NASA Releases Massive Climate Change Data Set 310
An anonymous reader writes: NASA is releasing global climate change projections to help scientists and planners better understand local and global effects of hazards. The data includes both historical measurements from around the world and simulated projections based on those measurements. "The NASA climate projections provide a detailed view of future temperature and precipitation patterns around the world at a 15.5 mile (25 kilometer) resolution, covering the time period from 1950 to 2100. The 11-terabyte dataset provides daily estimates of maximum and minimum temperatures and precipitation over the entire globe." You can download them and look through the projections yourself at NASA's Climate Model Data Services page.
Visualisation tools? (Score:4, Insightful)
I see only the raw data on the link. I think that farmers would be interested in their local projections but we need tools to see them.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you check all 11 terabytes? Kidding
Re: (Score:2)
I see only the raw data on the link.
Thank God... and NASA of course - i did not checked them, but, for things like this issue, what the world needs mostly in my opinion is raw data... enough with just opinions and/or simulated projections based on measurements (from the summary: "The data includes both historical measurements [covering the time period from 1950 ...] from around the world and simulated projections based on those measurements").
I think that farmers would be interested in their local projections but we need tools to see them.
I can't think why a farmer may need this data, plus, at 15.5 mile (25 kilometer) resolution, even if
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The data is useful, but it's only valuable if it can be put into some kind of meaningful context and converted into information.
Let's not stop there. Information once organized and processed may lead to actual knowledge. Armed with knowledge and good judgment you might obtain wisdom and insight, and only then do you stand a chance of making an appropriate decision. That's a tall order in itself, but becomes much harder when there multiple forces attempting to mislead you every step of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like MSNBC and Fox News are separately going to do?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I can't think why a farmer may need this data,
If you spread it on the fields, it helps the crops grow.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think why a farmer may need this data,
If you spread it on the fields, it helps the crops grow.
Oh... then we should make sure they are free of any chemicals.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh... then we should make sure they are free of any chemicals.
I have some of that right here for you.....yes sir, I call it Vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh... then we should make sure they are free of any chemicals.
I have some of that right here for you.....yes sir, I call it Vacuum.
No fucking way i would ever use this Vacuum shit... it sounds like a very dangerous chemical.
Re: (Score:2)
No fucking way i would ever use this Vacuum shit... it sounds like a very dangerous chemical.
I'm pretty sure they're why they banned incandescent bulbs.
Re: (Score:2)
No fucking way i would ever use this Vacuum shit... it sounds like a very dangerous chemical.
I'm pretty sure they're why they banned incandescent bulbs.
That was an overreaction - o.k., i don't want Vacuum in my food, but for incandescent bulbs they could just add a "contains Vacuum" warning.
Re: (Score:2)
"I have some of that right here for you.....yes sir, I call it Vacuum."
So long as it's not GMO, I'll gladly breathe it.
Re: (Score:2)
Raw data can be downloaded at every weather/climate research center of the world.
For free.
Since minimum 50 years (the for free part).
Google is your friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that farmers would be interested in their local projections but we need tools to see them.
Probably not. At best, the models are only accurate to the continental scale (source: IPCC report), and even that might be questionable.
On the other hand, farms have been known to use almanacs, so that would definitely be a step up.
Re: (Score:2)
And on a 15.5 km grid pattern, good luck. It's not useless, probably, but it's not very useful.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've visualized the resultant data from NASA's 2006 CESM model runs here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I'm currently downloading the remaining years through 2100, which I'll upload and link to tomorrow.
If you guys are interested in doing this yourself, I can give instructions. VAPOR (the visualization tool used here) is open source and cross platform (Windows, OSX, Linux). What sets it apart from other visualization tools is its ability to handle large data sets, which is useful here unless you're on a
I see something (Score:3, Funny)
There.s a 0.1 degree difference in the maximum temperature in Fargo for today.
Clearly, all of science must be wrong and I can pretty much make up anything I like and claim it is reality.
Winning!
Projections based on what? (Score:5, Interesting)
More data is always good, but presenting any uncertainty and conditions on predictions is vital. Not only so we make properly informed decisions, but also so we don't tarnish trust by misrepresented predictions.
Climate models are really great science, but are also really ripe for this sort of problematic viewing from the public. Not just the laymen, but informed and educated public as well. To just quickly read and peruse climate model summaries you'd get the impression that confidence in models is really high. The reality is that confidence in PORTIONS of the models is really high. The whole however still has a long ways to go.
The IPCC fifth assessment report in chapter 9 [www.ipcc.ch] notes the following:
Model tuning aims to match observed climate system behaviour and so is connected to judgements as to what constitutes a skilful representation of the Earth’s climate. For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
That's taken context and backed up by over a dozen citations to relevant journal articles on model tuning. The short version is that tuning Top Of Atmosphere energy is still a required step to avoid climate models running out to unrealistic states. The journal articles all confirm this. With TOA energy being the ultimate overall driving force behind climate change, our predictions are still subject to the fact we aren't yet able to predict TOA energy. Without that we can make guesses what TOA energy might do, but the confidence in them is nothing like the confidence in other components of climate. Failing to qualify this though could leave us 20 years from now pointing at the AR5 projections and asking what went so terribly wrong with them, and the answer is that they had things largely right, save that TOA energy rose faster or slower than anticipated. That's in essence already the conversation over the IPCC First assessment projections from the 20+ years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty strongly supportive of both technological (nuclear, solar/storage) and political (carbon tax/tariff) approaches to climate change, but as a computational physicist I agree with your evaluation of models. They contain a lot of good science, but the non-physical parameterizations they depend on make them non-predictive, certainly with regard to the details of regional climates.
Unfortunately, this published dataset reflects the hubris of climate scientists that they actually have predictive models,
Re: (Score:2)
With TOA energy being the ultimate overall driving force behind climate change, our predictions are still subject to the fact we aren't yet able to predict TOA energy.
So the short version is climate models are worse than useless as a policy and planing tool, because we don't understand how the highest order component behaves.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to continue to invest (massively) in climate research. At the same time, because there is uncertainty about model predictions we have to assume that the outcome could be worse the predictions, and begin mitigating against those outcomes immediately.
It's a pity that model outcomes could not be more certain.
Re:Projections based on what? (Score:5, Insightful)
>Considering we don't know what the temperature will be tomorrow, or whether it will rain at my house, I'm pretty sure we don't know what the climate will be in 100 years. So, not settled in my book.
That's a ridiculously stupid claim to make. Climate is a LOT simpler than weather. Many, many orders of magnitude simpler. Why ? Because climate is an average.
If I ask you to predict the final results of a high school student randomly chosen, odds are you'd get it wrong almost every time.
If I give you a bunch of background information on him and his grades up until now, you'll get it right more often but almost never 100% for all subjects and there will still be outliers that surprize you.
Predicting a kid's final results is HARD -even with lots of data.
On the other hand - if I ask you to predict the average grade distribution for the state of New York for an entire high-school senior class and you say "It will be a normal-distribution" you will be right almost every time ! In fact, we're so confident in that outcome that if it's anything else that is - in and off itself - legally considered proof that there was large-scale cheating in the exam !
Same principle - even when it's VERY hard to predict a single data point, predicting an AVERAGE of those data points is far easier.
Climate is an average of weather over long periods (30 years typically). That's a LOT simpler to predict than the individual weather points that make it up.
Re: Projections based on what? (Score:2)
I'm not sure how you made the jump between predicting the type of distribution to predicting the parameters for that distribution.
Just because you know that the distribution of grades for any given year should be Gaussian gives you no information that can be used to determine whether future averages will be higher, lower, or remain constant. If the average GPA in New York is 3.1 this year, what will it be in the year 2115? That is the kind of question we are attempting to answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Valid point but to make this scenario match climate: we also know a vitamin that increases reading retention is being artificially added to school lunches at a set rate every year. We've done studies on how many vitamins 100000's of kids have eaten in the past and how it affected their scores. So maybe johnny will also take meth and be an outlier (weather) but we're still able to make a reasonable prediction of what average NY test scores will be in 100 years (climate). ....also I've been there and there is
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone who has taken thermodynamics also knows that if you reduce the rate at which energy leaves a system then the total energy in the system will go up over time.
Anybody who understands complexity theory knows that this is absolutely guaranteed to cause feedback loops in a complex system which accelerates the effect.
That's the problem with climate change denial - the evidence you would need to disprove climate change would also disprove all of physics AND chemistry.
Sure there is a chance it's wrong - but
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on the time-frame. It's not one number, it's an exponential sliding scale.
The thirty year average we normally use in climate studies is still far more complex than describing a climate age. When we say "in the cambrian era the climate had these attributes" absolutely nobody expresses much doubt, even though we have far less evidence for that. We derive it by looking at what sort of organisms evolved at the time and, if we're lucky, maybe an ice-core here and there. A bit of geological evidence
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot ran a recent post [slashdot.org] about this exact issue, where Ebola models predicted much higher numbers than actually occurred.
As soon as people know about the "model" they start acting against it, so in the end the model is wrong: always.
Considering we don't know what the temperature will be tomorrow, or whether it will rain at my house, I'm pretty sure we don't know what the climate will be in 100 years. So, not settled ...
The weather tomorrow has nothing to do with the climate in 100 years. So
Re: (Score:3)
Considering we don't know what the temperature will be tomorrow, or whether it will rain at my house, I'm pretty sure we don't know what the climate will be in 100 years. So, not settled in my book.
Time to put your money where your mouth is. Let's enter a bet.
For each of the next ten years I bet that will not be enough naturally fallen snow(*) in order for the Markstein ski station [lemarkstein.net] to open on the 14th of July. Every year I'm wrong I'll give you $10,000. Every year I'm right you'll give me $1,000.
So if I'm wrong just once you'll come out ahead and given that we don't even know what the temperature will be tomorrow, surely I'm bound to be wrong at least once. So your not entering the bet will be your
Re: (Score:2)
So your not entering the bet will be your own admission that even you can make climate predictions ten years into the future.
I don't recall making any claims about times spans below the threshold for judging average climate. According to NASA [nasa.gov], that threshold is around 30 years. So it is reasonable to consider the climate 10 years from now to be approximately the same as the climate today. Therefore, on that basis alone, I won't be taking your bet.
My claim was simple:
we don't know what the climate will be in 100 years
That doesn't mean we don't have any clue... just that we don't know with the precision that would require us to prepare for the certain end of humanity.
Re:Projections based on what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering you can't even predict whether you'll die tomorrow, it seems ridiculous to claim you'll be dead in 100 years.
Re: (Score:2)
If I put a bottle in the ocean, I don't know how far it will travel by tomorrow. I also don't know how far it will have traveled in 100 years.
Is this the un"adjusted" raw data? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this the un"adjusted" raw data, or does it have the various "adjustments" that have been applied to the historical data before in past releases?
In my opinion, to conduct proper science on climatological measurements, the raw measurements should be available to all, to let everyone apply any "adjustments" and "corrections" they believe are necessary - and justified - taking them into account. Then each can properly check the works of their predecessors, and reach their own conclusions, without incorporating unknown distortions from previous work.
If the maintainers of the archive believe adjustments are needed to deal with some measurement pathology, they are welcome to also release an open correction dataset or tool in parallel.
With the low price and high speed of modern digital storage and processing devices, data set size and complexity is no excuse for withholding the raw data.
Re:Is this the un"adjusted" raw data? (Score:5, Funny)
Is this the un"adjusted" raw data, or does it have the various "adjustments" that have been applied to the historical data before in past releases?
Bwaahhahahah! Do you think they would actually release the real data? As we all know, governments are putting so much cash into climate change research that the money has totally distorted the scientific process. Hence the global conspiracy to secure as much as one million dollars of research money by the evil scientists, using any means available to hoodwink the public.
Expect no truth from them. You must find it yourself, thermometer in hand. The truth is out there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Poe's Law: If you hadn't dropped the Dr. Evil reference this would've been indistinguishable from the rantings of an actual climate change denialist.
It's absolutely baffling - That people will actually believe that 98% of all the world's scientists are engaged in a mass conspiracy to commit the largest fraud the world has ever seen, while at the same time believing that the handful of corporations and billionaires who fund denialism are just innocently asking questions. Particuarly so since corporations hav
your opinion is worthless (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion, to conduct proper science on climatological measurements, the raw measurements should be available to all, to let everyone apply any "adjustments" and "corrections" they believe are necessary - and justified - taking them into account. Then each can properly check the works of their predecessors, and reach their own conclusions, without incorporating unknown distortions from previous work.
Your uninformed, uneducated opinion is worthless because you have zero understanding of data collection.
Do you even understand what "unadjusted data" means?
The answer is no, you don't; you are in fact completely ignorant on the subject.
Perhaps you need to enroll in college with an ABET accredited engineering school, take 2 years of engineering and physics courses followed by a year of instrumentation courses then you might start to understand what is going on.
There's a reason why scientists agree on what is
Re: (Score:2)
I understand how the republicans denying it is ignorance but scientists agreeing is more like willful disillusionment not ignorance.
Re:your opinion is worthless (Score:4, Insightful)
You read one chapter of a textbook dealing with a subject you know nothing about. You didn't understand it. Based on this, you conclude that the entire field and others related to it are wrong?
For those who wonder why the world is such a clusterf*ck these days, look no further. This guy is not only out there, but there are millions more like him, and they're probably all breeding.
God help us all.
Re:Is this the un"adjusted" raw data? (Score:5, Informative)
In my opinion, to conduct proper science on climatological measurements, the raw measurements should be available to all, ...
Raw data is available on line. Most people are too lazy to look for it and even if they got it they wouldn't have a clue how to use it. The techniques used to make the adjustments are all out in the open too. Again, most people are too lazy or lack the technical knowledge to fully understand the adjustment methodology.
Complaining about lack of raw data or hidden adjustment methodology just shows you haven't taken the time to even investigate if those claims are founded on anything and are relying on someone else telling you that is true.
Here are the links for Berkeley Earth which is one of the more straightforward web sites to track down the data:
Berkeley Earth - About the data set [berkeleyearth.org]
Berkeley Earth - Source files [berkeleyearth.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Of course the source I cited does not suffer from the problem you cited. The CRU data is only a small part of their data. Maybe the original IPCC report was based largely on CRU data but that is no longer the case. If you think the whole global warming edifice falls apart if you don't use the CRU data you're dreaming.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is you think Phil Jones/CRU's issues override all of the data that others have collected independently of the CRU over the years. Even if you totally ignored all the work coming out of the CRU it wouldn't change the conclusions of other climate scientists around the world enough to matter.
Like the MB98 Hockey Stick Graph controversy it's a moldy old story that's been superseded by subsequent work. You need to quit living in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA said 2014 was hottest year ever. But are only 38% confident it was 0.01 degree higher when you look at details.
And for the next most likely candidate for hottest year there was only 22% confidence. I think with the El Nino this year we'll probably be able to put to rest all such arguments.
NOAA just this week got caught manipulating historical data to remove the 18 year pause in global warming that keeps being brought up.
Or they were doing proper scientific analysis by normalizing the data from two disparate methods of data collection so they could combine them into one long term data set.
NOAA made an announcement 2014 was hottest year ever, then quietly corrected their web site when it was pointed out 1938 was hotter.
I think you'll find that is only for the contiguous US which is about 2% of the Earth's surface.
All the claims from IPCC have been 100% wrong every single time, and instead of admitting it they make more claims and ignore their previous failures.
If that's true how come I've never seen any scientifically valid
Re:Is this the un"adjusted" raw data? (Score:5, Interesting)
In my opinion, to conduct proper science on climatological measurements, the raw measurements should be available to all, to let everyone apply any "adjustments" and "corrections" they believe are necessary - and justified - taking them into account. Then each can properly check the works of their predecessors, and reach their own conclusions, without incorporating unknown distortions from previous work.
Well, how "raw" do you want that data to be? Individual bits of the satellite telemetry? Scribbled notes in a scientist's lab-book? Actual tree-ring samples, and not just?
Most "raw" data is unintelligble to anyone but the experimenters, until it is processed into a form suitable for sharing with others. Instrument calibrations, systematic effects, elimination of confounding factors, etc... all of these need to be performed by the scientists who are closest to the data and the instruments that provided it.
Like it or not, the data needs to be curated in some way, before it can be consumed meaningfully by the larger community.
If the maintainers of the archive believe adjustments are needed to deal with some measurement pathology, they are welcome to also release an open correction dataset or tool in parallel.
Many scientists do, if it makes sense in context. See above.
With the low price and high speed of modern digital storage and processing devices, data set size and complexity is no excuse for withholding the raw data.
The size and complexity of some raw datasets can in fact make it unfeasible to provide in a meaningful way. Again, see above.
Re: (Score:2)
Actual tree-ring samples, and not just photographs?
Fixing an omission. Hit enter too soon.
Re:Is this the un"adjusted" raw data? (Score:5, Interesting)
if they gave you the unadjusted data you would think global warming was 20% worse (warmer) than it is, because the overall effect of the adjustments has been to reduce the apparent warming shown in the data.
and again the whole "just give us the data" argument seems silly. I mean, sure, they could give it to you (indeed if you dig the data is out there).
but based on what precise qualifications will you be basing your second guessing ?
Re:Is this the un"adjusted" raw data? (Score:5, Informative)
the raw measurements should be available to all
Actually, that is the case. Go to the relevant research institutes web sites and download it. Pretty simple.
You are a troll, right?
We have an international treaty since roughly 50 years that makes all "western"(at least) weather and climate data freely (free as: for no charge) available for every one (commercial and non commercial use!!).
Every idiot posting about raw data should know that instead of repeating old /. myths
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
While snarky. The only proper way is what the gp said to do. It will remove much of the 'hidden agendas' and whatnot. It will let us get down to 'is this real or not' (probably). But it lets everyone see what is going on. These dudes are asking for *LOTS* of money to do this. It is worth looking thru. It lets people make their own adjustments or undo ones where the data didnt fit some model (and was discarded). The only proper way to do this sort of science is in the open.
Re:Is this the un"adjusted" raw data? (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA has become too political -- I am unable to trust their prediction models.
That is complete rubbish. You might have political reasons to dislike the data, models and predictions presented by NASA, but what evidence do you have that NASA has manipulated any of their work for political reasons? How have they "become too political" when they haven't changed what they do or say? If their results match the results of the rest of the scientific community but not what the Republican party says, are they being political or are the Republicans just wrong?
We keep hearing accusations that they (and others) fudge their figures to get more funding, but in a world where institutions that contradict the views of those in charge get defunded and disbanded, why would they mislead the public in such a suicidal manner?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The thing about NASA's surface measurements is that they come from sparse temperature stations that are badly compromised by encroached urban heat islands, various other changes, and declining numbers, and the sea observations are way more sparse. Add to this that NASA has made "adjustments" to the data about ten times over the past 30 years and each time, of the six possibilities, they have always managed witho
Re: (Score:2)
over the past 30 years and each time, of the six possibilities, they have always managed without fail to cool the past and warm the present
You fail to explain what is wrong with that, if it is even true.
AFAIK NASA uses satellites to collect current temperatures. I assume you are mixing up the american weather institutes with NASA ;D
I would be surprised if NASA has a single thermometer on the ground. Why? Because that is not their business.
I assume you are an idiot and a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about NASA's surface measurements is that they come from sparse temperature stations that are badly compromised by encroached urban heat islands, various other changes, and declining numbers, and the sea observations are way more sparse. Add to this that NASA has made "adjustments" to the data about ten times over the past 30 years and each time, of the six possibilities, they have always managed without fail to cool the past and warm the present.
This urban island effect is well known. This pushed some climate skeptics to do an independent reconstruction of the temperature history and their results [arstechnica.com] match closely the existing reconstructions. So no. No conspiracy there.
Re: (Score:2)
"Science has been seriously undermined by the censorship and alteration of testimony and news releases," said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "Science and facts are not a factor in decisions, and ideology dominates."
Guess what you're reading now (assuming you read the first link in the summary)......it's a news release.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It's well known the Bush administration tried to suppress the climate science from NASA and other government scientists. But that administration has been gone more than 5 years. No such problem now, and indeed this release of data is testimony to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this basically the same claim used by those who believe the moon landing was a hoax?
Does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite frankly, this topic has left all semblance of being in touch with reality. It does simply not matter how much proof you find for or against climate change. Neither side will give a shit about scientific data after they've invested pretty much everything and their reputation for it.
I really, really hope the deniers are right. Sadly, I'm terribly afraid they ain't.
Yeah, it matters (Score:4, Interesting)
It's true: every denier is a worthless idiot, and the vast majority of those who accept anthropogenic climate change has a poor understanding of how and why it works. That's perhaps 90-95% of everybody discussing the question.
But there are still perhaps 5-10% of people who have at least a rough grasp of what's going on, and they're capable of actually discussing the real questions. Not the stupid questions, which are a waste of everybody's time, but real ones, like "how can we refine the models?" and "what are we going to do about it?" The latter may seem irrelevant, since government action is stymied by denialists, and individual actions are largely unimportant. (I'm glad you bought a Prius, and it is helping a bit, but not nearly enough by several orders of magnitude.)
Still... as bad as it is, stuff does get done. If we're locked in by chemistry and the suicide pact that our Constitution has turned into, we can at least take mitigating actions. The earlier we know about how agriculture is going to change, the better. We can take at least minor defensive measures for our flooded coastal cities. The US military needs to prepare for the various wars that are driven, in part, by climate-change driven poverty. It's even worthwhile to consider the "winners", like those Canadian farmers who will be able to take land that hasn't been touched and which finally has a growing season long enough.
It's not optimal; it's not even as good as is pragmatically feasible. But it's the best we can do in that paradox of democracy, where somehow all of us collectively are supposed to be smarter than the average of us individually. The majority of deniers and the majority of well-meaning but clueless (albeit correct) believers roughly cancel out and hopefully, hopefully it leaves a tiny minority able to do something that's better than not knowing at all. Thin gruel, but it's the best we can get.
No it doesn't (repost) (Score:2)
A small essay I wrote a few years ago:
Not a denier, but I think there's a few things to understand. One, look at the history of this world, it's atmosphere has changed composition many many times through its long history, before we were even a dream in our ancestral DNA.
Two, the amount of change occurring seems to me to vastly over stated. There's change. Sure we caused it, we're a part of this planet, our activities affect the planet. Have to a utter moron to deny that.
Three, on a whole, the big picture, c
Re: (Score:3)
When I put a pot of water on the stove I can't predict accurately where the bubbles of water vapor will form when it comes to a boil but I can make a pretty good estimate of how long it will take to start boiling.
No it doesn't (Score:2)
From articles I've read, a feedback loop in the atlantic ocean is already triggered. Genie is out of the bottle. Adapt or die.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem, I live inland, with a few 100 meters between me and the sea level.
Essentially, what I need to know is whether it's ok to shoot on sight when the shore dwellers start climbing.
HOW much CO2? (Score:2)
Their top projection - the one that's getting a lot of play - suggests they think we're going to hit 935 ppm CO2 by 2099.
Which is nearly twice what most of the "mainstream" projections calls for, and is pretty much fantasy at this point - it's above the IPCC's worst case scenario (and a couple of hundred ppm above anything like a reasonable example).
The one that's closest to reality is for 538 ppm CO2 - and you have to look pretty close to notice any difference from right now. Although they gave us some "19
Meaningless politial release (Score:2, Insightful)
NASA is releasing global climate change projections to help scientists and planners better understand local and global effects of hazards.
Now if they'd only make available [1] the models (as in code) used to generate those projections and [2] a supercomputer to run it on, then someone could actually use this. The historical data has been available to interested scientists for a long time: releasing it to the public on a website provides only the appearance of openness. Without the transparency of how those projections were generated, the value of them is the same as a press release from a known politically-biased entity. (Yes, I'm talking abo
Re: (Score:2)
Now if they'd only make available [1] the models (as in code) ...
The code for many climate models is available if you care to take the time to look for it. For instance the NASA/GISS Model E code. [nasa.gov] Finding a supercomputer to run it on is a problem but you can scale it down to run on your PC if you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you dug into the supporting information about this release of information yet to verify the code for their models is not available or is that just a supposition on your part?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what they said about it in the press release:
This NASA dataset integrates actual measurements from around the world with data from climate simulations created by the international Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. These climate simulations used the best physical models of the climate system available to provide forecasts of what the global climate might look like under two different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios: a “business as usual” scenario based on current trends and an “extreme case” with a significant increase in emissions.
The web site for the Fifth CMIP is here. [llnl.gov]
If you dig around a bit you will find links to some but not all of the models used in the project. If you dig even deeper chances are you could get code for many of the other models from their original sources if you're nice to them.
Make it easier please (Score:2)
While I appreciate the opportunity to download 11TB of data, it would be a lot nicer if there was a high-level summary somewhere of what the projections are actually indicating are most likely to happen. I've looked but can't find one. Anyone found anything?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's basically what the IPCC reports are, and if that's still too much detail they have a ~10 page summary for policy makers which summarizes the IPCC report into a series of predictions, estimates and assessments
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because this is how science works. You look at the data, you look at it again. Then let other look at.
Nothing is ever "settled" this isn't the hysterical bible beaters that think a 2000 year old book holds all the answers.
SCIENCE is abouting questioning everything.
Re: (Score:3)
Settled? Hardly...
and until we're able to have a parallel Earth and tell everyone on one Earth "pollute all you want" and the other Earth "don't pollute at all" and leave it for many years it never will be settled.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because of Obama sagely employing the diabolically-clever 'Bart Simpson' political strategy;
"I didn't do it, nobody saw
Re: (Score:2)
Very interesting definition you have of "all the answers"
Well, if Slashdoters need further definitions for understanding what "all the answers" of the Bible are about, and try to learn how to code in C++ from it... i can't help them!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't tell if spot-on satire or just stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
i used to wear winter clothing in June in NYC back in the 80's
Re: (Score:2)
Then you took a snowpocalypse to the knee?
Obligatory XKCD (Score:5, Interesting)
http://xkcd.com/1321/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Projections. (Score:4, Insightful)
The ability for us to leave our planet holds great benifits for humanity.
Plus, the technolgy created as a result of the space program has already shown benifits to humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One of these things will benefit humanity in the near future. The other will not.
So in other words, what you're saying is that we should look out for the near future and just do nothing at all for the far future, because right now that's basically what we're doing.
Throwing that aside entirely, what further point are we going to drive home by NASA basically doing the same thing the EPA and NOAA are already doing? Tell people even more to reduce carbon emissions? Sounds super productive, and an amazing use of tax money.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't dodge the question, what further point is NASA going to drive home that the NOAA and/or the EPA don't already do?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nah, he's just the reason ISIS exists in the first place.
Re:Projections. (Score:5, Insightful)
No war in Iraq -> No ISIS today.
ISIS exists only because of the crapshoot that Bush created with his stupid war.
Re: (Score:2)
No war in Iraq -> No ISIS today
Maybe. Maybe not. The fact that Isis grew in strength from both Taliban influences and the Syrian civil war is inconsequential in your view. They saw Obama pulling out of Iraq as a vacation of power, and took the queue and left Syria and stated to take over a weak Iraq, with no US troops anywhere to be found.Yeah, all of that is Bush's fault.
Re: (Score:3)
Them starting in Iraq and moving to Syria doesn't even figure in your appraisal of the situation, does it? They started in Iraq as "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad", which joined Al Qaeda in 2004. They fought during the Iraq invasion, which gave them lots of experience in battle, and access to the spoils of war. They then joined another Iraqi group - Mujahideen Shura Council - to form the "Islamic State of Iraq" in 2006. In 2011 delegates were sent to Syria, in a group called "Jabhat an-Nuá£rah l
Re: (Score:2)
No war in Iraq -> No ISIS today.
ISIS exists only because of the crapshoot that Bush created with his stupid war.
Doubtful.
While its true the ISIS leadership cut their teeth in Iraq, they are essentially an AL-queda offshoot. It isn't as if that group did not exist before the Iraq war. In any case OBL would still have been mostly driven underground. He still would have lost control of at least parts of the organization not being to lead effectively. More than likely the Arab spring would still have happened. Most like the Syrian collapse and subsequent power vacuum would have lead to similar results.
ISIS would stil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Actually, a great improvement for this would be auto-update functionality so they could push out updates anytime. That way we will always have the most up to date historical data!
The GHCN releases historic data daily. It contains adjustments daily. Past data changes frequently.
You can download the data daily, compare and contrast, witness this for yourself.
Sometimes years worth of station data disappears from their releases, only to re-materialize a month or two later. These mysterious disappearances often coincide with a press release a week or two later about new temperature records being broken. Most of the past adjustments are downward. The adjustments look nothing like a n
Re: (Score:2)
The adjustments look nothing like a normal distribution either: not a small bias.
Why would the adjustments follow a normal distribution given that they don't correct random errors (those cannot be corrected), but systematic ones?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I keep coming to /.?
Good question, especially when you think WUWT is a good source for information.
Re: (Score:2)
Only surface data? What we need is the vertical temperature/pressure/humidity profiles. Whatever the spatial and temporal resolution at the surface, it is not enough to figure out what is going on. It is great that this data is made available, but it is simply not sufficient data. The vertical profiles from a few hundred places around the world at different latitudes and time of day would be much more useful.
Ok, who's going to pay for gathering all of that information? The amount of data collected is very much limited by the resources available to do the collection.
Re: (Score:2)
In order to get comprehensive coverage I think you'd be talking about thousands or tens of thousands of sites. And that needs to include the 70+% of the planet that is covered by oceans which means stationing ships there. I can't imagine the costs being less than in the multiple tens of millions of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
What we need is the vertical temperature/pressure/humidity profiles ... so you get a damn clue.
That data is available.
I suggest you study a bit meteorology
The vertical profiles from a few hundred places
We have that with a resolution of a few meters! Did I mention? Get a damn clue?
Re: (Score:2)
"same as today" is accurate way more than 2% of the time. Well OK that depends on where you live, but for a lot of people that's a great prediction.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. "Simulated projections" are not data.