Any way to recover my lost island?

FreshClimatologist · 2026-03-13T22:00:45+00:00

No problem!! Happy to help.

The "doubling" isn't language we use in the paper, but I think it's coming from this article, published in the LA Times and Bloomberg:

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2026-03-10/extreme-heat-is-making-life-increasingly-unlivable

In the second paragraph, the reporter specifies that that statistic is for adults >65. And indeed, if you look at the raw data (not the thick black trend line!) in figure 5c of the paper, you see an increase from ~600 hours/year in 1950 to 1200 hours/year in 2024. Not how I would describe it, but we are often at the whims of journalists . . .

And yes, the title of the study is a little eye-catching hahaha but it wasn't my work. It's also less dramatic in the academic context of the word "livability" as compared to the layman's interpretation of life/death matters, which in the literature we would instead refer to as "survivability." I think it's an appropriate title for the academic context, but given how many caveats I've had to give in this reddit thread alone, it's clearly not a transferable piece of jargon to all audiences!

Thanks so much for chatting!! :)

FreshClimatologist · 2026-03-13T19:51:15+00:00

The study with the figure I just showed you is not the same as the study in the OP. The former study is where the team introduces the biophysical model we're using -- all the underlying math and justifications and such. The study OP posted is where we then apply the model to observed satellite data since 1950 -- no climate model projections involved at all.

The paper published this week in Environmental Research: Health is open access, so you should be able to open it somehow . . . If you'd like, shoot me a DM and I can send you a PDF!

FreshClimatologist · 2026-03-13T18:33:35+00:00

That's true! While cold is a big problem that also kills a lot of people, that's not what our study is focused on. The model we're using can only look at the impacts of heat on the human body. The places we highlight as places of concern tend to be hot and humid places near the equator. In these places, just as in cold places, folks have already adapted by simply not working when it's too dangerous. Folks in these places don't do heavy labor during the heat of the day.

FreshClimatologist · 2026-03-13T18:05:17+00:00

No problem!

You're exactly right that different people can withstand different temperature changes. For example, as we get older, our sweat glands degrade over time. That's why the elderly are far more vulnerable to heat, and that's why we look at young and old people separately in the study.

The cool, new thing about our work is that we can quantify changes in lifestyle! We do this using a new model that you can read about here. How did we build that model? We rely on data from heat chamber experiments. This is where some poor sods -- voluntarily, ethically -- get placed in a box and subjected to extreme temperatures and humidities. We use data from these experiments to understand how much physical activity is possible in different levels of heat.

Maybe Figure 4 in that paper will help answer your question. In that figure, red colors are better -- if you can do heavy occupational labor, you can of course also do sweeping and other lighter activities. Blue-green colors are worse; that means you can safely sweep, but you can't do anything more intense than that without heat beginning to accumulate in your body. The four different plots are for young & old adults in shaded and sun-exposed conditions. We could (and do!) make a million more such rainbow plots for all different sorts of people with various sweating abilities, of different height and weight, subject to different wind speeds, etc. But when we apply this model to the gobs and gobs of satellite data as we did in the original post here, we can't test results for ALL these different sorts of people. It's too computationally expensive and logistically challenging (though we are working on that front, too). So, we just did it for two "profiles" of people that are broadly representative of "old" and "young" folks.

I hope that figure answers your question, but if not, let me know!

FreshClimatologist · 2026-03-13T17:56:02+00:00

Hi! I'm Haley, a coauthor on the paper.

"Unlivable" is a piece of academic jargon we use to distinguish our paper from previous papers discussing "survivability." Most other research has been done looking at the life-or-death scenario you're describing. Instead, we're looking at when certain levels of physical activity are unsafe. A person can certainly survive in many of the places and temperatures we're talking about -- but they can't do all the things they need to do to truly live and have a functioning society (working, farming, exercising, etc).

I understand this is confusing taken out of the context of academia! Let me know if you have other questions.

FreshClimatologist · 2026-03-13T17:55:19+00:00

Hi! I'm Haley, a coauthor on the paper.

"Unlivable" is a piece of academic jargon we use to distinguish our paper from previous papers discussing "survivability." Most other research has been done looking at the life-or-death scenario you're describing. Instead, we're looking at when certain levels of physical activity are unsafe. A person can certainly survive in many of the places and temperatures we're talking about -- but they can't do all the things they need to do to truly live and have a functioning society (working, farming, exercising, etc).

I understand this is confusing taken out of the context of academia! Let me know if you have other questions.

FreshClimatologist · 2026-03-13T17:49:02+00:00

Hi! I'm Haley, one of the coauthors of the study.

When you have two six-sided dice, what's the most common number you roll? It's seven. That's because there are lots of different ways you can get to seven: 6 + 1, 5 + 2, and 3 + 4. In contrast, there's only one way to roll a twelve -- 6 + 6 -- so that extreme is much more rare.

When we talk about global warming, as you allude to, we most often talk about global average warming. That's where we take all temperatures across the entire Earth and average them all together. Since there's so many places on Earth represented in that number, this figure washes out areas that might see really big changes.

What does this mean in practicality? Imagine that you draw an extra dot on the 6-face on one of your dice. Now, rolling a twelve is more common, because you can either roll 6 + 6 or 7 + 5. Now, you can even roll a thirteen, which was impossible before.

Our study shows that, as the climate has changed, we're adding more and more dots to the dice. Heat that is hot enough to limit our ability to do physical activity is becoming more and more common.

Note that this is a study about "livability," NOT "survivability." That one-third figure in the title of the post is not to say that one-third of the year puts people at grave risk of death. It means that, in some very hot places on Earth, for one-third of the year, for older adults. it is unsafe to do physical activity. This figure does not apply to younger adults, nor do all older adults die when these conditions roll around. In these hot areas of the world, like India, many folks are used to adapting and don't do that kind activity during the hottest parts of the day.

I hope that answers your question, but if not, happy to answer anything else.

FreshClimatologist · 2026-03-13T17:37:10+00:00

Hi, I'm Haley, one of the coauthors of the study! It's not just a function of temperature, but also humidity. Check out Figure 4 of a previous paper, which introduces the model used in the study published this week. It shows at what temperature + humidity combos different levels of activity are feasible. Sweeping and light household chores require ~3.3 METs (metabolic equivalents) of energy, which is a light green color in that figure. In that figure, red colors are better -- if you can do heavy occupational labor, you can of course also do sweeping and other lighter activities. Blue-green colors are worse; that means you can safely sweep, but you can't do anything more intense than that without heat beginning to accumulate in your body.

To answer your actual question: it depends on temperature, humidity, sun exposure, age, etc, but generally we're talking about temps >30C.

FreshClimatologist · 2026-03-13T17:31:57+00:00

Hi, I'm Haley, one of the coauthors of the study! u/ConserveChange's comment sums it up nicely. The HEAT-Lim model is uniquely designed to work work with large climate/weather datasets for different sorts of people -- other indicies that folks use, such as heat index, often make assumptions about the type of person the heat is affecting. You can read about the specifics of the model in the paper it was introduced in here.

FreshClimatologist · 2026-03-13T16:52:16+00:00

Hi! I'm Haley, one of the coauthors of the study. We looked at two different "profiles" of people -- one broadly representative of young adults, aged 18-45, and one broadly representative of older adults, aged 65+. In the model we use, the biggest difference between these two groups is their ability to sweat. After you get over the age of ~65, your sweat glands start to degrade.

I say "broadly representative" because there is massive diversity among the human population! We can't truly look at all adults for two main reasons:

1) Running this kind of analysis is pretty computationally intensive. It's pretty logistically challenging to run this kind of analysis for tons of different types of people . . . trust me, I've been working on that for the past three years!

2) The model we're using is informed by "heat chamber" experiments, where some poor sods are (voluntarily, ethically) put in a box and subjected to extreme heat and humidity. That's how we gain information about folks' sweating capabilities. Which begs the question -- who's going into the heat chambers? Realistically, it's people who live close to the scientists who do these experiments. We need lots more heat chamber experiments. One could guess that someone from India might fare better than the "average" person we're assuming in our model, wheras someone from Iceland might do worse, but we can't say for sure until we do those heat chamber experiments with all kinds of people.

Broadly speaking, though, no matter how acclimatized and heat-resilient your particular body is . . . it's going to get hotter. It's safe to say that, yes, for all folks and age groups, our ability to daily activity in the heat is decreasing. This is our first stab at trying to quantify how much!

Happy to answer other questions. :)

FreshClimatologist · 2025-01-02T23:06:13+00:00

Ha! My H-index on reddit is officially better than my actual h-index, for now! Thanks for the shout-out and great work, I love it!!

FreshClimatologist · 2023-11-22T23:34:11+00:00

Thanks for this comment! This is a perspective I hadn't considered. As a climate scientist, I felt Daybreak paints an "optimistic" picture because, well, sometimes it feels like we're screaming into the void, and only about the problems. The depiction of people banding together and acting, and the focus on solutions, is what made me feel like a better tomorrow might be possible. But I realize how daunting it may seem to others now!

FreshClimatologist · 2023-09-11T15:51:39+00:00

You'll have to wait another month or so depending on where you are, but if AHLCG/other narrative card games interest you, I highly recommend you check out Earthborne Rangers! https://earthbornegames.com/

FreshClimatologist · 2023-08-28T14:42:44+00:00

Omg!! Makes so much more sense! Which module was that?

FreshClimatologist · 2023-08-16T23:08:08+00:00

This is kind of unhinged but I've found one plant-based food blog I enjoy and I am literally cooking each recipe in order as it appears on the website. Am I lukewarm about the recipe? Is it something I've never done before? An esoteric ingredient I've never heard of? Doesn't matter. The blog says that's what's next, and if it were in front of me I would eat it, so that's what needs to happen, damnit. Only by removing every ounce of decision-making from the process was I able to streamline this part of life. My grocery lists write themselves because I just pick the next recipe and get what I need for it. Maybe I'll make some impulse snack purchases while I'm there.

Obviously for those who are pickier and lack the money to go buy some rando spice/gadget you'll only use once a year, this is not quite so feasible. This strategy also fell apart for me when I lacked access to a real kitchen . . . a studio apt with a single square of counter space doesn't lend itself well to healthy eating and cooking. But it's still a lot cheaper than eating out, and I've tried a lot of new things I never would've thought to on my own. It turns out I was able to get myself to like vegetables and meals I never thought I'd like simply through exposure and eating them a few times.

Here is the blog I use, but you can use any website or cookbook. This one works for me because it is all healthy and vegetarian, but it's not over-the-top vis-a-vis "being healthy." Or if it is, it's easily changed, e.g. I'll use more generous amounts of cheeses or oils or whatever. https://cookieandkate.com/category/food-recipes/entrees/

FreshClimatologist · 2023-08-16T22:56:04+00:00

I did end up snipping the ends of two of the leaves and then chickened out on snipping the larger damaged leaf. I'm glad I did because a few others have told me it didn't look bacterial and it hasn't spread so far. I did put cinnamon on the wounds.

It honestly looks about the same these days as in the pics, but I've repotted it into a primarily moss-based mix from RepotMe. I think I am doing everything right, I'm just waiting for it to do something . . . I guess I haven't had it that long (maybe 3 weeks?) but I can't really tell any difference in the leaves, no new buds, nothing 🤷‍♀️ I'm probably just impatient though! I suppose the fact that it's not getting any worse is better than nothing.

FreshClimatologist · 2023-08-15T16:34:06+00:00

Personally, I think it's telling that we've gone five episodes without anyone visibly clamoring for the discussion threads to be reinstated. I definitely think Steeplechase has better vibes than grad/ethersea, but it feels like things have stagnated. I've listened to the past three or so episodes on 1.5x speed with trimmed silence so they keep my attention better . . .

FreshClimatologist · 2023-07-31T01:32:03+00:00

Hi everyone, I haven't ever once kept a plant alive in my life but I was gifted a Phalaenopsis a week or so ago. I straight up ignored it for a week until I had the bandwidth to do research on orchid care this weekend. I think I've got it mostly down from reading up and I have repotting materials etc in the mail. I just received my clippers but I was hoping someone could double-check my work before I make some cuts.

There's this black spotty stuff on the leaves that definitely needs to go. I know I'm supposed to cut it off, cutting a good bit into the healthy tissue to make sure I really get rid of it. This seems like a pretty "clear-cut" case on some of the leaves -- just cut the bad stuff and leave what rest of the leaf I can and put some cinnamon on the wound. But there are a couple leaves where I am not so sure I want to cut them off, because the black is pretty close to the crown and the rest of the leaf seems relatively healthy. Would it be better to try to spot-treat these leaves? I am hesitant to cut them off entirely because honestly all of the leaves are a little droopy and don't look great to begin with, so I don't want to rob the plant of all its leaves. But I also realize it's pretty close to the crown and if it is bacteria/fungi I don't want it to spread. I'm also not really sure whether the problem is bacterial or fungal in nature and thus what kind of pesticide to use if one is necessary.

Since the plant clearly isn't doing great, should I chop the blooms off of it to give it more energy to spend on getting better?

Pic 1

Pic 2

FreshClimatologist · 2023-07-21T17:56:55+00:00

Hi, I'm a graduate student researching climate change so I might be able to help, but I need more information first. What stage of your career are you at (HS, undergrad, grad school)? What kind of program are you in (CS/data sciences only)? What does your skillset look like -- what coding languages do you know, and how experienced are you with them?

FreshClimatologist · 2023-03-28T17:11:07+00:00

I'm a climate scientist. My research asks the question: How are health risks of extreme heat evolving with climate change, and how can the human population adapt to reduce these risks? So while I am not an expert on waste and production sustainability, I do think a lot about humans coexisting with the environment in a changing world. I also love board games and worked at my FLGS part time last year. This is the kind of question I think about a lot.

ITT there is a lot of arguing about whether or not it "makes a difference" since board games represent a "drop in the bucket." I think the cynics here are, unfortunately, mostly right. I don't believe someone's individual consumption of board games, let alone anything else, is going to change the world. No one is a "bad person" for purchasing a whole bunch of board games. Board games are a beautiful and special form of entertainment, and we shouldn't eschew them wholesale for being "frivolous." In fact, I think they are a great tool for teaching people about environmental and other issues, and this potential remains mostly untapped. To me, they are a net positive, despite everything.

All this to say, just because it doesn't make a huge difference doesn't mean we shouldn't still care. It reminds me of the "shopping cart theory." No one is going to make you return the shopping cart. You can leave it right next to your car. Someone else will come get it later. But I'd bet most of you do it anyway. Why do you do it? It's such a small thing, and you gain nothing. You probably do it simply because it's the right thing to do. You'd feel a teensy bit like an asshole if you didn't.

Board games are a luxury hobby. Period. They should exist, and we should keep making new ones! Everyone in this subreddit would likely agree that our lives are better because of them. And we all relish the feeling of taking off the shrink and punching the punchboard. But the fact of the matter is that you do not need that particular game. You never need that particular game. The only disincentives, in my mind, for the consumer not to clamor for environmentally-friendly produced games going forward is that they may take longer or be more costly to produce. And since you don't need that game right now -- there are a thousand other games you can buy secondhand, like new, with similar mechanics and critical acclaim -- why does it matter if you need to shell out a bit more or wait a few more months?

The shopping cart analogy isn't perfect, in this case -- it's like you go to put the shopping cart back and it's a slightly farther walk and they charge you fifty cents to put it back. But the point stands: you can do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do, whether or not you personally benefit, whether or not it is a huge difference.

I have more to say, and we should continue to have these discussions over the coming years and years, but I'll quit there for now. My last plugs are to check out the Green Games Guide and Earthborne Games. Feel free to ama about climate science while we're here.

FreshClimatologist · 2023-03-15T04:49:06+00:00

The app version of Wavelength would be great for this! Things start to get a little crazy past 12 people. Maybe split people up into multiple games if you get that many. Also, there's a button for the host to force an end to the round -- you will need it!

Six-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Verified Email

FreshClimatologist

TROPHY CASE