From the UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES (via Eurekalert) and the “Where’s Waldo?” department comes this hilarious claim. Why hilarious? Because the headline says “global warming”, yet the research says that warming appeared in different decades in different parts of the world. So much for the “global” part. But, it gets better, the money quote says the USA isn’t conforming to the expected warming signal, but, “…according to the models but it is expected they will appear in the next decade.”
And then there’s this:
Nevertheless, according to model evidence, both hot and cold extremes have already emerged across many areas.
I have to wonder, do these people even read their own press releases and apply a sanity check? Given that UNSW is the source of the Dr. Chris Turney “ship of fools” fiasco, probably not.
Researchers reveal when global warming first appeared
When global warming became clearly evident in the temperature record
The indications of climate change are all around us today but now researchers have revealed for the first time when and where the first clear signs of global warming appeared in the temperature record and where those signals are likely to be clearly seen in extreme rainfall events in the near future.
The new research published in Environmental Research Letters gives an insight into the global impacts that have already been felt, even at this very early stage, and where those impacts are likely to intensify in the coming years.
“We examined average and extreme temperatures because they were always projected to be the measure that is most sensitive to global warming,” said lead author from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Dr Andrew King.
“Remarkably our research shows that you could already see clear signs of global warming in the tropics by the 1960s but in parts of Australia, South East Asia and Africa it was visible as early as the 1940s.”
The reason the first changes in average temperature and temperature extremes appeared in the tropics was because those regions generally experienced a much narrower range of temperatures. This meant smaller shifts in the temperature record due to global warming were more easily seen.
The first signal to appear in the tropics was the change in average temperatures. Later extreme temperature events showed a global warming signal.
Closer to the poles the emergence of climate change in the temperature record appeared later but by the period 1980-2000 the temperature record in most regions of the world were showing clear global warming signals.
One of the few exceptions to this clear global warming signal was found in large parts of the continental United States, particularly on the Eastern coast and up through the central states. These regions have yet to manifest obvious warming signals according to the models but it is expected they will appear in the next decade.
While temperature records generally showed pronounced indications of global warming, heavy rainfall events have yet to make their mark. The models showed a general increase in extreme rainfall but the global warming signal was not strong enough yet to rise above the expected natural variation.
“We expect the first heavy precipitation events with a clear global warming signal will appear during winters in Russia, Canada and northern Europe over the next 10-30 years,” said co-author Dr Ed Hawkins from the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading, UK.
“This is likely to bring pronounced precipitation events on top of the already existing trend towards increasingly wet winters in these regions.”
Importantly, the findings closely correspond to observational datasets used by the IPCC (Chapter 10 – Detection and Attribution of Climate Change) in its most recent report, which showed increasing temperatures caused by global warming.
###
Here is the abstract, yes that’s right, the title says the entire thing is a simulation, something not quite so clear from their press release where they say things like:
“…now researchers have revealed for the first time when and where the first clear signs of global warming appeared in the temperature record…”
Uh, no. Model output is not the actual temperature record.
The timing of anthropogenic emergence in simulated climate extremes
Andrew D King, Markus G Donat, Erich M Fischer, Ed Hawkins, Lisa V Alexander, David J Karoly,Andrea J Dittus, Sophie C Lewis, and Sarah E Perkins
Abstract
Determining the time of emergence of climates altered from their natural state by anthropogenic influences can help inform the development of adaptation and mitigation strategies to climate change. Previous studies have examined the time of emergence of climate averages. However, at the global scale, the emergence of changes in extreme events, which have the greatest societal impacts, has not been investigated before. Based on state-of-the-art climate models, we show that temperature extremes generally emerge slightly later from their quasi-natural climate state than seasonal means,
due to greater variability in extremes. Nevertheless, according to model evidence, both hot and cold extremes have already emerged across many areas. Remarkably, even precipitation extremes that have very large variability are projected to emerge in the coming decades in Northern Hemisphere winters associated with a wettening trend. Based on our findings we expect local temperature and precipitation extremes to already differ significantly from their previous quasi-natural state at many locations or to
do so in the near future. Our findings have implications for climate impacts and detection and attribution studies assessing observed changes in regional climate extremes by showing whether they will likely find a fingerprint of anthropogenic climate change.
Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094015/meta
The paper is open source, should you want to bother reading it. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094015/pdf
Note: this story was edited shortly after publication to remove a duplicated word, “the”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The insanity of the left is breathtaking. They throw everything except the kitchen sink against the wall in the hope that something sticks. So far that wall is coated in Teflon.
“Based on our findings we expect local temperature and precipitation extremes to already differ significantly from their previous quasi-natural state at many locations or to do so in the near future.”
Apparently, they are admitting that ‘extremes’ in many locations have yet to differ from their ‘quasi-natural’ states. But rest assured, they will do so in the near future. I hope they have identified what the quasi-natural state is for each location so we will be able to recognize unnatural extremes when they happen. I just don’t know how you do that. For example, when wet weather and mud slides return to California again, are they going to call it a ‘precipitation extreme’ that differs significantly from the previous ‘quasi-natural’ drought state and then blame it on AGW? I have a feeling they will. Never mind that such extremes have happened long before there was any CO2 induced climate change.
Here they are talking about some of the regions where a clear global warming signal has not yet been found:
“One of the few exceptions to this clear global warming signal was found in large parts of the continental United States, particularly on the Eastern coast and up through the central states. These regions have yet to manifest obvious warming signals according to the models but it is expected they will appear in the next decade.”
Of course, they expect this to change any day now. But could the reason it hasn’t happened is because there are more temperature data available in the U.S. (and more eyes watching) making it a bit harder to ‘adjust’ temperatures upward? Just a thought…
First sentence in the article:
The indications of climate change are all around us today…
…as always. Nothing has changed.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. What is observed today has happened repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater degree. But there’s no grant money available for those pointing that out.
Was wondering how a paper this stupid could get published. Is in ERL, one of the IOP stable—strictly pay to play (about $3500 per article, IIRC). ERL is where Phil Jones threatened to remove an editor in Climategate 1 emails, IIRC. Finally, ERL is where Cook paid to publish his 97% consensus drek.
Pal review pollution of the formerly semiserious scientific process. Now with probable Australian grant money you simply pay up to get obvious nonsense published.
I’m kinda tempted to take them at their word. The first signs of global warming having showed up in 1940, we’ve been experiencing AGW for 3/4 of a century. During which:
o human population sky rocketed
o crop production sky rocketed
o life span sky rocketed
o huge expanses of land were returned to natural habitat due to less need for growing fuel and food
Now one could point out that growth in our population, food production and life span has begun to tail off in the last two decades. To which I reply that this coincides with “the pause” and is further proof that warmer is better.
Spin, spin, spin….
In Climate Change™ research a “quasi-natural state” is the state of the climate before it is examined, homogenised, manipulated, doctored, fudged, generally cooked and corrupted by quasi-scientists practicing a quasi-science.
+1000
And after all that I still don’t if should bring an umbrella or not.
CH
I’ve been collecting my own data about everything I could at my home. Almost 3 years of it.
So far it is the only “real”, detailed data I can find (except for the satelite data).
And recently before I bought a “6 +” have had to deal with barometric pressure to the closest .01 inches of Hg. But with the 6&8 chip, and an ap “–Barograph–” my research has drastically changed. With the detail of the data (graphed is detailed), I can see what the diurnals really look like. My plots are now using three decimal places.
After the sun lost it’s energy, the signals I have been plotting have confirmed the actions of the sun’s affect upon our atmosphere. Our barometric pressure seems to have dropped off to a level close to the sea level pressure values and haven’t changed. No wonder there is no storms brewing, we are in a “stillness” state.
It seems very clear to me. We have simulations outputing ‘data’ that confirm that the models are correct. What could possibly be wrong with that?
There aren’t many fashion models that still look good 20-50 years later. (No knock on them intended. I looked better a few decades ago myself.) Age does that to people. How many climate models have improved with age?
Age, and the dreaded Furnature Disease….(when your chest falls into your drawers ) …
Re fashion models I think your statement is flawed, Christie Brinkley comes to mind. 🙂
Check out “About Face: Supermodels Then and Now” for some more examples.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2085741/?ref_=nm_ov_bio_lk3
Phil, I did say “there aren’t many”, I didn’t say “there aren’t any”.( Fashion models, that is.)
Climate models is something else. Have any of them improved with age? Which ones even looked good to begin with? Lots of “going under the knife” where their numbers are concerned.
Christie Brinkley?
I loved this.
I am ashamed to say that UNSW is my alma mater.
I’m ashamed to say the UNSW is even in the same country.
With appropriate data “adjustment” the real world will be made to conform to the model. This is already happening unfortunately. As a UNSW alumni I’m embarrassed by their so called climate scientists publications.
When global warming became clearly evident in the temperature record
Which temperature record? The original or the bastardised version after they got through altering it.
Just a note that UNSW in the 1970-80s was known as a bastion for radical socialists and Marxists. I had a Marxist lecturer who advocated equal salaries for all workers, regardless of field or ability.
You can make your own judgement about whether this tradition has anything to do with current research.
‘According to model evidence’. That’s a classic.
This article might as well be titled: “When you wish upon a star……”
It should be noted that this was written for the Walt Disney film – Pinnochio…..:-)
When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires
Will come to you
If your heart is in your dream
No request is too extreme
When you wish upon a star
As dreamers do
Fate is kind
She brings to those to love
The sweet fulfillment of
Their secret longing
Like a bolt out of the blue
Fate steps in and sees you through
When you wish upon a star
Your dreams come true
Nice title and peer review for this article, isn’t it?
“I had a Marxist lecturer who advocated equal salaries for all workers, regardless of field or ability. ”
True enough for US armed forces; but they hide inequality in bonuses. Otherwise you end up with scarcity in high tech or less pleasant specialties.
Michael 2.
What are you talking about? Each rank has a higher pay scale and there is upward mobility if you’re not an idiot. Most jobs work that way.
“money quote says the USA isn’t conforming to the expected warming signal”
Substitute in the country you are publishing in… wouldn’t want the locals to ask why their own thermometers don’t show the warming, after all?
log(of(log(of(log(of…. gives a clear, robust trend – and zero information.
one should think that the world formula is inhearant logical: hierarchic cristallized like a diamonds structure.
but: a diamonds structurs information is exhausted in the ever repeated again/again/again/….
A better metaphor is a fe3c diagram: cristalline fe3c structures irregularly broken / mantled / separated by raw carbon.
no depictable logical ‘one cristal’, hierarchic ‘world formula’. Reality is ever demanding.
best regards – Hans
Do they bill their “science” per kg of paper?
I dare say one reason the US hasn’t shown “global warming” signs is that it has retained the Fahrenheit scale, unlike most western countries that switched to Celsius in the 60s and 70s – which is the more generally accepted era when AGW supposedly started happening.
F thermometers had different scaling and observer eyeball estimates of decimals at weather stations usually became more accurate with metrication. A tell-tale sign of the influence is the proportion of .0 readings during the temp record. For example, in Australia between a third and more likely close to half of all F temps recorded before 1972 metrication were .0 (http://www.waclimate.net/round/rounded-australia.html).
Some claim it makes no difference as the rounded temp readings were equally up and down. I say poppycock because it would be human nature for more rounding observers to consider 77.3F recorded as 78F to be a lie, but 77.7F recorded as 77F to be true – sorta. Australia changed thermometers and the BoM reports a 0.1C artificial temp variation at that time – go figure. Other instrument changes, primarily automatic weather stations since the 1990s, maintained the warming trend.
“one reason the US hasn’t shown “global warming” signs is that it has retained the Fahrenheit scale”
Yeah, that’s actually why we did it. So that the rest of you would get warmer while we don’t. Guess we’re busted. [eyeroll]
It’s as though these people are playing a computer game called “Global Warming Simulator” and the real world is supposed to act as though their gameplay is real. If things actually worked that way, let me tell you how many times I’ve single-handedly defeated the Nazis in WWII, starting with the original DOS version of Castle Wolfenstein