If climate scientists are so smart...

[ricketyclik]

... why didn't they warn us about more frequent severe weather events?

Hmmm?

[Broken_Erika]

They did but we didn't listen!

[ricketyclik]

More revisionist BS from the climarmists.

[giblets]

Way to stick it to those "experts" with their "science".

[Dinner]

This one is great if off topic.

https://youtu.be/XLNyMBOdFbo

The Hound calls KFC.

[Lorizael]

I remain wary of pinning devastating weather on climate change. I don't deny that this is the prediction or that it's happening, but I am wondering if the data available so far are sufficient to make the case. What is the natural variation in the number of category X hurricanes per year? Given that, how unlikely is what we're seeing now? Is it actually a trend, or just a bad year? Again, I don't deny that we're all probably ****ed in the long term because of climate change and that gigantic hurricanes will be part of that ****age; I just don't know if we're there yet.

[Dauphin]

When you say "make the case", do you mean to a scientific standard (six sigma or whatever), a criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) or a civil standard (more likely than not)?

[Lorizael]

A scientific standard, I suppose. But what worries me is using strong hurricanes as a rhetorical move ("Look at that drowned city, climate change denialists!") but then also in a year without massive disasters, turning around and saying, "Oh, but it's just a trend. We can't predict what will happen in any given year." This looks like trying to have it both ways and doesn't win any converts, even if it's true both that more and nastier hurricanes are a result of climate change and that we will have quiet years because there is bound to be variation. And it looks especially bad if it's easy to make the case that bad years now still just look like statistical outliers rather than the new norm.

[N35t0r]

I'm just enjoying the memes at this point and happy that pretty much whatever happens I'll be far away from it. At worst I'll have to drive a couple hundred kilometres.

Unless it happens before Sunday, please wait until I leave Amsterdam, flood.

[Dauphin]

A scientific standard, I suppose. But what worries me is using strong hurricanes as a rhetorical move ("Look at that drowned city, climate change denialists!") but then also in a year without massive disasters, turning around and saying, "Oh, but it's just a trend. We can't predict what will happen in any given year." This looks like trying to have it both ways and doesn't win any converts, even if it's true both that more and nastier hurricanes are a result of climate change and that we will have quiet years because there is bound to be variation. And it looks especially bad if it's easy to make the case that bad years now still just look like statistical outliers rather than the new norm.

What concerns me more is that people say it's not proven. If you say the cost of climate change is X using whatever criteria you use, and to prevent climate change will cost Y using whatever criteria you want to use, then the calculus can be pretty simple. The level of proof required for action is Y/X. If Y far exceeds X, then the level of proof is irrelevant because it will never be worthwhile to act, if X far exceeds Y, then you should act on the smallest amount of evidence. Only in the extreme case of Y almost equalling X are your likely to really need to care about the level of proof, and even then, neither option is really much better than the other.

There is a problem in that these numbers are dynamic, and the marginal benefit of action may be getting smaller with time as the results become irreversible.

[ricketyclik]

Oh, I forgot, many of you guys are American, and so wouldn't have heard of http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-0...floods/8886264 or https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tures-pass-40c.

I'm guessing you would know that 14, 15 and 16 all set new annual global average heat records, and that 17 is likely to repeat that feat. And that more heat = more extreme weather events, you know, from basic physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:G...re_Anomaly.svg

[Aeson]

A scientific standard, I suppose. But what worries me is using strong hurricanes as a rhetorical move ("Look at that drowned city, climate change denialists!") but then also in a year without massive disasters, turning around and saying, "Oh, but it's just a trend. We can't predict what will happen in any given year." This looks like trying to have it both ways and doesn't win any converts, even if it's true both that more and nastier hurricanes are a result of climate change and that we will have quiet years because there is bound to be variation. And it looks especially bad if it's easy to make the case that bad years now still just look like statistical outliers rather than the new norm.

At this point, any deniers (of climate change) left aren't accepting scientific evidence anyway. Whether or not or to what extent a specific event is a result of climate change isn't an important issue except for view count.

[pchang]

We have 1 model of weather that says no global warming, and 1 model of weather that says there is global warming. The current data fits into the 1st model, but represents a low probability outcome. The current data also fits into the 2nd model, but represents a much higher probability outcome. Which model would you want to use going forward?

[Lorizael]

Well, be Bayesian about it. Absent the last several decades of climate science research, your prior on model 1 should be higher than your prior on model 2.

[pchang]

No, silly. Model 2 fits prior data equally as well as model 1. Are you capable of only doing linear math?