Those who deal with climate data are used to huge data sizes and are usually equipped with fast internet connections. You can also work with the data within AWS. The files come split in logical 750MB parts. There are different aspects of the data which come separately.
One could make the visualisation app work for a reduced data set and then constantly add to it whilst downloading. It would also make development easier. So you start with 2-3 years, make the app, make some scripts to automatically download and process what you need to process, and then add the other 147-148 years. This means... downloading only 164 - 245 GB of data... that'll keep me and my 10mbps broadband busy for more than 2 days :)
All of the ISPs where I live have a 150GB per month cap with $10 for every 50GB over, so this also means it would cost me an additional $2,500 in charges in addition to the download time. I don't think I'll be getting this anytime soon.
That would help but the cost of storage for 11 TB and the up time to download would be extremely expensive. I haven't seen an option that works for less than around $200 to rent and setup.
It seems like if these large public datasets continue to come on line, there will need to be some sort of semi-cooperative distributed data store to make them truly "accessible." Or the data provider will need to provide an access/query API, rather than just a big tank that you can copy if you dare.
I sure hope so because I am very very curious. Surely there are a lot of researchers that will love to jump into this data and manipulate it somehow. It's a good time to be studying climate change now... your dissertation is right here :D
Indeed. The image at the top of the page (presumably the worst case scenario) has no legend. I'm guessing that the red is desert, but what counts as temperate? The South America blue or the South Africa yellow? Or are the colors a delta from the current temperatures?
It's amazing how easy it is to turn a 12TB deluge of pristine scientific data into something completely meaningless.
My guess is that it shows the average temperature rather than actual climate. So red would be high temperature, and blue cold. I don't think that it refers to precipitation or anything like that. Or it could be a stock photo...
You'd think some spots on the globe would get colder or rainer, no? Also this map makes it appear Antarctica will get colder? Or maybe that map is a stock image?
Assuming the data is accurate and hasn't been 'adjusted' or 'corrected.' The whole climate business is a corrupt mess. Raw data over the years has been 'fixed' and policy is being made from 'models.' Yet what non partisan organization checks the models? The IPCC certainly doesn't. It's all a scam. We had global cooling fears in the 1970s. Then warming. Now "climate change." Yet industrial carbon output has risen exponentially and consistently since the industrial revolution yet temperatures haven't, thus calling into question that increased carbon dioxide raises temperatures. Such a disgusting mess.
Nope, the two terms have been used in the scientific community for decades. Climate change has always been the more popular term in numerical analysis of the scientific literature.
>Yet industrial carbon output has risen exponentially and consistently since the industrial revolution yet temperatures haven't
This is factually inaccurate according to several datasets published by independent scientific organizations around the world. How many do you want? Let's start with NASA, Japan, and satellite data:
I have 25 mbs which equals to 1041:40:00 (hh:mm:ss) That is 25 mbs perfect connection with no errors or drops. 1041 hours equals 43+ days.
http://www.numion.com/calculators/time.html