Climate versus carbon dioxide controls on biomass burning: a model analysis of the glacial–interglacial contrast

Climate controls fire regimes through its influence on the amount and types of fuel present and their dryness. CO2 concentration constrains primary production by limiting photosynthetic activity in plants. However, although fuel accumulation depends on biomass production, and hence on CO2 concentration, the quantitative relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and biomass burning is not well understood. Here a fire-enabled dynamic global vegetation model (the Land surface Processes and eXchanges model, LPX) is used to attribute glacial–interglacial changes in biomass burning to an increase in CO2, which would be expected to increase primary production and therefore fuel loads even in the absence of climate change, vs. climate change effects. Four general circulation models provided last glacial maximum (LGM) climate anomalies – that is, differences from the pre-industrial (PI) control climate – from the Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project Phase~2, allowing the construction of four scenarios for LGM climate. Modelled carbon fluxes from biomass burning were corrected for the model's observed prediction biases in contemporary regional average values for biomes. With LGM climate and low CO2 (185 ppm) effects included, the modelled global flux at the LGM was in the range of 1.0–1.4 Pg C year-1, about a third less than that modelled for PI time. LGM climate with pre-industrial CO2 (280 ppm) yielded unrealistic results, with global biomass burning fluxes similar to or even greater than in the pre-industrial climate. It is inferred that a substantial part of the increase in biomass burning after the LGM must be attributed to the effect of increasing CO2 concentration on primary production and fuel load. Today, by analogy, both rising CO2 and global warming must be considered as risk factors for increasing biomass burning. Both effects need to be included in models to project future fire risks.

How do people perceive, understand, and anticipate responding to flash flood risks and warnings? Results from a public survey in Boulder, Colorado, USA

This study investigates flash flood forecast and warning communication, interpretation, and decision making, using data from a survey of 418 members of the public in Boulder, Colorado, USA. Respondents to the public survey varied in their perceptions and understandings of flash flood risks in Boulder, and some had misconceptions about flash flood risks, such as the safety of crossing fast-flowing water. About 6% of respondents indicated consistent reversals of US watch-warning alert terminology. However, more in-depth analysis illustrates the multi-dimensional, situationally dependent meanings of flash flood alerts, as well as the importance of evaluating interpretation and use of warning information along with alert terminology. Some public respondents estimated low likelihoods of flash flooding given a flash flood warning; these were associated with lower anticipated likelihood of taking protective action given a warning. Protective action intentions were also lower among respondents who had less trust in flash flood warnings, those who had not made prior preparations for flash flooding, and those who believed themselves to be safer from flash flooding. Additional analysis, using open-ended survey questions about responses to warnings, elucidates the complex, contextual nature of protective decision making during flash flood threats. These findings suggest that warnings can play an important role not only by notifying people that there is a threat and helping motivate people to take protective action, but also by helping people evaluate what actions to take given their situation.

Trends in adult body-mass index in 200 countries from 1975 to 2014: a pooled analysis of 1698 population-based measurement studies with 19·2 million participants

Background Underweight and severe and morbid obesity are associated with highly elevated risks of adverse health outcomes. We estimated trends in mean body-mass index (BMI), which characterises its population distribution, and in the prevalences of a complete set of BMI categories for adults in all countries. Methods We analysed, with use of a consistent protocol, population-based studies that had measured height and weight in adults aged 18 years and older. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to these data to estimate trends from 1975 to 2014 in mean BMI and in the prevalences of BMI categories (<18·5 kg/m2 [underweight], 18·5 kg/m2 to <20 kg/m2, 20 kg/m2 to <25 kg/m2, 25 kg/m2 to <30 kg/m2, 30 kg/m2 to <35 kg/m2, 35 kg/m2 to <40 kg/m2, ≥40 kg/m2 [morbid obesity]), by sex in 200 countries and territories, organised in 21 regions. We calculated the posterior probability of meeting the target of halting by 2025 the rise in obesity at its 2010 levels, if post-2000 trends continue. Findings We used 1698 population-based data sources, with more than 19·2 million adult participants (9·9 million men and 9·3 million women) in 186 of 200 countries for which estimates were made. Global age-standardised mean BMI increased from 21·7 kg/m2 (95% credible interval 21·3–22·1) in 1975 to 24·2 kg/m2 (24·0–24·4) in 2014 in men, and from 22·1 kg/m2 (21·7–22·5) in 1975 to 24·4 kg/m2 (24·2–24·6) in 2014 in women. Regional mean BMIs in 2014 for men ranged from 21·4 kg/m2 in central Africa and south Asia to 29·2 kg/m2 (28·6–29·8) in Polynesia and Micronesia; for women the range was from 21·8 kg/m2 (21·4–22·3) in south Asia to 32·2 kg/m2 (31·5–32·8) in Polynesia and Micronesia. Over these four decades, age-standardised global prevalence of underweight decreased from 13·8% (10·5–17·4) to 8·8% (7·4–10·3) in men and from 14·6% (11·6–17·9) to 9·7% (8·3–11·1) in women. South Asia had the highest prevalence of underweight in 2014, 23·4% (17·8–29·2) in men and 24·0% (18·9–29·3) in women. Age-standardised prevalence of obesity increased from 3·2% (2·4–4·1) in 1975 to 10·8% (9·7–12·0) in 2014 in men, and from 6·4% (5·1–7·8) to 14·9% (13·6–16·1) in women. 2·3% (2·0–2·7) of the world's men and 5·0% (4·4–5·6) of women were severely obese (ie, have BMI ≥35 kg/m2). Globally, prevalence of morbid obesity was 0·64% (0·46–0·86) in men and 1·6% (1·3–1·9) in women. Interpretation If post-2000 trends continue, the probability of meeting the global obesity target is virtually zero. Rather, if these trends continue, by 2025, global obesity prevalence will reach 18% in men and surpass 21% in women; severe obesity will surpass 6% in men and 9% in women. Nonetheless, underweight remains prevalent in the world's poorest regions, especially in south Asia.