Climate change literally just burnt down a town.
It's here folks, the moment they warned us about for a generation.
It's here folks, the moment they warned us about for a generation.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Climate change isn't proven or disproven or cause of a singular fire or extreme weather event, by definition it's about the change of the overall climate where more such events may occur than normal (but they don't come wrapped with a bow and a note saying "love: climate change"). This is another piece of evidence towards that aggregate but not uniquely identifiable as only being possible because of climate change.
"by definition it's about the change of the overall climate where more such events may occur than normal (but they don't come wrapped with a bow and a note saying "love: climate change"). This is another piece of evidence towards that aggregate but not uniquely identifiable as only being possible because of climate change."
There is no way to say climate change caused this particular town to burn down, just that climate change has caused more towns to burn down than average.
What particularly is it you find yourself disagreeing with in my response?
Regardless "# of HN commentors disagreeing with you" probably isn't a good measure of not being correct or a good goal post to monitor. Best to assume it's exceedingly, exceptionally (impossibly?), rare you ever have the fully correct picture and you have keep the understanding you'll need to grow your view with new data as you discuss. Even if you have 50 straight responses that agree someone will agree but add something you hadn't considered.
* Vote for climate leaders
* Vote local, too. Change needs to be bottom-up just as much as top-down.
eg. Building more safe, separated bike lanes is a simple and relatively cheap thing for municipalities to do. It increases cycling ridership, helps take cars off the road, lowering CO2 emissions.
Waiting for a city to get rocked, population 30,000 or greater
Cliff Mass, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington and chief scientist of the Northwest Modeling Consortium mentioned in his recent blog posts that the heat wave was a perfect storm of factors like compression from sinking air coming off the West slopes of the Cascades. He also specifically noted (https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/06/incredible-temperatur...):
> Is global warming contributing to this heatwave? The answer is certainly yes. Would we have had a record heatwave without global warming. The answer is yes as well.
He also said in the same article:
> Let me end with the golden rule of temperature extremes: the bigger the temperature extreme the SMALLER the contribution of global warming. Think about that.
I think this event has yet to be fully explored and scientifically analyzed, but currently it looks like this is a rare 1 in 1000 years event that could have occurred with or without climate change. In the past we would have written this event off as an anomaly, a record setting event that stands out but isn't the norm. But now it seems like people are very quick to shout 'climate change' for literally any kind of weather anomaly and I am trying to understand why.
This frustrates me because "global warming" refers to the average temperature sure, but it is really only useful as a measure of the total _energy_ in the atmosphere. More energy = more extreme _events_, such as this one. Whereas the way I read his point seems to be making the claim that because the temperature of the event is further from the normal temperature, that is less about global warming. Hence why "climate change" is a more accurate phrase.
> I think this event has yet to be fully explored and scientifically analyzed, but currently it looks like this is a rare 1 in 1000 years event that could have occurred with or without climate change. In the past we would have written this event off as an anomaly, a record setting event that stands out but isn't the norm. But now it seems like people are very quick to shout 'climate change' for literally any kind of weather anomaly and I am trying to understand why.
Because there seem to more and more* of these "rare 1 in 1000 years" events. The increased frequency is why people shout 'climate change'.
* it could just be increased reporting in our highly connected world, but I don't think so.
Here's an example of why it's a bad line to go down:
> There's no conclusive evidence God exists or not, so why not choose the side that is more likely to save your soul?
Yes, completely agreed! Now we just have to figure out which side that is.
Put another way, you'll go a long way towards wisdom when you realize both sides of most arguments believe they are arguing for what is genuinely the best option, including what will protect humanity.
I'm not a client change denier, but it's silly to argue "why don't you just do what is clearly right?" in pretty much any disagreement.
Now, I personally know which side I trust more. However, if the lens is "who is lining their pockets" well, I am not sure that's really enough.
I admittedly haven't done a statistical analysis, but aren't these "anomalies" happening significantly more frequently than before?
I'm not surprised. I've been saying this for years, along with many people who understood that climate was a chaotic system. People just do not understand what's happening.