Natural Disasters and Their Root Cause

wrote:


As for anthropogenic global warming, the temperature rise for the last 400 years
is practically a straight line. There is no inflection attributable to the
period of the Industrial Revolution and now, with China completing 3 coal fired
power stations per week/month, we now have the most dramatic cooling!


Argh, fat fingers, I have just seen that Graham had set followups to:
sci.geo.earthquakes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm

The data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on
record and the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states, the
statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged.
In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS
analysis, 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (but not globally)
by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude
smaller than the certainty.

The figures for 2007 are out.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Here is a graph of the last 240 months, don't forget that the warmest year
last century was 1932 and 1998 was the second highest.
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_large_hadcrut.jpg

Written by Aratus
Friday, 29 February 2008

It seems that worldwide temperatures have dropped this last year to the
extent of wiping out more than half of the last 100 years of global warming...
In one year!

All four of the major temperature tracking facilities (Hadley, NASA's GISS,
UAH, RSS) report the same findings.

Here are some good articles:
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
and
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/
and
http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Another+Ice+Age/article10630.htm
and
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140
and
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/global-cooling

Al Gore is now trying to convince us that we have acted too quickly, too
rashly, that we have, by some human miracle undone all of our carbon evils and
made the planet cooler... ? Hello, how stupid does he think we actually are?
China is still producing 3 new (coal powered) power stations per month
(imagine where we would be if they had stopped).
Maybe it's because of the "reduced emissions" tires that came standard with
my new car .

Seriously, is any one else concerned that politicised science can mobalise
the whole Western World so quickly with such little evidence? Thankfully all we
will have lost this time is energy, a little time and money. Hopefully now we
can loose a few redundant jobs too. But what if some computer model based theory
comes up that is not so easy to falsify? Has one more perhaps already come
up?

This article gives a very good description of the problem of assumptions
with computer based models and why we should not, ever, act on them:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

Best we keep our wits, and our common sense, about us.

See also 35 Inconvenient truths........
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Scotty

http://www.unisdr.org/disaster-statistics/occurrence-trends-century.htm

Looking at the biological disasters, we have
1910 - 1919 7
1990 - 1999 361

Question. Which of those includes the flu pandemic that killed
"anywhere from 20 to 100 million people".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flu_pandemic_%281918-1919%29
(Yes, ok, not the best source.)

And again with biology...
1940 - 1949 4

Question. How many Japanese POW camps had typhoid
outbreaks that killed 10 or more people[1]?

[1] That being one of the qualifiers for a "disaster"


There's another significant "easy answer": there's 4 or 5 times
as many people around today, compared with 1900.


--
Sleepalot aa #1385

sci.geo.earthquakes, sci.geo.geology, sci.geo.satellite-nav,
uk.sci.weather, sci.geo.earthquakes

at:http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritualresearch/spiritua ...

Well that wasn't a bad subscription for a G-mail account, was it?

You may have made someone think, I don't believe that they will think
much even if they do, but it is a start.

Personally I believe they won't listen if you are nice and I know they
won't listen if you are nasty. I suppose as a last ditch effort you
could arrange to be eaten by a large marine creature.

That WOULD be interesting.

My own reasoning is that if a squad of cavalry are out for blood, you
aught to be on your own horse in full metal jacket when they come.
Preferably alongside your team mates.

There is nothing quite like good company when you are in a fight.

As for the rest, well, you are just trying to wake the dead:
"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat
upon him was called Not Weatherlawyer and in righteousness he doth
judge and make war."

Oh, like that is it?

"Sharp words comes out of his mouth to strike down the nations. He
will rule them with an iron rod and tread the winepress of the fury of
the wrath of God Almighty."

Ah well, if I can't be Superman, maybe I can be Spiderman?

I prefer beer anyway. And I bet them grapes are sour.

No.....people won't listen to you if you can't provide any evidence
that your theories actually work and sai's theory will take some time
to verify! Very few believe that they will and that's why they are not
listening. Simple really. Your theories however could be verified if
you can make predictions with a good rate of success.

Go on. Predict us an earthquake/volcanic eruption/hurricane etc, in a
named area, that occurs with odds that are greater than sheer chance.

1 out of 4 since April 24th, W. 25% - and counting.

Who said that?