Floods, wildfires, heatwaves and droughts often result from a combination of interacting physical processes across multiple spatial and temporal scales. The combination of processes (climate drivers and hazards) leading to a significant impact is referred to as a ‘compound event’. Traditional risk assessment methods typically only consider one driver and/or hazard at a time, potentially leading to underestimation of risk, as the processes that cause extreme events often interact and are spatially and/or temporally dependent. Here we show how a better understanding of compound events may improve projections of potential high-impact events, and can provide a bridge between climate scientists, engineers, social scientists, impact modellers and decision-makers, who need to work closely together to understand these complex events.
Thursday, July 25, 2019
Climate change and compound events
A new paper at Nature:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Lies from the usual suspects. But there is one aspect of truth buried in there. Wildfires. As our CO2 is enriched, we will get more and more wildfires.
A wet spring followed by a dry summer will set up a super fire hazard if CO2 levels are high. So you need controlled grazing by goats and pigs on public land. As well as foraging of wood for fuel by humans.
Weren't you into giant pyramids too at one point?
Into? What could you possibly mean dopey?
Note how it’s all jobs for the boys in that screed up above. A revenge of the needs were these committed irrationalists steal our gear.
The real answers is permaculture and soil development. And sacking public servants hand over fist to save money. Better soils, better science and water retention landscapes mean no floods no droughts and no wildfires.
Revenge of the NERDS. No Jew left behind.
I need Jason's help: I'm pretty sure that your retro-future Birdworld at one stage involved pyramids of one kind or another. Or was it just about Martian pyramids?
Now you've become obsessed with livestock and soil. But the Golden Braid that glues all your fevered thoughts together is blaming Jews for every single thing that is wrong in the world.
I'm sure you need a good Freud-ing, so to speak. Did you have a botched circumcision as a child that has scarred you both physically and mentally for life? Catch your mother in bed with a man with a big nose? Got a spanking for being disruptive while your parents were trying to watch Fiddler on the Roof?
The funny thing is, you know, whatever you rant back with, I can choose to delete if I see fit.
No the pyramid thing was just the recognition that since the interior blocks were made of granite, they were not carved during the bronze age. So the Pharaohs didn't make the pyramids. We know this for sure since they did not have the technology to make the pyramids. But try and explain this on quora and every Jew and his Momma wants a piece of you.
Its really very simple. Modern agriculture, based around commercial monocultural crops, is a disaster since it depletes soil. The organic matter in soil determines how much water the soil will hold. When we start losing soil we therefore have more floods and droughts simultaneously.
So here we have a REAL crisis, and every Jew and his Momma thinks "never let a crisis go to waste" and they then will lever the situation to their advantage and for the purpose of maintaining their tribal myths. Its not multifactorial hocus pocus its the crisis of soil loss. CO2 didn't cause the soil loss, but high CO2 levels will make it easier to correct things.
But high CO2 levels DO INDEED lead to wildfires, without good management. No question about that at all.
Height restrictions man. Don't forget those. Build UP not over. Leave the rest to wildlife
Was there some past Birdian enthusiasm for building underground in future, too? He's gone all agrarian these days.
Yes exactly. Plenty of high-rise, lots of basements. This sort of thing. One metric to progress would be cubic metres of living and working space per capita. For such a setup to be resilient under natural disasters and extended nuclear war, The buildings would tend to have to be highly tapered. So yes there was a pyramidal thread running through things.
Now the next thing is getting those roads underground. You may see me as a person who thinks that the public servants are always doing useless stuff. But I tell you tunnelling is just AWESOME. I've seen the M4 open these last few days and these underground are the absolute best thing for getting shit done. If we want double digit growth in two decades time we want to start a communist department of tunnelling right now. Close down twenty departments to pay for it. And make subcontracting to the department NON-TAXABLE INCOME for the sole trader.
If you can replace our current public servants with tradies in a generation. And you can have all these cities with M4 equivalents everywhere, the sort of economic performance you could have would be AWESEOME. Of course you need the money and banking reform to go with it. The power of the city, top heavy in tradesmen and bottom heavy in underground roads. That sort of power would be a thing to behold.
Think how beautiful many of the surface road-spaces could be made if the majority of the private transport headed underground every time they wished to travel about 5k or more. We get the old street-cars (trams) back and bring out the chairs and tables in so many places.
You want that tapered high-rise with more people per hectare. But it cannot FEEL like more people. If it does we have a word for that and the word is "failure".... Its got to feel like more space, and not like more people. Except to the extent that there is always life down there on ground. Things to do. People to talk to. I would say "dancing" but you know how the usual suspects have compromised our morals.
I was also, and still am into the idea of getting our property rights so well sorted that we can have road-spanning high-rise. If a rich sole trader can accumulate land on both sides of the road, paying his Georgist dues and all that, he can get the permit to put up a road-spanning high-rise. If the roads cannot be underground in the best of all possible worlds they ought to be under a hi-rise. Also every self-respecting farmer ought to have earth-protected animal shelters in every paddock, that allow the cattle to shelter, but without reducing grass-yields so the grass can grow on top.
Now these sorts of considerations are important to the maintenance of civilisation itself. Every so often a cosmic superwave comes out from the centre of our galaxy and starts causing all manner of problems for life on earth. Paul Laviolette thinks that a lot of the damage can be assuaged if people are able to get deep underground for three days or so. Because it will be as though we are in the Van Allen belts, or something close to it, for maybe three days. So you want all these basements, underground roads, earth-protected animal shelters and this sort of gear. Same for nuclear fallout.
Just an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) would take out all our communication and electrical transmission, except for that which is housed safely underground. Like optical fibres for example. Expanding optical fibres so much more vital than this 5G Jive.
A substitute for high-rise would be mountain building. Imagine the globe as a mace. Rather than an oblate spheroid, imagine we have it looking like a medieval mace. Now obviously thats a massive exaggeration. But if we can magnify, by a number of measures, the hills that we have, thats a step forward. We only need these augmented tall hills to get another 100 metres or so above the tree-line. Too much further than that is pretty superfluous.
Mace-earth would probably be the only society appropriate to anarcho-capitalism if all these tall hills and mountains were coupled with ubiquitous hydrogen dirigibles. Still the whole thing would work so much better if train and road tunnels cut through all these hills.
I take public policy advocates seriously if they 1. Will me Henry George part way 2. Are open to measures to encourage permaculture and 3. Are right into taking roads and rail underground.
I will listen to everything magnificent theorists like Hans Hoppe have to say. But I cannot myself advocate his stuff because the three key requirements aren't met.
Will MEET Henry George part way. No-one is even a serious public policy advocate if they don't meet Henry George part-way. Bob Carr passed the test and Singapore's Lee as well.
Four requirements. You are not a serious public policy advocate unless you agree to phase out fractional reserve banking. Thats more important than all the others put together.
A true Aussie, our most loveable socialist economist, and someone who may not be a Christian, but who has exhibited righteous Christian values over the long haul, has been given me MORE THAN a fair shake over at his place.
Happens to also be a black belt.
https://abetterworldpartii.com/2018/10/10/short-but-superb-professor-john-quiggin-article-in-the-guardian/
GMB,
Thanks for the articles. I have often thought free market advocates go too far and don't appreciate the rapacious nature of corporations and their desire to make a profit at every turn even when they are raking in a fortune so your emphasis on infrastructure issues highlights a consideration that should receive more attention but under the current economic regime in Australia I can't see that happening any time soon because politicians look to their next career with some corporation which is a conflict of interest but hey the whole political process is now so corrupted I don't think I'll live long enough to see it improve.
"Intelligent Design" Neo-Darwinists and especially Dawkins have too much faith and not enough understanding of what constitutes a scientific theory. I do not consider evolutionary theory to be on a solid scientific footing because at best we have evidence of micro evolution but zero evidence of macro evolution. So the best we have is a few protein tweaks here and there. We are nowhere near understanding the origin of life nor are we anywhere near understanding gene-phenotype interaction. The general public is beguiled into thinking it is all being sorted out because they don't realise that the relevant scientists are exercising faith that evolution will eventually become a fully fledged scientific theory.
The big problem for the neo-Darwinists and one which shatters all their precious mathematical models is that in recent years there is evidence of Lamarckian transmission and that changes everything. Recalling what Planck stated, science proceeds one funeral at a time, we can only hope the current batch of neo-Darwinists depart the scene to allow fresh minds approach the problems.
The strange thing for me is that even when I was fresh out of high school I found the probabilities to be a huge problem so over the decades I've had many debates with people but I can't get through to them. I was furious that so many fell for The Selfish Gene model because it was so stupid it beggars belief intelligent people embraced it but it should be noted that geneticists never liked it. It was popular idea that had no scientific or explanatory value
However I'm not at all convinced by the arguments of intelligent design. So I'm hanging out there like a shag on a rock. We need something new under the sun. The non-material consciousness idea. I have some sympathy for that.
Good luck with your thoughts on this issue but as I'm sure you're aware you are a lone wolf in a frozen wilderness and virtually no-one will appreciate your skepticism on the subject.
"The big problem for the neo-Darwinists and one which shatters all their precious mathematical models is that in recent years there is evidence of Lamarckian transmission and that changes everything."
Yes I reasoned that there had to be some sort of Lamarckian effect. Even if it were only weak. I was reasoning this around 2005-2006 and was accused of being a commie by Lambert. My thinking was that if a species was able to develop Lamarckian capabilities it would overwhelm those species that could not.
Anyway since then the understanding of epigenetics has come along and the mainstream has been forced to accept it. But they don't recognise epigenetics as pure Lamarck. So they refused to say that Darwins system was refuted right there.
As to intelligent design, they are winning at the moment. I don't think they are correct. I only think they are winning for the moment. And mostly its because their opponents are so dogmatic, useless and lazy. Now that we know that there really is an aether, we cannot rule them out. With modern physics intelligent design was inconceivable. But the aether opens up all manner of possibilities.
Viruses are suspected of being created in the tail of comets, but the mainstream won't say how the viruses got there,if they are there. The key to understanding the evolution of life from molecules, to strings of proteins, to a single celled animal, well that is in the realm of organic chemistry. Chemistry involving carbon atoms. The laws governing this study rule out evolution decisively. It cannot be shown under organic chemistry how we got as far as the biological cell. This is impossible under organic chemistry as organic chemistry is currently understood.
But you can have a completely different set of rules IF YOU HAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT. Everything changes. The entire set of rules that the organic chemists are operating under could be changed if we have a sufficiently exotic environment.
So take fusion for example? Fusion is more or less impossible under natural sea level conditions on earth. But above cloud level, because of the electrical pressure, we get nitrogen being converted to carbon 14 all the time. So if we can find examples of regions of extreme electrical pressure, what is considered rightly impossible under current understandings of organic chemistry, may not be impossible at all.
But why don't you see people like Myers or Dawkins suggesting these things? Because they are lazy, ideological, and not that bright. Plus they toady to all mainstream ideas, are incapable of suggesting that these ideas may be wrong. To have a rational view of evolution you first must reject the mainstream and adopt a rational view of cosmology.
Post a Comment