Scientists unveil groundbreaking tool that could change how we prepare for weather disasters: 'More knowledge at our disposal than ever before'
Expert climate scientists at Columbia University have developed a new interactive tool that can help predict natural disasters so the government can prepare for them.
They led the U.S. Natural Hazards Climate Change Projections project with a group of researchers to create an interactive dataset with maps and graphs, according to a post by the Earth Institute at Columbia University in Phys.org. The dataset can track and predict climate change-fueled extreme events on a county level.
These detailed estimates provide vital information to governments, city officials, disaster relief organizations, and residents. Better preparation for natural disasters is good for the environment and can mean less expensive damage and fewer injuries and deaths.
In their testing, the researchers found that San Diego and Washington State are both at a high risk for wildfires, and it could get worse. North Dakota and South Dakota could also see an increased risk for wildfires, and the East Coast may soon see more tornadoes.
"While the challenges of climate change and disasters may seem overwhelming, it is also important to note that we have more knowledge at our disposal than ever before," said Jeffrey Schlegelmilch, a climate professor at the Columbia Climate School, per Phys.org.
"By working across sectors and engaging partnerships like this, we can provide data that is empirically rigorous and immediately relevant to stakeholders outside of academia. This helps to foster better decisions, better investments and better resilience for our communities."
The team released the dataset tool in April as open source and available to everyone. It's an important resource in a time when the Trump Administration is cutting funding to FEMA and taking down governmental agency tracking websites.
"By making this data available in an accessible format, we aim to support not just climate scientists and risk modelers, but also urban planners, emergency managers and researchers in other fields, like economics or human mobility," said Simona Meiler, a postdoctoral climate researcher at Stanford University, per Phys.org.
What would you do if natural disasters were threatening your home?
Move somewhere else
Reinforce my home
Nothing
This is happening already
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Scientists make game-changing discovery that could transform aviation industry: 'I wasn't expecting that'
Researchers at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign have discovered several benefits of growing prairie grass for making sustainable aviation fuels. Switchgrass has grown in Midwestern soils for millions of years, but recent studies shared by pinpointed significant economic and environmental considerations for using it to help decarbonize the aviation industry. The switchgrass crop is forecasted to produce up to 230 million dry tons of biomass annually and is a particularly good candidate for SAF due to several beneficial traits. It can be harvested each year for a decade or more without repeated replanting, requires minimal nitrogen fertilizer compared to corn, and provides valuable ecosystem services, the report detailed. The key to these studies is that the U of I researchers focused on finding particularly productive switchgrass cultivars, while tracking fertilizer use and did so at a field scale to gauge real-world potential. "All the data that helps us estimate switchgrass suitability for SAF comes from small plot research or older forage-type switchgrass cultivars. We wanted to test high-yielding switchgrass cultivars on a larger scale to provide a more accurate picture of the benefits these new cultivars provide," said D.K. Lee, senior author of both studies and a professor at the school. The aviation industry is responsible for 2% of the world's carbon pollution, and sustainable aviation fuel has the potential to drastically reduce that number, according to the Department of Energy. Compared with regular jet fuel, using 100% SAF could reduce planet-warming pollution in the industry by up to 94%, depending on which feedstocks are used and how it's developed. The International Civil Aviation Organization reported that over 360,000 commercial flights have already used SAF. Adoption is also growing, going from five million gallons consumed in 2021 to 24.5 million gallons in 2023. To gauge the full economic potential and environmental impact of growing switchgrass for SAF, the researchers spent five years growing five different cultivars across four states, while tracking nitrogen fertilizer use. Should the government be able to control how we heat our homes? Definitely Only if it saves money I'm not sure No way Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. They found that Independence and Liberty cultivars were the most productive, and they can potentially generate higher profits than conventional row crops on less productive land, according to Nictor Namoi, who worked on the study. Nitrous oxide pollution and nitrate leaching were significantly lower than in corn crops, but that was expected given the reduced amount of nitrogen fertilizer used with switchgrass. There was one quirk with the crop, however, in that it produced more carbon pollution than corn after the second year. "I wasn't expecting that," Namoi said. "But there's a lot more biomass belowground in switchgrass, about five times that of corn." After years of study, the research team felt that the results were positive and that this SAF feedstock crop could help farmers earn more, while contributing to a cleaner environment by reducing reliance on dirtier fuel alternatives. "Our research ensures that we can feed productive cultivars into the SAF production system once the economy and the technology [are] ready to transition," Namoi concluded. Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Science Badly Needs Defending Right Now. It Doesn't Need Your Belief.
American science appears to be in free fall. Donald Trump is eviscerating research funding, persecuting the universities on whose contributions countless scientific fields depend, and vastly complicating immigration for foreign scholars, even going so far as to 'aggressively revoke' the visas of Chinese students. His administration has threatened to withdraw Columbia University's accreditation and moved to ban Harvard University from enrolling international students. If the United States was once among the best places on earth to do scientific research—home to some of the strongest universities, robust government investment, a spirit of innovation, and an openness to collaboration—scientists are now fleeing our shores in droves for China, Germany, or just about anywhere else. Many who had dreamed of spending at least part of their careers here are choosing not to come. The institutions—from universities to the relevant government agencies—are in disarray. It may take decades for them to recover. Some of this was predictable. Trump has made no secret of his hatred of immigrants, and certain areas of research—from climate change to racial disparities in health care to vaccines—have been stigmatized as 'woke' in MAGA quarters. But it's stunning that priorities like diabetes and pediatric cancer—hardly culture-war land mines—have been equally crushed by Republicans' cost-cutting rampage. How did we get here? 'Trump' is the correct one-word answer, but it's also true that over the last decade and a half, liberal exhortations to 'believe in science' have not helped. The implication is that if you don't believe in it, you're stupid. Trust the experts. Trust Harvard. It should surprise no one that this was not a winning line of 2016, Hillary Clinton declared, 'I believe in science,' when she accepted the nomination at the Democratic National Convention. Of course—ominous narrator voice—we all know the outcome of that election. Nevertheless, the slogan caught fire among liberals, and there quickly followed the 2017 and 2018 Marches for Science, inspired by Trump's attacks on climate policy and climate research. The rallies were well attended and well intended, but, as some scientists feared, to many they came across as 'another attack from a condescending elite' and 'a justification for the idea that science is somehow biased.' But the worst was yet to come. During the pandemic, as many Americans, some conservative, some just politically adrift, grew increasingly and often dangerously suspicious of public health recommendations like vaccination, the liberal shrillness on behalf of science reached unprecedented decibels. Reviving Clinton's smug proclamation of 2016, the even more grating 'We believe in science' often appeared on a sign preceded by the scolding reproach 'In this house.' To this day, you can buy pins, T-shirts, mugs, and keychains asserting the belief. And even more cringe variants exist: for example, a T-shirt that says, 'The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.' More an attitude than an argument, this 'belief in science' claim was snide. It suggested that those on the other side believed in what, witchcraft? Worse, the 'belief' was nearly as impervious to empiricism as its opposition. Few of its loudest adherents would acknowledge nuance or apologize for error, even as it turned out that the disbelieving dummies had at times been correct on some pandemic matters: It was probably never necessary to wear a mask outdoors, schools probably were closed for too long, Covid vaccines may indeed pose some heart risks to young men. These polarized discussions fueled the manifestly unfortunate rise of RFK Jr. and spawned the Make America Healthy Again movement, which has attracted yoga moms and fitness bros alike. Like those who dissented from liberal nostrums during the pandemic, MAHA has been right about some things (microplastics are terrible, our children's mental health is in peril, fluoride in our drinking water has risks as well as benefits) and horribly wrong about others (not vaccinating kids, deliberately allowing bird flu to spread). But the worst thing about 'I believe in science' is its cocky assumption that 'science' can be detached from opinions, interpretations, and, especially, values and politics. That attitude has helped fuel a culture war and left the majority struggling to defend science from the current crew of right-wing wreckers in the White House, who may be wrong about most things but understand that science takes place in an ideological rather than a theological attack on scientists and their institutions is philosophically consistent with his other positions. MAGA hates public goods and collective obligations, as well as foreigners and international cooperation. Without public goods and internationalism, 'science' becomes impossible. The values that MAGA objects to—the grounds on which science is under attack—are precisely the values we must defend. Science requires public money to succeed at scale and is undertaken primarily for the public good. Sure, private companies also do scientific research, but not at the scale that the federal government funds it, and if a private company does something important for society—as Moderna did when it developed Covid vaccines—it's federal government subsidies that make it possible. This system assumes rightly that science benefits all of us. Anyone could need a cure for cancer someday, desire to live in a thriving natural environment, or feel curious about what's going on in outer space. That sense of the public interest is anathema to this White House, which sees little value in the public sector. Trump's worldview is like Margaret Thatcher's—the U.K. prime minister famously said, 'There is no such thing as society'—but his individualism is more extreme because there is no subject more interesting to him, no interest group more pressing, than himself. What good is science to Trump personally? The right also hates science because it requires cooperation across borders. To most effectively advance knowledge and research, individuals from different countries must put their heads together, co-author studies, accept each other's postdoctoral students, visit, immigrate, speak. This sort of exchange makes no sense to MAGA. The assumption of the Trump White House is that people from other countries have nothing to offer us and are, in fact, dangerous to our national security. There's a third, more complicated ideological pillar to Trump's attack on science, and this is anti-elitism. Some science—though hardly the majority—takes place at Ivy League institutions like Harvard. This White House hates such places, not, as it claims, because of 'antisemitism'—MAGA doesn't mind antisemitism and bigotry in other contexts—but because the anti-elitism of attacking the Ivy League always plays well. Selective admissions breed resentment, since most people can't get in. Worse, the Ivies are overwhelmingly dominated by the rich, as extensive studies by The New York Times, Thomas Piketty, and others have found. While the research done by Ivy League scholars is a critical public good, it is also a scandal that institutions more exclusive than most country clubs are allowed to enjoy tax-exempt status and government funding. Those of us to the left of Trump need to welcome a more honest conversation about these institutions. Should they even enjoy nonprofit status? To keep their public funding and tax exemptions, should they have to do more public service? Serve more low-income students, turn their real estate holdings into affordable housing, institute open admissions? Or should they simply be nationalized and run as public institutions? But as usual, the Ivy League is a distraction. Most universities aren't highly selective, many are already public, and most bring substantial economic benefits to their communities. Scientific research is essential to the prosperity of many American cities and towns, where the university is the main employer. College-centered towns are some of the fastest-growing in the United States, and in many places higher education has replaced manufacturing as the industry that brings jobs, money, and vitality. You might say that before this year, science was making America great again. Trump's necrotic attack on all human inquiry imperils all that. What is needed in defense of science is not patronizing assertions of belief but, instead, clear arguments about why we need it. It's odd that the economic rationale is getting short shrift when so many communities depend on STEM and universities. We must also acknowledge that some of the reasons the right hates science are exactly the reasons to defend it. People who don't believe in public goods will not believe in science, but everyone else should. Science saves lives by advancing medicine; millions of Americans know someone whose life or health has been saved by an advance in medical research funded by the federal government. The internationalism of science should also be defended: Bringing the best minds together from around the world is not only crucial for science, it functions as citizen diplomacy, fostering the international understanding and cooperation that is much needed in a world of strife. Harvard University has a P.R. campaign, in defense of itself, making some of these arguments, especially for medical science, but I'm not sure it helps to hear these claims from institutions with so much elitist baggage. Better to hear from Penn State, or the United Auto Workers—full disclosure: my union—which represents not only autoworkers but thousands of scientists, and has been rallying in defense of scientists and science as a good benefiting—and belonging to—the working class. When we fight for science, it's worth going back to the foundations of the value system we are defending. Next month will be the eightieth anniversary of 'Science: The Endless Frontier,' a report made to Franklin Delano Roosevelt by his director for scientific research and development, Vannevar Bush, outlining the critical role that the government should have in the scientific project, and why. In asking for the 1945 report, FDR wrote: 'New frontiers of the mind are before us, and if they are pioneered with the same vision, boldness and drive with which we have waged this war we can create a fuller and more fruitful employment and a fuller and more fruitful life.' That's the kind of energy we need right now.
E&E News
4 days ago
- E&E News
Trump cuts would scrap USGS biological research arm
The Trump administration wants to unplug a high-powered U.S. Geological Survey research program whose scientists have helped protect wildlife, manage forests, thwart pests and illuminate nature for over three decades. Eliminating the biological research branch of the USGS, as called for in President Donald Trump's fiscal 2026 budget proposal, would accelerate the administration's targeting of scientific experts and studies already shown in layoffs and grant cancellations at the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health. But the potential scrapping of the USGS program is also goading some scientists out of their labs and into lobbying, as they deploy letters, phone calls, professional advocates, social media messaging, virtual rallies and more in their bid to save a nearly $300 million-a-year program. Advertisement 'It seems largely political,' Shahid Naeem, a prominent Columbia University professor of ecology, said of the proposed USGS budget slashing in an interview. 'And from a scientific point of view, it's really going to cost the country billions of dollars if we eliminate these programs which keep watch on things like avian influenza, water quality and forest fires.' Ron Pulliam, an emeritus professor at the University of Georgia, added in an email that elimination of the program is a 'terrible idea based on the assumption that if you are unaware of bad news everything will be OK.' More than 30 years ago, Pulliam was the first head of the biological research program that's now called the USGS Ecosystem Mission Area. The Ecosystem Mission Area is one of five designated mission areas within USGS. It received about $293 million for fiscal 2025. Trump's proposal would drop it to zero in fiscal 2026. The program includes 16 research centers, from the Great Lakes Science Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, to the Western Fisheries Research Center in Seattle. Scientists in Colorado, for instance, have examined how wildland fire risks and the potential benefits of forest thinning can best be communicated to at-risk communities. Elsewhere, researchers monitor bat populations threatened by wind turbines and fungal disease. Still other USGS scientists are working to fight quagga mussels, a particularly vexing invasive species. In Alaska, they count loon populations and measure high-altitude snow packs. They keep an eye on sediment tainting Chesapeake Bay and on the Everglades' altered water flows. The program helps fund, as well, cooperative research units like one at Oregon State University, where more than 30 scientists, graduate students and assistants study fish and wildlife. 'Losing the EMA means losing many critical partners and projects that promote evidence-based recommendations for conservation of natural resources,' said Selina Heppell, professor and head of the university's Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Sciences, in an email. Bipartisan appeal Last year, then-USGS Director David Applegate promoted a proposed 10 percent budget increase for the Ecosystem Mission Area by citing its work on 'migration science for huntable big-game populations.' The choice to highlight hunting benefits before a House panel stocked with hunting-friendly GOP members could be interpreted as tactical, with Applegate citing 'the unique USGS expertise and technical capacity' that helps sustain economies in the West that rely on hunting and tourism, as well as those where people hunt for subsistence. Applegate is now back in a career position as USGS's chief scientist. The agency currently has an acting director while Trump's nominee — geologist Ned Mamula — awaits Senate confirmation. The Trump administration's proposed fiscal 2026 budget does not elaborate on the proposal to end the Ecosystem Mission Area's funding. The proposed budget reports that the USGS employed about 7,870 full-time workers in fiscal 2024. The proposed budget envisions total USGS employment falling to 5,153 in fiscal 2026. In a budget summary, the USGS cites its intention to eliminate 'grants to universities and other work that is duplicative of non-Federal research programs' and that 'supports social agendas [like] climate change research.' The agency cites plans to focus instead on 'higher priority energy and minerals activities' and to help 'streamline government.' In response to a request from POLITICO's E&E News for additional details about personnel numbers, future work and the rationale for eliminating the program, the Interior Department provided a statement. 'Interior proudly supports President Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' — a historic, America First budget that delivers middle-class tax cuts, unleashes American energy, secures our borders, and invests in the infrastructure and security of our public lands,' the statement said. The genesis of the proposal is unclear, but the notion cropped up in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 policy playbook. The chapter on the Interior Department was authored by conservative attorney William Perry Pendley, who served as de facto acting director of the Bureau of Land Management in Trump's first term. 'Abolish the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey and obtain necessary scientific research about species of concern from universities via competitive requests for proposals,' the Project 2025 Interior Department chapter stated. The 'Biological Resources Division' was formerly the name of what has been called the Ecosystem Mission Area for the last 15 years. The Project 2025 playbook did not elaborate on the perceived benefits of ending the USGS ecosystem work. Reached by telephone Wednesday, Pendley said, 'I'm not going to discuss that right now. I appreciate the call.' Scientists lobby Supporters of the USGS research are trying to call attention to the proposed cuts. The National Wildlife Federation on May 22 convened a 'virtual rally' that drew about 2,000 participants to an hour-long program in support of the USGS Ecosystem Mission Area. Naeem, a former president of the 8,000-member Ecological Society of America, ventured onto Capitol Hill in May to discuss the proposal with Democratic congressional offices. 'We've been in constant communication with our members to be proactive,' Naeem said. 'If our people speak up all across the United States and talk to their senators and members of Congress, that's probably where we're going to have the most effect.' Upwards of 60 science-related organizations, from the American Geophysical Union to the Weed Science Society of America, signed an April 30 letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and a May 9 letter to leaders of the House and Senate appropriations committees and both congressional natural resources committees. An umbrella group called the USGS Coalition, representing more than 85 academic, business and scientific organizations, has likewise weighed in with testimony presented in April to House appropriators. The director of one cooperative state-and-federal research center, granted anonymity because they had not been authorized to speak publicly about the issue, said, 'We are calling our representatives, signing letters and writing editorials for newspapers.' For the lawmakers, the proposed USGS budget cut is just one of many they will face. Asked on Thursday if he had any thoughts about the proposal, Republican Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, the chair of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, said simply 'no.' A spokesperson for the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation likewise said the organization had no reaction at the proposal at the present time. The program's roots stretch back to 1993, when the Clinton administration merged Interior's scattered biological research work from seven bureaus into a new National Biological Service contained within the department. It was not always a smooth transition, facing both bureaucratic and political resistance. Conservative lawmakers, in particular, cited alleged threats to private property rights from what had initially been dubbed the National Biological Survey. 'There was a perception that it was a band of environmental activists who would seek to find endangered species on private property, and I would say, in some instances, that probably happened,' then-Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, a moderate Maryland Republican, said in 1995. In 1996, the National Biological Service was again renamed and transferred into the USGS. In 2010, as part of a larger USGS reorganization. Most of this work was folded into the newly established Ecosystem Mission Area. Other USGS mission areas, such as Natural Hazards and Water Resources, would get less money but still survive under Trump's proposed fiscal 2026 budget. Reporter Garrett Downs also contributed.
