World to roast by 2047, film at 11

the end is nearA 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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

177 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 9, 2013 2:42 pm

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?

milodonharlani
October 9, 2013 2:47 pm

Conveniently far in the future so that all the prognosticators will be retired.

Latitude
October 9, 2013 2:51 pm

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

October 9, 2013 2:52 pm

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.

Janice Moore
October 9, 2013 2:54 pm

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.

Andy Wilkins
October 9, 2013 2:56 pm

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!

Charlie Young
October 9, 2013 2:57 pm

“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

Paul Martin
October 9, 2013 2:57 pm

The models have been effective at reproducing current climate conditions…

Hmm. Must be some other models than these “climate centers” have been using so far.

KNR
October 9, 2013 2:59 pm

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

Admin
October 9, 2013 3:00 pm

Yes but will 27 degrees from the equator be enough? I might need to move closer before the Gore effect kicks in.

Anachronda
October 9, 2013 3:03 pm

Given that every year is The Warmest Year EVAR! ™, I would have expected departures from historical norm to occur more quickly.

Svend Ferdinandsen
October 9, 2013 3:04 pm

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.

Gras Albert
October 9, 2013 3:13 pm

Hey Mora, here’s a link for you
.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
.

Domingues et al (2008) and Levitus et al (2009) have recently estimated the multi-decadal upper ocean heat content using best-known corrections to systematic errors in the fall rate of expendable bathythermographs (Wijffels et al, 2008). For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 – 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960’s.

.
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”

TImothy Sorenson
October 9, 2013 3:15 pm

“The data came from 39 Earth System Models” sheez…
The made up future…

AndyL
October 9, 2013 3:16 pm

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?

October 9, 2013 3:19 pm

“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.

climatologist
October 9, 2013 3:19 pm

Complete nonsense. Nobody can forecast that far into the future. When will they ever learn.

wayne
October 9, 2013 3:26 pm

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!

En Passant
October 9, 2013 3:27 pm

I will not believe this until these alchemists tell me the day and the hour the world will fry …

October 9, 2013 3:33 pm

What about the polar bears?

Lord Galleywood
October 9, 2013 3:35 pm

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 😀

GlynnMhor
October 9, 2013 3:43 pm

“The data came from 39 Earth System Models…”
Models do not output data.
They output numbers of various sorts, but not actual data.

Mooloo
October 9, 2013 3:43 pm

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.

October 9, 2013 3:45 pm

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.

wayne
October 9, 2013 3:50 pm

Seems I should have said “bud” and not “honey”. 😉

1 2 3 8