Late night 🧵 on how to think about extreme event attribution and whether the TX cold event was caused by climate change.
I think of extreme event attribution as resting on three pillars. 1/
Pillar 1: If you have observations of the climate over a long enough period, the data can be statistically analyzed to determine the likelihood that an observed extreme event occurring today could have occurred prior to human-induced warming. 2/
But even if the observations are good enough for that sort of analysis, they usually can’t tell you whether an observed trend was caused by global warming or by something else because correlation does prove causality.
That brings us to ... 3/
Pillar 2: Our understanding of the physics of the phenomenon. It should be obvious why, in a warmer world, we expect to get more frequent heat waves. This physical understanding adds to our confidence that climate change is a factor in the occurrence of heat waves. 4/
Pillar 3: Climate models. We can run climate models with and without global warming and if we see that events like the one being studied occur in the warmer world but not in the colder one, then we have another piece of evidence. 5/
If you've got all three pillars (e.g., 2003 European heat wave), we can be very confident that climate change made the event worse. 6/
If you have zero pillars (e.g., tornadoes), you can’t confidently conclude anything — at least for now. The evidence for most types of extreme events is somewhere in between. 7/
For last week's TX cold event, we have maybe one pillar. There is a plausible mechanism concerning the equator-pole temperature gradient.
But we don't have observational evidence that this event is occurring more frequently today than prior to global warming. 8/
I also don't know of any computer simulations showing that these TX cold extremes become more frequent as the climate warms. [if someone's done the analysis, let me know] 9/
Given this, I am skeptical of the connection between the TX cold event and global warming. However, there are people I respect who disagree with me — that's science. As more work on this is done, consensus will emerge on way or the other. 10/10
File this under propaganda. Last week, the TX Texas State Board of Education modified its operating rules. Now they have to teach things like this:
I wonder if they'll also teach how the reliance on fossil fuels weakens our national security. How the Ukrainian war is a war built on fossil fuels, how Saudi Arabia is interfering in our elections, how we actually invaded another country to secure the oil supply.
I also hope they emphasize how air pollution from fossil fuels kills millions of people every year. hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/…
A 🧵about tenure, a form of job security that is granted to professors and academic researchers after a certain period of employment. It provides protection against unjustified dismissal, so they can focus on their research and teaching without fear of reprisal.
It basically says that you can only be fired only for cause (eg, misconduct or not doing assigned responsibilities). You can read @TAMU's policies here: rules-saps.tamu.edu/PDFs/12.01.99.…
The purpose of tenure is to safeguard academic freedom by allowing professors to explore and present controversial ideas without the risk of losing their job. It's essential for the pursuit of knowledge and the advancement of science.
My grad student, Jangho Lee, and I have a pre-print on future temperature-related mortality in U.S. cities. It is presently under review, so caveat emptor. eartharxiv.org/repository/vie…
This follows up a 🧵 I did a week or so ago. Read that for background.
Our analysis covers mortality in 106 U.S. cities that contain 65% of the U.S. population. Let me emphasize that our results apply only to cities in the U.S. We cannot comment on, e.g., rural U.S. locations or other countries.
I typically don't respond to comments like this, but this seems like a teachable moment. The comment, as written, reads like "Don't worry about climate change, we'll adapt." This is one of the most common arguments from climate dismissives.
First, note the way it's written "In reality, the MMT will adjust." It gives the impression that adaptation will happen automatically, with zero policy, and at no cost. It avoids the fact that adaptation is a choice we make.
Some people absolutely will adapt on their own, without any assistance from the gov't., and won't be negatively impacted by the cost. These people are rich.
An explanation about why people argue about what kills more, extreme heat or cold:
A lot of work has been done on connecting mortality to heat. Probably the most famous is this paper by Gaspirrini et al. thelancet.com/journals/lance…
These analyses produce plots of relative risk (RR) vs. temperature that look like this. RR is the number of temperature-related deaths at a particular temp divided by the number at the Minimum Mortality Temperature (MMT), the temp where deaths are lowest (19°C for London).