<![CDATA[Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

<![CDATA[Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum - Meteorology & Climatology]]> https://www.scivillage.com/ Mon, 29 Jun 2026 21:52:52 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Europeans in shock about America's air conditioning (the coincidence of it all)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20742.html Sun, 28 Jun 2026 22:39:13 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20742.html
Brits can't believe America's air conditioning ... https://youtu.be/Icd36PEU2jk

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Icd36PEU2jk]]>
Brits can't believe America's air conditioning ... https://youtu.be/Icd36PEU2jk

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Icd36PEU2jk]]> <![CDATA[Why Europe is turning into a heat trap: the 'omega block' explained]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20719.html Thu, 25 Jun 2026 13:38:06 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20719.html https://www.outlookindia.com/internation...-heat-trap

INTRO: Western Europe is once again in the grip of an intense heatwave, with countries including France, the United Kingdom, Italy and the Netherlands recording unusually high temperatures. The extreme weather has disrupted daily life, forcing school closures, interrupting public transport and prompting authorities to open air-conditioned public spaces to vulnerable residents.

More than 40 people have drowned in France over the past week after seeking relief from the heat in unsupervised waters. The country recorded its hottest day since records began in 1947, with temperatures reaching 44.3 degrees Celsius. Thousands of homes have also been left without electricity amid the heatwave. Across Europe, governments have issued extreme heat warnings as temperatures continue to soar.

Meteorologists say the prolonged heat is being driven by a weather phenomenon known as an omega block. An omega block is named after the Greek letter O because of the distinctive shape it creates in the atmosphere. It forms when a large area of high pressure becomes trapped between two low-pressure systems on either side.

Under normal conditions, the jet stream pushes weather systems steadily from west to east. During an omega block, however, the jet stream becomes distorted and buckles dramatically north and south, isolating the pressure systems. Weaker steering winds and reduced temperature contrasts in the atmosphere can contribute to these slow-moving patterns.

The high-pressure system effectively becomes stuck in place, preventing weather from moving through the region as it normally would. As a result, the same conditions can persist for days or even weeks. Most omega blocks last between three and ten days, but some have been known to endure much longer.

The centre of an omega block is dominated by high pressure, which creates hot, dry and stable conditions. High pressure suppresses cloud formation, resulting in clear skies and prolonged sunshine that allow temperatures to rise steadily.

These are the conditions currently affecting parts of France and Spain, where temperatures have climbed above 40 degrees Celsius. With little cloud cover and no significant weather systems moving through, the heat remains trapped over the same areas day after day.

Meanwhile, the low-pressure systems on either side of the omega block experience very different weather. These regions are more likely to receive cooler temperatures, cloud cover and rainfall. Britain currently sits near the boundary between the hot high-pressure system and cooler air to the northwest, creating a sharp contrast between hotter conditions in the south and east and cooler, wetter weather in the north and west.

Unlike many tropical regions, European cities were historically built to retain warmth rather than cope with prolonged extreme heat. As a result, many homes and public buildings can become heat traps during severe heatwaves.

Air conditioning remains far less common in Europe than in other parts of the world. While nearly 90 per cent of homes in the United States have air conditioning, only around 20 per cent of European homes do. For decades, much of Europe simply did not experience sustained periods of extreme heat frequently enough to justify widespread cooling systems.

This has contributed to a culture in which air conditioning has often been viewed as a luxury rather than a necessity. Higher energy costs in many European countries have also discouraged widespread adoption. As a result, many residents rely on electric fans, cold showers and other temporary measures to cope with heatwaves.

Some southern European regions have traditionally adapted to warmer climates through architecture. Thick walls, smaller windows and designs that maximise airflow help keep buildings cooler naturally. However, in many parts of northern and western Europe, homes were not designed with rising temperatures in mind, leaving residents especially vulnerable during prolonged heat events.

Scientists have not yet reached a consensus on whether climate change is directly increasing the frequency of omega blocks and other atmospheric blocking events. What is clear, however, is that climate change is making heatwaves more intense... (MORE - details)]]> https://www.outlookindia.com/internation...-heat-trap

INTRO: Western Europe is once again in the grip of an intense heatwave, with countries including France, the United Kingdom, Italy and the Netherlands recording unusually high temperatures. The extreme weather has disrupted daily life, forcing school closures, interrupting public transport and prompting authorities to open air-conditioned public spaces to vulnerable residents.

More than 40 people have drowned in France over the past week after seeking relief from the heat in unsupervised waters. The country recorded its hottest day since records began in 1947, with temperatures reaching 44.3 degrees Celsius. Thousands of homes have also been left without electricity amid the heatwave. Across Europe, governments have issued extreme heat warnings as temperatures continue to soar.

Meteorologists say the prolonged heat is being driven by a weather phenomenon known as an omega block. An omega block is named after the Greek letter O because of the distinctive shape it creates in the atmosphere. It forms when a large area of high pressure becomes trapped between two low-pressure systems on either side.

Under normal conditions, the jet stream pushes weather systems steadily from west to east. During an omega block, however, the jet stream becomes distorted and buckles dramatically north and south, isolating the pressure systems. Weaker steering winds and reduced temperature contrasts in the atmosphere can contribute to these slow-moving patterns.

The high-pressure system effectively becomes stuck in place, preventing weather from moving through the region as it normally would. As a result, the same conditions can persist for days or even weeks. Most omega blocks last between three and ten days, but some have been known to endure much longer.

The centre of an omega block is dominated by high pressure, which creates hot, dry and stable conditions. High pressure suppresses cloud formation, resulting in clear skies and prolonged sunshine that allow temperatures to rise steadily.

These are the conditions currently affecting parts of France and Spain, where temperatures have climbed above 40 degrees Celsius. With little cloud cover and no significant weather systems moving through, the heat remains trapped over the same areas day after day.

Meanwhile, the low-pressure systems on either side of the omega block experience very different weather. These regions are more likely to receive cooler temperatures, cloud cover and rainfall. Britain currently sits near the boundary between the hot high-pressure system and cooler air to the northwest, creating a sharp contrast between hotter conditions in the south and east and cooler, wetter weather in the north and west.

Unlike many tropical regions, European cities were historically built to retain warmth rather than cope with prolonged extreme heat. As a result, many homes and public buildings can become heat traps during severe heatwaves.

Air conditioning remains far less common in Europe than in other parts of the world. While nearly 90 per cent of homes in the United States have air conditioning, only around 20 per cent of European homes do. For decades, much of Europe simply did not experience sustained periods of extreme heat frequently enough to justify widespread cooling systems.

This has contributed to a culture in which air conditioning has often been viewed as a luxury rather than a necessity. Higher energy costs in many European countries have also discouraged widespread adoption. As a result, many residents rely on electric fans, cold showers and other temporary measures to cope with heatwaves.

Some southern European regions have traditionally adapted to warmer climates through architecture. Thick walls, smaller windows and designs that maximise airflow help keep buildings cooler naturally. However, in many parts of northern and western Europe, homes were not designed with rising temperatures in mind, leaving residents especially vulnerable during prolonged heat events.

Scientists have not yet reached a consensus on whether climate change is directly increasing the frequency of omega blocks and other atmospheric blocking events. What is clear, however, is that climate change is making heatwaves more intense... (MORE - details)]]> <![CDATA[UK rivers face rising risk of climate ‘whiplash’]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20662.html Wed, 17 Jun 2026 19:46:42 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20662.html https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1132140

EXCERPTS: Climate change could push UK rivers to dangerous extremes and see more frequent rapid swings between wet and dry conditions - a phenomenon known as hydroclimatic whiplash - according to research led by the University of East Anglia (UEA).

Researchers analysed almost 700 river catchments across the UK to project how river flows may change at 2°C and 4°C of global warming. The results reveal stark regional contrasts and growing challenges for communities and water managers trying to plan for flood and drought risk - particularly in areas that will increasingly experience both.

Publishing their findings today in the journal Earth’s Future, the authors also warn of more intense river flooding during extreme rainfall events in western and northern parts of the UK and longer dry spells and lower river flows in southern and eastern England, regions that are already water‑stressed.

The authors say the findings underscore the need for regionally tailored adaptation, including enhanced flood-risk management and greater capacity to store water during wetter periods in western and northern parts of the UK, and strengthened water-supply resilience and demand management in southern and eastern England.

[...] Dry-to-wet hydroclimatic whiplash - sudden shifts from dry to wet conditions - may increase the risk of flash flooding, water quality deterioration and soil erosion, while wet-to-dry shifts can make drought planning harder because preceding wet conditions may create a false sense of security before a rapid move into drought.

Projected changes under both 2°C and 4°C warming scenarios show widespread increases in the frequency of both types of whiplash events. For dry-to-wet whiplash, increases are projected across most of the UK. In some catchments, the number of events rises from around four over a 30-year period in the 1981–2010 baseline to around seven to nine under 4°C warming.

Overall, stronger increases can be observed in South Wales, Northern Ireland, Northern and Western England and parts of southeast England... (MORE - no ads)]]> https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1132140

EXCERPTS: Climate change could push UK rivers to dangerous extremes and see more frequent rapid swings between wet and dry conditions - a phenomenon known as hydroclimatic whiplash - according to research led by the University of East Anglia (UEA).

Researchers analysed almost 700 river catchments across the UK to project how river flows may change at 2°C and 4°C of global warming. The results reveal stark regional contrasts and growing challenges for communities and water managers trying to plan for flood and drought risk - particularly in areas that will increasingly experience both.

Publishing their findings today in the journal Earth’s Future, the authors also warn of more intense river flooding during extreme rainfall events in western and northern parts of the UK and longer dry spells and lower river flows in southern and eastern England, regions that are already water‑stressed.

The authors say the findings underscore the need for regionally tailored adaptation, including enhanced flood-risk management and greater capacity to store water during wetter periods in western and northern parts of the UK, and strengthened water-supply resilience and demand management in southern and eastern England.

[...] Dry-to-wet hydroclimatic whiplash - sudden shifts from dry to wet conditions - may increase the risk of flash flooding, water quality deterioration and soil erosion, while wet-to-dry shifts can make drought planning harder because preceding wet conditions may create a false sense of security before a rapid move into drought.

Projected changes under both 2°C and 4°C warming scenarios show widespread increases in the frequency of both types of whiplash events. For dry-to-wet whiplash, increases are projected across most of the UK. In some catchments, the number of events rises from around four over a 30-year period in the 1981–2010 baseline to around seven to nine under 4°C warming.

Overall, stronger increases can be observed in South Wales, Northern Ireland, Northern and Western England and parts of southeast England... (MORE - no ads)]]> <![CDATA[Drought linked to 46% increase in sex violence among adolescents in Southern Africa]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20559.html Tue, 02 Jun 2026 00:53:23 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20559.html https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1129947

INTRO: New research from the University of Oxford provides the first quantitative evidence that drought exposure over the last 12 months is associated with increased risk of sexual, emotional and physical violence among adolescents in Southern Africa. This risk rises substantially during cumulative droughts over 2 years.

Analysing data from over 20,000 adolescents (aged 13-24) in Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Lesotho, the study finds girls and young women, older adolescents (aged 18-24) and those living in rural areas face the highest risk of violence during drought conditions.

Water availability in Southern Africa is expected to decline by 30% by 2050. As water scarcity intensifies, levels of poverty, food insecurity and mental health distress increase - worsening inequalities, separating families and driving harmful coping mechanisms such as child marriage, child labour, and forced migration.

This is particularly alarming in sub-Saharan Africa, where an estimated 79 million girls experience sexual violence before age 18 and 1 in 2 children experience a form of violence in the past year. The study highlights that climate change is intensifying this crisis for the region’s 226 million adolescents... (MORE - no ads)]]> https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1129947

INTRO: New research from the University of Oxford provides the first quantitative evidence that drought exposure over the last 12 months is associated with increased risk of sexual, emotional and physical violence among adolescents in Southern Africa. This risk rises substantially during cumulative droughts over 2 years.

Analysing data from over 20,000 adolescents (aged 13-24) in Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Lesotho, the study finds girls and young women, older adolescents (aged 18-24) and those living in rural areas face the highest risk of violence during drought conditions.

Water availability in Southern Africa is expected to decline by 30% by 2050. As water scarcity intensifies, levels of poverty, food insecurity and mental health distress increase - worsening inequalities, separating families and driving harmful coping mechanisms such as child marriage, child labour, and forced migration.

This is particularly alarming in sub-Saharan Africa, where an estimated 79 million girls experience sexual violence before age 18 and 1 in 2 children experience a form of violence in the past year. The study highlights that climate change is intensifying this crisis for the region’s 226 million adolescents... (MORE - no ads)]]> <![CDATA[Are satellite megaconstellations accidentally geoengineering the Earth?]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20525.html Wed, 27 May 2026 18:58:17 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20525.html https://www.universetoday.com/articles/a...-the-earth

EXCERPTS: Satellite megaconstellations (SMCs) have been growing in size at a startling clip the last few years. [...] the main rocket engine that launches SMCs into orbit (Falcon 9) emits hardly any chlorine at all, since it uses kerosene as its main fuel.

But here comes the bad news - kerosene does have another polluting effect - soot. Typically soot produced by ground sources is washed out by rain over a very short period of time. However, when it’s launched into the stratosphere behind a rocket, it can stay there for much longer - up to four years according to the paper.

The effects of all this soot in the stratosphere are complex. There’s some argument to be made that these black particles actually block some of the Sun’s light in the upper atmosphere. This consequently cools the lower atmosphere, but also heats the upper one.

While the first one sounds like a net benefit, given the ongoing trouble we are having in limiting other our climate damaging activities, we understand very little about the impact of heat on the upper atmosphere. According to the paper, SMC launches are responsible for 56% of this “instantaneous warming” coming from launches - and that number is only set to grow... (MORE - missing details)]]> https://www.universetoday.com/articles/a...-the-earth

EXCERPTS: Satellite megaconstellations (SMCs) have been growing in size at a startling clip the last few years. [...] the main rocket engine that launches SMCs into orbit (Falcon 9) emits hardly any chlorine at all, since it uses kerosene as its main fuel.

But here comes the bad news - kerosene does have another polluting effect - soot. Typically soot produced by ground sources is washed out by rain over a very short period of time. However, when it’s launched into the stratosphere behind a rocket, it can stay there for much longer - up to four years according to the paper.

The effects of all this soot in the stratosphere are complex. There’s some argument to be made that these black particles actually block some of the Sun’s light in the upper atmosphere. This consequently cools the lower atmosphere, but also heats the upper one.

While the first one sounds like a net benefit, given the ongoing trouble we are having in limiting other our climate damaging activities, we understand very little about the impact of heat on the upper atmosphere. According to the paper, SMC launches are responsible for 56% of this “instantaneous warming” coming from launches - and that number is only set to grow... (MORE - missing details)]]> <![CDATA[Decarbonising everything is impossible – here’s why]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20488.html Fri, 22 May 2026 18:38:48 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20488.html https://theconversation.com/decarbonisin...why-280677

EXCERPTS: The global conversation about net zero has been almost entirely about energy. This framing is essential, but it rests on an assumption so embedded it rarely gets examined: that the only thing fossil fuels give us worth worrying about is the energy released when we burn them.

Roughly 15-20% of all fossil fuel consumption is never burned at all. It is transformed into the physical fabric of modern life: plastics, polymers, fertilisers, adhesives, solvents and synthetic textiles. When these products are eventually incinerated, degraded or discarded, their carbon returns to the atmosphere, a contribution to global warming that is real, growing and almost entirely absent from mainstream net zero accounting.

As well as a green energy transition, the material transition needs to be sustainable. But three industries at the heart of this problem are often overlooked: chemical manufacturing, plastic polymers and construction. [...] The solution is not to eliminate carbon from industry altogether, but to stop treating fossil carbon as the default raw material.

[...] Used carefully, these carbon sources can help replace fossil fuel-based carbon in polymers, construction products, insulation materials and chemicals. Careful assessment of these alternatives will ensure they genuinely reduce emissions across a product’s full life cycle. .., Making this transition work requires six things to move together... (MORE - missing details)]]> https://theconversation.com/decarbonisin...why-280677

EXCERPTS: The global conversation about net zero has been almost entirely about energy. This framing is essential, but it rests on an assumption so embedded it rarely gets examined: that the only thing fossil fuels give us worth worrying about is the energy released when we burn them.

Roughly 15-20% of all fossil fuel consumption is never burned at all. It is transformed into the physical fabric of modern life: plastics, polymers, fertilisers, adhesives, solvents and synthetic textiles. When these products are eventually incinerated, degraded or discarded, their carbon returns to the atmosphere, a contribution to global warming that is real, growing and almost entirely absent from mainstream net zero accounting.

As well as a green energy transition, the material transition needs to be sustainable. But three industries at the heart of this problem are often overlooked: chemical manufacturing, plastic polymers and construction. [...] The solution is not to eliminate carbon from industry altogether, but to stop treating fossil carbon as the default raw material.

[...] Used carefully, these carbon sources can help replace fossil fuel-based carbon in polymers, construction products, insulation materials and chemicals. Careful assessment of these alternatives will ensure they genuinely reduce emissions across a product’s full life cycle. .., Making this transition work requires six things to move together... (MORE - missing details)]]> <![CDATA[On the death of RCP8.5]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20467.html Tue, 19 May 2026 15:00:19 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20467.html https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/on-the-death-of-rcp85

INTRO: With the release of the new van Vuuren et al 2026 paper on the emissions scenarios that will be used in the upcoming IPCC 7th Assessment Report, the internet has been abuzz with debate over the implications of the formal retirement of the RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 scenario. The president of the United States even weighed in over the weekend in his own unique style, posting that “the United Nations TOP Climate Committee just admitted that its own projections (RCP8.5) were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!”.

van Vuuren et al justify this move by noting that “the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends,” citing the paper that we published in Nature back in 2020.

Others have pointed out that RCP8.5 was never particularly plausible, and have criticized claims that the move away from using these scenarios reflects actual progress on reducing emissions.

So what actually happened here? It turns out that two things can be true at the same time:

RCP8.5 (and its successor SSP5-8.5) were designed to be a worst case emissions scenario, not the most likely outcome even in a world that did nothing to address climate change. We were probably never headed to a tripling of global emissions by 2100 (to say nothing of a five-fold increase in coal use), even in the absence of climate policy.

Rapid declines in clean energy costs have bent the curve of future emissions downward, with new scenarios designed to reflect current policies notably lower than most baseline scenarios in the literature. The 21st century is now unlikely to see a continued expansion of fossil fuel use globally, with current policy scenarios reflecting relatively flat global emissions going forward.

[...] o if we were likely never heading for a world of RCP8.5, with its tripling of global CO2 emissions by 2100 (and five-fold increase in coal use), where were we actually headed? How much has the energy transition to-date (which has grown to over $2 trillion annual global spending) actually changed our future trajectories?

This is an impossible question to precisely answer given that it relies on an inherently unknowable counterfactual scenario... (MORE - details)]]> https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/on-the-death-of-rcp85

INTRO: With the release of the new van Vuuren et al 2026 paper on the emissions scenarios that will be used in the upcoming IPCC 7th Assessment Report, the internet has been abuzz with debate over the implications of the formal retirement of the RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 scenario. The president of the United States even weighed in over the weekend in his own unique style, posting that “the United Nations TOP Climate Committee just admitted that its own projections (RCP8.5) were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!”.

van Vuuren et al justify this move by noting that “the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends,” citing the paper that we published in Nature back in 2020.

Others have pointed out that RCP8.5 was never particularly plausible, and have criticized claims that the move away from using these scenarios reflects actual progress on reducing emissions.

So what actually happened here? It turns out that two things can be true at the same time:

RCP8.5 (and its successor SSP5-8.5) were designed to be a worst case emissions scenario, not the most likely outcome even in a world that did nothing to address climate change. We were probably never headed to a tripling of global emissions by 2100 (to say nothing of a five-fold increase in coal use), even in the absence of climate policy.

Rapid declines in clean energy costs have bent the curve of future emissions downward, with new scenarios designed to reflect current policies notably lower than most baseline scenarios in the literature. The 21st century is now unlikely to see a continued expansion of fossil fuel use globally, with current policy scenarios reflecting relatively flat global emissions going forward.

[...] o if we were likely never heading for a world of RCP8.5, with its tripling of global CO2 emissions by 2100 (and five-fold increase in coal use), where were we actually headed? How much has the energy transition to-date (which has grown to over $2 trillion annual global spending) actually changed our future trajectories?

This is an impossible question to precisely answer given that it relies on an inherently unknowable counterfactual scenario... (MORE - details)]]> <![CDATA[Totally insane tornado on "Eye Of The Storm: Chasers"]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20461.html Mon, 18 May 2026 05:39:07 +0000 Magical Realist]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20461.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emnRszZIxp8

Oh..and they've got Reed Timor back out there chasing tornados in the Dominator! He's my hero from years ago!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2QU2LqLFcy4]]>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emnRszZIxp8

Oh..and they've got Reed Timor back out there chasing tornados in the Dominator! He's my hero from years ago!

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2QU2LqLFcy4]]> <![CDATA[The mystery of clouds]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20414.html Tue, 12 May 2026 22:09:44 +0000 Magical Realist]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20414.html
And yet there they are, often looming darkly and dangerously over us and threatening to destroy us and our homes. Clouds are an example of a kind of thing that can come to exist less because of what came before and more because of what is possible. Some call this emergent phenomena. Others prefer the word miracles.Whatever they are, they seem to have no problem happening. Titanic hybrids of charged air and water. Gigantic amorphous presences overshadowing our meager lives and wrathfully correcting the energetic imbalances of our lopsided world.

[Image: BbQkAss.jpg?fbclid=IwY2xjawRwiVVleHRuA2F...Y9DmPuAFqQ]

"Honey comb" effect of stratus clouds based on mathematics:

https://cires.colorado.edu/news/clouds-honeycomb]]>
And yet there they are, often looming darkly and dangerously over us and threatening to destroy us and our homes. Clouds are an example of a kind of thing that can come to exist less because of what came before and more because of what is possible. Some call this emergent phenomena. Others prefer the word miracles.Whatever they are, they seem to have no problem happening. Titanic hybrids of charged air and water. Gigantic amorphous presences overshadowing our meager lives and wrathfully correcting the energetic imbalances of our lopsided world.

"Honey comb" effect of stratus clouds based on mathematics:

https://cires.colorado.edu/news/clouds-honeycomb]]> <![CDATA[The biggest story in climate science in decades has been mostly ignored]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20405.html Mon, 11 May 2026 14:07:22 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20405.html https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/med...-rcp85-rip

EXCERPT: The most substantive mainstream coverage came from the Netherlands — perhaps fittingly, since Detlef van Vuuren, lead author of the ScenarioMIP paper that announced the new scenarios and a fixture across generations of climate scenarios, works at Utrecht University and the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

De Volkskrant, one of the country’s largest outlets, ran the story on its front page on May 4 under the headline: UN Climate Panel Drops Doomsday Scenario. The story notes that a few years ago De Volkskrant did a self-audit of its own climate coverage and identified 54 articles it had published on RCP8.5 studies.

Science journalist Maarten Keulemans, who wrote that story, posted on X: “This is so huge. Mind-blowing. Crazy. The IPCC admits what’s been circulating for a while: the highest doomsday scenario, 8.5, no longer matches reality. ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU READ ABOUT THE CLIMATE FUTURE IS WRONG.”

Van Vuuren was quoted in De Volkskrant and his comments were notable. The consequences of 3.5°C warming are “vervelend genoeg,” bad enough already.

Van Vuuren characterized the new high-end warming in 2100 as 3.5C, which is considerably higher than the ~3C that I estimated from the available data that the ScenarioMIP posted online and using the same climate emulator. Interestingly, Van Vuuren’s framing — centered on the high scenario, rather than the medium “current policy” scenario — misuses the new high end scenario in a manner that the paper he led said to avoid: by using it as a projective reference scenario, rather than an exploratory “what if?” exercise. I am sure we will be seeing more of this sort of misuse of HIGH. Everyone loves the most extreme scenario available.

Van Vuuren attributes the need to retire the upper end scenarios to changes in the real world rather than basic flaws in the scenarios. As THB readers well know, this is just wrong. The high end scenarios were always off target, because they were based on flawed assumptions of a world that was going to dramatically expand coal use. Van Vuuren explained to De Volkskrant: “The world has fortunately developed. Renewable energy has become cheaper quickly. And, even if it is still too little, there is climate policy.”

Credit to Van Vuuren for acknowledging that the elimination of the extreme scenarios will be very disruptive... (MORE - missing details)]]> https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/med...-rcp85-rip

EXCERPT: The most substantive mainstream coverage came from the Netherlands — perhaps fittingly, since Detlef van Vuuren, lead author of the ScenarioMIP paper that announced the new scenarios and a fixture across generations of climate scenarios, works at Utrecht University and the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

De Volkskrant, one of the country’s largest outlets, ran the story on its front page on May 4 under the headline: UN Climate Panel Drops Doomsday Scenario. The story notes that a few years ago De Volkskrant did a self-audit of its own climate coverage and identified 54 articles it had published on RCP8.5 studies.

Science journalist Maarten Keulemans, who wrote that story, posted on X: “This is so huge. Mind-blowing. Crazy. The IPCC admits what’s been circulating for a while: the highest doomsday scenario, 8.5, no longer matches reality. ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU READ ABOUT THE CLIMATE FUTURE IS WRONG.”

Van Vuuren was quoted in De Volkskrant and his comments were notable. The consequences of 3.5°C warming are “vervelend genoeg,” bad enough already.

Van Vuuren characterized the new high-end warming in 2100 as 3.5C, which is considerably higher than the ~3C that I estimated from the available data that the ScenarioMIP posted online and using the same climate emulator. Interestingly, Van Vuuren’s framing — centered on the high scenario, rather than the medium “current policy” scenario — misuses the new high end scenario in a manner that the paper he led said to avoid: by using it as a projective reference scenario, rather than an exploratory “what if?” exercise. I am sure we will be seeing more of this sort of misuse of HIGH. Everyone loves the most extreme scenario available.

Van Vuuren attributes the need to retire the upper end scenarios to changes in the real world rather than basic flaws in the scenarios. As THB readers well know, this is just wrong. The high end scenarios were always off target, because they were based on flawed assumptions of a world that was going to dramatically expand coal use. Van Vuuren explained to De Volkskrant: “The world has fortunately developed. Renewable energy has become cheaper quickly. And, even if it is still too little, there is climate policy.”

Credit to Van Vuuren for acknowledging that the elimination of the extreme scenarios will be very disruptive... (MORE - missing details)]]> <![CDATA[ALWAYS expect the unexpected!]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20385.html Fri, 08 May 2026 16:16:23 +0000 Magical Realist]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20385.html
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1248274705693701]]>
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1248274705693701]]> <![CDATA[Is Reason's video on climate change alarmism a 'masterclass in manipulation'?]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20329.html Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:52:00 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20329.html https://reason.com/2026/04/29/is-reasons...ipulation/

INTRO (Aaron Brown) : The popular science communicator Hank Green published a YouTube video titled "A Masterclass in Manipulation," responding to a Reason video I made about misleading climate charts. His video is better-than-average political discourse. He's generous with the material, playing long uncut segments from my video instead of soundbites. He teaches his audience real things about how to read charts and spot a rhetorical sleight of hand, and along the way, he demonstrates something worth saying out loud: Two people can look at the same data and reach different conclusions without either of them being a fraud.

His video uses the same subtle manipulations he says I'm guilty of. I'm not attacking him by saying that. Anyone making an argument has a thumb on the scale, and the only durable defense is for viewers to learn to spot it. He both makes some good points and mischaracterizes my arguments at various points, which I'll take up in turn.

First, I want to dispute his overall framing. Green characterizes me as the rear guard of climate denial: first claiming warming wasn't real, then claiming humans weren't the cause, and now fighting the last-ditch battle of "it's not worth doing anything about." I've been writing on climate for decades, and my position hasn't changed: warming is real, humans contribute substantially, it matters, and the responses we choose matter at least as much as the diagnosis.

Treating any criticism of climate alarmism as do-nothing-ism is itself a rhetorical move, and it's what I most want to push back on. Reducing the human environmental footprint is a 100-year project across many fronts—water, soil, biodiversity, materials, air, climate, all entangled. The single most consequential thing that has happened on that project in my lifetime is that the U.S. now produces a dollar of real gross domestic product (GDP) using roughly 60 percent less energy than it did in 1965, and that ratio is still falling. It is the largest single reason emissions per unit of output have decoupled from growth. It happened because engineers, investors, and operators spent careers building things that people adopted voluntarily.

Meanwhile, the activist wing of the climate movement has spent the same 50 years absorbing government money, proposing expensive coercive solutions, and attacking those who disagree with them. They get most of the airtime. On to the charts... (MORE - details)]]> https://reason.com/2026/04/29/is-reasons...ipulation/

INTRO (Aaron Brown) : The popular science communicator Hank Green published a YouTube video titled "A Masterclass in Manipulation," responding to a Reason video I made about misleading climate charts. His video is better-than-average political discourse. He's generous with the material, playing long uncut segments from my video instead of soundbites. He teaches his audience real things about how to read charts and spot a rhetorical sleight of hand, and along the way, he demonstrates something worth saying out loud: Two people can look at the same data and reach different conclusions without either of them being a fraud.

His video uses the same subtle manipulations he says I'm guilty of. I'm not attacking him by saying that. Anyone making an argument has a thumb on the scale, and the only durable defense is for viewers to learn to spot it. He both makes some good points and mischaracterizes my arguments at various points, which I'll take up in turn.

First, I want to dispute his overall framing. Green characterizes me as the rear guard of climate denial: first claiming warming wasn't real, then claiming humans weren't the cause, and now fighting the last-ditch battle of "it's not worth doing anything about." I've been writing on climate for decades, and my position hasn't changed: warming is real, humans contribute substantially, it matters, and the responses we choose matter at least as much as the diagnosis.

Treating any criticism of climate alarmism as do-nothing-ism is itself a rhetorical move, and it's what I most want to push back on. Reducing the human environmental footprint is a 100-year project across many fronts—water, soil, biodiversity, materials, air, climate, all entangled. The single most consequential thing that has happened on that project in my lifetime is that the U.S. now produces a dollar of real gross domestic product (GDP) using roughly 60 percent less energy than it did in 1965, and that ratio is still falling. It is the largest single reason emissions per unit of output have decoupled from growth. It happened because engineers, investors, and operators spent careers building things that people adopted voluntarily.

Meanwhile, the activist wing of the climate movement has spent the same 50 years absorbing government money, proposing expensive coercive solutions, and attacking those who disagree with them. They get most of the airtime. On to the charts... (MORE - details)]]> <![CDATA[The wildfire paradox: How social media quickens response but strains resources]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20312.html Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:10:53 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20312.html https://ebs.publicnow.com/view/6D6BDD87D...FB24E5D1B3

PRESS RELEASE: Social media posts are a double-edged sword for public agencies that respond to emergencies such as wildfires. New research from the University of Waterloo shows that while posts by citizens who see emergencies in the making can help first responders spring into action faster, they may also result in costly over-reaction.

“A post that contains useful location or situational information may help speed up response, but highly emotional posts with limited informational content can also amplify urgency and unintentionally distort how resources are allocated,” said Dr. Garros Gong, who led the study as a PhD student in management science and engineering at Waterloo.

To assess the impact of social media on emergency response costs and effectiveness, researchers analyzed detailed data on California wildfires and related posts on Twitter, now called X, between 2007 and 2021.

The study builds on previous work by the research team that found monitoring social media activity can help firefighters and other first responders identify and react to emergencies faster. Their new findings, obtained by filtering out irrelevant ‘noise’ from the social media signal during wildfires, suggest it can also have a costly downside if public attention and pressure lead to over-allocation of firefighters and other resources.

“While it was expected that social media could improve responsiveness, it was surprising to find that beyond a certain point, the same visibility can reduce operational efficiency in terms of suppression costs per acre,” said Gong, who was supervised by Dr. Stan Dimitrov, a professor of management science and engineering.

To help emergency agencies deal with what they call the “visibility-efficiency paradox,” researchers developed a tool that tracks social media posts during the early stages of an emergency and quantifies its seriousness by weighing factors including population and location.

Gong said such insights will be increasingly valuable as the costs of wildfires in terms of deaths, property damage and suppression climb along with their rising frequency worldwide.

“The key lesson is not that agencies should ignore social media, which is now part of the operating environment,” Gong said. “The real challenge is how to govern the attention pressure it creates.

“Our findings suggest that agencies should pair fast responses with clearer escalation thresholds, disciplined resource-trigger rules and post-event reverse audits to ensure public visibility improves responsiveness without pushing systems into costly over-allocation.”

The study, Sustainable Wildfire Management Meets Social Media: How Virtual Interaction Affects Wildfire Response Costs, appears in the journal Production and Operations Management.]]> https://ebs.publicnow.com/view/6D6BDD87D...FB24E5D1B3

PRESS RELEASE: Social media posts are a double-edged sword for public agencies that respond to emergencies such as wildfires. New research from the University of Waterloo shows that while posts by citizens who see emergencies in the making can help first responders spring into action faster, they may also result in costly over-reaction.

“A post that contains useful location or situational information may help speed up response, but highly emotional posts with limited informational content can also amplify urgency and unintentionally distort how resources are allocated,” said Dr. Garros Gong, who led the study as a PhD student in management science and engineering at Waterloo.

To assess the impact of social media on emergency response costs and effectiveness, researchers analyzed detailed data on California wildfires and related posts on Twitter, now called X, between 2007 and 2021.

The study builds on previous work by the research team that found monitoring social media activity can help firefighters and other first responders identify and react to emergencies faster. Their new findings, obtained by filtering out irrelevant ‘noise’ from the social media signal during wildfires, suggest it can also have a costly downside if public attention and pressure lead to over-allocation of firefighters and other resources.

“While it was expected that social media could improve responsiveness, it was surprising to find that beyond a certain point, the same visibility can reduce operational efficiency in terms of suppression costs per acre,” said Gong, who was supervised by Dr. Stan Dimitrov, a professor of management science and engineering.

To help emergency agencies deal with what they call the “visibility-efficiency paradox,” researchers developed a tool that tracks social media posts during the early stages of an emergency and quantifies its seriousness by weighing factors including population and location.

Gong said such insights will be increasingly valuable as the costs of wildfires in terms of deaths, property damage and suppression climb along with their rising frequency worldwide.

“The key lesson is not that agencies should ignore social media, which is now part of the operating environment,” Gong said. “The real challenge is how to govern the attention pressure it creates.

“Our findings suggest that agencies should pair fast responses with clearer escalation thresholds, disciplined resource-trigger rules and post-event reverse audits to ensure public visibility improves responsiveness without pushing systems into costly over-allocation.”

The study, Sustainable Wildfire Management Meets Social Media: How Virtual Interaction Affects Wildfire Response Costs, appears in the journal Production and Operations Management.]]> <![CDATA[Threat of California’s native tree loss is greater than current estimates]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20276.html Sat, 25 Apr 2026 17:27:34 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20276.html https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1125760

INTRO: From the scarecrow-like silhouettes of Joshua Tree National Park to the fog-shrouded Redwood Coast of Mendocino and Humboldt counties, California’s identity is deeply rooted in its trees. However, a new study led by researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz, warns that these foundational species are in much more trouble than international conservation rankings estimate.

The study, published this morning in journal Global Change Biology, reveals that over the next century, California’s endemic and near-endemic trees are projected to lose between half and three-quarters of their climatically suitable habitat. Perhaps most strikingly, the research demonstrates that the trees’ current conservation status on the globally authoritative International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List don’t yet reflect this imminent risk.

Using “climate-informed” assessments, researchers from UC Santa Cruz’s Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology found that even under the most conservative climate-change forecasts, most species qualify for higher Red List threat levels than their current status. The Red List is the global authority on species extinction risk, but does not have the regulatory authority of U.S. federal or state endangered species laws.

One of these species is the blue oak, an iconic tree commonly found in California’s inland foothills and rangelands—as seen throughout the recently established Strathearn Ranch Natural Reserve in San Benito County.

Blue oaks are an important cultural and food species for many Indigenous tribes. Ranchers also depend on these trees because they provide shade for cattle and nutrient cycling. They stabilize soils to prevent erosion, keep carbon out of the atmosphere, and provide homes to hundreds of other animals—as well as improve property values.

“If you lose a blue oak woodland, you’ll generally be left with an invasive grassland,” said Blair McLaughlin, a climate change adaptation scientist at UC Santa Cruz and lead author of the study. “The old-growth blue oak woodlands have been here for centuries, so they are a connection to a time before the full impacts of European settlement.” (MORE - no ads)]]> https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1125760

INTRO: From the scarecrow-like silhouettes of Joshua Tree National Park to the fog-shrouded Redwood Coast of Mendocino and Humboldt counties, California’s identity is deeply rooted in its trees. However, a new study led by researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz, warns that these foundational species are in much more trouble than international conservation rankings estimate.

The study, published this morning in journal Global Change Biology, reveals that over the next century, California’s endemic and near-endemic trees are projected to lose between half and three-quarters of their climatically suitable habitat. Perhaps most strikingly, the research demonstrates that the trees’ current conservation status on the globally authoritative International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List don’t yet reflect this imminent risk.

Using “climate-informed” assessments, researchers from UC Santa Cruz’s Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology found that even under the most conservative climate-change forecasts, most species qualify for higher Red List threat levels than their current status. The Red List is the global authority on species extinction risk, but does not have the regulatory authority of U.S. federal or state endangered species laws.

One of these species is the blue oak, an iconic tree commonly found in California’s inland foothills and rangelands—as seen throughout the recently established Strathearn Ranch Natural Reserve in San Benito County.

Blue oaks are an important cultural and food species for many Indigenous tribes. Ranchers also depend on these trees because they provide shade for cattle and nutrient cycling. They stabilize soils to prevent erosion, keep carbon out of the atmosphere, and provide homes to hundreds of other animals—as well as improve property values.

“If you lose a blue oak woodland, you’ll generally be left with an invasive grassland,” said Blair McLaughlin, a climate change adaptation scientist at UC Santa Cruz and lead author of the study. “The old-growth blue oak woodlands have been here for centuries, so they are a connection to a time before the full impacts of European settlement.” (MORE - no ads)]]> <![CDATA[Treetops glowing during storms captured on film for first time]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20225.html Sat, 18 Apr 2026 21:16:05 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20225.html https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1124758

INTRO: In a converted 2013 Toyota Sienna affixed with a hand-built telescopic weather device protruding from the roof, Penn State experts in meteorology and atmospheric science made their way down the nation’s eastern coast in June 2024 in search of Florida’s famed near-daily summer thunderstorms.

They were hoping to catch corona discharges, a long-hypothesized atmospheric weather phenomenon where miniscule pulses of electricity dance at the tips of tree leaves, causing the canopy to glow in the ultraviolet (UV). For more than 70 years, scientists have suspected treetops might emit these corona electrical discharges because of odd electric field activity in and over forests during storms, yet they have never been documented outside the lab.

The team, consisting of William Brune, distinguished professor of meteorology and atmospheric science; Patrick McFarland, a doctoral candidate in meteorology and atmospheric science; Jena Jenkins, assistant research professor; and David Miller, a former associate research professor who is now at the Penn State Applied Research Lab; worked to be the first to document this effect.

They chose the Sunshine State because of its propensity to produce frequent thunderstorms. However, as is often the case during research endeavors, the typical weather proved atypical. For three weeks in Florida, McFarland and Brune chased pop-up storms that left as quickly as they formed.

The researchers had little to show for their efforts until, as they made their way back to Penn State, massive and sustained storms began cropping up just west of Interstate 95. The team caught an exit, nestled in a parking lot at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, and trained their instruments to the top branches of a sweetgum tree that the rangefinder logged as 100 feet from their van.

The thunderstorm flashed lightning and poured rain for nearly two hours, giving them time to also observe corona on a nearby long needle loblolly pine tree as the storm waned. The results, which were the first directly-observed corona discharges occurring in nature, were recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

“This just goes to show that there’s still discovery science being done,” said McFarland, lead author on the paper. “For more than half a century, scientists have theorized that corona exists, but this proves it.”

Corona discharges take shape during storms, the researchers said, because clouds build up strong negative charges that attract the opposite positive charge on the ground below. Opposites attract and this positive electrical ground charge rises up through the trees to the highest point, causing an electric field on the tiny, hair-like tips of leaves that is great enough to create the weak corona glow in both visible and UV form. This UV from the corona breaks apart water vapor, producing hydroxyl.

Hydroxyl is the atmosphere’s main oxidizer. Oxidizers clean the air by reacting with chemicals emitted into the air, making other chemicals that are easier to remove. These chemicals include volatile organic compounds emitted by trees or human activities and the greenhouse gas methane. The team’s prior research found corona discharges to be a substantial source of atmospheric cleansers in the forest canopy... (MORE - no ads)]]> https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1124758

INTRO: In a converted 2013 Toyota Sienna affixed with a hand-built telescopic weather device protruding from the roof, Penn State experts in meteorology and atmospheric science made their way down the nation’s eastern coast in June 2024 in search of Florida’s famed near-daily summer thunderstorms.

They were hoping to catch corona discharges, a long-hypothesized atmospheric weather phenomenon where miniscule pulses of electricity dance at the tips of tree leaves, causing the canopy to glow in the ultraviolet (UV). For more than 70 years, scientists have suspected treetops might emit these corona electrical discharges because of odd electric field activity in and over forests during storms, yet they have never been documented outside the lab.

The team, consisting of William Brune, distinguished professor of meteorology and atmospheric science; Patrick McFarland, a doctoral candidate in meteorology and atmospheric science; Jena Jenkins, assistant research professor; and David Miller, a former associate research professor who is now at the Penn State Applied Research Lab; worked to be the first to document this effect.

They chose the Sunshine State because of its propensity to produce frequent thunderstorms. However, as is often the case during research endeavors, the typical weather proved atypical. For three weeks in Florida, McFarland and Brune chased pop-up storms that left as quickly as they formed.

The researchers had little to show for their efforts until, as they made their way back to Penn State, massive and sustained storms began cropping up just west of Interstate 95. The team caught an exit, nestled in a parking lot at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke, and trained their instruments to the top branches of a sweetgum tree that the rangefinder logged as 100 feet from their van.

The thunderstorm flashed lightning and poured rain for nearly two hours, giving them time to also observe corona on a nearby long needle loblolly pine tree as the storm waned. The results, which were the first directly-observed corona discharges occurring in nature, were recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

“This just goes to show that there’s still discovery science being done,” said McFarland, lead author on the paper. “For more than half a century, scientists have theorized that corona exists, but this proves it.”

Corona discharges take shape during storms, the researchers said, because clouds build up strong negative charges that attract the opposite positive charge on the ground below. Opposites attract and this positive electrical ground charge rises up through the trees to the highest point, causing an electric field on the tiny, hair-like tips of leaves that is great enough to create the weak corona glow in both visible and UV form. This UV from the corona breaks apart water vapor, producing hydroxyl.

Hydroxyl is the atmosphere’s main oxidizer. Oxidizers clean the air by reacting with chemicals emitted into the air, making other chemicals that are easier to remove. These chemicals include volatile organic compounds emitted by trees or human activities and the greenhouse gas methane. The team’s prior research found corona discharges to be a substantial source of atmospheric cleansers in the forest canopy... (MORE - no ads)]]>