Tag Archives: intergovernmental

Lessons from coronavirus and climate change: Don’t be deceived by small numbers

Comparing the coronavirus pandemic to climate change is a fraught endeavor. Using one crisis to illustrate the dangers of another typically doesn’t work. For the most part, people only have the mental bandwidth for one life-threatening, world-altering crisis at a time. (Even one’s a stretch, if personal experience is any indication.)

But there is at least one major way in which coronavirus is similar to the climate crisis, and it’s worth talking about now, while the world’s collective missteps in containing COVID-19 are fresh in our minds: Small differences in numbers matter a lot.

When the coronavirus first began to spread beyond Wuhan, China, a misinformed bit of conventional wisdom started getting passed around: COVID-19 is just like the flu, and Americans survive flu epidemics on a regular basis. President Trump regurgitated this tidbit as recently as last week, tweeting, “So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!” (Trump’s tweet was almost right — the flu killed 34,000 Americans last year.)

The flu has a death rate of around 0.1 percent in the U.S. COVID-19 has put an estimated death rate between 1 and 3.4 percent, although we won’t know the true death rate until the outbreak is over. The difference between 0.1 percent and 2 percent may not sound like much. Indeed, some people on social media have opined that a 97 or 98 percent survival rate sounds pretty good to them.

But a report published Monday by an epidemic modeling group said that, in the absence of federal and individual measures, COVID-19 could kill 2.2 million people in the U.S. Some of that is because COVID-19 is more contagious than the flu — but it’s also because there’s a major difference between a 0.1 percent death rate and a 2 or 3 percent death rate.

And there’s a major difference between 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C. Experts agree that, in order to avert mass casualties, serious upticks in extreme weather events, and unending heatwaves, global warming needs to stay below 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) over preindustrial levels. We’re currently on track to surpass 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) of warming. Some studies show the world is on course for more than 3 degrees C (5.4 degrees F) of warming. So what’s in a half-degree? A whole lot, even if it doesn’t seem like it.

At 1.5 degrees C of warming, heat waves will affect 14 percent of the world’s population once every five years. At 2 degrees C, 37 percent of the world will be exposed to heat waves — 420 million more people. At 2 degrees C of warming, 61 million people more will be exposed to severe drought than if we kept warming to 1.5 degrees C. That half a degree could expose between 180 and 270 million more people to be exposed to water scarcity. At 1.5 degrees C of warming, coral reefs will decline 70 to 90 percent. At 2 degrees C, they become nonexistent. These are just a fraction of the findings in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2019 special report on global warming, but you get the idea. Small changes in climate equal huge impacts.

Maybe if people started thinking about 1.5 degrees C like it’s the flu, and 2 degrees C like it’s a life-altering pandemic, politicians will be compelled to take action. Right now, we’re moving too slowly to avoid a worst-case scenario.

See the article here:

Lessons from coronavirus and climate change: Don’t be deceived by small numbers

Posted in Accent, alo, FF, GE, ONA, OXO, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Lessons from coronavirus and climate change: Don’t be deceived by small numbers

Insurance experts rank climate change as top risk for 2019

It’s no secret that climate change comes at a cost — so much so that even the insurance industry has flagged it as a priority. According to a new industry survey, actuaries (the people who calculate insurance risks and premiums based on available data) ranked climate change as the top risk for 2019, beating out concerns over cyber damages, financial instability, and terrorism.

When actuaries correctly measure and manage climate risks, they can help nudge societies away from poor planning — such as overbuilding in high-risk coastal flood zones — and towards better choices — like building more resilient infrastructure designed to withstand anticipated sea level rise.

“The survey shows actuaries are engaged and tackling this risk frontier,” Steve Kolk, actuary and climate data scientist, told Grist. “It thrills me to see actuaries join the effort and help us all build a sustainable planet more quickly.”

The survey, published by the Joint Risk Management Section and two other organizations that represent professional actuaries, found that out of 267 actuaries surveyed, 22 percent identified climate change as their top emerging risk. It was also the top-ranked choice for combination risk and tied with cyber/interconnectedness of infrastructure for top current risk. It’s a dramatic shift from previous years, when climate change lagged well behind other dangers to people and property. In last year’s survey, only 7 percent of respondents rated climate change as the top emerging risk.

The survey results align with several current and future projections of climate change’s impact on the global economy. According to one estimate, natural disasters caused about $340 billion in damage across the world in 2017, with insurers paying out a record $138 billion. The insurance industry plays a huge role in the U.S. economy at $5 trillion (Insurance spending in 2017 made up about 11 percent of America’s GDP). Climate change can make a sizable dent on economic growth by disrupting supply chains and demand for products, and creating harsh working conditions, among other issues.

“Actuaries, on the whole, are recognizing not only the magnitude of rising climate-related risks but, more importantly, that they can play a positive role in helping society actively manage those risks,” said Robert Erhardt, associate professor of statistics at Wake Forest University.

While the report could signal a potential change in risk awareness, it may also have come down to timing: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was released in October 2018, a few weeks before the survey.

“The effects of climate change became a common front-page story in the past year — and risk managers are taking notice,” Max Rudolph, a fellow with the Society of Actuaries who prepared the report, told E&E News.

Visit site:

Insurance experts rank climate change as top risk for 2019

Posted in Accent, alo, Anchor, Cyber, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Insurance experts rank climate change as top risk for 2019

Check the climate forecast in your county

Check the climate forecast in your county

Shutterstock

The average maximum temperature in L.A. is forecast to increase to between 77 and 83 degrees by the end of this century, up from 73 degrees in the 1980s. Summertime average maximums in Boulder, Colo., have already increased to 75 degrees, up from the low 70s in the 1960s. Residents of Vermont can look forward to temperature rises of as much as 10 degrees this century.

That’s according to a new U.S. Geological Survey tool that lets you focus in on climate trends and forecasts for counties throughout the U.S.

The online tool draws on data being produced through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s efforts to produce its fifth assessment report. “The maps and summaries at the county level condense a huge volume of data,” said Matthew Larsen of the USGS Climate and Land Use Program.

To find out what the weather is going to be like in your home county, visit this USGS website.

As an example, here is how the temperature is forecast to change in Miami, Fla. Note that 35 degrees Celsius is hot — the same as 95 Fahrenheit:

USGSTemperature forecasts for Miami-Dade County in Florida.


Source
NEX-DCP30 Home, USGS

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Visit source:

Check the climate forecast in your county

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Check the climate forecast in your county

Al Gore: Gutless media caves to climate deniers

Al Gore: Gutless media caves to climate deniers

CGIAR Climate

Al Gore

Should the media be giving as much ink to fossil fuel-funded shills as it gives to the hundreds of climate scientists who collaborated on reports being published by the United Nations?

As coverage of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment report reaches fever pitch, some mainstream media outlets are treating climate science as if it were just an abstract political debate. They are falling into the trap of treating it as a mind-numbing to-and-fro argument with no right and no wrong — instead of something produced through good old-fashioned scientific rigor.

That pisses a lot of people off. One of them is Al Gore.

Gore, the former vice president who should have been president but instead used Powerpoint to put climate change on a lot of regular folks’ radars, is not shy about using his outsized soapbox. He was blunt in sharing his reflections Friday during a talk at the Brookings Institution. Here are some choice quotes, as transcribed by The Hill:

“Here in the U.S., the news media has been intimidated, frightened, and not only frightened, they are vulnerable to distorted news judgments because the line separating news and entertainment has long since been crossed, and ratings have a big influence on the selection of stories that are put on the news.”

“And the deniers of the climate crisis, quite a few of them paid by the large fossil fuel polluters — really it is like a family with an alcoholic father who flies into a rage if anyone mentions alcohol, and so the rest of the family decides to keep the peace by never mentioning the elephant in the room. And many in the news media are exactly in that position.”

“They get swarmed by these deniers online and in letters and pickets and all that if they even mention the word climate, and so they very timidly, they get frightened and they are afraid to mention the word climate.”

“Their purpose is to condition thinking and to prevent the consideration of a price on carbon. It’s just that simple.”

That simplicity is worth keeping in mind the next time you encounter a media outlet playing the old “on the one hand, on the other hand” game with climate science.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Link:  

Al Gore: Gutless media caves to climate deniers

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Brita, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, PUR, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Al Gore: Gutless media caves to climate deniers

Idiot misinterprets draft U.N. climate report, shares his idiocy with the world

Idiot misinterprets draft U.N. climate report, shares his idiocy with the world

Next September, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release its fifth report compiling the scientific evidence of climate change. But, if you’re impatient, you can read it today, thanks to a buffoon associated with a buffoon-clogged website committed to undermining climate change. (We choose not to link to said site because fuck them.)

From The Guardian:

The fifth assessment report (AR5) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is not due to be published in full until September 2013, was uploaded onto [yet another buffoon-clogged website] on Thursday and has since been mirrored elsewhere on the internet. Several scientists who helped to write the report have confirmed that the draft is genuine.

A little-known US-based climate sceptic called Alex Rawls, who had been accepted by the IPCC to be one of the report’s 800 expert reviewers, admitted to leaking the document.

As the Huffington Post puts it, this “raises questions about the process.” Um, yeah. I’d say. Hey, U.N.? Here’s a tip: Maybe don’t give review copies of important, complex documents to dingbat deniers. Go ahead and write that down; I’ll wait.

Here’s the fun part:

In a statement posted online, [Rawls] sought to justify the leak: “The addition of one single sentence [discussing the influence of cosmic rays on the earth’s climate] demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole.”

Climate sceptics have heralded the sentence — which they interpret as meaning that cosmic rays could have a greater warming influence on the planet than mankind’s emissions — as “game-changing”.

Yes! Nice work, Mr. Rawls! That’s how science works: If you find even 20 words out of 100,000 that seem like they cast the evidence in a different light, then nothing else matters. Man, you just livened up the holiday party at [Idiot Climate Denier Website]’s offices, which are located in a garage behind an abandoned house somewhere in the low hills of post-Manhattan Project New Mexico, probably.

People who study science and respect the rigor of scientific analysis (hereafter, “scientists”) point out that Rawls is an idiot, and a biased one at that. Steve Sherwood, one of the report’s lead authors and a director of the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales, explains: “You could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible.” Moreover:

The leaked draft “summary for policymakers” contains a statement that appears to contradict the climate sceptics’ interpretation.

It says: “There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.”

By “virtually certain”, the scientists say they mean they are now 99% sure that man’s emissions are responsible. By comparison, in the IPCC’s last report, published in 2007, the scientists said they had a “very high confidence” — 90% sure — humans were principally responsible for causing the planet to warm.

If you’d like a thorough rebuttal of Rawls (which you would), see Skeptical Science’s outline of the minute role solar activity plays. Here’s the key graph:

Skeptical Science

Click to embiggen.

But, you know, we’ve seen this movie before. The prequel was called “Climategate.” Sketchy climate denier steals information, isolates something that he thinks (erroneously) proves his point, trumpets it loudly. How long will it be before Rawls is on Fox News? He will be on before Christmas. Before the end of Hannukah, probably.

The great irony of this huge coup for Rawls and [Terrible Site for Idiots] is that the main critique of the IPCC’s fifth report is that it’s likely to be too conservative in its estimates, leaving out, for example, the effects of thawing permafrost.

The full (very early draft!) report is available online. But if you go to a site hosting it, you likely earn that site money. And since most of the sites are of the [We Hate Science Because Derp] variety, I encourage you not to seek it out. Besides, the honorable Alex Rawls has already saved us the effort of reading the whole thing by isolating the only sentence that matters. And for that, statues will be built in his honor someday, on the barren plains that were once America’s bread basket, just outside the Thunderdome.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See the original post:  

Idiot misinterprets draft U.N. climate report, shares his idiocy with the world

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Idiot misinterprets draft U.N. climate report, shares his idiocy with the world