• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Hurricane Paper Fatally Flawed -- Should Be Retracted

Jack Hays said:
You will ultimately be ashamed of this exchange.
Click to expand...

I'm giving you a little push to really apply yourself. I hope that you pursue it.
 
Helix said:
As I said, you should shoot for Nature.
Click to expand...

This paper I posted (42) is IN Nature journal:

Normalized hurricane damage in the continental United States 1900–2017

LINK

You offer name calling and hostility, avoiding debate on the topic. YOU are the one denying a debate and published papers.

:lol:

You are embarrassing.
 
Jack Hays said:
As am I. I'm offering you the chance to salvage your self-respect.
Click to expand...

That's friendly of you. However, your time would be better spent getting that PhD in climate science. I want to live at least long enough to read your Nature publication.
 
Sunsettommy said:
This paper I posted (42) is IN Nature journal:

Normalized hurricane damage in the continental United States 1900–2017

LINK

You offer name calling and hostility, avoiding debate on the topic. YOU are the one denying a debate and published papers.

:lol:

You are embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Feel free to scroll past my posts if they cause you distress.
 
They don't, I am trying to discuss it with you, and you come back with dead on arrival name calling, deflection, fallacies and hostility. You are getting schooled here by your being exposed as being ignorant of the topic, and hostile to others who are calmly responding to you with an effort to a discussion.

When are YOU going to start discussing it?

Cheers.
 
Helix said:
That's friendly of you. However, your time would be better spent getting that PhD in climate science. I want to live at least long enough to read your Nature publication.
Click to expand...

Here is that peer reviewed published NATURE journal paper you keep ignoring:

Normalized hurricane damage in the continental United States 1900–2017

LINK

Abstract

Direct economic losses result when a hurricane encounters an exposed, vulnerable society. A normalization estimates direct economic losses from a historical extreme event if that same event was to occur under contemporary societal conditions. Under the global indicator framework of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the reduction of direct economic losses as a proportion of total economic activity is identified as a key indicator of progress in the mitigation of disaster impacts. Understanding loss trends in the context of development can therefore aid in assessing sustainable development. This analysis provides a major update to the leading dataset on normalized US hurricane losses in the continental United States from 1900 to 2017. Over this period, 197 hurricanes resulted in 206 landfalls with about US$2 trillion in normalized (2018) damage, or just under US$17 billion annually. Consistent with observed trends in the frequency and intensity of hurricane landfalls along the continental United States since 1900, the updated normalized loss estimates also show no trend. A more detailed comparison of trends in hurricanes and normalized losses over various periods in the twentieth century to 2017 demonstrates a very high degree of consistency.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Here is that peer reviewed published NATURE journal paper you keep ignoring:

Normalized hurricane damage in the continental United States 1900–2017

LINK

Abstract

Direct economic losses result when a hurricane encounters an exposed, vulnerable society. A normalization estimates direct economic losses from a historical extreme event if that same event was to occur under contemporary societal conditions. Under the global indicator framework of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the reduction of direct economic losses as a proportion of total economic activity is identified as a key indicator of progress in the mitigation of disaster impacts. Understanding loss trends in the context of development can therefore aid in assessing sustainable development. This analysis provides a major update to the leading dataset on normalized US hurricane losses in the continental United States from 1900 to 2017. Over this period, 197 hurricanes resulted in 206 landfalls with about US$2 trillion in normalized (2018) damage, or just under US$17 billion annually. Consistent with observed trends in the frequency and intensity of hurricane landfalls along the continental United States since 1900, the updated normalized loss estimates also show no trend. A more detailed comparison of trends in hurricanes and normalized losses over various periods in the twentieth century to 2017 demonstrates a very high degree of consistency.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should be the one who pursues a climate science PhD. Jack doesn't seem to be interested.
 
Helix said:
Maybe you should be the one who pursues a climate science PhD. Jack doesn't seem to be interested.
Click to expand...

You are now 100% off topic, total avoidance to a discussion, which I keep pressing for.

The article has a decades long experienced PHD degree Scientist showing the obvious flaws of the paper in question, the same PHD holder who along with a few other PHD holder scientists published this paper you ignore over and over:

Normalized hurricane damage in the continental United States 1900–2017

Jessica Weinkle, Chris Landsea, Douglas Collins, Rade Musulin, Ryan P. Crompton, Philip J. Klotzbach & Roger Pielke Jr


LINK

:3oops:

It is clear You have NOTHING worthwhile to offer here.........


Cheers.
 
Sunsettommy said:
You are now 100% off topic, total avoidance to a discussion, which I keep pressing for.

The article has a decades long experienced PHD degree Scientist showing the obvious flaws of the paper in question, the same PHD holder who along with a few other PHD holder scientists published this paper you ignore over and over:

Normalized hurricane damage in the continental United States 1900–2017

Jessica Weinkle, Chris Landsea, Douglas Collins, Rade Musulin, Ryan P. Crompton, Philip J. Klotzbach & Roger Pielke Jr


LINK

:3oops:

It is clear You have NOTHING worthwhile to offer here.........


Cheers.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't do denialist CT. Feel free to scroll past!
 
Helix said:
Like I said, I don't do denialist CT. Feel free to scroll past!
Click to expand...

So an ignored/unread paper in Nature is invalid, according to you, who has not yet told us YOU have a PHD in climatology/Meteorology, yet somehow by others not having a PHD, you think people like Jack and Sunsettommy can't understand any published papers, while you somehow without any declared science education at all, knows IF it was good or bad at all.

:lol:

How could YOU know IF it is good or bad, while not needing the PHD you keep saying others in the thread needs it, to understand it yourself?

Where is YOUR PHD, Helix?

If you don't have one, I can by YOUR standard IGNORE you completely, since you are then a nobody, again by YOUR standard.

:3oops:

Cheers.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Here is that peer reviewed published NATURE journal paper you keep ignoring:

Normalized hurricane damage in the continental United States 1900–2017

LINK

Abstract

Direct economic losses result when a hurricane encounters an exposed, vulnerable society. A normalization estimates direct economic losses from a historical extreme event if that same event was to occur under contemporary societal conditions. Under the global indicator framework of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the reduction of direct economic losses as a proportion of total economic activity is identified as a key indicator of progress in the mitigation of disaster impacts. Understanding loss trends in the context of development can therefore aid in assessing sustainable development. This analysis provides a major update to the leading dataset on normalized US hurricane losses in the continental United States from 1900 to 2017. Over this period, 197 hurricanes resulted in 206 landfalls with about US$2 trillion in normalized (2018) damage, or just under US$17 billion annually. Consistent with observed trends in the frequency and intensity of hurricane landfalls along the continental United States since 1900, the updated normalized loss estimates also show no trend. A more detailed comparison of trends in hurricanes and normalized losses over various periods in the twentieth century to 2017 demonstrates a very high degree of consistency.
Click to expand...

Past the abstract:

The greatest annual normalized damage occurred in 1926
(US$244 billion, PL18), exceeding the next greatest loss year (2005)
by about US$74 billion.
​

MdpMxKg.png
 
Sunsettommy said:
So an ignored/unread paper in Nature is invalid, according to you, who has not yet told us YOU have a PHD in climatology/Meteorology, yet somehow by others not having a PHD, you think people like Jack and Sunsettommy can't understand any published papers, while you somehow without any declared science education at all, knows IF it was good or bad at all.

:lol:

How could YOU know IF it is good or bad, while not needing the PHD you keep saying others in the thread needs it, to understand it yourself?

Where is YOUR PHD, Helix?

If you don't have one, I can by YOUR standard IGNORE you completely, since you are then a nobody, again by YOUR standard.

:3oops:

Cheers.
Click to expand...

i'm waiting on Jack's paper. he has wasted enough of our time on denialist CT in this subforum. let's take it to the next level. perhaps he'll bring you in on the project.
 
PoS said:
Do you believe it? Yes or no.
Click to expand...

That the severity of a storm impacts an economy? It's a no brainer. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell them apart.
 
Helix said:
i'm waiting on Jack's paper. he has wasted enough of our time on denialist CT in this subforum. let's take it to the next level. perhaps he'll bring you in on the project.
Click to expand...

:lamo

I am waiting for YOU to be on topic:

New Hurricane Paper Fatally Flawed -- Should Be Retracted

written by a PHD hold Dr. Pielke, who also has a peer reviewed paper on this topic in NATURE journal.

He makes a good case on why the paper, published by PNAS is fatally flawed:

Earlier this week a paper published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by a team of authors led by Aslak Grinsted, a scientist who studies ice sheets at the University of Copenhagen, claimed that “the frequency of the very most damaging hurricanes has increased at a rate of 330% per century.”
Click to expand...

Jack posted the article on which you have never addressed, you spend your time here being off topic, avoid request for discussing it and be insulting in general. You make unreasonable demands that me and Jack have a PHD and also to publish a paper on the topic, while YOU keep ignoring a PHD holder who has already published a paper on this topic subject matter, his name is Dr. Pielke, the same one who wrote the article Jack posted.

Meanwhile Grinstead studies ICE SHEET Glaciology, while the published Pielke paper are populated by actual hurricane experts................................

DR. Christopher Landsea is a long time Hurricane researcher. Doctoral degree in Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University.

Dr. Klotzbach is a Hurricane researcher. He received his Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from CSU in 2007

DR. Weinkle PhD Environmental Studies, University of Colorado Boulder 2013

Ryan P. Crompton and his published papers on weather damage, LINK

Rade Musulin LINK

:lol:

Why are YOU avoiding the debate?
 
Last edited:
Sunsettommy said:
:lamo

I am waiting for YOU to be on topic:

New Hurricane Paper Fatally Flawed -- Should Be Retracted

written by a PHD hold Dr. Pielke, who also has a peer reviewed paper on this topic in NATURE journal.

He makes a good case on why the paper, published by PNAS is fatally flawed:



Jack posted the article on which you have never addressed, you spend your time here being off topic, avoid request for discussing it and be insulting in general. You make unreasonable demands that me and Jack have a PHD and also to publish a paper on the topic, while YOU keep ignoring a PHD holder who has already published a paper on this topic subject matter, his name is Dr. Pielke, the same one who wrote the article Jack posted.

Meanwhile Grinstead studies ICE SHEET Glaciology, while the published Pielke paper are populated by actual hurricane experts................................

:lol:

Why are YOU avoiding the debate?
Click to expand...

perhaps you missed it the first few times, but i don't do denialist CT. hope that this clears it up for you.
 
Helix said:
perhaps you missed it the first few times, but i don't do denialist CT. hope that this clears it up for you.
Click to expand...

I haven't missed your off topic stuff, it doesn't contain anything worthwhile since you keep avoiding being on topic and discussing the topic. This means anything you post is already dead on arrival...., why is that so hard for you to understand?

I have updated my post to show how far off the mark you are on the NATURE paper you keep ignoring. You are ignoring people who have PHDs, and and have numerous published papers that covers THIS VERY TOPIC!!!!

You are the real denialist here, selectively ignoring published research and avoiding debate.

:2wave:
 
Sunsettommy said:
I haven't missed your off topic stuff, it doesn't contain anything worthwhile since you keep avoiding being on topic and discussing the topic. This means anything you post is already dead on arrival...., why is that so hard for you to understand?

I have updated my post to show how far off the mark you are on the NATURE paper you keep ignoring. You are ignoring people who have PHDs, and and have numerous published papers that covers THIS VERY TOPIC!!!!

You are the real denialist here, selectively ignoring published research and avoiding debate.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Projection
 
Helix said:
Projection
Click to expand...

So says the person who isn't on topic, avoids debate, insult people in the thread, and insult people who publish in science journals. I thought Moderators are supposed to be above that standard?

Projection

Psychological projection is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting and can manifest as shame dumping.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Sunsettommy said:
So says the person who isn't on topic, avoids debate, insult people in the thread, and insult people who publish in science journals. I thought Moderators are supposed to be above that standard?

Projection



:lol:
Click to expand...

I'm not a denialist. I agree with the scientific consensus over denialist CT.
 
Helix said:
I'm not a denialist. I agree with the scientific consensus over denialist CT.
Click to expand...

Do you agree with what the scientific consensus actually means, or what they tell you it means?

Do you believe because you understand the sciences, or because you appeal to their authority?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Do you agree with what the scientific consensus actually means, or what they tell you it means?

Do you believe because you understand the sciences, or because you appeal to their authority?
Click to expand...

The post that you quoted answers both questions. If it doesn't for you, please feel free to remain confused.
 
Helix said:
I'm not a denialist. I agree with the scientific consensus over denialist CT.
Click to expand...
You may think you know what the scientific consensus says, but you would be wrong!
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Table SPM.1
table SPM.1.jpg
Assessment that changes occurred (typically since 1950 unless otherwise indicated
Increases in intense tropical cyclone activity
Low confidence in long term (centennial) changes Virtually certain in North Atlantic since 1970 {2.6}Low confidence Likely in some regions, since 1970
So low confidence since 1970, and low confidence of Human attribution,
and low confidence in the early 21st century, but maybe in the late 21st century a likely!
 
Helix said:
The post that you quoted answers both questions. If it doesn't for you, please feel free to remain confused.
Click to expand...

Except the consensus is just that we have an effect. None of the "97%" consensus stated as AWG being most of the cause is supported. One of the studies that used questions to scientists asked a question to the effect "is AGW a significant cause of warming." To a technically minded person, significant generally means around 5% or more. Something worth including.

So I agree with the consensus that AGW has at least a 5% effect. Now I would say closer to 25%, but the consensus argument is among the weakest out there.
 
longview said:
You may think you know what the scientific consensus says, but you would be wrong!
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Table SPM.1
View attachment 67268395
Assessment that changes occurred (typically since 1950 unless otherwise indicated
Increases in intense tropical cyclone activity
Low confidence in long term (centennial) changes Virtually certain in North Atlantic since 1970 {2.6}Low confidence Likely in some regions, since 1970
So low confidence since 1970, and low confidence of Human attribution,
and low confidence in the early 21st century, but maybe in the late 21st century a likely!
Click to expand...

fake news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom