NASA | Projected U.S. Temperature Changes by 2100
12 years ago
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. -Albert Einstein
HOMEWORK TUTOR LIST
YouTube Channel List
Published on Jul 23, 2013
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-do/assessment
To see a NASA Visualization Explorer story on these visualizations, visit here: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a01000.....280/index.html
This video is public domain and can be downloaded at: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a0100.....11300/a011316/
Posted by:

My opinion is that with the rapid melting of glaciers (more rapid than was calculated by many of the climate models used in the past) that perhaps the effects of climatic warming might be more accelerated and occur much faster than many of the models have accounted for. I also think the effects of the warming are much more serious than the warming itself. The possibility of increased droughts, sea level rise, increased storm strength, increased hurricane strength, and acidification of the ocean are the types of effects which worry me the most. Of course I do not really have viable evidence to back this opinion up. It's just a guess.
Just curious, what do other people think of the climate models and such?
sorry Climate change is a topic I will get on a soap box about.
When it comes to different gases, we know the physical characteristics of methane for example. We can take data that has been compiled for the last thirty years and see what effects are caused by a change in the amount of that particular gas in our atmosphere. Using that as our base, we can then scale up the percentage of the gas and make a prediction. It might not be exact, but it will be within an acceptable margin of error.
I agree with your concerns about the effects of warming on our planet. It feels like we are on a bus that is speeding towards a cliff and only a few of us understand that the cliff is there while everyone else is telling us to shut up and let the bus continue forward.
Also the points above about the incompleteness of the models was taught to me in a graduate level biogeochemical cycles class only a year ago, so PHDs have not figured everything out yet. I just think that it is not valid to think that the super computer can calculate everything when the variables which they need to calculate these models are not included in the program.
I love how you put that paragraph together, I'm at a loss for how to reply exactly. All that I can say is that the fact that you were taught these things in a graduate level corse pretty much verifies that doctorates do know about these things. I know they do not fully understand every little piece of it, but then again who does? The main point that I was getting at is that these models help to make predictions which then can be verified or discredited depending on the outcome of the prediction. It helps us to understand where the gaps in our knowledge are. If you are arguing that the models aren't highly accurate then I pretty much agree with you, but I still see their usefulness. :Þ