Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The Ship that went missing whilst looking for the ships that went missing! | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Frances Hitting Florida Hard | Latest News | |||
predicting 4 major hurricanes in Florida 2005 and 5 major hurricanes in2006 | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Why are hurricanes hitting where Sollog warned? THE LINE OF SOLLOG must read | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) | |||
Two-Time Loser: Polk County, Florida the Nexus of Hurricanes Charley and Frances | sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) |