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 6 of 157 (256457)
11-03-2005 8:53 AM


My Response To NosyNed
buzsaw writes:
I've still shown that the frequency of all natural disasters of all kinds together has been on the rise in recent decades,
NosyNed writes:
I don't recall that you have shown that Earthquakes are increasing in frequency in the last 60 years. Where did you do that?
Go back and read, Ned. We've gone over that. To cap what we discussed, it was agreed that earthquakes were one kind of disaster which has been more stable in frequency, but I maintained that the question was whether all disasters in conglomerate were on the increase, as per the thread OP.
NosyNed writes:
You're going to have to stop saying you've shown something and deliver the actual information and answer Schraf's concerns before you will have actually shown anything. Saying that you think you have shown something accomplishes nothing.
As is so common with you moderators here, the sky's the limit when it comes your tolerance of your own ideological friends, like when jar tries to go off topic into billions of years, and Shrafinator wants to go off topic, et al. Now you're admonishingly moderating me, falsely implying that I've shown nothing, whatsoever, in that whole long thread. This kind of stuff has a lot to do with the problems which arise with people like Faith and me on this board.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 11-03-2005 9:43 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 11 by jar, posted 11-03-2005 10:46 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 12 by Asgara, posted 11-03-2005 11:10 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 157 (256460)
11-03-2005 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Asgara
11-02-2005 9:44 PM


Natural Disaster Frequency
Asgara writes:
Can it be shown that natural disastes are increasing since 1948 and does this fulfill biblical prophesy and suggest the imminent end of this world.
Imminent is not quite the word here, imo. I believe the terminology of both the OP and my statements were that the time was beginning to emerge for the end of the present age of this world and before the prophesied 2nd advent of Jesus and his millenial kingdom coming to the planet. I believe the end of the world phrase was used in the OP, but as I recall without going to it, a future for the world was implied.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Asgara, posted 11-02-2005 9:44 PM Asgara has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 157 (256598)
11-03-2005 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
11-03-2005 10:46 AM


Re: Questions buz needs to answer.
jar writes:
Natural Disasters since 1948 are increasing compared to ....?
So far as I am aware the thread was not a comparison. It was about whether they are increasing as per Biblical prophecies in the latter days.
jar writes:
The Biblical Prophecy that says Natural Disasters will increase is found at .... Book, ... Chapter, ... Verse?
Zephenaiah chapter one, the whole chapter very vivid. Joel 1 and 2, Revelation 8:13-16, the whole chapter 16 of Revelation, Luke 21:25-28. These are some and there's others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 11-03-2005 10:46 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 11-03-2005 9:10 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 11-03-2005 9:18 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 157 (256655)
11-03-2005 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Asgara
11-03-2005 11:10 AM


Re: My Response To NosyNed
Hi Asgara. I've been doing some research and there seems to be no charts or graphs on conglomerate natural disasters. They all sppear to be on individual types of disasters, so I suppose we need to work on those. I'm going back to your last post in the original thread to address that, since it was closed before I got back to my PC. Digging up these statistics becomes very time consuming for all the individual types of disasters.
buzsaw writes:
but I maintained that the question was whether all disasters in conglomerate were on the increase,
Asgara writes:
Ok, buz please supply your evidence of an increase in ALL natural disasters. I haven't seen it yet.
======================================================================
Asgara writes:
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.
1. I took a good look at your list and mine. Actually mine has been updated to include the last seven years which yours does not list. Yours is obsolete and does not record the very significant last seven years of the major landfall hurricane disasters.
2. Yours does not show the increase by years as mine does. That, after all is what data we're after. Mine gives the number data for each year consecutively so as to observe the increase in frequency. Your chart does not show that.
Asgara writes:
That is my point buz, your list is not a list of either most intense, most deadly, or most costly US landfall hurricanes.
You can eliminate the three in question and still have a siginificant increase. Other than that, you still haven't refuted that that I am aware of. If mistaken, please show where.
Asgara writes:
You have given us some half-assed quotes from unlinked websites saying what you want to hear.
......And to my knowledge you have yet to go to those website statements which I've posted, copy and paste specific false statements and refute them. This is likely what would be required of me if the shoe was on the other foot.
buzsaw writes:
Yes, and I've already stated that to be the case, so for you to say I've shown nothing is just not right.
Asgara writes:
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.
I "...have some things right......does not mean you have shown it"? If I've got some things right that means I've shown it to be right, no matter whether I've used someone elses stuff or my own. We call it research, et al.
Asgara writes:
You have claimed that global warming is producing an unprecedented increase in natural disasters since 1948 in concordance with prophecy,
Wrong! You know full well that global warming is not the only criteria I've given for the increase. It is just one factor.
Asgara writes:
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.
What I'm saying is that though there may be some cycling, the overall increase conglomerately is corroborated by numerous other prophecies which have either been fulfilled as I've documented, or are for the first time in history being capable of fulfillment. In this thread I will work on documenting that to be the case with either most or all of the individual types of disasters, including floods and forest/brush fires, which we haven't even discussed yet.
In the meantime, I'm posting some link statements for you and others to read. Hopefully, if you or others choose to debunk them, you will address specifics in them which you believe to be in error and work to refute them. [b]Note also in the last link on the list that seismic activity relative to both earthquakes and volcanoes sppear to be increasing, regardless as to whether the major ones have increased that much. These charts factor everything from 2.5 up in intensity. Also, 2005, which is not on the charts yet is likely to spike the graphs up some. It's been significantly seismic this year.
Link quotes:
link writes:
In addition to dry weather, "irrational human activities" such as livestock overgrazing, rampant logging and excessive cutting of branches for firewood were at the root of the crisis, it said.
"Because of this, natural disasters are increasing in frequency, the threat is getting ever bigger and the losses are mounting," the newspaper said.
PA Logo No Tag
link writes:
The global increase in greenhouse gas emissions and growing concentration of radiatively active gases in the atmosphere has emerged as the most significant international environmental issue (UNEP 1999). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reported that global mean temperature appears to be increasing in response to these anthropogenic factors (IPCC 1997) and there is increasingly evidence that weather and climate related natural disasters are increasing in frequency and magnitude. As a result the global community has begun the process of setting in place concrete limitations on the net emissions of greenhouse gases by developed countries through the Framework Convention on Climate Change and it’s subsidiary agreement, the Kyoto Protocol.
http://www.forest.nsw.gov.au/env_services/ papers/dtpamfcsipf/default.asp
link writes:
Climate change is increasing the probability of the occurrence and greater intensity of certain weather-related events with the risk of: more frequent and severe water shortages (dry regions becoming drier); more flooding (increased rainfall in humid areas, rising sea levels after the melting of ice caps, leading to a reduction in crop production in marginal areas and thus increased food insecurity). This is putting millions more at risk of losing their lives, livelihoods and assets. Current efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions are unlikely to solve the problems. More drastic reductions are required; yet even these would only deter present trends.
http://www.nemot.info/index.php?ref=viewnews& newsid
link writes:
Washington -- More bilateral and multilateral cooperation is needed to fight forest fires in the Americas, says the United Nations, which warns that forest fires are increasing at an "alarming rate" in the region.
usunrome.usmission.gov/ UNIssues/Forestry/docs/a4102802
link writes:
Foresters have noted for many years now that forest fires are increasing in intensity and becoming more difficult to control. When we see the news of fires sweeping across vast areas of forests and into communities, our first reaction is that we must do more to put out these fires. Indeed, in the moment, that must be the priority.
Page not found - David Suzuki Foundation - 20k
Statistal graph link: writes:
The fires occurring in recent years include more catastrophic, stand replacing fires- fires from which forests do not recover.
forestfire.nau.edu/statistics.htm - 30k
link writes:
Both charts show a dramatic major increase in such activity in a steady progressive upward trend over a period of at least forty years. The increase in earthquake and volcanic activity easily seems to be at least fourfold.
http://www.michaelmandeville.com/polarmotion/ spinaxis/vortex_correlations2.htm

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Asgara, posted 11-03-2005 11:10 AM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2005 2:45 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 39 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-05-2005 8:19 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 157 (256658)
11-03-2005 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by NosyNed
11-03-2005 9:18 PM


Re: Increasing compared to...
NosyNed writes:
I know Jar covered this already. I want to emphasize the significance of this. Something must be compared to some baseline to say if there is an increase or not. It is problems at this level, Buzz, that have reduced your credibility to somewhere just under zero. This is very, very simple; not rocket science.
An increase simply means you compare recent years with former years within a given timeframe, which I've stated, to determine whether there is indeed an increase or not. If you and jar want something else, please apprise me as to specifically what you want. Ned, after all the work and time I've spent on responding to all you people, to meanspiritedly call my credibility subzero is a nasty, nasty personal attack and imo, clearly contrary to forum guidelines. If I were a moderator, I'd suspend you for a day to think about that. Why don't you and a few of my other counterparts here be good examples to this peon creo and stick to addressing topic rather than these personal attacks?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 11-03-2005 9:18 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 11-04-2005 9:41 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 25 by mike the wiz, posted 11-04-2005 10:01 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 157 (256663)
11-03-2005 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
11-03-2005 9:10 PM


Re: Questions buz needs to answer.
jar writes:
Mybe that will help you understand why most folk consider Robertson, Falwell, Phelps, Dobson, Scott and the vast majority of televangelists idiots. Complete idiots. Or perhaps just con men.
FYI, most do not consider these men as complete idiots. Likely about as many esteem some of them as highly as you esteem your admired people of notoriety.
jar writes:
Zephenaiah? You have got to be kidding me. For those that like to read along, here is a link to the first Chapter of Zephenaiah. Read all three chapters, they are short. It's talking about events from nearly 2500-3000 years ago.
OK, jar, since this prophecy (Zepheniah regarded by all Biblical scholars as a prophet) when have all the birds of the air, the fishes of the sea, man and beast been consumed off the earth? When, since this prophecy can it be said that the day of God's wrath, as described here has happened?
Joel also deemed a prophet by all Biblical scholars clearly speaks of future events.
jar writes:
I've already dealt with your assertions from Revelations.
You asked for prophetic references to disasters, did you not? How about refuting that these are references of Biblical prophecies concerning end times and of disaster?
jar writes:
SO basically buz, not one of those says anything about increasing natural disasters.
As per your usual, jar. Jar demands. Buzsaw produces. Jar denies. You're a waste of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 11-03-2005 9:10 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 11-04-2005 9:39 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 157 (256670)
11-04-2005 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phat
11-03-2005 9:43 AM


Re: My Response To NosyNed
Phat writes:
How do we know that record keeping is just not improving?
I believe i've show that there's more to it than recordkeeping.
Phat writes:
How do we know if the increase is part of a short term trend (as can be seen with Hurricanes) or whether it is a definite permanent increase?
We've discussed that along the way. I believe I've shown that the overall trend in recent decades has been more than just short term cycling and that that trend is predicted to continue. This all, as I've laboriously shown, to be corroborated by other prephetic fulfillments, such as those on the Middle East, technological capabilities, et al.
Phat writes:
Are you starting from the assumption that the Bible is the way that things will be? (If so, that is OK>Just admit it.)
I guess each reader will need to look at the threads and determine that, won't they? If you can refute my data and documentations, go for it. If it's all assumptions, as you're implying, your job of refuting should be easy.
Phat writes:
Oh...and one other thing: Quit b*tching! This persecution complex is getting old!
The personal attacks, strawmen, repetetive demands, et al, get old to. The moderating threats and demands here seems to be focused on one individual of the minority ideology. Suspend me, if that's what you want. I could use a rest.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 11-03-2005 9:43 AM Phat has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 157 (256672)
11-04-2005 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mespo
11-03-2005 11:56 AM


Re: More world population to get whacked
More world population to get whacked
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mespo writes:
A table from U.S. Census Bureau: Page not found showed the world population in 1950 to be about 2.5 billion. In 2005 it is estimated at 6.4 billion. So, simple arithmetic shows an increase of 3.9 BILLION potential victims since 1950 of fire, flood, famine, earthquakes, tsunamies, hurricanes, tornadoes and appalling auto depreciation rates.
You don't have to increase the frequency of disasters to kill more people. They're already there
Yes, the population increase factors in, but meteorologists, foresters and other professionals are seeing more to it than that, according to my research.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mespo, posted 11-03-2005 11:56 AM Mespo has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 157 (256980)
11-04-2005 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
11-04-2005 2:45 AM


Re: Buzsaw "logic"
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2005 2:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 11-05-2005 6:06 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 157 (257026)
11-05-2005 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
11-05-2005 6:06 AM


No Admission Or Apology For Truth
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 11-05-2005 6:06 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 11-05-2005 6:10 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 157 (257158)
11-05-2005 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
11-04-2005 2:45 AM


Re: Buzsaw "logic"
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2005 2:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Asgara, posted 11-05-2005 8:48 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 11-06-2005 6:56 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 157 (257162)
11-05-2005 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by PaulK
11-05-2005 6:10 PM


Re: No Admission Or Apology For Truth
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 11-05-2005 6:10 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 11-06-2005 6:19 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
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

  
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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024