The Global Warming IPCC 2018 Report

The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC (SR15) was published two days ago, on October 8th, 2018. The Report was written by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “which is the UN body for assessing the science related to climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments concerning climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation strategies.” (IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC, Press Release).

The Report’s findings are very bad. Its Summary for Policymakers starts with:

“Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate.”

That’s 12 years from now.

IPCC 2018 - Copy
Extract from the IPCC (2018), Global Warming of 1.5 ºC, Summary for Policymakers. “Observed monthly global mean surface temperature (GMST) change grey line up to 2017, from the HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, Cowtan – Way, and NOAA datasets) and estimated anthropogenic global warming (solid orange line up to 2017, with orange shading indicating assessed likely range). Orange dashed arrow and horizontal orange error bar show respectively central estimate and likely range of the time at which 1.5°C is reached if the current rate of warming continues. The grey plume on the right of  shows the likely range of warming responses, computed with a simple climate model, to a stylized pathway (hypothetical future) in which net CO2 emissions  decline in a straight line from 2020 to reach net zero in 2055 and net non – CO2 radiative forcing increases to 2030 and then declines. “

Which means that we warmed up the world by 1.0°C (1.8°F) since 1850-1900. Continuing the way we have been doing, we will add another 0.5°C (0.9°F) to the world temperature sometime between 2030 and 2052, making the total human-made global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F).

That’s 12 years from now.

Half a degree Celsius doesn’t sound so bad until you look at the highly confident model prediction saying that gaining that extra 0.5°C (0.9°F) will result in terrible unseen before superstorms and precipitation in some regions while others will suffer prolonged droughts, along with extreme heat waves and sea level rises due to the melting of Antarctica. From a biota point of view, if we reach the 1.5°C (2.7°F) threshold, most of the coral reefs will become extinct, as well as thousands of other species (6% of insects, 8% of plants, and 4% of vertebrates).

That’s 12 years from now.

All these will end up increasing famine, homelessness, disease, inequality, poverty, and refugee numbers to unprecedented levels. Huge spending of money on infrastructure, rebuilding, help efforts, irrigation, water supplies, and so on, for those inclined to be more concerned by finances. To put it bluntly, a 1.5°C (2.7°F) increase in global warming costs us about $54 trillion.

That’s 12 years from now.

These effects will persist for centuries to millennia. To stay at the 1.5°C (2.7°F)  limit we need to reduce the carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 and achieve 0 emissions by 2050.

That’s 12 years from now.

The Report emphasizes that a 1.5°C (2.7°F)  increase is not as bad as a 2°C (3.6°F), where we will loose double of the biota, the storms will be worse, the droughts longer, and altogether a more catastrophic scenario.

Technically, we ARE ABLE to limit the warming at 1.5°C (2.7°F), If, by 2050, we rely on renewable energy, like solar and wind, to supply 70-85% of energy, we will be able to stay at the 1.5°C (2.7°F). Lower the coal use as energy source to single digits percentages. Expanding forests and implementing large CO2 capture programs would help tremendously. Drastically reduce carbon emissions by, for example, hitting polluters with crippling fines. But all this requires rapid implementation of heavy laws and regulation, which will come from a concentrated effort of our leaders.

Therefore, politically, we ARE UNABLE to limit the warming at 1.5°C (2.7°F). Instead, it’s very likely that we will warm the planet by 2°C (3.6°F) in the next decades. If we do nothing, by the end of the century the world will be even hotter, being warmed up by 3°C (5.4°F) and there are no happy scenarios then as the climate change will be beyond our control. That is, our children’s control.

141-ipcc hope - Copy

There are conspiracy theorists out there claiming that there are nefarious or hidden reasons behind this report, or that its conclusions are not credible, or that it’s not legit, or it’s bad science, or that it represents the view of a fringe group of scientists and does not reflect a scientific consensus. I would argue that people who claim such absurdities are either the ones with a hidden agenda or are plain idiots. Not ignorants, because ignorance is curable and whoever seeks to learn new things is to be admired. Not honest questioning either, because that is as necessary to science as the water to the fish. Willful ignorance, on the other hand, I call idiocy and is remarkably resistant to presentation of facts. FYI, the Report was conducted by a Panel commissioned by an organization comprising 195 countries, is authored by 91 scientists, has an additional 133 contributing authors, all these spanning 40 countries, analyzing over 6000 scientific studies. Oh, and the Panel received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. I daresay it looks legit. The next full climate assessment will be released in 2021.

141 Climate change - Copy

REFERENCES:

  1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2018). Global Warming of 1.5 ºC, an IPCC Special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 ºC above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Retrieved 10 October 2018Website  | Covers: New York Times | Nature  | The Washington Post | The Guardian | The Economist | ABC News | Deutsche Welle | CNN | HuffPost Canada| Los Angeles Times | BBC | Time .
  2. The IPCC Summary for Policymakers PDF
  3. The IPCC Press Release PDF
  4. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

By Neuronicus, 10 October 2018

No Link Between Mass Shootings & Mental Illness

On Valentine’s Day another horrifying school mass shooting happened in USA, leaving 17 people dead. Just like after the other mass shootings, a lot of people – from media to bystanders, from gun lovers to gun critics, from parents to grandparents, from police to politicians – talk about the link between mental illness and mass shootings. As one with advanced degrees in both psychology and neuroscience, I am tired to explain over and over again that there is no significant link between the two! Mass shootings happen because an angry person has had enough sorrow, stress, rejection and/or disappointment that leads to hating the ones they think are responsible for it and HAS ACCESS TO A MASS KILLING WEAPON. Yeah, I needed the caps. Sometimes scientists too need to shout to be heard.

So here is the abstract of a book chapter called straightforwardly “Mass Shootings and Mental Illness”. The entire text is available at the links in the reference below.

From Knoll & Annas (2015):

“Common Misperceptions

  • Mass shootings by people with serious mental illness represent the most significant relationship between gun violence and mental illness.
  • People with serious mental illness should be considered dangerous.
  • Gun laws focusing on people with mental illness or with a psychiatric diagnosis can effectively prevent mass shootings.
  • Gun laws focusing on people with mental illness or a psychiatric diagnosis are reasonable, even if they add to the stigma already associated with mental illness.

Evidence-Based Facts

  • Mass shootings by people with serious mental illness represent less than 1% of all yearly gun-related homicides. In contrast, deaths by suicide using firearms account for the majority of yearly gun-related deaths.
  • The overall contribution of people with serious mental illness to violent crimes is only about 3%. When these crimes are examined in detail, an even smaller percentage of them are found to involve firearms.
  • Laws intended to reduce gun violence that focus on a population representing less than 3% of all gun violence will be extremely low yield, ineffective, and wasteful of scarce resources. Perpetrators of mass shootings are unlikely to have a history of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. Thus, databases intended to restrict access to guns and established by guns laws that broadly target people with mental illness will not capture this group of individuals.
  • Gun restriction laws focusing on people with mental illness perpetuate the myth that mental illness leads to violence, as well as the misperception that gun violence and mental illness are strongly linked. Stigma represents a major barrier to access and treatment of mental illness, which in turn increases the public health burden”.

REFERENCE: Knoll, James L. & Annas, George D. (2015). Mass Shootings and Mental Illness. In book: Gun Violence and Mental Illness, Edition: 1st, Chapter: 4, Publisher: American Psychiatric Publishing, Editors: Liza H. Gold, Robert I. Simon. ISBN-10: 1585624985, ISBN-13: 978-1585624980. FULLTEXT PDF via ResearchGate | FULLTEXT PDF via Psychiatry Online

The book chapter is not a peer-reviewed document, even if both authors are Professors of Psychiatry. To quiet putative voices raising concerns about that, here is a peer-reviewed paper with open access that says basically the same thing:

Swanson et al. (2015) looked at large scale (thousands to tens of thousands of individuals) data to see if there is any relationship between violence, gun violence, and mental illness. They concluded that “epidemiologic studies show that the large majority of people with serious mental illnesses are never violent. However, mental illness is strongly associated with increased risk of suicide, which accounts for over half of US firearms–related fatalities”. The last sentence is reminiscent of the finding that stricter gun control laws lower suicide rate.

REFERENCE: Swanson JW, McGinty EE, Fazel S, Mays VM (May 2015). Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy. Annals of Epidemiology, 25(5): 366–376. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.03.004, PMCID: PMC4211925. FULLTEXT | FULLTEXT PDF.

Further peer-reviewed bibliography (links to fulltext pdfs):

  1. Guns, anger, and mental disorders: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R): “a large number of individuals in the United States have anger traits and also possess firearms at home (10.4%) or carry guns outside the home (1.6%).”
  2. News Media Framing of Serious Mental Illness and Gun Violence in the United States, 1997-2012: “most news coverage occurred in the wake of mass shootings, and “dangerous people” with serious mental illness were more likely than “dangerous weapons” to be mentioned as a cause of gun violence.”
  3. The Link Between Mental Illness and Firearm Violence: Implications for Social Policy and Clinical Practice: “Firearm violence is a significant and preventable public health crisis. Mental illness is a weak risk factor for violence despite popular misconceptions reflected in the media and policy”.
  4. Using Research Evidence to Reframe the Policy Debate Around Mental Illness and Guns: Process and Recommendations: “restricting firearm access on the basis of certain dangerous behaviors is supported by the evidence; restricting access on the basis of mental illness diagnoses is not”.
  5. Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms: “notions of mental illness that emerge in relation to mass shootings frequently reflect larger cultural stereotypes and anxieties about matters such as race/ethnicity, social class, and politics. These issues become obscured when mass shootings come to stand in for all gun crime, and when “mentally ill” ceases to be a medical designation and becomes a sign of violent threat”.

131 gun - Copy

By Neuronicus, 25 February 2018

Don’t eat snow

Whoever didn’t roll out a tongue to catch a few snowflakes? Probably only those who never encountered snow.

The bad news is that snow, particularly urban snow is bad, really bad for you. The good news is that this was not always the case. So there is hope that in the far future it will be pristine again.

Nazarenko et al. (2016) constructed a very clever contraption that reminds me of NASA space exploration instruments. The authors refer to this by the humble name of ‘environmental chamber’, but is in fact a complex construction with different modules designed to measure out how car exhaust and snow interact (see Fig. 1).

110-copy-2
Fig. 1 from Nazarenko et al. (2016, DOI: 10.1039/c5em00616c). Released under CC BY-NC 3.0.

After many experiments, researchers concluded that snow absorbs pollutants very effectively. Among the many kinds of organic compounds soaked by snow in just one hour after exposure to fume exhaust, there were the infamous BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes). The amounts of these chemicals in the snow were not at all negligible; to give you an example, the BTEX concentration increased from virtually 0 to 50 and up to 380 ug kg-1. The authors provide detailed measurements for all the 40+ compounds they have identified.

Needles to say, many these compounds are known carcinogenics. Snow absorbs them, alters their size distributions, and then it melts… Some of them may be released back in the air as they are volatile, some will go in the ground and rivers as polluted water. After this gloomy reality check, I’ll leave you with the words of the researchers:

“The accumulation and transfer of pollutants from exhaust – to snow – to meltwater need to be considered by regulators and policy makers as an important area of focus for mitigation with the aim to protect public health and the environment” (p. 197).

110-copy

Reference: Nazarenko Y, Kurien U, Nepotchatykh O, Rangel-Alvarado RB, & Ariya PA. (Feb 2016). Role of snow and cold environment in the fate and effects of nanoparticles and select organic pollutants from gasoline engine exhaust. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 18(2):190-199. doi: 10.1039/c5em00616c. ARTICLE | FREE FULTEXT PDF 

By Neuronicus, 26 December 2016

Save

Save

My fellow Americans…

Yesterday I stumbled across a paper for which I had no choice but to cover. Absolutely no choice, given the oddity and novelty and, not to put a too fine point on it… uniqueness of it. Because, I have to tell you, I haven’t seen a more bizarre author affiliation in an academic journal for a scholar paper.

It’s not a fundamental research paper, but a review. It’s not exactly a regular science paper either, it’s more of a policy paper. Nevertheless, it has a rationale, sets objectives, analyzes the available evidence, draws conclusions upon observed data, and ends up with the all-too-familiar section of future directions. It even has acknowledgments and a regular size reference section. It was pre-published 4 days ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and in this short interval has gained a whooping 6480 Altmetric score (meaning thousands of media outlets are talking about it) and over half million views, despite the fact that it has not been peer-reviewed (but it was fact-checked for 2 months).

The paper analyzes data spanning more than 50 years (from 1963 to 2016) regarding the healthcare in United States of America. The author claims that the data show that the Affordable Care Act, a major health care reform passed on March 23, 2010 in USA, has led to, among other things, a dramatic decrease in the number of uninsured individuals. The paper finishes by outlining several issues that the policy makers face in the future.

So what makes it so special? The author, ladies and gentleman, is none other then the President of the United States, Barack Obama. Thus becoming the first president that published an academic paper in a scientific journal. There were previous commentaries or speeches published in scientific journals by other presidents, but this is the first scholarly paper done by a sitting President, as far as I know. Please do check out the pictures below (which are copyrighted to JAMA, by the way). I wonder if I call or write to the corresponding author I get to correspond… with the corresponding author or the Press Office…

89 Jama
Copyright 2016 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

89b.jpg

REFERENCE: Obama, B [Epub July 2016]. United States Health Care Reform: Progress to Date and Next Steps. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.9797. ARTICLE | FREE FULLTEXT PDF (press the PDF button on the upper right on the JAMA page | Conflict of Interest Disclosures

By Neuronicus, 15 July 2016