Exxon scientists predicted climate change already in 1970?s - the company marketing sold a different story

Perjantai 20.1.2023 klo 13:49 - Mikko Nikinmaa

The high standard of living in Europe and North America is largely based on the use of oil (and coal). The fossil fuel industry has made immense profits during the time of fossil fuel use. It should now be apparent that the use of oil is causing climate change. Yet, even now climate denial is common, and is supported by oil industry lobby groups.

It was predicted already more than a hundred years ago by the Danish physiologist August Krogh that the use of fossil fuels would increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Fifty years later all the big oil companies had scientists working on the atmospheric effects of the company’s products. In a recent number of Science (Science 379, eabk0063, January 13, 2023) Supran et al. review what has been reported by the scientists of the oil company starting from the late 1970’s and up to 2000’s.

The main takeaway from the reports and articles is that Exxon scientists informed the company and academic circles about the likely increase of global temperature as a result of the projected oil use. However, the company itself discounted its own scientists’ findings. The first of the lies of the company was that in 1970’s scientist had reached a consensus that the world was headed towards a new ice age, and now these same scientists are predicting that there will be a marked temperature increase. Clearly, such scientists cannot be trusted. There was no scientific consensus about cooling trend, in fact less than 15 % of climate science papers between 1965 and 1977 suggested temperature decrease. Further, the scientists of Exxon had come to the conclusion that temperature decrease is not probable. The second claim of the company has all the time been that the variability of climate data and predictions is so large that one cannot claim that a single anthropogenic cause could make any difference. However, the scientists of the company had, taking into account the variability, shown that even with the large variability, lack of temperature increase was not a possibility. They also estimated already in 1970’s and 1980’s that one would start seeing clear climate effects in early 2000’s, as has been observed. In addition, they estimated the amount of carbon dioxide, which, if exceeded, would cause problematic warming. Thus, the Exxon scientists appear to have done their best to alert the company.

Instead of heeding the scientists’ warning, the company has lied, hidden unpleasant findings and distorted the data. It appears from this behavior that greed has no limits: who cares about future generations if one can make a lot of profits now.

Where have the eels gone

Keskiviikko 18.1.2023 klo 14:51 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Everything was better in the past. That is the slogan of conservative populists throughout the world. It is actually true for some things, but the actions should be completely different from the ones advocated by the populists in order for us getting the good things from the past also in the future.

Here I am focussing on the eel. Smoked eel is a true delicacy. When I was a child, one got eels virtually every time one went fishing. The fish was fatty and had virtually no bones making it tasty and easy to eat. However, eels started disappearing from the shops and waters from 1970’s onwards and now you can rarely find them anywhere.

The life cycle of the eel is the main reason why the species is so vulnerable to environmental contamination. The European eel stocks have decreased more than 90 % from 1970’s to 2010’s. If one starts from the sexually mature eel, it migrates several thousand kilometres from the inland waters, where it matures, to the spawning site in Sargasso Sea. During this months-long migration the fish does not eat, but uses the fat deposits as energy stores. This fact has several consequences. First, the condition of eels reaching the spawning site is poor. Many do not make it to the site at all, and the rest are barely able to make the final effort of the spawning migration. Any lipid-soluble environmental contaminants are released to the circulation when lipid deposits are used for energy production. This further weakens the fish. Also, because of the climate change, the ocean currents may have weakened causing an increase in the energy consumption during swimming from Europe to Sargasso Sea. This also weakens the eel before spawning.

The adult eels die after spawning, but the developed embryos start their long travel towards the European feeding grounds. No specific problems have been found in the early part of the migration in the Atlantic. However, it is possible that the food items of the eel embryos have decreased in abundance and that ocean currents have slowed down. When the eels come to the European coasts, a final strenuous part of the travel awaits. They must go up to suitable growth sites. In selecting where to swim to, eels use, e.g., the lateral line organ. This sensory organ is very sensitive to metal contamination. Thus, the present increases of copper, lead and cadmium levels may disturb the final leg of eel migration.

In short, eels suffer from environmental contamination in most parts of their migration. Further, the studies have shown that the presently occurring contaminant levels are adequate to cause, e.g., sensory problems. Consequently, to be able to go back to the good old days, when smoked eel was a common delicacy, we need to improve water quality.

Vihreä siirtymä vaaliteemaksi - se on katse tulevaisuuteen

Maanantai 9.1.2023 klo 20:09 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Kun poliittisten puolueiden puheita ja kannatuksen muutoksia seuraa, näkee selvän päälinjan. Oppositiopuolueet, erityisesti viime aikoina kannatustaan nostanut Perussuomalaiset, ratsastaa konservatismilla. Mitään muutoksia ei pitäisi tehdä, ilmastotoimista olisi syytä luopua ja niiltä osin kuin voidaan, fossiilisten polttoaineiden käyttöä energiantuotannossa ja autoliikenteessä tulisi jatkaa. Tämä on Perussuomalaisten lisäksi kaikkien populistipuolueiden päähaave: halutaan palata entisiin hyviin aikoihin.

Mutta mahtaako haaveilu vanhoista hyvistä ajoista olla keino tulevaisuudesta selviämiseksi? Nythän asia on niin, että kaikessa taloudellisessa toiminnassa energiantuotannosta teollisuuteen uudet investoinnit ja tuotantotavat pyrkivät ratkaisuihin, joissa hiilijalanjälki on mahdollisimman pieni, fossiilisista polttoaineista luovutaan ja niistä valmistettu muovi korvataan muilla materiaaleilla. Kun tämä on lähtökohta, niin taloudellisen menestyksen takeeksi ja sitä kautta yhteiskunnan hyvinvoinnin peruspilariksi tuleekin kaikki se, jota Perussuomalaiset vastustavat.

Vihreä siirtymä on koko Pohjolan valttikortti maailmantaloudessa. Täällä energiantuotanto on jo melkein kokonaan fossiilisista polttoaineista riippumatonta ja sähkönsiirtoverkot hyvälaatuisia. Tätä taustaa voivat kaikki teollisuusyritykset, jotka haluavat vähentää hiilijalanjälkeä, hyödyntää investoinneissaan. Hiilivapaa teräs, vetytalous jne. ovat kaikki Suomen uusia kilpailuvaltteja, jotka perustuvat Perussuomalaisten kammoamaan vihreään siirtymään.

Miksi ihmiset suurin joukoin sanovat äänestävänsä Pohjois-Korean tielle vievää menneisyyteen haikailua eivätkä uusia mahdollisuuksia tuovaa vihreää siirtymää.

Metsien kasvu hyytyy, kun ensiharvennus on liian rajua

Keskiviikko 4.1.2023 klo 18:35 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Suomen metsien merkitys hiilinieluina on vähentynyt. Olen jo aikaisemmin kirjoittanut, että yksi syistä metsien hiilidioksidintuotantoon on, että lämpötilan kohotessa talvella havupuutkaan eivät valon puutteen vuoksi pysty yhteyttämään (kuluttamaan hiilidioksidia), mutta niiden täytyy hengittää (tuottaa hiilidioksidia). Mitä korkeampi talvilämpötila on sitä enemmän ne tuottavat hiilidioksidia. Niin ilmastonmuutos on itseään ruokkiva ilmiö: kun lämpötila nousee, havupuiden kyky sitoa hiilidioksidia pienenee.

Viime aikoina on uutisoitu paljon toisesta syystä, joka näyttää merkittävältä. Kun puupeltoja kasvatetaan, ensimmäinen merkittävä vaihe taimikon perustamisen jälkeen on ensiharvennus. Jos puupeltoa harvennetaan liikaa, puuston kokonaiskasvu pienenee (eli hiilidioksidin sidonta vähenee). Kuvittelisi, että omistajat pyrkisivät ensiharvennuksissakin maksimoimaan puustonsa kasvun, mutta näin ei näytä olevan. Noin 60 % ensiharvennuksista tehdään niin, että puuston kasvu myöhemmin heikkenee. Tämä ei kyllä tue mantraa, jonka mukaan suomalainen metsänhoito on niin hyvätasoista, etteivät ulkomaalaiset saa siihen puuttua.

Miksi sitten harvennuksia ei tehdä myöhempää puuntuotantoa maksimoiden? Yksi syy taitaa olla se, että metsätyökoneita ei ole suunniteltu niin, että puustoa harvennettaisiin riittävän vähän. Toinen syy voi olla ahneus. Ensiharvennuksenkin puuaines saadaan myydyksi. Ei tule mieleen, että osa siitä rahasta vähentää myöhempää puupellosta saatavaa tuloa – enemmän kuin ensiharvennuksen aikana saatu tulo.

Niinpä, ahneus aiheuttaa ongelman tässäkin osassa ilmastonmuutoksen torjuntaa. 

Damage and Repair Fund was established in COP27 Climate Summit - who pays?

Keskiviikko 28.12.2022 klo 19:30 - Mikko Nikinmaa

One of the results of the Climate Summit in Egypt was that the participating nations agreed to establish a Damage and Repair Fund to help poor nations that suffer from climate disasters. Everyone agrees that such fund is necessary. However, what has not been agreed upon is who would give money for the fund. The European Union has again been the primary source of the fund possibility. But EU does naturally not want to bear the cost alone. Thus, European countries think that the biggest fossil fuel polluters should contribute to the fund. Consequently, countries that are normally not paying to global funds, e.g., China, Qatar and Saudi Arabia should be among donors in addition to European countries, USA, Canada, Australia and Japan.

Including oil­-producing countries among the fund donors makes perfect sense. They are making their profits with the fossil fuels that cause the damage. And they have money. As an example, the Soccer World Cup in Qatar cost more than 200 billion euros, ten times more than any Olympic Games up to now. It is kind of funny that that sum of money is available for “sports washing”, but not for helping areas which are suffering from the consequences of getting the riches that make also “sports washing” possible. With the same logic, big oil companies should contribute to the fund. Recently, their profits have been huge, and in my opinion should not line only the pockets of owners, but help the areas, which suffer from their profit-making.

There is no reason for the damage makers not to contribute to the fund. If they do not, it is an indication that greed and selfishness are more important for them than habitable world.

Sähkösaunaan - kiitos ei

Perjantai 23.12.2022 klo 18:56 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Sähköntuotanto olisi voitu muuttaa fossiilisista polttoaineista vapaaksi jo aikoja sitten. Vaihtelevien tuuli- ja aurinkoenergian lisäksi vesivoima, vuorovesivoima, maalämpö ja ydinvoima voisivat tuottaa riittävästi sähköä niin, että Venäjä ja Arabimaat eivät voisi vaikuttaa esimerkiksi Euroopan sähköntuotannon hintaan lainkaan. Näin olisi voitu tehdä, jos olisi katsottu tulevaisuuteen. Vihreä siirtymä olisi totta ja sähkön hinta alhainen ja öljyn ja kaasun tuottajamaista riippumaton. Kun Suomessa Perussuomalaiset syyttävät vihreää siirtymää osaltaan sähkön hinnan noususta, mikään ei ole kauempana totuudesta. Paremminkin on niin, että perussuomalaisten halu pysytellä muinaisessa öljyajassa ja vastustaa kaikin keinoin ilmastotoimia yhdessä muiden Euroopan ja Pohjois-Amerikan samanmielisten kanssa on mahdollistanut Putinin energia-aseen käytön.

No, vihreää siirtymää ei tehty ajoissa, minkä tuloksena Putinin energia-ase Eurooppa vastaan toimii ja on pääsyy siihen, että sähkön hinta hipoo nyt taivaita. Lisäksi sähkön saatavuus voi tulla rajoittavaksi tekijäksi. Molempien syiden vuoksi sähkön käyttöä tulisi rajoittaa. Suomessa noin 5 % sähköstä käytetään sähkösaunan lämmittämiseen. Sähkösaunan käyttö on melkein yhtä tarpeetonta kuin vuoden turhakkeen, terassilämmittimen. Terassilämmittimiä ei onneksi ole niin paljon, että ne aiheuttaisivat merkittävää sähkönkulutusta. Mutta sähkökiuas, 5 %! Määrä on niin suuri, että sen kokoinen säästö voi ratkaista, tarvitaanko talven kuluessa sähkökatkoksia vai ei.

Siis, kiitos ei sähkösaunan käytölle.

Energy production using nuclear fusion in 30 years. True this time?

Tiistai 13.12.2022 klo 15:49 - Mikko Nikinmaa

When I became interested in science in 1960’s, I read with excitement about the possibility of energy production via nuclear fusion. Unlimited amount of energy would be produced without any waste material. It was estimated that commercial nuclear fusion power plants would be functioning in 30 years.

In 1970’s there was a severe oil crisis. People were saving electricity, because of the very high price of oil. Individuals with a strong belief on nuclear fusion consolidated the public promising that the oil price fluctuations would not matter soon, since nuclear fusion power plants would produce plentiful of electricity in 30 years.

When worries of climate change started in 1990’s-2000’s, individuals trusting on mankind’s capacity to solve environmental problems with advances in technology were of the opinion that nuclear fusion could replace fossil fuels in energy production in 30 years.

For the past 60 years, commercial energy production with nuclear fusion has been hoped to happen in 30 years. So, the news from Livermore Laboratory showing that irradiation of small amount of hydrogen with laser beams produced more energy than put in by the laser beams indicates that a controlled fusion was achieved give real hope that nuclear fusion can form an important energy source in 30 years.

Muistojeni talousmetsä ei ollut puupelto

Maanantai 5.12.2022 klo 10:41 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Kun lapsena aloitin linturetkeni, missään ei ollut avohakkuita. Metsien puusto oli vaihtelevan ikäistä. Mäntykankailla kasvoi kanervaa ja puolukkaa. Risuja siellä ei juurikaan ollut, joten liikkuminen sujui vaivatta. Kuusimetsät kasvoivat kosteammilla paikoilla ja niissä oli hankalampi kulkea. Suuri osa metsistä oli sekametsiä, joissa havupuiden joukossa oli koivuja, leppiä, pihlajia ja haapoja. Metsien monimuotoisuus oli linturetkeilijän onni: kangasmetsien illoissa surisivat kehrääjät, päivällä tekivät metsäkirviset soidinlentojaan. Hömö-, töyhtö- ja kuusitiaiset olivat retkien yleisimmät lintulajit. Koppelot, pyyt ja teerinaaraat lehahtivat lentoon aina silloin tällöin.

Niin, metsien lintumaailma oli monimuotoinen. Kun metsäpohja ei ollut täynnä risuja, oli marjastaminen vaivatonta. Ja mustikoita ja puolukoita poimimme ämpärikaupalla. Silti metsä oli talousmetsää. Tukkipuut kaadettiin sieltä pois. Yksi vanhemmista serkuistani oli vuosittain metsätyömiehenä. He olivat yleensä urakkapalkalla ja hän kehui aina kaataneensa niin paljon puita talvella, että voi viettää samanlaisen kolmen kuukauden kesäloman kuin koululaiset. Tuonkaltaisesta metsätaloudesta siirryttiin pois, kun metsien monitoimikoneiden aika alkoi. Yhdellä monitoimikoneella pystyi tekemään usean metsätyömiehen työn, mutta sillä ei tietenkään kannattanut kaataa vain joka neljättä puuta. Jotta tästä päästiin, ruvettiin tekemään avohakkuita ja sen jälkeen metsät kasvatettiin tasaikäisiksi, jotta kaikki uudet alat voitiin kaataa yhdenaikaisesti. Puiden väli tehtiin sellaiseksi, että metsätyökone mahtui vaivatta väliin. Metsät muuttuivat puupelloiksi.

Metsätalouden muutos oli ylhäältä johdettua. Jos joku metsänomistaja ei halunnut ”hoitaa” metsäänsä puupeltomentaliteetilla, viranomaiset määräsivät rangaistusmaksuja. Puupeltomentaliteetista poikkeavia asiantuntijoita ei käytetty metsätalousasiantuntijoina, vaan heidän mielipiteensä ja tutkimustuloksensa ohitettiin ja niille jopa naureskeltiin. Tämän suhtautumistavan jatkumoa on viimeaikainen suhtautuminen EU:n luonnonennallistamisasetusluonnokseen. Suomen metsänhoitoon eivät saa vaikuttaa kuin puupeltoajattelua kannattavien metsänomistajien hyväksymät tahot.

Suomalaisen talousmetsän pitää viime vuosikymmenien metsäpolitiikan mukaisesti olla puupelto, josta monet linnut ovat kadonneet, vaikka talousmetsä voisi olla metsien ennallistamisen ansiosta kelpo asuinpaikka hömötiaiselle.  

Tidal Energy - an Almost Untapped Major Energy Source

Tiistai 29.11.2022 klo 13:39 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Moon gravity creates tides, felt everywhere in oceanic coasts. Tides have immense energy, probably more so than the inland waters, which have been used for generating electricity for years. Furthermore, as flowing water, tides are very regular, occurring regardless of sunshine or wind. Thus, the tidal energy does not suffer from the problems with solar and wind power, i.e., marked daily or seasonal variation. Further, huge tides wash the coasts of many of the world’s rich countries, and in principle the technology for generating electricity from tidal energy is already available.

Because of the above, one would imagine that tidal power features strongly in the renewable energy sector. But no, so far there are only a couple of experimental tidal power plants in function. The main reasons for this are probably the following: First, there was no tradition of converting tidal energy to usable power. In contrast, windmills have been around for at least a thousand years, as also riverine power stations. Second, since coal and oil have been cheap, generating energy using the fossil fuels has been the preferred way for energy production.

The situation must change now that we shall combat climate change. A major argument of the fossil fuel lobbying groups has been that the green shift is not really possible, since wind and solar power have marked production fluctuations. The same argument is used by nuclear power advocates, who maintain that in order to get assured constancy of energy production, nuclear power plants are required. However, tidal energy power plants will produce energy at a predictable rate, and building them is both cheaper and more rapid than nuclear power plants. Also, they do not generate carbon dioxide emissions thus representing a true green shift.

Another disappointing climate meeting

Maanantai 21.11.2022 klo 15:47 - Mikko Nikinmaa

We know what should be done. We have the methods and technology to do it. There would even be enough funds to do it. Yet, combatting climate change remains at the stage of lip service. Politics does not enable climate actions to be done. It is very funny that the same politicians, who are so worried about our children inheriting debt are not really worried about giving our children an Earth, where only some places are truly inhabitable (or in the worst case not even that; the bleakest scenario has the Earth going the Venus way with average temperatures above 100 degrees Celsius).

Country leaders quarrel as to who should pay. Naturally, climate actions should not cost at all. Surprisingly many politicians do not accept the existence of climate change despite the heat waves, droughts, surprising floods, wildfires and melting glaciers. Oil-producing countries try to delay the transfer to not using oil, China tries to convince others that it is a developing country, which needs to get financial support to carrying climate actions. Small, rich countries have large groups of people saying that we need not do anything, as our contribution is necessarily so small that it does not affect world’s climate at all. Maybe a lot of the reluctance of politicians to do anything is due to the fact that they are overwhelmingly over 50 years old, and are living in the past. In their childhood climate change was not an issue.

So I, as an old-age pensioner, hope that there is a rapid generation shift in political leaders of the world. To me it appears that only people who have grown with acknowledging that climate change can seriously affect their life will be able to carry out the necessary actions even if the Gross National Product decreases because of them.

Interaction between land use, climate change and the occurrence of pandemics

Sunnuntai 20.11.2022 klo 14:18 - Mikko Nikinmaa

It is now almost universally accepted that the SARS-CoV-2 virus (virus that has caused the Covid-19 pandemic) is originally a bat virus that has spilled over to humans. In a Nature article (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05506-2) Eby et al. have followed for 25 years, which environmental drivers are associated with the spill over of another bat virus to mammals. The study is most important, as it directly associates two big areas of environmental concern and the likelihood of bat viruses and probably also other zoonoses spilling over to humans, namely land use and climate change.

The problem with increasing land area being used by humans in increasing the likelihood of humans getting zoonoses has been suggested many times earlier. Whenever the probability of human-animal interaction increases, also the possibility of viruses spilling over to man increases. Today areas free of human influence are getting smaller and smaller because of increasing human population.

The effect of increased land use is worsened by climate change. Whenever there is drought or any other reason for food shortage, shedding of viruses to nearby organisms increases. As climate change increases drought periods, the probability of virus spill over increases. Consequently, pandemics and climate change occur together, by combatting climate change we can also prevent pandemics.

Heart function and individual variability play major roles in temperature tolerance of fish

Maanantai 14.11.2022 klo 14:42 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Climate change has major effects on fish, especially fish in lakes, since the whole water body can warm up as a result of long-lasting heat waves. Because of the uniform temperature regardless of the depth, fish cannot seek colder temperatures near the bottom. As a consequence, massive fish mortalities occur in shallow lakes of temperate zone every summer nowadays.

The reasons, why fish die as a result of increased temperature can only be understood by studying the functional changes occurring as a result of temperature elevation. Thus, physiological studies should be in the centre of climate change studies. If the reasons for vulnerability to increased temperature are known, it can also be estimated, which measurable responses predict fish mortalities. This as a background, and recognizing that individual variability of fish determines why some die and others remain living, we studied how fish tolerant and intolerant to high temperatures differed from each other. The results of the extensive studies are reported by Anttila et al in Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology (//doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2022.111340).

Our results show that for a given age group, heart function is decisive in determining temperature tolerance. The efficiency of heart is markedly different in different individuals, whereby marked individual variability in temperature tolerance occurs. Thus, in predicting the effects of climate change on fish populations, we should not restrict our analysis to the mean response but also to the variability observed. In future it must be evaluated to which extent the thermal tolerance and its variability are heritable, as this will have significant impact on the vulnerability of species to global warming.

Miksi metsien hiilinielu pienenee?

Tiistai 8.11.2022 klo 12:02 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Järkytys on ollut suuri, kun viime mittaukset ovat arvioineet, että Suomen maankäyttö on muuttunut hiilinielusta hiilidioksidin lähteeksi. Tämä on erityisen ongelmallista, kun Suomen ilmastopolitiikassa metsien toiminta hiilinieluina on ollut tärkeällä sijalla.

Syytä metsien hiilinielun pienemiseen ei tiedetä (metsäthän ovat edelleen hiilinielu – vaikkakin heikkenevä – muut maankäytön muodot ovat pääasiassa päästöjen lähteitä). Yhdeksi syyksi on esitetty hakkuiden lisääntymistä, mutta sekään ei ole oikein hyvä selitys, ainakaan yksin.

Ehdotankin seuraavassa syytä, joka johtuu ilmastonmuutoksesta ja jota ei yleensä oteta missään huomioon. Valon määrää Suomessa ilmastonmuutos ei ainakaan lisää, pilvipeitteen lisääntymisen vuoksi voi jopa vähentää. Talvikuukausina valon määrä on niin alhainen, että havupuutkaan eivät pysty lainkaan yhteyttämään. Kun ilmastonmuutos nostaa lämpötilaa, niiden hiilidioksidia tuottava hengitys lisääntyy, sitä enemmän mitä enemmän lämpötila nousee. Täten koko sen ajan, kun valo ei riitä yhteytykseen, havupuut ovat hiilidioksidin lähteitä.

Enpä ole nähnyt dataa, joka selvittäisi, onko ehdotuksessani mitään järkeä. Mittausinformaatio maassa on kuitenkin olemassa, joten asian voisi varmistaa. Jos ajatukseni on paikkaansa pitävä, ainut keino estää metsän hiilinielun pieneneminen on estää lämpötilan nousu talvella.

World Scientists' Warning 2022

Torstai 3.11.2022 klo 13:43 - Mikko Nikinmaa

The alliance of world scientists, with the lead of William Ripple in Oregon, have again done a report of what has been happening during the recent past. The report is published in BioScience and can be accessed freely at https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac083. The year 2022 has been characterized by a multitude of climate-related disasters, which the report tabulates. I have taken the information from the table and give it below.

In addition, the film “The Scientist’s Warning” has now been released and is free to view online at https://scientistswarningfilm. Further, different climate-related resources can be accessed in the Alliance of World Scientists website https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/

Climate disasters in 2022.

January–September

Many rivers in Europe have run low or dried up partly because of the worst drought in 500 years and intense heat waves. Climate change has likely played a significant role in this crisis by increasing the frequency and intensity of droughts and heat waves.

February

La Niña and climate change contributed to record-breaking rainfall on the east coast of Australia. This led to flooding that damaged thousands of properties and killed eight people.

February–March

Record-breaking flooding occurred along the northeastern coast of Australia, leading to standing water, which, in turn, promoted the spread of mosquitoes that carry the Japanese encephalitis virus. Such flooding is likely becoming more common because of climate change.

February–July

The number of people affected by drought in Kenya, Somalia, and Ethiopia who have limited access to safe water increased from 9.5 million to 16.2 million. This increasing drought severity may be at least partly due to climate change (Ghebrezgabher et al. 2016).

March

A severe drought in the Southern Plains of the United States put the winter wheat crop at risk. Although droughts are complex phenomena with many possible causes, increasing drought intensity has been linked to climate change (Mukherjee et al. 2018).

March–April

A deadly heat wave occurred in India and Pakistan, killing at least 90 people and contributing to widespread crop losses and wildfires. It was estimated that climate change made this event 30 times more likely to occur.

April

Climate change likely contributed to extreme rainfall in Eastern South Africa, which triggered flooding and landslides that killed at least 435 people and affected more than 40,000 people.

April–June

Widespread dust storms in the Middle East led to thousands of people being hospitalized; such dust storms may be increasing in frequency because of climate change.

May

Extremely heavy rainfall in northeastern Brazil resulted in landslides and flooding that killed at least 100 people. Climate change may be responsible for the increasing frequency of extreme rainfall.

June

A severe storm in Yellowstone (United States) caused the Gardner River and Lamar River to overflow, destroying parts of various roads in Yellowstone National Park. Such extreme flooding could be increasing in frequency because of climate change.

June

Several countries in Western Europe experienced a record-breaking heat wave. This heat wave contributed to major wildfires in Spain and Germany. Many other parts of the Northern Hemisphere also experienced extreme heat; for example, temperatures reached 104.4 degrees Fahrenheit in Isesaki, Japan—an all-time record for the country. Similarly, a heat dome in the United States contributed to record-breaking temperatures. Other affected countries include Finland, Iran, Norway, and Italy. In general, extreme heat is becoming more common because of climate change (Luber and McGeehin 2008).

June

Following extreme heat, China experienced record-breaking rainfall, which may be linked to climate change.

June

Bangladesh experienced the worst monsoon flooding in 100 years, killing at least 26 people. This flooding is likely at least partly due to climate change causing monsoons to become more variable.

June–July

Extreme rainfall led to flooding in some parts of New South Wales, Australia. Sydney is currently on track to experience the wettest year on record. It is likely that climate change contributed at least partly to this rainfall and flooding.

June–August

Deadly floods in Pakistan have killed more than 1,000 people and affected roughly 33 million people, including 16 million children, since mid-June. Impacts include surging rates of dengue fever, gastric infections, and malaria. These floods may be at least partly related to climate change causing monsoon rainfall to become more intense.

June–August

China experienced an extraordinary heat wave, which may be the most severe that has ever been recorded globally. Such events are likely becoming more common because of climate change. The extreme heat contributed to large-scale crop failures and wildfires, in addition to exacerbating a major drought that caused 66 rivers to dry up and led to a significant decline in hydroelectricity generation.

August–September

California and other parts of the Western United States faced extremely hot temperatures because of a heat dome, which caused seven firefighters to be hospitalized with heat-related injuries. The effects of the heat dome may have been worsened by climate change.

September–October

In the United States, Hurricane Ian caused damage across many parts of Florida and the Carolinas, killing more than 100 people and leaving at least 2.5 million without electrical power. Ian is one of the costliest and strongest hurricanes to ever hit the United States. Climate change is likely causing strong and rapidly intensifying storms such as Ian to become more common.

Eikö metsä ole ympäristöä?

Keskiviikko 2.11.2022 klo 20:17 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Kun EU:n luonnon ennallistamisasetusluonnos on tullut Suomeen, useat tahot ovat olleet pyhää vihaa täynnä, kun heidän mielestään EU on puuttumassa asiaan, joka on kansallista päätöksentekoa: metsäpolitiikkaan. Tämä pelkästään metsiin keskittyvä "keskustelu" on sangen kummallista, kun metsien osuus luonnon ennallistamisessa on vain viidennes. Lisäksi, vaikka metsäpolitiikka - tai oikeammin metsätalouspolitiikka - onkin kansallisen päätöksenteon kohteena, ympäristöpolitiikka kuuluu EU:n mandaattiin. Mikäli EU-laajuinen asetus ympäristön tilasta ei saisi käsitellä metsää, sehän tarkoittaisi, ettei metsä ole osa ympäristöä. 

Suomalaiselle metsäkeskustelulle on tyypillistä, että sitä käydään lähes kokonaan puun tuottajien ehdoilla. Metsä on merkityksellinen vain puupeltona, josta saadaan puunjalostusteollisuuden raaka-aine. Raaka-aineen korjuu täytyy voida tehdä mahdollisimman kustannustehokkaasti. Millään muulla metsän käytöllä ei ole merkitystä: marjat, sienet, samoilu, linnut jne. eivät ole minkään arvoisia. "Suomi elää metsästä" ei ole tämänkaltaisessa tilanteessa oikea ilmaisu, vaan se pitäisi muuttaa muotoon "Suomi elää puuraaka-aineesta".

Metsän ja puupellon ero näkyy luonnonkirjossa. Useat metsälajit eivät viihdy puupelloilla ja tuloksena on luonnonkirjon pieneneminen. Biodiversiteettikatoa luonnon ennallistamisasetus pyrkii vähentämään niin metsissä, pelloilla, vesistöissä kuin kaupungeissakin. Ympäristöajattelu ei kuitenkaan vieläkään ole muuttunut: ympäristö on vain hyödyke, jonka ainut tarkoitus on tuottaa raaka-aineita.

EU:n luonnon ennallistamisasetuksen luonnos on metsienkin osalta paljon enemmän kuin metsätalous. Lisäksi siihen kuuluvat kaikki muutkin ympäristön osat. Meidän pitäisikin vähitellen ruveta ymmärtämään, että elämme vain, jos ympäristö säilyy terveenä.

Climate Promises from Glasgow - It was all talk

Keskiviikko 26.10.2022 klo 16:13 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Last year 193 countries solemnly agreed in Glasgow to speed up climate actions to decrease the negative effects of climate change. A year has gone and the next climate meeting in Egypt is just around the corner so it is good time to evaluate, if the pledges made have been fulfilled as promised for the year 2022. This is even more important, as the year 2022 has been characterized by huge wildfires, record-breaking heat, extreme drought, melting of glaciers and devastating floods. In addition, deliberate natural gas leaks have been generated and Russia’s war in Ukraine has caused fossil fuel use that much exceeds peace-time consumption.

Further, now that energy price is high, the populistic politicians everywhere demand that more electricity should be produced using subsidized fossil fuels. One would have thought that the pronounced adverse signals that things are going wrong with climate at an alarming rate would have made governments to take mitigation measures of climate change more seriously than a year ago, but no. “Blaah, blaah, blaah, it is all talk”, said climate activists disappointed after the Glasgow meeting.

Indeed, only 26 countries, i.e. 13 % of nations who made pledges to do something extra in 2022, have fulfilled their promises. This means that climate change can continue almost as nothing had happened. For a large part the inactivity is said to be due to actions being economically too expensive. This claim does not hold, as there are funds to repair the climate-caused damages. Indeed, proper combatting climate change could currently turn out to be cheaper than repairing the damage done by climate-related catastrophes.

Why do herbicides affect animals?

Maanantai 17.10.2022 klo 16:50 - Mikko Nikinmaa

The development of herbicides has long concentrated on finding molecules that affect biochemical pathways not present in animals. As a consequence, it has been considered that they do not cause harm to insects and vertebrates. Studies on animal cells have usually confirmed this supposition: since the biochemical pathway is not present, the compound is not toxic to animals.

Because of this, the increasing number of findings suggesting that herbicides have toxic effects on animal populations have largely been labelled as trash. This conclusion does not, however, take into account that the animal body has more microbes than body’s own cells. The animal’s microbiome, as it is called, influences nutrition, humoral and immune functions, metabolism and even neural behaviour. Many microbes in our body have the biochemical pathways targeted by the herbicide molecules. Consequently, herbicides affect the species distribution of microbiome, whereby the functions affected by the microbiome can also be influenced in animal body, and the herbicide be toxic to animal.

In recent review by Ruuskanen et al. in Trends in Ecology and Evolution (doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.09.009) give a detailed description of the role of microbiomes in shaping the responses of non-target organisms to herbicides. An important point to note is that the sensitivities of organisms that are susceptible vary markedly. Also, the speed by which resistance is developed is highly variable. Further, the fact that different conclusions are reached if animal cells or whole animals are used in the studies casts significant doubt on the animal protection thesis that instead of intact animals, cell cultures should be used in toxicological studies.

Recycling Plastic Waste

Perjantai 14.10.2022 klo 15:16 - Nikk Nikinmaa

One of the biggest problems with recycling plastic waste has been that a mixture of different plastics cannot be used as a feedstock for generating new plastic products. This means that either the consumers have to be quite careful and knowledgeable in sorting plastics or recycling stations need to carry out expensive sorting of plastics for further use. In a recent article in Science (October 13, 2022; DOI: 10.1126/science.abo4626) Sullivan et al. present a method that can be used for a mixture of plastics to generate starting material for commercial use. The method is comprised of two steps: first oxidizing the plastic mixture with metal-based catalysis (Co and Mn) to intermediates that can be digested by engineered bacteria to produce a feedstock for new commercial products. By varying the way that the bacteria are engineered, different starting products can be generated.

To my eyes, this method is quite safe and practical. It avoids the inherent problem with plastic-eating bacteria. I remember the book Mutant 59 by Kid Pedler and Gerry Davis (from 1971) where the plastic waste was planned to be eaten by bacterial mutation, which was very effective in consuming plastics, favoring them over any other foodstuff. The mutant naturally got accidentally free and started devouring everything made of plastics. Planes started crashing down, because all the plastics covering electric leads were eaten up and motors short-circuited. Most things in our houses became non-functional or half-disappeared etc., naturally, if you look around: most things are at least partly made of plastics. Since in the method described by Sullivan et al. the engineered bacteria eat only the oxidized end product of catalysis, they can only live in the recycling plant. By combining this method with effective collection of plastic waste, much of the plastics problem can be removed.

However, even if we get smokers to put their cigarette butts to waste bins, there will be one significant source of small plastic particles. Almost half of the microplastics in the environment is tire wear particles. They are impossible to collect. Thus, even if the recycling of all other plastics were more than 90% successful, this source would remain. It can only be reduced by drastically reducing road traffic. In this regard, electric cars are not a solution, the only solution could be using rail traffic and public transport more generally.  

 

Air pollution increases stroke risk

Perjantai 7.10.2022 klo 13:44 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Today, only climate change effects of fossil fuel burning get attention. While climate change is undoubtedly the ultimate stress, it does not seem to reach the minds and be accepted by many people even today when the heat waves, hurricanes, floods and wildfires all testify that climate change is happening. The people with the highest percentage of climate sceptics are also the most susceptible to stroke: overweight, with low education, not exercising and driving a lot. They are not likely to be worried about something that may happen to the next generation or to other people as long as they can live their comfortable life.

But they may get stroke! That is something they are worried about when they drive to work in the congested highways of towns with high nitrogen oxide and elevated small particle levels. In a recent article in Neurology, Tian et al. (DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000201316) showed quite conclusively that this kind of air pollution increases stroke risk. Earlier studies have shown that air pollution causes all sorts of lung-related problems. Thus, there is quite clear evidence that fossil fuel use should be stopped even if one is only worried about one’s own health and wouldn’t care at all of the well being of future generations.

Soiden suojelun ja suobiotooppien ennallistamisen tulisi olla prioriteetteja maankäytössä

Torstai 6.10.2022 klo 11:38 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Soita on vain 3 % maailman maapinta-alasta, mutta ne varastoivat melkein kaksi kertaa niin paljon hiiltä kuin metsät. Pinta-alaa kohti ne absorboivat viisikertaisesti kasvavan metsän absorboiman hiilimäärän.

Tämä tieto on yllättävä. Kun Suomessa on puhuttu metsien merkityksestä hiilinieluina, soiden osuutta hiilen sitomisessa ei ole mainittu ennen kuin parin viime vuoden kuluessa. Viime aikoina on ruvettu tajuamaan, kuinka soistuneen maan muuttaminen viljelymaaksi tai -metsäksi on muuttanut maan hiilen lähteeksi. Niinpä näiden maiden ennallistaminen takaisin soiksi olisi merkittävä osa ilmastonmuutoksen vastaista taistelua kuten Suomen ilmastopaneeli on esittänyt.

Siksi turpeen käyttö energianlähteenä on vähintään hölmöläisen hommaa. Jo turpeen poltto on verrattavissa kivihiilen ja öljyn käyttöön. Sen lisäksi turpeen nosto tuhoaa suon muuttaen sen tehokkaasta hiilinielusta merkittäväksi hiilipäästöjen aiheuttajaksi vuosikymmenien ajaksi. Soiden suojelu on siksi merkittävää ilmastonmuutoksen vastaisessa taistelussa. Lisäksi soiden ekosysteemeissä on lukuisa joukko eläin- ja kasvilajeja, jotka eivät tule juurikaan toimeen muualla. Näin ollen soiden suojelu on välttämätöntä myös luontokadon pysäyttämiseksi.

En kyllä keksi yhtään syytä, minkä takia turpeen käytöstä energianlähteenä ei pitäisi luopua jopa suunniteltua nopeammin.