3 ms·
"Directly" is practically meaningless when discussing cause and effect in a system as complex as the global climate. But there is ample evidence that arctic war
by hyperbovine 12y ago
"Directly" is practically meaningless when discussing cause and effect in a system as complex as the global climate. But there is ample evidence that arctic warming, for example, can profoundly alter circulation patterns in the upper atmosphere, which lead to extreme weather events in more temperate regions (http://skepticalscience.com/jetstream-guide.html http://skepticalscience.com/jetstream-guide.html). Personally, it's a lot easier for me to buy that the climate has altered than that I'm witnessing a true once-in-25000-years weather event.
- btilly 12y agoThe jet stream, being chaotic, can be affected by anything. That said, the locations of the Hadley cells changes depending on how much heat is stored in the system, and adjustments to this is part of the whole El Niño, La Niña cycle. As you increase the rate of energy storage, this results in various chaotic changes, that can increase extreme events. But the real problem with the rarity of the event is that you arrive at that figure by a probability model assuming independent storms, probably with a Poisson model for frequency. However storms are not actually independent events. If you have a stable pattern that results in many storms following the same track to Boston, the odds of an extreme event are way higher than the naive probability model would have suggested.
- hyperbovine 12y agoAgreed, but the more problematic assumption is that the Poisson rate function is time homogeneous is what I'm saying.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]