Firstly, and semi-coincidentally, happy #showyourstripes day!

I am trying to recreate the Warming/Climate Stripes using this data referenced in https://showyourstripes.info/, but am having some issues with the data.

I chose the Annual Global (NH+SH)/2 data from HadCrut5: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/data/current/download.html

I notice that in the original graph (https://showyourstripes.info/c) all values are negative relative to the normalised '0' value until the 1980s or so, whereas in the data I collected from HadCrut5, I notice positive temperatures from the 1940s?

Am I using the correct data? Do I need to renormalise it?

Any help would be much appreciated :)

​

​

Regarding our climate change adaptation project, we are exploring different models to analyze stress caused by dryness and its impact on the interaction between the atmosphere, soil, and vegetation. Most of the models for an initial climate analysis seem to be for urban areas.. what models might be good and reliable when it comes to analyzing agricultural or rural areas?

According to the American Lung Association, zero emmissions vechiles result in the following:

• $978 billion in public health benefits

• 89,300 fewer premature deaths

• 2.2 million fewer asthma attacks

• 10.7 million fewer lost workdays

https://www.lung.org/clean-air/electric-vehicle-report/driving-to-clean-air

What does it mean to make a choice that makes a difference?

Hi, I have a little bit of a database problem. I was using WorldClim to get the 30 seconds - Bioclimatic variables but it only has data from 1970-2000. I'm looking for a database with the same 30 sec, 19 variables format but with data up until 2018 (or even later if possible) that is compatible with R the same way WorldClim is. Thanks for the helo in advance

Climate change and warming temperatures could unleash termites across the world — and more termites could accelerate warming temperatures, according to research published in Science.

Termites tend to prefer warm, humid climates and consume wood at much higher rates in such climates. As they do, they release stored carbon into the atmosphere. More carbon dioxide means higher temperatures — a vicious cycle not currently accounted for in current climate predictions.

Learn more here: https://go.fiu.edu/global-termite-infestation

Thanks for reading /climate_science!

Reducing sulfur emissions from shipping by 80% since 2020 has caused a
decrease in atmospheric sulfur aerosols, which could lead to a rapid
increase in global warming known as an "aerosol termination shock". The
reduction has increased absorbed solar radiation over the North Pacific
and Atlantic Oceans, with the North Pacific absorbing 80,000 GW more
solar heat since 2020 and the North Atlantic absorbing 50,000 GW more.
The long-term effects of this reduction in sulfur emissions are
uncertain, but further reductions are expected from health and
environmental policies, cleaner fuel use, and desulfurization systems at
coal-fired power plants.

thread- https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1456615526952755200.html

Hello all, I've been increasingly distressed about the state of the environment as many of us who are paying attention are, and I came across George Carlin's "The Planet is Fine" bit, and he makes mention of how plastic will just become part of the "new paradigm". I find the concept reassuring that the planet will heal itself even after humans are gone, but I feel like PFAS and microplastics have made irrevocable harm to the planet that it won't be able to heal. I'd like to hear this community's thoughts on this, and what the science says about the earth being able to heal itself even if humans don't survive. Here's the excerpt I'm referring to:

"The planet will be here for a long, long, long time after we’re gone and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the Earth plus Plastic. The Earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the Earth; the Earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the Earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself, didn’t know how to make it, needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question: “Why are we here?” Plastic, assholes!"

Hey everyone, like title says, I’m writing a paper on how climate change affects people differently, or how some people/communities suffer more than others. My ideas include: Farmers- specifically those in drought prone areas Indigenous people Elderly

I’m just wondering if anyone has any points that could help me out? Or if anyone has any other groups of people that’ll suffer more, let me know!

There is an ongoing debate regarding hope versus fear, where generally mass communication is considered to be more effective when it plays on hope rather than fear. However, I was given pause when I heard this regarding vaccine communication:

You can't start by giving people hope. You can't just say: "This disease has a cure, so we will all be fine.". People will put it off and vaccination levels will be low. You have to start by first putting the fear of death in people: "This disease will kill you!", only then can you give hope: "but here is the vaccine". Unless you do both fear *and then* hope, you won't get high compliance levels for the vaccine.

Is this right? Do we have any epidemiologists around that have studied the psychology of vaccine communication that could tell us if this is true or not? Could this be applied to climate communication?

I am wondering how well I can use Mark Lynas' book, "Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet", as a reference? Have any major mistakes been found since it's publication; is the book still valid? Is there a better source regarding the long-term effects of climate change? Maybe one that includes more up-to-date research?

So first of all, hello everyone. Small introduction, I was raised in a conservative family and among the many tenants I was brought up under, “global warming isn’t real” was one of them. Now, I’m not disparaging my family, and I’m quite proud of how they did their best to raise me, and I still am comfortable and confident in many of my beliefs that I’ve established for myself in adulthood (I say this not to start any political debates, but to try to head off any “glad you escaped, they’re so backward” comments. Not why I’m here, please keep those kinds of politics to a minimum out of respect for others and the sub’s rules.)

So all of that said, I’m really trying to be more open minded and aware of things, and I would like to read up more on the current science, the evidence we have for the current science, and general projections of what it looks like regarding climate change. What are we doing that’s causing damage, what can we do to fix the damage, what does the damage even look like, that sort of thing.

My only request is that the resources be as unbiased as possible. Again, I’m not trying to be political, and that’s not what I mean by this. I just mean that a resource from someone’s “climate blog” or some such—even if they’re easy to understand and correct—will be very offputting to me if they’re also really preachy about it. I’d like to start with facts before getting too deep into someone’s opinions on those facts.

I promise this is coming from a place of genuine interest and open-mindedness, I just know myself and will probably be more put off by a climate doomsday preacher (no matter their accuracy) than I would by scientific publications or less biased science communicators.

So any help y’all can provide would be welcome! Journals, unbiased blogs, articles, YouTube videos, Netflix documentaries, hit me with your best stuff. Please!

Does anyone have any tips, tricks, resources, insights into how to efficiently change perspectives on Climate Change (CC) issues? I mean on a social basis, and (not to be harsh but) I mostly mean with older crowds of people in communities and businesses alike. Spitting facts at someone is almost always not the socially aware solution.

Comments like "but don't they just want us to go back to the stone age and not use electricity" or "we should just go back to coal power, there's still plenty of coal in the ground to use" are some thing I hear whenever CC is brought up amongst older collages, and despite how utterly stupid and wrong (no offense) those comments are. Saying that in a discussion obviously won't change their minds.

But what is? Those people often full heartedly believe what they're saying either because they don't know better or because you're basically arguing against what they've always known (I suppose in a similar way to arguing against ones religious beliefs).

Hello all :)

I hope I'm on the right sub for this ask. I'm trying to write a novel set in the future. Let's say centuries, or even a thousand years or so. I'm trying to create a world where the climate is "realist" (the more I can of course as there are a lot of unknowns) but I don't know really where to start to learn about models or predicitions long term.

Most discussions and article I read about are about the end of the century not further. (which is logical as they're aimed towards today and how our actions impact us in the near future). But I'd like to dig deeper (and longer in time).

I've some of the questions that I'd like answered ideally (but anything,really, about the future let's say past 2500 is interesting to me) :

- If we stop emiting most of our GHG, how long till we see a stabilisation of the climate ?

- Could a stop of GHG can "reverse" the climate, centuries from now ?

- What are long term predictions about sea level rise ?

​

Thanks in advance :)

Breaks my heart to listen to people debate about the planet, this goes to show how truly separated we are. I’m Native American and growing up we were encouraged to explore how there is no real separation, that we are part of earth, part of the living. Later I learned about the Native American removal act, which started I kind of disrespect for the earth. The natives signed treaties they could not comprehend, they spoke of “owning land” this made no sense as native people we knew we were apart of the land, like the winged creatures, the four legged, the swimmers, how could you own that. Getting rid of the “Indian problem” was multifaceted, you can’t just remove them, you want to teach them religion, and to dismiss a connection with the land and the living. Today, this has almost come full circle as youth often report feeling little to no connection to even themselves, there physical bodies let alone a longer connection. We face a choice, no one can give us the beauty and peace our human gift on this earth, but we decide to be present, to know the truth, and to exert ourselves as more then a commodity to be trained to serve greed and destruction, instead we can find out way home, by the water, in the grass, buried in trees barefoot, knowing we were wild once

I'm reading and hearing a lot on how sea level rise, draught and heart are probably large parts of the Mediterranean uninhabitable. Id like to understand in more detail which areas and timeframes we're talking about.

Any hints on where to look at/turn to?

Is there for example a more in depth analysis for Spain?

Thanks a lot!