Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

    Krugman continues to (in)distinguish himself, this time conflating food prices, global warming, and the riots in Egypt:

    Summary: Krugman says food prices rising due to global warming. Fact: Food prices have been dropping until recently, besides a spike in the early '70s (hint: dollar devaluation). Rice and Wheat crops and supplies are perfectly normal. The increases in price and decreases in food supply are almost exclusively due to corn, sugar, and oils, and that of corn in turn is due to the US' ethanol policies.

    So in a way, Krugman is right - global warming alarmism contributed to a completely wrong headed ethanol policy which in turn contributed to rising food prices.

    I nominate Krugman for the (ig)Noble prize for best mouthpiece of the neoliberal economist establishment.

    http://bigpictureagriculture.blogspo...ring-food.html

    Krugman is on a roll. Over the weekend, he wrote "Soaring Food Prices - Blame the weather." As I was preparing to post a rebuttal to that poorly written article, another article appeared today which was much better written, "Droughts, Floods and Food." Today's article took into account some of the factors he overlooked in the first article in which he took a very small part of the global grain production story (wheat), region (FSU), and factor (weather) and drew a sweeping conclusion.

    Because the media in general fails to see the global food situation clearly and it's been so prominent in the news lately due to Egypt, the subject needed to be covered here. So thanks Paul for explaining it to us, but please allow me to point out a few flaws in your analysis.

    Krugman: What’s behind the surge in food prices? The usual suspects have made the usual claims — it’s all about the Fed, or it’s all about speculators. But I’ve been looking at the USDA World supply and demand estimates, and what stands out from the data is mainly that

    WE'VE HAD A HUGE GLOBAL HARVEST FAILURE.

    Kalpa: This is so far off base, Paul Krugman, I hardly know where to start.

    I'll begin with the basics. The most important food commodities which determine food security for human consumption are rice, wheat, and corn. To summarize, right now we have comfortable global stocks of rice and wheat, but we are extremely short of corn in the #1 global corn exporting nation because that nation is using well over a third of its corn production to fuel its cars. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the major commodities causing the FAO food basket price surge are sugar, oils, and corn.

    Let's look at rice first, the most important staple for feeding people. Have we had a huge global crop failure in rice production?

    Rice is the staple for more than 50% of the world's population and provides 20% of the calories for human populations. It is thinly traded with only 6-7% of production traded on the open market. This compares to 20 percent of wheat traded, 11 percent of corn, and 35 percent of soybeans. Global rice production fell by 2% in 2009/2010 from a record crop the year before.



    Although the U.S. produces only 2% of the world's rice, it is the fourth or fifth largest rice exporter. And U.S. ending stocks were up 20% for 2009/2010. All in all, you can see the world is very comfortable in its rice stocks level at the end of 2010.

    So as you can see for rice, the most important human food staple, we have not had a huge global crop failure this year.

    Global ending rice stocks in 2009/10 were the highest since 2002/03:


    Krugman: Wheat production (this time not per capita) is way down.... Part of the answer is that some kinds of demand are growing faster than population — in particular, China is becoming a growing importer of feed to meet the demand for meat.

    Kalpa: Paul, I'm so glad you mentioned wheat, since that's the second most important human food globally. It is an important one, too, since it has a higher protein content that either rice or corn.

    According to the most recent WASDE report, global 2010/11 wheat consumption is expected to be 1.2 million tons lower while global ending stocks have been raised by 1.3 million tons. The US wheat stocks-to-use ratio is at a high 35.2% (down from 48% in 2009/2010), but the global stocks-to-use ratio is tighter at 26.5% which is near the average this past decade and well below the 22.3% low in 2007/08.

    Weather can change the wheat stocks picture quickly, as in any agricultural commodity. With wheat there is a harvest somewhere in the world any given month of the year. Earth to Paul Krugman, weather affecting crop production is nothing new. It's the nature of agriculture.

    There have been large wheat purchases by Algeria and Bangladesh lately and Saudi Arabia plans to double its wheat reserves. There is a lot of nervousness related to food inflation in individual nations, resulting unrest, and a spotlight on the Egyptian crisis, the nation which is the largest wheat importer.

    All commodities including oil are generally high right now due to increased demand, investment, and a lower dollar value. These factors along with a reduction in wheat stocks compared to a year ago and a multitude of articles predicting a global food crisis have everyone on edge.

    Furthermore, some say (not you, Paul) that only price speculation can explain wheat prices jumping 70 percent from June to December last year when global wheat stocks were stable during that time period.


    Krugman: Why is production down? Most of the decline in world wheat production, and about half of the total decline in grain production, has taken place in the former Soviet Union — mainly Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. And we know what that’s about: an incredible, unprecedented heat wave.... it sure looks like climate change is a major culprit. And it’s not just the FSU: extreme weather elsewhere, which again is the sort of thing you should expect from climate change, has played a role in bad harvest around the world.

    Kalpa: You are right about crop failures due to extreme droughts in Russia and the Ukraine this past year. These areas experienced a 30% reduction in their wheat crops. There were also reduced wheat plantings this past year due to the oversupply the year before. Global wheat production fell 5% from 2009.

    This FSU region that you speak of is no stranger to droughts. It is deemed a "risky" agricultural producing region, as they tend to experience droughts two out of every five years.

    Some speculate that the Russian region may also be experiencing climate change temperature increases at twice the rate of the rest of the world. Indeed, their temperatures this past summer were cause for alarm and they are perhaps more vulnerable agriculturally to climate change. But, the droughts that they experience on a regular basis make singling out this year as evidence that climate change caused their wheat failure — as well as a huge global harvest failure — is an ambitious overarching conclusion. By no means do I want to dismiss the fears related to global warming's effects upon agricultural production, but most agree that it's too early to know exactly how the multitude of interacting factors will play out.


    source: NASA

    Krugman: Back to the economics: if you want to know why we’re having a spike in food prices, the data suggest that the key cause is terrible weather leading to bad harvests, especially in the former Soviet Union.

    Kalpa: You really scared me with that sentence. If I wrote something like that I'd lose every reader that I have.

    Since you like talking economics, besides supply and demand, major causes of high food prices are individual national food policies and currency conditions. The Asian nations are experiencing food inflation because they are experiencing high overall inflation. Poverty levels, subsidizations, tariffs, setting bread or fuel prices, devalued currencies, import and export restrictions, infrastructure standards of food storage and transport are all important factors in food prices which help determine levels of food security within individual nations.

    In the past year there were also poor nations which experienced falling food prices and ample food production. This never makes the news. It's way too boring. Also, today we have grain imports happening to take advantage of perceived price opportunity and low bulk shipping rates.

    Currently there is more than enough food being produced to feed everyone. The problems come down to supply, storage, distribution, poverty, rapidly growing populations, and waste. Government corruption and failed politics are factors, too.

    Finally, we need to address the subject of corn, the third most important food for human consumption. Like rice, you never even mentioned it.

    Here in the U.S., the largest corn exporting nation, our stocks-to-use ratio has hit a very low 5.5%, even though our corn production was our third-highest on record. Global corn ending stocks are projected 3.0 million tons lower with more than two-thirds of the reduction coming from the United States. Nearly 40% of our corn crop now goes towards ethanol production.


    source: USDA

    Our U.S. ethanol policy exists because we had a massive overproduction of corn and consequent low prices. The producers were desperate for some kind of increase in demand. I like to look at it as a corn destroying program, sort of like programs that took place during the Great Depression to help support prices for farmers. With unrealistic established ethanol use mandates and ever growing sales of large pick-up trucks, we have an insatiable dictated demand for food burning in our corn ethanol program.

    So you see, we've hardly had a huge global crop failure in corn, either, but we have had a policy failure.

    Conclusion
    Weather always causes fluctuations in agricultural production. Writing that sentence just made me feel stupid, but I had to when the purpose of this article was to rebut Krugman's weekend writing. We do not know if we are in the middle of another food crisis. We can't yet conclude with certainty how climate change is affecting agricultural production. What we do know is that the good news related to agricultural weather and production is always dismissed while the bad news is always over-dramatized and chosen as the means of predicting the current trend. And that only fuels panic and speculation.

  • #2
    Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

    The denialists keep denying while, the earth keeps heating, the extreme weather (as predicted more than a decade ago) keeps getting more extreme, and now, the people will go hungry.

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/2...limate-change/

    Munich Re: "The only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change"
    December 23, 2010
    A year of deadly record-smashing weather extremes from Nashville to Moscow, from the Amazon to Pakistan, ended with staggering deluges from California — “Rainfall records weren’t just broken, they were obliterated” — to Australia:

    More than a year’s rain fell in Carnarvon in just 24 hours this week. A monsoonal low hovering over the Gascoyne dumped a 24-hour record 204.8mm, smashing the previous record of 119.4mm set on March 24, 1923.

    NASA reported that it was the hottest ‘meteorological year’ [December to November] on record and likely to be the hottest calendar year.

    Uber-meteorologist and former NOAA Hurricane hunter Dr. Jeff Masters of Weather Underground reported, “The year 2010 now has the most national extreme heat records for a single year–nineteen. These nations comprise 20% of the total land area of Earth. This is the largest area of Earth’s surface to experience all-time record high temperatures in any single year in the historical record.”


    This was a year that the scientific literature became clearer that global warming is driving more extreme weather, hell and high water (see Study: Global warming is driving increased frequency of extreme wet or dry summer weather in southeast, so droughts and deluges are likely to get worse) — and it is likely to get much, much worse if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path (see “A stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the precipice” and “Must-read NCAR analysis warns we risk multiple, devastating global droughts even on moderate emissions path“).

    But this was also very much a year of living dangerously right now for people around the globe:

    Russian President Medvedev: “What is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change, because we have never in our history faced such weather conditions in the past.” NYT: “Russia Bans Grain Exports After Drought Shrivels Crop”
    Another extreme drought hits the Amazon, raising climate change concerns
    Juan Cole: The media’s failure to cover “the great Pakistani deluge” is “itself a security threat” to America
    We had Tennessee’s 1000-year deluge aka Nashville’s ‘Katrina’.
    As Craig Fugate, who heads the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, put it last week, “The term ‘100-year event’ really lost its meaning this year.” Tamino calculates (at length) that global warming made the Moscow heat wave roughly eight times more likely: “Without global warming, this once-in-a-century-or-two event would have been closer to a once-in-a-millenium event.” On our current emissions path, Russia’s grain-export-ending heat wave and drought could be a once every decade event — or even more frequent.

    I queried both Masters and Dr. Peter Hoeppe, Head of the Geo Risks Research Department at Munich Re, one of the world’s leading reinsurers, about this astonishing year. Here’s what Masters wrote me:


    In my thirty years as a meteorologist, I’ve never seen global weather patterns as strange as those we had in 2010. The stunning extremes we witnessed gives me concern that our climate is showing the early signs of instability. Natural variability probably did play a significant role in the wild weather of 2010, and 2011 will likely not be nearly as extreme. However, I suspect that crazy weather years like 2010 will become the norm a decade from now, as the climate continues to adjust to the steady build-up of heat-trapping gases we are pumping into the air. Forty years from now, the crazy weather of 2010 will seem pretty tame. We’ve bequeathed to our children a future with a radically changed climate that will regularly bring unprecedented weather events–many of them extremely destructive–to every corner of the globe. This year’s wild ride was just the beginning.

    You can hear an extended interview of Masters and meteorologist Heidi Cullen and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, on last week’s Living on Earth, “The Wild Weather of 2010.” Trenberth, head of NCAR’s Climate Analysis Section, said on that show, “Some [weather events] we’ve had this year it’s clear– even though the research has not been done in detail yet –that the odds have changed, and we can probably say some of these would not have happened without global warming, without the human influence on climate.”

    In an Exclusive interview with ClimateProgress earlier this year, Trenberth explained a key connection between human-caused global warming and superstorms:

    “I find it systematically tends to get underplayed and it often gets underplayed by my fellow scientists. Because one of the opening statements, which I’m sure you’ve probably heard is “Well you can’t attribute a single event to climate change.” But there is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapor lurking around in the atmosphere than there used to be say 30 years ago. It’s about a 4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms and it’s unfortunate that the public is not associating these with the fact that this is one manifestation of climate change. And the prospects are that these kinds of things will only get bigger and worse in the future.”

    Back in August, Trenberth told the NY Times, “It’s not the right question to ask if this storm or that storm is due to global warming, or is it natural variability. Nowadays, there’s always an element of both.”

    The nation’s top climatologist, NASA’s James Hansen has also recently written on the subject: Would recent extreme “events have occurred if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm?” The “appropriate answer” is “almost certainly not”:

    “Given the association of extreme weather and climate events with rising global temperature, the expectation of new record high temperatures in 2012 also suggests that the frequency and magnitude of extreme events could reach a high level in 2012. Extreme events include not only high temperatures, but also indirect effects of a warming atmosphere including the impact of higher temperature on extreme rainfall and droughts. The greater water vapor content of a warmer atmosphere allows larger rainfall anomalies and provides the fuel for stronger storms driven by latent heat.”

    ...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

      I tend to agree that the evidence weighs in favor of global warming being man-made. I doubt we can do anything about it.

      Anyways. So the article confirms that Krugman is correct that food prices are largely the result of supply and demand, not "money printing." I agree that attributing the weather patterns to global warming was an overreach.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

        True or not, anyone who thinks 1 degree over a 100 years is going to cause weather catastrophes in orders of magnitude contributes nothing to the debate but alarmist nonsense.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

          Originally posted by Munger View Post
          I tend to agree that the evidence weighs in favor of global warming being man-made. I doubt we can do anything about it.

          Anyways. So the article confirms that Krugman is correct that food prices are largely the result of supply and demand, not "money printing." I agree that attributing the weather patterns to global warming was an overreach.
          I thought the article was saying that food prices are rising mainly because of general inflation and not because of "huge crop failures" caused by weather fluctuations (which are always with us).

          Maybe it's a Rorsharch article Anyway, that guy sure doesn't agree with Krugman about something.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

            Originally posted by Toast'd One
            The denialists keep denying while, the earth keeps heating, the extreme weather (as predicted more than a decade ago) keeps getting more extreme, and now, the people will go hungry.
            Yes, the old "if its hot, its climate change. If its cold, its climate change"

            Just what circumstances would disprove this theory - if any and all occurrences are due to global warming climate change climate disruption or whatever new term is made up?

            Credibility is sadly lacking.

            I especially like how you put forth Trenberth - he of the 'scientific' talk on how to propagandize the public, along with Heidi Cullen, CEO of Climate Central.

            Clearly these are 2 fine example of objective scientists.

            Be that as it may, the contradictions and ongoing failures of AGW continue to leech credibility.

            Last edited by c1ue; February 08, 2011, 06:45 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

              Originally posted by Munger
              Anyways. So the article confirms that Krugman is correct that food prices are largely the result of supply and demand, not "money printing." I agree that attributing the weather patterns to global warming was an overreach.
              Read the article again. It specifically highlights that supply and demand is NOT the cause.

              Krugman is a moron.

              Since you like talking economics, besides supply and demand, major causes of high food prices are individual national food policies and currency conditions. The Asian nations are experiencing food inflation because they are experiencing high overall inflation. Poverty levels, subsidizations, tariffs, setting bread or fuel prices, devalued currencies, import and export restrictions, infrastructure standards of food storage and transport are all important factors in food prices which help determine levels of food security within individual nations.

              In the past year there were also poor nations which experienced falling food prices and ample food production. This never makes the news. It's way too boring. Also, today we have grain imports happening to take advantage of perceived price opportunity and low bulk shipping rates.

              Currently there is more than enough food being produced to feed everyone. The problems come down to supply, storage, distribution, poverty, rapidly growing populations, and waste. Government corruption and failed politics are factors, too.
              The article also specifically notes that Krugman's talk about Asians eating meat is totally wrong.

              The cause is policy in the United States regarding ethanol.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

                Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                Read the article again. It specifically highlights that supply and demand is NOT the cause.

                Krugman is a moron.



                The article also specifically notes that Krugman's talk about Asians eating meat is totally wrong.

                The cause is policy in the United States regarding ethanol.
                second that!!! (all of the above)

                and that he's also a HYPOCRITE for telling obama & co that they havent jacked up deficit spending _enough_ (at 1.3 TRILLION)
                while gee-dubya bonehead's couple hundred billion (or whatevah number gets pulled out of the air) was unconscionable!??

                and if FREE AND EEEEEEEEZZZZZY MONEY WAS HOW "WE" GOT INTO THE MESS "WE" ARE IN??

                the only answer is to BLOW EVEN MORE (trillions now, NOT mere billions) ????

                KRUGMAN = A FRAUD!

                add: and if it was some corporate type putting out the BS that he does, to sell some goods or service, TELL ME THERE WOULDNT BE A PACK OF LAWYERS TRYING TO CLASS-ACTION THEM INTO OBLIVION!

                but when its one their own, what do we hear from the lamestream media????
                (zip, zilch, NADA baybee - they all just keep repeating his BS - and who was it who said that if you repeat a lie often enuf, it becomes the 'truth' ?)
                Last edited by lektrode; February 08, 2011, 07:00 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

                  Originally posted by we_are_toast View Post
                  The denialists keep denying while, the earth keeps heating, the extreme weather (as predicted more than a decade ago) keeps getting more extreme, and now, the people will go hungry.
                  I'm sure the corn ethanol strategy, which was implemented ostensibly to combat the big Boogie-Man of anthropogenic global climate warming/cooling disruption/disaster/challenges, has nothing to do with people starving. [/sarcasm]

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

                    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                    The article also specifically notes that Krugman's talk about Asians eating meat is totally wrong.

                    The cause is policy in the United States regarding ethanol.
                    http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/...expansion.html

                    Rising Consumption of Meat and Milk in Developing Countries Has Created a New Food Revolution1,2
                    Christopher L. Delgado3
                    International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. 20006

                    ABSTRACT
                    People in developing countries currently consume on average one-third the meat and one-quarter of the milk products per capita compared to the richer North, but this is changing rapidly. The amount of meat consumed in developing countries over the past has grown three times as much as it did in the developed countries. The Livestock Revolution is primarily driven by demand. Poor people everywhere are eating more animal products as their incomes rise above poverty level and as they become urbanized. By 2020, the share of developing countries in total world meat consumption will expand from 52% currently to 63%. By 2020, developing countries will consume 107 million metric tons (mmt) more meat and 177 mmt more milk than they did in 1996/1998, dwarfing developed-country increases of 19 mmt for meat and 32 mmt for milk. The projected increase in livestock production will require annual feed consumption of cereals to rise by nearly 300 mmt by 2020. Nonetheless, the inflation-adjusted prices of livestock and feed commodities are expected to fall marginally by 2020, compared to precipitous declines in the past 20 y. Structural change in the diets of billions of people is a primal force not easily reversed by governments. The incomes and nutrition of millions of rural poor in developing countries are improving. Yet in many cases these dietary changes also create serious environmental and health problems that require active policy involvement to prevent irreversible consequences.

                    ...

                    Per capita consumption is rising fastest in regions where urbanization and rapid income growth result in people adding variety to their diets. Across countries, per capita consumption is significantly determined by average capita income (4). Aggregate consumption grows fastest where rapid population growth augments income and urban growth (5,6). Since the early 1980s, total meat and milk consumption grew at 6 and 4% per y respectively throughout the developing world. In East and Southeast Asia—where income grew at 4–8% per y between the early 1980s and 1998, population at 2–3% per y and urbanization at 4–6% per y—meat consumption grew between 4 and 8% per y.

                    Rising Consumption of Meat and Milk in Developing Countries Has Created a New Food Revolution

                    TABLE 2Per capita meat and milk consumption by region, 1983 and 1997
                    Meat Milk
                    Region 1983 1997 1983 1997
                    (kg)
                    China 16 43 3 8
                    Other East Asia 22 31 15 19
                    India 4 4 46 62
                    Other South Asia 6 9 47 63
                    Southeast Asia 11 18 10 12
                    Latin America 40 54 93 112
                    WANA 20 21 86 73
                    Sub-Saharan Africa 10 10 32 30
                    Developing world 14 25 35 43
                    Developed world 74 75 195 194
                    United States 107 120 237 257
                    World 30 36 76 77
                    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change

                    ...

                    Increased meat-eating has followed rising affluence in many parts of the world. China's levels doubled between 1990 and 2002. Back in 1961, the Chinese consumed a mere 3.6kg per person, while in 2002 they reached 52.4kg each; half of the world's pork is now consumed in China.
                    ...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

                      Originally posted by gwynedd1 View Post
                      True or not, anyone who thinks 1 degree over a 100 years is going to cause weather catastrophes in orders of magnitude contributes nothing to the debate but alarmist nonsense.
                      Extreme weather events will be more likely even with a 1 degree shift. It's about shifting the normal distribution. Another example: if you shift the average IQ 1 point, the number of people on the extreme ends (SD > 5) can increase several multiples.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

                        Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                        Read the article again. It specifically highlights that supply and demand is NOT the cause.
                        I must have missed that part. This is what I remembered:

                        > Global rice production fell by 2% in 2009/2010 from a record crop the year before.
                        > global stocks-to-use ratio is tighter at 26.5% which is near the average this past decade and well below the 22.3% low in 2007/08
                        > Krugman is right about crop failures due to extreme droughts in Russia and the Ukraine this past year. These areas experienced a 30% reduction in their wheat crops. There were also reduced wheat plantings this past year due to the oversupply the year before. Global wheat production fell 5% from 2009.
                        > Weather always causes fluctuations in agricultural production. We do not know if we are in the middle of another food crisis. We can't yet conclude with certainty how climate change is affecting agricultural production.

                        I also recall seeing a brief assertion made that these small decreases in supply can't explain the large increases in price. As I also recall, Krugman explained this through the inelasticity of demand in regards to food. I.e., it has to increase in price a lot before people decide to go without. But whatever.

                        Krugman is a moron.
                        That's like, your opinion, man.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

                          Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                          The article also specifically notes that Krugman's talk about Asians eating meat is totally wrong.

                          Why should this be wrong?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

                            Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                            Krugman continues to (in)distinguish himself, this time conflating food prices, global warming, and the riots in Egypt:

                            Summary: Krugman says food prices rising due to global warming. Fact: Food prices have been dropping until recently, besides a spike in the early '70s (hint: dollar devaluation). Rice and Wheat crops and supplies are perfectly normal. The increases in price and decreases in food supply are almost exclusively due to corn, sugar, and oils, and that of corn in turn is due to the US' ethanol policies.

                            And in case you wondered why the world is warming up.


                            30 days before the olympic games.






                            From space.





                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: More Krugman idiocy: Global Warming and Food prices

                              Originally posted by Munger
                              Extreme weather events will be more likely even with a 1 degree shift. It's about shifting the normal distribution. Another example: if you shift the average IQ 1 point, the number of people on the extreme ends (SD > 5) can increase several multiples.
                              Except for one tiny problem: extreme events are actually NOT increasing in frequency nor in strength.

                              What has been increasing is the number of people living in flood plains (Queensland/Brisbane), on coastlines (Katrina/New Orleans), etc etc.

                              As posted to 'Climate Change' - Hurricane frequency and total energy: no trend whatsoever


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X