4 ms·

If it were true then yes (and data some cases tell us so). But memory has a tendency to be selective, anecdotes should not be trusted.

ubernostrum 9y ago
The telling things are signs like the failure of Georgia's peach harvest; peach trees are sensitive to how much time each year the weather is in certain temperature ranges, and use it as a trigger for their seasonal behaviors. The number of sufficiently-cool hours each year is now less than half of the historical average: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-a-warm-winter-destroyed-85-percent-of-georgias-peaches/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-a-warm-winter-destr...
- throwaway5752 9y ago
  And the success of the new england peach harvest in the same season; direct photographic evidence of glacial retreat, too.
- tertius 9y ago
  Two points. One year is an outlier. That's about bell curves work. Sorry for the peach harvest in Georgia, but that's nature. Comparing that one year (and the year before) to "historical average" from 1998-2017 is stupid. That is a ridiculously small sample size and reeks of bias. I'm not claiming that they're wrong, but it's not convincing. Bias kills so much of what well meaning people try to do.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    The issue is that for any one data point someone brings up, it's likely you could make some argument for why that data point on its own is not convincing. But the sheer number of disparate data points, in aggregate, become something that's no longer possible to do that with. The likelihood of all those different things happening at once without some underlying unified caused is very very low.
    - tertius 9y ago
      There's a case to be made sure. But I was replying to the article being very selective. Which is not in the best interest of the movement. More unbiased (clearly) reports are needed. The data being used in that one was, if not intentional, not a good way to further the cause. And that should be the intent. Even if it's harder to do so in an unbiased way, that is what is needed.
      - ubernostrum 9y ago
        The data in that article does a good job of making the point: the climate is changing, it will have negative effects on humans. And the warming it points out is not an isolated cherry-picked example: it's part of a trend which has been going on, worldwide, for years. And pointing to economic effects is a very useful way to argue: to invert the aphorism, it's easier to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on it.

ubernostrum 9y ago

The telling things are signs like the failure of Georgia's peach harvest; peach trees are sensitive to how much time each year the weather is in certain temperature ranges, and use it as a trigger for their seasonal behaviors. The number of sufficiently-cool hours each year is now less than half of the historical average: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-a-warm-winter-destroyed-85-percent-of-georgias-peaches/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-a-warm-winter-destr...

throwaway5752 9y ago
And the success of the new england peach harvest in the same season; direct photographic evidence of glacial retreat, too.
tertius 9y ago
Two points. One year is an outlier. That's about bell curves work. Sorry for the peach harvest in Georgia, but that's nature. Comparing that one year (and the year before) to "historical average" from 1998-2017 is stupid. That is a ridiculously small sample size and reeks of bias. I'm not claiming that they're wrong, but it's not convincing. Bias kills so much of what well meaning people try to do.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  The issue is that for any one data point someone brings up, it's likely you could make some argument for why that data point on its own is not convincing. But the sheer number of disparate data points, in aggregate, become something that's no longer possible to do that with. The likelihood of all those different things happening at once without some underlying unified caused is very very low.
  - tertius 9y ago
    There's a case to be made sure. But I was replying to the article being very selective. Which is not in the best interest of the movement. More unbiased (clearly) reports are needed. The data being used in that one was, if not intentional, not a good way to further the cause. And that should be the intent. Even if it's harder to do so in an unbiased way, that is what is needed.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      The data in that article does a good job of making the point: the climate is changing, it will have negative effects on humans. And the warming it points out is not an isolated cherry-picked example: it's part of a trend which has been going on, worldwide, for years. And pointing to economic effects is a very useful way to argue: to invert the aphorism, it's easier to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on it.