New paper: Review and Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Life Cycle GHG Emissions of Residential Buildings in Humid
Subtropical and Tropical Climates by Daniel Satola et al. 2021 - A Thread (1/9)

We reviewed more than 70 building LCA studies in climate regions common in the Global South, studying building cases from Asia, Oceania, South America and North America. We conduct detailed analyses ...
(2/9)

...based on a final sample of 36 building cases which were fit for harmonization of results. Therein, life cycle GHG emissions show a wide range of 491 to 4811 kgCO2eq/m2. To understand more: First, how structural material choice is influencing emissions...
(3/9)

...we study both embodied and life cycle GHG emission in relation to primary materials used in the building structure. This shows lowest embodied emissions with wood as structural material, and potentially low emissions from use of concrete (non-reinforced). Second,... (4/9)

...we investigate specific design strategies applied in the different cases to analyse their potential for reducing operational and/or embodied GHG emissions. Substantial embodied GHG emissions reduction can be achieved by use of local materials, ... (5/9)

Lately, I have been very disturbed with the whole #climatecrisis. Every day some new naturally unnatural calamity looms over our head.
The ice caps are turning in cold rocks and I end up in a rabbit hole feeling helpless.
1/n

It just sucks to imagine a #future where the only way people can enjoy nature as you and I did via #hiking etc is to read blogs and watch videos.
That sucks on so many levels.
2/n

And when I think about the reasons for this situation. I can't seem to go any further but to pin it on #consumption.
Not just fashion or lifestyle consumption. But any damn product.
From the smallest sewing pin to the giant #spaceships.
3/n

Because let's get real. Everything is one or the other form of a natural resource. Even synthetic product like plastic needs cellulose, coal etc. And so far, the only legit source of natural resources is digging deep into the Earth.
4/n

So you dig up these resources and turn them into the products we consume. The shirts, jeans, bike, laptop, phone etc. Everything is made from nature. Along the way creating jobs and the so-called development.
But how good is this #development?
Moreover is this #Sustainable?
5/n

Earth has a fever in more ways than one. Some places averaged + 5-7 °C warmer than normal for the ENTIRE YEAR of 2020.

An enormous area of anomalous warmth plagued Arctic Siberia effectively all year but it was not just the Arctic where we saw record shattering warmth.

THREAD

Another way of looking at it... Very few cold blobs left. La Niña developed and shows up in the Pacific.

The climate is not changing uniformly, the Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the world.

Data: @CopernicusEU and compares to 1981-2010 average.

JANUARY was joint hottest January globally on record according to NASA GISTEMP v4 (joint record with 2016).

Profound winter warmth for North America plus Europe and Asia.

FEBRUARY was second hottest on record (1st place is still held in 2016).

The winter 'warmth' in Europe and Asia was just insane.

MARCH: A cold Canada, Greenland and Svalbard... but obvious warmth still striking across the continents, particularly northern/central Asia.

This was the second hottest March on record (2016 still holds the record).

EU Summit just agreed a “binding EU target of a net domestic reduction of at least 55% in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030” - so UK going somewhat further at 68%...

That is in reference to 1990 carbon emissions - which is the standard point of reference

VDL trying to sound conciliatory - making point about the ratchet clause that all sides “remain free - sovereign” to do what they are want as regards matching future increases in regulations, but that both sides should retain right to adapt conditions for market entry

On fishing VDL says UK must understand legitimate expectations of EU fishing fleet based on decades and sometimes centuries of access ...

journalists at the EU summit seem more interested in asking Merkel/ VDL about Turkey than summit Brexit discussions, so far zero questions - some informational value there ...

Thread on very strong inbound CA storm. A cold & clear morning will quickly give way to increasing clouds, NorCal valley rain & snow down to 1,500-2,000 ft (locally lower) later this PM. Current satellite imagery shows this strengthening system off the coast. (1/10) #CAwx

Tonight, a rapidly intensifying cold front will sweep across NorCal. This front will be unusually well defined, for a CA winter storm, and will replace an already cold airmass with...another cold airmass! (2/10) #CAwx

The cold frontal passage is expected to be quite dramatic across NorCal in the overnight hours. A convective "narrow cold frontal rainband" (NCFR) will likely develop, which could bring a period of torrential rain or snow to many areas, as well as possible lightning. (3/10) #CAwx

Extremely heavy precipitation is possible for a 30-60+ minute period when this NCFR feature moves ashore. Over an inch of rain could fall per hour in some spots. This portion of the event poses a high threat of debris flows in/near recently burned areas. (4/10) #CAwx

In addition to torrential rainfall, the cold front/NCFR will be accompanied by very strong wind gusts across much of NorCal. In fact, high-res models are suggesting potential for gusts of 60-70 mph even in lower elevation places. Widespread power outages possible. (5/10) #CAwx

Thread on snow ratios. The snow ratio, or snow-to-liquid ratio states how many inches of snow, when melted, yields one inch of liquid water. Ratios are usually around 10:1 or 12:1, but can vary from as little as 6:1 or as high as 30:1, or sometimes more. 1/

There's a common misunderstanding that the colder the surface temp is, the higher the snow ratio will be (fluffier snow). This is incorrect. As long is the surface temp is not close to freezing, it really doesn't matter all that much. 2/

As the surface temp gets close to or exceeds freezing, more snow is lost to melting, yielding lower ratios and heavy, wet snow. The same reasoning also applies to temps above the ground; if they exceed freezing, sleet or rain can mix with the snow, dramatically lowering ratios 3/

Much more important is the dendritic growth zone (DGZ), the layer of the atmosphere with temperatures between -12 and -18C. In this layer, snowflakes grow as dendrites, which can easily clump together into aggregates, which contain a lot of air, increasing the ratio 4/

At warmer or colder temps, the flakes grow as plates, columns, or needles, which don't clump together as well and contain less air, lowering the ratio. To make this even more complicated, there's also a dependence on atmospheric humidity. 5/

Oh fuck. I am listening to Gormley's interview w/ Patrick Moore about climate change from Jan 21. Gorm is being fed a pile of horseshit and just happily swallowing every word. This is garbage. /1

Moore says you can't go out in the field & see what CO2 is doing. Which is just false. You can go in the field & measure atmospheric CO2 & its change directly. And he calls himself a sciencey guy? /2

Then he's saying, b/c some on the left believe GMOs are bad w/ no evidence, therefore everything they believe they believe w/ no evidence so therefore scientists who say the climate is changing are making up stories? This is ridiculous. /3

Often when I tune into climate deniers, there's stuff I hadn't heard before that I have to do a bunch of reading to find out what's real & what isn't. So far with Moore, I don't even have to make a list of stuff to check to know this is all nonsense. /4

I'm saying, he's going over old, long debunked talking points. This is tired & boring. /5

This #NewYear we must get serious about climate change. A big obstacle: our brains.

Current risks are vastly different from our ancestors, but our brains are wired the same. Knowing the science behind decision-making helps us better talk about climate threats & spark action. 1/

I’ve dedicated my career to understanding what factors influence our perceptions of risk & shape behavioral outcomes, especially around climate action.

We clearly do not judge risks accurately. Let’s try this example. What is more likely to kill you:

Ppl often say shark attacks even though plane parts are 30x more likely to kill us. Attacks are more sensational/easier to recall.

Brains react in certain ways to risks around us, rapidly scanning environmental cues (e.g. snake’s stance) with subliminal and automated processing.

How does brain wiring relate to climate action? We're influenced by triggers such as if we can see risk or if we trust who communicates it to us.

Bluntly, we overestimate unserious risks like vaccinating children and underestimate seemingly far away risks like rising sea levels.

Sociology shows how even political identities influence risk perception. A human evolutionary trait allows us to avoid cognitive dissonance from info 1) that isn’t pleasant or 2) contradicts beliefs integral to our identity/tribe. We’re wired to make snap judgements for comfort.

It's (nearly) five years since the Paris Agreement was gaveled through… but was it any good? Tricky question. Based on emissions, temperature data and impacts, no. *But...* (thread)

The team at @SystemIQ_LTD have crunched the numbers & reviewed how far + fast sectors have shifted since 2015. Their take is the global economy could be a decade away from seismic tipping points that see the world move fast towards low carbon.

In 2015, zero-carbon technologies and business models could rarely compete with incumbent carbon-solutions. In 2020, zero-carbon solutions are competitive in sectors representing around 25% of emissions. In 2030 the figure’s looking like 70%.

What does this mean for a COVID-smashed world, where 2021 is shaping up to be a hellish mix of recessions and mass unemployment? Well, the 2020s could see a net increase of 35 million low carbon jobs if governments roll out the right policies + invest wisely.

Can the low carbon acceleration be pinned to Paris? Not entirely, but partly. In 2014 no-one talked of net zero targets. Now 120+ countries either have these plans or are working on them. By mid 2021 the US, China, EU, UK, Japan, Korea, Canada will have these targets.

#AirPollution, measured by annual PM2.5--particles finer than a human hair--reduced in bigger cities such as Delhi & Varanasi but increased in smaller cities such as Fatehabad & Moradabad, finds a @CSEINDIA analysis of 26 cities. Follow the thread for insights:

In many cities in the upper Indo-Gangetic plains, avg PM2.5 levels were above 2019 levels. #AirPollution in Fatehabad, in northern Haryana, deteriorated the most, with PM2.5 levels increasing 35% from 2019

The %age of PM2.5 in the coarser PM10--which determines air toxicity--was in the high 40s in Oct & remained so in Nov, averaging 55% in Amritsar, 48% in Chandigarh & 53% in Patna. It reached 64% in Amritsar, 69% in Chandigarh & 62% in Patna during #Diwali2020

#AirPollution reduced the most in Sirsa, 40km from Fatehabad, with a 44% lower avg PM2.5 2020 level vs 2019. This massive variation can’t be attributed to meteorology & has to do with local factors such as stubble burning, Avikal Somvanshi, CSE prog mgr, said in a press release

PM2.5 avg in Nov 2020 was 310% higher in Fatehabad, 104% in Agra and 57% in Kaithal, compared to November 2019

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Some 70% of people, depends how you ask, accept the global emergency. Climate system destabilisation is one aspect, declining biodiversity and increasing pollution is another. I ask: what would actually *break* if humanity responded decisively? 1/

Climate: a decisive response = cap on fossil fuel extraction and planned phase out. Fewer private car journeys, less electricity. Nothing would *break*. We still live and eat. There are alternatives and we can all cut back and share more. So what are we afraid of breaking? 2/

Pollution: reducing the above helps all that, cracking down on pollution and biodiversity loss will reduce materials consumption but changing and sharing we can still live on the planet. What would break? 3/

Most pollution and resource consumption is done by rich people. Billions of poor people live and thrive so the rich can too. Nothing will *break* there? 4/

Of course, a rapid reduction in resource consumption, less of most things and enough of the essentials for everyone will *break*something. Economic growth for one thing. But if that broke, what would *break*with it? 5/

Now, before the stupid conservatives begin sneering and laughing AGAIN about climate change and a massive snowstorm, one more time trying to educate:

A warming climate causes extreme weather events, *including* huge snow and plunging temps. 1 example why: (Note: I realize.../1

...that no matter what is said, anti-science and arrogant conservatives who failed high school science will still sneer and laugh because this is more complicated than "temp goes up, it gets cold. HAHAHA!" Plus, they don't wont read anything longer than 20 words. But this.../2

...will at least help reply to their foolishness.)

Here is what is happening right now: there is a large area of low pressure and cold air at both poles. That cycles around the poles and is contained there by higher pressure surrounding it. However, a warming planet changes.../3

...that. The higher pressure/low pressure contains the cold air, but as that warms, what essentially serves as a fence weakens. Plus, simultaneously, the warmer climate is changing the jet stream. Even before this, sometimes the contained area expanded and hit the jet stream.../4

...which brought the polar cold down, thus plunging temperatures. However, with a warming climate - because of the change in pressures and the moving jet steam - the polar air is coming down more frequently. A few years back, *Texas* was hit by polar air. That's how far down.../5

It's #FigureFriday, so let's chat about my favorite subject: color palettes 🎨 for climate science visualization! (1/12)

First, why is it important? Put simply: a beautiful figure can communicate your results more effectively than text. It can make a figure more understandable to a public audience. So it is worth it to put care into your figure design. (2/12)

First, if you're plotting up climate model data, especially anomalies, I highly recommend Cynthia Brewer's palettes on ColorBrewer. BrBG is my go-to for precip anomalies, and RdBu is a natural for temperature. (3/12)

The sequential palettes are also great if you've got data going in one direction. Here's the Brewer "blues" at work for a figure showing LGM T change. (4/12)

But what about line graphs? If you are paleoclimatologist like me, you are probably plotting a bunch of squiggly lines. For this, I suggest designing a palette for your *entire paper* ahead on time, and then plot stuff in this palette in every figure. (5/12)

1/13 #ClimateChange is a result of a mindset, that is based on monoculture, fossil fuels, chemicals, corporate control. @BillGates cannot alter a condition with the same mindset that created it in the first place @Trevornoah @drvandanashiva

2/13 The mad rush for #FakeFood and #FakeMeat, ignorant of the #diversity of our food cultures & the role of biodiversity is a recipe for accelerating the #climatecrisis, the destruction of the planet & our health @drvandanashiva

3/13 The perpetrators of the industrialized & now digitized predatory economic model that has led to worldwide ecological devastation are trying to sell us their solutions as the only path forward @drvandanashiva @NnimmoB

4/13 The #GatesFoundation works to create a friendly regulatory environment to push its innovations regardless of risks or past failures by funding to align to its interests- media, research, start-ups, government programmes & international institutions

5/13 Amnesia and denial of past failures becomes evident with the @gatesfoundation new initiative #AgOne where only digital tech and the #GreenRevolution is seen as the solution to the #ClimateCrisis & #BiodiversityCrisis @drvandanashiva

To "The Sky Is Falling" Idiots

Read this thread 👇🏾

The proof is ALL OVER THE INTERWEB 🧐

GLOBAL WARMING (as described by the Left) IS A HOAX and Being Used Against You As A Money Making Machine 🧐

I Have Posted this Many Times Before, but here YOU ALL go again INVESTIGATE IT