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.
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!
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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 *
Nice strawman. No.
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
http://xkcd.com/1321/
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 li-Ahli ash-ShÄm" or "al-Nusra Front", and dug in. In 2013 this group then formally merged back with ISI to form ISIL.
So yeah, no war in Iraq, no ISIS. It's not even up for discussion any more - their history has been well documented, and is available to anyone who cares to learn. They started in Iraq and Bush gave them just what they wanted - an insurgency in which to grab as much as they can. This is all before they were even in Syria.
That AGW is happening is settled. It was settled the moment Arrhenius worked out how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. What is not settled is the details - but they are getting more and more accurate as time goes on. Clearly some answers are needed, but nothing is at all likely to disprove AGW.