Regional Models: 3-10°C Warming In The Next 80 Years. Observations: No Warming In The Last 40-100 Years.

There are large regions of the globe where observations indicate there has been no warming (even cooling) during the last decades to century. Climate models rooted in the assumption that fossil fuel emissions drive dangerous warming dismiss these modeling failures and project temperature increases of 3° – 10°C by 2100 for these same regions anyway.

Four decades of Southern Ocean cooling

After warming from the 1940s to the mid-1970s, the Southern Ocean has been cooling since the late-1970s, which has consequently resulted in an increase in sea ice extent (Fan et al., 2014Purich et al., 2018Latif et al., 2017Turney et al., 2017 ).

In their paper entitled “Natural variability of Southern Ocean convection as a driver of observed climate trends”, Zhang et al. (2019) suggest that the Southern Ocean cooling was driven by natural processes.

Zhang et al., 2019

Observed Southern Ocean surface cooling and sea-ice expansion over the past several decades are inconsistent with many historical simulations from climate models. Here we show that natural multidecadal variability involving Southern Ocean convection may have contributed strongly to the observed temperature and sea-ice trends.”

Climate models, in contrast, had projected a rapid warming and significant decreases in sea ice extent during the last few decades.

Image(s) Source: Zhang et al., 2019

The East-Central U.S. has been cooling (about -0.6°C) since the 1950s

Partridge et al., 2018

“We present a novel approach to characterize the spatiotemporal evolution of regional cooling across the eastern U.S. (commonly called the U.S. warming hole), by defining a spatially explicit boundary around the region of most persistent cooling. The warming hole emerges after a regime shift in 1958 where annual maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures decreased by 0.46°C and 0.83°C respectively.”

Image Source: Partridge et al., 2018

Alter et al., 2017

From 1910- 1949 (pre-agricultural development, pre-DEV) to 1970-2009 (full agricultural development, full-DEV), the central United States experienced large-scale increases in rainfall of up to 35% and decreases in surface air temperature of up to 1°C during the boreal summer months of July and August … which conflicts with expectations from climate change projections for the end of the 21st century (i.e., warming and decreasing rainfall) (Melillo et al., 2014).”

Image Source: Alter et al., 2017

Climate models project 3°C – 10°C warming in the Midwest (U.S.) by 2100

Even though climate models failed to simulate the last 50 to 100 years of temperatures for this region, hindcasting a dramatic warming instead of the observed cooling, the projections for 2100 are still predicated on CO2 emission scenarios (RCP4.5, RCP8.5) as the determinant of regional surface temperatures.  Consequently, the regional models project a warming of 3°C – 10°C over the next 80 years.

Hamlet et al., 2019

“For the two most widely used greenhouse gas concentration scenarios, Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) 4.5 and 8.5 (Moss et al. 2008) (representing “medium” and “high” twenty-first century greenhouse gas concentration trajectories respectively), the Midwestern United States is projected to experience profound changes in climate by 2100, especially for (T). Projections for annual mean T over the Midwestern United States from 31 global climate models (GCMs) for the RCP8.5 scenario show an ensemble mean increase in T of about 6.5 °C (11.7 °F) by 2100 relative to the historical 1971–2000 baseline (Fig. S1) (Byun and Hamlet 2018). The projected change in the annual ensemble mean T for RCP4.5 over the Midwestern United States is about 3.3 °C (5.9 °F) by 2100 relative to the 1971–2000 baseline. The upper tail of the annual mean T distribution, represented by the 97.5th percentile of the 31 GCM projections for RCP8.5 (i.e., a “worst-case” scenario), is nearly 10 °C (18 °F) warmer than the historical baseline by 2100.”

Image(s) Source: Hamlet et al., 2019

The North Atlantic hasn’t warmed since the 1800s

Grieman et al., 2018

Image Source: Grieman et al., 2018
Image Source: Birkel et al., 2018

Climate models project 3°C warming in the North Atlantic by 2100

Gervais et al., 2018

“Recent studies have documented the development of a warming deficit in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SST) both in observations of the current climate (Rahmstorf et al. 2015; Drijfhout et al. 2012) and in future climate simulations (Drijfhout et al. 2012; Marshall et al. 2015; Woollings et al. 2012). This “North Atlantic warming hole” (NAWH) is characterized in the observed record as a region south of Greenland with negative trends in SSTs of 0.8 K century-1 (Rahmstorf et al. 2015). In fully coupled global climate model (GCM) future simulations, the NAWH is seen as a significant deficit in warming within the North Atlantic subpolar gyre (Marshall et al. 2015; Winton et al. 2013; Gervais et al. 2016).  This local reduction in future warming is communicated to the overlying atmosphere and may impact atmospheric circulation (Gervais et al. 2016), including the North Atlantic storm track (Woollings et al. 2012).”

Image Source: Gervais et al., 2018

Hansen (2013): CO2 emissions will cause 20°C of global warming by ~2130

Back in 1989, Dr. James Hansen, the former head of NASA, predicted that New York City’s West Side Highway would be underwater within 20 years due to rapid global warming and the consequent rising sea levels.

A glance at a 2018 image of the West Side Highway  indicates that it is still very much above water, no lower than its position in 1936.

A few decades later (2012), Hansen was the lead author of a paper published by The Royal Society (2013) that indicated ever-growing fossil fuel emissions would lead to a nearly five-fold rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (to 1,400 ppm) within 118 years.

He then projected this CO2 increase and presumed 9 W m-2 forcing would cause a global surface temperature warming of 20°C by about 2130, with 30°C warming at the poles.

Image Source: Hansen et al., 2013

Hansen et al., 2013

“Let us now verify that our assumed fossil fuel climate forcing of 9 W m−2 is feasible. If we assume that fossil fuel emissions increase by 3% per year, typical of the past decade and of the entire period since 1950, cumulative fossil fuel emissions will reach 10 000 Gt C in 118 years [2012 + 118 years = ~2130 C.E.] … [T]he fossil fuel source required to yield a 9 W m−2 forcing may be closer to 5000 Gt C, rather than 10 000 Gt C.”
9 W m−2 forcing requires approximately 4.8×CO2 [1400 ppm] … Our calculated global warming in this case is 16°C, with warming at the poles approximately 30°C. Calculated warming over land areas averages approximately 20°C. … Such temperatures would eliminate grain production in almost all agricultural regions in the world. Increased stratospheric water vapour would diminish the stratospheric ozone layer. More ominously, global warming of that magnitude would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans.”
Given the 20°C warming we find with 4.8×CO2 [1400 ppm], it is clear that such a climate forcing would produce intolerable climatic conditions even if the true climate sensitivity is significantly less than the Russell sensitivity, or, if the Russell sensitivity is accurate, the CO2 amount required to produce intolerable conditions for humans is less than 4.8×CO2 [1400 ppm].”
“Are there sufficient fossil fuel reserves to yield 5000–10 000 Gt C? Recent updates of potential reserves, including unconventional fossil fuels (such as tar sands, tar shale and hydrofracking-derived shale gas) in addition to conventional oil, gas and coal, suggest that 5×CO2 (1400 ppm) is indeed feasible.”

Given the documented modeled forecast failures and lack of extreme or dangerous warming in recent decades, is there good reason to assume that Hansen’s prediction of a 20°C warming over the next 110 years will be realized?

At what point do modeling failures lead to a reconsideration of the forcing mechanisms?

52 responses to “Regional Models: 3-10°C Warming In The Next 80 Years. Observations: No Warming In The Last 40-100 Years.”

  1. MGJ

    “At what point do modeling failures lead to a reconsideration of the forcing mechanisms?”

    When the flow of money stops.

  2. SebastianH

    is there good reason to assume that Hansen’s prediction of a 20°C warming over the next 110 years will be realized?

    When the conditions for this predictions are met, why not? It’s physics. Which one of the laws of physics do you think is applied wrong here?

    1. SebastianH

      Kenneth, you deleted the part about not understanding exponential functions/timeseries, sneaky skeptic you 😉 [Refrain from referring to skeptics as “climate deniers” in the same sentence and these portions of your comments will not be deleted.]

      How else would you explain the very first graph in this post?

      P.S.: The headline isn’t correct. At best it could read “Observations: No Warming in some regions In The Last 40-100 Years.” This reminds of the times you wrote about the Arctic by referring to just one measured location near the Arctic circle. For someone who is usually very pedentatic with words this seems to be a big oversight.

  3. Yonason

    Sometimes when I’m looking for one thing, another pops up unexpectedly. Here’s a blast from the past I stumbled on yesterday. It would be a shame not to share it.

    Very information dense, all totally contradictory to the IPCC fantasy.

  4. Yonason

    Interesting article on purported ocean heat gains by J. Curry, here.

    I find her take away on it appropriately sober and skeptical, with a dash of humor (something completely absent in the concrete thinking activists)

    Sometimes I think we knew more of what we were talking about 30 years ago (circa the time of the IPCC FAR, in 1990) than we do now: “it aint what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just aint so.” (that’s in response to a quote of Gavin Schmidt bragging, earlier. See article for the whole thing.)

    The NASA GISS crowd (including Gavin) is addicted to the ‘CO2 as climate control knob’ idea. I have argued that CO2 is NOT a climate control knob on sub millennial time scales, owing to the long time scales of the deep ocean circulations.

    A talking point for ‘skeptics’ has been ‘the warming is caused by coming out of the Little Ice Age.’ The control knob afficionadoes then respond ‘but what’s the forcing.’ No forcing necessary; just the deep ocean circulation doing its job. Yes, additional CO2 will result in warmer surface temperatures, but arguing that 100% (or more) of the warming since 1950 is caused by AGW completely neglects what is going on in the oceans.

    1. SebastianH

      What? I thought the deep oceans are still cooling!

      How does that cooling suddenly cause warming when it first caused the little ice age? Strange …

  5. John F. Hultquist

    Yonason says ” with a dash of humor (something completely absent in the concrete thinking activists)”

    I read (? where) that if one of our senses is degraded or destroyed, then other of the senses will become better to compensate. I believe the opposite is true also. Thus, when an activist’s brain becomes overheated, the sense of humor is destroyed.

    1. Yonason

      Yes, I do believe you have something there.

      I once heard Penn, of Penn and Teller, say that magic is a lie, and humor is the truth. With regard to the latter, activists for whom winning is everything will tell any lie to accomplish it, and the more they lie the less funny they become. The other side of that coin is that what they are trying to sell us is just a very bad and way over priced magic act.

  6. John F. Hultquist

    3% for 118 years

    I find it hard to believe an educated researcher would assume this will happen.
    The entire exercise is silly.

    1. Yonason

      Speaking of “overheated” activist brains.

      I hate to say it, but veganism seems to cause sub-optimal mental functioning, with impairment of critical thinking. Combine that with a paranoid fear of the imaginary threat the rest of us pose by not subscribing to their world view, and who knows what they’ll do to get us to be more like them. (OK, we do know, because they are trying to do it with their propaganda, suppression of dissenting opinions and Rube Goldberg schemes.)

      And, no, we’re not the ones to worry about. They are trying to change us, not the other way round. IMO, as long as they keep their paws off of my power supply, transportation and meal plan, they can live in a cave, ride in wind powered nogo-carts and eat grass and bugs by firefly light, for all I care.

      1. SebastianH

        So seem to care an aweful lot about what others are doing to need to complain as childish as this about the lifestyle of others. “Paranoid feer of the imaginary” is a good term to describe your situation.

        Please feel free to live out the rest of your life however you like, Florida man. Nobody is forcing you to do anything really, but nevertheless you are in this constant state of irrational fear of being oppressed by “the greens” or something like that. Let go! Enjoy life! Travel! Visit your kids/grand-kids!

        1. Yonason

          “Nobody is forcing you to do anything really…” – SebH (the inveterate liar)


  7. Yonason

    WHAT THE STATISTICS SAY – H/T John Ray’s “Greenie Watch”

    “We conclude that atmospheric composition specifically in relation to the CO2 concentration is not responsive to the rate of fossil fuel emissions. This finding is a serious weakness in the theory of anthropogenic global warming by way of rising atmospheric CO2 attributed to the use of fossil fuels in the industrial economy; and of the “Climate Action proposition of the UN that reducing fossil fuel emissions will moderate the rate of warming by slowing the rise of atmospheric CO2. “

    Translation – It’s most likely NOT anthropogenic emissions that is causing CO2 to rise. It can be noted that that is in complete agreement with Murry Salby’s analysis.

    And that means that trillions of $$$$ spent to mitigate the effects of CO2 will have no impact whatever.

    What an horrific waste of resources and source of suffering for so many!

    1. SebastianH

      Translation – It’s most likely NOT anthropogenic emissions that is causing CO2 to rise. It can be noted that that is in complete agreement with Murry Salby’s analysis.

      I am glad these examples of trying to sound sciency while making a point exist. That post you linked to is a bunch of nonsense. But you are a believer for the cause, so feel free to fall for stuff like that. In your world the CO2 concentration is not caused by human emissions … fine! That’s probably why your world is so different from reality and you come up with these hilarious theories all the time.

      Why is that nonsense? Hint: don’t treat those two variables (emissions vs. concentration) as the only ones that influence each other. That’s the classic mistake that Kenneth falls for often enough as well. Using this “lack of correlation” argument on those types of mechanisms leads to nowhere. Why? Because you can use the same kind of argument/statistics on the connection between acceleration, speed and distance traveled. You will find out that acceleration doesn’t cause the distance to increase, since they don’t correlate well enough. Would that impress you? I can prepare a dataset for you to do the same kind of statistics on as in your linked post. Interested? 😉

  8. Regional Models: 3-10°C Warming In The Next 80 Years. Observations: No Warming In The Last 40-100 Years. | Un hobby...

    […] K. Richard, January 14, 2019 in […]

  9. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #344 | Watts Up With That?
  10. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #344 - Sciencetells
  11. Russell

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy