Why Deaths From Hurricanes And Other Natural Disasters Are Lower Than Ever

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/08/27/why-deaths-from-hurricanes-and-other-natural-disasters-are-lower-than-ever/?sh=488a1a8a1396

In other news.  Building codes and technology in general improves over time.   You can have more illnesses but better treatments and people will live longer.  Even if technically its a worse situation.

Why Deaths From Hurricanes And Other Natural Disasters Are Lower Than Ever

SNIP

But aren’t natural disasters becoming more expensive? They are, but that’s because we are so much richer, not because hurricanes and floods are so much more severe.

In a new review of 54 studies over the last 22 years, and published in the field’s leading scientific journal, Pielke finds “little evidence to support claims that any part of the overall increase in global economic losses documented on climate time scales is attributable to human-caused changes in climate.”

You know my professional background, so you know this is very much in my swimlane.  Interesting that building codes, even design wind speeds haven 't changed that much in the past 10+ years.  The code did change, but a change in analysis methods, not really updates on the hazards.  Interesting no increase in hazards. . .

What was interesting in that the Pacific AoR, we have some of the highest hurricane/typhoon hazards in the world.  In some areas, the design wind speeds and resulting design forces/pressures decreased.  I won't get into the details as it would make you  but building codes aren't always updated based on technology.  Shocking as it may be, there's a lot of "let's try this" and see how it works out.  And no, there aren't such things as hurricane or earthquake proof.  Even the most stringent design criteria is to minimize risks, not eliminate. 

It boggles my mind that some people would rather try to affect the climate (which we know is an impossible solution, or at least not effective to any real degree) than implement lifesaving changes in where and how we build.  Then, when those changes demonstrate they can save lives in spite of severe weather, the alarmists argue that it's not about saving people -- it's about saving the planet (which I guess excludes people, because .... evil).

You can't stop the weather, just like you can't stop a criminal from being armed.  What you can do is be as prepared as you reasonably can so you survive when the "bad thing" happens.

Real solutions = being prepared for weather/violence.  Fake solutions = more gun control laws/trying to change the weather/climate.

It boggles my mind that some people would rather try to affect the climate (which we know is an impossible solution, or at least not effective to any real degree) than implement lifesaving changes in where and how we build.  Then, when those changes demonstrate they can save lives in spite of severe weather, the alarmists argue that it's not about saving people -- it's about saving the planet (which I guess excludes people, because .... evil).

You can't stop the weather, just like you can't stop a criminal from being armed.  What you can do is be as prepared as you reasonably can so you survive when the "bad thing" happens.

Real solutions = being prepared for weather/violence.  Fake solutions = more gun control laws/trying to change the weather/climate.

it boggles my mind how someone who knows nothing about the subject posts his/her/its opinion about building codes when there are 2 SME in this thread...

SNIP

Real solutions = being prepared for weather/violence.  Fake solutions = more gun control laws/trying to change the weather/climate.

Just more BS that media and others make up to give people the sense of safety, or doing something.  When folks mention "earthquake proof", I just     

Probably got re-classed as COVID related death.

it boggles my mind how someone who knows nothing about the subject posts his/her/its opinion about building codes when there are 2 SME in this thread...

just like guns...

You know my professional background, so you know this is very much in my swimlane.  Interesting that building codes, even design wind speeds haven 't changed that much in the past 10+ years.  The code did change, but a change in analysis methods, not really updates on the hazards.  Interesting no increase in hazards. . .

What was interesting in that the Pacific AoR, we have some of the highest hurricane/typhoon hazards in the world.  In some areas, the design wind speeds and resulting design forces/pressures decreased.  I won't get into the details as it would make you  but building codes aren't always updated based on technology.  Shocking as it may be, there's a lot of "let's try this" and see how it works out.  And no, there aren't such things as hurricane or earthquake proof.  Even the most stringent design criteria is to minimize risks, not eliminate.

If I ever have to rebuild my house I think I would go with one of those geodesic dome house, They are supposed to be good in high winds, at least thats what I have heard.

In other news.  Building codes and technology in general improves over time.   You can have more illnesses but better treatments and people will live longer.  Even if technically its a worse situation.

This would be the good part of the article for you to post.
"“If we build well, in the right places, and have good warning systems, and good disaster response policies, such as evacuations, we can continue to do well, even with much stronger events,” he added."

You know my professional background, so you know this is very much in my swimlane.  Interesting that building codes, even design wind speeds haven 't changed that much in the past 10+ years.  The code did change, but a change in analysis methods, not really updates on the hazards.  Interesting no increase in hazards. . .

What was interesting in that the Pacific AoR, we have some of the highest hurricane/typhoon hazards in the world.  In some areas, the design wind speeds and resulting design forces/pressures decreased.  I won't get into the details as it would make you  but building codes aren't always updated based on technology.  Shocking as it may be, there's a lot of "let's try this" and see how it works out.  And no, there aren't such things as hurricane or earthquake proof.  Even the most stringent design criteria is to minimize risks, not eliminate.

Oh yes, we have had some interesting discussions before. What I found interesting while living on the mainland is that the building code didn’t change when it came to earthquake zones and design. Though some calculations would change occasionally. All the while a big earthquake would hit somewhere in the country that was in seismic zone 1 or 2 or even 3. It would be devastating. But how do you predict this?

What did change and change a lot is the modification of the building code in the City of Los Angeles. They took the basic codes and tightened them up to deal with stronger earthquakes and to deal with high rise construction techniques and materials. But this also includes a Deputy Building Inspector program where in order to be licensed to work in LA City I had to take a much tougher test, have a few years of experience and I had to learn all the building code modifications for LA. Once you passed you had to pass a 3 part interview which included a psychological analysis during one part of the interview. And you had to be sworn in. Plus I had some very basic law enforcement power. So every municipality could do their own thing if they so desire.

it boggles my mind how someone who knows nothing about the subject posts his/her/its opinion about building codes when there are 2 SME in this thread...

Did you really expect any different behavior?

Some interesting tidbits from the supporting documentation from the article posted:

“Continental United States (CONUS) hurricane-related inflation-adjusted damage has increased significantly since 1900. However, since 1900 neither observed CONUS landfalling hurricane frequency nor intensity shows significant trends, including the devastating 2017 season.”

And this:
“Several studies have examined trends in CONUS hurricane losses since 1900 by normalizing historical damage to modern-day values by adjusting for inflation, population, and various individual wealth metrics, as well as other factors (Pielke and Landsea 1998; Pielke et al. 2008; Schmidt et al. 2010; Nordhaus 2010; Bouwer and Wouter Botzen 2011; Neumayer and Barthel 2011; Barthel and Neumayer 2012). These studies have typically shown no significant trend in CONUS landfalling normalized damage once societal change is considered (Pielke et al. 2008). This result is expected, as landfalling CONUS hurricanes have not increased in frequency or intensity from 1900 through 2017 (as shown below), meaning that an unbiased normalized loss record would be expected to show the same (lack of) trend. Independent climate and economic data indicate that the primary source of the increase in damage caused by hurricanes in recent decades is due to increases in exposure along the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts (Pielke et al. 2008; Bouwer and Wouter Botzen 2011).”

So let’s look at the “Money Ball.” If climate change is making hurricanes stronger and occur more often, then why aren’t more hurricanes landing and why are they not stronger? Get it? Why do we continue to build on and near the coasts if climate change is causing more and stronger hurricanes?

The data does not lie. The facts are what they are. The truth is we are being lied to about the frequency and strength of hurricanes and it is due to climate change. Yet the proof is here that it is all a lie.

Did you really expect any different behavior?

Expert in climate, econ, politics, law, medical,  building codes

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

It boggles my mind that some people would rather try to affect the climate (which we know is an impossible solution, or at least not effective to any real degree) than implement lifesaving changes in where and how we build.  Then, when those changes demonstrate they can save lives in spite of severe weather, the alarmists argue that it's not about saving people -- it's about saving the planet (which I guess excludes people, because .... evil).

You can't stop the weather, just like you can't stop a criminal from being armed.  What you can do is be as prepared as you reasonably can so you survive when the "bad thing" happens.

Real solutions = being prepared for weather/violence.  Fake solutions = more gun control laws/trying to change the weather/climate.

With that attitude people would still be smoking indoors.  Can't stop what the smoker is doing might as well buy better air filters.  It's foolish to believe that we have no effect on climate.   We produce green house gases and we have proof of what they do to the environment.   

it boggles my mind how someone who knows nothing about the subject posts his/her/its opinion about building codes when there are 2 SME in this thread...

Swoosh

The point was things change over time.   We have better warning,  transportation systems,  hospitals and thousands of other improvements which lower death counts.  It doesn't mean the weather is getting better because less death. 

If I ever have to rebuild my house I think I would go with one of those geodesic dome house, They are supposed to be good in high winds, at least thats what I have heard.

If you're doing with glass, plexiglass, or similar construction, you're going to spend quite a bit.  Google wind borne debris. 

If you're doing with glass, plexiglass, or similar construction, you're going to spend quite a bit.  Google wind borne debris.

Would HI building permit even allow a dome? Ive never seen a residential dome.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Would HI building permit even allow a dome? Ive never seen a residential dome.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You should read the building code. . .

If done properly, a dome could be designed to meet code.  I am not aware of a reason it can't. 

If done properly, a dome could be designed to meet code. 

Which means designed into a square .lol.


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk