No Significant Overall Trend over 167 Years of Hurricane Landfall Data

[Jack Hays]

. . . I tend to get hung up on the First Law of Thermodynamics . . .

Here's a thought. The First Law of Thermodynamics (FLT) certainly remains in force, and yet the data record does not reflect the response the FLT would lead you to expect. What does that tell us? Perhaps that the paradigm within which you have framed your expectation for results driven by the FLT is incomplete, and the FLT is working out in a way you don't see. This may be yet another example of the failure of the AGW paradigm to address a problem.

 

[istodolez]

Here's a thought. The First Law of Thermodynamics (FLT) certainly remains in force, and yet the data record does not reflect the response the FLT would lead you to expect. What does that tell us? Perhaps that the paradigm within which you have framed your expectation for results driven by the FLT is incomplete, and the FLT is working out in a way you don't see. This may be yet another example of the failure of the AGW paradigm to address a problem.

Here's what's more more likely: the warming in the Gulf has been insufficient to result in a significantly measurable increase in intensity of the storms or frequency of the storms. As noted there IS data showing a linkage between warming and intensity of storms on the larger data set for the globe which makes perfect sense if we understand that the First Law of Thermodynamics is real and that we are dealing with inherently noisy data (meaning it will take a lot more data to tease out any real signal). And, again, the First Law tells us that the energy we know is there can't just mysteriously disappear. Right now the amount of added energy may be insufficient to show up as a significant signal in small data subsets. But we know the energy is there and so we know what that MUST result in when it continues to accumulate.

Here's why I bring this up: a localized data set (like the Gulf) is going to be quite noisy data, lots of "outliers" around the regression. The signal due to warming on this small subset of storms is too weak to show up above the noise. It's reasonable to say that we can't see a signal in that subset of the data. This is not at all uncommon.

As an analogue: if you were to take one single temperature station in the US and track the temperature it won't necessarily show warming over the space of 100 years of data. Even if you were to normalize it to the "anomaly" rather than raw temperature the single station won't necessarily show you "global warming". But we know global warming is real (regardless of the source of it) and that data shows up in the larger aggregate data.

 

[istodolez]

That's certainly what the hypothesis and models predict, but it's not what the data record shows.

And there's two ways to understand this:

1. The small subset of data that is represented in the Gulf is insufficient to show a signal in a noisy dataset
2. Energy is simply "disappearing" in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics

#1 is more likely but #2 certainly helps overturn the AGW hypothesis because clearly the First Law of Thermodynamics will have to be sacrificed to help us avoid the obvious.

 

[Jack Hays]

Here's what's more more likely: the warming in the Gulf has been insufficient to result in a significantly measurable increase in intensity of the storms or frequency of the storms. As noted there IS data showing a linkage between warming and intensity of storms on the larger data set for the globe which makes perfect sense if we understand that the First Law of Thermodynamics is real and that we are dealing with inherently noisy data (meaning it will take a lot more data to tease out any real signal). And, again, the First Law tells us that the energy we know is there can't just mysteriously disappear. Right now the amount of added energy may be insufficient to show up as a significant signal in small data subsets. But we know the energy is there and so we know what that MUST result in when it continues to accumulate.

Here's why I bring this up: a localized data set (like the Gulf) is going to be quite noisy data, lots of "outliers" around the regression. The signal due to warming on this small subset of storms is too weak to show up above the noise. It's reasonable to say that we can't see a signal in that subset of the data. This is not at all uncommon.

As an analogue: if you were to take one single temperature station in the US and track the temperature it won't necessarily show warming over the space of 100 years of data. Even if you were to normalize it to the "anomaly" rather than raw temperature the single station won't necessarily show you "global warming". But we know global warming is real (regardless of the source of it) and that data shows up in the larger aggregate data.

The data record shown in #24 and #25 is global.

 

[Jack Hays]

And there's two ways to understand this:

1. The small subset of data that is represented in the Gulf is insufficient to show a signal in a noisy dataset
2. Energy is simply "disappearing" in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics

#1 is more likely but #2 certainly helps overturn the AGW hypothesis because clearly the First Law of Thermodynamics will have to be sacrificed to help us avoid the obvious.

Or:

3. The energy is not "disappearing" but is not evident within the AGW paradigm.

 

[istodolez]

Or:

3. The energy is not "disappearing" but is not evident within the AGW paradigm.

A bit more detail, please. How is energy utilized in the "AGW paradigm" that is different from how it is normally utilized? To my knowledge the climate scientists are still using energy in the same way that physicists have used it for a few centuries now.

What do you think is going on with the energy? Is it there? If we see an increase in ocean temperatures why wouldn't it lead to more energy in the hurricanes and cyclones?

 

[istodolez]

The data record shown in #24 and #25 is global.

Thanks.

I also note it is "Frequency". As noted many times earlier the findings are that intensity is positively correlated with warming.

Observed records of Atlantic hurricane activity show some correlation, on multi-year time-scales, between local tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the Power Dissipation Index (PDI) — see for example Fig. 3 on this EPA Climate Indicators site. PDI is an aggregate measure of Atlantic hurricane activity, combining frequency, intensity, and duration of hurricanes in a single index. Both Atlantic SSTs and PDI have risen sharply since the 1970s, and there is some evidence that PDI levels in recent years are higher than in the previous active Atlantic hurricane era in the 1950s and 60s. (SOURCE)

We would expect both to positively correlate since at it's core it is really just added energy to the system. But, again, the data is clearly noisy so strong signals will be hard to come by. The fact that one doesn't quite show a signal but the other does is not a problem. It doesn't "disprove" AGW. It merely notes that the signal is not yet above the noise on one but is clearly showing exactly what science would predict for the other, but even then I'm willing to assume even that might be a weak relationship just owing to the noise in the data.

If I run a marching band down your street at 3:00AM it will probably wake you up. But if I also set off a smoke alarm by the head of your bed you are unlikely to hear the marching band. The signal is insufficient to overcome the overall noise.

And, again, at the end of the day we know there is more energy going into the oceans (as shown by ocean surface temperature increases) so that energy has to go somewhere. It just does.

So all this talk about hurricane trends really doesn't matter much either way.

 

[Threegoofs]

Or:

3. The energy is not "disappearing" but is not evident within the AGW paradigm.

Ummm...

 

[Jack Hays]

Thanks.

I also note it is "Frequency". As noted many times earlier the findings are that intensity is positively correlated with warming.



We would expect both to positively correlate since at it's core it is really just added energy to the system. But, again, the data is clearly noisy so strong signals will be hard to come by. The fact that one doesn't quite show a signal but the other does is not a problem. It doesn't "disprove" AGW. It merely notes that the signal is not yet above the noise on one but is clearly showing exactly what science would predict for the other, but even then I'm willing to assume even that might be a weak relationship just owing to the noise in the data.

If I run a marching band down your street at 3:00AM it will probably wake you up. But if I also set off a smoke alarm by the head of your bed you are unlikely to hear the marching band. The signal is insufficient to overcome the overall noise.

And, again, at the end of the day we know there is more energy going into the oceans (as shown by ocean surface temperature increases) so that energy has to go somewhere. It just does.

So all this talk about hurricane trends really doesn't matter much either way.

The claim of increased intensity is in fact the result of statistical sleight-of-hand in dealing with frequency. Already explained to you.

As for the energy:

[FONT=&quot]"The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already!" [/FONT]

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic

 

[Threegoofs]

The claim of increased intensity is in fact the result of statistical sleight-of-hand in dealing with frequency. Already explained to you.

As for the energy:

[FONT=&quot]"The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already!" [/FONT]

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic

Hmmm.

 

[istodolez]

The claim of increased intensity is in fact the result of statistical sleight-of-hand in dealing with frequency. Already explained to you.

Not really. There was no "sleight of hand". (Please stop mischaracterizing science you merely disagree with as somehow dishonest or "sleight of hand").

As for the energy:

[FONT="]"The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already!" [/FONT]

[B][URL="http://www.sciencebits.com/cambridge_union_debate"]Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic[/URL][/B]

Well that doesn't make any sense because the added heat in the ocean is measured as increased temperature of the water.

(Hint: you can't measure heat that is already gone. Just a protip)

 

[istodolez]

Hmmm.

How can these "scientists" measure heat if it is "already escaped the earth"? Hmmmm... DEEEEEP questions!

 

[Threegoofs]

How can these "scientists" measure heat if it is "already escaped the earth"? Hmmmm... DEEEEEP questions!

Deniers gonna deny.

 

[Jack Hays]

Not really. There was no "sleight of hand". (Please stop mischaracterizing science you merely disagree with as somehow dishonest or "sleight of hand").

"Lies, damn lies and statistics." --Mark Twain

"The media are breathlessly touting a cheap new “study” falsely asserting climate change is causing an increase in strong hurricanes. In reality, the study relies on deception, unethical data manipulation, and aggressive misrepresentation of quite normal short-term trends to support its false claim. . . .

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the authors and their media sock-puppets bury the fact that the authors are reporting on the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes rather than the raw number of major hurricanes. Objective data – as shown in the chart below (see climatlas.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png), show that the number of tropical storms has been declining throughout the time period of the authors’ study. So, the authors and the media can technically claim that the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is growing, even while there is no increase in the overall number major hurricanes. The percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is largely irrelevant if the overall number of major hurricanes stays the same. If anything, the new study simply illustrates that fewer tropical storms are forming, which would largely be seen as a beneficial climate development. . . . "

Highly Touted Alarmist Hurricane ‘Study’ Sets New Low for Misleading Deception

Hurricanes May 21, 2020

8​

The media are breathlessly touting a cheap new “study” falsely asserting climate change is causing an increase in strong hurricanes. In reality, the study relies on deception, unethical data manipulation, and aggressive misrepresentation of...
Read more
​

 

[Threegoofs]

"Lies, damn lies and statistics." --Mark Twain

"The media are breathlessly touting a cheap new “study” falsely asserting climate change is causing an increase in strong hurricanes. In reality, the study relies on deception, unethical data manipulation, and aggressive misrepresentation of quite normal short-term trends to support its false claim. . . .

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the authors and their media sock-puppets bury the fact that the authors are reporting on the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes rather than the raw number of major hurricanes. Objective data – as shown in the chart below (see climatlas.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png), show that the number of tropical storms has been declining throughout the time period of the authors’ study. So, the authors and the media can technically claim that the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is growing, even while there is no increase in the overall number major hurricanes. The percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is largely irrelevant if the overall number of major hurricanes stays the same. If anything, the new study simply illustrates that fewer tropical storms are forming, which would largely be seen as a beneficial climate development. . . . "

Highly Touted Alarmist Hurricane ‘Study’ Sets New Low for Misleading Deception

Hurricanes May 21, 2020

8​

The media are breathlessly touting a cheap new “study” falsely asserting climate change is causing an increase in strong hurricanes. In reality, the study relies on deception, unethical data manipulation, and aggressive misrepresentation of...
Read more
​

Ohlookablog

 

[istodolez]

"Lies, damn lies and statistics." --Mark Twain

"The media are breathlessly touting a cheap new “study” falsely asserting climate change is causing an increase in strong hurricanes. In reality, the study relies on deception, unethical data manipulation, and aggressive misrepresentation of quite normal short-term trends to support its false claim. . . .

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the authors and their media sock-puppets bury the fact that the authors are reporting on the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes rather than the raw number of major hurricanes. Objective data – as shown in the chart below (see climatlas.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png), show that the number of tropical storms has been declining throughout the time period of the authors’ study. So, the authors and the media can technically claim that the percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is growing, even while there is no increase in the overall number major hurricanes. The percentage of tropical storms that become major hurricanes is largely irrelevant if the overall number of major hurricanes stays the same. If anything, the new study simply illustrates that fewer tropical storms are forming, which would largely be seen as a beneficial climate development. . . . "

Highly Touted Alarmist Hurricane ‘Study’ Sets New Low for Misleading Deception

[FONT=&]Hurricanes May 21, 2020

8​

[FONT=&]The media are breathlessly touting a cheap new “study” falsely asserting climate change is causing an increase in strong hurricanes. In reality, the study relies on deception, unethical data manipulation, and aggressive misrepresentation of...[/FONT]
Read more
​

[/FONT]

"The study, published by government-employed and government-funded researchers whose jobs and income depend on perpetuation of the alarmist Climate Delusion"

It is really tiring seeing people call "lies" those things they merely disagree with.

But the fact that you find this so compelling: calling people liars simply because you don't agree with their results, makes me wonder about YOU when you were a professional working in a field.

You see, I'm a big believer in the Golden Rule: that as you would others do unto you, do so unto them.

So I have to ask: HOW OFTEN DID YOU LIE IN YOUR JOB JUST TO keep your paycheck coming in? Was it a LOT ...because you see it so much in OTHERS' work.

 

[Jack Hays]

"The study, published by government-employed and government-funded researchers whose jobs and income depend on perpetuation of the alarmist Climate Delusion"

It is really tiring seeing people call "lies" those things they merely disagree with.

But the fact that you find this so compelling: calling people liars simply because you don't agree with their results, makes me wonder about YOU when you were a professional working in a field.

You see, I'm a big believer in the Golden Rule: that as you would others do unto you, do so unto them.

So I have to ask: HOW OFTEN DID YOU LIE IN YOUR JOB JUST TO keep your paycheck coming in? Was it a LOT ...because you see it so much in OTHERS' work.

I did not quote that part of the post because I don't believe that was a motivation. The deceit of the study is nonetheless, and unfortunately, indisputable. What I do believe is that noble cause corruption and groupthink drove the sleight-of-hand. It was in fact a significant part of my job to understand those motivations.

 

[HIP56948]

The ballgame is not over yet.

 

[Helix]

The important thing is that blogs are convinced it’s not an issue.

it's like watching 9/11 truthers argue endlessly over a wheel bolt.

"that's from a Cessna, not a jet! look, here's a Cessna bolt!"

"That's a tactical nuke! look at the footage! steel can't melt like that!"

:roll:

 

[istodolez]

I did not quote that part of the post because I don't believe that was a motivation.

OK, thanks for that. That makes me feel better. It is unfortunate that the sources you prefer are so quick to accuse people of lies and mock disabilities. But I understand that you, yourself, don't do those things or approve of them .

What I do believe is that noble cause corruption and groupthink drove the sleight-of-hand. It was in fact a significant part of my job to understand those motivations.

Interesting. So in your former career when you were determining if someone was acting on "corrupt" intent was it in things you didn't understand from a technical standpoint? I mean if I were asked to determine if a nuclear engineer was lying to me about void coefficients I would have NO WAY to tell because I don't know a thing about nuclear engineering.

 

[istodolez]

it's like watching 9/11 truthers argue endlessly over a wheel bolt.

"that's from a Cessna, not a jet! look, here's a Cessna bolt!"

"That's a tactical nuke! look at the footage! steel can't melt like that!"

:roll:

Well, the folks at "Big Small Plane" are probably ONLY funding research into non-Cessna fixtures and are actively freezing out the legitimate research into Illuminati False-Flag Attacks on America.

 

[Helix]

Well, the folks at "Big Small Plane" are probably ONLY funding research into non-Cessna fixtures and are actively freezing out the legitimate research into Illuminati False-Flag Attacks on America.

according to some truthers, it turns out that there were no planes at all, apparently. IT WAS A MISSILE FIRED BY GEORGE DUMBYA BOOSH THE BUTTON WAS HIDDEN ON THE TITLE PAGE OF THE PET GOAT WHARBLGARBL :roll:

man, those ****ers annoyed me. i probably spent a year of my life tearing truthers apart online. then i realized that i had just wasted a year of my life. they are unreachable, just like climate change CTers.

 

[istodolez]

according to some truthers, it turns out that there were no planes at all, apparently. IT WAS A MISSILE FIRED BY GEORGE DUMBYA BOOSH THE BUTTON WAS HIDDEN ON THE TITLE PAGE OF THE PET GOAT WHARBLGARBL :roll:

man, those ****ers annoyed me. i probably spent a year of my life tearing truthers apart online. then i realized that i had just wasted a year of my life. they are unreachable, just like climate change CTers.

I agree that in most cases on climate stuff we are all talking past each other. I keep up the debate if only so that I can:

1. Understand where the denialists and "skeptics" are coming from
2. Helps inspire me to read more in the actual literature.

But it's also fun to occasionally run across folks who clearly have ZERO understanding of even basic details in the science just to see Dunning-Kruger in full flower.

 

[Helix]

I agree that in most cases on climate stuff we are all talking past each other. I keep up the debate if only so that I can:

1. Understand where the denialists and "skeptics" are coming from
2. Helps inspire me to read more in the actual literature.

But it's also fun to occasionally run across folks who clearly have ZERO understanding of even basic details in the science just to see Dunning-Kruger in full flower.

bopping truthers online was fun until it wasn't. you could destroy the entire premise of their idiotic CT, and they'd just retreat to talking about rivets. never go down the rabbit hole.

 

[Jack Hays]

OK, thanks for that. That makes me feel better. It is unfortunate that the sources you prefer are so quick to accuse people of lies and mock disabilities. But I understand that you, yourself, don't do those things or approve of them .



Interesting. So in your former career when you were determining if someone was acting on "corrupt" intent was it in things you didn't understand from a technical standpoint? I mean if I were asked to determine if a nuclear engineer was lying to me about void coefficients I would have NO WAY to tell because I don't know a thing about nuclear engineering.

I studied the people.