And of course, lurking in the footnotes, background reports and entrails of scenario & impact methodologies is our old buddy, RCP8.5
Bottom line: Sure climate change may pose important financial risks, but don’t confuse marketing with risk assessment 🤓👍
I mean, what are we supposed to do with this obviously false information (ie, contra data, research, IPCC, common sense, etc.) from the US Treasury Dept on flooding and financial risks?
You just can’t use the billion-dollar disasters to assess trends in weather (or disasters)
The reality is that flood damages in the US have dramatically diminished in their impact on the economy (whether due to policy or climate, likely both)
How the US Dept of Treasury does not know or recognize this is amazing
This says nothing about future risks of course
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a really important number & I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere
FEMA estimates that in 2021 we should expect $141B is catastrophe losses in the US, based on current exposure, historical event frequency & loss ratios
The FEMA loss estimation CANNOT be compared to the spectacularly awful NOAA billion dollar losses
For weather losses, FEMA uses data processed by ASU/SHELDUS off of NOAA Storm Data, as below
NOAA Storm Data uses a bespoke special sauce to gin up losses (read on...)
NOAA's billion $ loss database mixes together direct and indirect losses (like business interruption & commodity markets) as well as non-event costs (e.g., "disaster restoration and wildfire restoration")
They also "scale up" insured loss data, which guarantees double counting
2021 focus of attention in climate research
via Google Scholar
1⃣RCP8.5 OR "RCP 8.5"= 5,850
2⃣"natural variability" AND climate= 4,510
3⃣RCP4.5 OR "RCP 4.5"= 4,460
4⃣RCP2.6 OR "RCP 2.6"= 3,120
5⃣RCP6.0 OR "RCP 6.0"= 1,540
More studies of a fiction than of "natural variability"
Lessons:
In 2021 RCPs continue to dominate the literature (= ~8x more studies) despite SSPs available & implausible scenarios lead both RCP & SSP studies
Historical precedents and feasibility of rapid coal and gas decline required for the 1.5°C target cell.com/one-earth/full…
Lessons
#1
"The first lesson is that past decline of fossil fuels was driven by technological innovations... while technological advances have been necessary for FF decline, no single technology seems to be poised to deliver the decline required for reaching climate targets"
Lesson #2
"historical precedents of rapid fossil fuel decline almost always involved not only technological advances but also strong state policies"
Articles like this reinforce why actual science is so important & can't be replaced by newspapers (sorry @pbump)
US tornado record has significant known discontinuities (eg, 1950-1973, 1974-1999, 2000-) making simple trend analysis misleading
Discussed: sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publicat…
It purports to saying something about tornadoes
What is really says is something complicated about how observational technologies have changed over decades (eg, Doppler Radar 1995) allowing different abilities to detect tornadoes
The @washingtonpost utterly ignores the IPCC, whose job it is to sort through complex issues in the literature like observational platform changes over time & impact on detection of events
In process WP completely contradicts IPCC & mainstream scientific literature . . .
Laugh or cry?
New AI tool for climate misinformation
“Ultimately, our goal is the Holy Grail of fact-checking, which is being able to detect and debunk misinformation in real time. Ideally, I would have social media platforms using it to detect misinformation in real time.”
What counts as "climate misinformation"?
Let's have a look
"Denialist keywords include references to
extremes in the past, extremes not
increasing or extremes not linked to
climate change."
More denialist claims
Includes "damages/deaths from extreme weather aren’t increasing"
Includes "extreme weather linked to non-climate change phenomena (like ENSO)"