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.
So fortune telling is science.
Why not use all this predictive power for something useful like the stock market or horse races?
@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.
NASA this, NASA that…who speaks for NASA?
Is this a consensus view among all NASA and NOAA scientists?
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?
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.
http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg
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/
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
neverfear, 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 ☺jai Mitchell
What is your prediction of sea level rise within that 50 year window and also where do you expect it to be by 2100?
tonyb
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
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!
DB Stealey
I see Jai’s latest alarmist scares about Alaska come straight from that well known arbiter of climate common sense ‘The Guardian’. in Britain.
http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/
This is the organ that provides our friend Dana with the space to proclaim his 97% consensus and other tales.
tonyb
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.
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.
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.
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’.
@ur momisugly 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?
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
@izen – thanks. fyi i just read intrade has shut down after losing US customers.
what a blessing for climate modelers.
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.
Theo Goodwin says:
July 29, 2013 at 11:39 am
All that hard work on a PhD to become a professional press release
readercommunicator.When will NASA be releasing their sensitivity study which showed that their result was unaffected by choice of calibration period?
Chris y: “NASA= Not About Science Anymore”
+1
The remaining guys who worked on Apollo must cry themselves to sleep each and every night.