Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 94

Thread: New Hurricane Paper Fatally Flawed -- Should Be Retracted

  1. #1
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    84,400
    Blog Entries
    3

    New Hurricane Paper Fatally Flawed -- Should Be Retracted

    In their frenzy to publish more and more alarming claims, the AGW advocates are embarrassing themselves with errors. Here's the latest example. A retraction is probably not far behind.

    hurricanes
    No, Hurricanes Are Not Bigger, Stronger and More Dangerous

    From Forbes, Roger Pielke Contributor, Energy. I research and write about science, policy and politics. 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…

    The press release accompanying the paper announced that United States mainland “hurricanes are becoming bigger, stronger and more dangerous” and with the new study, “doubt has been eradicated.”
    If true, the paper (which I’ll call G19, using its lead author’s initial and year of publication) would overturn decades of research and observations that have indicated over the past century or more, there are no upwards trends in U.S. hurricane landfalls and no upwards trends in the strongest storms at landfall. These conclusions have been reinforced by the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), U.S. National Climate Assessment, and most recently of the World Meteorological Organization.
    In fact, however, the new PNAS paper is fatally flawed. The conclusions of major scientific assessments remain solid. As I’ll show below, G19 contains several major errors and as a result it should be retracted. . . .
    "Above all, not too much zeal." --Prince Talleyrand

  2. #2
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,171

    Re: New Hurricane Paper Fatally Flawed -- Should Be Retracted

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    In their frenzy to publish more and more alarming claims, the AGW advocates are embarrassing themselves with errors. Here's the latest example. A retraction is probably not far behind.

    hurricanes
    No, Hurricanes Are Not Bigger, Stronger and More Dangerous

    From Forbes, Roger Pielke Contributor, Energy. I research and write about science, policy and politics. 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…

    The press release accompanying the paper announced that United States mainland “hurricanes are becoming bigger, stronger and more dangerous” and with the new study, “doubt has been eradicated.”
    If true, the paper (which I’ll call G19, using its lead author’s initial and year of publication) would overturn decades of research and observations that have indicated over the past century or more, there are no upwards trends in U.S. hurricane landfalls and no upwards trends in the strongest storms at landfall. These conclusions have been reinforced by the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), U.S. National Climate Assessment, and most recently of the World Meteorological Organization.
    In fact, however, the new PNAS paper is fatally flawed. The conclusions of major scientific assessments remain solid. As I’ll show below, G19 contains several major errors and as a result it should be retracted. . . .
    Yeah that's been one of Pielke's big problems with this topic. The tendency to equate the expense of damage with severity of weather events.
    Anyone with any sense would know up front how flawed that reasoning is.
    Screwing with the data adds to the deceit.

    IF EVERYTHING IS IMPORTANT THEN NOTHING IS

  3. #3
    Professor swing_voter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    'Murica
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:42 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,805

    Re: New Hurricane Paper Fatally Flawed -- Should Be Retracted

    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.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    56,588

    Re: New Hurricane Paper Fatally Flawed -- Should Be Retracted

    maybe they can fix the hurricane paper with a sharpie.

  5. #5
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,171

    Re: New Hurricane Paper Fatally Flawed -- Should Be Retracted

    Quote Originally Posted by swing_voter View Post
    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.
    The answer should obviously be "not necessarily".
    If your Hyundai was ruined in a flood and my Audi was ruined in a flood and my Audi costs more to replace ... was my flood more severe? Should flood severity be rated by economic impact? Of course not.

    IF EVERYTHING IS IMPORTANT THEN NOTHING IS

  6. #6
    Sometimes wrong
    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    57,337

    Re: New Hurricane Paper Fatally Flawed -- Should Be Retracted

    It is an extremely goofy (to be kind) idea to define a storm's severity based on the economic value (cost?) of its impact (property damage?). Using such "logic", the burglary of a rich man's home is more severe than the burglary of a poor man's home since the value of items taken hurts the (well insured?) rich man more than the (uninsured?) poor man.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #7
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    84,400
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: New Hurricane Paper Fatally Flawed -- Should Be Retracted

    Quote Originally Posted by swing_voter View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    maybe they can fix the hurricane paper with a sharpie.
    From the OP link:

    ". . . The first big problem with G19 is that it purports to say something about climatological trends in hurricanes, but it uses no actual climate data on hurricanes. That’s right, it instead uses data on economic losses from hurricanes to arrive at conclusions about climate trends. The economic data that it uses are based on research that I and colleagues have conducted over more than two decades, which makes me uniquely situated to tell you about the mistakes in G19.Compare the counts of hurricanes reported in G19 with those that can be found in climate data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    From 1900 to 1958, the first half of the period under study, NOAA reports that there were 117 total hurricanes that struck the mainland U.S.. But in contrast, G19 has only 92. They are missing 25 hurricanes. In the second half of the dataset, from 1959 to 2017, NOAA has 91 hurricanes that struck the U.S., and G19 has 155, that is 64 extra hurricanes.
    The AP passed along the incorrect information when it reported that the new study looks at “247 hurricanes that hit the U.S. since 1900.” According to NOAA, from 1900 to 2017 there were in fact only 197 hurricanes that made 208 unique landfalls (9 storms had multiple landfalls).
    Part of this difference can be explained by the fact that G19 focus on economic damage, not hurricanes. If a hurricane from early in the 20th century resulted in no reported damage, then according to G19 it did not exist. That’s one reason why we don’t use economic data to make conclusions about climate. A second reason for the mismatched counts is that G19 counts many non-hurricanes as hurricanes, and disproportionately so in the second half of the dataset.
    The mismatch between hurricane counts in G19 versus those of NOAA by itself calls into question the entire paper. But it gets much worse. . . . "
    "Above all, not too much zeal." --Prince Talleyrand

  8. #8
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    56,588

    Re: New Hurricane Paper Fatally Flawed -- Should Be Retracted

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    From the OP link:

    [FONT="]". . . The first big problem with G19 is that it purports to say something about climatological trends in hurricanes, but it uses no actual climate data on hurricanes. That’s right, it instead uses data on economic losses from hurricanes to arrive at conclusions about climate trends. The economic data that it uses are based on research that I and colleagues have conducted over more than two decades, which makes me uniquely situated to tell you about the mistakes in G19.Compare the counts of hurricanes reported in G19 with those that can be found in climate data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.[/FONT]
    [FONT="]From 1900 to 1958, the first half of the period under study, NOAA reports that there were 117 total hurricanes that struck the mainland U.S.. But in contrast, G19 has only 92. They are missing 25 hurricanes. In the second half of the dataset, from 1959 to 2017, NOAA has 91 hurricanes that struck the U.S., and G19 has 155, that is 64 extra hurricanes.[/FONT]
    [FONT="]The AP passed along the incorrect information when it reported that the new study looks at “247 hurricanes that hit the U.S. since 1900.” According to NOAA, from 1900 to 2017 there were in fact only 197 hurricanes that made 208 unique landfalls (9 storms had multiple landfalls).[/FONT]
    [FONT="]Part of this difference can be explained by the fact that G19 focus on economic damage, not hurricanes. If a hurricane from early in the 20th century resulted in no reported damage, then according to G19 it did not exist. That’s one reason why we don’t use economic data to make conclusions about climate. A second reason for the mismatched counts is that G19 counts many non-hurricanes as hurricanes, and disproportionately so in the second half of the dataset.[/FONT]
    The mismatch between hurricane counts in G19 versus those of NOAA by itself calls into question the entire paper. But it gets much worse. . . . "
    take some time off from posting nonsense on internet message boards, and do some peer reviewed research that refutes the paper instead. either that, or sharpie up!

  9. #9
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    84,400
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: New Hurricane Paper Fatally Flawed -- Should Be Retracted

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    take some time off from posting nonsense on internet message boards, and do some peer reviewed research that refutes the paper instead. either that, or sharpie up!
    Since the author of this critique was also the author of much of the research on which the flawed paper is based, I suggest you're on the wrong side here.
    "Above all, not too much zeal." --Prince Talleyrand

  10. #10
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,171

    Re: New Hurricane Paper Fatally Flawed -- Should Be Retracted

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    take some time off from posting nonsense on internet message boards, and do some peer reviewed research that refutes the paper instead. either that, or sharpie up!
    Didn't you read it?
    Pielke did that.

    IF EVERYTHING IS IMPORTANT THEN NOTHING IS

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •