Natural disasters are there and real. Not all disasters are caused by humans. There are many natural disasters, for instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_disaster

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/natural-disaster

https://www.factmonster.com/world/natural-disasters

It is difficult to identify natural events that trigger disasters that are not connected to anthropogenic actions, either as part of the causes or as implications, since disasters imply losses to societies, such as: loss of life, loss of natural vegetation, displacements of fauna, impacts in urban and rural environments. There are countless consequences for life in society.

But considering that a certain degree of unpredictability is part of Earth's dynamics, natural disasters may happen and there is a need for faster responses on the part of societies so that social dynamics can be restored and losses can be mitigated.

Among the obvious natural disasters are earthquakes and volcanoes, caused by earth's geological processes.

Thank you very much,

the matter is really about language, about terminology. What is often called 'natural disasters' are disasters not of nature, but of society. The hazards are natural processes, but disasters we call when hazard effect humans. This often is the result of societies not prepared. I still doubt that one should use the expression 'natural' disasters, as there is very little 'natural' around it.

I am agree with Nyirenda Sir

Hazards turn disastrous when we experience human loss accompanied by large scale environmental and economic losses.

Natural Disasters simply refer to the disasters that are 'natural in origin' (without any human interference). eg : Earthquakes

Man-made disasters are disasters that are MAN induced. eg : Forest Fire

Definitely, the term disaster is in reference to the loss that mankind bears.

Many disasters can be accounted for both Natural and manmade.

Simply, Disasters in sense of terminology is very dynamic and now it is being used in very specific terms. The use of word is a human way of denoting the scale of damage.

If interested, anyone can see this paper

Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks and definitions. by : Joern Birkmann

Human induced Global environmental changes leads to increased frequency and magnitude of Natural hazards which when coupled with Humal Vulnerability results into Environmental risk or disaster event.

• From Social Nature: Theory, Practice and Politics (Castree and Braun, 2001)

If a tree falls over and nobody hears it fall, does it make a sound? In other words, if a natural event occurs, but impacts upon no-one, is it a natural disaster?

I think it would be easy enough to argue that an event had an environmental impact. And if the impact were such that it were felt by humankind, it could well be a disaster. But in other cases, where there is no impact upon us, the definition “disaster” may be naive.

For example, a flood that scours a river meadow may bring valuable nutrients and clear away old vegetation. It could be disasterous for species that dwell there and are not aware of flooding, but the resulting new vegetation could provide food, shelter and bedding for others.

i may have missed the point here, apologies now if that is the case, but I think “Natural Disaster” is a very subjective phrase, to be used only when one is sure of the context.

I agree with you in the 80% of the case the human activities induce "natural disaster", remain a 20% that we can really consider natural disaster. It is clear that a close relation between human activities exists also in this 20%. For example strong rains that produce flooding of the rivers is a natural disaster, producer, probably, by climatic changes. Bit an earthquake which produce a landslide in a rocky basement, or a subsidence is a natural disaster. Here nevertheless it is very important to have very clear the difference between natural hazard and risk. In fact the risk is zero in areas where population is not present.

Intersting question. After all, our habitat is the result of a series of "natural disasters", such as volcanoes and torrential rains that occured billion years ago. They had no immediate negative effect on human -or any other life whatsoever- or societies. So despite their intensity, we hardly consider them disasters.

In my point of view the description physical is related to the origin, the cause of the disaster and not to the nature of the disaster itself.

We should not be using the term natural disaster anymore. The term suggests, that the disaster is a natural process, however, a disaster is in fact the outcome of a vulnerable society being unable to cope with a hazard. Without a vulnerable society, there can not be a disaster, thus, there is nothing natural about it.

Hazards are simply natural processes posing a risk to exposed people or infrastructure; they can cause a disaster if people are not well prepared.

Not using the term natural disaster makes it easier to think about better adaptation because we focus our attention to the lack of resilience instead of the hazardous processes.

Many hazards are difficult or impossible to avoid or influence (think of earthquakes), however, we can make societies more resilient and thereby avoid that such hazards result in a disaster (e.g. better building codes, spatial planning, emergency planning etc).

Dear Eberhard Weber

Honestly, I have come to think of this and realize that we can no longer describe the current happenings as a natural disaster. Human anthropogenic activities have come a long way to influence natural resources adversely.

https://www.nonaturaldisasters.com/

You can also buy stickers here =D

Time to recognize there is no such thing as a natural disaster - we're doing it to ourselves (UNDRR, 2021). Floods and storms account for nearly 90% of the most severe natural disasters (Adikari and Yoshitani, 2009). Water-related hazards are particularly sensitive to even small shifts in climate, so that the frequency, magnitude and intensity of these hazards are shifting over time (Milly et al., 2005).

Recognition of the clear linkages between water, climate change and disaster predate the Sendai Framework. Since 2007, the UN High-level Experts and Leaders Panel on Water and Disasters (HELP) has been working to raise awareness about the connections between water and disasters and strives to bridge the gaps between their respective policy communities.

• https://www.undrr.org/news/sendai-framework-6th-anniversary-time-recognize-there-no-such-thing-natural-disaster-were
• https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/08/world_water_development_report_2020_water_and_climate_change.pdf

• Article How water challenges can shape tomorrow's cities

(image: The impacts of climate change are experienced profoundly through water: floods, droughts, storms, rising temperatures & rising sea levels, Water as Leverage, Henk Ovink, 2019)