GW temperature distributions-1

Agree to Disagree

Debate in a non-hostile environment

.

.


Global warming temperature distributions


.

This article comes in 2 versions. Both versions have very similar text.

THIS version of the article, simulates global warming with NO polar amplification.

The OTHER version of this article, simulates global warming WITH polar amplification.

The main differences between the 2 versions, are the graphs. You can choose to read either version of this article, or both. As I said, the text is very similar.

To read the version of this article which simulates global warming with NO polar amplification, keep reading this web page.

To go to the version of this article which simulates global warming WITH polar amplification, click this link (it will open in a new tab):

https://agree-to-disagree.com/gw-temperature-distributions-2


 

Using a single number to represent global warming, like 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius of global warming, makes it hard to see how bad the problem really is. Is 2.0 degrees Celsius of global warming a major change from what we have now, or is it a minor change?

Using temperature anomalies, rather than absolute temperatures, causes a similar problem. Is a temperature anomaly of 2.0 degrees Celsius significant, when the daily temperature over land varies by about 10.0 degrees Celsius on most days. And when the temperature over a year, may vary by 20.0 or 30.0 degrees Celsius, because of the seasons. Temperature anomalies hide the fact that temperatures on the Earth vary from about -30.0 degrees Celsius (at the Poles), to about +30.0 degrees Celsius (near the equator).

If the temperature somewhere increased from 8.0 degrees Celsius to 10.0 degrees Celsius, is that a catastrophe?

If the temperature somewhere increased from 18.0 degrees Celsius to 20.0 degrees Celsius, is that a catastrophe?

If the temperature somewhere increased from 28.0 degrees Celsius to 30.0 degrees Celsius, is that a catastrophe?

To summarise, using temperature anomalies to represent global warming, removes (or ignores) what is “normal” for temperatures. “Normal”, becomes a single temperature anomaly, 0.0 degrees Celsius. Does 0.0 degrees Celsius, really represent the “normal” temperature distribution on the Earth.

What is the solution to this problem? The answer is to look at temperature distributions, rather than single numbers. Temperature distributions make global warming multi-dimensional, rather than a one-dimensional number. Temperature distributions show how the temperature varies with latitude, elevation, proximity to the ocean, size of landmass, and many other factors.

Comparing the “normal” temperature distribution, to a “global warming” temperature distribution, makes it easier to judge the size of the problem. Are “alarmists” trying to turn a molehill into a mountain? Or are “deniers” trying to turn a mountain into a molehill?

This article will show you the temperature distributions for a range of global warming “amounts”. People with weak hearts should not look at the more extreme amounts of global warming. Seeing 10.0 or 15.0 degrees Celsius of global warming on a graph, may be too much for those with a vivid imagination.

Important warning – just because I show a graph with 5.0, or 10.0, or 15.0, degrees Celsius of global warming, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS AMOUNT OF GLOBAL WARMING WILL EVER HAPPEN. The graphs show the temperature distribution IF, and that is a big IF, that amount of global warming ever happened. They don’t guarantee that this amount of global warming will ever happen.

Another important thing to realise about the graphs, is that they give no indication of the speed that global warming will happen at. The graph showing 3.0 degrees Celsius of global warming, may not happen for 1,000 years. Or it may not happen for 10,000 years. Or it may not ever happen.

I am not a climate scientist, or even a scientist. But I have a good science education, and I like science, mathematics, and computing. These skills allow me to produce “interesting” data visualisations. I have another useful skill. Persistence. I don’t think that many people would spend the time that I have, collecting the temperature statistics for over 36,000 locations on the Earth. My persistence is strengthened, when people call me a “denier”. I am looking forward to seeing “them” deny my graphs.

Another valuable attribute, is a good sense of humour. A love of Monty Python helps (it allows you to laugh at the absurdity of global warming, rather than get depressed). So don’t panic when you look at the graphs. Always remember the words from one of Monty Python’s famous songs, and “always look on the bright side of life”.

Also, never forget that the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy has the words DON’T PANIC inscribed in large friendly letters on its cover.

There are 2 important questions that you need to answer, before you look at the graphs.

1.….do you want fries with your global warming?….(just joking)

2.….do you want to see a global warming simulation with, or without, polar amplification? If you are greedy, then you can look at both. But my lawyer says that I have to warn you, that “with polar amplification” is scarier.

If you would rather have a global warming simulation WITH “polar amplification”, then see the information at the top of this article.

The graphs in this article show a global warming simulation with NO “polar amplification”.

Here is a summary of what the graphs show.

  • the present day temperature distribution (with 1.0 degrees Celsius of global warming).
  • the pre-industrial temperature distribution (with 0.0 degrees Celsius of global warming). This the temperature distribution that the IPCC claims is “perfect”.
  • the temperature distribution with 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming.
    Will 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming be bad?
  • the temperature distribution with 2.0 degrees Celsius of global warming.
    Will 2.0 degrees Celsius of global warming be a catastrophe?
  • the temperature distribution with 2.5 degrees Celsius of global warming.
  • the temperature distribution with 3.0 degrees Celsius of global warming.
  • the temperature distribution with 3.5 degrees Celsius of global warming.
  • the temperature distribution with 4.0 degrees Celsius of global warming.
  • the temperature distribution with 4.5 degrees Celsius of global warming.
  • the temperature distribution with 5.0 degrees Celsius of global warming.
  • the temperature distribution with 10.0 degrees Celsius of global warming.
    Warning – not for the faint-hearted.
  • the temperature distribution with 15.0 degrees Celsius of global warming.
    Warning – no refunds given.

The temperature statistic that all of the graphs are based on, is the “yearly average absolute temperature”. Remember that it is an AVERAGE. Sometimes the temperature is higher than the average, and sometimes the temperature is lower than the average.

The yearly average absolute temperature does NOT show what the temperature range is, at a location. It is a single number. But when you look at all of the locations that are at a particular latitude, there is a range of yearly average absolute temperatures. This is because of factors like elevation, proximity to the ocean, size of landmass, and many other factors.

So the range of yearly average absolute temperatures that you see in the graphs, would be wider, if I included the range at each location. This could be done by representing each location by a range, from the “average low temperature”, to the “average high temperature”. In other words, you could argue that my graphs are more alarmist than they could be.

There is a temperature gradient, which goes from the equator (hottest), to the Poles (coldest). The yearly average absolute temperature varies with latitude. Just for fun, I have collected the yearly average absolute temperatures for over 36,000 locations on the Earth. I have plotted each location on a graph, of yearly average absolute temperature versus latitude. I have also fitted the best trendline using Excel. The best trendline was a parabola, with the following equation:

Yearly average absolute temperature = (-0.006671 * Latitude^2) + (0.011589 * Latitude) + 24.434759

where ^2 meaned squared

See the following graph – the yearly average absolute temperature data for over 36,000 locations on the Earth, and the best fitted trendline (a parabola).

 

Yearly average temperature by location

 

But what about global warming. Wouldn’t global warming make a big difference to the yearly average absolute temperature?

The following graph shows the same best fit trendline as the previous graph (the orange parabola). But it also shows a purple parabola, which is the result of adding 1 degree Celsius of global warming, to the orange parabola.

 

Yearly average temperature plus GW by location

 

The previous graph shows that 1 degree Celsius of global warming, doesn’t look quite as frightening, when you compare it to the wide range of yearly average absolute temperatures. The problem with looking at temperature anomalies by themselves, is that they give you no context to judge them by. Looking at temperature anomalies in the context of yearly average absolute temperatures, allows you to see how big they are, compared to something else.


Finally, we have reached the point where we can look at the global warming simulation graphs. I apologise for writing such a long article, but I think that it is important that you get as much information as possible, so that you can judge the quality of my simulation.

You will be happy to know, that I am not going to say much about each graph. I will quickly describe the format of the graphs, and then it is over to you, to work out what the graphs are showing.

The green dots show the temperature distribution for the present day (for every graph). We have supposedly warmed by about 1.0 degrees Celsius, since pre-industrial times. So the green dots represent the present day, with 1.0 degree Celsius of global warming.

The orange dots show the temperature distribution for the specified amount of global warming. You can compare the distribution of the orange dots, to the distribution of the green dots, to see how different they are. Look at the amount of overlap in the 2 distributions. The more overlap that there is, the less dangerous that global warming is likely to be (in my opinion).

In the first graph, the orange dots are showing 1.0 degrees Celsius of global warming. This is the same as the green dots, which are also showing 1.0 degrees Celsius of global warming (the present day amount). All of the orange dots are at the same height as the corresponding green dots. This graph is the “baseline”, where the orange dots and the green dots are showing the same amount of global warming, and the same temperature distributions. In all of the other graphs, there will be a difference between the distributions of the orange and the green dots (if your eyesight is good enough to see the difference).

 

Simulating 1.0 degrees - no polar amp

 

In the next graph, the orange dots show the temperature distribution for pre-industrial times. Look closely. The orange dots are slightly lower than the green dots. The orange dots show the pre-industrial paradise that we lost, because we produced too much CO2. I will leave it to you to decide whether our modern, comfortable, life-style, was worth it.

 

Simulating 0.0 degrees - no polar amp

 

The next graph shows 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming. This is the temperature limit that the IPCC wants us to stick to, if we can. Can we do it? In my opinion, you shouldn’t get your hopes up.

 

Simulating 1.5 degrees - no polar amp

 

The next graph shows 2.0 degrees Celsius of global warming. This is the higher temperature limit, that the IPCC wants us to stick to, if we can’t manage the lower limit. Can we do it? You can call me a pessimist, but in my opinion, you shouldn’t get your hopes up over this limit, either.

 

Simulating 2.0 degrees - no polar amp

 

You are on your own, from this point on. Don’t take the graphs showing 10.0 and 15.0 degrees Celsius of global warming too seriously. When I made the graph showing 5.0 degrees Celsius of global warming, I didn’t think that it was frightening enough. So I added the graphs for 10.0 and 15.0 degrees of global warming.

 

Simulating 2.5 degrees - no polar amp

 

 

Simulating 3.0 degrees - no polar amp

 

 

Simulating 3.5 degrees - no polar amp

 

 

Simulating 4.0 degrees - no polar amp.png

 

 

Simulating 4.5 degrees - no polar amp

 

 

Simulating 5.0 degrees - no polar amp 2

 

 

Simulating 10.0 degrees - no polar amp

 

 

Simulating 15.0 degrees - no polar amp

 

.

.