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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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).