4 ms·

> That's not the point being made: the article clearly states that those areas did not previously get hit by storms at this level. This is the conventional wis

> That's not the point being made: the article clearly states that those areas did not previously get hit by storms at this level. This is the conventional wisdom, and it is completely falsified by the actual data that I linked to. I wrote a python script to go process and plot it, and there has been zero increase in Cat 1, 2, 3, or 4 storms hitting the US since 1851 (there are only 4 Cat 5s listed total). Try it for yourself.

caminante 5mo ago
As @zdragnar pointed out below, people are talking past each other whether it's claimed in the article v. whether the article is right. It seems many are jumping to biases about climate change without reviewing the data as you did. And the article should've been written with more nuance.
- tgarrett 5mo ago
  Yeah, exploring data is always interesting, sometimes super interesting, and it's also healthy to approach things with a mixture of open-mindedness and skepticism - a sort of zen habit you can get better at with practice. Ideas serve me, not the other way around.
fnordpiglet 5mo ago
This is obtuse. The assertion was a deviation in the areas of Florida experiencing hurricane penetration. This is a localized effect. You’re discussing the gross effects of an entire nation, in this comment, of an entire state in the prior. However no one is discussing Florida or the US. They’re discussing the orange growing regions of Florida, which is a region that has not historically had hurricanes, but has had them recently. It’s like saying the UV radiation hitting the earth is the same as it was historically so therefore an ozone hole in Australia didn’t exist and cataracts can’t be higher there.
- tgarrett 5mo ago
  So what you are saying is that, yes there has not been an overall increase in hurricanes hitting the US over the last 175 years, but climate change has been specifically and precisely steering the hurricanes towards the orange growing regions of Florida in recent years, and is therefore to blame for the crop failures. You have to diagnose a problem correctly in order to have a chance at solving it.
  - JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
    Well now I'm thoroughly confused. Because your data does seem to overturn the conventional wisdom. Do actual climate scientists claim we're getting more, and stronger, hurricanes now than we did before?
    - newsclues 5mo ago
      Climate science is largely based on models, not just raw data. Climate science is also highly political, and seems to have a big economic impact…
    - slibhb 5mo ago
      > Do actual climate scientists claim we're getting more, and stronger, hurricanes now than we did before? The general line is that climate change has probably increased the amount of rainfall associated with hurricanes, possibly the severity of hurricanes (due to sea level rise and warmer water) but there isn't good evidence that it has increased the frequency of hurricanes.
      - WorldMaker 5mo ago
        I've heard climate scientists that describe climate change as a "more energy in the system" phenomenon. The overall system for now is mostly the same, but every event inside of it has "more energy" than it had before. For hurricanes this seems especially problematic because the historical categorization system is based on radar-observed width of the storm. "More energy" means that the categories stay the same over time, but every category is getting worse (more rainfall, heavier/faster winds, further travel, higher damage). As with so many statistical phenomenon, it's also a reminder to be careful what metrics you are trying to compare. Comparing just the hurricane categories to historic values may just be the exact sort of wrong metric, for these "more energy" concerns.

caminante 5mo ago

As @zdragnar pointed out below, people are talking past each other whether it's claimed in the article v. whether the article is right. It seems many are jumping to biases about climate change without reviewing the data as you did. And the article should've been written with more nuance.

tgarrett 5mo ago
Yeah, exploring data is always interesting, sometimes super interesting, and it's also healthy to approach things with a mixture of open-mindedness and skepticism - a sort of zen habit you can get better at with practice. Ideas serve me, not the other way around.

fnordpiglet 5mo ago

This is obtuse. The assertion was a deviation in the areas of Florida experiencing hurricane penetration. This is a localized effect. You’re discussing the gross effects of an entire nation, in this comment, of an entire state in the prior. However no one is discussing Florida or the US. They’re discussing the orange growing regions of Florida, which is a region that has not historically had hurricanes, but has had them recently. It’s like saying the UV radiation hitting the earth is the same as it was historically so therefore an ozone hole in Australia didn’t exist and cataracts can’t be higher there.

tgarrett 5mo ago
So what you are saying is that, yes there has not been an overall increase in hurricanes hitting the US over the last 175 years, but climate change has been specifically and precisely steering the hurricanes towards the orange growing regions of Florida in recent years, and is therefore to blame for the crop failures. You have to diagnose a problem correctly in order to have a chance at solving it.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  Well now I'm thoroughly confused. Because your data does seem to overturn the conventional wisdom. Do actual climate scientists claim we're getting more, and stronger, hurricanes now than we did before?
  - newsclues 5mo ago
    Climate science is largely based on models, not just raw data. Climate science is also highly political, and seems to have a big economic impact…
  - slibhb 5mo ago
    > Do actual climate scientists claim we're getting more, and stronger, hurricanes now than we did before? The general line is that climate change has probably increased the amount of rainfall associated with hurricanes, possibly the severity of hurricanes (due to sea level rise and warmer water) but there isn't good evidence that it has increased the frequency of hurricanes.
    - WorldMaker 5mo ago
      I've heard climate scientists that describe climate change as a "more energy in the system" phenomenon. The overall system for now is mostly the same, but every event inside of it has "more energy" than it had before. For hurricanes this seems especially problematic because the historical categorization system is based on radar-observed width of the storm. "More energy" means that the categories stay the same over time, but every category is getting worse (more rainfall, heavier/faster winds, further travel, higher damage). As with so many statistical phenomenon, it's also a reminder to be careful what metrics you are trying to compare. Comparing just the hurricane categories to historic values may just be the exact sort of wrong metric, for these "more energy" concerns.