Suchergebnisse

Der Klimawandel trifft uns nicht alle gleich. Friederike Otto liefert anhand von acht extremen Wetterereignissen konkrete Beispiele, was die wirklichen Ursachen sind, wer besonders betroffen ist und vor allem: Was Klimagerechtigkeit tatsächlich bedeutet und was dafür noch getan werden muss. Der Klimawandel zerstört nicht die Menschheit, aber Menschenleben und Lebensgrundlagen. Wir staunen über Rekordtemperaturen, Windgeschwindigkeiten und Regenmengen, aber fragen uns zu wenig, wer ihnen besonders ausgesetzt ist, wer sich nicht erholen kann - und warum. Ungleichheit und Ungerechtigkeit sind der Kern dessen, was den Klimawandel zum Menschheitsproblem machen. Damit müssen Fairness und globale Gerechtigkeit auch im Kern der Lösung stecken. Klimagerechtigkeit geht jeden etwas an

Klappentext: Ständig neue Hitzerekorde, sintflutartiger Starkregen - was ist noch ungewöhnliches Wetter, und was ist schon Klimawandel? Die Physikerin Friederike Otto erklärt, wie extreme Wetterereignisse mit der langfristigen Entwicklung des Klimas zusammenhängen. Sie hat das revolutionäre Forschungsfeld der Zuordnungswissenschaft (Attribution Science) mitentwickelt, mit dem sich genau berechnen lässt, wann der Klimawandel im Spiel ist und wer die Verursacher sind. Politisches und unternehmerisches Fehlverhalten wird so erstmals messbar und haftbar gemacht. Mit einem zusätzlichen ZEIT-Artikel über die Folgen des Klimawandels für Europa. Die Autorin: Friederike Otto, geboren 1982, ist Klimaforscherin, Physikerin und promovierte Philosophin. Am Grantham Institute for Climate Change des renommierten Imperial College London forscht sie zu Extremwetter und dessen Auswirkungen auf die Gesellschaft.

AbstractSince the UNFCCC Paris Agreement came into force after 2015 international climate policy rests on three pillars: mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage. However, while there are clear agreed‐upon metrics to measure emissions, base mitigation goals against and hold countries and companies accountable to, the evidence base for the impacts of climate change to inform adaptation and loss and damage is very different. There are no agreed‐upon metrics, nor are there guidelines or criteria to delineate the impacts of climate change from other drivers of losses and damages. This imbalance is reflected in the lack of ability to set and enforce goals. With a new body of scientific evidence introduced in the IPCC, we argue that this can change. Especially with an increasing number of climate litigation cases being recognised as a legitimate root to justice, and thus being given due consideration in courts, the imbalance in evidence could change and put adaptation and loss and damage on more equal footing with mitigation.

Intro -- Title Page -- Dedication -- Contents -- Preface -- Prologue: The New Weather -- 1. A New Branch of Research: The Role of the Climate in Our Weather -- 1. Cause and Effect: How We Created Our Weather -- 2. Sowing the Seeds of Doubt: Climate Change Deniers -- 3. Revolution in Climate Science: Turning the Field on Its Head -- 4. The Human Factor: Calculating the Influence of Climate Change on the Weather -- 5. Heat Waves, Downpours, and More: The Role of Climate Change in the Weather -- 2. Consequences: The Power of Attribution Science -- 6. Ignore Climate Change and Suffer Its Wrath -- 7. Facts Not Fatalism: Identifying the Causes of Disasters in Order to Act -- 8. A Question of Justice: The Cost of Climate Change and the Responsibilities of Industrialized Countries -- 9. Countries and Corporations on Trial -- 10. Climate Change in Everyday Life: Seeing the Weather From a New Perspective -- Epilogue -- Acknowledgments -- Editorial Note -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index -- Copyright Page.

Abstract
Recent extreme weather events and their impacts on societies have highlighted the need for timely adaptation to the changing odds of their occurrence. Such measures require appropriate information about likely changes in event frequency and magnitude on relevant spatiotemporal scales. However, to support robust climate information for decision-making, an effective communication between scientists and stakeholders is crucial. In this context, weather event attribution studies are increasingly raising attention beyond academic circles, although the understanding of how to take it beyond academia is still evolving. This paper presents the results of a study that involved in-depth interviews with stakeholders from a range of sectors about potential applications and the general usefulness of event attribution studies. A case study of the hot and dry summer 2012 in southeast Europe is used as a concrete example, with a focus on the applicability of attribution results across sectors. An analysis of the interviews reveals an abundant interest among the interviewed stakeholders and highlights the need for information on the causes and odds of extreme events, in particular on regional scales. From this data key aspects of stakeholder engagement are emerging, which could productively feed back into how probabilistic event attribution studies are designed and communicated to ensure practical relevance and usefulness for the stakeholder community.

"Ist die Investition in Atomkraft sinnvoll, um den Klimawandel aufzuhalten?" ist einer der Fragen, denen Terra-X-Moderator und Naturschützer Dirk Steffens in seinem neuen Buch nachgeht. Mit Hilfe einer Reihe kluger Köpfe wie Claudia Kemfert, Antje Boëtius oder Mojib Latif befasst er sich mit Themen aus den Bereichen Natur, Umwelt, Technik und Wissenschaft und diskutiert Pro und Contra. (Verlagswerbung)

AbstractThe science of extreme event attribution (EEA)—which connects specific extreme weather events with anthropogenic climate change—could prove useful for engaging the public about climate change. However, there is limited empirical research examining EEA as a climate change communication tool. To help fill this gap, we conducted focus groups with members of the U.K. public to explore benefits and challenges of utilizing EEA results in climate change advocacy messages. Testing a range of verbal and visual approaches for communicating EEA, we found that EEA shows significant promise for climate change communication because of its ability to connect novel, attention-grabbing, and event-specific scientific information to personal experiences and observations of extreme events. Communication challenges include adequately capturing nuances around extreme weather risks, vulnerability, adaptation, and disaster risk reduction; expressing scientific uncertainty without undermining accessibility of key findings; and difficulties interpreting mathematical aspects of EEA results. On the basis of our findings, we provide recommendations to help address these challenges when communicating EEA results beyond the climate science community. We conclude that EEA can help catalyze important dialogues about the links between extreme weather and human-driven climate change.

Deutschland steht in der Pflicht, eine führende Klimanation zu werden. Daran gibt es keinen Zweifel, das hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht mit seiner Entscheidung vom 29. April 2021 deutlich gemacht. Das Gericht hat nicht nur die Beachtung der Generationengerechtigkeit im begutachteten Klimagesetz angemahnt, sondern auch betont, dass sich Deutschland als führende Industrienation mit dem Unterzeichnen des Pariser Abkommens verpflichtet hat, in Bezug auf Klimaschutz mehr zu leisten als Schwellen- und Entwicklungsländer.

Attribution has become a recurring issue in discussions about Loss and Damage (L&D). In this highly-politicised context, attribution is often associated with responsibility and blame; and linked to debates about liability and compensation. The aim of attribution science, however, is not to establish responsibility, but to further scientific understanding of causal links between elements of the Earth System and society. This research into causality could inform the management of climate-related risks through improved understanding of drivers of relevant hazards, or, more widely, vulnerability and exposure; with potential benefits regardless of political positions on L&D. Experience shows that it is nevertheless difficult to have open discussions about the science in the policy sphere. This is not only a missed opportunity, but also problematic in that it could inhibit understanding of scientific results and uncertainties, potentially leading to policy planning which does not have sufficient scientific evidence to support it. In this chapter, we first explore this dilemma for science-policy dialogue, summarising several years of research into stakeholder perspectives of attribution in the context of L&D. We then aim to provide clarity about the scientific research available, through an overview of research which might contribute evidence about the causal connections between anthropogenic climate change and losses and damages, including climate science, but also other fields which examine other drivers of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Finally, we explore potential applications of attribution research, suggesting that an integrated and nuanced approach has potential to inform planning to avert, minimise and address losses and damages. The key messages are In the political context of climate negotiations, questions about whether losses and damages can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change are often linked to issues of responsibility, blame, and liability. Attribution science does not aim to ...

Abstract. On 19 May 2016 the afternoon temperature reached 51.0 °C in Phalodi in the northwest of India – a new record for the highest observed maximum temperature in India. The previous year, a widely reported very lethal heat wave occurred in the southeast, in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, killing thousands of people. In both cases it was widely assumed that the probability and severity of heat waves in India are increasing due to global warming, as they do in other parts of the world. However, we do not find positive trends in the highest maximum temperature of the year in most of India since the 1970s (except spurious trends due to missing data). Decadal variability cannot explain this, but both increased air pollution with aerosols blocking sunlight and increased irrigation leading to evaporative cooling have counteracted the effect of greenhouse gases up to now. Current climate models do not represent these processes well and hence cannot be used to attribute heat waves in this area. The health effects of heat are often described better by a combination of temperature and humidity, such as a heat index or wet bulb temperature. Due to the increase in humidity from irrigation and higher sea surface temperatures (SSTs), these indices have increased over the last decades even when extreme temperatures have not. The extreme air pollution also exacerbates the health impacts of heat. From these factors it follows that, from a health impact point of view, the severity of heat waves has increased in India. For the next decades we expect the trend due to global warming to continue but the surface cooling effect of aerosols to diminish as air quality controls are implemented. The expansion of irrigation will likely continue, though at a slower pace, mitigating this trend somewhat. Humidity will probably continue to rise. The combination will result in a strong rise in the temperature of heat waves. The high humidity will make health effects worse, whereas decreased air pollution would decrease the impacts.