Quantcast

Wednesday, July 30, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 45 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

UH scientist's study sees much higher temperatures in 30 years

By Seth Borenstein

AP Science Writer

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 12:08 p.m. HST, Oct 09, 2013


WASHINGTON >> Starting in about a decade, Kingston, Jamaica, will probably be off-the-charts hot -- permanently. Other places will soon follow. Singapore in 2028. Mexico City in 2031. Cairo in 2036. Phoenix and Honolulu in 2043. 

And eventually the whole world in 2047.

A new study on global warming pinpoints the probable dates for when cities and ecosystems around the world will regularly experience hotter environments the likes of which they have never seen before. 

And for dozens of cities, mostly in the tropics, those dates are a generation or less away.

To arrive at their projections, the researchers used weather observations, computer models and other data to calculate the point at which every year from then on will be warmer than the hottest year ever recorded over the last 150 years.

For example, the world as a whole had its hottest year on record in 2005. The new study, published today in the journal Nature, says that by the year 2047, every year that follows will probably be hotter than that record-setting scorcher.

Eventually, the coldest year in a particular city or region will be hotter than the hottest year in its past.

Study author Camilo Mora and his colleagues said they hope this new way of looking at climate change will spur governments to do something before it is too late. "Now is the time to act," said another study co-author, Ryan Longman.

Mora, a biological geographer at the University of Hawaii, and colleagues ran simulations from 39 different computer models and looked at hundreds of thousands of species, maps and data points to ask when places will have "an environment like we had never seen before."

The 2047 date for the whole world is based on continually increasing emissions of greenhouse gases from the burning of coal, oil and natural gases. If the world manages to reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases, that would be pushed to as late as 2069, according to Mora.

But for now, Mora said, the world is rushing toward the 2047 date. 

By 2043, 147 cities -- more than half of those studied -- will have shifted to a hotter temperature regime that is beyond historical records.

The first U.S. cities to feel that would be Honolulu and Phoenix, followed by San Diego and Orlando, Fla., in 2046. New York and Washington will get new climates around 2047, with Los Angeles, Detroit, Houston, Chicago, Seattle, Austin and Dallas a bit later. 

Mora calculated that the last of the 265 cities to move into their new climate will be Anchorage, Alaska -- in 2071. There's a five-year margin of error on the estimates.

------ 

Online:  

Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature 

Mora lab: http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/mora/





More From The Star-Advertiser

Say aloha to balmy weather, study says




 Print   Email   Comment | View 45 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(45)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Hapa_Haole_Boy wrote:
Back in the 1980s there was clamor that 30 years on it'd be doomsday all around. That came and went. This is fearmongering, nothing more. Yes using renewables are probably a better idea than fossil fuels, but the truth is we don't know enough about climate and our world to know what is truly going on. This study goes back just 150 years-- past ice ages would last hundreds of thousands of years, as would corresponding "hot ages" in the past. Until and unless we understand more of our planet and how it works in the macro sense (i.e. thousands of millions of years), then these kinds of studies and the resulting recommendations that come from them are not useful nor accurate.
on October 9,2013 | 11:13AM
Nevadan wrote:
Aloha Boy. You fail to understand that this discussion is about human-generated global warming.
on October 9,2013 | 11:39AM
Hapa_Haole_Boy wrote:
Nevadan, that's the whole point. These studies purport to create findings based on supposed human-generated causes of global warming when we know so little about how our earth works that there may (and probably is, given how small the sample set is (150 years)) be many other factors at play. E.g. the natural ebb and flow (i.e. ice age, then hot age, then ice age) of the earth is such that we are coming out of an ice age (which is fact-- early medieval times are documented to have been cooler than subsequent centuries) and entering a "hot age"; nothing to do with man-made gases but solely based on the natural workings of the earth. So this clamoring about how humans are causing this may very well be false. The bottom line is-- we need MORE INFO, A LOT more. 150 years is just the blink of an eye in earth terms.
on October 9,2013 | 11:56AM
Nevadan wrote:
Aloha Boy. You still fail to grasp. The message is that human pollution dominates.
on October 9,2013 | 12:11PM
Hapa_Haole_Boy wrote:
That's not what the study says, nor can it say that without a more complete data set. And it's not about political view, it's about sound statistics and scientific method.
on October 9,2013 | 12:27PM
GONEGOLFIN wrote:
Hapa_Haole_Boy, I have to agree with you on several points. I feel there is not enough research within the cyclical arena of thought. True, we as a human race are not helping with the emissions we put into our air, but I can't ignore the fact that our planet is an every-changing world that will continue to evolve with or without our help.
on October 9,2013 | 01:43PM
Nevadan wrote:
Go back to school.
on October 9,2013 | 02:11PM
Hapa_Haole_Boy wrote:
I'm not the one who can't grasp the flaw here. Nevadan needs to go back to school, or better Nevada.
on October 9,2013 | 03:30PM
Matsu wrote:
CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant. Where were you in the 70's when the Scientism consensus told us that human pollution was causing a new ice age? It's ALL about politics and control. Follow the money. These [professors that push global warming depend on research grants, and nobody gives grants to solve something that is not perceived as a problem, hence they have to create a disaster scenario. Have any of you ready the e-mails sent among the researchers at East Anglican, where much of the global warming research numbers were developed? According to Al Gore's warnings back in the early 2000's, Oahu should be under water by now, and how many of you know that the earths warming has been on hold now for the past 15 years?
on October 9,2013 | 03:31PM
Hapa_Haole_Boy wrote:
Matsu you make good points. You speak to the motives of these scientists and studies, and they help to explain why they are making these claims. Also yes, I recall hearing about those emails you speak of, and that the earth is currently not "warming" over the past dozen or so years.
on October 9,2013 | 03:44PM
Slow wrote:
So your point evidently is that we should just wait. Does not sound like sound long-term thinking tome.
on October 9,2013 | 01:40PM
Hapa_Haole_Boy wrote:
I never said to wait Slow. I even say that using renewables are probably a good idea (see original post). The point I'm making is these studies are limited and do not help frame our thinking when it purports to give recommendations (stop all fossil fuels! It's all our fault! The sky is falling!) when by the very nature of the study (severely limited data set) such conclusions and recommendations cannot possibly follow. It's as if this happened: A song is 5 minutes long, including several hundred/thousand notes to it. You're asked to identify the song by hearing just a millisecond of one note of the song. How can you possibly identify what song it is, let alone genre, era? It's impossible given how much longer the rest of the song-- THE DATA SET-- is.
on October 9,2013 | 02:11PM
Nevadan wrote:
The trend is correct. No one with any intelligence would argue with the trend, except right-wing conservatives. The numbers may be arguable. The investigators are probably assuming that the human pollution continues to increase, compounding the numbers.
on October 9,2013 | 11:58AM
mitt_grund wrote:
I'll be long dead then. Yup, leave those problems to my engineer son-in-law who says global warming is a bunch of huey, louie, and dewey. But I do worry about my wife, daughters and grandchildren.

.I guess at that time, Waikiki will become the Pacific Venice. Gondola and gondolier services, anyone? That should be romantic. But all that underground parking ... all gone. Tourist will be able to snorkel without leaving their hotels. Will the Ala Wai Golf Course be submerged?

It must be serious when even Republicans are now couching their opposition to finding solutions to global warming not as stupid, but as un-affordable.


on October 9,2013 | 12:58PM
Nevadan wrote:
I like your fantasy
on October 9,2013 | 02:21PM
Anonymous wrote:
Nevadan, you're the one with no intelligence if you would not chanllange those trends like we challenge any piece of information that has such far reaching consequences. Take that trend farther back, before the industrial age and you will find numerous times where we've gone through warming and cooling. Blindness by an uninformed populace is what makes us take stupid, and costly steps with no one standing up and challenging the PC decisions made by politicians doing anythng they can to get elected.
on October 9,2013 | 07:48PM
thepartyfirst wrote:
They can't even tell us the weather next week or tomorrow but they can predict 30 years from now?
on October 9,2013 | 04:13PM
st1d wrote:
mora used an exhaustive 39 model computer analysis to come up with his conslusions. that's more than enough to include all possible known and unknown variables affecting global warming. his work is so exhaustively conclusive that we should believe him. don't worry about that variable listed as "other data" which could be anything from fudged figures, to only using temperature readings from meters set in urban hot spots, or other "tricks" to induce the findings he needs to prop up.
on October 9,2013 | 11:26AM
allie wrote:
true
on October 9,2013 | 11:41AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
So did he get an A from his professor?
on October 9,2013 | 11:32AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
One factor: much higher did not give a number. Now one csnn
on October 9,2013 | 11:33AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Now one cannot stand the heat in Campbell High School, so much higher means maybe 5 degrees Fahrenheit higher or more?
on October 9,2013 | 11:34AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Thirty years from now, those born this year (and 2013 is unfortunately an unlucky numeral), will be 30 years old, while some will be 95, some 94, some 93, some 92, some 91, some 90, some 89, some 88, some 87, some 86, and me 85 if I did not pass away yet. Omg, let's bookmark this story so we could see if it came true.
on October 9,2013 | 11:39AM
Nevadan wrote:
He is probably the professor.
on October 9,2013 | 12:06PM
allie wrote:
Ewa and Waianae will be hotter than ever!
on October 9,2013 | 11:40AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
Don't worry allie, North Dakota is near the Canadian border so u have a few more years to plan.
on October 9,2013 | 11:47AM
1coconut wrote:
It would be nice if they posted the data in this article.
on October 9,2013 | 12:08PM
XML808 wrote:
A reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels is desireable from another standpoint - these sources took mllions of years to create and the world is consuming them at an ever increasing rate. I wish I could recall the study that predicted the point where consumption outstripped development of new reserves. Anyone recall the source? Even if we can avert global warming, we still need to figure out how to provide fuel to the growing demand being placed on energy producers. No single source is capable of meeting current energy demands, if one dismisses nuclear energy as a viable alternative.
on October 9,2013 | 12:20PM
lee1957 wrote:
It sounds like the study you are thinking of is "peak oil" but even that is in dispute.
on October 9,2013 | 04:09PM
AhiPoke wrote:
IF correct, this study indicates problems that are probably too late to correct. 30 years in the life cycle of earth is less than a blink of the eye. There's also no hope that, even if the US were to make radical change, the rest of the world will make even a little bit of change. So, IF true, enjoy your life while you can because we're doomed.
on October 9,2013 | 12:39PM
environmental_lady wrote:
Try to convince the Koch Brothers, the classic climate change deniers who pour millions into campaigns to deny global warming and prevent research into renewable energy since they made their big bucks from oil.
on October 9,2013 | 12:51PM
lee1957 wrote:
You are the next target of the men in black helicopters. Cuckoo, Cuckoo!
on October 9,2013 | 04:10PM
lokela wrote:
Shave Ice Time
on October 9,2013 | 01:01PM
akamaistyle wrote:
According to the Global Warming Policy Foundation shockingly concluded recently that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997 while CO2 emissions supposedly responsible for global warning has increased! The polar ice cap is 29% bigger than last year causing transportation problems. Absolutely none of these FACTS have been disputed rather a scrambling for an explanation is going on. Seth Borenstein (writer of this story) please go back and ask for an explanation. Even religion needs some facts.
on October 9,2013 | 01:15PM
Slow wrote:
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a British group whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate global warming. The organization has declined freedom of information requests about its funding. Probably just a coincidence but its headquarters occupy a room at the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. Hardly a credible source. Read the Wikipedia article. One more fact: the polar ice cap, many experts say, is up to 60% bigger than last year's minimum. And it is "near the norm of the past decade" and did not reach the historical normal (I Googled polar ice cap bigger?). Keep digging, aka. There actual facts out there. The overwhelming majority scientific opinion is clear. It is not a conspiracy.
on October 9,2013 | 02:06PM
Manoa2 wrote:
Be sure you got the name of that organization correct-- I think you are naming the worng organization, the one you name does not do global warming research, but attempts to criticize research supporting policies to counter global warming. Hence the name "Policy" and not research.
on October 9,2013 | 02:17PM
akamaistyle wrote:
Mahalo for the correction of the Global Warming Policy Foundation! It's really the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): that there has been no statistically significant increase in annual global temperatures since 1997 while CO2 emissions supposedly responsible for global warning has increased! The polar ice cap is 29% bigger than last year causing transportation problems. Absolutely none of these FACTS have been disputed rather a scrambling for an explanation is going on. Seth Borenstein (writer of this story) please go back and ask for an explanation. Even religion needs some facts.
on October 9,2013 | 02:34PM
Sunny wrote:
This supports our public schools requesting air conditioning which will consume more electricity contributing to global warming!
on October 9,2013 | 02:49PM
oahuresident wrote:
Dr Mora's CV indicates he is a biologist and has no qualifications to be conducting research on climate change.
on October 9,2013 | 03:59PM
BluesBreaker wrote:
Does it make you feel better then that the vast majority of actual climate scientists (99%) concur that the earth is getting warmer because of humans burning of fossil fuels? Naturally, I hope they are all wrong, but I'm not betting on it.
on October 9,2013 | 04:21PM
Nevadan wrote:
Aloha Oahuresident. Science writer Seth Borenstein needs to provide (1) which journal published this result? (2) Which agency provides the funding? Nothing new in this article.
on October 9,2013 | 07:53PM
Nevadan wrote:
Science writer Seth Borenstein needs to provide (1) which journal published this result? (2) Which agency provided the funding?
on October 9,2013 | 07:35PM
Fred01 wrote:
I am now officially stupider, having read over this set of comments. Amazing how stupid humans can be. Thanks especially to Hapa_Haole_Boy!
on October 9,2013 | 04:51PM
64hoo wrote:
that global warming nonsense by these eviromental Wacko's said that 30 years ago and look nothing has happen. what a joke.
on October 9,2013 | 06:00PM
Nevadan wrote:
Science writer Seth Borenstein needs to provide (1) which journal published this result? (2) Which agency provided the funding?
on October 9,2013 | 07:48PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News