Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_DoubtingThomas]

Whatever data was collected about a hurricane in 1949, that looked a whole lot different compared to 2016. Moreover, there aren't that many hurricane's to begin with. Even if you have a full 100 years of high resolution data, all property calibrated, etc., that likely isn't enough data to form a valid statistic.

It is clear you didn't read the paper

"The trends in tropical-cyclone translation speed and their signalto-noise ratios vary considerably when the data are parsed by region, but slowing is found in every basin except the northern Indian Ocean (Extended Data Fig. 1, Extended Data Table 1). Significant slowings of −20% in the western North Pacific Ocean and of −15% in the region around Australia (Southern Hemisphere, east of 100° E) are observed. When the data are constrained within global latitude belts (Extended Data Fig. 2, Extended Data Table 1), significant slowing is observed at latitudes above 25° N and between 0° and 30° S. Slowing trends near the equator tend to be smaller and not significant, whereas there is a substantial (but insignificant) increasing trend


When only that data that correspond to tropical cyclones over water are considered, which amounts to about 90% of the global best-track data, the trend statistics are indistinguishable from the global slowing trends (Extended Data Table 1). The 10% of the global data that correspond to tropical cyclones over land, where local rainfall effects become more societally relevant, also exhibit a slowing trend, but it is not significant. However, changes in tropical-cyclone translation speed over land vary substantially by region (Fig. 3, Extended Data Table 1)."

What makes you think that most hurricanes hit the land?

At any rate, the paper isn't being taken seriously by anybody of note, I have no interest in going deeper with it.

Obviously! You didn't read it!

[_Water Dog]

What makes you think that most hurricanes hit the us?

Huh?

Obviously! You didn't read it!

I'm glad you could understand at least that much. No, as I stated, I did not read it. You are correct. Are you done, or will you just keep making vacuous comments?

[_DoubtingThomas]

I'm glad you could understand at least that much. No, as I stated, I did not read it. You are correct. Are you done, or will you just keep making vacuous comments?

At least read

""The trends in tropical-cyclone translation speed and their signalto-noise ratios vary considerably when the data are parsed by region, but slowing is found in every basin except the northern Indian Ocean (Extended Data Fig. 1, Extended Data Table 1). Significant slowings of −20% in the western North Pacific Ocean and of −15% in the region around Australia (Southern Hemisphere, east of 100° E) are observed."

Huh?

Most hurricanes never reach land.

[_Water Dog]

At least read

""The trends in tropical-cyclone translation speed and their signalto-noise ratios vary considerably when the data are parsed by region, but slowing is found in every basin except the northern Indian Ocean (Extended Data Fig. 1, Extended Data Table 1). Significant slowings of −20% in the western North Pacific Ocean and of −15% in the region around Australia (Southern Hemisphere, east of 100° E) are observed."

What is your point, DT? Brother, you don't understand what you're reading. Author is describing the results of his analysis. Okay, what is your point? I understand very well what the paper presents. You still seem to think that this is paper is tantamount to some kind of scripture. It's conjecture. It doesn't prove anything. It presents a theory. Landsea responded to this. Now, I gotta be careful, RI is gonna get real hair splitty with me. Landsea is a well regarded hurricane expert. No, he wasn't being asked about this paper specifically. But, regarding the notion that we're seeing a shift in hurricane behavior, and that said shift can be attributed to human causes, he stated, repeating, "There’s no statistical change over a 130-year period. Since 1970, the number of hurricanes globally is flat. I haven’t seen anything that suggests that the hurricane intensity is going to change dramatically. It looks like a pretty tiny change to how strong hurricanes will be. It’s not zero, but it’s in the noise level. It’s very small." And he said this in the context of Kossin's findings being a part of the body of literature and ongoing discussion. Kossin presents a paper saying, "Hey, there might be some statistical significance." Landsea, "Nah, sorry, still no statistical significance. Noise, at best."

DT, you would be well served by informing yourself about peer review and what these papers actually represent. All they represent, really, is an ongoing dialogue within a certain community. There are a bazillion academic/research journals, all with their different standards and biases. I started another thread recently about this very thing. Some academics trolled journals from other disciplines in order to show how hollow their review practices are. Here recently there has been a lot published about how weak a lot of these review standards actually are, and how a huge portion of published science turns out to be flat wrong after you go back and review it. People generally don't notice though, because most papers are ignored. If a paper presents novel findings, it will get some buzz, and then it will be subjected to greater levels scrutiny.

Peer review is hard. Simply in terms of time, it's difficult for reviewers to even read all this crap. And you think they understand what they are reading? No, not really. At a high level, yeah. They understand the basic mechanics. But a reviewer does not have access to the data and models. They just look at the report. The data could be 100% BS, literally fabricated and made up, and the reviewer would have no idea whatsoever. The graphs presented to visualize the data, could be photoshopped. Again, how would reviewer know? The reviewers do not scrutinize at that kind of level. The only way they would is if the paper made really outlandish claims. Many times I have contacted researchers who authored some paper, and asked for their data, or their models, and it's crickets. And I don't mean me, random citizen. I mean me as a graduate student, emailing people from my university email address, and I'm doing research in a related discipline. Some people are very open, happy to collaborate and share their data and math. Other people, for whatever reason, not at all. They won't share crap. They treat their research like privileged intellectual property. Maybe they don't want anyone to scrutinize their work because it's a bunch of BS. Maybe they're just really possessive and want all the glory for themselves, afraid someone will steal the thunder of something they're working on. Who the hell knows. I've seen people act really bizarrely about very inconsequential stuff though. Nerds can be damn weirdos.

Often data no longer exists as well. It's a funny thing. These researchers are often some of the most computer illiterate and organizationally incompetent people around. It never ceases to amaze. They don't engage in best practices like one would find in the development team for a for-profit company. Behind the scenes of these publications it's a chaotic mess of Excel, CSV files, R scripts, Python scripts, Matlab, Mathematica, etc. They don't even have that stuff any more. You're going through their paper, which presents the math at a high level and are unable to reproduce their results. So you email them. Oh, sorry, yeah all that crap is gone. Or they'll send it to you, and it's this insane mess that even the original author can't make heads or tails out of. Both of you, working together, fail to get the same numbers to output. At the time the author did something to jimmy with the numbers, which made sense to him at the time, but he doesn't remember what he did. This is a normal day at the office for these academic papers.

[_DarkHelmet]

Code: Select all

The fact is CO2 cannot drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere.

As a probably off-topic aside; in chemistry, 400ppm isn't considered trace.

Not off topic. That is exactly the point. It's so small it seems like a trace amount to the global warming skeptics.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Code: Select all

The fact is CO2 cannot drive the climate with a trace amount of less than 0.04% in the atmosphere.

As a probably off-topic aside; in chemistry, 400ppm isn't considered trace.

Not off topic. That is exactly the point. It's so small it seems like a trace amount to the global warming skeptics.

While in no way analogous to the topic of climate change, here's a morbidly fun example of something that would be considered trace:

Taking the average weight of a man and the upper end of a lethal dose of arsenic, you end up with about 30 ppm of arsenic in relation to the overall mass.

Or, in other words; if you take a dose of arsenic that is .0003% of your body mass...

[_Water Dog]

While in no way analogous to the topic of climate change, here's a morbidly fun example of something that would be considered trace:

Taking the average weight of a man and the upper end of a lethal dose of arsenic, you end up with about 30 ppm of arsenic in relation to the overall mass.

Or, in other words; if you take a dose of arsenic that is .0003% of your body mass...

LOL. We're having a lot of fun with this word, "trace." Going with this, the entire mass of the atmosphere is 10^18, entire mass of the earth is 10^24. So the atmosphere as a whole is but 0.0001% of the whole earth. But we all certainly agree, that small percent represents a vital function :)

[_Doctor Steuss]

LOL. We're having a lot of fun with this word, "trace." Going with this, the entire mass of the atmosphere is 10^18, entire mass of the earth is 10^24. So the atmosphere as a whole is but 0.0001% of the whole earth. But we all certainly agree, that small percent represents a vital function :)

Huh-zah! Common ground, lol.

The use of “trace” in the quote (comment[?]) that triggered my aside and eventual ADD seemed to be used to help accentuate the insignificance of the concentration. I just felt it was worth noting that while seemingly small, it is actually several multiples above what would be considered trace.




(gif unrelated, but cool)

[_Res Ipsa]

Man, you gotta love this.

Remember, Dog started out claiming that Chris Landsea "eviscerated" the new paper in a media article.

When the fact that Chris Landsea never addressed the new paper, and was actually talking about completely different trends in tropical storms, Dog doubled down with this:

I am well aware that Landsea was not talking about this specific paper by Kossin. You can be sure he's aware of it, though. Not in every particular detail, no, but he is addressing many of the theories put forth by Kossin (and others). He also accounts for differences as being explained by things like advancements in measurement technology. For all practical purposes, for sake of this discussion, for sake of this little exchange with DT, this is a perfectly valid response.

and this:

And [Landsea] said this in the context of Kossin's findings being a part of the body of literature and ongoing discussion. Kossin presents a paper saying, "Hey, there might be some statistical significance." Landsea, "Nah, sorry, still no statistical significance. Noise, at best.

This Landsea must be a real hurricane God. Not only can he eviscerate a paper without even mentioning it, he can actually see into the future. You see, the interview with Landsea was conducted before publication of Kossin's paper. So, no, at the time Landsea made his comment, Kossin's findings were NOT "part of the body of literature and ongoing discussions." This is Dog just pulling things out of his ass -- doubling down to try and cover for other stuff he pulled out of his ass.

[Guest]

What is your point, DT? Brother, you don't understand what you're reading. Author is describing the results of his analysis. Okay, what is your point? I understand very well what the paper presents. You still seem to think that this is paper is tantamount to some kind of scripture. It's conjecture. It doesn't prove anything. It presents a theory. Landsea responded to this. Now, I gotta be careful, RI is gonna get real hair splitty with me. Landsea is a well regarded hurricane expert. No, he wasn't being asked about this paper specifically. But, regarding the notion that we're seeing a shift in hurricane behavior, and that said shift can be attributed to human causes, he stated, repeating, "There’s no statistical change over a 130-year period. Since 1970, the number of hurricanes globally is flat. I haven’t seen anything that suggests that the hurricane intensity is going to change dramatically. It looks like a pretty tiny change to how strong hurricanes will be. It’s not zero, but it’s in the noise level. It’s very small." And he said this in the context of Kossin's findings being a part of the body of literature and ongoing discussion. Kossin presents a paper saying, "Hey, there might be some statistical significance." Landsea, "Nah, sorry, still no statistical significance. Noise, at best."

Brother, you don't understand how science works. Science is self-correcting and Landsea is not a prophet of God. What happened to "These authority battles get us nowhere. It would be a fools errand to blindly accept what any of these people are saying"? Did you change your mind? You want to appeal to authority now?

Of course I understand what I am reading. My point is that Kossin analyzed data from hurricanes in the Indian Ocean, North Pacific, and around Australia. Of course he is describing the results of his analysis. He analyzed data from 16,000 storms. How is 16,000 not a significant sample?

Peer review is hard. Simply in terms of time, it's difficult for reviewers to even read all this ____. And you think they understand what they are reading? No, not really. At a high level, yeah. They understand the basic mechanics. But a reviewer does not have access to the data and models. They just look at the report. The data could be 100% ____, literally fabricated and made up, and the reviewer would have no idea whatsoever.

Dude it's Nature! Not social science! Stuff like that doesn't happen in Nature! Nature has a longstanding and rigorous peer review process! You don't know what the Hell your talking about!

DT, you would be well served by informing yourself about peer review and what these papers actually represent. All they represent, really, is an ongoing dialogue within a certain community. There are a bazillion academic/research journals, all with their different standards and biases. I started another thread recently about this very thing. Some academics trolled journals from other disciplines in order to show how hollow their review practices are. Here recently there has been a lot published about how weak a lot of these review standards actually are, and how a huge portion of published science turns out to be flat wrong after you go back and review it. People generally don't notice though, because most papers are ignored. If a paper presents novel findings, it will get some buzz, and then it will be subjected to greater levels scrutiny.

Of course papers are not the final word, but a paper is good when it is published in one of the most well respected journals in the world. Nature only accepts good papers.

Nature Research journals receive many more submissions than they can publish. Therefore, we ask peer-reviewers to keep in mind that every paper that is accepted means that another good paper must be rejected. To be published in a Nature Research journal, a paper should meet four general criteria:

Provides strong evidence for its conclusions.
Novel (we do not consider meeting report abstracts and preprints on community servers to compromise novelty).
Of extreme importance to scientists in the specific field.
Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines.
In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field. There should be a discernible reason why the work deserves the visibility of publication in a Nature Research journal rather than the best of the specialist journals.

https://www.nature.com/authors/policies ... eview.html