I was eagerly anticipating this

[Gonz]

UN: Disasters on the rise
Fri Sep 17 2004 09:32:29 ET

Hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters hit a growing number of people worldwide and are on the increase due partly to global warming, the United Nations' disaster reduction agency said on Friday.

More than 254 million people were affected by natural hazards last year, a near three-fold jump from 1990, according to data released by the inter-agency secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR).

The random nature of disasters renders mapping their impact more difficult as droughts in 2002 pushed the figure of people affected above 734 million.

But the long-term trend over the past decade shows a steady rise in victims, according to the statistics from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disaters at the University of Louvain in Belgium.

"Not only is the world globally facing more potential disasters, but increasing numbers of people are becoming vulnerable to hazards," the UN/ISDR said in a statement.

Hazards, ranging from storms, earthquakes and volcanoes to wild fires, droughts and landslides killed some 83,000 people in 2003 compared with about 53,000 deaths 13 years earlier, it noted.

A lack of facilities such as schools, jobs and hospitals in rural communities is forcing more and more people to live in urban areas where they stand a greater risk of being affected, said UN/ISDR director Salvano Briceno.

"Urban migrants settle in exposed stretches of land either on seismic faults, flooding plains or on landslide prone slopes," he said in a statement.

In addition, cyclones and freak temperatures appear to be on the rise with 337 natural disasters reported in 2003 up from 261 in 1990, the agency said.

"The urban concentration, the effects of climate change and the environmental degredation are greaty increasing vulnerability," said Briceno.

"Alarmingly, this is getting worse," he warned.

An onslaught of deadly hurricanes that have battered the southern United States supported theories that such storms were occurring more frequently, said John Harding, a programme officer at the UN/ISDR.

"Look at the number of hurricanes this year, it is hard to keep up with all the names," he told AFP.

"The scientific community tells us that the intensity and frequency of disasters are very likely to increase in the medium-term due to climate change and that increase may well be occurring at this stage," he said.

Underscoring the chaos inflicted by natural hazards, the latest storm to hit the United States -- Hurricane Ivan -- has killed at least 14 people, with three states declared official disaster areas and three cities under dusk-to-dawn curfews.

I was going to laugh at the "global warming is killing us" stuff, I still will probably, but so much of this story is just hyperbole & absurd.

"The United Nations' disaster reduction agency". "International Strategy for Disaster Reduction". Wow, all that & a college too "Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disaters at the University of Louvain in Belgium". Now that is too goddamned funny. The UN is going to reduce mother natures fury???? That is one hell of an ego trip.

These additional deaths can't be attributed to simple population increases? It has to be mankinds ability to use fire that is killing us. There can be no other explanation. We are bad. We need to go back to cave dwelling & stick throwing. I bet the "UN of the formerly addicted to oil but now drawing bad gazelles on cave walls & driving nothing more than our mouths" would find the berry juice paint our artists would use to sigh thier hand print to be toxic & outlaw its use.

How the hell did mankind exist without liberals to tell us our faults & the UN to fix everything?

Hurricanes and Global Warming: Is There a Link? Tech Central Station.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

see, the liberals freak out over the natural cycle of ice ages and warmer periods and try to not let it change. Where on the other-hand, some of are trying to figure out where the good weather will be and buy lots of land as an investment

 

[BeardofPants]

Must... not... comment.... must.... not .... comment.....

 

[Gonz]

Must... not... comment.... must.... not .... comment.....

Bring it on

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Bring it on

According to the shoutbox she has other things on her mind

*continues to look at weather trends*

 

[chcr]

Well, there is global warming, at least in the short term. Whether or not we as a species are responsible is an unproveable theory at best. Greenhouse gasses and the like probably don't help the situation, but I think it would be happening anyway. Warmer waters in the southern oceans do increase the power and frequency of hurricanes. If you add more energy to any system, you get more out. The best way to spread panic and hysteria is to have it contain enough truth for it to be plausible.

 

[Gonz]

Granted, we may or may not be experiencing a normal cycle of warming. As a cognitive species, we just aren't old enough to know. However, after that last ice age, it does seem right on schedule.

If we are capable of changing mother nature so drastically, in such a short period of time, then there really isn't much here that stable enough to support us in the first place. All our cars & industries, etc can't be that much more effective against the planet than several hundred million gigantuan farting lizards now can it?

Global warmiong still beats Nebraska as a tundra.

 

[Gonz]

My goodness, what a lucky find on a beautiful Saturday morning. It seems ma nature isn't so feeble as we (or some of us, them, wish).

We're all gonna die might have to be replaced with We're all gonna be uncomfortable.

Man-made rainforest baffles scientists
By Charles Arthur Technology Editor
16 September 2004


A Man-Made rainforest that should have taken millennia to evolve has baffled scientists by springing up in just 150 years.

Rainforests should take millions of years to develop the highly complex, interactive ecosystems for which they are famed, in which every species fills an essential niche.

But the forest on Green Mountain, Ascension Island, in the mid-Atlantic sprung up chaotically from a mixed bag of botanical scrap brought in by the Royal Navy in 1843.

And the introduced species have thrived at a rate that has stunned experts and could trigger a rethink of conventional ecological theory, New Scientist magazine reports today.

Source, not some right wing homophobic racists sexists nutbag crackpot paper but the ever popular & always anti-Bush Independent UK.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Great so now we have an excuse to cut down all the rain forests today and use all the rare hard wood to make coffee tables for our mansions right? woo hoo!

And whats this crap about liberals and hurricanes? honestly must you attempt to find political division in every single conceivable topic like its some kind of olympic sport? science is bigger then your petty politics. hurricane activity (the ones that affect our southern american states) is more directly related to whether patterns off brazil and off the western coast of africa. and you can clearly see cyclical patterns of hurricane intensity of about 25 years of tame hurricane weather followed by 10 or 15 years of intense hurricane weather. The ironic thing is during periods of intense drought in sub saharan africa we (america) tend to get calmer weather as conditions are less apt for a barrage of hurricanes forming and spinning their way to our gulf or atlantic coasts. But when they get rains in those years we tend to get the crazy wacky hurricane years (like we are getting this year). Now, el nino/la nina also has an effect on this (obviously when you are cooling down or heating up the ocean surface global weather patterns are affected) and this can decrease or increase hurricane effect and go against the normal cycle action of that year. so you could have a large number of active hurricanes during a time period of relative calm. As for global warming, it certainly could have an effect on hurricane formation so just to write it off as an impossibility is a bit ridiculous and shows an equally biased political bent. but whats happening this year with all our wild weather does NOT appear to be directly related to any man made global weather change. but no gonz i dont think that means we should all be running out and burning down thousands of miles of rain forest for a lark. or ignoring the simple physics of green house gases and where they come from. study everything. and stick to science when yer talking about physical phenomenon. Weather is neither liberal or conservative.

 

[Gonz]

I'd bet that less than 5% of those who consider themsleves liberal disagree with any major policy on global warming. Science is not bigger than politics. It should be but in truth it's every bit as susceptible to the trappings as anything else.

Global Warming is not the issue. Neither is cutting & burning the rain forest...whereever that came from. At issue is the belief that humans, Americans to be precise if you follow this trend, are capable of altering & thus destroying the planet. Green house gasses have proven to be unreliable as a source of evidence as to whether we destroy our planet, which, by the way, we can not do. We may change micro-climates but the planet will win every single time. If you doubt that, look at what Charley, Frances & Ivan did & they weren't even particularly big storms.

I'd also challenge you as to who is the more "green". Chances are I'd blow you out of the water. Never assume due to politics.

 

[chcr]

Great so now we have an excuse to cut down all the rain forests today and use all the rare hard wood to make coffee tables for our mansions right? woo hoo!

Sorry, Thulsa, but rainforests are mainly destroyed to create living space and farmland in second and third world countries. The rare hardwood in someone's coffee table almost certainly came from a managed forest. Wood is a renewable resource, it's not necessary to destroy the rainforests for it although this is a common claim of the eco-doomsayers. It's simply not true. Unfortunately, conservatives have hardly cornered the market on lies, innuendo and misrepresentation of the facts. Would it interest you to know that there is more forestation in most industrialized nations now than there was forty years ago?

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Science is not bigger than politics. It should be but in truth it's every bit as susceptible to the trappings as anything else.

it is by definition actually. its just humans refuse to use it correctly for the most part. or at least the people who run things and make policy pick and choose their "science" to their benefit and to their profit. i reject that practice flat out as you may have noted in my agreeing that this years huricanes are not directly connected to man made global warming.

Neither is cutting & burning the rain forest...whereever that came from.

it came from your last post of course.

At issue is the belief that humans, Americans to be precise if you follow this trend, are capable of altering & thus destroying the planet.

eh no. the planet is not going anywhere even if we were to detonate every nuclear bomb we had. WE may die or suffer greatly but the planet would hardly blink. when a 10 mile long rock slammed into the earth at unthinkable speeds some 65 million years ago causing molten rock to go into ballistic orbit and rain back down on the earth for a day and a half followed by a nuclear winter that wiped out the dominant form of life on earth at the time, the earth shrugged. and healed itself. and went on. the issue is most certainly not a planet. (and really my whole point was about this years hurricanes).

We may change micro-climates but the planet will win every single time. If you doubt that, look at what Charley, Frances & Ivan did & they weren't even particularly big storms.

so you are saying no matter WHAT chain of events humans start theres no way we will ever alter anything on the earth? id have to seriously disagree with that. i mean how could you possibly prove that? and anyway this has already happened. we have effected things like errosion and damned giant rivers and half a dozen other things that compound and lead to bigger more significant effects. we probably dont know half the things weve done and their long term effects on the earth and on life on earth. we certainly HAVE wiped out hundreds of species DIRECTLY through our actions. is that a problem? not sure. it is a little sad though. maybe the dodo didnt want to die yet. as for green house gases i assume your argument is well so what if we produce them, they dont really have that great an effect in the long run. but can you aknowledge that we DO produce them in abundance and the physics of what they do in a known system are quite clear? what we need to figure out is just how they operate in our highly complex system. but i suggest doing this before you find studies you like the results of and shut the book on it to the great demise of our grandchildren and great grandchildren.

I'd also challenge you as to who is the more "green". Chances are I'd blow you out of the water. Never assume due to politics.

ha ha! so you can be in favor of burning the rain forest but you recycle your beer cans. well bravo i say.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Sorry, Thulsa, but rainforests are mainly destroyed to create living space and farmland in second and third world countries. The rare hardwood in someone's coffee table almost certainly came from a managed forest.

well glad my little sound bite in response to gonzs logic caught your attention enough to point this out. personally i think its just as sad if we destroy rain forests to make coffee tables or to make farms to raise cattle for buger king and grow coca but maybe thats just me.

Would it interest you to know that there is more forestation in most industrialized nations now than there was forty years ago?

can you show me this is a drop in the bucket compared to the deforestation in tropical regions? can you show me this forestation is equivilent of the older growth kind its replaced? it makes a huge difference if scrub and non native stuff takes over where the old growth and/or vital ecosystem balancing life cant get a foot hold anymore. this has been an issue to some extent in the fire ravaged areas of the west. can you show me that this is a reflection of environmental concern or are you saying this is voluntary stuff (natural that is)? can you show me that the forestation levels are anywhere close in those same countries as they were say 400 years ago? forget about 40. and finally, the serious point i was making in my joking comment about the rain forest in the previous post, does this mean that whats going on with the rain forest is ok? and commence cutting and burning in full force because things still grow in first world nations? and quicker then we thought? seems like two seperate issues to me.

 

[chcr]

Thulsa, propaganda is propaganda, whatever the source. LIving space for people who have nowhere to live, food for people who are starving. I agree that deforestation is a bad thing, but you're adressing the wrong problems (not that none of that stuff goes on, but it's a lot less prevalent than you suppose). 400 years ago?? Sorry, time only runs in the one direction, you can't back it up. It's only in the last hundred years that we've begun to understand that we were harming our own environment (that understanding is nowhere near complete today, but kneejerk reactionists are always happy to cry doom at the drop of a theory, however implausible), It'll take a lot longer than that to turn the problem around. Especially in poorer countries. They are not separate issues, they are the same issue. It's a global ecology, and it is neither as fragile nor in as much trouble as some people would have you believe.

Here, read this

 

[Gonz]

the people who run things and make policy pick and choose their "science"
The very definition of politics


it came from your last post of course.

That story had zilch to do with burning & cutting the rainforest


so you are saying no matter WHAT chain of events humans start theres no way we will ever alter anything on the earth?
Not what I said


we certainly HAVE wiped out hundreds of species DIRECTLY through our actions.
Please elaborate. I can't think of a single species that MODERN man has extinguished (modern...post 1500's)

as for green house gases i assume your argument is well so what if we produce them, they dont really have that great an effect in the long run.
My argument is greenhouse gases have been here before us & will be after us. The THEORY that our actions are creating a problem is a doomsayers wet dream. 25 years ago the THEORY that existed is one that still has backers-that we're creating a cooling period. They are both theories, nothing more

but can you aknowledge that we DO produce them in abundance and the physics of what they do in a known system are quite clear?
Quite clear? Hardly. The biosphere is much more adaptable than the test environment

what we need to figure out is just how they operate in our highly complex system.
See the posted story about our highly complex system

 

[ResearchMonkey]

. . . . can't argue facts Gonz

 

[chcr]

Please elaborate. I can't think of a single species that MODERN man has extinguished (modern...post 1500's)

Sorry Gonz, not all extinct dure to human incursion, but a significant percentage. We call this evolution.

Thulsa, it fails to be pretty but it is the natural order of things. I've said this before, but it bears repeating. We can possibly make the planet unsuitable for human life (unlikely in my view, but I'll admit the possibility) but how arrogant do we have to be to think we can "destroy" the planet or make it uninhabitable for all life? Species die out and new ones take their place. Arrogant again to think it can't (or won't) happen to us.

 

[Gonz]

Evolution is nasty business & it usually requires an agent. How many species have humans been the exclusive agent in their demise?

please note that critters like the spooted owl are not victims of humans. We didn't go & strangle them or shoot them or pour boiling oil over their egg & have breakfast. They are endangered due to their own specialization. If a bird can't procreate beyond a 5 square mile habitat what will they do in case of fire?

Here's a funny one

 

[chcr]

Evolution is nasty business & it usually requires an agent. How many species have humans been the exclusive agent in their demise?

please note that critters like the spooted owl are not victims of humans. We didn't go & strangle them or shoot them or pour boiling oil over their egg & have breakfast. They are endangered due to their own specialization. If a bird can't procreate beyond a 5 square mile habitat what will they do in case of fire?

Here's a funny one

Sorry Gonz, but we are a contributing factor by destroying habitat. We are a contibuting factor in most such occurences simply by being the current dominant land life-form. I'm not sure I agree about the agent, though. Most species go extinct through their inability to adapt to changing conditions. In the last several of centuries humanity has been one agent of change, but archeologically speaking...

Oh, and regarding the current "mass extinction" I have been following the debate for a few years now. Both sides have interesting evidence, but neither has convinced me. It's an interesting evolution theory, but survival of the fittest seems to have the most going for it so far.

 

[Gonz]

we are a contributing factor by destroying habitat.

A contributing factor. That is precisely what my argument against enviro-whackos is all about. We may be one of many factors but we are not the be all & end all in the destruction of the Double Snouted Long Legged Zebra Striped Duck-Billed Platypus. Every creature that lives within the same eco-system as another has some influence & I've grown tired of humans being the evil twin of some ignoble & mythical beast that lived in perfect harmony with its environment.

As for habitat destruction, what makes building houses & creating farms any more horrendous than lightning caused fires or sudden freezes or flooding or tornadoes...etc? A specialized creature is a short lived crerature.