4 ms·

I find it to be problematic because it's obviously a man mad catastrophe with a very logic explanaiton, but not "eerie". I'd prefer to say: "Humans fucked up,

I find it to be problematic because it's obviously a man mad catastrophe with a very logic explanaiton, but not "eerie". I'd prefer to say: "Humans fucked up, we caused the climate to rise and fucked a bunch of rivers in Alaska over because we're greedy, stupid assholes." TL;DR Just tell it like it is.

lazide 2y ago
Except it isn’t that, necessarily, and all the things you are saying could just as easily be hyperbolic editorializing. Eerie is the exceptionally mellow thing to say. For instance, they noted it had been happening since at least ‘08 in the area - but didn’t note that it had not been happening since before then. Which I suspect means they only had aerial footage since ‘08. Or they would have said it. These kinds of things do actually happen naturally in some areas, and it could be a slight increase - or just something that happens every once in awhile in that specific river. No one actually knows, apparently, based on that article.
- travis_brooks 2y ago
  Exactly, random rivers throughout Alaska could be turning orange than eventually going back to blue for the last 10,000+ years for all we know. As the article stressed, these rivers are in the middle of nowhere so it would be hard for anybody to notice. But that story is boring, better to turn it into a menacing tale of climate change for more clicks.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Yup, it could also be new and a sign of an actual increasing problem! We can’t tell from this one data point, but as you note they need the clicks. Fear sells.
    - squircle 2y ago
      Fear sells indeed. We also have many more data points than were previously available. The problem, realistically, is discerning the signal in the noise and making out the meaning.
- dougb5 2y ago
  The paper that is the basis for the article and which it cites in the second paragraph (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01446-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01446-z) uses time series data going back to 1985 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01446-z/figures/3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01446-z/figures/3). And the study looks at a large number of streams within the Brooks Range, not a "specific river". And it makes a strong case that the changes are due to climate change-related permafrost thaw.

lazide 2y ago

Except it isn’t that, necessarily, and all the things you are saying could just as easily be hyperbolic editorializing. Eerie is the exceptionally mellow thing to say. For instance, they noted it had been happening since at least ‘08 in the area - but didn’t note that it had not been happening since before then. Which I suspect means they only had aerial footage since ‘08. Or they would have said it. These kinds of things do actually happen naturally in some areas, and it could be a slight increase - or just something that happens every once in awhile in that specific river. No one actually knows, apparently, based on that article.

travis_brooks 2y ago
Exactly, random rivers throughout Alaska could be turning orange than eventually going back to blue for the last 10,000+ years for all we know. As the article stressed, these rivers are in the middle of nowhere so it would be hard for anybody to notice. But that story is boring, better to turn it into a menacing tale of climate change for more clicks.
- lazide 2y ago
  Yup, it could also be new and a sign of an actual increasing problem! We can’t tell from this one data point, but as you note they need the clicks. Fear sells.
  - squircle 2y ago
    Fear sells indeed. We also have many more data points than were previously available. The problem, realistically, is discerning the signal in the noise and making out the meaning.
dougb5 2y ago
The paper that is the basis for the article and which it cites in the second paragraph (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01446-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01446-z) uses time series data going back to 1985 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01446-z/figures/3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01446-z/figures/3). And the study looks at a large number of streams within the Brooks Range, not a "specific river". And it makes a strong case that the changes are due to climate change-related permafrost thaw.