332 – Attribution of Extreme Weather Events
| Rate/Vote |    (average: 3.91) Loading... |
Guests: Friederike Otto Host: Markus Voelter Shownoter: Thomas Machowinski
An important consequence of the warming of the planet due to climate change is that the frequency and/or severity of extreme weather events will increase. But how can we tell whether a particular event can be attributed to the changing climate? Would it have happened in “normal” climate as well, and if so, how would the event have been different? This aspect of climate science is called attribution science, and the guest of this episode, Friederike Otto is a pioneer in the field.
Introduction
00:05:28Environental Change Institute | Global Warming | Attribution Science | Extreme Weather | Heat Stress | Drought | Hurricane
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this.
Diese Webseite verwendet Cookies. Wir gehen davon aus, dass das für Sie/Dich in Ordnung ist.
Hey Super. Ein kleines Weihnachtsgeschenk kurz vor dem Fest.
Leute ich kann euch zum Thema Klimawandel beruhigen, der amerikanische Präsident hat versichert der Klimawandel ist eine von den Chinesen in die Welt gesetzte Lüge um die US Industrie zu zerstören.
Thank you and your guest very much. Like always, I learned something and I was well entertained. Obviously, this was a conversation between believers of the anthropogenic cause of climate change. Therefore, my concern is off topic: we need more attention to thoroughly and carefully discuss the evidence for the causative relation between CO2 increase and climate change. We also need better ways to communicate and to popularize these thoughts. I find far too much skepticism even in the academic milieu and, at too many places in politics. It is not sufficient for us to enjoy entertainment in our own bubble; we should discuss the sceptic’s arguments.
Thanks for your comment, Ekkehard. Two thoughts. First, to convince skeptics/deniers, I don’t think omega tau is necessarily the right medium. A broader, more mainstream, less science-focused medium is probably better suited. And it’s not that those aren’t doing that. And the second thought. I recently listened to this exceptionally good episode of the Ezra Klein show: Republicans vs. the planet, https://megaphone.link/VMP6899375474. It makes a convincing point that you cannot convince sceptics with arguments about science or “talking” from scientists. The problems are deeper.
You can’t convince a sceptic with assertions, guesses, or logical contradictions. That’s kind of implied in the definition of the word sceptic.
Maybe you could interview Lord Christopher Monckton. He is good at using science to enlighten closed minded bigots that haven’t bothered to talk to those they demonise.
Maybe a NASA guy to explain the effects on climate of the sun spots disappearing.
If the rich and powerful were actually concerned, they wouldn’t care about having our permission, they would just act like they always do. They have the guns after all. The love of power and money drives men mad. They won’t let their cash cow burn. They have children to pass it all on too.
Marcus- great episode per usual. I’d like to suggest Dr. Michael Mann as a future guest in this domain. He’s a thought leader on the basic science, as well as the pathology of Denialism. As such I’d love to hear him on your show. Best regards and happy new year!