Image talk:Extreme-weather-cost.gif

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see: Talk:Global warming/extreme weather extrapolation graph

bad idea modifying the existing graph. you've now invalidated the votes on this graph (not that that matters to your cause). furthermore, this new graphs takes to new extremes your imprecision, to wit, you have not adjusted the past values to current (2005) inflation! please withdraw this new graph from any published format until you've fixed these grievous errors. Anastrophe 06:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

After spending days pleading for it, Anastrophe has now objected to adding recent data. I voted against the earlier version of this graph. The appropriate version of this and other graphs will continue to be added where they will provide important information. —James S. 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

your responses are getting more and more warped. i am not objecting to adding recent data. i am objecting to adding INNACCURATE DATA. your graph is now PATENTLY INNACCURATE. the figure of $60,000,000,000 billion in the 2001 IPCC graph, adjusted for the inflation since 2001, would make the figure in your graph 65,070,589,858. that's no small discrepancy. if you have no concern for accuracy, then you can be quite sure that your graph will never last more than a few minutes in any article on wikipedia. at minimum --- at bare minimum ---- modify a graph with a different name, so you don't pollute the discussion of it on global warming, for crying out loud. say, for example, Cost-of-storms-by-decade-v1.1.gif . sheesh. Anastrophe 06:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on finding that shift key. $60,000,000,000 billion? What are you talking about? Its in billions of 2001 U.S. dollars. Why don't you make your own graph so you can show me how you want it? —James S. 06:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Model used

Hi!

Could you please explain how you got your model parameters? I first thought you might have log-transformed the data, but seeing as some costs are zero (e.g. for years 1951, 1955 or 1980) I suppose you either casted out these years or that the zero values are rounded-down values.

There's also a few other aspects of this graph I find puzzling. If I understood correctly, this graph plots the amount of money (in constant billion US dollars, i.e. adjusted to inflation) that was spent due to damage by natural catastrophes between 1950 and 2000. But what exactly is a natural catastrophe? Obviously, isolated events like hurricanes (e.g. Katrina) or earthquakes are natural catastrophes. But what about droughts fo example? When is an area considered to be in drought and how does one estimate the cost of such a phenomenum? Does the amount of money spent depend on the country concerned? For example, supposing the exact same catastrophe hits a rich and a poor country, will the poor country spend the same amount of money as the rich one does? Have the means to detect natural catastrophes evolved in the past fifty years, e.g. do we have more measurements available and can satellite data better detect catastrophes occuring today in isolated but inhabited areas?

I'm a bit confused... Thanks in advance!

Deimos.

i believe it's worth noting that the source data is not ostensibly costs due to damage by natural catastrophes - it is costs due to damage by 'extreme weather'. on that basis, earthquakes would surely not be included in the totals. Anastrophe 18:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. The data is digitized from the source graph. If you want to log-transform it, add 1 first. —James S. 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I expected that you would twitch a bit for the earthquake. Thanks for the log-transform, I'm affraid I had a bit of a brain fart here... What about my other questions? Deimos.

I do not know the answers to your other questions. I have emailed two of those resposible for the data in the 2001 IPCC graph, but have yet to receive a reply. I'll ping them again. —James S. 02:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Deimos