US record high temps could outpace record lows 15 to 1 before

November 21, 2016
The downtown Dallas, Texas (USA) skyline from a levee along the Trinity River. Facing southeast. Credit: drumguy8800/Wikipedia

If society continues to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the current rate, Americans later this century will have to endure, on average, about 15 daily maximum temperature records for every time that the mercury notches a record low, new research indicates.

That ratio of record highs to record lows may turn out to be much higher if the pace of emissions increases and produces even more warming, according to the study led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

"More and more frequently, climate change will affect Americans with record-setting heat," said NCAR senior scientist Gerald Meehl, lead author of the new paper. "An increase in of a few degrees may not seem like much, but it correlates with a noticeable increase in days that are hotter than any in the record, and nights that will remain warmer than we've ever experienced in the past."

The 15-to-1 ratio of record highs to lows is based on temperatures across the continental United States increasing by slightly more than 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above recent years, which is about the amount of warming expected to occur with the current pace of .

Over the last decade, in contrast, the ratio of record to record lows has averaged about two to one.

The new research appears next week in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." It was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), which is NCAR's sponsor. The study was co-authored by NCAR scientist Claudia Tebaldi and by Dennis Adams-Smith, a scientist previously at Climate Central and now at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.

Hotter days

In a 2009 study, Meehl and colleagues found that the ratio of record daily high temperatures to record daily low temperatures has steadily increased since the 1970s as average temperatures over the United States have warmed. Computer models at that time indicated that the ratio could continue to increase during this century, although the research team looked into just one scenario of future emissions. The scientists also found that the models were overstating the ratio of record highs to record lows in recent years compared to observations.

By digging further into the issue and analyzing why the models differed from observations, Meehl and his co-authors have now produced a better calibrated projection of future record-breaking daily highs across the U.S. They based their projections on the average increase over the continental United States, rather than on a particular scenario of future emissions.

By about 2065, for example, U.S. temperatures will rise by an average of slightly more than 3 degrees C (5.4 degrees F) if society maintains a "business as usual" increase in the emission of . Under such a scenario, the ratio of record daily high temperatures to record daily lows will likely be about 15 to 1, although it could range anywhere from 7 to 1 up to 22 to 1, the study found.

If temperatures increase even more this century, the ratio of record highs to record lows will jump substantially. For example, if temperatures climb more than 4 degrees C (7.2 degrees F), Americans could experience about 38 record highs for every record low. Such an outcome could occur if society does not make any efforts to mitigate the production of greenhouse gases.

"Every degree of warming makes a substantial amount of difference, with the ratio of record highs to record lows becoming much greater," Meehl said. "Even with much warmer temperatures on average, we will still have winter and we will still get record cold temperatures, but the numbers of those will be really small compared to record high maximums."

If temperatures were not warming, Meehl said, the ratio of record highs to record lows would average out to about one to one.

Instead, record high temperatures have already become a common occurrence in much of the country. The ratio of record highs to lows has averaged about 2 to 1 over the first decade of the 21st century, but there is considerable year-to-year variation. The ratio was about 5 to 1 in 2012, dropping to about 1 to 1 in 2013 and 2014, then almost 3 to 1 in 2015. The unusual warmth of 2016, resulting from both climate change and natural patterns such as El Niño, has led to 24,519 record daily maximums vs. 3,970 record daily minimums—a ratio of about 6 to 1.

Precipitation and the warm 1930s

A key part of the study involved pinpointing why the models in the 2009 study were simulating somewhat more daily record high maximum temperatures compared with recent observations, while there was good agreement between the models and the observed decreases in record low minimums. The authors focused on two sets of simulations conducted on the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model (version 4), which is funded by DOE and NSF and developed by climate scientists across the country.

Their analysis uncovered two reasons for the disparity between the computer models and observations.

First, the models tended to underestimate precipitation. Because the air is cooled by precipitation and resulting evapotranspiration—the release of moisture from the land and plants back to the atmosphere—the tendency of the computer models to create an overly dry environment led to more record high temperatures.

Second, the original study in 2009 only went back to the 1950s. For the new study, the research team also analyzed temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s, which is as far back as accurate recordkeeping will allow. Because the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s were unusually warm, with many record-setting high temperatures, the scientists found that it was more difficult in subsequent years to break those records even as temperatures warmed. However, even taking the warm 1930s into account, the model-simulated and observed ratio of record highs to record lows has been increasing.

"The steady increase in the record ratio is an immediate and stark reminder of how our temperatures have been shifting and continue to do so, reaching unprecedented highs and fewer lows," said Tebaldi. "These changes pose adaptation challenges to both human and natural systems. Only a substantial mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions may stop this increase, or at least slow down its pace."

Explore further: Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across US (w/ Video)

More information: US daily temperature records past, present, and future, PNAS, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1606117113

Related Stories

Planet's monthly hot streak ebbs in September

October 18, 2016

The planet's longest hot streak in 137 years of record-keeping came to an end Tuesday, with last month registering as the second warmest September in modern times, said US government scientists.

Recommended for you

Gravity sensors might offer earlier warning of earthquakes

November 23, 2016

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers from France, the U.S. and Italy has found evidence from the Tohoku-Oki earthquake that sensors that measure changes in gravity might offer a way to warn people of impending disaster faster ...

Study sheds new insights into global warming 'hiatus'

November 22, 2016

A new study of the temporary slowdown in the global average surface temperature warming trend observed between 1998 and 2013 concludes the phenomenon represented a redistribution of energy within the Earth system, with Earth's ...

16 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

knutsonp
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 21, 2016
I live on a farm. In the suburbs, not in the middle of nowhere. My morning low temperature is at least 2 degrees (F) lower than the official reading. Almost always. Sometimes 5 degrees lower. Either the official temperature has some urban heat, or the forecasts have some GW bias. Perhaps its a little of both. If all our current measurements are at least 2 degrees high, that would account for the warming anomaly, for the most part.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2016
Poor siting of weather stations is a major reason for climate errors. They would rather have poor data and a chance to justify their adjustments than true readings. With solar cells and satellite internet there is absolutely no reason why there should not be 10s of thousands more stations in remote areas that are not now served.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2016
knutsonp,

Yeah, that's right, it's not happening. Everybody but you are in the plot we invented just to fool you.
howhot3
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2016
It doesn't matter one little bit what the AGW Deniers think, say, or do. They are just wrong and nature will show them they are wrong, and they will eat crow until their last breath on Earth. The speed at which AGW is overtaking the world is stunningly fast and as the article notes the current pace of record setting heat is 15 to 1 over record lows. So in the LAYMAN"s terms, it's get warmer more than it's getting cooler.

Denier friends, the bottom line is it's going to get a lot lot lot worst from now into the future and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Your lies won't make this one go away. You can't change reality fools.

gkam
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2016
" and they will eat crow until their last breath on Earth"
---------------------------------

No they won't. They will never admit it.
snoosebaum
1.6 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2016
Unfortuately for climate scientists media credibility is at an all time low , and deservibly so.
gkam
Nov 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
philstacy9
1 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2016
"Thermometers show the US cooling since about 1920, but NOAA massively cools the past to create the appearance of a warming trend."

http://realclimat...on-bias/
unrealone1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2016
All heat "records" are in the middle of a heat island??
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2016
the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s were unusually warm, with many record-setting high temperatures, the scientists found that it was more difficult in subsequent years to break those records even as temperatures warmed.

LOL
How much manmade CO2 was emitted before and during the 1930s, compared to after?
Why did the US cool as it emitted more CO2 than any other country on the planet?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2016
They are just wrong and nature will show them they are wrong, and they will eat crow until their last breath on Earth.

People believe in all kinds of idiocies until they die. I see no indications that deniers have more brain cells. What makes you think they will come around and 'eat crow'? They'll just keep on denying. At some point those who cannot be helped must just be ignored - for their own good.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2016
Denier friends, the bottom line is it's going to get a lot lot lot worst from now into the future and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Your lies won't make this one go away. You can't change reality fools.

Look what his Mancrush, Al, pooped out of his bottom line and is now soiling the forum with what he's covered in.
This is the reason you must think it's going to get a lot lot lot worst.. https://www.googl...ypocrisy ... er.. no..wait...your man crush is a saint...not a False "Profit" who is hard at work making his doom and gloom fantasy come true.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2016
http://realclimat...on-bias/
@phil
1- making an argument and linking a pseudoscience biased denier site as "evidence" is like arguing that Toyota makes Lamborghini's and linking a photo of a Diablo in the parking lot of the Toyota Plant as proof

2- your site provides two graphs - there is no study, no peer reviewed data and no evidence other than a claim based upon their interpretations of the graphs

3- if you don't understand how AGW and warming can cause cooling snaps, try reading the links i've sent you in the past, like Francis et al
here is a link to her video: https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs

4- if you want to talk about science, link science, not pseudoscience
why not provide studies and information that is valid to support your argument...
oh wait
because there isn't any
forgot. sorry

point is: if your "site" could prove data tampering with real evidence, they would be the hero's of big oil, etc
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2016
Poor siting of weather stations is a major reason for climate errors. They would rather have poor data and a chance to justify their adjustments than true readings
@mr
so... you don't like it when the data is left alone, but when it's adjusted due to known problems with the site, location, degradation of equipment or known factors that can be adjusted for, it is wrong too?
http://phys.org/n...ure.html

by your own words and definitions, this means you can't accept any contrary evidence that goes against what you believe

isn't that the very definition of a denier or pseudoscience advocate?
it sure is a definition of a religious person...

point being:
you don't like the data
we get that

the studies provide you with the data and justification for their conclusions as well as evidence

quit basing your arguments on belief or pseudoscience
Zzzzzzzz
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2016
I live on a farm. In the suburbs, not in the middle of nowhere. My morning low temperature is at least 2 degrees (F) lower than the official reading. Almost always. Sometimes 5 degrees lower. Either the official temperature has some urban heat, or the forecasts have some GW bias. Perhaps its a little of both. If all our current measurements are at least 2 degrees high, that would account for the warming anomaly, for the most part.

You left out the most likely explanation - you're delusional
gkam
2 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2016
"Either the official temperature has some urban heat, or the forecasts have some GW bias."
----------------------------------------

Or, more likely, your relatively cheap thermometer is off or poorly located.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.