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

[mjimih]

NASA pushing the global warming agenda. Surprised?

pushing smushing. Care to explain? Or is it just as simple as NASA saying: "Oh let's try to fool everyone so we can have a laugh, a chuckle, as we watch all the nice folks worry their brains out." NASA isn't getting rich off this problem, oil companies are. They're trying desperately to maintain the status quo. "Drill baby drill".

[Chris Peterson]

NASA pushing the global warming agenda. Surprised?

What "agenda"? And to what end? A key component of NASA's charter is, and always has been, to monitor Earth's weather, climate, and atmosphere. They are simply doing what they were created to do.

[StACase]

I think it's useful to compare temperature and CO2 using our longest time series for temperature.
What I've done is pick off the high and lowpoints of the HADCRUT4 time series compared to an
extrapolation of the Keeling curve back to 1850 as follows:

1850 - 1878 - 28 years, CO2 went up less than 1 ppm and temperature went up 0.4°C
1878 - 1911 - 33 years, CO2 up 5 ppm and temperatures went down minus -0.6°C
1911 - 1944 - 33 years, CO2 up 15 ppm and temperatures went up 0.7°C
1944 - 1976 - 32 years, CO2 up 30 ppm and temperatures went down minus -0.4°C
1976 - 2010 - 34 years, CO2 up 60 ppm and temperatures went up 0.8°C

Here's what it looks like:



Sure looks like a 33 year peak to trough cycle. Then again it could just be noise.
Does it really show a correlation between CO2 and temperature?

[Beyond]

If you can't hit the broad side of a barn at 25 feet, you aren't going to hit the target at 100 meters.

It depends on just how big the target is. If your target is the side of a mountain, broadside of barn accuracy is very good.

[StACase]

If you can't hit the broad side of a barn at 25 feet, you aren't going to hit the target at 100 meters.

It depends on just how big the target is. If your target is the side of a mountain, broadside of barn accuracy is very good.

Uh huh, and in this case it's tenths of a degree 100 years from now.
I came up with that tag line for the Global Warming Predictions
(April 21, 2009) discussion which this current thread is well on it's
way of duplicating.

[DavidLeodis]

The video is said to cover "Temperature Data: 1880-2011" but the video starts at 1884 so I'm wondering why the 1880-1883 period is not shown.

[barry]

I just feel all the studies I have read are looking at one (very limited) dataset and making a very broad conclusion. There are many many factors that play a part in it. Some factors we know, some are probably still hidden. Heck even just recently there was a report that said basically "Gee, I guess maybe that big ball of fire in the sky DOES in fact play a role in climate change". My point is, we don't know why it's happening. We have theories that are backed with some evidence, but not a lot, and some is conflicting.

One limited data set? There are thousands. There are a number of different data sets by independent groups for solar activity, for example. What phenomena do you think has not been investigated?

[neufer]

---

I think it's useful to compare temperature and CO2 using our longest time series for temperature.

What I've done is pick off the high and lowpoints of the HADCRUT4 time series compared to an extrapolation of the Keeling curve back to 1850 as follows:

Sure looks like a 33 year peak to trough cycle. Then again it could just be noise.

Does it really show a correlation between CO2 and temperature?

[b][color=#0000FF]Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Timeseries, 1856–2009[/color][/b]

---

<<The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is a mode of variability occurring in the North Atlantic Ocean and which has its principal expression in the sea surface temperature (SST) field. While there is some support for this mode in models and in historical observations, controversy exists with regard to its amplitude, and in particular, the attribution of sea surface temperature change to natural or anthropogenic causes, especially in tropical Atlantic areas important for hurricane development.>>

[BillBixby]

'Global warming' plus 'nuclear winter' = temperature control. Now if we could just learn how to control the thermostat, and decide who will control it.

The APOD was interesting but the discussion has left me feeling that every individual poster wanted to promote their own agenda to the exclusion of anybody else's opinion.

I am glad this is yesterdays news and hope this does not come up on a weekend rerun. Enough was more than enough, IMNERHO. (In my never even remotely humble opinion).

[neufer]

'Global warming' plus 'nuclear winter' = temperature control. \

Now if we could just learn how to control the thermostat, and decide who will control it.

Nuclear winter shuts down plant growth which increases carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide also acidifies the ocean which destroys coral & shells.

Average global temperatures are the least of the greenhouse gas problems.

[barry]

The AMO signal is usually defined from the patterns of SST variability in the North Atlantic once any linear trend has been removed. This detrending is intended to remove the influence of greenhouse gas-induced global warming from the analysis. However, if the global warming signal is significantly non-linear in time (i.e. not just a smooth linear increase), variations in the forced signal will leak into the AMO definition. Consequently, correlations with the AMO index may alias(?) effects of global warming....

The linearly detrended index suggests that the North Atlantic SST anomaly at the end of the twentieth century is equally divided between the externally forced component and internally generated variability, and that the current peak is similar to middle twentieth century; by contrast the others methodology suggest that a large portion of the North Atlantic anomaly at the end of the twentieth century is externally forced.

Tamino estimates that AMO lags global temps by 2 - 3 months.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/ ... ment-47696 [inline reply]

[mjimih]

Of course global warming is real regardless of the cause .. thankfully all the hysteria has made most people forget things like the deadly poisoning of earth's atmosphere and water, we can all die slowly in a warm bed.

The struggle for resources may soon intensify and those with money get first crack at them. This is not a sci-fi script...

[Chris Peterson]

The struggle for resources may soon intensify and those with money get first crack at them. This is not a sci-fi script... :|

Already, the majority of the little wars going on around the world are closely associated with resource issues, in many cases precipitated by climate change. It has already begun.

[StACase]

The struggle for resources may soon intensify and those with money get first crack at them.
This is not a sci-fi script...

Already, the majority of the little wars going on around the world are closely associated with
resource issues, in many cases precipitated by climate change. It has already begun.

"...in many cases precipitated by climate change." Really? You can substantiate that?

[Chris Peterson]

Already, the majority of the little wars going on around the world are closely associated with
resource issues, in many cases precipitated by climate change. It has already begun.

"...in many cases precipitated by climate change." Really? You can substantiate that?

There are quite a few recent papers on the subject, easily located by searching the web.

[bystander]

A Climate Change OpEd That Makes Sense
Slate Blogs | Bad Astronomy | 2013 Aug 02

A Republican Case for Climate Action
New York Times | Opinion Pages | 2013 Aug 01

[Baej of Maryland]

The prudent, dare I say conservative, course of action regarding climate change is to think "what if it's real?" and take precautions, rather than throw caution to the wind and stubbornly declare it's bunk. The worst that can happen is we clean up the environment. Among the best is that we save countless lives, needless suffering, billions of dollars, and possibly humankind itself.

[bystander]

The prudent, dare I say conservative, course of action regarding climate change is to think "what if it's real?" and take precautions, rather than throw caution to the wind and stubbornly declare it's bunk. The worst that can happen is we clean up the environment. Among the best is that we save countless lives, needless suffering, billions of dollars, and possibly humankind itself.

Ahh, yes, but that would make sense, something which seems to be another scarce resource.

[mjimih]

A Climate Change OpEd That Makes Sense
Slate Blogs | Bad Astronomy | 2013 Aug 02

A Republican Case for Climate Action
New York Times | Opinion Pages | 2013 Aug 01

It’s actually pretty simple: Too many truculent deniers in the House and Senate refuse to even believe that global warming exists at all. Whether they are so tied to oil money they refuse to see the truth or they have other ideological reasons for clinging to their fantasy, we cannot move forward until these people at least acknowledge that there’s a problem, and it’s a very, very big one.

It's the former. And the above quote is the only place where the word "oil" appears in either of the two links above. We can move forward in the fall of 2014 when Democrats vote in droves!

[rstevenson]

Already, the majority of the little wars going on around the world are closely associated with
resource issues, in many cases precipitated by climate change. It has already begun.

"...in many cases precipitated by climate change." Really? You can substantiate that?

There are quite a few recent papers on the subject, easily located by searching the web.

By coincidence, this article appeared today on the BBC news service: Rise in violence 'linked to climate change'. It's about a paper published yesterday in Science: Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict

Rob

[Climb mate conned]

Hey APOD,

What is the consensus on the cause of ice ages?
What is the consensus on the effects of various greenhouse gasses?
How are the readings adjusted from the temperature monitoring stations used for the pretty video??
What is the consensus on the ideal temperature of the earth?
What steps does mankind need to take to reduce the temperature of the earth one degree over the next hundred years?
How thick was the ice at your location 21,000 years ago? http://xkcd.com/1225/

[StACase]

Already, the majority of the little wars going on around
the world are closely associated with resource issues, in
many cases precipitated by climate change.
...
There are quite a few recent papers on the subject, easily
located by searching the web.

By coincidence, this article appeared
today on the BBC news service: Rise in violence 'linked to
climate change'. It's about a paper published yesterday in
Science: Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict

Rob

A complete list of things caused by global warming

[Ann]

Already, the majority of the little wars going on around
the world are closely associated with resource issues, in
many cases precipitated by climate change.
...
There are quite a few recent papers on the subject, easily
located by searching the web.

By coincidence, this article appeared
today on the BBC news service: Rise in violence 'linked to
climate change'. It's about a paper published yesterday in
Science: Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict

Rob

A complete list of things caused by global warming

StACase, you are being ridiculous. Instead of arguing, you are making a list. Instead of trying to establish a connection between a supposed cause and a supposed effect, you are, as I said, making a list.

By turning your line of reasoning around, I could argue that all the good things in the world, including some things that are listed here, are caused by science denial.

But I really think Starship Asterisk* deserves better than that, so I suggest we forget both your list and mine.

Ann

[mjimih]

I love lists like this. It's fun going thru them honestly.

[quote="Climb mate conned"]

What is the consensus on the cause of ice ages?

"natural" variability in Earth's weather cycles. That are caused by prevailing weather patterns. Influenced by ocean currents, massive volcano's, etc. These changes can happen rapidly. A man made influence on such weather systems at the scale needed are NOT natural.

What is the consensus on the effects of various greenhouse gasses?

They (Methane, CO2) trap heat, causing Earth to "preserve" energy it receives from the Sun. Bad if you do not have an air-conditioner.

How are the readings adjusted from the temperature monitoring stations used for the pretty video??

this is a disrespectful question. How are we to know you would consider an honest answer? They are adjusted by the same scientific methods as are used in the gathering of the science in the first place.

What is the consensus on the ideal temperature of the earth?

A subjective question cannot have an consensual answer. Just like there is no science in scripture. But if WE cause ecosystems to shift fast enough and far enough, we can kill anything that grows on Earth. Including us maybe. It's a fact that if humans are exposed to pathogens at an early age, they will have more immunity to them as an adult in most cases. Without a variety of species on Earth, humans could get sick easier.

What steps does mankind need to take to reduce the temperature of the earth one degree over the next hundred years?

That would mean changing the trend going in the opposite direction. Another 1 degrees C is already baked in (no pun intended). So back to less than where we are now by 1, is -3. That's a tall order given the current worldwide circumstances.
Immediate action. Ban the internal combustion engine. Perfect cold fusion (please!) and educate the masses on the value of preserving nature, using less resources, slowing population growth, oh and use science to legitimately scare the heck out of us into action.

How thick was the ice at your location 21,000 years ago? http://xkcd.com/1225/

Irrelevant. It's not clear on where and or how strong jet streams and prevailing weather set up back then. We have a general idea of what would be needed to create or destroy an ice sheet in any given location if asked I'm sure. Ask yourself this, "How many billions (7-9) of warm 98.6 degree f bodies (warmer than the air around them) were running around expelling carbon dioxide 21,000 yrs ago?"

[StACase]

The issue is that Chris Peterson claimed that the majority
of the little wars going on around the world in many cases
are precipitated by climate change.

So I put up a link to all the ridiculous claims for things
Caused by "Global Warming" such as brain eating amoebae, acne,
Spider bites etc.

StACase, you are being ridiculous. Instead of arguing, you are
making a list.

I didn't make the list, I just provided the link.

Instead of trying to establish a connection between a supposed
cause and a supposed effect

You know what's going to cause a war? When someone tries to
put some teeth in CO2 emission policy. Oh yes, let's put some
real pressure on China and India to stop building coal fired
power plants.

you are, as I said, making a list.

Not my list, I just provided the link

By turning your line of reasoning around, I could argue that
all the good things in the world, including some things that
are listed here The_Official_List_of_the_Best_Things_in_
Existence are caused by science denial.

You made the "caused by science denial" part up didn't you?

You do realize that so far the trend has been perhaps as much
as 0.8°C mostly in the Arctic that is supposedly causing these
wars that Chris Peterson in talking about.

But I really think Starship Asterisk* deserves better than that,
so I suggest we forget both your list and mine.

And I really think that Astronomy Picture of the Day ought to
leave politics alone.