Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Everyone ran this story, but badly reported 253 million people will *not* be at risk in 2100 Study assumes we rip out all coastal defenses — absurdly unrealistic With realistic assumptions, numbers at least 100-1000 lowerhttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/climate/sea-level-inland-floods.html …
Central quote Only true if "no dykes or sea walls in place" Great for scary stories, bad for informing policy How is it relevant for mayor of New York or Jakarta to know what happens if humanity rips out all dikes and sea walls? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67736-6 … (p8, supplement)pic.twitter.com/TR6SfjqNjA
Many of the same researchers have already found that just the difference between *existing* and *increasing* protection as we get richer and as sea levels rise impacts will be reduced 100-1000 times https://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3292 …pic.twitter.com/HH1MnObiYb
Indeed, using their data for more adaptation vs no additional adaptation you get this picture (and of course, the article even assumes we rip out all current protection) Is this making us well-informed, or just scared? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157 …pic.twitter.com/EBOVgDspGQ
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
