17 June 2016

World temperature data since 1850

Found in the Data is Beautiful subreddit, where there is some discussion.

I thought of sending this to a friend of mine who is a climate change skeptic, but I know his response will be that the changes reflect 1) instrumentation error and 2) normal cyclic variation.  *sigh*


  1. I find this version to be a better way to visualize it (the 'animated spiral' link in the text). Especially pay attention starting in the late 70s/early 80s when things really shift into high gear.


  2. Interesting that that climate change deniers are usually Republican/Conservatives who strictly adhere to "family values," and yet, they are unwilling to even consider what we are presently doing to the very earth they are leaving their sons and daughters- namely a planet with increasingly hotter temperatures (how much hotter, no can actually say once our long dormant methane escapes worldwide) that will lead to higher sea levels, and less available land that will increase mass migrations for fewer resources- which means a vast increase in worldwide conflicts. And you don't have to take my word on the latter since the Pentagon has already contemplated and confirmed the consequences.

    That's just one rung on the long ladder of increasing complications that will (not so?) slowly begin to eviscerate daily life on earth as we know it. Dying oceans, increasing violence of storms, evacuation of coastal cities- not to mention the... economic consequences, the one thing you'd think they'd express some concern about.

    1. We do not deny climate change. We deny man has any substantial influence on the change. Every climate model has failed to predict any change xorrectly, especially Gore's hockey stick claim.
      If there is a majority of scientists "who agree" it's because the ones who don't are ignored and not counted.
      If the term "pacific decadal oscillator" is unknown to,you, then you are the one uninformed about science.
      If the recent low amount of sunspots, and the sunspot minor and major cycles correlation with earths climate changes are news to you, you are the one who trust government paid scientist, who are all too,ready to tax us, too much.
      Did this Republican conservative mention that I'm happily married and devoutly Catholic too?
      Oh yes, did you realize that the CO2 that man has indeed increase in the atmosphere has helped plant growth and helps us feed the world population?
      We will leave the earth prosperous and productive, while you governemnt agreeing climate fanatics will launch the world needlessly into suffering and poverty..
      Last time there was such government cheerleading some short mustached German was given Poland as a peace offering.

    2. Unknown: if I were to concede your point and we were to agree that the climate IS changing (warming) but that man is NOT responsible for that change - that it is the result of cosmic cycles, not human behavior - would you agree that we should do something to reverse (or slow) the process, or would you argue that the advantages to the plants of our planet outweigh any deleterious effects on the mammals?

    3. Unknown- Ah yes, who could ever forget those choicest of truisms from The Golden Age of RayGun: "Ketchup is a vegetable" and (wait for it)... "Trees cause pollution."

      "If there is a majority of scientists "who agree" it's because the ones who don't are ignored and not counted."

      Actually, they're ignored and discredited pretty much because their funding past and/or present is somehow always tied to the fossil fuel industry.

    4. Minnesotasan: The point is man cannot influence the climate, so any activity we do would prove futile, and harmful to society.
      This is just another socialism movement wrapped in a green ribbon. Socialism, communism, and fascism, all disastrous for the citizen. Just as like Venezuala, USSR, Brazil, Zimbabawee, Argentina, and countless other 20th and 21st century disastrous experiments.

      Stan B. You are just wrong about discredited... Many of these scientist we defunded and attacked, but not discredited.. https://youtu.be/5c4XPVPJwBY
      If anything, the scientists in "denial" are growing.
      By the way, the colors on the posted data presentation do show drastic color changes, but the scale is 1 degree. The data presentation is formulated to be observational alarming because the real number is so slight.

    5. Of the 3 TOP scientists touted by your denial video, Dr. Richard Lindzen has been more wrong than right throughout his career on climate change:


      And it didn't take long to get to #2 on the list- a Dr. Patrick Michaels, who himself admitted that 40% of his funding comes from the fossil fuel industry.

      Your combination of science faction and Bible studies does not make for a credible, scientific anything. Next on your list is "gravity is only a theory," the earth is 6,000 yrs old and was made in 6 days.

      Why don't you argue with the Pentagon as I already mentioned, and then take it up with Exxon who knew as early as 1977 that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels “would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.”

    6. I was hoping for more than the usual discussion points here. This blog has an awesome breadth of subject - thank you - and usually an awesome pointed critique. I don't know if I would land myself in the denier camp, but I do have some questions on what the heck to do about all of it. I think things like increased c02 impacting food production is a valid point. Less starving people is a good thing. Fixing externalities is a tough business - it can create compound problems. If we decreased crop yeilds by correcting the 'problem' of global warming, then I hope we can increase yeilds in another way. I recently read about the impact that increased reliance on high cost green electricity resources is having on hospitals. Electricity is a large need for hospitals - if their electricity budget goes up some other budget item must go down. We may be saving the world but there is a cost. I thought the debate would have by now trended to the "without hot air" lines of discussion rather than the simple retoric of name calling. I think fossil fuels have done tremendous things for human prosperity. I think most rational people on both sides of this debate want human prosperity to continue. How do we replace the single largest reason that we as a species have done so well - cheap energy.

    7. Anon- Had we made a modicum of investment in proper R&D into solar and all other alternative energy sources since the '70s- we would have a cheap, viable and substantial alternative energy infrastructure available and in operation right now.

      Instead... Raygun tore the solar panels off the White House, quashed any talk (let alone actual development) of any alternative energy anything, and we are where we are- still at the mercy of the fossil fuel industries, even though the sun, wind and ocean currents are free.

  3. Agreed this is one off the best presentations of the data I've seen. And also about your comment about the pointlessness of sending this to your denier mate. Denial is a religion

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. In the '70s it was global cooling until that model prediction broke, in the '90s it was global warming until that model prediction broke, now it is climate change because that cannot be denied.
      Have you seen how the earth's magnetic poles have shifted? How about the 15% weaker magnetosphere? Where is the earth's magnetic protective force changes accounted for in any of the models?
      Yes, the climate is changing. However, what is the real probable cause? Man does pollute the planet, but we do not seem to have any meaningful effect on the earths climate.
      My God is in the bible and my religion is Catholic. My denial is informed skeptism, nothing more. What is your religion?

  4. The Earth has been here for 4,000 years; a man can feed hundreds of people with 2 fish and 3 loaves of bread, turn water in to wine, walk on water(that is not frozen), and he dies and wakes up three days later. Your religion is Catholic and you can believe that, but not human destruction of the atmosphere. Your church is also full of child molesters which the Vatican has covered up for over two hundred years.

    Finally, you are brave enough to write this, but not enough to put your name on it.

    My religion is factual science, not a religion that is based on astrology.

  5. How many years have we been monitoring lunar and other planetary readings?
    I wonder what correlation there may be in the rest of the Solar system and Earth's rise over the last 166 years?

  6. Read http://www.skepticalscience.com


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...