Watch NASA's Predictions About Climate Change For The Next 87 Years

News alert! The world is going to get hotter. NASA combined dozens of climate models from around the world to estimate temperature and precipitation patterns for the next 87 years. That'll get us right to the year 2100.

There are a lot of fascinating changes. NASA describes the climate model:

To produce visualisations that show temperature and precipitation changes similar to those included in the IPCC report, the NASA Center for Climate Simulation calculated average temperature and precipitation changes from models that ran the four different emissions scenarios. The final products are visual representations of how much temperature and precipitation patterns would change through 2100 compared to the historical average from the end of the 20th century.

The video shows a scenario where carbon dioxide concentrations reach 670 parts per million by the time we hit 2100. We're currently at 400 parts per million. [NASA]

WATCH MORE: Science & Health News


    Oh FFS Giz! More?
    Why are you slamming this crap down our throats?
    More bogus predictions based on incorrect models.

      So if NASA is not a trusted group of experts (in your opinion) -- who do you offer up as an alternative?
      I'd be interested how you determine someones or an organisations level of expertise to make any predictions. What's your standard?

      Please state why the predictions are bogus and why their models are incorrect using reputable, independent sources or STFU

        You can start here:

          That talks specifically about the IPCC report. This seems to be a combination of many models. Even if what that article states is true, you did not link it to this research. With the NASA link down, I don't think we'll be able to check the details of their research in order to do so.

          Don't get me wrong, I have not made my mind up on Global Warming. I believe it is a problem and that humans and CO2 are a cause but to what extent, I am not sure. If people are going to trash talk research, they should go to the effort of backing up their claims though.

            I linked to the Jo Nova/IPCC report because the latest IPCC report is the current 'benchmark' for warmists.
            Everything will stem from "the latest IPCC report says..."

          ...and to quote you underneath that very same article:


          September 30, 2013 at 8:29 pm · Reply

          I have to post this link here:

          How Much Global Warming Will Happen In Our Lifetimes?

          I use to be a regular at Gizmodo and LifeHacker, but more and more they are posting climate change articles, always pushing the scares.
          Ive contacted the editors about running the occasional article from the skeptics side but was told they only run stories from “reputable scientists”.
          Garbage articles like the one in the link is sucker bait for the warmists. They love that crap, regardless of how crap it is.

          Sorry Jo, but when I see articles like this your web site and the many contributors and commentators is the first thing I think of.
          Ill read your article now and feed my brain with some substantial fact based science."

          You have an agenda to push, no matter how backwards and ignorant, and you will handpick articles that fit your model even if they are irrelevant to the point being made.

    Yeah stop giving us this "science" produced by independent "scientists" who have nothing to win or lose from it being true. Give us more scepticism from pundits and biased science funded by people who have interests in fossil fuels

    NASA! Everybody knows NASA is just a group of hippies working for the solar industry.

    Why is it that you can show these climate change sceptics the scientific facts generated by 99% of the scientific community, with nothing to gain from their results, yet they'll always say that "the models" they're using aren't correct, or link to some opinion piece article written by Alan Jones.

    The world is flat dammit!

    I've yet to actually see a model that simulates the different variations and oscilations in temperature based on all the different and cyclical heating that the earth gets from the sun, and the suns own cyclical oscilations. But then I dont expect them to do anything like that, as its far to complex for "climatologists" to model as most of the parameters are unknown to them!

    The famous quote i love "If you think you understand climate, you don't understand climate"

      Did you look?

      Just for convenience, I'll quote the relevant part:
      Solar Irradiance. Solar radiation is the source of heat for planet Earth. Scientists also use evidence from proxy measurements, such as sunspot counts going back centuries and ancient tree rings, to measure the amount of sun that reaches Earth’s surface. The sun has an 11-year sun spot cycle, which causes about 0.1% of the variation in the sun’s output. The solar cycle is incorporated into climate models.

      Oh, I probably should also point out that the famous quote you're talking about is attributed to Richard Feynman, and it goes:
      If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.
      However, it is not clear if he actually ever said that.

    Give us more scepticism from pundits and biased science funded by people who have interests in fossil fuels/q>

    Or maybe just give us less of the scientists who start squarking "la,la,la I can't hear you" or "big oil" every time someone asks them to explain why none of their previous climate "models" predicted such a large and significant pause in the globes warming.

    God help us all if we are the cause of the warming because these idiots living off green grants and government funding have turned the term "computer models" into one that is either laughed at or yawned at, and certainly rarely taken seriously anymore.

      Unfortunately - climate science is prediction-based and when it started to evolve as a field of study, it had to make a first statement that other science (by it's very definition ) would not do.

      The world demanded the scientists inform them and even though scientists understand the peril of predictive modelling, the public does not (as evidenced by the denialists). People are used to science telling them facts - climate science is based on past facts to predict future facts in the most complex system we know - the global climate.

      I suggest we disband climate science as a field of inquiry until people realize the scientists have abandoned them due to the vitriolic garbage you see spouted by non-scientists or scientists of questionable contribution to the field of science.

      You can lead a horse to water, but you can't teach it to drink.

    Yep... it's "science".... not science. Because anyone who doesn't believe that we are all going to die because of an increase in atmospheric plant food is funded by Big Coal or Big Oil or Big Mac.... whatever..... where as "scientists" who receive grants to study the "science" are completely independent because the politicians and green activists who only have my interests at heart (and would never lie to me) are really trying hard to fund "scientists" ??? scientists (I'm confused) who produce "science" ??? science (wow this is hard) that is evidence based.

    Hmmm... I think the problem is with those people who think there is difference between science and "science". See science is based around evidence where as "science" is BS that is dressed up to look like science but it is actually activism by low life politicians, activists and scum sucking creeps... or should that be "scum sucking creeps"..... it's so confusing/"confusing".

    Perhaps we need to talk about "evidence" instead of evidence.... Here say, innuendo and perjury are all types of evidence.... hence we derive the term......."evidence" which leads to "science" and hence "scientist".

    See what I did there :-)

      Yep, you went full retard.

    I like how the warmists resort to insults and name calling to defend their argument.

      The 'warmists' resort to name calling?

        'Warmist' isn't name calling. Its the same as being called 'Atheist' or 'Herbalist' or 'Scientist' or even 'Climatologist'.
        Just like calling someone a sceptic isn't offensive.

        What would you prefer to be called? A 'Believer'?
        People who follow religions are 'Believers'. You know what 'believer' means? Someone who has confidence they know the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, even without proof that one is right in doing so.

        Definition of Warmist according to the English Dictionary? "A person, esp. a scientist, who believes in global warming and the greenhouse effect."

        Wow. . . believes.

          That is not how it is used.
          Much like the word 'denier'.

            Ok, Ill accept that. But its not how I use it. I dont resort to personal insults and name calling.

              That aside, the only example here I have seen of people resorting to name-calling is insulting the "Al Gore" guest, and he really is just engaging in conspiracy-theory handwaving (in contrast to an actual argument). I don't feel like the insults there are based on him being a 'denier' (in the same way people - including me - insulted 'anticommunist' over in this article. It isn't about him being 'denier' or 'warmist', but rather just batshit crazy).

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now