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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

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

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

Latitude

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.

Janice Moore

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

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

“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

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

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.

Anachronda

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

Svend Ferdinandsen

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

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

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

AndyL

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.

climatologist

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

wayne

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

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

What about the polar bears?

Lord Galleywood

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

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

Mooloo

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.

Lauren R.

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

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

Curious George

Social scientists are the best ones. Remember Lewandowski?

Karl

And Activist (former NOAA chief) Lubchenko gave it her stamp of approval. What crap.

Henry

“….. but also more extensive funding of social and conservation programs..”
Bingo! I knew massive amounts of cash would be involved. -\

hunter

The ‘academic’ who wrote that tripe has left us with an indelible reminder that education does not equal intelligence.

richardscourtney

Lauren R.:
At October 9, 2013 at 3:45 pm you say

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.

“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

Berényi Péter

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.

omnologos says October 9, 2013 at 2:42 pm
This cannot appear 10 days after AR5 WG1 without destroying the IPCC’s usefulness for good.

My first thought was along this line too.
IPCC = Chopped Liver
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chopped%20liver
.

Gandhi

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.

faboutlaws

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?

JimS

The study forgot to mention that children won’t know what snow is anymore. How shocking.

Janice Moore

“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!

Janice Moore

Dear Richard Courtney,
How is your friend? I prayed.
Yours faithfully,
Janice

Tom J

‘###
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.

pat

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

Aussiebear

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”…

Robert of Ottawa

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.

Janice Moore

Nice analysis, Tom J. (at 4:20). Exactly. What does NOAA think they are? A television station or something? What a JOKE.

ColA

I wonder if they sent an early release to Bob Geldof and Greenpeace they seem to be all spewing the same witches brew??

richardscourtney

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.

Magicjava

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.

Janice Moore

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

Robert of Ottawa

BTW I intend to be around in 2047 to tell you what charletains you were.