Nate Silver's Blog - What Climate Change Cost?

Maybe Nate Silver is not really a leftist fool who got lucky after all. He seems to have hired a real scientist for his blog and not a compromised agw nutter.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/disasters-cost-more-than-ever-but-not-because-of-climate-change/

When you read that the cost of disasters is increasing, it’s tempting to think that it must be because more storms are happening. They’re not. All the apocalyptic “climate porn” in your Facebook feed is solely a function of perception. In reality, the numbers reflect more damage from catastrophes because the world is getting wealthier. We’re seeing ever-larger losses simply because we have more to lose — when an earthquake or flood occurs, more stuff gets damaged. And no matter what President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron say, recent costly disasters are not part of a trend driven by climate change. The data available so far strongly shows they’re just evidence of human vulnerability in the face of periodic extremes.

To identify changes in extreme weather, it’s best to look at the statistics of extreme weather. Fortunately, scientists have invested a lot of effort into looking at data on extreme weather events, and recently summarized their findings in a major United Nations climate report, the fifth in a series dating back to 1990. That report concluded that there’s little evidence of a spike in the frequency or intensity of floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes. There have been more heat waves and intense precipitation, but these phenomena are not significant drivers of disaster costs. In fact, today’s climate models suggest that future changes in extremes that cause the most damage won’t be detectable in the statistics of weather (or damage) for many decades.

 

I always thought he was "by-the-numbers", "let the data decide" kind of guy.

 

LOL. You can change your FB settings to ignore your climate porn addicted friends.

 

How you work the numbers can be very telling.
When he was taking averages of skewed polls... he was slanting his work.

There was not reason to use sample sizes slanted much more than Democrat plus 7... we saw some go as high as D plus 20 something.

He should have unskewed and then did his averaging. That would have been interesting.

 

From the Nate Silver article and all you need know....

" There have been more heat waves and intense precipitation"


but then he goes on to say..

," but these phenomena are not significant drivers of disaster costs"


???????

Really ? Tell that to the 25 thousand people that died from the heat wave in Europe or the folks who got flooded out in the NE US over the last several years.

Of course heat waves and heavy flooding rains and the more powerful hurricanes and polar vortex's and droughts and loss of water sources have costs. He is an idiot to suggest otherwise. All of these things will happen due to GW.

 

or warming out of an ice age.

 

But that is not what is happening. The trend over the last thousand has been down until two hundred years ago when we started putting CO2 into the air. Idiot.

 

This chart shows it well and shows how rising CO2 levels caused temps to rise.

 

and if you take it out 10000 to 22000 we are warming and if you take it out 400,000 we are in the middle of the range.

 

You're very good at pretending irrelevant things aren't.

Do you also tick trade off the yearly chart idiot?