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.
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!
@- 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.
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
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.
What is so discouraging is that the ignorant public will believe this prediction because the Administration and the complicit media will promote it.
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.
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?
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! 🙂
Interesting. The drought in the US looked worse at 550 ppm than at 800 ppm.
I liked the creepy music.
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.
Wow – My tax dollars paid for that incredible load of tripe? Does that anger anyone else???
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/figure-113.png
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!
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
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.
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!)
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.
Looks like they turned the model geeks loose to play unsupervised.
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.
mkelly -go easy on izen.
he finds the kids websites challenging to say the least.
@- 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!
Like the 97%, SOME of our children or grandchildren will see days warmer than average by 8°F in 2100, somewhere.