There are very clear correlations. The scientists aren't pulling the association out of thin air, it's observed. We have satellites that watch the atmospheric currents and temperature fluctuations, how those drag different temperatures of air to different areas, and back engineer why things are moving the way they are.
The primary example is the weakening of the Arctic air currents causing the cold air to escape. The Arctic then warms faster, and causes short-lived, dramatic drops in temperature in the north Midwest.
We do similar back-engineering with the dry spells on the west coast.
The largest computers in the world are routinely used to simulate the weather and predict changes climate change will cause, and we are getting more and more accurate every year.
If the modeling is this good and this accurate, it would be helpful if consensus predictions were published in a prominent outlet that is easy for the public to consume and compare against empirical data as it comes in. I think this is particularly true if you can make reliable predictions about specific regions.
This would help build credibility. Right now, it seems like many are quick to attribute any kind of unfortunate weather to climate change, even if it leads to ultimately contradictory claims.
For example, a few months ago Scott Alexander posed the question of whether climate change could reduce the number of cold-related deaths. In the comments for that article (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28960588), many countered by saying that climate change is actually predicted to make winters colder on average, and/or increase the number of extreme cold weather events. It was no help that you can find news articles from prominent outlets that appear to make contradictory claims on this point (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28963655).
It took a fair amount of digging into IPCC reports to determine that this appears to be incorrect; the consensus prediction is warming winters (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28963266). But in the thread we couldn't come to agreement on whether the consensus view predicts more or fewer extreme cold events.
How long have those satellites been watching? It can't be all that long?
It seems to me scientists still find unexpected things.
I think when people first tried to model the three body problem, the planets would just fall apart. But in reality they don't, so they knew they had to try harder. I wonder if many doomsday models are like the three body models that fell apart. And newspapers go "scientists show that earth could float off into space soon".
Thank you, I appreciate the discussion rather than downvoting.
Do you think that a weakening current with more water in the atmosphere (atmospheric rivers) will lead to more or less snowfall? Not being sarcastic, it’s just that if both things are true it would indicate that the prediction in this article is wrong.
Unrelated, what are your thoughts on the carboniferous period with 800ppm CO2 and 0 degrees difference in average temp. (This is according to Wikipedia, I can appreciate if the answer is Wikipedia is not reliable on this matter)
> Do you think that a weakening current with more water in the atmosphere (atmospheric rivers) will lead to more or less snowfall? Not being sarcastic, it’s just that if both things are true it would indicate that the prediction in this article is wrong.
Depends on where you are. The center of Africa is all desert. If they start getting a lot of rain, and the PNW gets less, the overall amount of rain falling can increase while the west coast of the US falls apart. Weather isn't uniform, and the climate in various locations is going to change. Some places will likely change for the better while others change for the worse. The issue there is that the places that are great now, but will be worse have a lot more people living in them than the places that are bad now and will get better.
> Unrelated, what are your thoughts on the carboniferous period with 800ppm CO2 and 0 degrees difference in average temp.
I don't know much about it. A good way to frame climate stuff in general: Normally things sit at some equilibrium and experiences a slow change to some new equilibrium due to some natural process. Like the most recent ice age ending. The reason man made climate change specifically is dangerous is we can change one aspect of the current equilibrium faster than all the factors can move to match it. That's why you'll hear people say "We could go carbon neutral today and the Earth will continue warming for decades." It's because we are changing one variable of the equation faster than the others can adjust, which has only happened historically during massive die-offs and extinction events. If we want from 200ppm to 600ppm over 200k years, the consequences would likely be pretty much unnoticed for most animal species. Doing it in 100, not so much.
The primary example is the weakening of the Arctic air currents causing the cold air to escape. The Arctic then warms faster, and causes short-lived, dramatic drops in temperature in the north Midwest.
We do similar back-engineering with the dry spells on the west coast.
The largest computers in the world are routinely used to simulate the weather and predict changes climate change will cause, and we are getting more and more accurate every year.