Zoe, You Did not measure the ACE(Accumulated Cyclone Energy) numbers just the lowest pressure at a singular point in time at lowest pressure and looking at your sheep-skin there I see that you have no experience in that category of Science related to Meteorology or the Sub-Category of Climate Science! So you'll not gain much credence outside of your Blog there!
Maybe get Joe Bastardi to help you because he's in your camp but has more credentials there! But there is a larger number of peer reviewed Climate Scientists to look at there to get a better picture using proper peer reviewed statistical methods accepted by that Discipline's leading scientists! So the argument continues as you have provided insufficient statistical analysts! There are much larger datasets available, at least, for the satellite era to get some better looks there for 4 or 5 decades at minimum backwards in time before the datasets begin to thin out there but for your analysis not near enough was done to come to any conclusion at all!
What an obnoxious comment.
I can either go far back in time, and make do with available data, or I can just focus on the satellite era. You see which one I chose.
No scientists have complete data to create an ACE prior to the 1970s.
I made do with what was available and I did a good job.
Scientists claim that peak intensity will go up. Well I have peak low pressure data ...
No make use of the Proper Data Sets that the Atmospheric Scientists make use of and research there that has to Pass Peer Review and Joe Bastardi has the proper Credentials there and his view more than matches your view point so look at his statements but he's not specializing Climate Research as his specificity in his Atmospheric Sciences background. But ask him about ACE and how relevant that data set is there along with Terabytes of other Data from the Remote Sensing Weather/Atmospheric satellites that the Climate Researchers have poured over for there related research into the matter!
There is also plenty of Aviation Related Atmospheric data sets that go back further on the weather readings from Aircraft that get automatically recorded and fed into the weather modeling data sets and that info goes back further as does the Atmospheric weather balloons and those soundings!
You did a good job with the limited statistics of your extremely limited sampling of the Atmospheric Historical record but that limited sampling lacks any finer granularity there compared to what the professionals have worked through in their research.
And in no way should anyone not go back as far as possible for any datasets including tree rings and other indirect methods of sampling further back in the historical records there. And where did I actually say that one should not go back as far as possible for as much data as possible. I just stated that the datasets get less detailed the further back one goes but that still comprises more data than you have made use of to come to your conclusion!
The best ACE data goes back as far as early 1970s. It shows tiny decline/no trend.
"And in no way should anyone not go back as far as possible for any datasets including tree rings and other indirect methods of sampling further back in the historical records there."
Great! So you have to reject scant non-global thermometer data prior to the satellite age.
"but that still comprises more data than you have made use of to come to your conclusion!"
No! There is NO more data for atlantic hurricanes. If there was, NOAA would have it.
Mind if I summarise the posting? It will sound unfriendly.
"Those people are claiming that one thing increases. Well, wouldn't it be better to measure another thing? It would! […] So we see that the thing I want to measure shows no change. This proves that those people are wrong and alarmist."
The trick you use is point 15 in Schopenhauer's book about dirty rhetorical tricks.
You are ignoring data sets that go back further from Aircraft and Ships and ocean buoys and there are more types of readings available and you are assuming that I intended you to stop at 4 or 5 decades ago and go no further! It's your lack of usage of that ACE metric and other datasets that are allowing for even finer grained tropical cyclone intensity measuring analysis.
Your extremely limited sampling of the historical data sets will not pass muster in any peer reviewed scientific publication or Academic setting and I'm not leaning either direction on the matter but to say that your sampling method is much too cursory to pass any stringent review process.
You're extremely obnoxious. If you have access to better long term data that for some reason NOAA lacks in the file I use (see source code), then you should share it.
13 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 40.1 ms ] threadMaybe get Joe Bastardi to help you because he's in your camp but has more credentials there! But there is a larger number of peer reviewed Climate Scientists to look at there to get a better picture using proper peer reviewed statistical methods accepted by that Discipline's leading scientists! So the argument continues as you have provided insufficient statistical analysts! There are much larger datasets available, at least, for the satellite era to get some better looks there for 4 or 5 decades at minimum backwards in time before the datasets begin to thin out there but for your analysis not near enough was done to come to any conclusion at all!
No scientists have complete data to create an ACE prior to the 1970s.
I made do with what was available and I did a good job.
Scientists claim that peak intensity will go up. Well I have peak low pressure data ...
There is also plenty of Aviation Related Atmospheric data sets that go back further on the weather readings from Aircraft that get automatically recorded and fed into the weather modeling data sets and that info goes back further as does the Atmospheric weather balloons and those soundings!
You did a good job with the limited statistics of your extremely limited sampling of the Atmospheric Historical record but that limited sampling lacks any finer granularity there compared to what the professionals have worked through in their research.
And in no way should anyone not go back as far as possible for any datasets including tree rings and other indirect methods of sampling further back in the historical records there. And where did I actually say that one should not go back as far as possible for as much data as possible. I just stated that the datasets get less detailed the further back one goes but that still comprises more data than you have made use of to come to your conclusion!
"And in no way should anyone not go back as far as possible for any datasets including tree rings and other indirect methods of sampling further back in the historical records there."
Great! So you have to reject scant non-global thermometer data prior to the satellite age.
"but that still comprises more data than you have made use of to come to your conclusion!"
No! There is NO more data for atlantic hurricanes. If there was, NOAA would have it.
"Those people are claiming that one thing increases. Well, wouldn't it be better to measure another thing? It would! […] So we see that the thing I want to measure shows no change. This proves that those people are wrong and alarmist."
The trick you use is point 15 in Schopenhauer's book about dirty rhetorical tricks.
What are the motives of people who claim 4 hurricanes each lasting 3 hours MUST BE more important than 3 hurricanes each lasting 4 hours?
The potential damage may actually result more from duration than frequency.
Perhaps it's worth asking if the initial claim is a dirty rhetorical trick?
When it comes to global accumulated cyclone energy, it is no trend/slightly decreasing.
Alarmists predicted it would go up decades ago. They were wrong.
Now they just cherrypick subfacts beneath that grand fact. Look at this location! Look at this time slice! See? See?
It's pathetic.
Would be good to include intensity, durations, wind speeds, categories distributions, etc.etc. to get full and more accurate picture.
Your extremely limited sampling of the historical data sets will not pass muster in any peer reviewed scientific publication or Academic setting and I'm not leaning either direction on the matter but to say that your sampling method is much too cursory to pass any stringent review process.