Throwaway as well because I've worked with Cliff Mass and am not interested in being at the receiving end of the retaliation that he's known for doling out.
Cliff is kind of a pariah among meteorologists and climate scientists. He _loves_ that fact, and revels in this idea that he's the lone genius who got it right while the rest of the community got it wrong on climate change. But he's not viewed as someone who makes credible statements, particularly as they pertain to questions about climate.
Many of his blog posts are deliberately misleading or contain incorrect information. Others I'd categorize as "You're not wrong... you're just an asshole." He has a decent understanding of some of the meteorological phenomena that are unique to the Puget Sound region, but even there I take every word he writes with a grain of salt. Sure, read his blog to understand how the snow is going to be this weekend at Crystal. But I'd leave it at that.
Yes, it's backwards. The most common way this is quantified is using Fraction of Attributable Risk (FAR) [0]. Even if the mean of the temperature distribution is just shifted slightly upward with no change in shape, the higher the threshold, the larger the fraction of risk that is attributable to the change in mean. This holds for all but pathological distributions, and doesn't even require increased variability or anything like that.
Thank you. This makes sense now and seems to me the right way of looking at the matter.
I think I now understand what Mass was doing. Something like:
"The bigger my overall remuneration (salary + bonus) the smaller the relative contribution made by my fixed salary."
> But he's not viewed as someone who makes credible statements, particularly as they pertain to questions about climate.
Based on what evidence? Cliff Mass is a tenured professor of Atmospheric Science at UW, has written the definitive book on Northwest climate (https://www.amazon.com/Weather-Pacific-Northwest-Cliff-Mass/...), leads the University of Washington Mesoscale Analysis and Forecasting Group, is the chief scientist of the Northwest Modeling Consortium, and is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
Your comment seeks to discredit him in the very space he is broadly recognized for as an expert. I can't accept a vague attack on him that provides no supporting evidence. It comes off a lot like the attacks made by extremist climate activists when Cliff Mass corrects their understanding and brings them back to a balanced reality of what is going on.
Cliff is kind of a pariah among meteorologists and climate scientists. He _loves_ that fact, and revels in this idea that he's the lone genius who got it right while the rest of the community got it wrong on climate change. But he's not viewed as someone who makes credible statements, particularly as they pertain to questions about climate.
Many of his blog posts are deliberately misleading or contain incorrect information. Others I'd categorize as "You're not wrong... you're just an asshole." He has a decent understanding of some of the meteorological phenomena that are unique to the Puget Sound region, but even there I take every word he writes with a grain of salt. Sure, read his blog to understand how the snow is going to be this weekend at Crystal. But I'd leave it at that.