Unbelievable:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ing-in-germany
Unbelievable:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ing-in-germany
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...h=67aecbc21396
"There has been 92% decline in the decadal death toll from natural disasters since its peak in the 1920s, according to the International Disaster Database. In that decade, 5.4 million people died from natural disasters. In the 2010s, 400,000 did."
Just to put some of your fear mongering in perspective.
I don't know if you noticed, but there have also been advances in disaster preparedness and response, so that's an idiotic benchmark to look at. And at least in NL one of the reasons this isn't even worse is because they learned from previous floods, and improved things like flood planes, how nature is managed around the rivers etc. So you're using numbers that show the problem isn't so big, while the numbers are relatively low because action was taken.
Up to 81 deaths in Germany and 14 in Belgium, I read.
Last edited by Flixy; 07-16-2021 at 06:41 PM.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Note that your article and the analyses it cites make absolutely zero effort to measure any change in storm intensities. It instead relies solely on "normalizing" the economic damage causes. And it is very easy, when "normalizing" data, to just smooth out real change and "accidentally" replace what you're supposedly measuring.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Not sure if real
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
shopped
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I'm a bit surprised, no shocked at the situation in Germany. You'd expect them to be better prepared.
Congratulations America
And what is the impact? Not just the obvious personal impact but the externalities and the higher costs required to effectively prevent or alternatively recover from more intense weather phenomena? The studies your article cited indicated that, once normalized for the changes in more value being vulnerable, storms were not causing more damage than before, that it was about the same. Why is it about the same, normalized, when the reducaed death tolls indicate we've clearly become a lot better at dealing with these. Shouldn't the damage also be dropping?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
More people living on the coast, buildings being more complex and costly to build in general, etc. Now back to my question which you ignored - do you think people are aware that they are less likely to die from natural disasters today than in the past? And if you don't think they realize this do you think it is because of the fear mongering from the media?
You think people being more willing to live on the coastline in buildings that are safer than they have ever been is a sign that people fear dying in natural disasters
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-19-2021 at 06:54 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Stop citing articles you refuse to even read. Normalizing for exactly that is the basis for them insisting storms and the damage they cause hadn't gotten worse in the 1st place.
How is anyone supposed to evaluate to what degree people were aware of their odds to die in natural disasters 100 years ago? And without that knowledge, how are we supposed to make a comparison?Now back to my question which you ignored - do you think people are aware that they are less likely to die from natural disasters today than in the past? And if you don't think they realize this do you think it is because of the fear mongering from the media?
Isn't it amazing how quickly Lewk has pivoted to preservation of life being all that matters while property is inconsequential? Truly a big-L miracle.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The flooding didn't happen on the coast. The state where it happened doesn't even have a coast.
Congratulations America
Climate is always changing. Earth has been inhabitable during most of its history. This article shows the chronology.
https://www.rankia.com/blog/comstar/...que-hoy-no-hay
Do you remember Dorian? Models predicted it would hit Alabama, but it did not. It had lost energy and bounced against the coast. Why? Moving a huge hurricane generates drag that dissipates energy, causing a terminal velocity. Thermodynamics is not enough. Drag is aerodynamics. If we used thermodynamics only, the age of Earth would be a few million years.
The only evidence of climate change we have is a videogame that models sources of heat, but not mechanisms to dissipate energy. Obviously it will show heating.
Reminds me a story of a Latin American president. A farmer got to set an appointment with the president because train killed a cow. He was going to ask for reparations. So the president asked him. "Did the cow got in the way of the train or did the train went after the cow?".
Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.