4 ms·

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 cho

by phzoe 5y ago

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 ...

Farfignoggen 5y ago
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!
- phzoe 5y ago
  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.
Arnt 5y ago
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.
- phzoe 5y ago
  Funny. I think it's important to understand the meta story. 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.

by phzoe 5y ago

Farfignoggen 5y ago

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!

phzoe 5y ago
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.

Arnt 5y ago

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.

phzoe 5y ago
Funny. I think it's important to understand the meta story. 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.