, so many take the “climate problem” as a given without looking at the evidence. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.
In “Coronavirus and the Climate,” Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead swallows the big lie about global warming.
Mead’s column posted on June 15 begins by sharing a projection that draconian coronavirus lockdown measures will reduce 2020 global CO2 emissions by about the amount that the United Nations Environment Program has determined is supposedly needed annually “if the world is to have any chance of keeping the average temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
Mead then laments that most of these measures “aren’t economically sustainable.” Teleworking adopted during the lockdown may become the norm for many rather than the exception, but “[a] campaign to ‘cut the commute’ globally won’t solve the climate problem.”
But Mead never considers the key question: is there is a “climate problem”? He simply accepts as undeniable scientific truth that keeping the earth’s temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees is necessary to prevent catastrophic harm.
The scientific evidence does not support this proposition. There are speculative, pseudo-scientific projections and models that purport to show that global warming will lead to climate doom. But actual scientific data instead show that global warming has not been harmful and presents no danger to future generations.
First, rather than imperiling human life, the data show that global warming saves lives.
A 2015 study by 22 scientists from around the world found that cold kills over 17 times more people than heat.
The scientists examined over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012. The data they compiled show that cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent. The data also show that “moderately hot and cold temperatures” caused 88.85 percent of the temperature-related deaths, while “extreme” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent. See Climate Medicine
LINK
=======
Data set after data set after data set, shows there is no dangerous climate changes for the bad into the future.
There is no more debate, climate change is real.
Deal with it.
Crepitus is a ridiculous moron.
This isn't art class.
Dismissed.
There is no more debate, climate change is real.
Deal with it.
As previously noted, there is no debate. Climate change is real, get used to it.There is no more debate, climate change is real.
Deal with it.
Pick any point on the Earth's surface ... tell me what the climate was 100 years ago ... what the climate is today ... and what the climate will be in 100 years from now ... if all three answers are the same, then climate isn't changing ...
Deal with it ...
As previously noted, there is no debate. Climate change is real, get used to it.
Donald J. TrumpCan you name a single person who argues that the Earth's climate does not change?
-
-
The finding appears to add solid evidence to the theory of an ancient "snowball Earth."
The discovery hinged on proving that the right rocks had been covered by glaciers in the right place at the right time.
Study leader Francis Macdonald, an Earth scientist at Harvard University, and colleagues worked with volcanic rocks in Canada that were found sandwiched between glacial deposits. Such deposits are recognizable by the presence of debris left behind by melting glaciers and sediments deformed by glacial movement.
"Snowball Earth" Confirmed: Ice Covered Equator
Then I googled it
The finding appears to add solid evidence to the theory of an ancient "snowball Earth."
Study leader FrancisMacdonald, an Earth scientist at Harvard University,and colleagues worked with volcanic rocks in Canada that were found sandwiched between glacial deposits. Such deposits are recognizable by the presence of debris left behind by melting glaciers and sediments deformed by glacial movement.
"Snowball Earth" Confirmed: Ice Covered Equator
and this~~~~~
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...lobal-warming/
Not reallyScience Matters
Climate Problem? Data say no.
by Ron Clutz
June 20, 2020
Excerpt:
An recent article is The Crucial Question That Requires Asking: Is There a Climate Problem? As David Simon explains, so many take the “climate problem” as a given without looking at the evidence. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.
In “Coronavirus and the Climate,” Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead swallows the big lie about global warming.
Mead’s column posted on June 15 begins by sharing a projection that draconian coronavirus lockdown measures will reduce 2020 global CO2 emissions by about the amount that the United Nations Environment Program has determined is supposedly needed annually “if the world is to have any chance of keeping the average temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
Mead then laments that most of these measures “aren’t economically sustainable.” Teleworking adopted during the lockdown may become the norm for many rather than the exception, but “[a] campaign to ‘cut the commute’ globally won’t solve the climate problem.”
But Mead never considers the key question: is there is a “climate problem”? He simply accepts as undeniable scientific truth that keeping the earth’s temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees is necessary to prevent catastrophic harm.
The scientific evidence does not support this proposition. There are speculative, pseudo-scientific projections and models that purport to show that global warming will lead to climate doom. But actual scientific data instead show that global warming has not been harmful and presents no danger to future generations.
First, rather than imperiling human life, the data show that global warming saves lives.
A 2015 study by 22 scientists from around the world found that cold kills over 17 times more people than heat.
The scientists examined over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012. The data they compiled show that cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent. The data also show that “moderately hot and cold temperatures” caused 88.85 percent of the temperature-related deaths, while “extreme” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent. See Climate Medicine
LINK
=======
Data set after data set after data set, shows there is no dangerous climate changes for the bad into the future.
Not reallyScience Matters
Climate Problem? Data say no.
by Ron Clutz
June 20, 2020
Excerpt:
An recent article is The Crucial Question That Requires Asking: Is There a Climate Problem?As David Simon explains, so many take the “climate problem” as a given without looking at the evidence. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.
In “Coronavirus and the Climate,” Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead swallows the big lie about global warming.
Mead’s column posted on June 15 begins by sharing a projection that draconian coronavirus lockdown measures will reduce 2020 global CO2 emissions by about the amount that the United Nations Environment Program has determined is supposedly needed annually “if the world is to have any chance of keeping the average temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
Mead then laments that most of these measures “aren’t economically sustainable.” Teleworking adopted during the lockdown may become the norm for many rather than the exception, but “[a] campaign to ‘cut the commute’ globally won’t solve the climate problem.”
But Mead never considers the key question: is there is a “climate problem”? He simply accepts as undeniable scientific truth that keeping the earth’s temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees is necessary to prevent catastrophic harm.
The scientific evidence does not support this proposition. There are speculative, pseudo-scientific projections and models that purport to show that global warming will lead to climate doom. But actual scientific data instead show that global warming has not been harmful and presents no danger to future generations.
First, rather than imperiling human life, the data show that global warming saves lives.
A 2015 study by 22 scientists from around the world found that cold kills over 17 times more people than heat.
The scientists examined over 74 million deaths in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States in 1985-2012. The data they compiled show that cold caused 7.29 percent of these deaths, while heat caused only 0.42 percent. The data also show that “moderately hot and cold temperatures” caused 88.85 percent of the temperature-related deaths, while “extreme” temperatures caused only 11.15 percent. See Climate Medicine
LINK
=======
Data set after data set after data set, shows there is no dangerous climate changes for the bad into the future.
Leading organizations involved in climate change research, policy making and education
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - Climate Change Science
This section of the EPA website offers scientific information and data on climate change in the past and projections for the future. Specific information about the U.S. government's role in conducting and evaluating science as well as EPA's role in these efforts can be found on the Climate Change Science Program and EPA Research and Assessment pages in the Policy section.
NOAA Education - Climate Change and Our Planet
This collection of resources from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are designed for teachers to use in the classroom or as background reference material.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide objective reports on climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences. Geography has played a central role in the IPCC’s activities. Dr. Thomas Wilbanks, past president of the AAG and recipient of numerous honors in the field of geography, served as lead author of a chapter of the Fourth Assessment Report which was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2007.
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
NCAR provides the university science and teaching community with the tools, facilities, and support required to perform innovative research. Through NCAR, scientists gain access to high-performance computational and observational facilities, such as supercomputers, aircraft and radar - resources researchers need to improve human understanding of atmospheric and Earth system processes. NCAR also houses the Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Strategic Initiative, an interdisciplinary effort to foster collaborative science, spatial data interoperability, and knowledge sharing with GIS, within the field of atmospheric research.
Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets (CReSIS)
CReSIS was established by the NSF in 2005 and is headquartered at the University of Kansas. The Center uses a variety of geographic tools and technologies (including Geographic Information Systems, Remote Sensing, and spatial statistics) to complement its goal of measuring and predicting the response of sea level change to the mass balance of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
National Climate Data Center (NCDC)
NCDC is the world's largest active archive of weather data. NCDC produces numerous climate publications and responds to data requests from all over the world.
World Meteorological Organization
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations. It is the UN system's authoritative voice on the state and behavior of the Earth's atmosphere, its interaction with the oceans, the climate it produces and the resulting distribution of water resources.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Climate Change
The UNEP Climate Change website serves as a gateway to UNEP activities related to adaptation, mitigation, science, and communication/outreach on the effects of climate change, as well as programs to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation of ecosystems.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
The UNFCCC supports UN bodies involved in the climate change process. This UNFCCC website contains numerous resources, such as introductory and in-depth publications, the official UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol texts and a search engine to the UNFCCC library.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
The Pew Center on Global Climate Change brings together business leaders, policy makers, scientists, and other experts to bring a new approach to a complex and often controversial issue. The Center conducts analyses of key climate issues, works to keep policy makers informed, engages the business community in the search for solutions, and reaches out to educate the key audiences.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations – Climate Change
FAO's activities in climate change are spread over all departments and cover all agricultural sectors (i.e. agriculture, livestock, forestry, fisheries) as well as highly cross-sectoral topics (e.g. bioenergy, biodiversity, climate risk management). The Interdepartmental Working Group on Climate Change and the Environment, Climate Change and Bioenergy Division (NRC) play an important role in coordinating these activities.
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)
The NSIDC supports research on snow, ice, glaciers, frozen ground, and climate interactions that make up Earth's cryosphere. Dr. Mark Serreze, NSIDC Director, has carried out significant geographic research on climate warning in the Arctic and its implications.
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP)
IGBP is a research programme that studies the phenomenon of Global Change. IGBP provides scientific knowledge to improve the sustainability of the living Earth. IGBP studies the interactions between biological, chemical and physical processes and interactions with human systems and collaborates with other programmes to develop and impart the understanding necessary to respond to global change.
I named the source and even an idiot like sunset was able to find it, so you are more STUPID than an idiot!YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!And deaths are NOT directly related to climate. As I showed you there are many other factors that effect deaths from natural disasters, more and better rescue equipment since 1920 and much better trauma medicine since 1920 and stricter building codes since 1920 for a few, but you are too miserable a thinker to understand that. But the number of natural disasters IS directly related to climate, which is why you dishonestly want to ignore it.Now here is why I can prove that you are a miserable thinker, YOUR chart only covers NUMBER OF EVENTS, no deaths mentioned at all.
My chart is about NUMBER of DEATHS, no mention of events at all.
Events rule, and you are a fool!
People are reading your continuous deflection from MY chart, which is about the number of climate related deaths, that have dropped rapidly over the decades, as I posted this about it:
" "NASA data show that since 1920, the earth’s temperature has risen by 1.25 degrees Celsius. Since 1920, world population also has quadrupled from less than two billion to over seven and half billion. Yet during this period, EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year. SeeData vs. Models #3: Disasters"
Your very first response to this quote above, that was about climate related deaths, and it rapid drop over the decades, backed by sources:
"What a totally moronic stat!!!
Natural disaster deaths has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with improvements in medicine and technology!!!
The number of natural disasters IS related to climate change and are INCREASING dramatically since 1920.
YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!"
===
Your shift from climate related deaths, to something else without any evidence presented....., which means you made no viable counterpoint at all, then when I repeated that quote added the climate related deaths CHART to my next POST 6, your reply was more of the same:
"Repeating your BULLSHIT does not make it any less BULLSHIT. Deaths have nothing to do solely with natural disasters and climate, there are other factors involved in total deaths. But natural disasters ARE related to climate change and they have increased dramatically since 1920 as my real chart showed.
YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!"
Still no counterpoint at all, STILL no link to your chart and to the paper, this means you still posted nothing but anger and hot air. You have a serious inability to carry on a real discussion, just scream and run, ignore the sourced evidence I actually posted, ignore my repeated mention of YOUR failure to post a source for your chart and paper.
===
Then I searched for this paper, which I duly found and posted, you ignored it to scream yet again.
Here is what you IGNORED in POST 9,
"I dug up your report, it doesn't even support your argument at all, because the number of deaths from YOUR reports actually agree with my chart quite well. (Of which you completely ignored in your next two replies.
I never found your chart in the report, but found THIS CHART (page 78) showing total number of deaths for 2016, go see it, it doesn't contradict my chart number of deaths for the time frame.
Go to page 18, where it shows the number of deaths for 1990-2016:
"Figure 1: Numbers of disasters and people deaths (x1,000): 1990-2016"
Again it matched quite well with my chart.
" Yet during this period, EM-DAT (The International Disaster Database) data show that the number of people killed by natural disasters has declined from almost 55,000 per year to less than 10,000 per year. "
The chart ends in year 2016, same year as yours.
My chart says less than 10,000 deaths for 2016, your chart on page 78 says about 8,000 deaths for 2016 ( Map 2 - Total deaths per sub-continent in 2016)"
=====
It is clear you can't handle it, when I present evidence that even YOUR paper (the one you refused to post the link for) supports my charts on the number of deaths. I haven't once disputed the paper (the one you refused to post link for), my argument all along has been the reduction of climate related deaths over the decades, an argument YOU keep avoiding over and over, with deflective screaming.
YourBULLSHIT has been thoroughly debunked.
You have provided no links to back up your claims.
