Starship Asterisk*

130 Years of Earth Surface Temperatures

Explanation: 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.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

for 1880-2011

APOD Robot wrote:
above movie ...
above global maps ...

for 1880-2012

above movie
above global maps

Not really much difference, just another year of data.

off topic but I think I saw a roll cloud here in the Pacific Northwess yesterday stretching from the SW to the NE ( it was definitaly not a jet exhaust plume but ..............I got schooled quite well before

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

lucky for us mere terrestials, there is no absense of very smart atmospheric Sciences scientist;s

2 degrees C / 130 years is .015384 degree C per year.

I can feel the 5th digit it in my bones!
Quick give me another grant! So, I find out if I can feel the 6th digit this winter.

Cute animation, to bad the sampling is only 130 years out of 4 billion.

------
I am a regular Astro page viewer and have not missed many since it started.

I regularly send a link to my email friends who enjoy the pictures.

My compliments to the authors and a sincere thank you for "broadening my horizons" to include the universe.

Seriously?

Funny how the scientist seem to conveniently forget that the South Pole was once a "Green Lush Land" - NOT a frozen .. well South Pole.

Seems they also forget that the age of the Dinosaurs - and then the ICE age and what MELTED the ice age? More ice? o..O No, warm - very warm weather would have to do that!

Good grief, I wish people would stop drinking the Global Warming Kookaid! Seriously.

We've had "Global Warming" before Co2 and pretty dang warm too - to melt the Ice age and not to mention the South Pole was once a GREEN LUSH LAND AREA.

It's called CYCLES and we've not yet fully begun to explore the BIG PICTURE of Earth's history. We just seem to think MAN IS SO IMPORTANT, that we limit our studies to the falsehood that Man Made Climate.

Well Man had nothing to do with the 2 Ice ages - the Global Warmth of Earth's past. (I guess it was Dyno Poop??? I mean, that would have to be the case based on this silly Man Logic, right? Dang those Dino's they "gassed the planet"!!!

I expected better from APOD, I honestly did. This "science" is biased to a fault and is NOT real Science. Because real science looks at the BIG PICTURE - not just 100 or so years. The planet is, after all HOW OLD???? You did not even take a 1% sample of the Earth's Climate History! Think about that - You did not even take a 1% sample. That is NOT science - that is PROOF TEXTING.

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

Solar output data? http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... -basic.htm

jjb54 wrote:Seriously?

Ok, it is real science done by real scientists who are real humans and are admittedly capable of making mistakes. However, you should at least try to consider that we are in fact affecting our planet's atmosphere. It's not just possible, it's definitely happening. The scientists are working with all the data they can get their hands on.

"It's happened before" (Counter argument to the primary reason for your incredulity.)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... period.htm

edit: Sorry for all the edits if anyone read the previous versions. My posts often require extra proofreading on top of initial proofreading. I kind of suck at this.

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

Indeed, the Sun might well be doing much or most of this.
We have, of course, every reason to believe that the greenhouse gases that we release into the atmosphere do contribute to to some global heating. We don't know how much of the global heating is caused by humanity's greenhouse gases. Perhaps their contribution is indeed minimal.

But let me put it like this. Just because someone else may have started a much bigger fire... does that me it's OK for us to be playing with matches? At the same time as the big fire is going on? If we would really like the fire to stop?

Ann

Quick everybody....turn on a FAN!!!

I notice it really starts to show in 1980+....was it something Reagan did? HAARP???? Ozone Layer???


:---[===] *

I am a scientist, but not a climatologist. I did however study it quite a bit a while back.

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.

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.

In addition, one important thing to consider when viewing this video as well is the fact that the Little Ice Age ended approximately 1850, and the temperatures have been climbing since. That is about when this video starts.

I don't know the answer. Sorry for rambling

Bobarino: Humans are definitely contributing to carbon dioxide levels. Carbon dioxide is definitely a greenhouse gas. There's no argument there.

Agreed. However other things are contributing as well. Again, it is a partial picture to look at one thing and say "this is it!"

One example of many: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... f-ice-ages

But it's another thing entirely to simply discount all the research and resign yourself to the conclusion that it's too complicated to make any sense out of it.

I do not. But i do not take 1 piece of data out of 1000 and say this 1 is right and ignore everything else. Open minds

I'm unaware of anything significant being ignored. The fact that you linked an article citing new research only reinforces that. The evidence still currently supports the idea that humans are a major driving factor in climate change. New data refines the theory. You are implying that there is something out there that has so far been completely unaccounted for and that it would somehow overturn and refute the theory completely. I wouldn't bet on it.

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).

I am not here trying to say I have the answers. Only to say people who CLAIM to have the answers are not anywhere near what we would call scientists.

The evidence does support it, otherwise the theory would no longer be a theory. It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not.

Edit: "Theory" might not be the correct word choice, here. I'm not sure that "global warming" can be called a theory?
Apologies. It's almost 6 AM here and I should put more effort into more accurate wording. My point is that I am not trying to make statements of opinion. There is very little scientific debate on whether or not humans are affecting the climate with CO2 emissions. There is a lot of non-scientific debate.

Right. Let me get this straight...so we're supposed to all park our cars, shut down the coal-fired electric plants and maybe even stop breathing because of a 1C degree change over 130 years? Graphic 'dramatisation' is an understatement. Several volcanoes erupting over a ten year period could cause that much change. It's a shame that NASA has become the 'so-called' scientific wing of the modern Marxist Party, aka Democrats. I, for one, aint falling for it. Sorry. No wonder we don't have a manned space program anymore. Sad.

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/

As I watch and rewatch the video...I notice...in 1956 the Antarctic and a higher difference...then a lower difference basically up to the last few years....in 2011...the Greatest difference is in the Arctic....

IF human release of CO2 was a contributor...you would expect the greatest Differences to be OVER Industrial Countries...like the USA....not a the Top of the World....unless...there is a conveyor belt system like in the Atlantic at work, in the most northern waters and Oceans...

The Amazon Jungle is a Carbon Sink...it absorbs carbon dioxide. But in the 90's the difference was less and now it has grown, very much so in 2008. Where as the USA, it was great difference, and now it is lower. So the Differences are being transferred...It is interesting, on the west coast of the US, We had sever snow and ice storms during Solar Minimum...and yet the video shows HIGHER difference...I think this would show it is not just Sun...and yet in the Arctic, and Antarctic where there is much melting, the Difference is greatest, and yet the least technology to trap heat by man made methods...Cities, streets, buildings etc...so, there might not be the Presence but there sure appears to be an effect.

As I watch the video...I see SWATHS of changes...Oceans, Land Masses....from one side and then the other....especially South America...and it starts in the 80's. Before that Brazil is not really affected...yet since it gets a greater difference...

It is interesting to watch the Arctic and the 20 year cycles it appears to go through...the 20's, 40's, then there is a gap with the 60's, and it starts to really take off in the 90's...

It would be very interesting to see a similar video of Carbon Dioxide Levels in all these areas....

In the Eastern Pacific, during the early 40's...like '43...the pattern is a typical El Nino pattern of Ocean warming....

Energy is Constantly being Transferred on this Planet....and in many ways...as the World wobbles the directions and angles change...in about 15,000 more years, the Sahara will be Savanna and lush again....This is all a cycle....but locally....i think our civilization plays at least a small part...

By the end of the video...the change differences are nearly totally global, and higher,....regardless of the cause, the change is there....but then De-glaciation has been going on since the end of the Ice Age...and the trend appears to be continuing.

Green is not so much a benefit....by the time you need to change the battery in your PRIUS....it has the same carbon footprint....as A HUMVEE...It takes energy to make a battery...all types of manufacturing....it is a World Wide Industry....
The Plastic alone requires chemicals, and OIL...and the all the tools and plants that go along with production, the vehicles, and energy for the people involved and their lives...the only true GREEN...is living in your own backyard with NOTHING MAN MADE...OK...now you are in your backyard..and it starts to be Autumn, and Winter....I guarantee you will tear down trees and limbs, and build a shelter and a fire....OPPS.....Carbon Dioxide Release....WARNING....WARNING....and everybody world wide is going to do the same....

:---[===] *

And before you laugh me off as 'just another non-thinking idiot' because of my 'Marxist' comment:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ate-policy

The sad part is that none of this will make any difference.

DragonHeart, how about showing us your scientific credentials instead?

Oh, wait... yeah, never mind.

The evidence is in; you ignore it at your (and everyone else's) peril. How about consuming less and being more thoughtful, more conscious, of your actions? No need to give up everything; simple changes -- buying local, buying recycled/recyclable, using a bicycle, driving more judiciously, and so on -- would be a good start.

So you take 130 some-odd years and compare them to the coolest time during that period. BOOM! you have global warming! (Of course, this doesn't account for the accuracy plus quantity of measurements today compared to 1880 (just what was the temperature in the middle of Brazil, the Rockies, or mid Pacific in 1880?) I am surprised that a 'science site' would succumb to mass hysteria of 'the sky is falling'. This is so disappointing for APOD.

This used to be all ice.

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