3 ms·

Speaking of which, I recently saw this: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-ipcc-actually-says-about https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-ipc

by timmg 3y ago

Speaking of which, I recently saw this: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-ipcc-actually-says-about https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-ipcc-actually-... which is kinda a review of what IPCC report says about "extreme weather". For me, this summary is a lot different than the way I see this aspect talked about in the media (and on Twitter, etc) even by climate scientists.

mrguyorama 3y ago
This article isn't great. He says "the IPCC says we won't see extreme weather until 2100.... (except for extreme heat and cold which the IPCC says is already here)" Okay? A lot of the discourse is explicitly about the heat and cold.
- Auracle 3y ago
  But every hurricane season we hear it, it’s been talked about with the Canadian wildfires, locally in Minnesota they’ve been blaming our recent droughts on it, etc. It wasn’t all that long ago that interviewed climate scientists would say that you couldn’t attribute individual events to climate change. Now they constantly do. I feel like I hear it every other time I tune in to NPR.
  - UtopiaPunk 3y ago
    I'm definitely not an expert, but my understanding is that it is impossible to point to one single event and say climate change is responsible for that event. Weather is dynamic, you know? But climate change does account for there being more events (more hurricanes, more days of record breaking temperatures, more wildfires, etc). And as someone on the west coast who now assumes there will be at least one or two weeks of miserable wildfire smoke every summer, I think that impact is worth taking seriously today.
  - tremon 3y ago
    you couldn’t attribute individual events to climate change. Now they constantly do "constantly"? It's ironic that you put these two statements together like they somehow prove your point, while you're actually undermining your own position. Here's what the climate scientists have been saying: "you can't attribute individual weather events directly to climate change. However, climate change will increase the likelihood of extreme weather events occurring". So, if the media (note, not scientists) is "constantly" talking about extreme weather events, that does seem to prove that extreme weather events are happening more often, right? Which kinda confirms what the scientists were predicting all along? It's not the individual events that prove climate change: it is the pattern of "constant" extreme weather events.

by timmg 3y ago

mrguyorama 3y ago

This article isn't great. He says "the IPCC says we won't see extreme weather until 2100.... (except for extreme heat and cold which the IPCC says is already here)" Okay? A lot of the discourse is explicitly about the heat and cold.

Auracle 3y ago
But every hurricane season we hear it, it’s been talked about with the Canadian wildfires, locally in Minnesota they’ve been blaming our recent droughts on it, etc. It wasn’t all that long ago that interviewed climate scientists would say that you couldn’t attribute individual events to climate change. Now they constantly do. I feel like I hear it every other time I tune in to NPR.
- UtopiaPunk 3y ago
  I'm definitely not an expert, but my understanding is that it is impossible to point to one single event and say climate change is responsible for that event. Weather is dynamic, you know? But climate change does account for there being more events (more hurricanes, more days of record breaking temperatures, more wildfires, etc). And as someone on the west coast who now assumes there will be at least one or two weeks of miserable wildfire smoke every summer, I think that impact is worth taking seriously today.
- tremon 3y ago
  you couldn’t attribute individual events to climate change. Now they constantly do "constantly"? It's ironic that you put these two statements together like they somehow prove your point, while you're actually undermining your own position. Here's what the climate scientists have been saying: "you can't attribute individual weather events directly to climate change. However, climate change will increase the likelihood of extreme weather events occurring". So, if the media (note, not scientists) is "constantly" talking about extreme weather events, that does seem to prove that extreme weather events are happening more often, right? Which kinda confirms what the scientists were predicting all along? It's not the individual events that prove climate change: it is the pattern of "constant" extreme weather events.