Study predicts a significantly drier (or wetter) world at 2ºC (Warning: ‘robust’ model output)

From the University of East Anglia, home of Climategate, comes this press release claiming a good portion of the world will become drier due to global warming. Just a little over a year ago, at the other climate alarmist outfit in Australia, the UNSW ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, they said a good portion of the world would get wetter:

Global warming will increase rainfall in some of the world’s driest areas over land, with not only the wet getting wetter but the dry getting wetter as well.

This part made me laugh:

“With precipitation climate models and observations don’t always tell the same story regarding regional changes, but we were very surprised to find that our results turned out to be highly robust across both,” said Dr Donat.

Climate Science, robustly telling two different stories from climate models. Below is UEA’s press release today.

Study predicts a significantly drier world at 2ºC

Over a quarter of the world’s land could become significantly drier if global warming reaches 2C – according to new research from an international team including the University of East Anglia.

The change would cause an increased threat of drought and wildfires.

But limiting global warming to under 1.5C would dramatically reduce the fraction of the Earth’s surface that undergoes such changes.

The findings, published today in Nature Climate Change, are the result of an international collaboration led by the Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) in Shenzhen China and UEA.

Aridity is a measure of the dryness of the land surface, obtained from combining precipitation and evaporation. The research team studied projections from 27 global climate models to identify the areas of the world where aridity will substantially change when compared to the year-to-year variations they experience now, as global warming reaches 1.5C and 2C above pre-industrial levels.

Dr Chang-Eui Park from SusTech, one of the authors of the study, said: “Aridification is a serious threat because it can critically impact areas such as agriculture, water quality, and biodiversity. It can also lead to more droughts and wildfires – similar to those seen raging across California.

“Another way of thinking of the emergence of aridification is a shift to continuous moderate drought conditions, on top of which future year-to-year variability can cause more severe drought. For instance, in such a scenario 15 per cent of semi-arid regions would actually experience conditions similar to ‘arid’ climates today.”

Dr Manoj Joshi from UEA’s School of Environmental Sciences said: “Our research predicts that aridification would emerge over about 20-30 per cent of the world’s land surface by the time the global mean temperature change reaches 2C. But two thirds of the affected regions could avoid significant aridification if warming is limited to 1.5C.”

Dr Su-Jong Jeong from SusTech said: “The world has already warmed by 1C. But by reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere in order to keep global warming under 1.5C or 2C could reduce the likelihood of significant aridification emerging in many parts of the world.”

Drought severity has been increasing across the Mediterranean, southern Africa, and the eastern coast of Australia over the course of the 20th Century, while semi-arid areas of Mexico, Brazil, southern Africa and Australia have encountered desertification for some time as the world has warmed.

Prof Tim Osborn from UEA said: “The areas of the world which would most benefit from keeping warming below 1.5C are parts of South East Asia, Southern Europe, Southern Africa, Central America and Southern Australia – where more than 20 per cent of the world’s population live today.”


This work forms part of a partnership between between the University of East Anglia (UEA) and The Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech).

‘Keeping global warming within 1.5C constrains emergence of aridification’ is published in the journal Nature Climate Change on January 1, 2018.


NASA asks: Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier?

196 thoughts on “Study predicts a significantly drier (or wetter) world at 2ºC (Warning: ‘robust’ model output)

  1. Honest…this is getting sad
    $trillions..and their very best science has gone into these “climate models”
    ..and not one prediction has been right

    ..and they keep doing it and acting like it means something

  2. Climate sceptics need to wake up and smell the coffee.

    2017 was the second-hottest year on record according to Nasa data, and was the hottest year without the short-term warming influence of an El Niño event. In fact, 2017 was the hottest year without an El Niño by a wide margin – 0.17°C hotter than 2014, which previously held that record. Remarkably, 2017 was also hotter than 2015, which at the time was by far the hottest year on record thanks in part to a strong El Niño event that year.

      • “A C Osborn January 2, 2018 at 6:29 am
        One word.

        Absolutely correct, but perhaps better stated as, adjustments adjustment adjustments adjustments, endlessly adjustments and more adjustments.

      • “ivankinsman January 2, 2018 at 6:30 am

        Different drivers but now AGW has become the key one.”

        Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Please, don’t link to your propaganda site.

    • It really is fascinating how trolls can’t tell the difference between their own propaganda and reality any more.

      • Evidence??? you may want to look up the science definition it is usually something like

        Results when a theory or hypothesis is tested objectively by other individuals such as in an experiment or in a controlled environment.

        You have science data and like all science data it can be interpreted a number of ways there isn’t a magic right way you are supposed to be able to argue them. Only in climate science it appears you just appeal to consensus because that is the sort of pseudoscience being practiced.

      • ivanski, I’m still waiting for evidence. Just screaming that all the scientists who agree with you, agree with you isn’t impressive.

    • Lots of left over energy from the 2014-2016 El Nino which was slowly released over 2017
      due to the lack of any Bjerknes feedback. We also had El Nino conditions for about 3.5 months. All of this on top of the +AMO. If you spent any time understanding natural climate drivers you wouldn’t get your panties into such a bunch.

      We are now headed into La Nina. We will see where this leads. In about 6 months if it is still warm then you may have a point.

      • The Russians would like to have the West commit economic hari- kari by ditching fossil fuel production while they continue to pump and drill.
        [snip – unnecessary commentary on another poster. -mod]

    • “Climate sceptics need to wake up and smell the coffee”.
      Said the Klimate Koolade-guzzling climate troll. LOL.

    • I believe that during the 20-year warming hiatus there were 2 el ninos, with 2015-16 being the third, and they all followed that pattern of no warming (flat), then a step increase in warming during el ninos, then flat again. Why don’t you be the first to show us CO2 ppmv following that same stair step pattern.

    • WMO Demolishes NOAA/NASA Claims Of “Hottest Year”
      17 Jan 2015
      If anybody is still in any doubt that it is UNSCIENTIFIC to make claims about hottest years, without taking into account error bars, see what the WMO had to say on the issue in their report on global temperatures for 2006:
      “All temperature values have uncertainties, which arise mainly from gaps in data coverage. The size of the uncertainties is such that the global average temperature for 2006 is statistically indistinguishable from, and could be anywhere between, the first and the eighth warmest year on record.”
      Met Office says 2014 was NOT the hottest year ever due to uncertainty ranges of the data
      Met Office Confirms 2014 Continues Global Warming ‘Pause’
      27 Jan 2015
      With the release of the 2014 HadCRUT4 data by the UK Met Office, and the previous release of global temperature data by Berkeley Earth, Nasa and Noaa, the main conclusion to be drawn from the data is that 2014 was a warm year, but not statistically distinguishable from most of the years of the past decade or so meaning that the “pause” in global annual average surface temperatures continues.
      Global Satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998
      3 Jan 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
      Strong December Cooling Leads to 2016 Being Statistically Indistinguishable from 1998
      The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December 2016 was +0.24ºC, down substantially from the November value of +0.45ºC
      NOAA data demonstrates that 2016 was not the ‘hottest year ever’ in the US
      19 Jan 2017
      That plot was done using NOAA’s own plotter, which you can replicate using the link above. Note that 2012 was warmer than 2016, when we had the last big El Niño. That was using all of the thermometers in the USA that NOAA manages and uses, both good and bad.
      What happens if we select the state-of-the-art pristine US Climate Reference Network data?
      Same answer – 2016 was not a record warm year in the USA, 2012 was:
      2016 was 0.01°C warmer than 2015. Margin of error: 0.10°C.

      • Sasha, funny you present evidence from more than several groups that counter Ivan’s hyperbole and he has no response. Even though when any of these same groups say something that fits the present orthodoxy Ivan, Griff and others would be screaming how wonderfully awful things are going to be based on the same organizations. Why they don’t take the time to look at all that is being written and said is beyond me. They certainly do not care about the impacts, especially on the developing world, of draconian measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. I cannot understand, if they have studied history at all, how they could buy into an cultish orthodoxy when there is not way of knowing whether predictions are correct for another hundred years. I guess it is another example of people never taught critical thinking buying into some bizarre pseudo-religion.

      • I once worked on a space mission where the temperature of an external cable was a critical factor in the qualification of an engine. The limit was for the sake of argument 200 degrees C. Our best measurements in a controlled environment with fully calibrated and characterised equipment had a systematic uncertainty of +/- 0.5 degrees C. And this was on the cable at a key junction where it got hottest.

        We spent almost 1 year trying to get the temperature of the cable down by a degree to fit inside the tolerance. Turns out we could have used climate science methods and just averaged multiple measurements to get any uncertainty we wanted.

      • Sasha and MarkW

        The error bars are not nearly large enough to reflect standard error propagation treatment. The value of 0.01 is implausible. That is so far down in the mud, it is lost. In any “normal” experiment such a claim for precision would not be tolerated (geddit?).

        For those who didn’t follow that point, the value “0.01” is not a temperature difference, it is the difference in the position of the centre of the uncertainty range. If the 95% confidence range is plus-minus 0.2 degrees and the centre of the range calculated happens to be 0.01 degrees above or below some other estimated value, the “0.01” is literally meaningless for a ‘record temp’ because we do not know what the true answer is, only the range in which it is likely to be found. Or highly likely. And the values for the other years are too close in value.

        One can alternatively report the % chance that one year’s average is approximately 0.01 degrees warmer than another year within the range of 0.015 to 0.005. In other words, there is a limited possibility that it really is in that tiny range, but the likelihood would be very small, given the ineluctable propagation of uncertainties of each of the contributing measurements. We cannot know that the exact difference is 0.01 degrees because none of the exact temperatures of the other years is known precisely.

    • ivankinsman

      Yet another Guardian link. Man, you’re such a sucker for that left wing, scaremongering rag.

    • Cooler/Warmer the world isn’t going to do anything about it until it becomes a real problem and then actual real scientists and engineers will get involved.

    • 2017 was the second-hottest year on record
      so? this is a combination of natural forces and human industrialization and population growth. uncertainty exists as to how much.

      adaption is one solution. something humans are very good at.

      the other approach is to try and reverse natural forces, industrialization and population growth. this will require increased industrialization which is bound to fail because increased industrialization is one of the causes.

    • ivankinsman makes a slightly Griff’y entry to wetter-drier discussion by telling there is some weather around. I’m sure some day you’ll change your tune. Until then, you’ll continue trolling.

    • Yes, I saw the squirrel, but going back to the subject of this post, which one of the two contradictory “studies” best represents the outcome of claimed AGW?

    • Wasn’t warm here. was bloody cold.

      And it is by no means the warmest year in my personal experience.

      Despite assurances of all the data adjusting climate modellers.

    • Still way below MWP and the first 8000+ years of the current interglacial, ivan.

      BNRW is the only warming we have.

    • All of these two-significant-digit averages are subject to a +/- 0.5 C measurement error, so 0.17 C is statistically insignificant. The Law of Large Numbers doesn’t apply, and extrapolations are used in place of measurements to fill where IS no data. All of those anomalies are statistical frauds.

      • James S

        Just to nitpick, that 0.5 C measurement uncertainty has to be propagated through the averaging process and the final uncertainty is far larger than 0.5. That is one of the little secrets the public should not know.

        • That’s what I had remembered from my physics courses at university, but later, when I went to look up the exact method of propagating the error in addition, I found that it was the square root of the sum of the square of the error in each measurement. If you add X +/- 0.5 C +Y +/- 0.5C, the actual error was sqrt(0.5**2 + 0.5**2), or +/- 0.7C.

          If that carries on for, say, the 930 measurements one has to sum and average to get the May baseline for a station, it seems it could get very ugly indeed.

    • ” . . . wake up and smell the coffee.

      I hate the smell of coffee. Can I smell the ‘Covfefe’ instead?

      • OK, just by asking that question shows that you need clarification on how this has no correlation to AGW – and this applies to Donald Trump as well:

        With unusually frigid weather gripping much of the Eastern United States this week, President Trump took to Twitter on Thursday to cast doubt on the reality of climate change, but he appeared unaware of the distinction between weather and climate.

        Donald J. Trump

        In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!

        Climate refers to how the atmosphere acts over a long period of time, while weather describes what’s happening on a much shorter time scale. The climate can be thought of, in a way, as the sum of long periods of weather.

        Or, to use some analogies – Donald Trump might appreciate, weather is how much money you have in your pocket today, whereas climate is your net worth. A billionaire who has forgotten his wallet one day is not poor, anymore than a poor person who lands a windfall of several hundred dollars is suddenly rich. What matters is what happens over the long term.

        On Thursday, Dec. 28th, parts of the United States were roughly 15 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit colder than average for this time of year. But the world as a whole was about 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average from 1979 to 2000.

        Whereas you might be experiencing a cold snap in the USA, here in Europe is has been an unseasonably mild winter – in Sweden and Poland, for example, there has been hardly any snow at all thsi winter.

    • You wouldn’t be living in the Midwest of the USA would you RECORD COLD TEMPERATURES> explain that Ivan

      • OK, just by asking that question shows that you need clarification on how this has no correlation to AGW – and this applies to Donald Trump as well:

        With unusually frigid weather gripping much of the Eastern United States this week, President Trump took to Twitter on Thursday to cast doubt on the reality of climate change, but he appeared unaware of the distinction between weather and climate.

        Donald J. Trump

        In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!

        Climate refers to how the atmosphere acts over a long period of time, while weather describes what’s happening on a much shorter time scale. The climate can be thought of, in a way, as the sum of long periods of weather.

        Or, to use some analogies – Donald Trump might appreciate, weather is how much money you have in your pocket today, whereas climate is your net worth. A billionaire who has forgotten his wallet one day is not poor, anymore than a poor person who lands a windfall of several hundred dollars is suddenly rich. What matters is what happens over the long term.

        On Thursday, Dec. 28th, parts of the United States were roughly 15 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit colder than average for this time of year. But the world as a whole was about 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the average from 1979 to 2000.

        Whereas you might be experiencing a cold snap in the USA, here in Europe is has been an unseasonably mild winter – in Sweden and Poland, for example, there has been hardly any snow at all this winter.

      • Ivan is clearly not very good at maths and science so lets make this kid dumb.

        USA is setting a breaking a record low dating back to 1884, now I can’t personally vouche for the 1884 reading but lets take that at face value. So if you want to claim it’s 1 degree warmer in the USA today on average then (i) your cold variation has to have increased OR (ii) You have some random 1 in 134 year extreme storm.

        Now normal climate scientist might argue (i) or (ii). I suspect you are trying to argue (i) but are too stupid to work it out.

    • Ivankinsman: How about you address the paper here about the world going drier with 2 deg C warmer temps rather than go strawman about a warm 2017. This paper says it will go drier in places that it makes no sense what so ever like the Maritime continent. I could buy into areas affected by the Hadley Cell going drier, but the tropics? There are already indications of higher precip in places like Singapore during the recent warming period showing real Obs that fly in the face of this model based study. They simply don’t know anything about weather and climate dynamics and just believe their model output. Throw in the CO2 greening then less water is required by plants and this is a non story from the start.

      It is about time these clowns employed experienced Mets to tell them whether the output from their precious models is either likely or physically/dynamically possible or not.

    • It’s who you bet to win and who you bet to place that makes the money.

      That said, you have suggested a fine name for a thoroughbred foal coming soon to a barn near me.

  3. Could.

    It could become drier, or it could become wetter, they just don’t know which. Maybe it could also not change at all. Or they could have some drier days and some wetter days. Or space aliens could visit and steal all the oceans. Or the earth could be hit by a massive gamma ray burst from deep space and we could all die.

  4. Spain is considdered an arid land because of the height of the plateau So is Greece and mainland italy

    it’s due to the elevation. they shuild have said “the coastal regions”

    the main inland plateau is considdered as cold desertin the south or cold grass steppe since the beginning…

    southern europe is thus arid thanks to the blocking Alps and Pyrenees mountain ranges.

    Only the north is semi arid and northern Portugal is

    It’s only when we have a heat wave that the low pressures veer south

    I would expand on this if wished but that’s a long write…

  5. I predict with a robust 50% certainty that it will be dryer or wetter. (Send more Money!)

  6. Beyond parody. Just like ‘climate change’ set a new standard in unfalsifiability leaving poor Russell’s teapot dead in a ditch, so these guys have set the absolute benchmark for Poe’s law. I’ll wait with trembling anticipation to see if it becomes drier. Or wetter. Or stays the same. Or drier in some parts and wetter in others. Or wetter in some parts and drier in others. Or …

  7. They don’t seem to realise that the general public have already suffered “catastrophe fatigue” and are no longer listening.
    The only ones listening are the brainwashed and those “in the industry”, because that is what it is.

    • Yes the “cry wolf syndrome” has kicked in and the climate activists still keep pumping out the stories 🙂

  8. For some reason, climate science has given a lot of credibility to guessing when it comes to advancing the CGW hypothesis. Maybe it’s because nobody knows what’s going to happen.

  9. Climate Models predict a future of dry rain, so it will be wet and dry at the same time!
    See what fake Nobel Prizes do for you!

    • “not only the wet getting wetter but the dry getting wetter as well.”
      does this mean that we’re going to get wetter rain I’m confused?

      James Bull

  10. Anthony:

    The UNSW study was 16 months ago. The fact that we’ve gone from greatly increased precipitation modelling results to greatly decreased precipitation results indicates that there is an unprecedented acceleration in climate modelling instability that is much worse than previously realized. Such extreme variations are exactly what we would expect from the changing climate research environment.

    Unless drastic action is taken at once, it may not be possible to keep climate modelling results to just two incompatible projections. We could face peer-reviewed outputs of three or even four incompatible projections, which would clearly be a tipping point on the path to projectaclypse.

      • why do you find incompatible projections funny? this is exactly what they want. 4, 6, who cares. the goal is not to be correct, it is to continue the pal review chain. the next paper along can quote the outcome it wants, and it can do it more precisely, or look like it is. and thats what matters. nobody will read them apart from the other pals, and the media release will be the most appropriate for the day and look surprisingly accurate.

        the ridiculous nature of these pal reviewed stories does not even enter the mind of the general public, because the media are quite happy to filter for them.

    • Alan, that reminds me of a recent visual on the Weather Channel of computer model results predicting where low pressure that is suppose to maybe developing of the US East coast this week was going to end up off NE US. Fifty different results, a couple saying it wouldn’t develop at all. The entire spread took up an area seemingly about as big as a quarter of the North Atlantic. Even they meteorologist said it was ridiculous. I was taught by two very good statisticians that computer models were fine but no matter how big or fast the computer running the model we had to understand that models would always be nothing more then “a small imitation of the real world.”

  11. I don’t read horoscopes so why would I read this sort of nonsense in Nature Climate Change? I can read my own tea leaves and enjoy a warm drink at the same time.

  12. Global Climate Models ‘model’ two linked dynamically non-linear, chaotic systems — the Oceans and the Atmosphere. The output of GCMs is itself “chaotic” in the Chaos Theory sense, being highly sensitive to initial conditions, and bounded only by the computer code and parameters used for each model (without the built-in limits, the results would span the entire range of numerical possibilities). As it is, results are bounded between two radically different potential outcomes. If they change the initial conditions even slightly (0.0001 degrees to start, or air pressure over the Pacific 0.000001 mb higher), the results 100 years later resemble what we see above — Wetter everywhere, Drier Everywhere, Wet Places Dry/Dry Places wet, Dry places drier/Wet Places wetter.

    The real error in climate modelling is the denial of the chaotic nature of the system modeled and the totally unfounded, strictly fallacious notion that they can obviate the chaos in the results by AVERAGING the chaotic output of a large number of computer runs started with slightly differing initial conditions or by AVERAGING the output of a large number of different models. This second idea is shockingly unscientific. [see this WUWT essay from RGBatDuke — Robert G Brown, a professor at Duke — who has written more than one insightful rant on this subject].

    This is not some silly old skeptical talking point — it is deep mathematics and can not be explained away. Modellers claim to know that the system is chaotic, but failing to understand Chaos Theory, come away with the idea that they can average chaos away — fruit-cakery!

    As a result, they regularly put out press releases from studies that are totally contradictory and think nothing of it. In any other field their would be an immediate attempt to find out what has gone wrong and studies initiated to resolve the apparent conflict. But not in CliSci….they just blather on predicting/projecting “any old thing” (as long as it is catastrophic) in total denial that their results cannot be right if they are all different.

    • Kip,
      It has been shown that chaos is normally distributed, thus it cancels out with averaging.

    • results cannot be right if they are all different.
      the problem is that there is no single mathematical “right” answer for the future except in trivial situations.

      for example. the average of a pair of dice is 7. this can be predicted.

      but now consider a system where you add 1 more dice after each roll. what is the future average of this system?

      • fred,
        42, same as it is in Hitchhiker’s guide.

        PS – Have you seen the size of My Error Bars!?

      • “Auto January 2, 2018 at 10:33 am

        42, same as it is in Hitchhiker’s guide.

        42 in ASCII is * …Adams was a computer geek!

    • the idea that they can average chaos away — fruit-cakery!
      random sampling of climate results in a normal distribution due to the central limit theorem.

      from this climate itself is normally distributed. by analogy taking a picture of a person results in a 2 dimensional result. looking at the picture climate science concludes people are. 2 dimensional.

      the error is that climate science mistakes climate data for climate itself. it assumes the climate has the same physical properties as the data.

      • ferd ==> “random sampling of climate results in a normal distribution due to the central limit theorem” is a theory of statistical averaging. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the real world — the real climate — or real anything.

        “The central limit theorem says that the computed values of the average will be distributed according to a normal distribution” — the CLT is about computed values of averages — not even about real probabilities….it is a artifact of computation alone.

      • The temperature measurements for a given day are not distributed normally. They are skewed to the right (higher temps) of the mean of the dataset. This applies to the mean for a given day of the year, or the mean temp for a particular month over the period 1981-2010. No matter how you look at it, the measurements are not distributed normally around the mean.

    • Been saying this for decades. Universities used to teach physical science students that you cannot make long range predictions in deeply non-linear dynamical systems regardless of your computational resources. The classic examples given were usually the stock market and weather/climate. If people want to make long range predictions in these systems I want to see the seminal paper demonstrating that these all but infinite phase spaces are now accessible by numerical means.

      I usually get told that ‘oh well you’re just not familiar with heuristic programming techniques or whatever is the latest statistical methodology’. My response is along the general lines of ‘I don’t care. Show me the seminal paper and then go away and become the wealthiest person on the planet by applying it to the stock market. Until that glorious day just stop boring everyone to death with endlessly failed quacking insane computer predictions of the climate which were written to demonstrate an incredibly stupid a priori conclusion in the first place’.

    • You mean that since the world must end in fire or ice I can’t take solace in the fact that on the average it will end in a pleasant afternoon?

    • The theory is based on water vapour in the atmosphere increasing by 7.0% for each 1.0C increase in temperatures.

      The average amount of water in the atmosphere 24.5 mms or almost exactly 1 inch. To increase by 7.0%, the 24.5 mms needs to increase by 1.7 mms. That means that evaporation must exceed precipitation by 1.7 mms eventually some day or the time it takes to get to 1.0C of temperature increase.

      Given water vapour circulates through the atmosphere each 9 days, that means that evaporation and precipitation is something around 994 mms/year on average around the world.

      So, in 37 years or so, the evaporation has to increase by 1.7 mms or the equivalent of 0.005% per year for 37 years.

      I really doubt we will notice an increase in evaporation of 0.005% per year.

      And the farkin’ climate scientists should know this math!!!

      • Sorry, I did the math wrong.

        The 994 mms/year increases by 7.0% as well.

        So evaporation increases to 1,063 mms per year and rainfall increases to 1,061.3 mms/year from the 944 mms/year they are both currently.

      • Also noting that the increased CO2 should result in plants losing less water through evapotranspiration so it probably tunrs out that general evaporation levels should decrease which calls into question entirely the assumption that water vapor levels in the atmosphere will increase.

        What a mind-screw this business is.

    • An old comment that seems to apply:

      Gunga Din says:
      May 14, 2012 at 1:21 pm

      joeldshore says:
      May 13, 2012 at 6:10 pm
      Gunga Din: The point is that there is a very specific reason involving the type of mathematical problem it is as to why weather forecasts diverge from reality. And, the same does not apply to predicting the future climate in response to changes in forcings. It does not mean such predictions are easy or not without significant uncertainties, but the uncertainties are of a different and less severe type than you face in the weather case.
      As for me, I would rather hedge my bets on the idea that most of the scientists are right than make a bet that most of the scientists are wrong and a very few scientists plus lots of the ideologues at Heartland and other think-tanks are right…But, then, that is because I trust the scientific process more than I trust right-wing ideological extremism to provide the best scientific information.

      What will the price of tea in China be each year for the next 100 years? If Chinese farmers plant less tea, will the replacement crop use more or less CO2? What values would represent those variables? Does salt water sequester or release more or less CO2 than freshwater? If the icecaps melt and increase the volume of saltwater, what effect will that have year by year on CO2? If nations build more dams for drinking water and hydropower, how will that impact CO2? What about the loss of dry land? What values do you give to those variables? If a tree falls in the woods allowing more growth on the forest floor, do the ground plants have a greater or lesser impact on CO2? How many trees will fall in the next 100 years? Values, please. Will the UK continue to pour milk down the drain? How much milk do other countries pour down the drain? What if they pour it on the ground instead? Does it make a difference if we’re talking cow milk or goat milk? Does putting scraps of cheese down the garbage disposal have a greater or lesser impact than putting in the trash or composting it? Will Iran try to nuke Israel? Pakistan India? India Pakistan? North Korea South Korea? In the next 100 years what other nations might obtain nukes and launch? Your formula will need values. How many volcanoes will erupt? How large will those eruptions be? How many new ones will develop and erupt? Undersea vents? What effect will they all have year by year? We need numbers for all these things. Will the predicted “extreme weather” events kill many people? What impact will the erasure of those carbon footprints have year by year? Of course there’s this little thing called the Sun and its variability. Year by year numbers, please. If a butterfly flaps its wings in China, will forcings cause a tornado in Kansas? Of course, the formula all these numbers are plugged into will have to accurately reflect each ones impact on all of the other values and numbers mentioned so far plus lots, lots more. That amounts to lots and lots and lots of circular references. (And of course the single most important question, will Gilligan get off the island before the next Super Moon? Sorry. 😎
      There have been many short range and long range climate predictions made over the years. Some of them are 10, 20 and 30 years down range now from when the trigger was pulled. How many have been on target? How many are way off target?
      Bet your own money on them if want, not mine or my kids or their kids or their kids etc.

      Can any climate model program process all that?
      This layman’s understanding of “chaos theory” isn’t just that there are more variables involved than we know but also that we don’t (and/or can’t possibly) know the number to assign to those variables.

  13. Couldn’t we just look at dinosaur fossils since the world was warmer then ? Arid regions would have fewer fossils.

      • No. What makes for a good fossil is a quick cover-up and sealing of the body part/imprint from the atmosphere. A dead dinosaur lying on the ground in an arid desert is going to decay or be scavenged. A dead dinosaur that falls into a lake and quickly silted over and covered in an anaerobic environment stands a much better change of leaving a fossil.

      • Correct. Always a wet environment to lay down a “fossil”, even a footprint of something that ran over some soft ground.

  14. The ‘on record’ part is the key. So what if it’s warming even if we accept the adjusted numbers. The time frame of ‘on record’ is so pitifully short, the truth is we are still on the somewhere on the minor trend upward coming out of the little ice age. This ‘peak’ is the 6th such hump since the glaciers receded and the least peaky of the lot. Line these 6 ‘peaks’ up and we still have a descending curve as we ultimately return to glaciation events.

    There is nothing I’m seeing that is outside this overall trend. I see no effect from CO2 but just a continuation of natural events.

  15. An infinite number of climate scientists typing endlessly into government computers at unlimited expense will produce the climate of Shakespeare’s time eventually.

  16. Seriously expensive climate research shows that if the climate changes, things won’t stay the same!

    Good thing it isn’t changing then…

  17. Remarkable how 1.5 deg C comes out to be the magic number, just like the not-worth-the-paper-it-is-printed-on Paris Accord target.

    • I suspect because the old Schellnhuber 2C is no longer a warmunist threshold give the new low observational ECS estimates of 1.5-1.8.

  18. ‘Robust’ is a euphemism for ‘fat’. Anyone found the lurking heat in the mid-troposphere yet? And why aren’t those Kelvins lurking in the deep abysses of the Briny warming Cape Cod and the frozen sharks?

  19. It wasn’t all that long ago that the Australian BOM was predicting worsening drought which prompted their government to fund desalinization plants which created a Gore Effect to bring them flooding rains. (Remember when a lull in SLR had them later claiming it was because of that same rain … during their “extended drought”? )

  20. “With precipitation climate models and observations don’t always tell the same story regarding regional changes, but we were very surprised to find that our results turned out to be highly robust across both,” said Dr Donat.

    Reminds me of that great business advice: “Sure, we lose money on each individual sale, but we make it up in volume.”

  21. Dr Su-Jong Jeong from SusTech said: “The world has already warmed by 1C. But by reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere in order to keep global warming under 1.5C or 2C could reduce the likelihood of significant aridification emerging in many parts of the world.”


    So let me see if I have this straight: a CHINESE university has teamed up with the loons over at UEA to now predict a drastically more arid globe if we don’t take drastic action? Isn’t the world supposed to become wetter/more humid if the AGW theory is correct? Isn’t the lions share of amplification that’s built into all of the GCM’s based on increased water vapor?

    You gotta give the Chinese some serious credit for this…they certainly know how to look out for their national interests.

    Think about it: they team up with the UEA to produce this rubbish so the UEA (and other moonbats) can say “look, even the Chinese agree that we’re heading for disaster” with what result?

    The global warmists in the West use this study to push for more green/economically inefficient energy production and additional CO2 limiting regulations which accomplish nothing other than further decreasing their economic competitiveness with China.

    And who is the winner? Seeing as China isn’t going to do anything other than think or talk about reducing its own CO2 emissions their competitive edge becomes even greater as a result of all that cheap non-green energy they’re relying upon to fuel their industries.

    Am I wrong or just completely daft?

  22. “Climate Science, robustly telling two different stories from climate models.”
    No, they are telling just one story, and it has been consistent for at least forty years. Some places will get wetter, some drier. It can happen. This study says
    “Over a quarter of the world’s land could become significantly drier if global warming reaches 2C”
    So what happens to the other three quarters? Some gets wetter! The paper linked at the end has the relevant map:

    • It’s science fiction. Any resemblance to actual climate is purely coincidental.

      First you have to believe that they are actually capable of predicting changes in precipitation by the end of 21st century. Then you have to believe that all the other conditions necessary for the prediction will also take place.

    • Be serious, Nick..

      Do you REALLY “believe” that climate models are in any way accurate..

      …. and anying more than a computer game???

    • Nick,

      You still believe climate models are sensitive or specific enough to be relied upon any more? You know, I know and everybody on this site knows, the models are crap, quantitatively and qualitatively. Manipulation is the key and you just keep playing the Warmies game.

    • Alternatively, we can just flip a coin twice to see if the region you live in will be wetter, dryer, or stay the same. You need double heads or double tails for the first two possibilities.
      It sure save a lot of time and money.

    • Nick Stokes ==> For heaven’s sake…”Some places will get wetter, some drier. It can happen. ” Trivially true.

      It already happens, has happened, and will happen…that’s called Earth Climate History.

      Sahara Wet, Sahara Dry…Just recently (comparatively) “The Neolithic Subpluvial, or the Holocene Wet Phase, was an extended period (from about 7500–7000 BCE to about 3500–3000 BCE) of wet and rainy conditions in the climate history of northern Africa. It was both preceded and followed by much drier periods.”

      Note that the global average surface temperature is believed to have been higher during that period than it is today.

      There are other examples of great regional change in the historical record — we don’t need no stinkin’ global warming to produce climatic changes — it changes all by itself.

    • So according to you Nick, a warmer climate will weaken monsoons. Do you have any theory why this should work in the opposite way now compared to the last several million years?

      • It isn’t according to me. It’s according to the folks at GFDL Princeton, as linked by WUWT. It generally accords with what I had expected, except for some of the monsoon areas. Northern Australia is generally expected to get wetter, and this seems to be happening somewhat.

        As to the past, there may have been greater monsoons, but were they in the same places?

    • They’ve got all the existing dry areas wrong. This is where we are getting the galloping greening that this klatch have chosen to ignore- 15% expansion of forests etc in 30 years and bumper crops elsewhere.

      • “This is where we are getting the galloping greening”
        I’m not convinced that is true. But it is irrelevant to the predictions of rainfall. The point of CO2 induced greening is that plants can do better when water is in short supply. It doesn’t mean that it is wetter.

    • Every conceivable future outcome has now been “robustly” projected by climate models.

      Now all they have to do is wait, and then ex post facto pick the correct ones.
      Such is the state of today’s climate psuedoscience.

      In the world of equity trading there is a name for such confidence schemes.

    • Mind explaining to me why northern Australia for example would get drier in a warmer climate? Southern Australia yes, but the north it makes no sense with expanding and stronger tropical convection zone. This is why models are seriously flawed.

  23. When the World was warmer, it was a lot wetter.

    Latitudinal Gradients in Greenhouse Seawater d18O: Evidence from Eocene Sirenian Tooth Enamel
    Mark T. Clementz and Jacob O. Sewall
    The Eocene greenhouse climate state has been linked to a more vigorous hydrologic cycle at mid- and high latitudes; similar information on precipitation levels at low latitudes is, however, limited. Oxygen isotopic fluxes track moisture fluxes and, thus, the d18O values of ocean surface waters can provide insight into hydrologic cycle changes. The offset between tropical d18O values from sampled Eocene sirenian tooth enamel and modern surface waters is greater than the expected 1.0 per mil increase due to increased continental ice volume. This increased offset could result from suppression of surface-water d18O values by a tropical, annual moisture balance substantially wetter than that of today. Results from an atmospheric general circulation model support this interpretation and suggest that Eocene low latitudes were extremely wet.

    They rely on proxy data to support an Eocene much wetter than today.

    The Eocene epoch represents an extremely warm interval in Earth’s climate history. Greenhouse gas concentrations were up to five times as high as present-day levels, and annual global temperatures during the Early Eocene Climatic Optimum (EECO) at ~50 million years ago (Ma) were as much as 12°C higher than modern values.

    The persistence of the enhanced hydrologic cycle across the Eocene simulations and its match to the sirenian enamel-derived latitudinal gradient in d18Osw suggest that, despite falling atmospheric pCO2 and widespread cooling, the atmospheric circulation and hydrologic cycle of the Eocene greenhouse world were broadly stable.

    Our results, thus, suggest that the Eocene tropics were not only wetter but may have been cooler than foraminiferal d18O data have previously indicated.

  24. If you are a called variable in a climate computer simulation, CO2 warming must be a terrifying reality!

  25. Fortune comes to mind, cookie and telling. This may be unfair but so have been long term predictions supporting a theory.

  26. Note the precision. The world has warmed by 1 degree, and that’s ok. We can warm by another 0.5 degrees and that’s ok, but another 0.5 degrees beyond that is catastrophic.
    These “forecasts” are as useless as my local weather bureau when it forecasts a 50% chance of showers for the weekend ahead.

  27. Both studies were published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The first one in the 2016-03-16 edition and this study in the 2018-01-01 edition. Since both studies were on the same topic in the same journal but reached opposite conclusions, you’d think the second study would have at least referenced the first one. You’d also think the journal editor would have solicited comments from the UNSW group (lead author Dr. Markus Donat from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science).

    Key findings from the UNSW study:

    The world’s driest areas will see more rain and more flash floods as a result of global warming according to observations and climate models.

    However, the increased evaporation caused by a warmer atmosphere means water storage rates will not change.

    With observations and models showing the same uncertainties for precipitation, improved observation networks are urgently needed if we are to understand more precisely how precipitation will change with global warming.

    From the just published study (a collaboration between Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) in Shenzhen China and the University of East Anglia):

    Our research predicts that aridification would emerge over about 20-30 per cent of the world’s land surface by the time the global mean temperature change reaches 2ºC. But two thirds of the affected regions could avoid significant aridification if warming is limited to 1.5ºC.

    Is it possible that the second study could have been published without at least acknowledging the first one? Come time for AR6, which one gets cited?

    • They are pairing them up so they can show they were right when the time comes! Better collect screen shots. The ARC Centre for Ex Climate Science could win in this pair.

  28. If more surface area is wet on earth would this increase evaporative cooling and everything else being equal cool the planet ?

  29. So we have a study that is hyped by the university for people to take notice in the real world and do something. This is the thing that gets me about climate scientists. They are using hypothetical data sets, because the necessary data uncertainty has never been achieved with real measurements. Then they run parameterised models which are just X-box playing around with a half theory, because they don’t and can’t model CO2 in the whole atmospheric system. And once they get their results they think that they are unique and those results can be acted upon. As if the whole idea of verification and qualification of data to be safe to use is not applied to them.

  30. The output of ‘robust’ models appears to be indistinguishable from the output of ‘wonky’ models. NASA’s Earth photographs are clear evidence of global greening, and it is the only observable manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 that has yet been put before us. The University of East Anglia is the home of ‘Wonky’ Science.

  31. become significantly drier if global warming reaches 2C

    So, just how is water vapor going to go up then ?
    Doesn’t a rise in CO2 beget higher water vapor in the “signature” 18km about the Tropics ?

  32. For Southern Australia, the prediction of increased aridity goes against the observed increases in precipitation in the 20th Century. At least according to Al Gore’s 2006 graphic in the book of the film.

    Maybe the UEA are too influenced by the severe drought that ended six years ago?

  33. There is no issue with North Africa. Yet according to Al Gore, in the 20th Century precipitation in parts of West Africa and Ethiopia decreased by 50%. Compare the Nobel Laureate’s graphic with the UEA’s forecast for 2C of warming.

    According to the IPCC, 2C of warming will be reached with another 1000 GtCO2e of emissions from Jan 2012, and emissions are over 50 GtCO2e a year.

  34. And now it’s CHOCOLATE!!!!! GASP!

    See many articles about this using any news source you wish.

    We are gonna lose our candy bars in 30 years because the temperature will be higher and the climate will be drier. Oh, wait! Other models say it will be hot amd wet.

    Somehow I think the “experts/scientists” talking about the end of chocolate as we know it are getting grant $$$ because they included the term “climate change” in their proposals. The new administration may surprise them when the gravy train departs without them.

    I also question how those tender cacoa trees ( cocoa is the bean) survived the MWP and the Little Ice Age, as they need temperatures above 60 deg F and lottsa rain. Ditto for many spices and hot peppers from the Americas.

    When will the constant doomsday insanity end?


  35. Drought severity has not been increasing on the east coast of Australia over the 20th century. They simply made this up for the sake of the article.

  36. Meanwhile all the arid areas are experiencing galloping greening. The fringes of the Sahara are being encroached upon by new vegetation. It is exponential and endothermic, ie: natural sequestration and cooling! Over 15% of expansion of forest cover plus fattening of existing stock, shrub, grasses , food crops and then there’s plankton and other increased production in the seas.

    This fact was mentioned a couple of years ago and then basically ignored because it’s implication is that only good will come of this molecule. It coincides with the Pause and, if a factor in causation, it will continue after the el nino decays to a la nina, already deepening. The panic over chocolate, being laughably in counterpoint to Sharks freezing in the sea off Massachusets along with record continental cold and snow. The cocoa cuckoo’s even fly in the face of their own theory that global warming occurs outside the tropics, mainly in the… errr… Arctic where all the record cold is coming from.

  37. It doesn’t matter what the latest models predict, it’s always “bad”

    Warmer = worse
    Colder = worse
    Wetter = worse
    Drier = worse
    Windier = worse
    Calmer = worse
    More heterogeneous = worse
    More homogeneous = worse

    The message is “things were perfect in 1850 (or was it 1750?, darn it, wish I could remember) and any change from that is (a) caused by human activity and (b) a Bad Thing”

    Any hint of a favourable result of increased atmospheric CO2 is invariably outweighed by a corresponding downside “Oh yes, vegetables might grow faster and bigger, but they will be less nutritious” (I think I saw that one recently).

    Never mind that we’re in the middle of an ice age and global temperatures have been up and down like a (yoyo – toilet seat – hoor’s knickers) for at least 4 million years, change MUST be caused by humans and change MUST be a Bad Thing. It’s so anthropocentirc, so pathetically dismissive of earth history. It would be comical if it wasn’t taken so seriously by our leaders.

    • I’ve been told by several so called environmentalists that any change, if it is caused by man, is evil.
      If the world warms 20 degrees, but it’s natural, it’s a good thing.
      If the world warms 0.1 degrees, but it’s caused by man, it’s evil and must be fought with everything at our disposal.

  38. Okay, I’m confused. I’m only interested in accurate weather forecasts. Accuweather is NOT the most accurate of spots, and worse, they change their forecasts by the hour at times. I could make a TV game show out of “Spot the Wrong Forecast”, couldn’t I?

    I saw (and photographed) sundogs yesterday around 2:30PM local time. That usually means a storm in two to three days, depending on how much water vapor (ice at that altitude) is in the atmosphere. So I’d say, based on that and what’s happened before in my kingdom, we’ll have a storm by Wednesday, and I’ll have to shovel again. And Accuweather is still forecasting “other”, but that changes with the time of day. Oh, well.

    So does this “study” take into account the grasses and weeds growing in the Sahara? The snows engulfing people living in the Atacama Desert in up to three feet of snow? Snow sticking to dunes in the Sahara for several hours? Snow in Kuwait, where it has never been seen in recorded history? Is this one of those stay-tuned moments, or should I just start a warm, toasty fire, get a good book (or movie) and put my feet up?

    Seriously, the more of these silly, unrealistic pronouncements I see, the less I trust the people who make them. They fail to take unexpected variables into account – always a fatal error. When they tell me they can detect a single degree difference in temperature by feel, not by mechanical readings, I might listen to them. But I simply cannot give credence to people who think they can forecast the weather or the economy for 50 to 100 years ahead.

    That is simply loony, in my view.

  39. The modeling this study is based upon is really just a form of make believe. The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Mankind does not have the power to change the climate.

    They mentioned the fires in California which is coming off of one its wettest years on record. Such fires have always plagued California and it has had nothing to do with mankind. There are even some plant species in the state that through evolution require such fires for their propogation. In Southern California where I live most plant species are acustomed to having only a brief rainy season followed by a long dry season and will still survive if successive rainy seasons are missed. The LA basin was known as the valley of the smokes because of all the fires that took place during the long dry season.

  40. If the climate changes, people will adapt.

    The climate was warmer than today’s climate during the Roman Warm Period, when human CO2 emissions were much less than today’s emissions. If a warming climate produces drought in southern Europe, the Roman Empire adapted by building aqueducts hundreds of miles long to transport snowmelt from the Alps to thirsty coastal cities, some of which are still standing 2,000 years later.

    If we are heading toward another Roman Warm Period, why can’t we do as the Romans did?

  41. Kip Hansen
    January 2, 2018 at 7:41 am

    I do believe that I posted here regarding this quite a few years ago, 7? 8? that climate models were averaging chaos and I had never seen a mathematical justification for this and it was likely false.

  42. Really?

    “Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech)”

    SUSTech? In English if something is a bit “sus” it means suspect. Which this study clearly demonstrates.

  43. THANK YOU ANTHONY – I JUST LUV THIS ONE! TOTALLY BUSTED – why this obvious discrepancy doesn’t make front page news – I don’t know – just goes to show how inadequately gutless journalists are these days – although one must keep ones job and to do that – impossible in todays CLIMATE of climate modelling dodgy science – such a damn shame – Lavoisier would be turning over in his grave!

  44. I am not sure as to when I should panic, or when to plan my vacations.
    What happens if the global warming is 1.6 degree?
    What happens if it is only 1.4 degree?

    Do we all die, or what? Should I pack my snorkel, or my skis? Or just step off a cliff? Will the cliff have snow?

    How can I possibly organize my life if I don’t know when to panic?

    • They want you to panic NOW! Give them all your money NOW! Then you will be saved…at some time in the future, after you die!

      Sounds very very familiar!

  45. Studies issue forth in a continuous stream prophesying both more wetness and more dryness (generally, not talking about regions) in approximately equal numbers. Here’s another recent one on the wetness side:

    It actually doesn’t matter what flavour of doom they prophesy. It could just as well be an invasion of blue cats from Jupiter. As long as it is in the correct threatening tone of subdued but persistent alarm, outrage and implied advocacy.

  46. An analysis of 50 years of rainfall data in arid regions by researchers at Cardiff University and the University of Bristol in the UK has shown a decline in rainfall intensity, despite an increase in total rainfall. The findings run counter to research that suggests that global warming causes heavier rainfall, because a hotter atmosphere can hold more moisture, and warmer oceans evaporate faster, thus feeding the atmosphere with more moisture.

  47. FWIW Andy: If precipitation increased at the same rate as saturation vapor pressure, that would carry an additional 7%/K or 5.6 W/m2/K from the surface into the atmosphere. Heat can’t possibly escape from the atmosphere to space at this rate: 1 W/m2/K faster is ECS of 3.7 K (AOGCMs); 2 W/m2/K is an ECS of 1.8 K (EBMs), and 3.2 W/m2/K is the no-feedbacks climate sensitivity of 1.15 K. So all AOGCMs predict a slowing down of the rate at which the atmosphere carries moisture from the boundary layer into the free atmosphere where it can precipitate. In AOGCMs, the rate of precipitation in AOGCMs rises about 2%/K and the relative humidity over the ocean rises about 1%, enough to slow evaporation by 5%. If climate sensitivity is lower, precipitation can rise a little faster than 2%/K, but not 7%/K

    What happens over land? To a first approximation, one might expect precipitation to rise 2-4%/K. Evaporation could rise a 7%/K, unless relative humidity rises or winds slow. (The rate of evaporation is proportional to under-saturation and wind speed.) Away from the oceans, the increase in precipitation is unlikely to keep up with the increase in trans-evaporation. (This is also the reason why wet areas are likely to get somewhat wetter and dry areas drier.)

    Now, we certainly can’t trust AOGCMs to get these changes right or even the same in small regions like California. However, the global trend is likely to be modestly more rain over land – negated by more trans-evaporation over land. Wetter, but drier. This might help you sort through the alarmist noise.

Comments are closed.