Modeling the big toasty

Just in time for summer heat waves in the USA, worrisome model outputs from Stanford with the all important could qualifier. No mention of UHI, asphalt, or heat waves of the past. No mention of weather stations that read hot in Tucson. Just CO2 driven modeling. Stanford’s Press Release is here. No published paper was provided with the press release, but there is a link to GRL in the body of the PR. – Anthony

Heat waves could be commonplace in the US by 2039, Stanford study finds

Projected heat for U.S. through 2039
By 2039, most of the U.S. could experience at least four seasons equally as intense as the hottest season ever recorded from 1951-1999, according to Stanford University climate scientists. In most of Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico, the number of extremely hot seasons could be as high as seven. Image: Noah Diffenbaugh

The effects of global warming will be felt sooner than expected, say Stanford researchers.

BY MARK SHWARTZ, Stanford

Exceptionally long heat waves and other hot events could become commonplace in the United States in the next 30 years, according to a new study by Stanford University climate scientists.

“Using a large suite of climate model experiments, we see a clear emergence of much more intense, hot conditions in the U.S. within the next three decades,” said Noah Diffenbaugh, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford and the lead author of the study.

Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), Diffenbaugh concluded that hot temperature extremes could become frequent events in the U.S. by 2039, posing serious risks to agriculture and human health.

“In the next 30 years, we could see an increase in heat waves like the one now occurring in the eastern United States or the kind that swept across Europe in 2003 that caused tens of thousands of fatalities,” said Diffenbaugh, a center fellow at Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment. “Those kinds of severe heat events also put enormous stress on major crops like corn, soybean, cotton and wine grapes, causing a significant reduction in yields.”

The GRL study took two years to complete and is co-authored by Moetasim Ashfaq, a former Stanford postdoctoral fellow now at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The study comes on the heels of a recent NASA report, which concluded that the previous decade, January 2000 to December 2009, was the warmest on record.

2-degree threshold

In the study, Diffenbaugh and Ashfaq used two dozen climate models to project what could happen in the U.S. if increased carbon dioxide emissions raised the Earth’s temperature by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) between 2010 and 2039  – a likely scenario, according to the International Panel on Climate Change.

In that scenario, the mean global temperature in 30 years would be about 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) hotter than in the preindustrial era of the 1850s. Many climate scientists and policymakers have targeted a 2-degree C temperature increase as the maximum threshold beyond which the planet is likely to experience serious environmental damage. For example, in the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Accord, the United States and more than 100 other countries agreed to consider action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions “so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.”

The study projects that from 2030 to 2039, most areas of Arizona,  Utah, Colorado and New Mexico could endure at least seven seasons  equally as intense as the hottest season ever recorded between 1951 and  1999.

But that target may be too high to avoid dangerous climate change, Diffenbaugh said, noting that millions of Americans could see a sharp rise in the number of extreme temperature events before 2039, when the 2-degree threshold is expected to be reached.

“Our results suggest that limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial conditions may not be sufficient to avoid serious increases in severely hot conditions,” Diffenbaugh said.

Record heat

For the GRL study, the researchers analyzed temperature data for the continental U.S. from 1951-1999. Their goal was to determine the longest heat waves and hottest seasons on record in the second half of the 20th century.

Those results were fed into an ensemble of climate forecasting models, including the high-resolution RegCM3, which is capable of simulating daily temperatures across small sections of the U.S.

“This was an unprecedented experiment,” Diffenbaugh said. “With the high-resolution climate model, we can analyze geographic quadrants that are only 15.5 miles (25 kilometers) to a side. No one has ever completed this kind of climate analysis at such a high resolution.”

The results were surprising. According to the climate models, an intense heat wave – equal to the longest on record from 1951 to 1999 – is likely to occur as many as five times between 2020 and 2029 over areas of the western and central United States.

The 2030s are projected to be even hotter. “Occurrence of the longest historical heat wave further intensifies in the 2030-2039 period, including greater than five occurrences per decade over much of the western U.S. and greater than three exceedences per decade over much of the eastern U.S.,” the authors wrote.

Seasonal records

The Stanford team also forecast a dramatic spike in extreme seasonal temperatures during the current decade. Temperatures equaling the hottest season on record from 1951 to 1999 could occur four times between now and 2019 over much of the U.S., according to the researchers.

The 2020s and 2030s could be even hotter, particularly in the American West. From 2030 to 2039, most areas of Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico could endure at least seven seasons equally as intense as the hottest season ever recorded between 1951 and 1999, the researchers concluded.

“Frankly, I was expecting that we’d see large temperature increases later this century with higher greenhouse gas levels and global warming,” Diffenbaugh said. “I did not expect to see anything this large within the next three decades. This was definitely a surprise.”

The researchers also determined that the hottest daily temperatures of the year from 1980 to 1999 are likely to occur at least twice as often across much of the U.S. during the decade of the 2030s.

“By the decade of the 2030s, we see persistent, drier conditions over most of the U.S.,” Diffenbaugh said. “Not only will the atmosphere heat up from more greenhouse gases, but we also expect changes in the precipitation and soil moisture that are very similar to what we see in hot, dry periods historically. In our results for the U.S., these conditions amplify the effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Besides harming human health and agriculture, these hot, dry conditions could lead to more droughts and wildfires in the near future, he said. And many of these climate change impacts could occur within the next two decades – years before the planet is likely to reach the 2-degree C threshold targeted by some governments and climate experts, he added.

“It’s up to the policymakers to decide the most appropriate action,” Diffenbaugh said. “But our results suggest that limiting global warming to 2 degrees C does not guarantee that there won’t be damaging impacts from climate change.”

The GRL study was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. The high-resolution climate model simulations were generated and analyzed at Purdue University. GRL is a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

Mark Shwartz is communications manager at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

112 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Latimer Alder
July 9, 2010 12:10 am

And have they tried feeding in the data as it was in 1980, and seeing if they can accurately forecast what happened in the intervening 30 years? With the 25 km resolution it should be making real forecasts that can be verified or not.
If they can show that the model run as if it was 1980 comes up with some predictions for 1980-2010 that match the observed weather, then that would be a considerable step forward.
If not, then any predictions made for the next 30 years are junk.
Simples!

rms
July 9, 2010 12:11 am

The word “could” must be banned. Replace with an estimate of the probability.

Inverse
July 9, 2010 12:19 am

So the penny has dropped, 2 degrees C is a target the world governments have set (that they new would never be reached!!, well not in our lifetimes) but with warmists believing what they preach they expected it to be reached in just a few years…
Why would governments promote this? TAX… And when the climate cools the Govt will look to the Climate Sheeple Scientists to start all over.
$60 billion in climate grants = Trillions in World Govt Climate Tax

jorgekafkazar
July 9, 2010 12:26 am

Latimer Alder says: “And have they tried feeding in the data as it was in 1980, and seeing if they can accurately forecast what happened in the intervening 30 years? …If they can show that the model run as if it was 1980 comes up with some predictions for 1980-2010 that match the observed weather, then that would be a considerable step forward.”
My understanding is that the models have already been tweaked numerous times so as to reproduce actual climate, more or less, via ‘postdiction’. The problem is not that they can’t match the weather for a given interval; the problem is that as we get farther and farther away from the tweaking date, the models produce more and more garbage.

Evan Jones
Editor
July 9, 2010 12:36 am

an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science
Gosh! Well, I guess the word is in.

kwik
July 9, 2010 12:41 am

They are quick with their chicken bones. I will give them that.

kwik
July 9, 2010 12:44 am

I rely on Peter, not that “New Earth Professor”;

Chaveratti
July 9, 2010 1:02 am

Anyone want pay me a shed load of money to produce a report showing what could happen if temperatures dropped 2°C. No, I thought not.

Editor
July 9, 2010 1:04 am

When I was a kid in the 1970’s, New Hampshire would have at least a few 100 degree days most years. People had to keep their lawns watered else they would go brown from the heat. Lawn sprinklers were common, not just to hydrate the lawn but for those kids whose parents didn’t have their own swimming pool.
Since the mid 1990’s, we’ve not had a single day over 100 that I am aware of, and nobody I know waters their lawns anymore. There is enough precipitation that people typically mow their lawns more frequently, and never need to use fertilizer anymore.

July 9, 2010 1:06 am

Haven’t read the paper, but they do realise that 0.3C is not significant when compared to month to month temperature variations which are otherwise known as weather? I’ve seen very little correlation between average temperatures and daily weather (warming appears to me to manifest itself as higher overnight temperatures, not noticeably different weather)

tallbloke
July 9, 2010 1:08 am

I know America is a litigious place. Can these people be sued for inducing unwarranted stress in worried members of the public?

jason
July 9, 2010 1:10 am

Wait for the whitewashes, wait for the summer heat, then let the machine start again.
This is a war.

Rhys Jaggar
July 9, 2010 1:18 am

I did an astrological compatibility test between myself and a world famous sportswoman 2 years ago – said we should make Agassi and Graf look like an arranged marriage of mutual sacrifice for the greater good. Really!! It’s true!!!!
Doesn’t mean the model’s true and the wedding bells sure aren’t coming soon!
It’s a model which may or may not be true and there may be circumstances (e.g. I didn’t meet her and probably won’t) which mean it’s unlikely to happen.
These models: they road tested for 30 years to show they actually work??

899
July 9, 2010 1:30 am

“Could, might, maybe, …”
Haven’t we been down that road before?
Tell you what: That whole line of malarky is not but a deceit foisted upon those whose minds which are less prepared to understand the machination.
Those –ahem– slimy bastards pushing that crap, have it in mind to fool enough of the uninformed into buying the lies such that the ‘crap and fade’ (cap and trade) gets enacted.
That what it’s all about.

Dave Wendt
July 9, 2010 2:11 am

“The Stanford team also forecast a dramatic spike in extreme seasonal temperatures during the current decade. Temperatures equaling the hottest season on record from 1951 to 1999 could occur four times between now and 2019 over much of the U.S., according to the researchers.”
Last November you had a guest post here critiquing an NCAR claim of a dramatic increase in the ratio of new daily maximum to new daily minimum temps.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/16/hall-of-record-ratios/#comments
The most significant, at least in my view, evidence offered was this graph of new monthly maximums and minimums by decade since the 1880s
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_b5jZxTCSlm0/Sv31ZY99ioI/AAAAAAAAD38/zHZkCLYg590/s1600-h/image017.png
It sure looks to me like global warming is producing a serious decline in temperature extremes. The 2000s had fewer than any decade since the 1880s and the trend seems to be down in a big way.

PaulH from Scotland
July 9, 2010 2:22 am

For me, the biggest flaw in the AGW argument is the models.
I accept the radiative physics science that tells us that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial times could raise temperatures by around 1 degree celsius. And that, depending on how much faith one puts in the surface temperatures record, we may have had around 0.7 of a degree within that 1 degree already.
But the models seem to be are a based on theoretical ‘runaway’ positive feedbacks based on increased water vapour. No precedents, evidence; merely conjecture,
I’ve tried my best to find pro-AGW information that supports the models and the ‘best’ that I can come up with (for a layperson like me) is ‘How to talk to a denier’ at grist.org. – http://www.grist.org/article/climate-models-are-unproven/
I’d really appreciate anyone throwing a bit more light on the arguments FOR the AGW models – just so I can get clear on the specific areas of disagreement.

July 9, 2010 2:36 am

I’m going to need help with this one! Maybe someone with good a working knowledge of these models can chime in.
I visited the RegCM3 high resolution model page mentioned above as being the “unprecedented” part of this research and found that the data fed into this model all comes from “Global” models (ECMWF, GCM, GISST, etc.) . I was under the impression that these global models are not good at all for modeling events with any degree of certainty far into the future, so would not this make the RegCM3 suffer from the same malady?

wayne
July 9, 2010 2:49 am

This entire hypothetical scare story is based on a slew of ‘could’s and ‘may’s. Wish their super high-resolution computer models would just tell us what IS going to happen in the next three years so we could track for confirmation before it’s thrown to the policymakers.
Even if the temperature went up 2 degrees, which I seriously doubt, we may have already hit the very top, it may just rain more and more often due to increased evaporation making this conjecture totally wrong, in fact in the opposite direction. In other words, without any proof of its validity, this is just a super high resolution scientific computer model wild ass guess, nothing more.
Curious how they conveniently omitted the maps showing 1960-1969 and 1970-1979 and 1980-1989 and 1990-1999 so we could see what the maps looked like in the very real past, not the hypothetical future. But that would allow us to compare the model to historic records wouldn’t it? Sigh.
For those reading here that don’t know science very well, even though this is stated as being done by scientists and at Earth System Science at Stanford University, this article is not science, this is not the way science is done, just look up the words ‘scientific method’, you will see it isn’t.

George Tetley
July 9, 2010 3:03 am

Noah Difenbaugh, I think there is a typo here, should it not read, Noah Arkbuilderbaugh ?

Merovign
July 9, 2010 3:21 am

PaulH from Scotland says:
July 9, 2010 at 2:22 am
I’d really appreciate anyone throwing a bit more light on the arguments FOR the AGW models – just so I can get clear on the specific areas of disagreement.

I know it’s no help, but I’ve been asking for that since at least 1995.

Joe Lalonde
July 9, 2010 3:38 am

I feel ripped off!
This study was suppose to come out last winter!!!
Effective timing….hmmm.
Looking at the daily weather role….been mighty cool in that region of the west coast.

Pascvaks
July 9, 2010 4:22 am

The three most telling words in American Scientific Publications, the more you see them, the less value the publication, journal, study has: “COULD’A”, “WOULD’A”, “SHOULD’A”. One day soon, the really deep stuff is going to be published in Comic Book format, with super heros, super villans, great color pics, and 2 letter words. I have a feeling Hav’erd and Stan’ferd will lead the way. Invest now!

Dave McK
July 9, 2010 4:29 am

This just gives me Tourettes, ugh.

Scott BL
July 9, 2010 4:31 am

“In the study, Diffenbaugh and Ashfaq used two dozen climate models to project what could happen in the U.S. if increased carbon dioxide emissions raised the Earth’s temperature by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) between 2010 and 2039 – a likely scenario, according to the International Panel on Climate Change.”
They programmed their models to increase the globe’s temperature by 1C over the next 30 years, and are surprised to learn that their models predict, under that scenario, the U.S. will be warmer during those same 30 years? Am I reading that right? Seriously?

July 9, 2010 4:36 am

Hot weather in Colorado?
We have been freezing our rears off. Two consecutive years of washed out July 4 fireworks.

1 2 3 5
Verified by MonsterInsights