Risks from extreme weather are 'significant and increasing'

Risks from extreme weather are ‘significant and increasing’

Human societies are not resilient to extreme weather, according to a new report released by the Royal Society today.

Human exposure to extreme weather is set to increase with continued changes in global climate and population size, location and age. The Resilience to Extreme Weather identifies the regions most vulnerable to floods, droughts and heatwaves over the coming decades and makes key recommendations for improving societal resilience.

Compiled using the latest scientific evidence, including expertise from the University of Bristol's Cabot Institute member Professor Paul Bates, the report assesses the impact of extreme weather on communities around the world using mapped climate and population projections. It stresses that the combined impact of climate and demographic changes need to be accounted for when building resilience.

Speaking from the report launch event in Bangalore, India, Professor Bates, a member of the report working group, said: "For the first time this report makes clear that global society is not resilient to the extreme weather that we experience now, and that in the future, with population and , we will be even more threatened."

The report calls for action at all levels of government – international, national and local – to reduce people's exposure and vulnerability to extreme weather now and in the future. In 2015 important international agreements on climate change, disaster-risk reduction and sustainable development will be reached. These agreements and their implementation present an opportunity to develop a coherent strategy to build resilience and will be more effective if based on robust evidence.

Professor Bates emphasizes the need for action: "Importantly the report makes a number of practical suggestions, such as encouraging businesses to report exposure to natural hazards in their annual accounts, that will start to address this situation."

The report highlights the current failure of global financial systems to recognize the risks posed by extreme weather. It calls for reform of financial regulation, with institutions and businesses assessing and reporting their exposure to extreme weather in order to build resilience in the global financial system.

The report also reinforces the benefit of early action, planning, and adapting to changing populations and climate to build resilient societies. In addition to engineering solutions such as dams and sea walls, the report recommends low-cost ecosystem-based approaches. By protecting natural flood plains and mangroves, and planting vegetation, natural defenses to events are created, with many additional societal benefits.


Explore further

Teachable moments about climate change

Citation: Risks from extreme weather are 'significant and increasing' (2014, November 27) retrieved 19 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-11-extreme-weather-significant.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

KDK
Nov 27, 2014
That is why the looming ICE AGE is going to be a serious problem--not merely based on Solar Cycle 24, but the Milankovitch decline as well!

Nov 27, 2014
The report calls for action at all levels of government

Let the insurance companies deal with this.
Why must risk be socialized by taxpayers?
Insurance companies have an incentive to earn profit. A business has an incentive to earn profit. Why should taxpayers bailout any business that exposes itself to natural risks?

Nov 27, 2014
That is why the looming ICE AGE is going to be a serious problem--not merely based on Solar Cycle 24, but the Milankovitch decline as well!


There is a lot of competition for the most ignorant post of the week but it looks like you'll win.

Nov 28, 2014
Human societies are not resilient to extreme weather

Actually, certain societies are very resilient to extreme weather. Wealthy ones. History shows that as societies become wealthy, they build all kinds of safeguards to tame extreme weather; not by stopping the weather but by mitigating the damage it causes. Dams, for example, provide excellent flood control, as do dikes and levees. Sturdy structures resist damage from hurricanes, tornadoes and such. We would be wise to continue this trend and encourage freedom and protection of both basic human rights and property ownership so poor and oppressed societies may become wealthy too. Contrast the devastation a tropical storm wreaks in poor countries like the Philippines compared to a wealthy country like the U.S.

Money spent on the fool's errand of trying to curb climate change is money taken away from productive endeavors to shore up infrastructure to mitigate damage from extreme weather.

Nov 28, 2014
Money spent on the fool's errand of trying to curb climate change is money taken away from productive endeavors to shore up infrastructure to mitigate damage from extreme weather.


I would agree with you in regards "weather" but climate is a different thing.

Nov 28, 2014
That is why the looming ICE AGE is going to be a serious problem--not merely based on Solar Cycle 24, but the Milankovitch decline as well!


There is a lot of competition for the most ignorant post of the week but it looks like you'll win.
Aren't you too old to be posting these schoolboy indignities?


Nov 28, 2014
If we invest in renewable energy/nuclear energy/battery tech for transportation -

Who are 'we'?
Do you mean the state should take the wealth it plunders and redistribute to cronies like General Electric so they can crush competitors?

Nov 28, 2014
askdad "Money spent on the fool's errand of trying to curb climate change is money taken away from productive endeavors to shore up infrastructure to mitigate damage from extreme weather."

Perhaps the intelligent thing to do is to look for win-win. If we invest in renewable energy/nuclear energy/battery tech for transportation - that can bring down the cost of energy, and transportation - we have a cleaner, cheaper, more sustainable world.
To state investing in renewable energy/nuclear energy/battery tech for transportation will bring down these costs is pie-in-the-sky thinking. Maybe you're discounting the "investment" portion as part of the costs?


Nov 28, 2014
@greenonions:

There is currently a lot of research - which includes governments (plural) funding going in to the development of next gen nuclear - including fusion. There is a huge amount of private and public sector research going in to renewables - such as wind/solar/wave/tidal/geothermal etc. Do you oppose this research?
Some yes, some no.

Vast oceans of private and public monies have gone into the fossil fuel industries over the past 200 years - which have brought us the energy system we currently have that gives me the high quality life style I enjoy. Do you feel this research should not have happened?
Some yes, some no.

It is not pie in the sky to talk of renewables (and nukes) bringing down the cost of energy to significantly below current levels.
Saying it is not pie-in-the-sky thinking does not make it not pie-in-the-sky thinking.

Cont...


Nov 28, 2014
@greenonions (cont):

The cost curves on wind/solar/and geothermal continue (and will continue in the future) down.
Actually, the costs generally aren't going down so much as they are hidden. One common trick is to use "installed costs" versus total costs.

Just one look at how interesting this situation is - http://www.nytime...amp;_r=2
Your own source admits, "Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies..."

Anyway, sure, costs are diminishing. But in reality, renewable energy costs aren't as close to traditional energy costs as you imply.

Nov 28, 2014
Saying it is not pie-in-the-sky thinking does not make it not pie-in-the-sky thinking.


No, but ignoring the strides that have been made to support a political agenda makes such a comment laughable and meaningless.

Nov 28, 2014
Saying it is not pie-in-the-sky thinking does not make it not pie-in-the-sky thinking.
No, but ignoring the strides that have been made
I understand how being realistic is a foreign concept to AGWites, but that doesn't mean it must be foreign to everyone.

to support a political agenda makes such a comment laughable and meaningless.
Whose agenda?

And, whose agenda are you therefore supporting?


Nov 28, 2014
You are wrong - the costs are dropping very fast.

http://www.bizjou...ays.html
Did you not read about the DOE's involvement? Do you think the DOE's "SunShot Initiative" has no budget?

"more than $70 billion in direct spending and tax credits for clean energy"

http://en.wikiped...e_energy

Further reading:

"Since the SunShot Initiative was announced in February 2011, the office has funded more than 350 projects in the following areas:"

http://energy.gov...ot/about

This is why ppa's are coming in at around 6 cents a Kwh in parts of the world.

http://www.greent....5-cents
I will agree that over all, the prices for renewable energy is diminishing, and I think diversifying our energy supply is generally a good policy, but we should not ignore the costs.

Nov 29, 2014
ubavontuba: Did you not read about the DOE's involvement? Do you think the DOE's "SunShot Initiative" has no budget?
greenonions:This of course has no bearing on the reality that the cost curve for both wind and solar has been sharply downhill for the past 50 years.
Which still doesn't mean it is equivalent to or cheaper than traditional energy sources.

"it takes an investment of approximately $10 million in wind plants to produce the same amount of electricity with the same reliability as a $1 million investment in gas combined cycle plants."

http://www.brooki...inal.pdf


Nov 29, 2014
Which still doesn't mean it is equivalent to or cheaper than traditional energy source.
No - but the facts show that wind and solar are in fact now very much competitive with traditional energy sources - and the cost curves will continue down. These are simply facts - and they are supported by a number of real world metrics - such as recent ppa's from solar and wind projects.
And again, from your own source: "While subsidies are still contributing to reduced prices for renewables,"

From the root NY Times article, we find at least 28% of solar generating costs are subsidized (5.6 cents per kwh price, vs. 7.2 cents per kwh cost).

So someone is paying these costs, just not the buyers.

Any unsubsidized business losing money this quickly, would have to shutter their doors.


Nov 29, 2014
And again, from your own source: "While subsidies are still contributing to reduced prices for renewables,"

From the root NY Times article, we find at least 28% of solar generating costs are subsidized (5.6 cents per kwh price, vs. 7.2 cents per kwh cost).

So someone is paying these costs, just not the buyers.

Any unsubsidized business losing money this quickly, would have to shutter their doors.



You say that like they will acknowledge it. Most of the AGW people posting here work in a call center/through a contractor posting off of a script. Don't get too tied up in their BS.

Nov 29, 2014
Deniers think they know more than the professionals in the Department of Defense, the CIA, and the world's best scientists.

But opinions based on political prejudice rarely are rational, and the deniers are not in that field.

Nov 29, 2014
And again, from your own source: "While subsidies are still contributing to reduced prices for renewables,
And if you factor out the subsidies - the costs are still competitive. PPA's for solar and wind are now in the 5 cent per Kwh range. Without subsidies - that would put them in the 7 - 8 Kwh range - highly cost competive - especially with gas peeker plants, and nuclear.
Regardless of our different opinions regarding current total costs, like I said before, I certainly am glad to see the costs diminish, and energy diversity is good policy.

Eventually, I think problems of unreliable capacity can be mitigated with built in excess capacity used for energy storage systems. Utility scale, pumped-storage hydroelectric seems doable.


Nov 29, 2014
Saying it is not pie-in-the-sky thinking does not make it not pie-in-the-sky thinking.
No, but ignoring the strides that have been made
I understand how being realistic is a foreign concept to AGWites, but that doesn't mean it must be foreign to everyone.

to support a political agenda makes such a comment laughable and meaningless.
Whose agenda?

And, whose agenda are you therefore supporting?



Typical. "No I'm not, you are".

Nov 29, 2014
Deniers think they know more than the professionals in the Department of Defense, the CIA, and the world's best scientists.

But opinions based on political prejudice rarely are rational, and the deniers are not in that field.


I'm retired from the DoD, you idiot.

Nov 29, 2014
The CO2 levels are still rising and yet both poles are getting bigger, glaciers are stagnant or growing. So much for that theory*.


Actually, the south pole is losing ice and that loss continues to accelerate. The glaciers are also losing ice (rather dramatically) and that loss is accelerating as well. The Antarctic sea ice and Arctic sea ice have grown despite warming temperatures, as the data continues to show that the globe has continued to heat up year after year. Evidence shows that growth in Antarctic sea ice is likely associated with global warming. The 2 year growth in Arctic sea ice is not unprecedented during the last 3 decades, so I'm not sure why you find that interesting.

Nov 29, 2014
Bill, you do not get "science" from a hardline political site.

Nov 30, 2014
Whose agenda?
@Uba
that is what i would like to know
i read studies that show there is a well funded organization trying to undermine the science behind climate change: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
Then i read your posts where you argue semantics over reality (defnine global warming) and then you cherry pick data to support your conclusions, even though you & i argued about the fact that NOAA and everyone else normally uses a minimum 30 yr. time as a trend, but you ignore that
and yet, when you add in the couple years you ignore(a 30 year trend): http://woodfortre....8/trend
it shows WARMING
but even ignoring all that... the science says one thing: http://www.scienc...abstract
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
but you argue against it
WHY?
By default: you support big oil

Nov 30, 2014
You say that like they will acknowledge it. Most of the AGW people posting here work in a call center/through a contractor posting off of a script. Don't get too tied up in their BS
@joeblow
BAITING/TROLL comment
I'm retired from the DoD
so what?
So am i
you are the one completely ignoring the science, joe
have you been able to find a study that refutes the following yet?
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

let me know when you do

Nov 30, 2014
If governments like the Obama administration, and their capitalist cronies like GE, have a lot of power and the riches it brings come from battling 'Global Warming', then their claim that it is real should be looked at with suspicion
@bill589
1- i personally despise obama
2- i don't like big gov't much either
3- you are taking a purely political stance and ignoring the science, which is not just "American" but from all around the world
there is no way to have a worldwide conspiracy without having large amounts of people undermining it from within
most cultures cannot even agree on a breakfast meal, let alone a conspiracy
read the SCIENCE
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

that is the ONLY thing worth reading
if it is confusing, learn what you need:
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
https://www.edx.o...OJ8mrzIW

Dec 03, 2014
Have been toying with woodfortree's configurable plots, sometimes too many options to explore, those pesky permutations again, please note the Provenance as mentioned here:-
http://www.woodfo.../credits

Have arranged to output a passably useful plot of hadcrut4 with CO2 on same graph here:-

http://woodfortre...ormalise

Correlation of interest to those which seem to have faith no such relationship appears - when I say interest, I would like to see actual substantive refutation, not political diatribe or claims I removed some data or fudged anything at all - be genuine you arbitrary denier clan !

Havent as yet found way to put scale on right hand axis re CO2 ppm, anyone have an idea ?

Definitions are immensely important AGW denier guys, not unscientific dictionaries & correct climate change periods etc...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more