Reposted from The NoTricksZone
By P Gosselin on 22. May 2021
If you repeat a truth often enough, then it stays that way.
Comprehensive analyses of data again show no link between rising CO2 and tropical storm intensity or frequency. It’s important to repeat that regularly.
The latest comes from statistics expert, Zoe Phin, who looks at the alarmists’ claim that increasing CO2 emissions are leading to more frequent and intense Atlantic hurricanes.
Alarmist claims cost nothing, and so easily made. Zoe Phin looks at whether the hurricane alarmist claim holds up.
Frequency
First Zoe looked at the (HURDAT2) data to find out if the first of the two claims (increasing frequency) is true. At first glance it would appear so.
But Zoe asks if the method of measuring the frequency really is sensible and if it maybe weren’t better to measure the amount of time the Atlantic spends in hurricane mode? To find out, Zoe plotted the hurricane hours data and the 10-year moving average:
Source: Zoe Phin.
From the data, Zoe concludes: “The amount of hours of hurricanes per year shows absolutely no trend!”
Intensity
Next she looks at the second claim: hurricane intensity is getting worse – thus potentially more destructive.
To find out Zoe sensibly uses the hurricane’s lowest pressure as a proxy. “The lower the pressure the more intense the storm.”
She plots the data for all the hurricanes, their corresponding lowest lowest pressure values:
Source: Zoe Phin.
No trend in 170 years!
There was an upward trend from 1970 to about 2005, but then intensity waned even as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere climbed steadily. The peak level at about 2005 was very like in the 1920s, some 100 years ago when CO2 was much lower.
Zoe summarizes her findings:
There is absolutely no trend in hurricane intensity in nearly 170 years!
Clearly, climate alarmists are wrong in regard to Atlantic hurricanes.”
Confirmed by other independent results
Zoe’s results of course come as no surprise to those who look at the data.
Other leading scientists have reached the same conclusions: Hurricanes have not been getting stronger or more frequent. For example, Klotzbach et al (2018):
Or Dr. Ryan Maue on global cyclone activity since 1970, who cites Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.:
Or Zhao et al 2018 on western north Pacific cyclones:
Japan seeing downward cyclone trend
Another example comes from Japanese NTZ contributor, Kirye, who plotted the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) data on Pacific typhoons:
Data source: JMA
Alarmists obviously in la-la land
Clearly arguing with alarmists on this subject is a waste of time. The data are in and the results are pretty clear: CO2 is not driving much of anything, let alone typhoons.
Typical Denier. Using facts, math, logic, and actual science.
How dare you!
Safe and effective.
Don’t you know that math and metrics are racist?
Not nearly so racist as those making allegations of racism.
🙂
Another Reality Check at WATTS, posted by CTM and via Pierre. The disconnect between steadily rising CO2 and various cycles of weather/climate continues to be documented. The only thing readily apparent resulting from increasing atmospheric CO2, regardless of its source, is the NASA documented 10% greening of the Earth, and why the Greenies are against this, can only be explained by their semi-hidden agenda, control, socialism, and show me the money.
Ignoring the reality of cold weather could be hazardous to one’s health. Imagine what title would be used for the following article if it were from high temps.
https://news.yahoo.com/20-runners-dead-extreme-weather-015013647.html
Sure, but just last night our local (Southern Wisconsin) weather person pointed out that we haven’t had a single severe weather warning yet this spring. Obviously a sign of extreme climate change caused by “Carbon” which is going cause some kind of problem someday. Maybe we’ll get a good thunderstorm soon and break this ominous trend.
In the original post, I show and admit that frequency has slightly increased. I just think measuring hurricane*hours is more relevant.
http://phzoe.com/2021/05/21/atlantic-hurricanes-trend/
But frequency of what? We aren’t measuring wind velocity the same way we did twenty years ago, and we create a named storm every time someone at NHC sneezes. So what exactly are we measuring the frequency of?
Whatever the numbers say, it is logically a certainty that in more recent years and decades, there has been an increasing ability to find and name all storms that form.
In the era before satellite observations were possible, it is a certainty that some storms were missed.
So it seems for sure that, if no trend can be noted, the actual trend is very likely down.
This discussion has made an idea occur to me.
We have the “ACE” metric – accumulated cyclonic activity. ACE is: once a storm becomes a tropical storm, the max value of “sustained winds” for that storm is noted for each 6-hour time frame of its life, multiplied by itself, and then summed across all six-hour periods of the tropical storm’s life.
Thus, this metric combines storm intensity with length of its reign. A weak TS that lives for a week could get a higher ACE value than a storm that goes tropical then major hurricane but dies out after a day.
Another metric might be a metric that combines barometric pressure and time periods.
The advantages would be:
Barometric pressure is just as obvious and conceptually valid a measure of TS power as “max sustained wind of a six-hour time frame;”
Barometric pressure measurement should be more reliably recorded, both in terms of accuracy at any reading, and across the time frame.
–The “wind speed” of a hurricane is the measured wind speed for one minute, and is supposed to be measured at **10 meters above earth surface**.
From what I can tell, from following hurricanes closely, they do NOT use a measure at 10 meters above earth surface. And, they do not take data from weather buoys and estimate fro that. Instead, they use various measures that are not well-described anywhere and they estimate by a method unknown to me, and not easily found.
So, barometric pressure x time periods would be superior in these two ways: more direct data, and a more intuitive measure of strength of storm.
I do not have any great thoughts on this aspect of multiplying a value by itself. Something like that is apparently needed in order to capture that fact that we are in a lot more trouble as wind speed goes from 60MPH to 90MPH than we are from wind speed going from 20MPH to 60MPH.
What do you mean “some kind of problem someday”?
Don’t you realize that the moderating of the climate is already causing millions to die from boredom as they cannot talk about the weather?
It’s a catastrophe of Biblical proportions!
Do you mean accompanied by frogs and locusts?
Just boils in this case.
In Virginia, we have been inundated with dire “news” of the coming plague of 17 year locusts (now known as cicadas). We hear them out in the woods, and see a few here and there on roads, our home’s foundation, and sidewalks. My wife catches them in a plastic container, and introduces them to our chickens, who absolutely love them.
We maintain four wild bird feeders, and have identified more than 40 species over the past five years. Today was the first day in my memory that no birds visited our feeders. We also put a small decorative pond in our front yard last year, and this year it is home to more frogs than I’ve ever seen. My wife and I both have a feeling that the 17 year locust plague is going to be sharply curtailed in our neighborhood, by our outdoor wild pets.
I moved to Ohio 17 years ago, after Memorial Day. When I got here, Brood X was just coming out. I still have one of them in my freezer, from 17 years ago.
We have been having slightly above average temperatures, so I expect I will soon be hearing them. It may be my last chance. I probably won’t live another 17 years.
Clyde, I think my first year in the midwest was in neighboring Indiana in as a child in about 1965. I remember cicadas covering the trees. Can’t remember the man’s name, but a neighbor did exactly as you, freezing one of them and keeping it for years after.
There has been a lot of hail lately.
Statistically significant?
But not many tornadoes.
Hey, wait a second…did Nick Stokes just crack a joke?
I feel faint…
Here:
?ssl=1
2018 U.S. tornadoes on track to be lowest ever – NOAA’s temperature trends blow a hole in “climate correlation” – Watts Up With That?
Hail Marys?
The hurricane intensity graph plots year and hurricane number on the y=axis. The latter is linear and the former obviously isn’t, so I would suggest some explanation (better instrumentation?) lest the alarmists claim hurricane frequency is increasing. Otherwise good stuff.
Had not heard of Zoe before now. A revelation! Worthwhile to browse her website (https://phzoe.com/).
Zoe comments here on a regular basis
Redge, Great! She is a pleasant surprise for me. I look forward to more.
Yeah, she did some interesting work on the Georgia Senate elections, and I use the word “elections” loosely.
Phil, Just trying to digest that piece now. Interesting.
I think that anyone who (rightfully) argues against the existence of climate change, calling out its voodoo math and analyses, misses the point. It’s very likely that climate activists are simply the gullible pawns of a worldwide political class that seeks to normalize national economies as a first and vital step toward one world government. In this sense, the words of Goebbels rings true:
The goal has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with kneecapping the US economy. Only when that is accomplished can individual nation states be integrated into a single world state.
Conspiracy theory claptrap.
It’s not clap-trap at all. It’s well documented that that is the intent of the globalists. The UN’s Agenda 21/30 spells it out as do the writings of Maurice Strong who fathered the agenda. Thee is nothing “theoretical” about the open conspiracy to create a ‘one world government’.
Really? Then what is your theory as to why the obviously false AGW/Climate Change mantra is such a being pushed so intensely? No warming for 6 years, cooling from the 1940’s thru the 70’s. The linear trend of atmospheric CO2 has been downward for over 600 million years… but the current slight upward direction is bad? I don’t think so David!
Right, because agenda 21 and agenda 30 are both conspiracy theory claptrap. The UN never proposed any of these international actions and there are no UN websites published promoting the ideas.
In fact, even the Paris accords which only transfer money internationally don’t exist. Its all claptrap.
Claptrap?
From the official UN website.
**********
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
**********
https://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
This took about 5 seconds of web search.
Oh Dear. Its not claptrap, its real UN policy as you discovered.
Well, that certainly changes things. Especially for the billions of humans on earth who currently do not have electricity or clean water and can expect the same under Agenda 21 policy because environment.
Always be on the lookout for satire / ridicule in places you least expect.
This is a classic signature of a drive by dead on arrival comment, I doubt he will reply again here.
David – then consider runaway deficient spending, unlimited illegal immigration, the Woke movement specifically designed so the cream sinks to the bottom, the defund police movement. The Green movement, all the above and more are irrational actions that run counter to the goal of a healthy country. They make sense only as a mutually supportive mosaic to destroy the United States and usher in a new World Order. If you disagree perhaps you can explain to the unwashed how each makes the country stronger.
Hey Griff, got another new name?
Quite true, Roger. Who owns all the video cameras? Who owns all the microphones? Who owns all the Universities? Who owns all the newspapers? Who owns all the media in general?
The same uber-wealthy people who own the fossil fuel companies.
No Loydo. The left own everything I listed. I don’t know where you are from but I am from the UK. The BBC is not impartial but compared to Sky News UK it is a saint.
There is only one view of climate change on tv media in the UK and that is that we are in a climate crisis. BBC, Sky News UK, ITV, Channel 5, Channel 4.
We don’t have the equivalent of a Fox News.
Maybe Andrew Neil’s GB News will be different.
Loydo,
in a way you are correct in that the oligarchs in Many oil producing countries own the production there. Does this mean that the push by the new oligarchs to wrest control of energy away from fossil fuels is a modern day War of the Roses? It’s more likely that all of the watermelon propaganda is coming from your and Griff’s Chinese masters as they work to destroy the west.
Like Bezos 😉
Trump Russia colluuuusion am I right Simon?
Happy to let him off the Russia thing now he’s headed to prison anyway, along with his mate Matt Gaetz. They can be fwends there.
You are such a clown show. It still cracks me up how you thought Trump didn’t do anything about Covid.
“It still cracks me up how you thought Trump didn’t do anything about Covid.”
I think it is fairly well accepted Trump lost the election because of his handling of covid. Had he not botched it so horrendously he would probably still be in the White House. But as they say… that is now history.
Lol…
Biden will end up killing more people than Cuomo…now there is a guy with a policy that really killed people.
The U.S. is in the good shape it is in now with regard to the Wuhan virus, thanks to Donald Trump. Biden is just carrying out the actions Trump set in motion.
Thanks President Trump, for getting us beyond this Wuhan virus. Don’t worry that Biden is trying to take all the credit because the sane people of the United States know who the real hero is, and it isn’t Biden.
“The U.S. is in the good shape it is in now with regard to the Wuhan virus, thanks to Donald Trump. “
MMM isn’t that name calling Tom? Something you once said is a sign of a lost argument.
And Trump can take some credit for the economic path, but if you are going to be honest Obama had turned round an economy heading into a recession. The trajectory was well on the upward path when Trump took over.
So far Biden seems to be doing a fair to good job. I laughed out loud the other day when he offered thanks to Egypt for helping sort the issue in the Middle East. It was weird hearing a guy not blowing his own trumpet. Such a contrast.
Of course, and during the election, Obama said the economy would boom under whoever was elected. Right?
Just in case sarcasm.
“MMM isn’t that name calling Tom? Something you once said is a sign of a lost argument.”
How’s them knuckles, Simon?
My knuckles are fine.
“MMM isn’t that name calling Tom? Something you once said is a sign of a lost argument.”
I’m using a name. I’m using the name of the origin of the covid-19 virus, which was Wuhan, China. Thus, the Wuhan virus. It’s a time-honored tradition to name a virus for its origin location. Your trying to make something sinister out of it is laughable.
I agree that when one is reduced to namecalling, they have lost the argument, but I don’t recall saying that in any conversation we have had. Not that it matters. To me, anyway.
Tom, you are a smart guy. I think we both know “Wuhan Flu” is a derogatory term.
Only because the MSM has said so in an attempt to be apologists for the irresponsible actions of the Chinese.
Why would the MSM want to protect the Chinese. I think it is about being diplomatic in the face of the most serious threat to the humanity for quite some time (except for climate change of course).
“Being diplomatic” – so, the Neville Chamberlain approach.
“I laughed out loud the other day when he offered thanks to Egypt for helping sort the issue in the Middle East. It was weird hearing a guy not blowing his own trumpet. Such a contrast.”
A demonstration of how differently two people can see a situation.
What I saw was Biden trying to take all the credit for the ceasefire in the Middle East, just like he tries to take credit for bringing the Wuhan virus under control. Wouldn’t it be nice if Biden actually acknowledged Trump’s contribution? But you will never hear that. Not from a low-life liar like Biden.
Tom
when did Biden take credit for getting “covid” under control? From what I have seen he has been encouraging people to have the vaccine (as has Trump)and celebrating progress. At no point has he said this is his doing.
These uber-wealthy people Loydo?
Are you saying that only “uber-wealthy people” can buy publicly-traded stock?
Ah, sunsettommy, you have here your proof. Good enough for me.
The large continuing rise in CO² shows this molecule has no relation to frequency of hurricanes. If we also removed the exponential adjustments to temperature data it seems
that temperature is poorly
related to CO2 as well.
No one disputes the fact that most of the 20th Century warming in the USA occurred in first 40yrs. They argue that the US is only 3% of the area of the earth. However, what are the chances that Canada, Greenland, Northern Europe, Southern Africa, Paraguay, Ecuador … would have exactly the same pattern of warming if it didn’t reflect reality? Take a look at South Africa (before adjustments).
Note even the the 35 year “Ice Age Cometh” cold period after mid century. I don’t know about climate-science-grade statistics, but this detailed copy of the US raw data pattern in South Africa would be irrefutable corroboration of a planet-wide pattern, not only to an honest climate scientist, but even to the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker.
“but this detailed copy of the US raw data pattern in South Africa would be irrefutable corroboration of a planet-wide pattern, not only to an honest climate scientist, but even to the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker.”
Yes, sir, it ought to be clear to anyone who cares to look that the temperatures were just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as they are today, and this would mean that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere because even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than back in the 1930’s, it is still no warmer now than then.
And this is also why I call the bastardization of the official temperature record to be fraud and not just a mistake because all these data manipulators have seen all these regional charts that totally dispute the bastardized Hockey Stick charts, yet they continue to insist the Hockey Stick represents the world when it obviously does not. Obvious to anyone who wants to make the comparison, and you don’t have to be a scientist to understand what you are seeing.
Manipulation of the temperature record is what got this whole fraudulent Climate Change ball of wax going. It’s all a Big Lie.
CO2 is The God Molecule, and as we all know, it moves in mysterious ways…
The US may only be 3% of the land area, but it’s close to 50% of the area with good instrumental weather records going back 100+ years. Most other areas where long term data is sparse do not show much difference in long term trends vs the US/Europe AFAIK.
True Rick. The US might be only 2 or 3% of the planet but it is about 6 or 7% of the land mass and more importantly it’s where many people from western civilisations live. Most of the land mass of the planet is uninhabited.
The usual ploy by the left is to quote this 2 or 3% figure as if the US doesn’t have anything to offer on global data and statistics.
Regional charts from all over the world show the same temperature profile, where it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, which means CO2 is a minor player. The coverage was not as good as in the United States but it was there and read the same way the U.S. temperatures read.
The ONLY thing that shows a warming world is the bogus, bastardized, instrument-era, “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick global temperature chart.
Here’s a Hockey Stick chart:
Compare this chart to the chart of South Africa above.
All the regional surface temperature charts from around the world have a similar temperture profile to the South Africa chart where they show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, which means CO2 is not a problem we need to worry about.
NONE of the regional surface temperature charts from around the world have a temperature profile that looks like the “hotter and hotter” profile of the bogus Hockey Stick chart. The bogus Hockey Stick chart is the only thing showing global warming. And it’s all a Big Lie made up in a computer and used to sell the Human-caused Climate Change scam.
The way to tell if you are looking at a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart is to look for the decade of the 1930’s, on the chart and if the 1930’s don’t show to be just as warm as the current day, then you are looking at a bogus Hockey Stick chart.
The Data Manipulators had to remove the warm 1930’s from the temperature record. Otherwise, they couldn’t alarm us by claiming we are experiencing the hottest temperatures in human history, which is what they are claiming.
If you thought the Hockey Stick chart represented reality, then you should be worried about the future. The good news is it does not represent reality. The regional surface temperature charts are reality and they show we have nothing to fear from CO2.
“Take a look at South Africa (before adjustments).”
That is not South Africa. It is a composite record for Cape Town, made by patching the record for the Observatory (before 1961) to the new airport after 1961. They made an adjustment to account for the difference, which is absolutely necessary. How do we know? Because the Observatory record continued, with no drop around 1961. It is shown in this plot
The continuous Observatory is the red before 1961, and blue afterward.
The first graph – ‘ the amount of time the Atlantic spends in hurricane mode’ pretty much tracks the AMO (Atlantic Mult-Decadal Oscillation) data.
Good catch.
The good thing about Zoe’s posts are that she includes a script to process the real data and duplicate results.
If only activist scientists made the checking of their work this easy we would not be in this mess!
I think they are afraid if they let you check it, you may find something wrong with it.
More dooming I’m afraid as the Indian, Pacific and Southern Ocean acid baths boil and inundate Oz-
Climatology (bom.gov.au)
Now this surprise me! I would have thought frequency and intensity during the satellite era would have increased due to the jump in the ability to detect and remotely sense storms that slipped through unnoted or who’s intensity could not be measured during the pre-satellite era.
Thus, it seems to this non-scientist and non-mathematician that in reality frequency and intensity have declined.
In the original post, I show and admit that frequency has slightly increased. I just think measuring hurricane*hours is more relevant.
http://phzoe.com/2021/05/21/atlantic-hurricanes-trend/
The NHC appears to be intent on padding the yearly storm totals. A WP article written by Jason Samenow manages to correctly identify this year’s first (Ana) as a Subtropical Storm, but then jumps to discussion of tropical storms in general.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/for-seventh-straight-year-a-named-storm-forms-in-atlantic-ahead-of-hurricane-season/
A convincing approach. Thanks again.
The other possibility, Rah, is that there has been a greatly increased ability to see and name storms, and also an increased propensity to exaggerate them, and so the actual frequency of them has decreased over the given time period.
Hurricanes move heat from the tropics to the poles.
If 150 years ago, there was a greater differential in the temp from the poles to the tropics, this could explain how and why there have been less of them as we have warmed from the LIA.
Simply stated, there was more heat to move, and so more hurricanes to move it.
Would it really be surprising?
Warmistas have a track record of not being merely wrong, but of getting everything exactly backwards.
So we should expect the opposite of everything they predict.
One would think that there would be an even greater jump in frequency over the last 10 years of so simply because they are naming storms that would have been no more than a footnote a decade ago. ANA being a prime example. That storm formed over cold water and thus is not really “tropical” and yet was named. What’s next? Naming winter storms with a closed circulation?
A new name every time someone sneezes at NHC.
As hurricanes go, it’s not temperature that drives them, it’s energy.
That’s gotta be one of THE biggest holes in Climate Science, the confusion of temperature with energy. (Yes, deserts and he11 have lots in common, especially that they are cold places)
Hurricanes can not get any stronger, nor and for similar reasoning, can not get larger than they currently are.
The energy they possess is in the wind speed, thus their energy content ‘goes’ as per the classic kinetic energy equation: E= half-em-vee-squared
But the rate they expend energy (making waves, hoisting water, smashing things up down on the ground) will ‘go’ as per the equation governing wind-turbines – following a cube-law with wind-speed.
Thus, as they try to accelerate, gaining energy via a square-law, they are spending energy via a cube-law.
As they come ‘out-of-the-starting-blocks’, the cube-law expenditure will very quickly catch up with the square-law income – thereafter the hurricane has nowhere to go.
For similar reasoning, they cannot get larger as that means the centre has to accelerate if the thing is to retain any sort of ‘hurricane’ structure. It will unravel itself as the outside tries to go faster than the inside
Hurricanes actually do do that, try to run faster than their feet will carry them and when they do, the centre collapses.
Thus = ‘Eye-Wall’ replacement – a clear signal that the/a/any hurricane is running foot-to-the-floor flat-out and spending all the energy is it being given/creating.
They paint themselves into a corner and eye-wall replacement is the sign that they’ve done exactly that.
None of the things hurricanes are supposed to do in the future can possibly happen – even just a passing understanding of how ‘Our Saviours’ the Wind Turbines work tells you as much
Don’t forget the second law of thermodynamics, which best explains this:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/28/tornadoes-set-record-lows-2018-only-10-deaths-us/2431360002/
The negative slope in the graph at the end (of “violent” tornadoes) is particularly significant.
The number of deaths is a poor proxy for the frequency or intensity because of improved warning systems and better trauma treatment.
Clyde, would not the cost of damages be nearly as bad a proxy, for similar reasons?
Why?
With better warning systems people can get out of the way
But infrastructure cannot
I would expect less people to die but statistically if there are more and stronger tornados there should be increased damage
“there should be increased damage”
I think so too, Pat. But I think Clyde might be able to make my strong belief either unsupportable (educating me in the process) or more rational based on reasons that I don’t have (same). But the opposite (more or greater damage) is often claimed, and while I have a kneejerk (or, more likely from me, just a jerk) response, I don’t have a firm rationale at my fingertips.
Inflation has been running at a compounded 2%+ for decades. Almost everything substantial, like cars and homes, now cost ~10X what they did when I was a young man. Therefore, if the damage from tornadoes or hurricanes was constant, the cost of repairs should be about 10X greater. However, when there are severe storms, there are shortages in lumber, drywall, and roofing shingles, and the price of repair increases more than the general inflation. Cost of storm damage repair is therefore a poor proxy also.
It would be very difficult to disentangle the impact of inflation from any potential increase in severity or frequency of storms. Another confounding factor is that building permit requirements have increased through the years, in an attempt to make buildings more resistant to storm damage.
Thanks. You’re giving me a formulation that helps.
Plus, people used to avoid building along the seashore, and for many decades, Florida and the states along the Gulf Coast were sparsely inhabited, as compared to now.
Plus, we have been steadily building bigger and more elaborate, and hence more expensive, homes and houses. Even greater than inflation alone would indicate should be the case.
In short, we have become greatly more prosperous, and have more, and more expensive, “stuff” at risk.
Nicholas,
Right! I’d forgotten that feature. I think Dr. Curry’s site had something recently about shoreline development in New Jersey that was similar in a way to your thought.
Thanks.
Please read the article I linked. The graph at the end isn’t deaths. Violent tornadoes are trending down.
Way down.
But, deaths are still a poor proxy for violent tornadoes.
I certainly don’t dispute any of the data in this posting nor do I disagree with any of the conclusions. But this is the same “expert” Zoe Phin who told me that photosynthesis isn’t the ultimate source of oil, that it is formed by abiogenesis. She takes contrarian positions on just about everything, but without evidence in some key areas. To be touted on WUWT as an expert is to risk the appearance of endorsing her other questionable views and discrediting WUWT.
I say this not out of an animus against her, although I admit that her antics sometimes annoy me. She has a right to her opinions and Anthony has a right to let her express them (or not, as he sees fit).
My concern is that WUWT should be careful not to present data the source of which is a person claimed to be an “expert”, with no known affiliation (or even proof that the name is that of a real person). Willis Eschenbach has no affiliation or formal credentials that I’m aware of (making him all the more impressive). That is not a problem at all. Any posting by Willis contains well-sourced data. He doesn’t post charts where the data sources are given as “Willis Eschenbach”. His logic and arguments are clearly presented, debated, and often adjusted.
Zoe may be a real person who is as brilliant as Willis, but maybe not. If she’s going to be presented as an expert and a source of original data, then we should be given more than a name and a gauzy selfie pic as to what exactly makes her an expert. Anyone can have a website. As the saying goes about opinions and fundamental orifices.
I have studiously avoided presenting a CV when posting my guest articles because I want them to stand on the merit of the data and argument, not my ‘credentials.’ Unless someone is a world-recognized authority on a subject, I think that it is poor practice to give some the moniker of “expert” while ignoring others that might actually be more deserving of such a title. I suspect that there are some regular commenters here that have more rigorous backgrounds in mathematics and statistics than Zoe.
Rich, you only have to pop to her website and see the link to this original. Scroll down the page and you can see all of the code necessary to run the analysis and would you believe it, the same graphs and slopes appear on your screen.
You might be able to run the vide yourself. Most people can do it. It gets the data from the original data sources.
This post was not loaded onto wuwt by zoe, so dont blame her for the pic!
Nicely avoided all of my key points, Steve.
So instead you attack the person. Great job of showing your faith in logical fallacy. My concern is that WUWT should be careful not to publish comments that endorse logical fallacies known for over 2500 years since Socrates.
That’s very weak sauce, doonman. How can it be argumentum ad hominem when I am not making an argument about hurricane frequency and in fact I stated that I think the data is correctly presented and analyzed? Do you really understand what you’re saying?
My concern is the credibility of WUWT being compromised by the appearance of endorsing—explicitly as an “expert”—someone who also claims that oil is formed by abiogenesis, among other dubious views on geothermal flux that we have seen proposed by her on this site.
I’m not disputing her IQ, or her programming skills, or her attractive appearance, or any other irrelevant point that her groupies want to bring up as strawmen arguments against my point.
And being apparently a worthless lukewarmist for being convinced (by Anthony Watts no less) that there is such a thing as a greenhouse gas, I’m sure that my comment will rouse the usual suspects to condemn my radical apostasy from skepticism. But my opinions and qualifications are as completely irrelevant as Zoe’s other attributes are, as relates to whether WUWT wants to appear to endorse the full range of views proposed by Zoe Phin, and whether that might put the site in a bad light.
You would have to have had the same concerns with Alfred Wegener and Albert Einstein then, whose theories were rejected by “experts” at the time they were written. Time will always tell.
No, doonman. More weak argumentation. When it comes to her ideas about the origin of oil and gas, Zoe is not developing any new hypotheses. She is spouting failed Russian ideas from Soviet times. I am not disagreeing with her because she goes against some consensus. I disagree with the people she copied whose ideas were tested and found wanting long ago. Not only can you not apply her theory to successfully find oil and gas deposits, but the theory that is “conventional” actually works, both to locate deposits, and to predict whether they will be oil or gas.
I’m not sure where she gets her geothermal flux ideas or her ideas that water and CO2 don’t capture and reradiate IR photons. Frankly I have little interest in figuring out where she’s wrong and no time to spend in her fever dreams. There are plenty of real experts to try to understand.
I see no discussion in the article about the origin of oil and gas. So your concerns are a strawman argument that you brought up.
Think about that for a while when you worry about weak sauce.
I don’t see Russia’s connection to Titan being covered in hydrocarbons.
My theory is the inverse of yours. We have plants etc because we have the right ingredients. I think those ingredients came before the plants.
There’s a reason people farm near volcanoes …
Obviously there’s a lot more nuance. But don’t dismiss what came from below.
Why does anyone need to endorse my full range of views? Like all people, I’ve invested more time in some things than others. My opinions can range from well thought out to read-some-interesting-stuff-maybe-it’s-true.
FYI, I’m a professional “contrarian investor”. Not that I’m always contrarian, just early on, when it matters to secure a good market position.
I made great money for my clients this plandemic. Rode the market down and up. Missed the peak low by only ~2 weeks!
I just find no pleasure in working on things everyone agrees with. I find data, I analyze it, and give my opinion. I’m intrigued by non-popular hypothesis.
I know that my profession is full of wrong ideas and big mistakes. I am doubtful that’s not the case in other areas.
If I wanted to attract a large crowd based on my looks, I have numerous material for that. I’m a great [pole] dancer.
But the point is showing my children that anyone can accomplish anything thet set their mind to.
I’ve addressed several times that it’s the assertion of being an expert coupled with numerous claims you have made on WUWT, no doubt elaborated in in your website, that are contrary to the views expressed by Anthony Watts. I don’t mean to imply that WUWT should avoid posting an article where you present data analysis if Anthony doesn’t agree with your full range of views. Of course the majority of articles here are alarmist pap posted to elicit rebuttals.
What I mean is that a skeptic article that is in line with the editorial position of the blog, where you are called “Expert” and where there is no editorial comment is likely to be seen as an endorsement. But when a large portion of what you say is contrary to his views, it seems overgenerous to let you tout yourself as “Expert Zoe Phin” without any caveats or reservations.
I will say that if I wanted a mascot for my pet theories, I’d sure prefer you to Naomi Oreskes.
Contrarianism is good. Teaching your kids to be confident and willing to buck the crowd is also great.
I’m not hating on you, I just disagree with a lot of what you say.
withdrawn
Rich
Isaac Newton, when he was done with gravity and calculus, spent a much longer time working on alchemy – pseudoscience that led nowhere. Also he destroyed a portrait of his rival Robert Hooke in the Royal Society.
So I guess that Newton should be cancelled according to your doctrine of guilt by association, of “science” by ad hominem bottom-sniffing? No more gravity. Because of Newton. No more calculus, because Newton.
Sitting in moral judgement is exhilarating good fun, isn’t it? Nothing sweeter. Who needs fentanyl?
“Zoe may be a real person who is as brilliant as Willis, but maybe not.”
I think she would not welcome the comparison. Her hurricane post listed as related her post on “The Steel Greenhouse Ruse” which starts out
“Amateur scientist Willis Eschenbach developed a thought experiment to demonstrate how the greenhouse effect “works”:
[diagram]
It’s been refuted many times before, but I’ll make it even simpler.”.
It hasn’t been refuted, of course. Zoe just rattles off sky dragon stuff. It’s nuts.
You don’t think it’s been refuted? OK, I will finish it once and for all. Then you’ll see!
I look forward to your analysis.
Meanwhile you avoid addressing her post here and now, snicker…….
See below.
Don’t bother, its misdirection. Nick Stokes has nothing to say about Zoe Phin’s article in his post below.
I looked for it, never found it, was in invisible type?
It isn’t hard to make a simple counterpoint to something you think is wrong, which you have yet to do despite that the post wasn’t that complicated.
Cheers…..
It’s here. Zoe has presented a lot of data claiming that frequency of hurricanes has not increased. But that is just the stated prediction of the IPCC. She could have just quoted them. What she has not done is said who her “activists” are, and quoted what they said.
“It hasn’t been refuted, of course. Zoe just rattles off sky dragon stuff. It’s nuts.”
Of course it has been refuted, Nick, Nasif Nahle, Joe Postma etc.
Willis doesn’t understand the difference between radiation and heat transfer. He just thinks measuring radiation from the sky with a pyrometer is proof. Bit like Roy Spencer.
Willis has some some sort of Ponzi scheme explanation when it comes to energy transfer.
Sorry pyrgeometer.
Btw Willis deletes comments that disagree with his back radiation stuff. Willis has no evidence so he deletes comments that ask for evidence.
Sounds like the Guardian.
@David Raftery
if this is your idea of refuting an argument:
>>Willis doesn’t understand the difference between radiation and heat transfer. He just thinks measuring radiation from the sky with a pyrometer is proof. Bit like Roy Spencer.
Willis has some some sort of Ponzi scheme explanation when it comes to energy transfer.<<
then it should be deleted
I don’t think anything anyone posts here or anywhere else should ever be deleted.
Everyone should be accountable for everything they say, every time.
If their statements are found to be wrong, they can recant and/or apologize.
But the record should reflect all the discourse.
I for one was going to avoid the many subjects on which Zoe has shown strong and contrary opinions vs the majority of WUWT denizens.
I think we should stay on topic here.
No one is right or wrong on any particular subject or topic because of who they are, or what other views they have.
Thanks, Rich. Appreciate it.
“She takes contrarian positions on just about everything, but without evidence in some key areas. To be touted on WUWT as an expert is to risk the appearance of endorsing her other questionable views and discrediting WUWT.”
Not At All. This is on you, nobody else.
In this article, the author talks about hurricanes, and nothing else. I can decide the veracity of her claims on hurricanes based on the data and logic presented.
She does not talk about oil, abiogenesis, or anything else in this article. So I do not see the need to consider those things.
Did you ever consider that a person might be right about some things, and wrong about others?
OMG, OMG, That person was wrong about something. Therefor, everything they say is nonsense. We can not listen because we might Risk The Appearance. GASP.
TonyL,
Of course a person can be right about one thing and wrong about many others. That is exactly what I said about Zoe in fact.
It appears that a certain group are unable to comprehend my simple point. Let me elaborate. I don’t recall any other post on WUWT where a person was identified as “Expert Firstname Lastname” with no other explanation of why they should be so called.
I have absolutely no complaint about the content of the post OTHER THAN the designation “expert” which to me implies (in the absence of any caveats) endorsement of the range of opinions that Zoe has on her website. Maybe that is too strict of a standard, but when a person has so many views that apparently contradict the views of the website founder, it seems imprudent to let stand the assertion that she is an expert.
It says “statistics expert.” There is no claim that she is an expert on geology, or anything other than statistics. Your criticism is nonsense.
Tony L,
See my comment, here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/23/co2-cyclone-doomsday-flat-out-refuted-170-years-absolutely-no-trend-in-hurricane-intensity-frequency/#comment-3253433
“Zoe may be a real person who is as brilliant as Willis, but maybe not. “
I hope not. Willis is locked into the belief that back radiation is an actual forcing that raises the temperature of whatever it hits. Zoe thinks back radiation is a load of crap. On this difference alone, Zoe is way ahead.
The old joke about how do you make a matchstick burn twice? You light it, blow it it out and then press the hot match head against someone’s skin.
When sunlight heats the planet you cannot reheat it with energy from the atmosphere that was originally heated by heat from the planet. This is sophistry.
That’s not what Willis says and you should know that (I’m certain that you do know that). He says that GHGs reduce the rate of cooling of the surface because the amount of heat radiated to space is the net radiation. He also says that it’s a nothingburger that we shouldn’t worry about and certainly shouldn’t destroy western civilization trying to prevent. (Also my irrelevant view).
I think it’s clear that your defense of Zoe is actually just your desire to ride your hobbyhorse that there’s no such thing as a GHG. Why you think that it’s so important to enforce your dogmatic belief in that is beyond my ken. You and a few others regularly attack other skeptics who likely hold identical views to you as relates to what public policy should be.
I have to conclude that you don’t really care about preventing disastrous policies like GND. All you apparently care about is being contrarian and having a good brawl.
“He says that GHGs reduce the rate of cooling of the surface because the amount of heat radiated to space is the net radiation.”
Yet Willis has no evidence. He just asserts this view. Where is the evidence?
“your desire to ride your hobbyhorse that there’s no such thing as a GHG.”
It’s just a name for a gas molecule with three or more atoms. There is no evidence that such a molecule causes surface warming. Where is your evidence?
“your dogmatic belief”
I don’t have a belief, I just don’t have evidence.
“I have to conclude that you don’t really care about preventing disastrous policies like GND. All you apparently care about is being contrarian and having a good brawl.”
I care as much as you about preventing disastrous policies like GND. I also care about lukewarmists giving warmists the credibility that they do not deserve.
Lukewarmists are just warmists that haven’t yet come out of the closet.
Leitmotif I will let you have the last word on most of those points. I think that others have enough from both of us to make up their own minds.
However, on the point about giving “credibility” to warmists, I can only implore you to drop your blinders and realize that politics is the art of the possible. You may be dead right but you’ll still be dead. What actually goes on when you bitterly condemn other skeptics like me is that you DISCREDIT a view that has some hope of persuading people.
Which is harder to accept, that there is a greenhouse effect but it’s been way overhyped and is nothing more than an esoteric factoid; or there’s no such thing as a greenhouse effect at all, even though virtually all major government figures whom they have trusted fervently believe in it and they themselves are invested in the idea?
To try an analogy, if you’re faced with a cannibal tribe that believes they need to appease the sun god by eating your beating heart, which is more likely to succeed, telling them that they should be atheists, no such thing as a god, or telling them that there’s a God alright but He’s against killing people?
Maybe one of us is a Christian and one of is is an atheist, but in this scenario we should be allies who are, or pretend to be Christians.
RIch,
No disrespect intended, but the claim of expertise didn’t come from Zoe, but from P. Gosselin’s original posting on No Tricks Zone. Her own work is shown without claims to expertise, but unlike most claims of modeling, she shows her work. On her site, she separately lists bio and qualifications, but does not anywhere that I’ve found, claim expertise. Nor does the photo appear anywhere that I’ve found except Gosselin’s article.
I may easily have missed something here, but most of your annoyance seems misdirected.
I am perfectly happy to have two demonstrated experts (more so than I) disagree. I would enjoy reading a discussion between them. I look forward to more from both sources.
dk_
Your point is well taken that this is a re-posting of an article from another blog, which I missed. I apologize for my misunderstanding thinking that Zoe billed herself as expert on a guest post.
It doesn’t change my view that WUWT moderators should have considered commenting to the effect of “Zoe looks at many topics with a contrarian eye which we certainly agree is a good skeptical instinct, but we caution those who look deeper into her work that she also promotes views that we do not endorse.”
That would not be an unprecedented comment. Obviously a disclaimer like that isn’t needed when some nonsense from EurekAlert! is on offer. Also I am not criticizing the idea that we should look at the data and the ideas and make up our own minds rather than being told what to think. But it’s not a black and white thing. Not everyone has time to delve into nuanced arguments. It’s helpful to me to know just how much skeptical energy I should put into reading something. Call it intellectual laziness or bias, I’ll accept that criticism, but if I see a posting by Willis I don’t work as hard questioning, and if I see EurekAlert! I don’t give them much benefit of the doubt. Seeing a skeptical argument and an apparent endorsement as an expert, I’d likely be less skeptical of the source if I hadn’t had prior experiences with Zoe.
My motivation is to see that the skeptical message reaches as many persuadable minds as possible. If they see something thought-provoking and then see something unsupportable by the same author, that may taint the good with the bad.
“Call it intellectual laziness or bias,”
I wouldn’t, at least not when in my right mind. It is probably the naturally exploitable avenue for almost everyone when it comes to persuasion, advertising, and propaganda — the familiar vs the unfamiliar. I think your skepticism is well founded, as is probably your critique overall, but just not the original apparent target of that particular criticism which you have acknowledged. Thanks.
Applaud your skepticism, and your clarification.
New to it, myself, I am finding Zoe’s original work, on her own blog, pretty straightforward in presentation. Perhaps it is a little different from the way it is presented in P. Gosselin’s slightly gushy review. I am not quite yet understanding the complete disconnect between Zoe and Willis’ work. I’ll get there, maybe, eventually.
Oh my, yes, the gush is over the top 😳
My bio pic is the professional image to use, if necessary. I did not want my gravatar icon turned into a large low quality portrait size image.
I was so embarassed, I couldn’t even comment on NTZ.
Zoe,
After I signed off last night, I realized I had not seen a single actual attempt to validate or verify your approach. In another part of the thread, I called it convincing, which is probably the wrong term. I think it is more properly called intriguing. I just don’t have the ability to evaluate it. I was hoping one of the truly brilliant people (other than the trolls and bots) would actually, civililly challenge you on that. I’m disappointed. I’d like to see your defense of hurricane*hours.
I didn’t really get a sense that Gosselin understood that approach as the significant part of your post –it was to me.
Perhaps unique, yours is the first post I’ve seen that offered source code without reserve. Others describe what they’ve done, how they arrived at their conclusion, and have maybe defended those things, but never offered code. That IMO is the convincing feature. I flatter myself that I can read code to understand what has actually been done (over time). That is really putting yourself in public view.
The pic did not look to me much at all like the pic on your web site/blog page. Didn’t figure that was used with your permission or approval.
seconds:
Zoe,
Just ran through the whole thread again. NOT ONE BLEEPING COMMENT addressing your approach (perhaps hypothesis?). I agree that it makes sense, but have only the tiniest, drying, shriveling hope that I’ll see an honest evaluation from another party. Sad.
One valid criticism is that the hurricane data has low resolution. Hurricane duration is always a multiple of 6 hours. Obviously hurricanes don’t stick to such a rigid clock.
Okay. I may have to defend you from your own critique. A resolution of 1:4 for a 24 hour day interval over the course of a year (or was it month? season?), IMO does not invalidate the approach. If you’ve explained it, and allowed for it, it is still a good yard/meter/ foot stick. Precision is what you say it is. Good on yer for placing a limit on it.
And I am guilty of assuming that the “expert” label was from Charles when, upon re-reading, it is clearly Gosselin’s responsibility.
Good for you Clyde. Thanks for saying so.
I’m not wrong very often. However, when I am, I readily own up to it as a way to maintain my credibility.
“Clearly arguing with alarmists on this subject is a waste of time.”
It is a waste of time if you don’t listen to what they say. Not a single “alarmist” is quoted.
In fact, the IPCC generally says that tropical cyclones will, if anything decrease, although there may be more very intense storms. From IPCC AR5 14.6.3
“Although projections under 21st century greenhouse warming indicate that it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and rainfall rates, there is low confidence in region-specific projections of frequency and intensity. Still, based on high-resolution modelling studies,
the frequency of the most intense storms, which are associated with particularly extensive physical effects, will more likely than not increase substantially in some basins under projected 21st century warming and there is medium confidence that tropical cyclone rainfall rates will increase in every affected region.”
That is, of course, a prediction. You have to wait a bit to see if it happens.
I am seeing below as you advised me to do above. When you quote people, it is regarded as correct to quote the correct people. This is not a Zoe Phin quote, it is a Pierre Gosselin quote, but you did not attribute to anyone.
Further, nowhere does your IPCC babble address the last 170 years of Atlantic cyclone strength. So I am at a loss as to what your “see below” point was, since it was supposedly your comments on Zoe Phin’s article that we were going to read.
“to quote the correct people”
I simply quoted from the article that we are invited to comment on.
The IPCC says that future CO2 rise is likely to cause a decrease, not an increase, in tropical cyclones. So who is Zoe arguing with?
Nick, the English language is difficult to master, I know. But the term “climate alarmists” is far broader than “The IPCC” that you brought up. Since you conflate the two, it’s probably time for some self reflection on your writing style.
Much broader. 🙂
Hmmm, I can start the ball rolling on that one. Could be a long list:
Bill McKibben
https://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/29/bill_mckibben_on_hurricane_sandy_and
Michael Mann
https://michaelmann.net/content/hurricane-florence-climate-change-triple-threat
……..
You need more than names. You need to quote what they say. Far too often on WUWT I see a whole lot of charts and data which do not address the argument they say they are refuting.
Here M&M are not saying anywhere that hurricanes are becoming more frequent, which is what almost all the material here addresses. In fact, Mann says
“But when it comes to coastal threat, it hardly matters how many tropical storms there are over the course of the season. A single landfalling hurricane can wreak havoc and destruction. Think Katrina in 2005, Irene in 2011, Sandy in 2012, either Harvey or Maria in 2017 and now Florence in 2018.
In this sense, the sometimes fractious debate about whether we’ll see more or fewer storms in a warmer world is somewhat misplaced. What matters is that there is a consensus we’ll see stronger and worse flood-producing storms—and in fact we’re seeing them already. That brings us to Hurricane Florence—a climatologically-amplified triple threat.”
The only place where this is addressed at all is in Zoe’s plot re minimum pressures, which is why I noted the fact that the x-axis was not time. In fact, there is some evidence that strength is increasing, and quite a lot that storms are getting wetter. It is more pronounced in the Pacific, where there have been huge typhoons lately. But even for the North Atlantic, here (EPA) is the recent Power Dissipation Index
The events are still not very frequent, so the data is noisy.
Oooopsie Nick, you forgot the paragraph before from the Michael Mann link:
What happened to cause all of this? An early autumn ocean “heat wave” has brought sea surface temperatures in the western Atlantic to bathtub-level warmth. Just as summer heat waves on land are greatly increased in frequency and intensity by even modest overall warming, so too are these ocean heat waves becoming more frequent and more extreme as the oceans continue warm. All else being equal, warmer oceans mean more energy to intensify tropical storms and hurricanes.
I found those two links in about a minute. There are probably 100,000 such links. I hope others have time to find a few hundred of them for you to waste your attempted sophistry time on.
It’s over Nick. Even a blind guy can see it …. your baby doesn’t love you any more:
“I found those two links in about a minute”
Again, there is nothing there saying that hurricanes will become more frequent, which is what almost all this article’s graphs are about. The para you quote is not saying anything different to what follows. Warmer seas will make hurricanes wetter, and maybe stronger. But they probably won’t be more frequent.
Give over Nick. Are you trying to pretend that you don’t have the mathematical nous to calculate that more frequent increase of the intensity would give rise to more hurricanes that would previously have been named as tropical storms. There are some nitwits on here but they’re from your tribe, not mine.
Weasel words Nick as we’re bombarded with doomster drivel daily-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/bleak-future-for-australia-s-alpine-flora/ar-AAKiYjN
Doesn’t matter what the plants are perceived as doing or should be doing or whether they know up from down the conclusion from the taxeaters is always- We’re DOOMED!
Is Michael Mann from the IPCC?
“So who is Zoe arguing with?”
My guess would be all the people who are claiming hurricanes are getting worse and more frequent. We’ll hear a lot of that after the first hurricane of the season pops up and certainly after the first one makes landfall. They do it every year. it’s a climate change ritual.
@Nick Stokes
The IPCC may not say this (tropical cyclones will increase) but every warmist talking head and every sycophant follower says this repeatedly. Pointing out that their baseless claims are not even substantiated by the IPCC only highlights the extent of the lying.
You make an excellent point. The public for the most part have no idea what the IPCC say (or even what it is) but they are constantly bombarded with disaster scenarios including hurricane frequency and severity from the MSM, Greta’s and politicians, I seem to remember Beach Front Obarmy rattling on about this on several occasions.
“Pointing out that their baseless [hurricane] claims are not even substantiated by the IPCC only highlights the extent of the lying.”
Excellent point!
OK. We see the trend for the Atlantic north of the equator and the northern Pacific. Any analysis tor the southern oceans?
The hurricane intensity plot is misleading. The x-axis is hurricane number in the list, not time. As you can see from the times listed across the top, there is a big stretching of the axis in modern times. The first third of the plot represents nearly two thirds of the total time.
I expect the x axis has been compressed so it can be easily followed. So stretch out the x axis to whatever makes sense to you. It will still show no trend, but takes up a lot more space on the page.
Yes, people who actually read the charts instead of point at them are still far too stupid to understand that the words “Hurricane #” mean Hurricane number. Thanks for pointing that out for all the stupid people out there.
Still no comment on results the Zoe Phin article as you promised though. Is there a problem with her data or analysis?
Thank you for the post and discussions, fans and foes.
Thank you. We need people who think outside the box a little bit.
What the alarmists carefully avoid mentioning is the fact that areas most prone to tropical storm damage are also ones where the population has increased the most. In the US alone, look at how much it’s increased along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts since 1950. With such numbers, more homes, buildings, hospitals, factories, resorts, etc. have also increased so that whenever storms hit, the likelihood of damage and the rising replacement costs also escalates. Had such hurricanes struck mid-1800s,, lives lost and damage done would have been relatively negligible. So the reality is that regardless whether there are more storms or more intense ones, as long as something valuable is in the way, the activists will use the numbers to claim climate change driven by human emissions is the culprit.
Atlantic hurricane frequency has increased, but US landfall hurricanes have decreased?
Come on Zoe, think about it.
Is the increase in non land fall hurricanes due to the increase in ship traffic in the Atlantic?
If you dont witness it, you cant report it.
Where are you getting this stuff?
From the article above.
But it wasn’t in the article, it was in Zoe’s original blog post, which she was describing in her comment.
This aritcle said in different words that the claim of increase is based on superficial appearance of the data and that she
She did not only “think about it,” but the increase in frequency is plainly, albeit superficially, in the data. She also said in comments here, and in her original, why she really doesn’t think it is a valid measurement. It has nothing at all to do with your guess based on your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what she actually said.
But please look at her original post. She in fact verified independently work of better-recognized acknowledged experts with a simple but solid test. She lists her data sources and “shows her work.”
If I can, I will help you to take it up with the producers of those data, if you can show me (please, in simple words, I’ve another migraine day) why those data sets are wrong.
Thank goodness from original posting:
Zoe Phin
Zoe Phin 24. May 2021 at 7:59 AM | Permalink | Reply
I’m kinda embarassed you enlarged my gravatar icon. I would prefer the use of my bio pic, if necessary. I need focus on my work, not on my face. I get enough of that wherever I go.
Otherwise, Thank You
sabotage, vandalism, hacker, or mistake, editor, please kill this thing.
Yeah, what the hell?
Took me all afternoon to scroll past that mess.
Nicholas, It appeared to me to be tabularized data, either for a spreadsheet or a graphic. It may have been innocent, but the effect was the same as if it was intentionally set to damage.
It could easily have had embedded malicious code, but I kind-of doubt it.
I appreciate the editors’ work in knocking it down, and that pretty darn quickly. I needn’t have tried to bring their attention to it, but it seemed to be the thing to do at the time.
Apologies warren, after the nefarious post was deleted, my request appears to disagree with yours. Not at all my intention, and thanks for your post — I referred to it in a later one of my own.
Charles Rotter/Editor,
Per Zoe Phin’s request at NTZ, and iaw her comments on this thread, NTZ and P Gosselin have removed the unauthorized image at the head of the NTZ article. See also commenter warren. I respectfully request that WUWT follow suit and either delete the image or replace it with her authorized professional photo as NTZ has done.
For some reason strange to me, that photo has been partial source of some contention here. Neither it nor much of the claims of the NTZ author were in Zoe Phin’s actual blog post.
I also request that you post a direct link to her blog on Atlantic Hurricanes when you fix the pic.
Thanks for your consideration.
Image removed and there already was a direct link to her post.
Thanks, Charles!
And thanks for your response. You are all shared heros of the week.
That’s one heck of a url ! Does anyone know where it goes?
Looks like tabular data. I wouldn’t touch it, Tom. WUWT have just deleted it. Should go away with refresh.
That’s why I didn’t touch it. 🙂
How does this CO2 fraud continue? I just don’t understand how stupid and sheep-like people can be…it is beyond distressing. The data (follow the science) is out there. Cataclysmic AGW/CC is now nothing more than a religious cult.