132 Years of Global Warming Visualized in 26 Dramatically Animated Seconds

Cour­tesy of NASA comes a visu­al­iza­tion show­ing how glob­al tem­per­a­tures have changed since 1880. Accord­ing to NASA’s web site, this “col­or-cod­ed map shows a pro­gres­sion of chang­ing glob­al sur­face tem­per­a­tures from 1884 to 2012. Dark blue indi­cates areas cool­er than aver­age. Dark red indi­cates areas warmer than aver­age.”  And the dif­fer­ence between dark blue and dark red is about 7.2 degrees fahren­heit. NASA sci­en­tists note that “2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, con­tin­u­ing a long-term trend of ris­ing glob­al tem­per­a­tures. With the excep­tion of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 rank­ing as the hottest years on record.” Copies of the video above and still shots can be freely down­loaded from the NASA web site. To deep­en your under­stand­ing of cli­mate change, spend some time with Glob­al Warm­ing, a free online course from the Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go. 

via @SteveSilberman/Wash­Po

Relat­ed Con­tent:

A Song of Our Warm­ing Plan­et: Cel­list Turns 130 Years of Cli­mate Change Data into Music

Glob­al Warm­ing: A Free Course from UChica­go Explains Cli­mate Change

Per­pet­u­al Ocean: A Van Gogh-Like Visu­al­iza­tion of our Ocean Cur­rents

Sal­ly Ride Warns Against Glob­al Warm­ing; Won­ders If Tech­nol­o­gy Can Save Us From Our­selves

by | Permalink | Comments (4) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!

Comments (4)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • Berthold Klein says:

    There is no cred­i­ble exper­i­ment that proves that the “green­house gas effect exist”
    Real sci­en­tists at NASA proved that the Hypothe­ses of the GHGE is wrong 40 year ago.
    The only hope is that enough of the envi­ron­men­tal vam­pires-AGW die over the next 40 year while the New Mini-ice age has proved its Exis­tence. I believe that Max Plank said (para­phras­ing) That a new devel­op­ment in sci­ence is only accept­ed after believ­ers in the Old sci­ence have died”

    Schreud­er & J. O’Sul­li­van New
    Dis­cov­ery: NASA Study Proves Car­bon Diox­ide Cools Atmos­phere

    A recent NASA report throws the space agency into con­flict with cli­ma­tol­o­gists after new NASA
    mea­sure­ments prove that car­bon diox­ide acts as a coolant in Earth­’s atmos­phere.
    NASA’s Lan­g­ley Research Cen­ter has col­lat­ed data prov­ing that “green­house gas­es” actu­al­ly block no less than 95 per­cent of harm­ful solar rays from our plan­et, thus reduc­ing the heat­ing impact of the sun. The data was col­lect­ed by Sound­ing of the Atmos­phere using Broad­band Emis­sion Radiom­e­try, (or SABER). SABER mon­i­tors infrared emis­sions from Earth’s upper atmos­phere, in par­tic­u­lar from car­bon diox­ide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two sub­stances thought to be play­ing a key role in the ener­gy bal­ance of air hun­dreds of miles above our planet’s sur­face.

    NASA’s Lan­g­ley Research Cen­ter instru­ments show that the ther­mos­phere not only received a whop­ping 26 bil­lion kilo­watt hours of ener­gy from the sun dur­ing a recent burst of solar activ­i­ty, but that the upper atmos­pher­ic car­bon diox­ide and nitrous oxide mol­e­cules sent as much as 95% of that straight back out into space.

    The shock rev­e­la­tion stark­ly con­tra­dicts the core propo­si­tion of the so-called green­house gas the­o­ry which claims that more CO2 means more warm­ing for our plan­et. How­ev­er, this com­pelling new NASA data more like­ly serves as the final nail in the junk sci­ence glob­al warm­ing cof­fin and a huge embar­rass­ment for NASA’s chief cli­ma­tol­o­gist, Dr James Hansen over at NASA’s GISS.
    Already,leading inter­na­tion­al cli­ma­tol­o­gists have been in full retreat after hav­ing to con­cede there has been no glob­al warm­ing for 16 years despite lev­els of atmos­pher­ic CO2 ris­ing almost 40 per­cent in recent decades. The new SABER data now forms part of a real world dou­ble wham­my against cli­ma­tol­o­gists’ com­put­er mod­els that have always been pro­grammed to show CO2 as a warm­ing gas.

    As NASA’s SABER team at Lan­g­ley admits: “This is a new fron­tier in the sun-Earth con­nec­tion,” says asso­ciate prin­ci­pal inves­ti­ga­tor Mar­tin Mlynczak, “and the data we’re col­lect­ing are unprece­dent­ed.”

    Over at Prin­cip­ia Sci­en­tif­ic Inter­na­tion­al (PSI) green­house gas effect (GHE) crit­ic, Alan Sid­dons is hail­ing the find­ings. Sid­dons and his
    col­leagues have been win­ning sup­port from hun­dreds of inde­pen­dent sci­en­tists for their GHE stud­ies car­ried out over the last sev­en years. PSI has proved that the num­bers fed into com­put­er mod­els by
    Hansen and oth­ers were based on a faulty inter­pre­ta­tion of the laws of ther­mo­dy­nam­ics. PSI also recent­ly uncov­ered long over­looked evi­dence from the Amer­i­can Mete­o­ro­log­i­cal Soci­ety (AMS) that shows it was wide­ly known the GHE was dis­cred­it­ed pri­or to 1951. [1]End part1

    Point­ed­ly, a much-trum­pet­ed new book released this month by Rupert Dar­wall claims to help expose the back sto­ry of how the junk GHE the­o­ry was con­ve­nient­ly resus­ci­tat­ed in the 1980’s by James Hansen and oth­ers to serve an envi­ron­men­tal pol­i­cy agen­da at that time. [2]
    As the SABER research report states: A recent flur­ry of erup­tions on the sun did more than spark pret­ty auro­ras around the poles. NASA-fund­ed researchers say the solar storms of March 8th through 10th dumped enough ener­gy in Earth’s upper atmos­phere to pow­er every res­i­dence in New York City for two years.“This was the biggest dose of heat we’ve received from a solar storm since 2005,” says Mar­tin of NASA Lan­g­ley Research Cen­ter. “It was a big event, and shows how solar activ­i­ty can direct­ly affect our plan­et.” As PSI’s own space sci­en­tists have con­firmed, as solar ener­gy pen­e­trates deep­er into our atmos­phere, even more of its ener­gy will end up being sent straight back out to space, thus pre­vent­ing it heat­ing up the sur­face of our earth. The NASA Lan­g­ley Research Cen­ter report agrees with PSI by admitting:“Carbon diox­ide and nitric oxide are nat­ur­al ther­mostats,” explains James Rus­sell of Hamp­ton Uni­ver­si­ty, SABER’s prin­ci­pal inves­ti­ga­tor. “When the upper atmos­phere (or ‘ther­mos­phere’) heats up, these mol­e­cules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

    To those inde­pen­dent sci­en­tists and engi­neers at Prin­cip­ia Sci­en­tif­ic Inter­na­tion­al this is not news. The “nat­ur­al ther­mo­stat” effect of CO2 has long been known by applied sci­en­tists and engi­neers how have exploit­ed it’s remark­able prop­er­ties in the man­u­fac­tur­er of refrig­er­a­tors and air con­di­tion­ing sys­tems. The fledg­ling inde­pen­dent sci­ence body has repeat­ed­ly shown in it’s open­ly peer reviewed papers that atmos­pher­ic car­bon diox­ide does not cause glob­al warm­ing nor cli­mate change.
    Some die-hard cli­mate alarmists will still say that in the low­er atmos­phere the action of car­bon diox­ide is reversed, but there is no actu­al proof of this at all. PSI sug­gests it is time for the SABER team to have a word with James Hansen.
    [1] Brooks,
    C.E.P. (1951). “Geo­log­i­cal and His­tor­i­cal Aspects of Cli­mat­ic
    Change.” InCom­pendi­um
    of Mete­o­rol­o­gy,
    edit­ed by Thomas F. Mal­one, pp. 1004–18 (at 1016). Boston: Amer­i­can
    Mete­o­ro­log­i­cal Asso­ci­a­tion. It shows the Amer­i­can Mete­o­ro­log­i­cal
    Soci­ety had refut­ed the con­cept of a GHE in 1951 in itsCom­pendi­um
    of Mete­o­rol­o­gy.
    They stat­ed that the idea that CO2 could alter the cli­mate “was nev­er wide­ly accept­ed and was aban­doned when it was found that all the long-wave radi­a­tion [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”

    Dar­wall, R., ‘The Age of Glob­al Warm­ing: A His­to­ry,’ (March, 2013), Quar­tet Books, Lon­don.

    There is an exper­i­ment that proves that the Green­house gas effect
    does not exist. This exper­i­ment which has been tech­no­log­i­cal­ly
    reviewed by Ph. D physi­cists (at least 4). Ph. D. Chem­i­cal engi­neers
    (at least 2 at last count) and oth­ers Ph. D’s in oth­er fields The
    exper­i­ment is found on the web-site http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com click on the blog tab then on page 3 of 12.
    It is titled “The Exper­i­ment that failed which can save the world tril­lions-Prov­ing the green­house gas effect does not exist”

    The Green­house Effect Explored
    Writ­ten by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
    Is “Water Vapor Feed­back” Pos­i­tive or Neg­a­tive?
    Exploit­ing the medi­um of Youtube Carl Brehmer is draw­ing wider atten­tion to a fas­ci­nat­ing exper­i­ment he per­formed to test the cli­mat­ic impacts of water in our atmos­phere.
    Carl explains, “An essen­tial ele­ment of the “green­house effect” hypoth­e­sis is the pos­i­tive “water vapor feed­back”
    hypoth­e­sis. That is, if some­thing caus­es an increase in the tem­per­a­ture this will cause an increase in the evap­o­ra­tion of water into water vapor.”
    Anoth­er impor­tant web­site is www. The Great Cli­mate Clash.com ‑G3 The Green­house gas effect does not exist.

  • Dan Pangburn says:

    The cause of the warm­ing and a sim­ple equa­tion that cal­cu­lates it are revealed at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html

    The evi­dence that it stopped warm­ing before 2001 is pre­sent­ed at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/

  • Jeremy Becker says:

    Here’s some­thing inter­est­ing: well-known glob­al warm­ing skep­tic Prof. Muller does the sci­ence and con­verts:


  • Andrew Barstow says:

    How con­ve­nient that we went so far down­hill so fast in just the last 10 years.

Leave a Reply

Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.