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
wayne
July 10, 2010 4:05 am

Dave Springer, compliments to you. You have got one good physics mind there.
Rarely can I read through that much scientific text as I just did you wrote above and not hit something either wrong or that didn’t properly follow basic physics and logic. Found nothing. Wish I could write as clear as you do. As you, I’m insulted by the ‘science’ behind this AGW fiasco, good way to put it. It breaks at the physics and logic level without ever getting into the mathematics, that’s clear.

July 10, 2010 5:12 am

Pamela Gray: July 9, 2010 at 11:39 am
…If all the climate indices continue their hide and seek with AGW scientists, they may have to come up with a new acronym for the newly discovered (I love this) CO2 relationship to weather related events, and can thus continue with the panic inducing press releases!
Human-Induced Bad Weather
Now I know there are clever folks out there. Let’s come up with a really catchy acronym and ask for coinage to further study the problem!!!

Anthropogenic Weather/Climate-Related Atmospheric Phenomena.
Tell the awards committee we’ll take cash, credit cards, paypal, or emeralds the size of chickens’ eggs…

Ed Murphy
July 10, 2010 5:25 am

So has anyone ever done a detailed study of the effects of poorly regulated capitalism on global warming? I mean like all across the USA there are barren, empty malls, factories and shopping centers. Across town or sometimes just down the road is a new mall, factory and shopping center that attracted the businesses away from the old one. Instead of clearing trees from large tracts of land why couldn’t something been done to remodel the old locations?
The heat given off by black tar roofs and asphalt parking lots was just doubled, or even more.
Why build new factories several times over in some instances in various countries while the old factories still sit there empty in the heat of the Sun? Why not put the trade agreements back like they were before ‘Nixon Shock’ and protect our own. The trade laws we had before he and Kissinger altered them worked just fine for 200 years.

Northern Exposure
July 10, 2010 9:06 am

I really hope someone is keeping a track list (the claim, made by whom, date of claim, direct link to the source, etc) of all of these doom and gloom “scientific” studies so that they can all be thrown back in their faces when the time comes.
Oh, how sweet that will taste.

Tim Clark
July 10, 2010 10:52 am

Heat waves could be commonplace in the US by 2039, Stanford study finds.
Well doh! They are now, and were in the past. Tell us something we don’t know.

David44
July 10, 2010 11:17 am

Mark Twain on weather:
I reverently believe that the Maker who made us all makes everything in New England but the weather. I don’t know who makes that, but I think it must be raw apprentices in the weather-clerk’s factory who experiment and learn how, in New England, for board and clothes, and then are promoted to make weather for countries that require a good article, and will take their custom elsewhere if they don’t get it.
– “The Weather” speech, 1876
– for (post)modern times, Stanford is clearly one of the several major places where weather is manufactured, but only the apprentices are raw, not the data.

Dave Wendt
July 10, 2010 1:20 pm

Dave Springer says:
July 10, 2010 at 1:34 am
Wendt
I had no intention of suggesting that any of the names I mentioned did not possess the highest level of intelligence, only that their extraordinary minds would not necessarily be captured by the available I.Q. tests. Real paradigm shifting geniuses have always been the ultimate “outside the box” thinkers. In fact, for most, the “box” never seemed to enter into their considerations. In bold contrast “climate science” seems to be overrun with minds driven to contain themselves in smaller and smaller boxes, like some epistemological version of a Russian doll. As a result we are deluged with often contradictory “science”, like the recent disappearing Mammoths fiasco. When the observational data don’t match their models in ways they don’t like they are quick with excuses and mitigations, but when the data miss in a direction that they feel supports their view they are almost exultant in their need to declare that things are “worse than we thought”, seemingly without the ability to recognize that what has been demonstrated in each case is that their models are wrong and probably fundamentally inadequate.
There doesn’t appear to be anyone even remotely approaching the status of an Einstein or Feynman in the climate sciences and I still feel that, by focussing the vast majority of human and financial capital on what is perhaps the least consequential aspect of the climate i.e. CO2, the present effort has probably retarded the growth of human knowledge in the field by many decades.

Marian
July 10, 2010 6:07 pm

“Rhys Jaggar says:
These models: they road tested for 30 years to show they actually work??”
Climate Science of Models.
When some people marry a model and she reaches 30 she gets traded in for a a new younger one and waste $$$ going through the divorce settlement!
So just like taxpayer $$$ wasted on producing more GIGO virtual models. They keeping trading in climate models until one fits the best doom scenario they want. 🙂

July 11, 2010 12:43 pm

Climate MODEL “experiments”.
As the saying goes, “Lawd Hep’ Me!”
The oxy + moron factor in this equation is somewhere near 10^44.
Max

Bart Nielsen
July 12, 2010 6:46 am

Oh no! It’s worse than we thought.
OTOH, if the quiet sun/global cooling correrlation proves to be causal, the forecast of warmer temps by 2040 may work out for them if the sun comes out of it’s low activity by then.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Tenuc
July 12, 2010 7:41 am

These Stanford boys don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. I suspect they’re using CO2 forcing in their model, and disregarding the impact of increasing cloud cover.
My prediction, using a non-linear heuristic model, which I run in my head now and then, is that heat waves as we knew them back in 2003 are now a thing of the past. The onset of the next cold period has been heralded by the quiet SS24 sun, and the old heat waves will soon be replaced by the new one of cold straights. So fill up the fuel oil tank, cut plenty of logs and wrap up warm.

Edward Bancroft
July 12, 2010 3:50 pm

Dave Springer – “The random direction of re-emission is what causes the slowdown in heat transport as it’s just as likely an IR photon from the sun will be re-emitted right back at the sun rather than at the ground.
So in the daytime the GHGs cause upper atmosphere temps to rise and surface temps to fall by an equal amount. At night the situation is reversed. The IR photons are coming up from the ground and the surface GHGs impede their progress. ”
The first part adds something that other explanations usually do not consider, however the part about atmosphere/surface temps rising/falling equally runs counter to their case, in that surface temps are increased by GHG IR activity in the daytime.

1 3 4 5