Bob Geldorf (and who the hell is he?) was off by seventeen years. But then I read he’s a singer and no professional climatologist. Since he’s some big hoo-hah celebrity, his predictions of doom made all the press.
Wait. It’s Geldof and it’s “Sir Bob” (do they give these titles to anybody who applies nowadays? Because I want one). Judging by the way the man looks, I’d say the world ended for him ten years ago and he just hasn’t noticed yet.
Anyway, Science says we have 34 years left. Science couldn’t be reached for comment (rumor is He’s building a survival cabin in the Kazakhstan outback), but his representative Camilo Mora at the University of Hawaii volunteered to speak to us via the journal Nature in his paper “The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability.”
Mora and his colleagues say by 2047 climates will be “unprecedented”, a word that I swear I’ve heard a lot recently. Where? Never mind. What’s clear is that the “emergence of unprecedented climates could also induce responses in human societies.” Responses! Why, those could be anything. Anything bad, of course. Good things are impossible in changed climates.
AP picked up on this hot story (who doesn’t love bad, over-used puns?). AP avoided “unprecedented” but said we’ll experience “hotter environments the likes of which [we’ve] never seen before.”
Some unknown but credentialed person was asked about Mora’s paper and was ready with a response: “This paper is both innovative and sobering.” Sobering? Dude. If Mora is right the last thing we want to be is sober. If the temperatures keep soaring the way they’ve done over the past seventeen years, I’m going to start hanging out with Geldorf and at least go out with a withered smile on my face.
Well, maybe the temperatures haven’t been soaring, maybe they’ve been holding steady or even decreasing. But that’s a mere observation and observation can’t trump theory. How did Mora derive his result?
[He] 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.”
That many computer models simply cannot be wrong. Sure, one or two could be off. But 39? That would be unprecedented. I used to complain about the asinine use of statistics in papers like this—they have straight-line correlations and wee p-values!—but I’ve learned my lesson. There’s too many authors with opinions different than mine; therefore, they must be right, and I must be wrong.
I mean, anybody who can speak of Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) in equations as precise as “historical climate variability” = 1.2773â€‰lnâ€‰* “historical time bins”â€‰+â€‰2063.2 should be heeded. I mean, 2063.2—point 2! That kind of confidence can’t be ignored.
So we’re in for it. Women and minorities will be hardest hit. Corals and mangroves will be hardest hit, too. Turns out Mora’s a biodiversity fiend. Biodiversity is like regular diversity but about plants and animals nobody has heard of.
But Mora’s also a diversity-diversity maven. Turns out deadly climates will attack “low-income countries” first, which is “an obvious disparity”. Disparities are verboten where diversity is cherished. Solution? Enlarge governments so they can extract a “bigger commitment from developed countries”. Bet you didn’t see that coming.
Not every scientist agrees with Mora. Some think it’s worse than we thought. Like Michael “Hockey Puck” Mann, affectionately known to many as the “gentleman of climatology”. In the AP article he said Mora “may actually be presenting an overly rosy scenario”. Mann was last seen by the Lincoln tunnel with a squeegee and spray bottle of some brown substance trying to raise money for climate change “awareness.”
All those who are aware the climate has changed, raise their hands.