3 ms·

Except that none of what you said is true. https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/extreme-summer-weather-patterns-have-tripled-1950s https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news

Except that none of what you said is true. https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/extreme-summer-weather-patterns-have-tripled-1950s https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/extreme-summer-weather-patt... https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2504482122 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2504482122 Why not at least do an internet search first?

timr 1y ago
Internet searches don't help you if you can't understand the basics of what you're reading. 1) The paper is very clear that it's talking about changes over a 50 year period, which is more than my entire life. It's certainly not something you're going to use to explain a particular hot day this year, or even an imagined increase in hot summer days over the past decade. In my lifetime, the regression line of their count of annual "QRA events" has gone from a bit less than 2, to a bit more than 2. 2) The phenomena discussed in the paper is described as a particular spectral decomposition pattern in the global upper atmosphere [1], not a frequency measurement of heat events. The pattern may be related to the weather, but like everything else in climate science, you can't use it to explain the outcome on a particular day. And it certainly doesn't explain the existence of what normal people call "hot summer days", which have, indeed, existed forever. [1] Specifically: "A QRA event is counted as such if high-amplitude, quasi-stationary planetary waves of wave numbers 6, 7, or 8 are found in the atmospheric wind field in ERA5 data, and at the same time certain resonance conditions are met". That's what the paper is about. They counted those, and plotted them in Figure 1: https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.2504482122/asset/22f395e6-de83-4c12-8b58-45982929ba50/assets/images/large/pnas.2504482122fig01.jpg https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.2504482122/asset/22f39...
- femiagbabiaka 1y ago
  Wait, so are frequent heat dome events not real and just summer? Or not? That was the claim you made. Frequency of events happens because of subsequent individual events... I guess the second or third time in a year we see heat domes is the only appropriate time to bring it up? Climate change is one of the only topics where people choose to be so pedantic, and frankly unnecessarily insulting.
  - timr 1y ago
    > Wait, so are frequent heat dome events not real and just summer? Or not? That was the claim you made. No, that isn't what I said. Here is what I said: > There have been "heat dome events" every year I've been alive. We just didn't call them that, because we used to call this phenomenon "summer". I don't know how you get to "heat dome events aren't real" from that. They're real. They're also part of summer, but the terminology is new. The paper you cited, in fact, shows that they go back 50+ years. They're just slightly more frequent now. > I guess the second or third time in a year we see heat domes is the only appropriate time to bring it up? Again, you should actually look at the paper -- or just the first figure. I linked to it for you, so it couldn't be easier. You will see these events happening 4+ times a year going back into the 1950s. We're talking about a very subtle historical change, here.

timr 1y ago

Internet searches don't help you if you can't understand the basics of what you're reading. 1) The paper is very clear that it's talking about changes over a 50 year period, which is more than my entire life. It's certainly not something you're going to use to explain a particular hot day this year, or even an imagined increase in hot summer days over the past decade. In my lifetime, the regression line of their count of annual "QRA events" has gone from a bit less than 2, to a bit more than 2. 2) The phenomena discussed in the paper is described as a particular spectral decomposition pattern in the global upper atmosphere [1], not a frequency measurement of heat events. The pattern may be related to the weather, but like everything else in climate science, you can't use it to explain the outcome on a particular day. And it certainly doesn't explain the existence of what normal people call "hot summer days", which have, indeed, existed forever. [1] Specifically: "A QRA event is counted as such if high-amplitude, quasi-stationary planetary waves of wave numbers 6, 7, or 8 are found in the atmospheric wind field in ERA5 data, and at the same time certain resonance conditions are met". That's what the paper is about. They counted those, and plotted them in Figure 1: https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.2504482122/asset/22f395e6-de83-4c12-8b58-45982929ba50/assets/images/large/pnas.2504482122fig01.jpg https://www.pnas.org/cms/10.1073/pnas.2504482122/asset/22f39...

femiagbabiaka 1y ago
Wait, so are frequent heat dome events not real and just summer? Or not? That was the claim you made. Frequency of events happens because of subsequent individual events... I guess the second or third time in a year we see heat domes is the only appropriate time to bring it up? Climate change is one of the only topics where people choose to be so pedantic, and frankly unnecessarily insulting.
- timr 1y ago
  > Wait, so are frequent heat dome events not real and just summer? Or not? That was the claim you made. No, that isn't what I said. Here is what I said: > There have been "heat dome events" every year I've been alive. We just didn't call them that, because we used to call this phenomenon "summer". I don't know how you get to "heat dome events aren't real" from that. They're real. They're also part of summer, but the terminology is new. The paper you cited, in fact, shows that they go back 50+ years. They're just slightly more frequent now. > I guess the second or third time in a year we see heat domes is the only appropriate time to bring it up? Again, you should actually look at the paper -- or just the first figure. I linked to it for you, so it couldn't be easier. You will see these events happening 4+ times a year going back into the 1950s. We're talking about a very subtle historical change, here.