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.
###
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!
Didn’t Hansen make this same prediction in the 1980’s…. He guessed 20 years (come and gone) so the replacement clowns have to use 50 years instead,
Who gives a [snip] about the temperature alone? It’s the %RH that makes humans uncomfortable.
You do realize that over the course of generations “snip” will become a prohibited word?
“could be hotter”… I like that. They could also say “could NOT be hotter” or “could be cooler”.
I think it depends on the Sun and natural variability. That’s my “hunch”…
Temperatures “could be” warmer than the Little Ice Age. But a warmer world is entirely a good thing. There “could be” a reason for alarm — if the natural rise in global temperatures was accelerating fast, year over year. But it’s not.
In fact, global temperatures stopped rising for nearly twenty years, throwing the alarmist contingent into fits of consternation as they tried to ‘explain’ that no global warming was being caused by… global warming!
What is being observed is simply a continuation of the planet’s natural recovery from the extremely cold LIA, which was one of the coldest periods of the entire Holocene. And despite the rise in (harmless and beneficial) CO2, global temperatures have not responded as predicted.
When they talk about “on record”, they’re cherry-picking as usual. If they used just the Holocene record, they would see that current temperatures are still very cool. It would require an improbably large rise in global temperatures to come anywhere close to the earlier Holocene:
Indeed..
“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.”
Or rather: Extremely cold centuries are extremely dangerous to humanity, making nearly all northern latitudes uninhabitable, even to Polar Bears. The last inter-glacial as warm as this was 120,000 years ago!
“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.”
This sounds like a politically motivated endeavor rather than a scientific endeavor. If it were truly a scientific endeavor they would also focus on quantifying the benefits of increasing greenhouse gases impartially.
If there is an 80% probability of summers being hotter than any on record, I interpret that two different ways.
A- 20% of summers will not be hotter than records up til 2015, in other words, no worse than last year! That’s after 45 more years of cumulative CO2 emissions. If that’s the case I can’t see the years that are above current records being much above.
B)- There is a 20% probability that no years in the period will be hotter than 2015. With CO2 levels at 450 ppm or higher by then, even with no increase in emissions, how would they explain that?
They can’t mean B. Scenario A is not severe enough to worry about. Also, I believe in 45 years we will be into more expensive fossil fuels and have other energy options available to us. This piece of high cost, low value modelling actually demonstrates the stupidity of taking significant action to control emissions. Well done!
Birmingham (UK) should be bracing itself for an influx of Climate Change™ refugees.
The place to be is Central England, not only has that region escaped the ravages of human-induced Climate Change™ in the last 60 years but also the general warming trend that has undoubtedly accompanied the recovery from the equal coldest episode in the past 10,000 years has occurred mostly in the winters.
My God, man! Can’t you see by the plot that temperatures have gone up 1 degree C in the last 350 years! In only 35,000 years the temperature of the earth will be 100 degrees hotter than now and it will be a disaster. WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW!
That article reads to me as a string of AGW bullshit remarks glued together with fervor.
just to recap …
Arctic ice cap will be gone
Antarctic will melt
children will not know snow
coral reefs die
islands will swamp
polar bears (and other cute creatures) die
more hurricanes
permanent drought
more rain
malaria out of control
oh yeah … wars
possible threat to beer
oh and … more sex assaults
now extra hotter summers (except where I live but weather is not climate)
Just trying to keep up in my collection of fears
I’m sure I left stuff out
isn’t
was just gonna say, before my computer rudely interrupted …
isn’t Trump the result of climate change?
in a round about way….
Climate change caused radical Islam
http://www.independentsentinel.com/john-kerry-thinks-climate-change-causes-radical-islam/
You mean we can finally have summers as hot as the 1930s, in 65 more years?
Well, according to Guinness (the beer people) the record is:
Who
DEATH VALLEY
What
56.7 DEGREE(S) CELSIUS
Where
UNITED STATES
When
10 JULY 1913
Yep. Death Valley came to mind as I read through this. The time I was there, there were 30 mph winds. I don’t know the temperature, but I’d guess it was around 120F (49 C). That was by Badwater, not too far from Stovepipe.
Really, not at Heathrow while a jet engine was blowing on the “official” thermistor?
it’s one of those “honey i ran the climate model” papers. also the stated motivation for the research, “to quantify the benefits of emission reduction” has a built in bias.
Well, they whine and snivel about the PETM.
During the PETM Florida was about 27°C.
We know the Arctic didn’t get below 9°C because crocodiles lived there.
So the whole planet was around 20-30°C.
The warm parts weren’t any warmer. Only the cold parts were warmer.
This is the awful fate we are being saved from.
At the current time we can’t warm the Antarctic and any attempt will cause more than the current, less than 2 inches, of annual precipitation – which will make the ice grow.
3-4 inches of annual precipitation on the Antarctic can’t melt fast enough and the core is too high (therefore too cold) to melt.
On the other hand, maybe we shouldn’t be so dismissive. After all, the model was “state of the art”.
Well that’s part is true, it is more like art than science. AGW views of climate is like DeKooning abstract expressionist views of women.
“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.”
So, what is the incentive for the Eastern U.S. to reduce carbon emissions? To make people in China and Central Europe more comfortable?
There is an old saying, Russian I believe, that states – “where-ever there is a trough, there will be pigs”. It looks as if the NCAR is repeatedly running computer models, that are known to be wrong, in order to keep the gravy train going.
My study of the Scripps Institute atmospheric CO2 data from the Mauna Loa Observatory and the UAH satellite lower tropospheric temperature data for the Tropics Land component clearly revealed that the annual rate of change in CO2 concentration lags the annual rate of change in temperature. It is obvious from a comparison of the local maxima caused by El Nino events on a time plot of each of these factors. That is, CO2 did not cause a change in temperature for the Tropics over the period since satellite temperature recording began in December 1978.
Further it gave a statistically significant correlation between the annual rate of change in CO2 concentration and the 12 month running average temperature again obvious on a simple graphical plot. That means that the temperature level controls the rate of change in CO2 concentration. This was confirmed by a statistically significant correlation between the annual rate of temperature change and the second derivative of the CO2 concentration.
This may be expressed mathematically with the differential equation:
d(CO2)/dt = A x Temperature + B
where A and B are constants. The Mauna Loa data produced a climate sensitivity, A, of 1.7 ppm CO2 per annum per degree Celsius using Ordinary Linear Regression and 1.9 ppm CO2 per annum per degree Celsius using Generalised Linear Regression for a First Order Autoregression Model to take account of the autocorrelation in the time series.
Simple plots of data from 23 other locations across the globe gave support to the above proposition. Note that a pencil and graph paper can be used to illustrate these results. No multimillion dollar supercomputer needed.
What makes this single climate model “state-of-the-art”? Did it successfully predict average global temperatures for the past decade or so? Or is the model so new that it can be called state-of-the-art because it hasn’t been around long enough to be proven wrong yet?
That’s odd. Other studies like Cowtan and Way claim that the polar regions are warming 8 times faster than the rest of the planet. So how could Alaska, Scandinavia, or Siberia be the regions less likely to experience hotter summers from increased CO2? I wish they could keep their stories straight. Such conflicting claims make it more difficult to believe that the science is settled. If this keeps up, 97% of climate scientists will claim to believe in contradictions. And if they say they believe in as many as 6 impossible things before breakfast, they will stand a much better chance of getting their next project funded.
Sun going red giant in just a short 2 billion years is going to fry us all. Be worried , be very worried.
Don’t worry. They will have invented SPF 10^6 sunscreen by then.
was there any indication of how much warmer?
Yes future summers could be hotter but they could also be colder.
The current climate change trajectory as determined by models that have been shown to date to have little if any predictive skill – really?
Is there any need to read further, I can't help but wonder how the western MSM gets away with its continued regurgitation of this sort of junk as science reporting?
It’s very optimistic when the planet is cooling.
Question: How can we stop life in it’s tracks and make life pay for it?
Forecast: I bet all our billionaires, millionaires and polichickens will be warm this winter, drawing/sucking all they can in a hit ‘n run attack on the job seeking engineers.
Just make all these alarmists and rich people stay in Manhattan all winter long. The north wind howls as it passes between sky scrapers during winter there (I used to work there).
Climate does not have a “trajectory”
Since the temp indexes have been altered, here is another perspective on extreme temps
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/high-low-temps.html
There are many temperature analysis papers that confirm that the 1930s were the warmest decade in the 20th century. Eg. The CRU paper Vinther et al shows the 1930s were the warmest.
Enter Vinther greenland temperature record into a search engine.
umm.. if they are only going to be warmer in 50 years time…
… what is going to happen in the interim ?
Is there something they KNOW but aren’t telling us?
Or it might be colder. Hope it isn’t colder.
Finally had a chance to read part of the paper. I am amazed that the proper cites submitted (not accepted or published) papers. Holy. Sh*t.
Sorry for spelling. Too late, here.
“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.
Indeed they do – because humans, on the whole, prefer the climate warmer, rather than colder. As do plants. The only people who ‘overlook’ this simple fact are a certain sort of climate scientist.
When people start moving to Alaska to retire, rather than Florida, perhaps I’ll become a believer.
““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.”
So no “polar amplification” any more?
Everyone will move to Buffalo, NY in the future (joke).
I believe the correct way of saying it is “shuffle off to Buffalo”.
If the “current trajectory” isn’t a pause/hiatus, why does it take until 2061 before there are record temperatures?
“If climate change continues on its current trajectory, the probability that summers between 2061 and 2080 will be warmer than the hottest on record “
2061 and 2080 ?
Good grief.
Let rearrange these numbers a bit. For the summers between
2008 and 2016
UK’s Met office seasonal forecast got it wrong every single time. I’m told they are abandoning the idea of forecasting longer than a week ahead, something for the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder to think over.
The world’s population has increased dramatically over the past few decades.
However, fly from Beijing to Tibet and you will see very few people or villages.
Fly from Calcutta to New Delhi – ditto.
Fly from Singapore to Beijing – ditto.
Fly from New York to LA – ditto.
My point??? Move the measuring devices away from the densely populated areas and then we might be something like “fair dinkum”..
In today’s news in Japan: four people hunting mushrooms were ‘eaten’ by bears! 90% of the population lives far from the bears there, in Tokyo, mostly.
“could be hotter than any summer experienced by people to date”
This would only be true if “to date” only goes back a couple hundred years.
We have a long way to go before we reach the temperatures seen during the Medieval, Roman and Minoan warm periods. Not to mention the Holocene Optimum.
Repeat after me – warm is good, cold is bad.
If warm weather is so dangerous, how do you explain people moving in droves to places like Phoenix or Florida to escape the cold? They would rather live in a place where it is demonstrably too hot for comfort (but has A/C) than in a place that is too cold. They universally cite the health benefits of warmer weather. Many of the major cities in the world are too hot in the summer, what with UHI and all, but do we see people flooding to the cooler countryside? No?
Here in Panama (too hot on the coast, but just right in the mountains), we have an entire new international airport at Rio Hato that does not have any scheduled flights. It is used exclusively for charter flights to bring Canadians to the warmth. The major reason they cite for returning at all is too keep their supposedly great medical benefits.
Finally, to end this rant – and this propaganda piece is certainly rant-worthy – there is a real problem for the alarmists as the demonstrable and quantifiable benefits to agriculture of CO2 fertilization become clear. Restricting CO2 is an act of genocide right up there with taking people’s water away or poisoning their fields.
It would be a genocide conducted against every single person on earth. But maybe that’s the plan.
Screw the models. Real data is available. A Google Image search on “urban heat island” will show you many thermal (IR) images the display the temperature distributions in various cities. London, for example, shows a 6° C gradient between Downtown and the East End, where the CO2 levels are practically identical. Sometimes it is 10°.
It is the land use that drives the temperature
I think it is far more likely we’ll have nuclear winter once Iran get the bomb and perfects long range delivery systems. These guys are no different that the guy on the corner with a sign board proclaiming “The End is Near!”.
I interpret this as meaning why use observable data when you can just make stuff up.
Yes, always use simulations. Those pesky real observations can interfere with the theory. Looks more and more like living in the Matrix, doesn’t it?
Prophecy.
The philosophy of science and the scientific method were designed to restrain people from indulging in pattern matching in expansive frames of reference in time and space. They have failed, miserably.
We need a global asphalt measuring satellite.
Please can we have some of this warmth they keep talking about , nearly mid summer in the UK and i have two radiators fully on to keep the cold out !!!!!!!
What warming are they going on about? The source of most warming since 1850 has been natural and what would be expected at the end of a little ice age. The cause of the rest is unknown and probably will never be known thanks to defective models and model goals being preferred over observed data.
That depends on what the definition of “record” is, doesn’t it?
“The oxygen isotopes in the ice imply that climate was stable during the last interglacial period, with temperatures 5C warmer than today.
“Our record reveals a hitherto unrecognized warm period initiated by an abrupt climate warming about 115,000 years ago, before glacial conditions were fully developed. This event does not appear to have an immediate Antarctic counterpart, suggesting that the climate see-saw between the hemispheres (which dominated the last glacial period) was not operating at this time.”
http://epic.awi.de/10226/1/Nor2004a.pdf
There are many, many “records”, ice core and ocean sediment cores, that the Eemian was somewhere between 3-6 degrees C warmer than present. In fact, there are even more records that confirm that the Holocene hypsithermal was 3-4 degrees warmer than today.
Are these records? Or are Playstation outputs better “records”?
What is really on display here is the normal, natural progression from PCPS (Post Crib Partum Syndrome) to APS (Arrested Puberty Syndrome), or the progression from infant to adolescence to cessation of maturity. Children like to control the narrative with fits, factoids and flights of fantasy.
It was not only warmer during most of MIS-11, parts of MIS-9 and MIS-7, but also MIS-5e. These are well-established parts of the paleo record. But, as you might well expect, it is indeed far, far worse than you thought.
MIS-19 and MIS-11 met their interglacial ends with 3 strong thermal pulses, the last one always the strongest, right before falling off into the next respective ~100kyr ice age. MIS-5e did not. It ended with 2 strong thermal pulses, the last one being the strongest. Depending upon whom you wish to quote, the 2nd thermal pulse resulted in a +6.0 to +52 meter rise in sea level above present.
Given that as of this year the Holocene is 11,719 years old (+/-99yrs), and that only 1 post Mid Pleistocene Transition interglacial has lasted longer than about half a precession cycle, and that the precession cycle varies between 19-23kyrs and we are at the 23kyr point now (making 11,500 half), precisely what sort of climate should we reasonably expect?
“Rapid changes in sea level and associated destabilization of climate at the turbulent close of the last interglacial maximum appear to be recorded directly in the geomorphology, stratigraphy, and sedimentary structures of carbonate platform islands in the Bahamas. Considered together, the observations presented here suggest a rapid rise, short crest, and rapid fall of sea level at the close of 5e.
“The lesson from the last interglacial “greenhouse” in the Bahamas is that the closing of that interval brought sea-level changes that were rapid and extreme. This has prompted the remark that between the greenhouse and the icehouse lies a climatic “madhouse”!
conclude Neuman and Hearty (1996) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Hearty/publication/249518169_Neumann_A_C_Hearty_P_J_Rapid_sea-level_changes_at_the_close_of_the_last_interglacial_substage_5e_recorded_in_Bahamian_island_geology_Geology_24_775-778/links/0c96051c6e66749912000000.pdf
The climate change now-over non-debate is actually the most definitive intelligence test ever conceived.