Are natural disasters increasing or are reports are?

[Gigan]

This decade has had more natural disasters than any other, I think. Could it be that the number of disasters have not increased but that they are being reported more?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

I think it has seen far fewer.

[Colonel Cleg McLeg]

I'm not in a position to judge. There does seem to have been a lot of them this year, though.

EDIT: There's quite a good website here. It provides access to a database, compiled by the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), which among other things hosts graphs showing the number of reported disasters per year. The graph entitled "Natural disasters reported 1975-2009" shows a clear increase in the number of reported natural disasters over the past few decades. I don't know how much of that increase is down to better reporting, though. This seems to suggest that the CRED published a study early this saying that the numbers of natural disaster this decade have "dramatically" increased, though as it doesn't provide a source, I can't find the original study. CCTV's report is backed up by stuff from other news outlets (here), though with a different emphasis.

There's also another interesting article here.

[Vir Triumphalis]

Reports are. If a tsunami as powerful as the one that struck Indonesia in 2004 where to happen lets say during classical Rome, the Romans won't even notice. Now that most journalists come to any scene rapidly only verifies that reports are indeed increasing

[HansDuet]

Reports.

People are interested about disasters > Make story about disaster > People buy magazines etc > ??? > Profit.

[Nimthill]

Plus, they make good television.

[HansDuet]

Just one more way to profit.

Add climate change which makes some people panic and mix it with natural disasters and you have a cash magnet.

Not to mention after scaring people you can more successfully sell expensive enviroment friendly products. One has to admire the geniousity of a businessman.

[Phier]

And they are a way to hype 'climate change', but no they are not increasing.

DAMAGE is increasing but thats due to there being more people, so more likely a natural disaster will 'hit' something important.

[Nouvelle Vague]

And they are a way to hype 'climate change'.

By who exactly? and for what purpose?

DAMAGE is increasing but thats due to there being more people, so more likely a natural disaster will 'hit' something important.

No doubt, though the scale, magnitude and variance of such modern disasters put into question traditional notions of how such disasters arise. eg The forest fires in Russia were abnormal to say the least, coupled with the flooding in both China and Pakistan during the same period would also give rise to the notion the such disasters are not isolated cases, rather linked to a general trend of climate change.

Tom Karl from NOAA did an interview awhile back were he said as much.

[Phier]

By who exactly? and for what purpose?

Well the IPCC for one who misquoted R. Pielke Jr's paper on the subject for one. You see ITS GOING TO KILL US ALL IF WE DONT' DO SOMETHING NOW!!11!.

No doubt, though the scale, magnitude and variance of such modern disasters put into question traditional notions of how such disasters arise. eg The forest fires in Russia were abnormal to say the least, coupled with the flooding in both China and Pakistan during the same period would also give rise to the notion the such disasters are not isolated cases, rather linked to a general trend of climate change.

Tom Karl from NOAA did an interview awhile back were he said as much.

If people have that notion, thats expected, we have cause and effect minds and thats what they are being told. If Tom Karl said that, he is correct. If Tom Karl said they are the cause, hes an idiot.

Pakistan's floods WERE normal, China's floods were normal, Russian forest fires were normal.

On a side note "they" predicted a major major hurricane season for this year, they were wrong.

[Nouvelle Vague]

Well the IPCC for one who misquoted R. Pielke Jr's paper on the subject for one.

He also said in the past something along the lines of, such things happen occasionally and it shouldn't distract from overall findings of the IPCC.

Overall findings which no one seems to bother discussing.

You see ITS GOING TO KILL US ALL IF WE DONT' DO SOMETHING NOW!!11!.

...what?

If people have that notion, thats expected, we have cause and effect minds and thats what they are being told. If Tom Karl said that, he is correct. If Tom Karl said they are the cause, hes an idiot.

Well perhaps I'm not vain enough to call someone an idiot who expresses his qualified opinion for an organisation that specialises in the particular area. But hey random people on the INTERNET > (insert)

Pakistan's floods WERE normal, China's floods were normal, Russian forest fires were normal.

Not sure what you're definition of 'normal' is but if you think forest fires which blanketed all of Moscow in smog for weeks on end happen each year then I think you're mistaken. The record heatwave was unique too which only fueled the fires (much like the ones in Australia year ago), which were an all time high for a year that saw an all time high generally.

The fires too were exacerbated by man made actions too, eg the fact that Russia in the 60's drained swamps for agricultural and mining use, which changed much of the natural landscape.

As for the Chinese floods they were more severe then the last major floods during 1998.

The Pakistan flooding have also been linked to the Russian fires in the way the jet stream works depending on the particular temperature. Such things as these are needed to be continually looked at and leant more about.

So when you say normal I get the impression you're generalising to a high degree, to the degree to which it makes your comments seem baseless and wrong.

On a side note "they" predicted a major major hurricane season for this year, they were wrong.

I think you're missing the point.

[Vir Triumphalis]

With more infrastructures, more people will die from natural calamities.

[Optimisticles]

Probably a bit of both. I mean a lot of things that happened in ancient times that were attributed to gods and such can be attributed to massive natural disasters now.

[Orko]

No.
2012-apocalypse-alarmists like pointing out all the calamities and war and poverty and famine that is happening recently throughout the world and scream about how it points towards our impending end.
In all truth, all those stuff happened in the past as well, but for most people, past events are just to meh to even notice.

[Angrychris]

Noone has any evidence to prove more or less so yeah sure.

[Phier]

I think you are missing the point. NORMAL disasters are being used politically to advance a political agenda on 'climate change'.

[Nouvelle Vague]

You never mentioned the dynamic of politics in your previous points, or who and why people had said this. All you had said is that disasters had been 'hyped up' and referred to the stated as normal, which I respectively disagree on a scientific level.

The only people who seem to want to make it a political issue are the politicians themselves as always.

I also thought this was a science thread...

[Drudelo]

I think that it seems as though there are more disasters because of wider media coverage and globalization. As you go back farther in time people really only knew about things that happened close to where they lived because mass communication did not exist. Several hundred years ago it may have taken months for news to travel across oceans and so many things simply were not reported. It is similar to violent crime in that in the past someone being murdered even a state away wasn't big news with the possible exception of the famous. In the times we live in almost any murder in the country will be reported on throughout the country. This makes it seem as though there is more violence in the modern age than in the past when in reality the exact opposite is true.