• 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

Lord of Planar said:
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.
Click to expand...

the consensus is that burning ****loads of carbon is changing the climate. the other nonsense is CT.
 
Helix said:
fake news.
Click to expand...

:lol:

You just called the IPPC report fake news, it is from their website that Longview linked to. The chart is on page 7, which means your silly bias is once again exposed.

:mrgreen:
 
swing_voter said:
Abstract

Hurricanes are the most destructive natural disasters in the United States. The record of economic damage from hurricanes shows a steep positive trend dominated by increases in wealth. It is necessary to account for temporal changes in exposed wealth, in a process called normalization, before we can compare the destructiveness of recorded damaging storms from different areas and at different times. Atmospheric models predict major hurricanes to get more intense as Earth warms, and we expect this trend to eventually emerge above the natural variability in the record of normalized damage. However, the evidence for an increasing trend in normalized damage since 1900 has been controversial. In this study, we develop a record of normalized damage since 1900 based on an equivalent area of total destruction. Here, we show that this record has an improved signal-to-noise ratio over earlier normalization schemes based on calculations of present-day economic damage. Our data reveal an emergent positive trend in damage, which we attribute to a detectable change in extreme storms due to global warming. Moreover, we show that this increasing trend in damage can also be exposed in existing normalized damage records by looking at the frequency of the largest damage events. Our record of normalized damage, framed in terms of an equivalent area of total destruction, is a more reliable measure for climate-related changes in extreme weather, and can be used for better risk assessments on hurricane disasters.

Normalized US hurricane damage estimates using area of total destruction, 1900−2018 | PNAS


Here's the abstract. All they are saying is that they need a method to determine how powerful a storm is based on how much economic damage is done. If a hurricane does $6 billion in damage, was it more powerful than a hurricane that did $4 billion?

Then you have things like inflation.
Click to expand...

Inflation, population growth, urbanization along typical hurricane tracks, e.g. gulf coast, Florida, etc. all need to be factored into a study like this.
 
Sunsettommy said:
This is what YOU posted in reaction to the IPCC chart and statement post from Longview:



Now in addition to avoiding debate, dodging my reply with a deflection to something else, you have been exposed as being biased and then dodge being exposed as one in the next comment.

You having serious problems at home?
Click to expand...

like i said, i don't do denialist CT. thanks for asking about my personal life, but you don't seem like the type that i'd share that information with. have a great Monday night, though.
 
Helix said:
like i said, i don't do denialist CT. thanks for asking about my personal life, but you don't seem like the type that i'd share that information with. have a great Monday night, though.
Click to expand...

Ok, then you have made clear you think the IPCC publish denialist literature. :mrgreen:

Thank You do much for the clarification.

Enjoy the football game.

:2wave:
 
Sunsettommy said:
Ok, then you have made clear you think the IPCC publish denialist literature. :mrgreen:

Thank You do much for the clarification.

Enjoy the football game.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

I don't watch football other than a bit of the superbowl every year. If that's your plan for the night, though, enjoy.
 
Helix said:
the consensus is that burning ****loads of carbon is changing the climate. the other nonsense is CT.
Click to expand...

Sure, it makes significant changes.
 
AProudLefty said:
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.
Click to expand...

Deflection, dont weasel out. Do you believe that a storm's destructiveness ought to be categorized based on monetary damage alone?
 
PoS said:
Deflection, dont weasel out. Do you believe that a storm's destructiveness ought to be categorized based on monetary damage alone?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it have to depend? Besides the news always tell us the cost.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. It never depends. Damage dollar value is a misleading metric.
Click to expand...

I know. But I think the average people are smart enough to tell the difference. And thanks for the thread because it makes me understand that the damage cost does not correlate with the intensity of the storm.
 
AProudLefty said:
I know. But I think the average people are smart enough to tell the difference. And thanks for the thread because it makes me understand that the damage cost does not correlate with the intensity of the storm.
Click to expand...

You are welcome. I don't share your confidence; I believe most people are misled by the damage dollar metric. That's what makes it a useful propaganda tool when hurricanes are not, in fact, trending more severe, and haven't for a long time.
 
PoS said:
You defend a non-scientific methodology, its plain as day.
Click to expand...

Like i said, you have problems with reading. I have not stated such thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom