3 ms·
> Surely we are not arguing that there was no drought during that year, or that it's somehow not visible from remote sensing data? We're arguing that there is
by lazyjones 8y ago
> Surely we are not arguing that there was no drought during that year, or that it's somehow not visible from remote sensing data?
We're arguing that there is a difference between thorough scientific methods and carefully picking out selected data points to show a dramatic situation that isn't.
- mturmon 8y agoIt's pretty clear that the 2018 heat event was indeed an exceptional event, especially in Northern Europe. This is not "a dramatic situation that isn't". Of course articles in the popular press are going to use different narrative techniques ("give them concrete examples!" is the usual advice to science writers) than scientific papers would. So if you want "thorough scientific methods", you'd have to look elsewhere. This is the closest I've found to an attribution study of to what extent climate change is responsible for this heatwave event: http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-07-27-heatwave-made-twice-likely-climate-change http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-07-27-heatwave-made-twice-like... A gloss on the larger significance of the report in the growing area of "attribution" is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05849-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05849-9
- lazyjones 8y ago> an exceptional event, especially in Northern Europe. This is not "a dramatic situation that isn't". Exceptional, yes. Unprecedented, no. > So if you want "thorough scientific methods", you'd have to look elsewhere. I'd be happy if there was less cherry-picking and more linking to raw sources for verification. If this was about people of particular ethnicities committing crimes, people would cry foul and "racism" at such hand-picked examples.