Many people have predicted eschatologically significant cataclysms of apocalyptic proportions for the year 2012. I heard one pastor say she believes 2012 could be the start of The Great Tribulation. Others have gone even further and said it could be the end of the world.
But towards the end of the year 2011, I said the year 2012 will be one of the most peaceful years in recent human history.
I said so, not so much by revelation - but by faith. Jesus said, "Ask anything in my name, and I will do it."
Before asking, I checked how I felt in my spirit about it. I knew that God guides His sons by the Holy Spirit in their spirit - so I looked to the Lord and checked how I felt in my spirit. When I did so, I did not get any sense in my spirit that my desire was not God's will for 2012. So having felt that I'd ascertained God's will, I went ahead and asked for it; and then on the basis of God's promise, I believed I'd received, and spoke it, and did not doubt in my heart, but believed that what I said would come to pass.
At the same time however, I did also perceive in my spirit that towards the latter part of the year, there would come at least one catastrophe which would be very bad.
When I sensed this, I pressed in with my spirit in order to understand what it meant, and after at least two occasions of this, the sense persisted in my spirit that such a catastrophe would happen. I sensed it wasn't going to be in-keeping with the relative calm which would be experienced by much of the rest of the world. It would be quite sensational.
But I still believed that despite the attention that would be given to this catastrophe, it would not change the fact that overall - considering the world as a whole (rather than just considering a specific country or countries) - the year 2012 would still go down in history as one of the most peaceful years of recent times.
So among those who know me best, I began saying it.
My statement about 2012 was made in comparison and contrast to the then popular apocalyptic predictions being published about the year 2012. My statement was intended to be understood in comparison to the terms of their predictions. The predictions being made by many at the time were extraordinary. In contrast to the magnitude of what they were predicting, I was saying that the year 2012 would actually be surprisingly peaceful - surprising, that is, in contrast to the apocalyptic proportions of the predictions being made by others. But also in comparison to averages of the past century or thereabouts.
That was back in late 2011. And how has 2012 been so far? For some, in some places, it has undoubtedly been the worst year of their lives. Some have even lost their lives.
In this world there will always be trouble, until Jesus comes. And we will almost certainly see some more bad things happen yet this year. But considering the world as a whole, rather than focusing on certain areas specifically, can it really be said, as some were predicting, that we are seeing things happen this year which are so extraordinary bad as to be a sure portent of the end? Here are some figures.
In the last decade the average number of deaths globally due to earthquakes has been 63,000 per year. This year so far just 228 have died. That's only 0.36% of the average.
In the last century the average number of deaths worldwide due to wars was approximately 2 million per year. The figure for 2012 is difficult to ascertain, but so far this year there may have been around 33,000. If so that's just 0.16% of average. You would have to multiply that estimate by 3000% before you could say 2012 has been a worse-than-average year, let alone the end of the world.
What about the floods in Cagayan de Oro city, Illigan city, and later in Manila, Philippines, this year? It's really sad that so many lost their lives, and we will never belittle that. And what about the trouble in Kenya? It's really sad when any church gets burned down. But things were a lot worse in Kenya before 2008.
What about Hurricane Sandy, which happened towards the later part of this year. It's really sad for those who lost their lives, and the loss to property was substantial. It was the largest storm on record, measured by area. But as record-breaking and as sad as it was, it hasn't made 2012 a worse-than-average year if we consider the world as a whole. For the areas affected it was extraordinarily bad.
But even considering Hurricane Sandy in its own right, and comparing it with other hurricanes, was Hurricane Sandy really an indication that 2012 is a more significant year eschatologically than anything we've seen before?
Compared with Cyclone Yasi, a storm which happened in Queensland, Australia in February 2011, whose peak winds averaged 205 kilometres per hour, Sandy's were only 150 km/hour.
Yasi's storm surge reached 5.33 metres, Sandy's forecast was for 3.3 metres and apparently exceeded at just over 4 metres.
It's in the length of coastline affected by the hurricane-force winds that Hurricane Sandy broke records: 350km compared with a 130km coastal range for Yasi.
The following is an article by Roger Pielke Jr, which puts some perspective on Hurricane Sandy in comparison with other recent hurricanes in the same area. (Mr. Pielke is a professor of environmental studies and a fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado.)
Hurricane Sandy left in its path some impressive statistics. Its central pressure was the lowest ever recorded for a storm north of North Carolina, breaking a record set by the devastating "Long Island Express" hurricane of 1938. Along the East Coast, Sandy led to more than 50 deaths, left millions without power and caused an estimated $20 billion or more in damage.
But to call Sandy a harbinger of a "new normal," in which unprecedented weather events cause unprecedented destruction, would be wrong. This historic storm should remind us that planet Earth is a dangerous place, where extreme events are commonplace and disasters are to be expected. In the proper context, Sandy is less an example of how bad things can get than a reminder that they could be much worse.
In studying hurricanes, we can make rough comparisons over time by adjusting past losses to account for inflation and the growth of coastal communities. If Sandy causes $20 billion in damage (in 2012 dollars), it would rank as the 17th most damaging hurricane or tropical storm (out of 242) to hit the U.S. since 1900—a significant event, but not close to the top 10. The Great Miami Hurricane of 1926 tops the list (according to estimates by the catastrophe-insurance provider ICAT), as it would cause $180 billion in damage if it were to strike today. Hurricane Katrina ranks fourth at $85 billion.
To put things into even starker perspective, consider that from August 1954 through August 1955, the East Coast saw three different storms make landfall—Carol, Hazel and Diane—that in 2012 each would have caused about twice as much damage as Sandy.
While it's hardly mentioned in the media, the U.S. is currently in an extended and intense hurricane "drought." The last Category 3 or stronger storm to make landfall was Wilma in 2005. The more than seven years since then is the longest such span in over a century.
Flood damage has decreased as a proportion of the economy since reliable records were first kept by the National Weather Service in the 1930s, and there is no evidence of increasing extreme river floods. Historic tornado damage (adjusted for changing levels of development) has decreased since 1950, paralleling a dramatic reduction in casualties. Although the tragic impacts of tornadoes in 2011 (including 553 confirmed deaths) were comparable only to those of 1953 and 1964, such tornado impacts were far more common in the first half of the 20th century.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that drought in America's central plains has decreased in recent decades. And even when extensive drought occurs, we fare better. For example, the widespread 2012 drought was about 10% as costly to the U.S. economy as the multiyear 1988-89 drought, indicating greater resiliency of American agriculture.
There is therefore reason to believe we are living in an extended period of relatively good fortune with respect to disasters. A recurrence of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake today, for example, could cause more than $300 billion in damage and thousands of lives, according to a study I co-published in 2009.
So how can today's disasters, even if less physically powerful than previous ones, have such staggering financial costs? One reason: There are more people and more wealth in harm's way. Partly this is due to local land-use policies, partly to incentives such as government-subsidized insurance, but mostly to the simple fact that people like being on the coast and near rivers.
Even so, with respect to disasters we really do make our own luck. The relatively low number of casualties caused by Sandy is a testament to the success story that is the U.S. National Weather Service and parallel efforts of those who emphasize preparedness and emergency response in the public and private sectors. Everyone in the disaster-management community deserves thanks; the mitigation of the impacts from natural disasters has been a true national success story of the past century.
But continued success isn't guaranteed. The bungled response and tragic consequences associated with Hurricane Katrina tell us what can happen when we let our guard down.
And there are indications that we are setting the stage for making future disasters worse. For instance, a U.S. polar-satellite program crucial to weather forecasting has been described by the administrator of the federal agency that oversees it—the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—as a "dysfunctional program that had become a national embarrassment due to chronic management problems." The lack of effective presidential and congressional oversight of this program over more than a decade can be blamed on both Republicans and Democrats. The program's mishandling may mean a gap in satellite coverage and a possible degradation in forecasts.
Another danger: Public discussion of disasters risks being taken over by the climate lobby and its allies, who exploit every extreme event to argue for action on energy policy. In New York this week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo declared: "I think at this point it is undeniable but that we have a higher frequency of these extreme weather situations and we're going to have to deal with it." New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke similarly.
Humans do affect the climate system, and it is indeed important to take action on energy policy—but to connect energy policy and disasters makes little scientific or policy sense. There are no signs that human-caused climate change has increased the toll of recent disasters, as even the most recent extreme-event report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds. And even under the assumptions of the IPCC, changes to energy policies wouldn't have a discernible impact on future disasters for the better part of a century or more.
The only strategies that will help us effectively prepare for future disasters are those that have succeeded in the past: strategic land use, structural protection, and effective forecasts, warnings and evacuations. That is the real lesson of Sandy."
There will almost certainly be some more bad things this year yet. For some regions and some people, it may well be their worst year yet. But considering the world as a whole, and in comparison to previous decades over the last century or so, I believe the year will prove to be statistically more peaceful than average. I certainly don't think we will see cataclysms which in themselves will be so great as to be a sure sign that 2012 is an especially significant year in eschatology.
A lot of modern popular end-times punts are based on a dogmatic interpretation of some prophetic passages of Scripture, passages which don't actually clearly express their interpretation. Hence the repeat cycles of flopped predictions. To some of these people, it's almost unthinkable that the world could actually see a better year than the year before.
Nevertheless, the Son of Man could come at an hour when you least expect it.
No comments:
Post a Comment