SHARE
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Vote up (47) down (35)
Six decades of a warming Earth

Six decades of a warming Earth

(0:15) NASA's visualisation to show how global temperatures have risen from 1950 to 2013. From YT: "NASA scientists say 2013 tied for the seventh warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 133-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record."

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: BiggusDickus (2870 days ago)
Yes warming at BOTH polar reporting stations in the northern hemisphere. Try the real world DORK
ReplyVote up (101)down (76)
Original comment
Yes warming at BOTH polar reporting stations in the northern hemisphere. Try the real world DORK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Deep ocean sunshine (2870 days ago)
Fancy that, when even IPCC and UEA Climate Unit have grudgingly admitted total lack of warming for the last 17 years and have been reduced to searching for it in places where no man hath looked before...
ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment
Fancy that, when even IPCC and UEA Climate Unit have grudgingly admitted total lack of warming for the last 17 years and have been reduced to searching for it in places where no man hath looked before...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2869 days ago)
Anyone know what those colors represent? Red certainly cannot be heat because it shows that the north poles are warmer than the rest of the planet in 2013. If that were true, The equator would be a cold place to live and the north pole would be the tropics.
ReplyVote up (70)down (101)
Original comment
Anyone know what those colors represent? Red certainly cannot be heat because it shows that the north poles are warmer than the rest of the planet in 2013. If that were true, The equator would be a cold place to live and the north pole would be the tropics.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Penis (2869 days ago)
those colors represent an increase in the average temperature by a maximum of 2degrees Celsius in the past 63 years, it's right there in the top left corner, ya stupid twat! the temperatures didn't rise near the equator as much compared to the ones registered in the last 133 years on record, but it did increase in the temperate and polar regions much more than at the tropics and equator. You're a stupid American fag troll! Fu*k you! pretending to be thick, you're like cengland0 on steroids, when it comes to climate change! and just as ignorant! ya fu*k!
ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment
those colors represent an increase in the average temperature by a maximum of 2degrees Celsius in the past 63 years, it's right there in the top left corner, ya stupid twat! the temperatures didn't rise near the equator as much compared to the ones registered in the last 133 years on record, but it did increase in the temperate and polar regions much more than at the tropics and equator. You're a stupid American fag troll! Fu*k you! pretending to be thick, you're like cengland0 on steroids, when it comes to climate change! and just as ignorant! ya fu*k!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Argle (2869 days ago)
Q: What's the difference between man-made climate change advocate and a fundamental muslim? A: One is a crazed supporter of dogma that will not accept legitimate challenges and is hell-bent on social changes in support of that dogma despite any ruinous destruction to life and freedom.. and the other shouts "Allahu Akbar."
ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment
Q: What's the difference between man-made climate change advocate and a fundamental muslim? A: One is a crazed supporter of dogma that will not accept legitimate challenges and is hell-bent on social changes in support of that dogma despite any ruinous destruction to life and freedom.. and the other shouts "Allahu Akbar."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Penis (2869 days ago)
why do you ask stupid questions if you already know the stupid answer? twat. What is the difference between climate change deniers and Muslim fundamentalists? the first category denies the scientific consensus and the other denies ALL scientific consensuses whilst blowing themselves up. See? too can play the "stupid question-stupid answer" game.
ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment
why do you ask stupid questions if you already know the stupid answer? twat. What is the difference between climate change deniers and Muslim fundamentalists? the first category denies the scientific consensus and the other denies ALL scientific consensuses whilst blowing themselves up. See? too can play the "stupid question-stupid answer" game.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2869 days ago)
So what you are assuming is that the 2 degrees for the dark red is a delta and not actual temperatures. So that's the delta from what point of time because even the first frame/year shows a delta change. Oh, can't answer that huh so who's the stupid twat now? At least I had enough sense to ask questions instead of making assumptions.
ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment
So what you are assuming is that the 2 degrees for the dark red is a delta and not actual temperatures. So that's the delta from what point of time because even the first frame/year shows a delta change. Oh, can't answer that huh so who's the stupid twat now? At least I had enough sense to ask questions instead of making assumptions.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Penis (2869 days ago)
aa ha ha ha ha!! YOU'RE THE STUPID TWAT NOW!! aa ha ha ha!! you always were and always will be the stupid twat! the stupid american twat copy of cenglnd0 on steroids!! aa ha ha ha ha!! WalterEgo linked you to whatever explanation you think i can't give you, but i'll link you again, because you're stupid TROLL TWAT and that's what you'll always be! LINK what your stupid American brain thinks is "enough sense to ask questions instead of making assumptions" the rest of the world considers to be STUPID AMERICAN FLAWED LOGIC! aa ha ha ha! you're a cu*tish troll! fu*k you!
ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment
aa ha ha ha ha!! YOU'RE THE STUPID TWAT NOW!! aa ha ha ha!! you always were and always will be the stupid twat! the stupid american twat copy of cenglnd0 on steroids!! aa ha ha ha ha!! WalterEgo linked you to whatever explanation you think i can't give you, but i'll link you again, because you're stupid TROLL TWAT and that's what you'll always be! LINK what your stupid American brain thinks is "enough sense to ask questions instead of making assumptions" the rest of the world considers to be STUPID AMERICAN FLAWED LOGIC! aa ha ha ha! you're a cu*tish troll! fu*k you!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2869 days ago)
The colours represent the temperature difference compared to 1880 - white meaning no change. The deepest red is 2C higher than 1880. LINK
ReplyVote up (74)down (101)
Original comment
The colours represent the temperature difference compared to 1880 - white meaning no change. The deepest red is 2C higher than 1880. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2869 days ago)
Thanks for your professional response. It was much better than the Guest. Do you know why they picked 1880 as the basis? We didn't have satellites going around the world then. I wonder what the graph would look like if they selected 1350 instead. They would see a decrease in temperature instead so it makes me wonder why they picked an arbitrary date like 1880.
ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment
Thanks for your professional response. It was much better than the Guest. Do you know why they picked 1880 as the basis? We didn't have satellites going around the world then. I wonder what the graph would look like if they selected 1350 instead. They would see a decrease in temperature instead so it makes me wonder why they picked an arbitrary date like 1880.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2869 days ago)
My guess is that 1880 was chosen as marking the end the industrial revolution. But note that in the fifties, much of the world was cooler than 1880. It's only until the eighties when you really start to notice the warming.
ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment
My guess is that 1880 was chosen as marking the end the industrial revolution. But note that in the fifties, much of the world was cooler than 1880. It's only until the eighties when you really start to notice the warming.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2869 days ago)
Would you consider that cherry picking your data points? Maybe they could have picked 100,000 years ago when the first modern humans first appeared. Then we could really see if humans were the cause and it not being related to any natural cycles. But they didn't do that, they just happened to pick 1880 which is the lowest dip in temperature since coming out of the little ice age. It is suspicious to me. Please take a look at this chart: LINK Now tell me what cyclical temperature changes do you see? I see 5 peaks and 4 of them are before humans were on this planet and the 5th is now. All the peaks are evenly spaced out which sort of gives evidence to natural occurrences of climate change.
ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment
Would you consider that cherry picking your data points? Maybe they could have picked 100,000 years ago when the first modern humans first appeared. Then we could really see if humans were the cause and it not being related to any natural cycles. But they didn't do that, they just happened to pick 1880 which is the lowest dip in temperature since coming out of the little ice age. It is suspicious to me. Please take a look at this chart: LINK Now tell me what cyclical temperature changes do you see? I see 5 peaks and 4 of them are before humans were on this planet and the 5th is now. All the peaks are evenly spaced out which sort of gives evidence to natural occurrences of climate change.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2869 days ago)
We're going over all the same ground again. That graph ends at 1990. As it says in the description to this video: "With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 133-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record." Do you think NASA is making all this stuff up? Do you really think 30 billion tons of CO2 injected into the atmosphere every year is going to have no effect? You turned before, you can do it again.
ReplyVote up (85)down (101)
Original comment
We're going over all the same ground again. That graph ends at 1990. As it says in the description to this video: "With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 133-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record." Do you think NASA is making all this stuff up? Do you really think 30 billion tons of CO2 injected into the atmosphere every year is going to have no effect? You turned before, you can do it again.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2869 days ago)
You did conveniently avoid answering the question about the cycles in the historical record of the temperatures of this planet. Why would we ignore natural occurrences of climate change and only look at a small time period and then try to find a correlation that doesn't exist. The CO2 levels have been increasing continuously but it's been 15 or 16 years without any temperature changes. At least that's the findings of the IPCC but that doesn't match what NASA's visualization shows. A scientist noticed that NASA and NOAA data for 2013 do not match. When you look at the eastern part of the US, it was below average according to NOAA but NASA shows it to be way above average. LINK I have to admit, it is stuff like this that makes me have more doubt about the "science" that they are putting into this propoganda.
ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment
You did conveniently avoid answering the question about the cycles in the historical record of the temperatures of this planet. Why would we ignore natural occurrences of climate change and only look at a small time period and then try to find a correlation that doesn't exist. The CO2 levels have been increasing continuously but it's been 15 or 16 years without any temperature changes. At least that's the findings of the IPCC but that doesn't match what NASA's visualization shows. A scientist noticed that NASA and NOAA data for 2013 do not match. When you look at the eastern part of the US, it was below average according to NOAA but NASA shows it to be way above average. LINK I have to admit, it is stuff like this that makes me have more doubt about the "science" that they are putting into this propoganda.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2869 days ago)
We've been through all this before. The increase in surface temperature slowed down over the past 15 years, but it is still increasing. It's the deeper oceans and the poles that are absorbing most of the heat right now. As for your link, you need to be more specific than that. What am I supposed to be looking at?
ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment
We've been through all this before. The increase in surface temperature slowed down over the past 15 years, but it is still increasing. It's the deeper oceans and the poles that are absorbing most of the heat right now. As for your link, you need to be more specific than that. What am I supposed to be looking at?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2869 days ago)
I wanted you to notice the natural climate change cycles that could not have possibly been caused by humans since we were not here then. Notice how evenly spaced those cycles are and that the current cycle we are in is in the spot where it should be. Regarding the 15 year slow-down, how is that possible when we are still increasing the CO2 production every year (30 billion tons according to you). If CO2 was the reason for the temperature change, and the CO2 is increasing by 30 billion tons every year, why haven't we seen a runaway temperature increase in the last 15 years?
ReplyVote up (71)down (101)
Original comment
I wanted you to notice the natural climate change cycles that could not have possibly been caused by humans since we were not here then. Notice how evenly spaced those cycles are and that the current cycle we are in is in the spot where it should be. Regarding the 15 year slow-down, how is that possible when we are still increasing the CO2 production every year (30 billion tons according to you). If CO2 was the reason for the temperature change, and the CO2 is increasing by 30 billion tons every year, why haven't we seen a runaway temperature increase in the last 15 years?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2869 days ago)
As I've said before, I'm not an expert, so I'll just explain how I understand the science. Water, land and air all heat and cool at different rates. So the planet will not warm evenly as we add CO2 to the atmosphere. I would expect the air to warm first, especially the colder bits like the poles, and the deep oceans to warm later - which seems to be what is happening. That 30 billion tons of CO2 (actually it's nearer 35 billion tons for 2013) is not according to me, it's according to Scientific American: LINK I keep quoting it because it was the one fact that really solidified my position when I found out. How can adding 35 billion tons every year not make a difference? I'm not sure how much 1 ton of CO2 is, but Crazy Russian Hacker's dry ice experiment was 2 pounds. LINK About natural climate cycles over thousands of years, they are irrelevant. We are talking about whether the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet. There is no observable natural phenomenon that can account for the warming in the last 60 years. The ONLY way computer models can match real data, is by factoring in our emissions. I don't understand why you don't get it, unless you have an agenda. What is your day job?
ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment
As I've said before, I'm not an expert, so I'll just explain how I understand the science. Water, land and air all heat and cool at different rates. So the planet will not warm evenly as we add CO2 to the atmosphere. I would expect the air to warm first, especially the colder bits like the poles, and the deep oceans to warm later - which seems to be what is happening. That 30 billion tons of CO2 (actually it's nearer 35 billion tons for 2013) is not according to me, it's according to Scientific American: LINK I keep quoting it because it was the one fact that really solidified my position when I found out. How can adding 35 billion tons every year not make a difference? I'm not sure how much 1 ton of CO2 is, but Crazy Russian Hacker's dry ice experiment was 2 pounds. LINK About natural climate cycles over thousands of years, they are irrelevant. We are talking about whether the burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet. There is no observable natural phenomenon that can account for the warming in the last 60 years. The ONLY way computer models can match real data, is by factoring in our emissions. I don't understand why you don't get it, unless you have an agenda. What is your day job?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: I am (2869 days ago)
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" Richard Feynman
ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts" Richard Feynman
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Penis (2869 days ago)
“No matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as the truth.” ― John F. Kennedy
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
“No matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as the truth.” ― John F. Kennedy
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2869 days ago)
Even worse, if they picked 1150 as their basis it would probably show we are colder now even more than 1350.
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
Even worse, if they picked 1150 as their basis it would probably show we are colder now even more than 1350.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2869 days ago)
What temperatures were in the past is irrelevant. The ONLY way scientists can get computer models to match reality, is by including CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. There is NO observed natural phenomena that can account for the rise in temperature over the last 60 years.
ReplyVote up (73)down (101)
Original comment
What temperatures were in the past is irrelevant. The ONLY way scientists can get computer models to match reality, is by including CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. There is NO observed natural phenomena that can account for the rise in temperature over the last 60 years.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2868 days ago)
There is NO way warmists (they are not scientists) can get computer models to match reality. Not their models anyway. Not a single one if them produces anything even near the observable results, last or present. This is exactly why they are so totally discredited.
ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment
There is NO way warmists (they are not scientists) can get computer models to match reality. Not their models anyway. Not a single one if them produces anything even near the observable results, last or present. This is exactly why they are so totally discredited.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (2869 days ago)
Another question now that I looked at your link. They say "The final frame represents global temperature anomalies averaged from 2009 through 2013." Why would they do that? Is it because 2010-2013 did not have any increase or the temperatures actually went down and the graph didn't tell the story they wanted so they had to manipulate the data differently? I wish they wouldn't do things like that because it's what gives me doubt about its accuracy. At least they admitted to tampering with the data but I'd still like to know why they felt it was necessary just for those 5 years to average when we probably had the most accurate data collection of all-time during that period. It would seem more appropriate to average data from the earlier years when data collection wasn't as prevalent but it wasn't done that way.
ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment
Another question now that I looked at your link. They say "The final frame represents global temperature anomalies averaged from 2009 through 2013." Why would they do that? Is it because 2010-2013 did not have any increase or the temperatures actually went down and the graph didn't tell the story they wanted so they had to manipulate the data differently? I wish they wouldn't do things like that because it's what gives me doubt about its accuracy. At least they admitted to tampering with the data but I'd still like to know why they felt it was necessary just for those 5 years to average when we probably had the most accurate data collection of all-time during that period. It would seem more appropriate to average data from the earlier years when data collection wasn't as prevalent but it wasn't done that way.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: FREEDOM (2870 days ago)
i don't care what NASA says about global warming, all i know is that global warming is a scam and NASA is made up of a bunch of idiots. Big fat ugly idiots! There, i said it and it felt great because it's true!
ReplyVote up (52)down (101)
Original comment
i don't care what NASA says about global warming, all i know is that global warming is a scam and NASA is made up of a bunch of idiots. Big fat ugly idiots! There, i said it and it felt great because it's true!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: I am (2870 days ago)
I concur indubitably !
ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment
I concur indubitably !
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (2868 days ago)
Latest comment: It's an honour to have the experts here.
ReplyVote up (69)down (101)
Original comment
Latest comment: It's an honour to have the experts here.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Alan Partridge on the benefits of global warming
Alan Partridge on the benefits of global warming
The day is today
The day is today
AsapSCIENCE | The biggest lie about renewable energy
AsapSCIENCE | The biggest lie about renewable energy
The difference between climate and weather
The difference between climate and weather
Forecasting sea level rise for Maryland
Forecasting sea level rise for Maryland