NASA's Climate Time Machine

Hi guys, I came across this article saying about NASA's time machine which is basically an interactive feature that enables us to see changes to earth over the past 100 years.

The interactive features are,

Sea Ice: "This visualization shows the annual Arctic sea ice minimum from 1979 to 2007. At the end of each summer, the sea ice cover reaches its minimum extent, leaving what is called the perennial ice cover. The area of the perennial ice has been steadily decreasing since the satellite record began in 1979."

Sea Level: "Recent satellite observations have detected a thinning of parts of the Greenland ice sheet at lower elevations. A partial melting of this ice sheet would cause a 1-meter (3-foot) rise. If melted completely, the Greenland ice sheet contains enough water to raise sea level by 5-7 meters (16-23 feet). This visualization shows the effect on coastal regions for each meter of sea level rise, up to 6 meters (19.7 feet)."

CO2 Emissions: "This visualization shows the amount of annual carbon dioxide emissions produced by the top 12 nations or regions from 1980-2004. Units are given in thousand metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuel consumption."

Average Global Temperature: "This color-coded map shows a progression of changing global surface temperatures from 1885 to 2007. Dark blue indicates areas cooler than average. Dark red indicates areas warmer than average."

The purpose of this.

While this time machine won't allow us to change the past, it's a powerful tool that can educate people -- hopefully helping us change the future.

Source-
MMN

The time machine can be accessed here,
JPL Climate Time Machine

It paints a pretty stark picture on the average global temperature fluctuations and the CO2 level.

I think even if we somehow got rid of all the harmful toxins in the air we would still see global warming. Just like man didnt cause an ice age back thousands of years ago, man cannot be held responsible for the equal and opposite reaction.

It seems to be a global trend/cycle.

run quick
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

co2 is a small part of the equasion, water vapour accounts for 95% of green house gasses, so how about we reduce the sun for 12 hours a day and stop evaporation.
makes as much sense as global warming

reply to post by peacejet


What I don't get is, if the polar ice caps have reduced so much in the past 10 years, why aren't we noticing rising sea levels world wide?

reply to post by munkey66


I will agree that your point is valid, however, this is a cause for concern.

Whether we cause the effect or not, we must be prepared and educated to deal with the problem, regardless.

If we simply sweep under the carpet every study that comes up with the words Global Warming on them then we won't ever learn anything.

It's the term that's mis-used not the problem.

~Keeper

reply to post by heffo7


Hi there, we are actually experiencing a sea level rise.

Current sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century, and more recently at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4 to 3.1 ± 0.7 mm per year (1993-2003). Current sea level rise is due partly to human-induced global warming, which will increase sea level over the coming century and longer periods. Increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of continental ice sheets. Thermal expansion, which is well-quantified, is currently the primary contributor to sea level rise and is expected to be the primary contributor over the course of the next century. Glacial contributions to sea-level rise are less important and are more difficult to predict and quantify. Values for predicted sea level rise over the course of the next century typically range from 90 to 880 mm, with a central value of 480 mm. Based on an analog to the deglaciation of North America at 9,000 years before present, some scientists predict sea level rise of 1.3 meters in the next century. However, models of glacial flow in the smaller present-day ice sheets show that a probable maximum value for sea level rise in the next century is 80 centimeters, based on limitations on how quickly ice can flow below the equilibrium line altitude and to the sea.

Source-
Wiki

The thing is we wont see a sudden sea level rise, but a gradual one, with a steady rate and that too world wide. Imagine a sea level rise world wide and think of the major cities which lie at sea level or below sea level. You will get the idea.

reply to post by phi1618


I have told this many times in other threads. Think of the time scale over which this is happening. Progressive warming and cooling over thousand years is no big deal. But if the change occurs within 100 years, it will surely ring the alarm bells.

Originally posted by munkey66
run quick
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

co2 is a small part of the equasion, water vapour accounts for 95% of green house gasses, so how about we reduce the sun for 12 hours a day and stop evaporation.
makes as much sense as global warming

Global warming is just a term used to describe this. And this global warming causes climate change. Did I use the term Global warming?

First of all understand that it does not necessarily mean warming alone. It can cause any existing weather to become more extreme.

Take a look at this post in one of ubuntu forum.

Couple of things are relevant here. Firstly global warming means what it says, the global average temperature is increasing, this doesn't necessarily mean that the temperatures at all places around the globe increase at all times, merely that the average does. The expected outcome of global warming is an increase in "extreme" weather events, flooding, heatwaves, hurricanes, snow, you name it we can expect more of it. A simple explanation is that the increase in temperature means that there is more energy in the atmosphere (not to mention more water vapour) and consequently more weather fronts, moving more rapidly and erratically, causing more chaotic weather events. That is a basic reasoning why things will get more unpredictable. There are also areas of the globe where things are potentially going to get a lot colder. For example, if the gulf stream (basically a jet of warm water that consistently flows from warm equatorial areas of the Atlantic roughly towards Great Britain) is disrupted, which could happen if prevailing weather patterns are disrupted, then Britain can expect to get a lot more cold weather, as without the warming effects of the gulf stream we can expect weather more akin to the Scandinavian countries at a similar latitude on the earth's surface. Just because its called global warming, you can't assume its that simple, the honest truth is nobody really knows exactly what will happen. Hope that helps

Ubuntu forum

reply to post by peacejet


melting an ice cube will initially appear slow until it gets small and then the rate of melt is fast, similar to global meltings, initially slow with the remaining reduced ice melting fast.
truth is that no one alive today was alive during the last ice age, so we can have no accurate records reguarding the last melt, we can hypothesize and use man made computer models, but they are only as accurate as the data put in them.
the data usually will give a desired result and if not, data ommitted or cherry picked to get the result that one would assume the result should be.

Originally posted by munkey66
reply to post by peacejet

 

melting an ice cube will initially appear slow until it gets small and then the rate of melt is fast, similar to global meltings, initially slow with the remaining reduced ice melting fast.

So, you are accepting that the ice will melt fast in the future?

reply to post by peacejet


Just because I don't believe in man made global warming does not mean I do not believe in global warming

Originally posted by munkey66
reply to post by peacejet

 

Just because I don't believe in man made global warming does not mean I do not believe in global warming

I agree, you only need to look at Mars and Pluto which have been going through a warming stage too. Yet no men up there.

It's a natural cycle of the planet. And while a lot of ice is melting (that is what ice does), a lot is also growing. The Antarctic has been growing this year; some glaciers have also been increasing in size.

And the records they use and compare these weather changes to are only for the past 100 years and a little more... the world is about 4 billion years old.

So in the big picture of things, not much is really happening.

The planet is going through a "climate change" but it's natural, always has been and always will be.

Mikey

reply to post by munkey66


Dude. How many times should I tell you. Global Warming is just a term to explain the increasing temperature. It causes climate change. Now I am talking about climate change and its damages. Understand. We are now talking about the freaky weather caused by this climate change. The recent cold spell is caused by this climate change.

reply to post by peacejet


Dude
how many times do people have to say that we have always had a climate and it has changed for the last 4.5 billion years, I am pretty sure there has always been freaky weather, it just wasn't reported because we only had cave walls to record it on.

Australia has records of a cyclone crossing the coast on every month of the year, even though cyclones are only meant to occur during our summer months, these cyclones occured well back in the 1700's and 1800's

was there a rise in carbon emmissions from the horse drawn carts back then?

Originally posted by munkey66
reply to post by peacejet

 

Dude
how many times do people have to say that we have always had a climate and it has changed for the last 4.5 billion years,

Due how many times do I have to say to look at the timescale over which this is happening. Climate change over a thousand year is one thing and within a hundred year is another.

reply to post by peacejet


You are making a big assumption that the end of an ice age takes thousands of years, you are going off evidence given by people who have an agenda, they cherry pick data that suits them and then neglect to mention that certain information was added which was later found to be unreliable such as black earth data as well as ice core data which has been shown to be inaccurate.

so if you put incorrect data into a computer model with a pre determined outcome of course it will look like it is all happening so fast,

no one was around who can actually verify how long it takes for an ice age to end or even begin, records have shown a mini iceae which in itself goes against the trend, how do the experts explain that?

do they somehow blame solar radiation as a factor then but not now?
do we have a different sun now?

Do you know how easy it is to fall for well put together propoganda?
I have nothing against renewable energies and saving the planet, but when co2 becomes a commodoty and has a monetary value, corruption will take place.

Sure, save the planet, but do not put a tax on breathing to do it, because before you know it, you are a slave to those who own the carbon credits and you will be in debt just to breath.

Sorry if this comes across as really dense as I'm not a believer in man made cllimate change. I think it's all down to sun spot activity. But what I'm really interested in is this rising of the seas as the ice caps melt. Surely the amount of water which is displaced by these massive icebergs and the ice caps is more or less the same as if it melts? The big problem, as I've been told, is the harm this will do to the Gulf Stream.

Originally posted by munkey66
reply to post by peacejet

 

Sure, save the planet, but do not put a tax on breathing to do it, because before you know it, you are a slave to those who own the carbon credits and you will be in debt just to breath.

Now, did I ask you to pay taxes?

This is what irritates me. I just want to prove that global warming/climate change(more apt term) exists. Thats all. You need not pay taxes to combat this. You can make all the difference. Conserve energy, recycle things. Thats all I am trying to say.

Combat Global Warming/Climate Change

Originally posted by peacejet

This is what irritates me. I just want to prove that global warming/climate change(more apt term) exists.

The only reason they now call it “Climate Change” as opposed to “Global Warming” is because in 2000 when the earth began to cool down again they started to look a bit silly.

From the 1940' - 1970's they were telling people we are cooling down and if we don’t stop the way people are living then we will have an ice age, it was Called Global Cooling, then in the 80’s and 90’s it started to warm up, so they had to quickly change it to Global Warming, then since 2000 it started cooling again, they felt a bit sill and thought, oh we’ll just call it “Climate Change” that way it covers them either way.

I don’t think anyone here is saying “Climate Change” doesn’t happen. What we are saying is that it’s a totally natural cycle and the earth has always been changing, so there while recycling is good, it’s not going to change the outcome.

Mikey


[edit on 14/6/2009 by Mikey84]