Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Increase in Natural Disasters? Prophesied?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 157 (257169)
11-05-2005 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
11-04-2005 9:39 AM


Re: Questions buz needs to answer.
jar writes:
Buz, Prophets were folk that MIGHT be bringing a message from GOD. They were not folk that fortold the future beyond the immediate (within the lifetime of the listeners). To try and take utterances that were relevant 2500-3000 years ago as you did with Joel and Zephenaiah is IMHO, misleading.
Jar, please stop this nonsense of claiming there is no future events prophesied by what are known in Biblical eschatology as major and minor prophets. Many of the events which were prophesied were clearly events not relevant to the times they were spoken. You're bucking nearly all the studied professionals of Biblical eschalogical theology, whistling in the wind with unsubstantiated rhetoric.
jar writes:
Zephenaiah was speaking about his own day and time. And, like many such Bible prophecies, it is a mixture of rehtoric and admonition. Keep reading Joel and you find that all the problems passed and it turns into a song of praise.
All you need do is to read carefully those prophesies of the kingdom events of a future time and they clearly were yet to come, having not yet happened, such as the deserts becoming productive gardens, rightious world rule with no more wars, all nations of the world praising Jehovah, et al.
As I've often stated and as Pat Robertson aluded to, the same prophets which prophesied the bad stuff to come, also prophesied a subsequent period of the messianic kingdom on earth headquartered in Jerusalem to immediately follow the end times bad stuff events. Thus, many of them first told the bad, followed by the good which was to follow, i.e. the praise time.
jar writes:
The question still remains, "Natural disasters are increasing compared to ...?"
The question still remains, what do you mean, 'compared to??' Give an example of what you're loudly repetitively and obnoxiously clamoring for. The discussion is about frequency trends relative to time frames. You seem to be the only one not yet comprehending that.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 11-04-2005 9:39 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 11-05-2005 9:09 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 55 by ramoss, posted 11-06-2005 7:55 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 47 of 157 (257171)
11-05-2005 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
11-05-2005 8:52 PM


Re: Questions buz needs to answer.
The discussion is about frequency trends relative to time frames. You seem to be the only one not yet comprehending that.
Okay, what are the time frames?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2005 8:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2005 10:42 PM jar has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 157 (257201)
11-05-2005 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Asgara
11-05-2005 8:48 PM


Re: Buzsaw "logic"
Asgara writes:
Buz, the NOAA site that webpenny is getting its list from does NOT have anything to say about frequency. This is something webpenny threw together with the list from NOAA that does not list all major disaster hurricanes either before OR after 1948.
And you have been given frequency data.... here is a link I gave back in message 258 of the prior thread...
U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade (Text)
1. If you go to the Webpenny list and click on NOAA, you get the National Hurricane Center's NOAA chart from which Pennyweb got their data. From that chart you can simply read it and observe the landfall frequency picture which pretty accurately resembles Webpenny's. However, I see from your chart here that it is listing all major hurricanes, not designating the landfall ones, or have I missed something? It is the landfall ones which our debate has been about. What do you think is the purpose of the NOAA list which Webpenny linked?
2. I went to the National Hurricane Center's full report link and read that these landfall hurricane disasters only factor in the wind damage and not any flood damage. I believe it can be accurately said that flood disasters relative to both hurricanes and other weather related causes have escalated significantly during the last few decades, again attesting to the overall increase in natural disaster frequency.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Asgara, posted 11-05-2005 8:48 PM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Asgara, posted 11-05-2005 10:51 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 56 by ramoss, posted 11-06-2005 7:59 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 58 by Modulous, posted 11-06-2005 8:49 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 157 (257204)
11-05-2005 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
11-05-2005 9:09 PM


Re: Questions buz needs to answer.
jar writes:
Okay, what are the time frames?
The timeframe, as I've been stating all along is from 1948 and we've been using some data, mostly from 1900 to get an overview of the trend. I suppose it's not feasable to go back too far because of the lack of accurate data available. I assume that historically, it's been relatively stable over the centuries from the information we have.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 11-05-2005 9:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 11-05-2005 10:48 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 52 by Silent H, posted 11-06-2005 4:13 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 130 by bkelly, posted 11-16-2005 8:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 50 of 157 (257207)
11-05-2005 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
11-05-2005 10:42 PM


Re: Questions buz needs to answer.
I assume that historically, it's been relatively stable over the centuries from the information we have.
If I can show you that is an incorrect assumption, how should we proceed?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2005 10:42 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 11-06-2005 10:06 PM jar has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 51 of 157 (257208)
11-05-2005 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
11-05-2005 10:31 PM


Re: Buzsaw "logic"
Yes buz, I have never denied that webpenny got their data from that NOAA page. What I have a problem with is what webpenny is claiming from that data. The NOAA site NEVER says it is a list of major landfall US hurricanes...only webpenny says that, and in fact three of the hurricanes on that list DID NOT make US landfall. The webpenny site is simply wrong. It took an incomplete list, that did not state the criteria for making that list...and MADE UP the rest.
Please admit that the webpenny site misused the NOAA page it lists as reference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2005 10:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 11-06-2005 10:20 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 52 of 157 (257230)
11-06-2005 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Buzsaw
11-05-2005 10:42 PM


Re: Questions buz needs to answer.
The timeframe, as I've been stating all along is from 1948
If you use only data from 1948 onward, you are free to try and make your case with evidence.
I assume that historically, it's been relatively stable over the centuries from the information we have.
If this is the case you want to make, then you must use data from before 1948, and jar has been correct all along in his criticisms. If you mean an increase after 1948 relative to frequency throughout the centuries you need much more data.
By the way, you'd also be wrong. I'm not sure where you ever got a meteorologist saying that weather and climate have been stable over the centuries, especially up until 1948. Good luck with that.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2005 10:42 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 53 of 157 (257234)
11-06-2005 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
11-05-2005 8:07 PM


Re: No Admission Or Apology For Truth
quote:
As I have shown to be the case, that report was taken from the only NOAA frequency trend chart available for the purpose of this discussion relative to the timeframe in which our discussion spans.
We've seen the webpenny's report. We KNOW the NOAA list it was taken from because it was linked to form the report. It was NOT "frequency trend chart".
Better data has been found - such as the decade-by-decade breakdown I listed.
So not only have you failed to show any such thing, you have been proved wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2005 8:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 54 of 157 (257241)
11-06-2005 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Buzsaw
11-05-2005 8:01 PM


Re: Buzsaw "logic"
Fact: The webpenny's list omits major hurricanes that occurred before 1948 - while including weaker hurricanes that happened later. If you assert that the list IS a complete listing of major hurricanes you are implicitly denying that those omitted by the list ever ocurred.
Do you admit that the webpenny's list is useless for showing an increasing trend because it is incomplete ?
quote:
2. The Webpenny frequency trend consecutive year chart is nothing but an updated version of the only NOAA list published which shows the data we need to show to determine the frequency trend. I've not been able to find another such chart.
This is an outright lie. I linked to a decade-by-decade summary of hurricanes for the 20th century. This is BETTER than the webpenny's list because it uses the complete NOAA records rather than simply assuming that the one list the author of the report bothered to look it happened to include the complete data.
quote:
Webpenny does not claim to be and authoritative source on hurricanes, nor have I suggested that. That's why they relied on NOAA's expertise for their data source.
So therefore you have no good reason to continue to champion the webpenny's report when it is contradicted by the real data from NOAA.
So why are you doing it ?
quote:
1. It's not a more reliable for the purpose of showing a complete updated frequency trend. That why the need for Webpenny to bring it up to date. Imo, a database as significant as NOAA should be updating the published data at least yearly or biyearly. So if you have a complaint, the buck stops with them.
The author of the webpenny's report is entirely to blame for his own shoddy research. The NOAA list he used is simply a selection of major hurricanes. His ideas about what it represented were his own and NOT claims made on the NOAA webpage he used. Better information IS available on NOAA and has been provided in this thread and the previous thread.
quote:
Both charts show the same number of pre-1948 landfall disasters which is seven. After all, that's what's really significant for the purpose of this discussion, the year 1948 when Israel became a nation being my repeatedly stated timeframe base.
Of course the number is the same - that IS the mistake ! And since we know from the other data that the list does NOT represent the actual frequency of occurrence it has no significance to ant prophecty relating to the actual occurrence of hurricanes.
quote:
But again, it's not about intensity grading. It's about frequency trend of the most intense naturally disastrous ones. Most on both the frequency trend charts, Webpenny's and NOAA's, by far, occurred after 1948.
False. On the decade-by-decade list the majority of major hurricanes occurred in the FIRST half ot the century (35 out of 65). The low point is the 1970s.
And it would be absolutely insane to use the webpenny's frequency chart because it is KNOWN to be based on incomplete data.
quote:
I never ever claimed that 1948 marked the start of an increase in hurricane activity
In the same post you yourself used 1948 as the marker line.
quote:
In short, that event in 1948 had to happen before it could be said that an uptrend in natural disasters would be prophetically significant/relevant.
Not much of a prophecy then. Natural disasters vary in frequency. Allowed unlimited time an increase would certainly happen at SOME point after 1948.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2005 8:01 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 11-07-2005 9:39 PM PaulK has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 55 of 157 (257250)
11-06-2005 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
11-05-2005 8:52 PM


Re: Questions buz needs to answer.
There were 'signs' in the minor and major prophets.
They were always for the immediate generation, for the situation they were in then, not for some ambigious future though. The signs were , of course, always written about after they had come about.
The Jewish concept of prophecy was not predicting for the future, but rahter messages to guild the living back to the path of rightiousness at the momment.
If you look at all the phrases that Christians take for predicting Jesus IN CONTEXT, they never point to some event hundreds of years in the future, but rather something that has occured at the writing,or is
occuring at the writing of those passages. Taking one or two phrases out of context, then taking another one or two phrases out of context from a book several hundred years later to back it up is not prediction the future, but rather shoehorning 'Predictions' into place to make it appear that something miraculous has happened.
Oh.. and then relationing at story, and using out of context phrases as if they were predictions is a dishonest technique to. The writer of the Gospel of Matthew was particularly fond of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2005 8:52 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 56 of 157 (257252)
11-06-2005 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
11-05-2005 10:31 PM


Re: Buzsaw "logic"
Several things you are not taking into account.
1) The increase in population, putting more people in risk, and the building up areas that can be damanged.
2) The fact hurricanes frequencey is cyclical.. and it happened both 35 and 70 years ago.
3) The fact our tehcnology and communiations have increased, and we are aware of more storms that used to be unnoticed.
Yes, there probably is an increase slightly due to global warming, but
it is unknown how big a boost it is. We have only been tracking hurricanes for 100 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2005 10:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 57 of 157 (257257)
11-06-2005 8:38 AM


BBC
If you trust a site like webpennys for compiling data, I'm sure you'll trust the BBC.
Source
If we look at the evidence in total we see that the trend from the 1850s seems to be going down as far as landfall is concerned.
One question though: Why landfalling in the USA? Does the prophecy discuss natural disasters increasing in one particular nation? Cuba, the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic and Jamaica get quite a battering from Gulf Hurricanes, why discount them? For example, Hurricane #4 in 1906 or Hurricane #6 in 1908.

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 58 of 157 (257260)
11-06-2005 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
11-05-2005 10:31 PM


Re: Buzsaw "logic"
If you go to the Webpenny list and click on NOAA, you get the National Hurricane Center's NOAA chart from which Pennyweb got their data.
This page is not a list of all major landfall hurricanes, just some notable ones. As the page you were linked points out, it lists,
noaa site writes:
Number of hurricanes by Saffir-Simpson Category to strike the mainland U.S. each decade.
And as far as major hurricanes go:
quote:
1940s: 10
1950s: 8
1960s: 6
1970s: 4
1980s: 5
1990s: 5
A pretty clear downward trend.
However, I see from your chart here that it is listing all major hurricanes, not designating the landfall ones, or have I missed something?
Yes, you missed something, like the title,
the noaa site writes:
U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade
and the subtitle
the noaa site writes:
Number of hurricanes by Saffir-Simpson Category to strike the mainland U.S. each decade.
It is the landfall ones which our debate has been about.
It is the landfall ones the list documents, contrary to webpennys.
What do you think is the purpose of the NOAA list which Webpenny linked?
I'd say it was a list of historical hurricanes. It doesn't actually say what criteria would get a hurricane on that list, so we are left guessing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 11-05-2005 10:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
bobbins
Member (Idle past 3614 days)
Posts: 122
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 06-23-2005


Message 59 of 157 (257369)
11-06-2005 9:24 PM


Details,detail,details
To be honest I was a little too lazy to read every post (especially the stats, as on a second read through are meaningless in their current state) in this thread, but a quick skimming raised a few queries.
Why just natural disasters of the hurricane, tidal wave, earthquake variety?
Plenty natural disasters where that came from. The old four horseman of the apocalypse suggest war,famine,pestilence and death. How about Iraq war and terrorism, Northern African famine, Bird Flu and Cancer? Some would say these are not natural but all are natural consequences of human action and interaction.
How about a meteor strike? Or extra terrestrial virus? Invasion? Solar activity? Flipping of the magnetic field? Greenhouse effect - surely natural given variances of temperature in the last 50 million years. New ice age, heck why not. One day the 'day-of-enders' will be right. But maybe not today or the next 1/2 million days. Who knows? Because the Bible, in the same way as Nostradamus, soothsayers and any prophetic writings rely on interpretation after the event for credence (if any).
Current statistics for natural phenomena mentioned are only reliable for the last 50-100 years , and bare observations for the last 1000-3000 years. These phenomena have occurred for 10000+ times longer. It would be the same stretch to suggest that a dip in the morning temperatures of 10 degrees is a sign of the next ice age.
This apocalyptic bollocks only brings genuine religious faith into disrepute and makes you all look like a (slightly milder) solar temple cult.
Last point, if God is moving towards the endgame why keep it so mundane and, well, predictable. We have hurricanes and earthquakes all the time, surely the creator could come up with something new for the finale.

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.
Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.
Whoops!

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 157 (257375)
11-06-2005 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Asgara
11-05-2005 8:48 PM


Re: Buzsaw "logic"
Asgara writes:
Buz, the NOAA site that webpenny is getting its list from does NOT have anything to say about frequency. This is something webpenny threw together with the list from NOAA that does not list all major disaster hurricanes either before OR after 1948.
And you have been given frequency data.... here is a link I gave back in message 258 of the prior thread...
U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade (Text)
One can determine frequency increase or decrease by looking at the consecutive yearly charts on both the NOAA and the Webpenny charts. It was my understanding that only the NOAA one that Webpenny used gave landfall yearly sequence. However, I've come to realize that only the Webpenny chart page says this list was landfall only and the National Hurricane Center's NOAA chart from which it was derived, does not say that they're only landfall. I didn't realize also that three of those on the sequence charts were not landfall hurricanes until you said so, and I'll take your word for it. I guess it's the flood damage from these later huricanes that has been the greatest factor as to natural disasters. I'll concede that the landfall hurricane post 1948 frequency increase is questionable. Nevertheless, the last couple of decades and especially the last two years appear to be spiking up and the forcast by climatologists looks like we're in for rough years ahead.
I stand by the overall increase in natural dasasters in the last few decades, however, from all causes, including some we've not discussed much about, including floods, which, I understand, account for about a third of natural disaster damage.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Asgara, posted 11-05-2005 8:48 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024