6 ms·

It was interesting. Good to see the sources cited :) Then I got to this: > there is compelling evidence [1] that such extreme weather phenomena are becoming m

It was interesting. Good to see the sources cited :) Then I got to this: > there is compelling evidence [1] that such extreme weather phenomena are becoming more common [0]. The links looked interesting, so I followed them. The second one was an abstract [0] saying, basically: "the last 50 years have seen more of these types of events", fair enough. The first one [1], though, had a paragraph that stuck out to me (apologies for the long quote): > “It’s tough, though,” Butler continues, “because we don’t have a very long record of observations of the stratosphere. We’ve only been observing it directly since the 1950s. That’s not very long to understand what kind of natural variability the polar vortex might be capable of. One researcher did a historical reconstruction by correlating the overlapping portions of the North Atlantic Oscillation index—which goes back much farther—and the polar vortex record, and then extrapolating the polar vortex record farther back in time using the NAO index. It showed no long-term trend, and no big differences in recent decades compared to previous decades.” and then near the end, as the conclusion: > Still, by most of the metrics experts use to describe winter climate, Overland agrees the big picture is clear: on average, winters are warmer and cold extremes are less likely than they were a century ago. How is this article cited as evidence that extreme weather phenomena are becoming more common? How is the science.org article able to claim that there have been more in the last 50 years when we've only been observing them for ~70 years? Anyone able to shed some light here? [0] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9167 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9167 [1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-arctic-polar-vortex https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

Kon-Peki 5y ago
If you want to limit yourself to the polar vortex phenomenon, then you really just need to look at historical weather data. To claim that it is happening more frequently, you don't have to completely understand it, just observe the occurrence. In the central US, winter temperature is highly dependent on wind direction and strength. We've been measuring that for a very long time. The polar vortex is very distinct. Strong winds from the north cause a temperature drop of 30+ degrees basically overnight. It stays like that for a few days to a week, and then goes away. The day/night temperature differential is much smaller. Anecdotally, people in the upper midwest will tell you this happens more frequently than it used to. Perhaps 3 out of every 5 years, maybe? Honestly, do we need to get more scientific than that? No, seriously - do we? This is why it matters: here in the northern parts of the US, we can handle it pretty well. It's within the operating range of our infrastructure. We have modern clothing. We have modern forecasting. When it happens, it doesn't last that long, and we move on. What doesn't seem to get talked about is this: if you consider distance from the arctic circle, the polar vortex that froze Texas only went a few percent further south than the ones now happen almost every year. A few percent. To my dear friends in Texas: just spend the money to winterize and then get on with your lives. It's not that much money - you can afford it. Honestly, this just reminds me of the mindset differences between the chemical companies and gas companies in Texas. All those chemical plants that surround Houston are giant rats nests of pipes because the chemical companies won't waste a drop of anything they can sell. They pull in chemical engineers from all over the country to come find ways to turn a waste product into a revenue stream. The gas companies, however, have their heads so far up their rear ends that they'd rather flare off their waste from gas pumps than bring an outsider in to help make money off it. You practically need to have been born into a gas family to work in that industry. Whatever, what I really mean is that winterization has a positive ROI, but good luck getting a gas person to see that.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  > Honestly, do we need to get more scientific than that? No, seriously - do we? Yes. Anecdata isn't science. People don't remember even the recent past accurately. We need hard data. I can't believe I have to say this on HN.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    Fortunately, there are a bunch of papers investigating this. The polar vortex is connected to a high pressure ridge off the west coast which, in warmer climates, is more likely to persist through the winter. This forces air up over the poles and then back down over the midwest and central US. Modeling is hard, but scientists do make compelling scientific claims about the relative frequency of these events in worlds with and without rising temperatures.
    - marcus_holmes 5y ago
      I get that. But the article that this article quotes, (the climate.gov one) makes the specific statement that there is no trend in the data. It also discusses how the models break both ways: half the models predict stronger polar vortices, half less. I'm firmly of the opinion that if the measurements and the models disagree, then the models are wrong. But that's probably me just being old-fashioned ;) So if the anecdata and (half) the models say that these events are more common, but the actual measured data says there's no change, then surely we can agree that The Science says there's no change?
  - falcolas 5y ago
    We do have lots of surface-level temperature and wind data. We just don't have a ton of high altitude data. And ultimately, it's the surface-level data that impacts us day-to-day - which indicates that yes, the surface becomes cold AF more frequently than before. Oh, and as an aside, recorded anecdotes are perfectly valid for use in science. Hence why we can even have science for psychology.
    - marcus_holmes 5y ago
arsenic64 5y ago
At first glance it seems like you are trying to compare the season average temperature to short lived extreme cold events. Both could be increasing at the same time.

Kon-Peki 5y ago

If you want to limit yourself to the polar vortex phenomenon, then you really just need to look at historical weather data. To claim that it is happening more frequently, you don't have to completely understand it, just observe the occurrence. In the central US, winter temperature is highly dependent on wind direction and strength. We've been measuring that for a very long time. The polar vortex is very distinct. Strong winds from the north cause a temperature drop of 30+ degrees basically overnight. It stays like that for a few days to a week, and then goes away. The day/night temperature differential is much smaller. Anecdotally, people in the upper midwest will tell you this happens more frequently than it used to. Perhaps 3 out of every 5 years, maybe? Honestly, do we need to get more scientific than that? No, seriously - do we? This is why it matters: here in the northern parts of the US, we can handle it pretty well. It's within the operating range of our infrastructure. We have modern clothing. We have modern forecasting. When it happens, it doesn't last that long, and we move on. What doesn't seem to get talked about is this: if you consider distance from the arctic circle, the polar vortex that froze Texas only went a few percent further south than the ones now happen almost every year. A few percent. To my dear friends in Texas: just spend the money to winterize and then get on with your lives. It's not that much money - you can afford it. Honestly, this just reminds me of the mindset differences between the chemical companies and gas companies in Texas. All those chemical plants that surround Houston are giant rats nests of pipes because the chemical companies won't waste a drop of anything they can sell. They pull in chemical engineers from all over the country to come find ways to turn a waste product into a revenue stream. The gas companies, however, have their heads so far up their rear ends that they'd rather flare off their waste from gas pumps than bring an outsider in to help make money off it. You practically need to have been born into a gas family to work in that industry. Whatever, what I really mean is that winterization has a positive ROI, but good luck getting a gas person to see that.

marcus_holmes 5y ago
> Honestly, do we need to get more scientific than that? No, seriously - do we? Yes. Anecdata isn't science. People don't remember even the recent past accurately. We need hard data. I can't believe I have to say this on HN.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Fortunately, there are a bunch of papers investigating this. The polar vortex is connected to a high pressure ridge off the west coast which, in warmer climates, is more likely to persist through the winter. This forces air up over the poles and then back down over the midwest and central US. Modeling is hard, but scientists do make compelling scientific claims about the relative frequency of these events in worlds with and without rising temperatures.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    I get that. But the article that this article quotes, (the climate.gov one) makes the specific statement that there is no trend in the data. It also discusses how the models break both ways: half the models predict stronger polar vortices, half less. I'm firmly of the opinion that if the measurements and the models disagree, then the models are wrong. But that's probably me just being old-fashioned ;) So if the anecdata and (half) the models say that these events are more common, but the actual measured data says there's no change, then surely we can agree that The Science says there's no change?
- falcolas 5y ago
  We do have lots of surface-level temperature and wind data. We just don't have a ton of high altitude data. And ultimately, it's the surface-level data that impacts us day-to-day - which indicates that yes, the surface becomes cold AF more frequently than before. Oh, and as an aside, recorded anecdotes are perfectly valid for use in science. Hence why we can even have science for psychology.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago

arsenic64 5y ago

At first glance it seems like you are trying to compare the season average temperature to short lived extreme cold events. Both could be increasing at the same time.