New research reveals that without significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, up to 70% of the global population will face drastic changes in extreme weather within the next two decades.
The study highlights potential outcomes of extreme temperature shifts and altered rainfall patterns, emphasizing the urgent need for comprehensive climate action to mitigate these impacts and prepare societies for increased climatic events.
Climate Crisis Alert
Nearly three quarters of the global population can expect strong and rapid changes in extreme temperatures and rainfall in the next 20 years unless greenhouse gas emissions are cut dramatically, according to a new study.
Led by scientists from the CICERO Center for International Climate Research and supported by the University of Reading, the research shows that 20 percent of the population could face extreme weather risks if emissions are cut enough to reach the aims of the Paris Agreement, compared to 70% if limited action is taken.
Scientific Insights on Extreme Weather
The new paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, shows how global warming can combine with normal variations in the weather, to produce decade-long periods of very rapid changes in both extreme temperatures and rainfall.
Few studies have explored the impact extreme weather will have on different countries. Dr. Carley Iles, lead author of the research at CICERO, said: “We focus on regional changes, due to their increased relevance to the experience of people and ecosystems compared with the global mean, and identify regions projected to experience substantial changes in rates of one or more extreme event indices over the coming decades.”
Unprecedented Conditions
Large climate model simulations were used in the study to show that large parts of the tropics and subtropics, encompassing 70 percent of current population, are expected to experience strong joint rates of change in temperature and precipitation extremes combined over the next 20 years, under a high-emissions scenario. With strong emissions mitigation, the number is expected to drop to 20 percent, or around 1.5 billion people.
Rapid changes increase the risk of unprecedented conditions and extreme events that currently account for a disproportionate share of the realized impacts of climate change. For example, heatwaves may cause heat stress and excess mortality of both people and livestock, stress to ecosystems, reduced agricultural yields, difficulties in cooling power plants, and transport disruption. Similarly, precipitation extremes can lead to flooding and damage to settlements, infrastructure, crops and ecosystems, increased erosion and reduced water quality. Thus, society seems particularly vulnerable to high rates of change of extremes, especially when multiple hazards increase at once.
The Paradox of Pollution Cleanup
Dr. Laura Wilcox, co-author at the University of Reading, said: “We also find that rapid clean-up of air pollution, mostly over Asia, leads to accelerated co-located increases in warm extremes and influences the Asian summer monsoons. While cleaning the air is critical for health reasons, air pollution has also masked some of the effects of global warming. Now, the necessary cleanup may combine with global warming and give very strong changes in extreme conditions over the coming decades.”
While the new paper focuses on the likelihood of rapid change, the authors emphasize that the results have important implications for climate adaptation. “In the best case, we calculate that rapid changes will affect 1.5 billion people. The only way to deal with this is to prepare for a situation with a much higher likelihood of unprecedented extreme events, already in the next 1-2 decades,” says Dr. Bjørn H. Samset at CICERO Center for International Climate Research. Samset has contributed to the newly published study.
Reference: “Strong regional trends in extreme weather over the next two decades under high- and low-emissions pathways” by Carley E. Iles, Bjørn H. Samset, Marit Sandstad, Nina Schuhen, Laura J. Wilcox and Marianne T. Lund, 9 September 2024, Nature Geoscience.
DOI: 10.1038/s41561-024-01511-4
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
30 Comments
Why is this warning any more believable than the forecast this year for a significantly above average Atlantic hurricane season, which appears to be on track for a below average season? I’m reminded of the fable about “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”
It will be a great tragedy if the public loses trust in science because some scientists use their position of authority to advocate for a political agenda rather than being scrupulously objective about what the data say.
Hurricane season isn’t over. There is one headed our way now and two more storms behind it. Find some new news sources — yours are spinning the facts.
Today is the usual peak of the hurricane system. With the hiatus in August, it is unlikely that this year will even be typical, let alone significantly more active. It is possible the initial two forecasts will happen. However, even the experts have finally seen the handwriting in the sand. See the links I provided about a week ago in the comments section at:
https://scitechdaily.com/a-storm-of-sand-the-powerful-intercontinental-reach-of-saharan-dust/
the number of weather extremes are already increasing
As usual, your are providing assertions without any support for them. That comes across as wishful thinking.
my hypothesis is that the AMOC is already being disrupted, and that’s making hurricane forecast models less accurate. but the el nino was slow leave, and the weather over Africa was unusual, plus a near la Nina formed in the tropical Atlantic, it cooled off
Actually, hurricane forecasters don’t really use models the same way that meteorologists or climatologists do. Instead, experts who have studied hurricanes for many years provide a subjective estimate based largely on statistics. Perhaps things are changing and it has been a curve ball for the forecasters. Eventually, we will find out if there is any merit to your hypothesis.
Do you have any measurements to show that the AMOC has slowed down, or is that more wishful thinking?
While we are waiting, I’ll just point out that a “near La Nina” is like being nearly pregnant. I think that what you should have said is that the ENSO index was in neutral territory, being neither El Nino or La Nina.
It never ceases to amaze me how the faithful can rationalize counter facts to convince themselves that their belief is justified. However, it is mostly those who already believe who accept the spin. Unsupported assertions are largely ineffective with skeptics who demand evidence. “In God we trust. All others, bring data.” — The Right Stuff.
Read the peer reviewed scientific literature, which all tells the same story. Humans are now in profound trouble for failing to act on climate change when we had a chance of surviving it. This was in 1988 when Dr. Carl Sagan and Dr. James Hansen warned the US Congress and the US President that fossil fuel emissions posed an existential threat to humanity. Neither Reagan or the US Congress lifted a finger. Instead of reacting defensively out of your ego, you should spend the time to educate yourself about the issue. This is not a conspiracy theory or a political talking point. This is the aggregate of peer reviewed scientific data of tens of thousands of the world’s top scientists.
“… Dr. James Hansen warned the US Congress and the US President that fossil fuel emissions posed an existential threat to humanity.”
Because you imply that you have read everything that has been published, and think that I haven’t read any of it, I’m surprised to discover that you think that Hansen is some kind of prophet. In actuality, his forecasts more than 30 years ago were not as good as a simple linear extrapolation of the historical data, and his best forecast was based on hypothetical volcanic eruptions that never took place.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/
“Instead of reacting defensively out of your ego, …”
What makes you think that I am ignorant of the literature? I have provided more facts, frequently with links, than all of you combined who are unhappy with what I have to say.
When you point a finger at someone to accuse them of something, there are three fingers pointing right back at yourself.
“Humans are now in profound trouble for failing to act on climate change when we had a chance of surviving it.”
What incontrovertible proof do you have that we are in trouble and will not survive the challenge?
Attaboy! Global warming ain’t real. Don’t worry about it. You’ll be fine…🤡
If you don’t understand the question, then I guess I shouldn’t expect you to provide any answers. So, the sarcasm is understandable.
I never said that global warming wasn’t real. And if most of the speculations were actually happening, there would be reason to worry.
There is qualitative evidence that Earth is warming. The polar ice packs are apparently declining. The planting zones are shifting, largely as a result of the last killing frosts occurring earlier, and the first killing frosts coming later in the year. However, the quantitative evidence is less robust because of using weather data that is unfit for climate purposes, using daily mid-range values instead of arithmetic means, and inappropriately claiming more precision in reported averages than is justified, particularly the historical data that commonly have an uncertainty of about +/-0.5 deg C.
The last glacial maximum was about 20,000 years ago, with it warming in starts and fits, with some temporary setbacks. So, the real question is, “What is the human contribution to the warming over the last 20,000 years?” Warming and cooling have taken place on Earth long before humans could have potentially been a contributor. It is not reasonable that natural variability would suddenly stop with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, despite claims of the human contribution ranging from 0% to 110%, we don’t really know. We do know that sea level rise was much greater about 11,700 years ago, and has been comparatively much smaller the last 8,000 years. Estimates of the contribution of increasing CO2 vary from a low of less than 1 deg C to more than 5 degs C for a doubling of CO2, with the most common assumption being about 3 degs C for the last 40 years. However, there are reasons to believe that while CO2 is part of a feedback loop, it is primarily temperature that is driving the increase in CO2. Again, what is actually happening is not well known and is subject to debate.
Then we have people like Mr. Bone who is so confident that he has all the answers that he doesn’t feel any need to contribute any facts to the discussion and can get by just ridiculing anyone who questions the reliability of claims that never seem to happen. He displays the confidence and certitude that is usually found in the realm of theology. My point was that assertions that are unsupported by facts are not science, even if spoken by those who claim to be scientists by virtue of how many years of formal education they have, rather than the humility of a life-long student who is always saying, “That’s interesting. I wonder why that happened?” The latter is the real scientist, regardless of how much formal education they have.
well we have heard this rhetoric from the GW denial community many times. earths climate as always changed, lets cherry pick the data. but gw deniers still have no mechanism, no rigorous science that explains the current warming which began with the co2 emissions of the industrial revolution and intensified in the last 30 years. thats why gw deniers have no credibility, they have no rigorous science. please tell us why the climate is warming
I’m not a community, I’m an individual. I find the use of the term “deniers” to be objectionable because of its derivation from the claim of “Holocaust Denial.” I explicitly stated above, “I never said that global warming wasn’t real.” Thus, you are presenting a straw man argument with no validity.
If I have cherry picked data as you claim, then present the data that counters my data.
Lastly, you have presented a fallacious argument in demanding that I present a complete explanation for something in order for it to exist. Consider that you come across a dead body, with no obvious cause of death. Are you going to be unwilling to accept that the person is dead because you don’t have a cause of death? Sometimes there is just the ‘brute fact’ of the existence.
However, Occam’s Razor implores us to accept the simplest explanation. You apparently missed the point that geologists define the Holocene as being one of several interglacials following the last major glaciation of the Pleistocene. Humans may be contributing to the current warming (although there are some who question that), but the warming started more than 20,000 years ago and is generally attributed to what are called the Milankovitch Cycles.
One can usually identify the ‘woke’ elements in society because they pledge allegiance to science, despite usually not being able to define it. They also consider themselves entitled and above the rules of grammar, punctuation, and capitalization. They think that they are ‘all knowing,’ and have no responsibility of presenting anything other than their opinions.
Riddle me this, then, El Sarcasmo: if it’s real, why is Manhattan still not under water?
It should’ve been, by the time Al Gore finished his campaign around the world.
I mean, we’ve been listening to these catastrophic forecasts for ages now. Clyde is right. These people cry wolf way too much.
So true. Bergs are not melting. The people on an Island In the Pacific have not had to leave because of higher sea levels. More people are not dying because of higher temps. There Is no global warming here. Please don’t be alarmed by all those Phd types.
Thank you Clyde Spencer for once again taking the time to present the reasoned, rational arguments against, in my opinion, the unscientific AGW climate change promoters
Much appreciated.
My limited contribution to the above, is that: this paper reads like a smorgasbord or mishmash of phrases/words used by the pseudoscience climate-alarmists. Did they also use AI to find and write some of this drivel …
Some obvious examples are:
– UNPRECEDENTED
– EXTREME CONDITIONS/EVENTS
– RAPID CHANGES
– ACCELERATED CO-LOCATED INCREASES IN WARM EXTREMES
– AIR POLLUTION
– STRESS TO ECO-SYSTEMS
– HIGH EMISSIONS
– GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
– EXTREME TEMPERATURE SHIFTS
-NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE CLIMATE ACTION.
I could go on listing the many more examples.
It really is a strange, sad world we live in these days when this type of publication is being passed off as serious science.
no rigorous science explains the current warming trend, except for GHG driven warming. the GW denial community has no science that explains the warming trend
You are demonstrating that you don’t understand science and how it works. GHG warming is but one of several working hypotheses that should be considered. You are of the opinion that it is the only one that explains the current warming trend because you dismiss the alternative hypotheses without evidence. Your mind is made up because you have accepted a hypothesis that is incomplete but has the backing of many. The best that can be said for it is that it is the currently accepted paradigm. That doesn’t mean it is true, or even the best explanation. I think it was Michael Crichton that said, “If it is consensus, it isn’t science.”
I am curious to understand the post-1944 rapid exponential increase in human population and the same rapid exponential increase in atmospheric CO2 (that has occurred in lockstep with population increase), known since 1827 to be a greenhouse gas. 1827 hasn’t got much significance, whatever the error bars on the Gregorian calendar, and I blame instead the invention of antibiotics for much of the world’s post- 1944 increase in world population, not to mention organisations such as the UN running major vaccination programmes such as that which wiped out smallpox by 1979, although the free provision of clean drinking water and good sewerage systems by “socialist”governments no doubt contributed their share to the forthcoming global warming disaster, whenever that might occur in the the 100+\- 50 years.
That disaster will include unscientific warfare as we run around hitting some other tribe on their collective heads (vide the West Bank of Palestine and Gaza) as growing populations seek diminishing supplies of water, such as in the River Jordan running between Babylon and Israel, or the assorted glacier-fed rivers that prevent much of Asia and South America from getting thirsty .
Warfare is political, and any scientist who doesn’t see the political ramifications of Anthropogenic Global Heating and DOESN’T get -political about it is doing us all a serious disservice)
o2
“… I blame instead the invention of antibiotics for much of the world’s post- 1944 increase in world population, …”
Medicine certainly played an important role. However, sanitation and improved hygiene was also important. Even the manufacturing of affordable insect screen for windows played a role. But medicine doesn’t help if people are starving. It was the Green Revolution — industrial farming with machines and fertilizer, and effective herbicides and insecticides that allowed food production to grow faster than the population that was the key to over population. You have a limited view of history. I’m going to guess that it wasn’t your favorite subject in school.
I am curious to understand the post-1944 rapid exponential increase in human population and the same rapid exponential increase in atmospheric CO2 (that has occurred in lockstep with population increase), known since 1827 to be a greenhouse gas. 1827 hasn’t got much significance, whatever the error bars on the Gregorian calendar, and I blame instead the invention of antibiotics for much of the world’s post- 1944 increase in world population, not to mention organisations such as the UN running major vaccination programmes such as that which wiped out smallpox by 1979, although the free provision of clean drinking water and good sewerage systems by “socialist”governments no doubt contributed their share to the forthcoming global warming disaster, whenever that might occur in the the 100+\- 50 years.
That disaster will include unscientific warfare as we run around hitting some other tribe on their collective heads (vide the West Bank of Palestine and Gaza) as growing populations seek diminishing supplies of water, such as in the River Jordan running between Babylon and Israel, or the assorted glacier-fed rivers that prevent much of Asia and South America from getting thirsty .
Warfare is political, and any scientist who doesn’t see the political ramifications of Anthropogenic Global Heating and DOESN’T get -political about it is doing us all a serious disservice).
“Extremely warm waters across much of the Atlantic basin area ideal for tropical development and rapid intensification, but the surge of dry air, dust, wind shear, and cold waters off the coast of Africa have prevented most tropical waves from developing into a tropical storm or a hurricane,” DaSilva said.
Unfortunately, the forecasters seem to have ignored the fact that despite there being warm water in the Atlantic, the water is cold in the critical area of where most hurricanes are spawned. That is kind of like blaming an automobile accident on slick roads the next state over.
I am curious to understand the post-1944 rapid exponential increase in human population and the same rapid exponential increase in atmospheric CO2 (that has occurred in lockstep with population increase), known since 1827 to be a greenhouse gas. 1827 hasn’t got much significance, whatever the error bars on the Gregorian calendar, and I blame instead the invention of antibiotics for much of the world’s post- 1944 increase in world population, not to mention organisations such as the UN running major vaccination programmes such as that which wiped out smallpox by 1979, although the free provision of clean drinking water and good sewerage systems by “socialist”governments no doubt contributed their share to the forthcoming global warming disaster, whenever that might occur in the the 100+\- 50 years.
That disaster will include unscientific warfare as we run around hitting some other tribe on their collective heads (vide the West Bank of Palestine and Gaza) as growing populations seek diminishing supplies of water, such as in the River Jordan running between Babylon and Israel, or the assorted glacier-fed rivers that prevent much of Asia and South America from getting thirsty .
Warfare is political, and any scientist who doesn’t see the political ramifications of Anthropogenic Global Heating and DOESN’T get -political about it is doing us all a serious disservice).
I got two repeats of the same stuff. Odd. Sorry to bore y’all. Yes, Clyde, ” the free provision of clean drinking water and good sewerage systems” could be described as sanitation. The rapid human population growth began between 1944 and about 1950 when the widespread use of antibiotics kicked in and the UN tried to do useful stuff socially. No doubt the Green Revolution, which came on stream in the late 1950s-1960s, helped as would other social factors, but there are more hungry people now than entire the human population in 1930, let alone in 1900 or in 1742 when the industrial revolution began in the UK. Hunger is distinct from starvation; and medicine does indeed assist hungry people and their hungry children to stop dying of diseases before or whilst reproducing.
“… there are more hungry people now than entire the human population in 1930, …”
Which is why when making comparisons of some aspect of human demographics it is usually advisable to use a rate, such as “hungry people per capita” or “hungry people per 100,000 population,” to get a sense of the proportion of the growing population experiencing the problem.
However, the important point is that the Green Revolution allows a larger population than was possible before.
You haven’t provided any evidence to support your use of the term “global heating.” One degree C difference (1/14=7%) over the last century is neither a large amount or a rate rapid enough to honestly call it heating. It is going to be a long wait for that pot to boil.
Sanitation also includes the knowledge of germs being responsible for disease and the then obvious practice of washing one’s hands and eating surfaces to remove potentially dangerous bacteria and viruses.
For many, the practice of draining standing water and/or treating the surface with oil, and fogging with DDT, resulted in extinguishing endemic diseases like malaria in many countries, saving many lives and allowing them to live long enough to procreate. It is far more complex than just antibiotics
“Which is why when making comparisons of some aspect of human demographics it is usually advisable to use a rate, such as “hungry people per capita” or “hungry people per 100,000 population,” to get a sense of the proportion of the growing population experiencing the problem.” A triflling piece of pedantry.
I suppose thatif the glacier on which I used to walk to work is now a lake, it means that locally that the surface of that glacier had got a bit hotter than it was 25 years. When the same is happening to the Andean and Himalayan and Alaskan glaciers, and the tundra seems to be unfreezing itself, it could be surmised that these glaciers, too, have during the last 50 years got a bit hotter, which would mean that the last 50 years most places have got a trifle hotter overall. Which would be a global phenomenon, wouldn’t one think? And as you surely know, CO2 etc is a “greenhouse” gas.
It is also interesting to note that the rapid post 1944-50 population growth has been matched by the greater burning of hydrocarbon fuels, particularly natural gas which, to use unscientific language, kicked off big-time in PR China in 1972 (there are graphs for that sort of stuff) and has accelerate since. That exponential type of curve is matched rather nicely with the growth of atmospheric CO2, which also track s our human population growth quite closely, and no doubt the curve of industrial. growth.
A number of coincidences, of course.
“Sanitation also includes the knowledge of germs being responsible for disease and the then obvious practice of washing one’s hands and eating surfaces to remove potentially dangerous bacteria and viruses.” Absolutely. I could not agree more with the former Dr Semmelweiss, who antagonised his colleagues by demanding they wash their hands after dealing with each patient, and by doing so led to a fall in the death-rate of nursing mothers from 17% to 1% in his hospital. ‘Twas a pity that his colleagues felt insulted and when they got their chance got him locked up in a mental hospital, where he died.
I am also quite happy to include in the broad-brush word “sanitation” the action of knocking-off malarial and other mosquitoes by draining pools of water etc.
I have no problem with anyone stating that Earth is apparently warming. My quibble is with saying the Earth has become “hotter.” First off, is a grammatical concern. How does something become hotter if it wasn’t hot to begin with? The Earth has an average global temperature of about 15 deg C; I don’t consider that “hot.” Secondly, I reserve the use of the terms hot/hotter for things that have a temperature much higher than one would find strolling across a glacier. If a waiter places a plate on my table and warns me, “Careful, it is hot!” I don’t expect it to have a temperature of 0 deg C. For me, I consider “hot” to be a temperature that is at least uncomfortable to the touch, or perhaps a risk of causing a burn. Therefore, when I encounter someone talking about how glaciers have become “hotter,” I think that they are being disingenuous.
Correlation does not establish correlation.
That last sentence should be, “Correlation does not establish causation.”
I wish this site offered editing.
If I may comment on this spirited conversation. Which, I found most amusing. Like City slickers standing around trying to explain a dry cow- patty on the wrong side of the fence next to a pasture full of cattle. The answers that you are looking for are staring at you. Your not seeing the big picture. All weather that happens on this Earth is a direct consequence of the Gravitational pull in the cycle of planets around the Sun. And, our Solar system around the Great Super Massive Black Hole. That we call our community.
There is no way of stopping this looping occurrence. Unless we collide with another.
And, if you need evidence. Turn your gaze toward the Mayan calendar or, Ice Core Samples from the Polar Glaciers. Stay away from Tree Rings ( they are just distractions! )