This belief system is highly attractive to the nerdy types who hang out here, because it explicitly privileges the nerdy and proclaims them the new priesthood, whilst draping itself in clothes designed to look like science and maths.
The graph you link to does not support your claim.
Trend line has a slope of 0.2845587086 / year.
Noisy graph, correlation coefficient is 0.3003115118, but still, it does not support your claim.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/understanding-...
"The UK State of the Climate report states that there are no compelling trends in storminess when considering maximum gust speeds over the last four decades. More comprehensive studies across the North Atlantic region have reached similar conclusions."
If you're going to try and argue that "no trend" isn't the same as "no compelling trend".... please, just don't. Life is short.
You've mis-interpreted the second graph. It doesn't show any increased flooding. It shows a very minor and unimportant trend in wetness. The trend is unimportant because increases in wetness don't imply increases in flooding, as the relationship is non-linear. Flooding has not increased so although I didn't mention flooding I could have added it to the list. See "Floods and Heavy Precipitation at the Global Scale: 100-Year Analysis and 180-Year Reconstruction" in JGR Atmospheres, Renard et al.
No, it is not.
> A trend line calculated for any natural dataset will never be exactly zero. This doesn't mean humans need to speak in scientific notation as if we are robots. You are well aware of that, so please stop playing silly word games that don't advance the discussion. The phrase "No trend" is a perfectly reasonable way to describe storm data, which is why governments say the same thing:
You cannot say the opposite of what words mean, expect to not get called out on this (especially on a place like Hacker News), then when you are called out expect to get a positive reaction to saying "boo, stop playing word games".
The average for the first 50 years is 79.24 units. The average for the most recent 50 years is 106.64.
So, between the values of the first and last 50 years. So it backs my point and still denies yours.
This time, do you want to cherry-pick a specific date range that actually fits the results you expect from your apparently pre-existing belief there's no trend, or are you going to accept that line go up?
Save you some time, here's the rolling averages with 10, 20, and 50 year horizons: https://pasteboard.co/rQ49kvY8YeBU.png
Average is forward from any given date on the chart and standard spreadsheet use of "average" function, which is why (if you look closely) you'll see the right side is spiky and they all line up perfectly when that's clearly silly.
You can obviously compute a trend line on this data set, as with any. That doesn't mean the trend matters or can be described in normal English as "storms getting worse", which is why even people like the British government who are fully on board with Net Zero don't try the argument you're trying here. They explicitly say the trend line isn't compelling, even.
So what point are you trying to make, exactly? That they're wrong and it is compelling? Or that on HN there's a rule against describing data in normal ways?
Let's boil this down to the only thing that matters: do you think people should be alarmed by this data? If so, why, when others who have studied it don't?
Are storms getting worse? No. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ace-north-atlantic-hurric...
Is drought getting worse? No. https://www.drought.gov/historical-information?dataset=1&sel...
For people who don't Fucking Love Science!™ and think climatologists are corrupted by profit, what's the killer argument that weather is getting more extreme.