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
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.”
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The paper is in press:
Diffenbaugh, N., and M. Ashfaq. Intensification of hot extremes in the United States
http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewPapersInPress.do?journalCode=GL
And as such it’s not available for purchase (as if I was going to buy a copy).
PaulH from Scotland.
About the AGW models. I tried to respond but my post got lost somewhere.
Take a look at http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm for their viewpoint. Keep in mind that when you’re on that site you’re be looking at the AGW viewpoint – just as when you are on this site, you’re looking at the non-AGW viewport.
It looks like the political spin and white washes of the warmist crowd is working. Summer temperature are now doubt helping too. Believe that “Global Warming is Primarily Caused By Planetary Trends” has dropped from 50% in Dec and Jan to 44% now.
“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 40% of Likely U.S. Voters now say global warming is caused primarily by human activity, while slightly more (44%) say long term planetary trends are to blame. Five percent (5%) blame some other reason, and 10% are not sure.
The number of voters who feel human activity is causing global warming is up seven points from early April and has reached the highest level measured since early September 2009. Meanwhile, the number of voters who blame long term planetary trends has fallen to the lowest level measured since early June of last year. “
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update
… is likely to occur as many as five times between 2020 and 2029 over areas of the western and central United States.
Note how the models indicate heat waves, not in the Eastern US, but the Central and Western states. Yet, they used the current heatwave as a lead-in. Pure alarmism (and lies) at its worst.
They blew it. They coulda, woulda, shoulda focussed their models on the Amazon. But who thought that would blow up. REDDi, get set, go!
=====================
I looked in the AMS Glossary to see how both a heat wave and cold wave are defined. I would have thought the AMS would provide precise definitions somehow related to the normal temperature and maybe dew point of the region. Not so. They have left both definitions tunable to the whim of the person making the claim. Doesn’t sound very scientific to me.
Here are the definitions.
I came accross this yesterday. A completely different conclusion! We will just have to wait it out and see where we are headed.
Journal of Cosmology, a peer-reviewed publication produced at Harvard-Smithsonian’s Center for Astrophysics.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/06/lawrence-solomon-global-cooling-underway/
The love affair of far into the future temperature projections and as always unverified climate models continues.
This reminds me of a cartoon I came across last year,that covers this perfectly:
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-14-post-2776.html#pid2776
When will these manufactured climate crisis’s ever end?
Does the NOAA show both poles cooling over the next 8 months???? Maybe it’s my monitor.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/images3/glbT2mSea.gif
It has become a tradition these last 10-12 years to print AGW stories during summertime heat waves. And there are no shortage of enviormental scientists who claim that heat waves were not only rare in past centuries, but are really the product of man-made GHGs. It is all so boring, sooo earl 2000s. And to think our taxpayer dollars subsidize these over-credentialed peer reviewed blockheads.
Well, I was taught as a child not to mock the afflicted.
But this piece from Noah Dippenstick is so laughable that I just have to share this piece of priceless fun concerning his namesake.
http://monologues.co.uk/3Hapence.htm
Just shows that I’m prepared, in the spirit of evenhandedness, to refer to another alarmist who wasn’t believed but who (if a well known book is to be believed) was proved to be right! (But I suspect he had some inside information that our Assistant Professor Dippenstick isn’t privy to!)
Scott BL says:
July 9, 2010 at 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.”
I’ll highlight the operative words for you above.
I’m sure I’ve seen this kind of thing somewhere before. :o)
Yeah right. Just like the prediction of more hurricanes. We all know how that prediction panned out. The climate boffins need to stop making testable predictions from their hypothesis. That’s too much like science and it just encourages most people to mark it their calendars then wait to see if it comes to pass. That’s too much like science too.
PaulH from Scotland says:
July 9, 2010 at 2:22 am
For me, the biggest flaw in the AGW argument is the models…..
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.
_______________________________________________________________
Paul, you are asking about “climate sensitivity” perhaps these articles by Dr. Spencer and Willis Eschenbach may help. Yes they are AGAINST the AGW models but they do explain the positive feedback mechanism of water hypothesis.
In a nut shell CO2 causes warming. Warming increases evaporation of water. Water is a very powerful greenhouse gas and causes further warming. This simple model however does not take into account the negative feedbacks caused by water such as cloud albedo and the rapid thermal energy transport from the oceans to space by thunderheads as shown in this photo: http://texasscribbler.com/images/Thunderheads.jpg
Water Vapour as a positive feedback – http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
Global Warming Explained: http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
Clouds Dominate CO2 as a Climate Driver Since 2000: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/clouds-dominate-co2-as-a-climate-driver-since-2000/
Spencer: strong negative feedback found in radiation budget: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/07/spencer-strong-negative-feedback-found-in-radiation-budget/
Spencer on Pinatubo and climate sensitivity: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/spencer-on-pinatubo-and-climate-sensitivity/
Spencer on climate sensitivity and solar irradiance: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/05/spencer-on-climate-sensitivity-and-solar-irradiance/
Spencer: Global Average Sea Surface Temperatures Poised for a Plunge: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/20/spencer-global-average-sea-surface-temperatures-poised-for-a-plunge/
Spencer: SST’s headed down – fast: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/spencer-ssts-headed-down-fast/
Willis Eschenbach on Climate Sensitivity
The Thermostat Hypothesis: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
Sense and Sensitivity: an extension of the ideas laid out as the Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/28/sense-and-sensitivity/
Another Look at Climate Sensitivity
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/16/another-look-at-climate-sensitivity/
——-
Tropical Tropospheric Amplification – an invitation to review this new paper: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/30/tropical-tropospheric-amplification-an-invitation-to-review-this-new-paper/
Message in the CLOUD for Warmists: The end is near? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/01/message-in-the-cloud-for-warmists-the-end-is-near/
Hope that helps.
I’d like to know what happens if they run the model backward in time with decreasing atmospheric CO2 if it predicts the drought of the 1930’s which caused the infamous Dust Bowl. It it does not then the model isn’t worth the electricity used by the computer that executes it.
The press release has the unmitigated gall to call a computer model run an experiment.
No Stanford, that isn’t an experiment. It’s a prediction made by a hypothesis. The experiment is the testing of the prediction. That pesky old scientific method just keeps rudely intruding on these computer fantasy worlds. It’s hard to believe these so-called scientists are trying to pass off computer simulations as experiments. In Marine Corps parlance this is just inf**kingcredible and unf**kingbelievable.
Two things jump out at me.
“Using a large suite of climate model experiments…” How can anyone call a computer model run an “experiment”, much less a scientist. That would be like writing a program that calculates 2+2 = 5, then running your program a bunch of times, averaging the result, then publishing a paper claiming that you have “experimentally” verified that 2 + 2 = 5
The second is even funny: “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 ” They then found that their would be more hot days.
So these brilliant guys seem to have discovered that if the the temperature goes up then we would have more hot days. Wow, I’m impressed.
If these guys are right that a 2 rise in temperatures will be so devastating, please say a prayer for us here in Alberta. It’s 12C now and it’s expected to hit 23C by this afternoon. That’s an 11 degree rise in only 5 hours! How many must die before you people will listen (obey)?!!! Our Father, whom art in Heaven….
I love the phrase “climate model experiments.” It almost makes it sound like real science, doesn’t it?
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/only+gets+worse/3248931/story.html
Interesting data here. A lot of news stories were claiming this latest spike was “unprecedented” but unbelievably, someone from a newspaper actually went to the trouble of looking up older records from the experimental farm that show there were longer hotter spells earlier in history. AND the new temperatures are taken at the AIRPORT, while the old ones were at the experimental farm.
Jim
And then there’s this pesky fact:
The warmest year, to date, in the United States, even with heat islands increasingly contaminating the modern record, is 1934.
There is a new study out that says future European heat waves will reduce vegetation and the increase in Albedo from this will slightly cool off temperatures so that they only increase 3.0C rather than 4.0C.
So, naturally I did the calculations for the expected 40% die-back of the Amazon (whatever the real expectation is). It turns out this would have a pretty big impact on the Earth’s Albedo – more than the impact of the Arctic sea ice melting out in early June for example – a reduction in Earth’s temperature of about 0.4C with a higher local impact in the Amazon.
Just showing how many factors have to be included in these climate model projections. If there are going to be more heat waves in the US South-West and the desert expands presumably (which has a very high Albedo compared to even partially forested land for example), this will cause more sunlight to be reflected back into space and there will be a cooling affect from this. Now the US South-West is smaller than the Amazon or the Arctic ocean basin, but the point is the same.
Bob, the PDF link works fine for me.
http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2010GL043888-pip.pdf
Go long on rock salt now.
What’s with AD 2039? Why not 2038, 2040– better yet 2035, when Pachauri’s melted Himalayan glaciers will have raised sea-levels, de-moisturizing Earth to produce baking droughts? Alas for such hysterics, Gaia knows the truth.
Point is that in 10 – 15 years maximum, anything Jones- or Mann-related will have deliquesced to toxic waste. As an endangered academic species, AGW fruitcakes will face extinction regardless of kleptocratic poseurs’ efforts to sustain the breed with cash infusions akin to kidney dialysis affording life-support.