
From NCAR/UCAR:
SEARING HEAT WAVES DETAILED IN STUDY OF FUTURE CLIMATE
Sweltering heat waves that typically strike once every 20 years could become yearly events across 60 percent of Earth’s land surface by 2075, if human-produced greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked.
If stringent emissions-reduction measures are put in place, however, these extreme heat events could be reduced significantly. Even so, 18 percent of global land areas would still be subjected yearly to these intense heat waves, defined as three exceptionally hot days in a row.
These are among the findings of a new study by Claudia Tebaldi of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Michael Wehner of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The study, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and published in the journal Climatic Change, quantifies the benefits society would reap, in terms of avoiding extreme heat events, if action is taken now to mitigate climate change.
“The study shows that aggressive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will translate into sizable benefits, starting in the middle of the century, for both the number and intensity of extreme heat events,” Tebaldi said. “Even though heat waves are on the rise, we still have time to avoid a large portion of the impacts.”
MORE FREQUENT, MORE SEVERE
Tebaldi and Wehner used data generated by the NCAR-based Community Earth System Model to study 20-year extreme heat events—those intense enough to have just a 1-in-20 chance of occurring in any given year. The model was developed with support from the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.
The researchers looked at two things: how frequently today’s typical 20-year heat wave may occur in the future, as well as how much more intense future 20-year heat waves will be.
For large portions of the world’s land surface, future heat waves with a 1-in-20 chance of occurring in any given year are projected to become more extreme than heat waves with the same chance of occurring today. Stringent efforts to mitigate human-produced carbon emissions would reduce the amount of land area at risk for these intense heat waves—defined as three days of exceptionally hot temperature. Click to enlarge. (This table is freely available for media & nonprofit use.)
Besides finding that today’s 20-year heat waves could become annual occurrences across more than half of the world’s land areas by 2075, the study also concluded that heat waves with a 1-in-20 chance of occurring during a future year will be much more extreme than heat waves with the same probability of occurring today.
For example, if emissions remain unabated, a heat wave with a 1-in-20 chance of occurring in 2050 would be at least 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter for 60 percent of the world’s land areas. For 10 percent of land areas, a 20-year heat wave in 2050 would be at least 5 degrees C (9 degrees F) hotter.
A few degrees may not seem like much on a mild day, but during extreme heat events, they can mean the difference between life and death for vulnerable populations, Wehner said.
“It’s the extreme weather that impacts human health; this week could be 2 degrees Celsius hotter than last week, and that doesn’t matter,” he said. “Now, imagine the hottest day that you can remember and instead of 42 degrees C (107.6 degrees F) it’s now 45 degrees C (113 degrees F). That’s going to have a dangerous impact on the poor, the old and the very young, who are typically the ones dying in heat waves.”
By 2075, the situation is likely to become much more dire if greenhouse gas emissions—produced largely by the burning of fossil fuels—are not reduced. The percent of land areas subject to 20-year events that are at least 5 degrees C hotter swells from 10 to 54 percent.
However, if emissions are aggressively cut, the severity of these 20-year events could be significantly reduced over the majority of the world’s land areas, though portions of the Earth would still face dangerous heat extremes. For example, in 2075, almost a quarter—instead of more than a half—of land areas could experience 20-year heat waves that are at least 5 degrees C hotter than today’s. “But even with such dramatic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, future heat waves will be far more dangerous than they are now,” Wehner said.
The researchers also looked at single-day extreme heat events, as well as single-day and three-day blocks when the overnight low temperature remained exceptionally warm. Past research has shown that human health is especially endangered when temperatures do not cool off significantly at night. All of these events had similar increases in frequency and intensity.
A TOOL FOR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
The fact that extreme heat events are expected to increase in the future as the climate changes—and the fact that emission reductions could ameliorate that increase—is not a surprise, Tebaldi said. But this study is important because it puts hard numbers to the problem.
“There is a cost attached to reducing emissions,” Tebaldi said. “Decision makers are interested in being able to quantify the expected benefits of reductions so they can do a cost-benefit analysis.”
Tebaldi and Wehner’s paper is part of a larger project based at NCAR called the Benefits of Reduced Anthropogenic Climate Change, or BRACE. For the project, researchers from across NCAR and partner organizations are working to quantify how emission reductions may affect health, agriculture, hurricanes, sea level rise, and drought.
About the article
Title: Benefits of mitigation for future heat extremes under RCP4.5 compared to RCP8.5
Authors: Claudia Tebaldi and Michael F. Wehner
Publication: Climatic Change
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Something might happen in 50 years so let’s kill ourselves now.
And Models all the way down.
I preferred it when it was all turtles.
g
You got it. Also, why did they also include the study of the Benefits of Mitigation of future cold extremes that are just as likely to happen as heat extremes?
Well apart from anything else we have just had Paris 21 where everything was decided. Why do we need this kind of alarmist claptrap anymore. Deals done, end of story.
Now let’s go off and do something about real air and water pollution, can we?
do do
Climate Shite.
Here’s a peer-reviewed climate science paper for that Jimmy:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/04/22/article-2133643-04D3E19A000005DC-863_468x408.jpg
Yes! that about sums these claims up.:)
Izzat ‘ peer ‘ reviewed or ‘ pee-er ‘ reviewed ??
g
That would be “Rear” reviewed, no?
Brilliant Phil! As my dear deceased daddy used to say, whenever I explained the remote possibility of childlike nonsense, if that happens a monkey will jump out of you a__! this paper will come in handy in the more likely event of the monkey escape.
Doesn’t a peer review require you to use it? Don’t forget to recycle, this should yield several follow on publications. (See Penn And Teller Recycling on youtube.)
Yeah, I was actually thinking of the next iteration of Marcott et al., when I posted that. If you roll it all the way out (keeping it exactly straight of course), then the hockey stick blade might just fit on it as the Earth’s temperature exceeds that of a blue hypergiant star next year.
The flaming stupidity of intellectual-fecal-droppings like this is the only heat wave we have to worry about.
by 2075 when the author will no longer be around to be asked how they could get their claims so very wrong , now who says climate ‘scientists’ never learn .
Two thoughts:
1) It is utterly amazing that the model output exactly what it was programmed to output, and;
2) *cough* *cough* “bullsh_t!” *cough*
“We’ll always have Paris…”
We’ll always have Vermont.
Can i have my heatwave right now?
It is freezing here.
This empty speculation of cataclysmic weather is almost as real as government budgets.
The authors no longer care whether they are right or wrong, they just want money and attention.
If their masters in the government can just take control of global energy supplies now, under whatever pretext, then they will have achieved the goal of absolute power.
Whatever the future of climate really holds would then not matter one jot.
Sure, they no longer have to care about being shown to be complete fools, because step #1 of their process is calculating how many years from now they will retire.
Step two is apparently deciding how big a lie to tell.
I might be tempted to invest in a bit of lakeside Siberia, or will it still be -40degC off peak?
Global warming..It will be only -35C off peak.
More heatwaves and more extreme cold
More drought and more flooding
More food shortages and more greening of the planet
More hurricanes, (ooops)
Seems like a zero sum game right about now
Mark, you are right, remember the following song:
https://youtu.be/9vdl3TRxv0c
Say whatever you want. Project any hysterical outcome and no one cares… as long as you advocate for penalizing Western Civilization and transferring wealth from the developed world to the developing world. It’s simple actually. It’s all about the dialectic…
A truckload of “could”s haven’t the weight of a single “will”.
I disagree.
Predictions are hard, especially about the future.
But that is not even the biggest reason why all the maybe words in the world do not add up to one single fact.
I doubt if these people could possibly be stupid enough to believe their own lies, but I may be wrong about that.
Oops. So solly.
There are people who make up the lies – to them the ends justify the means and they are well paid for it.
There are the people who believe the lies – they were placed into public schools and force fed propaganda sometimes masked as movies from ex vice presidents who only took one science course at Yale with a passing C grade. Maybe he aced his “Making Documentaries” 110 course regardless it qualifies as brainwashing.
And then the rest of us that believe that science should be motivated by the truth and not politics and realize that CAGW is a global fraud perpetrated by the wealth holders against the masses.
So my computer model that cannot predict short-term weather is valid to predict intermediate-term weather? I am missing something here. The only value of this seems to be continued funding.
“Tebaldi and Wehner’s paper is part of a larger project based at NCAR called the Benefits of Reduced Anthropogenic Climate Change, or BRACE.”
Well, seems like all the papers for this project are deliberately guaranteed to have a preordained conclusion (PC?). I guess we should BRACE ourselves for when they come to take our wallets.
At least when Renata sang, she was at least on pitch !
g
These folks never seem concerned about hypotheses of events so far in the future they can’t be checked. What are the intermediate predictions? Or do these scorching days just spring upon us in 44 years?
(This table is freely available for media & nonprofit use.)
How very thoughtful.
sarc
Dang this sounds bad! I’d like to provide more funding to Claudia Tebaldi of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Michael Wehner of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory so that we can learn more about it, please.
What a bunch of mother falcon, son of a pigeon, yellow-bellied sapsuckers!
Pleas forgive my fowl language, but these kind of fear-mongering predictions really upset me.
Good work
But they have degrees or something. They should know.
I concur.
The inflation in horse droppings is getting out of control. Never mind that the models do not accurate predict that the sun might come up tomorrow, they now have to predict the earth turning into a white dwarf to get new funding.
This BS not real future warm or heat. It natural cycle weather or solar cycle weak can cause little ice age or global cooling. Never know it natural cycle earth
National Laboratory. The study, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and published in the journal Climatic Change, Do these people ever feel embarrassed for this stupidity with taxpayer MONEY.
I can get climatic change just by driving ten miles down the road; or 18,520 meters if I go nautical miles.
g
How timely that this appears concurrent with the new GRL paper showing how unreliable such ‘projections’ are. Discussed just two posts ago here.
NCAR-based Community Earth System Model neglects a temperature dependence of a latent heat of water vaporization. That introduces a 2.5% error in an energy transfer by evaporation from tropical seas.
I asked NCAR for an analysis of an impact of this approximation. They did not supply any. I estimate that it limits the usefulness of the model to 100 time steps (usually 100 hours) at best.
Just put a paper sack over our heads and lie down and wait for it.
Sour Grapes. The Paris Agreement sets future CO2 emission levels. All countries have agreed.
Computer models from this point forward are a waste of time. We are going to get the climate agreed in Paris.
True that. Reality is what we all say it is.
The increase in the greenhouse effect should reduce the highest temperature of the year. Look at regions with a lot of water vapor in the air. And the data also shows a drop. The drop might be hidden by the increase in sensibility of the instruments. At some stations, if you take the hourly data and find the highest value taken at the start of an hour an compare with the daily max. You will find a growing difference. Possibly because the instrument can catch any quick variation in temperature. The Stevenson screen might be smaller also. Anyway, the highest temperature of the year should go down based on science and is going down based on most of the data.
Your point is shown empirically in longitudinal studies of long service weather stations. Most often, the maximums have decreased slightly while minimums have increased more strongly. So less cool overnight, earlier Springtimes, later Autumns, milder winters. Not scary enough.
+1000. Per recent WUWT posts – Mauna Loa diurnal trends and a whole truck load of others. But why look at data when you have a nice model? Unprecedented. 😉
Invest now in companies that manufacture and sell marshmellows and hot dogs!