Daniela Schmidt is Professor at the University of Bristol, Member of the Cabot Institue, Coordinating lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Report 6 (AR6)
Edward Kanterian: Professor Schmidt, you are a lead author on the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published, in three parts, last year and this year. The report summarises our best knowledge about the climate, our impact on it and what options we have to prevent its most negative effects.
First of all, can you tell us a bit about your education and on how you became a climate scientist?
Daniela Schmidt: I’m a geologist by training, and I wrote my PhD on planktic foraminifers. I became interested in the response of marine ecosystems to climate change, to past environmental perturbations. In the 5th assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), I was a lead author on the Ocean Chapter, something where my expertise, sat squarely in that remit. From there on I developed my own research and worked, for example, for the EU Commission report on sustainable food from the ocean, and, with colleagues, on the interaction of human needs and environmental degradation and socioeconomics.
The IPCC has regular assessment cycles, and so I was invited to contribute to the sixth and most recent assessment report as well, specifically the report concerning Working Group 2, focused on “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”. We published our report in February this year. The entire Sixth IPCC Report is aimed to be completed in the next months, when the synthesis report will be published. For my group I was asked to take on the joint leadership with the Birgit Bednar-Friedl (University of Graz) and Robbert Biesbroek (Wageningen University) to coordinate the assessment for Europe. I was basically there to cover the responses of the natural system, to understand the causes and hazards of climate change related to heat, drought and flooding, and to bring a natural science perspective. The two colleagues I worked with are a policy expert and an economist respectively. So we complemented each other’s knowledge.
EK: A necessarily interdisciplinary approach, it seems. I understand that you have a particular soft spot for the ocean. Is this correct?
DS: I’ve always been deeply in love with the ocean. I’m one of those people to whom blue spaces give happiness. This is why I was originally interested in climate change. How are humans impacting those ecosystems? I am not thinking here just about global climate change, because this makes people sometimes feel overwhelmed, as they find it hard to think about how we can find solutions, but also thinking about local impacts and how we can buy time and create resilience to climate change. To this end, I work a lot with colleagues in anthropology, we have a project, “Waves of Change” where we are using animation to give young people a voice concerning climate change. Sometimes they can’t express in words what they’re worried about, but they are happy to draw it, or happy to make figurines about it and animate those. My work also covers the humanities, the social sciences, legal aspects of marine protection, as well as the ecological responses to climate change.
EK: In your view, why should the public know about the IPCC reports?
DS: These reports are not easy to read. Our report alone, by the Working Group 2, is over 3000 pages long. The report consists of more than just its main body. There’s also a technical summary, trying to draw the main messages out, the summary for policymakers, and also a very short summary by “headline statements” (probably the best place to start exploring the report).
What do these reports do? They summarize all the knowledge we have about the climate. There are three working groups. Working Group 1 looks at the “physical science basis” of climate change, the most up-to-date scientific understanding we have of the relationship between the human impact on the atmosphere on the one hand, the hazard, and the consequences this has for of the heat, the droughts, the floods, the changes in the cryosphere (to surfaces of the Earth covered by ice and snow). So Working Group 1, published in August 2021, summarises our most advanced knowledge of the human impact on the climate, from a purely scientific basis. It gives us the basic physical consequences.
The report of Working Group 2, in which I participated, published in February 2022 looks at the impacts those environmental changes have. How we can adapt so how we can reduce the scale of the impact? Who are most vulnerable? Because climate change is not the same for everyone, not globally, and not within a country. For example, heat waves are more likely to become deadly in urban areas in general, but in the European context more so in central and southern Europe than in northern Europe. The number of people at high risk of mortality set to triple at 3°C compared to 1.5°C warming in those regions (we are currently at 1.2°C warming compared to pre-industrial times).[1] This is just one among many examples.
And then there are our colleagues in Working Group 3. Their report was published in April 2022. They summarise how can we mitigate these impacts, so how can we reduce the amount of CO2 and methane and other climate active gases we are putting into the atmosphere.
EK: How would you summarize the main findings of the report, especially of your working group?
DS: So as I said, over 3000 pages… Allow me more than one message. The first is that while we know and accept that climate change is happening, we now have undisputable evidence that it is creating impacts to us humans and impacts to nature. And so the world is changing. The second really important message is:
Every increment of warming will increase the risks and will make it worse, so the more we warm up the planet, the worse it will get. But, importantly, it will not impact everyone in the same way and therefore there is a huge amount of injustice in who causes climate change and who will suffer most. And then, the last message is that we have ways to adapt. There are things we can change. Let’s do it.
EK: Speaking more particularly about your own scientific contribution, could you maybe summarize that?
DS: What we have done for Europe, and which is different from previous reports, is that we looked closely at the question of what impact we can find across systems, with more on cities, more on health now than in previous reports. Here is an illustration of some aspects of this.[2]
And there is more on the ecosystem responses, the terrestrial ecosystem, the marine ecosystems, water. Our assessment shows what is already impacted, and how it will change if we warm to 1.5°C globally and what will happen if we warm to 3°C.
Here are some examples from our report, concerning impacts. As we write in the report, due to anthropogenic climate change approximately “half of the species assessed globally have shifted polewards or, on land, also to higher elevations (very high confidence). Hundreds of local losses of species have been driven by increases in the magnitude of heat extremes (high confidence), as well as mass mortality events on land and in the ocean (very high confidence) and loss of kelp forests (high confidence). Some losses are already irreversible, such as the first species extinctions driven by climate change (medium confidence). Other impacts are approaching irreversibility such as the impacts of hydrological changes resulting from the retreat of glaciers, or the changes in some mountain (medium confidence) and Arctic ecosystems driven by permafrost thaw (high confidence)”[3].
Examples here could be fish, which with extreme heat waves die in specific lakes, as “water temperature and oxygen concentrations surpass critical thresholds”[4]. Heat waves effects birds, bats and mammals with mass mortality events.[5]
EK: Incidentally, what do these indications of varying degrees of confidence mean?
DS: The IPCC doesn’t do its own research. We assess what’s in the literature. For us to have high confidence, we need to have many threads of evidence. So it couldn’t just be just one paper arguing for a claim or point. It would have to be several assessments of the question at stake, ideally combining different methodologies, or at least giving similar results. And so we have sometimes to report something with low confidence, but still do it, because we think it’s important that we say this is a risk. It’s just that we’re not very confident of the scale of the risk in question. And so our assessments have these qualifications, of low, medium and high confidence, and sometimes of very high confidence, although that’s very rare when it comes to human systems.
EK: Returning to the assessment of responses, what are examples of responses to the higher warming?
DS: There are many. I will quote just one passage from our full report here. We write: “As species’ geographic ranges and migration patterns are modified by climate change […], pathogens accompany them. Diverse vectors and associated parasites, pests and pathogens of plants and animals are being recorded at higher latitudes and elevations in conjunction with regional temperature increases and precipitation changes. […] There is increasing evidence that climate warming has extended the elevational distribution of Anopheles, Culex and Aedes mosquito vectors above 2000 m in Nepal. […]
[In High Arctic regions] [h]igher numbers of ticks, mosquitoes, Culicoides biting midges, deer flies, horseflies and Simuliidae black flies, that transmit a variety of pathogens, are being documented in high-latitude regions and where they have been historically absent”.[6]
But I want to stress that I’m very proud of the fact that we didn’t stop just at describing the problem, the risk climate change poses to mankind. This report focusses on solutions, and so we looked at what kind of options we have to adapt and reduce the risk. We have summarized those adaptation options and looked at their effectiveness. What works really? What is around? And where we don’t know if it works and we need to find out. And a real novelty in our report, is that we’ve created an assessment of how that risk is changing with increasing warming, but also how our adaptations can’t be static. We can’t just think about what the world needs to look like in 2100. How do we do things? What solutions take which time to implement? What things might not be effective if it gets too hot? How can we combine measures to make us less vulnerable for longer? All of these issues are really novel in this report in the Europe assessment[7], compared to previous reports.
EK: Here are two panels from your report[8], highlighting the pathways we could chose for the future. One shows “adaptation, mitigation and development actions characterised by exploitation and degradation lead to unsustainable development and adverse outcomes for human well-being and ecosystem integrity”, the other about “adaptation options, implemented in an integrated way with mitigation and development and based on ecosystem stewardship, can support climate resilient development”.
So not all adaptations are equally good for our planet. Some measures to cope with climate change make things only worse.
Your working group focused on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. If we take this last notion, of vulnerability, your report concludes, I am citing here from page 12 of your summary for policymakers, that between 3.3 and 3.6 billion people are living in hotspots of high vulnerability to climate change. Where are these hotspots and what sort of challenges do these people face?
DS: This is the global assessment and those hotspots are in sub-Saharan Africa, in Southeast Asia, in South, in Central and South America. This is where the current vulnerability lies. Small island nations will face a huge amount of increasing vulnerability over the next decades. But as I mentioned before, it’s also important that we think about the fact that even in an affluent continent like Europe, those vulnerabilities aren’t the same to someone who is more dependent on the actual land. That could be indigenous people in the Arctic, for example. It could be people who, in some parts of Europe, depend on subsistence living, and for whom going to the forest and collecting fruits or wood is still very important. Those people will be much more dependent on nature. And if you look at our cities, there is a huge number of people in Europe living in cities who are vulnerable to climate change. This includes older people, especially also poor people, people with health issues or persons with disabilities, with limited access to resources, who are all much more vulnerable. We saw that when it got so hot a few months ago. If you’re a healthy person, you can still go out in the heat. If you’re not, then you’re bound to your home.
If you are living in a house which is nicely shaded, in a green part of your city, the heat impact of cities is much less than in a densely packed area, and especially in a flat where you can’t make the air circulate. So the vulnerability to climate change is globally different, but also within Africa or Europe.
If you’re wealthy enough, then you can modify how you live. But can most people do this? Not people who don’t own the house they live in and so don’t have the right to change something about it.
There is also the issue with trust in governments. Can these really bring about change, and do you, as a citizen, respond to an official warning you get from your government when you’re mistrusting some of the information they handed out before?
So the challenges and vulnerabilities people will face have many levels, many features which are different in different parts of the world.
EK: What do you think might these over 3 billion people be likely to do to escape these sort of challenges and vulnerabilities?
DS: If you have migration in mind here, there is little evidence for that in connection with climate change. People tend to move around within their own country. Even when there is an extreme situation, as we have at the moment with the war in the Ukraine, people tend go to their neighboring countries, because they hope to go back home. To be able to migrate says that you already have means that allow you to do that, and many people don’t. And so if you’re looking at our report, you’ll see that we treat displacement, migration and refugees differently in the assessment, because each involves different abilities to respond to a crisis. There is indication that climate change leads to displacement, but, to emphasize, to a large extent within regional boundaries.
EK: Also on page 12 of your summary for policymakers, you state that current “unsafe, unsustainable development patterns are increasing exposure of ecosystems and people to climate hazards (high confidence)”. What does high confidence mean, and what is an unsustainable development pattern?
DS: The IPCC doesn’t do its own research. We assess what’s in the literature. For us to have high confidence, we need to have many threads of evidence. So it couldn’t just be just one paper arguing for a claim or point. It would have to be several assessments of the question at stake, ideally combining different methodologies, or at least giving similar results. And so we have sometimes to report something with low confidence, but still do it, because we think it’s important that we say this is a risk. It’s just that we’re not very confident of the scale of the risk in question. And so our assessments have these qualifications, of low, medium and high confidence, and sometimes of very high confidence, although that’s very rare when it comes to human systems.
EK: Could you maybe also explain what ‘unsustainable’ means?
DS: What is unsustainable within the context of ecosystems? Again, it’s something different in different contexts. But, for example, we can see that overconsumption leads to deforestation, leads to overfishing, that higher population density with insufficient infrastructure leads to sewage going into rivers, lakes, and ultimately the ocean. All of these types of human impacts on those ecosystems are increasing their vulnerability. Or take habitat fragmentation: if we’re building roads and cities, are you hindering that an organism can move? Protection needs to be enforced and supported to ensure that we have some areas where nature can take refuge.
Professor Daniela Schmidt. Biography and Research interest
Note__________
[1] AR6 WGII, Technical Summary, p. 63f.
[2] IPCC_AR6_WGII_TechnicalSummary, p. 74.
[3] IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers, p. 9.
[4] IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport, p. 220.
[5] IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport, p. 200.
[6] IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport, p. 232.
[7] IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport, chapter 13, especially figures 13.14 and 13.24. Cf. also the water section (13.2), especially p. 1832, and in detail in 13.10.2.
Aikido cu mintea si corpul coordonate. Invatati cum sa va relaxati si cum sa va pastrati calmul in conditii de stress. 
Excellent initiative from Mr. Edward Kanterian to publish here this interview with Professor Daniela Schmidt !
It will help a lot to disseminate information about Climate Change and its consequences, on an objective scientific basis.
As for real, during our current activities, just as a modest example, in the past, we, somehow, got in line / have benefited from the Working Group 3 of IPCC (as a reference it may be seen here below) This just only as a practical implementation of some ways to mitigate GHG emissions (we have don real things also in the CDM field as well).
I would suggest to read only
Figure SPM.7 | Overview of mitigation options and their estimated ranges of costs and potentials in 2030
https://ji.unfccc.int/JIITLProject/DB/P0TQKX18ZWNH3BO84RICO3WBQX5HDI/details
Accordingly, the UNFCC is full of methodologies to be used for this purposes and, it may be useful for anybody just to take a look only and judge the real complexities of the issues and what measures could be taken in the area of GHG emissions.
I would suggest to anybody to read only
Figure SPM.7 | Overview of mitigation options and their estimated ranges of costs and potentials in 2030
of the report of Working Group 3, (report of this year 2022, for Policy makers, or anybody interested in this)
Sunt destul de sceptic despre capacitatea predictiva a modelelor care abordează sisteme complexe si știu cate ceva despre limitele unor modele mult mai simple, ca de exemplu a celor din geologie in care este specialista autoarea (autoare este de fapt specialista in paleontologie, o știința in care modelarea este folosita extrem de rar si unde abia de fac primii pași).
In geologie exista conceptul de history matching, adică de a valida un model uitându-ne înapoi si încercând sa vedem daca modelul reproduce realitatea cunoscută deja sau alternativ eliminând un număr limitat de date si testarea validității modelului (blind test). Si rar modelele sunt suficient de bune chiar in descrierea unor sisteme mult mai de simple comparativ cu cele climatice.
M-am uitat din curiozitate la CV-ul unor autori ai raportului AR6-SYR, unul are un PhD in Social and Cultural Anthropology, alta persoana are un Master in Arts la faimoasa universitate din Otango, altul este absolvent de drept, unul este geograf si multi sunt pur si simplu specialiști in climate change. Foarte putini au însa o prezentă serioasa in Google Scholar, si majoritatea doar lucrări despre climate change sau IPPC. In CV-ul unora este greu sa identici ce facultate au terminat, pentru ca n-o spun pe șleau.
Este drept însa ca exista si cativa specialiști in matematica, oceanografie si meteorologie. Un meteorolog nu se poate chema așa daca nu are un doctorat in fizica. Un oceanograf trebuie sa știe multa biologie, multa fizica si chimie.
Am încercat sa găsesc in raport descrierea modelului (marimea celulelor modelului, sursa si densitatea datelor), le-am găsit in final într-o anexa si am crezut ca am fost un negativist răutăcios. Asta pentru ca modelul parea sa aiba celule intre 22 si 44m (rar 11m). Asta ar fi un model extrem de detaliat. Am citit mai apoi cu atenție capul de tabel si am văzut ca aceste cifre sant de fapt fracțiuni dintr-un grad. Ori 0.44 de grad însemna cam 50 km. Nu este foarte detaliat pentru ca in Carpați sau Alpi in 50 km relieful se schimba foarte rapid. Este totuși un mare progres fata de unele modele anterioare care aveau celule de 100 km.
Se poate o traducere si in romaneste?
In romana, nu „In romaneste”. Copiaza textul, pune-l pe Google Translate si vei avea textul tradus in lb. romana. Nu-i greu deloc.
Iar dupa asta o sa va trebuiasca si o traducere din pseudoromana in romana, ca altfel riscati sa nu intelegeti mare lucru…
„And so we have sometimes to report something with low confidence, but still do it, because we think it’s important that we say this is a risk. It’s just that we’re not very confident of the scale of the risk in question.” Asta spune destule despre astfel de studii pe care le iau cu un „dram de sare”. De aici incolo, incepe politica „verde” care ne flutura pe sub nas astfel de modelari pe care noi trebuie sa le luam drept adevar absolut.
In ce priveste aceste probleme: „we can see that overconsumption leads to deforestation, leads to overfishing, that higher population density with insufficient infrastructure leads to sewage going into rivers, lakes, and ultimately the ocean.”, totul depinde de investitiile guvernelor si de legislatia din statele respective care trebuie aplicata daca cineva polueaza( „Poluatorul plateste”). Insa este mai sigur sa arunci vina asupra intregii omeniri, asa cum o fac liderii europeni sau seful ONU, de exemplu. Vina ca traim, ca mancam, ca existam pe aceasta planeta. Insa acesti lideri sunt singurii care nu-si pun problema, pentru ce traiesc ei insisi. Urmarea este aparitia unei imense masinarii de propaganda, ONG-uri, „specialisti” din diverse agentii, companii producatoare de moristi si panouri solare, politici care ne lasa in frig si cu niste facturi imense la energie, iar la final o mare si frumoasa biserica ecologista. La fel de bine exista mii de pagini in care specialistii explica cu date concrete, din teren, impactul acestor politici verzi asupra economiilor, industriilor, societatilor si chiar mediului, insa cine sa le ia in seama?
@Alex & Mike (& the Mechanics): nu mi-as bate capu’ cu ce fel de modele se folosesc (orice model e mai bun decit lipsa oricaruia) si nici masinariile de propaganda pro-contra (in mult domenii de activitate, modelarea este un instrument util, „ca sa vezi ceva mai bine”, sau „sa intelegi ceva mai bine”
Problema simplificata la care sa reflectam este:
– populatie in crestere- consum resurse in crestere – deseuri in crestere – emisii in crestere (sunt tot deseuri) si la toate cresterile astea, se impun si niste descresteri / echilibrarea cit de cit a dezechilibrului de netagaduit, care nu poate fi contestat, cred, de nimeni
– la populatie in crestere- eficientizarea consumului de resurse – inlocuirea lor cu altceva – impaduriri – reciclarea deseurilor – economie circulara- sustenabilitate – reducerea emisiilor (prin cresterea eficientei utilizarii combustibililor fosili si utilizarea energiilor regenerabile – which, by the way – „moristile si panourile” reprezinta – de ex. in RO, un potential de max 30% , si, oarecum simiar si pe plan mondial.)
Nu degeaba Protocolul de la Kyoto clasifica „eficienta energetica” pe primul loc al masurilor de luat (inaintea regenerabilelor !) si este „combustibilul cel mai ieftin” (adica ala pe care nu-l mai consumi), dar care realizeaza acelasi confort/utilitate.
La urma urmei, ar fi si o chestie de bun simt, desi, nu e mai putin adevarat, ca sunt multi „talibani” de mediu, care fac multa galagie, inutil, si fara sa inteleaga ca „extremismul de mediu” le face rau chiar lor (dar asta, cu alta ocazie)
Primul dvs paragraf este in conflict cu al doilea. La o populație in creștere, aproape exclusiv in lumea săraca, este greu sa introduci eficientă energetică. China, India, Indonezia, Nigeria si chiar tari mai bogate au alte priorități. Pentru ei prioritatea este creșterea economică bazata pe manufacturare si nu servicii. Consumul de energie pe cap de locuitor este in aceste tari de câteva ori mai mic decât in USA, Canada, Australia sau chiar Europa de vest. Aceștia vor continua sa ardă cărbuni si balegă in timp ce IPPC si politicienii spălați pe creier ne vândă soluții nerealiste precum H2 si alte matrapazlâcuri. Intre timp lumea bogata își muta in lumea a 3-a industriile energofage si poluante (ciment, de exemplu) si pretinde ca s-a decarbonizat.
@Alex din Bush: incercam doar sa explic ceva principial si nu sectorial/sau punctual.
Voi exemplifica, pentru intelegerea mai usor a problemelor lumii sarace (de la noi !).
Avem 3,5 mil. gospoadarii care se incalzesc cu lemne cu sobe de randamente de 20-30% si consuma ~14 mill. t lemne / an
Dara ar avea sobe cu randamente normale de 70-80%, ar scadea cel mlt la jumate consumul de lemne, s-ar taia mai putine paduri…samd
A existat chiar un program al WB pentru citeva mil. gospodarii din China (sau India) in acest sens…chiar si Mongolia care se inclazea similar cu carbuni….Ulan-Bator se autosufoca iarna…cam la fel si Ankara …
Voila
Insa, evident, tinta candidatilor sunt statele mari consumatoare de resurse/energie
precizare: Taxonomy si Dir. emisii, nu mai vot tine seama unde va fi produs un produs (final), in tara devoltata de bastina sau, intr-o tara saraca cu resure, ca sa scape de reglementariole de emisii.
Se va intorduce taxare pe continutiul de CO2 inglobat in produs, sau, „etichetarea”de eficienta (performata energetica sau emisiile reducse implicit)
deci…astea vor fi legi…c-o fi bine sau nu, asta e o alta discutie…
PS. in ce priveste H2 – in energetica, absolut de acord – un matrapazlic
Cred ca trăim intr-o vreme a visurilor și iluziilor. Noua politica europeana de adaugă o taxa carbon la importurilor venite din afara EU va duce la un război comercial cu mai toate tarile din restul lumii (asta dacă va fi aplicata vreodată). Daca va fi aplicata va duce si la scumpirea importurile, inclusiv a energiei, care este o sursa majora de crestere a inflației. În principiu ar fi o măsură bună dacă măcar 50% din omenire ar fi de acord sa aplice o taxa carbon, ceea ce nu cred ca se va întâmpla în timpul vieții mele (și nu ma grăbesc sa mor).
So far, so good: any new voice joining a choir is welcome. But as long as the motley audience is turning a deaf ear, does crying/singing in the ever-expanding wilderness do actually any good? Life is a bargain, after all. Nevertheless, while trying to make the best of a bad bargain, things could take a turn for the worse.
What is the risk methodology that has been adopted for climate change?
Not just impact but also likelihood for example?
Does this group insist that a correlation is causation (by humans?)
Is the group awareof the wonders that Dutch created with protecting their land?
/
Pentru că în titlul articolului se găsește termenul injustice legat de climate change, propun autorului să-i prezinte interlocutoarei sale un exemplu recent despre efectele „injuste” ale schimbării climei:
During 2000 – 2019, on a global scale, 5.083.173 deaths were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year: There were 4.594.098 deaths cold-related and only 489.000 deaths heat-related.
Cold kills much more than heat on every continent:
– US + Canada: 20.000 heat-related deaths but 171.000 cold-related deaths (8x more)
– Europe: 179.000 heat-related deaths vs 657.000 cold-related deaths (4x more)
– Africa 1,2 million cold-related deaths
– Asia 2,4 million cold-related deaths
Yet, most reporting focuses on heat deaths because it fits the climate narrative. Where is then the climate (in)justice for more than 4.5 million cold-related deaths?
Reference:
Zhao et al., 2021, Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study, The Lancet, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00081-4
As before, Professor Crânganu, you are making improper use of the sources you cite.
(1) The authors of the paper state, unequivocally, that the Earth is heating up fast:
„Earth’s average surface temperature has risen at a rate of 0·07°C per decade since 1880, a rate that has nearly tripled since the 1990s. The acceleration of global warming has resulted in 19 of the 20 hottest years occurring after 2000 and an unprecedented frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme temperature events, such as heatwaves, worldwide.”
(2) They view the current ratio between cold- and heat-related deaths are a transitional phase, with heat-related deaths increasing and likely overtaking cold-related ones in the future.
„Our study also explored the temporal change in temperature-related mortality burden from 2000 to 2019. The global daily mean temperature increased by 0·26°C per decade during this time, paralleled with a large decrease in cold-related deaths and a moderate increase in heat-related deaths. The results indicate that global warming might slightly reduce the net temperature-related deaths, although, in the long run, climate change is expected to increase mortality burden. However, regional disparities exist, with the ratio of cold-related excess deaths decreasing in South-eastern Asia. Southern Asia was the only region where the daily mean temperature per decade decreased, paralleling the increase in cold-related and overall excess deaths between 2000 and 2019. As a result, local countries should be aware of the effect of cold temperatures when developing health promotion strategies. In comparison, despite the substantial reduction in cold-related excess deaths in Oceania, the heat-related excess death ratio increased between 2000 and 2019 by more than most other regions. Europe was another continent where heat-related excess death ratio increased. Considering the inevitable warming trend in the next decades, the mortality burden
associated with heat exposure is predicted to increase substantially in both continents”.
One should also note the regional differences here. In Europe, for example, heat-related deaths are clearly on the rise, as this year has, yet again, shown.
(3) The authors don’t make any polemical claims, certainly nothing like „most reporting focuses on heat deaths because it fits the climate narrative”, etc.
I am not sure what cogent argument is proposed here, if any, about the „injustice” caused to cold-related deaths. Is the idea that we should heat up the planet even faster, by burning *more* coal, oil and gas, to avoid those cold-related deaths? A curious argument. What then of the heat-related deaths, which will surely skyrocket? Who will bear the responsibility for them – Fox News, Saudi Aramco or BHP?
0.07 C per decade? Who and how measured that, mr filozofsof? Just fyi, not even today we’re not able to measure atmospheric temperatures with that degree of precision. Do you have the slightest knowledge about what you’re talking about? The matter of climate seems way above your pay grade and just recycling the warming narrative, be it official, doesn’t qualify you for a place at a knowledgeable discussion.
First of all, the statistical data is not measured but calculated.
Second, what do you expect when you challenge the 0-0.7 degrees per decade results? That the global average temperature trend is lower or even higher? Or maybe you want to imply that there is no climate change?
Last but not least, it is not the global average temperature that kills, but extreme temperatures. It may seem paradoxical to climate deniers, but the reduction in minimum temperatures is also an effect of climate change. Consequently, all temperature casualties in Europe or worldwide are caused by the climate changes.
I would rather look at deaths statistics because of heat only !?…have they been increasing or decreasing over the years ?…it is a different type of death because of cold/different effect on humans…let’s keep the same conditions, things even…they are not the same, aren’t they ?!
to me 0,7, at global level, it is a huge figure, isn’t it ?…thermally…
It’s like the concentration of heavy metals (Cd, Va, etc.) in the flue gases from fossil power plants…only ppm concentrations (ppm=parts per million) are the cause of huge increase of cancer incidence in those areas and diluted elsewhere…and compared to 0.7, a level of „killing ppm”, it’s like Himalaya compared with the mountains of Hungary.
Cold waves—a politically incorrect reality or climate injustice?
In 2014, a National Health Statistics Report, titled Deaths attributed to heat, cold, and other weather events in the United States, 2006–2010, reported death certificate data gathered by the Center for Disease Control (CDC). The results of the study indicate that, during 2006–2010, about 2,000 U.S. residents died each year from weather related causes of death. About 31% of these deaths were attributed to exposure to excessive natural heat, heat stroke, sun stroke, or all; 63% were attributed to exposure to excessive natural cold, hypothermia, or both; and the remaining 6% were attributed to floods, storms, or lightning.
Using similar CDC data from 1979 to 1999, Dixon et al. (2005) reported 3,829 heat-related deaths and 15,707 cold-related deaths. Hypothermia from excessive natural cold weather was responsible for more than four times the number of deaths than those related to heat.
In October 2020, a study authored by researchers from the University of Illinois Chicago, Clinical outcomes of temperature-related injuries treated in the hospital setting, 2011–2018, showed that cold temperatures were responsible for 94% of temperature-related deaths in Illinois between 2011 and 2018. There were 1,935 cold-related deaths and 70 heat-related deaths.
Similar figures were advanced by a study published in 2015 by an international group of researchers, led by British Professor Antonio Gasparrini of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Collecting data from 384 localities in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the researchers found a shocking fact. Between 1985 and 2012, the thirteen countries recorded 74 million deaths total. Of these, 5.4 million were caused by cold waves and only 311,000 by heatwaves. So, cold kills 20 times more people, and we complain about anthropogenic global warming? What could such an attitude be called? (That study was followed by one similar, published in 2021, and described in my above commentary)
During the 2001–2017 period alone, at least eighteen cold waves were recorded in Europe and North America, with countless victims. For example, on January 5, 2017, the temperature in Europe dropped to −45.4°C, causing at least 60 deaths.
You can read more about the cold waves and their victims in India at NDTV Cold wave death toll.
In the United States between 1979 and 2006, mortality caused by excessive heat accounted for 27.1% of all deaths caused by major weather events (i.e., extreme heat, extreme cold, tornadoes, hurricanes, lightning, and floods). But in the same period, the number of victims killed by excessive cold events was about two times higher (50.1%).
A study by specialists from the European Union analyzed the relationship between lives lost due to heatwaves and those saved from death by frost. If temperatures rise, for example, by 5.4°C in the 2080s, the number of victims of heatwaves in Europe would rise to 161,700. Under the same conditions, rising temperatures would save 255,700 people from freezing to death, 94,000 more than those killed by the heat.
Summarizing the above examples, don’t you think that some eco-activists cynically use two different units of measurement for human life? Why don’t we hear or read any words or official statements about the deaths caused by the cold waves? Do they not deserve our compassion, as do the victims of earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters? Should only heatwave deaths be presented as casualties of climate change?
(This is a brief adaptation of Ch. 27, “Are there, however, benefits of climate change?”, from Cranganu, C., 2021, Climate Change, Torn Between Myth and Fact, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, UK, p. 201 – 212. References to the papers cited above can be found in the book or available upon request).
Temperatura Pamantului, resursele sale energetice balanta sa de energie sunt corelate, dar corelatia depaseste granitele geologiei. Geologia nu este in acest moment o stiinta “tare”, dar asta nu scuteste geologii de a incerca macar sa patrunda stiintele relevante, care in acest caz particular sunt termodinamica, fizica, matematica. Practica de a ignora date spectroscopice, transformare caldura-lucru mecanic, randamentul Carnot, legatura caldura-entropie este dezarmanta. Va mai trece o generatie pana cand aceste stiinte vor deveni parte a programei de la geologie, pana atunci sarcina colectarii si interpretarii datelor ramane pe umerii catorva institutii de varf, cu capacitatea tehnica si intelectuala de a promova/testa teorii si gasi raspunsuri: NASA, MIT,….Nu le mai ignorati.
„…our assessments have these QUALIFICATIONS, of low, medium and high confidence, and sometimes of VERY HIGH confidence, although that’s VERY RARE when it comes to HUMAN SYSTEMS.”
+
„What does high confidence mean,…?”
Ar fi trebuit sa intrebati (desi nu e tarziu nici acum), Dle Kanterian, cum se echivaleaza aceste „4 QUALIFICATIONS” CU „PERCENTAGES OF LIKELIHOOD, AS IN HARD/STEM SCIENCE STUDIES. (Scuze pentru romgleza)
Dear Mr. Kanterian, with all due respect, I for one feel a bit nervous and uneasy seeing you intruding into a domain, Climate science, for which you don’t have any academic credentials/qualifications. I think the whole world will breathe more easily if you return to your expertise in Wittgenstein and your abbreviated self, Kant. Or, if you feel like warming, try to cool yourself down just by reading this https://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-international-25982651-craciunul-americanilor-amenintat-fenomen-meteo-extrem-este-bomba-ciclonica-vine-dinspre-arctica.htm
Mr Petre,
Thank you for your insightful comment.
Like you, I hope to breathe freely – in the next decades. Unlike you, some simple questions posed to an IPCC lead author do not choke me. It is precisely because I do not have scientific expertise that I wish to consult those who do. I trust this is something we have in common, in which case your complaint is insubstantial.
As to the bomb cyclone – if you choose any cold wave event as evidence against global warming (if this is what you are doing; if not, you have no argument), then you will have to accept any heatwave, of which there have been many this year alone, as evidence *for* global warming. This is elementary inductive logic, to which you have committed yourself with your lines.
In fact, even then it’s not very good logic. For you ignore the possibility, itself by now well researched and evidenced, that some *extreme cold wave events can be a consequence of global warming*.
https://www.wired.com/story/climate-environment-hurricane/
Yours sincerely,
Edward Kanterian
Sa lasam la o parte modelele statistice cu date tranzitorii, incomplete si trunchiate la ultimii 20 de ani pentru moment.
De clopote Gauss si sisteme PID vreunul dintre parerologii ecoalarmisti au auzit? Ca presupun ca nu au facut vreodata tuning.
Pentru referinta a se vedea https://uk.mathworks.com/help/simulink/slref/pidcontroller.html
Pamantul a evoluat in parametrii de temperatura acceptabila, iar cand nu mai fost acceptabila, zonele acelea au devenit desert/aride. Si populatiile au migrat.
Nici o surpriza.
Apropo incalzire globala, Groenlanda are un nume arbitrar? Northern Passage este doar o legenda?
Mr or Ms. Durak,
It is important not to deceive oneself with grand, but vacuous claims.
For any event type there is some probability distribution. We can represent or approximate this, for certain event types, and given sufficient data, by a Gauss curve. For example, there is such a distribution for a footballer’s shots on target (with the median point of the curve representing the middle point of the goal line). But that is trivial, and it’s the only point you are making here. (It’s like saying „You always have to calculate, when you multiply numbers with one another”.) What is not trivial is that the curve is quite different for Lionel Messi vs. some average attacker. The former shoots more often on target than the latter. The two curves differ in shape and *extremes*. Indeed, even during Messi’s career, the curve took various shapes, depending on his, say, annual performance. An example of a „dynamical system”, I should think.
I invite you to apply this thinking to another dynamical system, the climate.
Sincerely,
Edward Kanterian
@dragostin catalin 22/12/2022 At 12:23
„…nu mi-as bate capu’ cu ce fel de modele se folosesc (orice model e mai bun decit lipsa oricaruia)…”
1. Afirmatiile Dvs. sunt fara potential manipulator DOAR pentru cei care stiu exact ce sunt, cum se folosesc modelarile computerizate(Finite Element Analysis) si care-s limitarile lor intr-un ANUMIT (sub)domeniu din categoria stiinte „tari”.
2. Aplicati afirmatiile Dvs. acestui citat
„There’s also a (a)TECHNICAL SUMMARY, trying to draw the main messages out, the (b)SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS, and also a very short summary by (c)“HEADLINE STATEMENTS” (probably the best place to start exploring the report).
(…) There is also the issue with trust in governments.”
din articol si ganditi-va la ce inseamna a+b+c pentru decidentii FINALI/politicieni, care (probabil ca) NU se incadreaza la 1 si care-s implicatiile in deciziile lor finale.
3. Ar mai fi de retinut ca studiul (variatiei) climei la nivel global/continental inseamna cel putin/cca 10 specializari diferite ale stiintelor „tari”, care trebuie sa lucreze/produca impreuna rezultate coerente si cu grad mare de incredere (modelarea computerizata e doar una din ele).
@unqualified likelihood:
Inteleg ce vreti sa spuneti.
De foarte multi ani, am folosit (si folosim inca) modele de simulare, e drept, la o scara mai mica, in domeniul SISTEMELOR de energie…ne ajuta sa vedem niste „contururi” acolo unde nu putem vedea mai clar „siluetele”.
In cazul modelarilor climatice (analiza elemente finite) lumea incearca sa ghiceasca/intuiasca in ce directie ne indreptam, ceea ce e de laudat si, iarasi, intelegem toti dificultatea (si largul cimp) de dezbatere si contradictii/pareri diferite asupra metodologii, input, output, „cit de finit este elementul”, etc., etc., etc.
Dar, in cazul schimbarilor climatice, orice ar rezulta din modelare (va fi mai rau, sau mai putin rau, sau nimic, in nici un caz insa, nu va fi mai bine) e ceva ce vom trai, vom experimenta si vom mai vedea !?…ceea ce se intimpla azi deja, oarecum, nu-i asa ?!…om trai si om vedea…
In schimb, in problema modelarii sistemelor de energie, lucrurile devin mai complicate in momentul in care „deslusim contururile siluetelor”, dar, problema, dintr-odata devine si mai complexa: trebuie sa alegem „optimul” (adica sa aliniem siluetele in ordinea inaltimii…nu merge cu gloata)…si, de aici dam intr-o alta problema – de optimizare (linear programming), si obiective (functii), cost, sau emisii, consum resurse, etc., si mult alte balamucuri.
Cum insa, dupa ranking-ul dvs. politicienii, dupa mine, nu se incadreaza nici macar la punctul 1. descris de dvs. problema devine fara speranta sa explici ce e aia optimizare si eficienta si de ce ar trebui facut „cam asa” si nu altfel
PS. modelarea climei, se poate face si corecta corect final, probabil doar 1 data (pentru ca a 2-a oara, nu mai are cine s-o faca, sau, deja e prea tirziu), iar. corectiile s-ar putea aplica (in funcite de rezultatele anterioare, comparativ cu prezumtiile anterioare, pe baza unor date reale, de netagaduit, probabil, cam 1 data la 20 de ani !.
In sisteme de energie, fac simularea (optima azi), dar, o pot corecta odata cam la 5-6 ani, iar in decurs de 20 de ani, pot proiecta viitorul cu o buna acuratete pentru urmatorii 5-10 ani !?
…asta e o mare diferenta, …cred…
Din nou, nu mi-as bate capul ce fel de model climatic folosesc si cit e de credibil. Ca om de energie, cred rational, stiind ce inseamna sa bagi intr-un cazan 40 vagoane de lignit / ora !!! (adica o garnitura mare de tren intr-o ora !) si sa le scoti pe cos, imi pot „simula”in cap cam ceea ce inseamna cele citeva zeci de mii de cazane de carbuni pe tot mapamondul, in ultimii 50-60 de ani !? (asta numai in energie)…deci, toate astea nu au cum sa nu lase urme !..deci, ca s-o incalzi Pamintul ca s-a inclinat axa, ca e soarele mai fierbinte, ca sunt vaci prea multe, ca se taie paduri, se invirte pamintul mai incet, sau, omenirea contribuie si ea cu ceva la poluare, personal, nu ma intereseaza in mod deosebit atit timp cit observ pe propria piele ca ceva rau se intimpla…deci, sa facem ceva ce sta in puterile noastre sa nu mai poluam noi !…de restul are grija Dumnezeu…ca energetician vechi, sustin orice resurse care ne asigura bunastarea si asigura impactul minim, daca se poate deloc, asupra mediului, stiind si fiind pe deplin constient cit de mult rau face mediului energia de care avem toti nevoie…exista un echilibru intre ce e nevoie si cum protejam mediul (ex…hidrocentralele – sunt „talibani”de mediu care nu le vor…e gresit, si, nu discutam acum asta)
Iar in ce privest articolul prezentat, l-am binevenit, ca un articol stiintific, in felul lui, deschide larg portile dezbaterii, dar, daca ati observat, am binevenit initiativa publicarii, nu neaparat si ca il aprob 100% si, nici nu am calificarea necesara sa il aprob/dezaprob, si nici chiar si sa-l comentez in mod educat.
Asta da, ar putea fi manipulare, dar, asa vad si eu cum gindesc ceilalti
Many thanks for your interesting comments, Mr. Dragostin.
@Edward: most welcomed !
„personal, nu ma intereseaza in mod deosebit atit timp cit observ pe propria piele ca ceva rau se intimpla…deci, sa facem ceva ce sta in puterile noastre sa nu mai poluam noi !”
cam asa era credinta si in evul mediu: orice rau era pus pe seama pacatelor lumesti;
ok, perfect de acord ca poate benefic sa faceti ce spune popa, dar nu asta-i subiectul, ci asa-zisa injustitie, iar pentru asa ceva. daca nu ai probe evidente, da, ar putea fi manipulare din partea celor pe care ii vedeti cum gandesc, in caz ca nu sunteti prea sigur… :)
@dl.Prototipescu, bre:
1. daca suntem amindoi de acord ca omenirea polueaza si asta afecteaza mediul in mod negativ (incl pe noi), atunci, sa facem ce zice popa (sau eu)…sa incercam sa nu mai poluam noi si sa-l lasam pe Dumnezeu sa raceasca el soarele, sau sa indrepta axa pamintului, sau sa-l invirteasca mai repede sau mai incet, etc., etc.macar atit putem face…si, macar sa vedem daca are efect (eu as zice ca da !…vezi cazul Cernobil)
2. de aici, in continuare, avind probe evidente ca actiunea noastra asupra mediului este detrimentala (nu putem nega 40 vagoane/h carbune care scoate gaze -mizerii pe cos), atunci, who cares and why about injustice…and what for ?
@ dle.Dragostin
mai intai pot fi de acord ca dvs. poluati, dar la „omenire” sa nu ma includeti automat si pe mine, fara dovezi concludente; mai apoi, vorbind de injustitie, ne referim de fapt la proprietate, iar prin restrictiile pe care le promovati, va insusiti atmosfera ca fiind o proprietate a dumneavaoastra, asa ca dati-mi si mie voie sa consider ca e injust sa-mi interziceti sa fumez la mine in balcon, pe motiv ca e atmosfera dvs.;
in fine, voi fi de acord cu dumneavoastra ca va datorez compensatii in situatia in care puteti demonstra ca v-am poluat cu ceva spatiul vital; daca eu fumez in alta parte va fi cam complicat pentru dvs. sa demonstrati ca vreo 50ppm de codoi in aerul dvs. va afecteaza cu ceva; n-aveti decat sa-i acuzati pe cei care chiar polueaza cumva in spatiul dvs;
in orice caz, exemplul meu cu fumatul e o chestiune pe care o putem rezolva impreuna, pe cat de amiabil sunteti dispus;
mai departe insa, ajungem sa consideram atmosfera o resursa propritate comuna, iar de-aici deriva doua consecinte juste:
– daca poti pune taxe pe aer, poti pune taxe si pe soare
– gradina dvs. fiind si ea o resursa naturala, devine in mod just o proprietate comuna, nu ? ba nu cumva si toate minereurile si apele si flora si fauna, ba chiar si omul devin resurse naturale proprietate comuna, exploatabile „sustenabil” ?
si chiar si dvs.puteti constata ca prin „mizerii” fiecare intelege ce vrea: de ex.unii considera mizerii tevile si betoanele unei hidrocentrale; dar pot demonstra cat si cum le afecteaza spatiul vital ?
@dl.Prototipescu: da, am inteles, aveti dreptate, nu sunt atit de profund
Strategia dlui Prototipescu este cea a infractorului neprins. Cu aceeași vehemență ca a Ceaușeascăi de acum 33 de ani, dumnealui cere azi dovezi cum că fumatul în balconul său ar afecta calitatea aerului inspirat de concetățeni.
In pledoaria dumisale ignorarea cu ostentație a celor 40 de vagoane pe oră este similară țigaretei aprinseîn balcon, dumnealui pedalând pe convenția juridică a prezumției de nevinovăție instituită între acuzator și acuzat. Fizica nu ține cont însă de astfel de fițe procedurale, așa că aceeași „omenire”, la care dl Prototipescu își declină apartenența în mod prezumat, a stabilit că nu-i poate fi administrată nimănui vreo substanță care ar putea avea efecte nocive, în lipsa acceptului personal. Cade deci în sarcina producătorilor acestei substanțe să stabilească atât toate efectele numite secundare cât și intensitatea/frecvența cu care acestea se manifestă și să le aducă la cunoștința celor posibil afectați. Fumul celor 40 vagoane dintr-o oră le e livrat azi tuturor fără biletul ce însoțește orice clei, detergent sau medicament. Deși suntem de acord că rolul primordial al acestora e unul benefic, nu suntem dispuși la a renunța la informația completă. Așa că, până la a dovedi indubitabil că fumatul în balconul propriu nu afectează calitatea aerului inspirat de concetățeni, s-ar putea cere ca viciul respectiv să se desfășoare într-un spațiu ermetic. Presupun că vicioșii ar păși cu plăcere într-o astfel de încăpere „preîncălzită” cu fumul a două pachete zilnice. E totuși mai puțin decât cel de la cele 40 de vagoane.
dle Hantzy, felicitari pentru imaginatia dvs.bogata;
dar poluarea criminala ramane poluare criminala si intra sub incidenta legilor penale;
eu doar sustin ca nu ar trebui sa fiti acuzat pentru sanatatea pestilor daca nu se poate dovedi ca pipi-ul dumneavoastra a crescut ph-ul apei cat sa le fie daunator; sau pentru poluarea aerului in procesele de fermentatie din statiile de epurare (decideti dvs daca si astea trebuie sa fie ermetice, ca o fi probabil criminal sa arzi biogazul)
Proto, sunt deja obișnuit să citesc răspunsuri care nu au legătură cu ceea ce am scris eu. De data asta însă răspunsul nu are legătură nici cu ceea ce ați scris dumneavoastră înșivă.
An nou fericit!