This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Earth Science

New NASA Climate Models

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
September 27, 2013
Filed under

NASA Data Shows Potential 21st Century Temperature, Precipitation Changes [Watch], NASA
New data visualizations from the NASA Center for Climate Simulation and NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio at Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., show how climate models used in the new report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimate possible temperature and precipitation pattern changes throughout the 21st century.
Also released today: Climate report by international panel says warming ‘extremely likely’ man-made, Washington Post
Scientists can now say with extreme confidence that human activity is the dominant cause of the global warming observed since the 1950s, a new report by an international scientific group said Friday.
Calling man-made warming “extremely likely,” the (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used the strongest words yet on the issue as it adopted its assessment on the state of the climate system.

Key Science Points from the 2013 IPCC Report, NASA Earth Observatory Blog
Ranking Member Johnson’s Statement on the Release of the IPCC Climate Change Report
Lamar Smith (R-Texas) Statement on IPCC Climate Change Report

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

39 responses to “New NASA Climate Models”

  1. SpaceHoosier says:
    0
    0

    Nice to see they discounted the fact that global temperatures have not risen appreciably in the past 15 years. Now that’s an inconvenient truth…

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      If you have scientific evidence please provide it. If not, this is an assertion, not a fact. The facts are easy to find; and eight of the hottest ten years on record have ocurred in the past ten years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        No scientific evidence would be enough to argue the context of “global warming/ climate change” This situation is a stacked deck much like the Astronomers of the Catholic church claiming that the Earth was the center of the universe. The argument about global warming is not scientific in nature, it is a form of social religious doctrine. At this point I might as well be brought up on heresy charges for questioning the new global religion “Global Warming/Climate Change” at such point historically you would punish your dissenters by the following options, boiling them in oil, hanging, disembowelment, quartering, burning at the steak, all publicly of course, because you must make an example of those who don’t fall in line. Today’s more peaceful option is to shame scientists with competing views, and prevent them from publishing, or to publish twice as many opposing studies as to cause enough confusion in the public that the assertion that the Earth is warming becoming warmer due to people is the only plausible explanation. Of course this all works well until the King wants a different wife and decides to declare a new religion, then perhaps a Renaissance.

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      You might be surprised to learn there are actually more than one metric for global warming. In simple terms that means the atmosphere is not the only heat sink. I suggest you check what deep ocean temperatures have been doing (hint: they’re going up).

      AGW is not as simple as your argument suggests, nor are scientists gullible and blind as you suggest. The fact is that global warming theories and models are tested continually, by climate scientists, to find errors, to see where they fail. That’s standard operating procedure for the scientific method.

      Scientists are far ahead of you. You didn’t come up with something for which they haven’t already tested and hypothesized.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        The purpose of global warming research has little to do for looking out for humanity or the environment, simply put “global warming” or even the trendy “climate change” is justification for a new CARBON TAX initiative, which allows governments to charge additional fees to individuals not just corporations for their energy usage, this generates more money for socialized activities and larger government which of course doesn’t improve the public’s lives, just regulates them making the median wage drop. I’m all for research that produces break troughs in energy production, government should subsidize that along with eliminating disease, and increasing people’s life span and healthy productivity over their life span. If you look at the general consensus plan, it’s to limit the population, and decrease people’s ability to use energy and travel out side of their zone/region. The old Agenda 21 created by the UN which changed to 2030 and then something else uses the environment as a global excuse to force populations to move into high density, a move that historically has proven disastrous to human life. What specifically is disastrous is that in high density both epidemics and genocide can quickly decimate 70% or more of the population. If a dangerous group wanted to depopulate after centralizing the people to high-density cities for environmental reasons they would only need well placed hydrogen bombs to decrease the population, and of course blame that on the “enemy”, which is somewhat 1984, but the simple fact is that it’s much easier to rule a small population and maintain a very wealthy lifestyle, with little to no risk that the peasants will rise up. The larger the population the more likely it is to unburden itself from corrupt leadership. So now to citing sources, well first there is Karl Marx, then there is also rules for Radicals, then there’s the bread crumb trail from eugenics in the 20’s to planned parenthood. After that you can look at China’s 1 child policy, which has been evidently problematic since there are more boys than girls by a long shot, they are looking at a looming social problem.

        • PsiSquared says:
          0
          0

          Feel free to prove your statements instead of relying on your opinions or biases.

          You appear to not understand science or the scientists that well. They do the research to better understand the climate. What politicians do is entirely different.

          You are free to download raw climate data to attempt to disprove global warming theories, but you shouldn’t invest too much in your paranoid or conspiracy based notions about the motivations of science.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            I refuse to battle you on signifigant figures and measurement methods, Why would I want to pull data on sensors and collection methods I have no statistical evidence of location, tolerance of the devices used, and to the what degree error was accounted for in the collection of results. I’m sorry but lots of “Astronomer Scientists” built very functional mechanical models of planetary motion that proved conclusively that the Earth was the center of the Solar system.In a very similar way it’s quite possible to prove conclusively using statistics and measurements that Global warming is man made. Remember it was a small opposition that changed the norm when the planetary motion was finally accepted that the Earth was not the center of everything, and Mankind was not as central to everything as was once thought. Global warming & cooling happens regardless of man through methods still not completely understood. Yes I would agree ice is melting, but I will never agree that Man made it happen. While man might be able to make everything radioactively poisonous, he has not yet advanced enough to effect global climates in a permanent manner. You can cut all the trees down for a time but that lasts at best for 25 years, and it creates heat zones, it does not change rain patterns. You can create reservoirs in the dry areas of the Midwest and increase humidity levels and rainfall in that region, but that does not change global weather patterns which are predicated on Sun Ocean relationships, as well as cloud formation on the African continent. I played this game when I was a child, living in Oregon I did a research project where I collected the weather data from the airport to prove that it did not “Rain all the time” in Oregon. On average for the nation at that latitude it rained about the same, typically the rain fell over longer periods of time accumulating slower. It however did not rain all the time. Similarly I conclude that global warming is a result of many factors, the least of which is man kind who more than likely doesn’t even rate statistical consideration against volcanoes, algae and plankton blooms.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Science is not a religion, and shouldn’t be elevated to one. Science is Fallible, with uncertainties that in many instances cause whole theories to be overturned. Why is global warming and issue over human resource pollution, why carbon taxes and not clean water taxes. People are getting sick in larger numbers every year with Auto immune diseases, and the cause has yet to be determined, yet more money will be spent on Global warming research than on cures for Crones and Ulcerative colitis. It’s not promoted so it’s no big deal but wait till you or or neighbors get it, then it will be a big deal. Suddenly significant numbers of people are becoming allergic to gluten, I mean that’s more provable than human made global warming, yet it’s low priority. If humans means of digestion are compromised that’s far more dire than sea level rise and melting ice. Global warming is simply a distraction from things far worse and more dangerous to the entire population, it controls the conversation and the economy. If this situation evolves into a pandemic nobody will care because well that’s less people to make carbon right.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          What??

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Man made Global warming means the government can take more of your income because you harm the environment, long term the less people there are the less impact, after that people need to be out of “natural areas” or green spaces because they damage the environment.

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

          as a global excuse to force populations to move into high density, a move that historically has proven disastrous to human life. What specifically is disastrous is that in high density both epidemics and genocide can quickly decimate 70% or more of the population.

          I think our tech and infrastructure has improved to the point where we can easily do high density. Epidemic history doesn’t apply. And I would count that as a government success since much of the infrastructure needed is enabled through it. I’m not going to try and broaden my comment as much as yours and will end here.

  2. Rusty Rives says:
    0
    0

    Not to mention that the earth was in a cooling trend from the 50’s to the early 80’s.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      As you can see, this was actually a level spot in a continuous increaese
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wik
      Probably the most widely cited hypothesis for the level period is that for a time increasing levels of sulfate aerosols from fossil fuel combustion introduced a cooling effect that offset much of the positive forcing from GHGs during the “flat” part of the record (e.g., Hegerl et al., 2007). However the warming influences now dominate the system.

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      By focusing on that period and analyzing it incorrectly, you completely missed the overall trend.

      • Rusty Rives says:
        0
        0

        The irony of your statement… look at the graph titled “Temp. of Planet Earth” about halfway down this page:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wik

        and tell me that since man has not been around for most of that graph, that you can state CONCLUSIVELY that man is responsible for the earth’s temperature changing. Instead, climatologist focus on the last 150 years of data and their computer models and use that to push this as a crisis.

  3. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Reading the first two comments I can only conclude that you have the space launch system and capsule that you deserve.

    • mattmcc80 says:
      0
      0

      It does a disservice to SLS opponents to be so rabidly anti-SLS as to cast everybody who crosses your path and disagrees with you on any topic as being “pro-SLS”. The end result is that people who actually do support SLS can point to people who act like you and say “opponents of SLS are just being irrantional, slapping ‘idiot’ stickers on everyone who they don’t like for any reason.”

      If you actually wanted to make a difference for the better, you’d stick to civilized, fact-based arguments that support your position.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        Ok, the SLS is horribly expensive, decades behind schedule, and is not reusable. QED. Ditto worse Orion. This national problem is orders of magnitude worse than the SST or the SSC, but fortunately, easily solvable and orders of magnitude less deadly than global warming.

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      What has your off topic response got to do with AGW? It certainly does nothing to further rational discussion about AGW.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        There is not much to discuss, we need to get our industry and power infrastructure off the planet in a HUGE way and SLS and Orion are not that way anymore. In fact, they never were, even from the very start of it. The entire exploration paradigm is now completely obsolete. So yeah, I kinda think this is right on topic, unless you have another way to solve this very serious problem.

        • PsiSquared says:
          0
          0

          That has nothing to do with AGW. Feel free to look at what Germany is doing with solar and nuclear energy, and they don’t have nearly the sunny days available in the US. Problems need to be addressed now, long before there might be factories off world or energy resources tapped in space. Realism and practical solutions are required.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            I disagree – scientific, technological and engineering breakthroughs are required across the board from quantum physics to astrophysics.

            I happen to believe that high flight rate reusable heavy lift launch vehicles are real high on that list and I’m looking at the big picture from a rational perspective. This is far more serious than you imagine, and involves more than just warming.

  4. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    Does this new NASA climate model match the lack of much temperature increase of the past 15 or so years? Whether one side or the other is right, when these models don’t match reality it makes some of us doubt their validity.

    Anyone can make a model. It’s more difficult to make an accurate model. I’ve seen all of the claims of future climate changes based on various models but haven’t ever seen where they have been validated by actual measured data after they were created. Perhaps these checks haven’t been widely publicized but it makes one wonder.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      A recent Fox News story claiming a lack of recent tempwerature increase selects out-of-context quotes from a single report.
      Here’s the report they refer to, and I suggest reading the whole thing before commenting on what it says.
      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk

      Here is the very first sentence “A wide range of observed climate indicators continue to show changes that are consistent with a globally warming world, and our understanding of how the climate system works.” The report discusses the fact that mean land surface temperature has not risen as fast as before in the past 15 years. However there are many other indicators, including atmospheric and ocean temperatures, that continue to rise rapidly. The report discusses the sources of variation in a consistent warming trend.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        Why don’t you just shout it’s people! turn then shout turn them into soylent green! They make too much carbon breathing, death to the largest population of mammals that produce carbon…. meanwhile ignoring the massive clouds of carbon created by coniferous forests and the billions of pounds of oxygen generated by phytoplankton blooms in the Atlantic and pacific.

        • sittingduck says:
          0
          0

          >meanwhile ignoring the massive clouds of carbon created by phytoplankton blooms in the Atlantic and pacific.

          I suggest you read what exactly “photosynthesis” does and why what you’ve said couldn’t be further from the truth. 1/10 troll for making me reply.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Quite sorry I have the systems reversed, simply put the billions of pounds of oxygen and billions of pounds of carbon are used in the global system there is no glut of Carbon

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        Are you saying that the polar ice is nearly gone? I remember hearing these predictions years ago but has it happened?

        The report might discuss the fact that the temperature hasn’t risen as fast as before, but do they discus whether or not these climate models predicted this slow down?

  5. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Climate change pays for research don’t question money! It feeds families! A good scientist would be certain that it is contentiously unresolved and assure himself future funding, remember

    good scientists and ethical scientists are not required to be

    synonymous.

  6. The Tinfoil Tricorn says:
    0
    0

    call me a troll if you like, and I will call you a neanderthal, and a dimwit if you don’t understand Climate change science connected to carbon taxation is pure fraud. The whole debate cheapens the work of ethical scientists who do both meteorological and ice core studies to help determine what we can expect in variability of climate on earth. Somebody saw money and is running with it, now you sir are to troll.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      I do not suggest there is any single measure that will stabilize the climate, but a carbon tax is worth considering. Without some sort of economic or legal incentive the rate of anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 will itself increase, and CO2 solubility in the ocean will decline. WE actually have the potential to exceed OSHA limits in the atmosphere as a whole.

      In the case of CFCs industry had an incentive; the old CFCs wer out of patent and by supporting manufacturing restrictions industry was able to force a shift to HCFCs which were patented and boost profits. There isn’t such a simple solution for climate change, but the same principle applies.

      • The Tinfoil Tricorn says:
        0
        0

        Okay I agree about the potential chlorine caused damage to the ozone, however many water plants still bubble chlorine in the public water supplies in open outdoor bubbling tanks, I observed this personally in Ottawa Kansas in1996, to my knowledge chlorine is not controlled beyond it’s toxicity to humans in high concentrations, however CFC’s are the reason being is that during breakdown the CFC’s into constituent elements with exposure to UV, the Chlorine then breaks down the Ozone. Sadly while this is all good and well in terms of Chemistry and works in the lab, there are still uncertainties that exist regarding space weather, and the long period history of the Ozone layer, unfortunately nobody in 1700 could tell you if they were exposed to higher levels of UV radiation and of course satellites didn’t exist.
        Finally CFC’s have been argued to cause cooling, if that was the case eliminating them only added to the acceleration of carbon based warming, based on the climate change science being used.

        Don’t get me wrong I really hate pollution, deadly toxins in the air, or water, people should be slightly concerned about nano particle manufacture in some instances could be a serious health risk, but we’re talking about Climate Change in specific human caused climate change so I digress

        Under no condition is a carbon tax logical, the scientific consensus is that the earth is 4.5 Billion years old, climate change science is perhaps 113 years old. I don’t really feel like writing all the zeros to put the significant figures issues into context, the point is that there’s not even 2% of half of that 4.5 billion to calculate the trend. Nobody has measurements for the Earth’s climate, gas levels, or much else beyond what can be speculated from ice cores, and the ice cores don’t agree with man made climate change, they point to climate swings, rapid changes based on environmental factors that include space weather, and geological processes far beyond the influence of mankind.

        Finally it’s about the method of application and accountability of carbon taxation, there is no means to verify that collected funds from industry and individuals will be spent on Carbon mitigation or anything remotely related to research on the environment. If said tax went directly into a science initiative fund, did not at any point mix with government pools for unrelated socialized services, or other corrupt governmental practices, I might support it as a scientific research fund for space flight and Geo engineering towards the eventual terriforming of Venus and Mars. Now that’s a tax I would support! Plus that would put some money towards ending discussions about population control.

  7. Marc Boucher says:
    0
    0

    I would point out to those who rely or point to Wikipedia data that this is mistake. Wikipedia can be an unreliable source.

    • The Tinfoil Tricorn says:
      0
      0

      Wiki can be a horrible resource, some materials are pure fiction, however I will say when I was trying to author an entry about American Civil defense history it was quite difficult and I even found that I had issues even after finishing cited works getting final approval. If someone has the time and wants to spoof info they can but it’s not so easy. There is some info on Wiki that you would never find in an encyclopedia, which makes it (while hard to verify) in some instances a unique source.

  8. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    I happen to be intimately familiar with the geophysics of the events of which you speak, and so I happen to know that these rapid climate changes occurred because of positive feedbacks associated with geologically very slow orbital forcings without the benefit of a geologically instantaneous spiking of atmospheric carbon dioxide. We know what a carbon dioxide spike does, sir, We have seen them in the paleo record before, associated with super volcanoes and asteroid impacts. So this is very serious.

  9. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    That would be thousands of peer reviewed scientific publications and since I am familiar with your posting history I won’t waste my time on that. The geologically instantaneous carbon dioxide spike we are experiencing is faster than anything previously observed in the paleo record short of basalt flood volcanism or an asteroid impact.

    That is how serious this situation is for your kids.

  10. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    If you say so, but we were discussing specifically carbon dioxide spikes in the historical record. As demonstrated by the bulk of the known evidence, that is a really bad thing to have happen to you, and this is happening an order of magnitude faster than anything previously recorded short of Chicxulub. Even the Deccan traps were slower.. But fortunately you have no kids, so you’re good.

  11. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    There is nothing in there about massive carbon dioxide spikes in the historical record. You just aren’t getting it, this kind of stuff only gets worse and doesn’t go away, and we are setting it into motion 10 times faster than anything we’ve seen since Chicxulub. It’s a really bad day in slow motion, unless you bear no responsibility at all. If you don’t wish to take responsibility for your planet, that’s your choice. We all have choices.

  12. The Tinfoil Tricorn says:
    0
    0

    I find it frustrating about the climate change report blaming humans for global warming. I just would like to find the real cause because I’ve also read about the solar system is warming up, http://www.livescience.com/… , that’s the only article I can find immediately.

    Also that the solar system is approaching a much more dense arm of the milky way, not the conspiracy related energy cloud of the 2012 gongers, but an actual region of more gas and dust. At this point I wish I could afford to own a tablet to search back through my old issues of Astronomy and tell you an Author and date.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, might be right about temperature, but not cause. I heard it said recently that it’s easier to make someone hate something than believe in something, so to that end the goal seems to make people hate people and industry. It’s likely that industry might be the only thing that saves our bacon if there is a rapid shift, and that those hated people will have to work hard to change construction methods if storms get more violent. In any case carbon impact will be low on the scale of worry. Regardless I’ve been waiting since 2006 http://www.nasa.gov/vision/

    for the mother of all Solar storms and it’s now Solar maximum, plus wasn’t California supposed to be underwater by 2000, that what we were taught in Environmental Science class in 1990.
    The dire warnings of science fiction have taken much longer to even become partially true, the dire warnings of science fact are supposed to happen much faster but yet not always.