disasters

[trustngod7]

God is trying to wake the nations up. Hold fast. As the disasters get worse we will witness the greatest move of God in human history

 

[humblehumility]

Disasters have not gotten any worse recently.

 

[drich0150]

Any one would be foolish to argue that they have not gotten more frequent.

 

[humblehumility]

Any one would be foolish to argue that they have not gotten more frequent.

From the black trend line here you'll actually see the opposite is happening, we are experiencing a dip in disasters :

Natural Disasters Trends | EM-DAT

 

[drich0150]

From the black trend line here you'll actually see the opposite is happening, we are experiencing a dip in disasters :

Natural Disasters Trends | EM-DAT

Apparently you either misunderstand the term "frequent" or in your haste to prove me wrong you over looked it.

My comment was not to the number of disasters we may experience in a given year but to the amount of time between them. For examples the number of town devastating tornadoes in a given month, is significantly more than this time last year.

 

[drich0150]

Not to mention your chart does not speak to the severity of a natural disaster as is the OP's topic of this thread, but to the general number of disasters which in of itself means little to nothing.

You are only implying that a greater number of disasters equates to more devastating disasters. which may or may not be the case.

 

[humblehumility]

For examples the number of town devastating tornadoes in a given month, is significantly more than this time last year.

You gain no truth by making such narrow observations, to see the real truth you have to look at the major picture and realize the trends.

Tornado activity may have spiked abnormally this past month in comparison to last year, but that does not mean anything. It means there were more tornadoes this year. To see the full truth you have to look at the past 50 years of tornadoes, and look at the trend line.

This is like someone saying in 1975 "There have been many more tornadoes this year compared to last year. This is God preparing us for what is to come." Was the statistical spike then not a message from God, but is now?

Not to mention your chart does not speak to the severity of a natural disaster as is the OP's topic of this thread, but to the general number of disasters which in of itself means little to nothing.

You are only implying that a greater number of disasters equates to more devastating disasters. which may or may not be the case.

And you are implying that God created those tornadoes and purposefully run them across towns to kill people?

 

[humblehumility]

Also see :

Obviously we still have 6 more months to tack on more casualties, but tornado season is almost over.

 

[trustngod7]

It will be a catastrophic hurricane season

 

[drich0150]

You gain no truth by making such narrow observations, to see the real truth you have to look at the major picture and realize the trends.

Tornado activity may have spiked abnormally this past month in comparison to last year, but that does not mean anything. It means there were more tornadoes this year. To see the full truth you have to look at the past 50 years of tornadoes, and look at the trend line.

This is like someone saying in 1975 "There have been many more tornadoes this year compared to last year. This is God preparing us for what is to come." Was the statistical spike then not a message from God, but is now?



And you are implying that God created those tornadoes and purposefully run them across towns to kill people?

Let's start by a simple examination of my original post. The most critical element of this examination is going to be your understanding of the word frequent.

This is an acceptable definition to me:
fre·quent

   /adj. ˈfri

kwənt; v. frɪˈkwɛnt, ˈfri

kwənt/ Show Spelled[adj. free-kwuh

nt; v. fri-kwent, free-kwuh

nt] Show IPA
–adjective
1. happening or occurring at short intervals: to make frequent trips to Tokyo.

2. constant, habitual, or regular: a frequent guest.

3. located at short distances apart: frequent towns along the shore.

Can we agree on the definition of this word, as provided by dictionary.com?

 

[mulimulix]

Let's start by a simple examination of my original post. The most critical element of this examination is going to be your understanding of the word frequent.

This is an acceptable definition to me:
fre·quent

   /adj. ˈfri

kwənt; v. frɪˈkwɛnt, ˈfri

kwənt/ Show Spelled[adj. free-kwuh

nt; v. fri-kwent, free-kwuh

nt] Show IPA
–adjective
1. happening or occurring at short intervals: to make frequent trips to Tokyo.

2. constant, habitual, or regular: a frequent guest.

3. located at short distances apart: frequent towns along the shore.

Can we agree on the definition of this word, as provided by dictionary.com?

*appear*

Can I just say that the word 'Frequent' when used in something like climate is certainly not a couple of years, but more like 50 years, or in non-human terms, thousands of years. These time periods are short intervals.

*poof*

 

[pgp_protector]

More costly damage couldn't have anything to do with the population density growing over the years could it?

 

[drich0150]

*appear*

Can I just say that the word 'Frequent' when used in something like climate is certainly not a couple of years, but more like 50 years, or in non-human terms, thousands of years. These time periods are short intervals.

*poof*

This is only truly if one was so inclined to dictate personal perspective to another.

Truthfully your 50 years in the scope of the existence of earth is just as arbitrary as my last few years.

 

[pgp_protector]

This is only truly if one was so inclined to dictate personal perspective to another.

Truthfully your 50 years in the scope of the existence of earth is just as arbitrary as my last few years.

But 50 Years is a Larger Sample base for doing a study than a few years.
And a 1000 Years would be an even better sample base than 50 years.

 

[drich0150]

But 50 Years is a Larger Sample base for doing a study than a few years.
And a 1000 Years would be an even better sample base than 50 years.

Which makes the point I said in my opening post.

 

[humblehumility]

Truthfully your 50 years in the scope of the existence of earth is just as arbitrary as my last few years.

In perspective to this argument, absolutely not.

There have been many, many years with hundreds of tornado deaths (as per the statistics I posted). This is a year with hundreds of tornado deaths. I see no anomalies. You can say "Well compared to last year, they are way more frequent!", my response to that is that this happens literally all the time with weather and disasters. You can have a good year and be fortunate to not lose many people, and then the next year get hit badly. That is why such a narrow focus does no good, you're not proving anything out of the ordinary.

Which makes the point I said in my opening post.

His point is that the larger you increase the timescale, the more accurate you become. You are shrinking the timescale down to a couple of years, his point is that this is a much less accurate way of coming to a conclusion.

And again,

You believe God purposefully created those tornados to crash over cities and kill hundreds of innocent people in order to warn us that he's coming? How messed up is that?

 

[razeontherock]

to see the real truth you have to look at the major picture and realize the trends.

Your graph shows the trends are, more disasters lately. Hello?

 

[razeontherock]

'Frequent' when used in something like climate is certainly not a couple of years, but more like 50 years

The graph shows a dramatic and sustained increase in disasters, beginning 50 years ago.

 

[humblehumility]

The graph shows a dramatic and sustained increase in disasters, beginning 50 years ago.

Right, and many things influence this. The better we are at recording the weather and disasters, the more we will record. Human-induced climate change is another possible factor. Increasing population is another one (when talking about casualties).

What drich is arguing is that very recently natural disasters have spiked compared to last year, and this is supposed to be a message from God. This "spike" isn't a spike when you look at the trendline, it flows pretty smoothly with it actually.

 

[razeontherock]

No! By observing the graph YOU furnished, it is a HUGE spike that's been sustained for 50 years.

That would be the opposite of what you're saying.