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!