NASA predicts 8 degrees of warming in the US by 2100

For the National Climate Assessment NASA has produced a model-based prediction of eight degrees Fahrenheit for the continental US by 2100 as the most likely scenario

Story submitted by Ben Bakker

NASA scientists have created a video showing predicted dramatic heating of the continental US between now and the year 2100.  The video and prediction show results of models assuming a rise in CO2 to a low of 550 ppm and a high of 800 ppm by 2100.  The NASA team states that the 800 ppm value is a more likely scenario.  The scenarios based upon their models lead to rises of 4 degrees and 8 degrees Fahrenheit respectively across the contiguous US.  Video follows:

The team states that they calibrated 15 different models to the years as a baseline for comparison.  They created two videos  showing the changes in temperatures and precipitation.

The interesting part is that they chose the years 1970 to 1999 to calibrate the models.   Calibrate them to what?  Did they assume the co2 rise during that period was the sole factor driving temperatures across the US and calibrate the rise in temperature based on that correspondence?  Did they quantify the role of pollution / aerosol reduction during that period?  Changes in multi-decadal oscillations on regional climate?  Changes in regional humidity?  Was it a global or local model calibration?  Why did they end the calibration period at 1999?  Why start at 1970?  With more data available and no contrasting calibrations provided this looks like a search for a high end projection.  Perhaps explanations are provided in the research.  Questions abound.

This is part of the upcoming National Climate Assessment Report.

Here is a description that accompanies the video:

==============================================================

The average temperature across the continental U.S. could be 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by the end of the 21st century under a climate scenario in which concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide rise to 800 parts per million. Current concentrations stand at 400 parts per million, and are rising faster than at any time in Earth’s history.

These visualizations — which highlight computer model projections from the draft National Climate Assessment — show how average temperatures could change across the U.S. in the coming decades under two different carbon dioxide emissions scenarios.

Both scenarios project significant warming. A scenario with lower emissions, in which carbon dioxide reaches 550 parts per million by 2100, still projects average warming across the continental U.S. of 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit.

The visualizations, which combine the results from 15 global climate models, present projections of temperature changes from 2000 to 2100 compared to the historical average from 1970 -1999. They were produced by the Scientific Visualization Studio at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., in collaboration with NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center and the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, both in Asheville, N.C.

The visualizations show the temperature changes as a 30-year running average. The date seen in the bottom-right corner is the mid-point of the 30-year average being shown.

“These visualizations communicate a picture of the impacts of climate change in a way that words do not,” says Allison Leidner, Ph.D., a scientist who coordinates NASA’s involvement in the National Climate Assessment “When I look at the scenarios for future temperature and precipitation, I really see how dramatically our nation’s climate could change.”

To learn more about the National Climate Assessment, due out in 2014, visit here: http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-d…

About these ads

185 thoughts on “NASA predicts 8 degrees of warming in the US by 2100

  1. That’s one hell of a hardware rounding error. As the balance of probability points to a cooling period through most of the 21st C , someone is expecting warming Armageddon in the last 20 years

  2. Anthony, you might mention in the headline that the 8 degrees is Fahrenheit.

    Interesting that the low estimate for 2100 (550 ppm) is in fact exactly a doubling of pre-industrial CO2, so the predicted warming of 4.5 F reveals their estimate of climate sensitivity: 2.5 C. That’s if the predicted warming includes the warming of about 0.7-0.8 C already observed–if they are saying the warming starts from now, they are using a higher sensitivity of about 3.2 C.

  3. Regional Circulation Models being totally astrological at the moment, the upcoming National Climate Assessment will add zero to current knowledge and most likely reduce it considerably

  4. I see the increase is from 2000, so they seem to be using the higher climate sensitivity of 3.2 C. I think this is transient climate sensitivity, so their estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity would be quite a bit higher.

  5. That’s 0.051 C per year.
    Too small to measure.
    We have to wait 10 – 30 years to be able to validate the model.
    Clever….

  6. What happens when you run the model and simulation backwards?. Does it accurately reflect observed temps back to ‘pre-industrial’ times? What if you did it for Europe where we have much longer temperature records?

  7. Conveniently starting the run at 2015 thus ignoring the current near 2 decade long pause in warming? Hmmmmmmm, So this should be very very easy to debunk by 2020 – 2025. It would need warming to suddenly go from nothing to increasing double the rate that it did 1979 – 1998 to match the lower of the two estimates.

    I call Bovine Excrement on both of these scenarios.

  8. Now that I’ve actually looked at the video, they say the temperature increase is based on the 1970-1999 average, so the writeup stating it is the increase from 2000 is wrong. If the 1970-99 average is, say 0.2 C less than the 2000 value, it would imply a sensitivity of exactly 3 C, right in line with all IPCC estimates for the last 20 years. So they are absolutely toeing the IPCC line. Never mind all the recent studies.

  9. And they quietly ignore the fact that the 1930s were the hottest years on record for the USA?
    (ie before Hanson put his thumb on the scales!)

  10. Surely after all these years there must be a simple tutorial on the internet that shows how increasing carbon dioxide will warm the planet in the near future.
    My own layman studies from the internet teach me that carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere is a coolant. The gasses nitrogen, oxygen and argon, 99.9% of the atmosphere, are essentially radiatively inactive. If it wasn’t for the ‘greenhouse gasses’ in the upper atmosphere radiating directly to space the atmosphere would simply get hotter and hotter.
    I need that tutorial.

  11. Classic GIGO, once it becomes clear that is approach is no longer a funding winner this ‘science’ will change

  12. It angers me that NASA has joined the Climate Change team. That was not the mission of our space agency when it was the pride of a nation for its great accomplishments in space. It tarnishes its position now. Clearly this effort was constructed in a baised manner with a goal of supporting the climate alarmism campaign. It is not good science. When will it end?

  13. So we denialists seem to be settling on climate sensitivity of 1.7C per doubling of CO2. So 800ppm of CO2 by 2100AD is one doubling, so 1.7C = 3F. 3 degrees F increase by 2100AD, OK. Sounds good.

  14. Love the scary music.

    If the Keystone XL pipeline goes ahead, perhaps it can be repurposed later on to ship water from the super-wet parts of northern Canada down to the extra-dry southern states where looks like it will be needed by 2100.

  15. Oh gawd! Surely everyone is fed up with this by now. How long are they going to try and get away with stopping at 1999? We’re well beyond that point and it’s looking very shabby that they can’t move into the present. They’ve got mega-computers, yes? Billions of dollars has gone into research that stops all their graphs at 1999? That’s just got to make more people very suspicious.

    We should tell them to go away and do it again and come back when they have up to date figures including the latest research. This is NASA, right? Sheesh!

    And yes, I know, I know – don’t call you Surely… :)

  16. NASA has become a political organisation

    “When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things,” Bolden said in the interview which aired last week.
    “One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math;
    he wanted me to expand our international relationships;
    and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering.
    NASA chief Charles Bolden

    http://www.space.com/8725-nasa-chief-bolden-muslim-remark-al-jazeera-stir.html#sthash.tNeUMbTp.dpuf

  17. William Astley says:
    July 29, 2013 at 12:37 am

    I wish the petitioners well, but I don’t think they’ll get far. Here’s Scalia’s opinion

    It is really not up to the Court to decide on such matters

    The Court’s alarm over global warming may or may not be justified,but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. ***This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.****

    that’s where they’ll come down, imo. Just like Roberts said, none of his business…if you don’t like obamacare…change your representatives…thanks John….that helped a lot

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZD1.html

  18. The video and prediction show results of models assuming a rise in CO2 to a low of 550 ppm and a high of 800 ppm by 2100. The NASA team states that the 800 ppm value is a more likely scenario.

    It is also possible the unforeseen technological innovations and inventions render this projection as a fail? US total greenhouse gas emissions have been coming down recently, partly due to shale gas. Remember the horse manure crisis of 1894? People were in despair and drew trend lines out into the future. They made certain assumptions. Here is a cautionary tale – among many others.

    In New York in 1900, the population of 100,000 horses produced 2.5 million pounds of horse manure per day,………In 1898 the first international urban-planning conference convened in New York. It was abandoned after three days, instead of the scheduled ten, because none of the delegates could see any solution to the growing crisis posed by urban horses and their output……….Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure……..It seemed that urban civilization was doomed……….Of course, urban civilization was not buried in manure. The great crisis vanished when millions of horses were replaced by motor vehicles.

    http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894#axzz2aQ4u5TEV

  19. Sad to see so much confusion here too.

    The ipcc estimates are GLOBAL

    The USA are a tiny part of the globe

    –> hence the ipcc estimates cannot tell us anything about the US temperatures.

    The world might warm by 10C and still the USA cool by the same amount, for all we know.

  20. Other_Andy says:
    July 29, 2013 at 12:44 am
    @Lance

    NASA – Doubling of CO2 = 4.4 C
    Didn’t the IPCC say 3 C per doubling of CO2?

    NASA said a doubling of CO2 = 4.5 F, which is 2.5 C.
    That’s added on to the average temp between 1970-99, which I assume is on the order of 0.5 C since pre-industrial times. So yes indeed, they are coming down right on the IPCC estimate.

  21. NASA go on using models that are being seriously questioned by other well qualified scientists. Hansen’s spirit is still alive, even though he has retired.

  22. The link above mentions that the comment period is closed, but provides the following link to the National Academy of Sciences review. It can be downloaded free by registering.

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18322

    I skimmed the report. Kind of the usual careful attempt to not roil the political waters, but I detect a bit of irritation at the one-sided presentation. Almost their first major point is to add in a discussion of possible benefits as well as costs of rising temperatures. But overall pretty bland, as is typical for the NAS. (Disclosure–I actually worked for the NAS for a few years, so know something about the NAS.)

    Appendix A has 700 comments indexed to the page and line numbers in the report. I actually have the report and could check the comments against it, but I gave up on it months ago when I saw it was just a rehash of the IPCC report, only clumsier because more Government bureaucrats were writing it. (Second disclosure: I was a Government bureaucrat for 27 years so know something about that as well!)

  23. This is so, so sad. NASA was once a well respected science/engineering august body technically respected around the world. I still have my book on space given to me as a child, about the journey through Gemini & Apollo ventures, the triumphs & tragedies on that great journey. One truly wonders if the same approach & team today could have ever got men into space & then to the moon, or would they really have resorted to a deserted Hollywood lot & staged it all for public consumption, because they simply lacked the technical expertise to do otherwise? I think I know the answer to that one!

  24. “These visualizations communicate a picture of the impacts of climate change in a way that words do not,” says Allison Leidner, Ph.D., a scientist who coordinates NASA’s involvement in the National Climate Assessment “When I look at the scenarios for future temperature and precipitation, I really see how dramatically our nation’s climate could change.”

    Now they should produce a visualization of the greening of the US in 2100. If it’s drought then I have to point out that there have been a number of mega droughts in the USA during the past ~11,000 years under low co2.

  25. 1970 was a cool period and 1999 the end of warming to the present plateau. Any predicted change 87 years hence about a chaotic system using the wrong inputs will be wrong.

  26. Dear All
    Please send me one dollar and I predict that by the year 2100 your dollar will be worth fifty million dollars. In this case you may wish to send me fifty dollars :-)

  27. Bob the robot says:
    July 29, 2013 at 1:09 am

    Stick to rocket’s and space. NASA is in danger of becoming a laughing stock.

    There is good budget money in ‘global warming’.

  28. Ah, yes, the virtual Mother of all Sharknado jumping sharks….

    This completely unfounded and fantastically exaggerated scenario is completely and utterly unfounded. It is, however, perfectly understandable given NASA inevitable budget cuts, when CAGW is officially disconfirmed.

    This is merely NASA’s Oracles of Delphi reading sheep entrails. Here is NASA’s “logic”: the temp trend from 1970 to 1999 was 0.17/decade and CO2 levels increased from about 325 to 370ppm. (+45ppm) ergo, for every 45ppm increase of CO2, you get 0.51C warming (3 decades x .17C/decade), ergo 800ppm – 400ppm= 400ppm/45ppm= 8.8 x .51C =4.5C or 8.0F….

    Wow! I didn’t even need a supercomputer to figure that one out….

    Of course during this magical and mystical sheep entrails 30-yr period, the Earth experienced it’s 2nd and 3rd strongest solar cycles since 1715, marked the end of the strongest 63-yr string of solar cycles in 11,400 years, FIVE El Nino events including the largest Super El Nino ever recorded, a 30-year PDO warming cycle and the start of a 30-yr AMO warming period…. Oh, my.. Talk about Cherry-Picked flavored Kool-Aid… JEEZ!

    NASA wants the world to simply forget that there hasn’t been ANY statistically significant global warming trend since 1995, despite 1/3rd of ALL CO2 emissions since 1750 were made since 1995…. Oh, no… that little factoid is meaningless… The old Obi-wan Kenobi Jedi trick of, “These aren’t the factoids you’re looking for…”

    Rather than despair, I think it’s time to celebrate because NASA has officially jumped the shark on this one, which marks the end of NASA’s future relevance. Yeah, we’ll see the familiar doom and gloom re-runs, but the Happy Days of NASA are officially over (pardon the mixed metaphors).

  29. @- Richard111
    “Surely after all these years there must be a simple tutorial on the internet that shows how increasing carbon dioxide will warm the planet in the near future.”

    And there is!
    Its from the same source as this report, NASA, they even do various levels of explanation for those with different levels of initial understanding. Given your egregious remarks about atmospheric cooling from GHGs I suspect you would need to start with this link –

    http://climatekids.nasa.gov/big-questions/

    In fact given that your post is the closest so far to engage with the NASA report at the scientific level rather than just rejecting it without reason I suspect many here could do with this basic knowledge.

    I do understand that many here do not accept that the majority of present scientific research confirms that further warming with rising CO2 is inevitable, but that rejection of mainstream science looks more and more like a faith-based cult if no scientific counter argument is advanced.

  30. Couldn´t resist sharing this pearl: just stumbled (on tumblr) on a gif of a show called “Orange Is The New Black” (creator of Weeds, best show ever) of a guy saying “that’s just popular fiction, like global warming and female ejaculation”. It’s canon people! (series’s junkies slang)

  31. Simon, why not read the WHOLE sentence that Adam wrote. !

    It is a well know fact that the 1940’s temperatures have been adjusted down by AT LEAST 0.5C compared to current temperatures.
    The raw (ie REAL) temperatures of the early 1940’s were up around what they are now.

  32. NASA is absolutely correct!
    In fact they would be correct if they said the temperature could be 100 degrees F hotter by 2100, or even it could be 100 degrees colder in 2100.
    As long as they use the conditional “could” in their remark anything is possible. Notice they never predicted a temperature change by saying the temp “would” be 8 degrees warmer by 2100. Because the conditional can exist with any scenario it gives them the ability to do very poor science and report an equally poor result as if it were accurate.
    On the other hand global warming “could” cause world hunger will end, unlimited energy for all people on earth, disease will be only a past memory, all storms will cease, an end to poverty on earth, politicians will be truthful, and Michael Mann will admit he is a fraud.
    Well it could happen.

  33. Obama kicked off the drive toward the carbon tax a few days ago. It’s not conincidence the DoD, EPA, NASA and the rest of the alphabets are chiming in to whip up the crisis. The problem with the anti-hydrocarbon-tax-carbon crowd is there are just so many crisis and so little time.

    Actually, it’s all meant to prep for the 2014 elections. The Senate will recruit enough GOP votes to pass a carbon something-or-another save-the-planet we’re-all-gonna-die do-it-for-the-children this year so Obama can rerun the 1948 Truman election theme of “Do-Nothing” Congress (House). Obtw, did you notice all the other standard themes that are being ramped up.

    The only issue is how many of these the House will pass. Don’t be surprised if the House opts for this one.

  34. And because all the climate scientists believe the highly manipulated record in HadCrud and Giss, they will ALWAYS have an unrealistic trend built into their mystical projections.
    They are destined to be always wrong, because of the work of Hansen et al in faking the original warming. KARMA !!!

  35. Outreach for NASA used to mean…reaching out into space.

    Now it means something else. :-(

  36. I never expected to mention the words “NASA” and “flat-earthers” in the same sentence in my lifetime. But here we are. Well, who would have thought…

    First I suspected the Ghost of James Hansen was still hounting the NASA-Headquarters.

    But then I figured that what we see here is perfect Chicago-politics at play:

    #1. The IPCC is an entity founded by governments to alter humanity’s use of carbon-based fuels at all costs – even at the cost of truth.

    #2. NASA is an entity founded by the government to advance science.

    #3. Both entities receive huge funding by governments EXCLUSIVELY.

    #4. While the credibility of the IPCC has suffered enormously during the past years, the credibility of NASA is by-and-large still intact.

    #5. Therefore use NASA, to enhance the credibility of the IPCC, to continue the quest for altering humanitty’s behaviour no matter what.

    #6. If climate stays reluctant to follow the catastrohpic predictions spewn out by a gazillion faulty computer-simulations, blame NASA and the IPCC while washing your hands in innocence, and proceed.

    #7. That way, Obama will always have someone else to blame, if his poorly-conceived plans for socio-engineering on a global scale fail.

    Obama’s politics beat his policies every other corner.

  37. ” Did they assume the co2 rise during that period was the sole factor driving temperatures”

    Of course they did. That’s the only way you get that amount of predicted warming. What did you expect them to do? Be honest?

  38. This is a forecast of the start of the next glaciation. All that additional precipitation, concentrated in the Arctic, shown in the second video will fall as snow. Massive increases in snowfall in the Arctic will cause glacial expansion into Canada and further south. With a bit of luck we may get back a mile of ice over Chicago.

  39. Brett says:
    July 29, 2013 at 12:18 am

    > We can put a man on the moon but can’t accurately predict temperature changes?

    No, we can’t put a man on the moon. Haven’t been able to since the end of 1972.

  40. I can’t believe that all scientists at NASA share the views of the upcoming report. What about those 50 or so people that wrote a letter of protest regarding Hansen and his catastrophic views of global temperatures? It’s time for them to stand up with more vigor regarding this garbage. After all, the reputation of all NASA is at stake!

  41. @- AndyG55
    “It is a well know fact that the 1940′s temperatures have been adjusted down by AT LEAST 0.5C compared to current temperatures.The raw (ie REAL) temperatures of the early 1940′s were up around what they are now.”

    Yes, if we measured the temperatures now in the same way, {Time of observations, liquid min/max thermometers} that they did in the 1940s the current temperatures would be reported as measuring around 0.5 C warmer than they are now.

  42. We must stop accepting this idea that there is such a thing as a ‘global’ temperature and that ‘global warming’ i.e. a worldwide condition, actually exists.

    Here is the UK temperature chart to 1772

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

    It is one of many countries where ‘ global’ warming disappeared a decade ago.

    Our GDP is increasing at around 0.6% per year. This bears no relationship to the ‘global’ figure of some 3.5% increase. If I were to calculate a ‘global’ telephone number and rang it none of the commentators here would answer it. I daresay few of them conform to the ‘global’ weight or height.

    In climate terms we need to look at the regional picture and dig down deep to see what they are telling us. Thinking globally neither helps our understanding of climate or has any sort of precision..
    tonyb

  43. I guess the first question I’d ask is how well does the model do since 1999? There may be a trick answer – since the results are shown as 30 year averages, the answer would cover 1983-2012, which includes a lot of warming.

  44. What is so discouraging is that the ignorant public will believe this prediction because the Administration and the complicit media will promote it.

  45. My reading is that it looks like NASA didn’t run any models. They just took the existing model runs (spaghetti graph) , slid each noodle up or down to match the ave temp (70-99) in1980, then averaged the 2100 result. They then made a video. IE. This is just NASA producing a sales (propaganda) video of the standard IPCC results. Nothing new to discuss here, just a video of old results.

  46. Wow, we p****d them off big time! Oh well we did knock down climate sensitivity to half the when-cat’s-away-mice-will-play numbers from a decade ago. Can we falsify them by stopping the video color changes from time to time and calculate deficits?

  47. lol
    No wonder they can only predict temperatures going up all the time for the whole century-their color scale doesn’t allow them to plot anything less than zero! :)

  48. Interesting. The drought in the US looked worse at 550 ppm than at 800 ppm.

    I liked the creepy music.

  49. The temperature simulation starts at around 2015 with a 1F temperature anomaly already present. That means the 800 ppm simulation predicts (8F – 1F)= 7F temperature rise due to a doubling of CO2 (from 400 ppm to 800 ppm), or around 3.9 C per doubling. The sensitivity could be even higher, because the temperature anomalies are 30 year averages, but are CO2 levels averaged as well?

    3.9C per 2xCO2 seems just a tad on the high side. By just a tad, I mean up to a factor of 10.

  50. Wow – My tax dollars paid for that incredible load of tripe? Does that anger anyone else???

  51. “They chose 1970-1999 to calibrate their models” If one knows nothing about fall and winter( or purposely chooses to ignore them) and uses the rising summer temperature months to predict the future, you will erronously and most probably perdict only more warming summers. This kind of silly science coming from Nasa? This looks to me as a political move to support the President’s global warming agenda rather than a piece of new or sound science. The timing of this study release gives away its intented purpose.

  52. izen says:
    July 29, 2013 at 3:00 am
    “I do understand that many here do not accept that the majority of present scientific research confirms that further warming with rising CO2 is inevitable, but that rejection of mainstream science looks more and more like a faith-based cult if no scientific counter argument is advanced.”

    Says the guy who missed the thread in which we ripped the GCM’s several new ones.

  53. And the descent, is complete. NASA, once a shining beacon of the most brilliant combination of science and engineering in the history of mankind, is now nothing more than a hotbed for pseudo-scientific quackery and political maneuvering. How sad to have seen this change occur, just in our own lifetimes.

  54. If you look really hard at the fine print, you can see that the temperatures are in Fahrenheit. It’s in the fine print in the bottom left of the screen. It is not the actually temperatures that the average viewer will see. They see that red creeping across the screen with the added impact of that creepy music.

    Spooky music? Deceptive imagery? Is that science? If NASA is using our money to produce propaganda videos to be place on YouTube, their funding should be cut. If they persist, it should be cut again.

  55. No Izen, that is Hansen EXCUSE for making the adjustments. He used that excuse to create a trend far greater than reality.
    You just have to look at the record temperatures from around that time. Those were the ones he couldn’t adjust.

  56. Just follow the money . NASA is looking for more money after all the cutbacks. Making the President look right in his global warming agenda is a sure way to get on his good side .Watch for new press releases for more money going to NASA

  57. izen says:
    July 29, 2013 at 4:29 am
    @- AndyG55
    “It is a well know fact that the 1940′s temperatures have been adjusted down by AT LEAST 0.5C compared to current temperatures.The raw (ie REAL) temperatures of the early 1940′s were up around what they are now.”

    Yes, if we measured the temperatures now in the same way, {Time of observations, liquid min/max thermometers} that they did in the 1940s the current temperatures would be reported as measuring around 0.5 C warmer than they are now.

    The only problem is those adjustments are based on researchers’ guesses. Researcher bias is well known in science. Can you tell me the people making those adjustments were not biased? Didn’t think so. Your support of these biased adjustments tells me you do not understand the peer reviewed and well documented studies of researcher bias.

    If we look at the Pacific Ocean temperatures they were also warmer in the 1930-40s than they are now. Since we know from satellite data that the planet follows the Pacific quite closely there is no reason to believe this was not also true 70-80 years ago.

  58. Wow! This is the 2nd craziest thing the Climate Kooks have said in as many days! Here is the craziest …

    Global Warming To Boil The Ocean

    Imagine how much adjusting it will take to accomplish that 8° delta ( pretty close to an actual Ice Age to Interglacial swing BTW ). Unfortunately they have nowhere to go this time. In order to adjust the past lower, they will have to adjust the present we are actually living in now. Doh!

    Simon [July 29, 2013 at 12:47 am] says:

    Adam Gallon [July 29, 2013 at 12:31 am] says:

    And they quietly ignore the fact that the 1930s were the hottest years on record for the USA? (ie before Hanson put his thumb on the scales!)

    Not according to this. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-announces-warmest-year-record-contiguous-us

    You linked to government sanctioned propaganda, records that have been tampered with and then re-published again later ( hey, just imagine how much fun we could have adjusting historical election records or budgets! )

    Global Warming Whiners Wouldn’t Have Survived June, 1934

    izen [July 29, 2013 at 3:00 am] says:

    I do understand that many here do not accept that the majority of present scientific research confirms that further warming with rising CO2 is inevitable, but that rejection of mainstream science looks more and more like a faith-based cult if no scientific counter argument is advanced.

    What you’re actually seeing here and everywhere is the rejection of your faith-based cult. Each year between the NH Solstice and Equinox your cult members slither out of their slimey little caves to trumpet Armageddon during the annual dog days of summer. Unfortunately for you each year your message is meeting more and more deaf ears, the people are getting fed up with chicken little tactics, fraud and lies. Your faith-based cult has very little going for it and now contains more science fiction than Scientology does.

  59. I think NASA’s credibility is at the same level of the UK’s Met Office – i.e. non-existent !
    Seriously, how can an organisation famed for taking calculated risks re the space program and engineered design, modern science, etc, be so crass as to fall in line with climate science ‘trends’?
    Is there no-one who works inside NASA with a backbone, and to be prepared to stand up for real science? (I gave up hoping for someone scientific within the Metoffice years ago!)

  60. William Astley – thanks for the icecap link to the Endangerment Finding amicus brief. Good reading….. I hope that (in light of other overtly political decisions) they exercise Judgement in the case. EPA (Executive) have clearly overreached only BECAUSE Legislative (Congress) decided to not act. EPA distorted the science and circumvented the Advisory process to so do.

  61. izen says:

    July 29, 2013 at 3:00 am

    “Every place has its own climate, whether Arctic cold, tropical warm, or something in between. Averaging them all together makes global climate.”

    Izen I am not much for the idea of a global temperature, but the link you provide had the above quote. A global climate?! No such thing. Also they used the term trapped or trapping heat. Get real. Your link is an insult to the folks of WUWT since it is written for kids. I assume you got a lot out of it.

  62. @- DirkH
    “Says the guy who missed the thread in which we ripped the GCM’s several new ones.”

    Not sure I would class GCM’s as mainstream climate science. More an interesting tool on the fringe.
    The mainstream stuff is all the empirical observations of the radiative transfer of energy within the atmosphere and the measurements of the energy imbalance between upwelling and downwelling radiation. Plus the measured increase on sea surface temperatures, sea level rise, ocean heat content, ice melt….
    The physics of global warming does not require any models, they are just an added tool for making more accurate projections. As Steve McI showed even the simplest model indicates continued warming given the known forcings.

    Still very little engagement with the science behind the projected futures displayed by NASA, just conspiracy theories about why the temperature record may be inaccurate!

  63. Like the 97%, SOME of our children or grandchildren will see days warmer than average by 8°F in 2100, somewhere.

  64. Those temperature data sets are in for more serious adjustments. I think it got about 4 degrees cooler outside while I was watching those videos.

  65. Since their graphs stopped in 1999, do we only need to wait 4 more years to say that the NASA projection has been falsified, since we already have 14 years since 1999 of no statistically significant warming to start off with? 4 more years of no statistically significant warming would be a total of 18…

    Of course, if they now say it takes 30 years to invalidate the models, then I guess we would have to wait 16 more years. Probably be significantly colder by then anyway, so I guess I am ok with that.

    Of course, all of the models are wrong, because they assume that CO2 is the primary driver of “global temperature”, and that premise is wrong to begin with, so the models can only be correct by complete accident.

  66. Brilliant, gives O ammunition to push through whatever he wants, who will argue with NASA, and you cant for at least 15 years. Junk science at its finest.

  67. Sure it will. And freezing temps aren’t a problem for solid-rocket booster seals, and broken-off insulation won’t hurt shuttle wings.

  68. As in all politics, NASA has become Obama’s tool to carry out his climate agenda. Any credibility that they once had is gone. They’ve gone from NASA to NADA!

  69. Just out of curiosity, what kind of stupid does it take to believe that CO2 will ever reach 800ppm? It has taken over 50 years to go from 318 to 400, and although there a blips and bobbles in that record it has not actually begun any kind of rapid swing to the upward direction. Not really. If you use 0 as the baseline instead of 318 the chart does NOT look as scary as people think it does.

    And if you can quantify stupid, what kind of stupid does it take to project a cherry-picked stretch of warming off to almost a century ahead, and think that you’ve “done science”? This has absolutely nothing to do with science, it’s bare faced bald propaganda.

    And speaking of varieties of stupid, what kind of stupid does it take to swallow this ridiculous scenario, even loaded with weasel words like “could” and “might”? Even the people who created this know it’s a load of crap, they just have to. I find it difficult to believe that anyone smart enough to work at NASA is really this kind of stupid.

    Sorry for my liberal use of the word “stupid”, but this whole thing is just plain stupid. There aren’t many other words that describe it so succinctly.

    This is why I say, let them keep talking. Their predictions or projections or whatever we’re calling them now are getting increasingly ridiculous, increasingly laughable, decreasingly credible. Eventually they’ll be talking about 20,000 ppm and 100C warming. Then even the densest will realize it’s all a load of garbage.

  70. So the Obama Govt is getting the report they’re paying for.
    Obama must be so GREEN at the taxes levied and collected in Europe
    Was taking to an S Irish Jeep owner and he pays 1850 euros a year CO2 tax on his Wrangler :O
    Now that would kill off sales & lay off employess at the Toledo plant.
    EU Fiat loosing money Chrysler making it.
    A country that tries to Carbon tax its self into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and pulling himself up by the handle

  71. Over 500 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 was at 7000 ppm, and even at that amount, it was still a trace gas, and the world did not end – or maybe it did but we just didn’t get the memo?

  72. izen says:
    July 29, 2013 at 3:00 am

    In fact given that your post is the closest so far to engage with the NASA report at the scientific level rather than just rejecting it without reason I suspect many here could do with this basic knowledge.

    I do understand that many here do not accept that the majority of present scientific research confirms that further warming with rising CO2 is inevitable, but that rejection of mainstream science looks more and more like a faith-based cult if no scientific counter argument is advanced.
    =============
    izen, it’s all computer games….

    Name one prediction the computer games got right…..

    …now that’s faith-based

  73. Yawn…The political rhetoric on ACGW is ratcheting up again, is anyone surprised that NASA got involved?

  74. Here we go again . We are unable to get the next week, next season , next year straight in our weather predictions . We totally got the past decade wrong and we again claim that we can predict the next 100 years . The year 2100 is safe as none of us will be around to be accountable for these dreadful forecasts . I suppose that is why it is safe to predict that far ahead.

  75. Is there a link to the description that includes the “…could be 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer …” section? I couldn’t find it when I started from the link given ( http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment ).

    I did find a more definitive statement (‘would’ not ‘could’) for the same visualizations:
    ” In the second scenario, in which carbon dioxide emissions rise to about 800 ppm (roughly double the 2013 level), temperatures would be, on average, 8 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than they were at the end of the 20th century. ”

    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011200/a011280/index.html

  76. cedarhill
    July 29, 2013 at 3:33 am
    says:

    ‘Obama kicked off the drive toward the carbon tax a few days ago. It’s not conincidence the DoD, EPA, NASA and the rest of the alphabets are chiming in to whip up the crisis.’

    Very astute. And this is not just for a carbon tax. I think it has scandal control written all over it as well. I wonder how many people know that the IRS scandal reached virtually to the White House last week or the degree to which that scandal tilted (and probably was intended to tilt) the election in 2012. It’s interesting to speculate the level to which our freedom protecting (just kidding) MSM will cover this NASA release compared to the IRS developments.

    Oh, and by the way, might I comment to izen’s earlier (July 29, 2013 at 3:00 am) statement that, “rejection of mainstream science looks…like a faith-based cult if no scientific counter argument is advanced.”

    Well, izen (for some reason my spell check keeps giving me ‘oxen’), might I suggest to you that the foregoing is, indeed, the counter argument that you seek. But it’s not a scientific counter argument you ask? Precisely.

  77. izen says:
    July 29, 2013 at 3:00 am

    Mainstream science:

    1613: geocentrism
    1713: phlogiston
    1813: creationism
    1913: immobile continents
    2013: GIGO climate models

  78. That National Climate Assessment is an incredible monster with over a thousand pages. Its executive summary alone is 23 pages. Eisenhower demanded that anything left on his desk could not be more than one page long and managed the affairs of the United States quite well with that. The monstrously long Assessment gets it all wrong. First, it makes predictions of future global temperature based on projected atmospheric carbon dioxide amount. That is completely wrong because carbon dioxide is not controlling global temperature. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air today is highest ever but it is completely unable to produce the alleged greenhouse effect we are told is warming the world. This is not an exception becuse this “pause” in greenhouse warming has lasted for 15 years. The apologists for warming tell us that such pauses have happened at other times and then show a Mickey Mouse chart of a stepladder of pauses. That is a joke but there was a real pause of warming in the eighties and nineties. It and lasted for 18 years, longer than the present pause that is 15 years old already. You have not heard of it because ground-based temperature curves showed, and some still show, the eighties and nineties as a steady warming called late twentieth century warming. I compared it to satellite temperature values and realized that this warming was a complete fake. I said so in my book [1] when it came out in 2010. Nothing happened for two years. And then, suddenly, GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC all got rid of that warming and aligned their data for the eighties and nineties with satellites. It was done secretly and no one was told about it. I regard this concerted action as tantamount to an admission that they knew this warming was fake. With this correction, the correct global temperature curve now starts with an 18 year no-warming period in 1979. Add to this the current no-warming zone that covers the twenty-first century and there is only a small window left between the two. This is taken up by the superEl Nino of 1998 and its step warming that follows, leaving no time slot for any greenhouse warming since 1979. This means that we have already had 34 no-greenhouse warming years and are still counting. Ask yourself: how likely is it that any of the years prior to this could have been greenhouse warming years? Not many, I would say, probably close to zero. That is exactly what Miskolczi theory of the saturated greenhouse effect demands. Miskolczi used NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 to study the absorption of infrared radiation by thearmosphere over time. And discovered that absorption had been constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time went up by 21.6 percent. This means that the addition of this substantial amount of carbon dioxide to air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. Any and all predictions of future global temperature by the present National Assessment Report are thereby rendered invalid, both observationally and theoretically. Looking at their temperature curve they use to extrapolate their predictions I note that they have not removed the warming of the eighties and nineties, nor do they accurately show the current pause in warming. A tome of wrong and out of date information and worthless predictions is all this report amounts to. It must have cost thousands of dollars, all misdirected by an obsolete theory of warming.

  79. Chuck L says:
    July 29, 2013 at 4:44 am
    What is so discouraging is that the ignorant public will believe this prediction because the Administration and the complicit media will promote it.

    BINGO! The newest, latest, most current, citation will invigorate the drummers pace.

  80. steveta_uk says:
    July 29, 2013 at 1:07 am
    Love the scary music.
    ——————————————————–

    Bill_W says:
    July 29, 2013 at 4:54 am
    Interesting. The drought in the US looked worse at 550 ppm than at 800 ppm.

    I liked the creepy music.
    ———————————————————-
    The music sounds like Kenny G fighting off his ‘black dogs’ of depression. Now imagine the same video with “March of the Gladiators” or “Strike Up the Band.” Especially as that precipitation forecast for the 800 ppm scenario shows thing improving esp. for the northern tier of states. It’s bad enough they resort to such emotional manipulation, but do they have to be so OBVIOUS?

  81. can skeptics and warmists stop arguing and start betting? that way we can see if they truly think the science is settled.
    i would love to wager on this one. any takers?

  82. Where was their model in 70’s when the solar cycle expanded earths atmosphere and dragged skylab down, they never saw that one coming, and are still in denial that the variability in the solar cycle has a dramatic effect on Earths atmosphere, hence climate.

  83. These scientists will be long gone before these predictions matched to the actual climate. There is zero accountability.

  84. Mumble McGuirk says:
    July 29, 2013 at 7:49 am

    “It’s bad enough they resort to such emotional manipulation, but do they have to be so OBVIOUS?”
    __________________________
    Will they be so obvious to the millions of US citizens with the untainted view of NASA as the agency that put men on the moon and robots on Mars?

  85. What would the presentation look like if the scientists had to bet their personal house and government retirement that the prediction was correct?

  86. Jimbo writes:” There is good budget money in ‘global warming’.” You have hit the nail on the head Jim. Everyone has money to make on this or government money to prostitute themselves for. It is becomming impossible to believe anyone or anything.

  87. CACCA is doing terrible damage to the reputation of science. In forty years, climatologists will have to deny their discipline ever forecast temperatures so high for this century, just as they now try to cover up their imminent ice age predictions of the 1970s.

    If humanity be lucky, the current interglacial will break all longevity records, as some scientists expect, but based upon Milankovitch cycles, not CO2.

  88. If our present CO2 concentration is approximately 400 ppm and we are in the last half of 2013 we have 87 years to get to the ppm numbers in their models. At present we add 1 to 1.5 ppm to our atmosphere each year. The lower number of 550 ppm is an additional CO2 of 1.72 ppm per year,
    and to get to the 800 ppm number, the additional CO2 is 4.59 ppm per year. A widely over optimistic number. So their scary models again have little basis in actual data. The CO2 increase is almost linear, and you have to make crazy assumptions to get it to increase at the upper rates.

  89. I should keep a copy of this in case medicine improves enough for me to live to see it :-) Personally, I think there’s a fair chance that even the recent ~1.5C sensitivity estimates will turn out too high. If feedbacks are mainly negative, CO2 warming might not even be enough to cancel natural cooling in the coming 87 years…

  90. Jimbo says:
    July 29, 2013 at 2:13 am
    ‘“These visualizations communicate a picture of the impacts of climate change in a way that words do not,” says Allison Leidner, Ph.D., a scientist who coordinates NASA’s involvement in the National Climate Assessment’

    “Visualizations communicate a picture…in a way that words do not.” Yep, moving from hypotheses stated in sentences to “visualizations” surely moves one from reason to emotion. And, yes, the emotional level is where NASA lives todayj.

  91. izen

    See SAMURAI’s post just above yours, he pretty much blows their methodology out by showing that you could produce the same results on the back of a napkin.

    Please see the Dot Com Bust, Housing Bust, and Great Recession for further reading on what happens when you try to predict the future based on past linear trends…

  92. Allison Leidner, Post Doctoral Researcher

    Ph.D. North Carolina State University, Department of Zoology, 2009
    M.S. Stanford University, Department of Biological Sciences, 2003
    B.S. Stanford University, Department of Biological Sciences, 2002

    Allison is broadly interested in the conservation of rare and endangered species. At the University of Maryland, she will be using bioinformatic approaches to develop scientifically defensible recovery goals for threatened and endangered species in the United States. Allison’s dissertation research examined how urban and agricultural fragmentation affected butterfly communities, and particularly focused on conservation strategies to ameliorate the effects of habitat fragmentation.

    In addition to the biological aspects of conservation, she is interested in the intersection of science and policy, and promoting communication between scientists, policy-makers, and the general public. Allison left the lab to accept a prestigious AAAS postdoctoral fellowship where she is working with NASA on climate change issues.

  93. NASA should get back to rocketry and exploration. This so obviously is just politics and corruption.

  94. NASA isn’t doing science. It’s making propaganda and calling it science. They should be ashamed of themselves.

  95. Samurai, 2:51 AM:

    You beat me to it. I was idly thinking, “If I just take the steepest rise in the recent temperature record, and the CO2 rise in that period, pretend that’s all there is to it, then extrapolate from current temps and CO2 levels out to 2100, does that come out any higher?”

    It’s spot on, isn’t it? Makes you wonder about the assumptions behind those 15 models.

  96. @Simon –
    The NOAA figures you cite are the ones that were revealed to have been doctored, through a FOIA inquiry. They’re completely false, “adjusted” upward bu up to 3 C, and/or taken from urban heat islands.

  97. NASA died with Columbia and Challenger. When I became aware of the global warming controversy about 1998; my first reaction was to look at the temperature history of the Holocene. A trend line of Holocene temperatures is negative; end of argument! The Milancovich orbital parameters indicate an end to this interglacial is close. The current and next Solar cycles are of more concern than a few parts per million of CO2 added to the atmosphere in terms of the Earths ambient temperature. Regards

  98. So are these modelers dodging accountability by calling themselves ‘NASA Scientists’? It would be really useful to have names so that they can be identified when the models are shown to be wrong. This is bound to happen as not one single GCM has _ever_ been correct.

  99. @- bobbyv
    “can skeptics and warmists stop arguing and start betting? that way we can see if they truly think the science is settled.
    i would love to wager on this one. any takers?”

    You used to be able to bet on intrade over future climate but I think they shut down.
    There are other futures sites, search engines will help you find them.
    You can get incredibly good odds for a future cooling, well over ten to one…. Because only a very few have faith in cooling, all the smart informed money is on warming.

  100. What NASA needs to do is show us a model that works and accurately predicts today’s climate using data available up to 1913. If they can do that I’ll convert to climate hysteria advocacy within the hour.

  101. Um, I’m not sure I’d trust NASA with anything, under the current management which is obviously devoid of rational judgement.

  102. Other_Andy says: July 29, 2013 at 12:25 am
    That’s 0.051 C per year. Too small to measure. We have to wait 10 – 30 years to be able to validate the model. Clever….

    But that would be a very good time period if we asked them to bet their pensions on the success of their projections.

  103. rk says:
    July 29, 2013 at 1:15 am
    William Astley says:
    July 29, 2013 at 12:37 am
    I wish the petitioners well, but I don’t think they’ll get far. Here’s Scalia’s opinion
    It is really not up to the Court to decide on such matters
    William:
    You miss the two points I was trying to make.

    Point 1: The silly presentation produced by NASA is obviously propaganda it does not address the scientific issues, it hides the scientific issues. Obvious propaganda issued by NASA does not make sense. NASA is a scientific agency, not a propaganda group like Green Peace or 350org. Why would a scientific agency issue propaganda? It is asserted there is a cabal at NASA that is trying to push, trying to justify the green scam agenda. The NASA is ignoring the science/observations/analysis that disproves the extreme AGW hypothesis and are ignoring what is currently happening to the sun which is ironical, surreal, as we will see unfold.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal

    There is an economic reason why the Supreme Court petition was filed and there are scientific issues raised in the petition. Raising the cost of electricity and transportation fuel will negatively impact the US. There is only some much money to spend on all government departments including NASA. NASA is already facing budget cuts. Changes that will make the US less competitive will negatively impact all US citizens particularly government employees. This is lose-lose for NASA employees and US citizens. NASA propaganda is part of the problem why the Obama administration is trying to force States to spend money on green scams. i.e. NASA does not provide independent scientific analysis to assist in making policy decisions.

    Point 2: The planet and the US are going to cool not warming. A silly graph produced by NASA does not affect what will happen next. The planet warms and cools due to physical reasons rather than propaganda. There is data and scientific issues raised in the Supreme Court petition and in EPA’s own analysis (see below) that supports the assertion that planet has warmed and cooled in the past cyclically and that the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C, all else being equal.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EF_SC_Cert_Amicus_153014_1_Final-1.pdf

    All else is not however equal. There is a significant solar magnetic cycle change underway. Each and every warm period in the current interglacial was followed by a cold period when the sun when into a Maunder like minimum.
    The sun is going into a Maunder like minimum.
    In the past, for some unexplained physical reason there was a delay of roughly one cycle (10 to 12 years) from the time that the solar magnetic cycle slowdown started and the cooling occurred. The delay is caused by a process … (no need to explain the mechanisms as to why there is delay in cooling until there is more cooling.)

    As there is now cooling observed in high latitude regions both pole it is evident by observation that the inhibiting mechanism is ending. Observational evidence

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    Based what has happened in the past, the cooling is in the same regions that experienced the warming, except due to the ice sheet see-saw there is additional sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere. The most amount of cooling on the planet will be on the Greenland Ice sheet due to the mechanisms. Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

    http://www.climate4you.com/

    At the above site, the following graph, a comparison of the past solar cycles 21, 22, and 23 to the new cycle 24 is provided. That graph is update every six months or so.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf

    The following is a technical brief written by the EPA’s own expert that questions the AGW science and the scientific independence of the IPCC.
    “Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”
    Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
    I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful independent review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors. Restricting the source of inputs into the process to these these two sources may make EPA’s current task easier but it may come with enormous costs later if they should result in policies that may not be scientifically supportable. The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view: (See attached for details.)
    1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics (see Section 2.9 for a detailed discussion).
    2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen (see Section 1.7).
    3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis 2009 v
    4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO (Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.
    5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability (Section 2.5), which if important would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the importance of GHGs/CO2.
    6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand (Section 2.4). This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way (see Section 2.4).
    7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO2. In fact, the Draft TSD refers almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than satellite data.

    “2.9 The Missing Heating in the Tropical Troposphere
    Computer models based on the theory of GHG/CO2 warming predict that the troposphere in the tropics should warm faster than the surface in response to increasing CO2 concentrations, because that is where the CO2 greenhouse effect operates. Sun-Cosmic ray warming will warm the troposphere more uniformly.
    The UN’s IPCC AR4 report includes a set of plots of computer model predicted rate of temperature change from the surface to 30 km altitude and over all latitudes for 5 types of climate forcings as shown below.
    The Hadley Centre’s real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations shown below, however, does not show the projected CO2 induced global warming hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that most of the global temperature change cannot be attributed to increasing CO2 concentrations.”

  104. @ strike says:
    July 29, 2013 at 2:04 am

    You had the genesis of an brilliant idea. So I will flesh it out for you. NASA should resurrect Zager & Evans to rework the lyrics of the song “In the Year 2525″ into a CAGW theme, and produce a third “music” video visualizing all the absolute horrors of catastrophic climate change: crazy ass wildfires, floods, people running around with their hair literally on fire, soaring heat waves, sharknadoes, war with Canada (cuz all us crazies in the USA will be clambering to cross the border into their cooler climes). Each rising dramatic key change of the song, the horrors getting worse. Daryl Hannah and James Hansen can produce it.

  105. So fortune telling is science.
    Why not use all this predictive power for something useful like the stock market or horse races?

  106. @mogamboguru 4:10 am
    the credibility of NASA is by-and-large still intact

    Like JackT and Kev-in-UK, I think NASA’s credibility is in tatters.

    “This is the same organization that put a Man On The Moon.”
    No it is not. It is the same organization that LOST the ability to put a Man into Orbit.

    (Love that line, JackT) NASA has become NADA
    Fit for a Josh cartoon.

  107. NASA this, NASA that…who speaks for NASA?

    Is this a consensus view among all NASA and NOAA scientists?

  108. Is the NASA still doing any spacey stuff and if yes can we please move that to another agency so we can defund the rest that just seems to be a shell corporation for numeric silliness?

  109. for those of you attempting to determine climate sensitivity analysis from this work. You all seem to be assuming that the 1’F increase at the beginning is an equilibrium temperature. It isn’t. The models they use already have an additional 3’F locked in due to previous rises to 400ppm. In addition, the 8’F indicated in 2100 is also not an equilibrium value with expectation for overshoot by an additional 4-6’F over the next 50 years (2150).

    for a final equilibrium temperature rise of about 14’F from the 1970-1999 average or 16-18’F from the pre-industrial average by 2150.

    p.s. Alaska wildfires are already worse than they’ve been in 10,000 years.

    http://www.rtcc.org/2013/07/29/alaska-forest-fires-worst-for-10000-years/

  110. NASA scientists have created a video showing predicted dramatic heating of the continental US between now and the year 2100…..

    …and what does this have to do with their Muslim outreach directive?

  111. Once again the real tragedy here is watching the once great NASA crush what little is left of its credibility.
    Is there no-one out there who can save them from themselves?

  112. They chose their calibration period to maximize omitted variable fraud. 1970-1999 offers very close to the maximum correlation between high solar activity, increasing Co2 levels, and rising temperatures (maybe just a tick behind 1975-2004). Then they omit the solar-magnetic variable from their analysis so that the well documented explanatory power of this variable will get misattributed to any correlated variables that are included in their models. That is the coincidentally correlated Co2.

    The end of the 20th century’s 80 year high of solar activity provides a natural experiment for distinguishing the Co2 theory of late 20th century warming from the solar theory. So far the returns on that experiment strongly favor the solar explanation but NASA has carefully fashioned its new study to exclude that new information.

  113. We don’t have a pro growth economy (globally or in the US). Furthermore per capita energy use is falling. Seems they used a mid 20th century world view in this projection.

  114. jai mitchell says global temperatures will rise by 4º – 6º over only 50 years. [Just like Harold Camping predicted the end of the world on 5/21/2011 — same, same.]

    Jai mitchell doesn’t say whether his Harold Camping-type prediction is in ºC or ºF [he can't even figure out how to use a degree symbol]. But never fear, the planet is going to sizzle! By 4º – 6º! In only 5 decades! Pay no attention to the fact that the real world is heading in the opposite direction; like Tinkerbelle, you only need to BELIEVE

  115. jai mitchell says:
    July 29, 2013 at 10:28 am

    Where in the spewing link you posted does it actually say that Alaskan fires are the worst in the past 10,000 years? Show the actual data that would support this baseless contention.

    State & local fire managers & the USFS tend to say the current season is one of the worst. But this year is if anything better than usual. In June, the US & CA said this season could be the worst in 100 years, but so far, not so much. Show me the numbers.

    As for AK:

    Firefighters helped by rain, cool weather in Alaska wildfire fight

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-usa-wildfire-alaska-idUSBRE96813P20130709

  116. As nearly as I can tell from the video, the projected warming in northern Canada is about 15 F by 2084. That’s about 2.0 degrees F per decade! Try plotting this up vs. a projection of actual temp. since 1980 or so and it’s absolutely absurd! The NASA curve goes almost straight up at that scale!

  117. Who says that they put a man on the moon?
    They made a slowed up video in a studio.
    Now they are speeding up the temperature gradient which is flat, before people lose interest and fail to panic.

  118. NASA’s soundtrack for this video was laughable.

    Kind of a cross between the soundtrack for PLAN 9 FROM Outer Space and Ravel’s Bolero..

    Or was it Plan “8C” From Outer Space….

    Come to think of it, both videos have a lot in common: they’re supposed to be scary, but you laugh your ass off, the special effects are fake and contrived, the narratives are so bad, they’re hilarious, the mythical monsters can’t be killed, the editing is awful and the storylines are absurd, which just adds to their charm.

  119. I don’t see any noticeable pauses in warming in the video. The increases are fairly even and steady from 2015 on. So how do they explain the current 15-year pause in warming? If such a long pause could happen once, why do they assume it won’t happen again between now and 2100? Their models are nonsense, and they know it. That’s why they started the video at 2015 instead of 2000. If they showed the past 15 years in their simulation, it would be laughably wrong. It’s always safer to predict the future. Should you happen to be right, you can boast about it later. But If you’re wrong, just ignore it and hope no one remembers, or drag out your new and improved prediction and talk about how much “the science” has improved since your last prediction. Either way, the grant money keeps rolling in.

  120. Eric says:
    July 29, 2013 at 8:53 am
    Allison Leidner, Post Doctoral Researcher

    “In addition to the biological aspects of conservation, she is interested in the intersection of science and policy, and promoting communication between scientists, policy-makers, and the general public. Allison left the lab to accept a prestigious AAAS postdoctoral fellowship where she is working with NASA on climate change issues.”

    There is no intersection of science and policy. Policy always involves value judgments that involve ethics, economics, aesthetics or some other discipline that goes beyond scientific method.

    By the way, the word ‘between’ does not take more than three terms: “Y is between X and Z.” If you want four or more terms, use the word ‘among’.

  121. @ jai mitchell says:

    “Alaska wildfires are already worse than they’ve been in 10,000 years..”

    from your aticale:
    “in centuries past, the area was colonised by more fire-resistant species”

    You post fear when there is nothing to be afraid of. Why?

  122. At the Eocene Oligocene boundary CO2 was in the range of 1250 ppm and declined to approximately 750 ppm as Antarctica started its glaciation, and within a short period of time geologically speaking it recovered to approximate 1100 ppm even while glaciation was occurring in the Southern Hemisphere. The Eocene was a very warm time with aligators being very far north, approximately 4 to 8 degrees C above the present. We did not have runaway warming, instead we started the our glacial cycles. Geology says “the present is the key to the past”, but the past can also be the key to our future. The wild claims for CO2 is not supported by the Geologic evidence. Also CO2 levels in the past interglacials from Ice Core data me be understated substantially due to diffusion from high concentration layers to low concentrations thus making that data pessimistic on the past concentration of CO2

  123. If co2 will produce greater plant growth all over the globe reducing solar gain while at the same time producing greater amounts of Oxygen must work out some kind of balance. I wonder what the model figured.

  124. Theo Goodwin says:
    July 29, 2013 at 11:39 am

    All that hard work on a PhD to become a professional press release reader communicator.

  125. When will NASA be releasing their sensitivity study which showed that their result was unaffected by choice of calibration period?

  126. Chris y: “NASA= Not About Science Anymore”
    +1

    The remaining guys who worked on Apollo must cry themselves to sleep each and every night.

  127. Kev-in-Uk July 29, 2013 at 5:51 am says:

    “I think NASA’s credibility is at the same level of the UK’s Met Office – i.e. non-existent !”

    That is not NASA as a whole but Hansen’s work as the director off GISS. There is something fishy about the way he got there. In the seventies he was an astronomer with the Pioneer Venus project, even had an experiment going there aboard the spacecraft. A great job for most people but then, suddenly, he quit it, let someone else follow up on his experiment, and transferred to GISS in 1978. His reason for transferring? “The atmosphere of our home planet was changing in front of our eyes!” In two years he was boss at GISS and reorganized it as a total climate science organization. NASA share of the federal climate research funds was 500 million dollars, most of which Hansen undoubtedly controlled. And, by the way, despite having been an astronomer on the Venus project he is ignorant of the geology of Venus. He kept telling us that the Venusian atmosphere was the result of a runaway greenhouse effect and that this could happen to us too if we didn’t stop burning fossil fuels. It so happens that Venus, unlike the earth, lacks plate tectonics. Radioactive heat on earth is constantly vented by plate boundary volcanism while on Venus it just accumulates under the crust. Mid-plate volcanoes develop but eventually the crust is so weakened that it breaks up into large slabs that sink into the interior. As a result, Venus is periodically repaved with newly-formed crust. Judging by impact crater counts one such re-pavement cycle on Venus may take from 300 to 600 million years. If Venus is the same age as the earth it may have experienced as many as ten such re-pavement cycles in its history. Its atmosphere is entirely a product of these giant eructations and has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

  128. These idiots are unable to issue an accurate weather forecast beyond the next 7 days, but they boast to declare that we will undergo an 8°C rise of the average temperatures within 80 years

  129. Interesting the switch from Celsius to Fahrenheit. It was a clear failure of marketing to wait so long.

  130. I could not see the graph – if it started in 2000 did it have the correct tempreture for 2013? if not what the hell are we waisting our time for!
    Maybe they ran the model on the wrong computer? or was it the wrong model on the right computer?? or was it the wrong model on the wrong computer.

  131. A wise man would buy up land in the James Bay Lowlands. A wiser man would sell it to him.

  132. Huh. Did they forget that the contribution of CO2 is supposed
    to be logarithmic? Assume that all the warming that has taken place
    from 280 ppm CO2 to 400 ppm CO2 is caused by the magic gas. Okay,
    that’s 0.8 degrees C for 120 ppm. Logarithmic increase gives 2.35 degrees
    C. at 800 ppm, or 4.23 degrees Fahrenheit.

    Okay, so then you get into the feedback assumptions of more water vapor.
    Only hitch is, the atmospheric relative humidity seems to be decreasing,
    not increasing–so the net effect of water vapor feedback is not strongly
    positive.

    Somebody must have asked a bunch of high school students to do this
    calculation, perhaps?

  133. LOL, have no fear, dear Truth in Science Allies.

    While the average Joe and Maria will not likely recognize the blatant scientific mistakes, the National Advertising for Socialist Acquisitions group BLEW IT by their over-the-top graphics and music.

    Maria: Hey, Joe, look at this video by NASA my sister forwarded.

    [video begins.... music......watching...... watching........ Joe and Maria look at each other ..... LOUD LAUGHTER]

    Joe: [sarcasm ON] Ooooh, yeah, that’s really scientific. I’m sure that “NASA” put a lot of effort into that one. [sarcasm OFF] Your sister is so full of it. I’ll bet that’s Eddie’s 8th grade science project.

    Maria: [shaking head, chuckling] I’ll bet you’re right. That DID sound like him playing with the synthesizer. Remember how spooky he made “Silent Night” sound last Christmas? Actually, that’s pretty good for a 14-year-old.

    Joe: Meh, not bad, but, it’s waaaay too over the top. How could anyone watching it take it seriously? It’s just like one of those Hollywood disaster movies, you know, like …. uh…

    Maria: “The Day After Tomorrow?”

    Joe: Yeah, that one. His teacher probably just laughed.

    **********************

    (as many above have already noted)
    Just like that recent book about how “it’s all over,” it overstates the case.

    RESULT: Either,
    1) Oh, yeah, right, lol. OR

    2) Shrug. Well, then, too late to do anything about it. Guess I’ll go ahead and buy that jet ski and have some fun while I can.

  134. Wait a m….doesn’t the scientific community work in degrees celcius? Oh sorry, forgot no science involved. Another ‘computer model says…’ followed by alarmist press release to scare the population on the back of a heatwave and to appease the almighty overseer in the White House with his hands on his purse for his personal projects. NASA is like a monkey dancing for scraps and with nothing to do with it when it gets fed.

  135. Meanwhile, July 2013 looks to be a cold month for Planet Earth and for the US. Globally, its down 0.16C from June and the coldest month since February 2012. US is at, -0.4C

  136. NASA calibrated the models to the political climate in Washington, the masters they serve, so they could receive more money stolen from taxpayers. This a rational, self-serving decision.

  137. From the DMI data it appears 2013 will be a record cold year above 80°. So, when is all that warming supposed to start?

  138. N.A.S.A. is suffering from C.A.T.S

    (Cranial Anal Thrust Syndrome) This syndrome has the effect of blinding one from seeing the real world and usually requires a size 11 boot to dislodge the problem..

    They are clearly no longer doing science. They are doing pseudoscience to please their master Obama and his power hungry ideology.

    This syndrome will take many boots to dislodge. Today is a day which can only be dealt with by using sarcasm in order to keep my sanity..

  139. Mark says:
    July 29, 2013 at 6:39 pm

    NASA calibrated the models to the political climate in Washington, the masters they serve, so they could receive more money stolen from taxpayers. This a rational, self-serving decision.
    ========================================================================
    NASA has always been a political tool. Its success in the 60’s was purely as a propaganda tool against the Soviets to prove the superiority of the West. Since then it’s been a jobs program that does a little science on the side. The mere fact that NASA can’t even deliver a human to LEO for at least another 5 years tells you everything you need to know about the agency.

    But I’m sure they could model sending someone to orbit if they could just get a little more money…

  140. “The visualizations, which combine the results from 15 global climate models,”

    They didn’t happen to actually include them and show that they have all FAILED? Did they?

    These guys must think they are rocket scientists…

  141. Maybe Hathaway should be called into NASA meetings about global temperature model predictions and scenarios?

  142. Its budget time! Proposals are out to cut Goddard’s budget. They are prohibited by law to lobby for their jobs. This is supposed to be educational so it’s OK.

  143. LOL, you folks above are SO FUNNY!! #[:)]

    @ Sean — Answer: For too long, apparently.

    Dear Tsk, Tsk,

    I beg to differ. “Progaganda” is a gross mis-characterization of our fine space program in the 1950’s-1980’s or so. Kruschev’s promise to “bury you” could easily have come true if we had not had a vigorous program to control middle space. Sure, we didn’t have to go all the way to the moon, but I am one American who is SO GLAD WE DID. That’s pure science: JUST BECAUSE WE CAN. Science doesn’t have to be practical to be justified. We learned and have accomplished much because of that program. Far more than just how to put boots on the moon. And it was worth every penny.

    Now, with Dope and the Chicago Thugs giving up middle space, we are on a mission to failure. VOTE THE DEM’S OUT!!!

    Your ally in the battle for Science Truth (even if we differ on classic NASA),

    Janice

  144. “The interesting part is that they chose the years 1970 to 1999 to calibrate the models.”
    +++++++++++
    Talk about cherry picking. This is all I needed to read before I cringed, realizing that this is all that’s needed to get ignorant folk to feel great fear and that we must do something!

  145. CodeTech says:
    July 29, 2013 at 6:42 am
    Just out of curiosity, what kind of stupid does it take to believe that CO2 will ever reach 800ppm? I
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    What’s the difference between genius and stupidity? Genius has limits.

  146. jai mitchell says:
    July 29, 2013 at 10:28 am

    Good grief, Jai, do you actually read your references. Here is the same fellow you referenced on Alaska burning talking about how climate and temperatures are multi-variate and difficult to predict – based on studying midges in sediments in Alaska:

    http://phys.org/news/2011-11-ancient-midges-clues-climate-variability.html

    Amazing how many experts on the far north come from southern climes like Illinois. Don’t suppose there is any connection to Chicago financing?

    From that Alaskan temperature study:
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    “The drivers of climate change during the early Holocene “were different than the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming today,” Clegg said. “So we should not expect to see exactly the same spatial patterns of temperature anomalies in the next few decades as during the early Holocene.”

    The researchers hypothesize that solar warming during the early Holocene spurred atmospheric circulation patterns that contributed to extensive sea-ice off the Alaskan coast. That, and a treeless tundra over more of the land area than at present would have increased surface reflectivity, potentially contributing to the observed cooling, Clegg said.”

    “This study has important ecological and societal implications,” Hu said. “Nonlinear responses such as those identified here constitute a major source of potential climate ‘surprises’ that make it more difficult to anticipate and prepare for future regional climate scenarios.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Wonder what grant changed his mind?

    HMMM – icy ocean and TREELESS tundra. No wonder there are more trees burning now. 😉

    /sarc off

    http://www.gi.alaska.edu/AlaskaScienceForum/article/climate-change-and-people-mesa

    And from NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10k.html#

  147. CodeTech says:
    July 29, 2013 at 6:42 am
    Just out of curiosity, what kind of stupid does it take to believe that CO2 will ever reach 800ppm? I
    ————————————————————————————————————————-

    Quite so. Typical of these so called climatologists to make statements on which they base their arguments which are seldom challenged even though they are transparently wrong.

    Thus unless you accept Callender’s outright fudging of 19th century CO2 levels and so forth there is no reason to believe that CO2 levels during the Holocene have fallen much outside the limits of 300 to 400 ppm. It is an article of faith that fossil fuel burning will drive these further up: how absurd.

    Kindest Regards

  148. izen says:
    July 29, 2013 at 9:16 am
    @- bobbyv
    “can skeptics and warmists stop arguing and start betting? that way we can see if they truly think the science is settled.
    i would love to wager on this one. any takers?”
    +++++++++++++
    Izen: I’ll do you one better. We already have history so don’t go moving the goal posts yet further into the future Izen. I already bet back in 2008 that the climate models would predict future temperatures that would all fall too high based on REALITY, after 2010. I am now correct, and won the bet with someone else who failed to understand that the only CO2 driven global warming was in the models.

    The models have already failed. They only seemed to work during the 30 year period of 0.5C warming that ended in 1998. The problem is that the models all (like you) assume that CO2 was the driver. CO2 has since continued its slog upwards since last century, but the REAL climate doesn’t follow the meme of CAGW.

    There, you already lost the bet. On this post, every time you write other people’s thoughts down, you will show that you’re owned by the cult of non science professionals.

  149. Models again. Sorry, I haven’t read all the hundreds of posts, but I think it’s important to cite this article: http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/a-climate-of-belief/ , Patrick Frank, A Climate of Belief. Published some time ago by Skeptic magazine and website, also via eSkeptic, to which I subscribe. Frankly (excuse the unintentional pun) Skeptic has become unskeptical completetely, because Michael Shermer had a road-to-Damascus type conversion to AGWT. Still, my respects, because he hasn’t censored or deleted this article from the site. But it blows apart any pretension to predict the future via computer models. Read it, download it, this article should be one of our main arms in combatting (sorry for the spelling, I’m British) the pseudo-science in climate modelling.

  150. izen says:
    July 29, 2013 at 9:16 am

    @- bobbyv
    “can skeptics and warmists stop arguing and start betting? that way we can see if they truly think the science is settled.
    i would love to wager on this one. any takers?”

    You used to be able to bet on intrade over future climate but I think they shut down.
    There are other futures sites, search engines will help you find them.
    You can get incredibly good odds for a future cooling, well over ten to one…. Because only a very few have faith in cooling, all the smart informed money is on warming.

    Do you have names or links or other clues?

    I’m hoping the laws in the US liberalize enough to allow online betting on future events. (DARPA thought that would be a good idea.) Too few people in the US were willing to mail checks to Intrade and wait for them to clear.

    • rogerknights says:
      July 30, 2013 at 2:42 am
      Other dead certs worth mentioning are the South Sea Bubble, the Tulip market, the .com boom and the mortgage securitizing market. Smart, informed money on dead certs is the main reason you’ll never meet a broke bookie.

  151. dp says: July 29, 2013 at 9:30 am
    What NASA needs to do is show us a model that works and accurately predicts today’s climate using data available up to 1913. If they can do that I’ll convert to climate hysteria advocacy within the hour.
    ======
    Great idea! They can even us the measured CO2 level for the past 100 years as well. How hard can it be?

  152. During the mid 1990’s I predicted the climate would follow it’s usual 60 year cycle and the globe would cool/stop warming with changes in ocean SST’s. The PDO, AMO, AO, NAO indices just being part of it. The planet always warms and cools over 60 year periods and CO2 has not done anything to change this cycle.

    The NASA prediction of 8C is alarming and dreadful science based on a cherry picked period that they can’t even explained why this behaviour occurred and what is happening now. If we don’t get a 1c rise over the next decade this is falsified already. Thanks NASA for becoming a laughing stock that the Hadley centre would be proud of.

  153. This forecast falls in the same category of blatant stupidity as ignoring the warnings from engineer Allan J. McDonald about the leaky O-rings that triggered the Space Shuttle CHALLENGER disaster.

    It’s going to blow up in their face too.

  154. William Astley says:
    July 29, 2013 at 9:33 am
    There is a significant solar magnetic cycle change underway. Each and every warm period in the current interglacial was followed by a cold period when the sun when into a Maunder like minimum.
    The sun is going into a Maunder like minimum.
    In the past, for some unexplained physical reason there was a delay of roughly one cycle (10 to 12 years) from the time that the solar magnetic cycle slowdown started and the cooling occurred.

    At least one part of what has gone on appears to be an El Nino tending to be triggered soon after a solar minimum in the ~ 11 year cycle, making solar forcing change not appear in atmospheric temperature as much then as would otherwise be the case. A prolonged Grand Minimum would after a bit overcome delaying effects, as you imply. Interestingly, though, solar/cosmic-ray modulation over recent decades is much more blatant in sea level rise rate variation and, at a particular altitude, humidity patterns as illustrated in the following:

    (Enlarges on further click).

    “The delay is caused by a process … (no need to explain the mechanisms as to why there is delay in cooling until there is more cooling.)”

    I would be curious what else you have observed, but I can understand not wanting to do all of the work on publishing it yet.

    Since nobody else has done so AFAIK, though unfinished yet from lack of time, I once started attempting to reconstruct temperature history by creating a spreadsheet model using actual low climate sensitivity (as opposed to a false high value in CAGW publications), accounting for the effect of cosmic ray variation (as opposed to models which ignore such), and without aerosol input adjusted as a fudging factor. Incomplete investigation seems to be approaching finding an ENSO-related sawtooth waveform as major in addition to the external solar/GCR forcings, though with the former influenced by the latter.

    ———————-

    As for the 8 degrees warming by 2100 absurdity mentioned in this article, even though they followed the first rule of untrue alarmism by setting the timeframe (2100 A.D.) to be after their working lifetimes, even a decade from now will make such extra ludicrous with nothing like around 1 degree per decade rise. That they made such an extreme claim is helpful in a way: Sometimes I wish the CAGW movement was less cunning and made claims like 20 degrees rise in a decade, so critical thought and skepticism would be fostered more.

  155. Why did they end the calibration period at 1999?

    Because after about then (or 1998) global temperatures (and probably U.S. too though I’d have to look up data) have been declining, which would be inconvenient for them. And naturally they started the period in 1970 since there was cooling before then, as seen within http://s18.postimg.org/l3973i6hk/moreadded.jpg

Comments are closed.