Ket me be a bit clearer: we need a different null hypothesis:
see
Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, and T. G. Shepherd, 2015: Attribution of climate extreme events. Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 725-730 doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2657, [PDF]
Even though climate change forensics is spotty and attribution of disasters to climate change is at best "climate change certainly puts fuel on the fire" I follow the duck rule. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is a duck. The duck brandishes Occam's Razor to climate change.
If it looks like a landslide, it's a landslide - with some contribution likely from local warming related to human-caused global warming. Zeke, have you assessed this particular satellite before/after? https://x.com/WxNB_/status/2092875025246261494 (Trying to gauge if it is accurate, relevant)
Hi Andy, as I note in the part of the article about the "paraglacial response" the retreat/thinning of glaciers can weaken surrounding rock, increasing risks of landslides. But we won't know the specific role (if any) that played in this event without much more detailed forensic studies in the coming months.
DEF: Climate Muting: Avoiding mentioning the obvious maladies caused by climate change due to FEAR of reprisal. Some confuse it with doubt or outright denial but us a phobia.
Sure, Andy. Likely you say. Why do you fear saying global heating made it happen? You want to have it both ways. Kinda say maybe so you get both sides to follow you. I wish people with large followings would really BELIEVE AND SAY global warming is causing these disasters. Oh! You fudge with technicalities.
Global warming is raising the odds of high-mountain avalanches, glacier melting, lake outbursts and ice collapses. That’s it. Arguing over causality with individual events is a waste of time and distracts from responding to the resulting disaster, building preparedness for future events - including cutting vulnerability and exposure.
Lara, if you haven't read, or rather read well, Andy is bold and not afraid of your king. He keeps saying climate change is causing these disasters in a guarded tone.
This seems like the right call, and not only on the evidence. Attribution claims that outrun the analysis get recycled as proof that the field overreaches, and then the careful work has to carry that too.
Something worth adding to the "conditions in which the region's settlements were built" point. It applies to the glaciers as well. These are Holocene features — they took their present form under ten thousand years in which ice-core CO₂ held between roughly 259 and 287 ppm, a spread of under 30 ppm across a hundred centuries. That is the climate they are shaped to. It is now 425 ppm, higher than anything in the 800,000-year ice-core record.
The multiplier in your own numbers is the part I would press. Summers at that grid cell have warmed at 0.29 °C per decade since 1940, against roughly 0.14 globally — about twice the global rate. Today's 1.4 °C of global warming is already something closer to 3 °C at that elevation.
Now run that forward. Published multi-century projections on current policies peak around 4 °C global in the 2200s, and higher on the upper pathways. At twice the rate, that is 8 or 9 °C at the collapse site. The two runs that extend to the year 3000 are still at 2.5 and 3.6 °C global when they stop — 5 to 8 °C at that elevation, a thousand years from now, with CO₂ still above the highest value anywhere in the ice-core record.
So the question is not whether these mountains shed ice before. They did, under conditions that held steady for millennia. That stability is gone, and on present emissions it does not return on any timescale that means anything to the villages downstream. Whether or not this collapse is ever attributed, the ice will be sitting on those slopes under conditions it has never seen for longer than anyone can sensibly plan for.
Zeke this is a very helpful analysis but I strongly object to this framing. Climate change is not the cause of anything, but this event would not have happened without climate change. I believe that is unequivocal. Climate change alters the environment, and the risk, but it is not the cause. Please change the way this stuff is framed!
Hi Kevin, I think its probably premature to say that this event would not have happened without climate change; we will have to do a proper attribution study to determine the specific drivers that caused it. But we can be fairly confident that climate change has increased the risk of these sorts of events in the Himalayas as temperatures have risen and glaciers have retreated.
For all those people dying from the heat everywhere from their medical conditons made fatal by the simple molecular excitement of heat ir will always be too early to determine the cause. It's impossible to prove anything they say of everything with 100% certainty.
After the last human left mutters, " Oh, maybe it really was climate change".
I wish legalistic skip roping would stop and more people would shout out, "It is climate change! We gotta stop it now!"
Exactomundo, Kevin! There us data that climate forensics fails to use in causality.
Climate forensics is shamefully pitiful for if scientifically reported disasters were empirically ( by some Liklihoid Number ) tied to climate change then the perished Nepalese/Chinese would be honored by identifying the "killer ( climate change )" and global support boosted to fight climate change.
Right now.. mainstream says , " Maybe climate change had a nudge. Maybe. BUT WE CAN ABSOLUTELY SAW THE FLOOD WAS NOT ALONE CAUSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE. IN 100 YEARS WE'LL KNOW MORE"
Sure but this doesn't meant that "this event would not have happened without climate change". Not on that day - probably,. But some time later - quite possibly.
there would be no "event" to discuss if people didn't build in extremely hazardous areas. Whether the cliff gave way last week or in 100 years is secondary.
Zeke - great balanced analysis (per usual;). In addition to temperature increase, you now have me thinking about temperature at *altitude* increase... I never put together the simple fact that as temps rise, it will be likely for 'stabilizing ice' below a (heavier) suspended glacier would go first.
My immediate curiosity of the middle chart of the 2nd graphic (labeled "Cumulative Regional Mass Change"), was interest in its derivative; perhaps arriving at 'regional *rate* of cumulative mass/year', etc. The slope notably steepens at 2020. If there was also data of the altitude of given losses/yr, it may be interesting to find the correlation between the increased rate of mass vs altitude - to visualize if there's correlation to the passing years (thus temp) vs estimated altitude of the fallen glaciers 'last straw'...
As this isn't close to my field (I'm an engineer in next-gen renewables), I have no idea if my inquiry here is even relevant. Perhaps its just my way of performing risk-analysis on MBTF for high-altitude glaciers! ;) Thx for what you do...
The attribution debate, as you say, is an utter and even irresponsible distraction from "the urgent need to reduce vulnerability." The problem is that is incredibly hard, as well, particularly with all the risk factors - hazard, exposure, vulnerability - mostly heading in the wrong direction. There was a great interview on Singapore TV today with Basanta Raj Adhikari, who was a guest on my Sustain What show in 2023 after a glacial outburst flood disaster. He said: "I’m very worried because the cascading and compounding hazards event are increasing every year, and this is in an unprecedented rate. So that’s why the changing of temperature or the climate change and then non-engineered infrastructure development in this part of the world will raise or will increase the vulnerability, and that will be really, really difficult for people and the risks will be increased. So that is the biggest worry for me." My running coverage: https://revkin.substack.com/p/how-himalayan-warming-geology-and
I cannot parse what you said really well. For me, vulnerability is roughly proportional to the number of people. Are you proposing something radically different?
Thank you for the reference to "Climate risk explained".
Your sentence is true
"A rain event by itself is not a climate risk, but one that falls on a city that is vulnerable to flooding is."
A (monsoon-rain and warming) event by itself is not a climate risk,
but one that falls above a narrow river valley with people traveling the road from Nepal to China is a low-probability-risk. The narrow valley forces people to stay close to the river making people vulnerable to flooding.
Nepal glacier are 4km high, the glacier ice mass has a large potential energy.
Million tons of ice and rock sliding steep down 1000m develop large kinetic energy. Kinetic Energy melts ice to water.
The mass of rock, mud and ice has more kinetic energy than the slow monsoon-water of the river. The wave of ( rock, mud and ice ) collects the river water and accelerates the water making the destructive wave bigger like a tsunami water wave.
Thank you for your concept of climate risk.
A low probability of the Nepal disaster is nice talking,
As Andrew Dessler's fine book chapter lays out (another reply) - risk exists when there is a hazard (storm, flood, etc) AND exposure (how many people, how much stuff) and those exposed are vulnerable. Diana Liverman, a longtime geographer focused on climate, distilled this beautifully on my Sustain What webcast: "When we talk about climate risk, some people still just think it's the probability of the heat wave. But we need to think about risk not as the probability of the heat wave, but the probability of harm." https://revkin.substack.com/i/79692389/shifting-the-focus-to-climate-risk
It's all semantics. Trite technicalities to allude to a different state.
Earth is 🔥
Call me chicken little.
I'd rather be chicken little than a merchant of doubt who wants to appear totally unbiased conveys messages that just pacifies worry that could lead to stronger action.
It's lamedown because even some of the climate scientists place doubt on the havoc of global heating.
Capt Kirk, where are you?
Dr Hansen, who are these lame brain "climate scientists?"
Dr Sagan.. so glad you didn't have to see the travesty of science being where'd out as Earth burns.
So far, I have trouble even understanding what really happened. And here you are discussing possible attribution.
Let's start with connection to earthquakes. Here, with reference to USGS - duly noted, you are telling as that the glacier collapse CAUSED a 5.2 quake. While in 2015 a tragedy was caused BY a 7.8 quake. Why are you conflating these two events?
I've seen several videos. In every single one, there is an incredible deluge of water coming down the slope or the river. If it started with a glacier collapse, when did the ice turn into water? Surely it couldn't have happened in a few minutes?
I've read several theories online. One, that makes most (but not enough) sense to me, is that after collapse the mixture of ice and rock plugged the river. Then the river level upstream from the dam have risen, water melted the ice, gravity worked, the whole thing became unstable and down it went. OK, maybe.
But this scenario implies that the plugged river went almost dry downstream for a while because it was plugged by this dam. In late summer. And what? Nobody noticed? Nothing like that ever happened before? I'm sorry, this doesn't make sense. For anyone who lived there long enough it should have been a sign that it's time to run to the hills.
Be it unprecedented flooding, more atmospheric rivers, wettest/hottest year on record, record-breaking ‘stalling domes’ of high heat, unprecedented wildfires due to unprecedented heat waves (e.g. B.C., 2021), far stronger hurricanes, off-the-chart poor-air advisories, an exodus of sea life due to warming waters, the mass deforestation and incineration of the Amazonian rainforest, single-use plastics clogging life-bearing waters, a B.C. (2019) midsummer’s snowfall, etcetera — to date there clearly has been pathetically insufficient political courage/will to properly act upon the cause-and-effect of manmade global warming thus climate-change-induced extreme weather events.
Especially for those people most aware of them, manmade global warming and its resultant increasing number and intensity of climate-change-induced extreme weather events rightfully stir up alarm. Perhaps even for many of those people who purportedly distrust thus dislike climate science.
Yet, increasingly problematic is the very large and growing populace who are too overworked, worried and even angry about food and housing unaffordability for themselves or their family — all while on insufficient income — to criticize the fossil fuel industry, etcetera, for environmental damage their policies cause/allow, particularly when not immediately observable.
It does seem convenient for such very-profitable mega polluters, however.
There’s a continuance of polluting the natural environment with a business as usual attitude. Societally, we still discharge out of elevated exhaust pipes, smoke stacks and, quite consequentially, from sky-high jet engines like it’s all absorbed into the natural environment without repercussion. Out of sight, out of mind, indeed!
"A rain event by itself is not a climate risk, but one that falls on a city that is vulnerable to flooding is."
A (monsoon-rain and warming) event by itself is not a climate risk,
but one that falls above a narrow river valley with people traveling the road from Nepal to China is a low-probability-risk. The narrow valley forces people to stay close to the river making people vulnerable to flooding.
Nepal glacier are 4km high, the glacier ice mass has a large potential energy. Million tons of ice and rock sliding steep down 1000m develop large kinetic energy. Kinetic Energy melts ice to water.
The mass of rock, mud and ice has more kinetic energy than the slow monsoon-water of the river. The wave of ( rock, mud and ice ) collects the river water and accelerates the water making the destructive wave bigger like a tsunami water wave.
Thank you Andrew Dessler for your concept of climate risk.
A low probability of the Nepal disaster is just talking about marginal items,but the real question is the climate risk.
if you divide ice lost by GDP, the trend disappears. checkmate, alarmist.
Huh?
Ket me be a bit clearer: we need a different null hypothesis:
see
Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, and T. G. Shepherd, 2015: Attribution of climate extreme events. Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 725-730 doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2657, [PDF]
not sure the link works:
https://staff.cgd.ucar.edu/trenbert/trenberth.pdf/2015_TFS_nclimate2657-2015_attribution.pdf
Even though climate change forensics is spotty and attribution of disasters to climate change is at best "climate change certainly puts fuel on the fire" I follow the duck rule. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is a duck. The duck brandishes Occam's Razor to climate change.
If it looks like a landslide, it's a landslide - with some contribution likely from local warming related to human-caused global warming. Zeke, have you assessed this particular satellite before/after? https://x.com/WxNB_/status/2092875025246261494 (Trying to gauge if it is accurate, relevant)
Hi Andy, as I note in the part of the article about the "paraglacial response" the retreat/thinning of glaciers can weaken surrounding rock, increasing risks of landslides. But we won't know the specific role (if any) that played in this event without much more detailed forensic studies in the coming months.
As Earth 🔥 many who are paid to warn us dare not say climate change caused it because so many fear Trump fear false I'll fools fear the banquerers
I'd like to see a full list of climate scientists fired by Trump.
800 from NOAA alone, not to mention grant cuts to anyone who mentions climate change.
The obvious context was - fired for telling the inconvenient truth. Please tell me it wasn't clear to you.
NOAA works in compiling and assessing AGW data.
DEF: Climate Muting: Avoiding mentioning the obvious maladies caused by climate change due to FEAR of reprisal. Some confuse it with doubt or outright denial but us a phobia.
Yep…deniers have ‘em where they want ‘em.
Those are the heros
Sure they are. Please indulge me and tell me their names.
You know how to google. Indulge away.
Sure, Andy. Likely you say. Why do you fear saying global heating made it happen? You want to have it both ways. Kinda say maybe so you get both sides to follow you. I wish people with large followings would really BELIEVE AND SAY global warming is causing these disasters. Oh! You fudge with technicalities.
Global warming is raising the odds of high-mountain avalanches, glacier melting, lake outbursts and ice collapses. That’s it. Arguing over causality with individual events is a waste of time and distracts from responding to the resulting disaster, building preparedness for future events - including cutting vulnerability and exposure.
Absolutely wrong! Causality heightens awareness. Awareness heightens prevention.
Clearly, Andy is afraid to be fired by DJT. Only the bravest people like yourself dare to say the truth.
Lara, if you haven't read, or rather read well, Andy is bold and not afraid of your king. He keeps saying climate change is causing these disasters in a guarded tone.
Apart of corporate CEOs nobody's afraid of the arsehole.
This seems like the right call, and not only on the evidence. Attribution claims that outrun the analysis get recycled as proof that the field overreaches, and then the careful work has to carry that too.
Something worth adding to the "conditions in which the region's settlements were built" point. It applies to the glaciers as well. These are Holocene features — they took their present form under ten thousand years in which ice-core CO₂ held between roughly 259 and 287 ppm, a spread of under 30 ppm across a hundred centuries. That is the climate they are shaped to. It is now 425 ppm, higher than anything in the 800,000-year ice-core record.
The multiplier in your own numbers is the part I would press. Summers at that grid cell have warmed at 0.29 °C per decade since 1940, against roughly 0.14 globally — about twice the global rate. Today's 1.4 °C of global warming is already something closer to 3 °C at that elevation.
Now run that forward. Published multi-century projections on current policies peak around 4 °C global in the 2200s, and higher on the upper pathways. At twice the rate, that is 8 or 9 °C at the collapse site. The two runs that extend to the year 3000 are still at 2.5 and 3.6 °C global when they stop — 5 to 8 °C at that elevation, a thousand years from now, with CO₂ still above the highest value anywhere in the ice-core record.
So the question is not whether these mountains shed ice before. They did, under conditions that held steady for millennia. That stability is gone, and on present emissions it does not return on any timescale that means anything to the villages downstream. Whether or not this collapse is ever attributed, the ice will be sitting on those slopes under conditions it has never seen for longer than anyone can sensibly plan for.
Mylène Jacquemart from ETH adds (starts with rock, next ice, next water):
"At the start of the process, there was a massive rock avalanche—a huge block of rock that broke away.
A glacier sat atop it.
This glacier was simply swept along as the rock material fell.
The mass of rock and ice tumbled down the valley.
Along the way, it picked up additional rock material.
And because this mass of rock and ice moved much faster than
the water in the rivers, it was able to incorporate increasing amounts of water as it went;
that is likely what led to this incredible
volume and the shocking images."
"am Anfang des Prozesses steht ein sehr sehr großer Bergsturz,
also ein großes Felspaket, was abgebrochen ist.
Oben drauf saß ein Gletscher.
Dieser Gletscher wurde im Sturz dieses Felsmateriales einfach mitgerissen.
Die Masse aus Fels und Eis hat sich das Tal hinuntergewälzt.
unterwegs wurde zusätzliches Felsmaterial mitgerissen.
Und weil diese Masse aus Fels und Eis sich sehr viel schneller bewegt hat als
das Wasser in den Flüssen hat es unterwegs auch immer mehr Wasser aufnehmen
können und das ist das was vermutlich zu diesem unglaublichen
Volumen und zu diesen schockierenden Bildern geführt hat."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EijBzDD6I0g
Dr. Mylène Jacquemart Glaziologin an der Eidgenössischen Technischen Hochschule Zürich
Zeke
Your own comment says the risk has increased! I disagree with your conclusion
Best
Kevin
Why do you disagree?
Zeke this is a very helpful analysis but I strongly object to this framing. Climate change is not the cause of anything, but this event would not have happened without climate change. I believe that is unequivocal. Climate change alters the environment, and the risk, but it is not the cause. Please change the way this stuff is framed!
Kevin
Hi Kevin, I think its probably premature to say that this event would not have happened without climate change; we will have to do a proper attribution study to determine the specific drivers that caused it. But we can be fairly confident that climate change has increased the risk of these sorts of events in the Himalayas as temperatures have risen and glaciers have retreated.
Zeke,
For all those people dying from the heat everywhere from their medical conditons made fatal by the simple molecular excitement of heat ir will always be too early to determine the cause. It's impossible to prove anything they say of everything with 100% certainty.
After the last human left mutters, " Oh, maybe it really was climate change".
I wish legalistic skip roping would stop and more people would shout out, "It is climate change! We gotta stop it now!"
A duck is a duck.
Scientific discourse is different from kitchen table conversation.
Well said Kevin
Exactomundo, Kevin! There us data that climate forensics fails to use in causality.
Climate forensics is shamefully pitiful for if scientifically reported disasters were empirically ( by some Liklihoid Number ) tied to climate change then the perished Nepalese/Chinese would be honored by identifying the "killer ( climate change )" and global support boosted to fight climate change.
Right now.. mainstream says , " Maybe climate change had a nudge. Maybe. BUT WE CAN ABSOLUTELY SAW THE FLOOD WAS NOT ALONE CAUSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE. IN 100 YEARS WE'LL KNOW MORE"
A duck is a duck.
"this event would not have happened without climate change"
Are you saying nothing like that ever happened before we started burning fossil fuels (and, if so, based on what?) or you mean something else, sir?
The whole environment has changed especially temperatures and moisture, because of climate change.
Sure but this doesn't meant that "this event would not have happened without climate change". Not on that day - probably,. But some time later - quite possibly.
there would be no "event" to discuss if people didn't build in extremely hazardous areas. Whether the cliff gave way last week or in 100 years is secondary.
Lara,
Grow up.
Just stop talking nonsense.
Zeke - great balanced analysis (per usual;). In addition to temperature increase, you now have me thinking about temperature at *altitude* increase... I never put together the simple fact that as temps rise, it will be likely for 'stabilizing ice' below a (heavier) suspended glacier would go first.
My immediate curiosity of the middle chart of the 2nd graphic (labeled "Cumulative Regional Mass Change"), was interest in its derivative; perhaps arriving at 'regional *rate* of cumulative mass/year', etc. The slope notably steepens at 2020. If there was also data of the altitude of given losses/yr, it may be interesting to find the correlation between the increased rate of mass vs altitude - to visualize if there's correlation to the passing years (thus temp) vs estimated altitude of the fallen glaciers 'last straw'...
As this isn't close to my field (I'm an engineer in next-gen renewables), I have no idea if my inquiry here is even relevant. Perhaps its just my way of performing risk-analysis on MBTF for high-altitude glaciers! ;) Thx for what you do...
Hi Joseph, the top plot is the derivative of the cumulative mass loss – it shows the regional rate.
The attribution debate, as you say, is an utter and even irresponsible distraction from "the urgent need to reduce vulnerability." The problem is that is incredibly hard, as well, particularly with all the risk factors - hazard, exposure, vulnerability - mostly heading in the wrong direction. There was a great interview on Singapore TV today with Basanta Raj Adhikari, who was a guest on my Sustain What show in 2023 after a glacial outburst flood disaster. He said: "I’m very worried because the cascading and compounding hazards event are increasing every year, and this is in an unprecedented rate. So that’s why the changing of temperature or the climate change and then non-engineered infrastructure development in this part of the world will raise or will increase the vulnerability, and that will be really, really difficult for people and the risks will be increased. So that is the biggest worry for me." My running coverage: https://revkin.substack.com/p/how-himalayan-warming-geology-and
It is climate change induced the glaciers melting people drowning etc
Lot of folks are afraid to admit the truth even though they know it.
I cannot parse what you said really well. For me, vulnerability is roughly proportional to the number of people. Are you proposing something radically different?
we went over that here: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/climate-risk-explained
Thank you for the reference to "Climate risk explained".
Your sentence is true
"A rain event by itself is not a climate risk, but one that falls on a city that is vulnerable to flooding is."
A (monsoon-rain and warming) event by itself is not a climate risk,
but one that falls above a narrow river valley with people traveling the road from Nepal to China is a low-probability-risk. The narrow valley forces people to stay close to the river making people vulnerable to flooding.
Nepal glacier are 4km high, the glacier ice mass has a large potential energy.
Million tons of ice and rock sliding steep down 1000m develop large kinetic energy. Kinetic Energy melts ice to water.
The mass of rock, mud and ice has more kinetic energy than the slow monsoon-water of the river. The wave of ( rock, mud and ice ) collects the river water and accelerates the water making the destructive wave bigger like a tsunami water wave.
Thank you for your concept of climate risk.
A low probability of the Nepal disaster is nice talking,
but the real question is the climate risk.
As Andrew Dessler's fine book chapter lays out (another reply) - risk exists when there is a hazard (storm, flood, etc) AND exposure (how many people, how much stuff) and those exposed are vulnerable. Diana Liverman, a longtime geographer focused on climate, distilled this beautifully on my Sustain What webcast: "When we talk about climate risk, some people still just think it's the probability of the heat wave. But we need to think about risk not as the probability of the heat wave, but the probability of harm." https://revkin.substack.com/i/79692389/shifting-the-focus-to-climate-risk
I'm sorry. Ostensibly we both write in English but I have no idea what you are talking about.
In Nepal, the problem was not a heat wave.
But since you brought it up, let's talk about those.
I say, if you have a dwelling with a working AC, no heat wave can do you any harm. What do you say?
Define “harm”.
Physical damage or injury, something that cause you to die or get very sick sooner than you would otherwise.
So losing a house doesn’t count?
It's all semantics. Trite technicalities to allude to a different state.
Earth is 🔥
Call me chicken little.
I'd rather be chicken little than a merchant of doubt who wants to appear totally unbiased conveys messages that just pacifies worry that could lead to stronger action.
It's lamedown because even some of the climate scientists place doubt on the havoc of global heating.
Capt Kirk, where are you?
Dr Hansen, who are these lame brain "climate scientists?"
Dr Sagan.. so glad you didn't have to see the travesty of science being where'd out as Earth burns.
So far, I have trouble even understanding what really happened. And here you are discussing possible attribution.
Let's start with connection to earthquakes. Here, with reference to USGS - duly noted, you are telling as that the glacier collapse CAUSED a 5.2 quake. While in 2015 a tragedy was caused BY a 7.8 quake. Why are you conflating these two events?
I've seen several videos. In every single one, there is an incredible deluge of water coming down the slope or the river. If it started with a glacier collapse, when did the ice turn into water? Surely it couldn't have happened in a few minutes?
I've read several theories online. One, that makes most (but not enough) sense to me, is that after collapse the mixture of ice and rock plugged the river. Then the river level upstream from the dam have risen, water melted the ice, gravity worked, the whole thing became unstable and down it went. OK, maybe.
But this scenario implies that the plugged river went almost dry downstream for a while because it was plugged by this dam. In late summer. And what? Nobody noticed? Nothing like that ever happened before? I'm sorry, this doesn't make sense. For anyone who lived there long enough it should have been a sign that it's time to run to the hills.
Can we say that mass loss and consequences will accelerate at higher temperatures?
Be it unprecedented flooding, more atmospheric rivers, wettest/hottest year on record, record-breaking ‘stalling domes’ of high heat, unprecedented wildfires due to unprecedented heat waves (e.g. B.C., 2021), far stronger hurricanes, off-the-chart poor-air advisories, an exodus of sea life due to warming waters, the mass deforestation and incineration of the Amazonian rainforest, single-use plastics clogging life-bearing waters, a B.C. (2019) midsummer’s snowfall, etcetera — to date there clearly has been pathetically insufficient political courage/will to properly act upon the cause-and-effect of manmade global warming thus climate-change-induced extreme weather events.
Especially for those people most aware of them, manmade global warming and its resultant increasing number and intensity of climate-change-induced extreme weather events rightfully stir up alarm. Perhaps even for many of those people who purportedly distrust thus dislike climate science.
Yet, increasingly problematic is the very large and growing populace who are too overworked, worried and even angry about food and housing unaffordability for themselves or their family — all while on insufficient income — to criticize the fossil fuel industry, etcetera, for environmental damage their policies cause/allow, particularly when not immediately observable.
It does seem convenient for such very-profitable mega polluters, however.
There’s a continuance of polluting the natural environment with a business as usual attitude. Societally, we still discharge out of elevated exhaust pipes, smoke stacks and, quite consequentially, from sky-high jet engines like it’s all absorbed into the natural environment without repercussion. Out of sight, out of mind, indeed!
I love how careful and thoughtful your analysis is. Unfortunately so rare these days.
There is a helpful article "Climate risk explained".
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/climate-risk-explained
This sentence is true
"A rain event by itself is not a climate risk, but one that falls on a city that is vulnerable to flooding is."
A (monsoon-rain and warming) event by itself is not a climate risk,
but one that falls above a narrow river valley with people traveling the road from Nepal to China is a low-probability-risk. The narrow valley forces people to stay close to the river making people vulnerable to flooding.
Nepal glacier are 4km high, the glacier ice mass has a large potential energy. Million tons of ice and rock sliding steep down 1000m develop large kinetic energy. Kinetic Energy melts ice to water.
The mass of rock, mud and ice has more kinetic energy than the slow monsoon-water of the river. The wave of ( rock, mud and ice ) collects the river water and accelerates the water making the destructive wave bigger like a tsunami water wave.
Thank you Andrew Dessler for your concept of climate risk.
A low probability of the Nepal disaster is just talking about marginal items,but the real question is the climate risk.
Nous récoltons que nous avons semé.