@celinofj, I just found the table that I used earlier -- it seems still to be online -- and the table displays the names of National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Hurricane Center and the Central Pacific Hurricane Center. And so it appears to present some official figures for hurricane count and severity by decade.
The table purports to show total number of hurricanes and total number of "major" hurricanes, per decade -- from 1851 to 2023. I know of no reason to seriously doubt the table, other than to say that some OLDER hurricanes might have been "major" but not been noticed to be major, back in the old days when fewer people lived in the hurricane zones. But, if so, that would strengthen my impression of the relative flatness of the trend, rather than work against it.
The last three years might have been unusual -- after all, we're only talking about a few years -- whereas the table deals with almost 200 years.
Notice the graph above doesn't go back to 1851 like the data I showed do. I just recounted the numbers given in the table, and read the table again, to check my earlier counting and typing.
Frankly, I prefer numbers from NOAA or the National Hurricane Center to any numbers from some other interested website. But others will have their own preferences, I suppose. Everybody will have to choose for themselves what they wish to consult.
By the way, why does the graph shown in #80 refer, in smaller print, to "simulated hurricane occurrences" ? Simulated? What and why does that word occur on that graph?
The numbers MY post present don't seem to be based at all on any "simulation."
@Noflaps Do you have the link, samed somewhere? If it's not online, can you take a photo, and post it using imgur, like I do, please??
I found it with a search engine, looking for NOAA hurricanes by decade. Led me right to a website displaying the table I looked at (and to other links, although I didn't need to look farther at them since the search located the table quickly).
As I noted earlier, the table displays NOAA's name and the names of two hurricane centers.
If you check my counting, I won't be offended. I'm diligent but not incapable of error. I don't invite anybody to rely on my judgment these days.
Indeed, I believe it's better for people to determine things for themselves -- it's good exercise and helps us to be more confident in our own opinions.
Figure out yet why the word "simulated" appears on the graph as displayed in #80?
@Noflaps
> Figure out yet why the word "simulated" appears on the graph as displayed in #80?
ChatGPT: "The author wasn’t plotting the raw “as-recorded” hurricane counts straight out of the historical archives, but rather the output of a statistical model that both (a) fills in the gaps where observational coverage was spotty (early 20th century) and (b) projects forward to 2024. By labeling the series “simulated,” they’re being transparent that these are the estimated storm counts produced by their reconstruction/model, not simply the unadjusted, directly-measured totals".
I'm not sure too, obviously, but probably, the recording and registering of storms in the past was more limited, and I think simulated might by a graph adding and estimated value for the storms that weren't captured.
So this graph might be the registered hurricanes + an estimation of unregistered hurricanes!
Nice to know for me also.
Thank you, @celinofj , for having the courage and fairness to answer my question without just trying to overlook it and hope nobody notices. It speaks well for your character and objectivity.
However, I must say that "simulating" hurricanes does not seem to me to be as accurate as actually counting and measuring them, as the data I presented apparently does.
Is the theory that some hurricanes went unnoticed? If so, I find that difficult to accept. This isn't 1510, it's 2025. How could a hurricane, even in 1925, "sneak up" and then "sneak away" without notice, ANYWHERE in the United States?
I am not comfortable with the notion of getting upset by "simulated" displays that seem to make things more dire than the facts on the ground actually seem to be, when actually measured. Indeed, too much of the terror we experience in social and mass media seems to flow from "models" of the sky falling, metaphorically.
As a youth, I did some computer modeling both in school and later on the job. I found it to be an approximation, at best. But, of course, my experience is aged and anecdotal and merely explains my reluctance to go "all in" every time I'm presented with some dire simulation. I remain skeptical if the system being modeled is very, very complex.
But saying this will probably be rewarded with "downvotes" because many seem determined to believe, fashionably, that catastrophe is just around the corner. Many seem to teach gloom and many have accepted gloom and view the defense of their gloom to be a moral imperative. And I've found that arguing against gloom is like spitting into the wind and often merely gets hissed. Not everybody is as objective and fair as @celinofj seems, indeed, to be.
Religion and politics don't mix well with science. And by "religion" I'm not talking about the religions protected by the First Amendment. Perhaps, after I've gone, and after today's young people have taught their grandchildren, some will still be standing in Time Square puzzled and wondering why the ocean still seems so far away.
Perhaps they'll wonder if the actual position of the beach is being hidden from them by some Republican conspiracy. Never fear, they'll be able to ask AI to "simulate" a new location for the beach and be reassured that their teachers weren't at all mistaken.
@Noflaps yeah, but you have NASA, NOAA, and several other international companies measuring the increase of temperature, and all measure around 1.1-1.5 Degrees Celsius Increase, so everybody would have to lie at the same time.
You have laboratory tests, even made by popular people like Myth Busters, to check the increase of temperature cause by CO2, and it does happen.
I don't understand why the United States government is denying actually the global warming, since over 70% of americans believe in the science behind it, and a CO2 Global Carbon Tax would pressure it's main competitor (China) 10x more than the U.S., since it's economy is heavily dependent on Coal, with the worst taxes on CO2.
@celinofj said in #88:
> I don't understand why the United States government is denying actually the global warming, since over 70% of americans believe in the science behind it, and a CO2 Global Carbon Tax would pressure it's main competitor (China) 10x more than the U.S., since it's economy is heavily dependent on Coal, with the worst taxes on CO2.
...which might be why the Chinese wouldn't accept/ratify the CO2 tax.
"some will still be standing in Time Square puzzled and wondering why the ocean still seems so far away"
* Or will drown in Time Square and curse their grandfathers who failed to prevent it.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.