Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

by sharan • 16 years ago

109 88 16 years ago

climate.nasa.gov

thangalin2• 16 years ago

Visit:

http://whitemagicsoftware.com/software/climate/master.shtml

  1. City: Cranbrook BC
  2. Days: June 1 to October 1
  3. Click Report
  4. Repeat for any number of Canadian cities

InclinedPlane2• 16 years ago

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Only about 1 in 10 surface weather stations is sufficiently properly sited to produce data accurate to within 1 deg. C.

cromulent3• 16 years ago

...in the US.

flgb2• 16 years ago

The urban heat island effect and 'micro-climates' have a negligible impact on long term warming trends, especially when records are averaged over large areas. Also, rural temperature records show the same warming trends as urban ones. The 'evidence' on this site isn't relevant to arguments regarding the existing of global warming.

KaeseEs• 16 years ago

You'd think NASA would know well enough to start the y-axis at 0. Lousy graphs of this sort create the appearance of deceit, even in it absence, and wind up giving ammunition to skeptics.

dools• 16 years ago

Why does the y-axis of a graph need to begin at 0? 0 is a number like any other number. If the result set you're attempting to display doesn't have any values at 0 then why would you display 0? The graph in question also doesn't show any data points at y=-257,687 ... does that concern you?

cromulent3• 16 years ago

Edward Tufte agrees with you:

Baselines

In general, in a time-series, use a baseline that shows the data not the zero point. If the zero point reasonably occurs in plotting the data, fine. But don't spend a lot of empty vertical space trying to reach down to the zero point at the cost of hiding what is going on in the data line itself. (The book, How to Lie With Statistics, is wrong on this point.)

For examples, all over the place, of absent zero points in time-series, take a look at any major scientific research publication. The scientists want to show their data, not zero.

The urge to contextualize the data is a good one, but context does not come from empty vertical space reaching down to zero, a number which does not even occur in a good many data sets. Instead, for context, show more data horizontally! .

-- Edward Tufte, October 18, 2001 http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...

raquo• 16 years ago

Because when zero is not marked it is impossible to judge the relative magnitude of all graph fluctuations without looking at the y axis scale. On this graph a lot of people (incl. me) would be tricked into thinking that in the last 100 years the amount of CO2 increased by an order of magnitude. Now, I know that's impossible, and I checked the scale at the left to find the usual suspect. But many normal people would just believe what they see. It's typical deceit method that is widely used in corporate presentations, journalism, etc. The only excuse for not marking zero on most charts is if you want to show minor fluctuations more precisely, which is not the purpose of this graph.

sesqu2• 16 years ago

0 is not like any other number. It is of very special import, along with 1. In particular, when dealing with 2D graphics, people look at area. Area is defined by multiplication, and 0 and 1 are the two numbers y for multiplication such that f(x,y)=y and f(x,y)=x for all x.

0 is the only number that is not arbitrary in a scalable measurement such as a graph. That's what makes it important.

sliverstorm2• 16 years ago

I think at this point, everyone has made up their minds which side to believe, and more evidence isn't going to help the matter, unless it is the sort of rock-hard evidence no one can possibly ignore (like repeated snowless winters in Detroit).

danparsonson2• 16 years ago

Really? You mean to say that if you believed something, no amount of new evidence to the contrary could persuade you to change your mind?

ryanwaggoner• 16 years ago

I think he's probably saying that most people are like that, and sadly, I have to agree.

protomyth• 16 years ago

What evidence do you believe people will take seriously now?

Its strange. I believe in vaccines, following my doctors advice, and recycling. But, then I go to the gas station and see signs that my cellphone could cause an explosion. I remember the "going into an ice age talk" from the 1970's and the plans to heat the earth. I also remember the hate on for nuclear. Most people I know also see the "security theater" at the airport as not really addressing any real problems. Never mind the constant "you are a nut!" when people ask about the data collection, the e-mail investigation, and which politicians make money from wind as opposed to other new attempts. Also, all that "Hydrogen Economy" talk seems to have died pretty fast.

Solar and wind won't work. They are not constant as burning coal or oil, and we don't seem to have massive electrical storage technology to compensate. There aren't enough rivers to damn for power and those that are cause their own set of problems. Nuclear probably would have been ready along with a better electrical grid, but hollywood and certain environmental groups blew that.

Add to this, a whole new group of people (the "third world") that is just being able to take advantage of the products, energy creation, and manufacturing techniques that allowed the "first world" to get where they are. Now, we are telling them to not use those because they are harmful, while not providing an actual alternative.

The US is a road, liquid fuel, central electrical production country. No amount of yelling will get rid of roads. Liquid fuel might be replaceable, but it needs to be something as convenient, cheap, and easily taxed (in small chunk / not one big bill). The central grid needs to be improved and we need real, full-time replacements for coal and gas.

The worst part is whatever solution we come up with better be good enough for the third world to skip to.

flgb2• 16 years ago

So what? We shouldn't try and collect more evidence? We should give up on the debate? This really shouldn't be about 'sides'.

By the way, as evidence of global warming, repeated snowless winters in Detroit would not be especially more convincing than the huge amount of evidence we already have.

You don't have to wait to observe the effects of climate change. Where I come from - the south-west of Western Australia - when compared to the 70s, rainfall levels are way down, stream flows into dams are way down, number of hot days per year are up, and average temperatures are up.

prawn2• 16 years ago

Unfortunately, I think you're right.

A friend of mine (who works in energy) was telling me about how the case for renewable energy is being made (to some extent) successfully in Kansas. They push three points:

  - reduce expenditure
  - US should reduce reliance on foreign oil
  - have a duty to protect the earth god gave us

I wonder if the broader case could be made more successfully along these lines (with variations for each arena) rather than leaving it to more divisive arguments where people aggressively take sides (religion vs science, views on reach of government, etc).

rdtsc2• 16 years ago

> - have a duty to protect the earth god gave us

One thing that has always baffled me about American Christians is how apathetic they are towards the environment.

At its core, I guess, the issue is that many are suckered by the right wingers and propaganda from large corporations to vote in their camp, by always bringing up other, more "pressing", moral issues.

I think as long as there are only 2 main viable parties to vote for, many of those folks will still vote along the traditional party lines.

So I agree with you, but it is an uphill battle.

jacoblyles3• 16 years ago

I'm a little slow to update my belief weightings compared to your average right-thinking liberal, mainly because I read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and its striking history of past disasters predicted by the environmentalist movement that failed to come true. But I do update my belief weightings eventually and I find myself becoming more convinced that CAGW is a problem over time.

However, I haven't heard of any new good cost/benefit analysis that makes the case for drastic action. Most economic studies I have heard of recommend only modest action, certainly nothing like what is proposed at UN climate conferences. The Kyoto Protocol, for example, easily fails any cost/benefit analysis.

Studying Economics in University again ruined my chances of being a "good person". I can never get on board the "Act Now!" train, I can only think "is the cost of acting worth the benefit it provides?", and that manner of thinking is doomed to make you unpopular at cocktail parties.

MaysonL• 16 years ago

Lomborg seems to have beat you to it; see his upcomin book: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Solutions-Climate-Change-Compari...

motters• 16 years ago

Also see http://code.google.com/p/tempgraph/

points• 16 years ago

Religion doesn't belong here.

gaius• 16 years ago

So flag it.

kia• 16 years ago

Why did they decided to cut the graphic at 400,000 years before today? Maybe that's because a couple of million years ago the concentration of CO2 was well above today's level?

By the way here is another picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaci...

mkempe5• 16 years ago

Yes, climate and atmosphere do change. There is nothing sacred about current measurements and composition.

Here are estimated CO2 levels through geologic time -- "currently" rather low! -- at UCSD site:

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1...

CO2 is essentially airborne fertilizer. Our planet wouldn't be so green without lots of it. (I'd rather be alive during an interglacial, abundantly green geological period.)

ceejayoz4• 16 years ago

> CO2 is essentially airborne fertilizer.

Sure, but as with fertilizer on fields, there are consequences for using way too much.

> I'd rather be alive during an interglacial, abundantly green geological period.

As long as there aren't a billion or so refugees from the low-lying areas rampaging through.

mmphosis• 16 years ago

Look closely at the right edge of the picture. The text below the picture is revealing...

Human deforestation and burning of fossil fuel has raised atmospheric CO2 to over 380 ppm in the last century, well above pre-industrialized levels, and "off the scale" of this graph top.

electromagnetic• 16 years ago

"Off the scale" is a complete fucking BS term. The carboniferous period had a mean CO2 concentration of around 800ppm and was marked by glaciation and low sea levels - our current correlation between CO2 and "global warming" is off the bullshit scale.

The mean global temperature in the carboniferous period, with CO2 concentrations over double of present day was an astounding, just wait for it... 14C, which is the incredible, * unbelievable* 0C above the mean present day global temperature.

As CO2 levels spiked in the carboniferous period, it is marked by the drop of sea levels by 120m to the present day level, and as the CO2 level subsided, the sea levels rose 80m.

Sorry, but "off the scale" only counts when you actively pick and choose what scale you want to use, which in terms of geological temperature, CO2 and O2 concentrations quite literally means disregarding millions of years of geological time.

M1573RMU74710N3• 16 years ago

The fact that C02 levels have been higher is not necessarily in contradiction to the article, nor an important omission.

This issue as other's have pointed out is the CAUSE of the current levels and the implications thereof.

In the past the high levels of C02 were at least partially due to ice ages, which prevented the normal processes for the mitigation of C02, once the levels built up enough the greenhouse effect melted the ice and restored the levels.

Look around, there's no ice age.

So not only is there no discernible cause for the increase except out actions, we don't have a huge C02-eating army trapped in the ice waiting to be released.

Some natural mechanism will probably step in, but who knows what effects it will have.

We are monkeying with a system we know to have far reaching and potentially devastating effects.

alanh• 16 years ago

You repeatedly type cee-zero-two. It's the letter O, as CO₂ stands for (mono-)carbon dioxide, a gaseous molecule with one carbon and two oxygen molecules. I'm sure you know that, but hey, if you didn't, there you go.

mfukar• 16 years ago

Does anyone have any reference(s) to the methods used to sample data about atmospheric 400,000 years ago? It's amazingly interesting.

gvb• 16 years ago

They send a cyborg back in time to collect samples. While he is there, he kills Sarah and the world ends in 3... 2... 1... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminator

Seriously, ice core samples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

harscoat• 16 years ago

The power of a graph.

todayiamme3• 16 years ago

You know whenever I read about this debate for some reason I recall George Carlin's prophetic words;

"The planet is fine....

The people are fucked."

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&...

Whether we like to admit this or not; the earth and life will go on without us. It's our own survival we are fighting for over here; not a complex system in which life has taken hold by surviving through tough odds without the intend of surviving. This piece of rock really doesn't give a damn.

nice1• 16 years ago

Alarmism has a really bad track record.

todayiamme3• 16 years ago

It's not alarmism, what I'm saying is that this civilization is unsustainable by any metric you care to throw at it. We've over run our phosphorous reserves. We're depleting energy, land and the ability to feed our civilization. We're systematically amputating ourselves while worrying about the blood spilling on the floor.

It just strikes me how far away from reality this debate has taken us. Yes, none of this will kill the planet or this species for that matter, but it will kill this civilization.

In fact, this has happened again and again throughout history as Jared Diamond points out in his book, Collapse. When you see the record of civilizations and the choices they have made then 5 key metrics stand out;

1) Environmental damage

2) Climate change

3) Hostile neighbors

4) Friendly trade partners

5) The societies response to it's environmental problems

What's interesting is how he compared these metrics and individually isolated cases in histories where only a few were present and used them as examples to see what was going on. It's a beautiful and thrilling exploration between the factors, stakeholders at play and why those choices were made (as far as we know). A comment simply won't do that entire thing justice.

The thing is that there is a delicate interplay between our surroundings and our civilization and stretching it too far without healing won't lead to pleasant consequences. A civilization is a delicate state of things that needs to be maintained at a certain cost be it resources, intellectual or cultural capital. Everything joins to create an integrated whole and that's the problem; you can't have one without the other.

So, essentially we need to make a series of choices about how we are doing things and how we could do them if we want this period of prosperity to survive beyond a few decades.

Yes there is hope, but there's loads of work to do.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_...

jshen• 16 years ago

yeah I know, nukes aren't really dangerous are they?

Just to be clear, the parent argument is that people have been saying that our activities are dangerous for a while, but nothing really bad has happened yet. That's like saying no one has detonated a nuke yet so we shouldn't worry about nuclear proliferation.

ceejayoz4• 16 years ago

Underestimating problems has a bad track record, too.

eduardo_f2• 16 years ago

Wrong do-gooders are more dangerous than evildoers.

tsiki• 16 years ago

Pretending sound scientific research is alarming has much, much worse record (see the past 'debates' over whether CFC's contribute to ozone depletion or whether cigarettes are bad for human health).

The first IPCC assesment report was published 20 years ago. It would take copious amounts of confirmation bias to pretend they're being alarmist.

M1573RMU74710N3• 16 years ago

Well first of all, this statement is complete BS.

"Alarmism" is a loaded term...of course it has a bad track record. If it turned out well, it wouldn't be called "alarmism" but foresight.

So, no duh. It's like saying "Murder has a really bad track record".

It's highly arguable that this is "alarm-ism"...that would imply it's a knee-jerk uninformed reaction, when in fact this is a scientific consensus coming from years of research.

So what matters is: this is science.

You can apply some loaded term to it...but it is science.

...and science has a pretty good track record overall. Also, science is constantly improving it's own ability and therefore track record.

Is it infallible? no...but if you want to start pulling out stuff about "track records" it's pretty silly to bet against the science.

jonhendry2• 16 years ago

I'm sure someone said something like that at Pompeii around 79 AD.

jbooth4• 16 years ago

Well, lots of other species, too, but yeah, in case there's any confusion: Nobody's saying that global warming will lead to the end of the planet as a mass of rock that supports life in some form.

But if we care about how convenient it is to live on? Then global warming is worth trying to avoid, probably.

bd• 16 years ago

Does this mean human beings can effectively prevent ice age?

These are supposed to be cyclical, so it's pretty much guaranteed sooner or later we will have to face one.

TerraHertz2• 16 years ago

For anyone who still thinks Anthropogenic Global Warming is real, some reading material: http://everist.org/archives/links/!_AGW_links.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_CRU_emails_links.txt

Oh and yes, the graph was limited to 400K years,because otherwise it would show CO2 levels in the past FAR higher than today. And it doesn't show CO2 vs temp over geological timescales, because that graph clearly shows that CO2 lags temp, not the other way round.

It's the same old story - figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer.

ced3• 16 years ago

figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer.

How do you know the people behind the link you gave aren't self-interested?

Besides, just because a foolish/corrupted person says X, doesn't mean that NOT X is true.

lutorm4• 16 years ago

You mean I should believe a huge stream-of-consciousness ascii file over scientific papers? Sorry, that's not going to fly with me.

And your money argument doesn't work. Are you seriously saying those who argue AGW is NOT real don't have a financial interest in that?

enko2• 16 years ago

> Are you seriously saying those who argue AGW is NOT real don't have a financial interest in that?

Are you seriously saying that every single person who has ever questioned the establishment line on AGW has a financial interest in some kind of carbon emitting industry? Bollocks. I am not a "believer" or a "denier" but rather a skeptic, of both sides, whom I find to be very agenda-driven.

Now you might think I'm an idiot, and fair enough, but my argumentativeness is in no way whatsoever driven by financial interests. I don't think I am alone in that. Please factor that into your thinking.

jbooth4• 16 years ago

"figure out who hopes to make money from a scam, and things get a lot clearer."

So let's get this straight. Your theory is that a 95% scientific consensus exists because they're all trying to make money off a scam? What's the scam, you get a PhD, postdoc, do 4 years of research at poverty-level wages and you get a 40k grant? Wow, that's effective.

Wouldn't they just work in finance or technology if they wanted money? Or, if they know climate science, they could probably just call the coal industry and build graphs saying the opposite for 10X what they're making right now.

So the reality's actually the exact opposite of your statement.

enko2• 16 years ago

I think what you say is wrong. I am reasonably confident that in any middling govt job, eg school teacher, in which advancement relies on lip service for the status quo, you would be sure to see 95% support for same.

"Trying to make money off a scam" is way too strong. "Trying to keep their heads down and fit in" maybe. I can see that happening, sure. BTW I am neither for nor against global warming†, just wanted to disagree with your thesis.

† I really just don't know what to think.

ced3• 16 years ago

Scientists may not care much about money... But they care a great deal about peer recognition, status, buying expensive hardware to do simulations, having a lot of grad students, etc.

All of those would disappear if convincing evidence against climate change were found. I once heard a top scientist in solar science complain that his field had been corrupted that way.

I agree that Science is our best hope for understanding climate, but let's not idealize it.

16s• 16 years ago

The scam is this... they all own stock in Toyota.

The same people who cannot accurately predict whether or not it will rain tomorrow know with 100% certainty that the polar ice caps will melt if I don't buy a Prius.

TerraHertz2• 16 years ago

Ha. Quite a few people getting upset about my post. <yawn> 'huge stream-of consciousness ascii list', etc. Ha ha ha! Points:

* It's TWO lists. Pay attention.

* They're not 'stream of consciousness', they're chronological archives of links to AGW related articles, posts, papers, documentaries, etc.

* They're ascii because that works best for maintaining such a record. Deal with it.

* They're 'huge' because there's been so much going on in the AGW discussion, especially since the CRU emails story broke. I'm not in any way trying to present a convenient summary, but an archive of events. Deal with that too.

Also,can't help laughing at the poor sods who still believe (or pretend) that '95% of climate scientists agree AGW exists and is due to CO2' twaddle. Yeah, if they did I'd have been wasting my time keeping such lists.

However,there's no such consensus, only a small number of individuals pretending they represent a near-universal consensus. And being supported in that effort by various media and journals. As becomes clear to anyone who actually looks into the matter. Which could involve reading through a 'huge list of references'- heaven forbid that it might require actual effort. Or that anyone would dare to subvert the 'consensus' by providing a convenient list of dissenting resources.

mcritz• 16 years ago

So much armchair quarterbacking, very little PhD in climatology. Reading the deniers’ comments I wonder if they tell their doctor how their endocrine system is powered by crystal energy and argue with the pilot about Bernoulli’s “so-called” Principle.

Science has come to a conclusion. Do you listen or merely justify your previously held belief?

jbooth4• 16 years ago

The problem is that they really, really hate hippies. And hippies are all about global warming, they'll even go one step further and lecture you with a bunch of crap about "gaia" or something.

So in order for these people to be good, upstanding Americans, they must be 100% diametrically opposed to the hippies, even if the hippie is saying "the sky is blue".

Personally, I'm ok with dropping the gaia and taking the science.

ChristianMarks• 16 years ago

Despite the conservative naysayers, the federal government is heavily invested in climate research. Take the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab (GFDL) in Princeton, NJ. This is a NOAA facility involved with sophisticated climate models. Raytheon, a major defense contractor, was involved in day-to-day operations and public relations.

A defense contractor is involved with public relations for this facility, not Indymedia.

Typically, climate models require the resources of high-performance computing facilities with thousands of processors. These facilities cost tens of millions of dollars to implement, and millions to maintain.

Why is climate research a matter of national security, involving the oversight of defense contractors and personnel with security clearance? For at least two reasons. First, it is of strategic interest to the United States to know how the planet will be affected by global warming. If large parts of China or the Netherlands are going to end up submerged under 20 feet of water, and millions of people will have to be evacuated, this U.S. would not want to outsource the ability to forecast this to, let us say, non-allied countries.

Another reason is that with the increased likelihood of hurricanes in the Gulf (to mention one case of extreme weather) it is a matter of national security to have better models for predicting the likely trajectory of a hurricane as it approaches land. A wrong guess can cost billions.

Despite the global warming deniers among politicians who are loyal to the big energy lobby, you can rest assured that funding for the development of sophisticated climate models and the elaborate high-performance computing systems, scientists and operational support personnel needed to design, run and maintain them them is provisioned by the federal government as a matter national security.

Nasa.gov: Evidence of Climate Change

Related Stories