Because Irene got more media attention than normal, she figured it had been a while.
As it turns out, there have been 84 "tropical or subtropical cyclones that have affected the state of New York since the 17th century." About one a year, recently.
However, looking over the list, I noticed something. The groups seemed roughly the same size, but the last one, up to modern day, was a decade. The groups preceding it were quarter centuries. Then a half century. Then a century.
So I charted it (thank you, Excel). Filtering out Irene (to keep it in even decades), the X Axis (that's the horizontal line, for those of you with a standard American education) is decades. The Y Axis (that's the other one) is the number of storms. (Feel free to do the math yourself.)
I'm not saying it means anything. Because we all know that climate change (a.k.a. "global warming") is a myth, right? Just because there have been increasing numbers of storms hitting New York since the Industrial Era? Coincidence, right?
You made your point well. Climate change is not a myth, Barbie.
ReplyDeleteHoly Crap! You mean science is right and FOX is wrong?!!!
ReplyDeleteI guess I have no choice but to accept the data, but it isn't easy. FOX seems really confident when they say that that though scientists disagree with them, the science is on their side.
Additionally, I have consulted several cabbies and three separate refuse processors who all corroborate FOX's version of things.
Are you sure you formulas are correct?
Well, I do tend to count on my fingers, so maybe I got it wrong.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget the interesting spate of tornadoes we had earlier this year as well. But the Mainstream Media's mouth contorts were they to point to Global Climate Change... nope, that is a political issue, not scientific. The MSM keeps mute because they don't want to appear politically biased.
ReplyDeleteNice work, Nameless! If you superimpose your plot over a graph of rising temperatures since 1850, you will see a similar pattern. Similarly, a plot of greenhouse gas emissions fits the same pattern. As I tried to point out in this post:
ReplyDelete“There are two statistical concepts to bear in mind. Some data points conform to a pattern while others seem randomly spread. When data points fall outside a trend line, we call these “outliers,” a fancy word for random distribution. The skeptical boiled frog focuses on the random jitters and ignores the trend line. “So what,” croaks the frog, “Mother Earth has mood swings.” My point: Statistical outliers turn boiled frogs into outrageous liars.”
Nothing wrong with math or science, it’s junk Republicans that get my dander up.
You guys with your facts and figures. When Joe the Plumber and Sarah the Dumber are elected they'll put an end to this sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteHeil Fox!