Half-a-degree of warming boosted extreme weather

June 30, 2017
climate
Credit: public domain

Half a degree Celsius of global warming has been enough to increase heat waves and heavy rains in many regions of the planet, researchers reported Friday.

Comparing two 20-year periods—1960-79 and 1991-2010—between which average jumped 0.5 C (0.9 F), scientists found that several kinds of extreme weather gained in duration and intensity.

The hottest summer temperatures increased by more than 1 C (1.8 F) across a quarter of Earth's , while the coldest winter temperatures warmed by more then 2.5 C (4.5 F).

The intensity of extreme precipitation grew nearly 10 percent across a quarter of all land masses, and the duration of hot spells—which can fuel devastating forest fires—lengthened by a week in half of land areas.

These changes were well outside the bounds of natural variability, according to the study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

"We have to rely on climate models to predict the future," said lead author Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, a researcher at the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research.

"But given that we now have observational evidence of around 1 C warming, we can also look at the real-life impacts this warming has brought," he said in a statement.

In science, observed trends are generally seen as more reliable than projections, which can vary sharply depending on the assumptions made.

Changes in climate—sometimes defined as "average weather"—can only be detected across time periods measured in decades or longer.

0.5 C does matter

Global warming caused mostly by the burning of fossil fuels began slowly in the early 19th century with the onset of industrialisation, but has accelerated rapidly over the last 50 or 60 years.

The 196-nation Paris Agreement, inked in the French capital in 2015, vowed to cap the rise of the planet's average surface temperature at "well under" 2 C (3.6 F), and to "pursue efforts" to block it at 1.5 C (2.7 C).

To inform that effort, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the UN's top science advisory group—will issue a report for policy makers in September 2018 on the feasibility of the 1.5 C target, and what impacts might be avoided if it is met.

The new study—one of thousands that will be reviewed by the IPCC—suggests even a half degree rise is significant.

"With the warming the world has already experienced, we can see very clearly that a difference of 0.5 C really does matter," said co-author Erich Fischer, a scientist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland.

Earlier research based on computer models, also led by Schleussner, concluded that 2 C of would—compared to 1.5 C—double the severity of crop failures, water shortages and heatwaves in many regions of the world.

It also found that holding the rise in temperature to 1.5 C would give coral reefs—the cornerstone of ecosystems that sustain half-a-billion people and a quarter of marine wildlife—a fighting chance of adapting to warmer and more acidic seas.

An extra half-a-degree on top, however, would expose most reefs to possible extinction by century's end.

Explore further: Half-a-degree makes a huge difference

More information: Carl-Friedrich Schleussner et al. In the observational record half a degree matters, Nature Climate Change (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3320

Related Stories

Half-a-degree makes a huge difference

April 21, 2016

A jump in global temperature of two degrees Celsius would double the severity of crop failures, water shortages and heatwaves in many regions compared to a rise of 1.5 C, according to a study released Thursday.

Recommended for you

Hot spot at Hawaii? Not so fast

August 18, 2017

Through analysis of volcanic tracks, Rice University geophysicists have concluded that hot spots like those that formed the Hawaiian Islands aren't moving as fast as recently thought.

Supervolcanoes: A key to America's electric future?

August 16, 2017

Most of the lithium used to make the lithium-ion batteries that power modern electronics comes from Australia and Chile. But Stanford scientists say there are large deposits in sources right here in America: supervolcanoes.

Greenland ice flow likely to speed up

August 16, 2017

Flow of the Greenland Ice Sheet is likely to speed up in the future, despite a recent slowdown, because its outlet glaciers slide over wet sediment, not hard rock, new research based on seismic surveys has confirmed. This ...

34 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rrrander
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 30, 2017
Like how Katrina was the harbinger of storms increasing in number and severity. Oh wait; that didn't happen. You know, if you cool the planet to -375 or so, there won't be any weather.
LochBhein
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 30, 2017
Rubbish. How can a bunch of so-called 'scientists' making 'measurements' and writing down so-called 'numbers' possibly show a 'link' between two so-called 'events'?
Davy_Crockett
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 30, 2017
It's going to become obvious to people who last studied science when they were 15 years old, by the early 2030's LochBhein. The effects will ramp up significantly every decade after that and won't have a chance to stabilize until human output of GHG's fall below the threshold that Earth is able to absorb and metabolize. Then it will take hundreds of years to stabilize at a new higher energy state. We need to reduce our output by about 2/3rds to stop the changes and the time lag after we cut back will be many generations. Scientists who are presenting their conclusions are doing so with kid gloves LochBhein. They are not trying to alarm us. They are saying meekly that weather is going to become very hard on us even after we make modest changes to our energy life-style.
JamesG
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 30, 2017
There hasn't been a severe hurricane hit the US in over a decade. I don't see any unusually severe weather. We've had horrible droughts before. We've had record high temps before. None of what they say adds up and the horrible numbers they show are 100ths of a degree. Scientists are not being totally honest with us and they have been to close to left wing political organizations which ruins their credibility to the rest of us. That's why there are deniers.
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 30, 2017
There hasn't been a severe hurricane hit the US in over a decade. I don't see any unusually severe weather. We've had horrible droughts before. We've had record high temps before. None of what they say adds up and the horrible numbers they show are 100ths of a degree. Scientists are not being totally honest with us and they have been to close to left wing political organizations which ruins their credibility to the rest of us. That's why there are deniers.


I suppose, Jimmy, that you have conveniently "forgotten" Hurricane Sandy --so here's a quick overview of the storm from 2012- less than five years ago:

https://en.wikipe...ne_Sandy

You irrefutably label yourself, from this day forward, as a mindless, biased, and Willfully Disunderstanding Denierside ideologue.

If you have no respect for The Facts, then don't expect to be treated with any respect when making idiotic statements like those above on a science site.
Porgie
2.7 / 5 (12) Jun 30, 2017
This is the usual data based on lies deceit and left wing desperation. When you ask different countries to change where they are reading their global temperature because its showing decrease after 30 years of increase. Ask Japan. This is left wing garbage.
philstacy9
2 / 5 (4) Jun 30, 2017
Political opinions make a huge difference in climate research causing extreme conclusions.
If the climate predictive models work then predict stock prices as a demonstration.
Parsec
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 30, 2017
There hasn't been a severe hurricane hit the US in over a decade. I don't see any unusually severe weather. We've had horrible droughts before. We've had record high temps before. None of what they say adds up and the horrible numbers they show are 100ths of a degree. Scientists are not being totally honest with us and they have been to close to left wing political organizations which ruins their credibility to the rest of us. That's why there are deniers.


You cannot evade the worldwide statistics. Extreme events are on the rise. If you disagree, do the math, collect the data, and have a paper showing your results published in a peer reviewed journal, then get back to us.
unrealone1
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2017
The Dust Bowls of the 1930's. It's worse now is it?
Jurassic period had how many storms?
Roman warm period was warmer than today.
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 01, 2017
AGW Cult has to rely on their flawed computer models to propagate their pathological lies disguised as science.
The 1930's saw the hottest temperatures and most extreme weather. Was manmade CO2 responsible for that?
rrrander
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2017
Do you know that envirokook predictions in 50 years have been even less accurate than if someone had just guessed? That's right. Just guessing produces about 20% right answers in most situations. Envirokooks have been nearly 100% wrong. It's a mathematical oddity. Much like they are oddities.
PTTG
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2017
The FUD crowd is here. They know they don't need to convince anyone, just make noise enough that the people with the least information become fearful, uncertain, or doubtful. The cure remains the same: scientific evidence.

Keep educating people and the trolls starve.
zinger
Jul 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2017
Article: "We have to rely on climate models to predict the future"

The irony on this is interesting.

The first attempts to predict with calendars were created by Pagan-era civilizations in order to predict Venus' motions.

Velikovsky, a Jewish Bible scholar, was the first to accurately predict that Venus should be hot, in defiance of the scientific community's widespread assumption that it should resemble the Earth's temperature. He did that by showing that many cultures of the world record a time when Venus rained fire upon the Earth.

To save face, the scientific community put together the Venus Pioneer mission in order to generate evidence for Carl Sagan's "Super Greenhouse Effect".

Pioneering Venus: A Planet Unveiled, at http://www.amazon...9RXS7S8/ ...

"One main objective of the Multiprobe mission was to test the belief that the 'runaway greenhouse effect' caused the high surface temperature."
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2017
That effort failed.

"The mystery of Venus' internal heat", Nov. 13 1980 issue of New Scientist

"Two years' surveillance by the Pioneer Venus Orbiter seems to show that Venus is radiating away more energy than it receives from the Sun. If this surprising result is confirmed, it means that the planet itself is producing far more heat than the Earth does ...

Taylor found that Venus radiates 15 per cent more energy than it receives. To keep the surface temperature constant, Venus must be producing this extra heat from within ...

At last week's meeting, Taylor's suggestion met with scepticism -- not to say sheer disbelief -- from other planetary scientists ..."
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2017
"Taylor himself has no explanation for his result. He simply points out that the discrepancy seemed at first to be simply experimental error -- but with more precise measurement it refused to go away. More measurements are needed before astronomers accept the result, and most planetary scientists are obviously expecting -- and hoping -- that the embarrassing extra heat will disappear on further investigation."

Since the heat in should approximately equal the heat out with a runaway greenhouse effect, they corrected the dataset:

H. E. Revercomb, L. A. Sromovsky, and V. E. Suomi, "Net Thermal Radiation in the Atmosphere of Venus," Icarus 61, p521-538 (1985)

"The magnitudes of the corrections for both instruments are determined by forcing agreement with a range of calculated net fluxes at one altitude deep in the atmosphere, where the net flux must be small because of the large density of co2."
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2017
The very notion of doomsday was invented by the Pagans as a reaction to Venus. Our probes validated that Venus' heat is coming from its surface, not from a runaway greenhouse effect -- as though the planet is cooling down from some sort of human-historical event.

Calendars were constructed by these Pagan cultures to track Venus' threatening moves.

The scientific community ignores all of this history, and even after their mission to Venus ends in a massive correction to the dataset, they still insist:

"We have to rely on climate models to predict the future"

It's just so hard to take seriously at this point.
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2017
https://books.goo...;f=false

Venus and the Cosmic Connection

"Repeatedly, these calamities were attributed to a malicious deity almost invariably a goddess coming to wreak havoc upon the Earth. Although the actual names naturally varied, the deity involved turned out time and time again to be the one that cultures worldwide associated with the object we know today as the planet Venus. But they didn't talk about it as if it were a planet -- they described it as a comet. A Chinese text describes Venus as spanning the heavens, rivaling the Sun in brightness. Mexican astronomers referred to it as 'the star that smokes,' while on the opposite side of the world the same theme is found in the Hindu Vedas, the Hebrew Talmud, and the Egyptian description of Sekhmet."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2017
(cont'd)

"The Aztecs called Venus the 'heart' of Quetzlcoatl, which in turn means 'plumed serpent,' with feathers that signify fire. The serpent or dragon is one of the most common figures used in the ancient world to signify 'comet,' examples being the Greek Typhon, Egyptian Set, Babylonian Tiamat, Hindu Vrta, all of whom raged across the sky and brought destruction upon the world.

The word 'comet' comes from the Greek coma, meaning hair, and among ancient astronomers referred to a star with hair, or a beard. The same appellation was given to Venus. One of the Mexican names for Venus was 'the mane' -- the Peruvian name, chaska, means 'wavy-haired'; the Arabs call Venus 'the one with hair.' One of the most vivid comet images is the Babylonian goddess Ishtar, recognized universally as representing Venus. Ishtar is described as being 'the bright torch of heaven,' 'clothed in fire,' and the 'fearful dragon,' while her heavenly manifestation is known as the 'bearded star.'"
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2017
Plato's Dialogues at https://books.goo...pg=PA367

"Phaethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burned up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now, this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving around the earth and in the heavens, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth recurring at long intervals of time"

... then further on ...

"All of these stories, and ten thousand others which are still more wonderful, have a common origin; many of them have been lost in the lapse of ages, or exist only as fragments; but the origin of them is what no one has told"

L.G. Young, "Infrared Spectra of Venus," Exploration of the Planetary System (Boston 1974), p.139

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2017
"some theoreticians have dismissed perfectly good observations under the assumption that the data were 'noisy' because conditions on Venus appeared to vary on a short time scale, a situation that could not occur in their models ...

There has been a profusion of crude, oversimplified models which have 'explained' discrepancies between theory and observation as due to effects not included in the theory. Thus there has been a tendency to claim 'agreement' with the observations prematurely. Finally, not only have wrong interpretations of the data been widely accepted at various times, but some correct interpretations have been rejected for long periods of time. What interpretation is 'acceptable' has been colored by prejudices (Venus is/isn't like the Earth, the curve of growth does/doesn't apply to a scattering atmosphere, etc.) so that major questions appear to have been decided more on emotional than on rational grounds."
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2017
By 2002, these dramatic corrections to the Venus heat flux dataset were completely forgotten about.

Michael Shermer's The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience ironically and definitively states:

"But there was no excess of energy radiated from the planet (since the thick atmosphere effectively contained the high surface temperature). The total radiated energy was in balance with absorbed sunlight, and it did not decline over time. Further, the high surface temperature had an alternative explanation from an atmospheric greenhouse effect."'

(all three claims were shown to be incorrect.)
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2017
Richard A. Kerr, "Venus: Not Simple of Familiar, But Interesting," Science, Vol. 207 (1980), p. 289

"The question concerns how the sun's energy behaves once it penetrates the highest clouds. When Pioneer Venus's probes looked at the amount of radiant energy passing through the atmosphere, each one found more energy being radiated up from the lower atmosphere than enters it as sunlight. At first blush, it would seem that the atmosphere violates the laws of thermodynamics by transferring heat energy from the cool clouds to the hot lower atmosphere, from which it is then radiated. To further complicate the situation, the size of the apparent upward flow of energy varies from place to place by a factor of 2, which was a disturbing discovery about a planet thought to be relatively uniform ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2017
(cont'd)

"The much bally-hooed greenhouse effect of Venus's carbon dioxide atmosphere can account for only part of the heating, and evidence for other heating mechanisms is now in a turmoil. The question concerns how the sun's energy behaves once it penetrates the highest clouds ...

Possible explanations for this apparent quandary cover a range of speculations. Problems with the instruments are still an issue, but a year of recalibration and analysis in the laboratory has revealed significant errors in only one of the three types of instruments involved."
Chris_Reeve
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2017
http://www.newdaw...en-right

"In support of this unorthodox thesis, Velikovsky noted that the texts of most ancient cultures prior to 1500 BCE -- most notably those of the Hindus, Babylonians and Egyptians -- refer only to four planets -- Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and Mercury.

References to Venus prior to that date are inexplicably given using words and symbols that were traditionally reserved for comets.

They describe Venus as appearing 'hairy' or refer to its 'horns' or 'long tail.' (There are references prior to 1500 BCE to goddesses such as the Sumerian Innana, however, the iconography associated with these goddesses typically involve images of comets.) ..."
Chris_Reeve
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2017
http://news.natio...science/

"To the modern stargazer, the planet Venus is just another point of light in the night sky. But for the ancient Maya, the brilliant light of Venus was an omen of war that guided ritual activity, prompted great battles, and was even used as shorthand for 'total destruction.'"

In creating models to predict their own version of doomsday, the scientists have copied the cultural patterns initially set by the Pagans. But, the idea of doomsday was reappropriated in the process, eliminating all of the original meaning for the fear of Venus.

The problem is this:

Without any actual reason to fear Venus, there would appear to be little reason for anybody to track its movements at all, to begin with.
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2017
Yo, creve-

It must have taken you, like, a mad long time to cut'n'paste all those stories, huh?

Do us all a favor, pal, and grab a handful of Venus long, hairy tail and take a trip right out of here.

No need to hurry to make the return trip.
omegatalon
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2017
Despite all of the so called experts saying the planet is getting warmer, NASA recently said their research suggests that there will be MORE rain; https://www.nasa....expected
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2017
Climate change proponents don't even know the history of the idea's true first test - clearly because the results didn't confirm their narrative. All they can do is insult the people who tell the story.

What a waste of everybody's time.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2017
Climate change proponents don't even know the history of the idea's true first test - clearly because the results didn't confirm their narrative. All they can do is insult the people who tell the story.

What a waste of everybody's time.


No, no, no, no, CR........it isn't a waste of time. Let them keep making the mistakes so we can learn from the mistakes they keep making, after all, we can't live long enough to make all of them ourselves.

You see, as we watch them blow it everytime they make another prognostication, all of us learn something, what we learn is that person is not a prophet, therefore we know who not to follow, eg. Al Gore.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2017
Despite all of the so called experts saying the planet is getting warmer, NASA recently said their research suggests that there will be MORE rain;

Did you even read the link you posted? NASA also says the planet is getting warmer. This is not contradicted by increased rainfall.

From the very link you posted:
Rainfall warming the air also sounds counterintuitive -- people are used to rain cooling the air around them, not warming it. Several miles up in the atmosphere, however, a different process prevails. When water evaporates into water vapor here on Earth's surface and rises into the atmosphere, it carries with it the heat energy that made it evaporate. In the cold upper atmosphere, when the water vapor condenses into liquid droplets or ice particles, it releases its heat and warms the atmosphere.


Jeez. It's becoming a habit with the shills to post stuff that contradicts their own claims. Talk about an easy takedown.
mtnphot
5 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2017
Despite all of the so called experts saying the planet is getting warmer, NASA recently said their research suggests that there will be MORE rain; https://www.nasa....expected

I guess you were not aware that warmer air holds more water and you always get more rain from a tropical stream than one from the arctic. Consider yourself informed.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Jul 03, 2017
This is what it looks like when people refuse to check the original published research, and rely entirely upon science journalists to get their information ...

http://www.indepe...336.html

Stephen Hawking: "We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid"

Again, contrast that confident claim with:

H. E. Revercomb, L. A. Sromovsky, and V. E. Suomi, "Net Thermal Radiation in the Atmosphere of Venus," Icarus 61, p521-538 (1985)

"The magnitudes of the corrections for both instruments are determined by forcing agreement with a range of calculated net fluxes at one altitude deep in the atmosphere, where the net flux must be small because of the large density of co2."
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2017
I always feel shame for the people who downvote the history of the runaway greenhouse's first real test. Their reaction is that they don't like the person that tells the story, but it's that very reaction which suppresses the education of their fellow climate change advocates.

This is why people believe this sort of nonsense ...

Michael Shermer's The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience

"But there was no excess of energy radiated from the planet (since the thick atmosphere effectively contained the high surface temperature). The total radiated energy was in balance with absorbed sunlight, and it did not decline over time. Further, the high surface temperature had an alternative explanation from an atmospheric greenhouse effect."

You cannot simply wish away history you do not like. It will eventually catch up to you.

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.