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

[ta152h0]

a few more Chernobyl's and Fukushima's could alter drastically the ability of humans to reproduce. And WR104 could be aimed at the Earth when that one goes ballistic. In the mean time an ice cold one would be good about now.

[Spif]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The"evidence" does not support that, or there would be no question. It would be fact not debate.

I posted one out of many possible (thousands really).

Ok Babarino, let's see your "thousands". That would be at least two thousand credible scientific studies that refute the idea that humans are having a significant impact global warming. At least two thousand rational pieces of evidence vetted by peer review that are somehow being ignored by the vast majority of the scientific community?

Let's see them. List them all here please so that those of us who are honestly and sincerely not afraid of truth can be persuaded through a rational presentation of your evidence.

I'm guessing that you don't actually have this hand-wavy evidence that you refer to ... but I'd like to be proven wrong. I'm always interested in the truth so that I can make rational decisions.

(I'm thinking we probably won't hear from Barbarino again.)

-s

[bystander]

I'm not at all sure what the AGM deniers are up in arms about. The solutions to alleviate it make sense from a resource management point of view. Surely we can all agree less pollution, clean air, clean water, and effective management of scarce resources are goals worth achieving. If they can also alleviate global warming (man-made or not) then that's a bonus. Quit arguing over what the experts agree on and let's get started on preserving those resources we still have left to us.

[geckzilla]

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.”

― Michael Crichton

Crichton admits that bacteria producing oxygen waste products billions of years ago caused a mass extinction in the past and that it could happen again and then says that a hundred and a million years are nothing. A hundred years is definitely something to me. It's something to all of the humans alive. It's the difference between slavery and freedom. It's the difference between the Milky Way being the entire Universe and spiral nebulas becoming distant galaxies. It's the difference between children needlessly dying or becoming crippled by a devastating poliovirus. A million years makes the difference between our evolutionary ancestor and human intelligence which was nearly wiped out only a few hundred thousand years ago.

How can anyone say that none of this matters? We should all just anthropomorphize the planet and assign it some feeling of indifference to us? That is an astonishingly ridiculous way to avoid feeling responsibility. There is a nearly incomprehensibly large difference between us and ancient bacteria. We have the ability to understand what we are doing and what we can do differently. We've done it before and we'll, hopefully, continue to do it. It's a concept conveniently packaged into a single word called progress.

[Chris Peterson]

I'm not at all sure what the AGM deniers are up in arms about. The solutions to alleviate it make sense from a resource management point of view. Surely we can all agree less pollution, clean air, clean water, and effective management of scarce resources are goals worth achieving. If they can also alleviate global warming (man-made or not) then that's a bonus. Quit arguing over what the experts agree on and let's get started on preserving those resources we still have left to us.

Rational argument is often a hard sell. The fact is, there are politically and economically powerful interests that place their own self interest over things like less pollution or better water quality, and those interests are skilled at utilizing social engineering tools to maintain the appearance of scientific disagreement, and to generate fear about the results of mitigation efforts. It is their goal to maintain the argument as long as possible.

[Anthony Barreiro]

I'm not at all sure what the AGM deniers are up in arms about. The solutions to alleviate it make sense from a resource management point of view. Surely we can all agree less pollution, clean air, clean water, and effective management of scarce resources are goals worth achieving. If they can also alleviate global warming (man-made or not) then that's a bonus. Quit arguing over what the experts agree on and let's get started on preserving those resources we still have left to us.

I wholeheartedly agree, but I don't see slowing the rate of extinction of other species of animals and plants as simply a matter of resource management. As John Muir said, when you try to isolate any one thing in nature, you find out that it's connected to everything else. We're in the middle of the sixth global mass extinction of complex organisms in the past 500 million years, and the first one that is being caused by a single species with the ability to know what we're doing and modify our behavior. While preserving the diversity of life on our planet has numerous human benefits, on a more fundamental level I believe it's a moral imperative.

Rational argument is often a hard sell. The fact is, there are politically and economically powerful interests that place their own self interest over things like less pollution or better water quality, and those interests are skilled at utilizing social engineering tools to maintain the appearance of scientific disagreement, and to generate fear about the results of mitigation efforts. It is their goal to maintain the argument as long as possible.

Yes. And that's a sin in my book.

[Guest]

This used to be all ice.

[attachment=0]UsedToBeIce.jpg[/attachment]

No at one time it was a green lush land mass ... then it was ice and according to some research - core samples - it was green a 2nd time and then ice again ... Wait?? OMG - that looks like a CYCLE. Naw, must be a mistake in the core samples taken.

[Chris Peterson]

No at one time it was a green lush land mass ... then it was ice and according to some research - core samples - it was green a 2nd time and then ice again ... Wait?? OMG - that looks like a CYCLE. Naw, must be a mistake in the core samples taken.

Of course, there are climate cycles. There is nothing to suggest that the current trend is part of any previously seen natural cycle, however. It is a mistake (or strategy of the science denier) to conflate long term natural cycles with recent global warming. No science connects the two.

[geckzilla]

While preserving the diversity of life on our planet has numerous human benefits, on a more fundamental level I believe it's a moral imperative.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. How can we respect ourselves if we do not respect all life in the same way? I also completely agree with bystander. It's not necessarily climate change itself that we need to stop. Global warming is only a single symptom of our sickness. We, as an intelligent, empathetic species need to understand that and we need to change some very fundamental ways that we think about and treat Earth's natural resources, which affects all known life. We've accumulated enough knowledge to understand it now. It's only a matter of capitulating to the conclusions we are able to draw from that knowledge.

[relax]

No warming over the last 15 years. Despite China and India pumping out CO2 at all time highs. Relax and have a drink or something...just not the kool-aid.

[owlice]

This used to be all ice.

[attachment=0]UsedToBeIce.jpg[/attachment]

No at one time it was a green lush land mass ... then it was ice and according to some research - core samples - it was green a 2nd time and then ice again ... Wait?? OMG - that looks like a CYCLE. Naw, must be a mistake in the core samples taken.

The mistake is to assume human activity does not affect the earth.

Click to view full size image

That from here.

[geckzilla]

No warming over the last 15 years. Despite China and India pumping out CO2 at all time highs. Relax and have a drink or something...just not the kool-aid.

You can cherry pick any two sections of data and say that there is cooling but that doesn't change the fact that the overall trend remains up. What will you say in another 15 years if the temperature rises? Will you restart the count as soon as there is a year cooler than the previous and say "There has been no warming over the past 1 year." and so on for as long as it fits your opinion?

[Chris Peterson]

No warming over the last 15 years. Despite China and India pumping out CO2 at all time highs. Relax and have a drink or something...just not the kool-aid.

The temperatures have remained fairly flat for the last 10 years, although still at record historical highs. A number of excellent and solid papers have been published explaining reasons for this, and why we expect it to be temporary. Note that if you look at the temperature trend over the last century, there are several decadal periods of flat or even decreasing temperature. This is to be expected given any noisy signal. The trend remains, and there is no reason not to expect temperatures to continue rising. This is not a good time to relax.

[ta152h0]

just take a look at this rare event

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/ ... 614731.php

[mjimih]

Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us.

great, just great. We should just sit back with our tv remotes and drive our Hummers and keep overpopulating the land, pushing out any animals that get in our way? It's a huge rock!... with an excruciatingly thin "life-zone" to run around in.
What we are talking about here is that coastlines will be imo (I have no degree, just a 13th grade reading ability, which gives me common sense) changing significantly in our lifetimes. Mass extinctions are already in progress, famines probably more frequent etc etc. Do you think 97% of researchers are perfectly happy to learn all they learn and then just move inland when the water laps at their porches and not tell anyone of their results for fear of causing a stir in the community? They tell other scientists of their results, which are looked at, and then if warranted, would surely sound the alarm bells.
"Oh we don't fully understand Tornado's, so we shouldn't sound the local warning sirens."

Something we are not teaching in school anymore is common sense and the importance of science. Millions of children today never see a science lab in their schools, and we are going to suffer for it. We need to ban tin-foil hats and get down to business of preserving a livable world for our kids.

(ha spell check only corrected one word! woohoo!) -not including woohoo.

[mjimih]

I'm not at all sure what the AGM deniers are up in arms about. The solutions to alleviate it make sense from a resource management point of view. Surely we can all agree less pollution, clean air, clean water, and effective management of scarce resources are goals worth achieving. If they can also alleviate global warming (man-made or not) then that's a bonus. Quit arguing over what the experts agree on and let's get started on preserving those resources we still have left to us.

I'm not going to call your first sentence naive (it's just the way you are framing your comment is all), but I would venture to say that the deniers have a monetary stake in the status quo (aka OIL), don't like change, or are ignorant of the facts and lazily don't care to follow where the facts have lead to so far. TO ARMS PEOPLE!

[Eamon Shute]

There really is no reasonable doubt that our CO2 emissions are the cause of the recent rapid warming. Unfortunately the science has become politicised, and there is a massive campaign to sow doubt in people's minds and to spread misinformation. These arguments have been refuted repeatedly, but they keep popping up again like a game of Whac-A-Mole. For responses to the denialist argument, this site is recommended:-

http://www.skepticalscience.com/oneliners.php

And for a dramatic illustration of the effect we are having:-

[Chris Peterson]

Unfortunately the science has become politicised, and there is a massive campaign to sow doubt in people's minds and to spread misinformation.

I would say that the subject has become politicized. The science itself hasn't.

[Guest]

No warming over the last 15 years. Despite China and India pumping out CO2 at all time highs. Relax and have a drink or something...just not the kool-aid.

You can cherry pick any two sections of data and say that there is cooling but that doesn't change the fact that the overall trend remains up. What will you say in another 15 years if the temperature rises? Will you restart the count as soon as there is a year cooler than the previous and say "There has been no warming over the past 1 year." and so on for as long as it fits your opinion?

I did not say there was cooling, and I don't think it's cherry picking. It's just that the models predict warming with rising CO2 levels, and it is not happening. The hard fact that warming has stopped, while CO2 emissions skyrocket, proves at a minimum that the current AGW models are flawed. Yet these models are quoted as justification to alter society at great cost. Again I say relax... And this doesn't mean I'm for pollution in case anyone is wondering. I drive high mileage cars (mostly so I don't send money to the middle east) and I recycle the bottle after drinking some good wine. Speaking of which...

[Rick]

Didn't the Supervolcano Krakatoa explode in 1883? Could this 130 year span simply show global cooling then re-warming?

[Chris Peterson]

It's just that the models predict warming with rising CO2 levels, and it is not happening.

That's where you are mistaken. Most models predict warming over any 10-year interval with low confidence. You can find quite a few 10-year boxcars over the last 150 years that show no increase in temperature; you cannot find a 30-year boxcar that shows that.

In most cases, it isn't possible to look back and confidently understand short term excursions (up or down) from the long term trend. However, if you were to review recent literature, you would find several explanations for the current, almost certainly temporary, deviation.

[Chris Peterson]

Didn't the Supervolcano Krakatoa explode in 1883? Could this 130 year span simply show global cooling then re-warming?

No. The climatic effects of volcanic dust only extend a few years- certainly less than 10 even in the case of Krakatoa. Also, if what we were seeing today were indicative of the long term norm (for at least the last few centuries) there would have been an open northwest passage back when people were trying to find such a route, and it would be apparent in the ice core record.

[BDanielMayfield]

This is such an important topic and I’m very glad today’s APOD was presented. I’ve never been in the AGW denier’s crowd, but I must admit that at times I have been somewhat of a GW doubter. The reasoning goes, ‘Duh, it’s the Sun that warms the planet, so it’s the Sun that’s responsible.’ Of course, but many factors also contribute, including CO2 percentage.

The Sun may in fact be interning a period of quiescence, as discussed in a recent S&T newsblog; “The Weakest Solar Cycle in 100 Years”
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/The ... pageSize=0

The discussion after that article was very informative, just as this one has been. But two things that have helped me to get off the fence on this issue have been watching the film Chasing Ice and reading the webpage http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Anyone who hasn’t seen these should consider the evidence, and let the evidence help lead one to make a sound conclusion. After carefully considering the evidence, I'm now firmly convinced that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, and as certain a fact as is the fact that the earth orbits the sun, and not the other way around.

[kjb]

NASA pushing the global warming agenda. Surprised?

[mjimih]

yes Chris is correct. It's the old almost ancient ice that has dissappeared in the Arctic recently. That ice has just melted quite rapidly, indicating some type of anomoly is occurring. An aspect of this conversation that rarely is mentioned is the SPEED of these melting events, which are unprecedented.
And furthermore, if you haven't heard yet through one's tinfoil earplugs, if enough fresh water is dumped into the NW Atlantic, from Greenland, it could shut down that major warm ocean current that runs up the east coast of the USA and over to Europe (it has to do with the salinity and whether or not the current will sink or swim), causing major havoc with the weather patterns, as it will no longer deliver heat to Europe.

Arctic's Old Ice Vanishing Rapidly, NASA Study Finds
http://www.livescience.com/18745-arctic ... pidly.html

The oldest and thickest Arctic ice seems to be vanishing faster than the younger, thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean's floating ice cap, a new NASA study finds.

Typically the thicker, older ice survives through the summer melt season (hence, it's called multi-year ice), while the younger ice that forms over the winter melts as quickly as it formed. That's what makes this new finding worrisome; if the ice that usually sticks around is rapidly disappearing, the Arctic sea ice is more vulnerable to further disappearance during the summer, said study researcher Joey Comiso, senior scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

In the new study, Comiso and colleagues looked at multi-year ice that had made it through at least two summers. They wanted to see how it diminished with each passing winter over the past three decades. Results showed that the extent of multi-year ice, which includes areas of the Arctic Ocean where multi-year ice covers at least 15 percent of the water's surface, is shrinking at a rate of 15.1 percent per decade.