3 ms·

I don't want trash news articles. They establish nothing. Read the first one, it's not good. Want modelling from someone reputable like the IPCC that balances t

by csee 5y ago

I don't want trash news articles. They establish nothing. Read the first one, it's not good. Want modelling from someone reputable like the IPCC that balances the offsetting forces and quantifies what to expect on net. "50 percent more extreme cold weather events under RCP8.5" Not "This is how a polar vortex works, therefore there will be more cold weather events" (which is obviously faulty logic since that doesn't account for an increasing mean temp, which is why modelling is needed to balance out these offsetting considerations) See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28963266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28963266

wk_end 5y ago
You have to understand, it’s incredibly frustrating to try to have a serious conversation with someone who not only pulls out the intellectually lazy “[citation needed]” trope, but makes no specific demands about what citation is acceptable until after the fact, when they can deem respected news agencies like the BBC or DW as “trash” and demand more citations! Is that Forbes article “trash”? I don’t think so - it’s a clear explainer written for a layperson by someone well-credentialed, and I had no reason to think based on your comment that you were anything but a layperson. Anyway - the next article, from the BBC, is a report on a study published in Science. The study is linked to in the text, it’s called “Linking Arctic variability and change with extreme winter weather in the United States” if you prefer papers over news articles summarizing them.
- csee 5y ago
  I was extremely specific in what I was asking for initially. I asked for evidence that the number of extreme cold events is going to be increased. None of the first two articles grapples with that claim. That's why I called them trash. They're trash in the sense that those sources aren't addressing the claim that I initially asked to see a citation for. They outline a mechanism that will lead to more cold spikes but it doesn't address my question of whether on net we are going to see more cold spikes given the offsetting impact of mean warming. I reject the accusation that I'm pulling a "citation needed" trope. The citation I shared above, which more directly addresses what I'm asking and is from more reputable bodies than your citations, says the exact opposite thing to what you're claiming and so what I'm doing is not an example of this trope (which is where someone asks for a citation for a well established fact as a rhetorical device).
  - wk_end 5y ago
    I suppose it’s debatable, but, rather than being “extremely specific”, I think a common-sense interpretation of “give me sources showing global warming will increase the number of extreme cold events” could be reasonably met with news articles reporting on and explaining papers showing “a mechanism that will lead to more cold spikes” - your words, emphasis mine, because “more” implies a greater number, as requested. And these kinds of articles are widely published, have been for years, and are easy to find. Your comment _reads_ like a demand for easily Google-able common knowledge, even if it wasn’t intended to be. And if it’s not the articles themselves that are “trash”, it’s even more rude and inflammatory to denigrate my effort to provide them to you as “trash”. Anyway: it’s definitely interesting and surprising that the IPCC’s report states that extreme cold events will decrease, when you’ve got experts and studies and mechanisms claiming otherwise, not to mention non-stop record breaking winters. The IPCC report is 4000 pages long and I’m not qualified (or blessed with the time) to pick through it and reconcile those things. Maybe the IPCC paper doesn’t consider the impact climate change is having on the polar vortex settled enough to factor it in (at least one of the articles above claims it’s still not universally accepted); maybe, as you suggest, the net warming will offset it; maybe, as someone else suggests in that thread, we're operating on different definitions of "extreme"; maybe certain areas will see an increase of extreme cold spikes but on net they’ll go down around the surface of the planet, which depending on where they are still complicates the calculus in the fine article quite a bit - if Texas has increased days or intensity of extreme cold but Antarctica has less, well, there’s a whole lot more people who might die in Houston than at McMurdo Station, even if Antarctica is quite a bit bigger than Texas. I’ll revise my priors and was wrong to state with certainty that extreme cold events will increase given the IPCC report, but after a near-decade of unprecedented winter weather disasters happening annually and a well-established mechanism that explains it, I’m not willing to write the claim off.
    - BlueTemplar 5y ago
      Yes, hardly anyone reads the whole IPCC report, and the conclusions tend to deform or leave out important parts. I specifically remember the case of methane being an important greenhouse gas having been dropped some IPCC reports ago.

by csee 5y ago

wk_end 5y ago

You have to understand, it’s incredibly frustrating to try to have a serious conversation with someone who not only pulls out the intellectually lazy “[citation needed]” trope, but makes no specific demands about what citation is acceptable until after the fact, when they can deem respected news agencies like the BBC or DW as “trash” and demand more citations! Is that Forbes article “trash”? I don’t think so - it’s a clear explainer written for a layperson by someone well-credentialed, and I had no reason to think based on your comment that you were anything but a layperson. Anyway - the next article, from the BBC, is a report on a study published in Science. The study is linked to in the text, it’s called “Linking Arctic variability and change with extreme winter weather in the United States” if you prefer papers over news articles summarizing them.

csee 5y ago
I was extremely specific in what I was asking for initially. I asked for evidence that the number of extreme cold events is going to be increased. None of the first two articles grapples with that claim. That's why I called them trash. They're trash in the sense that those sources aren't addressing the claim that I initially asked to see a citation for. They outline a mechanism that will lead to more cold spikes but it doesn't address my question of whether on net we are going to see more cold spikes given the offsetting impact of mean warming. I reject the accusation that I'm pulling a "citation needed" trope. The citation I shared above, which more directly addresses what I'm asking and is from more reputable bodies than your citations, says the exact opposite thing to what you're claiming and so what I'm doing is not an example of this trope (which is where someone asks for a citation for a well established fact as a rhetorical device).
- wk_end 5y ago
  I suppose it’s debatable, but, rather than being “extremely specific”, I think a common-sense interpretation of “give me sources showing global warming will increase the number of extreme cold events” could be reasonably met with news articles reporting on and explaining papers showing “a mechanism that will lead to more cold spikes” - your words, emphasis mine, because “more” implies a greater number, as requested. And these kinds of articles are widely published, have been for years, and are easy to find. Your comment _reads_ like a demand for easily Google-able common knowledge, even if it wasn’t intended to be. And if it’s not the articles themselves that are “trash”, it’s even more rude and inflammatory to denigrate my effort to provide them to you as “trash”. Anyway: it’s definitely interesting and surprising that the IPCC’s report states that extreme cold events will decrease, when you’ve got experts and studies and mechanisms claiming otherwise, not to mention non-stop record breaking winters. The IPCC report is 4000 pages long and I’m not qualified (or blessed with the time) to pick through it and reconcile those things. Maybe the IPCC paper doesn’t consider the impact climate change is having on the polar vortex settled enough to factor it in (at least one of the articles above claims it’s still not universally accepted); maybe, as you suggest, the net warming will offset it; maybe, as someone else suggests in that thread, we're operating on different definitions of "extreme"; maybe certain areas will see an increase of extreme cold spikes but on net they’ll go down around the surface of the planet, which depending on where they are still complicates the calculus in the fine article quite a bit - if Texas has increased days or intensity of extreme cold but Antarctica has less, well, there’s a whole lot more people who might die in Houston than at McMurdo Station, even if Antarctica is quite a bit bigger than Texas. I’ll revise my priors and was wrong to state with certainty that extreme cold events will increase given the IPCC report, but after a near-decade of unprecedented winter weather disasters happening annually and a well-established mechanism that explains it, I’m not willing to write the claim off.
  - BlueTemplar 5y ago
    Yes, hardly anyone reads the whole IPCC report, and the conclusions tend to deform or leave out important parts. I specifically remember the case of methane being an important greenhouse gas having been dropped some IPCC reports ago.