71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 02:19 pm
parados wrote:
Activity and landfall do NOT equate to damage. You claimed that the damage is less now without any evidence to support your claim.
Less damage in human lives, assuredly.
But in material damage, certainly not since people are more affluent and flock to warm places nearest possible to sea shores (why don't they listen to CC doomers ?).

http://opelinjection.free.fr/rc1/nb_victimes.gif
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 02:22 pm
Johnmg wrote:
And for the record I am not racist by any means, most of my friends are black, and i have spoken with them on this topic and they all agree.
I'm like you, not racist at all.
My dog is black and my girl's canary is yellow.
BTW, wellcome to the topic. Normally, Blatham is here to greet you but he is leaving for a conference by Al Gore :wink:
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 02:41 pm
miniTAX wrote:
Normally, Blatham is here to greet you but he is leaving for a conference by Al Gore :wink:


What, how much CO2 is his jet spewing forth? That doesn't sound like a very necessary trip. I did research on this a year or so ago, and I found that a person that flies burns as much fuel or emits as much CO2 I don't remember which, is the same as driving a car solo at 35 mpg. Now that sounds like good mileage, but imagine flying around the globe a few times in two or three weeks time, that is far more wasteful and "damaging" than many of us could do driving a car all year long.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 03:18 pm
miniTAX wrote:
parados wrote:
Activity and landfall do NOT equate to damage. You claimed that the damage is less now without any evidence to support your claim.
Less damage in human lives, assuredly.
But in material damage, certainly not since people are more affluent and flock to warm places nearest possible to sea shores (why don't they listen to CC doomers ?).

http://opelinjection.free.fr/rc1/nb_victimes.gif

So, now you are claiming that only hurricanes are natural disasters?

You are digging yourself a big hole there miniTax and pulling the dirt in on top of yourself. Deaths from natural disasters does NOT equate to lesser damage from hurricanes. Earthquakes are a mighty large killers when it comes to natural disasters and earthquakes have nothing to do with hurricanes.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 05:02 pm
parados wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
parados wrote:
Activity and landfall do NOT equate to damage. You claimed that the damage is less now without any evidence to support your claim.
Less damage in human lives, assuredly.
But in material damage, certainly not since people are more affluent and flock to warm places nearest possible to sea shores (why don't they listen to CC doomers ?).

http://opelinjection.free.fr/rc1/nb_victimes.gif

So, now you are claiming that only hurricanes are natural disasters?

You are digging yourself a big hole there miniTax and pulling the dirt in on top of yourself. Deaths from natural disasters does NOT equate to lesser damage from hurricanes. Earthquakes are a mighty large killers when it comes to natural disasters and earthquakes have nothing to do with hurricanes.

Yes, when of sufficient magnitude, earthquakes are natural disasters. Also, when of sufficient magnitude, so are volcanoes, solar eruptions, floods, lighting strikes, tornadoes, meterorites, and yes, even hurricanes.

Hurricanes that make landfall and kill people are natural disasters.
Hurricanes that sink ships, drown crew and/or passengers are natural disasters.

The graph miniTax posted shows that the number of victims per natural disaster--including hurricanes--has significantly decreased since about 1918 and before 2008.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 05:18 pm
Which says nothing about the number of deaths from hurricanes decreasing.

The graph also includes epidemics. Since 1900, medical care has increased so one would expect the deaths from epidemics to decrease. Since 1900, transportation has increased so the deaths by famine should have decreased as well.

In no way can the graph be made to show that deaths by hurricanes have decreased nor can it be interpolated from the chart.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 05:35 pm
I think Walter Williams' essay released yesterday is absolutely PURRRRfect for this thread and especially timely now:

Environmentalists' Wild Predictions
by Walter Williams PHD
May 7, 2008

Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let's look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed." In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
LINK
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 07:38 pm
Quote:

http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/deadlyhurricane.htm

Deadliest Hurricanes, Typhoons, and Cyclones in the World
Below is the most promising list possible, based on numerous sources, of the deadliest hurricanes in the world since and including the year 1900.
Note that it is exceedingly difficult to pinpoint the total fatalities from hurricanes (also known as cyclones in the northern Indian Ocean and typhoons in the western Pacific Ocean) due to the large number of people killed as well as problems in tabulating deaths in areas where these devastating storms strike.

1) November 1970 - Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths - Bhola Cyclone - Bangladesh (at the time East Pakistan).

2) April 1991 - Approx. 131,000-138,000 deaths - Bangladesh.

3) May and June 1965 (two cyclones) - Approx. 60,000 deaths - Bangladesh (at the time East Pakistan).

4) October 1942 - Approx. 40,000 deaths - Bangladesh/India border (at the time all India).

5) May 1963 - Approx. 22,000 deaths - Bangladesh (at the time East Pakistan).

6) November 1977 - Approx. 10,000-20,000 deaths - Andhra Pradesh Cyclone - India.

7) October-November 1998 - Approx. 11,000-18,000 deaths - Hurricane Mitch - Central America.

8) September 1971 - Approx. 10,000 deaths - Orissa Cyclone - India.

9) October 1999 - Approx. 10,000 deaths - Cyclone 05B - India.

10) September 1900 - Approx. 8,000-12,000 deaths - Galveston, Texas, United States.


MOST RECENT TO LEAST RECENT:
9) October 1999 - Approx. 10,000 deaths - India.
7) October-November 1998 - 11,000-18,000 deaths - Central America.
2) April 1991 - Approx. 131,000-138,000 deaths - Bangladesh
6) November 1977 - Approx. 10,000-20,000 deaths - India.
8) September 1971 - Approx. 10,000 deaths - India.
1) November 1970 - Approx. 150,000-500,000 deaths - Bangladesh
3) May and June 1965 - Approx. 60,000 deaths - Bangladesh
5) May 1963 - Approx. 22,000 deaths - Bangladesh
4) October 1942 - Approx. 40,000 deaths - India
10) September 1900 - Approx. 8,000-12,000 deaths - Galveston, Texas

And the trend is Question
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 12:22 am
parados wrote:
In no way can the graph be made to show that deaths by hurricanes have decreased nor can it be interpolated from the chart.

The reasons that make less death from earthquakes are the same from hurricanes: wealth and technological progress. So Parados, you can find by yourself a graph that shows hurricane's death number is decreasing. Why don't you do that, because you don't want to know an inconvenient truth ?

BTW, if your comparison with earthquakes must show something, that is this one: hurricane's death number is peanuts compared to earthquakes. So then why all the AGW fuss? Because Al Gore and all the hurricane vultures couldn't care less about the deaths. What matters to them is to find a good lie to put the blame on humans - they can not (yet) do that with earthquakes - then to make a good film's poster and plenty of bucks.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 06:19 am
Oh.. so damage has now equated to "deaths". Rolling Eyes

Go back to your original statement and look at what you said with the first graph you posted which didn't support the statement. Changing the statement to "deaths" doesn't make your original statement accurate.

For that matter look at the deaths listed by ican..
All the major typhoon and hurricane deaths of 100,000 or more have occurred since 1970. It doesn't mean the hurricanes are stronger. It only means they have been more deadly. Technology hasn't prevented there from being more deaths from hurricanes.

When you look at the database for international disasters, the biggest causes of deaths are flood, epidemic, and drought. Those are the areas where we have made real progress through advancements in transportation and technology to alleviate the deaths.

Why don't you admit that the percent of hurricanes that make landfall in no way shows how strong the hurricanes were or the amount of damage they caused?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 07:08 am
http://www.able2know.org/forums/images/avatars/351963323454627afae106.gif
If Owl Gore would stop running his mouth and releasing so much
hot air the Polar bear would have a better chance at survival.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 08:58 am
H2O_MAN wrote:
http://www.able2know.org/forums/images/avatars/351963323454627afae106.gif
If Owl Gore would stop running his mouth and releasing so much
hot air the Polar bear would have a better chance at survival.


One radio talk show host, during the Clinton administration, quiipped about Bill Clinton and his evil assistant "algore". You can almost see him in his lab in the basement of the 10,000 foot, mega energy consuming TENNESSEE MANSION concocting up new bottles of snake oil to sell to his gullible admirers.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 09:57 am
parados wrote:
Highseas..

Quote:

Holland, G. (2007): Misuse of landfall as a proxy for Atlantic tropical cyclone activity. Eos Trans. AGU, 88, 349.


The misuse of landfall as a proxy for damage could be the title assigned to your post.

Activity and landfall do NOT equate to damage. You claimed that the damage is less now without any evidence to support your claim.


LOL Parados, that was truly wonderful! You're able to grasp the entire content of a text and/or statistical analysis simply by glancing at the title!

That you never read the underlying content in this case, let alone examined the satellite pictures or reviewed the statistical analysis, is certain.


Perhaps you'll be kind enough to clear up for me some obscure passages in "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"? Now you know the title, so of course you instantaneously also know the content <G>
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 11:12 am
I never commented on the text of the paper.I commented on how you attempted to equate the percentage of storms that made landfall with damage.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 12:09 pm
Now let's see. Among those things that make you go hmmmm, one is NOT the issue of damage cause by hurricane.

What hurricanes cause damage?

1. Ones that rain themselves out and dissipate over unpopulated seas?
2. Those that make landfall?

What hurricanes are most likely to cause damage to people or property?

1. Ones that rain themselves out and dissipate over unpopulated seas?
2. Those that make landfall where property and people are located?

What hurricanes are most likely to cause severe damage to people or property?

1. Ones that rain themselves out and dissipate over unpopulated seas?
2. Those that make landfall where no property or people or few people are located?
3. Those that make landfall where there are large concentrations of people and property?

It's a no brainer really.

We can see that the damage has lessened even thought the population of the Earth has tripled over the last 60 years. That does not support a theory of increased frequency and severity of hurricanes.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 01:00 pm
Hurricanes come in 5 different categories. The ones most likely to cause damage are the level 4 and 5 ones.

100 level 1 storms that hit land could well do a lot less damage than one cat 5 storm that hits land. Simply because a percentage of storms hits land doesn't tell us anything about the amount of damage caused by those storms.

In one season, 100% of 12 hurricanes, all cat 1 storms, could hit land and the another season only 1 of 10 storms hits land but the 1 is a cat 4. Which season do you think would have more damage? It's pretty easy to figure out.

Quote:
Category One Hurricane:
Winds 74-95 mph (64-82 kt or 119-153 km/hr). Storm surge generally 4-5 ft above normal. No real damage to building structures. Damage primarily to unanchored mobile homes, shrubbery, and trees. Some damage to poorly constructed signs. Also, some coastal road flooding and minor pier damage. Hurricane Lili of 2002 made landfall on the Louisiana coast as a Category One hurricane. Hurricane Gaston of 2004 was a Category One hurricane that made landfall along the central South Carolina coast.


Quote:
Category Four Hurricane:
Winds 131-155 mph (114-135 kt or 210-249 km/hr). Storm surge generally 13-18 ft above normal. More extensive curtainwall failures with some complete roof structure failures on small residences. Shrubs, trees, and all signs are blown down. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Extensive damage to doors and windows. Low-lying escape routes may be cut by rising water 3-5 hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Major damage to lower floors of structures near the shore. Terrain lower than 10 ft above sea level may be flooded requiring massive evacuation of residential areas as far inland as 6 miles (10 km). Hurricane Charley of 2004 was a Category Four hurricane made landfall in Charlotte County, Florida with winds of 150 mph. Hurricane Dennis (pdf) of 2005 struck the island of Cuba as a Category Four hurricane.


http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshs.shtml
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 01:05 pm
So obviously lessened damage does not support Gore's theory of either increased activity or severity of hurricans does it?

Or would you like to suggest that global warming is actually busting most hurricanes back to CAT 1 or 2?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 01:14 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

We can see that the damage has lessened even thought the population of the Earth has tripled over the last 60 years. That does not support a theory of increased frequency and severity of hurricanes.

Where can you see this? Please provide your source. There is NO such evidence to be found. Th international data base on disasters has statistics showing the opposite is true, damage has INCREASED.

The source that high seas used shows an increase in "damage" from all natural disasters. Even damage from wind storms has increased dramatically.

We still don't know the final death toll on the latest typhoon to hit Myanmar but it could well top 100,000 and a lot more without needed aid to prevent disease from tainted water supplies.

http://www.emdat.be/Database/Trends/trends.html
Just select natural disasters, world 1900-2007 and damage estimated to generate the graph.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 01:15 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
So obviously lessened damage does not support Gore's theory of either increased activity or severity of hurricans does it?
What lessened damage? There is NO such thing as lessened damage. It is MADE UP CRAP that you are posting. You have no source.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 May, 2008 01:38 pm
parados wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
So obviously lessened damage does not support Gore's theory of either increased activity or severity of hurricans does it?
What lessened damage? There is NO such thing as lessened damage. It is MADE UP CRAP that you are posting. You have no source.

Deaths are a kind of damage.
More deaths are more damage.
Less deaths are less damage.
Same deaths are same damage.

Lessened damage is less damage caused by an X than an X previously caused.
Lessened deaths are less deaths caused by an X than an X previously caused.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/12/2024 at 10:38:31