https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/climate/climate-change-record-heat.html

On 7/6/2023 4:52 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/climate/climate-change-record-heat.html
>
>
>

The article attributes the current heat wave both to global warming from emissions, and an unusually strong persistent El Nino (there is no suggestion that the strong and long El Nino is caused by global warming). As always you simply cannot attribute the weather on a particular day or week to global warming. You have to look at the longer term, which the chart does, but the verbiage doesn't.

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:15:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 7/6/2023 4:52 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/climate/climate-change-record-heat.html
>
> The article attributes the current heat wave both to global warming from emissions,
> and an unusually strong persistent El Nino (there is no suggestion that the strong
> and long El Nino is caused by global warming). As always you simply cannot
> attribute the weather on a particular day or week to global warming. You have
> to look at the longer term, which the chart does, but the verbiage doesn't.

You have unreasonable expectations. Newspaper
articles are not scientific research papers.

dk

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 4:15:22 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> As always you simply cannot attribute the weather on a particular day or week to global warming.

How many days of record-breaking overall temperatures would it take for you to attribute it to climate change? We're at thee and counting, and not even at peak summer. If it is the hottest El Niño ever, you can't necessarily pin it entirely on that. Sadly the evidence suggests that warming is happening to a greater degree and faster than many people expected. Whether you are right or not in this particular case, the time is likely coming soon where arguments like this will look grotesquely misguided.

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:01:27 PM UTC-7, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 4:15:22 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >
> > As always you simply cannot attribute the weather
> > on a particular day or week to global warming.
>
> How many days of record-breaking overall temperatures
> would it take for you to attribute it to climate change?
> We're at thee and counting, and not even at peak summer.
> If it is the hottest El Niño ever, you can't necessarily pin it
> entirely on that. Sadly the evidence suggests that warming
> is happening to a greater degree and faster than many people
> expected. Whether you are right or not in this particular case,
> the time is likely coming soon where arguments like this will
> look grotesquely misguided.

Frank's understanding of "science" appears to be that
"science" equates to "economics", nothing else matters.
Hayek never wrote about "global warning", therefore no
such thing is even conceivable.

dk

On 7/7/2023 4:01 PM, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 4:15:22 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>> As always you simply cannot attribute the weather on a particular day or week to global warming.
>
> How many days of record-breaking overall temperatures would it take for you to attribute it to climate change? We're at thee and counting, and not even at peak summer.

I'm not denying man-made global warming. What I said, in other words, is you need statistical analysis to determine it. I'm also not say that analysis hasn't been done. I simply you look at couple of hot days or even weeks to make that determination. In a particular heat wave, you can not say this is because of global warming. Not counting this year the summer of 1980 was the hottest in the U.S. Global warming has had a lot of time to break that record but hasn't. Do you want to conclude there was global cooling because to 1980 was hotter then 1990 to 2000? No.

If it is the hottest El Niño ever, you can't necessarily pin it entirely on that. Sadly the evidence suggests that warming is happening to a greater degree and faster than many people expected. Whether you are right or not in this particular case, the time is likely coming soon where arguments like this will look grotesquely misguided.
>
I hope my explanation above satisfies you. It is not about being right or wrong in a particular case. It is about trend.

On 7/7/2023 4:08 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:01:27 PM UTC-7, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 4:15:22 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>
>>> As always you simply cannot attribute the weather
>>> on a particular day or week to global warming.
>>
>> How many days of record-breaking overall temperatures
>> would it take for you to attribute it to climate change?
>> We're at thee and counting, and not even at peak summer.
>> If it is the hottest El Niño ever, you can't necessarily pin it
>> entirely on that. Sadly the evidence suggests that warming
>> is happening to a greater degree and faster than many people
>> expected. Whether you are right or not in this particular case,
>> the time is likely coming soon where arguments like this will
>> look grotesquely misguided.
>
> Frank's understanding of "science" appears to be that
> "science" equates to "economics", nothing else matters.
> Hayek never wrote about "global warning", therefore no
> such thing is even conceivable.
>
> dk

I don't understand why you say that. What i said has nothing, as in zero, to do with economics. It's about statistics. And what I said was correct.

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:37:56 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 7/7/2023 4:08 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:01:27 PM UTC-7, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 4:15:22 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>
> >>> As always you simply cannot attribute the weather
> >>> on a particular day or week to global warming.
> >>
> >> How many days of record-breaking overall temperatures
> >> would it take for you to attribute it to climate change?
> >> We're at thee and counting, and not even at peak summer.
> >> If it is the hottest El Niño ever, you can't necessarily pin it
> >> entirely on that. Sadly the evidence suggests that warming
> >> is happening to a greater degree and faster than many people
> >> expected. Whether you are right or not in this particular case,
> >> the time is likely coming soon where arguments like this will
> >> look grotesquely misguided.
> >
> > Frank's understanding of "science" appears to be that
> > "science" equates to "economics", nothing else matters.
> > Hayek never wrote about "global warning", therefore no
> > such thing is even conceivable.
>
> I don't understand why you say that. What i said has
> nothing, as in zero, to do with economics. It's about
> statistics. And what I said was correct.

You need to learn that long term physical processes
are not governed by "statistics". The warming trend
is exceedingly well documented and understood.

Statistical methods are useful for analysing and
understanding phenomena whose underlying
causes and relationships are not known. This
is definitely not the case for global warming.

dk

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:51:05 PM UTC-7, Dan Koren wrote:
>
> You need to learn that long term physical processes
> are not governed by "statistics". The warming trend
> is exceedingly well documented and understood.
>
> Statistical methods are useful for analysing and
> understanding phenomena whose underlying
> causes and relationships are not known. This
> is definitely not the case for global warming.

https://www.ft.com/content/63da78e8-679d-4234-87c8-6be07a4b47a8

On 7/7/2023 4:51 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:37:56 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 7/7/2023 4:08 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:01:27 PM UTC-7, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 4:15:22 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As always you simply cannot attribute the weather
>>>>> on a particular day or week to global warming.
>>>>
>>>> How many days of record-breaking overall temperatures
>>>> would it take for you to attribute it to climate change?
>>>> We're at thee and counting, and not even at peak summer.
>>>> If it is the hottest El Niño ever, you can't necessarily pin it
>>>> entirely on that. Sadly the evidence suggests that warming
>>>> is happening to a greater degree and faster than many people
>>>> expected. Whether you are right or not in this particular case,
>>>> the time is likely coming soon where arguments like this will
>>>> look grotesquely misguided.
>>>
>>> Frank's understanding of "science" appears to be that
>>> "science" equates to "economics", nothing else matters.
>>> Hayek never wrote about "global warning", therefore no
>>> such thing is even conceivable.
>>
>> I don't understand why you say that. What i said has
>> nothing, as in zero, to do with economics. It's about
>> statistics. And what I said was correct.
>
> You need to learn that long term physical processes
> are not governed by "statistics". The warming trend
> is exceedingly well documented and understood.
>
JFC, the warming trend is document via statistical analysis.

> Statistical methods are useful for analysing and
> understanding phenomena whose underlying
> causes and relationships are not known. This
> is definitely not the case for global warming.
>
> dk

Bull.

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 3:12:35 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 7/7/2023 4:51 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:37:56 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> >> On 7/7/2023 4:08 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:01:27 PM UTC-7, mswd...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 4:15:22 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As always you simply cannot attribute the weather
> >>>>> on a particular day or week to global warming.
> >>>>
> >>>> How many days of record-breaking overall temperatures
> >>>> would it take for you to attribute it to climate change?
> >>>> We're at thee and counting, and not even at peak summer.
> >>>> If it is the hottest El Niño ever, you can't necessarily pin it
> >>>> entirely on that. Sadly the evidence suggests that warming
> >>>> is happening to a greater degree and faster than many people
> >>>> expected. Whether you are right or not in this particular case,
> >>>> the time is likely coming soon where arguments like this will
> >>>> look grotesquely misguided.
> >>>
> >>> Frank's understanding of "science" appears to be that
> >>> "science" equates to "economics", nothing else matters.
> >>> Hayek never wrote about "global warning", therefore no
> >>> such thing is even conceivable.
> >>
> >> I don't understand why you say that. What i said has
> >> nothing, as in zero, to do with economics. It's about
> >> statistics. And what I said was correct.
> >
> > You need to learn that long term physical processes
> > are not governed by "statistics". The warming trend
> > is exceedingly well documented and understood.
> >
> JFC, the warming trend is document via statistical analysis.
> > Statistical methods are useful for analysing and
> > understanding phenomena whose underlying
> > causes and relationships are not known. This
> > is definitely not the case for global warming.
>
> Bull.

Shit.

dk

On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 3:36:54 PM UTC-5, Frank Berger wrote:
> I'm not denying man-made global warming. What I said, in other words, is you need statistical analysis to determine it. I'm also not say that analysis hasn't been done. I simply you look at couple of hot days or even weeks to make that determination. In a particular heat wave, you can not say this is because of global warming. Not counting this year the summer of 1980 was the hottest in the U.S. Global warming has had a lot of time to break that record but hasn't. Do you want to conclude there was global cooling because to 1980 was hotter then 1990 to 2000? No.

Fair enough, thank you. I'm sorry if my comments before were mistakenly pointed. Coincidentally, here's a popular press statistical analysis.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/07/08/earth-hottest-years-thousands-climate/