More information in this press release: http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/2007/pr071125_climate_change_hits_poor_hardest
What do you think:
1. It's a natural variation and has nothing to do with global warming
2. It's due to global warming (which human activities don't have any impact on)
3. It's due to global warming (and due to human activities)
4. The statement is not true.
Any other comments?
2007-11-26 23:15:44 · 15 answers · asked by Ingela 3 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Here is a key statement:
"There has been a six-fold increase in floods since 1980. The number of floods and wind-storms has risen from 60 in 1980 to 240 last year. Meanwhile the number of geothermal events, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, has stayed relatively static."
We know one of the impacts of global climate change will be an increased number of floods, but that it won't have an impact on geothermal events. This is a pretty strong indicator that global warming (which is primarily due to human activities) is playing a role in increasing the number of natural disasters. For the number to have quadrupled in 20 years is very significant. For it to have happened as global warming has accelerated rapidly, while experts have been predicting that climate change will increase the number of extreme weather events is difficult to dismiss.
I think the logical conclusion is #3.
2007-11-27 04:18:55 · answer #1 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
We do not know if the increase in natural disasters is the highest ever. We don't know the amount of floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and other natural disasters that happened before records were kept. The amount of people who have died from these events in the past two decades will definitely double considering how fast the population has increased. More people equals more deaths. I feel they are natural variations or created by man due to damning of rivers and man's approach on controlling river systems. None of this has anything to do with global warming and if it did we wouldn't know until another 20 years or so. So I guess the huge drought in the 30's can be blamed on global warming as well. I doubt that. It's extremely hard to say if global warming is causing this. I think that people need to except that some things are to remain unknown, like how space and the solar system came about. Also about the whole global warming scare. We do not know what effect more Co2 will have on the our climate, could be good for us you just never know. People are able to make long-range forecast (a year or more) from the sun (studying sunspots) and have made a good living of it. So do not rule out the sun's role in global warming and the clouds role. Clouds play a huge role in our climate, which climate models cannot model.. So they are complete rubbish. So more population equals more destruction. If a natural disaster happened where there are no people.. you probably wouldn't hear about it!! Better yet it wouldn't even be considered a natural disaster!!!
2007-11-27 14:59:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
1. Yes, some of it, some does have to do with AGW
2. This is two questions, one at a time please
3. Yes, some of it ... more to do with human activities exacerbating rather than mitigating the situation than AGW alone, i.e. clear cutting forests creates mudslides where previously there had been none ... floodplains flood, so MOVE AND YOU WONT DROWN!
4. Yes, it is not the complete truth, it is a partial truth
Your questions are absolutes and thereby miss the target.
2007-11-27 17:35:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course... It's due to global warming (and due to human activities). Because all the researches tells us that it due to global warming, natural disasters are increasing. The scientist also tells us that our earth will be like Venus(hottest planet in our solar system)& no living things live on this planet.
2007-11-27 07:30:25 · answer #4 · answered by AIR 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I don't agree with the premise of your question. What constitutes a natural disaster? who determines an event qualifies? what evidence that there are four times as many? What about events epic in scale that do not harm man? are they counted?
Consider an earth quake on the sea floor in the Marianas trench. Five miles down, a million tons of magma surfaces. A half million tons of toxic gases are released and never reach the surface. Counted or not counted as a disaster?
2007-11-27 07:27:08 · answer #5 · answered by regerugged 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
4. Sounds like Oxfam putting their hands out for more cash under the Global Warming banner like everybody else. Just watching news bulletins over the last 20 years tells you there aren't any more natural disasters than there were it's just there are more news helicopters to get live feeds for the voracious appetite of 24/7 news programmes.
2007-11-27 07:23:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 4⤋
Natural disasters have been occurring since the beginning of time. There have been worse episodes of hurricanes, droughts and floods. Earth quakes really are irrelevant.
2007-11-27 10:20:53 · answer #7 · answered by Larry 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
No doubt about it in my research and findings that it's number 3. It's due to global warming (and due to human activities)
2007-11-27 07:23:22 · answer #8 · answered by bobe 6 · 3⤊ 5⤋
How long have we been recording these "natural disasters" - about a hundred years or so?
Out of 3-4 BILLION?
Relax.
2007-11-27 12:10:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I believe that the measurements are skewed.
I believe that global warming started before the 1980's.
I don't think we are seeing the effects of human induced global warming yet.
I believe that oxfam is a horrible place to look for facts.
2007-11-27 07:46:05 · answer #10 · answered by Dr. D 7 · 5⤊ 5⤋