Re: Jan 25th Havas Images
Jim Scotti wrote in message <b188pq$flc$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu>
> Steve Havas wrote on Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:05:31 GMT:
>
> :SH Download the three PDF files on Climate Change and the Financial
> :SH Services Industry. A UN report warning of drastic climate changes
> :SH that threaten the insurance industry.
>
> :SH http://unepfi.net/
>
> The summary page gives no quantitative estimate of climate change and
> reflects typical arguements about what sort of change there is and what
> it might be attributed to. Of course arguements recently have centered
> on changes induced by man, for exmaple through increases in greenhouse
> gases, as well as on the question of what sorts of changes are normal.
> Figure 1 in mod1 shows the annual damages in dollars, but appears to
> reflect simply inflation and perhaps the affects of an increasingly
> litigious society. Figure 2 shows an increase in the number of "Great
> Weather Disasters", but how are they being counted? It appears that the
> number per decade has steadily increased in each decade since 1950. Is
> Planet X the cause? If so, it has been affecting climate for at least
> the last 50 years! One could blame the increase on Planet X, or one
> could realize that the statistics reflect other changes in how we
> identify "Great Weather Distasters", such as changing criteria for such
> disasters, and increased awareness or improved measurement of such
> disasters, for example because we now have weather satellites and global
> communication.
>
> I know, you are about to say: "But if Px is inbound and is the cause of
> these climate changes, then the increase is due to Px, not other factors
> like greenhouse gases." But his is circular reasoning. I suppose Planet
> X could be the cause, but as a fellow debunker likes to say, Pigs might
> fly.
You challenged me to come up with specific examples of changes, and asserted
that you did not expect that I would be able to come up with one. I produced
a report from the UN expounding dire warnings:
"The increasing frequency of severe climatic events, coupled with social trends,
has the potential to stress insurers, reinsurers and banks to the point of
impaired viability or even insolency."
"...climate change is upon us, and its consequences could be devasting."
"Climate change is a fact"
Very strong statements from such an important worldwide governing body as
the UN.
Although you seem to acknowledge there has been some change, you dither,
suggesting increased awareness or improved measurements could account for the
increase. Apparently the UN report did not satisfy your request of me to
produce one specific example.
Perhaps more specific examples can be found from the National Climate Data
Center "World's Largest Archive of Weather Data"...
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
Climate of 2002 - Annual Review:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2002/ann/ann02.html
Climate of 2001 - Annual Review:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2001/ann/ann.html#Gtemp
Climate of 2000 - Annual Review:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2000/ann/ann.html
Extreme Weather and Climate Events:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/extremes.html
For you to maintain your position regarding worldwide weather changes,
I would suggest that you risk significant credibility damage with the
readership here.
> :SH Earthquakes, especially over the last few months, are on the rise
> :SH worldwide.
> :SH http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword102.htm
>
> Ah, the gospel according to Nancy, er, the Zetas. I sure believe
> everything I hear Nancy say.... This page is a prime example of the
> usual ZetaBabble [tm], using scare tactics and hearsay. Lets look at
> some of the few specific examples she gives. Under "Quake Watch", Nancy
> lists the Earthquakes between 1995 and 1999 that were greater than
> magnitude 8. There are a total of 5 in those 5 years which, if you check
> my comments on the next link, is exactly the annual average over the last
> 100 years!
Data for much of that page, including graphs for earthquakes Richter 3+, 6+,
and 7+ were pulled from the ANSS (Advanced National Seismic System), formally
the CNSS (Council of the National Seismic System). So, not ZetaBabble [tm]
but data from a leading world-wide earthquake catalogue.
Earthquake frequency trends are up for the preceding 30 years. Most
significant is the magnitude 3+ earthquakes which show an increase in
frequency by a factor as large as 4 over that time. I just checked the number
of 3+ earthquakes for 2002 and it was over 12,000 - 3 times the amount recorded
for much of the 70's.
Critics will say that this increase is due to an increase in the number of
worldwide seismic stations. However, no one has yet provided evidence for the
kind of increase in earthquake frequency that could account for. Data from the
ANSS is a encompassing report of worldwide seismic stations and I do not think
Richter +3 should be missed to a large degree because of a few less seismic
stations in 1970. If that is not the case, then please show me the evidence
contrary.
>
> This webpage gives a list of recent earthquakes, but it is hard to tell
> if the rates are significantly higher than the average just from a list
> like this. However, if one pokes around on the links given on the left
> on that page, particularly under "Past & Historical Earthquakes", one
> finds some real information on the rates of Earthquakes over the past
> century. This page:
>
>
> gives a list of statistics for earthquakes larger than magnitude 7 in
> 2002. It shows that there were 13 earthquakes larger than magnitude 7
> and none larger than magnitude 8. At the bottom of that page is a table
> listing the annual averages of earthquakes by magnitude since 1900. They
> note that there are an average of 1 earthquake per year larger than
> magnitude 8 and 18 per year between magnitude 7 and 7.9. So the 13
> listed for 2002 is only 70% of the annual average over the last century.
> if one is to attribute this to Planet X, one might have to conclude that
> Planet X actually has _decreased_ the rate of earthquakes! The list for
> 2003 shows only 2 earthquakes so far this year over magnitude 7 which
> extrapolated to the full year is pretty close to the annual average rate,
> given small number statistics. If there had been 6 or 8 so far this
> year, you might just be on to something, but there haven't been, and you
> aren't.
It seems some people are beginning to suspect the credibility of earthquake
reporting from the USGS...
http://www.rense.com/general31/RUG.HTM
>
>
> This is just a list of recent earthquakes, but it doesn't seem to show
> any enhanced rates.
>
>
> This is another listing of recent earthquake activity, but again, it
> seems to be typical levels....
>
> Jim.
>
> Jim Scotti
> Lunar & Planetary Laboratory
> University of Arizona
> Tucson, AZ 85721 USA http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/
