From the NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION and the “it’s always hotter in the city than the country department comes this collection of spin:
In 50 years, summers across most of the globe could be hotter than any summer experienced by people to date, according to a study by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.
If climate change continues on its current trajectory, the probability that summers between 2061 and 2080 will be warmer than the hottest on record stands at 80 percent across the world’s land areas, excluding Antarctica, which was not studied.
If greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, however, that probability drops to 41 percent.
“Extremely hot summers always pose a challenge to society,” said NCAR scientist Flavio Lehner, lead author of the study. “They can increase the risk for health issues, and can also damage crops and deepen droughts. Such summers are a true test of our adaptability to rising temperatures.”
The study is part of an upcoming special issue of the journal Climatic Change that will focus on quantifying the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The research was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Swiss National Science Foundation.
Simulating a range of summers
The research team, which includes NCAR scientists Clara Deser and Benjamin Sanderson, used two existing sets of model simulations to investigate what future summers might look like.
They created both by running the NCAR-based Community Earth System Model 15 times, with one simulation assuming that greenhouse gas emissions remain unabated and the other assuming that society reduces emissions.
NSF and the U.S. Department of Energy fund the Community Earth System Model. The team ran the simulations on the NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center’s Yellowstone system.
“We’ve thought of climate change as ‘global warming,’ but it’s important to understand how this overall warming affects conditions that hit people locally,” said Eric DeWeaver, program director in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funds NCAR.
“Extreme temperatures pose risks to people around the globe,” DeWeaver said. “These scientists show the power of ensembles of simulations for understanding how these risks depend on the level of greenhouse gas emissions.”
By using simulations created by running the same model multiple times, with only tiny differences in the initial starting conditions, the scientists could examine the range of expected summertime temperatures for future “business-as-usual” and reduced-emissions scenarios.
“This is the first time the risk of record summer heat and its dependence on the rate of greenhouse gas emissions have been so comprehensively evaluated from a large set of simulations with a single state-of-the-art climate model,” Deser said.
The scientists compared results to summertime temperatures recorded between 1920 and 2014 and to 15 sets of simulated summertime temperatures for the same period.
By simulating past summers — instead of relying solely on observations — the researchers established a large range of temperatures that could have occurred naturally under the same conditions, including greenhouse gas concentrations and volcanic eruptions.
“Instead of just comparing the future to 95 summers from the past, the models give us the opportunity to create more than 1,400 possible past summers,” Lehner said. “The result is a more comprehensive look at what should be considered natural variability and what can be attributed to climate change.”
Emissions cuts could yield big benefits
The results show that between 2061 and 2080, summers in large parts of North and South America, central Europe, Asia, and Africa have a greater than 90 percent chance of being warmer than any summer in the historic record if emissions continue unabated.
That means virtually every summer would be as warm as the hottest to date.
In some regions, the likelihood of summers being warmer than any in the historical record remained less than 50 percent, but in those places — including Alaska, the central U.S., Scandinavia, Siberia and continental Australia — summer temperatures naturally vary greatly, making it more difficult to detect effects of climate change.
Reducing emissions would lower the global probability of future summers that are hotter than any in the past, but would not result in uniformly spread benefits. In some regions, including the U.S. East Coast and large parts of the tropics, the probability would remain above 90 percent, even if emissions were reduced.
But reduced emissions would result in a sizable boon for other regions of the world.
Parts of Brazil, central Europe, and eastern China would see a reduction of more than 50 percent in the chance that future summers would be hotter than the historic range. Since these areas are densely inhabited, a large part of the global population would benefit significantly from climate change mitigation.
“It’s often overlooked that the majority of the world’s population lives in regions that will see a comparably fast rise in temperatures,” Lehner said.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More computer games–GIGO.
Yup, and I notice that there is a cooling trend up here in Mass that starts around october. If it keeps up that rate of october to november for the next 50 years, we will all be ice cubes.
We are nearing peak heat here in Ottawa, expect really big hotness over the next 60 mdays, then it’s a cooling from then on. Extrapolated over 5 years, this would mean Pluto, baby, absolutel zero.
I thought the most significant warming was toward the poles. Not catastrophic enough?
With Falsified Model projections no less.
Well there is NO upper limit to the amplitude of 1/f noise spikes, so I dare say, we haven’t seen the hottest yet. Come to think of it, nor have we seen the coldest summer yet ??
So we are always interested in any new records. Somebody compiles a book of new records, like fore example the longest sneezing episode ever.
I might even be the holder of that record, and not even know it.
g
Just a question…Is there some future date that we can predict when the world record for the 100 meter dash will never ever be broken again?
May 14, 2016
A date hasn’t been predicted, but a time has. 8.99s, unless genetic engineering alters human stature & musculature.
I ran two sets of 100 years of random temperatures for single day with an average temperature of 80 F and a standard deviation of 10 F using a normal distribution and took the difference in the maximum temperatures. A positive difference give a new record high in the second 100 years.
This was repeated 100,000 times. As expected, very nearly 50% of the time a new record high for this day was found in the second 100 years.
I repeated the calculations with the second 100 years having an average temperature 1 degree F warmer. Doing this several times gave a result close to 56.8% of the time a new record high was found.
Using Matlab code
for i = 1:100000
t1=max(picknorm(100,80,10));
t2=max(picknorm(100,81,10));
d(i) = t2-t1;
end
l = len(find(d>0))
Where personal function
function x=picknorm(n,m,s)
if nargin==2
n=1;
end
% In New Matlab:
% Use rand for uniform distribution
% Use randn for normal distribution
r=randn(n,1); % Use to normal distribution
x=m+r.*s;
With 5 degrees warmer, the percentage went up to about 80.3%
Why the need to ratchet up the fear now? Is there some up-coming political announcement?
Trump.
Do they mean summers will be as hot as they were in the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period? Oh, I forgot. They “disappeared” those data sets.
Oh, but “ever recorded” must get airplay. It’s a justice thing.
[snip conspiracy theory rant -rephrase, resubmit .mod]
How do you validate the percentage likelihood of something like this? So, when the date comes, and it is not hotter than previously, how do you know that it was not a guarantee that it would not have been hotter? In other words, where does the 80% come from?
This is like the argument that there should have been trillions of advanced civilizations in the history of the universe. Based on what?
The most persuasive argument about life emerging is that if every atom in the universe were in an ideal state to promote the creation of the building blocks from which life could emerge, it would take orders of magnitude longer for the first life form to develop, let alone evolve into intelligence, if it could develop on its own at all. The reason it might not be possible, is that the components from which life exists require different diametrically opposed environments to come into being.
Why would intelligence have to evolve. Why not just ever greater levels of stupidity, as happens here on earth ?? What benefit is there to intelligence. There are fewer “intelligent” people who have EBT cards, that without them, so clearly, intelligence is not an advantage.
G
They will have to swap turtles with tortoises. Tortoises can take the heat (all the way down)
Wish we had a link to the study, even if just to get what they thought were the ‘warmest Summers’, and their current rate of ‘Climate’ change. The idea that…if it keeps getting warmer, it could get hotter than Evah seems like a ‘duh’ moment
The paper is accepted but not yet published. Here’s the link to the Journal pre-publication: Lehner, et al.
Abstract: The probability that summer temperatures in the future will exceed the hottest on record during 1920–2014 is projected to increase at all land locations with global warming. Within the BRACE project framework we investigate the sensitivity of this projected change in probability to the choice of emissions scenario using two large ensembles of simulations with the Community Earth System Model. The large ensemble size allows for a robust assessment of the probability of record-breaking temperatures. Globally, the probability that any summer during the period 2061–2081 will be warmer than the hottest on record is 80 % for RCP 8.5 and 41 % for RCP 4.5. Hence, mitigation can reduce the risk of record-breaking temperatures by 39 %. The potential for risk reduction is greatest for some of the most populated regions of the globe. In Europe, for example, a potential risk reduction of over 50 % is projected. Model biases and future changes in temperature variance have only minor effects on the results, as their contribution stays well below 10 % for almost all locations.
It’s a model study all the way down.
Here’s their take on sources of predictive uncertainty: “Besides the scenario uncertainty described above, uncertainty in climate projections also arises from structural differences between models, as well as irreducible uncertainty from intrinsic variability of the climate system on multi-decadal time scales.”
Concerning error, their approach is typified by, “The individual ensemble members differ only by round-off errors in their initial atmospheric temperatures (10^−14 °C), …” and “Throughout this study the word “probability” is used in the sense of a relative likelihood based on a single climate model, rather than the strictly statistical use of the word that does not allow for model errors.“(bold added).
So, predictive uncertainty resides only in inter-model differences, model errors are accounted only in round-off truncates precision and predictive certainty is revealed in the statistics of inter-model comparisons.
There’s no evidence that any of the authors are even aware of model physical error, much less its negative impact on predictive reliability.
Pat Frank writes
…as reported by models. Its simply stunning how the models have become the science now and that varying uses of them impacts on the “robustness” of the result. Gavin, if you’re reading this…the inmates are running the asylum. They’ve lost touch with reality and climate science is lost.
These career gubment climatists are just publishing modelling crap like they always have. It’s what they do. It pays the bills and keeps the family fed and housed. Their political overseers aren’t paying them to publish scientifically sound papers, If they did, they’d be tied to a NCAR plantation center tree and publicly flogged.
What they are sampling are model simulations of future climate, so the “probabilities” they are calculating are simply, e.g. the likelihood that any given summer in a single simulated climate run using that particular model would exceed X.
It’s like me taking a sample of sports journalists on which team is going to win an upcoming Superbowl. Since I’m sampling opinions, the data only tell me the expected answer if I were to ask another journalist who was going to win (an expected opinion, not an expected outcome). The data tell me nothing about who is going to win in the real world.
That’s the problem with these “studies” of model simulations. The “scientists” involved are literally fabricating the data that they analyze. Since a functioning computer only spits out what it is programmed to spit out, the only thing the results “simulate” is how the programmer thinks the climate works. Using the output as some kind of verification that the real climate really does work as believed by the programmer is circular reasoning.
TimTheToolMan says “They’ve lost touch with reality and climate science is lost.”
Nope, you mean climate science is born.
Future summers could be hotter than any on record
It would be great if the average temps worldwide rose over the next decades. We were told that most of the warming would come at night and towards the poles. So if we have record summer time warmth, then that means the whole planet will be shaking off the ice age we are in.
Glory be to the highest! A celebration is in order … what? … oh hell, … you mean it is just stuff from a computer game??? Drat.
Except that won’t happen, we are on the verge of another Ice Age based on past statistics.
“””””….. The probability that summer temperatures in the future will exceed the hottest on record during 1920–2014 is projected to increase at all land locations with global warming. …..”””””
Translation: “If it continues to get warmer the Temperature will go up ! ”
g
I noticed they mentioned “business as usual” scenario which usually means the IPCC 8.5. You know the one that highly unlikely. But hey, why let that get in the way of the good story.
Well, it could be.
From the article: “If climate change continues on its current trajectory,”
What climate change? You mean the flatline we’ve been on for the length of the 21st century?
Article: ““Extreme temperatures pose risks to people around the globe,” DeWeaver said. “These scientists show the power of ensembles of simulations for understanding how these risks depend on the level of greenhouse gas emissions.””
The results depend on a hotter atmosphere, which CO2 is supposed to enhance, but today we have higher CO2 levels but no measurable increase in temperature as a result. There is no evidence that increased greenhouse gases are a risk.
““This is the first time the risk of record summer heat and its dependence on the rate of greenhouse gas emissions have been so comprehensively evaluated from a large set of simulations with a single state-of-the-art climate model,” Deser said.
The scientists compared results to summertime temperatures recorded between 1920 and 2014 and to 15 sets of simulated summertime temperatures for the same period.”
You compared your results to NOAA/NASA bastardized surface temperature data. Should we expect to get an accurate result from that?
These model ensembles are like different breed’s piles of dog poo tossed together.
Great Danes make huge piles. Corgis make smaller piles. Miniature poodles tiny piles.
I don’t care how many piles of dog poo that NCAR heaps together to get an ensemble average pile of model poo, it is still just poo and it stinks.
Good analogy!
I’ve got tiny piles, does that mean I’m 97% poodle ???
It could mean you need more fiber.
LMAO. Perhaps the best analogy of the “climate models” ever penned.
The models do nothing more than assume the AGW BS story = fact, when it most certainly is not. No big surprise that the models predict “record” (during the PERIOD OF “records” ONLY) temperatures if CO2 emissions aren’t reduced. BUT that assumes (1) CO2 level changes are due to human CO2 emissions (NOT proven, since the only thing being measured IS human emissions), and (2) that rising CO2 levels CAUSE rising temperatures (NOT proven, and with plenty of observational evidence that REFUTES it, with temperature changes LEADING CO2 changes).
In other words, just more GIGO fantasy world modeling that tells us absolutely nothing, but makes for scary sounding headlines.
“If climate change continues on its current trajectory”, in other words they assumed recovery from the Little Ice Age will be linear or nearly so forever.
When these “scientists” explain what caused the Little Ice Age I’ll give some credibility to their projections of recovery.
Could, might, maybe, possibly . . . .
Call me when a “prediction” you clowns made comes true (“no more snow,” anybody?)
Until then, sod off.
+10
I’m sure my fellow countrymen enjoy warmer days and milder winters so badly they are ready to seek them by aeroplanes. Warming climate COULD lessen the need to travel as normal vacation weather could be nearer to the optimum. It also COULD improve agricultural production, diminish cold-related deaths, lessen energy used on heating and so on. It really COULD do a lot of good.
But the worst of it is it COULD make a whole bunch of alarmists look pretty ridiculous and be sacked.
Well duhh!
If we keep building bigger and bigger heat sinks aka cities using concrete and bitumen etc more people will live in said heat sinks. I think that trend is clear in the unfit for purpose, kriged into statistical sausage meat, land surface temperature record but has conveniently been blamed on CO2. Little wonder the models don’t work, eh.
The models might be right in the city, has anybody checked?
Al Gore is right! (my apologies to Mel Brooks)
Too much methane in “Blazing Saddles” too.
If greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, however, that probability drops to 41 percent…and 50% and sometimes 90%
…are they saying that in some places we are responsible for less than 10% of the warming?
They don’t seem to know they are saying that. And perhaps have inadvertently measured the Urban Heat Effect instead of “green house” gases.But the UHE study might be worth pursuing.
In 50 years, schoolchildren will learn about a period of time spanning several decades, where mankind collectively went cuckoo over climate. It will be called the “age of insanity”, and the fact that otherwise intelligent people were worried about the completely-beneficial gas CO2 will be marveled about.
Heinlein nailed it as the Crazy Years.
I have often thought about that.
That is, How scientific historians in 60 years will look at this period of climatism?
These clowns at NCAR NCEI GISS … their emails, their raw data, their reduced dara, their cross agency collaborations are supposed to be maintained as public records. But like so many other agencies under the Obama Regime, hard drive crashes, erased backup tapes, and lost ten of thousands of emails just seems to be a regular occurence. I expect this trend of lost correspondence, missing internal discussions and intermediate data destruction will accelerate as the Regime’s end gets closer.
The missing minutes in Nixons Watergate tapes will make him as a Boy Scout compared to the the current US administration.
Nixon set the standard which everyone (both parties) strive to surpass.
In the future, people will look back on those who believed the Eco-Nazi BS and laugh at them the same way anyone alive today looks back and laughs about those who used to feed virgins to volcanoes to keep them from erupting – because the level of scientific sophistication is on about the same level.
Scientists have yet to scratch the surface in the study of the Earth’s climate, because they haven’t identified all the forces that operate to make the Earth’s climate what it is, they haven’t observed and measured all of those forces for a sufficient period of time, they have not observed and measured all of the interactions between those various forces, and they haven’t merged their knowledge of all the above into a complete understanding of the various cycles that run independent of one another, sometimes undermining the influence of other cycles, sometimes amplifying the influence of other cycles. Unless and until they start talking about CYCLES, most of which will be found to have EXTERNAL drivers, they aren’t talking about CLIMATE at all. They’re just making really poor long term WEATHER forecasts.
What today’s pseudo “climate science” has done is the equivalent of measuring the rate of the incoming tide and braying from the hilltops about how much water the locals will be drowning in by next year, based on the “trend” continuing, UNLESS everyone does what they say to “tackle” the change.
Need to change the name of “Models” to Exercise bikes , no matter how hard you peddle you don’t actually get anywhere .
Peddling is what they do best.
Do a google search on “models” and then pick images. Then you will see why I think we should keep the name “model”. —- maybe go to “fashion models” if you want.
Have those bozos actually looked at the real records?
We have not matched the number of temps above 100 or 90 since the 30’s.
Can they show the graph and the source of the readings?
They talk about the “present trajectory”, but are in denial about what it is. The pattern for decades has been warming in the cold seasons and summers showing little change or slightly cooling. For example, this analysis compares the two hemispheres:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/when-is-it-warming-the-real-reason-for-the-pause/
Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnn.
Sure.. They’re always correct in these matters. Skeptics are always wrong.
https://notonmywatch.com/?p=655
Correct. Future summers could be as hot as the ones in the 1930s. Wow, then we could learn about climate cycles.
And women will go back to swim suites of the 30’s instead of the ‘itsy bitsy teeny weeny yellow polka dot bikini’. Damn, I hate AGW.
Future summers will ALWAYS be warmer – in the cities – than in previous years. The ‘climate change” is caused by the cities always getting bigger and creating more of a heat island. (and more cities and bigger heat islands). The models have nothing to do with it whether they are right or wrong. Simple common sense tells us that the temperatures there will always be bigger that they would otherwise have been.
Let me see . . .
If it gets warmer it will be warmer.
Oooooookay . . .
Oh you people of little faith, allow me to explain.
The models utilize advanced multivariate statistical techniques, which interact to give rise to an emergent property known as Great Skill. (As an aside, Great Skill was introduced in climatology in the groundbreaking paper MBH 1998, the “Hockey Stick” paper) This allows the models to make predictions with unfailing accuracy.
One fact which is often overlooked is that the property of Great Skill itself has the property of Symmetry. This means that the models can predict the past as easily as they can predict the future.
There is no reason to assert that the model future predictions are any less accurate than their predictions of the past.
Remember, these models have Great Skill, and therefor are not to be questioned.
Kind of like divine inspiration?
Well, some would say that climatology does have a clerical class, complete with high priests and devout acolytes.
It is the 1984 model for predicting the future and fixing the past.
Great Skill. OK. Got it. Should that be in italics or bold? Maybe bold italics?
Great Skill!