
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A new study suggests that by 2050 people in Northern states might enjoy real Summers.
Cities of the future: visualizing climate change to inspire action
Our Climate Future
Millions marching the streets, daily articles in every newspaper and heartfelt pleas: never before has the topic of climate change been so omnipresent. The problem: We only have 11 years until passing the point of no return. If carbon emissions remain unabated, the Earth will be 1.5° C warmer by 2100 and the costs of climate change under a business as usual scenario will exceed $12 trillion by 2050. But what does this mean?
The imminence of the climate threat requires unified actions across all sectors of society. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that facts and data, which are often hard to understand, do not necessarily persuade people to act. Behavioral change is much more likely to be inspired by visualizations that make climate issues tangible.
Introduction
With our analysis, we aim to do just this. Rather than describing quantitative change variables, we paired the predicted climate conditions of 520 major cities in 2050 with analogues conditions of cities around the world today. We thereby demonstrate concrete scenarios for the future of the life in those cities. By making data relatable, we hope to motivate citizens and policy makers to adapt their decision making accordingly.
…
Read more: https://crowtherlab.pageflow.io/cities-of-the-future-visualizing-climate-change-to-inspire-action
If you wade through their tedious web presentation you finally get a website, which after a little navigation yields the actual study;
Understanding climate change from a global analysis of city analogues
Published: July 10, 2019
Jean-Francois Bastin , Emily Clark, Thomas Elliott, Simon Hart, Johan van den Hoogen, Iris Hordijk, Haozhi Ma, Sabiha Majumder, Gabriele Manoli, Julia Maschler, Lidong Mo,Devin Routh, Kailiang Yu, Constantin M. Zohner, Thomas W. Crowther
Read more: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217592
Combating climate change requires unified action across all sectors of society. However, this collective action is precluded by the ‘consensus gap’ between scientific knowledge and public opinion. Here, we test the extent to which the iconic cities around the world are likely to shift in response to climate change. By analyzing city pairs for 520 major cities of the world, we test if their climate in 2050 will resemble more closely to their own current climate conditions or to the current conditions of other cities in different bioclimatic regions. Even under an optimistic climate scenario (RCP 4.5), we found that 77% of future cities are very likely to experience a climate that is closer to that of another existing city than to its own current climate. In addition, 22% of cities will experience climate conditions that are not currently experienced by any existing major cities. As a general trend, we found that all the cities tend to shift towards the sub-tropics, with cities from the Northern hemisphere shifting to warmer conditions, on average ~1000 km south (velocity ~20 km.year-1), and cities from the tropics shifting to drier conditions. We notably predict that Madrid’s climate in 2050 will resemble Marrakech’s climate today, Stockholm will resemble Budapest, London to Barcelona, Moscow to Sofia, Seattle to San Francisco, Tokyo to Changsha. Our approach illustrates how complex climate data can be packaged to provide tangible information. The global assessment of city analogues can facilitate the understanding of climate change at a global level but also help land managers and city planners to visualize the climate futures of their respective cities, which can facilitate effective decision-making in response to on-going climate change.
…
Reading a bit further, we encounter this gem;
…
The proportion of shifting cities varied consistently across the world. Cities in northern latitudes will experience the most dramatic shifts in extreme temperature conditions (Fig 2C and Fig 2D). For example, across Europe, both summers and winters will get warmer, with average increases of 3.5°C and 4.7°C, respectively. These changes would be equivalent to a city shifting ~1,000 km further south towards the subtropics, i.e. a velocity ~20 km.year-1, under current climate conditions (Fig 2C and Fig 2D). Consequently, by 2050, striking changes will be observed across the northern hemisphere: Madrid’s climate in 2050 will be more similar to the current climate in Marrakech than to Madrid’s climate today; London will be more similar to Barcelona, Stockholm to Budapest; Moscow to Sofia; Portland to San Antonio, San Francisco to Lisbon, Tokyo to Changsha, etc(Fig 3, S2 Table).
…
Read more: Same link as above
Let’s imagine for a moment the unlikely possibility that this study is correct.
What is so bad about moving 1000km closer to the tropics?
People like myself voluntarily live in very warm climates. Its not so bad – no freezing your proverbials off on cold winter mornings.
And its not like people wouldn’t have time to adjust.
Florida is the place people retire, because of its gentle warm climate. Most people who move to Florida don’t have any trouble adjusting.
As for more rainfall seasonality, so what? Just build a few more reservoirs. Surely the engineering capabilities of 2050 will be up to the job of collecting a little more rainwater.
I actually enjoy reports like this – all doom and gloom and hyperbole in the introduction, but when you lift the cover on the cage of their monster it turns out to be an inconsequential little mouse.
No wonder they built a funky web presentation to try to make their report look impressive.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“and cities from the tropics shifting to drier conditions.” If the GHG theory was true (but it isn’t) you need water vapour forcing to pump up the heat trapping because 413 ppm isn’t enough, then the tropics would have to have even more water vapour not less. The climate scientists can’t even get their theory correct.
So now it is Global Warming Again?
I thought the official Alarmist Meme was Climate Change?
As Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming kinda stalled out and has not happened.
Right there the speculation that increased atmospheric CO2 causes warming died.
So then it was Climate Change,without specifying what change is manmade,yet always prattling on about Global Warming, where yesterdays storms were weather and all todays storms are “Unprecedented”.
Do these hacks even believe their own story?
There is always a large gap between the date we are all doomed because of climate change and the date we are “informed” of this impending disaster. The gap is to enable those spouting this rubbish not to be blamed when it doesn’t happen because people will have forgotten who said it (except maybe Al Gore). Life would not exist without CO2. Beleve it or not, the sun has an effect on climate temperatures. Now, who would have thought that?
Since 1880 we’ve had roughly 0.8C and yet in London the temperature will rise 6C in 30 years i.e. 2C per decade?
Calling BS on this
In London, the temperature can rise 6 C in less than 30 hours!
We call it weather.
Auto
It can warm more than 20 C in just a morning, but the point with the OP is about monthly or seasonal temperatures.
A 6c rise in monthly temperatures is extremely BS in just over 30 years at a rate about 20 times greater than global temperatures. It is mathematically and physical impossible against the rules of science and logic. Most of the warming is occurring in winter and overnight closest to the poles, so beneficial and not harmful to life.
It is very clearly nonsense, but nonsense gets a free pass with no supported scientific evidence when it suits the cause and agenda in climate science. The level of scrutiny is zero when for the cause and quite the opposite side of the scale when against it.
https://youtu.be/qJUFTm6cJXM
So yet more 30 year out predictions? Riiiiighhhhhtttt…!
Chicken Little and I have been around for quite a while and the sky is still not falling.
For the sake of completnes an opinion of a climate scientist regarding this paper:
James Annen says: https://twitter.com/jamesannan/status/1149225140372279296
The temperature of London increased about 0.2 K/dec during 1970…2018. To hit the paper-claimed value of 2K to 2050 the warming must speed up with a factor of 3 in the next years. It’s not described how.
In a study ( https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa75d7) also from the ETH Zurich the authors in 2017 concluded, that one can’t match 2 annnual variables, the authors of the recent paper managed 19!?
Methods: did they caclulate only the present year (2000) and the future year (2050) for every location or also the years in between? IMO not described.
All in one: garbage.
That there are “extinct” climates, i e climates that do not exist anywhere today, but have existed in the past is a commonplace in paleontology. Google “disharmonious assemblages”.
This surely applies to future climates as well.
Yes, I didn’t dispute this. However, I downscaled the CMIP5 mean to the region of London and found for RCP4.5 ( which they used in the paper) a warming rate of 0.23 K/ dec for 2000-2050. I could not find any hint in the paper how they calculated 0.66 K/dec for 2K warming (from their linked data base) between these years.
So in the 1st approach the results seem to be garbage or “a load of bollocks” as it was expressed by James Annen.
Read how they got the result. They used PCA for 19 climate variables and selected 6 of them as “the most significant”:
“The main contributing variables to the four components are the temperature seasonality (axis 1), the minimum temperature of the coldest month (axis 1), the maximum temperature of the warmest month (axis 2), the precipitation seasonality (axis 2), the precipitation of the driest (axis 4) and of the wettest (axis 3) month, and the temperature diurnal range (axis 4, Fig 1).”
Note that (average) temperature is NOT one of their “contributing variables”. It is quite possible for two places to have completely different climates and still be similar in most or all of their “contributing variables”. For example Stockholm and Budapest (one of their city pairs) have pretty much the same maximum and minimum precipitation and preciptation seasonality, that is three of their six variables already. However the annual cycles are utterly different, Stockholm is driest in March, Budapest in September, but that is NOT one of their variables. Budapest also has a much longer and warmer summer, and about 4.5 C warmer annual average. Neither is one of their variables. And so on.
All they have managed to do is to show how NOT to use Principal Component Analysis.
Yes, I know.. They made a pdf- analyses and catched one of 19 variables to blame it on the GMST of the location to lift up the modeled T increase. Didn’t you get the clue? Sorry..This approach belongs on the heap of fake-science. Not the only one….Asking for a novel peer review.
Looks like its time to warm up those old Spindizzies and fly those Cities South!
Climate – weather – climate – weather. Weather is what we remember.
Like the summer of ’93 – remember it well – it was the afternoon of Sunday, July 18. We were volunteer campground hosts at the US Forest Service Diamond Lake Campground, Oregon. Elevation: 5,200 feet. That year, Crater Lake National Park a few miles away had about 600 inches of snow. It’s weather, one just gets used to it…..
The game of when-will-it-hit-the-north-kick-the-can.