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.
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.
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Off topic!
There have been a number of recent filings in the Exxon case, links here:
http://climatecasechart.com/case/people-state-california-v-bp-plc-oakland/
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.
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.
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.
“…human sex drive is not adversely affected by global warming.”
Well that can’t be right, “researchers” have already “proven” that human sex drive will be depressed by climate change.
https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/health/climate-change-sex-drive-birth-rate/index.html
CO2 can do anything!
Given that “climate models” can’t even forecast, predict or project anything about climate, we know where this paper is going!
Hau hau
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.
“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. 😉
Are they modeling a “tropical hotspot”?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Looks to me like a Centennial cycle effect on the aa index centennial record could better be thought of as a sawtooth function.
sorry wrong thread. Comment above was meant for another WUWT thread.
That function is cutting edge!
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.
correction.
northern Russia not NE Russia.
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.
So ‘temperature variability’ is the next BIG SCARE?
“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.
Climate change energy levies are killing people in the UK. Today.
Dont tell me climate change doesnt affect rich countries.
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!”
Ah, that explains why we had higher unemployment and more people on welfare when the greenies were in charge.
Indeed it’s an unfair pattern. This may be some solid basis the poor countries ask for support internationally to cope with the challenges in the near future.
It is somewhat less solid than a soap bubble.
Eye roll to the max. I just can’t read the article.
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.
Climate change effects gullible people the hardest