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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?