4 ms·

My claim is correct! A trend line calculated for any natural dataset will never be exactly zero. This doesn't mean humans need to speak in scientific notation a

by qcnguy 1y ago

My claim is correct! A trend line calculated for any natural dataset will never be exactly zero. This doesn't mean humans need to speak in scientific notation as if we are robots. You are well aware of that, so please stop playing silly word games that don't advance the discussion. "Is it getting worse? No" is a perfectly reasonable way to describe storm data, which is why governments say the same thing: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/understanding-climate/uk-and-global-extreme-events-wind-storms https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/understanding-... "The UK State of the Climate report states that there are no compelling trends in storminess when considering maximum gust speeds over the last four decades. More comprehensive studies across the North Atlantic region have reached similar conclusions." If you're going to try and argue that "no trend" isn't the same as "no compelling trend".... please, just don't. Life is short. You've mis-interpreted the second graph. It doesn't show any increased flooding. It shows a very minor and unimportant trend in wetness. The trend is unimportant because increases in wetness don't imply increases in flooding, as the relationship is non-linear. Flooding has not increased so although I didn't mention flooding I could have added it to the list. See "Floods and Heavy Precipitation at the Global Scale: 100-Year Analysis and 180-Year Reconstruction" in JGR Atmospheres, Renard et al.

ben_w 1y ago
> My claim is correct! No, it is not. More precisely: it is not justified by the evidence you chose to provide. > A trend line calculated for any natural dataset will never be exactly zero. This doesn't mean humans need to speak in scientific notation as if we are robots. You are well aware of that, so please stop playing silly word games that don't advance the discussion. The phrase "No trend" is a perfectly reasonable way to describe storm data, which is why governments say the same thing: You cannot say the opposite of what words mean, expect to not get called out on this (especially on a place like Hacker News), then when you are called out expect to get a positive reaction to saying "boo, stop playing word games". The average for the first 50 years is 79.24 units. The average for the most recent 50 years is 106.64.
- qcnguy 1y ago
  Now do from 1900-2025. Remember, if climate change makes storms worse, then storms should have got clearly worse over that period because CO2 emissions have been continuous. That's not compatible with the story told by the data and I think you do know that.
  - ben_w 1y ago
    1900-2025 has an average of 93.6. So, between the values of the first and last 50 years. So it backs my point and still denies yours. This time, do you want to cherry-pick a specific date range that actually fits the results you expect from your apparently pre-existing belief there's no trend, or are you going to accept that line go up? Save you some time, here's the rolling averages with 10, 20, and 50 year horizons: https://pasteboard.co/rQ49kvY8YeBU.png https://pasteboard.co/rQ49kvY8YeBU.png Average is forward from any given date on the chart and standard spreadsheet use of "average" function, which is why (if you look closely) you'll see the right side is spiky and they all line up perfectly when that's clearly silly.
    - qcnguy 1y ago
      But you're not addressing my point, so you cannot be denying it. You can obviously compute a trend line on this data set, as with any. That doesn't mean the trend matters or can be described in normal English as "storms getting worse", which is why even people like the British government who are fully on board with Net Zero don't try the argument you're trying here. They explicitly say the trend line isn't compelling, even. So what point are you trying to make, exactly? That they're wrong and it is compelling? Or that on HN there's a rule against describing data in normal ways? Let's boil this down to the only thing that matters: do you think people should be alarmed by this data? If so, why, when others who have studied it don't?

by qcnguy 1y ago

ben_w 1y ago

> My claim is correct! No, it is not. More precisely: it is not justified by the evidence you chose to provide. > A trend line calculated for any natural dataset will never be exactly zero. This doesn't mean humans need to speak in scientific notation as if we are robots. You are well aware of that, so please stop playing silly word games that don't advance the discussion. The phrase "No trend" is a perfectly reasonable way to describe storm data, which is why governments say the same thing: You cannot say the opposite of what words mean, expect to not get called out on this (especially on a place like Hacker News), then when you are called out expect to get a positive reaction to saying "boo, stop playing word games". The average for the first 50 years is 79.24 units. The average for the most recent 50 years is 106.64.

qcnguy 1y ago
Now do from 1900-2025. Remember, if climate change makes storms worse, then storms should have got clearly worse over that period because CO2 emissions have been continuous. That's not compatible with the story told by the data and I think you do know that.
- ben_w 1y ago
  1900-2025 has an average of 93.6. So, between the values of the first and last 50 years. So it backs my point and still denies yours. This time, do you want to cherry-pick a specific date range that actually fits the results you expect from your apparently pre-existing belief there's no trend, or are you going to accept that line go up? Save you some time, here's the rolling averages with 10, 20, and 50 year horizons: https://pasteboard.co/rQ49kvY8YeBU.png https://pasteboard.co/rQ49kvY8YeBU.png Average is forward from any given date on the chart and standard spreadsheet use of "average" function, which is why (if you look closely) you'll see the right side is spiky and they all line up perfectly when that's clearly silly.
  - qcnguy 1y ago
    But you're not addressing my point, so you cannot be denying it. You can obviously compute a trend line on this data set, as with any. That doesn't mean the trend matters or can be described in normal English as "storms getting worse", which is why even people like the British government who are fully on board with Net Zero don't try the argument you're trying here. They explicitly say the trend line isn't compelling, even. So what point are you trying to make, exactly? That they're wrong and it is compelling? Or that on HN there's a rule against describing data in normal ways? Let's boil this down to the only thing that matters: do you think people should be alarmed by this data? If so, why, when others who have studied it don't?