Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pat Robertson on natural disasters
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 236 of 302 (255670)
10-30-2005 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Buzsaw
10-30-2005 4:04 PM


Re: Bashing Robertson
please reread the links I've cited, especially those which show that both the incidence of natural disasters and the loss of life and property are increasing in recent decades
Is this the "links" you are talking about?
http://EvC Forum: Pat Robertson on natural disasters -->EvC Forum: Pat Robertson on natural disasters
Those aren't links buz, they are cuts from a search engine that doesn't give any actual links. Maybe you could find something that we could actuall use?

NOAA - HURRICANES
here is the official NOAA page listing links to historical statistics...
Page Not Found
THE DEADLIEST, COSTLIEST, AND MOST INTENSE UNITED STATES HURRICANES FROM 1900 TO 2000 - THE DEADLIEST, COSTLIEST, AND MOST INTENSE
UNITED STATES HURRICANES FROM 1900 TO 2000
Untitled Document --
lists hurricanes by decades since 1900, shows that during the twenty year period 1960-1979 both the number and intensity of landfalling U.S. hurricanes decreased sharply! Based on 1900-1959 statistics, the expected number of hurricanes and major hurricanes during the period 1960-1979 was 36 and 15, respectively. But, in fact, only 27 (or 75%) of the expected number of hurricanes struck the U.S. with only 10 major hurricanes or 67% of that expected number. The decade of the eighties showed little change to this trend. Even the decade of the nineties, showed below average landfall frequencies. It could be noted that of the most recent four decades, only the 70's and 90's were significantly below normal.
Untitled Document -- average number of hurricanes per year

USGS - EARTHQUAKE STATISTICS
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/7up.html ---Number of Magnitude 7.0 and Greater Earthquakes per Year,
Since 1900
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html ---Frequency of Occurrence of Earthquakes
I don't see your big increase listed here for the past century Buz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2005 4:04 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2005 11:13 PM Asgara has replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 238 of 302 (255673)
10-30-2005 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by joshua221
10-30-2005 6:07 PM


Charlie, buz isn't claiming beliefs that go against every piece of evidence. Buz is claiming there IS evidence but can't produce it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by joshua221, posted 10-30-2005 6:07 PM joshua221 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2005 9:30 PM Asgara has replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 241 of 302 (255703)
10-30-2005 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Buzsaw
10-30-2005 9:30 PM


Try replying to #Message 236 instead of #238.
Your links were not links....there were no usable web addresses to read anything there.
I would read your links if possible. I suggest you read mine.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 10-30-2005 08:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2005 9:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 252 of 302 (255782)
10-31-2005 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Buzsaw
10-30-2005 11:13 PM


Re: Bashing Robertson
So buz, you are saying that the last 100 years is short term? But I thought you told jar that these types of things have been increasing in "recent decades." You can't have it both ways buz, either we look at the last 10 decades or we call that short term and we go further back.
OK, we have shown that hurricanes and earthquakes are not increasing. How about the tsunamis you listed?
http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/tsustats.pdf
hhmm, again no increase.
Oh, buz? Please take note that these links I have been giving you are from official sites such as NOAA and USGS.
But having read your articles, here is the first link off the MSNBC
Earth News - Environmental Science Articles
So far buz, all you have produced is a word for word news report of a livescience report from the Center for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) in Brussels, Belgium.
I have the info from the CRED database and will look at their figures later, but now I have to leave for work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2005 11:13 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2005 11:09 PM Asgara has replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 258 of 302 (255928)
11-01-2005 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Buzsaw
10-31-2005 11:09 PM


Re: Bashing Robertson
I have made it clear that I am talking about the decades since Israel became a nation and that the prophecies pertaining to the middle east, Israel et al corroborate/strengthen the argument that the increase in natural disasters over those last decades up until the present are significant prophetically.
Buz I know you are talking about the recent decades...but what are you comparing them to? I gave you data from the last 100 years...you can compare the recent 50 to the prior 50. You can NOT claim that recent years have had an increase in natural disasters if you do not look at prior years. An increase from WHAT?? There is no comparison if you only look at one dataset.
It is NOT off topic to insist on evidence of increasing natural disasters in a thread dedicated to someone making references of increasing natural disasters.
Btw, I would need HTML to access your link. If it's on tsunamis perse, please remember thatwe're talking combined disaster incidents and not individual causes
Um Buz? You're using HTML to access just about every page you have ever viewed online. Are you talking about the pdf link? If you do not have Adobe Reader, I suggest you get it. Many of the best links out there are in PDF format. It is a free download from Adobe. Here is the graph from that link.
http://img499.imageshack.us/img499/5990/tsunami12tq.png
Please give me an actual link to the NOAA data you say you are accessing, because the links I am giving you show nothing of the sort.
U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade (Text)
PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL BUT SIX OF THE MAJOR LANDFALL HURRICANES IN THE NOAA LIST ARE AFTER ISRAEL BECAME A NATION
Interestingly enough the NOAA page listed here, showing the "most intense mainland United States hurricanes, 1851-2004 (includes only major hurricanes at their most intense landfall)" show that 6 of the top 10 were pre-1948.
The Most Intense Hurricanes in the United States 1851-2004 (Text)
Buz, if I am picking and choosing, you are guilty of the same, but at least I am giving you all the information I am using. If you want me to read your links please give some. So far you have only given me one page I can actually link to and read for myself.
The only thing I am picking and choosing are disasters. I am going disaster type by disaster type. You claim that natural disasters are on the rise and I am showing that hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis are NOT on the rise. Your two links were actually one. The other was a word for word retelling of the first.
I have been looking at the CRED database. It can not be used for any type of comparison because it has too many fields where it has no data. Too many early years and too many countries/regions with no data given.
In droughts by country alone, 3/7 of the information is missing. It does not take into consideration increasingly better reporting, increasingly better methods of detection, etc. The country by country query does not take into consideration the changing boundaries and name changes over the past 100 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Buzsaw, posted 10-31-2005 11:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 279 of 302 (256178)
11-02-2005 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Buzsaw
11-02-2005 9:08 AM


Re: Bashing Robertson
Buz, I've asked you before. Please give me a "LINK" to your NOAA data so I can verify it for myself.
Read the stats on landfall major hurricanes since 1948, for example. Nearly all of them since 1900 were after 1948
Your list is not from the NOAA's The Most Intense Hurricanes in the United States 1900-2000...
It is not from the NOAA's The Thirty Deadlist Mainland US Tropical Cyclones 1900 - 2000 ...
Nor is it from the NOAA's Costliest U.S. Hurricanes 1900-2000
Buz, I am NOT saying you are definately wrong, I haven't seen where you are getting your information from. I AM saying that you haven't shown anything yet.
So far you have given us a list from a websearch with no links, two actual links that boil down to one because they are exact copies of each other. I went to the database where the information in that link comes from and it is useless because a large portion of the early data is MISSING. The last information you gave was an unlinked list from what you claim is a NOAA list of major US landfall hurricanes since 1900, but it doesn't match the NOAA reports that I have actually supplied.
Buz do you understand what I am looking for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2005 9:08 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2005 10:08 AM Asgara has not replied
 Message 286 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2005 11:07 AM Asgara has replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 298 of 302 (256313)
11-02-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Buzsaw
11-02-2005 11:07 AM


Re: Bashing Robertson
Buz, thank you for providing the link.
Your NOAA list is by no means definitive, and it doesn't claim to be. It claims to be A list of major storms...not the list of ALL major storms. You can look at my links to NOAA's most intense, most deadly, and most costly storms and you have many storms missing from your list that are on various ones of mine.
Picture a list of cars that you saw pass your house today compared to the list of all cars that passed your house this same day.
I have to agree with PaulK here, your webpenny site didn't do much research into what it was printing. That same page lists the 2004 hurricanes as all being at least cat 3 at landfall...Frances was only a cat 2. Your site is discussing US hurricanes and at least three on their list did NOT make US landfall, Iris falling WELL short.
All the report links on your webpenny page go back to the same NOAA page that they are using deceptively.
Once again hun, not saying you are definately wrong, but you have YET to show us anything.
Meteorologists DO expect the storms to increase in number...
Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, told a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday that we're in a period of heightened hurricane activity that could last another decade or two.
"The increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations (and) cycles of hurricane activity driven by the Atlantic Ocean itself along with the atmosphere above it and not enhanced substantially by global warming," he testified.

Asgara
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"
select * from USERS where CLUE > 0
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2005 11:07 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2005 7:34 PM Asgara has replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2293 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 300 of 302 (256361)
11-02-2005 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Buzsaw
11-02-2005 7:34 PM


Re: Bashing Robertson
It's major landfall ones, which are the ones relative to the op of this thead, i.e. natural disasters
Buz that NOAA list does not say what the criteria is for being on that list... your webpenny page doesn't either. It is a list not the list. It does not list all the major landfall hurricanes since 1900.
The three are on the NOAA list, aren't they?
The three are on YOUR list of some major hurricanes...they are NOT on the NOAA list of The Most Intense Hurricanes in the United States 1900-2000
That is my point buz, your list is not a list of either most intense, most deadly, or most costly US landfall hurricanes.
I've still shown that the frequency of all natural disasters of all kinds together has been on the rise in recent decades, according to a number of websites.
You have given us some half-assed quotes from unlinked websites saying what you want to hear. I can find all kinds of websites saying Christianity is bunk, does that automatically make YOU wrong? I have given you official NOAA links with non-ambiguous titles for their lists.
Yes, and I've already stated that to be the case, so for you to say I've shown nothing is just not right.
Buz you are making a mistake here. I never said you were wrong, and the fact that you may have some things right does not mean YOU have shown it. Your posts have not shown anything yet.
You have claimed that global warming is producing an unprecedented increase in natural disasters since 1948 in concordance with prophecy, a claim you have failed to back up. What we are saying is that any increase is cyclical, and has been happening for many centuries, and has NOT only been happening since 1948.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2005 7:34 PM Buzsaw 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