APOD: 130 Years of Earth Surface Temperatures (2013 Jul 31)

[Rathkennamike]

It's not just the changes we are making to the climate that will destroy the world we have to live in, we are like a hoard of mice or rats consuming like there is no tomorrow and leaving our waste where it falls. Of course the world will carry on and the climate will continue to change one way and another and whatever life forms are left will continue to evolve but we (humankind) won't be there to experience it because we will have destroyed the limited band of environment in which we thrive and will have wasted all the resources we need to survive.
Time to grow up and take responsibility for our own future, at our rate of consumption and population growth we are reaching a tipping point, climate warming is just one indicator of this.

[CVV]

What a load of propaganda

[Nayrb01]

Funny how much difference there is when you look at the big picture. The Earth cools and warms all the time over long and short periods of time. What happens just in our lifetime is an insignificant speck in the overall picture of things.


Temperature estimates relative to today from over 800,000 years of the EPICA ice cores in Antarctica. Today's date is on the right side of the graph


Five million years of climate change.


Plot showing the variations, and relative stability, of climate during the last 12000 years

[Chas C-Q]

The website http://www.surfacestations.org/ graphically illustrates how most surface temperature data are biased - usually severely - in the direction of ever-increasing temperatures. (Take, for instance, an airport weather station that years ago used to be in the middle of a grassy field and is now at the edge of a pad where jets warm their engines for takeoff ... blowing right on the weather station!) Most prominent advocates of AGW are aware of this; but it helps the narrative, so ...

[Yeaok]

MY GOD!! HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN??!! This doesn't fit our science!! Must be Bush's fault!

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/30/ ... -one-week/

someone is confusing 'weather' with 'climate'

[Chas C-Q]

Change in CO₂ level is a following - not leading - datum. Temperature goes up or down, then CO₂. If CO₂ is a 'greenhouse gas', how does that work?

[Rathkennamike]

The website http://www.surfacestations.org/ graphically illustrates how most surface temperature data are biased - usually severely - in the direction of ever-increasing temperatures. (Take, for instance, an airport weather station that years ago used to be in the middle of a grassy field and is now at the edge of a pad where jets warm their engines for takeoff ... blowing right on the weather station!) Most prominent advocates of AGW are aware of this; but it helps the narrative, so ...

Please, give weather forecaster some credit. They are not going to place there weather recording equipment where it is effected by the like of a jets tailpipe gas. They move they as required.

[owlice]

I've got popcorn; will share!

[Lordcat Darkstar]

Often times people talk about global warming as being a bad thing. I however take a differnt view. Right now ice covers a good percent of the earth. Last I checked ice has only a few uses, such as keeping my soda cold. If less of the earth was covered with ice we could use that land for planting crops, mining, ranches, or just planting massive forests. Personally I like global warming and encourage it.

[Chas C-Q]

The website http://www.surfacestations.org/ graphically illustrates how most surface temperature data are biased - usually severely - in the direction of ever-increasing temperatures. (Take, for instance, an airport weather station that years ago used to be in the middle of a grassy field and is now at the edge of a pad where jets warm their engines for takeoff ... blowing right on the weather station!) Most prominent advocates of AGW are aware of this; but it helps the narrative, so ...

Please, give weather forecaster some credit. They are not going to place there weather recording equipment where it is effected by the like of a jets tailpipe gas. They move they as required.

No, that's the whole point: they have not moved them. Look at the pictures. Pro-tip: Saying "Nuh-uh!" is not refutation.

[Razor Boy]

Clicked the link to "Earth scientists" and a cartoon figure of the earth, complete with eyes, arms and legs, appears. About as serious as the science upon which this conclusion is based.

[Arbuckle]

Let's all take a close look at what exactly was posted here today

How has the surface temperature of Earth been changing? To help find out, Earth scientists collected temperature records from over 1000 weather stations around the globe since 1880, and combined them with modern satellite data. The above movie dramatizes the result showing 130 years of planet-wide temperature changes relative to the local average temperatures in the mid-1900s. In the above global maps, red means warmer and blue means colder. On average, the display demonstrates that the temperature on Earth has increased by nearly one degree Celsius over the past 130 years, and many of the warmest years on record have occurred only recently. Global climate change is of more than passing interest -- it is linked to global weather severity and coastal sea water levels.

If you can point out exactly which sentence is a lie and/or partisan marxist propaganda and/or whatever you want to call it, please do. Because all I see are indisputable facts. The only bickering I see in this thread is whether or not it's man made, which APOD makes no mention of. But if you want to talk about facts about whether or not it's man made, let's talk about facts, not opinions.

Here's a fact: Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming. The source for this number is pretty much everywhere on the web if you look for it. You can even calculate it yourself if you're so inclined to read nearly 14,000 peer-reviewed climate articles. They're all out there, with 97-98% of them that take a stand on the issue supporting the idea that humans are contributing to global warming.

Now to say that humans are NOT contributing to global warming puts you firmly within the 3% of dissenters. That's fine, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. But by ignoring thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles supporting man-made global warming, you'll have to forgive the 97% of people for perhaps thinking you don't have the most well informed or unbiased opinion.

and now, pictures!




The great lesson of global warming isn't climate related, it's people related. It's a lesson in how easily people as a whole can be misinformed, and how stubborn they can be in holding on to a false belief in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence.
That lesson is alive and well today on the APOD forums.

[K1NS]

This is a fascinating video, and is already going viral. But I want to know more about it.

• Who exactly made it? Who are the unnamed "Earth scientists?" Neither the APOD page nor the YouTube page tells us.
  
  What are the exact sources of data? Neither the APOD page nor the YouTube page tells us.
  
  What exactly do the colors mean? The APOD page tells us that they are "planet-wide temperature changes relative to the local average temperatures in the mid-1900s." But when I stop-frame the video and look at the mid-1900s, they are mostly orange. How can the local average temperatures be higher than the local average temperatures? It reminds me of Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average

Do not get me wrong. I am firmly convinced by the data that there is global temperature change occurring. But I would love to be able to show this video to my doubting friends and hope that they believe it. They will want to know the details. Who made this video?

[Nayrb01]

let's look at this from a different perspective.
A cave man finds a pool of fresh cool water good for drinking, he then brings his family to the pool and they setup camp next to the pool. over time he soon finds that the water has been getting warmer. so in his limited thinking he moves the "hot" fire further from the water. then the next day the water feels cooler. but days later it starts to get even hotter. this causes the caveman some concern since the water has become too hot to use. so he puts out all of the fires to try and cool the ground and water, but it does not work. he is confused because the water had been perfect for many moons and now is unusable and his family is now thirsty and cold but he dares not light the fires for fear of warming the water even more. He continues to try to figure out why it is not cooling, and that it must be something "he" did, maybe something he dropped in the pool or even an angry spirit. days go by and him and his family are slowing dying from thirst as the pool is now erupting in steam. he then begins to sacrifice his family to the pool. but it still does not cool. he himself succumbs to the gases and heat and dies. unknown to the caveman is the fact that the magma chamber beneath the ground has stopped rising and started to lower and the water slowly begins to cool as it has done thousands of previous times before. Soon another caveman finds the pool of "hot" water, he too will always think that the water should always be as he found it, in his case hot. As the water continues to cool he will try to find ways to keep it hot but will fail.

we all look at things from the perspective that things should always be as we found them and are not supposed to change. within our lifetime we look at climate as static and that weather is mostly predicable. but it is not, for change is the only constant in the universe and sometimes it changes slowly other times very quickly.

[owlice]

let's look at this from a different perspective.

I'll take the perspective of those on the mountain, thank you, rather than from those with their heads in the sand.

[mjimih]

In the absence of contemporary solar output statistics, these terrestrial statistics are meaningless.

really? Caution is the better part valor. The science is real. The Sun's heat output (?) is not the only factor.

[mjimih]

http://www.startribune.com/weather/blog ... ather.html

...Strauss says tragedy can be avoided or mitigated with deep global pollution cuts followed by technology that sucks CO2 from the atmosphere. Such bold steps, he says, could help preserve hundreds of coastal communities. If current emissions continue, his analysis projects the year when global carbon emissions will lock hundreds of U.S. cities into the eventual sinking — below the high-tide line — of the land that now houses half their residents: Galveston, Texas (2030); Miami (2040); Norfolk, Va., (2044); Coral Gables, Fla. (2044); and Virginia Beach (2054)."...

Outrage As Homeowners Prepare For Substantially Higher Flood Insurance Rates.
We're just seeing the tip of the iceberg with this issue. If someone wants to live on or near the coast, should other Americans, well away from rising seas, be forced to subsidize their (cheaper) flood insurance? Some people may walk away from insurance altogether and take their chances. Here's a clip from The New York Times: "...Currently, the only way to obtain lower rates is to raise a home above certain elevation levels. That can be difficult in New York, where the housing stock is old, and homes are often attached to adjacent buildings. Economists and insurance experts said the program(s) need(ed) to be overhauled to make it financially viable. “The program is $26 billion in debt and much of that debt is borne by federal taxpayers who do not have flood insurance,” said Frank W. Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America. “They are subsidizing those that do...”
Climate Matters: Warming Air, Rising Seas. For every 1 F. of global temperature increase the world's oceans are forecast to rise by a little more than 4 feet. Buying beachfront property will involve even more faith, a strong stomach, and almost limitless wallet in the years and decades to come.

In today's edition of Climate Matters: "WeatherNationTV Chief Meteorologist Paul Douglas looks at how climate change leads to rising sea levels and what coastal cities can expect to see by 2040."

There are lots of people living on those coastlines.

[mjimih]

Why do kids get hooked on evil drugs?

A: their parents often DON'T act in time, DON'T recognize the signs soon enough, DON'T communicate the warnings well enough, or DON'T care! Let that be a lesson for us all.

[Chris Peterson]

There can be no doubt that the climate is constantly changing. The problem come when we try to say it is caused by humans. I am not saying it is or is not... unfortunately nowadays it usually just breaks down into a political discussion one way or other, and intelligent discussion ends.

Actually, there is no scientific debate at all. The debate is only outside the community of climate scientists. You'd he hard-pressed to find any major idea of science supported by as large a consensus as anthropogenic global warming. It is supported by so many independent lines of evidence that the scientific community treats it as a fact at this point. The lack of intelligent discussion is in the political community, not the scientific.

It is now beyond reasonable doubt that the current, incredibly rapid change in climate is primarily precipitated by the increase of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Climate scientists accept that as given, and virtually all current research is directed towards understanding the ramifications on global climate and local weather of a system that is absorbing more energy than it releases.

[Chas C-Q]

A little reminder: 'consensus' =/= 'science.' In fact, consensus on matters like - say - whether the Earth is the center of the Universe has held back inquiry and progress innumerable times.

[mjimih]

pardon me, but my brother and a few on this thread talk about the Sun's heat & Global Warming. Can we get an Astronomer to chime in on the facts of said hypotheses please?

[Chris Peterson]

The great lesson of global warming isn't climate related, it's people related. It's a lesson in how easily people as a whole can be misinformed, and how stubborn they can be in holding on to a false belief in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence.
That lesson is alive and well today on the APOD forums.

So true.

One reason for this is how it is presented publicly. These days, the false debate is extremely popular on common "news" outlets. We have a 97%+ consensus among climate scientists- the only people qualified to have a solid opinion- that global warming is primarily the result of anthropogenic influences. But a "news" program will present a debate between two scientists with different opinions on the matter, giving the impression that there is an actual debate in the scientific community, and producing the impression that the question could go either way, with a 50-50 chance. You see the same thing with other ideas that are controversial only outside the scientific community- young Earth creationism vs. evolution for example. When you stage a false debate, you give the impression of scientific controversy where there is none, and create the appearance of a 50-50 balance.

[Chris Peterson]

pardon me, but my brother and a few on this thread talk about the Sun's heat & Global Warming. Can we get an Astronomer to chime in on the facts of said hypotheses please?

What hypotheses?

There is no evidence of long term (several centuries) changes in the Sun's output. The output is tied to the solar cycle, and that is accounted for in most climate models. Certainly, there is strong evidence that short term variations (on the order of a century) in the pattern of solar cycles has influenced climate at times in the past. Indeed, there is evidence that the current slightly reduced solar activity may be responsible for the current decrease in the rate of global warming (such variations are seen in the temperature record over the last century). But our measurements of solar output are long enough and accurate enough that the current warming trend cannot be tied to anything the Sun is doing. Solar effects are roughly decadal, and relatively small compared with other driving factors.

[Chris Peterson]

A little reminder: 'consensus' =/= 'science.' In fact, consensus on matters like - say - whether the Earth is the center of the Universe has held back inquiry and progress innumerable times.

Actually, consensus is a vital part of the scientific process. It is key to guiding the direction of research, and has been far more useful in that role than it has been harmful in hindering advance. When the position of the Earth with respect to the Universe was being explored, there was scarcely anything like modern science. And once the heliocentric model was proposed, there was scarcely any scientific debate. What slowed things down was pressure from outside the scientific community (the Church).

Consensus is a strong indicator of scientific truth, and for non-specialists, is the primary factor that should be considered in assessing the quality of a scientific idea. If you aren't a climate scientist, and you reject AGW despite the fact that this puts your view at odds with 97% of the actual experts, it means you are almost certainly operating irrationally. It is no different from the non-experts (sometimes encountered in this forum) who argue against Einstein's ideas, or against Big Bang cosmology, or against models of stellar system formation.

If you're not an expert, you should almost certainly be basing your views on the consensus of experts, if there is one.

[Layman]

Why do kids get hooked on evil drugs?

A: their parents often DON'T act in time, DON'T recognize the signs soon enough, DON'T communicate the warnings well enough, or DON'T care! Let that be a lesson for us all.

Exactly. I remember when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. There was no question that people caused that pollution or that what we had been doing was foolish and short sighted but it still took years to get people to change their ways. Do you suppose we should wait for New York to flood before we do anything about our current foolish, short sighted ways? Be a part of the solution, please.