5 ms·

its funny how no matter what happens climate wise "its terrible and wrong" when it's reported. What drought.gov calls abnormally-dry is not actually abnormal.

by zobzu 8y ago

its funny how no matter what happens climate wise "its terrible and wrong" when it's reported. What drought.gov calls abnormally-dry is not actually abnormal. What they really mean is "its non-ideal", as if the climate was always ideal pre-2011. Anything that is lower than D2 ("severe drought") is normal, and of course its better to thrive toward ideal and maintaining better conditions. But it doesn't mean that somehow weather was ideal all the time before 2011 and now its never good enough. Let the downvotes flow... https://www.drought.gov/drought/states/california https://www.drought.gov/drought/states/california

jmeekr 8y ago
1984 vibes in a way if you think about it.
creddit 8y ago
I actually agree with the core sentiment of your post, but find you playing a victim without yet being victimized in any way with "Let the downvotes flow..." to be really counter productive.
- tomjakubowski 8y ago
  Could you rephrase the core sentiment of the post that you agree with? I can't understand what it's saying at all, other than expressing anger at the reporting of climate issues.
  - will4274 8y ago
    There is a trend where all climate events are said by news sources to be indicative of climate change. Abnormally warm winters => climate change. Abnormally cold winters => climate change. Drought => climate change. Hurricanes => climate change. As is typical on many topics, some news organizations are apt to over-state the certainty of scientific evidence. For example, the link between climate change and hurricanes is commonly cited in news sources (see https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hurricane+climate+change+huff+post+medium https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hurricane+climate+change+huff+post...). While the link has a reasonable theoretical mechanism (warm air seems to make hurricanes stronger, global warming => more warm air), it hasn't actually been observed in practice - we had an average number of hurricanes last decade and an abnormally small number the decade prior. Nevertheless, some news sources publish articles along the lines of "most damaging hurricane ever, is it because of global warming?" Depending on where you sit, this is either evidence that global warming is a massive hoax and not happening at all OR evidence that news sources sometimes get a little carried away trying to publish the most alarmist and exotic things that they can find, but that the underlying science of global warming is valid and with uncertain impacts.
everdev 8y ago
> Abnormally Dry: * Short-term dryness slowing planting, growth of crops * Some lingering water deficits * Pastures or crops not fully recovered Maybe it's a confusing use of the word. I think they might just mean that the area is still experiencing residual effects of the drought.
butstillbad99 8y ago
Thanks for the clinical discussion around environmental droughts. As usual such technical views ignore the on-the-ground experience for people to provide context for the language you’re criticizing. Yes, to the ecosystem itself, in a vacuum, it’s not bad. To human existence there it’s been problematic. Emotions are up over it. Perhaps that’s an alternative argument you’re not considering? This is like telling people dealing with cancer “We all die some day.” Damn those humans and their generalizing to maintain social connection. We should all just stick to highly technical interpretations (even though not all of us want to!)
- phkahler 8y ago
  The problem is that California has the flu and people think its cancer. Getting the flu sucks but you're probably not gonna die. I remember forest fires as well as mudslides in CA back in the 1970s. Perhaps the last few years were an extreme, but note that going to that extreme and back took about a decade. Most people haven't been there long enough to know what normal is and just buy in to all the media hype.
  - gdubs 8y ago
    Sorry, but this is just flat out wrong. Yes, drought and fire have always been a fact of life for California. But if you map the frequency and severity of fires alone, it’s on a remarkably upward trajectory over the past two decades. It’s climate change.
    - pdonis 8y ago
      Over the past two decades, yes. But humans have been in California for a lot longer than two decades. Over all the time humans have been in California (which is basically since the last Ice Age at least, possibly longer since we don't know exactly when it was first settled by Native Americans), what we're seeing now is probably well within the range of variation. We can't know for sure because we don't have 12,000 years worth of records to tell us. Which means we don't have the basis for saying that what's been happening in California over the past couple of decades is an emergency. It might just be part of the long term cost of choosing to live in California.
gdubs 8y ago
What exactly is it you’re trying to say? California has been trending hotter, and drier. The link you point to has a scale of different levels of dryness. Where exactly is the sinister doublespeak in this?
- GunlogAlm 8y ago
  He's seemingly either a climate denialist or some sort of troll; just look through his post history.

by zobzu 8y ago

jmeekr 8y ago

1984 vibes in a way if you think about it.

creddit 8y ago

I actually agree with the core sentiment of your post, but find you playing a victim without yet being victimized in any way with "Let the downvotes flow..." to be really counter productive.

tomjakubowski 8y ago
Could you rephrase the core sentiment of the post that you agree with? I can't understand what it's saying at all, other than expressing anger at the reporting of climate issues.
- will4274 8y ago
  There is a trend where all climate events are said by news sources to be indicative of climate change. Abnormally warm winters => climate change. Abnormally cold winters => climate change. Drought => climate change. Hurricanes => climate change. As is typical on many topics, some news organizations are apt to over-state the certainty of scientific evidence. For example, the link between climate change and hurricanes is commonly cited in news sources (see https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hurricane+climate+change+huff+post+medium https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hurricane+climate+change+huff+post...). While the link has a reasonable theoretical mechanism (warm air seems to make hurricanes stronger, global warming => more warm air), it hasn't actually been observed in practice - we had an average number of hurricanes last decade and an abnormally small number the decade prior. Nevertheless, some news sources publish articles along the lines of "most damaging hurricane ever, is it because of global warming?" Depending on where you sit, this is either evidence that global warming is a massive hoax and not happening at all OR evidence that news sources sometimes get a little carried away trying to publish the most alarmist and exotic things that they can find, but that the underlying science of global warming is valid and with uncertain impacts.

everdev 8y ago

> Abnormally Dry: * Short-term dryness slowing planting, growth of crops * Some lingering water deficits * Pastures or crops not fully recovered Maybe it's a confusing use of the word. I think they might just mean that the area is still experiencing residual effects of the drought.

butstillbad99 8y ago

Thanks for the clinical discussion around environmental droughts. As usual such technical views ignore the on-the-ground experience for people to provide context for the language you’re criticizing. Yes, to the ecosystem itself, in a vacuum, it’s not bad. To human existence there it’s been problematic. Emotions are up over it. Perhaps that’s an alternative argument you’re not considering? This is like telling people dealing with cancer “We all die some day.” Damn those humans and their generalizing to maintain social connection. We should all just stick to highly technical interpretations (even though not all of us want to!)

phkahler 8y ago
The problem is that California has the flu and people think its cancer. Getting the flu sucks but you're probably not gonna die. I remember forest fires as well as mudslides in CA back in the 1970s. Perhaps the last few years were an extreme, but note that going to that extreme and back took about a decade. Most people haven't been there long enough to know what normal is and just buy in to all the media hype.
- gdubs 8y ago
  Sorry, but this is just flat out wrong. Yes, drought and fire have always been a fact of life for California. But if you map the frequency and severity of fires alone, it’s on a remarkably upward trajectory over the past two decades. It’s climate change.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    Over the past two decades, yes. But humans have been in California for a lot longer than two decades. Over all the time humans have been in California (which is basically since the last Ice Age at least, possibly longer since we don't know exactly when it was first settled by Native Americans), what we're seeing now is probably well within the range of variation. We can't know for sure because we don't have 12,000 years worth of records to tell us. Which means we don't have the basis for saying that what's been happening in California over the past couple of decades is an emergency. It might just be part of the long term cost of choosing to live in California.

gdubs 8y ago

What exactly is it you’re trying to say? California has been trending hotter, and drier. The link you point to has a scale of different levels of dryness. Where exactly is the sinister doublespeak in this?

GunlogAlm 8y ago
He's seemingly either a climate denialist or some sort of troll; just look through his post history.