NASA releases dataset of global climate change predictions up to 2100

Posted: June 12, 2015 by oldbrew in climate, Forecasting, predictions, Uncertainty
Tags:

NASA 'global warming satellite' (their description)  [credit: NASA]

NASA ‘global warming satellite’ (their description)
[credit: NASA]


Two choices: whether to laugh or cry at the latest fortune-telling exercise from NASA’s warming-obsessed spin-doctors. Climate models are famed for their predictive inadequacy – incompetence even – so this looks exactly like an exercise in futility.

NASA has released a dataset setting out how rainfall and temperature patterns are likely to change in the coming decades, Gizmag reports. The data covers 21 climate models, mapping how our environment could change due to growing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.


The information for the dataset was compiled as part of the NASA Earth Exchange (NEX) – a collaborative analytical platform that harnesses the power of state-of-the-art supercomputing, combining it with NASA remote-sensing data to provide scientists with direct access to huge pools of data. Essentially, the idea is to help scientists better understand and make contingency plans for the multiple risks presented by changes to the climate, from drought and floods, to heat waves and agricultural issues.

The dataset itself is available to the public, allowing users to view the potential environmental changes on a daily timescale and in great detail – from globally down to individual towns and cities. The climate projections provide a view of future precipitation and temperature patterns at a 25 km (15.5 mile) resolution, spanning the years 1950 to 2100.

To build the tool, NASA combined real world historical measurements with climate simulation data from the international Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project – a global, collaborative effort to study and better understand our changing climate. The predictive models range from “business as usual” scenarios up to worst-case conditions with hugely elevated greenhouse gas emissions.

The agency believes that the dataset will provide scientists and planners with a much better understanding of the risks facing our fragile world.

“NASA is in the business of taking what we’ve learned about our planet from space and creating new products that help us all safeguard our future,” said NASA scientist Ellen Stofan. “With this new global dataset, people around the world have a valuable new tool to use in planning how to cope with a warming planet.”

Full report: NASA releases dataset of global climate change predictions up to 2100.

Comments
  1. johnbuk says:

    Does this rely on Mann et al stripping and standing on the top of the Empire State Building? If so then I give up and accept their forecasts without going through that.

  2. tomo says:

    eesh…

    just what have NASA to say about the MIA data from the OCO-2 mission? There should be around 20 whole earth images from the satellite available as simple gridded data.

    Either a catastrophic instrument failure or ahem… catastrophic evidence looks to have provoked a loooong silence and a few low res PR GIFs…. What’s going on there eh?

  3. Joe Public says:

    50% certainty – it’ll be warmer; 50% certainty – it’ll be cooler.

    100% certainty – it’s already cost US taxpayers $millions.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Someone is on the case of NASA’s would-be climate fortune-tellers.

    ‘The U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology voted Thursday to slash $300 million from NASA’s funding dedicated to Earth Science, the division that researches Earth’s natural systems and processes including climate change, severe weather and glaciers.’
    http://www.hngn.com/articles/89330/20150502/nasa-budget-cut-2016-house-cuts-300-million-space-agency.htm

    OCO-2 satellite data not as expected…by climate modellers.

    ‘Surprise! Orbiting Carbon Observatory Shows Models Have Little Resemblance To Reality’
    http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/11/surprise-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-models-have-little-resemblance-to-reality

  5. DD More says:

    Time to put my instant response to any modeled study utilizing climate models as data points.

    Richard Betts, who heads the Climate Impacts area of the UK Met Office, claims his areas of expertise as a climate modeler and was one of the lead authors of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (WG2). Says –

    “Everyone (Apart from a few who think that observations of a decade or three of small forcing can be extrapolated to indicate the response to long-term larger forcing with confidence) agrees that we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. We don’t know. The old-style energy balance models got us this far. We can’t be certain of large changes in future, but can’t rule them out either.”

    So, NASA your (XXX) “Earth Exchange” study is based on “We Don’t Know.”

  6. RickA says:

    This is actually a model of a model. They have an algorithm which adjusts the model output to match the difference between real world observation and model output. So if the model is 14C and the real world is 15C they pull the model output up 1C. No word on what happens in the opposite situation (i.e. model output running warmer than observation – funny they didn’t use that as an example).

  7. tomo says:

    oldbrew

    I’d seen Pierre Gosselin’s post – I’ve also looked at the data available from OCO-2 – and there is NO reason – as in no proffered technical reason that the entire accumulated dataset could not be gridded into big image files (in fact – if you can work out how to invoke it the delivery of CO2 earth imagery would be “automagic”)

    This is full frontal obstruction – and it stinks to the heavens…..

  8. tomo says:

    I’d add except that they’ve password-ed the dataset talk about officious mendacity and so on…..

  9. tom0mason says:

    So this will be the Paris meeting’s trump card, eh?

    Again all based on modeling and adjusted mean homogenized averages temperature sets. Nothing new there then. I know of two local fortune tellers with considerably better skill at predicting weather events over the last 10 years than any computer modeling ever achieved. I’m sure if I paid the money to Mystic Dave* for an assessment of the coming 85 years he would still be the more accurate.

    How much more public money to be throw down this rat-hole of malfeasance?

    *Not his real name!

  10. oldbrew says:

    This is the OCO-2 website, or one of them: http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCO-2

    If you go here: http://giovanni.gsfc.nasa.gov/giovanni/
    you can select CO2 but it only offers ‘tropopause pressure’ data which sounds pretty dull:/

    If they’re suppressing OCO-2 data that seems a bit sinister unless a reason is given, e.g. if they need to check its quality before going public, why not say so?

    Spotted this too, but not pursued any further:
    AIRS/Aqua Level 3, monthly, CO2 in the free troposphere (AIRS+AMSU)
    http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/AIRS/data-holdings/by-data-product-v5/AIRX3C2M

  11. catweazle666 says:

    “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled-nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2, page 774

  12. catweazle666 says:

    Oldbrew, is this what you are looking for?

  13. tomo says:

    catweasel666

    there should be around 20 of those and in 2km pixel format aiui. = not a single smeary GIF for erm how many million dollars?

    Explaining those red equatorial splotches and synching the data set to Muana Loa seems to be a step too far for NASA. In fact what you see in the single released image is going tax (and likely is awe wibble on here) inventive folk like Kevin E. Trenberth mightily…….

  14. tomo says:

    I’d add that only quantum physics on a macro scale is going to have any chance of explaining the divergence between even that GIF and the assorted models proffered by the usual suspects.

    They want OCO-2 to go away ….. more questions than answers will curdle those elaborately constructed canapes in Paris

  15. catweazle666 says:

    Here for comparison is the output from NASA’s computer game simulation of the global distribution.

    Something of a difference, IMO.

  16. tomo says:

    yup …. some explanation required … I bet they’re still on the horns of the fudge it away or honest but unpalatable “we dunno” – which given their antics recently seems unlikely.

    There’s SFA really , listed on their publications page and Google for me anyway isn’t showing any teams conducting analysis out in the open. Maybe they want to give domestic academics first bite – but it’s not easy to see who they might be. OCO-2 interim results are well overdue – the next you know somebody’s dog will have eaten the homework.

  17. tomo says: June 12, 2015 at 6:02 pm

    “eesh…just what have NASA to say about the MIA data from the OCO-2 mission? There should be around 20 whole earth images from the satellite available as simple gridded data.”

    This is the same coverup that we have from the Aqua scanning radiometer that supposedly failed. That instrument was indicating embarrassing high radiance and exit flux from the atmosphere far from normal to the surface (60 degrees) .Sorry no more data!!!

    “:Either a catastrophic instrument failure or ahem… catastrophic evidence looks to have provoked a loooong silence and a few low res PR GIFs…. What’s going on there eh?”

    Only congress has the means to investigate! But who will ever know?

  18. Richard111 says:

    Frankly, I have given up on all this temperature talk. It is a meaningless red herring.

    CO2 is a GAS !!! IN THE ATMOSPHERE !!! Heat transfer via conduction will ensure each and every CO2 molecule is at the local air temperature at what ever altitude.

    There is no way CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can absorb radiation from the surface over the 13 to 17 micron bands. If any of you out there believe it can please explain in detail.

    CO2 CAN absorb radiation from the SUN over the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands and warm the air somewhat but that energy NEVER reached the surface. A REDUCTION IN WARMING EFFECT!

    Explain to me how Maxell, Boltzmann and Wien and others got it all wrong.

  19. oldbrew says:

    catweazle: ‘Oldbrew, is this what you are looking for?’

    Pity they chopped off the higher and lower latitudes😐

    From what can be seen it looks like there are two bands of below-average concentration, one either side of the equator (ITCZ)? Or one on the equator and one further south.

    [Equator by thinkingfountain.org]

  20. ren says:

    Let us see blockade of the southern polar vortex.

    Blockade the polar vortex weakens and causes a decrease in ice in the south.

  21. ren says:

    Blockade the polar vortex weakens and causes a decrease in ice in the south.

    Visible growth of cosmic rays will increase anomaly.

  22. ren says:

    Click.

  23. Earthling says:

    Did someone get paid money to produce this [priceless] prediction?

  24. oldbrew says:

    Earthling: yes, US taxpayer money.

    ‘predictions up to 2100’ – so most of those taxpayers will never find out if the results were any use.

  25. sunsettommy says:

    I am sure NASA is proud of their untested modeling pseudoscience releases,where their crystal ball derived modeling guesses are already used for people to prepare for those feared events that have not happened for decades yet.

    I particularly thought this is a howler of overconfidence: “:“NASA is in the business of taking what we’ve learned about our planet from space and creating new products that help us all safeguard our future,” said NASA scientist Ellen Stofan. “With this new global dataset, people around the world have a valuable new tool to use in planning how to cope with a warming planet.”

    A “new global data set” they say, but it is only year 2015,where are the missing 85 years?

  26. hunter says:

    These predictions, like the failed predictions from 1988, should be carefully archived so our grandchildren can have a good laugh.

  27. oldbrew says:

    They can pile assumption on top of assumption all day long, but it’s still only a pile of assumptions.

  28. jdmcl says:

    This isn’t Climate Science, it’s Climate Sorcery.