• 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

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
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.

[FONT=&]hurricanes[/FONT]
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…

[FONT=&]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.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]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. . . . [/FONT]
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
maybe they can fix the hurricane paper with a sharpie.
 
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...

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.
 
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.
 
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...

Helix said:
maybe they can fix the hurricane paper with a sharpie.
Click to expand...

From the OP link:

[FONT=&quot]". . . 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=&quot]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=&quot]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=&quot]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]
[FONT=&quot]The mismatch between hurricane counts in G19 versus those of NOAA by itself calls into question the entire paper. But it gets much worse. . . . "[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
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 [URL="https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/"]National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration[/URL].[/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][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][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 20[FONT=inherit]th[/FONT] 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][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][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. . . . "[/FONT]
Click to expand...

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!
 
Helix said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Helix said:
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!
Click to expand...
Didn't you read it?
Pielke did that.
 
Helix said:
maybe they can fix the hurricane paper with a sharpie.
Click to expand...

The paper could be fixed (tossed?) based on a simple examination of its (ridiculous?) premise. Was a 5 mph parking lot accident (errant parking) more severe if the veihicle sideswiped was a 2018 Cadillac instead of a 1998 Chevy? Better yet, if the errant parking was veering into an unoccupied parking space did it not happen at all?
 
Jack Hays said:
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.
Click to expand...

Generally not, but I look forward to reading your peer reviewed rebuttal.
 
So now theyre gauging severity by monetary damage rather than meteorological measurements? Wow, this is pseudo-science at its finest, and the climate nuts will believe it, as usual.
 
Helix said:
Generally not, but I look forward to reading your peer reviewed rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Here we have the classic appeal to authority or one must yield to authority argument. Much like "the trained police officer said that he/she observed you speeding, therfore you are guilty of speeding since you lack any expert witness testimony to the contrary - pay the fine plus court costs".

Argument from authority - Wikipedia
 
bubbabgone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nah. It's more like a small public bridge vs. a yuge highway bridge. Which cost more if they're damaged? In other words, it costs everyone more.
 
PoS said:
So now theyre gauging severity by monetary damage rather than meteorological measurements? Wow, this is pseudo-science at its finest, and the climate nuts will believe it, as usual.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure they'll believe it. :roll:
 
Jack Hays said:
Do you believe that if you keep your head under the covers the monsters will go away?
Click to expand...

Why are you still pissing around on the net instead of working on your paper?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom