Frequency natural disasters is increasing- why?

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I have no figures for earthquakes in 3789 BC compared to ten years ago and how I figured that out came naturally to me.

This seems to be the way of all of the end times studies so you are in a good company.

There's nothing in my head to figure out.

Also helps tremendously in end time studies.

What college did/do you attend, just out of curiosity?

If you think this level of logic needs college studies to figure out you clearly attended a wrong one.

Okay with you if He keeps that promise?

Sure, lets continue this thread when He shows up. According to many people it will be soon.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you think this level of logic needs college studies to figure out you clearly attended a wrong one.

But I don't think that.

What I think, is that it takes a college degree to argue UP vs DOWN and NATURAL vs SUPERNATURAL.

Sure, lets continue this thread when He shows up. According to many people it will be soon.

Again, you seem to be trying to change the subject.

Did Jesus say He would return during a time when seismic activity was on the rise, or did He not?

And by seismic activity, why do you seem to think He was referring to divinely-generated seismic activity?

And again, what college did/do you attend? I am genuinely curious.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

What I think, is that it takes a college degree to argue UP vs DOWN and NATURAL vs SUPERNATURAL.

Yes , your postings really do seem to indicate that.

Did Jesus say He would return during a time when seismic activity was on the rise, or did He not?

He probably did not say anything about seismic activity as such. If he had mentioned plate tectonics apologists would have a much easier time about it and again if you say something is on the rise you need a base point which we do not have.

12:01 Earthquake - [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] earthquakes are on the rise
12:02 no earthquake - dooms day avoided, earthquakes are on the decline
12:03 0,1 richter scale earthquake in burkina faso ; sky is falling, doomsday, seismic activity is up.

Fairly ridicilous is it not ? So in this scenario you think Jesus will shop up either 12:01 or 12:03 but will not do it 12:02 ?

And by seismic activity, why do you seem to think He was referring to divinely-generated seismic activity?

I do not think there is such a thing as divinely generated seismic activity. I will leave that for you.

And again, what college did/do you attend? I am genuinely curious.

If you were genuinely curious about something your posts would probably reflect that by showing some improvement in understanding over the years and I have yet to see any indication of that so I will just treat this as a poor ad hominem and ignore it.

 

[AV1611VET]

He probably did not say anything about seismic activity as such.

Fine, then call them "earthquakes" if technospeak gets in the way of understanding.

If he had mentioned plate tectonics apologists would have a much easier time about it ...

What is "easy" here, is that Jesus said He would return during a time of increased seis earthquake activity.

How simple is that?

A child can understand it.

... and again if you say something is on the rise you need a base point which we do not have.

Oh, please.

A base point "which we do not have"?

Then get one; and stop blaming Jesus for being too vague.

12:01 Earthquake - [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] earthquakes are on the rise

Oh, oh.

Better watch that temper.

You know what happened in Winnipeg in 1995, don't you?

12:01 Earthquake ...
12:02 no earthquake - dooms day avoided, earthquakes are on the decline
12:03 0,1 richter scale earthquake in burkina faso ; sky is falling, doomsday, seismic activity is up.

Fairly ridicilous is it not ?

Yes -- what's up with the "doomsday" now?

So in this scenario you think Jesus will shop up either 12:01 or 12:03 but will not do it 12:02 ?

Brilliant.

Just brilliant.

Good job.

Yes ... I think Jesus will shop [sic] up at either 12:01 or 12:03.

This isn't rocket science.

It's elevator logic.

The elevator either goes UP, or it goes DOWN when it moves.

And when I say I am going to be on it when it's moving UP, that means I'm not going to be on it when it's moving DOWN.

I do not think there is such a thing as divinely generated seismic activity.

Then what's with this whole academic argument?

I will leave that for you.

Fair square.

If you were genuinely curious about something your posts would probably reflect that by showing some improvement in understanding over the years and I have yet to see any indication of that so I will just treat this as a poor ad hominem and ignore it.

So you're going to deny me a good point?

Fair enough.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

What is "easy" here, is that Jesus said He would return during a time of increased seis earthquake activity.

How simple is that?

Very simple but indicating nothing if we have no idea when we are having "increased activity". Just as descriptive to say that Jesus will come before or after the rain and perhaps in the middle of it.

"The National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) records an average of 20,000 earthquakes every year (about 50 a day) around the world. There are, however, millions of earthquakes estimated to occur every year that are too weak to be recorded."

Millions of earthquakes daily. Millions and it means nothing out of ordinary.

 

[Halbhh]

Wiki has explanation that was already posted but I guess it did not grab your attention so lets post it again

"A recent increase in the number of major earthquakes has been noted, which could be explained by a cyclical pattern of periods of intense tectonic activity, interspersed with longer periods of low-intensity. However, accurate recordings of earthquakes only began in the early 1900s, so it is too early to categorically state that this is the case.[38]"



When we have totally unexplained stuff like mountains moving in a day, rivers going uphill with blood and sheeps raining from the sky we might have a case for something out of ordinary, but this reading of newspapers and noting 11% increase in for earthquakes in burkina faso during last week and then spinning end of the world scenarios out of it is just sad.

Yup. See post #103 for what I think would be an earthquake sign, my subjective view. It's a fun topic, since somehow someone thought I was on the other side of it from where I am, heh heh.

 

[Halbhh]

What would constitute an unusually pronounced, altered, level of earthquakes enough to be meaningful to me?

That's subjective. For anyone, though we could use reasonable notions such as 5 sigma standard of unlikelihood, etc., it's still arbitrary. But in the forecast, it's not at all one sign, Earthquakes however remarkable, that will mean something as a sign, but instead all the signs together in combination (as Christ directly told us they only signify in combination together).

But still, earthquakes are fun and of interest though even unusual earthquake swarms would mean nothing at all in isolation.

So, it's a just-for-fun topic, at the moment. (unless one hits your city, I'm not trying to discount the reality of losing people in the hundreds or thousands in recent years or rather many tens of thousands in aggregate, etc.)

My entirely subjective view of what would be enough unusual in Earthquakes to be different and catch my attention --

According to statistics there are about 140ish-150ish magnitude 6-6.9 earthquakes per year on average. Earthquake Statistics

So, for instance it it turned out that over several days there are many in that range per day, it will be a remarkable swarm, such as for example if we saw like 15 or 20 in a week (vs 3 a week average), then it's more significant looking, though not there yet. (of course some weeks will have a swarm, some zero, etc.) Now this thought is only about how many 6-6.9 would be significant as being rather numerous, to begin to make me notice.

Of course the 7.0+ range is another thing (in the Richter scale, an increase in magnitude of 1 represents about 31 times the energy). For 7.0+ level, 12 or 15 in a week, in the world as a whole, would feel overwhelming, and so would even just 8.

For the really powerful quakes at 8.0+, then it doesn't take more than 2 in a week to already get one's attention from far away.

So, 4 or more 8+ quakes in a just a few weeks, for example....that would be a rather wake-you-up kinda thing, for me.

Entire subjective, but...if it was happening I bet you and I would be paying attention, unless some other thing was totally overwhelming your attention.

It is laughable to consider seismic data over a such a miniscule period as a decade. The variation we do see is wholly consistent with the normal range for earthquakes. No other explanation is required. Come back to me in a century or so if the trend continues.

Unfortunately for your argument, Global Annual Deaths from natural disasters have dropped significantly. This is probably due to improved disaster warning, mitigation and recovery.

This piece doesn't appear to fit your puzzle.

SOURCE: Natural Disasters
OB

For example, obviously cyclone warnings days from their arrival would greatly reduce the death toll.

Really ? What are your figures for earthquakes in 3789 BC compared to ten years ago and how did you figure it out ?



Jews, witches, outsiders, cats and so on were often accused of being in the league with the devil etc. and blamed for happenings like plagues, storms, droughts etc. which we now understand through the science to be natural occurrances instead of being signs of divine disfavour.

Well, most of us understand.

You guys are arguing as if Jesus was saying there would be earthquakes, etc. like never before.

But Jesus said His return would be during a period of increasing activity -- not record activity.

If you were on a train going up into mountains and down into valleys and up into mountains ... and someone said it would eventually stop while going uphill ... would you say, "Ya ... it's been going uphill before"?

I found one article that refers to the chart here:

Natural disasters since 1900—over 8 million deaths and 7 trillion US dollars damage

but the first chart refers to economic costs, and a second to deaths.

Oh, I'm sure at the time people could have rationalized being in the end times just like they do today.



I believe in providing a sanity check against superstition. I think that ascribing natural disasters, weather patterns and other such occurrences to divine will is a superstition.

 

[Ophiolite]

Evidence has been offered during this thread of a statistically significant increase in the frequency and cost and in the case of earthquakes - energy release since 2000.

I have not even bothered to examine that evidence. It is irrelevant to any serious consideration of seismicity. I have explained why once already, but I clearly did a bad job of it. I'll try again.

Geology proceeds, for the most part, at a rather slow pace. Global tectonics are overwhelmingly driven by plate movements and these proceed at about the same rate as your fingernails grow. Now I grant you two inch long fingernails are noticeable on a person, but an extra two inches between Europe and America passes notice for most purposes.

Those motions, however, store up stress within the plates that is periodically released as an earthquake. How large the quake and how frequent is determined by a very wide range of factors. The consequence is that we expect to see significant variations over years and decades, probably centuries and possibly millenia. Consequently, the purported "significant increase" in the frequency and strength of quakes over a decade or so is exactly the sort of thing we would expect to see from time to time.

The increased cost of earthquakes, I have dealt with previously. The costs are greater over this period because:

• There are (allegedly) more earthquakes
• These quakes are (allegedly) stronger
• There are more people on the planet therefore more people potentially impacted by any quake
• Urbanisation is increasing and most damage occurs in towns and cities

You have dismissed this as an irrelevant blip but not offered any conclusive reasons for it beyond a speculative - it might be related to climate change.

I gave you reasons. You didn't understand them. I have expanded them above. Please note I did not at any time make the ridiculous suggestion that climate change could have caused the increase. I did ascribe the increase in natural disasters to climate change. I did not do so speculatively, but made it as an absolute statement.

An end time scenario would require more than what we are seeing but what we are seeing lacks explanation.

1. I consider end times scenarios to be unfounded myth. I would express myself more strongly, but would likely be in breach of forum rules.
2. What we are seeing is readily explained by the points made by me in this and other posts and by others in this thread. What is it about these explanations you find inadequate?

 

[Halbhh]

Evidence has been offered during this thread of a statistically significant increase in the frequency and cost and in the case of earthquakes - energy release since 2000. You have dismissed this as an irrelevant blip but not offered any conclusive reasons for it beyond a speculative - it might be related to climate change. An end time scenario would require more than what we are seeing but what we are seeing lacks explanation.

Please see post #127 just above also.

 

[Halbhh]

So, 4 or more 8+ quakes in a just a few weeks, for example....that would be a rather wake-you-up kinda thing, for me.

Entirely subjective, but...if it was happening I bet you and I would be paying attention, unless some other thing was totally overwhelming your attention.

You know...it may happen in those days, that other things will be overwhelming our attention, so that unless one of those big quakes hits near us, or people we love, we might not even be able to notice, because of how powerful the other events happening will be, so that what would have been big news of devastating quakes will be lost to our awareness, for many....

 

[mindlight]

I have not even bothered to examine that evidence. It is irrelevant to any serious consideration of seismicity. I have explained why once already, but I clearly did a bad job of it. I'll try again.

Geology proceeds, for the most part, at a rather slow pace. Global tectonics are overwhelmingly driven by plate movements and these proceed at about the same rate as your fingernails grow. Now I grant you two inch long fingernails are noticeable on a person, but an extra two inches between Europe and America passes notice for most purposes.

Those motions, however, store up stress within the plates that is periodically released as an earthquake. How large the quake and how frequent is determined by a very wide range of factors. The consequence is that we expect to see significant variations over years and decades, probably centuries and possibly millenia. Consequently, the purported "significant increase" in the frequency and strength of quakes over a decade or so is exactly the sort of thing we would expect to see from time to time.

The increased cost of earthquakes, I have dealt with previously. The costs are greater over this period because:

• There are (allegedly) more earthquakes
• These quakes are (allegedly) stronger
• There are more people on the planet therefore more people potentially impacted by any quake
• Urbanisation is increasing and most damage occurs in towns and cities

I gave you reasons. You didn't understand them. I have expanded them above. Please note I did not at any time make the ridiculous suggestion that climate change could have caused the increase. I did ascribe the increase in natural disasters to climate change. I did not do so speculatively, but made it as an absolute statement.

1. I consider end times scenarios to be unfounded myth. I would express myself more strongly, but would likely be in breach of forum rules.
2. What we are seeing is readily explained by the points made by me in this and other posts and by others in this thread. What is it about these explanations you find inadequate?

First inadequacy is that you see no connection between God and the natural order. So you and most of the godless responders are not even looking for the signs of Christ return.

Second is that the science you have shared does not really explain anything. It is a broad "story" that is always surprised by details like a 9.0 earthquake. It neither predicts nor properly explains why the events occur when they do with the power they do. Please tell me that you understand what you said to be an empty rationalisation that is not even proper science cause it predicts nothing.

That said must admit I do not know what would constitute a sign of the end except a pattern and ferocity of earthquakes all around the world that is completely unprecedented. But maybe only a simple increase in number and power would be enough if accompanied by the other signs of the end.

 

[Ophiolite]

First inadequacy is that you see no connection between God and the natural order. So you and most of the godless responders are not even looking for the signs of Christ return.

Science uses methodological naturalism. As such god, gods, or any supernatural agents are outwith the scope of scientific investigation.

Second is that the science you have shared does not really explain anything. It is a broad "story" that is always surprised by details like a 9.0 earthquake.

I've been reading papers on seismic events for half a century and I don't recall any "surprise", especially any consistent surprise. Perhaps if you tried reading source material, rather than popular material written to entertain, or push an agenda you would be better informed.

It neither predicts nor properly explains why the events occur when they do with the power they do.

Nonsense. We know where earthquakes occur, we know why they occur, we know why they have the range of magnitudes they do.

Of course we cannot yet predict, with precision, the location of future earthquakes, yet our understanding improves every day. We can now identify zones and faults that we expect to rupture within a given period. I'm sorry if you feel that saying a given fault zone in Turkey will fail in the next fifteen to twenty years with a magnitude around 7.5 is inadequate. If you do think that you simply betray your ignorance of the complexity.

Yet none of that alters the basic point that earthquake numbers and magnitudes fluctuate over time and so when we such a fluctuation, we should not be surprised - and, we (geologists, geophysicists, seismologists) are not.

Please tell me that you understand what you said to be an empty rationalisation that is not even proper science cause it predicts nothing.

Nonsense. I don't yield to ill informed opinion.

That said must admit I do not know what would constitute a sign of the end except a pattern and ferocity of earthquakes all around the world that is completely unprecedented. But maybe only a simple increase in number and power would be enough if accompanied by the other signs of the end.

Irrelevant to me since, as previously noted, I have zero belief in the concept of End Times as presented within Christianity.

 

[loveofourlord]

The frequency of serious earthquakes is not caused by population increases , unless you have a theory about the weight of cities on tectonic plates?



So human greed and poor stewardship is causing global warming....



Maybe I should start watching that channel despite its almost zero non American content. It comes highly recommended.

well the increase of earthquakes is three fold. A ) the way we calculate earthquakes is different making a increase in severity seem to be happening if you just look at the figures, B ) We have more sensative instruments meaning the severity of large earthquakes hasn't gone up, but were seeing everyh single smaller one no one would detect, and C ) as someone pointed out with the 24 hour news cycle along with the ability to get world news means your hearing about earthquakes that 50+ years ago you eitehr wouldn't have heard of, or it be months/years after the fact.

 

[Halbhh]

well the increase of earthquakes is three fold. A ) the way we calculate earthquakes is different making a increase in severity seem to be happening if you just look at the figures, B ) We have more sensative instruments meaning the severity of large earthquakes hasn't gone up, but were seeing everyh single smaller one no one would detect, and C ) as someone pointed out with the 24 hour news cycle along with the ability to get world news means your hearing about earthquakes that 50+ years ago you eitehr wouldn't have heard of, or it be months/years after the fact.

That's right.

But we do have of course the data on the larger quakes, and we can with objective statistics then think on it more usefully.

What would constitute an unusually pronounced, altered, level of earthquakes, powerful enough to possibly be a sign?

My subjective view --

According to statistics there are about 140ish-150ish magnitude 6-6.9 earthquakes per year on average. Earthquake Statistics

So, for instance, while we sometimes would notice a swarm over several days, it would seem more noticeable if for example if we saw like 15 or 20 in a week (vs 3 a week average). (even though of course weeks will have more or less, some zero, some many)
Now this thought was only about how many 6-6.9 would be significant as being rather numerous.

Every increase of 1.0 in the Richter scale is about 31 times as much energy dissipated.

So, the 7.0+ range is another thing. For 7.0+ level, 12 or 15 in a week would feel overwhelming, and so would even just 8.

For the really powerful quakes at 8.0+, then it doesn't take more than 2 in a week to already get one's attention from far away.

Recent quakes always available here:
earthquake - Google Search

So, 4 or more 8+ quakes in a just a few weeks, for example....that would be a rather wake-you-up kinda thing, for me.

Even 4 above 7.5 in a few months might be enough.

But the signs only mean something together in combination, as Christ indicated to us in His wording. Not any one by itself, but instead only together, like numerous leaves together on a tree (His metaphor).

Entire subjective to, but...if it was happening I bet you and I would be paying attention, unless some other thing was totally overwhelming your attention. Like another sign or 2.

It may happen that events in those days would already be so distressing, many would not even notice the Earthquakes. Unless they were personally in the city hit, or had a close friend or relative in one of those places.