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.
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.
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
Interesting the switch from Celsius to Fahrenheit. It was a clear failure of marketing to wait so long.
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.
A wise man would buy up land in the James Bay Lowlands. A wiser man would sell it to him.
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?
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.
Bottom line:
“NASA= Not About Science Anymore” [Chris Y 9:01AM, 7/29/13]
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.
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
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom_022012.png
How long has “smoking crack” been a job requirement for working at NASA?
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.
From the DMI data it appears 2013 will be a record cold year above 80°. So, when is all that warming supposed to start?
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..
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…
“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…
Maybe Hathaway should be called into NASA meetings about global temperature model predictions and scenarios?
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.
LOL, you folks above are SO FUNNY!! #[:)]
@ur momisugly 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
“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!
For Strike: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQB2-Kmiic
I am guessing you must be from my generation.
LOL
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.
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#
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
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.