Welcome to SKYE

the new AOL Weather
What's new on Skye

The SKYE’s Weather Experience

We have recently redesigned AOL Weather. Learn about how we changed the way you experience weather forecasts.

See What's New My Cities

Skye Weather+Photo

The app where life and weather come together

Follow us:

NASA Video: Watch US Heat Up by 2100

By end of century, average temperatures could rise as much as 8 degrees F

By the end of the century, average temperatures rise in both scenarios: 4.5 degrees F (low emissions, left) versus 8 degrees F (high emissions, right). Credit: NASA

The United States will be a much hotter place at the end of the 21st century, according to a new climate change visualization released by NASA this week.

The video illustrates a small component of the upcoming National Climate Assessment, set to come out in 2014, which provides Congress with the most up-to-date information on the state of climate change in the country from more than 240 contributing climate scientists. The last report was published in 2009.

Researchers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center teamed with scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C., to create a new video, which compares two different climate change scenarios: One in which atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increase from today's level of 400 parts per million to 550 ppm, and a second in which carbon dioxide levels double to 800 ppm. (Parts per million means that, for example, for every million molecules of air, 400 of them are carbon dioxide.)

These carbon dioxide concentrations are based on high- and low-emissions scenarios proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and are based on a variety of factors, including potential world population growth, economic development and global commitment to sustainability. The first scenario would require some kind of mitigation and curtailment of greenhouse gas emissions, while the second would occur if emissions continued to increase.

Both scenarios would result in significant temperature changes across the United States, according to NASA. The conservative scenario of 550 ppm could increase average U.S. temperatures by up to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit (about 2 degrees Celsius) and the more extreme scenario of 800 ppm could heat the country up by 8 F (about 4 C). [Video: Dramatic Future U.S. Warming]

Which scenario?

These results are based on data compiled from 15 different climate models, and use the average temperature from 1970 through 1999 as a baseline for comparison.

While the real outcome in 2100 remains unknown and will depend on a number of factors, including the amount of fossil fuels burned in coming decades, the latest research suggests that the more extreme scenario of 800 ppm is more likely.

"It seems from the most up-to-date literature that the higher emissions scenario is what we are going towards," said Laura Stevens, an NCDC scientist based at the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites who was involved in creating the video. The 550 ppm scenario would require significant efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, Stevens said, and the country has not yet taken the actions necessary to follow this lower-emissions path.

By focusing the video on the United States, Stevens noted that these results may provide motivation for Americans to start thinking about adaptive strategies to prepare for change.

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

Depends on us

The average American emits about 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year, according to climate scientist Michael Mann at Penn State University, who was not involved in the assessment.

"If you condensed all of that gas into solid form and placed it on a scale it would weigh the same as two large male African elephants," Mann told LiveScience. "That's the huge mass of carbon that each of us is, on average, putting into the atmosphere."

For comparison, Mann noted that the average emissions across the entire world are closer to 4 metric tons, which amount to the size of one baby elephant.

"If each of us could reduce our annual emissions to a small baby elephant, we'd go a long way towards making the cuts we need to stabilize carbon dioxide below dangerous levels," Mann said.

Mann remains optimistic that humans will rise to the occasion and take the steps necessary to reduce emissions, but said that the opportunity to do so is slipping away and that the time to act is now.

The final National Climate Report will provide three chapters that address ways in which humans can adapt to these significant changes, as well as the actions that people can take to slow the rate of change. A draft of the report is currently available to the public online.

Follow Laura Poppick on Twitter. Follow LiveScience on Twitter, Facebook and Google+. Original article on LiveScience.

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

RELATED ON SKYE: Off-the-Charts Hottest and Coldest Places on Earth


Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum


Filter by:

I just looked up elephants on Wikipedia (because the implied weight here seemed huge), and I think the analogy is wrong. They say that a male African elephant weighs between about 10,000 and 13,000 lb, which, for an easy average, would be about 5 metric tons (11,000 lb). So 20 metric tons would be about four elephants.

The same is true of the baby elephant. That four metric tons would be equivalent to about one adult female elephant, not a baby elephant, though the article had no information on the weight of a baby.

July 27 2013 at 9:19 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Rush Limbaugh says this is bunk and not to worry about it.

July 25 2013 at 11:57 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

...with just an elementary review of gasoline consumption, it appears to me that for every pair of persons flying anywhere on the planet, the comparable gas consumption on that jet aircraft is compable to "driving there in their average SUV!" i.e, an aircraft with 300 persons aboard is providing possibly the same pollution, without our controls on earth, of that of about 150 automobiles in pollution ... BUT high in the atmosphere, possibly with more damage in pollution than had they "been driven the distance on earth." I am obviously wrong, of course, if the standard passenger jet engines burn cleaner than our controlled automobiles here on earth. It would appear to me that if a person decides to "cross the pond," as it were, he owes it to the planet to stay the hell over there for awhile, as the earth, our environment, and all person's health are diminished by their (vacation?) trip. With the number of commercial aircraft in the air, from primarily "developed" nations, one might be hard-pressed to blame the annual burnings of grasslands, cooking fires, and the like of "developing nations." As a former Peace Corps Volunteer in Togo, West Africa, it becomes obvious that we "owe them more!"

July 25 2013 at 6:09 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Like us on Facebook?
Next on Skye
Tropical Storm Dorian Strengthens in the Atlantic