4 ms·

To preface, I am inclined to agree with the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. But the claims in this article are no better than climate change skeptics p

To preface, I am inclined to agree with the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. But the claims in this article are no better than climate change skeptics pointing to a particularly cold winter or mild summer as evidence for their position. How can you possibly conclude this is caused by climate change vs. being a 100, 200, or 1000 year storm? Freak weather events have been occurring for billions of years before the industrial revolution. Climate change is a gradual process that may in fact make such storms more likely, but pinning any single storm on climate change is suspect.

static_noise 8y ago
We would have to wait for a few decades to come to such conclusions with scientific methods. It's a political decision to market the event as such.
chapium 8y ago
"The flooding on Kauai is consistent with an extreme rainfall that comes with a warmer atmosphere," said Chip Fletcher, a leading expert on the impact of climate change on Pacific island communities. Because no one can know the entire body of knowledge, we divide our understanding of the world among us. Some of us study the earth and climate and accumulate expertise on the subject matter.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  “Consistent with” does not establish much at all, other than that the event does not disprove climate change. An event tells us nothing about climate change if it is consistent both with and without climate change. My withdrawing $40 from my bank account is consistent with me having no cash at all left in my wallet. It’s also consistent with me already having some cash but needing more. The event, the withdrawing of the cash, does not tell us whether my wallet was empty.
  - sykh 8y ago
    What is the goal of your comments? Are you trying to convince people that when there is an increase in anomalous weather patterns we shouldn’t say it’s due to climate change? At what point would you say these things are a result of climate change? Do you deny the reality of climate change? Do you agree that it is a reality but are fighting against people ignoring the fact that an individual event might have a different cause? Due to humans releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere there is more energy in the system. Clearly this increase in energy leads to anomalous behavior. It’s ok to point this out.
    - marcoperaza 8y ago
      My motivation? A commitment to truthful and honest reporting. The claims in this article are no better than climate change skeptics pointing to a particularly cold winter or mild summer as evidence for their position.
      - sykh 8y ago
        Your last sentence is false. The difference is one of probability. There’s a much greater chance being correct with the climate change attribution over the other one. We have to make conclusions and policies based on evidence and what is likely the cause rather than waiting for a formal proof. The most likely cause of the increase in anomalous weather events is due to the increase in energy in the system. It’s worth pointing this out when these events occur.
        krona 8y ago
        There’s a much greater chance being correct with the climate change attribution over the other one. Isn't the null hypothesis that there is nothing specific to attribute the rain? Regardless, what's your statistical test and confidence interval?
        sykh 8y ago
        Do you create a statistical test and confidence interval for all of the things you believe to be true? I doubt it. Do you have expertise in all areas? I don’t. I rely on experts. Experts tell me that there is climate change. They tell me that there has been a massive increase in energy in weather system due to human activity. They tell me that the number of anomalies is increasing. Now I encounter a story about a very strange weather occurrence and your question to me is what statistical test I’ve run? I don’t know you and I can only guess as to the purpose of your question. I’m very skeptical that you can answer your own question when it comes to making conclusions about things outside your expertise. So it seems your purpose is lacking in genuineness. If it is news to you that people make conclusions based on the evidence they know about and weigh the possibilities and rough probabilities without conducting a formal statistical analysis then I highly recommend that you do some soul searching.
test74927649 8y ago
Not to mention the fact that there has actually been an observed global cooling the past two years: https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you_know_the_greatest_two-year_global_cooling_event_just_took_place_103243.html https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you...
- papaf 8y ago
  Climate is more complex than cooling or warming over a two year timeframe. There is a superposition of many oscillations [1] and these have to be separated and removed before finding a trend [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation [2] http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ide/data/research/publication/ssa_revgeophys02.pdf http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ide/data/research/publication/ssa_...
- knightofmars 8y ago
  Climate Change is about increased energy in a system creating more frequent and more violent weather patterns. Global Warming is about year over year averages across decades not "two years".
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    I agree. And it’s certainly not about a single storm.
    - knightofmars 8y ago
      No, it's not about a single storm. Do you agree that if that single storm is a classification more violent and part of the set of more frequent (and more violent) storms then it is indicative of climate change?
bradleyjg 8y ago
Suppose we have two hypotheses: 1) The likelihood of extreme rain events hasn't changed over the last hundred years. This recent extreme rain event was just a four sigma event. Such outliers sometimes happen. 2) The likelihood of extreme rain events has shifted over the past hundred years. Here's a plausible mechanism (omitted). The recent rain event was only a two sigma event. We may not have enough data yet to definitively select one hypothesis and reject the other, but which is more likely?
- gus_massa 8y ago
  Where did you get that this is a "four sigma event"? I don't even understand what it means here. Is the calculation using the distribution of the daily rainfall in any day of the year? In a day that it is raining? During the rain season?

static_noise 8y ago

We would have to wait for a few decades to come to such conclusions with scientific methods. It's a political decision to market the event as such.

chapium 8y ago

"The flooding on Kauai is consistent with an extreme rainfall that comes with a warmer atmosphere," said Chip Fletcher, a leading expert on the impact of climate change on Pacific island communities. Because no one can know the entire body of knowledge, we divide our understanding of the world among us. Some of us study the earth and climate and accumulate expertise on the subject matter.

marcoperaza 8y ago
“Consistent with” does not establish much at all, other than that the event does not disprove climate change. An event tells us nothing about climate change if it is consistent both with and without climate change. My withdrawing $40 from my bank account is consistent with me having no cash at all left in my wallet. It’s also consistent with me already having some cash but needing more. The event, the withdrawing of the cash, does not tell us whether my wallet was empty.
- sykh 8y ago
  What is the goal of your comments? Are you trying to convince people that when there is an increase in anomalous weather patterns we shouldn’t say it’s due to climate change? At what point would you say these things are a result of climate change? Do you deny the reality of climate change? Do you agree that it is a reality but are fighting against people ignoring the fact that an individual event might have a different cause? Due to humans releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere there is more energy in the system. Clearly this increase in energy leads to anomalous behavior. It’s ok to point this out.
  - marcoperaza 8y ago
    My motivation? A commitment to truthful and honest reporting. The claims in this article are no better than climate change skeptics pointing to a particularly cold winter or mild summer as evidence for their position.
    - sykh 8y ago
      Your last sentence is false. The difference is one of probability. There’s a much greater chance being correct with the climate change attribution over the other one. We have to make conclusions and policies based on evidence and what is likely the cause rather than waiting for a formal proof. The most likely cause of the increase in anomalous weather events is due to the increase in energy in the system. It’s worth pointing this out when these events occur.
      - krona 8y ago
        There’s a much greater chance being correct with the climate change attribution over the other one. Isn't the null hypothesis that there is nothing specific to attribute the rain? Regardless, what's your statistical test and confidence interval?
        sykh 8y ago
        Do you create a statistical test and confidence interval for all of the things you believe to be true? I doubt it. Do you have expertise in all areas? I don’t. I rely on experts. Experts tell me that there is climate change. They tell me that there has been a massive increase in energy in weather system due to human activity. They tell me that the number of anomalies is increasing. Now I encounter a story about a very strange weather occurrence and your question to me is what statistical test I’ve run? I don’t know you and I can only guess as to the purpose of your question. I’m very skeptical that you can answer your own question when it comes to making conclusions about things outside your expertise. So it seems your purpose is lacking in genuineness. If it is news to you that people make conclusions based on the evidence they know about and weigh the possibilities and rough probabilities without conducting a formal statistical analysis then I highly recommend that you do some soul searching.

test74927649 8y ago

Not to mention the fact that there has actually been an observed global cooling the past two years: https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you_know_the_greatest_two-year_global_cooling_event_just_took_place_103243.html https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you...

papaf 8y ago
Climate is more complex than cooling or warming over a two year timeframe. There is a superposition of many oscillations [1] and these have to be separated and removed before finding a trend [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_oscillation [2] http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ide/data/research/publication/ssa_revgeophys02.pdf http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ide/data/research/publication/ssa_...
knightofmars 8y ago
Climate Change is about increased energy in a system creating more frequent and more violent weather patterns. Global Warming is about year over year averages across decades not "two years".
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  I agree. And it’s certainly not about a single storm.
  - knightofmars 8y ago
    No, it's not about a single storm. Do you agree that if that single storm is a classification more violent and part of the set of more frequent (and more violent) storms then it is indicative of climate change?

bradleyjg 8y ago

Suppose we have two hypotheses: 1) The likelihood of extreme rain events hasn't changed over the last hundred years. This recent extreme rain event was just a four sigma event. Such outliers sometimes happen. 2) The likelihood of extreme rain events has shifted over the past hundred years. Here's a plausible mechanism (omitted). The recent rain event was only a two sigma event. We may not have enough data yet to definitively select one hypothesis and reject the other, but which is more likely?

gus_massa 8y ago
Where did you get that this is a "four sigma event"? I don't even understand what it means here. Is the calculation using the distribution of the daily rainfall in any day of the year? In a day that it is raining? During the rain season?