The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 25    Average: 3.3/5]
44 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 11786
Rating: 3.3
Category: Science
Date: 11/04/12 01:40 PM

44 Responses to Think There Are More Natural Disasters Now? [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 1:34 pm
    Link: Think There Are More Natural Disasters Now? - Here`s a chart showing the data.
  2. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6925 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 1:44 pm
    NO

    Data has a well known liberal bias.

    A 400% increase in 30 years is just mother nature`s natural cycle right?
  3. Profile photo of mervviscious
    mervviscious Male 40-49
    1793 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 1:46 pm
    of course there are, we are changing our environment..
  4. Profile photo of Solvent
    Solvent Male 18-29
    2842 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 1:52 pm
    CLIMATE CHANGE AND JEWS
  5. Profile photo of Student_Law
    Student_Law Male 30-39
    1010 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 1:56 pm
    If course it does. All independent scientists agree. Even the whole UN- climate panel has been saying it for years.

    A few corrupt people with degrees backed up with billions of oil- company money can`t stop that.

    I the 90`s they said that the climate wasn`t changing. In the 2000`s they said "ok" but it`s because of something else...
  6. Profile photo of xxsevynxx
    xxsevynxx Male 18-29
    76 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 1:58 pm
    I don`t like how they stacked everything on this graph. they may of been more storms but less earthquakes but the bar is bigger cause they stack everything.
  7. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6925 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 2:06 pm
    StudentLaw

    ""ok" but it`s because of something else..."

    YES. Gay marriage. It is pretty clear to us rational people that the hurricanes are because of gay marriage.

    When a homo puts his privates in another homo it makes the baby jesus cry. When baby jesus`s tears fall into the ocean they cause a vortex of swirling wind and water. Then those vortex`s head for the nearest concentration of Jews and Sodomites which is either Florida or New York.

    You don`t see hurricanes hitting North Dakota or Iowa do you? NO! because those states are full of good Christians.
  8. Profile photo of rockebooster
    rockebooster Male 30-39
    27 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 2:16 pm
    Quotation needed?
    Munich Re 2011 Half Year Natural Catastrophe Review
    That slideshow makes you long back to the time of good ol` terrorist scare
  9. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 2:29 pm
    This was all foretold.. might want to read up on it and prepare yourself
  10. Profile photo of tsiemens
    tsiemens Male 30-39
    515 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 2:50 pm
    I like how the data shows only recent history to fit the current agenda
  11. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 2:58 pm
    This was all foretold.. might want to read up on it and prepare yourself
    I know, but Frodo proved Galdriel`s mirror only showed a possible future, which he defeated by destroying the One Ring at Mount Doom.
  12. Profile photo of Dad4Life
    Dad4Life Male 50-59
    2086 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 2:59 pm
    That`s good sample. Thirty years of data on something that is 4 billion years old.
  13. Profile photo of TheGuySmiley
    TheGuySmiley Male 18-29
    1243 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 3:03 pm
    davymid: he was prepared for it non the less.
  14. Profile photo of artmunki
    artmunki Male 30-39
    176 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 4:11 pm
    I`m always quick to point out the fallacies in climate-change deniers more obviously delusional claims, but the time period in this graph does seem very short to be of much use in discussions of climate change. We`ve been collecting this sort of data for much longer than 30 years, so it does kinda make me wonder why they chose this time period.
    Still, I think it`s interesting to note that the geophysical disaster rate (something we can`t really have any effect on) has remained far more stable than the disaster-types attributed to climate change, so it`s pretty safe to say the climate is definitely changing. But the time period presented in this graph is far too short to give any suggestion whatsoever of *why* the change is happening.
  15. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 6:27 pm
    I`m not a climate change denier by any means, but this has to be analyzed critically rather than just immediately praised. Firstly, the sample size is clearly too small. Secondly, it`s easily possible that what constitutes an "event" has changed. That`s not a ridiculous notion.

    The "Climatological" category is the one that catches my attention the most. It leads you to believe that there were practically no fires or droughts before the 90`s and then suddenly they`re e`rywhere. That`s not true. Half of the entire state of Florida used to be on fire during Summer before whitey came.

    Also, spoken from a man who took a forest class in college, WILD FIRES ARE HEALTHY. THEY ARE NECESSARY. THEY ARE ON THE INCREASE BECAUSE OF HUMAN FIRE SUPPRESSION AND NO OTHER REASON. PINE FORESTS CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT FIRE. THE END.
  16. Profile photo of carmium
    carmium Female 50-59
    6381 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 6:39 pm
    Andrew & Artmunki:
    You said just what I wanted to say, but probably more comprehensively and succinctly. Thumbs up!
  17. Profile photo of Randy4861
    Randy4861 Male 40-49
    187 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 6:39 pm
    Doesn`t matter. We are due for a major meteor strike anytime now.
  18. Profile photo of kangoala
    kangoala Male 18-29
    702 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 7:08 pm
    Where`s the source? Where are the data point citations? Hell, where`d this thing even come from?
  19. Profile photo of Xpekt
    Xpekt Male 18-29
    134 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 7:31 pm
    I`m with Kangoala on this one. What is the point in even posting something like this up with no references or anything? Just goes to show you, people will believe anything.
  20. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33155 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 9:27 pm
    Pure bunkum! "storms" could mean a LOT of things, it`s the intensity that counts!
    1954: 3 level 3+ hurricains plow into the USA, each one causing MORE damage than Sandy.

    Sandy is ranked #17 in terms of death & damage. Katrina was #4 on the list.

    (The list was adjusted for current populations and dollar values. 1,000 dead in 1922 = 2,000+ since the population is more than doubled < not quotes, paraphrased)

    Temperature Extrenes? Based on what sized area? What measure?

    Pure crapola, not your best @foolsprussia.
  21. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33155 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 9:39 pm
    CLIMATE CHANGE AND JEWS
    @Solvent wins the thread! Hands down!

    @student_Law: Earthquakes = climate change caused them? Humans did that? WOW! </sarc>

    "It is pretty clear to us rational people that the hurricanes are because of gay marriage."

    @HG You became a Muslim? oh no, Muslims believe EARTHQUAKES are cause by gayness. And women who expose their arms in public...

    by destroying the One Ring at Mount Doom.
    So says YOU @davymid, but I think they have the Ring hidden in Area 51! (nice try to win the thread, very funny indeed!)
    (your comment I mean)

    @Andrew155: True words, and well said! You too @artmunki.

    Hell, where`d this thing even come from?
    @Kangoala: @FoolsPrussia yanked it out of his... database!

    On Dec 21 THIS bad boy is coming back:



  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33155 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 9:40 pm
    Quetzalcoatl = Game Over!

    Hey! I didn`t type "database"! Stupid IAB censor...
  • Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 10:28 pm
    I made this in MS Paint.
  • Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 10:33 pm
    If you changed "Meteorological (storms)" to "Cable TV Coverage of Meteorological (storms)," I think it would be much more accurate.
  • Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6925 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 10:35 pm
    5Cats

    "1954: 3 level 3+ hurricains plow into the USA, each one causing MORE damage than Sandy. Sandy is ranked #17 in terms of death & damage. Katrina was #4 on the list."

    You have to admit using deaths and damage isn`t a great barometer when comparing today to the 50s or the 20s. We are much better at predicting storms today. It is much easier to evacuate today. Structures are much better built to withstand storm damage today. Right?

    I`m not saying your assessment is wrong but the only way to accurately compare hurricanes is to compare hurricanes (size, wind, speed, duration, etc) not what they do.

    It is kind of like saying the smallpox disease in the 20s was worse than the smallpox disease today. Not true, we just have better defenses now.
  • Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6925 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 10:42 pm
    Holy S.hit

    So I was looking for data about how WAY more hurricanes have been hitting recently than in decades past.

    I found this:
    http://tinyurl.com/7m2n4

    There were over 20 US Hurricanes in the 1870s, 1880s, 1890s, 1910s, and 1940s. Haven`t been any decades with 20 since.
  • Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 10:51 pm
    10 major (Cat 2 or above) hurricanes hit the eastern seaboard (north of North Carolina)from 1954 to 1960. None have hit since.

    We can do this both ways, all day.
  • Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 4, 2012 at 10:54 pm
    I think the reason we think more are hitting recently, because TV coverage of hurricanes, and natural disasters in general, have gotten way way more dramatic.

    They are ratings grabbers now, whereas a decade or so ago, it was part of the weather coverage on the local news.
  • Profile photo of onoffonoffon
    onoffonoffon Male 30-39
    2383 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 12:47 am
    It`s not just the force of the hurricane it`s the size too.
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33155 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 1:57 am
    Um, @HG: What measure do you propose? Comparing damage is ANOTHER way of measuring, a way that people can relate to. It`s not supposed to replace actual sciencey-stuff.
    It`s all relative, in context eh? 100 MPH winds in Florida are bad, 100 MPH winds in Minneapolis = DISASTER! The "raw numbers" don`t take that into account.
    Sandy wasn`t THAT bad in terms of windspeed and rain and stuff, but it was BIG! HUGE! Impressivley so.

    However, as you found out, it is a JOKE to claim AGW "caused Sandy" or is in ANY WAY "making storms worse".

    @aj: that, and the Pro-AGWers crow about each and every one, lately. MS Paint= lolz! Nice!

    @onoffonoffon: I`ll bet you say that to ALL the boys...
  • Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14657 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 5:37 am
    Americans caused it; they can reap the hurricane.
  • Profile photo of New_Guy
    New_Guy Male 30-39
    406 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 6:50 am
    clearly you have angered god or Vishnu or Alan or who ever is running the universe now a days...
  • Profile photo of flying_ltj
    flying_ltj Male 18-29
    340 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 8:45 am
    Nice... A graphic without a source.

    Guess someone had some extra time in their parent`s basement over the weekend.
  • Profile photo of mikelae18
    mikelae18 Male 18-29
    79 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 9:27 am
    "Nice... A graphic without a source."

    It`s by Munich Reinsurance America. It`s a risk assessment company.

    Website
  • Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 9:41 am
    Wow, I submitted this like a week ago.
  • Profile photo of motleystew
    motleystew Male 18-29
    48 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 10:37 am
    That is only 30 years of data. Earth`s climate has been changing for billions of years. No reason to get bent out of shape now.
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33155 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 3:55 pm
    @FP: Sometimes things pop up right away, I think 5 minutes is my record! Other times @Fancy or The Mods go digging through the back-pages...

    One never knows when something will show up!
  • Profile photo of HiEv
    HiEv Male 40-49
    621 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 5:44 pm
    HolyGod: "Haven`t been any decades with 20 since."

    The page you link to doesn`t include 2005-2010. Once you include those years 2001-2010 most likely beat that, but I can`t find statistics specifically for hurricanes that made landfall in the US.

    In fact, 2005 had the most active Atlantic hurricane system in recorded history (source). They went through the whole English alphabet and got all the way to Zeta in the Greek alphabet for named storms in 2005. That includes 15 category 1-5 storms, 7 of which were category 3-5. I`m not sure how many of them made US landfall, but if even half of them did, 2005 alone brings the total up to around 16. Certainly the 5 years after that beat 20.
  • Profile photo of AntPharm
    AntPharm Male 18-29
    950 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 6:30 pm
    we all gunna die!
  • Profile photo of Nerd_Rage
    Nerd_Rage Male 18-29
    425 posts
    November 5, 2012 at 8:15 pm
    i don`t see how this data correlates to 2012.
  • Profile photo of sosueme1966
    sosueme1966 Male 40-49
    439 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 10:37 am
    It truly speaks to the narcissism of the human that they see "trends" in global climates by reviewing 30 years of data, as if only the period in which they live is relevant. That would be like saying you are going blind because you blinked. The Earth`s climate is cyclical over millions of years, not decades or even centuries.

    If the ice caps have always been frozen and are only melting now, why are they finding trees under the ice? Think about it.
  • Profile photo of tatripp
    tatripp Male 18-29
    1196 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 11:01 am
    I wonder who goes around calculating all the natural disasters. i`m not so sure I believe this chart.
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33155 posts
    November 6, 2012 at 11:16 am
    @HiEv: That`s true! 2005 was THE worst (for the USA at least) on record.
    Everyone remembers Katrina, but forget Dennis Rita, and Wilma which were also MONSTERS!
    It could easily have set the landfall record as well, BUT as usual many hit as Tropical Storms, which doesn`t count.
    iirc: 2006 had... ZERO landfalls and was one of the quietest on record, DISPITE the AGW CREW predictions of another "worst ever" season!
    Wiki Says: 5Cats IS Correct!
    "It marked the first since 2001 in which no hurricanes made landfall in the United States"
    So at least 2 years of Zero to counter the 6-8 in 2005? idk for sure.

    Great link @HiEv! Nice to see you around, eh?
  • Leave a Reply