{"id":273372,"date":"2023-08-14T11:55:00","date_gmt":"2023-08-14T09:55:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=273372"},"modified":"2023-08-14T11:55:16","modified_gmt":"2023-08-14T09:55:16","slug":"em-dat-the-international-disaster-database","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=273372","title":{"rendered":"EM-DAT:\u00a0 The International Disaster Database"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brief Note by Kip Hansen \u2014 2 August 2023<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

There have been quite a few media and blog-based articles talking about disasters. (See\u00a0Pielke Jr. here<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0here<\/a>)\u00a0 Are they increasing worldwide or are they declining?\u00a0 Are there more or fewer weather-related, climate-related disasters?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The go-to source for statistics on worldwide disasters for (nearly) everyone is\u00a0EM-DAT \u2013 The International Disaster Database<\/a>.\u00a0 For years, the UN, IPCC and the climate-crisis-complicit mass media used the database just as presented at\u00a0Our World in Data<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This version led to the wild claims that disasters had quadrupled or quintupled since the 1970s.\u00a0 There was a problem with that view, of course \u2013 it was not true in the real world, only in the pretty-picture graph.\u00a0 In 2019, I investigated this and an email exchange with Regina Below, Database Manager and Documentalist at CRED\/EM-DAT, revealed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I asked:\u00a0 \u201cMy guess would be that 1970 to 1998 represents\u00a0an increase in REPORTING<\/strong>\u00a0and not in actual Natural Disasters.\u00a0Can you confirm this please \u2014 or correct me if I am wrong.\u201c<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regina Below replied: \u201c\u00a0You are right, it is an increase in the reporting\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It turns out that the data collection system was not fully functional until about 2000 and comparisons of years and totals before that time are not appropriate. \u00a0Later, others confirmed this\u00a0in scientific journal articles<\/a>\u00a0(though they only needed to ask).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what about the data after 2000?\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0Well, what do\u00a0you<\/em>\u00a0think of when you see the word \u201cdisaster\u201d?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is EM-DAT\u2019s definition:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c<\/strong>EM-DAT defines disasters as situations or events which overwhelm local capacity, necessitating a request for external assistance at the national or international level. Disasters are unforeseen and often sudden events that cause significant damage, destruction, and human suffering.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And that seems alright, I would agree with that but for this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cInclusion criteria<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

EM-DAT focuses on major disasters<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

EM-DAT globally records at the country level human and economic losses for disasters with at least one<\/u> of the following criteria:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n