"While these numbers are positive news, they also reflect the absence of major events like the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2008 or the 2010 Haiti earthquake."
I always like to go back to the original source mentioned by any media story; especially if it is sensational or appears to have a bias. The full report is at the source.
Yes, it is directly responsible. Let me explain.
For AGW to have any validity, you need more CO2. Now more CO2 can happen naturally, but if is A for anthropogenic, global warming, then the CO2 is manmade, and this extra CO2 means more economic growth. Wealthier countries are better able to adapt to global warming, and also are less likely to suffer such high damages from natural disasters. What used to be horrific death tolls in California are now much less, and instead just a high amount of damage to buildings and a high dollar value. All the deaths come from places like Bangladesh.
Ah, yes, this line of logic. "A increased while B decreased, so increases in A couldn't possibly cause increases in B".
Let me give you some other "arguments" using the same logical structure.
"I stepped out of a shaded pool into the sunlight, and felt colder instead of warmer, so sunlight couldn't possibly cause people to feel warm"
"After I deposited my pay check, I had less money in my bank account than I did a week ago, so depositing pay checks doesn't increase the amount of money in my bank account."
I think you get the picture.
Obviously, there are a lot of differences between now and 10 years ago in terms of technology, equipment in place, knowledge, and so on. Only *one* of those differences is AGW.
The technical advances, in communication, weather forecasting and healthcare made possible because of energy from fossil fuels, is the reason there are fewer casualties, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people who can survive severe winters with fossil fuel supplied heating, or survive heatwaves with air conditioning.
We can thank better construction methods and construction materials along with better warning systems and emergency responses. Anyone that uses Anthony Watts's website for anything other than an example of self induced ignorance is only displaying their own self induced ignorance.
tropical diseases are spreading farther north into temperate zones . more people are dying . tropical bugs are traveling farther north drestroying crops . more people starve . hurricaines are more intense and accure more often . more people die . you seem to have been fed a bunch of baloney by one of those global warming denier sites set up by the oil and coal industries
no
329,000 (31%) died as a result of?climato-, hydro- and meteorological disasters
651,000 (61%) died as a result of earthquakes and tsunamis
80,000 (8%) died as a result of technological disasters (eg industrial and transport accidents).
I thought AGW would lead to more people dying in natural disasters not less.Can we credit AGW for less people dying? Or does AGW only get credit if more people die?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/18/world-disasters-report-for-2013-lowest-number-of-catastrophies-and-deaths-in-10-years/
