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.

Comments

Projections based on what?

[BCGlorfindel]

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.

Re:Projections based on what?

[silentcoder]

>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?

[penguinoid]

Considering you can't even predict whether you'll die tomorrow, it seems ridiculous to claim you'll be dead in 100 years.

Is this the un"adjusted" raw data?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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?

[PvtVoid]

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:Is this the un"adjusted" raw data?

[riverat1]

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

Berkeley Earth - Source files

Re:Is this the un"adjusted" raw data?

[Gadget_Guy]

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:Is this the un"adjusted" raw data?

[ClickOnThis]

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:Is this the un"adjusted" raw data?

[dywolf]

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?

[angel'o'sphere]

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:your opinion is worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Projections.

[silentcoder]

No war in Iraq -> No ISIS today.

ISIS exists only because of the crapshoot that Bush created with his stupid war.

Obligatory XKCD

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

http://xkcd.com/1321/