skierinvermont Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I don't see why you compulsively are responding to every post about how climate is or might change by detailing the proximate causes of individual events. If all you want to talk about is the proximate causes of individual events, that's all well and good, but this is the climate change forum. People should be able to talk about how AGW may change the frequency of certain events without other posters butting in about the proximate causes of an individual event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Well, I have addressed this issue before. The problem with saying everything is linked to climate change, because climate change has some sort of effect on everything in climate, is that you are working with such a vague premise that it become meaningless. It's like me saying: "Oxygen is necessary for me to live, therefore everything in my life is related to oxygen." Well yes, technically everything in my life is affected by oxygen because I wouldn't be able to breathe or exist without it, but that doesn't really mean anything in terms of how oxygen specifically affects certain parts of my life...even though every part of my life involves breathing oxygen. It is just this ambiguity which renders these types of debates fruitless. There are no definite answers, only fuzzy probabilities which in themselves are not certain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 1. I don't care what other people are talking about in this thread. I made a simple factually correct statement about the effect of AGW on tornadoes to which you responded with irrelevant ramblings about the proximate causes of an individual event. If you want to talk about context, this is the climate change forum, and I have every right to discuss how AGW will change the frequency of tornadoes without someone trying to detract from the point and change the subject to the proximate cause of an individual event. 2. The application isn't uneven. Articles about weather talk all the time about how ENSO makes certain types of weather more common. Or in fact, often people will just say that "ENSO causes XXX" which is an even stronger statement than saying "ENSO increases the chance of XXX from Y to Z" Also my numbers weren't too specific although they were hypothetical. We can say with pretty high specificity and confidence how much heatwaves will increase with X amount of warming. We can't be as specific about other phenomenon which are not as directly related to AGW as heatwaves. We can also be pretty specific about how ENSO affects the frequency of certain closely related events because we have a lot of historical data. 1. That's not a good attitude to have on a public discussion forum. Whether you realize it or not, your comments are going to be interpreted in the the context of the general discussion. Since the general discussion involved questions about the specific causes for recent events AND whether climate change will affect tornadic activity in general (the two questions are obviously related), you cannot rightly accuse me of trying to "detract" from your point. Especially since your original response was to a post I had made in response to someone else - not you. 2. Yes, it is uneven. See my post above about the record snowfall in the West this year. 3. How is it even possible to say with any certainty how AGW will affect heatwaves? You are talking about a super complex climate system where some areas are supposedly going to be affected much differently than others, some areas are expected to get drier/wetter, some regions are supposed to warm a bunch and some very little, and overall humidity is supposed to go up - which would affect temperature extremes as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 It is just this ambiguity which renders these types of debates fruitless. There are no definite answers, only fuzzy probabilities which in themselves are not certain! Right. Which is exactly why trying to tie everything in to climate change is pointless. Another example is chaos theory - everything somehow affects everything else, so when a butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo, that could lead to a hurricane forming over the Atlantic, yada yada yada. Well sure, many things do have subtle effects on many other things, but it is impossible to know what factors exactly led to certain events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 I don't see why you compulsively are responding to every post about how climate is or might change by detailing the proximate causes of individual events. If all you want to talk about is the proximate causes of individual events, that's all well and good, but this is the climate change forum. People should be able to talk about how AGW may change the frequency of certain events without other posters butting in about the proximate causes of an individual event. Whatever...I already responded to this. I'm just trying to offer a bigger perspective on what is going on, in light of recent speculation about certain events. These are symptoms reflective of larger ideas/concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Here is the problem with "the loaded dice" mentality. Every time something happens that in some way possibly follows AGW predictions (even if the science is far from a consensus, as has been the case with hurricanes, snowfall, and tornadoes), the loaded dice can be cited. "We can't say that this event is necessarily due to climate change, but it is consistent with expectations. The dice is loaded for more extreme/severe events like this." Thus, prevailing assumptions about AGW can be said to be supported by real events - even if there is more solid evidence for factors besides AGW playing a major role. However, what about events that go against the "loaded dice"? For example, this past winter/spring has brought record snowfall to the Sierras and mountains of the Intermountain West. This is a region that is supposed to be experiencing increased drought and lower snowpack due to climate change, per the models. Yet nowhere will you see mention of this in media articles. The point? Only will you see supportive evidence of the prevailing assumptions cited. And so, the overall evidence is not fairly examined - only what supports the hypothesis. This is wrong. If certain events can be said to be following the "loaded dice", it is only fair to point out what events are NOT following "expectations". No response to this? I think this is an obvious logical flaw in using the "loaded dice" mentality with weather events and AGW. If it is ok to cite events that are supposed to be loaded dice because of AGW, what about events that go against the loaded dice? Should they just be ignored? Or is it fair to say: "These events are not consistent with expectations of climate change"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.