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.
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?