now that we've all spent a lot of time posting on tumblr, i think we should move on to becoming Great People
@skluug anyway what I was going to say was 1) it's unclear also to me exactly what data Imada et al. are using to create their plots. as you say maybe it's obvious to people in the field. 2) you said they had only 100 data points for July temperatures in each condition from 100 simulations each. but the simulations have a time resolution of (I think) on the order of 12 hours and there are 31 days in July. so really they have something like 31 days x 100 simulations = 3100 July temperatures in each condition.
also that's an older study. there's now a standardised protocol for doing these studies. so researchers can churn them out pretty quickly after each extreme event. I tried to read the protocol but I'm really not familiar enough with climate science to understand it. it would be nice to have an explainer for a person with basic statistic literacy but little climate background (like me!). I'll ask my climatologist mahjong pal. anyway here's one newer study
The observed temperatures were so extreme that they lie far outside the range of historically observed temperatures. This makes it hard to quantify with confidence how rare the event was. In the most realistic statistical analysis the event is estimated to be about a 1 in 1000 year event in today’s climate.
[...]
With this assumption and combining the results from the analysis of climate models and weather observations, an event, defined as daily maximum temperatures (TXx) in the heatwave region, as rare as 1 in a 1000 years would have been at least 150 times rarer without human-induced climate change.
so it seems they are well aware of the problem of extreme events naturally being. well. rare. in the full study this paragraph summarises the method
To statistically model the selected event, we use a generalised extreme value (GEV) distribution (see e.g. Coles, 2001) that shifts with GMST; i.e. the location parameter has a term proportional to GMST, and the scale and shape parameters are assumed constant. Uncertainties corresponding to the statistical-model uncertainty are obtained using a non-parametric bootstrap procedure. With this GEV distribution, first the PR and intensity change are calculated from observations, as well as the return period in the current climate. Next, the return period is used as a threshold to specify the event magnitude for the models. For this return period, the PRs and intensity changes between 2021 and the counterfactual climate are calculated from different models. This is, however, only done for models that pass our validation tests on the seasonal cycle, the spatial pattern of the climatology, and the scale and shape parameters of the GEV distribution; see Sect. 4.
I don't know what a generalised extreme value distribution is well enough to have intuitions (or, really, at all). here's another, even more recent study
In line with what has been expected from past climate projections and IPCC reports these events are not rare anymore today. North America, Europe and China have experienced heatwaves increasingly frequently over the last years as a result of warming caused by human activities, hence the current heat waves are not rare in today’s climate with an event like the currently expected approximately once every 15 years in the US/Mexico region, once every 10 years in Southern Europe, and once in 5 years for China.
Without human induced climate change these heat events would however have been extremely rare. In China it would have been about a 1 in 250 year event while maximum heat like in July 2023 would have been virtually impossible to occur in the US/Mexico region and Southern Europe if humans had not warmed the planet by burning fossil fuels.
so that's an OR of 50 for china. in the full study they write
In this study however, for two out of the three regions - the USA/Mexico region and Southern Europe - the probability ratio is infinite for the observations and about half the models used in this analysis. Therefore, a numerical synthesis of the change in probability is essentially meaningless, because finite results can only be obtained by replacing infinity with an arbitrary finite number. The numerical synthesis can therefore only give a lower bound, which is highly uncertain. What we can say with certainty is that the temperatures experienced in these two regions would have been extremely unlikely to have occurred without human induced climate change. In contrast, the change in intensity is well-bounded and much less uncertain. We therefore only report a numerical synthesis for the changes in intensity in all three regions.
so they seem to be aware of the issue and appropriately prudent. so I was maybe remembering something more extreme (hah!) with OR = 250, but OR = 30 OR = 50 is still you know. closer to that than to jadagul's "you can't possibly guess which distribution a value was sampled from".
@skluug stop deleting posts when I'm typing up replies
lol sorry. after i posted i realized "guy with no domain expertise criticizing high-context field" is a very bad reference class to be in
Btw when someone says "don't talk to me like that, I don't know you" the normal thing to do is apologize for the perceived overfamiliarity and correct the behavior. Just in case anyone was wondering
If someone said that to me I would unironically dig an underground bunker by hand and only ever leave to pick up doordash orders and nobody would ever see me again ever holy shit
Alternatively I would just jump off a bridge immediately god damn even just reading that makes my soul want to fucking die
hey dude this is a really weird thing to say to a stranger!
Buddy you don't get it I would fucking perish
Hey dude i know rejection sensitive dysphoria is a thing but if you react this strongly to people setting simple boundaries you need to figure out how to work through that
Oh I deal with it. By being incredibly careful about anything I say to anyone in person ever
Although I once asked my cousin if I could join her dnd group (I have noclue how it works) and she went "Uh... No" and basically was like "you'd fuck it up" (she was very nice about it but damn I felt like the dumbest bitch alive ever)
And I haven't recovered since! So yeah that's why I'm a freak online because real life is impossible lmao! Hope this explains it!
That's not dealing with it but good luck I guess
Fyi, this is not only a bad way to deal with it bc it's straight up leaning into your own disordered thinking, but it's also EVEN MORE inconsiderate than the original offense of being overly familiar.
Y'all may not realize the things you do are manipulative, but responding to a fair boundary (that isn't even stated in a rude way) with "If anyone ever set this reasonable boundary with me I would run away into the woods" is manipulation. You are making it more difficult for people to feel safe telling you when you've made them uncomfortable or crossed a boundary, which means they'll likely respond by either cutting you off or allowing you to walk over their boundaries for fear of setting you off.
That's manipulative. You might genuinely be mortified, but that is something you NEED to work on, because the alternative is forcing everyone to walk on eggshells around you at the risk that politely setting any boundaries will set you off.
If you'd be fucked up if someone said that to you, that's understandable. I would be. So apologize politely, then deal with your own shit on your own time.
"don't talk to me like that, I don't know you" is an unnecessarily rude way of setting boundaries with someone well intentioned. it is inappropriate to speak that way to someone if they didn’t mean you any harm or offense. the appropriate thing to say is along the lines of “i’m sorry, i’m not comfortable with you speaking to me that way”. it is of course frustrating if you have to repeatedly deal with people being overly familiar, but that is no excuse for taking it out on people with innocent intentions.
i love this. rudeness is only stigmatized in insular online echo chambers. in real life people are rude to each other 24/7. if you want to avoid rudeness, go indoors and log on to the world wide web
Btw when someone says "don't talk to me like that, I don't know you" the normal thing to do is apologize for the perceived overfamiliarity and correct the behavior. Just in case anyone was wondering
If someone said that to me I would unironically dig an underground bunker by hand and only ever leave to pick up doordash orders and nobody would ever see me again ever holy shit
Alternatively I would just jump off a bridge immediately god damn even just reading that makes my soul want to fucking die
hey dude this is a really weird thing to say to a stranger!
Buddy you don't get it I would fucking perish
Hey dude i know rejection sensitive dysphoria is a thing but if you react this strongly to people setting simple boundaries you need to figure out how to work through that
Oh I deal with it. By being incredibly careful about anything I say to anyone in person ever
Although I once asked my cousin if I could join her dnd group (I have noclue how it works) and she went "Uh... No" and basically was like "you'd fuck it up" (she was very nice about it but damn I felt like the dumbest bitch alive ever)
And I haven't recovered since! So yeah that's why I'm a freak online because real life is impossible lmao! Hope this explains it!
That's not dealing with it but good luck I guess
Fyi, this is not only a bad way to deal with it bc it's straight up leaning into your own disordered thinking, but it's also EVEN MORE inconsiderate than the original offense of being overly familiar.
Y'all may not realize the things you do are manipulative, but responding to a fair boundary (that isn't even stated in a rude way) with "If anyone ever set this reasonable boundary with me I would run away into the woods" is manipulation. You are making it more difficult for people to feel safe telling you when you've made them uncomfortable or crossed a boundary, which means they'll likely respond by either cutting you off or allowing you to walk over their boundaries for fear of setting you off.
That's manipulative. You might genuinely be mortified, but that is something you NEED to work on, because the alternative is forcing everyone to walk on eggshells around you at the risk that politely setting any boundaries will set you off.
If you'd be fucked up if someone said that to you, that's understandable. I would be. So apologize politely, then deal with your own shit on your own time.
"don't talk to me like that, I don't know you" is an unnecessarily rude way of setting boundaries with someone well intentioned. it is inappropriate to speak that way to someone if they didn’t mean you any harm or offense. the appropriate thing to say is along the lines of “i’m sorry, i’m not comfortable with you speaking to me that way”. it is of course frustrating if you have to repeatedly deal with people being overly familiar, but that is no excuse for taking it out on people with innocent intentions.
Anonymous asked:
what does "if you care about this you are a high modernist" mean, I am dumb
High Modernism is an ideology characterized by a faith in top-down design, central planning, and scientific modeling, and by a prioritization of orderliness, regularity, standardization, symmetry, and precision. It is the topic of the book Seeing Like a State by James Scott, and is a term generally applied critically.
One aspect of High Modernism explored in the book is a preference for urban layouts that form pleasing geometric shapes from a bird’s eye view. Brasilia, the capital of Brazil, was designed by High Modernist urban planners to look like an airplane from above.
It’s famously not a very good to live, and the cool shape of the city doesn’t matter at all to the people who actually reside there—they rarely if ever see it from above and navigate by landmarks on the ground. It only matters to outsiders looking at maps and aerial photographs.
I thus thought it would be funny to accuse anyone who cares about their neighborhood looking like a penis from above of being High Modernists.
me and my mutuals live in the balls and my haters live in the shaft
if you care about this you're a high modernist
as the mod of r/Damnthatsinteresting i demand you return the sultans ruby
you know what's a really dumb lyric? this one, from vampire by Olivia Rodrigo. the song is an extended metaphor where her ex's cold behavior is compared to that of a vampire.
You said it was true love, but wouldn't that be hard? You can't love anyone 'cause that would mean you had a heart
this line has at least three big problems:
- first, it's painfully explicit. it can't help but explain itself. it's like a one-liner a teenager would scream in the heat of an argument, not something actually witty.
- second, it's unclear you could even make it work if it *weren't* so explicit. "lack of heart as lack of love" is such a standard metaphor that that's just encoded in the ordinary word "heartless". there's no more idea here than if she had just said "you are heartless"; at least phrasing it like that would have economy!
- third, and most importantly, vampires have hearts! that's famously the only way to kill a vampire, you stake them in the heart! it's arguably a more essential organ for vampires than for humans, considering humans can be killed a variety of ways, but vampires have just the one!
people are reblogging this with additional problems with Olivia Rodrigo that i do not share. for the record, i think it's good that every single one of her songs is about how much she hates her psycho ex