'Climate models predict' – women, minorities, and children hit hardest, film at 11.

From the UNIVERSITY OF EXETER and the “opportunity to raise attention to this issue” department comes this bit of drivel. Note the map.

Temperature swings to hit poor countries hardest

Temperature fluctuations that are amplified by climate change will hit the world’s poorest countries hardest, new research suggests.

For every degree of global warming, the study suggests temperature variability will increase by up to 15% in southern Africa and Amazonia, and up to 10% in the Sahel, India and South East Asia.

Relative changes (%) of standard deviation of monthly temperature anomalies from pre-industrial conditions to the end of the 21st century, averaged over 37 climate models. CREDIT Sebastian Bathiany, Wageningen University

Meanwhile, countries outside the tropics – many of which are richer countries that have contributed most to climate change – should see a decrease in temperature variability.

The researchers, from the universities of Exeter, Wageningen and Montpellier, discovered this “unfair pattern” as they addressed the difficult problem of predicting how weather extremes such as heat waves and cold snaps might change in a future climate.

“The countries that have contributed least to climate change, and have the least economic potential to cope with the impacts are facing the largest increases in temperature variability,” said lead author Dr Sebastian Bathiany, of Wageningen University.

Co-author Professor Tim Lenton, from the University of Exeter, added:

“The countries affected by this dual challenge of poverty and increasing temperature variability already share half of the world’s population, and population growth rates are particularly large in these countries.”

“These increases are bad news for tropical societies and ecosystems that are not adapted to fluctuations outside of the typical range.”

The study also reveals that most of the increased temperature fluctuations in the tropics are associated with droughts – an extra threat to food and water supplies.

Relative change in standard deviation of monthly temperature anomalies until the end of the 21st century versus per capita GDP in different countries. The red line marks zero change in temperature variability. The blue line marks half of the current world population. CREDIT Sebastian Bathiany, Wageningen University

For their investigation, the team analysed 37 different climate models that have been used for the last report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Although climate variability has been studied extensively by climate scientists, the fact that climate variability is going to change has received little attention in fields investigating the impacts of climate change.


The authors see their study as an opportunity to raise attention to this issue.

The paper, published in the journal Science Advances, is entitled: “Climate models predict increasing temperature variability in poor countries.” http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/5/eaar5809

107 thoughts on “'Climate models predict' – women, minorities, and children hit hardest, film at 11.

  1. In other words they want rich countries to send cash to poor countries and level the playing field, but the climateers will not suffer at all, they will just soak the rich.

  2. “For every degree of global warming, the study suggests temperature variability will increase by up to 15%”
    Supposedly we’ve already had that 1 degree…..so where’s the proof of all this damage

    • “Meanwhile, countries outside the tropics – ….should see a decrease in temperature variability.”
      Well……that flies in the face of what they’ve been saying

      • So. the Arctic Amplification problem was a false alarm, and the principle affect of “Climate Change” will be to make places that are dreadfully hot and humid less so at times?
        I suppose I have that all wrong. I have a problem that way.

      • There will be a decrease in temperature variability but at the same time we will have more heat waves, bitterly cold winters, floods droughts and anything else that you can think of. Climate change can do anything and it is all our fault!

      • If you follow the link and read carefully….they absolutely destroy global warming theory

    • THANK YOU! Amazing how it’s NOT HAPPENING, but it’s somehow always just “around the corner” to just the right extent that WE can supposedly “avert disaster” if we just give up some more of our money and freedom pronto.

      • From the papers Conslusion section:
        “Models and observations indicate that the anthropogenic signal may not yet have emerged from the “noise” of natural variability but can be expected to do so during the 21st century.”
        … not just around the corner … according to this guy it will begin to peek out sometime this century.

      • “noise” of natural variability….
        They just said everyone else has been lying….

      • The biggest problem with their around the corner is that they employ circular reasoning. You always are looking for the corner and go around and around over it.

  3. It seems to me that if you average the projected variability across the globe, it comes out to approximately zero change in variability. And averaging things across the whole planet is what it’s all about isn’t it?

  4. This was, of course, NPR’s featured “Climate Scare Of The Day” yesterday.

  5. It hits women, but then, gender is fluid now, so women can still choose to be men and not be impacted by sexist climate.

    • I never thought of that argument but it is indeed brilliant. There is no need for gender quotas like some government legislative bodies have as a rule and many other organizations too because women can just choose to be men if they want to and thus escape the scenario of being discriminated against just because they are a women. Since there are a vast majority of men sex changing to women versus women sex changing to men, this proves that almost all women enjoy being women but an increasing number of men would rather be a woman. So in the end there must be some advantage to being a woman or the ratio of sex changes would be the other way around. 😉

      • bisphenol-A in the plastics. Entheo-estrogens increasing in the food supply, along with soy products, which necessarily affects males more than females. Think about it too. Emotion is the killer of logic, and males are more logical by nature while females are more emotional to nuture the offspring. So, these males are now suffering from extreme emotional crises not before seen in the male population, and their reaction to the indoctrination of the state pushing for an androgenous society, is to naturally “feel” that they are females.
        Then go look at the suicide rates of those who have a full surgery, it is rather high from what I recall.
        These people are sad pawns in a globalist game of depopulation, and even more sadly, they are self-mutilating on their path to extinction. What a sad species this is to contain such imbecilic individuals (who by the way, have no idea what the word actually means because the group think has a hold on their collectivist little minds)

    • Illinois Senate passes bill requiring LGBT history curriculum be taught in public schools
      Illinois came one step closer this week to joining California on the list of states with a mandated LGBT curriculum for public schools. Lawmakers in the Illinois Senate passed a pro-LGBT bill on Wednesday…

      • Illinois Senate passes bill requiring LGBT history curriculum be taught in public schools

        The question is why LGBT history should not be taught? And why a law had to be passed now to get public schools in line with the reality, model 2018?
        To paraphrase using reductio ad absurdum with a Goodwin argument, Na zis could have been teaching history of jews for reasons other than telling that jews are persecuted in worldwide.
        Teaching is usually no problem. You might disagree with the content, i.e. details of what is deemed true. In my opinion, LGBT history is an important topic nowadays worth two pages in a school curriculum. Teaching that does not mean teaching you should start fracking your fellow mate.

  6. In a perverse sort of way there may be some truth in these results in that the people in the poorer/less developed countries shown in pink on the map will suffer the most. After all, they will never be able to afford energy from renewables, nor access to the internet for education, nor access to medical services that rely on reliable power and so forth. I’m sorry that Australia also seems to be involved in this but, hey, they are providing some pretty good crash test dummies for green energy policies so they know what’s coming.

  7. Now we’re accusing nature of producing an “unfair pattern”? Damn man, damn nature, damn God for creating all of this (if he did).

    • Nature is often referred to as “Mother Nature”, ergo nature is not merely sexist but actively sexist against itself.

      • Remember the margarine ad where ‘Mother Nature’ gave a devistating thump to the offending product and said “You Can’t Fool Mother Nature”? This is another example of mother nature getting even.

  8. What a crock! How many times have they spewed about “polar amplification,” i.e., that it is the COLDEST, DRIEST areas that will experience most of the “warming?!” And indeed ANY warming will generally produce such “amplification,” because that’s where the Earth’s climate system pumps ANY heat – to the coldest areas. Suggesting that the equatorial regions are going to have the “most variability” in temperatures is possibly the biggest whopper they ever spat out of their useless “models.”

    • Ah, but I notice the map shows PERCENTAGE increase or decrease of variability. The reddest spot on their globe is in the Amazon rainforest, which has very small absolute variability…that is, every day is hot with high humidity. So if their computer models show a little increase in absolute variability, that is divided by current near-zero absolute variability to get the biggest percentage increase in variability. That might look scary, but it’s likely just random noise in their computer models.

      • Yeah, it’s a pretty wacky statistic. I’m still trying to figure out what it really means and whether it has any real-world significance…. Temperature is not normally distributed for a start.
        In any case, it is going to be no more comprehensible to the average man on the street, whose eyes will glaze over when confronted again by more of the ‘blind them with science statistics’ type of approach.

      • I wonder if there is even a good standard on how you would measure variability? From hottest summer day to coldest winter night? As average daily swing? I see so well my damn stupid green friends telling me this science is yet again settled, though not they nor me know what those funny modelled percentages mean for real.

      • Ah, the map is the modelled monthly temp anomaly modelled average change percent. Oh dear it would be nice to see that on Kelvin scale.

  9. From the papers Conslusion section:
    “Models and observations indicate that the anthropogenic signal may not yet have emerged from the “noise” of natural variability but can be expected to do so during the 21st century.”
    This guy says the human caused portion of the climate change may begin to peek out from under the blanket show up some time this century;
    As opposed to browngoremann that says (based on the second to last redline date that it gave us) that its too late and we are going to all die … most likely from a fatal-leathal event.
    (There was a sci fi movie with sandra bullock that used the term murder-death-kill … maybe moonbean sits in the dark and watches too many sandra bullock movies and the terminology has rubbed off on him.)

  10. I’ll tell you what’s “racist:” “Climate change” POLICIES. Which by making ENERGY unaffordable and/or unavailable, will do more harm to “minorities” (along with everyone else who isn’t a rich, politically connected scumbag) than all the CO2 we can muster.

  11. Climate variability – is it something to suppress? Germans have a nice word Gleichschaltung.

  12. The Y axis of the scatter chart:

    Changing magnitude of temperature fluctuations until 2100 (in %)

    The graph goes from -30% to +20%. Are they using centigrade? If the old temperature was 0°C, and the new temperature is 1°C, the increase was infinite percent!
    I have no idea what they’re comparing but I suspect that these folks are innumerate.

    • I thought they were comparing the total amount of temperature fluctuation?
      Now the amount of fluctuation is going to be X% bigger, or smaller, depending on your gender.

      • Probably. Suppose the fluctuation is now zero. Suppose the fluctuation in 2100 is 0.1°. That’s still infinite percent.
        So often we see a PhD level of analysis undone by a grade school level misunderstanding of the basics.

      • And your age. And amount of melanin in your skin. If a light(er) skinned person and a dark(er) skinned person live next door to each other, the light(er) skinned person will have a “better” climate in his yard.

      • Well, that makes no sense. The girl is always turning up the thermostat. They should be cheering for global warming based on gender.

    • A percent does not ask if it as an anomaly as degrees K, C or F. But it might be small number anyway.
      By the way, did you notice countries with big anomalies are richer? Big anomaly increases national wealth, because you have to invest hundreds of thousands to a well-insulated, well founded house, wear clothes, think how to move in cold weather using motorized vehicles, etc. Get a nice cozy place with a stable weather, people will be happy but poor. (except in Florida, of course, where people are either happy or poor).

  13. Note that the map shows PERCENT change, not ACTUAL change.
    The area with the greatest increase in variability is the Western Amazon, an area with a quite exceptionally stable climate. The annual range in monthly temperatures is about two degrees, from 26 to 28 degrees, so the indicated 50% increase would mean that the annual range would go up to three degrees.
    Tropical areas generally have rather small annual ranges.
    The area with the largest percentual decrease variability seems to be the area around the Barents Sea, where the annual range is about 15-25 degrees, so a 50% decrease there would mean 8-13 degrees instead.
    The areas with continental climate and really large annual variability (Siberia, Central Asia, Inland North America) apparently will not experience much change at all. For example Yakutia with annual range of sixty degrees will get a decrease of about 5 %, so down to 57 degrees…
    So overall this is apparently a very minor effect blown up by inappropriate statistics in order to manufacture another fake climate news story.

  14. Strange that the satellite maps show temp-anomalies in the exact OPPOSITE areas than the map in this post does.

    • This map is claiming to show how much temperature can be expected to fluctuate. Not how much the average is going to differ from now.
      Two different things.
      (Note, I don’t buy either claim. But let’s at least criticize them for what they are saying.)

  15. Another way to look at this particular ensemble of flawed GCM runs is that the Northern hemisphere in general will be cooler than the Southern hemisphere. Not surprising since the Southern hemisphere summer is closer to the sun than the Northern hemisphere is during its summer. Many factors influence temperature distribution especially land mass differences between Northern and Southern. Increasing CO2 will continue to benefit plant growth in both hemispheres so it us far more likely to benefit mankind than harm it. As far as CO2 being a major factor in the natural warming, I would not give it much credence.

    • That’s not what the map shows. The claim is that the amount of yearly fluctuation in temperature will be greater in the SH compared to the NH, not that the temperature change will be greater.

  16. So, if we do nothing to stop climate change, it will impact poor countries the most. And if we do take steps to prevent climate change by limiting the use of fossil fuels, it will impact poor countries the most. I guess it sucks to be poor. But who knew that Gaia was racist, sexist, and hated the poor so much? The hardcore left, who are overly concerned with climate change and political correctness, have no other choice now but to boycott Gaia and go live on Mars. DLTDHYOTWO.

  17. And now, a brand new fantasy creation, from the people who brought you – “Tropical troposphere hit hardest by non-existent hotspot”.

  18. This is the latest tactic in the Neo-Marxist Left Wing repertoire of whining weasel words :
    ” FAIRNESS ” , ” It’s so UNFAIR ……what about me ? ….It isn’t FAIR ! ” and so it goes on and on …………….
    Somehow LIFE is supposed to be FAIR !…… How and WHY ? ………. What a load of horsemanure !!
    EVERYBODY is supposed to achieve EQUAL OUT-COMES under this FAIRNESS farrago ! More manure !
    NOT EQUAL OPPORTUNITY !!….. No !! …………. Special privileges and heaps of other-peoples-cash !
    Geographical ” Victimhood ” for the downtrodden masses ! Compensation for Accident of BIRTH !?
    Western World Capitalist Oppressors MUST PAY FOR THEIR PRIVILEGED POSITION !!
    After all……………it’s only FAIR !! Besides which , THEY are the only ones with any wealth !!
    I am sad that WUWT gave them the space or the time to air their stupid , greedy , selfish doctrine !

  19. Does anyone have a copy of the study? What exactly do they mean by temperature variability–the range between daily highs and lows, how much temperature will change from one day to the next, one week to the next, between winter and summer? Are they saying strong polar amplification will occur but that warmer-than-present weather will be more constant in high latitudes than hotter-than-present weather in the tropics?

  20. Off topic!
    There have been a number of recent filings in the Exxon case, links here:
    The revised motion to dismiss is particularly interesting and very powerful. Someone with more time and energy than me might like to write a guest post summarizing it.
    My impression from the level of argument and depth of citations, its no more than an impression though, is that dismissal is quite on the cards.

  21. It must be global warming because this change in ‘variability’: temps up not down in the poor (badly governed) countries is going to manifest itself in droughts mainly. Few notes:
    – the Sahel is where the most spectacular greening is taking place, they used to have crippling droughts.
    – another off in the future disaster, ho hum … every predicted horrid, torrid, florid, morbid, sordid disaster predicted over the past couple of centuries is still lined up for the future! These clones thinks that makes them higher probability.

  22. It’s always nice to find a nugget of good news in these articles:
    “The countries affected by this dual challenge of poverty and increasing temperature variability already share half of the world’s population, and population growth rates are particularly large in these countries.”
    In contrast to every other critter brought to our attention by the peer-reviewed prophets of doom, human sex drive is not adversely affected by global warming.

  23. Given that “climate models” can’t even forecast, predict or project anything about climate, we know where this paper is going!
    Hau hau

  24. The Y axis on the graph is wrongly labeled. The caption shows what they are attempting to measure( ie variability). The problem is that any computer model that attempts to measure the variability of any statistic 100 years into the future is attempting to measure not only the variability of its precision ( rounding errors but also the variability of its accuracy ( internal accuracy representation of the real world physical processes). So the model is attempting to measure its own code.he results are meaningless because the internal accuracy representation of the real world physical processes is so POOR that any conclusion is useless.

    • Worse yet they ran a bunch of models and averaged the variability. So they may have reduced or increased the variability by using more than 1 model ( compared to original model) but they guaranteed meaningless results. Worse than that even if the internal accuracy representation of the real world physical processes was excellent, trying to measure variability of one statistic 100 years into the future guarantees the result of high variability because of rounding errors. To add to the futileness of this whole study, the longer you project into the future the higher the precision errors total becomes which guarantees higher variability. This study may qualify as being the most statistically invalid study of all time.

    • To add to the futileness of this whole study, the longer you project into the future the higher the precision errors total becomes which guarantees higher variability. This study may qualify as being the most statistically invalid study of all time.

  25. “Meanwhile, countries outside the tropics – many of which are richer countries that have contributed most to climate change – should see a decrease in temperature variability.”
    There’s the problem — those poorer tropical countries haven’t contributed their fair share to climate change. They need to start building coal fueled power plants and driving SUVs ASAP. I’m sure there is enough $$ in the green energy funds that could be redirected to assist in this effort. Not only would this apparently reduce the temperature variability, but it would also provide energy for air conditioners. Win-win.
    Of course temperature variability might be a relative thing. Here in Wisconsin we consider the normal range of temperatures to be -20 to +100 F (-29 to 34 C) on an annual basis and +/- 20 F (11 C) in 24 hrs. I think it is much smaller in the tropics. e.g. in Honolulu the average summer temperature is 80 F and the average winter temperature is 73.2 F (26.7-22.9 C). I don’t see how they can stand it. 😉

  26. The solution seem obvious (to me, anyway). Raise the living standard of the poor countries by implementing democracy and capitalism, thus raising the living standard and allowing the people to adapt to whatever Mother Nature throws at them. At the same time, the socialist and Marxist destroyers of those countries will be tossed upon the manure-pile of history where they so rightfully belong. Seems like a win-win.

  27. My God, can they even come up with a new line?
    I guess there’s just no creativity in a hive mind.
    Must be why Hollywood produces nothing but remakes and sequels.

  28. I’ve never heard of anyone dying of a “percentage” and I don’t believe their premise anyway. The wet tropics have the least temperature variation on earth whether diurnal or seasonal so despite a percentage increase of that small range of temperature it could remain a comparatively small range compared to a numerically equal percentage of reduced range of temperature in some cooler drier place at a higher latitude. That and we already know that cool kills more people than warm so I rate this whole thing as junk science that is resorting to percentages in order to hide the actual ranges of temperature occurring at the various locations they are using for comparison.

  29. It starts University of Exeter so academically no more needs to be said as to the standard and no debate is needed about the contents.

  30. More pointless rubbish coming out of climate science, l simply don’t waste my time on it.
    Not when there is a “increased jet stream activity alert” in the Arctic over the next 3 days. The jet stream will be driven up into the Arctic over the Atlantic and loop around the Arctic, and then push south over NE Russia. During March and April when we had other “Arctic looping jets” NW Eurasia and N America got hammed with cold. Now we are in May and with the Arctic warming l will be looking with interest to see what happens this time. Because i think if this jet stream patterning turns up often enough for long enough then its a climate changer.

  31. Adult males of predominantly European ancestry constitute only about four percent of the planet’s human population, so of course minorities, women and children will be more affected by any global phenomenon.

  32. “up to 15% in southern Africa and Amazonia, and up to 10% in the Sahel”. This is like a “sale — up to 50% off” — any given item may be on sale at 5% off, or not at all.

  33. Climate change energy levies are killing people in the UK. Today.
    Dont tell me climate change doesnt affect rich countries.

  34. So when, “the polar regions heat up the fastest”, didn’t pan out, way too many burgeoning pops of whales, polar bears, seals and a pestilence of penguins, plus a Southern Ocean that just doesn’t read Nature, or play ball, the hysterics ‘improved’ their computer model, so that the tropics now warm up first.
    “It’s a bloody miracle!”

  35. Ah, that explains why we had higher unemployment and more people on welfare when the greenies were in charge.

  36. It is interesting that they said minorities are hurt. Clearly when you are in another country, say in Africa, the whites are a minority group. So do they mean the whites in Africa? I assume they are just being lazy and assume the America centric view of the world where Whites are the majority everywhere.

Comments are closed.