
A troubling idea about climate change found new evidence in its favor - daegloe
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/27/one-of-the-most-troubling-ideas-about-climate-change-just-found-new-evidence-in-its-favor/
======
jessriedel
I know nothing about this topic, but I can caution to point out that
Scientific Reports is the lowest rung of the Nature journal heirarchy. When I
published there, I was very unimpressed with the quality of the refereeing and
editing. Certainly doesn't mean the work is wrong, but laymen shouldn't
interpret this as having the same sort of seal of approval as a normal Nature
article. In my field (physics), Scientific Reports is held in similar esteem
to a run-of-the-mill specialized journal, with the added worry that the
editors are not sufficiently specialized to give the paper a hard look.

~~~
wflynny
Having reviewed several papers for Scientific Reports in the past year, it was
very similar to my experience reviewing for PLoS One. You are mandated not to
factor in the significance of the work and only to critique the methodology
and conclusions [1]. My experience reading articles there ranges from complete
junk to papers that probably just missed the mark of getting into Nature
proper.

Articles should make it more clear the distinction between Nature Publishing
Group, Nature (journal), and Scientific Reports (open access journal).
Confusion then propagates to the headlines of the articles when posted to
content aggregators, take /r/science and it's related subreddits for example.

[1]: [http://www.nature.com/srep/journal-
policies/referees#criteri...](http://www.nature.com/srep/journal-
policies/referees#criteria)

~~~
jamessb
It is particular confusing that articles in _Scientific Reports_ have URLs of
the form
[http://www.nature.com/articles/srep<id>](http://www.nature.com/articles/srep<id>)

This means that on the HN (or Reddit) front-page they are listed simply as
"(nature.com)", so it isn't immediately obvious which journal they're in.

I'm not sure whether this is what you meant by confusion propogating, so
thought I would explicitly state this.

------
baldeagle
TLDR: Global warming causes a weakened jet stream, which results in less
movement of weather patterns. Less movement makes a normal event 'extreme' by
turn rains into floods and droughts. Still highly contested.

Personally, I think it might just be confirmation bias, as the definition of
'flood' changes a lot due to urban landscape and population density.

~~~
mabbo
> urban landscape and population density.

Interestingly, flooding is made worse by _low_ density housing, like suburbs.

Forests, meadows, wetlands, they all act like sponges. They soak up recent
rainfall and release it slowly, or just keep it. Cut that down, replace it
with suburbia- concrete roads, short-grass lawns, nothing that holds much
water for long but instead does it's best to get it into a drain and then a
river system immediately.

Instead of a continuous flow that varies mildly, it's all or nothing. Bone
dry, or biblical.

Most cities have realized these problems now, but have decades of poorly-
thought-out development already in place.

~~~
maxerickson
Grass is generally treated as a permeable surface.

~~~
mabbo
After it permeates, then what? The water still has to go somewhere, and
usually it's into nearby ditches (and then streams, and then rivers). As well,
with any larger rainfall the local water table below the grass will fill up
quickly- now the water is running on the surface.

Permeation is definitely good, but having more stops before it gets there is
important to prevent floods.

(To be clear, I'm not expert on this at _all_. But I did marry one, and you
sort of absorb a lot just from conversations over dinner).

~~~
maxerickson
The point is that it is more similar to a meadow than to a parking lot.

------
woodandsteel
I have a question for the anthropogenic climate change doubters and deniers
out there.

You say either that it is certain that human activity is not having a
significant influence on the climate, or it is not certain whether or not it
is.

My question is, it there any sort of scientific evidence that might be
discovered in the future that would lead you to change your mind, and if so
what would it be? Or is you view simply fixed for now and the future?

~~~
wtvanhest
I am not a "denier", but I do struggle with the evidence I have read as most
of it has too much subjectivity or is based on meta studies where all
underlying papers are highly subjective.

What is missing from the debate is 2-3 papers that are agreed on to be the
clearest evidence that temperatures are changing due to human inputs.

Calling people 'deniers' is an ad hominen attack that doesn't prove anything,
and most importantly doesn't help change people's minds.

~~~
woodandsteel
>I am not a "denier", but I do struggle with the evidence I have read as most
of it has too much subjectivity or is based on meta studies where all
underlying papers are highly subjective.

So you would be persuaded if you thought the evidence was objective, not
subjective. What are some criteria you use for determining if evidence is
subjective or objective?

~~~
wtvanhest
I am open to evidence that clearly shows that climate change is in part or
completely caused by humans. Subjectivity would be one measure that I would
apply.

~~~
woodandsteel
I think we are using the term "subjective" differently. In your original
comment, I thought you were using the term to indicate biased thinking. Now
you seem to be meaning people's direct experience of the temperature. Or am I
misunderstanding you?

~~~
wtvanhest
You are misunderstanding.

Basically, you are commenting in circles. I am looking for, no, pleading with
you to present... is a clear and compelling case that global warming is at
least partially caused by humans. When you or anyone else presents that
evidence, I and others will apply various techniques to determine how credible
that evidence is. One of those techniques I will apply is to examine
subjectivity vs objectivity.

~~~
woodandsteel
What I am asking you to do is clarify what you mean by the terms
"subjectivity" and "objectivity". I am asking that because it is common for
people to differ as to whether a given claim is objective or subjective, and
so I would like to know how you yourself decide.

~~~
wtvanhest
Yes, what is obviously subjective to me, may be objevtive to you. We wont know
unless we look at the evidence and debate it. Why dont you start by presenting
some. I have looked and looked, but I am failing to draw causality

------
d--b
Let's just admit it: we have no clue about what's going to happen weather-
wise.

A warmer planet will have a massive impact on seas, winds, and life, at all
levels. Each effect may cause more effects or cancel other effects out. I
don't think it's we'll ever be able to make an all-encompassing model that can
assess that there will be more dramatic weather locally.

At this stage, all we can say is that the planet is globally getting warmer,
and that it's likely to continue.

~~~
throwaway5752
I'll admit you have no clue? It seems like there are some competing groups in
climate science, but so far the trend of the warming, regional precipitation,
jet stream changes, ocean ph changes, methane in warming tundra, the pattern
of polar ice melt all seem to have been pretty well predicted years or decades
ago by the most mainstream groups (that financially motivated groups have
worked hard to undercut and delegitimize).

~~~
d--b
Ok I agree, that was clearly an overstatement. I guess I am annoyed by news
outlets commenting on scientific studies that are sensational.

~~~
throwaway5752
Yeah, I think there is a pronounce deficiency on accurate and appropriate
communication on this topic on the part of media. The general pattern of
"funded a group producing scientific-enough sounding disputing theories + some
astroturf groups to loudly complain about media bias for not covering it" has
devastatingly effective in my lifetime. A sad artifact of hiring for
looks/presentation over intellect in many news outlets.

------
mainframe-mess
Idea finds evidence in its favor, isn't that backwards for a rigorous
evaluation of the evidence?

Shouldn't conclusions be drawn from all evidence?

~~~
zimablue
1\. look at data 2\. form hypothesis with associated way of testing it
(demonstrating it false) 3\. perform tests, see if hypothesis stands up

The argument I guess is whether in this example, the "finding evidence" stage
would ever have ever shown the hypothesis wrong. I guess it would have, but if
there's a criticism maybe a negative result wouldn't have gotten press?

------
blueprint
There are hundreds of big changes like this, and likely many, many more. They
must be considered together rather than independently before we can understand
the true severity of this crisis.

~~~
rybosome
Don't worry, those of us alive in a few decade will be considering all of
these things together firsthand.

------
maxfurman
Maybe this piece of evidence will be the one that finally convinces the
governments of the world to take climate change seriously. And maybe I will
wake up tomorrow with a third arm.

------
leecarraher
get me jake gyllenhaal and one of the quaid brothers... scratch that, the good
quaid brother.

~~~
leecarraher
this article pretty closely expounds the setup to the movie , day after
tomorrow starring dennis quaid and jake gyllenhaal

------
padseeker
I hate when people call it Climate Change. Thats a phrase right wing think
tanks cooked up to soften the blow of the sound of Global Warming.

No amount of evidence is going to convince Global Warming deniers. But those
who deny but also suffer from the effects will be the first ones with their
hands out asking the government for money to save to bail them out.

I'm glad the WashPo is writing these kinds of articles, but nothing is going
to convince climate 'skeptics'. Stop wasting your time trying to reason with
people who cannot be reasoned with.

~~~
johnmaguire2013
It's a little more complicated than that:
[https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-
warming.h...](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm)

~~~
padseeker
Actually its not - Frank Lutz, a GOP operative, claims to have come up with
the team 'climate change'.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b1GCZWQF-M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b1GCZWQF-M)

~~~
Cretin2
It's obvious you never even considered reading the article:

Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply
'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is
still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is
'climate change', not 'global warming'.

Lutz proposed this as a PR method during the Bush administration.

