If your home is outside the 100-year flood plain, you're not required to purchase flood insurance. Well, guess what climate change is doing now ... and taxpayers are at risk for footing the bill. More: politico.com/news/2020/11/3…
In Houston, for example, it's estimated that climate change increased the rainfall that fell during Hurricane Harvey by nearly 40% ... and 80% of high water rescue calls were outside the flood zone chron.com/news/houston-t…
It's not just hurricanes ... in Houston, Harvey was the third 500-year flood event in THREE YEARS. Our definitions of flood zones are already quaintly obsolete, thanks to a changing climate. washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2…
For an explanation of how the stationarity assumption on which we have built our civilization is dead, see our Global Weirding videos on regional climate impacts. We have one for each US region, e.g.
I'd be remiss not to point out that, at the local level, we are often making things worse. Climate change affects the amount of rain that falls, but urbanization affects how much of a flood risk it poses. Again, Houston is the poster child: qz.com/1064364/hurric…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It amazes and saddens me how many people are willing to let some of the richest multinationals in the world off the hook when it comes to carbon emissions and blame themselves + other individuals instead. "We're the consumers" say the drug addicts, "so it must be our fault."
Guilt can be a powerful motivator of societal change, yes ... when those who feel that guilt have the power to effect change at the scale that would mitigate that guilt. When it comes to carbon emissions, tho, the fact is that we as individuals DON'T.
Royal Dutch Shell is #6 on the list of 90 companies responsible for 2/3 of greenhouse gas emissions since the dawn of the industrial era. Their cumulative emissions equal those of the country of 🇨🇦. sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/j…
Despite what the CEO of Shell claimed in 2019, eating food that's in season, avoiding fast fashion and recycling ISN'T GOING TO CUT IT when it comes to stabilizing climate change. Those actions will make no more than the tiniest of dents. vice.com/en/article/a3x…
Press release from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy claims science + tech highlights of Trump's first term include "ending the covid-19 pandemic" and "taking action to understand and protect the environment." politico.com/news/2020/10/2…
The truth? The Trump administration has or is in the process of rolling back over 100 pieces of legislation that protect the "clean air, clean water, and resilient environment" the press release claims to have protected. Source: statista.com/chart/18268/en…
The Trump administration also deliberately misrepresented the findings of the National Climate Assessment and just this fall hired new appointees who explicitly reject the science to "consult" on the NCA process in the future.
US DOE has blocked reports for more than 40 clean energy studies. “There are dozens of reports that can’t be published,” said Stephen Capanna, former director of strategic analysis who quit in frustration in April 2019. h/t @dan_kammen cc @SolomonG_Rinvw.org/2020/10/26/tru…
.. while claiming that energy efficiency - a powerhouse win-win solution which could reduce US carbon emissions a whopping 50% and save $700B - is all about making people's windows tiny (?!) aceee.org/sites/default/…
... and that wind energy, which supplies 20% of Texas' electricity, is a bird killer. Well sure...but compared to fossil fuels, windows, and cats? It's quite literally microscopic; plus there's lots of cool new tech to reduce wind bird deaths further. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Mrs. Eunice Newton Foote (1819-1888) was a women's rights advocate & pioneering scientist. In 2020, @EarthSci_Info + @Roland_Jackson reanalyzed the data from her groundbreaking 1856 study to show you could estimate a climate sensitivity of 2-3C from it! royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs…
Climate sensitivity is the equilibrium change in global mean temperature resulting from a doubling of CO2 relative to pre-industrial levels. It's usually represented as a probability distribution with a mean value around 2.4-4.7. Here is a recent review: agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/…
Why don't we know the value for sure? Because we've never seen this much carbon going into the atmosphere this fast with these precise initial conditions. We are conducting a truly unprecedented experiment with our planet. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…