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…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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!)
Go tell it to the Man in the Moon. Oh, hang on………………….
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!
What is that for the year 2525? 50 degrees of warming? If man is still alive:>))
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.
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.
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 🙂
There is good budget money in ‘global warming’.
Is funding time already upon us! Gosh how time flys!
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).
@- 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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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 !!!
Outreach for NASA used to mean…reaching out into space.
Now it means something else. 🙁
And since we are talking about warming..
Just where does that black line think its going ?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
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.
” 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?
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.
NASA seems to be even worse than the UK Met Office.
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.