A new Vinerism has emerged:
“Within my generation, whatever climate we were used to will be a thing of the past.”.
No word on whether Harold Camping has approved the date yet…
From the University of Hawaii at Manoa
Study in Nature reveals urgent new time frame for climate change
Ecological and societal disruptions by modern climate change are critically determined by the time frame over which climates shift. Camilo Mora and colleagues in the College of Social Sciences’ Department of Geography at the University of Hawaii, Manoa have developed one such time frame. The study, entitled “The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability,” will be published in the October 10 issue of Nature and provides an index of the year when the mean climate of any given location on Earth will shift continuously outside the most extreme records experienced in the past 150 years.
The new index shows a surprising result. Areas in the tropics are projected to experience unprecedented climates first – within the next decade. Under a business-as-usual scenario, the index shows the average location on Earth will experience a radically different climate by 2047. Under an alternate scenario with greenhouse gas emissions stabilization, the global mean climate departure will be 2069.
“The results shocked us. Regardless of the scenario, changes will be coming soon,” said lead author Camilo Mora. “Within my generation, whatever climate we were used to will be a thing of the past.”
The scientists calculated the index for additional variables including evaporation, precipitation, and ocean surface temperature and pH. When looking at sea surface pH, the index indicates that we surpassed the limits of historical extremes in 2008. This is consistent with other recent studies, and is explained by the fact that ocean pH has a narrow range of historical variability and because the ocean has absorbed a considerable fraction of human-caused CO2 emissions.
The study found that the overarching global effect of climate change on biodiversity will occur not only as a result of the largest absolute changes at the poles, but also, perhaps more urgently, from small but rapid changes in the tropics.
Tropical species are unaccustomed to climate variability and are therefore more vulnerable to relatively small changes. The tropics hold the world’s greatest diversity of marine and terrestrial species and will experience unprecedented climates some 10 years earlier than anywhere else on Earth. Previous studies have already shown that corals and other tropical species are currently living in areas near their physiological limits. The study suggests that conservation planning could be undermined as protected areas will face unprecedented climates just as early and because most centers of high species diversity are located in developing countries
Rapid change will tamper with the functioning of Earth’s biological systems, forcing species to either move in an attempt to track suitable climates, stay and try to adapt to the new climate, or go extinct. “This work demonstrates that we are pushing the ecosystems of the world out of the environment in which they evolved into wholly new conditions that they may not be able to cope with. Extinctions are likely to result,” said Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Department of Global Ecology, and who was not involved in this study. “Some ecosystems may be able to adapt, but for others, such as coral reefs, complete loss of not only individual species but their entire integrity is likely.”
These changes will affect our social systems as well. The impacts on the tropics have implications globally as they are home to most of the world’s population, contribute significantly to total food supplies, and house much of the world’s biodiversity.
In predominately developing countries, over one billion people under an optimistic scenario, and five billion under a business-as-usual-scenario, live in areas that will experience extreme climates before 2050. This raises concerns for changes in the supply of food and water, human health, wider spread of infectious diseases, heat stress, conflicts, and challenges to economies. “Our results suggest that countries first impacted by unprecedented climates are the ones with the least capacity to respond,” said coauthor Ryan Longman. “Ironically, these are the countries that are least responsible for climate change in the first place.”
“This paper is unusually important. It builds on earlier work but brings the biological and human consequences into sharper focus,” said Jane Lubchenco, former Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and now of Oregon State University, who was not involved in this study. “It connects the dots between climate models and impacts to biodiversity in a stunningly fresh way, and it has sobering ramifications for species and people.”
While the study describes global averages, the authors have visualized their data on an interactive map displaying when climate will exceed historical precedents for locations around the world. “We hope that with this map people can see and understand the progression of climate change in time where they live, hopefully connecting people more closely to the issue and increasing awareness about the urgency to act,” said coauthor Abby Frazier.
The index used the minimum and maximum temperatures from 1860-2005 to define the bounds of historical climate variability at any given location. The scientists then took projections for the next 100 years to identify the year in which the future temperature at any given location on Earth will shift completely outside the limits of historical precedents, defining that year as the year of climate departure.
The data came from 39 Earth System Models developed independently by 21 climate centers in 12 different countries. The models have been effective at reproducing current climate conditions and varied in their projected departure times by no more than five years.
The study suggests that any progress to slow ongoing climate change will require a larger commitment from developed countries to reduce emissions, but also more extensive funding of social and conservation programs in developing countries to minimize climate change impacts. The longer we wait, the more difficult remediation will be.
“Scientists have repeatedly warned about climate change and its likely effects on biodiversity and people,” said Mora. “Our study shows that such changes are already upon us. These results should not be reason to give up. Rather, they should encourage us to reduce emissions and slow the rate of climate change. This can buy time for species, ecosystems, and ourselves to adapt to the coming changes.”
This paper is funded by a grant/cooperative agreement from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Project R/IR-25PD, which is sponsored by the University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program, SOEST, under Institutional Grant No. NA09OAR4170060 from NOAA Office of Sea Grant, Department of Commerce. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies.
This cannot appear 10 days after AR5 WG1 without destroying the IPCC’s usefulness for good.
As I keep wondering…will anybody still care, when WG2 gets its report out?
Conveniently far in the future so that all the prognosticators will be retired.
and is explained by the fact that ocean pH has a narrow range of historical variability and because the ocean has absorbed a considerable fraction of human-caused CO2 emissions.
===
why do these idiots keep saying this….and exactly who is stupid enough to fall for it?
CO2 is too weak of an acid….biological processes that make the ocean work, produce magnitudes more acid than CO2 ever can
the woman doesnt even understand what CLIMATE is……..i keep repeating this but seems to not be helping the climate is the AVERAGE of the previous 30 years of WEATHER, the climate in no way exerts any control over the weather………this is akin to saying a baseball batters average is 300……but somebody makes a typo on his average and posts 400….his 300 NOR 400 average has ANY impact on his next at bat…….AGAIN THE CLIMATE IN NO WAY HAS ANY CONTROL OVER THE WEATHER……..the climate does NOT change until AFTER the weather has changed.
Oh, we humans are just soooo powerful.
And important.
This article is simply the pathetic attempt of one who at some level realizes just how unimportant a human is in the grand scheme of things to convince herself or himself that she or he matters.
When you know that you are loved by the One
Who made the Sun,
you don’t need to prove anything, for
you know
that you
matter.
I was going to criticise so much of this hogwash, but I’m finding it too hard as I’m laughing so much.
Superbly (for sceptics), this study has given an actual date for predicted “chaos”. If I’m still around in 2047, it’d be great to get back in touch with the idiotic authors of this study and hold them to account. Brilliant!
“The index used the minimum and maximum temperatures from 1860-2005 to define the bounds of historical climate variability at any given location”
What other outcome would they get since they started at the end of the Dalton cooling!
Charlie
Hmm. Must be some other models than these “climate centers” have been using so far.
Well I am surprised, I thought the alarmists had learnt to make their prediction of ‘climate doom’ for a many years in the future. Given how in the past, short term ones blow up right their face when they failed to turn . But it looks these guys will actual be around to have their BS return onto them , so they can at get credit for that. And only for that , as the rest is the usual its worse than we thought and we need more research, and so cash, nonsense
Yes but will 27 degrees from the equator be enough? I might need to move closer before the Gore effect kicks in.
Given that every year is The Warmest Year EVAR! ™, I would have expected departures from historical norm to occur more quickly.
I really wonder how to interprete this:
“The index used the minimum and maximum temperatures from 1860-2005 to define the bounds of historical climate variability at any given location. The scientists then took projections for the next 100 years to identify the year in which the future temperature at any given location on Earth will shift completely outside the limits of historical precedents, defining that year as the year of climate departure.”
Does they mean that the minimum temperature will be higher than the former maximum?
The variation between summer and winter is in most places more than 10K and often 20 to 40K, so a few Kelvin will hardly be felt.
Hey Mora, here’s a link for you
.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
.
.
Wow! 0-2000m represents 48% of the ocean (NODC). 0.06°C in 50 years! That’s 0.012°C per decade! Or 0.001°C each and every year…
.
Can’t you just picture a couple of deep sea monstrosities swimming along at 2000m, brushing the (metaphorical) sweat from their eyes while bemoaning the 1/1000th of a degree increase since last autumn…
.
“Look Mac, it aint much now but just think how it’s gonna be by 2047, another 34/1000ths of a degree warmer, we’re all gonna fry”
“The data came from 39 Earth System Models” sheez…
The made up future…
Are they saying that the mean will move by 4 standard deviations, so that the new range no longer meets the old range?
If so, that implies a massive rate of change. How quickly can this theory be disproven?
“Just a few more years… Trust us… We want more funding… Another fifteen years will do… A generation at the most! Honest! Then a few more years… more money… change is coming… change is coming…”
I say no more funding. Nearly 20 years ago, they said 15 years of little or no warming would falsify their models. They’ve been more than falsified. Now they ask for 30. But they had 30. They are pushing for another generation?
Just what does it take? How many ways can we say it? Pull. The. Plug.
As for the End is Nigh – Bring it on.
Complete nonsense. Nobody can forecast that far into the future. When will they ever learn.
Camilo’s report: “… data came from 39 Earth System Models …”
Honey, data does not come from models, estimates (and sometimes quite wrong estimates) come from models. Its a fact. For you to project estimates into the future as fact is even worse.
The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies.
Good NOAA!
I will not believe this until these alchemists tell me the day and the hour the world will fry …
What about the polar bears?
This cannot be right, I have just watched “Last hours of humanity” at ecowatch.com – My coat is on, and I am not moving from the bar at all tonight – We’re dooomed I tells ya, DOOOOMED 😀
“The data came from 39 Earth System Models…”
Models do not output data.
They output numbers of various sorts, but not actual data.
Previous studies have already shown that corals and other tropical species are currently living in areas near their physiological limits.
Well doh! That’s how the world works. Things live where they can.
The tree-line on mountains is species currently living at the physiological limits.
It says nothing about the bulk of each species, which lives well inside their natural limits. There’s a few species that have always been on the edge of extinction, like pandas, but they are the exceptions.
So they used the outputs of computer generated global climate models that even the IPCC shows are overstating warming as the input to their climate predictions? Garbage in garbage out. The nice thing is that they’ve made predictions for as soon as 10 years from now. It’s on the record. Should be fun to revisit those predictions in 10 years.
Seems I should have said “bud” and not “honey”. 😉
Social scientists are the best ones. Remember Lewandowski?
And Activist (former NOAA chief) Lubchenko gave it her stamp of approval. What crap.
“….. but also more extensive funding of social and conservation programs..”
Bingo! I knew massive amounts of cash would be involved. -\
The ‘academic’ who wrote that tripe has left us with an indelible reminder that education does not equal intelligence.
Lauren R.:
At October 9, 2013 at 3:45 pm you say
“10 years from now”? Do you really think anybody will then still have sufficient interest in AGW to bother checking back?
By then nobody will care and all except the diehards in the Cult of AGW will know AGW was just another over-hyped scare like Y2k.
Richard
We have nothing but a press release so far. And we all know too well science by press release is crap.
There is literally nothing to talk about until the paper becomes available.
My first thought was along this line too.
IPCC = Chopped Liver
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chopped%20liver
.
Shrill. That’s the best word I can use to describe Camile Mora’s language. I’ve never met Camile but I feel like I know her because there are thousands like her at universities in Berkeley, Boulder and at NYU. She’s gonna save the world because she’s the smartest person she’s ever known – and that is precisely her problem.
Wow, what serious stuff. Species have become 100% immobile since 1860 or will die if the move, I can’t tell which. Will the climate shift to nothing like we’ve seen happen gradually or suddenly? We can’t predict the number of hurricanes in the next 6 months but can predict the weather for the next 33 years. Ain’t (climate) science wonderful? This is peer reviewed science?
This is something to worry about. I’ve spent 10 seconds today and will schedule another 20 seconds at 7:00 PM every 10/9 until my 2047.
Climate models seem to affect people like illicit drugs. Perhaps it should be unlawful to possess or use a climate model. Can they train a dog to sniff one out? What about driving under the influence of a climate model?
The study forgot to mention that children won’t know what snow is anymore. How shocking.
““Look Mac, it aint much now but just think how it’s gonna be by 2047,… .”
(Albert at 3:13pm) – LOL.
**************************
“Models do not output data. They output numbers of various sorts, but not actual data.” (Glyn Mohr — and T. Sorenson {emphasis mine})
This fallacy goes waaaay back….
“Weather. Something we’d all like to do something about… .” lol
**1956 Computer to “predict” … (Univac) **
COMIC RELIEF #(:))
So. Now we know who is behind all this junk — computer schleppers!
Dear Richard Courtney,
How is your friend? I prayed.
Yours faithfully,
Janice
‘###
This paper is funded by a grant/cooperative agreement from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Project R/IR-25PD, …NOAA Office of Sea Grant, Department of Commerce. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies.’
First of all I’ll say that I wanted to find out precisely what Project R/IR-25PD was so I googled it. I got the NOAA website which I opened and of course I got, “Due to the Government Shutdown…” So, I wondered if it wouldn’t have been possible for the government to have had the decency to shut down before it shoveled our money (I know they think otherwise, but that could be put to the test) over for this ludicrous research. The second thought I had was why this should be under the Department of Commerce. If that department genuinely supports this kind of research, well, there won’t be any commerce left to justify a Department of Commerce. But, the statement in that paragraph that really left me cold was:
‘The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies.’
Really? Does anybody, anywhere, at any time, under any circumstance conceivably imaginable on this great Earth really believe the NOAA under the present Administration would even remotely consider funding, by so much as one solitary penny, any research that might deviate by even a hair’s width from its stoutly professed (of course, overtly or covertly, depending on the election cycle) viewpoint on this kind of issue? So, why did they have to state that? To make it seem that research stating the world is coming to an end is genuinely impartial research? It’s not.
maximum PR opportunity – personalised ***”finish lines”? what more could the MSM want?
9 Oct: Bloomberg/Businessweek: Alex Morales: New York Set to Reach Climate Point-of-No-Return in 2047
Temperatures in New York are increasing, and after 2047 they won’t return to the historical average of the past one and half centuries, according to a study today in the journal Nature…
***’Finish Line’
“Conservation practitioners take heed: the climate-change race is not only on, it is fixed, with the extinction finish line looming closest for the tropics,” Eric Post, a professor of biology at Pennsylvania State University, wrote in an accompanying article in Nature…
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-09/new-york-faces-climate-point-of-no-return-in-2047-report-says
10 Oct: SMH: Nicky Phillips: New climates for Melbourne, Sydney predicted
But when do we stop talking about breaking (temperature) records and admit we’ve got a radically different climate?
In Melbourne, a new study suggests, it will be 2045. In Sydney that time will come in 2038…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/new-climates-for-melbourne-sydney-predicted-20131009-2v91j.html
This comes from the College of Social Sciences. Who knew they were also knowledgeable to address issues relating to Climate Change? I guess its O.K. provided you pro-AGW. If not, you have no right a address such matters as you are not a “Climate Scientist”…
OK (throws hands up in air) is immediate death imminent or simply just about to happen? It was supposed to be 2013 now it’s 2047? I’m confused.
Nice analysis, Tom J. (at 4:20). Exactly. What does NOAA think they are? A television station or something? What a JOKE.
I wonder if they sent an early release to Bob Geldof and Greenpeace they seem to be all spewing the same witches brew??
Janice Moore:
Thankyou for your prayers.
As you can imagine, she is not well but is recovering from the surgery better than expected. The latest prognosis is good but hoped for recovery will be slow. My next turn on the rota starts on Sunday. I have some duties to perform that day so will not be driving up there until late afternoon.
Your concern and interest are genuinely appreciated. Thankyou.
Richard
These kinds of things remind me of middle-school ‘science’ reports: shallow analysis, non-sequiturs and faulty reasoning. Other than that, they’re great.
As I said on a previous thread, climate science is not even a science. This is modern-day astrology.
“The data came from 39 Earth System Models developed independently by 21 climate centers in 12 different countries.”
Why 39 different models? Either the models can reasonably predict the future or they can’t. Why are so many needed? If they can’t, 39 or even 390 doesn’t change the outcome.
You are most welcome, Richard. Thank you for responding (for one thing, for the past two days, I’ve been wondering if my posts were actually only visible to the host and mods). She will stay on my list — and you, too. Caregivers need to take care of themselves, too.
btw — re: her condition, no, actually, I prayed for a miraculous healing, so, I was picturing her sitting before the fire, drinking tea, and happily chatting with you, even going for a walk along the lane — well, glad she’s doing better than expected, at least …
Janice
BTW I intend to be around in 2047 to tell you what charletains you were.
They have connected the dots, and the fix is in. All bets are off now, and our climate goose is cooked unless we do as they say. I guess we’d better, because they have used top-notch models which are never wrong.
Except when they are.
I guess the only question is, how much climate science fiction can they manage to cram into one study?
@Will N. (glad SOMEONE is in an office that still has capital, heh) — It’s from “The Man Who Knew Too Much” (lol).
Actually, I think those bozos actually think that the higher you pile the pieces of junk, the more impressive it looks (and the better to hide behind).
To real scientists, it just looks like a big pile of junk.
“The models have been effective at reproducing current climate conditions and varied in their projected departure times by no more than five years.”
Remarkable models indeed!. They cannot be included within the CMIP5 ensemble used by the IPCC as Von Storch 7Zorita (2013) has told us that those models have only a 2% chance of reproducing current climate conditions. And then Fyfe Gillet Zwiers (2013) found that both CMIP5 and CMIP3 have been 100% out for 20 years and 300% out for 15 years.
Perhaps this study was being undertaken before the models were discredited?
A prediction I can safely make is that I will be 90 years old in 2047. What I want to know is can I make french fries by putting them out on a rock in the sun.
“Areas in the tropics are projected to experience unprecedented climates first – within the next decade.” Ok. I won’t be here in 2047 but might be still around in 2023. I expect the next decade here to be like the last – climate sameness. If I’m right and still coherent, I’ll make a point of tracking ’em down. (Or maybe scratch the coherence requirement?)
This mob remind me of kids trying to spook each other at night with scary stuff.
What’s with the “film at 11” ? Do I need to get my hiding cushion ready ?
“The data came from 39 Earth System Models.”
—
Are these the same models that couldn’t forecast the current pause?
“Under an alternate scenario with greenhouse gas emissions stabilization, the global mean climate departure will be 2069”
So even if we do what the alarmists want us to do and succeed in stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions, we can only buy 22 more years before we’re all doomed. Do they think that’s enough to convince us to grant them emergency dictatorial powers to destroy civilization as we know it? Personally, I would rather take my chances with 2047 than allow the alarmists to doom us today.
“Within my generation, whatever climate we were used to will be a thing of the past.”
Axiomatically true, since the climate “of the past” belongs to, well, the past. The climate of the present may closely resemble the climate of the past in all measured parameters, but it’s the climate of the present, not the climate of the past.
I think what Mora meant to say is that within her generation the climate will change considerably from what it is now.
For what it’s worth, I say the Earth’s climate system in 2047 will be pretty close to what it is now, and my model (“No major changes in anything.”) has outperformed her models for the last 17 years. 🙂
All you have to do is keep making predictions for the end of the world …. ONE DAY YOU WILL GET IT RIGHT …. the trick then is to find someone to brag to.
Robert of Ottawa says:
October 9, 2013 at 4:25 pm
OK (throws hands up in air) is immediate death imminent or simply just about to happen? It was supposed to be 2013 now it’s 2047? I’m confused.
*
I totally agree with you. I thought the tipping point was supposed to be 2008. Then again, didn’t Pachauri announce that by 2012, it would be too late to do anything?
None of these claimants care about being right, they just want more time to gather the money. They are heavily into postponement. Come 2047, they’ll shrug it off and claim that they NOW have “data” that says it’ll be 2068.
Why 2047, I wonder, because it sounds closer than 2050? A bit like $1.99 sounds a lot cheaper than $2.00? I reckon!
We should start demanding accountability, with heavy penalties for lying. They are doing this because there is no incentive not to.
“The results really shocked us, I mean, we told the models to tell us something really bad was going to happen within just enough time for us to retire but not soon enough for an incorrect prediction to affect our careers… and do you know what… they did! The models told us that we should get much more funding because something bad will happen after we retire and are no longer accountable.”
Paywalled of course, but here is the abstract……
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12540.html#figures
“Some ecosystems may be able to adapt, but for others, such as coral reefs, complete loss of not only individual species but their entire integrity is likely.”
On the other hand, every living thing on earth today is a direct result of adaptation. It seems to me that nature is rather adept at adaptation.
I’m a lot more worried about the impending extinction of “Nature”.
By the year 2047,
The 0-2000 metre ocean will have warmed from +0.065C to +0.14C (the deep sea fishes will of course notice this 0.075C increase in temperatures even though most of them only live several years).
The 0-700 metre ocean will have warmed from +0.11C to +0.21C (nothing will have happened here of course).
The surface ocean will have warmed from +0.29C to +0.58C (and everything will die here since the 0.3C temperature increase is so much more than the average change in the seasons of about 10.0C)
http://s21.postimg.org/6h0l0crzr/IPCC_Prediction_and_Ocean_Temps_L_2100.png
So this is an example of a climate science paper that we are just supposed to “believe” (in reference to the previous article on WUWT).
Paywalled of course, but here is the abstract……
“Unprecedented climates will occur earliest in the tropics and among low-income countries”
There’s going to be extreme weather in Cancun and Detroit……………
2047? I will most likely be dead (law of averages). If not, I can use the extra heat.
Two words: Utter Bullshit
Well, that’s a relief. We are doomed after all.
I was starting to get worried there, with all the talk of the IPCC downplaying the dangers of climate change and the admission that Global Warming has stopped. It’s good to know we are still on track for DOOM.
Janice Moore
October 9, 2013 at 4:28 pm
National Obama Agenda Administration
Where’s Big Jim Slade when you need him?
“The data came from 39 Earth System Models ”
Enough said. Translation: pure biased speculation aka utter garbage.
What! The alarmists have given up all hope on the Arctic and now it’s the tropics? Wow one little cold snap up north and the tropics are all the rage – climate models you know, 39 in all, and quite good I’m told.
Although the ice-free in 2013 Arctic didn’t happen; somehow these omniscient 39 models won’t miss in 2047.
Says who?
This is getting very widespread traction in the media around the world because it makes specific predictions about specific cities making it news in those places. No matter that the predictions are complete rubbish.
It is being widely reported as the year when the average weather will be exceptional. In many cases reporters are interpreting this as saying that after this point every day will have exceptional weather (OMG we are all going to fry!). But the paper discusses yearly averages not daily weather. The yearly average can be above normal at the same time that every day in that year falls well within the normal range. Indeed the size of the predicted rise is tiny compared to the daily variation.
Trying to use models which are all but invalidated by current temperatures to make such a prediction is merely silly. The reporting escalates the silliness into a complete train wreck.
My local newspaper reporting this carries this:
‘Study author Camilo Mora and his colleagues said they hope this new way of looking at climate change will spur governments to do something before it is too late.’
Clearly dispassionate, objective scientists, with not a hint of a political agenda!
All that’s left for these poor schlubs is a milk crate, a Bible-looking book titled “The Science is Settled” to wave around and a nice busy street corner on which to proclaim “We’re Dooooomed!”.
The end (theirs) is truly nigh.
I just had the pleasure (privilege?) of traveling in the Pacific northwest along the Columbia and Snake Rivers and saw the geologic legacy of Lake Missoula and the bursting (?) of the Missoula ice dam many thousands of years ago. I have a hard time with the idea that climatic history began 150-170 years ago. These climate models that can’t model recent history surely can’t accurately account for the climate of the distant past. Color me unimpressed. There is nothing new under the sun and there is nothing humans can do about it.
There’s the press release and a bit more from the author Camilo Mora (he’s a bloke) at http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/mora/PublicationsCopyRighted/Paper.html, see pulldowns.
Basically, by running 39 CMIP models with RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 they predict the average global mean temperature will exceed the historical (150 yr) maximum by 2047 (RCP8.5) or by 2069 (RCP4.5). They report that “As for our results, for RCP8.5, the mean year of climate departure was 2047 (i.e. average year from all 54,000 locations on Earth considered in our study) and the Standard Deviation was +/- 14 years. It follows, that 68% of locations on Earth will have climate departure between 2033 and 2061 and 95% of locations between 2019 and 2075.” The 2047 and 2069 dates are termed “dates of climate departure”
So it’s models all the way down, so I guess no data was harmed while running these models. 😉
Ms Mora continues the pattern with this list.
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/mora/PressRoom.html
Including gems like A clear human footprint on the Caribbean coral reefs and Risk of extinction accelerated due to interacting human threats.
Funny the things we do to pay off a mortgage.
OK, Mr, not Ms.
“Within my generation, whatever climate we were used to will be a thing of the past.”
There’s something in all this! My grandparents grew up in the wild 1890s, the true decade of extremes for Eastern Oz. My parents grew up in hot, dry times (with the odd flood chucked in, just because we’re Oz). I grew up in the wet, sappy 1950s, didn’t know about drought till I was about 12. Next gen came to the light in the wet, stormy seventies…
There’s definitely something going on with climate. Maybe we should send a few billion to someone-or-other. A few of those money guys who went down after 2008 are now on day release. Perhaps they can advise.
Scaremongering? You want some scaremongering? I got your scaremongering right here!
Boettger, et al (Quaternary International 207 [2009] 137–144) abstract it:
“In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities recorded by geochemical and vegetation indicators. The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events as observed in geochemical data on the lake sediment profiles of Central (Gro¨bern, Neumark–Nord, Klinge) and of Eastern Europe (Ples). Results of palynological studies of all these sequences indicate simultaneously a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last Glaciation. This paper discusses possible correlations of these events between regions in Central and Eastern Europe. The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages. Taking into consideration that currently observed ‘‘human-induced’’ global warming coincides with the natural trend to cooling, the study of such transitional stages is important for understanding the underlying processes of the climate changes.”
http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf
Say what? “…evident climatic and environmental instabilities” at the end of the last extreme interglacial?
“…pronounced climate and environment instability” OMG!!!
“…..consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages”
Who doesn’t get this memo?
That was the end of the last interglacial, MIS-5e, the Eemian. It didn’t have just one thermal pulse right at its very end, it was “marked by at least two warming events”, the second one being the stronger. The low-end estimate of the end-Eemian highstand is an order of magnitude higher than the AR4’s worst case upper-error bar “business as usual” case!
Get it?
Get it?
“Roasting” happens anyway, for crying out loud! You either do or don’t need CO2 for that to happen. And if you do, then OMG!!!!! Where did all that CO2 come from at the end-Eemian??? Did the vast population of hominids sharpening stones simultaneously discover beans and salsa, not once but twice at the end-Eemian?
If not, then things are far far worse than you may have thunk so far!
Because it doesn’t really matter, does it?
If CO2 spiked late Eemian climate twice, where did it come from? What could stone-age hominids have done to cause it? What could they have done to quell it?
Only one post Mid Pleistocene Transition interglacial made it much past half a precession cycle old, out of eight such interglacials, and that was MIS-11.
Olson and Hearty (2009) abstract it:
“As we have established here and elsewhere, the MIS 11 highstand
was in excess of 20 m, making this perhaps the single most
important global event of the past million years, and all the more so
for its potential heuristic predictive value as being the interglacial
most similar to the present interglacial now in progress in terms of
Milankovitchian forcing (Loutre and Berger, 2003). It thus becomes
essential that the full extent and duration of the MIS 11 event be
more widely recognized and acknowledged.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379108003144 (paywalled)
It undoubtedly was a travesty that we roasted throughout all of the longest interglacial (MIS-11, up to +21.3M amsl), and twice right at the end of MIS-5e (up to a possible +52M amsl http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf ).
I mean come on folks! You cannot be serious! I am supposed to be “roasted” by a puny +0.59M amsl rise by 2099 (AR4, figure 10.33, WG1) when the end-Eemian scored an order of magnitude, maybe almost two orders of magnitude more than this, from campfires????
Plus or minus beans and salsa? You’re kidding right?
It’s one thing to be retarded. It’s entirely another to be retarded by an order or two magnitude.
Just sayin………….
Suggested title change: “World to roast by 2047, women and minorities hit hardest.” More consistent with today’s climate reporting. /sarc
“The results shocked us.”
Maybe if the results shocked them it’s an indication the results are wrong.
Here are my thoughts. This actually highlights what I think is a systemic problem with Climate Science. Anyone can predict/project just about anything when framed around Climate Change/Global Warming. To say otherwise, you are a Denier. When in the fullness of time, those predictions/projects are shown to be wrong, and if you are a Denier, and point it out, well you are just cherry-picking.
The case in point is the prediction/projection by a certain scientist (I am assuming he/she was qualified to make the statement) stated that the Arctic would be ice-free in 2013. Well, that did not turn out so well. Indicating such has been met with “a single scientist said that, you are cherry-picking”. Where were the peer-reviewers in the meantime? Sitting on the side lines, eating popcorn watching the fun??
I’m sorry, but is this supposed to be science?
2047 is not that far away. This should be easy to falsify quickly. Even without taking measurements, getting from point A (present conditions) to point B (the purported catastrophe) looks to be a challenge to fundamental Laws of Nature.
‘“This paper is unusually important. It builds on earlier work but brings the biological and human consequences into sharper focus,” said Jane Lubchenco, former Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and now of Oregon State University, who was not involved in this study.
This paper is funded by a grant/cooperative agreement from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration… The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies.’
Oh, really?
“…a radically different climate by 2047…the global mean climate departure will be 2069.”
Wow, such power of precision right there! Blew me away. With a bit more work, they might narrow it down to the month so we can plan vacations.
These people are immune to facts, susceptible only to fantasies.
Interestingly, there was a segment today on Yahoo News on this, in which someone saying they were a co-author of this report and regretted how naïve and callow they were to buy into what it says..
Doug M says:
October 9, 2013 at 7:20 pm
Since the catastrophe is 34 years in the future, this study must be for the children.
(Sarc tag I hope not needed.)
“…
The data came from 39 Earth System Models…”
End of story.
“The index used the minimum and maximum temperatures from 1860-2005 to define the bounds of historical climate variability at any given location.“. How insane is this? On what grounds can they possibly claim that climate was less variable in the LIA, MWP, Eemian, etc, etc, than in this particular 145-year period?
“Tropical species are unaccustomed to climate variability and are therefore more vulnerable to relatively small changes“. The insanity knows no bounds. If the planet warms up as they expect, and if a tropical species can’t hack the extra heat, it can just move away a bit. That’s how evolution works. The species least at risk from global warming would have to be the tropical ones.
“Previous studies have already shown that corals and other tropical species are currently living in areas near their physiological limits“. Insane yet again. Species always expand to, or are restricted to, their physiological limits. That’s how evolution works. So NOT finding species at their physiological limits might indicate a problem.
William McClenney (October 9, 2013 at 7:01 pm) – Now that is truly scary.
This is great. I have been looking high and low for a recipe for Roast Earth.
Probably tastes like chicken a little.
From 1860 ff is starting with the bottom of the LIA, and following the rebound. Try going back the the Minoan Warm Period, with temps about 5°C above the present. Chewing on that will break the model’s teeth.
William McClenney says:
October 9, 2013 at 7:01 pm
What, you didn’t get the press release about the Neanderthal Industrial Revolution during the Eemian?
Nor that of Homo heidelbergensis during MIS 11, which is generally considered even warmer than the Eemian (MIS 5)?
Besides the abstract from Nature there is this to pick through…
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/mora/PublicationsCopyRighted/Paper.html
I am amused by the chutzpah of Moralab
“They are doing this because there is no incentive not to.” (A. D. Everard at 5:29pm today)
Exactly.
Hey, O Great Heart (I’ve read enough of your posts, esp. v. a v. “difficult” people to know that), how is it going, “off the grid?” I hope all is well. Take care. Your sweetness and light would be missed if anything went amiss with you down there. J.
***********************
“‘The results really shocked us,’ I mean, we told the models to tell us something … and do you know what… they did!” (Adam at 5:33pm today) LOL. #(:))
*******************************
Great summary, Bill Illis (at 5;40pm) — thank you. (and, lol, too, heh)
****************************
Hey, Starz Mom, glad you enjoyed such a pleasant vacation. I noticed you’d been missing from WUWT and had hoped it was because the work situation had improved drastically. How’s that going? You are on my prayer list (of people needing better or any employment). Take care.
**************************
“… A few of those money guys who went down after 2008 are now on day release. …” (Mo so, mo so 6:58pm) LAUGH OUT LOUD.
‘“This paper is unusually important…” said Jane Lubchenco, former Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration…’
According to Wikipedia, no less a Democrat than Barney Frank himself called for the resignation of Lubchenco from the NOAA.
9 Oct: NYT: JUSTIN GILLIS: By 2047, Coldest Years May Be Warmer Than Hottest in Past, Scientists Say
The research comes with caveats. It is based on climate models, huge computer programs that attempt to reproduce the physics of the climate system and forecast the future response to greenhouse gases. Though they are the best tools available, these models contain acknowledged problems, and no one is sure how accurate they will prove to be at peering many decades ahead…
The Mora paper is a rarity: a class project that turned into a high-profile article in one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals…
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/science/earth/by-2047-coldest-years-will-be-warmer-than-hottest-in-past.html?_r=0
From my last link click ‘data display’ and view your favorite city. The ‘pause’ is barely discernible,the temperature rise from, say,1970, is not hockey stick shaped, but steadily exponential. So the assumption is that the ‘pause’ is just that.
Oh,well, I guess that is what happens when you are
“The index used the minimum and maximum temperatures from 1860-2005 to define the bounds of historical climate variability at any given location. The scientists then took projections for the next 100 years to identify the year in which the future temperature at any given location on Earth will shift completely outside the limits of historical precedents, defining that year as the year of climate departure.”
This graph suggests something different
http://tinyurl.com/mny8ztj
Maximum vs Minimum Monthly Records by Decade
Although they don’t seem to be very specific about what exactly constitutes a climate “completely outside the limits of historical precedents”. Can we expect new records every day of the week?
Global warming caused by 39 climate models!! Crikey!
for those who think UK Daily Mail is sceptical, here they are in full alarmist mode, with these excerpts ending the article. they even manage to make it seem Judith Curry is sort of endorsing the study:
10 Oct: UK Daily Mail: James Nye: Apocalypse Now: Unstoppable man-made climate change will become reality by the end of the decade and could make New York, London and Paris uninhabitable within 45 years says new study
Judith Curry, a Georgia Institute of Technology climate scientist who often clashes with mainstream scientists, said she found Mora’s approach to make more sense than the massive report that came out of the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last month.
Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann said the research ‘may actually be presenting an overly rosy scenario when it comes to how close we are to passing the threshold for dangerous climate impacts.’
‘By some measures, we are already there,’ he said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2451604/Apocalypse-Now-Unstoppable-man-climate-change-reality-end-decade-make-New-York-London-Paris-uninhabitable-45-years-says-new-study.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Global Warming. Climate Change. Climate Disruption. Climate Shift.
Am I missing one?
…..said coauthor Ryan Longman. “Ironically, these are the countries that are least responsible for climate change in the first place.”
“This paper is unusually important……..
================
What is really ironic is the fact that nobody is listening anymore, don’t wait too long cus the grant money is going elsewhere soon.
Al Gore effect to hit International Snow Science Workshop (ISSW) in Grenoble and Chamonix
http://climategate.nl/2013/10/09/al-gore-effect-to-hit-international-snow-science-workshop-issw-grenoble-and-chamonix/
70-80% less snow at 1.800m in 2100 and a 90% reduction of avalanche warnings. At 3000m 20-30% less in the northern Alps but 50-60% in the Southern French Alps.
Host Gérald Giraud, scientist at the Centre d’études de la Neige (Météo France/CNRS) in Grenoble adds: “We have to wait till 2030-2040 to get rid of the inter annual climate variabilty.”
“We have to wait till 2030-2040 to get rid of the inter annual climate variability”
They predict there will be no difference between summer and winter….Bwahahahahah
This is tale of “Mad Men” en Eco Nazi’s.
This is the devil at work.
These people provide our crazy overlords with the excuse to wreck our civilization in favor of UN Agenda 21 where human kind is micromanaged and controlled like chicken in a factory farm.
And these hacks call us flat earthers, exremists, even terrorists for debunking their pack of lies.
When do we switch from from civil debate to tar and feathers and end this incredible evil scam.
Time is running out.
The Mora article, I am afraid has exactly the scare factor, red burning globe images that the media will lap up to sell their publications on a slow news week.
For example , from the dailymail above
Hyperbole on steroids.
Here in SE Australia we are having a blast of inland heat today with Sydney expecting 39°C, just wait for the news organisation putting these two events together to fill their news hour.
It’s hard to be a sceptic, we lack the pretty pictures.
Previous studies have already shown that corals and other tropical species are currently living in areas near their physiological limits.
=========
that is because most corals cannot live in cold water. so they are forced to live in a narrow band of warm water along the equator. Hawaii, where this paper was written, is at the outer range for most corals. The hottest ocean waters on earth, the Red Sea are home to fantastic corals. if things actually warmed up, then corals could expand worldwide.
so, yes corals are living in areas near their physiological limits – to cold. This paper is dishonest in its wording because it gives the impression that warming is a threat to corals, while the real threat to coral is cooling.
Are we going to recycle the some old same or has the time arrived for tar and feathers?
ferd berple says
‘so, yes corals are living in areas near their physiological limits – to cold. This paper is dishonest in its wording because it gives the impression that warming is a threat to corals, while the real threat to coral is cooling’.
We have corals for millions of years and they survived is ages, volcanic eruptions massive sea level changes, tectonic events and in the past century we even nuked only to find out they flourish 25 years later.
Just forget all about “high sensitivity” hog wash the eco nazi’s claim to turn you into a chicken in a chicken factory.
Because that;s exactly what UN AGENDA 21 is all about.
I started reading this, and started laughing. Then I thought I should be more considerate of the mentally handicapped. But I was laughing even more at the realization that this was self-inflicted angst.
So, the index used a historical low point as a baseline. But the uneducated won’t realize that because it was a long time ago and people didn’t change things much before then, right?
Again, this just makes me laugh. Because, no matter HOW HORRIBLE they predict things will be, someone always seems to come along and realize IT’S EVEN WORSE!
Well, the fact is, it’s climate “science” that’s EVEN WORSE than we thought. Anyone who starts with the presumption of a climate “departure”, then bends and stretches reality in order to determine when it will happen has no business in “Science”. None.
The reality is that corals are the pestilence of the oceans.
You sink a ship, with or without greenies, and 10 years later it is colonized by corals.
“projected”. I stopped giving this article any credibility when I saw that word. As models are already proving to be useless at forecasting and hind casting, why would one project using them? A bit sad.
OMG, Bob Geldof was half right!!!
Your lips move but I can’t hear what you’re saying
When I was a child
I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye
I turned to look but it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now
The child is grown
The dream is gone
And I have become
Comfortably numb.
2047? Can Camilo tell us if we should expect this catastrophe on a week day or weekend? I just want to make a note in my calendar.
Regrettably I couldn’t find a Comments box on the NY Times website for the story. So, “All the News that Fits One Side.”
R. de Haan says:
October 9, 2013 at 9:56 pm
The reality is that corals are the pestilence of the oceans.
You sink a ship, with or without greenies, and 10 years later it is colonized by corals.
=============================
What of the sirens ?
http://deoxy.org/alephnull/sirens.htm
(one take on it).
Independent finds a stronger headline:
9 Oct: Independent: Steve Connor: Unprecedented shift in temperature will begin to hit tropics in less than a decade
Areas with highest densities of wildlife and most vulnerable human populations will be hardest hit, says study
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/unprecedented-shift-in-temperature-will-begin-to-hit-tropics-in-less-than-a-decade-8869608.html
——————————————————————————–
Right on cue, Australia’s ABC radio had “University of Hawaii researcher Abby Frazier” on its morning “AM” program today, shrilly proclaiming doom. “Sydney will hit its new extreme climate in 2038 and Brisbane four years after that.” We can only hope that the new Aust Government finds some intestinal fortitude to pull the ABC into line with its Charter, or – better still – defund it!!!
It’s a pity nobody will be around to check their claims, since all humans might die in 2030. At least according to Bob Geldof 😉
Just out of interest here are a list of words that ‘may’ have emotional impact that appear in this article:
reveals urgent, disruptions, critically, extreme (appears 3 times), surprising, unprecedented (appears 4 times), radically different, shocked, coming soon, thing of the past, urgently, rapid, unaccustomed, vulnerable, developing (appears twice), Rapid changes, concerns, infectious diseases, heat stress, conflicts, and challenges to economies, least responsible, stunningly, sobering ramifications, exceed historical precedents, urgency to act, historical precedents, developed countries, difficult, repeatedly warned, climate change (appears 9 times)
Anyway to be fair 2047 is a lot more precise than 2050.
Banks also take minimum and maximum over a given time and than try to predict the future of stocks and currency. We all know what a great job they did!!. They use things like ( macd, fibonaci etc). With banks, these predictions are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Like a casino. Seems to me this study is doing the exact same thing. Banks know these are “lagging ‘ indicators and therefore not 100% reliable. Same with this study. Take past information and try to predict the future. It will not work of course. But it looks like real science. In fact this is pseudoscience. Mumbo Jumbo that’s what it is.
The torrent of scornful comments on the dailymail.co.uk should cheer you all up!
Disgraceful waste of my time! They should have put the paragraph beginning “The data came from 39 Earth System Models developed independently by 21 climate centers in 12 different countries.” at the top of the piece. Then I could have stopped reading earlier.
Quick,,
buy shares in sandwich boards !!!!
“Camilo Mora and colleagues in the College of Social Sciences’ Department of Geography at the University of Hawaii, Manoa have developed one such time frame.”
““The results shocked us. Regardless of the scenario, changes will be coming soon,” said lead author Camilo Mora.”
They have develop a TIME FRAME and were SHOCKED by it?
Is that like a schizophrenic, the only kind of person that can tickle himself?
I don’t know if the terminology has changed since, but when I took information theory at college (in the early 70’s) this statement would have been OK.
Your statement would have been along the lines of “the models output data, not information.”
Information may, or may not, be contained within the data.
Well, folks, it’s from ‘Nature’. Came 2000, they added a ‘Futures’ section to their weekly departments and have been running it since. This tosh was printed in a science fiction magazi
What were they smoking? I want some of it, too!!!
Taphonomic… you mean Roger Waters….
The important fact about this paper is that it comes from a geography department within the faculty of Social Sciences.
I assume that this is an experiment in post-normal science to see if you can get complete nonsense published provided it is packed with politically correct phrases.
“….more extensive funding of social and conservation programs”.
How convenient. The beauty of publication is that this kind of crap will still be there for all to review in the year 2047, long after this yet-another socialist paradise enterprise has long ago bitten the dust.
When you’ve only got a hammer everything starts to look like a nail…..
50 shades of junk.
I am convinced.
I am going to install “THE END IS NEAR” sign at the entrance to my driveway.
mogamboguru says:
“What were they smoking? I want some of it, too!!!”
The funds, maybe… but certainly not the addiction !!!
Alexander Feht says:
“I am going to install “THE END IS NEAR” sign at the entrance to my driveway.”
Seriously……???
“THE END IS NIGH !”
Much more credence, then.
It’s cold on the mountain, cold in the valley, cold in the river and cold in the sea.
Wise men said it was going to get warmer. But only the fuel bills are waiting for me!
GIGO.
Follow the money.
‘Camilo Mora and colleagues in the College of Social Sciences’ Department of Geography at the University of Hawaii, Manoa … study, entitled “The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability,” will be published in the October 10 issue of Nature’
Just how famous and renowned is the University of Hawaii? Maybe I’m not well read but I’m not at all aware of it in the same manner I’d be aware of MIT, or Caltech, or Univ. of Wisconsin – Madison, or William and Mary, or… And, the other question I have is; what is a Social Sciences’ Department of Geography? I’ve got a few more questions. Is a Social Sciences’ Department of Geography a scientific body qualified to do this kind of research? And why the fanfare about it (published in Nature, no less) coupled with the qualifier that it didn’t necessarily represent the views of its funder, the NOAA?
Oh, and that represents another question. Why was taxpayer grant money from the NOAA doled out to a Social Sciences’ Department of Geography in the first place? And to, what I believe, is a relatively obscure university? And why the response presented from Jane Lubchenco, former administrator of the NOAA?
Did I mention that Jane Lubchenco was appointed by President Barack Obama to head up the NOAA in 2009? Did I forget to mention that she was controversial? Criticized by former Senator Scott Brown? And called to resign by no less a Democrat than Barney Frank?
But let’s return to a former question. Why was taxpayer grant money doled out by the NOAA to a university in Hawaii for precisely this kind of study? Oh, and who flies himself and his family on the world’s most massive taxpayer funded private jet to Christmas vacation on that same tropical Pacific island, his former childhood home?
Science indeed.
Have the authors been studying Mayan culture?
The NYT now has an article about this: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/science/earth/by-2047-coldest-years-will-be-warmer-than-hottest-in-past.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131010&_r=0
It turns out that it started as a class project. So brainwashed, horribly misinformed, and certainly motivated to please their
indoctrinatorprofessor came up with the expected result. Surprise, surprise.Mmmmmmmmm. Now what do we have here?
The lead author of this study, the dapper Dr. Camilo Mora, is offering the following course for students at the University of Hawaii. So everybody, cancel your vacation cruises and sign up for this one:
‘AnthropoBiogeography
This is a novel field course proposed for the summer of 2012. The idea is to travel a 1000km stretch along the Caribbean coast of Colombia to explore the different ecosystems and the impact of difference human cultures. This landscape has everything from rain forests to corals, from deserts to snow mountain; all of it under human dominancy from different ethnic backgrounds (i.e. native indians, blacks and anglos). This particular part of Colombia is safe and a common destination for travelers worldwide.’
Oops. The cruise ship has left. The University of Hawaii hasn’t updated Camilo Mora’s website (perhaps because of the government shutdown). That novel course in ‘Anthropobiogeography’ (look that word up in the dictionary sometime) was for the summer of 2012. Sorry. But don’t worry, there’s always the UN which offers these kind of travel opportunities all the time, to “destinations for travelers worldwide.”
Why is this crap so predictable?
What do corals do?
Are they doomed?
Is it just the heat?
Sewage, divers handling corals, diesel from speed boats, oil spills and so on. It’s not always hot water and acid that caused coral bleaching.
Is all Arctic soot man made?
Adapted from Natures article referring to Jupiter & Saturn
“In their scenario, lightning zaps molecules of methane in the atmosphere … liberating carbon atoms. These atoms then stick onto each other, forming larger particles of carbon soot.”
Mmmmmm. The corals are so delicate, the end is nigh.
Didn’t corals become more widespread during the high co2 world of the Ordovician?
Speculative drivel based on climate models. What a load of crap. More pal reviewed horseshit.
“Areas in the tropics are projected to experience unprecedented climates first – within the next decade.”
I may not be around in 2047 (who knows?) but I’ll definitely still be here in 10 years. If they offer me 4:1 I’ll take that bet. If I borrow £1M from the bank, at 5% compounded I’ll owe around £1.63M after 10 years.
At 4:1 that makes me a profit of just under £2.4M. Enough for my pension 🙂
If they are really truly confident of their predictions/astrology then I should be expecting an email any time soon to confirm the bet. But I won’t hold my breath.
So in 35 years time, the historical lowest monthly average temperatures will be greater than any of the lowest monthly average temperatures experienced in the past 150 years to 2013.
How can a historical minimum increase?
This article is 10% light, non-technical descriptions of their “study”, and 90% unsupported claims of how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. It is so transparently unsupported as to be maddening. And their political (they are social scientists) goals are clear:
The study suggests that any progress to slow ongoing climate change will require a larger commitment from developed countries to reduce emissions, but also more extensive funding of social and conservation programs in developing countries to minimize climate change impacts.
Translated from alarmism: Transfer your wealth to undeveloped countries, and then give programs like ours (“social and conservation programs”) more money for our studies & activism.
I see several problems with the paper’s starting assumptions-
1. The climate models used are the ones that over-predicted the tropical troposphere hotspot anomaly by up to a factor of 10 relative to 1979. If the models are this bad in the tropics, then any conclusions about tropical surface temperatures going forward are absolute junk. Yet the press release emphasizes the coming temperature extremes in the tropics, precisely where the models perform the worst.
2. There are more than 39 model datasets available. Roy Spencer plotted up 73 models in a recent post. How did the authors decide which dead-certain models were the dead-certain-est?
3. The authors use the local gridded predictions from the climate models. Climate modelers have been quite clear that the local and even regional model predictions are absolute junk, and are demanding train-cars of money to keep working on the problem.
4. The authors use the local gridded historical temperature from 1860 – 2005 as a baseline for natural variability. I wonder if they looked at the number of weather stations in each grid before, say, 1900. There are almost zero measurements.
5. Since there are almost zero measurements in each grid cell, the 1860 – 2005 temperature records are likely filled in using… climate models! Anyone see a problem with this?
6. The historical temperature records have been systematically cooled in the past and warmed in the present. I wonder which archival version of the temperature data they used?
CodeTech says:
“Taphonomic… you mean Roger Waters….”
Nope, Sir Bob played Pink in the movie (Pink Floyd The Wall) and did a danged fine job of becoming comfortably numb, even if he didn’t like Mondays.
Briggs has an excellent post on this paper.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=9443
excerpt-
“I mean, anybody who can speak of Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) in equations as precise as “historical climate variability” = 1.2773 ln * “historical time bins” + 2063.2 should be heeded. I mean, 2063.2—point 2! That kind of confidence can’t be ignored.”
The great black king will save us all….no worries
I’ll be 100 in 2039. I had hoped that by my 100th birthday the consensus would be that the whole AGW thing was the greatest and most pointlessly expensive scientific hoax in all of human history. Now it looks like I’ll have to live to be 108. This 2047 date is so stupid that plenty of people will believe it and plenty will get rich and famous pushing the idea. The same fools who think Obamacare is a good idea will believe the nonsense. We never run out of gullible useful idiots.
Jimbo says:
October 10, 2013 at 5:31 am
“Didn’t corals become more widespread during the high co2 world of the Ordovician?”
Given that they are carbon based life forms with photosynthesizing symbionts, an abundance of carbon should be rather good for them, one would assume. Maybe it’s the HCl that the “scientists” use in their acidification experiments that harms them, after all.
Now that it has been clearly shown during the last 16.8 years that rising levels co2 do not raise global temperatures, there remain three major climate forcing factors that may shape our climate for the next 2-3 decades, namely a much less active sun, a changing global ocean SST cycle which is headed for cooler ocean surface temperatures and a cooling Arctic due to changing deep ocean currents. Volcanic eruptions can also alter global weather but their effect only lasts for a few years and their timing is unpredictable. However whether you accept that the sun or the oceans or both as the prime climate drivers, both factors seem to point to possible 30-35 years of cooler weather rather than unprecedented warming. If we are also entering the start of the trough period of a longer 110+ year climate cycle as a result of three low solar cycles which occur every 100 years or so, then we may have even colder weather than the typical ocean driven 60 -70 year climate. . This was the case during, 1790-1820 and again 1880-1910 troughs which were colder than 1945-1975 trough. In either case the winters may be getting progressively colder for the next several decades. Winters during the next few years may get colder and most likely by 2018/2020 will be much colder than today. The winters could stay cold for the next several decades. This colder period can be moderated by warmer El Nino periods which typically occur every 3-7 years, however, there are also fewer strong climate alerting El Nino’s during cooler periods [only one per decade]. Land locked areas like Central US, Central Canada (especially the Prairies), Central Europe and Asia which do not get the moderating effect of the oceans could have colder winters than the coastal areas. Given this possible scenario , it hard to imagine how the unusual warming talked about by the authors of this article will occur by 2047.
This is a remarkable paper.
They claim to be able to predict temperatures decades into the future in specific locations, each representing less than 0.2 ppm of the globe’s surface area.
The paper should have a caveat (like that found with the newspaper’s horoscope) added at the beginning of the abstract-
“This paper is for entertainment purposes only.”
Next stop — Hollywood special effects with movie and plot.
@frank Lee MeiDere –
You left out “carbon pollution” in your catalog of noms du jour.
good day to all.
Quick question…
Why aren’t these climate scientists working towards solutions or alternatives? If they are so certain, wouldn’t a funding boost to alternative means of energy production be the prudent move? Also, there is a lot of talk about climate change affecting ocean temperature yet very little talk is directed towards the polluting of the ocean with hazardous chemical waste and plastics. Shouldn’t that be a priority above and beyond stoking the fires of doom?
It’s all very confusing for a young person like myself. Taking on the climate debate is like denying the existence of god in medieval times… it’s heretical.
have a lovely day.
Wait, we’ll be able to check this before the geldofocalypse: they claim it will start in Kingston in a decade! The tropics, which have barely warmed through the entire satellite era, need to get cooking soon!
Meanwhile, winter started 2 months early with snow in Germany…
And a friend of mine who lives west of the Black Hills got 55 inches of snow…..in the first week of October?? Again I ask, what is so inherently BAD about warming??
BULLSHIT. Why are people allowed to get away with making stuff up? There is now evidence that “Tropical species are unaccustomed to climate variability and are therefore more vulnerable to relatively small changes”. What a load of sh!t.
Correction:
“There is no evidence that…..”
It’s worse than I thought.
We know that tropical species HAVE experienced NATURAL climate variability and have either survived, evolved or gone extinct. As for small changes, they happen every year, every 30 years, every 60 years and so on (large and small). This paper is toilet paper.
cupid says:
October 10, 2013 at 9:55 am
“Consensus, settled” climate scientists have already achieved their goals, ie an endless stream of funding.
RE: herkimer says:
October 10, 2013 at 8:18 am
At best the world could be recovering from the likely cold period that seems increasingly likely to span between 2015 and 2040.
Jimbo says:
October 10, 2013 at 6:20 pm
Tropical species migrate for a variety of reasons besides climatic changes:
http://www.pnas.org/content/71/2/339.full.pdf
Armadillos & ground sloths were among the many tropical South American groups which happily spread to North America when the Isthmus of Panama formed, venturing into subtropical, temperate & even Arctic regions.
2047? Didn’t somebody say back in 1988 that we’d all be dead by now? Now we have about another 25 years? In 2047 will have until about 2075?
I wonder if they picked 2047 rather than a round number like 2050 to give the illusion of precision? Or maybe it was just to catch people’s eye. I read somewhere years ago that there were fewer speeders in a particular construction zone after they changed the sign from “Speed Limit 35” to “Speed Limit 33”.
Well let’s see:
These Hawaii folks say it will soon get much hotter.
I say it will soon get colder, perhaps significantly colder.
Using the irrefutable logic of the IPCC, lets average the output of our models.
… Turns out we’ll be just fine.
[I suppose I have to say “sarc off”]
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this son of York;
And all the clouds that low’r’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
– Richard III
Yet more computer generated drivel awaiting a good slapdown.
“unusually important”? In her dreams. Just more Alarmist trivia.
Um, 47-13 = 34.
This is not a chawade. 😉
Someone please remind me why we should automatically consider “professional scientists” more credible than ” citizen scientists”. As a “professional scientist”, myself, I know full well the limitations and misunderstandings held by many peers, that are not suffered by many intelligent non-professionals. As with any field, we have some marginally qualified members to contend with. Occasionally they even get published.
====================================================================
Well, we are talking doomsday climate models. How important is accuracy? They only need the illusion of accuracy. Besides, 34 years didn’t seem imminent enough. Just trying help them out.
(Actually, a CO2 bubble from my carbonated beverage must have hit a brain cell or two. CO2, the miracle molecule. We can blame it for anything!8-)