4 ms·

Not quite on-topic, but... > One factor driving the disease’s northward creep may be climate change... Climate modeling suggests this trend will continue. Eit

by lainga 3y ago

Not quite on-topic, but... > One factor driving the disease’s northward creep may be climate change... Climate modeling suggests this trend will continue. Either their circulation models include an epidemiology module, or they are suggesting the (extraordinary and worthy of separate publication) finding that climate change may continue to occur in the future...?

krisoft 3y ago
> or they are suggesting the (extraordinary and worthy of separate publication) finding that climate change may continue to occur in the future...? What is extraordinary about that? The predictions obviously have large error bars, but almost all of them predicts that yes the climate will continue to change in the future.
- lainga 3y ago
  In the spirit of Timothy Dexter I provide the audience with some markers that they may pepper and salt as they please /s /s /s
  - krisoft 3y ago
    Try to be less cryptic and write what you mean?
sophacles 3y ago
It's really not a big stretch. We know that: * this disease is born by insects * the insects don't live in places that get too cold for them * we witness the insects spreading into places that used to be too cold for them as the average temperature changes. I don't see how "if the models are right and it gets warmer then the facts above will continue to apply in those areas" is somehow shocking or even dubious. Over the summer we saw new cases of malaria contracted in the US too, for the same reasons: it got warm enough in parts of the south to support the right type of mosquito.
- lainga 3y ago
  Please see my other comment. I will explain my original comment. In the first case, climate models don't usually do that. You couple them to biological models that predict habitat expansion or contraction. (I think this is probably what the authors meant.) In the second case, well, it's not exactly an extraordinary finding, which would make it absurd to put in the article except in the spirit of Carthago delenda est. Being involved in climate discourse does not have to be a humourless exercise. P.S. non-anthropogenic biology does play a part in climate models (and the climate!), but over a much, much longer timescale. Think chalk cliffs and the Great Oxygenation Event.

by lainga 3y ago

krisoft 3y ago

> or they are suggesting the (extraordinary and worthy of separate publication) finding that climate change may continue to occur in the future...? What is extraordinary about that? The predictions obviously have large error bars, but almost all of them predicts that yes the climate will continue to change in the future.

lainga 3y ago
In the spirit of Timothy Dexter I provide the audience with some markers that they may pepper and salt as they please /s /s /s
- krisoft 3y ago
  Try to be less cryptic and write what you mean?

sophacles 3y ago

It's really not a big stretch. We know that: * this disease is born by insects * the insects don't live in places that get too cold for them * we witness the insects spreading into places that used to be too cold for them as the average temperature changes. I don't see how "if the models are right and it gets warmer then the facts above will continue to apply in those areas" is somehow shocking or even dubious. Over the summer we saw new cases of malaria contracted in the US too, for the same reasons: it got warm enough in parts of the south to support the right type of mosquito.

lainga 3y ago
Please see my other comment. I will explain my original comment. In the first case, climate models don't usually do that. You couple them to biological models that predict habitat expansion or contraction. (I think this is probably what the authors meant.) In the second case, well, it's not exactly an extraordinary finding, which would make it absurd to put in the article except in the spirit of Carthago delenda est. Being involved in climate discourse does not have to be a humourless exercise. P.S. non-anthropogenic biology does play a part in climate models (and the climate!), but over a much, much longer timescale. Think chalk cliffs and the Great Oxygenation Event.