 Good morning and welcome to EGU 22, the annual meeting of the European Geosciences Union. As many of you already know, this is the Union's first hybrid General Assembly, where we are bringing back our on-site experience for those of you joining us here in person, while at the same time introducing new concepts from the last couple of years to include our virtual attendees as much as possible. This year we have had more than 12,000 abstracts submitted to EGU's meeting and during the press conferences, we'd like to highlight some of the most unique studies, which, as you'll soon see, have impacts on local communities, industries, ecosystems and the global environment. I'm Jillian D'Souza, EGU's Media and Communications Officer and I'll be hosting this week's press conferences. Each press conference will have time for speakers to make their presentations, followed by question and answer period at the end. For those of you joining us virtually, I ask that you all mute your mics throughout the briefing until I call upon you to speak. If for some reason you experience technical difficulties, you can try to rejoin the session or look for more information on the press conferences section of the media.egu.eu page. A last couple of things to note, please save all of your questions to the end after the speakers have finished presenting. During the Q&A period, we will take questions from journalists both in the room and online. If you're in the room, please raise your hand so that we can pass a microphone over to you. And if you're joining us virtually, please use the hand raising function of the Zoom platform so we can come to you for your question. If you prefer to type your question instead, that's perfectly fine. Feel free to do so in the chat. All right, so I'm now going to go ahead and introduce our panelists to make for faster transitions between them. This press conference is titled to the boiling point, the far-reaching effects of climate change. Our speakers for today are Andrea Hamman from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Working Group 3, Ghaneri Lakuzane from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Working Group 2, Yann Peter George from the TATU Observatory, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of TATU, Jeanne O'Dwyer from the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University College Cork Island, and the Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork. Leah Rappella from the LSE Laboratory of the University of Paris-A-Claire and Lizette Teichloch from the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences Technical Department, Netherlands. All right, so now we are ready to move on to our presentations. We will have Andrea begin for us today, and then we will swiftly move on to the others one after the other. Thank you so much. Yes, good morning or good afternoon, good evening, whatever you are. Thanks so much for the opportunity to speak to you today. It was a real challenge and an honor to participate in drafting the latest IPCC report of the Working Group Number 3 that was released last April. I know you're aware and you have seen all the slides of the original press conference, so I wanted to touch on a few things that are important to me. I was a lead author in the energy system chapter, so my interest relates a little bit to energy systems. Next slide, please. Yes, so I think the most important message of this report is that we are not on track to limit warming to one-and-a-half degrees, and you have seen most of the explanations regarding to this. Next slide, please. And that if we look at the policies that were implemented by 2020, we can conclude next slide, please, next is that if we keep on with the implemented in 2020, we will reach a temperature of 3.2 degrees by the end of the century, both by greenhouse gases and other gases like methane. In other scenarios, and you can see them on the curve here, we have other scenarios where if we start right now implementing some of the mitigation that, or positions that are in the report, we could reach, for example, one-and-a-half degrees, but the main conclusion of the report is that we need to start yesterday and not in the future. Next, please. Next, next. But the future is not so grim, and we can see that certain things are really picking up the price of PV panels and the price of onshore energy has really dropped in recent years, and not only the prices, but also the implementation, how much people are using these technologies. Next, please. And not only we can look at the energy, but in all the different energy land use industry, all these different sectors, there are possibilities for at least halving the amount of emissions by 2030. So the possibilities are there. Next. And we can see that there is an increased evidence of climate action, both by countries that have already decreased emissions and also by targets that have been adopted by many cities and regions. Next. One picture that you probably haven't seen in previous report is this picture here that shows the summary of the cost and the potential mitigations for the energy sector, and you can see that, of course, some of them really could make a big difference, but of course the price and the facility for implementation will be different from one region to another. Next. But part of the problem, of course, is the investment gaps. So not all countries are possible and can do this and they need help, but there is sufficient global capital for doing that. Next. And the next message, the last message that I want to take you is that it's not enough to just install more wind turbines or more solar panels, but if we really want to make drastic changes, the whole energy system needs to be redesigned and the way that things function will be very different in the future than it is today. Thank you. Last next time, and that's the last one of my slides. Yes, but the evidence is clear. The time for action is now and the report really outlines a set of options that can be followed. And perhaps relating to this meeting here is that all the disciplines need to work together, not only energy, but all the social science, all the physical science need to cooperate and talk to each other. And that is not easy to do, but we are trying. Thank you. Thank you, Andrea, for your presentation. We will now move to Oguneri, please. OK. So thank you for your invitation and thank you for this opportunity to present a few highlights on the six assessment reports of working group two on impact, adaptation, and vulnerability. So just one of the 270 lead authors of this working group two report. And actually, I was involved in the chapter on Europe, in the cross chapter paper on Mediterranean region, and the cross chapter box on sea level rise. This is my field of research. What you see on the bottom are two coral reefs. The coral reef on the left is healthy and the one on the right has bleached probably due to a marinated wave events. The type of events is we can see them more often since at least 2016. And one of the great damage that we can expect from increasing temperature and if we exceed 1.5 degree of global warming is more and more coral disappearing in the tropical seas. And so this is one strong motivation for keeping climate change below 1.5 degree of global warming. It is to protect this type of ecosystem and for other risks that I will mention later. So the six assessment reports and the working group two reports informs government about consequences of their decision. It's not policy prescriptive. Working group two is the most recent and accurate synthesis on climate change impact and adaptation. 2,070 households from 67 countries analyzed more than 34,000 scientific studies in four years with the help of approximately 700 contributing households. And we received 60,000 comments on this. And you can see the equilibrium in terms of women, men and the developing country developed countries now. So one key message from this report is that the science is clear. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a livable future. But this report offers also solutions to the world. So what are the key risks? I'm taking the key risks in Europe here, but these are the same at global scale. These are the mortality and morbidity of people and changes in ecosystem due to heat. The heat and rough stress on crops and especially in southern Europe. The water scarcity, especially in southern Europe. And inland and coastal flooding due to more heavy precipitation and due to sea level rise. Plus the cascading risks resulting from these key risks. So this includes, for example, forest fires during drought seasons. What we see is that despite progress on adaptation, impacts are being observed already. And what you see on the right is a figure showing progress of national adaptation in Europe. This is a self-report by countries. And they display a lot of progress in preparing for adaptation with laws and thinklizes, in assessing risks and vulnerability to climate change, in identifying adaptation options, and in monitoring and evaluating adaptation activities, mostly in Western Europe. But what you see is that the implementation of adaptation action at national levels is lagging behind in many countries. So there is adaptation, but it remains not transformative, focused on a specific issue, focused on present day risks and not on future risks. And so we are lagging a bit behind in terms of adaptation. The climate responses and the adaptation measures that we have listed and evaluated in this report are generally beneficial for people and ecosystem. So you can see that in this figure from the summary for policymakers. You can see a number of adaptation measures, like, for example, integrated coastal zone management, which can be beneficial for a number of sustainable development goals, including a reduction of poverty, including quality education, gender equality, et cetera. You can see the same, for example, for green infrastructure and ecosystem services, which has obviously a lot of benefits for ecosystem. But it's also beneficial for health and well-being and other sustainable development goals. So what you see is that generally, adaptation measures that are listed in this report are evaluated are beneficial for people and ecosystem. And this is just a selection of them here. So what can be our future in this context? So of course we have missed opportunities in the past to reach higher climate resilient developments, but we can still, there is still a pathway, although the window is rapidly closing, to reduce climate risks, this is adaptation, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this is mitigation and this is more time for adaptation, to enhance biodiversity by keeping, for example, more space for ecosystems, and to achieve the sustainable development goals by 230. And this is what we call climate resilient developments. Thank you for your attention and thank you for your invitation. You can see my 270 colleagues here. Thank you so much, Guneri, for that presentation. We will now hear from Jan Peter, please. Good morning, and thanks for the invitation. My topic is actually our European forest, currently experiencing a shift in climate-related mortality, a retrospective analysis across the last 25 years. Next, please. So as we all know, forest is an absolutely valuable resource in Europe for income, but also for producing building material. But as we also know during the last two decades or so, we have seen an unprecedented decline in forests due to climate change, pest and pathogens, and many other factors more. Next, please. So basically, what I'm trying to do today is to answer two questions. The first one is, do we see really an increase in mortality across whole Europe and has soil moisture anomaly something to do with that, actually? Next, please. So what we are using is a huge network of ground observations on ground defoliation. This is the so-called ICP Level One Ground Condition Survey where experts are assessing tree vitality each year across the continent. And we are trying to relate this to soil moisture anomaly as obtained from the European Drought Observatory. Next, please. So this is one of our main results. What you can see, these increasing red lines represent increasing trends on mortality. And you see that we see an increasing trend in almost all three species during the last 25 years, accompanied by a decrease in soil moisture anomaly, which you can see on the blue lines, actually. Next, please. One name of our project is also to map mortality in order to show one important thing. So here's an example for Norway's proofs because it's the most prominent example of massive tree decline during the last 25 years. And for instance, next, please. One more, yes, exactly. Here you can see actually on this little map where the 2018 drought had its AP Center. And what we see is actually that while we don't see that much change in mortality in 2018 itself, actually, the consequences expressed in mortality rates seem to continue in 2019 and in 20. So you see many of these red points are actually accumulated in South Eastern Germany, Czech Republic, this is exactly the area where you probably have heard from the news these massive calamities. But then when you see, actually, I have a look to the Northern countries, Norway and Sweden where the 2018 drought has worked. Actually, you see that we see also increased mortality within the natural distribution of Norway's proofs. And this is concerning us actually. Next one. So the second question was, does the change in soil moisture across the last 25 years is partly responsible for that pattern? And there's a clear answer which is yes, actually. What you can see here is that drier conditions in the soil drive actually mortality, or in this case, lower the survival rate in trees, actually. So why is this? The previous year soil moisture anomaly has an influence and the influence of the previous year soil moisture anomaly is even higher. This is something which we call legacy effects or carryover effects. So trees become more and more weakened, actually. And if the following year is also a dry year, actually, we know that pests and pathogens, such as bark beetles actually can kill the trees. Next, please. So as a summary, actually, we see an increasing mortality trend that almost all tree species, only silver fir, actually, is not showing such a trend. Soil moisture has significantly decreased across species distributions. This is also clear from our data. And we see a significant, though a moderate influence of the soil moisture anomaly on survival rates, actually. Next, please. Some take-home figures, actually, that you may easily remember. So when we compare the last 10 years of our observations through the period from 1995 to 2009, we see in Norway's proofs an increase in 60% mortality, Scots point 40%, Eurythian beach 36%, and an oak 3.5%. This figure, which you can see here, there are two red lines, one which marks 2012, and the other one which marks the zero line, which is somehow the baseline mortality. And what you can see when we calculate it over all three species, over all regions, we have a continuously positive trend of mortality since 2012, and it has not fallen below the zero line. So speaking in words of Andrea, actually, I can just confirm that we should have acted doing something yesterday rather than today, actually. This is a really, really concerning trend that we see in European forests. Next, please. Yes, so some funding information. This work was funded by the Estonian Research Research Agency. Next, please. And although I don't, I don't can't show 270 contributors, but at least I think they are five, six, seven, eight ones. Actually, these are the people who significantly contributed this work. Next, please. And of course, a big thanks to the ICP Forest Network because they are compiling this huge data set of nearly four million observations that we analyzed during the last years. Next, please. Yes, and that's it from my side. This is my office, actually. If you're happy to answer questions via email or telephone or whatever, thank you very much. Thank you, Jan, Peter, for your presentation. We will now have Gene O'Dwyer's presentation who is joining us virtually today. Good morning from Ireland, everyone. So my name is Gene O'Dwyer, and today in conjunction with my colleague, Dr. Karlo Sheik, I'm gonna be presenting findings on our study looking at the impacts of extreme weather events on mental health and well-being. Or to put that a bit more colloquially, I suppose, is asking the question, can we actually cope with climate change? So just to give a bit of background onto the impacts of climate change on health and well-being, when we talk about climate change, one of the most tangible impacts, I suppose, is the increase in both the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. And we look at it from a human health perspective, we have both direct and indirect impacts. So a direct impact would be something like an increase in mortality or perhaps somebody losing their life from something like a flooding event. And we have a lot of data on this kind of statistics. In terms of the indirect impacts, however, these are potentially more common and a lot more nuanced. And this includes things like increase morbidity and perhaps something that's potentially understudied is the impact of climate change or extreme weather events on mental well-being or psychological well-being. So that was the focus of this current study. So what we did was we did a global literature review where we collated all the data we could find from internationally peer-reviewed studies. In total, there was 59 articles included, which looked specifically at the impact of extreme weather events on psychopathological prevalence or morbidity. So if you look at the geographical distribution here, the blue is the highest number. You'll see that there's, I suppose, a bias towards Northern America, but there was also studies across Asia and Europe, which we have included. So when I'm talking about the psychopathological prevalences or morbidities, what I mean here is that we included composite or any psychological impairment that was published in the literature. And then through looking at the data, we actually teased out trees specific areas. And these were post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD, more commonly known, anxiety and depression. So just to take you through some of the findings of the data, there's a lot of kind of busy tables here, but I'll talk you through it. What we found is that the majority of the studies tend to focus on things like hurricanes and storms. And this, I suppose, is a nod to the bias of a lot of the studies coming out from the United States or from Northern America. Overall, what we found is that investigations looked predominantly at direct or very acute events. So kind of a one-off event, rather than looking at gradual changes over time, which is potentially a little bit of a knowledge gap moving forward. Crucially, very few studies looked at independent control groups. And what I mean here is that ideally, if you want to see an event impacted a population, you would interview them using a psychologically appropriate metric on, say, a Monday, an event would happen to them on a Wednesday, and then you would reassess on a Friday. So you get very distinct information as to event-based causative factors for psychological distress. Most studies didn't include that, well, mainly because they're such sporadic events, it's hard to get this kind of data. But we do have some of them, which I'll talk about at the end. So lack of control in literature is a key finding. And if we want to kind of improve research in this area, we have to be more cognizant of monitoring the wellbeing of populations over time so we can get a better idea of whether extreme weather events actually impact people. But if we do look at the studies which looked at the prevalence or the morbidity associated with psychological impairment following an extreme weather event, we can put out some information. So we can see here that populations that were exposed to multiple events show a higher morbidity than those exposed to a single event. And this stands to reason really and kind of suggests that countries where extreme weather events will be even more frequent are potentially at a higher risk of being psychologically impaired. We also found that studies where the population was dominated by females or minorities, a higher morbidity was associated with that. And this is a key risk factor. So in terms of gender anyway, all is not created equal in terms of the impacts of extreme weather events on psychological impairment. We also found that adults and specifically the 31 to 50 year olds seem to be more affected in other age groups, hypothetically potentially because of increased financial burdens. And we also found as we generally do a lot of, across a lot of health related research is that lower income countries may be more impacted than higher income countries. And this potentially is one, because they may be more likely to have extreme weather events and two, because of lack of resources and our infrastructure. If we look at it across the three domains which I mentioned, PTSD, anxiety and depression, we saw a similar kind of story where the females and minority groups were disproportionately impacted in terms of these three domains following an extreme weather event. And interestingly, under these three things, we found that actually higher income countries seem to display higher levels of PTSD, anxiety and depression following an extreme weather event relative to lower and middle income countries, potentially due to lack of resilience or myriad other factors. So I mentioned earlier that the lack of the control group was an issue within the studies but the worst sum that included that included this controllability where you could look at what people are experiencing prior to an event and after. So out of the 59 studies, there were seven of them which arguably isn't enough, so more research needs to be done but there's some really valuable information from these seven studies. And what's reported here is what's called an odds ratio and that's a bit jargony but put that very simply it's just the likelihood of something occurring. And this is looking at the likelihood of a psychological disorder following an extreme weather event. Now you can see here that the numbers here are quite varied but if we look at the worst case scenario here by this study published in 2014, we calculated an odds ratio of 16.73. So what this means is that people who have experienced an extreme weather event are almost 17 times more likely to have a negative outcome, i.e. a psychological disorder resulting from that extreme weather event. There's some take home messages from this study. So I think that we can kind of conclude now that extreme weather events not only cause destruction to property and things like that or increase mortality, they also have an impact on morbidity and particularly true psychological impacts. The analysis indicates that there's regional trends so we see higher impairment among residents of low income regions if we look at it at a composite level and then if we pull out or tease the information about PTSD, anxiety and depression that tends to be more focused in higher income settings. Generally we have found that there's a higher health burden associated with marginalized populations and consistently across all the domains we found that the female gender at a higher risk of psychological impairment. To put it all in a nutshell, I think that I kind of conclude that when we talk about climate change, it's this kaleidoscope issue and really we can no longer view it simply through an environmental lens. So it is very clearly impacting and will unfortunately for many, many years continue to impact people, John, which is all of us. So that's it for me, thank you for listening. So this is the journal that papers published on if you're interested in reading it and if you have any questions, I'm here for this anyway or you can give me an email at the contact details you see on screen. So thank you for having me and thanks for your time. Thank you, Jean, for your presentation. We will now move on to Leah. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for the invitation. I wish you to present the project I worked on during my Erasmus period at LSE which is about climate change on Eastern winds already affects offshore wind energy availability. Next please. In Europe, offshore wind energy is playing a key role in the transition to renewable energies and its usage is expecting to increase in the next decades. Extreme weather conditions with no winds or winds too strong can heavily affect the turbine operation interrupting the energy production. In Europe, the occurrence of these events is related to the occurrence of the extra topical cyclones or anti-cyclones so that changes in their intensity or frequency can cause changes in the occurrence of intense storms or low speed wind events. So what we wanted to investigate was the behavior of extreme winds events over Europe in particular over the period 1950 to 2020 to analyze the weather regimes related to them and to investigate their impacts. Next slide please. So what we did was we selected from our analysis dataset with speed values at 100 meter over the period 1950 to 2020 and we filtered the speed values over the so-called cut-off threshold which is equal to 25 meter per second because over these values the turbine stopped working and we selected the values under the cut-in wind speed equal to three meter per second for the same reason and we focused in particular on five areas identified by the black boxes in the picture which are UK, Denmark, the areas in the north of Spain, south of France and over Greece. With this filtered dataset, we used a statistical test to detect significant trends in the occurrence of high speed and low speed wind events during the whole year over the period considering and a piece for winter months and summer months. Regarding the weather regime analysis, we divided the period into sub-periods, past and present and we analyzed the climatology of the geopotential eight for the present and the past to detect the weather regimes and we computed the differences between the present and past anomalies to detect changes in their patterns. Next slide please. So what we obtained is that actually we found significant trends in the occurrence of high speed winds and low speed wind events for example, the case in the pictures is the one about the UK for which we found significant increasing trends for high speed winds and decreasing trends for low speed winds. Next please. Regarding the weather regimes, we found that for high speed winds, different zones are related to the same weather regimes and as shown in the pictures, the gradient between positive and negative anomalies is accentuated between past and present, leading to stronger winds and the higher frequency of these events. For the low speed winds, we found blocking patterns centered of the specific areas considered and we detect a lower frequency in all the regions except for in Greece, where we found an extension of the positive pressure areas leading to an increasing trend of these low speed winds. Next please. So with this result obtained, we can state that planning new wind farms in Europe should take into account the behavior of the extreme winds events because actually climate change has already affected the wind energy availability and it will really useful to implement in European policies for the energy management to avoid blackouts or shortages in the energies. Thank you very much. Thank you, Leah. We will now hear from our last speaker for today, which is Lizette, if you're ready. Thank you. Well, first of all, I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our research here at the press conference. This press moment, which is called to the boiling point for far reaching, the far reaching effects of climate change and one of these effects is of course, heat. Extreme heat events are becoming more frequent and more intense and we need to adapt our cities to the risks involved. And I will present a design guideline that we developed to adapt our cities and to become heat resilient. We did our research at the University of Applied Sciences. But first of all, I would like you to realize again that heat is an actual and existential threat. If we open up the newspapers, then we see for instance the extremely heat events in Pakistan and India at the moment. And it's said that these deadly Indian heat wave made 30 times more likely by the climate crisis. And we also see in Spain, extraordinary heat events in this month. And also, yeah, closer to my home country, we have had very hot events over the last years and people were really advised to stay indoors, which is really, yeah, new. So to protect people and nature, really strong mitigation and adaptation actions are needed. Now with respect to climate adaptation and adaptation to heat, we can see or distinguish three levels of adaptation measures. We can first of all take adaptation measures to the urban areas, which means we can design our urban areas differently, cooler. But we can also apply or do interventions at the building scales, meaning that we can create cooler buildings. We can take interventions to keep our buildings cool. And there are also adaptation measures at the level of the inhabitants, which deal with behavior or health programs or heat health warning systems. Now it's the urban area where our research is about. And luckily in the Netherlands, where we are from, where I am from, climate-proof planning or climate-proof urban areas is in our policy, because we formulated a Delta program some years ago which stipulates that from 2020, water-resilient and climate-proof planning must be embedded in all policies and actions of municipalities, of water boards, provinces and national governments. So this is policy. But then municipalities and actually local as well as national authorities started discussing what is actually heat-resilient planning? How can adaptation to heat be effective and how can adaptation to heat be effectively implemented in urban design guidelines? What is actually heat-resilient? So to answer these questions, we started the research project some years ago and we finalized it as well, which dealt with the research questions, heat-resilient, what is actually the problem of heat in cities, what are effective measures and what are the effective design guidelines? Now in this project, we found out that municipalities, they want on one hand clear guidelines and standards with respect to heat, but they also need freedom to decide and design their cities. So we came up with three guidelines and one of these guidelines is distance to cool spots and I will explain you more about this design guideline. And the other two design guidelines have to do with the percentage of green and the percentage of shade in urban areas. Now the distance to cool spots, it's actually a very simple but very effective design guideline for cities. It says that each house or its inhabitants should be within a 300 meter distance to an attractive cool spot outside in an urban area. Now, why did we chose 300 meters distance? Well, this is a sort of flip-flop distance. It's easily walkable. Also for elderly people, it's a distance that can be walked slowly within five minutes. And what is a cool spot? Well, we, together with municipalities and with other researchers, we agreed upon an area of at least 200 square meters. That's a cool, that can be a cool spot. And in this cool spot, we can calculate it should also be below, it should have a temperature during a very hot day with a perceived temperature below 35 degrees. It's something we can calculate. Now, we can also, it's a very practical design guideline that we can also visualize in a map. So here you see the design guideline visualized in a map of Amsterdam. But actually for the whole of the Netherlands, we have pointed out this design guideline. And in this map, you see the cool spots illustrated in blue. And the colors indicate the distance of each house to a cool spot. Now, you can see that a large part of the city center of Amsterdam is indicated by red, which means these area is probably vulnerable to heat and is not designed heat resilient so far. So these maps really give us an insight in which areas are vulnerable, where are the cool spots located and where is adaptation needed. So this map is available on the link in the left corner below. And is also used by many municipalities and provinces in the Netherlands to, well, to define and to develop their cities heat resilient. Now, one of the criteria for cool spot is of course the area and if it's cool enough, there are also other criteria because the cool spots should also be comfortable and pleasant during a summer day or a hot day, but actually also throughout the whole year. So there are other criteria you can define. For instance, that it should be calm and clean, that there should be benches where you can sit, there should be a water tap, playgrounds, or a nice view. So you can come up with other criteria as well. These are not really fixed. It is really a starting point for many municipalities to discuss what is feasible and what is feasible and also what the wishes are of inhabitants and the municipality itself. So these criteria also make that cool spots can improve the livability of a city throughout the year. Now to wrap up, I would like you to remember that the distance to cool spots is really a practical design guideline for heat resilient urban areas, which is really used in the Netherlands nowadays, but I would advise other cities and countries also to experiment with this design guideline. And it combines climate adaptation with improving the livability of a city throughout the whole year. And then also I've already said this a couple of times, it has been prescribed by many Dutch local governments already, and then last but not least, and it has been mentioned by my colleagues as well, heat is an actual and existential threat. We really have no time to waste. We should have started yesterday. Thank you so much, Elizabeth, for your presentation. We will now move on to the last part of our press conference today, which is the question and answer round. So I now open the floor to questions both to journalists present in the room and those online. Just to quickly recap, if you're in the room and if you have a question, please raise your hand and I will come and hand the microphone over to you. And if you are joining us virtually, feel free to either type your question in the chat or you can use the hand raising function at Zoom and we will call upon you for your question. I'm just gonna hand over the mic to you. Thanks, Andrea, for your presentation. I was wondering, you talked about photovoltaic cells and lithium or batteries and I was wondering what is the effect of the lithium production on the battery production and is this becoming an issue when we increase our battery production in the next years? Thank you very much for the question. And maybe as you're aware, this is in the report number three, we were almost nearly 300 experts that wrote the report and many others that contributed and helped. And of course, this is really well outside my area of expertise. So I will point you to perhaps to contact some of my colleagues in the energy chapter that work directly with that kind of technology. My area of expertise actually it's on wind energy. So that will be something that I could easily answer. So thank you for your question. Just to add on to Andrea's point, all of the press kids have the email addresses of the speakers. So if you would like to contact them after the briefing, they can put you in touch with someone who could then better answer your question. And I can easily, if you email me, can point you to the person that it's really an expert on solar technology. Right, do we have any other questions coming in? Okay, we have one more. For the presentation. So I would like to have one question for the second speaker, Mr. Joneri. So you were saying that like the adaptation in some country lack behind. So what is strategy to bridge that gap? And in the report of working group two, did you, when you draft like some lesson learned from other country so that the other country can follow? Thank you very much. Thank you for question. Yes, actually it's one subsection in the summary for policymakers. It's the section on the enabling conditions. So what are the conditions that enable adaptation? And so there is a review of success so far. And usually what we see is that the successful experiences that we have in terms of adaptation take place where adaptation has been involving a lot of people. So there is a participatory process to make sure that the adaptation solutions that are in place are well aligned with the development priorities, with let's say the values that people place in different assets or ecosystems, et cetera. And this is one important enabling condition. There are other enabling conditions like finance and like in the working group three reports where my colleague showed that there is a gap in financing mitigation. There is also an adaptation finance gap and the adaptation needs in terms of finance are projected to at least double by 2030. So yes, there is material on this and this is really in the summary for policymakers. This is a section of enabling conditions. If you have any more questions coming in. Okay, one more question. So I have a question for you. Sorry, I don't remember your name. So how much each single extreme events like a heat wave or a draft contributes to the mortality over the trend? I mean, is this mortality is driven by the drafts or the heat waves or is it trend that is the long-term signal of the moisture? So actually what we did is we modeled soil moisture anomaly actually was an agricultural drought indicator. So this of course includes temperature as one variable precipitation. It's actually a whole rainfall runoff model actually which specifically models soil moisture in two distinct soil layers actually. But then we express as an anomaly from the long-term mean actually, okay? So, and then we can say there's like a common definition that you say, well, like minus one standard deviation below the mean actually is a mild drought and 1.5 is a severe drought and everything which is below minus two is already an extreme drought, okay? So, and therefore I can't really say whether it's a heat wave or precipitation. It's the whole thing together actually because heat can drive a drought. Lack of precipitation can and wind speed can. So they are all somehow compiled in this indicator actually, yeah. Thank you. Do we have any more questions? Okay, we have a question from a journalist joining us online. I will ask press assistant Wang to please ask the question. So from the online participant, we have one question from Zim Desi. So the question is for Lizette. Would Zor recommend a distance to the Kuhn spot very depending on the city climate? For example, does it depend on the extreme temperature? Thank you for this interesting and good question. So as I, so what I understand, maybe we should make our distance to the Kuhn spot dependent on the climate. Well, maybe shorter for climates where we have extreme heat events than the cooler climates. I think it's a good suggestion. I'm not sure if it's feasible but would be something to, well, to take home and to see how this can work out. Yeah, as I said, these design guidelines or the definitions are just, the definition is just a starting point. You can really, well, discuss this in your own country, in your own city, how it should look like. Thank you. Any more questions coming in? Okay, I'll just handle the mic to you. Hi, I have a question and I heard there are apparently two experts on wind energy. And I was wondering if there are significant trends in the high speed as well as in low wind speed. If that, and maybe I've missed it, if that also influences the advices if a wind turbine should be placed more in-lens or more on the sea, for example, in the Netherlands, that's a huge debate that is going on right now. Thank you for the question. Well, of course, I've been detecting these trends. It should be taking into account for the displacement of new wind farms. In my project, I just worked on offshore wind farms, but I think that the same analysis should be done also for placing wind farms on shore, so over the lands. And well, that's it. I think that it should be needed an analysis also of this to choose if place the wind farms on offshore or on shore. Thank you. Andrea, would you like to add to that? Maybe I would like to compliment that. Most of the actually energy that it's produced in Europe now through wind is on shore, it's on land, only a small fraction is offshore. However, offshore, we find that winds are more constant. They blow most of the time. So the conditions of no wind, they're actually rare, especially when you move above the ground. The new wind turbines are in the order of 150 or 200 or higher, and then you have more constant winds. But at the same time, the conditions offshore are really tough for wind turbines. The winds are strong, it rains hard, so they are the possibilities of them having faults and things increase. And of course the price of repairing it and the price of bringing people out to the field to do it. So there is a compromise and it's difficult to say, okay, you place something on land where also people live and they don't want them near themselves, right? But it's easy to come and fix them, but they produce less or you go offshore where turbines will produce much more, but they are more expensive because the environment is tough and because it takes much more to repair them and they will probably live a shorter lifetime that they were in other regions. So it's difficult and it would depend on the local conditions. But as you know, there was a meeting last week about where the governments of both Holland, Belgium, Denmark and Germany got together and they make a strong plan for building much more of wind resources, wind extraction in the North Sea, which is an area which is very good for extraction of wind. Thank you for the question. Thank you both. I'm just conscious that we are nearing the end of our press briefing time slot. So if there are any final questions, okay. So with this, we will officially conclude with today's press briefing. I thank you once again for joining us. Just to remind you that if you struggle to connect with any of our speakers here today, feel free to drop me an email at media at egu.eu and I will do my best to put you in touch. We have two more exciting press conferences lined up today. There's the Omnipresent Plastics, Mountain Reverse to Microscopic Soils, which is at 2 p.m. And then the last one, which is an exclusive NASA press conference titled JunoCam and Citizen Science, NASA's Mission to Jupiter. That'll be presented by both NASA scientists and an independent scholar who's interested in astronomy. So I look forward to seeing you all there. Thank you and have a good day.