If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

Except there hasn't been an "increase in frequency and intensity". Pointing to Harvey and Irma is an example of recency bias.

Except there has, which you go on to admit but try to downplay. Harvey and Irma are anomalies, and we can't point to them as proof or even convincing evidence by themselves. I know that. But this is the information on general Atlantic activity:

There has been a substantial increase in most measures of Atlantic hurricane activity since the early 1980s, the period during which high-quality satellite data are available. These include measures of intensity, frequency, and duration as well as the number of strongest (Category 4 and 5) storms. The ability to assess longer-term trends in hurricane activity is limited by the quality of available data. The historic record of Atlantic hurricanes dates back to the mid-1800s, and indicates other decades of high activity. However, there is considerable uncertainty in the record prior to the satellite era (early 1970s), and the further back in time one goes, the more uncertain the record becomes.

However, not all of those hurricanes have made landfall or have directly affected the United States, which you also admit. Climate change is a global phenomenon, and their will be disparities across the globe.

Changes in the average length and positions of Atlantic storm tracks are also associated with regional climate variability. The locations and frequency of storms striking land have been argued to vary in opposing ways than basin-wide frequency. For example, fewer storms have been observed to strike land during warmer years even though overall activity is higher than average, which may help to explain the lack of any clear trend in landfall frequency along the U.S. eastern and Gulf coasts. Climate models also project changes in hurricane tracks and where they strike land. The specific characteristics of the changes are being actively studied.

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes

(see the actual article for citations)

It seems to me that you make a point or rejecting the argument outright, then concede minor elements of (in your opinion) minor consequence. I'm not even making a political argument about the approach to climate change, I'm simply citing an article (the one from Slate, I mean) that asks an important question: will Harvey and Irma provide a narrative of explicitly domestic destruction that finally brings the message of climate change close enough to home that Americans might actually start caring about it?

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/09/04/guns-germs-and-steel-revisited/

Seems like a misapplication of the notion of "intelligence."

 

[Dak]

If a 3pt increase on the ACE in the last 10 years is "substantial", I guess you can hang your hat on that.

From the first citation (#14) in your link supposedly supporting the statement

"There has been a substantial increase in most measures of Atlantic hurricane activity since the early 1980s, the period during which high-quality satellite data are available. These include measures of intensity, frequency, and duration as well as the number of strongest (Category 4 and 5) storms."

https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/f03b40a2-9d89-4aa9-adb8-dd21d7a95b52

Compiling the activity over all seven TC basins,the 2011 season (2010/11 in the Southern Hemisphere) saw a well-below-average (1981–2010 base period) number of named storms (NS; wind speeds " 34 kts or 17.5 m s-1) and hurricanes/
typhoons/cyclones (HTC; wind speeds " 64 kts or 32.9 m s-1) and an above-average number of major HTCs (wind speeds "
96 kts or 49.4 m s-1). Globally, 74 named storms3 developed during the 2011 season (global average is 89), with 38 becoming
HTCs (global average is 44). Of these, 22 (compared to 26 in 2006, 18 in 2007, 20 in 2008, 16 in 2009, and 22 in
2010) attained major/intense status (global average is 19). Therefore, while the overall NS count was wellbelow
average, the number of major/intense storms was above the IBTrACS global average. On the whole, while global tropical cyclone activity
was again below normal in 2011, it was higher than in 2010, which set the record for the lowest number of global TCs since the start of the satellite era. There were no clear-cut Category 5 systems during the year, an unusual occurrence, with the year’s most intense
systems: (1) Adrian, Dora, Eugene, Hilary, and Kenneth in the Northeast Pacific; (2) Ophelia in the North Atlantic; (3) Nanmadol, Songda, and Muifa in the Northwest Pacific; and (4) Yasi in the Australian region, all peaking at Category 44.

The only basin which had substantially abovenormal activity in 2011 was the North Atlantic, where
elevated TC activity is a typical response to La Niña has been seen in 12 of the last 17 seasons since 1995.
Conversely, the South Indian, North Indian, and Northeast Pacific basins experienced well-belownormal
TC numbers (although the Northeast Pacific had an above-normal average number of hurricanes
and major hurricanes). Part of the explanation for the low global number of tropical cyclones was that
the characteristic La Niña boost to numbers in the Australian region, which would normally offset La
Niña-induced deficits in many other hurricane regions, was absent in 2011, with both the Australian
region and the Southwest Pacific basins experiencing near-normal activity.

When the first citation not only doesn't provide explicit support for the website statement, it undermines the general thesis by A. placing the blame on La Nina, and B. Pointing out total global TC was down for the time period reviewed in the citation. Another one of the citations is about modeling, which doesn't support empirical claims. Such easily determined shoddy citations (easily as in one doesn't need expert understanding of technical language in the field) doesn't lend any credence to climate alarmism.

 

[Einherjar86]

A. The general thesis is a general thesis. There's no specific evidence for that specific comment, otherwise it wouldn't be a general thesis. It's an extrapolation of all the evidence gathered.

B. Modeling is based on empirical measurements, which we are always in the process of taking and adding to the models we create. The computer is the best laboratory we have for assessing climate change.

C. They're not shoddy citations, they're reflecting the indeterminate and volatile nature of climate statistics, which don't always cohere perfectly and which aren't always consistent. Scientists understand this, which is why climate science is ongoing.

None of that changes the general thesis, which is that hurricanes have intensified since about 1980. You approach this argument like it's describing a hermetically sealed experiment in a controlled lab. Climate science not only isn't done that way, it can't be done that way.

 

[Dak]

B. Modeling is based on empirical measurements, which we are always in the process of taking and adding to the models we create. The computer is the best laboratory we have for assessing climate change.

Sure, but it's not a study on hurricanes in the last x number of years, so not a supporting citation for the statement - even if the modeling study cites actual support. Lazy writing.

A. The general thesis is a general thesis. There's no specific evidence for that specific comment, otherwise it wouldn't be a general thesis. It's an extrapolation of all the evidence gathered.

C. They're not shoddy citations, they're reflecting the indeterminate and volatile nature of climate statistics, which don't always cohere perfectly and which aren't always consistent. Scientists understand this, which is why climate science is ongoing.

Sure, climate science like social sciences are volatile, and inconsistent. But it's apparently not an extrapolation of the evidence, because I pull two of the citations and no support for the statement.

None of that changes the general thesis, which is that hurricanes have intensified since about 1980. You approach this argument like it's describing a hermetically sealed experiment in a controlled lab. Climate science not only isn't done that way, it can't be done that way.

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp

From the Weather Channel

10 Things We Know About Accumulated Cyclone Energy
1. There is no evidence of a systematic increasing or decreasing trend in ACE for the years 1970-2012.

3. The contribution of ACE from the Eastern and Western Pacific is approximately 56% of the total ACE.

4. The contribution of ACE from the Atlantic Ocean is approximately 13% of the total ACE.

The Atlantic is a small player in total ACE, and there's been no systemic changes in ACE since 1970.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL047711/full

Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Niño Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.

So one area gets affected by La Nina while the world is seeing a downward trend and it's the disastrous result of anthropogenic climate change.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sure, but it's not a study on hurricanes in the last x number of years, so not a supporting citation for the statement - even if the modeling study cites actual support. Lazy writing.

Sure, climate science like social sciences are volatile, and inconsistent. But it's apparently not an extrapolation of the evidence, because I pull two of the citations and no support for the statement.

You don't get it. Data can contradict a thesis. It's more honest to include that data than to bury it.

There is a lot of data on climate change that does contradict alarmist arguments. But contradictory data does not a refutation make. What it says is that the relation between things like hurricanes and climate change is tenuous; but all the locally testable phenomena, like ocean temperatures, point to a larger picture.

You're relying on immediate observations for a science that exceeds what we can perceive. Your methodology for talking about this is insufficient for what's actually happening. Computer models are necessary because even if the empirical evidence is sketchy and inconsistent, there are compelling reasons to believe that inter-generational (that's in human terms) increases will be likely, and the complete happenstance of Harvey and Irma could help convey that pattern.

Here's a wording that's more amenable to your skepticism:

we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, human activity may have already caused some some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

We also conclude that it is likely that climate warming will cause hurricanes in the coming century to be more intense globally and to have higher rainfall rates than present-day hurricanes. In our view, there are better than even odds that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. These assessment statements are intended to apply to climate warming of the type projected for the 21st century by IPCC AR4 scenarios, such as A1B.

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

Now you'll probably say that it isn't observable yet, so that's that. But that's part of the problem...

Also, the Weather Channel has acknowledged a likely link between hurricanes and climate change.

 

[Satanstoenail]

 

[Dak]

You don't get it. Data can contradict a thesis. It's more honest to include that data than to bury it.

There is a lot of data on climate change that does contradict alarmist arguments. But contradictory data does not a refutation make. What it says is that the relation between things like hurricanes and climate change is tenuous; but all the locally testable phenomena, like ocean temperatures, point to a larger picture.

You're relying on immediate observations for a science that exceeds what we can perceive. Your methodology for talking about this is insufficient for what's actually happening. Computer models are necessary because even if the empirical evidence is sketchy and inconsistent, there are compelling reasons to believe that inter-generational (that's in human terms) increases will be likely, and the complete happenstance of Harvey and Irma could help convey that pattern.

I don't see the ACE as being an "immediate observation". That's what appeals to Harvey and Irma are. Computer models, like economic models, are based on inputs, which have various biases, as well as not being able to account for an infinite amount of unknown contingencies. Even if we expect some intergenerational increases in the next however many generations, that in no way means that we can simply infer anthropogenically driven increases, nor can we infer the lack of any sort of countermechanisms, counter black swans, or even black swans which accelerate warming (like increased sun activity), or simple longterm natural variance in complex systems.

I should reiterate I'm a staunch believer in climate change, for the simple fact that the alternative is climate stasis, the idea of which is empirically laughable. What that change will look like, and what drives it, is not even remotely settled, and is most likely measured in terms of variance rather than increase/decrease.

Here's a wording that's more amenable to your skepticism:

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

Now you'll probably say that it isn't observable yet, so that's that. But that's part of the problem...

Also, the Weather Channel has acknowledged a likely link between hurricanes and climate change.

Well, it's not only not observable, but wouldn't we expect such liklihoods based purely on normal variance/volatility?

In our view, there are better than even odds that the numbers of very intense (category 4 and 5) hurricanes will increase by a substantial fraction in some basins, while it is likely that the annual number of tropical storms globally will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged.

"51% chance things will be different in the coming century in some places than they were, but overall no major changes." Man, talk about hedging the hedge. I could give you the same line on the forecast for Massachusetts next week and how much more actionable knowledge would you have? Furthermore, it's probably impossible for me to be wrong. Tons of time + vague prediction + 51% odds. Significance = 0.

Edit:

• It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).

This is in direct contradiction to your previous link.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't see the ACE as being an "immediate observation". That's what appeals to Harvey and Irma are. Computer models, like economic models, are based on inputs, which have various biases, as well as not being able to account for an infinite amount of unknown contingencies. Even if we expect some intergenerational increases in the next however many generations, that in no way means that we can simply infer anthropogenically driven increases, nor can we infer the lack of any sort of countermechanisms, counter black swans, or even black swans which accelerate warming (like increased sun activity), or simple longterm natural variance in complex systems.

I should reiterate I'm a staunch believer in climate change, for the simple fact that the alternative is climate stasis, the idea of which is empirically laughable. What that change will look like, and what drives it, is not even remotely settled, and is most likely measured in terms of variance rather than increase/decrease.

You're confusing the arguments of multiple links. The Slate piece was simply putting forth whether Harvey and Irma would provide an immediately observable connection (i.e. narrative) that could inspire a shift in belief in those people who refuse to acknowledge the unobservable complexity of climate change.

The following links are attempts to catalogue the statistics, supportive or otherwise, that give rise to a speculative concept of the future of climate change.

Well, it's not only not observable, but wouldn't we expect such liklihoods based purely on normal variance/volatility?

Are you saying this is your opinion, or a popular opinion?

"51% chance things will be different in the coming century in some places than they were, but overall no major changes." Man, talk about hedging the hedge. I could give you the same line on the forecast for Massachusetts next week and how much more actionable knowledge would you have? Furthermore, it's probably impossible for me to be wrong. Tons of time + vague prediction + 51% odds. Significance = 0.

Climate science isn't about being right. It's about trying to be prepared.

This is in direct contradiction to your previous link.

No it's not. They're specifying different things.

The former link says that increased hurricane activity could be linked to higher sea temperatures. Localized temperature increases can be caused, the article suggests, by increased emissions along with several other factors. It doesn't make the unequivocal claim that increased emissions = Harvey + Irma.

The second simply says it's premature to say unequivocally that human-induced emissions cause more cyclone activity.

 

[Dak]

You're confusing the arguments of multiple links. The Slate piece was simply putting forth whether Harvey and Irma would provide an immediately observable connection (i.e. narrative) that could inspire a shift in belief in those people who refuse to acknowledge the unobservable complexity of climate change.

The following links are attempts to catalogue the statistics, supportive or otherwise, that give rise to a speculative concept of the future of climate change.

I don't see a confusion. Suggesting that a couple of hurricanes should support the narrative requires that the connection is clear. Otherwise one is simply selling an unsubstantiated agenda using anything at hand to sway the uninformed. Currently just about everything is getting blamed on climate change.

Are you saying this is your opinion, or a popular opinion?

Climate science isn't about being right. It's about trying to be prepared.

Given that most people are ignorant of statistics in general, I doubt it's a popular opinion. I don't even claim to be "good" with statistics, but I understand general principles.

Certain things can't be prepared for, some things can but the opportunity cost is too high, and you can't prepare for everything because again, opportunity cost. When claims are as vague as that paragraph I referred to, that falls under "prepare for everything". Practically coinflip probabilities that stuff will happen. If I submitted psych research that said "More than 50% chance people will have do stuff in the next century", how fast would I be blackballed from future submissions? How thoroughly I document the history of people doing stuff and suggest reasons for people doing stuff doesn't make my statement any less laughable.

No it's not. They're specifying different things.

The former link says that increased hurricane activity could be linked to higher sea temperatures. Localized temperature increases can be caused, the article suggests, by increased emissions along with several other factors. It doesn't make the unequivocal claim that increased emissions = Harvey + Irma.

The second simply says it's premature to say unequivocally that human-induced emissions cause more cyclone activity.

Well it doesn't specificy those hurricanes, but it makes a claim that I showed with data is incorrect (increased intensity etc etc in Atlantic hurricanes as well as intensity etc etc globally), and then mostly focuses on human emissions as the driver of oceanic warming. "It's really complex but we want you to focus on the possible agenda related factors", while the only citations show a correlation between a couple of indexes (Atlantic oceanic temps and "cyclone power dissipation") in the Atlantic. That's incredibly weak imo. In doing some reading, I found this:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00146.1

The statistical models provide a framework with which to reconstruct the PDI and ACE time series prior to 1949 using reconstructed SST time series (e.g., Fig. 6, top). These reconstructions could provide information about the North Atlantic tropical storm activity in the past, placing recent variations into a larger context. The centennial reconstruction of PDI indicates periods of enhanced and reduced variabilities over the past 130 yr on a variety of time scales. Thus, the PDI reconstruction indicates that there have been periods before 1949 that were relatively active compared to the post-1995 era of heightened activity.

Apparently PDI shows increases and is correlated with the ACE, but the ACE does not show significant increase. Looking at the charted PDI above, it's pretty clear we aren't in historical territory, and that although using 1970 or 1980 as a cutoff might have some technical legitimacy due to technological factors, it just so happens to be the best place to start for the narrative.Also notice the wording here about variance/variability.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't see a confusion. Suggesting that a couple of hurricanes should support the narrative requires that the connection is clear. Otherwise one is simply selling an unsubstantiated agenda using anything at hand to sway the uninformed. Currently just about everything is getting blamed on climate change.

A couple of hurricanes are the narrative. It's a matter of selling people what they can see rather than trying to sell them what they can't be bothered to look for.

Given that most people are ignorant of statistics in general, I doubt it's a popular opinion. I don't even claim to be "good" with statistics, but I understand general principles.

Certain things can't be prepared for, some things can but the opportunity cost is too high, and you can't prepare for everything because again, opportunity cost. When claims are as vague as that paragraph I referred to, that falls under "prepare for everything". Practically coinflip probabilities that stuff will happen. If I submitted psych research that said "More than 50% chance people will have do stuff in the next century", how fast would I be blackballed from future submissions? How thoroughly I document the history of people doing stuff and suggest reasons for people doing stuff doesn't make my statement any less laughable.

Psychology isn't climate science. You can't compare practices in these fields.

Climate science is currently still so new and so underdeveloped that it's going to produce mountains of contradictory data; but that doesn't change the facts that we know to be true, whether it's localized sea temperatures or increased emissions, and what impact those phenomena have on a restricted basis. We can plot those potentialities with forecasting computer models, and just because what has happened in the past half century doesn't align perfectly with those projections is no reason to discount the chemical reactions happening on the ground. We record the data and keep plugging it into the models.

It's more dangerous to practice an invigorated skepticism that cultivates willful denial.

Well it doesn't specificy those hurricanes, but it makes a claim that I showed with data is incorrect (increased intensity etc etc in Atlantic hurricanes as well as intensity etc etc globally), and then mostly focuses on human emissions as the driver of oceanic warming. "It's really complex but we want you to focus on the possible agenda related factors", while the only citations show a correlation between a couple of indexes (Atlantic oceanic temps and "cyclone power dissipation") in the Atlantic. That's incredibly weak imo. In doing some reading, I found this:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00146.1

Apparently PDI shows increases and is correlated with the ACE, but the ACE does not show significant increase. Looking at the charted PDI above, it's pretty clear we aren't in historical territory, and that although using 1970 or 1980 as a cutoff might have some technical legitimacy due to technological factors, it just so happens to be the best place to start for the narrative.Also notice the wording here about variance/variability.

You keep changing your words, whether it's increase or "significant" increase. There's data that shows there has been an increase. You can't call that data "incorrect" because other data contradicts it, or because it's not as "significant" as you want it to be. One person's data isn't more correct than another's (aside from the methodologies involved, which it's safe to say are rigorous yet flawed in all of these cases). All we can say is that some data contradicts other data. That's important, but again it doesn't make you "correct."

Climate science is speculative and we need to be more decentered about the whole thing than labeling the entire enterprise as false or flawed because of contradictory data.

 

[Dak]

A couple of hurricanes are the narrative. It's a matter of selling people what they can see rather than trying to sell them what they can't be bothered to look for.

A narrative of nonscience (hurricanes are anecdotes) with a predetermined ending (BAD HUMANS!). I also notice that the narrative warps to encompass all phenomena. When we have Harvey and Irma, the terms "global warming" or "oceanic warming" etc etc are used. When it's snowmageddon, it's back to "climate change". In both cases the qualifier of anthropogenic is unneeded because of course everybody has been having it rammed down their throats for the last few decades.

Psychology isn't climate science. You can't compare practices in these fields.

Climate science is currently still so new and so underdeveloped that it's going to produce mountains of contradictory data; but that doesn't change the facts that we know to be true, whether it's localized sea temperatures or increased emissions, and what impact those phenomena have on a restricted basis. We can plot those potentialities with forecasting computer models, and just because what has happened in the past half century doesn't align perfectly with those projections is no reason to discount the chemical reactions happening on the ground. We record the data and keep plugging it into the models.

It's more dangerous to practice an invigorated skepticism that cultivates willful denial.

I think I can compare them because social sciences (and I think economics has to be included in that) are dealing with similar sorts of complex systems with approaching an infinite number of potential factors, and in the latter they attempt to use modeling to make predictions - with generally poor results.

You keep changing your words, whether it's increase or "significant" increase. There's data that shows there has been an increase. You can't call that data "incorrect" because other data contradicts it, or because it's not as "significant" as you want it to be. One person's data isn't more correct than another's (aside from the methodologies involved, which it's safe to say are rigorous yet flawed in all of these cases). All we can say is that some data contradicts other data. That's important, but again it doesn't make you "correct."

Climate science is speculative and we need to be more decentered about the whole thing than labeling the entire enterprise as false or flawed because of contradictory data.

Well if we had one more hurricane from 1980-2017 than from 1943-1980, that'd be an increase but not a significant one. So consider all my comments about increase to include the significant qualifier. My overall point is that skepticism is highly warranted here, while the official line that is repeated ad nauseum is "it's settled". I think the high levels of conflicting research on local area climate phenomena should be evidence enough that we aren't anywhere close to making definitive statements about global climate phenomena.

I do think climate science is necessary and should continue, but that doesn't mean the narrative isn't false/nonscience.

 

[Einherjar86]

The stats you're talking about in psychology aren't comparable to those in climate science. You're testing very different things on different levels of complexity. There are issues of time-lapse, scale, distribution, variability, etc. that all come into play when discussing the entire climate system. This is beyond data sets of humans in controlled environments (also, I wouldn't say that the kind of research psychologists do is different than what sociologists do; but maybe I'm wrong...).

And the narrative is non-science, agreed. That doesn't make it less valuable. It doesn't provide science, but a meaningful association of certain events that might get people to start thinking about science.

 

[Dak]

The stats you're talking about in psychology aren't comparable to those in climate science. You're testing very different things on different levels of complexity. There are issues of time-lapse, scale, distribution, variability, etc. that all come into play when discussing the entire climate system. This is beyond data sets of humans in controlled environments (also, I wouldn't say that the kind of research psychologists do is different than what sociologists do; but maybe I'm wrong...).

I disagree but this is all an aside to my point about the uselessness of a statement about "better than even odds that hurricane activity will increase in some basins in the next century", or however exactly it was worded. It provides no information, no matter how meticulously researched, that you couldn't provide on knowledge of basic probability. For example: I can state with equal usefulness (or lack thereof) and zero research that there are better than even odds that the number of publications from some departments at BU will increase in the next century. May as well consult a fortune cookie. It's a claim so hedged, and so lacking in the need for a research basis, it's a throwaway statement.

And the narrative is non-science, agreed. That doesn't make it less valuable. It doesn't provide science, but a meaningful association of certain events that might get people to start thinking about science.

Thinking about science in a nonscientific way, like the IFLS people. We don't need anymore of those.

 

[Einherjar86]

I disagree but this is all an aside to my point about the uselessness of a statement about "better than even odds that hurricane activity will increase in some basins in the next century", or however exactly it was worded. It provides no information, no matter how meticulously researched, that you couldn't provide on knowledge of basic probability. For example: I can state with equal usefulness (or lack thereof) and zero research that there are better than even odds that the number of publications from some departments at BU will increase in the next century. May as well consult a fortune cookie. It's a claim so hedged, and so lacking in the need for a research basis, it's a throwaway statement.

I just realized that I've been reading that quote as activity will increase in the same basins--which I took to be a claim of localized and specified activity. You're right that this is much vaguer.

Thinking about science in a nonscientific way, like the IFLS people. We don't need anymore of those.

Ugggggh I still think this continues to miss the point. But whatever.

 

[CiG]

Hahahaha.

Left-wing celebrities are now sounding like the religious right when it comes to natural disasters.
Hurricanes are no longer punishment from God for the gays, but it is wrath from mother nature for electing Donald Trump.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Celebrities and others that found great wealth easily are some of the most mentally unstable people around. Probably 90% of them are on anti-depressants/psychotics.

Did you really just post a video by ardent white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and alt-right leader PewDiePie though?

 

[CiG]

Well, I am a Noongar Nazi after all.

 

[Einherjar86]

Correction--apologist for.

Just a joooooooke...

 

[CiG]

That went over my head, what?

 

[Dak]

Well this is interesting. I had assumed that there was some "self-selection" going on in Charter School performance, but apparently not necessarily of the "cherry" kind.

http://reason.com/archives/2017/09/08/union-run-schools-dump-struggling-kids-o

Now a series of reports in California and elsewhere show the opposite is true. In one case, educators in the San Diego Unified School District have been counseling their students with low grade-point averages to transfer into charter schools, especially online charters, according to a Voice of San Diego report last month.

Students who were part of the district's class of 2016 but transferred to a charter school "had a combined grade-point average of 1.75 at the time they transferred," which is below the 2.0 average needed to graduate. This includes 919 students who left the school system and were "no longer factored into the district's overall graduation rate," the news site explained. The districts are able to "dump" students that drag down the overall graduation metrics, which are used to rate schools and influence funding decisions.
-------
This isn't unique to San Diego. An investigative report this year by ProPublica found a "national pattern" in which public school districts have used alternative schools—many run by charter operators—as a "a silent release valve for high schools...that are straining under the pressure of accountability reform." These public schools can then "rid themselves of weak students whose test scores, truancy and risk of dropping out threaten their standing." The situation is the opposite of "cherry picking."

"At the end of the day, school districts are simply scrubbing bad student data and then get to criticize charters for poor graduation rates," Michael MeCey told me. He is the director of California Parents for Public Virtual Education, which represents online charter families. "Shoveling credit-deficient students to traditional charters and online charters only allows these school districts to cheat the system and create a false narrative about charters."