NASA | Six Decades of a Warming Earth Shown in 15 Second Video

news.yahoo.com...

Global warming is still the topic of much debate, but a short video posted recently by NASA is fairly convincing. The 15-second animation, which was posted by NASA last week and picked up on Tuesday by Co.Exist, shows a view of the entire globe with an overlay that details climate change. NASA scientists analyzed data collected over the past 63 years by 1,000 meteorological stations from around the world, and the animation they compiled shows just how rapidly the Earth’s climate is changing.

This GIF shows an illustration of NASA’s version of how drastically the climate has changed since 1950. In the past 60 years the temperatures have climbed by as much as 4 degrees Celsius in some regions.

So, for all the naysayers, here's the proof... from NASA:

reply to post by sled735


I am thinking that a lot of people may be a little skeptical about these modeled animation coming out of the government agencies trying to convince us that it is warming despite the cool/cold weather we have been experiencing as of late .According to other graphs and measurements suggesting that the warming has been in kind of a pause for something like 15 years ...Personally I hope it is warming but I live in the north so I have a bias towards that ...peace

edit to add ...I find it strange that back in the 70's they were saying we were going to go into a ice age again ..

reply to post by sled735


Proof on this subject has taken on ideological and political overtones, so the debate is not based on facts anymore. Very good thread, and climate change via man-made intervention in atmospheric conditions is a sad reality of the industrial-age.

reply to post by sled735


Interesting video...

One must assume that the metric that they were using was one which measured the scale of the change in temperature, with the most change being depicted by darker red/orange colours, and the least with the lighter hues.

I only say this, because if the video was showing where the hottest temperatures were, they would have gotten it seriously wrong. However, there will be those who tout this as being evidence for anything other than the fact that the Earth is getting warmer by degrees. It is not. It is neither evidence for or against man made climate change, nor evidence for or against a natural process which would have happened regardless of our input. It is however, something we should all be aware of.

Damned good find sled735!

reply to post by sled735


Man oh man I personally hope they are correct for if we are going into another ice age with the present day global population mankind will be screwed big time.

'Whatever measure you use, solar peaks are coming down,' Richard Harrison of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire told the BBC.

'I've been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I've never seen anything like this.'

He says the phenomenon could lead to colder winters similar to those during the Maunder Minimum.

'There were cold winters, almost a mini ice age.

'You had a period when the River Thames froze.'

Lucie Green of UCL believes that things could be different this time due to human activity.

'We have 400 years of observations, and it is in a very similar to phase as it was in the runup to the Maunder Minimum.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Nice Animation, but what an absolutely pointless exercise.

The graph shows a 0 deg point, with minus 2 deg and plus 2 deg.

So what does the 0 represent? Obviously not 0 deg.

So what temp have they used for the scale of 0?

If you follow the "Dramatic" hot yellow colour, and check the chart, it is only 1.5 degrees above 0, Not 4 degrees.

And if you are really curious about weather change (which I agree with btw), why did the Earth Suddenly get cooler in the 1960s early 70s, at the heighi of USA car pollution (those big tasty V8 muscle and family cars everyone drove then).

I would really like to have and explanation about why the Earth cooled at that period...which i would think, lead to the 1970s predictions for coming ice age etc. To me this is more intriguing than the so called warming.

Other than that, a pretty animation that proves nothing. Particularly over a scant 50 years (Notice they didnt include the 1940s, a very Cold period on Earth).

reply to post by the2ofusr1


Just an FYI...

GLOBAL warming does not mean that individual nations will not get cooler for some months of the year, than they would otherwise be. If anything, some countries will get colder winters than before, and damper summers. Also, global is not a euphemism for the United States of America! The average temperature however, will increase despite the depth of the winters to come. Again, that says nothing as to the cause of the change, but it should be understood that cooler winters in some places, for some months of the year, do not mean a nett cooling effect globally.

Wonder why the scale at the top left indicates all of 2C. Wonder why all of the warming seemed concentrated in the arctic region. I wonder how many sensors they have there. I wonder how well they're calibrated. I wonder how frequently they're serviced.

A guy with common sense would KNOW that a change in temperature, over such a period of time, would be of concern ONLY if the color palette increased consistently across the entire surface of the globe.

Therefore, it is decreed that NASA shall forfeit all funding for the next decade for fear-mongering!!

sled735

news.yahoo.com...

Global warming is still the topic of much debate, but a short video posted recently by NASA is fairly convincing. The 15-second animation, which was posted by NASA last week and picked up on Tuesday by Co.Exist, shows a view of the entire globe with an overlay that details climate change. NASA scientists analyzed data collected over the past 63 years by 1,000 meteorological stations from around the world, and the animation they compiled shows just how rapidly the Earth’s climate is changing.

This GIF shows an illustration of NASA’s version of how drastically the climate has changed since 1950. In the past 60 years the temperatures have climbed by as much as 4 degrees Celsius in some regions.

So, for all the naysayers, here's the proof... from NASA:

It's not at all possible the suns patterns have changed from a warming period to a cooling one right? Not like solar flares have been subtly dissipating over the pasy few years.

The article states that in 2013 the average temperature had risen.

According to the report, the average global temperature in 2013 was 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the mid-20th century baseline temperature.

Therefore...it isn't a dramatic increase but rather enough to show the planet it warming.

Historic temperature records are out there for anyone to see. Anyone good with statistics and who has the time can put these into a stats software and see what the mean temperature has been over the last decade and compare this with the the same from decades past. Until then - why be suspicious of NASA's findings? They did the work and it is what it is.

Also - we have been told by scientists that the overall average temperature would not have to rise much to change life as we know it. Only a few degrees (on average) is a huge change.

Average global temperatures are expected to increase by 2°F to 11.5°F by 2100, depending on the level of future greenhouse gas emissions, and the outcomes from various climate models. [3]

www.epa.gov...

This article and others estimates what this small temperature change will mean - wilder weather - wetter in some places/dryer in others - more extremes - more violent storms...

Latin America, Europe, and Asia for example - water shortages, mass loss of species, crop failures, etc - with only a couple of degrees (on average) increase.

While we won't perish altogether from a couple degrees (humans won't anyway), many will need to migrate to adapt. We have had heating in the past but we didn't have all of these emissions to help it along and there were fewer people populating earth - therefore scientists are watching closely. Several experts believe this time will surpass all historical records and have a greater impact. Maybe it will - maybe it won't. It's too soon to tell. If the mean temp has risen 1.1 degree in 10 years we have to compare that to a decade 1000 years ago. We don't have that sort of precision in records from that time period so we wait and see.

What "is" disputed is whether this is normal for a heating up of the planet (this quickly), and how much of an impact it will have. What should not be disputed are the mathematical facts - mean temperature has increased. Many models show this.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Considering that a lot of the globe has been monitored and a lot has not over the longer periods doesn't give us a true measurement .We know about Island sinks and monitoring stations put on tar mats at airports .These things have to make a difference to the whole of the measurements . Every couple of years they come up with supposedly better ways of doing measurements with better equipment ..I think its getting possible for them to fudge their numbers and there are some who know what to look for that are saying just that .

The latest thing I have heard is that they are not going to maintain the buoy systems in the pacific .Funding problem they are saying ,but if you think about it ,how accurate have these buoy's been over the time frame they have been used ,seeing they are not going to use them anymore . I can see them in the end using just the satellite array they have and possibly adjusting the data to say to us what they want us to believe . I guess in the end many will drink their cool aid but until I can grow bananas in my yard 2 to 4 degrees is not going to make a big deal , especially to the degree of $'s they want to shove on to the public in the way of taxing the co2 molecule . The warming camp has vilified it and has gone so far as to say we need to make it 0% ...

I am of the persuasion that by moving the pollution debate away from true pollutants and labeled co2 as such the msm beholden to their controllers will reduce the population by hook or by crook ....

There is no place on Earth that has an "average" temperature.

Every winter a gazillion tons of snow and ice appear and every summer it all melts again.

Thats climate change.

The other climate propaganda is designed to distract us from the real issue of increasing toxicity in soil, air, water and us.

Oh, and the plethora of disease and death from that.


Ice melting is not proof of climate change. Just ice melting.

If temperatures were rising that would be easily read out at various sites around the globe.

Record high temps are not being exceeded on a regular basis.

You could check that out yourself.

When was the last time there was a record high temp in your neck of the woods?

Where is the high water mark from all the melting ice? Please don't site beach erosion, thats an ongoing process forever.

"Average shmaverage".

See thru the veil.

Thats pretty cool...Or ehm warm.

Anyway, i just have to use my eye's in real life to see the change.

When i started sailing the northern hemisphere some 25 years ago, every winter was a battle against see ice, from northern Europe to greenland, today there is absolutly no see ice to see anywhere, even lakes and rivers are unfrozen.

All the big icebreakers was active all winter around to make life easier for ship traffic, but now they are just tied to the piers and have not been doing anything for at least five to ten years.

reply to post by Mianeye


Those "twenty five years" are a very small time sample, experimentally speaking.

A "lifetime" to you and me, an eye blink in geologic eons. Like reading one sentence from one page in a novel.

intrptr
reply to post by Mianeye

 

Those "twenty five years" are a very small time sample, experimentally speaking.

A "lifetime" to you and me, an eye blink in geologic eons. Like reading one sentence from one page in a novel.

edit on 30-1-2014 by intrptr because: spelling

But, that is my point, it's fast very fast, and my story seems to follow the gif. in OP, it starts to kick of in the 80's.

After undergoing one of the most brutal summers I can remember I'm now in probably the worst winters.It was -16 one day last week here in Southern Michigan with a lot of other -0 days.That's just crazy,hell yes SOMETHING is certainly going on!

So, for all the naysayers, here's the proof... from NASA:

reply to post by sled735


Proof from NASA...is a lot like transparency in government. Unfortunately, neither exists in our reality.

reply to post by Mianeye

But, that is my point, it's fast very fast, and my story seems to follow the gif. in OP, it starts to kick of in the 80's.

Be careful accepting what the modelers are "predicting" a hundred years from now. They do so want you to worry about some future disaster instead of the real ones all around us right now.

Its a distraction.

intrptr
reply to post by Mianeye

 

But, that is my point, it's fast very fast, and my story seems to follow the gif. in OP, it starts to kick of in the 80's.

Be careful accepting what the modelers are "predicting" a hundred years from now. They do so want you to worry about some future disaster instead of the real ones all around us right now.

Its a distraction.

I just told you guy's i follow my IRL view, and that i don't need a scientific explanation, so trusting modelers is not needed for me.
But if the modelers are showing scientific evidence that follows my IRL view, well, they must do something right.

Btw. every disaster should be followed, you don't just pick one, and ignore the rest.

reply to post by the2ofusr1


I think the debate regarding the causes of climate change, and our use of fossil fuels should be two totally separate discussions, until or unless any one lays down iron clad proof of what is causing the heating effect.

The historical record shows that heating trends have happened before, and indeed, at one point the entire surface of the planet was molten, so I can well imagine that the surface temperature has been much greater than it is at the moment

However, where fossil fuels are concerned, the reasons to stop using it are far more numerous and possessed of far more gravitas than the warming issue, as serious as the implications of some of the possible future effects of that, may be.

First of all, there is the economic problem with oil.

It costs a massive amount, and any government, business, or household which operates in the modern age, has some spending associated with the cost of it. Whether we are talking about gas for heating or cooking, or petroleum for use in vehicles and generators, or coal for power stations, hearths, and what have you, most people interact with a service or utility, or item, which requires fossil fuel use, and that is even before we get into the uses of plastics and materials which are derived from fossil sources.

This stuff costs a proverbial crapload, and in a world where boom and bust culture has truly taken hold, it makes no sense to rely so heavily on such an expensive commodity, especially when there are other methods of producing power coming on stream today, which, if taken up, could see every home, office building and commercial structure, and every government installation, facility, or meeting place, reap enough energy, cleanly and for a one hit payment, from nothing more than a modification to their windows, for example. A skin, like a photovoltaic cell sheet, is applied to the window, and draws power from sunlight, even through heavy cloud. Versions are being developed which will reap energy from more of the spectrum as well, so that will be a massive step forward, and battery technology continues to improve as well, making storing collected energy much safer, and more efficient. One wonders why these things are not the focus of government participation, and prototype versions of this technology at work in public buildings, as test subjects for a larger network. They are not.

I should also point out that this is just one of a series of very impressive advances in clean energy, which have rather less of the white elephant about them than previous methods of cleanly recovering energy from the environment, like windfarms for example.

Furthermore, there is the geo-political issue of fossil fuels.

Wars are fought for it, men and women have died trying to get it up from the ocean floor, or from under the Earth on land. It is a dangerous and expensive process, and causes massive arguments between nations, which spill over into conflict, both of the overt and covert nature. The US may be more energy independent than it has been, but globally speaking, vast amounts of power are concentrated in very few nations. All that power links to the amount of fossil resources they command, and the price that nations, and companies, are willing to pay for supplies of it. An example would be the gas pipeline from Russia, which has been used by that nation as a lever to gain political and financial mastery over vast swathes of its former territory, not to mention harassing the EU. This would not be possible if there was not this world wide obsession with the burning of fossil products. So, it is easy to see that as well as being expensive, it also makes any nation which lacks its own vast reserves, utterly beholden to more resource laden nations, and this causes conflict, or tyranny, or both to flourish, a situation which cannot stand, if mankind is to advance into a future which is worth living in.

There are also health concerns regarding the burning, refinery process, and safety of fossil fuels.

Obviously, the products of fossil resource, like petroleum, are often quite flammable and volatile in nature, and near enough all of them are toxic to human life, in certain circumstances. Consider the height from the ground, at which the exhaust pipe on most vehicles resides. You will note, that it is not very far at all. But you will also note, that a childs face is far closer to the pipe than your own is now. You will probably remember, that at one point, your face was that close to the height of an exhaust pipe as well. Spending a life, variously sucking down vast amounts of exhaust gas from vehicles, is no way to live, and yet that is how people in the great metropolises of the world. Reducing the exposure of our lungs, to potentially harmful gases, which are given off during the simple act of getting around, should be in all our interests, especially in cities.

And I would like to return to the flammability of the fuels being derived from fossil resources. By now, most people who have been alive for any significant period of time, are aware that keeping naked flame away from such volatile chemicals is a good plan. But accidents happen. Gas and petroleum (examples which I know I have used before, and will probably use again) will both pretty much explode if the storage and safety systems which are supposed to contain them fail. Lots of money (again with the money !) is spent by companies, governments, and individuals, on storing or piping fuel without it detonating. And why not, because lets face it, death by cataclysmic detonation is not the way that most people would choose to go, especially if they are intent on an open casket funeral, rather than a nearly empty casket funeral, or a premature cremation. Trouble is, that piping gas under ground, and storing petroleum under petrol station forecourts, means that if there is an earthquake, or a deliberate attempt to cause massive arson, either storage/transit medium, could all of a sudden come into contact with a spark, and blow itself and anyone in the vicinity to tiny little bits and pieces, and make person confetti out of them. It happens, and it is not the worst of it either.

When fossil fuels leak into the water table, having been freed from their storage mediums, they can cause all manner of environmental effects which have nothing to do with the climate, in the immediate sense anyway. They kill fish and waterborne animals in rivers, and sea birds too, on coasts (a la Deep Water Horizon), and what they do not kill they poison, making eating it a very poor idea. They poison the plants and trees with which they come into contact, making food crops inedible. I remember reading about a rig and refinery which was set up in the Congo. People who had lived on the land there for generations had to evacuate the area because all their livestock and other animals, on which they relied for food among other things, were poisoned/killed by the toxic spills which constantly washed forth from the plant, as were their crops. Its not as if this stuff is not harmful in a plethora of ways!

And there is yet more, and this is rather more about where we are going as a species than where we are now.

Mankind should aspire. As a species, we have done amazing things, built staggering edifices, launched man into orbit, and to the moon, established stations in orbit too, and achieved feats which a mere hundred years in the past were the stuff of fantasy, and some, even beyond the realms of imagining. But still I say that we should aspire to ever greater feats, ever casting wider the net of our understanding and our influence. We should go as far as we can, all of us, together. We must look inward, yes, to solve our disputes, but outward to allow our explorer mentality to do its work, and bring us the stars. This will never happen while we rely on such primitive means to get things done.