Here’s the headline from the press release today, which will undoubtedly be regurgitated worldwide:
Stanford climate scientists forecast permanently hotter summers
Oh gee, where have wee seen this before? It’s another example of model madness, and it fits in with the now famous: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past. Let’s compare expert quotes:
A. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Right, we saw how that worked out.
B. “According to our projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years,” said the study’s lead author, Noah Diffenbaugh
From Eurekalert
Stanford climate scientists forecast permanently hotter summers
The tropics and much of the Northern Hemisphere are likely to experience an irreversible rise in summer temperatures within the next 20 to 60 years if atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, according to a new climate study by Stanford University scientists. The results will be published later this month in the journal Climatic Change.
In the study, the Stanford team concluded that many tropical regions in Africa, Asia and South America could see “the permanent emergence of unprecedented summer heat” in the next two decades. Middle latitudes of Europe, China and North America – including the United States – are likely to undergo extreme summer temperature shifts within 60 years, the researchers found.
“According to our projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years,” said the study’s lead author, Noah Diffenbaugh, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science and fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford. The study is co-authored by Stanford research assistant Martin Scherer.
“When scientists talk about global warming causing more heat waves, people often ask if that means that the hottest temperatures will become ‘the new normal,'” Diffenbaugh said. “That got us thinking – at what point can we expect the coolest seasonal temperatures to always be hotter than the historically highest temperatures for that season?”
Climate models, past and future
To determine the seasonal impact of global warming in coming decades, Diffenbaugh and Scherer analyzed more than 50 climate model experiments –including computer simulations of the 21st century when global greenhouse gas concentrations are expected to increase, and simulations of the 20th century that accurately “predicted” the Earth’s climate during the last 50 years. The analysis revealed that many parts of the planet could experience a permanent spike in seasonal temperatures within 60 years.
“We also analyzed historical data from weather stations around the world to see if the projected emergence of unprecedented heat had already begun,” Diffenbaugh said. “It turns out that when we look back in time using temperature records, we find that this extreme heat emergence is occurring now, and that climate models represent the historical patterns remarkably well.”
According to both the climate model analysis and the historical weather data, the tropics are heating up the fastest. “We find that the most immediate increase in extreme seasonal heat occurs in the tropics, with up to 70 percent of seasons in the early 21st century (2010-2039) exceeding the late-20th century maximum,” the authors wrote.
Tropical regions may see the most dramatic changes first, but wide swaths of North America, China and Mediterranean Europe are also likely to enter into a new heat regime by 2070, according to the study.
Environmental impact
This dramatic shift in seasonal temperatures could have severe consequences for human health, agricultural production and ecosystem productivity, Diffenbaugh said. As an example, he pointed to record heat waves in Europe in 2003 that killed 40,000 people. He also cited studies showing that projected increases in summer temperatures in the Midwestern United States could reduce the harvest of staples, such as corn and soybeans, by more than 30 percent.
Diffenbaugh was surprised to see how quickly the new, potentially destructive heat regimes are likely to emerge, given that the study was based on a relatively moderate forecast of greenhouse gas emissions in the 21st century.
“The fact that we’re already seeing these changes in historical weather observations, and that they match climate model simulations so closely, increases our confidence that our projections of permanent escalations in seasonal temperatures within the next few decades are well founded,” Diffenbaugh said.
The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health and the World Bank.
This article was written by Donna Hesterman, a science-writer intern at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.
Can these modelers explain the hot summers throughout Europe around 1540?
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1500_1599.htm
The results will be published later this month in the journal Climatic Change.
should be an interesting read. By then it will probably be a part of consensus science. I wonder where they got models to make accurate backcasts of average global temps.
If those temp increases weren’t actually due to a decrease in cloud cover over the oceans, which they were.
Richard111 says: June 6, 2011 at 9:52 am
“analyzed more than 50 climate model experiments” golly, cutting edge stuff.
” –including computer simulations of the 21st century” um.. Lost me now.
What is the difference between a computer model and a computer simulation?
I think the former has three dimensions, the latter, only two?
Tenuc says:
June 6, 2011 at 10:42 am
“Shameful that a once respected institution like Stanford…….”
==============================================
Funny, I don’t remember a time that it was respected. I think they’re just carrying on their tradition.
“Climate change – a story too often told the same way”
About 40 years ago now, the world used to hear a lot from a futurologist called Herman Kahn. Of ample girth and unquenchable volubility, Herman Kahn, who died in 1983, was always making confident pronouncements about what would happen in the future.
So and so, he would say, would happen 10, 20, 25 years years from now. It wouldn’t happen tomorrow, so that you could check up on it straightaway, but it would happen 10, 20, 25 years from now.
Some of us realised that he had invented a new unit of time, and we gave it a name. In tribute to Fermi, who could measure electrons, we called his new unit of time the Hermie. The merit of the Hermie, as a unit of measurement, was that, while being vague, it sounded impressive.
The prediction itself might or might not have been right. Herman Kahn predicted that within one Hermie everyone in the West would fly his own helicopter and have access to free-fall sex. That didn’t happen within one Hermie, but it still might happen in the next Hermie.
All we can be sure of is that Herman Kahn’s language exemplified an impressive way of talking about the future, a way of sounding impressive that sounded less impressive only when you realised that sounding impressive was its main motive. Big things would happen. It was big talk. And it paid the penalty of all big talk. As you got used to it, you got tired of it.”
By Clive James
Read here:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8408386.stm
View here:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00p6vln
DavidG says:
June 6, 2011 at 10:02 am
Thanks. You might want to include the hot off the presses information that I have acquired my own supercomputer and my initial runs show that by 2071 all scientists will be using supercomputers and no scientist will know anything about Earth or any aspect of human experience.
Richard111 says:
June 6, 2011 at 9:52 am
“What is the difference between a computer model and a computer simulation?”
A simulation is one run of a computer model. A computer model is some mathematical software, usually designed for the task, such as linear programming software, and some set of heuristics created by programmers not scientists that make the software solve when some numbers are plugged into it.
The reason I say that programmers are not scientists is that if you have mastered the heuristics used on a supercomputer then you have not had time to be a scientist, and vice-versa.
Must be concerned already with not much happening in the Arctic, so as usual change goal posts. No studies (proper science, not computer based) have found the tropical oceans to change no more than 1 or 2c during the past 4 milllion years. This includes the coldest ice ages and the warmest ever periods. In short this computer (Zx81) has shown you can hit a line with a dot, for it to return again if the dot at the other side knocks the line back. Completely opposite results to the global warming theory and proxy ocean data from all studies. Looks like harold Camping is set up for a big loss again.
oeman50 says:
June 6, 2011 at 8:46 am
Well said, Sir! Hats off to you. You are perfectly welcome to use the word ‘hindcast’ but I prefer ‘retrodict’. It makes a nice contrast with ‘predict’. As you suggest, one can retrodict everything but predict nothing.
Should be.
This includes the coldest ice ages and the warmest periods.
http://sciencebits.com/calorimeter
Frank K. says: ““The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health and the World Bank….why is the World Bank involved in junk science???”
Today the Nation, tomorrow the World!
“simulations of the 20th century that accurately “predicted” the Earth’s climate during the last 50 years.”
So they used simulations that didn’t “predict” what happened in the 1940s.
Stanford Magazine has been carrying articles like this for several years. They are totally committed to this point of view. Various alums write in long letters to the ed with factual information disputing SU’s stand. Some of the letters get printed in the next edition, but it makes no impact whatsoever. Funny! Hoover Institute is considered to be “far right.” But the university faculty and admin are really pretty much all far left.
In an article saturated in lies, the biggest one:
“Diffenbaugh was surprised to see how quickly…”
As with all Lefties, the more they are exposed
the more they double down on the BS.
They were SO surprised that their predetermined conclusion was reached!
I especially love the multitudinous evasions:
“quickly” only means that once it starts
it will be the usual Hockey Stick.
I can well remember previous ‘predictions’,
such as 1980-Hansen “Doom in 30 years,”
so now its a forest of ‘may’ and ‘likely’.
As the world cools down, sea-level falls, and snowpacks last all year,
they prattle about ‘these changes’ as if they were anything but the Cabal’s typical data-revisionism.
The sooner and more disastrous the impending LIA,
the sooner will the AGW crowd finally go away.
Has even a single one of them offered what they would accept as a falsification signal?
Engchamp says: “…This post would appear to be yet another pile of misanthropic twaddle in an effort to maintain the dying embers of the AGW fanatics’ fire…”
If you talking about the press release, I didn’t think it was as good as all that. The post was excellent, as is usually the case.
Richard111 says: “What is the difference between a computer model and a computer simulation?”
One is a postdicting circle jerk and the other for jerks to predict with.
“many parts of the planet could experience a permanent spike in seasonal temperatures within 60 years”
You can’t have a permanent spike.
These clowns couldn’t “project” their way out of a wet paper bag.
“According to our projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years”
Oh Noah!!! Wuss than we thought!!
Next time we hear from him he’ll no doubt be on about rising sea levels.
To get my retaliation in first:-
http://monologues.co.uk/3Hapence.htm
Might have been written with him in mind.
Said by Noah Diffenbaugh: “To determine the seasonal impact of global warming in coming decades, Diffenbaugh and Scherer analyzed more than 50 climate model experiments –including computer simulations of the 21st century…”
Wonder if Mr. Diffenbaugh has ever heard of the old adage of “Garbage-In; Garbage-Out”? What Mr. Diffenbaugh is saying is they wrote a summary of both questionable and known flawed climate model experiments and simulations. Talk about your beating a team of dead horses…
From Eurekalert: “In the study, the Stanford team concluded that many tropical regions in Africa, Asia and South America could see …”
How scientifically accurate “… that many tropical …” and so definitively scientific “… could see …”. There needs to be a new name for non-scientists involved in the Global Warming alarmist scare-mongering, such as ‘fictional-scientists’ so as to differentiate them from scientists.
Next they’ll predict daylight during the day…
Anybody familiar with the famous room-plant Diffenbachia ? Will it be hothouse proof in future ?
Of course Stanford climate scientists predict hotter summers. How else can they keep their annual salaries rolling in except by frightening the gullible with hell and damnation. Where have we seen that simple mechanism before?
Predictions are just that, predictions. If you see a person driving down a highway that leads to the next town, you can predict that that person is going to that town. But with 50 roads crossing that highway; that’s 50 other places that person could be going. Predictions can not account for all the variables. Especially if many of the variables are not fully understood, and some are yet to be discovered. Mother Nature regularly makes climate scientist’s predictions into jokes.
Is there a site where Tamino’s Bet is being tracked? The one he made about warming trends?
There is a discussion going on elsewhere that I would like to introduce this on, but I would prefer not to have to do all the graphing myself…