|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Increase in Natural Disasters? Prophesied? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
On a technical point, buzsaw seems to be correct. In mathematics we can say that f is increasing over time if df/dt is positive - apologies for introducing calculus. That's fine and if I can get buz to say that is what he's doing, then we will look at that series and see what it shows. But so far I have not been able to pin buz down on exactly what it is he's saying. Gotta get that straight first and then perhaps we can go on from there. If all we are looking at are natural disasters between 1948 and today, then that's what we'll try to examine. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hi PaulK. I had nearly finished responding to your post and lost it all. I'll try to do it over another time, but outa town tomorrow.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
On a technical point, buzsaw seems to be correct. In mathematics we can say that f is increasing over time if df/dt is positive - apologies for introducing calculus. That's fine ... No, actually it is not fine. When the occurance of events is highly variable with some possible cyclical variations thrown in then to simply find a positive slope with time is not adequate. It is necessary to sort out the variation and any cyclical patterns and from that determine if there is a real positive signel left. It requires a fair amount of mathematical care. I've not done anything with something as complex as weather patterns and earthquakes but the very simple stuff I have touched taught me that. I couldn't do it again today (forgot a lot ).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
What you said is true if you are trying to determine a general increase in something. As long as Buz is simply claiming that there will be an increase in disasters after 1948, which means that 1949 will have more than 1948, etc etc etc up till now, that is fine.
There are of course many questions which would come from this, including why a prophecy about disasters coming at the end of the world (if it existed) would be so narrow that the increase still does not match frequency of disasters naturally occuring at other times (and so the increase is not exectly apocalyptic). Originally I agreed with Jar on this, but Buz narrowed the focus in one of his last replies and technically it makes him correct. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
A simple admisison of error and perhaps an apology for failing to check the facts - even after they were made available to you - would have been an adequate response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 634 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I think it is also to determine what is a 'Natural disaster'. An earthquake in an unpopulated area?? A mud slid where no village is?
One factor that has to be taken into account is the fact that we have a much larger population in the world today than we did in the year 1948. Often , people are living in higher risk areas because of that, and a lot more of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I went through all the data myself, here it is:
DATA I don't see any significant upward trends...anybody else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
Eyeballing that kind of noisy plot really doesn't cut it but I'll stick my neck out and say that there is a hint of something starting at about 1990. Hardly a match to Buzz's "prophesy".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4458 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
Hey Buz, I was wondering if I could take the liberty of examining your presented sources.
------------------------------- PA Logo No Tag
quote: Environmental news; very interesting, quite complete and seems professional. I'm satisfied that they are a reliable source. However I couldn't find the article in question, and the quote is slightly too vague to make any judgements. ------------------------------- http://www.forest.nsw.gov.au/...pers/dtpamfcsipf/default.asp
quote: I wanted to know who the IPCC were, so I found their website - Page not found IPCC They're a UN organisation that bases its reports on peer-reviewed scientific research - they don't do it themselves (leaving it to the professionals, I assume). I am satisfied that they are credible. So, their report as stated on the website is seemingly reliable. Weather-related natural disasters are increasing, and it seems to be our own fault. I'm not sure how exactly that fits into Biblical prophesy, though - I thought it was supposed to be the hand of the Christian god, not human stupidity, that brings about the increase? In any case, this point is valid - these type of disasters are apparently increasing in frequency. ------------------------------- http://www.nemot.info/index.php?ref=viewnews&newsid Again a bad link - I couldn't find the article this refers to. In fact, nothing on the site worked for me - all I kept getting were blank pages. I will not make any judgement on it as result...
quote: ...Although I note that this is essentially the same argument as the IPCC link. ------------------------------- usunrome.usmission.gov/UNIssues/Forestry/docs/a4102802 Another bad link - this one got me a "page cannot be found" error.
quote: This quote is too bare, and without the rest of the article it is again impossible to make a judgement on it one way or another. ------------------------------- Page not found - David Suzuki Foundation
quote: This is very much a layman's site at first glance; that said, they do produce peer-reviewed reports on forestry in Canada, so I suspect the less technical front is for the purposes of accessibility to the general public. They do not present any sources for increasing frequency of forest fires - possibly, again, to keep the technical details to a minimum - but they do note on this page that the increase is due to climate change caused by global warming - again leading back to the point that it is our own fault. ------------------------------- http://www.michaelmandeville.com/...vortex_correlations2.htm This page actually argues for vortex tectonics being the cause of increased volcanic activity, using charts compiled by the author from data taken from the USGS earthquake database. (I doubt his correlations, they don't seem entirely consistent - but that is off-topic here.)
quote: The USGS describes the database here:http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/epic/database.html The database is inconsistent, and may be inaccurate as a reference - but the USGS are pretty reliable... Difficult call there. So, the final result seems to be one solid example - the global warming one - and one possibly dubious one. Seeing as the forest fire example apparently ties into global warming, it might be best to abandon it and look for more on the tectonic datasets. The Rock Hound "Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I forgot to say where the data came from: here.
I noticed an increase at around 1994 - the year Britain started its national lottery. Maybe that angered God? Also, 1932 seems to be the beginning of a small and general upward trend. that includes 1948. Was this prophesized?
Eyeballing that kind of noisy plot really doesn't cut it but I'll stick my neck out and say that there is a hint of something starting at about 1990. Hardly a match to Buzz's "prophesy". The raw data is available on that page too...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PaulK writes: A simple admisison of error and perhaps an apology for failing to check the facts - even after they were made available to you - would have been an adequate response. Whoa there, friend. You're not getting off that easy. I'm having a quick look at things before heading out today, but God willing, I'll be back to address some of your missconceptions. I'll try then also to address things others have said. What I'm learning from all this is that had I and Robertson been so wrong as everyone was claiming early in that original thread, you people would have wrapped this up many pages back, but we have a real and interesting and challenging debate here in which, imo, we can all learn some things; that is, all who really are interested in searching out the truth. Have a good day: not sure when I'll get back. Edited to change title. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-05-2005 09:10 AM The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
But the webpenny's report that you cited and supported was NOT truth. It was error, as I have proved.
If you want to argue against the truth then you will only make things harder for yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PaulK writes: So the reasons for denying the existence of these earlier hurricanes are: 1) The list used by webpenny has been extended to include some later hurricanes 2) The layout of the webpenny article is better suited to show the supposed increase No sane person could claim that these points had any relevance to the real objection. I leave to the audience the question of whether Buz actually believes them himself. 1. Your charge that I've denied the existence of any NOAA reported hurricanes is false. Please document. 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 topic is not about intensity sorting of highest to lowest intensities, as per the chart linked by Asgara, but about frequency trends. NOAA evidently had good reasons for condensing the number of hurricanes on this chart for the purpose of frequency trends; possibly to focus on the most disastrous of the landfall events, some likely having broken up at landfall, causing relatively minimal damage.
PaulK writes: Some relevant facts ARE: a) webpennys is a penny stock site - it is NOT an authoritative source on hurricanes.b) NOAA IS an authoritative source which even the webpenny article implicitly admits - it claims to have simply added to a list compiled by NOAA. Obviously NOAA should be considered a more reliable reporter of its own data. The only reason Webpenny updated the NOAA list was to bring the NOAA data up to date, since it had become obsolete, void of the very significant recent yearly upspike in the trend. To update that report requires nothing but the ability to read and count the updated stats. 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.
PaulK writes: b) NOAA IS an authoritative source which even the webpenny article implicitly admits - it claims to have simply added to a list compiled by NOAA. Obviously NOAA should be considered a more reliable reporter of its own data. c) The webpennys report misuses the NOAA list because it assumes that it is a complete list of the major hurricanes. when in fact it makes no such claim and omits a significant number of major hurricanes that occurred before 1948. (This can easily be checked, and I did it - see below for what I found). 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.
PaulK writes: All these were raised on the previous thread. They conclusively show that the webpennys report is the invalid product of inadequate research. It also shows that Webpenny did not falsly say it was a complete list of all major landfall hurricanes, as you seem to be implying. It simply said that it was a list, as did the NOAA website.
PaulK writes: (note that the NOAA list does NOT give any indication of how it was compiled or why other hurricanes were excluded - thus the assumption that it represents a complete list of major - or even the "worst" hurricanes is not to be relied on) 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.
PaulK writes: If the selection was by intensity - as Buzsaw claims it should agree with this list linked to the report cited above 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.
PaulK writes: Thus the data shows that 1948 did not mark the start of an increase in major hurricanes hitting the US. I never ever claimed that 1948 marked the start of an increase in hurricane activity. I simply stated that that date marked the significant fulfillment of the prophecies that Israel would become a nation again in what the prophets termed the latter times of the world/age and that that, as well as other stated prophecy fulfillments corroborated that natural disasters were to increase in intensity of the latter days. 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. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PaulK writes: But the webpenny's report that you cited and supported was NOT truth. It was error, as I have proved.If you want to argue against the truth then you will only make things harder for yourself. 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. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024