Settlement history and sustainability in the Carpathians in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries

As part of a historical study of the Carpathian ecoregion, to identify salient features of the changing human geography, this paper deals with the 18th and 19th centuries when there was a large measure political unity arising from the expansion of the Habsburg Empire. In addition to a growth of population, economic expansion - particularly in the railway age - greatly increased pressure on resources: evident through peasant colonisation of high mountain surfaces (as in the Apuseni Mountains) as well as industrial growth most evident in a number of metallurgical centres and the logging activity following the railway alignments through spruce-fir forests. Spa tourism is examined and particular reference is made to the pastoral economy of the Sibiu area nourished by long-wave transhumance until more stringent frontier controls gave rise to a measure of diversification and resettlement. It is evident that ecological risk increased, with some awareness of the need for conservation, although substantial innovations did not occur until after the First World War.The Carpathian ecoregion, Habsburg Empire, settlement history

Evaluating modelled tropospheric columns of CH4_4 , CO, and O3_3 in the Arctic using ground-based Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) measurements

This study evaluates tropospheric columns of methane, carbon monoxide, and ozone in the Arctic simulated by 11 models. The Arctic is warming at nearly 4 times the global average rate, and with changing emissions in and near the region, it is important to understand Arctic atmospheric composition and how it is changing. Both measurements and modelling of air pollution in the Arctic are difficult, making model validation with local measurements valuable. Evaluations are performed using data from five high-latitude ground-based Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers in the Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC). The models were selected as part of the 2021 Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) report on short-lived climate forcers. This work augments the model–measurement comparisons presented in that report by including a new data source: column-integrated FTIR measurements, whose spatial and temporal footprint is more representative of the free troposphere than in situ and satellite measurements. Mixing ratios of trace gases are modelled at 3-hourly intervals by CESM, CMAM, DEHM, EMEP MSC-W, GEM- MACH, GEOS-Chem, MATCH, MATCH-SALSA, MRI-ESM2, UKESM1, and WRF-Chem for the years 2008, 2009, 2014, and 2015. The comparisons focus on the troposphere (0–7 km partial columns) at Eureka, Canada; Thule, Greenland; Ny Ålesund, Norway; Kiruna, Sweden; and Harestua, Norway. Overall, the models are biased low in the tropospheric column, on average by −9.7 % for CH$_4$, −21 % for CO, and −18 % for O$_3$. Results for CH$_4$ are relatively consistent across the 4 years, whereas CO has a maximum negative bias in the spring and minimum in the summer and O$_3$ has a maximum difference centered around the summer. The average differences for the models are within the FTIR uncertainties for approximately 15 % of the model–location comparisons

Climate and air quality impacts due to mitigation of non-methane near-term climate forcers

It is important to understand how future environmental policies will impact both climate change and air pollution. Although targeting near-term climate forcers (NTCFs), defined here as aerosols, tropospheric ozone, and precursor gases, should improve air quality, NTCF reductions will also impact climate. Prior assessments of the impact of NTCF mitigation on air quality and climate have been limited. This is related to the idealized nature of some prior studies, simplified treatment of aerosols and chemically reactive gases, as well as a lack of a sufficiently large number of models to quantify model diversity and robust responses. Here, we quantify the 2015-2055 climate and air quality effects of non-methane NTCFs using nine state-of-the-art chemistry-climate model simulations conducted for the Aerosol and Chemistry Model Intercomparison Project (AerChemMIP). Simulations are driven by two future scenarios featuring similar increases in greenhouse gases (GHGs) but with weak (SSP3-7.0) versus strong (SSP3-7.0-lowNTCF) levels of air quality control measures. As SSP3-7.0 lacks climate policy and has the highest levels of NTCFs, our results (e.g., surface warming) represent an upper bound. Unsurprisingly, we find significant improvements in air quality under NTCF mitigation (strong versus weak air quality controls). Surface fine particulate matter (PM2:5) and ozone (O3) decrease by 2:20:32 ugm3 and 4:60:88 ppb, respectively (changes quoted here are for the entire 2015-2055 time period; uncertainty represents the 95% confidence interval), over global land surfaces, with larger reductions in some regions including south and southeast Asia. Non-methane NTCF mitigation, however, leads to additional climate change due to the removal of aerosol which causes a net warming effect, including global mean surface temperature and precipitation increases of 0:250:12K and 0:030:012mmd1, respectively. Similarly, increases in extreme weather indices, including the hottest and wettest days, also occur. Regionally, the largest warming and wetting occurs over Asia, including central and north Asia (0:660:20K and 0:030:02mmd1), south Asia (0:470:16K and 0:170:09mmd1), and east Asia (0:460:20K and 0:150:06mmd1). Relatively large warming and wetting of the Arctic also occur at 0:590:36K and 0:040:02mmd1, respectively. Similar surface warming occurs in model simulations with aerosol-only mitigation, implying weak cooling due to ozone reductions. Our findings suggest that future policies that aggressively target non-methane NTCF reductions will improve air quality but will lead to additional surface warming, particularly in Asia and the Arctic. Policies that address other NTCFs including methane, as well as carbon dioxide emissions, must also be adopted to meet climate mitigation goals. © Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

How do COPD patients respond to exacerbations?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although timely treatment of COPD exacerbations seems clinically important, nearly half of these exacerbations remain unreported and subsequently untreated. Recent studies have investigated incidence and impact of failure to seek medical treatment during exacerbations. Yet, little is known about type and timing of other self-management actions in periods of symptom deterioration. The current prospective study aims at determining the relative incidence, timing and determinants of three types of patient responses.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a multicentre observational study, 121 patients (age 67 ± 11 years, FEV₁pred. 48 ± 19) were followed for 6 weeks by daily diary symptom recording. Three types of action were assessed daily: planning periods of rest, breathing techniques and/or sputum clearing (type-A), increased bronchodilator use (type-B) and contacting a healthcare provider (type-C).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Type-A action was taken in 70.7%, type-B in 62.7% and type C in 17.3% of exacerbations (n = 75). Smokers were less likely to take type-A and B actions. Type-C actions were associated with more severe airflow limitation and increased number of hospital admissions in the last year.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our study shows that most patients are willing to take timely self-management actions during exacerbations. Future research is needed to determine whether the low incidence of contacting a healthcare provider is due to a lack of self-management or healthcare accessibility.</p

Climate and air quality impacts due to mitigation of non-methane near-term climate forcers

Over the next few decades, policies that optimally address both climate change and air quality are essential. Although targeting near-term climate forcers (NTCFs), defined here as aerosols, tropospheric ozone and precursor gases (but not methane), should improve air quality, NTCF reductions will also impact climate. How future policies affect the abundance of NTCFs and their impact on climate and air quality remains uncertain. Here, we quantify the 2015–2055 climate and air quality effects of non-methane NTCFs using state-of-the-art chemistry-climate model simulations conducted for the Aerosol and Chemistry Model Intercomparison Project (AerChemMIP). Simulations are driven by two future scenarios featuring similar increases in greenhouse gases (GHGs) but with weak versus strong levels of air quality control measures. Unsurprisingly, we find significant improvements in air quality under NTCF mitigation (strong versus weak air quality controls). Surface ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) decrease by −15 % and −25 %, respectively, over global land surfaces, with larger reductions in some regions including south and southeast Asia. Non-methane NTCF mitigation, however, leads to additional climate change due to the removal of aerosol which causes a net warming effect, including global mean surface temperature and precipitation increases of 0.24 K and 1.1 %, respectively, with similar increases in extreme weather indices. Regionally, the largest warming and wetting trends occur over Asia, including central and north Asia (0.56 K and 2.1 %), south Asia (0.48 K and 4.6 %) and east Asia (0.44 K and 4.7 %). Relatively large warming and wetting of the Arctic also occurs at 0.41 K and 2.1 %, respectively. Similar surface warming occurs in model simulations with aerosol-only mitigation, implying weak cooling due to ozone reductions. Our findings suggest that future policies that aggressively target non-methane NTCF reductions will improve air quality, but will lead to additional surface warming, particularly in Asia and the Arctic. Policies that address other NTCFs including methane, as well as carbon dioxide emissions, must also be adopted to meet mitigation goals