Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Do climate models predict extreme weather?

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 223 posts

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#81

Post by xyzzyz »

foxes wrote: post #54
timmg wrote: post #5

One of the things about "extreme weather attribution" that makes me uncomfortable is the asymmetry of it. To be clear: I'm in no way an expert (or even educated) in the area. To give an example. Let's say there's a 1% chance every year that there will be a catastrophic wildfire in some particular area. Now let's say climate change increases a chance of drought in that area. Then we get a wildfire one year and the att…

This comment reads more like dismissive pedantry. What happens on the whole statistically matters more than hoping to get lucky with perhaps some local effects cancelling each other out. What is your actual point?

The point here is that "local effects cancelling each outer out" sum up to what happens statistically on the whole. You need to account for all of these.

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#82

Post by contravariant »

dpierce9 wrote: post #45
contravariant wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why in these discussions it's usually better to talk about specific statistics like 'the chance of a wildfire has gone up by 20%', or perhaps more clearly 'the average time between extreme floods has gone down from once every 100 years to once every 60' (which I find communicates the point a bit more clearly). That said personally I think that should be as far as the discussion goes, talking about a specific e…

Replace ‘extreme weather’ with ‘lung cancer’ and ‘climate change’ with ‘smoking’ to see the soundness of this reasoning.

No I stand by it, talking about cause when the effect is probabilistic is an endless quagmire that people should avoid. Trying to attribute an individual case of cancer to smoking is nigh impossible, which is part of the reason tobacco companies got away with it for so long.

Plenty of companies have gotten away with bad practices by simply demanding proof for each individual case, the earlier we recognize this as a meaningless question the better.

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#83

Post by contravariant »

xyzzyz wrote: post #77
labster wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a climatologist by education and a dabbler in politics, I think you are radically misjudging the ability of most people to have rational discussions about unwelcome statistics. If you say severe weather will increase by 20% due to climate change, people will hear that there’s an 80% chance weather will stay the same. And they say I’m just being alarmist. When I say that this storm may have been enhanced by climate…

Ah, scientists lying for the benefit of stupid masses. Worked great for public health experts over past 2 years, I'm sure it'll work great for climatologists too.

Well, either way you provide a good example of the exact problem, I suppose.

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#84

Post by dpierce9 »

sanxiyn wrote: post #65
dpierce9 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent was suggesting causal inference from general statistical evidence to particulars is impossible. You seem to be suggesting there can be no causal inference where there are no control groups. Both positions are wrong.

I am saying it is better to have control groups than not. Hopefully that is non-controversial.

That isn’t controversial. The issue is your first point, there is no control group for the Earth as a whole system. So demanding a control group as a barrier to causal reasoning about the relationship between weather and the climate is an impossible bar.

Weather is real. Weather has causes. We can and do reason about those causes all the time.

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#85

Post by stkdump »

credit_guy wrote: post #63

Looks to me Sabine made a fairly elementary mistake towards the end. She mentions 3 probability distribution curves, 2 model produced (blue and red) and one empirical (green). She forgot to mention a fourth one, the empirical-preindustrial. In any case, you'd like to be able to measure the ratio of empirical distributions, but let's say that's difficult because of data retention. So, instead of having the actual rati…

I also thought that. But on second thought I agree with her analysis. The reason that y and y' are different is the same that x and x' are different. It is a problem of lacking resolution, so it will always underestimate more on the higher value, at least if you do enough simulations to get enough samples.

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#86

Post by whiddershins »

labster wrote: post #61
contravariant wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why in these discussions it's usually better to talk about specific statistics like 'the chance of a wildfire has gone up by 20%', or perhaps more clearly 'the average time between extreme floods has gone down from once every 100 years to once every 60' (which I find communicates the point a bit more clearly). That said personally I think that should be as far as the discussion goes, talking about a specific e…

As a climatologist by education and a dabbler in politics, I think you are radically misjudging the ability of most people to have rational discussions about unwelcome statistics. If you say severe weather will increase by 20% due to climate change, people will hear that there’s an 80% chance weather will stay the same. And they say I’m just being alarmist. When I say that this storm may have been enhanced by climate…

In my view, the problem with the noble lie, which you are engaging in, is that it has been an unmitigated disaster with regards to Covid messaging.

As it became obvious some officials were willing to lie, this opened the door to many people having no idea who to trust.

I believe public trust in leaders and institutions is at an incredible low, and I’m not sure how it can be repaired.

Regardless of whether you think people are capable of nuance, most people have people in their circle who they trust and do have that capacity. Meanwhile, keeping secrets on the internet is very hard.

I think a much better strategy is to explain honestly and with nuance, and hope that this will maintain your credibility in the face of an army of internet researchers who will probably do more to shape average people’s conception than you can ever hope to do directly.

I would say, please don’t lie.

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#87

Post by sanxiyn »

refurb wrote: post #31
nabla9 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. Climate models model and simulate physical and chemical condition on Earth. Modellers don't know what they say beforehand. Offhandedly portraying scientists and researchers as dishonest and conspirators in every opportunity possible seems the default here.

Models are constantly tweaked to make them more accurate. How do you do that without looking at output and then going back to tweak it?

I will treat this as a genuine question. This is a complex topic. You could start by reading "The Art and Science of Climate Model Tuning".

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/98/3/bams-d-...

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#88

Post by Breazy »

labster wrote: post #61
contravariant wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why in these discussions it's usually better to talk about specific statistics like 'the chance of a wildfire has gone up by 20%', or perhaps more clearly 'the average time between extreme floods has gone down from once every 100 years to once every 60' (which I find communicates the point a bit more clearly). That said personally I think that should be as far as the discussion goes, talking about a specific e…

As a climatologist by education and a dabbler in politics, I think you are radically misjudging the ability of most people to have rational discussions about unwelcome statistics. If you say severe weather will increase by 20% due to climate change, people will hear that there’s an 80% chance weather will stay the same. And they say I’m just being alarmist. When I say that this storm may have been enhanced by climate…

People are better at sniffing out lies than they are at sniffing out whatever good intentions might have motivated those lies.

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#89

Post by enkid »

whiddershins wrote: post #86
labster wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a climatologist by education and a dabbler in politics, I think you are radically misjudging the ability of most people to have rational discussions about unwelcome statistics. If you say severe weather will increase by 20% due to climate change, people will hear that there’s an 80% chance weather will stay the same. And they say I’m just being alarmist. When I say that this storm may have been enhanced by climate…

In my view, the problem with the noble lie, which you are engaging in, is that it has been an unmitigated disaster with regards to Covid messaging. As it became obvious some officials were willing to lie, this opened the door to many people having no idea who to trust. I believe public trust in leaders and institutions is at an incredible low, and I’m not sure how it can be repaired. Regardless of whether you think p…

Can you give a specific example of what you are talking about? What noble lies were being told about COVID? I heard a lot of "we don't knows, but here is the best bet" which were not lies, but all of the lies I heard absolutely were not noble in that they were not for the public's best interest, but rather for the best interest of the individual saying them.

Re: Do climate models predict extreme weather?

#90

Post by chasd00 »

labster wrote: post #61
contravariant wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why in these discussions it's usually better to talk about specific statistics like 'the chance of a wildfire has gone up by 20%', or perhaps more clearly 'the average time between extreme floods has gone down from once every 100 years to once every 60' (which I find communicates the point a bit more clearly). That said personally I think that should be as far as the discussion goes, talking about a specific e…

As a climatologist by education and a dabbler in politics, I think you are radically misjudging the ability of most people to have rational discussions about unwelcome statistics. If you say severe weather will increase by 20% due to climate change, people will hear that there’s an 80% chance weather will stay the same. And they say I’m just being alarmist. When I say that this storm may have been enhanced by climate…

Once already suspicious people find out you’re lying they will never believe you again.
Post reply on HN