Climate Change - a poll

SpacedX · 27 January

7 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I am not ok, I am fearful for your overly sensitive soul.

Don't be. That is purely a figment of your imagination (or possibly projection?) I am ok too thanks.

8 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Also on topic, why do you think a paper only considering 3 of the SSPs is in any way relevant? What new info do you think this is showing given the context in which pretty much all mitigation scenarios are calculated with the commonly worked with 5 SSPs?

Nothing to do with "what I think". The experimental design/methodology is clearly articulated in the paper in which the rationalisation of three SSPs is clearly defined together with the four different heat adaptation scenarios. within the context of the study.

18 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

What preventative measures are worthwhile at scale?

A very potent question and observation. Thank you. As part of its limitations, the authors acknowledge that the work is limited in terms of its treatment of adaptation and attenuation. Scenarios were defined as general adaptation without factoring geographical differences in the level of risk attenuation and without reference to specific drivers of adaptation or the variables governing this.

On an urban scale, there is potential for solar radiation management through albedo modification, alongside the addition of green spaces and waterways to mitigate against the rising urban heat island effect. To make buildings more resistant to heat-related deaths, key strategies include incorporating passive design elements such as adequate shading, good ventilation, high-performance windows, and strategic building orientation, alongside active cooling systems like efficient air conditioning when necessary, whilst considering urban design elements that I mentioned such as green spaces and tree canopies to mitigate outdoor temperatures. This costs time and money. On of our PGRs is currently basing their doctoral thesis upon how to adapt our ageing UK schools and classrooms to be more resistant to heat-related illness. Also, awareness and advocacy can to an extent guard against heat-related illness by educating and informing the public about the risks of extreme heat, promoting preventative behaviours such as staying hydrated, seeking cool environments, and checking on vulnerable populations, in so doing, empowering individuals to take proactive measures to protect their health during hot weather.

At the global scale together with the phasing out of fossil fuel dependence, GGR/DAC is likely to be the most effective geoengineering strategy but the high costs and investment associated with this eludes developing nations.

However, this particular study aims to address a major question in climate change epidemiology, specifically about whether the increase in heat-related mortality will be offset by a reduction in cold-related deaths, and about the role of adaptation in future temperature-related health impacts - to dispel theories that climate change might be a net lifesaver in Europe by reducing the number of people dying from cold. Bluntly put, the increase in hot weather will kill more people than the decrease in cold weather will save.

Thank you for your reply.

grobyfox1990 · 27 January

48 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

Don't be. That is purely a figment of your imagination (or possibly projection?) I am ok too thanks.

Nothing to do with "what I think". The experimental design/methodology is clearly articulated in the paper in which the rationalisation of three SSPs is clearly defined together with the four different heat adaptation scenarios. within the context of the study.

A very potent question and observation. Thank you. As part of its limitations, the authors acknowledge that the work is limited in terms of its treatment of adaptation and attenuation. Scenarios were defined as general adaptation without factoring geographical differences in the level of risk attenuation and without reference to specific drivers of adaptation or the variables governing this.

On an urban scale, there is potential for solar radiation management through albedo modification, alongside the addition of green spaces and waterways to mitigate against the rising urban heat island effect. To make buildings more resistant to heat-related deaths, key strategies include incorporating passive design elements such as adequate shading, good ventilation, high-performance windows, and strategic building orientation, alongside active cooling systems like efficient air conditioning when necessary, whilst considering urban design elements that I mentioned such as green spaces and tree canopies to mitigate outdoor temperatures. This costs time and money. On of our PGRs is currently basing their doctoral thesis upon how to adapt our ageing UK schools and classrooms to be more resistant to heat-related illness. Also, awareness and advocacy can to an extent guard against heat-related illness by educating and informing the public about the risks of extreme heat, promoting preventative behaviours such as staying hydrated, seeking cool environments, and checking on vulnerable populations, in so doing, empowering individuals to take proactive measures to protect their health during hot weather.

At the global scale together with the phasing out of fossil fuel dependence, GGR/DAC is likely to be the most effective geoengineering strategy but the high costs and investment associated with this eludes developing nations.

However, this particular study aims to address a major question in climate change epidemiology, specifically about whether the increase in heat-related mortality will be offset by a reduction in cold-related deaths, and about the role of adaptation in future temperature-related health impacts - to dispel theories that climate change might be a net lifesaver in Europe by reducing the number of people dying from cold. Bluntly put, the increase in hot weather will kill more people than the decrease in cold weather will save.

Thank you for your reply.

What is reality? If not a combination of our various distorted events, projections, imaginations, ingrained biases and past experiences to create said 'reality.' Ironically you post a study on a scenario analysis, I think any reasonable base case conclusion from analysis of previous posts would result in - sensitive.

Of course what you think is relevant, otherwise you are just Phil Bowman with a JSTOR account learning how to copy/paste. And the bumbling buffoon, loveable rogue that he is, would end up putting a laughing emoji on his own comment. I don't like that a study would leave out 2 SSPs, given as I am sure you know, SSPs deal with more than climate outcomes.

You say the study is regarding the 'role of adaptation', but you've listed loads of mitigation strategies above. I agree with you on the role of both, but it just adds to the confusion on the direction of your paper.

IMO the best thing for effective adaptation is financing. You haven't mentioned green bonds, climate-linked loans, green assets or the huge problem of insurance.

BTW before you flip your lid I'm not having a go at you. We're clearly coming at this from different angles. Yours being theoretical and mine being what a reasonably mature client would want to see in a scenario analysis with interpreted results.

SpacedX · 27 January

26 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

What is reality? If not a combination of our various distorted events, projections, imaginations, ingrained biases and past experiences to create said 'reality.'

Sounds more like a construct to me.

27 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Ironically you post a study on a scenario analysis, I think any reasonable base case conclusion from analysis of previous posts would result in - sensitive.

Apologies, I'm not with you.

29 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I don't like that a study would leave out 2 SSPs, given as I am sure you know, SSPs deal with more than climate outcomes.

As explained, the study design is justified and defended. The conscious choices made by the researcher to narrow the scope of their study and define its boundaries, making it more manageable and focused are known in research as delimitations.

32 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

You say the study is regarding the 'role of adaptation', but you've listed loads of mitigation strategies above. I agree with you on the role of both, but it just adds to the confusion on the direction of your paper.

It is not "my paper". The lead author and PI is Pierre Masselot (er.al) a a statistician and environmental epidemiologist whose research agenda/interests examines the association between various environmental exposure and human health. It is published in 'Nature Medicine' a Q1/four star journal with an exceptionally high impact factor and third in the ranking of primary research journals. Due to its reputation, Nature has a very stringent peer-review process, ensuring only exceptional rigorous and robust research is accepted. On the contrary, the direction and aims and objectives of the paper are abundantly clear - to explore how the balance between increased heat-related and decreased cold-related mortality would change with various degrees of adaptation to heat and address a question in climate change epidemiology, specifically about whether the increase in heat-related mortality will be offset by a reduction in cold-related death. It recommends that further research is needed to focus on the understanding of the interplay between local factors and vulnerability to temperature and on how to quantitatively integrate it into projections of temperature-related mortality.

52 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

IMO the best thing for effective adaptation is financing. You haven't mentioned green bonds, climate-linked loans, green assets or the huge problem of insurance.

No I didn't - and I would argue that this too is a very valid point although not a stand alone panacea to the climate change crisis which requires a range of solutions, technologies, socio-political and socio-economic perspectives and significant political and public will.

55 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

BTW before you flip your lid I'm not having a go at you.

Eh? I know that. Again you are making unfounded assumptions about me. Why on Earth would I "flip my lid"? I value and appreciate your constructive input here and I have endeavoured to address and answer your questions and counterpoints to the best of my ability.

58 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

We're clearly coming at this from different angles. Yours being theoretical and mine being what a reasonably mature client would want to see in a scenario analysis with interpreted results.

Not at all. Practical solutions are as important as theoretical and even hypothetical studies. I value and recognise the worth of both. However, I think, with respect, you need to read the paper again with appreciation to its defined objectives with particular attention to its strengths, purpose, delimitations and objectives.

Thanks again for your input.

grobyfox1990 · 28 January

7 hours ago, SpacedX said:

Sounds more like a construct to me.

Apologies, I'm not with you.

As explained, the study design is justified and defended. The conscious choices made by the researcher to narrow the scope of their study and define its boundaries, making it more manageable and focused are known in research as delimitations.

It is not "my paper". The lead author and PI is Pierre Masselot (er.al) a a statistician and environmental epidemiologist whose research agenda/interests examines the association between various environmental exposure and human health. It is published in 'Nature Medicine' a Q1/four star journal with an exceptionally high impact factor and third in the ranking of primary research journals. Due to its reputation, Nature has a very stringent peer-review process, ensuring only exceptional rigorous and robust research is accepted. On the contrary, the direction and aims and objectives of the paper are abundantly clear - to explore how the balance between increased heat-related and decreased cold-related mortality would change with various degrees of adaptation to heat and address a question in climate change epidemiology, specifically about whether the increase in heat-related mortality will be offset by a reduction in cold-related death. It recommends that further research is needed to focus on the understanding of the interplay between local factors and vulnerability to temperature and on how to quantitatively integrate it into projections of temperature-related mortality.

No I didn't - and I would argue that this too is a very valid point although not a stand alone panacea to the climate change crisis which requires a range of solutions, technologies, socio-political and socio-economic perspectives and significant political and public will.

Eh? I know that. Again you are making unfounded assumptions about me. Why on Earth would I "flip my lid"? I value and appreciate your constructive input here and I have endeavoured to address and answer your questions and counterpoints to the best of my ability.

Not at all. Practical solutions are as important as theoretical and even hypothetical studies. I value and recognise the worth of both. However, I think, with respect, you need to read the paper again with appreciation to its defined objectives with particular attention to its strengths, purpose, delimitations and objectives.

Thanks again for your input.

Fair point, I just can’t wrap my head round what the new info the study is trying to achieve which is my issue.

Ps would recommend reading the latest thematic review on CFDs in the uk, really good working paper, I’ll be using it as a cut out and keep… https://www.frc.org.uk/news-and-events/news/2025/01/frc-reviews-climate-related-financial-disclosures-cfd-by-aim-and-large-private-companies/

leicsmac · 29 January

https://phys.org/news/2025-01-science-linking-climate-weather-disasters.html

Interesting piece on the current state of play.

SpacedX · 6 February

Data returned from Copernicus shows that January was the warmest on record at 1.75°C above the 1850 to 1900 average, beating the previous record set a year earlier, when temperatures were 1.7°C above pre-industrial levels. And this is despite an emerging La Niña.

leicsmac · 6 February

3 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

Data returned from Copernicus shows that January was the warmest on record at 1.75°C above the 1850 to 1900 average, beating the previous record set a year earlier, when temperatures were 1.7°C above pre-industrial levels. And this is despite an emerging La Niña.

Daggers · 6 February

expert reaction to Copernicus data reporting that January 2025 was the warmest on record globally

Scientists comment on data published by Copernicus that shows January 2025 was the warmest on record globally.

Dr Joel Hirschi, Associate Head of Marine Systems Modelling, UK’s National Oceanography Centre (NOC), said:

“One should not infer too much out of one month temperature data, as temperature anomalies can vary a lot. The global temperatures for 2024 and now early 2025 have been tracking the record temperatures we saw in 2023 (and 2024) quite closely. The last few months of 2024 were slightly cooler than in 2023 and January 2025 is now just warmer than January 2024.

“Despite La Niña conditions having developed in the tropical Pacific, global temperatures remain very high. This pattern is similar to what we observed after the El Niño events of 2015/16 and 2019/20 when global temperatures remained close to record warm levels even after the onset of La Niña conditions.

“Global sea surface temperatures are a bit lower than in 2024 and will likely remain lower as we move further into 2025.”

Prof Richard Allan, Professor of Climate Science, University of Reading, said:

“Human caused warming of the ocean is accelerating and this is dominating to an ever greater extent over the natural year to year fluctuations in climate. Although the swing from moderate El Niño to a weak La Niña during 2024 had a small cooling effect on the surface of the ocean, heat continues to flood into the climate system as atmospheric greenhouse gases continue to rise and the reflective haze of aerosol particle pollution diminishes in some regions following clean air regulation. Aside from a cooler than average equatorial band in the eastern Pacific due to the weak La Niña conditions, much of the rest of the global sea surface remains remarkably warm in early 2025, primarily a result of human-caused warming of climate.

“Changing weather patterns from week to week can rapidly alter temperatures over continental regions, which warm up and cool down more quickly than the oceans. Based upon the most up to date, state of the art Copernicus data, large areas of Europe, Canada and Siberia experienced less cold weather than is normal for January but parts of South America, Africa, Australia and Antarctica also experienced above average temperatures which contributed along with the balmy oceans to the unexpected record global temperatures at the beginning of 2025. As industrial activity continues to spew greenhouse gases into the air, this growing heating effect is tipping the balance toward record warmth and worsening hot, dry and wet extremes.”

Prof Bill McGuire, Emeritus Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards, UCL, said:

“The fact that the latest robust Copernicus data reveals the January just gone was the hottest on record – despite an emerging La Nina, which typically has a cooling effect – is both astonishing and, frankly terrifying. Having crashed through the 1.5C limit in 2024, the climate is showing no signs of wanting to dip under it again, reflected by the fact that this is the 18th of the last 19 months to see the global temperature rise since pre-industrial times top 1.5C. On the basis of the Valencia floods and apocalyptic LA wildfires, I don’t think there can be any doubt that dangerous, all-pervasive, climate breakdown has arrived. Yet emissions continue to rise, while fossil fuel corporations seek to expand operations. Grim doesn’t even begin to describe our prospects.”

Dr Friederike Otto, Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Environmental Policy and co-lead of World Weather Attribution, Imperial College London, said:

“This January is the hottest on record because countries are still burning huge amounts of oil, gas and coal.

“Sure, El Niño and La Niña add or take off a tiny bit of warming, but the reason we’ve broken another record is the continued burning of fossil fuels.

“The LA wildfires were a stark reminder that we have already reached an incredibly dangerous level of warming. We’ll see many more unprecedented extreme weather events in 2025.

“If politicians really care about people’s lives and their children’s futures, transitioning away from fossil fuels would need to be top of their agenda, to make the world safer and fairer.

“This data shows very clearly what hundreds of other high-quality analyses have shown in recent decades – more burning of fossil fuels leads to more emissions that lead to more warming.”

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-copernicus-data-reporting-that-january-2025-was-the-warmest-on-record-globally/

leicsmac · 6 February

Random Internet find:

"The nirvana fallacy is the single most powerful impediment to tackling climate change that I've encountered in my decades of trying to develop technology to help us deal with it- next to our desire to find someone else to help pay for it."

And the best thing about that fallacy is that it's an easy one for the powerful to sell to everyone else through media to perpetuate the status quo.

leicsmac · 12 February

Big special on Midlands local tv regarding increased incidences of flooding in terms of frequency and intensity in the last couple of decades.

Correctly referencing the cause of those increases quite often, which is good.

Jattdogg · 14 February

What climate change? We had 30 cm of snow Wednesday evening into the early hours of Thursday. That was fun to move with my snow blower. Given we have had snow storms in the prior weeks, there's not a lot of room to put the snow. Snow blowers are great but depending on how your house is situated with neighbours it can be difficult to put snow in certain areas without getting it all over your neighbours driveway. Then you've got to bust out the shovels and break your back lol.

We are also getting 15cm on Saturday followed by 20cm on Sunday. Fook sakes! At least I can jump into the snow mounds and act like a kid with my children.

Thank fook Monday is a holiday here so we can recover from our backeotomy.

Classic Canadian winter!

leicsmac · 15 February

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgeydkz08go

The world's frozen oceans, which help to keep the planet cool, currently have less ice than ever previously recorded, satellite data shows.

Sea-ice around the north and south poles acts like a giant mirror by reflecting much of the Sun's energy back into space.

But as rising temperatures cause this bright layer to shrink, the dark ocean below can absorb more heat, warming the planet further.

This latest sea-ice low appears to have been driven by a combination of warm air, warm seas and winds breaking apart the ice.

Over the 5 days to 13 February, the combined extent of Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice was 15.76 million sq km (6.08 million sq miles), according to BBC analysis of data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

This breaks the previous 5-day record low of 15.93 million sq km (6.15 million sq miles) from January-February 2023.

Record breakers!

leicsmac · 17 February

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce85709xdk4o

The UN climate summit in the United Arab Emirates in 2023 ended with a call to "transition away from fossil fuels". It was applauded as a historic milestone in global climate action.

Barely a year later, however, there are fears that the global commitment may be losing momentum, as the growth of clean energy transition is slowing, external down while burning of fossil fuels continues to rise.

And now there is US President Donald Trump's "national energy emergency", embracing fossil fuels and ditching clean energy policies – that has also begun to influence some countries and energy companies already.

In response to Trump's "drill, baby, drill" slogan aimed at ramping up fossil fuel extraction, and the US notifying the UN of its withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, Indonesia, for instance, has hinted that it may follow suit.

The current US administration, leading the rest of the world into catastrophe for the sake of short term self interest.

Well, if the worst should happen, those that record it should be able to say for the benefit of those still left, very clearly, who was responsible.

Edited 17 February by leicsmac

fox_up_north · 18 February

With Trump, China and Russia, I can't help but feel that not only are we not going to have any impact on limiting climate change but we'll also see the worst impacts of it within the next decade or two.

I could get to my 60s and see the likes of Norfolk/ Lincs just crumbling away.

leicsmac · 18 February

1 hour ago, fox_up_north said:

With Trump, China and Russia, I can't help but feel that not only are we not going to have any impact on limiting climate change but we'll also see the worst impacts of it within the next decade or two.

I could get to my 60s and see the likes of Norfolk/ Lincs just crumbling away.

The Chinese are, at least, moving in the right direction.

The other two, however...

I fear the timeline of the next five decades might end up going down in (what's left of) history for all the wrong reasons.

leicsmac · 26 February

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3374ekd11po

BP is expected to announce it will slash its renewable energy investments and instead focus on increasing oil and gas production.

The energy giant will outline its strategy later following pressure from some investors unhappy its profits and share price have been much lower than its rivals.

Shell and Norwegian company Equinor have already scaled back their plans to invest in green energy. Meanwhile US President Donald Trump's "drill baby drill" comments have encouraged investment in fossil fuels and a move away from low carbon projects.

Well, I guess it's good that BP have pretty much admitted their culpability in all the dreadful events of resource scarcity, warfare and extreme weather with all the associated suffering.... right?

When there's no more time for activity, there will be accountability.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3omKp6KmfpG0y_jWJWDB

leicsmac · 17 March

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/06/06/global-warming-isnt-natural-and-heres-how-we-know/

'Many people say, “but the planet has warmed naturally before” as if that automatically means that our current warming is natural, but nothing could be further from the truth. In technical terms, this argument commits a logical fallacy known as non sequitur (this is the fallacy that occurs whenever the conclusion of a deductive argument does not follow necessarily from the premises). The fact that natural warming has occurred before only tells us that it is possible for natural warming to occur. It does not indicate that the current warming is natural, especially given the evidence that it is anthropogenic (man-made).

To put this another way, when you claim that virtually all of the world’s climatologists are wrong and the earth is actually warming naturally, you have just placed the burden of proof on you to provide evidence for that claim. In other words, simply citing previous warming events does not prove that the current warming is natural. You have to actually provide evidence for a natural cause of the current warming, but (as I’ll explain shortly) no such mechanism exists.'

splinterdream · 17 March

Went on an Air Source Heat Pump course last week, so if anyone wants to know anything about them, I'll fo my best to answer.

leicsmac · 24 March

https://phys.org/news/2025-03-earth-drylands-affecting-billions-climate.html

As Earth continues to warm, more and more of the planet is becoming dry. A 2024 UN report found that in the last three decades, over three-fourths of all the world's land became drier than it had been in the previous 30 years.

Drylands now comprise 40.6% of all global land (excluding Antarctica). In addition, the number of people living in drylands has doubled over the last 30 years to 2.3 billion, which represents over 25% of the global population. In a worst-case climate change scenario, this number could climb to 5 billion by 2100.

Drying is occurring in many parts of the world, including the western U.S., Brazil, most of Europe, Asia and central Africa. If greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current trajectory, 3% more of the world's humid areas will become drylands by 2100.

Drylands would likely expand in the U.S. Midwest, central Mexico, parts of Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, the entire Mediterranean area, the Black Sea Coast, and southern Africa and southern Australia. There are no regions of the world that are expected to go from drylands to a more humid climate in the future.

It's going to get really fun when those areas that contain a lot of people become too dry to raise crops or source enough potable water for everyday use.

leicsmac · 12 April

https://phys.org/news/2025-04-industrial-carbon-contribute-significantly-sea.html

https://phys.org/news/2025-04-climate-events-high-mountain-asia.html

https://phys.org/news/2025-04-year-storm-tides-bangladesh-decade.html

Edited 12 April by leicsmac

leicsmac · 21 April

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyq9pr47ejo

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton has clarified he believes in climate change after facing backlash for comments made during an election debate on Wednesday night.

Dutton and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese were asked about the increasing impact of climate change, to which Dutton replied he would "let scientists and others pass that judgment".

He had previously said that flooding and natural disasters were "part of the history of our state of this country". The comments generated outrage from climate groups and mockery from Albanese.

"I believe in climate change, and that it is a reality" Dutton said while campaigning on Monday.

I wish that the press and other critical parties in other places were more able and willing to hold leaders and potential leaders to account on this matter like this.

(Yes, USA, I'm looking at you. Again.)

Edited 21 April by leicsmac

WigstonWanderer · 21 April

14 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyq9pr47ejo

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton has clarified he believes in climate change after facing backlash for comments made during an election debate on Wednesday night.

Dutton and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese were asked about the increasing impact of climate change, to which Dutton replied he would "let scientists and others pass that judgment".

He had previously said that flooding and natural disasters were "part of the history of our state of this country". The comments generated outrage from climate groups and mockery from Albanese.

"I believe in climate change, and that it is a reality" Dutton said while campaigning on Monday.

I wish that the press and other critical parties in other places were more able and willing to hold leaders and potential leaders to account on this matter like this.

(Yes, USA, I'm looking at you. Again.)

He’s saying that through gritted teeth. In practice he’ll undermine the transition to renewables as much as he can. His “nuclear strategy” is aimed at precisely that.

leicsmac · 22 April

7 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

He’s saying that through gritted teeth. In practice he’ll undermine the transition to renewables as much as he can. His “nuclear strategy” is aimed at precisely that.

Ditto Poilievre in Canada.

I get sick of referring to short term self interest, but on this matter at the present time there appears to be far too much of it.

st albans fox · 22 April

Geo thermal oceanic input now on the decline

will be interesting to see if this is reflected in any slowdown in global temp increases over the next two years (assuming that it is sustained - the geo thermal, not the temp increase which will undoubtedly keep going)

Would add that there must be numerous areas of the deep oceans where geo thermal oceanic input can’t be effectively monitored which makes the experiment less than clear.

Edited 22 April by st albans fox

leicsmac · 22 April

13 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Geo thermal oceanic input now on the decline

will be interesting to see if this is reflected in any slowdown in global temp increases over the next two years (assuming that it is sustained - the geo thermal, not the temp increase which will undoubtedly keep going)

Would add that there must be numerous areas of the deep oceans where geo thermal oceanic input can’t be effectively monitored which makes the experiment less than clear.

I doubt that there will be any slowdown whatsoever in global average temperature increase with that factor as a variable by itself.

Sign In

Climate Change - a poll