By Tuan Nguyen
Posting in Cities
Since the year 2000, we've experienced nine of the 10 warmest years on record -- and it's about to get even hotter.
If there were any doubt that a real warming trend is upon us, scientists at NASA have produced a visualization that depicts the recent rise in global temperatures as felt over a span of 130 years.
While the video shows a clear pattern of seasonal temperature changes along with momentary spikes throughout the centuries, you can see that it's only recently that temperatures in most regions of the world (represented with intensified colors) started to really peak. In fact, since the year 2000, we've experienced nine of the 10 warmest years on record. And the researchers have noted that within the past 11 years, temperatures were significantly hotter than in the middle and late 20th century. For instance, the average temperature globally in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than baseline temperatures in the mid-20th century.
The warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010, registering as a virtual tie.
"We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting," said James E. Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record."
The weather data was culled from more than 1,000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature and recordings from an Antarctic research station. Researchers then used a computer program (available to the public) to calculate the difference between the surface temperature in a given month and the average temperature for the same place from 1951 to 1980, which served as a baseline for the analysis. Similar results from the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center corroborated with NASA's findings.
And if you're wondering about the link between CO2 and global warming, here's what the data from NASA shows:
- The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins.
- By 1960, the average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million.
- Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace.
While scientists don't expect temperatures to rise consistently year after year, they do expect those figures to continue climbing over decades with extreme temperatures predicted in the next two to three years due to increased solar activity and the effects of El Nino on the tropical Pacific region.
"It's always dangerous to make predictions about El Niño, but it's safe to say we'll see one in the next three years," Hansen said. "It won't take a very strong El Niño to push temperatures above 2010."
More infographics and interactive maps:
- Infographic: Which American cities are most vulnerable to natural disasters?
- Infographic: What is the water footprint in the U.S.?
- Infographic: Interactive map shows nuclear disaster hotspots
- Infographic: Interactive map shows which neighborhoods are safe?
- Infographic: Where HIV cases are most prevalent
- Infographic: How being a liberal or conservative shapes your life
Jan 23, 2012
This are a series of videos by a geologist, Ian Stewart. See how they prove all your Nay-sayers theories. He also show how you nay-sayers admit it is warming. Admit it, you do not want it to be true because you fear you will lose your freedoms!!! But if you do not give you some of your freedoms, you will lose your planet! Where are you going to live? Where is your food and water going to come from? Climate change will change all this! http://documentaryheaven.com/earth-the-climate-wars-pt-13/ http://documentaryheaven.com/earth-the-climate-wars-pt-23/ http://documentaryheaven.com/hot-planet/
The research and academic communities need to wake up and realize that there are scores of people, using different alieases, who are either paid to stalk scientific sites (including SCIENCE and NATURE magazine websites) and post contrarian, non-scientific garbage. This is just part of the organized and extremely well-financed campaign to discredit climate science. There is nothing wrong with expressing economic/political perspectives about whether or not taking action against climate change is economically feasible, useful, etc. But instead denialists are trying to convince the public that the entire scientific community is colluding to lie and mislead them. In addition to being manifestly impossible (given the nature of scientists and the scientific community) is patently and demonstrably false.
Good grief! Does anyone with any sense still doubt that Global Warming is not only real, but the extreme weather events predicted by the best models have been happening with regularity.
The Little Ice Age was only little because the Industrial Revolution pumped out MASSIVE amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Had that never happened and had we not started burning fossil fuels, we would still be experiencing an ice age... good for us at the time, but no good any longer.
every 26000 years the earth goes thought a warming cycle and a cooling cycle.most of the warming we are experiencing is part of this natural cycle.
I hope the naysayers see this and realize how serious the problem is getting.Global warming effects everything ,from agraculture to enviormental disasters worldwide.
I'd like to know how they determined temperature changes in the 19th century in remote seas where no ships traveled. But, yes, the world is warming. It's been warming since the little Ice Age which ended around 1800. The graphic only proves correlation with rising CO2, not causation. The world has experienced peaks and troughs in temperature long before we started burning carbon. In the present epoch there seems to be about a thousand year cycle. It so happens that the temperature peaked around 1000 AD as well as 2000 AD. There were also cold spells around 700 AD and around 1500 AD. Until science can explain why these cycles happen, I won't believe carbon burning is the cause of the present warming.
He is not a paleoclimatologist, nor has had any formal training in the field. He is a TV actor, turned geologist, turned documentary actor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Stewart_(geologist) His documentaries on global warming regurgitate much of the same tripe as seen elsewhere. He adds nothing of scientific merit to the discussion. He is an actor with a degree filling a role. Not really someone to be quoted as an expert.
...that those most vocal about the "crisis" are the ones who demonstratively aren't about to give up any of their "freedoms"?
"Entire"? Hardly - but woe to the ones who do speak up against the man-made hoax. It's not politically correct and their careers are slashed and burned for being politically incorrect. The climate changes and cycles all the time - except THIS time Gore et. al. have figured a way to milk the sheeples.
And there really hasn't even been much in the way of "extreme" weather either. It's all hype. For example, how many Category-3 hurricanes have hit the continental US since Katrina?
Little Ice Age 1550 - 1850 (NASA definition) Industrial Revolution 1750 - 1850. If all that carbon polution pulled the world out of an ice age in just 100 years, why did not we not keep warming as rapidly after 1850? How come the Northwest Passage was being sailed 90+% through in the 1850s and suddenly it was locked in ice for a 100 years until now? Did global warming science stop working? If your argument was valid than global temperatures should be far hotter now than they are. So why did the rapid temperature climb stop?
That both the warming AND cooling "spells" you cite were geographically LOCAL phenomena (to be clear: NOT global in scope) that did NOT affect the AVERAGE TEMPERATURE at all over time. This has been the challenge set to Climatology by you and yours, and the climatologists have gone to great lengths to now ANSWER that question for you. But we see now, that the question itself was a blind, as you are now demonstrating that you will not accept the answers in any case. And, the "peaks" you cite were nowhere near the highs of today. We are well into a new era of steadily growing temperatures. How hot will it have to get, before you accept the clear implications of it? And just how far PAST the critical-change threshhold will your denial timeline take us? Or, to put it another, perhaps more SANE way: just how F*cked ARE we, thanks to YOU?
... that most of YOUR so-called "experts" suffer from the same problem: they are not climatologists. And yet that doesn't stop YOU from citing their words as fact, does it? So why won't you extend that VERY SAME COURTESY to us? And, as a matter of fact, in this case the geologist is also citing, at almost EVERY MOMENT in his videos, the fact that the CLIMATOLOGISTS came up with the theories he's citing. In fact, one does not need to do the research oneself, in order to publicize that research. OUR scientists act this way. YOURS, on the other hand, like Fred Singer, simply "make up sh!t," and then sell it to us on their own say-so. I just watched an old vid from the Gore era, where Singer points out the temperature rise over the 1920s and '40s, and then says "but that was before industrialization." Not so. What Singer seems to have forgotten, is that the World Wars both happened early in the century, and that there was no precedent whatsoever, for the massive industrialization that occurred for that purpose, much less the burning of cities like Dresden and the rest. Really, it's all about the questions one asks...
John, the question is not how many Cat-3 hurricanes have hit the continental US (CONUS) since Katrina but how many Cat-3 hurricanes there have been regardless of where they occur. Whether they hit the CONUS is just a matter of random chance. For instance the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was the third most active in the records and had 12 hurricanes of which 5 were Cat-3 or above. None of them hit the CONUS. Global warming increases the level of energy in the Earth's climate. How could you think that wouldn't manifest itself in changes in weather?
Science has now shown this, by pursuing natural global means of measurement from the period. It cooled Northern Europe (where the thermometers were, duh), but it didn't cool the whole planet. If averages are plotted, the little ice age succumbs to the mean data.
YOUR "kind" of memory evidently puts importance on the fleeting media chatter that any disaster produces; and for some reason, takes that chatter as an indication of real scientific opinion ... rather than a splash of for-profit-media, looking up the most sensational stories to give their sponsors "credibillity." OUR kind of memory is not so fleeting. WE fund science meant to define the past with ever-increasing accuracy, and we don't rule out ANY relevant data -- as you do, when you bring an accusation, but then cannot credit a clear, cogent rebuttal based in the numbers.
...it's that they have very short memories, and assume the same for the rest of us. Clearly, you've forgotten the immediate post-Katrina rhetoric that had had the US being hit by an increasing number of large storms in the season immediately after Katrina. We're still waiting.
Sam, even if this has happened before, did it happen this fast... w are talking about a century here, not 10,000 years, just about 100 years. Watch Climate Wars :http://documentaryheaven.com/earth-the-climate-wars-pt-23/ and see how a "geologist" proves every one of the nay-sayer theories wrong!!!