How heatwaves will change around the world for every 1°C increase in global average temperatures
From the UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Summer in some regions of the world will become one long heatwave even if global average temperatures rise only 2°C above pre-industrial levels and certain regions may become close to unliveable if temperatures increase by 5°C.
CREDIT Anna Jiménez Calaf on Unsplash
Even with just a 1.5°C increase in global temperatures there are significant changes to the length, intensity and frequency of heat waves in every part of the world.
That’s the finding of new research by Dr Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate system Science published today in Scientific Reports that divides the globe into 26 regions and looks at how heatwaves will change with every 1°C rise in global temperatures.
When all the regions are combined, for every 1°C of warming during summer the researchers found there would likely be:
- An extra 14.8-28.2 heatwave days.
- Heatwaves would be 3.4-17.5 days longer.
- The peak intensity of heatwaves will increase 1.2°C-1.9°C.
But it’s when the researchers drilled down to the region-by-region level that the most startling changes appeared.
“We were particularly surprised by the alarmingly fast increase in heatwave days in the tropics where some regions transition to an almost constant heatwave state with just a 2°C rise,” said Dr Perkins-Kirkpatrick.
“We also found that even with just a 1.5°C increase in global temperatures, almost all regions started to experience heatwave events every four years that once only occurred every 30 years. If global temperatures were to rise by 5°C such events would occur every year.”
By dividing the globe into 26 distinct regions, the research also highlighted the wide variation in heatwave responses across the world. There was a much sharper increase in peak temperatures of heatwaves over the Mediterranean and Central Asia.
Meanwhile tropical regions saw many more additional heatwave days and longer continuous heatwaves than other parts of the world.
The only decline to appear across the research was the number of discrete heatwave events in two regions, Central America and Eastern Africa. But this was not good news because these regions also saw the greatest increase in heatwave days.
Effectively what had once been two heatwaves had now merged into one long heatwave.
“This study is yet another wake-up call to policymakers that we need to act on limiting the rise in global average temperatures due to human caused climate change,” Dr Kirkpatrick said.
“Without prompt action, there could be disastrous consequences for many regions around the world.”
###
Paper: Changes in regional heatwave characteristics as a function of increasing global temperature. (doi:10.1038/s41598-017-12520-2)
See this interactive map showing how heatwaves will change with global warming
More importantly for every one degree that the temperature goes down the food growing belt moves a couple hundred miles south. Real tough on places like Canada and Russia.
China will also have some issues with food production under that scenario, as well as North Korea.
Hottest USA summer (JJA) is still 1936
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/110/0/tmax/3/8/1895-2017?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000
What are these warmest claiming? Is the global data different that the US data?
?w=720
Are they unaware that there is actual historical data to prove them totally wrong.
Even the data from warmest folks shows that there are a lot less heat waves than in the past by a large margin. Look at the data for the USA.
Also data shows that the summer highs in the US are lower than the past:
This data shows that the warming is predominately in the Arctic where the temperature never reaches the highs they talk about. Warming in the latitudes where people live is actually modest. Of course on can cherrypick isolated locations to fool the public, but the overall data does not jive with their claims.
What am I missing?
What are you missing?
An opportunity to get a lucrative grant for one.
“What am I missing?”
Long ago when Earth average temperature was 25 C, it didn’t have more heatwaves.
What it did have was a much warmer ocean.
Currently we in icebox climate- an icebox climate has cold oceans and ice caps.
Our ocean average temperature is about 3 C, to leave an icebox climate it needs an ocean warmer than 10 C.
This can’t happen anytime time soon- mainly because the Antarctic continent is currently at the South Pole.
If polar sea ice doesn’t form in the winter, then you have a warm ocean.
Martha & the Vandellas – Heatwave
PLAY IT LOUD!
Catcracking and others – excellent posts, thank you!
I still think we will see global cooling, staring by ~2020-2030, as I (we) predicted in my article published in 2002.
This will be similar to the global cooling that occurred from ~1940 to 1975, or perhaps more severe, caused by weak solar cycles 24 and 25.
If this cooling materializes, we will experience more crop failures due to early frosts across the northern prairies of Canada and the central USA.
If I am correct, humanity will suffer, as it always does during natural cooling cycles. Therefore, I hope to be wrong…
Best, Allan
AR5 says: low confidence that changes in intensity or duration of droughts have occurred since 1950, low confidence that humans have caused or will cause any changes through mid-century (p. 110); low confidence in global trend in droughts since 1950; conclusions in 2007’s AR4 of increase in droughts were probably overstated (pp. 162, 215); low confidence in changes in frequency and duration of megadroughts (p. 1,115).
While we’re at it: low confidence in sea level projections; no scientific consensus about projections’ reliability (p. 115). Low confidence regarding global changes in magnitude or frequency of floods (pp. 112, 214). Low confidence for long-term changes in tropical cyclones; low confidence that humans have caused any change; low confidence of increase through mid-century (pp. 110, 162). Local severe weather: low confidence in trends in storminess over past century; low confidence for trends in small-scale weather such as hail or thunderstorms (pp. 162-3, 216)
Jim stop injecting logic into fear and guilt scenarios. When the climate starts to cool these Alarmists will take us down that road as if the words global warming never crossed their lips.
They started with “the coming ice age” in the ’70s. When that didn’t happen, it suddenly became “global warming”. In another decade or so we’ll be back to the ice age scenario.
As long as the grant money keeps flowing, and the politicians have excuses for wealth transfer from the “rich” West to the “poor” “developing” world, climate alarmists will keep on alarming.
But, like Maggie Thatcher said about socialism: “sooner or later you run out of other people’s money”. So, what will the “developing” world do when it’s reduced the West to its standard of poverty? Who will they steal from then?
More likely: actual cooling would still be attributed to some CO2 induced climate “instability”. Then they would imply it never really was about temperature but about all other possible bad things or any sudden change itself. That’s the thing with ideologies: they will keep bending the world or any science into a shape agreeing with the ideology. Such battle cannot be won! Best scenario would be that people would get distracted by more immediate concerns, for example the fabric of their own society, the sanity of their government and its various institutions or the validity of their own economical systems on the short term. Should eclipse everything else IMO!
Don’t you love it when a corporate or public sector body calls itself a “Centre of Excellence”. Well, I suppose they weren’t going to call themselves a “Centre of Mediocracy” or “Centre for Ludicrous Fabricated Science” or similar.
Anyhow, what she really meant was “it all so CATASTROPHIC that you must give us much more money. After all, we are a Centre of Excellence!”
The only self-applied label that is more irritating and fatuous is “World-class”.
Here is another I have always been annoyed with Climate Scientist. As if no other body of science understands what they are so brilliantly enlightened about in a World-class way which is what makes their centre excellent.
Try “World’s Best Practice”.
My belly-button is my center of excellence.
“My belly-button is my center of excellence.”
You really should get out more often.
My belly button is the center of me, and that’s excellent.
He produces excellent quality navel lint.
You make a good point. The chosen name is all a marketing ploy to make people think they are getting something. I keep looking for that one full price liquor store, but all I ever find are discount liquors.
BUMU Marketing
Business as Usual Made Unusual
Like auto dealerships announcing a “sales event”. When are they NOT having one?
Growing up there was a furniture store near our house with a perpetual going out of business sale. Eventually the signs were so old they were sun faded, and they had to be replaced.
And they went along their merry way, a modeling they did go!
Center of Excremence is more like it.
+100!
Center of Bayesian Excrement
Did they forecast a 12 year East Coast of America Hurricane pause?
No?
Thought not.
They don’t hesitate to test their “science”. Professor of Climate Change Chris Turney led a famous “ship of fools” expedition to Antarctica. Their ship got stuck in ice where there was no ice 100 years earlier. They can be seen chanting “global warming” while awaiting a rescue helicopter.
Was that the same idiot who beached one of the yachts in the harbour the day they were due to set sail on their expedition?
Nope, sorry. Wrong idiot, that one was to the Arctic.
So many idiots, so little time.
Can they tune the models to reflect reality?
That would spoil the mood.
reality…if they didn’t tell you it was a heatwave..no one would notice
Reality is often over rated and fake.
I did not see the “m” word in the press release. How is it that a model run is considered “new research” without comparing it to reality? Instant discredit.
There model seems to be. Take current temperatures, and add 2C or 5C to them. Thus they assume that the tropics will warm the exact same amount as the poles.
Yes. A model is something that would be the output of scientific research, not an input. For example, people noticed the relationship of pressure, temperature, and volume to each other, and spliced them together into a simplistic model that helps illustrate the principles. It’s still of little use to predict the actual relationship of real world situations. Models are best for interpolating results within the bounds of observations used to construct the models. Extrapolations are notoriously difficult. Climate models fall into the category of junk.
Can they tune reality to reflect the models?
Bring it on because I live in Michigan – more heat, less cold, I like it!
“could be… if”
Tell me why I need to read any further.
I stopped at the first sentence that had 4 weasel words. Some, if, may, if. They’ll always be right.
Here’s a condensed version.
“On X, we’ll be right, unless we’re wrong. Another research grant for X, please.”
Yawn…….. Zzzz……..
Research? What did they do? Build a few dozen planets and set them at the Lagrange points? Why do I think that they ran a model a few times and issued a press release about their acts of mathematical onanism.
Tony Heller has documented to the point of sheer repetitiveness that the current warming period has shown less extreme high temperatures in the US records.
Is Tony blacklisted by WUWT? Where is his site listed on the references? He foes outstanding fact checking IMO. What is going on?
Years ago there was a controversy where Tony made a comment along the lines of … it was so cold in Antarctica recently that CO2 would freeze out of the air. Turns out that the temperature has to get below the sublimation temperature for that to happen. Tony did not admit that he was wrong so he is now, sort of, black listed on this site.
Sounds childish.. Thanks for enlightening me. I read Tony every day, as it outperforms other blogs for real data comparisons. He does good work IMO,
If being wrong and refusing to admit it was enough to get one black listed, there would be no trolls left on this site.
Could if ?
So what?
Are you sure that the study wasn’t from the UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WAILS ?
So could one actually find an additional 60 days per year in a place like Riyadh to include in the summer long heat wave? Summer in most of the subtropics is probably a heat wave already.
So then their models weren’t based on the properties of physics? Was this planet Earth they were modeling?
Maybe there should be 1 or 2 minus stars on that rating bar just for stories like this.
When was this??? Ah, some digitally imagined future . . 41 years of alleged warming in Scotland and I’m still waiting for a heatwave to get close to matching that of ’76 . . .In fact I’m just waiting on a noticeable increase in temperature now and again; even a few more days of warm sunshine. Scots who can afford it still tend to jet off to MUCH warmer climes . . . Vast swathes of the populated world are never going to become as hot on a regular basis as the Med countries etc, which attract hordes of northern Europeans because of the comfortable heat they can usually experience there. Authors of “scientific” reports on climate really should devote a little of their efforts to covering the benefits that will accrue to billions of us if their dire predictions come to pass . . .
To be or not to be and it doesn’t depend on AGW:
https://youtu.be/dk2CkdoUA9Y
jim hogg
“Authors of “scientific” reports on climate really should devote a little of their efforts to covering the benefits that will accrue to billions of us if their dire predictions come to pass . . .”
A subject on which the BBC has been statistically criticised. Virtually no benefits of warming are ever mentioned across auntie. Wish I could remember where the link is.
These days, most environmentalists start from the assumption that any change caused by man, must be bad.
Therefore the concept of man caused warming being good for the planet simply doesn’t compute.
Temperatures rising by 5 degrees Centigrade? Why didn’t they just go the whole hog and claim it will rise by 200 C and their brains will melt and pour out of their ears.
Do they have any concept of how stupid their claims look?
They’re saving that one for Trump’s second term.
…and yet, another study proving global warming theory is wrong
less in the tropics….more in the higher latitudes
Dr Sarah should be actively promoting nuclear power for the poor regions that she thinks are going to heat up. With reliable electricity the folks could cook inside in air conditioned comfort with electric appliances. This would be a major benefit compared to cooking in an already hot and smoky compound over burning dung. Instead, she just adds to the BS.
Didn’t models show that most warming would come from warmer nights?
yep
I think the actual data shows you are correct but when you average the daily high and dailty low one gets a higher temperature, if it cools off less overnight possibly due to UHI effect. Of course that is never mentioned when they report increased temperatures.
also, the least amount of warming will occur in areas that are already hot.
And even if that weren’t the case, those living there are already acclimated and would be the least likely to notice any difference.
This is another paper that was meant to have its publication delayed until April 1st. There can be no other reason for this joke of a paper.
The ‘only’ technical problem with this ‘study’ is that it has been shown many times that climate models have no regional downscaling skill. Looking at 28 regions separately is by definition downscaling. Essay Last Cup of Coffee has several references. Bet that inconvenient fact isn’t mentioned in the paper, the SI, or the references.
Given that “global” warming is driven by warming at the poles, and not in the tropics …… or anywhere else for that matter ….. this report is total B.S. More of the same illogical, ignore reality, propaganda usd to scare dim witted, uninformed, low information, people who have no critical thinking skills.
It seems that they took this year or last year global temperatures and added 2 degrees to all of them.
The sky is falling! We’re doomed! Doomed, do you hear?
Okay, but I have cookies underway. You want some?
Turkey conducted research proves that Christmas is bad for the planet.
More alarmist BS. I suspect these clowns sit around smoking dope while dreaming up the next daft paper one of them gets to write for a tasty sum. Always alarmist, always catastrophic, always rank twaddle. Meanwhile in the real world….nothing unusual is happening.
Since “heat wave” is virtually undefined and when it is occasionally tried, the definition is worthless, considering right now frozen wastelands can have heat waves (as in temperatures above average for X number of days), there’s nothing solid to what is being discussed. Hot places are going to have a harder time since their averages are already high. Since there’s no science in this and terms are as fluid as mercury, I can’t see where any of this matters in the least. It’s all fiction, nothing more.
Sheri September 28, 2017 at 9:09 am
Yes, and Dr Sarah Perkins is responsible for the SCORCHER website
She’s the only person listed under “TEAM” at the ARC Centre of Excellence associated website.
Heat waves are her thing and the SCORCHER website was unavailable for about a year as far as I can tell. It’s back now . . and it’s flashy.
The ‘USEFUL LINKS’ page lists, among others, “Skeptical Science, debunking common myths on Climate Change”. Oh dear.
My take is that it’s again time for Sarah to publish or perish something.
“Centre of Excellence” eh? How about Fringe of Fraud? (or … Flapdoodle, anyway).
First off the tropics are the places where CO2 has the least impact.
These morons seem to be taking current temperatures and blindly adding 2C or 5C to them.
They also seem to be assuming that a heat wave is whenever temperatures get above a preset level. Period.
A heat wave is defined as a certain number of degrees above the average for that time of year. If the world did warm, the definition for a heat wave won’t change, but the average from which it is calculated will.
90C in March is a heat wave for NYC. On the other hand it’s cooler than normal for Phoenix in July.
I believe you meant 90 F, and yes I live in the Phoenix area and 90 in March is warm, 90 F down here is only warm, hot is 105+, As to these moron’s paper it was Richard Lindzen that has pointed out to these educated idiots that in the last several million years the tropics have not varied more than + or – 1C. Should that not be taught in climatology 101?
“This study is yet another wake-up call to policymakers that we need to act on limiting the rise in global average temperatures due to human caused climate change,” Err isn’t there a missing step there. Correlation is not causation
Good. No need to travel as far low-lands and south.
CIMP5 models, RCP 8.5 scenario (described as “business as usual”) for 2006-2100 and “historical experiment” for 1861-2005. Plus use of CSEM models for “internal variability” Comparison at regional level, if I understand the methods correctly, is to *modelled* pre-industrial heatwaves, not based on actual data from 1861-1890. AFAICT, no actual historical heatwave data is used in the paper; an odd omission given the ~1C rise from an arbitrary 19th century temperature level — history might not only reveal what the actual heatwave effects from the warming so far have been, but also whether the CIMP5 “historical experiment” runs demonstrate any skill at all in reproducing the historical results in this matter.
Dale
That’s weird. How can an RCP8.5 be ‘business as usual’ when RCP supposedly means heating if the climate sensitivity is much higher than is generally expected?
They are conflating an emissions rate and a climate sensitivity. It should be, I believe, ‘atmospheric heating response if the climate sensitivity is really high AND we have emissions continue to rise as they have for the past 20-30 years’. It is ’emissions as usual’ with ‘climate response not as expected by anyone in their right mind’.
Not even the British Colombia Green Party’s Mr Weaver (author of the RCP6.0 model in Victoria) believes that RCP8.5 represents anything real. And that is really saying something.
RCP 8.5 posits that there is no enforced reductions on emissions, hence “business as usual”. Of course, it also assumes a lot of other things which are *extremely* unlikely to happen, such as unbounded growth of fossil fuels despite it being a limited natural resource.
RCP 8.5 *isn’t* different in terms of climate sensitivity. That’s baked into the models, the different RCP just alter the emissions . So by providing unrealistically high emissions, combined with models that seem to have too high CO2 sensitivity and/or overrate the effect on concentrations from emissions, you are provided with a sort of worst-case-scenario to make extreme claims about. This article wants to go all the way up to +5C, and it needs RCP 8.5 to do so.
Heatwave doesn’t have a formal definition and in the case of this study would be a three-day period where the Tmax exceeds the 90th percentile for the running 14-day mean for at least three consecutive days in a five-month summer (May-Sept for NH). The percentiles are determined from 1861-1890 model output. Obviously, in regions nearer the poles exceeding the 90th percentile may not remotely represent an “unlivable” temperature. In hotter regions where the variability is small, exceeding the 90th percentile may not be much of a jump. But since the article seems confine to examine what changes the *models* project, in the absence of evidence that the models have skill in this particular area I see no reason why we should take this as likely, let alone good enough to inform policy.
“Average” hides a lot of things. For example, are high temperatures getting higher or are low temperatures getting higher or both. If the first, then we might expect more heatwaves. If the second, it could mean the incursion of urban heat island effects on nighttime temperatures. If both, then it might be either real overall warming or UHI or both.
Perhaps those questions might have been answered already: http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2007/08/tomorrow-not-so-variable-temperatures.html
What does unliveable mean in that report? I take it they don’t mean uninhabitable in the true sense but implying some form of choice.
Summer could be one long heatwave
That’s funny because this summer here in rural west MD is another added to the “didn’t get to 90F” list.
It’s another model based paper…
Also, check out the references.
————————————
Changes in regional heatwave characteristics as a function of increasing global temperature
The Paris Agreement calls for global warming to be limited to 1.5–2 °C. For the first time, this study investigates how different regional heatwave characteristics (intensity, frequency and duration) are projected to change relative to increasing global warming thresholds. Increases in heatwave days between 4–34 extra days per season are projected per °C of global warming.
Analysis of two climate model ensembles indicate that variation in the rate of heatwave changes is dependent on physical differences between different climate models, however internal climate variability bears considerable influence on the expected range of regional heatwave changes per warming threshold. The results of this study reiterate the potential for disastrous consequences associated with regional heatwaves if global mean warming is not limited to 2 degrees.
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/s41598-017-12520-2
Heat waves occur in temperate regions when the jet stream (which steers most storms) moves far to the north in late spring or summer. In areas south of the jet stream, very few clouds form, and the atmosphere heats up due to the high sun angle and long days (and short nights). But warm air under a heat wave tends to expand and push further north.
However, the total mass of air over the poles tends to remain nearly constant, and if warm air is pushing north at some longitude under a heat wave, the built-up air over the pole has to push south somewhere else (either east or west of the heat-wave area), bringing unseasonably cool temperatures there.
There was a long, major heat wave over Europe during the summer of 2003, and since many European homes lack air-conditioning, people who could not escape to the coast were suffering from the heat, and some were blaming “global warming” for the excessive heat. But during that same summer, the east coast of the United States was unusually cool and rainy, with temperatures rarely getting above 75 degrees, in areas where the average high temperature in July and August is usually over 80 degrees..
The air mass balance over the Arctic doesn’t change much–if warm air is pushing northward along one meridian, cold air must be pushing southward along another.
There is page on Wattsupwiththat which shows temperatures above 80 degrees north latitude. While there is much variation from year to year during the cold season (October through April), these temperatures seem to stabilize around 276 K (about 37 F) every year between June and September. Once there is open water in parts of the Arctic Ocean, evaporation from open water absorbs heat from the atmosphere and maintains air temperatures only slightly above freezing throughout the summer. This provides a consistent heat sink, which can send cool, damp air southward to break heat waves.
“But during that same summer, the east coast of the United States was unusually cool…”
Right next door in Western Asia temperatures were 20 C below normal during the Great European heat wave of 2003. The cause was a stalled ‘Omega pattern” as we call them in N America. A loop of the jet stream blocked the eastward movement of the hot air. That’s all. The stall was caused by a quiet sun, not so?
I’d hate to see their non-excellent climate system science.
Two degrees is the equivalent of moving from the Upper Levels highway in North Vancouver to the Sea Bus terminal on 11th St. It is also the difference in Toronto between the 15th of October and the 30th of October during an average year. It is greater than the difference between living in Toronto and Waterloo or Peterborough in August or October.
How on earth will we survive? How will ‘nature’ cope? What about the little field mice? (They are so cute.)
University of New South Wales is best know for having an end of the Sydney Cricket Ground named after them. This is the first time outside cricket that I have heard of them. I guess they needed to jump on the AGW gravy train.
I really want to run that test on these people, the one that asks them if they can tell the difference between 70F and 70.5F or 69.5F. See, that’s the real deal. It’s the part that tells you this hypothetical probability of theirs is simply a hand out in search of more grant money. Grant money comes from taxes. We’re all taxpayers, aren’t we? We should be demanding our money’s worth in proof of results.
Since I do not believe for one teensy weensy second that any of these air-conditioned, cosseted prognosticators inhabiting closed environments such as big buildings, I’d be happy to set their thermostat at an 0.5F difference in temperature, up and down, for a week, and then ask them if they really notice the difference. I don’t think they would be able to do so.
I had to run the furnace this morning, because the overnight temp was 49F and the windows were open a little. We had two weeks of late heat from Irma’s driving away the cooler air coming down from the north with that blocking pressure font, but it’s gone now.
When I got up, the thermostat read 72F, but I waited until it said 70F, then turned on the system. I leave it at 73F, period. The thermostat and the thermometer across from it show the same indoor temps. Frankly, I can’t tell much difference between 73F and 75F, and I don’t think these researchers can, either, never mind an 0.5F difference up or down or sideways. And since an indoors environment is a closed system, it’s more stable than an outdoors system, which is subject t chaos patterns.
This is all nonsense. In my view, their study is baloney. We don’t live on the Mad Max planet or Khan’s planet, or Arrakis, therefore, other than a begging paper published to get some cash, the paper is another exercise in “how to con the taxpayers again and get a pat on the head”.
Oh, yeah – since none of youse guys have taken my challenge (show the +/- 0.0 differences on a linear graph over real time), I will do it myself. I just have to get some graph paper from Staples and some color markers. And a ruler. School supplies will probably be on sale again. I might get a discount.
“A heat wave is a prolonged period of excessively hot weather, which may be accompanied by high humidity, especially in oceanic climate countries. While definitions vary, a heat wave is measured relative to the usual weather in the area and relative to normal temperatures for the season. Temperatures that people from a hotter climate consider normal can be termed a heat wave in a cooler area if they are outside the normal climate pattern for that area.”
This fails immediately without even looking into examples how heatwaves develop in different areas of the world.
1) Global temperatures only need to warm about another 1c to achieve only 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
2) Maximum temperature records have only been broken by no more than the rise in global temperatures.
“A definition based on Frich et al.’s Heat Wave Duration Index is that a heat wave occurs when the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 °C (9 °F), the normal period being 1961–1990.”
3) An increase of 1 °C locally won’t make an heatwave for anywhere in the world, unless the changing weather patterns allow it in the first place.
4) Average maximum temperatures for general definition require to be 5 °C (9 °F) higher to be generally accepted as an heatwave.
5) Definitions vary, but length of at least 3 to 5 days usually required.
“Without prompt action, there could be disastrous consequences for many regions around the world.”
So – what exactly IS that ‘prompt action’? And how exactly is it going to give us the controls to the global thermostat?
Define ‘disastrous consequences’, while you’re at it.
Don’t forget the basis of all research is: find out what the paymaster wants you to say, then bend your research to what the paymaster wants, otherwise you don’t get paid!
I think this needs a nice song.
Oh joy. That means the rain will be warmer in the UK.
Okay…lets test their hypothesis. Where can we get an Earth that has recently warmed about 1 degree C? Oh hey…this one. Do we have any evidence that heat waves have increased as they have predicted? It appears to be just the opposite in the United States, despite all of the ‘adjustments’ to the contrary. I don’t really know about the rest of the world, but my guess is that the evidence falsifies their hypothesis.
But if it doesn’t, the fact that the climate models have no skill at the regional level, and that the primary theory of AGW predicts very little warming in the tropics compared to the higher latitudes, it is safe to say that this ‘study’ is no more than grant bait and alarmist foder.
So when Germans no longer fly to Miami, we are doomed?
Global warming will save lives because 20X more people die of below optimum temperature than above optimum temperature. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/21/an-inconvenient-truth-from-medical-research-cold-is-far-worse-than-global-warming-at-killing-people/
As for heat waves, just think of the increase in lemonade sales!
It’s about as likely as this claim that raining fish may be caused by Climate Change ™
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/28/554242564/it-rained-fish-in-mexico-authorities-say-no-its-not-the-end-times-we-think
I think that I can settle for “ARC Centre of Excrement for Climate system Science” as being a better description. This is their latest offering for continued funding from the CAGW gravy-train.
How about “Fringe of Fraud”?
I was in Florida the first 2 weeks of September. The heat there is WAY above anything we have ever had here in Alberta. So, the extra so called heat wave days we are due are not heat waves at all, just unusually warm days.
An interesting development. In order to instill fear and a sense of ‘unprecedented warming’, the government here now issues “Heat Warnings” for any day that is warm. It is just silly. We all know that when the forecasted high is over 30°C, it’s going to be hot. We don’t need some goofy “Heat Warning”.
“We were particularly surprised by the alarmingly fast increase in heatwave days in the tropics where some regions transition to an almost constant heatwave state with just a 2°C rise,” said Dr Perkins-Kirkpatrick.
I’d like to hear Willis Eschenbach’s take on this. He did a piece on clouds some time ago that showed how temperatures are naturally regulated in the tropics. When temperatures rise earlier than usual, clouds also appear sooner than usual and cool things down a bit. I really doubt the models used in this paper account properly for clouds.
Note.
We’re coming into summer here in the SH.
The ‘university’ of New South Wales is timing its climate propaganda to coincide with the first few days of warm weather after a cold, wet and snowy winter for much of Southern Australia.
It’s like the old commercial radio tactic of scheduling your ice cream adverts to run only when the temperature goes above a certain point!
‘Heatwaves would be 3.4-17.5 days longer.’
They use decimals to show they have a sense of humor.
To be humorous for a diverse crowd you have to be more obvious such as “3.432 – 17.483 days longer”. So I think it was probably just ordinary ignorance.
Like using climate change as de-facto global warming, heat is used as de-facto heatwave. Climate change is a vast subject and same is the case with heatwaves that follow the localised circulation pattern in summer — heatwaves — and in winter — coldwaves.
People are experiencing temperature variations at any given place with seasons and years.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Doc, WE all know that, but tell THEM that.
Garbage science once again…. We already know that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO can’t even measure temperature or design data gathering processes that give meaningful results.
Their temperature data is so untrustworthy that it cannot even be used for science, but apparently it is perfect for the politics of CAGW.
I like the idea of heatwaves in Greenland. And increasing heatwaves in Sahara. Gimme a break.
Note also their map has again a huge Greenland compared to Africa. Tells something how much they think Africa.
I can still get you in on the ground floor before the prices go ballistic-
http://internationalpropertydirectory.com/greenland/property/distressed-property-greenland.asp
Glacier allotments are where it’s all about to happen but mums the word until the deposit is down and you can start planning the grape varieties 😉
“This study is yet another wake-up call to policymakers that we need to act on limiting the rise in global average temperatures due to human caused climate change,”
Probably the first thing written at the start of the project. Need to go through it thoroughly but I suspect the definition of a heat wave is a BOM index that would make just 2 degree increase in min and max temperatures look like a 200% increase in heat waves. Going from memory, it was 3 days of both min and max above a threshold that was the long term 90% percentile. Basically, the difference between a heatwave and not would be an imperceptible difference in one if those.
Cold spells kill 20 times more people than heatwaves. More heatwaves and less cold spells is good news!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3090281/Cold-snap-20-times-lethal-heatwave.html
As a science-ish Canadian layman, just looking at the regional breakouts for Canada on that “disaster” map have me scratching my head, and they certainly don’t engender much in the way of confidence in either their inputs or results. Imputing that northern Mexico will be similarly affected as northern Alberta (or that their climates are anywhere at all similar, despite being “western North America” seems implicit proof that they are neither excellent nor climatologists. Southern Alberta isn’t even the same as southern Manitoba. And definitely not the same as Vancouver Island.
It’s incredibly disturbing that this kind of BS ever even sees the light of day, Yes, we are doomed, not because of higher temperatures, but because of the weak minded fools who allow political ideology to drive them to the depths of stupidity.
How does one reconcile this kind of nonsense with reality? According to my slide rule, Specific Heat of the ocean is 3 orders of magnitude (to base 10) greater than Specific Heat of the Atmosphere. Oceans cover 71% of the planet, and a pretty efficient heat exchange process (evaporation) keeps air temperature within 10*F +/- of SST. Never mind the hot spots, we’re talking AGT so what’s the big deal with 1, 2, or 8.5 degrees of air temp increase which will raise the ocean temperature by 0.001, 0.002 or even 0.0085 degrees. Who would notice?