Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linking Drought and Climate Change: Difficult To Do

Posted by samzenpus on from the connecting-the-dots dept.

Geoffrey.landis writes An article about the current California drought on 538 points out that even though global climate warming may exacerbate droughts, it's nearly impossible to attribute any particular drought to climate warming: "The complex, dynamic nature of our atmosphere and oceans makes it extremely difficult to link any particular weather event to climate change. That's because of the intermingling of natural variations with human-caused ones." They also cite a Nature editorial pointing out the same thing about extreme weather.

4 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Isn't this something everyone already knew, radical warmists and evil deniers alike?

    1. Re:Duh. by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Isn't this something everyone already knew, radical warmists and evil deniers alike?

      Maybe, but statistical thinking doesn't come naturally. People cheat at gambling by loading dice so that they come up snake eyes (say) 1 in 20 throws. They get away with it because even if you know the dice are loaded there is no way to link any particular snake eye event to the hidden weights. The victims simply subscribe it to luck, but the longer you play the more suspicious they will become of your "lucky streak". Same deal with storms, floods, and droughts.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  2. Why is this hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    "Anthropogenic global non-constant climate warming frenzy change" has ever been a faith-based undertaking.

    Just keep making it up as you go, you lying sacks.

  3. Re:10 years ago on Slashdot by NoMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You seem to have a low threshold for disagreement, if you consider pointing out that a site with multiple anti-Obama, anti-government, and anti-Democrat pop-ups, advertisements, and articles might be a little bit biased to be "attack[ing] the messenger". Adding a little melodramatic sigh afterwards doesn't bolster your argument.

    Apart from that, you still seem a little confused between 'local' vs 'global', and 'weather' vs 'climate' - not to mention how to interpret both graphs and what I wrote. And you vastly underestimate the amount, quality, and coverage of storm data available since at least the 1950's (if not much earlier).

    But, y'know, if you want to come back with an understanding of global climate rather than a pre-packaged anecdote-based opinion of one aspect of local weather, I'm sure you'll find someone to discuss it with you.

    --
    What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?