From the Joint Research Center:
Analysing heat waves – new index allows predicting their magnitude
JRC scientists have developed a new index to measure the magnitude of heat waves, in cooperation with colleagues from five research organisations. According to the index projections, under the worst climate scenario of temperature rise nearing 4.8⁰C, extreme heat waves will become the norm by the end of the century. Heat waves like the one that hit Russia in summer 2010, the strongest on record in recent decades, will occur as often as every two years in southern Europe, North and South America, Africa and Indonesia.
The Heat Wave Magnitude Index is the first to allow comparing heat waves over space and time. It takes into account both the duration and intensity of heat waves and can serve as a benchmark for evaluating the impacts of future climate change. Results also show that the percentage of global area affected by heat waves has increased in recent decades, and the probability of occurrence of extreme and very extreme heat waves is projected to increase further in the coming years.
The index is based on an analysis of daily maximum temperatures, which was carried out to classify the strongest heat waves that occurred worldwide during three study periods (1980-1990, 1991-2001 and 2002-2012). In addition, a combination of models is used to project the future occurrence and severity of heat waves, under different scenarios as established in the latest Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Taking into account the disastrous effects of the 2003 and 2010 heat wave events in Europe, and those of 2011 and 2012 in the USA, results show that we may be facing a serious risk of adverse impacts over larger and densely populated areas if mitigation strategies for reducing global warming are not implemented.
The paper:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
global warming butterfly will flap its wings and a heat wave will emerge somewhere on earth. Sounds like an adaptation of emergent phenomena, where have I heard that term before ?
Have the Warmist scientist ever said just how many ppm of CO2 it will take to overheat the earth. Is there a level or range they say it is game over, with the science being settled it should be an easy calculation. Perhaps some one should ask.
Philipoftaos,
Not only do they not say that, but there has never been any measurement quantifying the amount of human-caused warming, out of the total 0.7ºC global warming over the past century+.
If they can’t measure the amount of global warming supposed to be caused by human activity, then everything they say is just speculation, no?
Models!!! Don’t bother reading any further.
Nothing wrong with models. They can be quite useful. But how about validating the damn things before using them? IMO, The current IPCC models clearly don’t come close to meeting even the most minimal standards for quality of prediction.
Wait. “Nothing wrong with models.” What? ALL climate computer models are fatally flawed, ignoring over 50 major factors that influence climate. They are ALL predicated on CO2 being the principle climate driver and water vapor being entrained by CO2 to augment ti effect.
However, water vapor is part of a massive, global heat engine called THE WATER CYCLE that carries about 85–90% of the surface energy budget to altitude, where it is lost to space. And, if the climate does warm a little, this heat engine ramps up and moves energy even faster, being a powerful NEGATIVE FEEDBACK mechanism.
Only larger factors, such as solar activity, solar cycles (the solar wind), and the ocean cycles can alter the climate, in response to which the heat engine reaches a new temporary equilibrium.
higley7,
He said there is nothing wrong with models and he is correct. But he is speaking from an engineering perspective where one has to confirm ones models against real world measurements and determine that it does reflect a significant aspect of reality and certify the extent of that agreement. You aren’t disagreeing with him when you complain that the climate models are crap. You are both saying that the models used aren’t fit for purpose and should be cast upon the scrap heap of bad ideas!
If you don’t believe models, how about data?
http://www.unep.org/pdf/wmo_report.pdf
http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/uploads/Incresase_heat_records.png
Barry:
Apples and oranges, you can’t compare the pre-satellite era to the post satellite era.
Besides, the pre-satellite era is mostly cr@p because of the many documented problems with the ground based sensors.
higley7, it seems that you could be a climate scientist since you know things that they don’t.
higley7,
Pay no attention to mr. ‘politicalscience’. He is only a high school graduate, presuming to understand things he doesn’t understand.
@Barry
Funny how the data for a paper published in 2013 stops in about 2006. WUWT?
What is the relevance of monthly means to heatwaves?
To Barry;
If we had a set of measurements from 900-1300, what would that graph look like? My point is … my feeling is that is only half a graph at this point …..
Barry, that chart is part fictional. There were not enough stations, especially in the southern hemisphere, to develop a global average temperature prior to the satellite era. I would venture that in 1900 there were only a handful of stations outside of Australia and that it stayed that way for a long time. Ground coverage there is awful on the African continent today. In the northern hemisphere there are large gaps today and reliable SST data is only available from the satellites. Huge areas on some land masses do not have actual temperatures available. Infilling of data can be unreliable at best. The only reliable record of average global temperatures is the satellite record and I have read articles here and elsewhere that claim that the global average actually means nothing.
Assuming it does, tho, there has been no measurable heating of the planet in almost 18 years and some data shows there has been a slight decrease since 2006. A lot of people at this site are skeptical of any chart that is put out by the U.S. government or the U.N.
Wow Barry, climastrology never ceases to amaze. That link is a joke. No citations and no explanation of the “data.” Where DIDN’T they have weather records in 1880? My guess would be most of the planet didn’t have a weather record until recently. It’s so easy to fool some people, all you need is a graph.
Barry:
That chart did not come from the report you linked. Any wonder why warmists have a credability problem?
Barry,
You’re posting a zero baseline chart, which of course shows large artificial warming. Try using a trend chart, and you will see that there is nothing unusual happening.
Everybody reading this will be dead by then anyways. “Its not the cough that carries you off, its the coffin they carry you off in”
Cant remember wrote that.
Projection?
That simply lacks credibility these days.
Barry, your chart is misleading. Just looking at the chart one might think the temperatures are increasing and they are not. The reason there are more record breaking monthly high temperatures is because there are more new stations. For a brand new station every month is a record high temperature.
“The reason there are more record breaking monthly high temperatures is because there are more new stations. For a brand new station every month is a record high temperature.”
Holy crap! What a great (deceptive but technically correct) way to claim new record-high temperatures (if this is actually the source of those periodic headlines announcing record highs).
Since more than half of US states set their maximum temperature records prior to 1950, I have a hard time believing that heat waves are a “growing” problem.
Honestly, I don’t see the value of any more papers about models. If they show that their models accurately hindcast every max temperature period in the 50 states, I’ll sit up and pay attention.
Exactly KTM. This study might not be an entirely awful idea, but it needs to go much further back in time instead of just using a couple of recent decades. Decades which are probably cherry picked to give the “proper” answer.
File under “Sloppy Science” I think
File under “I just justified next years research grant” file I think!
Filing under “Political Agenda Misusing Science” would be more accurate.
Curve fitting will hindcast with very little error and zero skill to forecast the future.
The current climate models, with tunable parameters are all a form of curve fitting. The fit is achieve by manually selecting the parameters until the model will hindcast. Thus the IPCC recognizes the models cannot predict, only project.
A projection of a curve fit is statistically meaningless. It is fraudulent at best. The IPCC scientists know this, hold their noses and publish all the same. They know full well who pays the piper. When the music plays they must dance.
It didn’t take long for the warmists to go from Thesis using Fallacies instead of Theories of Science to the present situation where IPCC acts same way as Christian Church leaders did in Medival Age and up to present. Of course(?) Humans must be the ones around which the sun and universe rotateThe new faith of IPCC: Humans are Universe’s Centre
Not the best time of the year to try to frighten people with a heatwave bugaboo.
And that “climate sensitivity” keeps on dropping. And dropping.
From the Global Warming Swindle, aired March 8th 2007, they stated that, as the evidence and population mounts against the AGW scare, the louder, more shrill, and more absurd their claims will be. And, as predicted… we have this and other recent desperate reports.
A combination of models is used to project the future of heat waves.Well they must be right the models are never wrong are they.What a load of bollocks.
Here’s my ” projection”…..it’ll get hot, it’ll get cold, it’ll get hot, it’ll get cold, itll rain, it’ll be dry, it’ll snow, it won’t snow blah blah blah.
Where’s my grant?
Steve – you gave it away. Nobody’s going to pay for your work when you’ve already given it away.
Excellent! “You don’t need a Climate Modeller to know which way the wind blows…” with apologies to Bob Dylan
Just Steve –
No way you’re getting a grant unless you sprinkle in the words carbon, unprecedented, collapse, extinct, children, and size of Manhattan.
I believe the unpublished standard is to include a minimum of four (4) critical key words in order to get a grant and later get published. (although I have seen team member approved with as little as two (2) key words.)
you forgot Big Oil
And you left out the ‘Hiroshima equivalent’ factor.
Don’t forget the 21st century(agenda/ICLEI) catch phrase “sustainability” !
Hey look iclei is hiring!!! http://www.iclei.org/get-involved/work-for-us.html
:v)
Just Steve, you only get a grant if blame Man for it. Then there’s something to control.
(It wouldn’t hurt if you tacked an “-er” and “-est” onto some of the words. “blaher, blahest etc.)
They love to pick about 1979 or 80 as a start point…I wonder why?? http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/more-evidence-that-time-began-in-1979/
However the Palmer modified drought index is the standard for US drought history…http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/screenhunter_203-sep-07-06-34.jpg
and it is backed by river and stream flow records.
In order to get to this catastrophic warming of 4.8 C, the T graph will need to look something like this….
Numerous (ignored in this study) peer reviewed reports have reported no acceleration in droughts or extreme storms.
WUWT just showed another ignored report where heat waves and droughts correspond well with global ocean temperature patterns, primarily the AMO and the PDO, which have a complete cycle in well longer then a cherry picked 30 year term.
If elections mean anything, funding for this kind of climate porn will stop.
Sorry forgot a link to peer reviewed papers disputing any anthropogenic increase in droughts and floods….
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Droughts
and this one for heat waves, some of which specifically address the Russian heat wave. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Heat
Thank you, haven’t seen this before.
That looks like a reverse hockey stick.
Actually, it looks like a correct hockey stick… The Mann stick is not ready for hitting the puck. Just sayin’
Yes, It’s hilarious that CAGW warmunists cherry-pick 1979 because that’s just after the 30-yr PDO cool cycle ended (1945~1977).
It also marks the peak of the 30~yr AMO cool cycle (1965~1994), so Arctic Ice Extents were at their peak….
When the AMO 30-yr warm cycle started in 1994, Arctic Ice Extents started to fall….
The AMO 30-yr warm cycle already peaked in 2007, which explains why Arctic Ice Extents are starting to showing signs of recovery from 2008….
When the 30-yr AMO cool cycle starts again in the 2020’s, Arctic Ice Extents will likely start growing in earnest and will continue to slowly increase until then as we’re seeing now…. Oooops:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
Nice illustration of the stupidity of the prediction. Still, the graph they would use is even more stupid. Try redrawing it from 1850 and use CO2 concentrations for your y axis. Now you get 0.8C from then until the present. To add the extra 4.8C (or is it 4.8F? It’s of little consequence) you would have to move the next 1C rise further into the future, say to 2066 (correlated to the expected CO2 concentrations at that point of course!) and put the last 3.6C in from there. Now we REALLY have a stupid graph! See my own comment below.
Here’s another claim. And I believe this one because it is uncommonly and brutally honest:
John Kerry, United States Secretary of State and for those who may not have heard, a Vietnam war vet.
Oddly, given that blunt honesty, he remains convinced China is willing to gut their industry and energy programs alongside the US and the EU if only we say the right words. Honest, but still an idiot.
Cement production is a major source of worldwide CO2 emissions, and I remember reading somewhere that China has produced more cement in the last 5 years than the total amount used in the history of the US.
Probably that new airport in the Seychelles and that little dam project they built. I can just see the Chinese climate change war room now: no more concrete! Right. I suspect it’s not lost on them that 18 years of pause and the 3 Rivers dam are good for business. In fact I’m going out on a limb here and suggesting that what ever they’re doing is working better than what ever we’re doing, and they’re not going to allow a trace gas to act as an artificial road block to continued prosperity.
First result on Google.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/13/1306854/-China-has-consumed-more-concrete-in-3-5-years-than-United-States-did-in-100-years-says-Bill-Gates
KTM, it does not matter what the cement emissions are.
CO2 is not the controller of climate.
Please get that thought out of you brain once and for all.
My though exactly. What in the name of heaven or hell did Mr Obama think he was doing when he appointed this flea-brain to manage the foreign affairs of the US?
>>Honest, but still an idiot.<<
An idiot of dubious honesty:
http://www.militarycorruption.com/kerry4.htm
S’truth!
dp 10:27; – thanks, appreciated.
If I understand correctly – and, as a bum boatie, I may well not have understood – JK seems happy for the USA – the one global power, and custodian of free-markets [etc. etc. – you all know what the US (imperfections noted and excused, generally) is . . . . . . ] – to eviscerate herself in the name of keeping [non-climate-affecting] CO2 down, whilst other countries, some indifferent to US (& UK) values can build themselves regardless.
I guess JK has a degree in – say, golf course management with ballet studies. Nothing like hard science, I suppose [can’t be bothered to Wikipedia, the well-known, irrefutable and Omni-accurate source, that you and I can add to . . . . . . . . . . . . ].
Auto
According to the index projections, under the worst climate scenario of temperature rise nearing 4.8⁰C, extreme heat waves will become the norm by the end of the century.
+4.8 degrees by end of century? That could come about by one of two possible scenarios”
1. Sensitivity to CO2 doubling is enormous In fact higher than the highest range estimated by the IPCC. In other words, in to the real of “highly unlikely” by the IPCC themselves. Confirmed by observations to be much lower since a sensitivity that high would have exhibited itself as measurable and distinct warming over the last twenty years. Instead we have “the pause”.
2. We order every oil and coal company in the world to burn everything they can dig out of the ground starting right now. I mean just dig it out of the ground and burn it as fast as physically possible ti doesn’t even have to go through a power plant or a combustion engine, just burn it.
In other words, assume a temperature rise so far out of reality that it is meaningless, and then calculate results from it based on computer models that have gotten drought, flooding, sea ice, temperature, and (leaving the best for last) severe weather frequency and severe weather intensity wrong.
#2 won’t work.
The effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface cooling for all concentrations of radiative gases above 0.0ppm.
There will be no “less than we thought” soft landing for the hoax 😉
I agree totally.
I dont know why they keep re inventing the wheel
There is a heat wave index that is currently in operational use. Its used by many cities around the world
http://sheridan.geog.kent.edu/hwws/
http://sheridan.geog.kent.edu/pubs/2004-BAMS.pdf
Its possible ( cause we did it) to run GCM output through this warming system.. both in a hindcast mode
and forecast mode.
warning system..not warming
You got it right the first time 🙂
Freudian slip.
@ur momisugly Steven Mosher
November 5, 2014 at 10:36 pm
Hello Steven.
Considering the:
“under the worst climate scenario of temperature rise nearing 4.8⁰C”
and the actual reality about climate and climate change as it is up to now…..would you or would’t you agree with a statement as below:
“A claim of a temperature rise nearing 4.8C (at this point) is actully an insult in human intelligence and a total disrespect towards the integrity of human enterprise towards learning and growing in knowledge.
Is a claims that does not only try to take the rest for fools but actually demanding that the rest admit to foolishness by default.”
If that seems to harsh a statement to you than let me make it easy, in case you contemplate a reply.
“That claim (of +4.8C warming) is totally a ridiculous one……..and trying (continuing) to make some kinda of an estimation of its impact, so blatanly, is even more ridiculous, under the circumstances.”
cheers
They reinvent the wheel, because neither your index, nor the modified Palmer drought index, nor real world observations, drive the world to the CAGW, give me more money and power world, their masters have directed them to drive to.
If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.
If my uncle had tits, he’d be my aunt.
If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a streetcar.
If pigs had wings they would fly.
if wishes were horses beggars would ride.
if we had ham we could make a ham and cheese sandwich if we had cheese.
Etc, etc……
All these long term projections which mean they won’t be around to wipe the egg from their faces, but not so confident in the shorter term, eh?
how about one of thes Think (NOT) Tanks coming up with a headline like;
“Periods of increased warming will result in bumper crops of; maize, potatoes, lettuce, beet. oranges (insert 1)”
nah that just doesn’t line up for disaster funding does it?
What if its hot during the day and cold at night?
Is that still a heat wave?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
roger,
Or what if it is the same temperature in the day, but the night doesn’t cool off due to land use changes around the thermometer. Then we can claim it warmed due to some trace gas when it is really due to economic development of the land around the thermometer!
Time for the world to wake up to the fact the IPCC and UN have been having them on. They are a massive con job, the grandest fraud in history.
“the strongest on record in recent decades”….Oh really? Is that like “precedented”?
Extreme heat waves will become the norm by the end of the century…
==================
And each extremely normal heatwave will be unprecedented.
This is a comment from a paranoid layman. I notice they use 11 year periods. Where have I seen that figure? That’s right , solar cycle. I wonder what artifacts might be generated by this coincidence?
This CAGE scam is becoming a joke…
There hasn’t been a global warming trend for 18+ years and counting, and since the PDO entered its 30-yr cool phase in 2005, there is an excellent chance global temp trends could be dropping for the next 20 years as has been the case for the past three PDO cool cycles (1880~1921, 1943~1977 and 2005~):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1921/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1921/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1921/to:1943/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1921/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1977/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1977/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/trend
There hasn’t been a global warming trend for the past 18+ years (RSS), falling global temp trends since June 2000, and it doesn’t look like this will change anytime soon because:
1) Weak solar cycles developing since 1996.
2) Strongest 63-yr string of solar cycles in 11,400 years ended in 1996. (1933~1996).
3) The next solar cycle starting 2020 could be the weakest since the end of the Maunder Minimum in 1715.
4) The 30-yr PDO cool cycle started in 2005
5) The 30-yr AMO cool cycle starts around 2020
6) There are fewer and weaker El Nino cycles during a 30-yr PDO cool cycle and colder La Nina events.
7) ARGO ocean temp data from 2003 shows little, if any, ocean warming is taking place.
8) Even IPCC’s 2013 AR5 report admits severe weather trends have been flat for the past 50~100 years.
It’s becoming PAINFULLY obvious that CO2’s ECS will be closer to 0.5C by 2100 instead of CAGW “best guess” ECS estimate of 3.0C~4.5C by 2100. Anything under 2C really isn’t a problem.
CAGW is toast. In about 5 years, it will be laughed into obscurity.
I’m already laughing. Guess I’m ahead of the times. And thanks for the graph! That looked like a lot of work, but it’s quite instructive.
Magnitude of extreme heat waves in present climate and their projection in a warming world†
CMIP5… what a load of BS. There simply is no other way to put it. Anyone who uses or cites the DOE/LLNL GCM’s are a major league fool.
CMIP5 — a room full of chimps typing out what will hopefully run on a computer.
“It is possible single-digit low temperatures occur in parts of the northern Plains and the Upper Midwest, away from the Great Lakes with temperatures plunging to 20 degrees below average in parts of the South,” Pastelok said.
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2014/650x366_11051600_hd23.jpg
So will not COLD waves equally become greater/longer?
This is assuming the science is right. As it is far from proven, then this statement is more akin to just climate change, not AGW. Disclaimer: My belief is we are in a climate shift.