Mastodawn

I find the obsession with Global Mean XYZ meaningless. Societally irrelevant.

GMT was necessary when change wasn't as obvious, ie in the 1980s or 1990s.
Today, regional impact stats and collapse thresholds are societally relevant. Both, to inform policy and to inform the public.
1.5°C stays relevant as enshrined binding international law. And maybe for climate litigation; all countries' governments in Paris accepted damages from up to 1.5°C.

I imagine a parallel world where climate scientists KNOW that #ClimateChange is an accepted fact, and Copernicus doesn't title a "Warmest year on record", trapped in the forever-loop of trying to convince climate trolls.

But instead, Copernicus has the intellectual free space for societally relevant scoops: "Year where C-C shatters the most livelihoods in South America" or
"Year of largest harvest loss in both, East Europe and South Asia".

#RCPcollapse #GlobalMean #Globalwarming #ClimateCommunication #SciCom

Show thread

anlomedad 1d ago

2/ Incidentally, 2023 would have been a year for such a scoop in an alternative universe "Year with the largest harvest loss in all but West Europe, USA, South-East Asia and West Asia."

The charts show export in tons of all food stuffs by the regions indicated. I just assume that lower export in ton means lower harvest from the same amount of land.
"growth" means the difference to the previous year.

Note how repeated negative growth year-on-year means ever declining harvest, and that a positive change year-on-year has to match the combined losses from previous years to ensure previous levels of food security.

Quite shocking, isn't it. Explaining these figures would be worth a scoop by WMO (replacing this week's report on 2nd warmest Global Mean °C).

Because the losses destabilise the societies in these regions – also beyond of course, because lower export spells lower food import elsewhere.
Read the ALT-txt maybe. I know that "growth", ie year-on-year change is a confusing perspective and the ALTtext might make interpreting the charts easier?

#RCPcollapse #FoodSecurity #GlobalFoodSecurity #ClimateChange

Show thread

anlomedad 1d ago

I should add that negative growth wasn't confined to the regions in the 3 charts.
I only picked these regions because I have an eye on them.

Northern Europe includes UK – and they had their fields flooded endlessly in the past 2 or 3 years. And their food prices logically go up and up.
Southern Europe provides all our fruit.
Except when it can't.

West Asia is Syria, Iran and so on. Obviously of special interest.