![CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs1.jpg?quality=83)
COLLEGE PARK, Md. — An analysis of changes to the climate that occur over several decades suggests that these changes are happening faster than historical levels and are starting to speed up. The Earth is now entering a period of changing climate that will likely be faster than what’s occurred naturally over the last thousand years, according to a new paper in Nature Climate Change, committing people to live through and adapt to a warming world.
In this study, interdisciplinary scientist Steve Smith and colleagues at the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory examined historical and projected changes over decades rather than centuries to determine the temperature trends that will be felt by humans alive today.
“We focused on changes over 40-year periods, which is similar to the lifetime of houses and human-built infrastructure such as buildings and roads,” said lead author Smith. “In the near term, we’re going to have to adapt to these changes.”
See CMIP run
Overall, the Earth is getting warmer due to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that trap heat. But the rise is not smooth — temperatures bob up and down. Although natural changes in temperature have long been studied, less well-understood is how quickly temperatures changed in the past and will change in the future over time scales relevant to society, such as over a person’s lifetime. A better grasp of how fast the climate might change could help decision-makers better prepare for its impacts.
To examine rates of change, Smith and colleagues at the Joint Global Change Research Institute, a collaboration between PNNL and the University of Maryland in College Park, turned to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. The CMIP combines simulations from over two-dozen climate models from around the world to compare model results.
All the CMIP models used the same data for past and future greenhouse gas concentrations, pollutant emissions, and changes to how land is used, which can emit or take in greenhouse gases. The more models in agreement, the more confidence in the results.
The team calculated how fast temperatures changed between 1850 and 1930, a period when people started keeping records but when the amount of fossil fuel gases collecting in the atmosphere was low. They compared these rates to temperatures reconstructed from natural sources of climate information, such as from tree rings, corals and ice cores, for the past 2,000 years.
Taken together, the shorter time period simulations were similar to the reconstructions over a longer time period, suggesting the models reflected reality well.
While there was little average global temperature increase in this early time period, Earth’s temperature fluctuated due to natural variability. Rates of change over 40-year periods in North America and Europe rose and fell as much as 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. The computer models and the reconstructions largely agreed on these rates of natural variability, indicating the models provide a good representation of trends over a 40-year scale.
Now versus then
Then the team performed a similar analysis using CMIP but calculated 40-year rates of change between 1971 to 2020. They found the average rate of change over North America, for example, to be about 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade, higher than can be accounted for by natural variability. The CMIP models show that, at the present time, most world regions are almost completely outside the natural range for rates of change.
The team also examined how the rates of change would be affected in possible scenarios of future emissions [link to RCP release http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=779]. Climate change picked up speed in the next 40 years in all cases, even in scenarios with lower rates of future greenhouse gas emissions. A scenario where greenhouse gas emissions remained high resulted in high rates of change throughout the rest of this century.
Still, the researchers can’t say exactly what impact faster rising temperatures will have on the Earth and its inhabitants.
“In these climate model simulations, the world is just now starting to enter into a new place, where rates of temperature change are consistently larger than historical values over 40-year time spans,” said Smith. “We need to better understand what the effects of this will be and how to prepare for them.”
###
This work was supported by the Department of Energy Office of Science.
Reference: Steven J. Smith, James Edmonds, Corinne A Hartin, Anupriya Mundra, and Katherine Calvin. Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change, Nature Climate Change March 9, 2015, doi: 10.1038/nclimate2552.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So they gone down the normal route of climate ‘science’ of heads you lose tails I win , by claiming it warming and its not warming .
Which brings to the old question that never seem to be able to answer , what would disprove the theory ?
Still given all the cereal packets these people they must get through , in order to collect all the special coupons in order to get their Phd’s , its unlikely they will live that long so there may be hope for change in the long term.
Indeed. Your question. What would disprove the theory? Most of what we get here is “is temperature rising or not? And it goes on and on and on. Nobody tries to answer your question.
The issue is: is CO2 an important element (amount all other elements on the planet contributing to temperature) responsible for increasing in temperature?
If it is, we should think about reducing using fossil fuels, although their use contributes only a small fraction of the total CO2 in the cycle there is an undeniable increase in atmospheric CO2, that in part at least must be due to burning fossil fuels. Fair enough.
I don’t think I know “what would disprove the theory” except for two things: TIME and Mother Nature.
So when did CO2 start increasing due to, at least in part, burning of fossil fuels. About 1950 or so, maybe a little bit later. We are very fortunate to have absolutely excellent measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii and also very fortunate that CO2 concentrations measured at this site are, within 5% or so, representative or world wide atmospheric concentrations. Easy for you to get. If you go to this site you will get nice plots of CO2 (and tables) of results from 1959 to now and you can get the data on a monthly basis as well as yearly basis. Quite nice to see a continuous yearly increase in CO2. Never a decrease from 1959 to now and this will make statistical analysis very easy, since in time series analysis you can then use yearly CO2 concentrations to replace increasing years, obviously always increasing on the X axis(and to check this just plot CO2 concentration vs. year as already done at Mauna Loa) and furthermore you can even use the monthly data since they reflect nicely the growing seasons within each year with such great reproducibility. Well, great we have one very reliable and I think the most important variable to answer your question.
Now we need the other variable: temperature.
Is it increasing, decreasing or staying just about the same. Many data sets available. Pick your own with all the arguments for and against, not pretty. Certainly not with the same reliability as CO2 measurements. But this is what we have.
So some clever people at
climate4you.com
decided to give it a try to answer your question. No BS.
As you can see from the graphic presentation below you should be able to get your answer. So, TIME did bring answers for the past. Only Mother Nature can bring answers for the future. There is absolutely NO credible way to predict the future. The graph shows it. NO?
You can also go to their site to read their discussion of the findings but I don’t want to add it (or add mine) before you look at the graphic presentation.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20VersusCO2.gif
rd50/knr re disproving the theory.
The CO2/temp anomaly curve has a definite shape and the variance is surprisingly constant. However, it is clear that if CO2 was “THE control knob” there would not logically be a down curve at the beginning and essentially a flattened section at the high end (in reality, with all the fiddling with temperature to try to kill the pause, the real numbers are probably cooling temperatures at the top end – you can be sure the way this curve ends at the top is the strongest uptrend that the warming faith can get away with). Your point is an interesting one that you can substitute CO2 for time on the abscissa. Possibly there is something else we could put on the abscissa that increases with time (with some pauses as at the beginning and end of this curve)- it is not a unique solution to put CO2 growth as the principal variable.
In any case, to answer the question about disproving the theory, we are in a period that must be close to doing this (a sign is the growing number of CAGW proponent scientists that have been afflicted with chronic depression because of implications of the pause [although they blame something else – classic psychological “D”nial].
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/11/depressed-climate-scientists-advised-to-use-f-word/
If CO2 continues to rise at the healthy rate it has been, and the temperature refuses to rise in coming years after 18 years of pause, presto, the theory has been roundly falsified. This is because the longer the pause lasts, the more weighty is some factor other than CO2. Eventually, the CO2 connection is relegated to a minor or zero place in it all and natural variability is the prime driver of climate (we will then finally get around to investigating what causes “natural” variability). Hey if climate scientists are falling ill with the pause, their psyches are already telling them the theory is falsified.
rd50
So, why did global temperatures rise between 1650 and 1950? Because we know that rise was NOT due to CO2 changes.
If we have added 30% of man’s CO2 releases between 1996 and 2015, why has the temperature been constant for 18 years?
Why did the global average temperatures rise between 1880 and 1945 at the same rate and over the same interval as when man was releasing significant amounts of CO2?
Artificially restricting energy development and artificially and deliberately raising energy prices and starving people to lives of shortened squalor in unheated, unlit dung-fueled open rooms to try to restrict CO2 release – which will not reduce future but beneficial temperature increases anyway – if they are even going to occur at all – condemns billions to increased poverty, and condemns millions of innocents to to an early death. Why do you want that future?
To Gary Pearse.
I share your conclusions and remarks.
To RACookPE1978
I find it strange that you are accusing me of wanting the future you described.
I have no interest in answering your questions.
The question is: is the IPCC correct?
Does not look like it.
rd50
No, the IPCC (and Obama’s EPA and NASA-GISS, NOAA and CNN) are not correct.
They have the money and the power, and are desperate for more of both, but they are not correct.
I don’t think I know “what would disprove the theory”
But I know why that has became the case , becasue they had to change form claims of ‘warming ‘ is proof therefore lack of warming is disproof ,to claims of ‘anything ‘ is proof becasue of the total failure of their claims to reflect reality . Never forget the very need for ‘missing heat’ came about that because of good science but because of the total failure of the models to actual predict to any extent worth a dam.
The heads I win tails you lose approach , has no place in science , that it has become such a common feather within climate ‘science’ show how much more like a religion. where such notions of anything is proof and therefore its not possible to have disproof , it is than any real science. That the professional working in the area feel no problem with using totally unscientific terms like ‘denier’ merely adds to the view that here it is the strength of belief not the strength of evdainced that really matters .
In short the question “what would disprove the theory” cannot be answered because then the claims can be judge as if they are true or not .
Very sad seeing where politics driven science is going. The worst of it is the idiots who are making costly decisions based on the politically driven science.
Tim
The idiots ARE NOT “…making costly decisions based on the politically driven science….”.
Politicians are genetically predisposed to make dangerous decisions all on their own (loss of liberty & freedom) – they simply are using the convenient goof-ball theory of the moment to hid their intentions (a lot of these crooks probably know full well warming claims are laughable).
Gathering money & power has historically been an end unto itself.
‘All the CMIP models used the same data for past and future greenhouse gas concentrations’
If all models used the same data, wouldn’t you expect them all to come up with the same answer?
Nature Climate Change is a political journal obviously an editorial decision.
When you remember its journal that exist to promote ‘AGW’ , you can see why such ‘research’ will always find favour in it .
Ze model ! Ze model !
Ha ha
I have a model, built by an accomplished PhD, (myself), that says I have a bridge across the Everglades that’s worth $52,000,000, U.S. But I’ll let it go to the first governmental unit that will offer $1,200,000.
The fact that the climate has stopped changing is stark evidence supporting the climate change alarmists claims – the climate has indeed changed. And even though it is what they wish would happen, the fact that it has happened without reworking the world order and the bankruptcy of the western world is driving them batschtick crazy. It was never supposed to end this way. It does nothing to placate them to know that Obama delivered on his promise to stop the seas from rising (by doing exactly nothing, but give credit where credit is due because his was the right solution).
“..They compared these rates to temperatures reconstructed from natural sources of climate information, such as from tree rings, corals and ice cores, for the past 2,000 years….”
This sounds like something out of a “… interdisciplinary scientist Steve Smith…” Now what kind of a scientist would call himself that? First it would have to be someone who believes the term enhances what his field of study was. I’m going for Psychology 101 statistics student. It reminds me of an old monologue by Bob Newhart where he has a pilot talking to the passengers …oh, I dunno, about 20-30,000ft…and the airline is the such and such “… airline and sash and door company…” Like how interdisciplinary is this dude.
This is nonsense.
http://www.science20.com/sites/all/modules/author_gallery/uploads/543663916-global.png
this a chart of the daily rate of change from spring to fall, and fall to spring.
This is the annual average of the daily day to day difference for both min and max, which both come from exactly the same stations.
http://www.science20.com/sites/all/modules/author_gallery/uploads/1871094542-global.png
Oops
What is the source of the above chart?
David A commented
I created it from the NCDC’s global summary of days data
I’ve written about how it started a number of times here
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds
and as I mentioned I’ve published all my data and code, well the slope stuff is new and I haven’t gotten all the things finished I’m working on. I’m in the process of adding a calculation of solar forcing for each station, so I’ll have the energy evolution as well as temp, and I’ll be able to look at how the system responded.
“A better grasp of how fast the climate might change could help decision-makers better prepare for its impacts.”
I grew up in a country of individuals who took care of themselves. They were the decision makers.
Prepare for impacts of might change? A contrived proposition.
Perhaps they wrote the report saying we are in a period of accelerating warming because they know temperature records are always being adjusted, and they are always adjusted to show more warming. So in 20 years this pause we are in will probably end up being a period of accelerating global warming. Remember how when the 20th century ended the temperature record of the 80s and 90s didn’t show any significant warming, now the the 80s and 90s are a hockey stick rise according to the climate records. The final word on the temperature record of the last 20 years has not been spoken, not by a long shot. The climate is like the golden rule, he who controls the temperature record, makes the rules on what the climate was.
““In these climate model simulations, the world is just now starting to enter into a new place, where rates of temperature change are consistently larger than historical values over 40-year time spans,” said Smith. “We need to better understand what the effects of this will be and how to prepare for them.”
Yes, oh clueless one. IF you lived in a world of models. But you live in the real world that has consistently kicked the ass of most of the models.
I quote:
“The Earth is now entering a period of changing climate that will likely be faster than what’s occurred naturally over the last thousand years.”
Why should I believe this? There is no science here, just pseudo-science. The article is clearly motivated by a desire to wipe out the hiatus but a nonsensical claim about accelerated warning will not do it.
I don’t suppose that it has occurred to them that if 90 models give different results, then at least 89 of them are wrong, since they consider a 0.02C difference to be significant. Even if one them happens to be right it is probably “the broken clock effect” rather than superior predictive power.
Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
If you don’t understand basic facts re. Earth’s natural forces, such as Erosion for example regarding erosion effect on corall atolls,
then of course there always is a problem…. 🙂 pause or no pause…..
Same laughable modeling “theory” probably is behind the forgotten Erosion problem the Alarmists and the Modelling so called scholars never have understood…. 🙂
t
“The more models in agreement, the more confidence in the results.” Say no more.
Patience, patience folks. Wait and let nature show you what’s going on.
It appears to me that the latest year noted on the graph is 2012, and the most recent complete year is 2014. This leads me to think that the points for 2012 are for the five complete years 2010-2014, AKA 2010.00 to 2015.00. As in, the full year of 2012 is the center year of five years averaged into the data for the last year plotted on the graph.
So, I wonder why the start point in the graph is 1983 instead of 1981, considering that the UAH dataset’s first full year is 1979.
Also, I see the UAH and HadCRUT4 plots doing noticeable jumps in response to events of 1998, 2008, 2010, and 2003-replacing-1998 as if these years were the latest as opposed to the center of 5 years being considered. So why do these plots appear to end with 2012 instead of 2014?
I am getting worried about Barton, has anybody heard from him lately? No serious send him an e-mail to make sure he is OK.
I have just read an item in the World Nuclear News 26 Feb15 (of all places) which has the following text in the intro para: “Scientists have FOR THE FIRST TIME (my caps) actually observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface. They attributed this upward trend to rising emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.”
So the science wasn’t settled after all??? At least not until now??? Can someone tell me what the hell this article refers to in the context of “Conventional Wisdom”. This is supposed to appear in Nature online soon.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-scientists-witness-greenhouse-effect-2602154.html
Covered by WUWT here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/25/almost-30-years-after-hansens-1988-alarm-on-global-warming-a-claim-of-confirmation-on-co2-forcing/
Hamish Grant commented
Everyone in the world should read this, 0.2W/M^2/decade let me put this in perspective.
Clear skies when it’s low humidity whether because its cold, dry or both, are very cold. I live N41 W81, and frequently measured -70F temps over the last month(the cold nights were below -80F, but it was -10F out). Yesterday was nice, ~56F Sunny most of the day, the sky was ~ -63F, adding 0.2 Watt/Meter Sq changes that -63F to wait for it -62.84F, a whole difference of 0.16F difference in the temperature of the sky (what the surface radiates to).
Now, it got cloudy during the night, and it was cloudy this morning. My IR thermometer measured the clouds at 31F (near 90F warmer than clear sky temps), that 0.2W/M^2 added to the clouds? 31.08F, an astounding 0.08F per decade, and this isn’t surface temp influence, this is the difference in the surface temp the surface radiates to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL, we’re all going to die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What fracking fools.
Oh, in case you didn’t follow along, water/clouds had a 90F difference in Sky temp vs 0.16F per decade for Co2
Well that practically guarantees a certain result doesn’t it.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/03/09/deterioration-of-ancient-mummies-may-be-caused-by-climate-change.html
The Mummies dun it.
regards
I do agree with these guys for most of what they claim.
The climate change has been a rapid change from 1850 to 2000, and it will be even more rapid for the next 150 years after the 2000.
But I totally disagree with their AGW projections.
These projections are a lot exaggerated.
But considering that they have a product, and the certainty that it will not sell unless put under the AGW label, then I think there is no much I myself will feel like complaining…
But I must say, that totally disregarding and rubbishing it only because of the crazy AGW projections, may just be not so wise.
Cheers
Define “the climate change.”
Tell us where on earth a climate has changed in 150 years.
Gamecock
A global warming, ~0.8C warming of the last 150 years is not just climate change, but a rapid one, that is why all the furore about.
I leave the definition of it to you.
Once upon a time same line of approach as yours, arguing through the definition, was used to junk the Darwin’s work…………..in the point that what exactly was the definition of “species”.
No good, no good at all.
Cheers
I repeat a comment I have made previously – stop showing graphs like the first one in this article with the CMIP 5 results WITHOUT SHOWING THE DATE THE MODEL WAS RUN. Using graphs like the first one in this article might lead some to think the models had some validity as in the early years as they appear to track reality. However, if the models were run sometime after 2008 (as I believe was true for CMIP 5) all the graph shows is that the models were OK in hindcasting. These types of graphs should have a bright vertical red line on the year the models were prepared with a legend explaining that line.
Found this this morning.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-could-hit-rates-unseen-in-1-000-years/
I used to subscribe to that magazine – back when it was honest.
Could – translate to might not. Not so scary.