Observations of hurricane activity apparently don't show the right trends
So this new paper re-invents history by using modeled historical hurricane activity to find the right trends
Predictably, gross misinformation follows
This is where we are at in hurricane research?😐
And the MIT press release fails to accurately reflect the paper
Irresponsible
It goes undisclosed that the author runs a consulting firm that sells modelled hurricane projections under RCP8.5
Bottom line⬇️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
During the pandemic (in 2020) in most places around the world expressed public trust in science increased dramatically from 2018 (but not Central Asia/Russia and Sub-Saharan Africa), both in general & within regions
🧵
Today IOC released a new Framework on Fairness, Inclusion & Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity & sex variations olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-r…
This offers a sharp rebuke to World Athletics "Semenya Rule" barring certain women from competition without medicating
The IOC prioritizes the prevention of harm
The World Medical Association @medwma opposes the World Athletics "Semenya Rule" because of its harm to athletes
No more need be said on this topic
IOC comes out against sex testing of athletes - Good
Yet the WADA Anti-Doping Code was recently modified in light of the "Semenya Rule" to allow drug tests to be used for gender verification
Climate cost-benefit analyses are going to look very different when the question is not from below: “what bad things happens when we exceed 1.5C?” But instead, from above: “what benefits will we see if we return to 1.5C?”
What happens if the world warms another 0.4C (from 1.1C today to 1.5C within a decade or so) and the world looks a lot like it does today?
Future temperature targets offer the political asset of uncertain impacts
Once those targets are exceeded that uncertainty goes away
Consider:
The 1970s global average surface temperatures were about 1C less than today … no one I am aware of is making the case that the climate of the 1970s is one we should try to return to (for obvious reasons, 1970s were a decade of many global extremes)
🚨Important🚨
A new independent validation of our normalization methods & result
Alstadt, B., Hanson, A., & Nijhuis, A. (2022). Developing a Global Method for Normalizing Economic Loss from Natural Disasters. Natural Hazards Review, 23(1), 04021059. ascelibrary.org/doi/full/10.10…
A "normalized" record of disaster losses asks what damage would occur if past extreme events occurred with today's societal conditions
Over many decades, climate changes and varies, of course
But society also changes on that timescale as well
So normalization is needed
🍎to🍎
Alstadt et al 2022 (AHN22) seek to "to develop a global approach to normalize past exposure to current levels using the value of capital stock" rather than GDP
We agree 100%
Where available we have always used capital stock in our normalization studies (eg hurricanes, tornadoes)
The idea that any domestics policies are made at COPs is wrong
Domestic policies are made in legislatures, parliaments & power centers of sovereign nations
Paris corrected Kyoto’s flaw in this regard
Paris allows a public statement of pledges & reporting on progress
Many seem to believe that leaders of sovereign states can make policy, pledges or promises at COPs