The ambiguous costs of climate change
As human activity has increased temperatures globally, determining the costs directly incurred by climate change is challenging. The effects of climate change on extreme weather events—such as hurricanes and heat waves—can be locally specific and variable, and observations and climate modeling might not accurately capture those effects.
Climate change's impact on extreme weather events remains difficult to quantify due to variable effects and observational limitations. Researchers assess costs by comparing actual events to hypothetical scenarios without climate change influences, using two approaches: frequency-change and intensity-change. The frequency-change method estimates likelihood increases, while the intensity-change gauges damage amplification.
Applying these methods to Hurricane Harvey in 2017 demonstrates significant disparity, with the frequency-change claiming 75% climate-change related costs and the intensity-change estimating only 15%. To address this inconsistency, A. L. Match et al. introduce a consistency framework in AGU Advances, determining a method's validity through its coherence with actual excess costs over time.
Both approaches can be consistent, indicating individual-event climate-change costs inherently remain ambiguous, regardless of perfect knowledge or technological advancements. This ambiguity could constrain EEIA's utility in adaptation, recovery, and litigation efforts.
Written by urgent.news from Phys.org's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
This story
This is one outlet's version. Read the fullest account.
