Attributing extreme events to climate change — HotWhopper Chat HotWhopper Chat
Follow HotWhopper:

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

Before you post, read the introduction to HotWhopper Chat in the Wiki.

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat!

Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.

Where Australia's electricity comes from

This widget is updated every couple of minutes and shows why Australia is such a huge GHG emitter.

Attributing extreme events to climate change

SouSou
edited September 2016 in Climate and Weather
Graham Readfearn has a good article at The Guardian, about attributing extreme events to climate change. He points out the distinction between "causing" and "influencing" (which is much too nuanced a distinction for science deniers).
Tagged:
PG_Antioch
Tagged:

Comments

  • Yeah I read that today. The distinction should be obvious to anyone who gives it a bit of thought, if they haven't before.

    I'm impressed that they're getting so fast at crunching the relevant numbers now. I think they're right that it'll be a useful tool for engaging the public, and hopefully generating more of a push for concrete action.
  • surely the problem is that in a chaotic system like the climate attributing a single event is always fraught with difficulties

    and you run the risk of a "denier" simply saying "prove it"

    my analogy (hopefully I am on the right lines, please correct me if I am not) is that AGW is like putting an extra 5 of hearts in a deck of cards

    the next time you pull a card out of the pack - if it is the 5 of hearts, who's to say it was not the original one -  a denier would certainly say it was

    but what you can confidently say is that in any amount of random picks, a 5 of hearts will come up more often

    it is the gamblers fallacy to suggest or think otherwise

    but then the existence of Las Vegas is testament to peoples stupidity



  • But when someone picks a 5 of hearts, science can now often say how much more likely it was to pick a 5 of hearts.
  • It's another one of those arguments that's driven me batty for ages.  Another example of the way contrarians have owned the public dialogue.  Like the "warming hiatus" based on incomplete surface measurements, when it's our atmosphere's insulation causing the "global" warming.  SEEPAGE and all that.

    Come on children (not you folks, the rhetorical masses),
    our entire globe is warming, more energy within the system, more moisture in the atmosphere.

    Weather is something that spawns from climate conditions.
    Our ability to exactly measure it does nothing to change that reality.

    Long way of saying
    There is no weather event that is free of the influence of current manmade global warming!
    I hope Readfearn said much the same thing, probably, he's a good intelligent writer.

    {Sorry.  Don't have time to read it.  
    I got myself sucked into something crazy and Colorado local - life's full of surprises I never thought I'd be writing about the health care system.  November 8th election is getting closer and we have a ColoradoCare health care/insurance Amendment on the ballet and my FCFP deadline is barreling down on me with a wild story dropped into my lap, gotta focus, gotta focus.

    I'm just peeking in because I couldn't resist seeing what's happening before going to sleep.
    Cheers all. }
  • CC, I will be moving to Colorado soon. I have an interest in the proposition on the ballot for universal health care. I see the polls don't look good, which sucks. Do you know why NARAL opposes the idea?
  • The effect of climate change  is a change  in the distribution of extreme events.
    As such asking if we can attribute one event to global warming is the wrong question.
    The question should be is the likelihood of an extreme event like the one In Australia more probable?

    httpsencrypted-tbn0gstaticcomimagesqtbnANd9GcSUglwGC4Pi900uKbX79AOk-UwuiLlp8cvwU7N--y_iL0LQFZPq

  • edited October 2016
    CC, I will be moving to Colorado soon. I have an interest in the proposition on the ballot for universal health care. I see the polls don't look good, which sucks. Do you know why NARAL opposes the idea?
    Yeah, it's sad.
    http://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/24/amendment-69-abortion-colorado/

    ... The ballot campaign to create universal health care in Colorado drew an unlikely and prominent opponent this week: NARAL ProChoice Colorado, one of the state’s leading abortion rights groups.
    The organization — more accustomed to fighting to expand health care services — is opposing Amendment 69 because it worries that the measure could limit access to abortion care.

    Under NARAL’s legal interpretation, a constitutional ban on using “public funds” for abortion approved by voters in 1984 would prohibit Colorado Care from covering the procedure because it would be a political subdivision of the state.

    “While we strongly support the goal of improved healthcare for all Coloradans, and many of our members individually support the idea of universal health care, Amendment 69 in not providing guarantees to abortion access means it is not truly universal,” the NARAL Colorado board of directors wrote in a statement after reaching its decision Wednesday evening.

    ColoradoCareYES, the group behind Amendment 69, disputes NARAL Colorado’s legal interpretation.
    Ralph Ogden, the group’s attorney, argues in a memorandum that if the amendment is approved by voters in November, it would supersede prior amendments — including the 1984 ban on publicly funded abortion services in Article V, section 50 of the Colorado Constitution. ... 

    ... NARAL Colorado executive director Karen Middleton said the organization consulted a number of legal experts on the issue and believes the Colorado Supreme Court would uphold the prior ban on publicly funded abortions.

    It's a legal mess.   ColoradoCare has responded.  

    Memorandum on the Conflict between Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 50 and Amendment 69 with respect to funding elective abortions with state tax monies
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2902137-Colorado-Care-Memo.html

    "Section 6(1(a) of Amendment 69 states that, “ColoradoCare shall contract with providers to pay  for health care services to beneficiaries that must include: …”  Elective abortions are not included in the list, which is based on the services for which payment is mandated by the Affordable Care Act.  These mandated services must be provided by any alternative health care program that intends to obtain a section 1332 waiver under the Act.   

    However, section 6(1)(b) states that, “The board may authorize payment for benefits not specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1)  of this section.”  This is a very specific provision granting the board unlimited power to authorize payment for health care services that were not specified in subsection 6(1)(a).   

    “Health care services” are not defined, but abortion services, provided by a licensed health care provider, as defined in section 2(15) of the amendment, are clearly health care services.  Nowhere does the amendment state that the board can provide payment for all health care services except elective abortions.  Nor does it reference Colorado Constitution, Article V, section 50. ..."

    It's a weird deal.  The Amendment is limited in length, leaving out many details that can only be worked out once it's been voted in.  It's one of the main arguments against it.  

    My attitude is that the current health care (including workers comp) system is really a mess and patient hostile and substantive improvement will never come from the corporations who's profits obsession has created many of today's problems to begin with.  This Amendment offers a structure to fundamentally rebuild how Coloradans receive (and perceive) their health care.  

    This twist with the abortion services might be just what we need to rehear the abortion legal issues and get them tossed it out.  

    No doubt it's a gamble.  If the newly installed  ColoradoCare board and the other varied players and entities get together with a commitment to a common goal.  If the public get's behind them, both supporting and supervising - then a dramatically improved health care system will be the product.  

    If the process get's lost in dirty tricks and powerful greedy interference, then it'll be a mess.

    I for one want to take the gamble.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Getting around, etiquette, guidelines and terms of use.

HotWhopper Chat Close
Follow HotWhopper:

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

Before you post, read the introduction to HotWhopper Chat in the Wiki.

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat!

Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.