Slashdot Mirror
NASA Releases Massive Climate Change Data Set
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.
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.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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 happening, and the republitarians deny it--Its called ignorance.
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.
Meteorologists can't predict the weather accurately (most of the time) from day to day.. But we're expected to believe in the accuracy of the same climate models going out nearly a century
BRILLIANT!!
paradox of democracy? You mean the paradox of mob rule - or ignorance. Your choice.
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.
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 about the Obama administration, which can't stop the endless string of daily press releases likely to be contradicted a couple of Tuesdays later.)
>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.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
No war in Iraq -> No ISIS today.
ISIS exists only because of the crapshoot that Bush created with his stupid war.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Considering you can't even predict whether you'll die tomorrow, it seems ridiculous to claim you'll be dead in 100 years.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways