In article ,
says...
What they tend to point out is that a single event cannot ever be said
to have been directly caused by climate change (as if would never have
happened at all without it), which of course you can never prove.


Well if you accept the concept of climate change then you must accept
that /every/ weather event is caused by it, on the grounds that the
weather would have been completely different had there been none.

--
Alan LeHun

On 12/10/2016 05:50, Col wrote:

What they tend to point out is that a single event cannot ever be said
to have been directly caused by climate change (as if would never have
happened at all without it), which of course you can never prove.


Quite so, when even a butterfly can change the weather...

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 06:43:56 +0100
Alan LeHun wrote:

In article ,
says...
What they tend to point out is that a single event cannot ever be
said to have been directly caused by climate change (as if would
never have happened at all without it), which of course you can
never prove.

Well if you accept the concept of climate change then you must accept
that /every/ weather event is caused by it, on the grounds that the
weather would have been completely different had there been none.


You are kidding, right?

So every death from lung cancer is caused by cigarette-smoking?
Every heart attack is caused by cigarette-smoking?
Every case of thrombosis is caused by cigarette-smoking?
Every road accident is caused by drink-driving?
etc. . .

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
My web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

What they tend to point out is that a single event cannot
ever be
said to have been directly caused by climate change (as if
would
never have happened at all without it), which of course you
can
never prove.

Well if you accept the concept of climate change then you
must accept
that /every/ weather event is caused by it, on the grounds
that the
weather would have been completely different had there been
none.


You are kidding, right?
So every death from lung cancer is caused by
cigarette-smoking?
Every heart attack is caused by cigarette-smoking?
Every case of thrombosis is caused by cigarette-smoking?
Every road accident is caused by drink-driving?
etc. . .
Graham P Davis

That's entirely different. You are extrapolating from the
particular to the general, and Alan (quite correctly IMO) is
extrapolating from the general to the particular.

Anne

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:40:10 +0100
"Anne B" wrote:

What they tend to point out is that a single event cannot
ever be
said to have been directly caused by climate change (as if
would
never have happened at all without it), which of course you
can
never prove.

Well if you accept the concept of climate change then you
must accept
that /every/ weather event is caused by it, on the grounds
that the
weather would have been completely different had there been
none.


You are kidding, right?
So every death from lung cancer is caused by
cigarette-smoking?
Every heart attack is caused by cigarette-smoking?
Every case of thrombosis is caused by cigarette-smoking?
Every road accident is caused by drink-driving?
etc. . .
Graham P Davis

That's entirely different. You are extrapolating from the
particular to the general, and Alan (quite correctly IMO) is
extrapolating from the general to the particular.

Anne



So saying that every weather event is caused by Global Warming is the
opposite to saying that every pulmonary and circulatory illness is
caused by smoking? Really?

If Alan had used 'affected' instead of 'caused' then that would have
been OK. To say that _every_ weather event is _caused_ by global
warming is obviously false. If it were true it would mean that before
Global Warming there could have been no weather.

Has every Atlantic hurricane this season been _caused_ by global
warming? Of course not. Have they been affected by Global Warming?
Quite probably, in that higher than normal sea temperatures would have
increased the intensity of them. It's also possible that Global Warming
has affected the vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere in
such a way as to reduce the numbers of tropical storms. [Greater
heating of upper troposphere in the Tropics increases stability]


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. [Retd meteorologist/programmer]
My web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
Posted with Claws: http://www.claws-mail.org/

So saying that every weather event is caused by Global Warming
is the
opposite to saying that every pulmonary and circulatory
illness is
caused by smoking? Really?
Yes, because most smoking-related disease is caused by the
choices of individuals to take that risk with their own health.
As I said, from the particular to the general.

Anne

On 12/10/2016 06:43, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
What they tend to point out is that a single event cannot ever be said
to have been directly caused by climate change (as if would never have
happened at all without it), which of course you can never prove.


Well if you accept the concept of climate change then you must accept
that /every/ weather event is caused by it, on the grounds that the
weather would have been completely different had there been none.

No, every weather event *could* have been caused by it.
Big difference. There is no way of telling what was and what wasn't or
indeed what might have just been excacebated by it.

--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

In article ,
says...
Well if you accept the concept of climate change then you must accept
that /every/ weather event is caused by it, on the grounds that the
weather would have been completely different had there been none.

No, every weather event *could* have been caused by it.
Big difference. There is no way of telling what was and what wasn't or
indeed what might have just been excacebated by it.



Yes you can, on the premise that once the flutterby has fluttered its
bys and chaos has spread to the whole system there is nothing that
exists in the system that would have existed had the flutterby not
fluttered.

As an example, we have a low just off Ireland at the moment. That low
would not have occured had the climate been entirely stable the past 50
years. The weather pattern has been so perturbed, that a completly
different low would have formed, or a high perhaps, or a storm. And it
would be in a different position. What is certain is that low that is
there just now would not have been there without Climate Change.

Of course, in theory anyway, it would not have been there if I had not
had that last cigarette some 10 years ago either.

The point is that without Climate Change, none of the current systems in
play around the globe just now would have existed. We would have a set
of completely different different set of systems instead. As such, one
can say that every current system is there as a result of Climate
Change.



--
Alan LeHun

In article -jade,
says...
Has every Atlantic hurricane this season been _caused_ by global
warming? Of course not. Have they been affected by Global Warming?
Quite probably, in that higher than normal sea temperatures would have
increased the intensity of them


Indeed. Had we a stable climate for the past century or whatever, then
none of the TC's in the North Atlantic this year would have formed. We
would have had a completely different set which may have had a higher or
lower number of TC's, with a different intensity curve, and a different
track distribution. They would not have been the same storms with a few
CC induced differences. They would be completely different storms all-
together.

None of this years storms would have occurred had it not been for CC.

No, I wasn't kidding. But I'm not being entirely serious either.

--
Alan LeHun

On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 18:53:09 UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
Well if you accept the concept of climate change then you must accept
that /every/ weather event is caused by it, on the grounds that the
weather would have been completely different had there been none.

No, every weather event *could* have been caused by it.
Big difference. There is no way of telling what was and what wasn't or
indeed what might have just been excacebated by it.



Yes you can, on the premise that once the flutterby has fluttered its
bys and chaos has spread to the whole system there is nothing that
exists in the system that would have existed had the flutterby not
fluttered.

As an example, we have a low just off Ireland at the moment. That low
would not have occured had the climate been entirely stable the past 50
years. The weather pattern has been so perturbed, that a completly
different low would have formed, or a high perhaps, or a storm. And it
would be in a different position. What is certain is that low that is
there just now would not have been there without Climate Change.

Of course, in theory anyway, it would not have been there if I had not
had that last cigarette some 10 years ago either.

The point is that without Climate Change, none of the current systems in
play around the globe just now would have existed. We would have a set
of completely different different set of systems instead. As such, one
can say that every current system is there as a result of Climate
Change.



--
Alan LeHun

This paper:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...LI-D-16-0412.1
has just been published where they argue that "the 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum provides a counterexample to the often-quoted idea that individual extreme events cannot be attributed to human influence."