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

<![CDATA[Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum - Meteorology & Climatology]]> https://www.scivillage.com/ Fri, 15 May 2026 02:36:42 +0000 MyBB <![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)]]> <![CDATA[Warm-bodied sharks & tunas face “double jeopardy” in warming seas – new research]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20205.html Thu, 16 Apr 2026 20:06:25 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20205.html https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1123512

EXCERPTS: A new study reveals that some of the ocean’s most powerful predators are running hotter, and that they are likely paying an increasingly steep price for it. The significance of this headline finding is the “double jeopardy” in which it places these iconic animals, which have high fuel demands due to their lifestyle and physiology, as they now face a future of warming oceans and declining food resources.

The research, led by scientists at Trinity College Dublin in collaboration with the University of Pretoria’s (UP) Faculty of Veterinary Science, shows that warm-bodied fish such as tunas and some sharks, including the legendary Great White and Ireland’s iconic basking shark, burn nearly four times more energy than their cold-blooded counterparts. This means they are likely to face an increasing risk of overheating as oceans warm, which may result in a reduction of suitable habitat and an enforced relocation towards the poles.

The study, published today in leading international journal Science, focuses on “mesothermic” fishes, a rare group comprising fewer than 0.1% of all fish species, which can retain metabolic heat and keep parts of their bodies warmer than the surrounding seawater. This ability has evolved independently several times in some sharks and tunas, enabling higher swimming speeds, long-distance migrations, and enhanced predatory performance.

[...] These findings seemingly help to explain long-observed patterns in the ocean, where large fishes tend to occur in cooler waters, at higher latitudes, or at greater depths. They also migrate seasonally, tracking favourable temperatures.

Unsurprisingly, the scientists predict that under future warming scenarios suitable habitat for large mesotherms will shrink, and particularly so during summer months. And while some species, such as Atlantic bluefin tuna, can temporarily increase heat loss or dive to cooler waters, even they may be pushed to their limits if surface waters continue to warm.

Dr Snelling, UP, says: “This research shows that being a high-performance predator in the ocean comes at a greater cost than we previously appreciated. As the oceans warm, these species are being pushed closer to their physiological limits, which could have consequences for where they can live and how they survive.” (MORE - missing detail, no ads)]]> https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1123512

EXCERPTS: A new study reveals that some of the ocean’s most powerful predators are running hotter, and that they are likely paying an increasingly steep price for it. The significance of this headline finding is the “double jeopardy” in which it places these iconic animals, which have high fuel demands due to their lifestyle and physiology, as they now face a future of warming oceans and declining food resources.

The research, led by scientists at Trinity College Dublin in collaboration with the University of Pretoria’s (UP) Faculty of Veterinary Science, shows that warm-bodied fish such as tunas and some sharks, including the legendary Great White and Ireland’s iconic basking shark, burn nearly four times more energy than their cold-blooded counterparts. This means they are likely to face an increasing risk of overheating as oceans warm, which may result in a reduction of suitable habitat and an enforced relocation towards the poles.

The study, published today in leading international journal Science, focuses on “mesothermic” fishes, a rare group comprising fewer than 0.1% of all fish species, which can retain metabolic heat and keep parts of their bodies warmer than the surrounding seawater. This ability has evolved independently several times in some sharks and tunas, enabling higher swimming speeds, long-distance migrations, and enhanced predatory performance.

[...] These findings seemingly help to explain long-observed patterns in the ocean, where large fishes tend to occur in cooler waters, at higher latitudes, or at greater depths. They also migrate seasonally, tracking favourable temperatures.

Unsurprisingly, the scientists predict that under future warming scenarios suitable habitat for large mesotherms will shrink, and particularly so during summer months. And while some species, such as Atlantic bluefin tuna, can temporarily increase heat loss or dive to cooler waters, even they may be pushed to their limits if surface waters continue to warm.

Dr Snelling, UP, says: “This research shows that being a high-performance predator in the ocean comes at a greater cost than we previously appreciated. As the oceans warm, these species are being pushed closer to their physiological limits, which could have consequences for where they can live and how they survive.” (MORE - missing detail, no ads)]]> <![CDATA[Global urban methane emissions are growing more than estimated]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20180.html Mon, 13 Apr 2026 22:57:13 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20180.html https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1123927

KEY POINTS: Satellite measurements show that urban methane emissions around the globe have risen 6% since 2019, and emissions from C40 cities partaking in climate pledges are rising at a similar rate as non-participating cities. The observed growth in methane emissions is not captured by accounting-based emissions estimates, suggesting that some methane sources are missing or underestimated. C40 cities will have to account for nearly 2 additional teragrams of methane emissions—about 30% of their emissions reduction target.

INTRO: Urban emissions of methane—a potent greenhouse gas—are rising faster than "bottom-up" accounting estimates anticipated, according to a study led by University of Michigan Engineering and funded by NASA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The discrepancy was found with satellite measurements of methane over 92 major cities around the world. For 72 of the cities, there were sufficient data to track changes in methane emissions between 2019 and 2023. Overall, global urban methane emissions in 2023 were 6% higher than 2019 levels and 10% higher than 2020 levels, although they tended to decrease in European cities.

In contrast, accounting methods—which tally emission estimates of individual methane sources—suggest that urban methane emissions have only risen between 1.7% and 3.7% since 2020.

The study included over half of the C40 network, a group of 97 cities around the world aiming to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Total methane emissions across all the studied C40 cities in 2023 were also 10% higher than 2020 levels, and the cities will have to contend with an extra 2 teragrams of methane emissions per year, which is about 30% of their emission reduction targets. The gap between official estimates and satellite measurements warn that city policies designed with accounting estimates may not reduce methane emissions as desired.

"In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and set good emissions policy, cities need to know how much they are emitting and what those sources are. But there is quite a bit of uncertainty with that for methane," said Eric Kort, corresponding author of the study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He advised the study's lead author as a U-M professor of climate and space sciences and engineering, and is now director of the Atmospheric Chemistry Department at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry... (MORE - details, no ads)]]> https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1123927

KEY POINTS: Satellite measurements show that urban methane emissions around the globe have risen 6% since 2019, and emissions from C40 cities partaking in climate pledges are rising at a similar rate as non-participating cities. The observed growth in methane emissions is not captured by accounting-based emissions estimates, suggesting that some methane sources are missing or underestimated. C40 cities will have to account for nearly 2 additional teragrams of methane emissions—about 30% of their emissions reduction target.

INTRO: Urban emissions of methane—a potent greenhouse gas—are rising faster than "bottom-up" accounting estimates anticipated, according to a study led by University of Michigan Engineering and funded by NASA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The discrepancy was found with satellite measurements of methane over 92 major cities around the world. For 72 of the cities, there were sufficient data to track changes in methane emissions between 2019 and 2023. Overall, global urban methane emissions in 2023 were 6% higher than 2019 levels and 10% higher than 2020 levels, although they tended to decrease in European cities.

In contrast, accounting methods—which tally emission estimates of individual methane sources—suggest that urban methane emissions have only risen between 1.7% and 3.7% since 2020.

The study included over half of the C40 network, a group of 97 cities around the world aiming to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Total methane emissions across all the studied C40 cities in 2023 were also 10% higher than 2020 levels, and the cities will have to contend with an extra 2 teragrams of methane emissions per year, which is about 30% of their emission reduction targets. The gap between official estimates and satellite measurements warn that city policies designed with accounting estimates may not reduce methane emissions as desired.

"In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and set good emissions policy, cities need to know how much they are emitting and what those sources are. But there is quite a bit of uncertainty with that for methane," said Eric Kort, corresponding author of the study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He advised the study's lead author as a U-M professor of climate and space sciences and engineering, and is now director of the Atmospheric Chemistry Department at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry... (MORE - details, no ads)]]> <![CDATA[How did Earth’s most powerful ocean current form?]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20135.html Tue, 07 Apr 2026 02:08:16 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20135.html https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1122610

PRESS RELEASE: It transports far more than 100 times as much water as all of the Earth's rivers combined: The Antarctic Circumpolar Current rushes around the southern continent unhindered by land masses and is therefore a fundamental component of the climate system.

In a recent study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a research team led by the Alfred Wegener Institute describes how and when this mighty ring current developed in Earth's history. Surprising finding: it took more than the opening of the ocean passages between Antarctica, and South America and Australia.

Earth’s climate underwent its last drastic change around 34 million years ago during the transition into the Oligocene - cooling from a largely ice sheet-free greenhouse climate to our current icehouse climate, in which large areas of the poles became increasingly glaciated with permanent ice. At this time, the ocean passages between Australia, Antarctica and South America widened and deepened, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) developed and the formation of the Antarctic Ice Sheet began.

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at that time was around 600 ppm - a value that has not been reached ever since, but could be exceeded again by the end of this century in some climate scenarios. “In order to predict the possible future climate, it is necessary to look into the past with simulations and data to understand our Earth in warmer and more CO2-rich climate states than today,” says Hanna Knahl, climate modeller at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) and lead author of the study, which now appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

“But careful, the climate of the past can of course not be projected 1:1 onto the future. Our study shows that the circumpolar current in its ‘infancy’ influenced the climate very differently than today’s fully developed ACC does.”

For the current study, Hanna Knahl and her colleagues analysed the formation of the ACC. To this end, climate simulations were created with the continental configuration from 33.5 million years ago, when Australia and South America were still much closer to Antarctica. For these simulations, the team coupled the Antarctic Ice Sheet from a 2024 Science study with the ocean, atmosphere, and land masses to analyse how the ocean currents around Antarctica developed. The simulated currents were then compared with data-based reconstructions from this period.

Hanna Knahl explains: “There were already indications that the wind in the Tasman Gateway played an important role in the formation of the ACC. Our simulations can clearly confirm this: Only when Australia had moved further away from Antarctica and the strong westerly winds blew directly through the Tasman Gateway, the current could fully develop.”

Surprisingly, at that time the Southern Ocean may have been divided into two completely different parts. Although the ocean passages around Antarctica were already open, the model only simulates a strong current in the Atlantic and Indian sectors, while the Pacific sector remained much calmer... (MORE - details, no ads)]]> https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1122610

PRESS RELEASE: It transports far more than 100 times as much water as all of the Earth's rivers combined: The Antarctic Circumpolar Current rushes around the southern continent unhindered by land masses and is therefore a fundamental component of the climate system.

In a recent study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a research team led by the Alfred Wegener Institute describes how and when this mighty ring current developed in Earth's history. Surprising finding: it took more than the opening of the ocean passages between Antarctica, and South America and Australia.

Earth’s climate underwent its last drastic change around 34 million years ago during the transition into the Oligocene - cooling from a largely ice sheet-free greenhouse climate to our current icehouse climate, in which large areas of the poles became increasingly glaciated with permanent ice. At this time, the ocean passages between Australia, Antarctica and South America widened and deepened, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) developed and the formation of the Antarctic Ice Sheet began.

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere at that time was around 600 ppm - a value that has not been reached ever since, but could be exceeded again by the end of this century in some climate scenarios. “In order to predict the possible future climate, it is necessary to look into the past with simulations and data to understand our Earth in warmer and more CO2-rich climate states than today,” says Hanna Knahl, climate modeller at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) and lead author of the study, which now appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

“But careful, the climate of the past can of course not be projected 1:1 onto the future. Our study shows that the circumpolar current in its ‘infancy’ influenced the climate very differently than today’s fully developed ACC does.”

For the current study, Hanna Knahl and her colleagues analysed the formation of the ACC. To this end, climate simulations were created with the continental configuration from 33.5 million years ago, when Australia and South America were still much closer to Antarctica. For these simulations, the team coupled the Antarctic Ice Sheet from a 2024 Science study with the ocean, atmosphere, and land masses to analyse how the ocean currents around Antarctica developed. The simulated currents were then compared with data-based reconstructions from this period.

Hanna Knahl explains: “There were already indications that the wind in the Tasman Gateway played an important role in the formation of the ACC. Our simulations can clearly confirm this: Only when Australia had moved further away from Antarctica and the strong westerly winds blew directly through the Tasman Gateway, the current could fully develop.”

Surprisingly, at that time the Southern Ocean may have been divided into two completely different parts. Although the ocean passages around Antarctica were already open, the model only simulates a strong current in the Atlantic and Indian sectors, while the Pacific sector remained much calmer... (MORE - details, no ads)]]> <![CDATA[The creepy, deadly, glowing tornado that destroyed Blackwell in 1955]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20105.html Thu, 02 Apr 2026 21:01:19 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20105.html https://x.com/tornadartz/status/1973000072741929227

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwell%...F5_tornado

Blackwell was a victim of the 1955 Great Plains tornado outbreak, a deadly tornado outbreak that struck the southern and central U.S Great Plains States on May 25–26, 1955. [...] Unusual electromagnetic activity was observed, including St. Elmo's fire.

https://www.weather.gov/oun/events-19550525

One eyewitness in Blackwell had an interesting visual observation of the tornado. Floyd Montgomery lived nine blocks west of the main path of the tornado and submitted his account to Weatherwise magazine in June 1956. Mr. Montgomery describes as he looked to the east from the door of his storm cellar as the tornado moved through Blackwell. He described a “fire up near the top of the funnel looked like a child’s Fourth of July pinwheel. The light was so intense I had to look away.” He describes the light as the “same color as an electric arc welder but much brighter, and it seemed to be turning to the right like a beacon lamp on a lighthouse.”

https://www.reddit.com/r/tornado/comment...ernatural/

At Blackwell, very frequent cloud-to-ground lightning was observed ahead of the tornado, and unusual electrical activity was seen in and around the tornado. Very bright electrical discharges were seen within the funnel and ground-originating corona current (also known as St. Elmo’s Fire) was seen just ahead of the tornado.

INTRO: Today we are covering the mysterious 1955 Blackwell Oklahoma Tornado that apparently glowed in the dark. Quite an unusual event.

The night a tornado started glowing ... https://youtu.be/8FYe-qjACPk

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/8FYe-qjACPk

1955 news film coverage of town's destruction ... https://youtu.be/Em5HbYt0Fsk

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Em5HbYt0Fsk]]> https://x.com/tornadartz/status/1973000072741929227

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/8FYe-qjACPk

1955 news film coverage of town's destruction ... https://youtu.be/Em5HbYt0Fsk

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Em5HbYt0Fsk]]> <![CDATA[20 years to stop spiraling decline in British biodiversity (climate depletion)]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20088.html Tue, 31 Mar 2026 19:50:05 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20088.html https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1122123

INTRO: There is a closing 20-year window in which decisions on climate and land use will determine the fate of dozens of native birds, butterflies and plants across Great Britain, which is already one of the most nature-depleted countries globally.

That is the warning in a new study led by the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (UKCEH), which, for the first time, predicts how different combined environmental changes would affect the survival of species within 1km square areas across the country.

The scientists say 2050 is a 'point of no return' where decisions on climate and land use made up to then will determine the trajectories of species trends in future decades – impacting other wildlife as well as nature’s contributions to people such as pollination and soil health.

These better-case scenarios would involve: strong action on emissions; sustainable land management, including reduced meat and dairy consumption; and an overall societal shift towards valuing the environment.

The worst-case scenario would involve increased fossil fuel burning, putting us on course for 4 degrees of warming, in addition to environmentally damaging agricultural and urban intensification. The experts predict this would mean:

More than 200 species from three key groups – 196 plants (20% of existing British species), 31 birds (14%) and seven butterflies (12%) – would eventually become extinct in Britain; it would be a question of not if but when. These losses would be more than three times the historic extinction rate.
Many areas of the country would lose up to 20% of their existing local species.
89% of habitats in Britain would look very different, with a much-changed make-up of plant species. There would be winners and losers, with some warm-loving species thriving and dominating habitats but many sensitive species declining.

The study focused on plants, birds and butterflies because of their vital and varied ecological roles but the authors warned that changes to these species would affect other wildlife within habitats... (MORE - details, no ad)]]> https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1122123

INTRO: There is a closing 20-year window in which decisions on climate and land use will determine the fate of dozens of native birds, butterflies and plants across Great Britain, which is already one of the most nature-depleted countries globally.

That is the warning in a new study led by the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (UKCEH), which, for the first time, predicts how different combined environmental changes would affect the survival of species within 1km square areas across the country.

The scientists say 2050 is a 'point of no return' where decisions on climate and land use made up to then will determine the trajectories of species trends in future decades – impacting other wildlife as well as nature’s contributions to people such as pollination and soil health.

These better-case scenarios would involve: strong action on emissions; sustainable land management, including reduced meat and dairy consumption; and an overall societal shift towards valuing the environment.

The worst-case scenario would involve increased fossil fuel burning, putting us on course for 4 degrees of warming, in addition to environmentally damaging agricultural and urban intensification. The experts predict this would mean:

More than 200 species from three key groups – 196 plants (20% of existing British species), 31 birds (14%) and seven butterflies (12%) – would eventually become extinct in Britain; it would be a question of not if but when. These losses would be more than three times the historic extinction rate.
Many areas of the country would lose up to 20% of their existing local species.
89% of habitats in Britain would look very different, with a much-changed make-up of plant species. There would be winners and losers, with some warm-loving species thriving and dominating habitats but many sensitive species declining.

The study focused on plants, birds and butterflies because of their vital and varied ecological roles but the authors warned that changes to these species would affect other wildlife within habitats... (MORE - details, no ad)]]> <![CDATA[This scientist survived being inside a tornado]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20041.html Wed, 25 Mar 2026 01:08:03 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20041.html https://theconversation.com/can-you-surv...ive-278648

EXCERPTS: I am an atmospheric scientist who studies tornadoes, but I am only alive today because of split-second decisions and a massive amount of dumb luck. [...] The students were in other vehicles and got away, but my car was quickly swallowed by a cloud of flying debris so thick that I couldn’t even see my own hood.

With my options disappearing, I made a desperate move: I turned the car directly into the wind, hoping the vehicle’s aerodynamics would keep us pinned to the ground rather than being flipped like a toy.

When you’re inside a tornado’s vortex, your body experiences things the news cameras can’t capture:

The pressure change: A tornado is a localized area of rapidly changing pressure. Your ears don’t just “pop” – they ache, as if your head is being squeezed by giant hands.
The solid wind: We measured wind speeds of almost 150 mph (241 kph) nearby, but inside the vortex, they were likely much higher. At those speeds, air hits you with the force of a solid object.
The soup of darkness: In movies, the “eye” is a clear space. In reality, it’s a debris ball – a brownish-black soup of pulverized soil, trees and buildings. It was so dark that my camera couldn’t even register a picture.

The pressure change: A tornado is a localized area of rapidly changing pressure. Your ears don’t just “pop” – they ache, as if your head is being squeezed by giant hands.
The solid wind: We measured wind speeds of almost 150 mph (241 kph) nearby, but inside the vortex, they were likely much higher. At those speeds, air hits you with the force of a solid object.
The soup of darkness: In movies, the “eye” is a clear space. In reality, it’s a debris ball – a brownish-black soup of pulverized soil, trees and buildings. It was so dark that my camera couldn’t even register a picture.

As debris slammed into my windshield, I was terrified I’d be crushed by flying materials – tornadoes can pick up fences, wood and metal from buildings, tree branches, even cows. Textbook advice says to get into a ditch so you’re lying flat and might be more protected from flying debris. But the wind was so violent, I couldn’t even open the car door. I just stayed low and prayed.

[...] These storms can have winds up to 300 mph (482 kph) and leave a long path of destruction, sometimes more than a mile (1.6 kilometers) wide. [...] When the storm passed, the silence was jarring. My rental car was mired in mud, the antenna was bent in half, and bits of straw were embedded in every single seam of the car’s body... (MORE - missing details)]]> <![CDATA[Climate change is fueling disease outbreaks]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19993.html Tue, 17 Mar 2026 16:22:01 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19993.html https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1119818

INTRO: Diseases historically absent from the United States have been showing up in Florida, Texas, California and other U.S. states in recent years. To understand why, look to Peru. That’s where researchers from Stanford and other institutions analyzed the connection between a cyclone and a massive outbreak of dengue fever, a mosquito-borne viral disease that can cause fever, rash, and life-threatening symptoms like hemorrhage and shock. Their findings, published March 17 in One Earth, reveal that warmer, wetter weather linked to climate change is making disease epidemics more likely.

"Health impacts of climate change aren't something we're waiting for,” said study lead author Mallory Harris, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of Maryland who conducted the research as a PhD student in biology at Stanford. “They're happening now."

Dengue fever, transmitted by Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes, sickens an estimated tens of millions of people worldwide each year, according to the World Health Organization, and has surged more than 10-fold globally since 2000. A 2023 cyclone and coastal El Niño in a normally dry region of Peru was followed by a dengue fever outbreak 10 times larger than normal.

Using a statistical technique developed in economics, the researchers asked what share of this historic outbreak was due to the unusual 2023 weather, by modeling what would have happened without the storm. In collaboration with scientists at the Peruvian Ministry of Health and the Latin American Center of Excellence in Climate Change and Health, the team estimated that 60% of dengue cases in the hardest hit districts were directly caused by extreme rainfall and warm temperatures during the cyclone. That translates to roughly 22,000 additional people falling ill who otherwise would not have.

The link goes like this: heavy rains flood low-lying areas, knock out water and sanitation infrastructure, and create pools of water ideal for breeding Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes. Warm weather turbocharges mosquito breeding and disease transmission processes. By comparison, cooler areas hit by the cyclone saw no significant effect of extreme precipitation on dengue incidence... (MORE - details, no ads)]]> https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1119818

INTRO: Diseases historically absent from the United States have been showing up in Florida, Texas, California and other U.S. states in recent years. To understand why, look to Peru. That’s where researchers from Stanford and other institutions analyzed the connection between a cyclone and a massive outbreak of dengue fever, a mosquito-borne viral disease that can cause fever, rash, and life-threatening symptoms like hemorrhage and shock. Their findings, published March 17 in One Earth, reveal that warmer, wetter weather linked to climate change is making disease epidemics more likely.

"Health impacts of climate change aren't something we're waiting for,” said study lead author Mallory Harris, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of Maryland who conducted the research as a PhD student in biology at Stanford. “They're happening now."

Dengue fever, transmitted by Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes, sickens an estimated tens of millions of people worldwide each year, according to the World Health Organization, and has surged more than 10-fold globally since 2000. A 2023 cyclone and coastal El Niño in a normally dry region of Peru was followed by a dengue fever outbreak 10 times larger than normal.

Using a statistical technique developed in economics, the researchers asked what share of this historic outbreak was due to the unusual 2023 weather, by modeling what would have happened without the storm. In collaboration with scientists at the Peruvian Ministry of Health and the Latin American Center of Excellence in Climate Change and Health, the team estimated that 60% of dengue cases in the hardest hit districts were directly caused by extreme rainfall and warm temperatures during the cyclone. That translates to roughly 22,000 additional people falling ill who otherwise would not have.

The link goes like this: heavy rains flood low-lying areas, knock out water and sanitation infrastructure, and create pools of water ideal for breeding Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes. Warm weather turbocharges mosquito breeding and disease transmission processes. By comparison, cooler areas hit by the cyclone saw no significant effect of extreme precipitation on dengue incidence... (MORE - details, no ads)]]> <![CDATA[The scientists who declared war on half of America + UK seniors and climate change]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19935.html Tue, 10 Mar 2026 20:15:21 +0000 C C]]> https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19935.html Most older people in England view climate change as a serious risk
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19939.html

EXCERPT: Those in their 50s were more likely to be highly engaged, while those in their 70s, 80s and older were more likely to be risk-aware but fatalistic...

The scientists who declared war on half of America
https://mindingthecampus.org/2026/03/09/...f-america/

EXCERPTS: With Science Under Siege: How to Fight the Five Most Powerful Forces that Threaten Our World, climatologist Michael E. Mann and virologist Peter J. Hotez have written an important book... The central argument of the book is apocalyptic.

[...] “Antiscience,” they tell us, is “politically and ideologically motivated opposition to any science that threatens powerful special interests and their political agenda” (p. 2). Mann and Hotez define opposition specifically—Republicans...

[...] More granularly, Mann and Hotez identify the threat to human civilization as coming from a Republican “antiscience ecosystem” that they sub-group into five alliterative categories, shown in the nonsensical figure below:

Much of the book is spent denigrating those the authors see as enemies within these five categories. I counted 137 people who they namecheck as part of the antiscience cabal threatening the world. Many on the enemies list are not Republicans, or even on the political right. That seeming incoherence can be quickly resolved by recognizing that the list is simply people Mann and Hotez don’t like for one reason or another.

[...] The authors have reserved some of their harshest criticism for longstanding climate advocates such as climate scientists Kevin Anderson (#105) and James Hansen (#106), and journalist David Wallace-Wells (#132), who, despite their climate advocacy bona fides, apparently got crosswise with Mann.

In particular, I laughed when I read SUS complain that climate scientist Jim Hansen’s “rhetoric has grown increasingly heated and conspiratorial” (p.161), since Mann and Hotez offer a suite of bizarre conspiracy theories of their own... (MORE - missing details)]]> Most older people in England view climate change as a serious risk
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-19939.html

EXCERPT: Those in their 50s were more likely to be highly engaged, while those in their 70s, 80s and older were more likely to be risk-aware but fatalistic...