Wild claim: ‘Earth’s climate to increase by four degrees by 2084’

From the INSTITUTE OF ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES and the “images of doom make it more sciency” department comes this load of alarmism that doubles down on the imagery, rather than the science.

The study is selected as the cover article of Issue No. 8 of Advances in Atmospheric Sciences in 2018. The levels of future global warming relative to the pre-industrial period have been extensively addressed, in which 2 C and 1.5 C warming have attracted the most attention. A special report ‘Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World must be Avoided’ by the World Bank in 2012 described a 4 C warmer world with significant changes in mean and extreme climates on the basis of earlier-generation climate models and emission scenarios.
CREDIT Image by Advances in Atmospheric Sciences

A collaborative research team from China has published a new analysis that shows the Earth’s climate would increase by 4 °C, compared to pre-industrial levels, before the end of 21st century.

To understand the severity of this, consider the Paris Agreement (https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris-agreement) of the United Nations. It’s a global effort to prevent an increase of 2°C. Nearly every country on the planet–the United States is the only country to withdraw–has agreed to work to prevent the catastrophic effects of two degrees of warming.

The researchers published their analysis projecting a doubling of that increase in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-018-7160-4 ) on May 18, 2018.

“A great many record-breaking heat events, heavy floods, and extreme droughts would occur if global warming crosses the 4 °C level, with respect to the preindustrial period,” said Dabang Jiang, a senior researcher at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. “The temperature increase would cause severe threats to ecosystems, human systems, and associated societies and economies.”

In the analysis, Jiang and his team used the parameters of scenario in which there was no mitigation of rising greenhouse gas emissions. They compared 39 coordinated climate model experiments from the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (https://www.wcrp-climate.org/wgcm-cmip), which develops and reviews climate models to ensure the most accurate climate simulations possible.

They found that most of the models projected an increase of 4°C as early as 2064 and as late as 2095 in the 21st century, with 2084 appearing as the median year.

This increase translates to more annual and seasonal warming over land than over the ocean, with significant warming in the Arctic. The variability of temperature throughout one year would be lower in the tropics and higher in polar regions, while precipitation would most likely increase in the Arctic and in the Pacific. These are the same effects that would occur under 1.5°C or 2°C increases, but more severe.

“Such comparisons between the three levels of global warming imply that global and regional climate will undergo greater changes if higher levels of global warming are crossed in the 21st century,” wrote Jiang.

The researchers continue to investigate the changes associated with 4°C of global warming in extreme climates.

“Our ultimate goal is to provide a comprehensive picture of the mean and extreme climate changes associated with higher levels of global warming based on state-of-the art climate models, which is of high interest to the decision-makers and the public,” said Jiang.

###

Meanwhile, China (and much of the world) continues to build coal power plants at a frenetic pace. I’ll believe China’s crisis-mongering science when they act like there’s a crisis.

Advertisements

69 thoughts on “Wild claim: ‘Earth’s climate to increase by four degrees by 2084’

    • Doggone it!
      I’ll be long gone before I can grow tomatoes at my mountain cabin, and even then it will be dicey and I may need a cold frame. Hell!! Sniff. Baaawhaaaaa.
      Is that 4 degrees basic average all over? So my Florida nights will be 4 degrees warmer along with afternoon temperatures? Or maybe 8 degrees warmer at night and about the same as today at 3 PM.
      It just can’t get any worse, folks. Start mixing that Kool-aid.
      Gums rants…

  1. A lot of “if”‘s in there. The world would freeze over if the temperature dropped several degrees C.
    “…if global warming crosses the 4 °C level”, “…global and regional climate will undergo greater changes if higher levels of global warming are crossed in the 21st century.”
    Pretty much cancels out their theories IMHO. Just as definite as the one with the weasle words “could” and “might”.

  2. So they used useless models to make useless predictions. Climate scientists need to agree and publish the basic factors that impact the climate. After they have the basic science worked out then collaborate to make 1 model that matches the real data not all the adjusted data.

    • It is worse than than that. They have different models depending on whether you hindcast (into the past) or forecast (into the future). They used to have the same model do both but after they finished tuning for the past it would screw up their future. NOW THEY HAVE SUCCEEDED IN SCREWING UP THE FUTURE OF ALL MANKIND.

  3. The cover of “Advances in Atmospheric Sciences” looks more like a Hollywood poster for the next Bruce Willis disaster film.

  4. Four degrees above pre-industrial period? If one choses the middle of the Little Ice Age as your pre-industrial starting point then where is the problem? I also love it when people talk about “records.” My next question is always when was the first data point recorded. My second is did the instrumentation change? If you have never measured something before how does one know what came before. Or if one measured it imprecisely, don’t tell me something is a record if your instruments have changed over time.

    • What they did was spout the latest garbage that Xi wants them to spout off. The Chinese aren’t dumb. They know that global warming is a hoax. However even though they are of course carrying on business as usual, they want the west to think that the situation is scarier than ever. Thus the more scare stories the more western leaders will tax carbon and ruin their economies. Then China can buy them up cheaply. Interestingly since China has 5 times the coal production of either India or the US (which are in 2nd place and 3rd place) and China is no 3 in coal reserves; they are not only building more coal plants in China, they are building them outside of China by financing them in dozens of small countries around the world. China wants to sell its huge coal reserves to the rest of the world. China increased its CO2 output last year by 4.1% and now produce 31% of the world’s total. This is actually a good thing because the world’s atmosphere needs more CO2 NOT less.

      • My thoughts exactly. China is effectively on the receiving end of UNFCCC climate reparations by being excluded from the giving end, moreover; their climate scientists are not beholden to progressive interests and must have already figured out the self evident scientific truth for themselves.
        As we move from an economy where the value added to natural resources is transitioning from labor to energy, whoever has the lowest cost supplies of energy will win. China understands this, Trump understands this while the progressive left does not owing to emotionally charged arguments that blind them to the truth. This kind of opposition should be expected as this is the way the progressive left supports positions that otherwise defy logic and is the case in point for why politics and science should never intersect.

      • “… whoever has the lowest cost supplies of energy will win. China understands this, Trump understands this while the progressive left does not…”
        Maybe the progressive left truly does understand what they are doing – destroying the economy as a first step to seizing control.
        To suggest the left does NOT understand what they are doing is to suggest they are incredibly stupid. Maybe they are not.
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/17/canadian-pm-compares-climate-denial-to-supporting-female-genital-mutilation/comment-page-1/#comment-2821060
        [excerpt]
        Actually, destroying the economy is one of the classic tactics of dictators when they want to consolidate control. Then they institute martial law and often execute those who oppose them, blaming them for the terrible economic mess; then they live like kings on top of the disaster that once was a prosperous country.
        Examples abound:
        Stalin in the Former Soviet Union (FSU), all the FSU vassal states, Mao in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, the Kim’s in North Korea, Castro in Cuba, many countries in South America, many countries in in sub-Saharan Africa – it’s a long and tragic list.
        {end of excerpt]

  5. What usually gets me the most is when they leave the, “might,” “if,” and/or “are predicted to occu,” statements and go straight to, “will,” or “would.”
    ““A great many record-breaking heat events, heavy floods, and extreme droughts would occur if global warming crosses the 4 °C level, with respect to the preindustrial period,” said Dabang Jiang,”
    . . . as if it’s an absolute finding.

    • I dont see what the problem is even if CO2 caused a 4 degree warming. The earth in the past was as high as 25C average. Now it is 15C. So an increase to an average of 19 would still not melt the ice sheets. The global average is just that an average. The North and South Poles and Greenland would still be less than 0 and they probably wouldnt even increase by 4C. So we wouldnt have any more melting (except maybe for some glaciers) But even if all 200000 glaciers melted comlpletely the earth oceans would only rise 400 mm That is only 40 % of a metre or less than 16 inches. Like Dr. Willie Soon said; If you are afraid of the sea level rising 16 inches in 68 years then if you are too slow to move to higher ground in that time frame THEN YOU DESERVE TO DROWN We in Canada would love the 4C increase. Fires are caused by dry conditions, not by temperature. Why wouldnt there be even more rainfall under the bogus CO2 theory since the forcing of temperature is really caused by increases in H2O according to every alarmist in the world? So there wouldnt be any appreciable sea level rise and no increasing droughts nor wildfires, It is is already too hot in the arrid parts of the world in the summertime to spend time outdoors anyway. We have air conditioning for that. Most of the worlds poor do not live in desserts. If it becomes too hot in certain non desert places people can always move towards the poles if they cant afford air conditioning. They will have plenty of time to start packing. 2084 is a long way off. I am really stretching my thinking powers to try to come up with 1 negative of a 4C increase. SO WHATS NOT TO LIKE?
      I think 4 C average increase is just the doctor ordered. It isnt like it is going to happen all at once anyway.

    • That comparison chart ought to cause the alarmists who created those hugely inaccurate models to hang their heads in shame for missing the mark so badly.
      But I don’t see any alarmists hanging their heads. They still use those bogus models! They still talk about them like they are real. I guess that’s their only alternative to maintain this fiction.

    • Except for UHI, and adjusting the past data to look cooler, which it wasn’t, it looks a lot like no change.
      What”s up with that?

    • How dare you publish an old graph! Don’t you know that a new graph must be produced every year to reflect what we have learned. That is, the models are re-run with the latest actual (by which I mean adjusted) data as the initial conditions.

  6. This would have nothing to do with Chinas geopolitical goals now would it. Particularly when they have no intent of controlling any of their own emissions

  7. Why only 4 degres C?
    I guess the 10 degres C will be for next year’s alarmist special.

    • That was my question, too. Why is the estimate so low? If you are going to scare people you have to use larger numbers.

  8. That ridiculous cover invalidates the entire magazine and every article in it, in my opinion. That is not a scientific magazine.

  9. I wonder whether these scientists have looked at the basic thermodynamics of water and its relationship with gravity.
    The temperature at which water starts to evaporate is determined by the absolute pressure and the vapour pressure of water. The rate of evaporation is controlled by the Partial Pressure of water in the atmosphere.
    Both absolute pressure and hence the vapour pressure are constant. Therefore, within constraints the mean or global temperature of the Earth will hunt about this resulting constant temperature being controlled by the resulting Partial Pressure/ humidity and the mechanism of the atmospheric Rankine Cycle. where some 680 WattHrs of energy are pumped up into the atmosphere and beyond for every Kilogram of water evaporated. This figure being much greater than any purported greenhouse effect input.
    Evidence for this is demonstrated by the fact that a kettle at sea level boils at 100 C irrespective of the heat input. This being but one specific point on the trace involving the lapse rate.
    Conclusion? Well be my guest. For my part it is global cooling that worries me , particularly as they are about to ration my means of keeping warm.
    Do we forgive them for they know not what they do?

    • NO we don’t forgive them because of the climategate emails. All the top officials at GISS and NOAA should be brought up on treason charges for faking the data and all climate funding of computer models and any studies based on computer models should be stopped.

      • Tend to agree Alan; but I do think that there are some who have been so infected by the CO2 viral Meme that they genuinely “Know not what they do”. We need to nurture them back to health.

  10. The new 1984 from the country that harbours Big Brother himself. There is even a Ministry of Truth.
    https://chinadigitaltimes.net/china/directives-from-the-ministry-of-truth/
    Im sure we will have trolls all over this today. China is highly admired by the тоталiтагуаи Champagne Soshulist Progressives because they have achieved the governance they seek and they look to China for guidance and inspiration.
    If Chinese officials were really crafty, they’d parley this obvious proppaganda piece into something almost respectable by saying they’d changed their minds about postponing ‘cleanup’ til 2030 and were jumping into action immediately. But quickness of wit is patently absent in these ham-handed regimes. But am I wrong here? Can their vision of armaggeddon on the hundredth anniversary of the 1984 fiction be accidental? I’d like to think they are poking some fun at their sycophantic Eurocentric admirers. But surely no.

  11. ‘They compared 39 coordinated climate model experiments from the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project’
    The average of [prune trimmings] is . . . .

  12. So if the models have over-predicted the actual temperature rise over the PAST 35 years by a factor of 3 or more, wouldn’t it be reasonable to predict that the future temperature rise would be about 1/3 of that predicted by the models, or 1.3 C? That would be less than the 2.0 C that the Paris signatories are worried about. Meaning that we could do nothing about climate change, and the world would be just fine!
    Which doesn’t take into account the possible cooling impact of a volcanic eruption like the one in Hawaii.

  13. China’s pledge to the Paris agreement is to continue emitting as usual and make no effort to reduce them.
    Yet they publish this scary scenario.
    They often talk about the dangers of global warming and urge western nations to take drastic action.
    Seems like a contradiction?
    It isn’t. The more we do to try and stop global warming, the more industry moves to “developing” nations, primarily China, and the more wealth the get. They’re almost as hypocritical as Al Gore, but the green fools just lap it up.

  14. While I didn’t run down and read the entire paper I would note the conclusion printed here doesn’t really suggests any change in China’s policies. China has a long view of history not a two, four, six and eight year election cycle. Their recorded history goes back a long way. They learned a rich country can better prepare for change than a poor country. They have been through climate changes more than once in their history. So this paper is designed to give them more information on how to prepare for climate change, natural or anthropogenic in the future not how to do the impossible, stop greenhouse gas emissions.

    • bullcrap…..they want the rest of the world to believe this BS because it benefits China

      • Bigger bullcrap, that’s exactly what this site and most of the energy sector wants you to believe.
        Watts: “I’ll believe China’s crisis-mongering science when they act like there’s a crisis.”
        What, you think these researchers are in charge of energy policy like in the US? Lol.
        Chinese hoaks much?

      • “What, you think these researchers are in charge of energy policy like in the US? Lol.
        Chinese hoaks much?”
        Zazove What kind of logic are you spewing? You dont understand how China works. My sister is married to a Chinese guy that visits his homeland 6 times a year. Both my sister and he are PhDs. He knows what is going on but he has family there. In China you DONT say or do anything publicly that would arouse suspicion that you arent toeing the party line. if you do you are in for an awful amount of hurt. Researchers there have been told to go along with the CO2 hoax for reasons I and others have simply figured out in other posts on this thread. Do you think that the Chinese are dumb enough to believe in global warming? Their strategy is clear.

      • I guess if I had a Chinese brother-in-law I’d know how “China works” too.
        “I and others have simply figured out in other posts on this thread”
        You might want to cast your net a little wider.

    • Perhaps they have a long view, but they still make mistakes, as well as adjustments of policy over short time frames. For instance, the PRC formally instituted the one-child policy in 1979, with minor adjustments made over the years. The two-child policy was instituted in 2016. Now they are studying ending limits, which may result in new policy to take effect as soon as Q4 this year.

    • ” …Their recorded history goes back a long way. …”

      Yeah well so does ours. All this talk of China being so strategic. They’re just a mountain of debt, they spent their futures, yesterday, to look like somethings, today. Now they’ve discovered UHI and GCMs
      To push you and me over the debt-cliff—first.

  15. 2084!? Could this be more precise? What about June 2084?
    “They found that most of the models projected an increase of 4°C as early as 2064 and as late as 2095 in the 21st century, with 2084 appearing as the median year.”
    So 2084 is a median of two ‘precise’ dates that have been synthetically engineered? Brilliant.

  16. I’ll believe China’s crisis-mongering science when they act like there’s a crisis.

    But they are acting like there is a crisis.
    If temperatures are that sensitive to CO2 then it’s game over already.
    Our only hope is to adapt. Adaptation needs resources. That means lots of money – a health economy.
    Cheap energy is the basis of a healthy economy.
    And coal is cheapest. Just what China is building.

  17. Once again they are using the ridiculous RCP8.5 scenario. But what I love is this little coda at the end of their abstract-

    Overall, the intermodel consistency is better for temperature than for precipitation.

    This is one of the dirty little secrets of climate modeling. All they ever show are the global temperature projections. They don’t show other global parameters like precip, because they are vastly inconsistent. That is also why they don’t show regional distributions of changes. They are so variable from model to model as to be nonsense.

  18. I enjoy the graphic where Saudi Arabia is superimposed on top of Siberia. Also, even thought the study suggests the arctic will warm more, the graphic shows is as blue (cold?)

  19. If I was the leader of a national government and wanted my industries to have a competitive advantage over other countries, I would push global warming hysteria. Get all the other national governments to agree with punitive industrial emissions curbs and only pretend to do the same in my own country, instead subsidize my industries.

  20. “They compared 39 coordinated climate model experiments from the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project.”
    Coordinated climate models are so much more reliable that just ordinary computer models and a lot easier to control and manipulate that observations and real unhomogenised data.

  21. 2084? I’ll be 134. I’ll be very surprised if I am in a climate that’s only four degrees warmer than now!

  22. The Chinese aren’t stupid the more they show how bad the global warming (or whatever it’s called this week) is the more Western industry will be closed down and production moved to China. So they will be making and supplying everything we need so we won’t be able to do anything when they move in on Taiwan, Japan and anywhere else they want to.
    James Bull

  23. The new Moore’s Law states that the number of scare stories will double every two years and every doubling of the scare temp rise there will be associated with promotions and tenure.

  24. What does “Earth’s climate to increase by four degrees by 2084” mean really? Average global temperature is just a mathematical number and does not exist in the real world!
    Does it mean that the average U.S. average temperature
    of 11.6 degree C will become 15.6 degree C? But Singapore’s average temperature has been 26.6 degree C for hundreds of years, that’s 15 degree C higher than the U.S. And Singaporeans are still striving! Anybody?

  25. Why everybody accepts “pre-industrial levels” without question? Have you noticed that whenever “pre-industrial levels” is invoked, you never see a number mentioned? Who knows what is “pre-industrial levels”? Why use a baseline that is unknowable?

Comments are closed.