Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

TheMastersNemesis

(10,602 posts)
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 03:25 PM Jan 2016

When Will We Be Able To Tie Weather Events To Global Warming?

Eventually certain weather events will unequivocally reveal global warming. And I don't use "climate change" because it looks like a right wing tactic to make the crisis seem 100 years off. We can wait it out so to speak. Suspicious weather events are happening how. Our weather records only go back to the 1870's. Other evidence back to prehistory indicate more serious possibilities.

At some point weather and global warming will merge and be much more obvious. And it is possible that the climate could flip in really disastrous ways. We already have seen high temperature indexes in warmer parts of the world that are near being lethal to all living things.

We have no way of knowing for sure if a feed back loop will go out of control. Venus is a good example. Venus was a lot milder place at one time. We are now higher than ever on CO2 and methane.

Saying individual weather events cannot be tied to global warming is a bit of a cop out. Plus we are using fairly recent weather history and events back to the 1870's.

21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
When Will We Be Able To Tie Weather Events To Global Warming? (Original Post) TheMastersNemesis Jan 2016 OP
A very good question. nt clarice Jan 2016 #1
Good luck. It's like tying the tides to sea level. immoderate Jan 2016 #2
Never. jeff47 Jan 2016 #3
I Disagree. Scientists Now Are Certain That The Permian Extinction Was Caused By Climate Change. TheMastersNemesis Jan 2016 #6
An extinction is not a single weather event. jeff47 Jan 2016 #9
Yes I Know It Was. Volcanic Activity Changed All That Over Time. TheMastersNemesis Jan 2016 #11
Jeff I recommend, if nothing else, reading the IPCC executive summary nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #16
The pattern can match without being able to prove an individual event matches. jeff47 Jan 2016 #20
And I disagree nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #21
Whe the "Energy industry" let's their spokespeople do it underpants Jan 2016 #4
It's global climate change MiniMe Jan 2016 #5
an individual weather event? lapfog_1 Jan 2016 #7
So We Wait Until The Same Conditions During The Permian Extinction To Arrive. TheMastersNemesis Jan 2016 #8
When it rains blood, and the seas boil, cause....Bible dummy. sylvanus Jan 2016 #10
Earth is just ill, and running a fever to kill the virus... Wounded Bear Jan 2016 #12
Weather in the aggregate only. longship Jan 2016 #13
climate change as a term is generally preferable to global warming Fast Walker 52 Jan 2016 #14
Anybody with half a clue already does nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #15
Statistically valid sample in the rear view mirror One_Life_To_Give Jan 2016 #17
Alas we are at that point already nadinbrzezinski Jan 2016 #18
when humans stop woshiping the Dumbth Gods olddots Jan 2016 #19

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
3. Never.
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 03:32 PM
Jan 2016
Eventually certain weather events will unequivocally reveal global warming.

Nope. Weather is chaotic, so it is not possible to say, unequivocally, that a particular weather event was caused by climate change. We can suspect it is, and "bad" events being more common is logical with climate change. But we will never be able to prove that a particular storm would not have happened if climate change did not exist.

And I don't use "climate change" because it looks like a right wing tactic to make the crisis seem 100 years off.

You should use climate change. Some places are going to get colder. For example, some parts of the Northeast are going to get a lot cloudier, reducing the average temperature. Some places are going to stay roughly the same temperature, but will experience much more or much less precipitation.

It wasn't the Republicans who started with climate change. It was the scientists, because it much more accurately reflects what will happen.
 

TheMastersNemesis

(10,602 posts)
6. I Disagree. Scientists Now Are Certain That The Permian Extinction Was Caused By Climate Change.
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 03:41 PM
Jan 2016

I used the term because both climate change and global warming really are more the same. Climate change was used more because of political pressure to make warming seem benign. It is an NLP technique called reframing.

In the past the planet essentially had no ice on it. We do not know what the CO2 saturation was then for sure but it was higher than today probably. Where is the point where the ice melts even more significantly?

Those earlier periods were cause by natural causes on the planet. Now we are in a phase where human activity is raising CO2 levels.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
9. An extinction is not a single weather event.
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 03:51 PM
Jan 2016

There's too much noise when it comes to weather to conclusively prove that a particular weather event is caused by climate change.

Something longer term, like sea level rise or an extinction, can be tied to climate change. The storm that hit the East coast this weekend can not. We think it made that storm more powerful, but we can't definitively prove it.

Climate change was used more because of political pressure to make warming seem benign.

This is utterly false. Once again, climate change came from the scientific community when their models showed that there would be places that do not get warmer. The intention was to fight off the derp of it being colder in some places, yet using the term global warming. As well as the fact that the changes are not just temperature. Drought doesn't care what the temperature is.

In the past the planet essentially had no ice on it.

And at other times in the past, the planet was completely covered in ice.

 

TheMastersNemesis

(10,602 posts)
11. Yes I Know It Was. Volcanic Activity Changed All That Over Time.
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 04:05 PM
Jan 2016

Before the Permian extinction the periodic extremes in weather event back then probably became the constant weather event that killed off the life.

And if you look at weather events across the entire planet that our media does not cover at all, it begins to add up.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
16. Jeff I recommend, if nothing else, reading the IPCC executive summary
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 06:14 PM
Jan 2016

pretty much anybody who has any clue these days does not call a single event climate change, but the complete pattern is. More extreme snow storms are part of the PATTERN.

Anybody (and that is not the American political elite and in this I include DEMOCRATS) who is well read on the subject pretty much sees a more radical El Nino, more radical droughts, and yes, snow events, as what was predicted in science reports going back 10 and 20 years. We have a more energetic weather and climate system, which pretty much leads to more chaotic and extreme weather. The relationship is pretty direct, and it took reading boat loads of material by the way.

Oh and species extinction is now the talk among more and more scientists. At the very least, a 1Billion plus population crash is currently the talk, and given how conservative the IPCC has been (nature of the damn beast), I expect more than just 1 Billion.

The problem with the OP is not that the question is silly (it is) but that the complexity is missed. A single event in isolation is just that, but the pattern over the last 20 years, hell, last 150 years, is quite undeniable.

But we also have people who should know better (like weathermen) refusing to explain how the storm this weekend, for example, is connected to a much larger pattern. I remember a freak storm in Mexico City where the head of the National Weather Service went on a presser and explained both the specific science of the storm, and how it was related to the larger picture. I know, science on my TV, how ahem HORRIBLE!!!! And that is what we need. Because quite frankly, this needs to be explained with a two by four on the side of the head of many people.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
20. The pattern can match without being able to prove an individual event matches.
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 07:22 PM
Jan 2016

The problem is we can not scientifically say "This storm happened because of climate change". There are too many variables to be able to prove that. But as you say, you can talk about the trend of more powerful storms fitting.

Because the individual storm is weather, the trend is climate.

And that's the same reason the weatherpeople on TV aren't saying "this is climate change". They can't prove any individual weather event is only due to climate change.

Oh and species extinction is now the talk among more and more scientists. At the very least, a 1Billion plus population crash is currently the talk, and given how conservative the IPCC has been (nature of the damn beast), I expect more than just 1 Billion.

This one is just way too easy to muddy the waters. Are the deaths in Syria due to climate change? IMO, they are since a significant cause of the civil war was the years-long drought. But I can't prove there would be no civil war without that drought. So we're likely to end up with a statistic that tells the story the statistician wants to tell.
 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
21. And I disagree
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 08:05 PM
Jan 2016

weathermen (and women) should be responsible and explain how individual events fit the larger PATTERN that is climate change. This is done, responsibly mind you, in countries like Mexico where denial of climate change is at a much lower level than in the United States. You are also talking of a country that in theory has a lower educational achievement on average than the United States. Yet, cabbies, vegie stand merchants, and small business people can and do have pretty sophisticated conversations on this matter. In fact, far more sophisticated than my average member of the city council in a blue state in the United States.

I agree that in Mexico it helps that the country has been feeling the brunt of this for decades... but really, they have units in public school on climate change and recycling practices as early as kindergarden. Hell, when you have freak events, heads of the national weather service patiently explain the phenomena to press and how it is connected to the larger pattern. They do not go around going, nope, can't be, you cannot tie this freak storm (we are having a boat load of them) to climate change. They simply are not doing that. They are telling people that while individual events are weather, pretty much weather patterns point to changing climate world wide. That is how you do it.

We are not doing any service to the general public when we keep hiding our head in the sand and insisting that a single event cannot be connected. Well, while technically true... it is not a single event. It is a boat load of single events that show that we have a pattern that shows climate change.

And the deaths in Syria are partly due to climate change, a massive 10 year drought that led to destabilization of the country and the rest that comes with it. And species extinction... personally I am in the boat that is not just possible, but likely if current trends continue. By 2100 large swaths of this planet will be all but friendly to humans. At the very least, if you do not see species extinction, you will see a population crash in the billions. Yes, this will be very destabilizing. Syria will look like a damn walk in the park. You think the current refugee crisis is ahem difficult... just wait.

Oh and if you wonder about it, I am damn glad we never had children. Reading all that material, quite frankly, I am doing my part and then some by NOT HAVING HAD KIDS.

MiniMe

(21,676 posts)
5. It's global climate change
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 03:39 PM
Jan 2016

The anti-science people don't understand how it works. The east coast got hit with a bad storm, but the artic is above freezing.

lapfog_1

(29,166 posts)
7. an individual weather event?
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 03:43 PM
Jan 2016

never (probably)...

Lets put it this way... you have a pot of water at a low boil (simmer). gas bubbles form and erupt with a certain frequency and at various sizes... you increase the heat to a rapid boil... now you have both larger bubbles and more of them. But attributing ONE bubble to the fact that you increased the heat under the pot is impossible. That bubble may well have occurred at the lower temperature than at the higher temperature.

Chaos theory applies to the formation of bubbles in a boiling pot of water... and to our weather events.

And we are the frogs sitting in the pot...

 

TheMastersNemesis

(10,602 posts)
8. So We Wait Until The Same Conditions During The Permian Extinction To Arrive.
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 03:48 PM
Jan 2016

So I guess we will have to wait until we have the same heat events that destroyed Permian life or 70% of it even in the oceans. Then we can call super heat most days a weather event tied to a too warm climate.

 

sylvanus

(122 posts)
10. When it rains blood, and the seas boil, cause....Bible dummy.
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 04:01 PM
Jan 2016

Only then will it be true, cause the magical sky god is angry.


<sarcasm> for the human extinction win!!!!!
good riddance to us.

longship

(40,416 posts)
13. Weather in the aggregate only.
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 05:09 PM
Jan 2016

Global warming predicts more crazy weather events, but not any single event. It is all about emergent behaviors caused by increased temperatures, again in the aggregate.

So actually no single event could be attributable to global warming.

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
14. climate change as a term is generally preferable to global warming
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 05:50 PM
Jan 2016

as it fits what is happening better. Another term is "climate disruption" or "anthropomorphic climate disruption".

In any case, it's real and that's more important than saying storms are caused by it. All major storms from now on will be influenced by it, that is for sure.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
15. Anybody with half a clue already does
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 06:01 PM
Jan 2016

but it takes reading a lot of the material on this.

Extreme weather events, not by themselves, but a higher frequency of them is part of the predictive pattern. Guess what? We are already there.

So anybody who has a clue does. Hotter years, more frequent droughts, floods et al. A more extreme El Nino, pretty much what was predicted.

One_Life_To_Give

(6,036 posts)
17. Statistically valid sample in the rear view mirror
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 06:27 PM
Jan 2016

Proving that climate is changing can't be done by any single weather event. Only a significant period of weather would yield sufficient statistical probability to demonstrate that collectively all the observed weather events could only be reasonably observed were the climate to have in fact changed. That could mean over ten years of observations after a significant shift before the actual change might be provable IMO.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
18. Alas we are at that point already
Mon Jan 25, 2016, 06:30 PM
Jan 2016


Again, I recommend reading the intergovernmental Panel on Climate change

http://www.ipcc.ch/

And no, this is not precisely easy reading.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»When Will We Be Able To T...