NASA | Projected U.S. Temperature Changes by 2100

The average temperature across the continental U.S. could be 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by the end of the 21st century under a climate scenario in which concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide rise to 800 parts per million. Current concentrations stand at 400 parts per million, and are rising faster than at any time in Earth's history.

These visualizations -- which highlight computer model projections from the draft National Climate Assessment -- show how average temperatures could change across the U.S. in the coming decades under two different carbon dioxide emissions scenarios.

Both scenarios project significant warming. A scenario with lower emissions, in which carbon dioxide reaches 550 parts per million by 2100, still projects average warming across the continental U.S. of 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit.

The visualizations, which combine the results from 15 global climate models, present projections of temperature changes from 2000 to 2100 compared to the historical average from 1970 -1999. They were produced by the Scientific Visualization Studio at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., in collaboration with NOAA's National Climatic Data Center and the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, both in Asheville, N.C.

The visualizations show the temperature changes as a 30-year running average. The date seen in the bottom-right corner is the mid-point of the 30-year average being shown.

"These visualizations communicate a picture of the impacts of climate change in a way that words do not," says Allison Leidner, Ph.D., a scientist who coordinates NASA's involvement in the National Climate Assessment "When I look at the scenarios for future temperature and precipitation, I really see how dramatically our nation's climate could change."

Like our videos? Subscribe to NASA's Goddard Shorts HD podcast:

Or find NASA Goddard Space Flight Center on Facebook:

Or find us on Twitter:

[garith]

1) Nowhere does it state that it's based on temperature data from the last 30 years, they state it's a comparison of.
2) Usually models like this are based upon not only current observations, but historical reconstructions taking into account all of the available evidence that we have good models for.
3) NASA last I saw has plenty of fields it's into without it's climate science division.

[AlphaCrucis]

No doubt CO2 is an important molecule. Computer models are meant to model certain aspects of climate, but that doesn't mean they're flawed. The benefits of CO2 on plants are irrelevant on whether this simulation is accurate or not.

[tarcal]

and by this (MagLev) I meant future implications such as domestic travelling with airplanes. Airplanes will be a thing of the past, and even cars will eventually switch to more efficient, noise free, pollution free magnetic or similar technologies. Currently nothing drives companies to do it b/c it's cheaper to just use up all non-renewable fuel sources. There has to be a push.

[ChristopherMei]

Well thank god we have random guy on the internet to put this scientists straight, I'm sure they didn't know the equator is hotter and didn't consider it in their complex calculations before you came in with this amazing knowledge.

[TanvirKaykobad]

A few randomly chosen local maxima and minima of a function are not good indicators for determining whether the function is increasing at a macro level.

[garith]

"you're not a scientist"
I'm not a scientist, you're not a scientist, but I refer to peer reviewed literature and accepted AGW after reading the literature. I even read the literature skeptics presented from respected scientific journals, sadly I found that the papers came to the exact opposite conclusions that skeptics claimed for the papers more often than not.

[garith]

1) If you did then you'd know that their temperature predictions have error bars and current temperatures are within those predictions.
2) They're predicting most likely probabilities based upon previous observations and reconstructions which are also averages not specific year predictions.
3) If you actually read it you'd be aware that they use long term averages rather than primarily short term predictions for this reason and the reason for the large error bars.

[garith]

1) It's basic physics, more retained energy results in more retained heat, not that complicated

2) Feedbacks aren't that complicated either, melted ice reveals darker areas reducing albedo is a feedback, warmer climates retain more water vapor which in turn retains more heat, etc etc.

3) no one says that these are the only factors at play, and you're talking about comparing situations where regular solar cycles were active to a time where the sun is relatively inactive.

[AlphaCrucis]

"Even if the amount of CO2 would quadruple it would still represent less than 1% of the atmosphere."
Are you implying that CO2 must not have a significant effect then? 1% is larger than one might think. Seemingly small concentrations of chemicals can have very noticeable effects.

[garith]

"If you look back to the predictions of the 70s"
Sources please, I look at the peer reviewed literature and the 70's opinion of the NAS was that we didn't even know enough about the climate to pose the right questions. The peer reviewed literature also was divided on the issue with very few saying net cooling, some saying no effect and the majority saying slight warming.

Again please show your sources...unless you're BSing while claiming others are BSing.

[MewCat]

Okay, please provide references to the papers, published before the actual cooling, that predicted a pause in the warming trend. I would very much like to read them. I'm skeptical that they exist, given no one has ever been able to produce them.

[garith]

Read....the climate predictions aren't based on 1970 to 99, they are simply using it as a baseline to compare later predictions to. as the predictions are 30 year running averages. It's also primarily based on the physical characteristics of CO2, general interactions in the atmosphere, the lowered reflectivity due to ice loss and the slow ramp time with regards to oceanic warming.

[garith]

depends, what do you define good or bad? For bio diversity bad, for coastal cities bad, for droughts and floods bad, for lowering rates of tornadoes and hurricanes usually good, however those events will generally become more severe.

[Lumilan]

The earths cycles are just fascinating! I wonder how long we will sit on the temperature peak before falling back into an ice age?

[garith]

1) 30 year averages are used to compensate for short term events like ENSO and solar cycles and you have to smooth it out eventually.
2) But they're using the current highest 30 year average temperatures as a baseline, if they wanted to make it seem more significant they'd use earlier decades as a baseline instead.
3) What are you basing your assertion on other than simple assertion?

[stevemanly]

I think their model is based on the lack of snow and ice not reflecting the energy back into space ergo the poles heat more than the tropics and equator etc

Also theyre not taking into consideration the wildly eratic jet stream allowing for more tropical weather reaching poles for more sustained periods and vice versa

[StresserAlex]

In nations that have taken steps to diminish pollution, yes, we are taking care of the environment. European nations are first when it comes to green energy. But look at China, Australia, Canada. They have little to no regulations regarding heavy industry pollution or mining.

[garith]

1) US temperatures aren't the same as global temperatures, as a note these simulations are averages.

2) Net ice coverage is still on a vast declining, the antarctic gaining ice is primarily due to it's unique weather patterns where it takes in much of the water vapor as snow yet is relatively isolated from much of the heat in the rest of the world.

3) The north pole was more like a north pool not even a week ago

[tarcal]

Okay that's true. I agree with that completely. However it does impact the overall costs of the technology. If "it" used to cost X, now it will cost X+Y (the tax) and altogether it *will* cost more, leaving room for better, more efficient technologies.

For instance, the idea of a train using MagLev tech in a vacuum tube crossing the Atlantic Ocean... huge initial cost but much cheaper running costs. No pollution. This tech aims to remove the need for planes altogether

[MewCat]

2. "The accepted conservative range by the vast number of studies is 2.5-4C for a doubling of preindustrial CO2."

Okay, and we have seen an increase in temperature of about 0.6C. We should have seen MOST of the 2.5-4C increase in the first half of the doubling and we are at about that point now. That means that 1.2C is probably the upper range and that we may not even see 1C. In other words, the positive feedback is not there. I've even seen 0.43C from the UK MET through 2017.