Check this out. Here are all the graphs you could possibly need to demonstrate the current science of global climate change, all in one location. Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences at Suffolk County Community College, Long Island, NY, has compiled a collection of graphs to support global warming data on Climate Progress.
If you are reading this, chances are you don’t doubt climate change is happening, after all:
20 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 25 years. The warmest year globally was 2005 with the years 2009, 2007, 2006, 2003, 2002, and 1998 all tied for 2nd within statistical certainty. (Hansen et al., 2010) The warmest decade has been the 2000s, and each of the past three decades has been warmer than the decade before and each set records at their end. The odds of this being a natural occurrence are estimated to be one in a billion! (Schmidt and Wolfe, 2009)
The graphs are grouped into several different categories, including Temperature Trends, Arctic Ice & Glacial Trends, Ocean Heat Content, Precipitation Trends, Sea-Level Rise, and more.
If you’re interested in learning more about the hard science of global climate change, this article is worth a read — the graphics are an excellent resource. Recommended.
Want to do your part to fight global warming? We’ve got a full range of energy-saving products in our Green Choices store, including energy-efficient appliances, energy saving lighting, and ENERGY STAR computers.
Image credit: Flickr via alles-schlumpf
Tyler Jordan
Is this from the land based data? As you may know, the data set used by the US government for it’s land based measurements were reduced from 6000 locations down to around 1500 location in or around 1988-1989. At first this merely seems odd, but then it gets worse:
1. Number of global locations reduced from 6000 to 1500
2. Stations removed from the temperature survey were mainly if not always in cold districts, not the warmer areas.
3. Interpretation of the data: They did NOT remove the station data from the previous years going back to the early 1970’s, thus giving the expected outcome of sudden warming beginning in 1989-1990.
If these graphs are based on this data, I’d say they are completely wrong. Let me know though – I’d really like to know if GW is real or just another manipulation of public opinion for $$ scam.
Scott A Mandia
The images on that blog post (and my site) cover the globe and include many different data all pointing toward rapid global warming.
“Station dropout” is NOT causing spurious warming and that has been shown over and over despite the claims of Anthony Watts and other antio-science folks.
See:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-are-there-less-weather-stations-and-whats-the-effect.html
Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences
Selden, NY
Global Warming: Man or Myth?
My Global Warming Blog
Twitter @AGW_Prof
“Global Warming Fact of the Day” Facebook Group
Dan
Tyler, these graphs show more than just temperature changes… have a look at them for yourself.
Craig Shields
For me, the following paragraph of the referenced article sums it up nicely:
“20 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 25 years. The warmest year globally was 2005 with the years 2009, 2007, 2006, 2003, 2002, and 1998 all tied for 2nd within statistical certainty. (Hansen et al., 2010) The warmest decade has been the 2000s, and each of the past three decades has been warmer than the decade before and each set records at their end. The odds of this being a natural occurrence are estimated to be one in a billion! (Schmidt and Wolfe, 2009)”
It seems that even if we take the most skeptical position, we have two possible scenarios and two possible options in each scenario:
Scenario One – Global Climate Disruption is accurately estimated or underestimated in its extent and impact.
Option A – We do nothing. Result: We all suffer for generations to come and consequences are catastrophic. Summary: Disaster.
Option B – We do all the we can to minimize emissions. Result: We lose some time and some money making the changes, but we avoid impending catastrophe and survive more comfortably with consequences are greatly minimized. We also benefit from a less polluted natural environment and a more efficient infrastructure. Summary: struggle and prosper.
Scenario Two – Global Climate Disruption is greatly overestimated in it’s extent and impact.
Option A – We do nothing. Result: We continue to pollute the planet with only those adverse conditions that arise from a poisoned environment and not those that arise from a baked and flooded environment. Summary: No improvement.
Option B – We do all that we can to minimize emissions. Result: We lose some time and money in altering our lifestyles and infrastructure, and yet still reap the benefit of increased efficiencies and lessened pollution without the actual threat of catastrophe having been realized. Struggle more than was actually needed but still prosper.
By the above scenarios and options, the only rational choice (where one believes there’s any degree of uncertainty between the scenarios) is to do all we can to reduce emissions – whereby we benefit as a species in either scenario. The alternative – to do nothing – leaves us at the undesirable and pollutive status quo with the risk of catastrophy for generations.
This strikes me as similar to the logic of purchasing insurance. You buy it, even though you may never need it – but if you do need it, you’ll be really sorry that you didn’t buy it.
I wonder what the rational argument is for doing nothing – I’ve yet to see one.
Craig Shields, 2GreenEnergy.com
Bobby B.
One word: CLIMATEGATE.
From the American Thinker website (April 29, 2010):
“…the British Parliament published the results of its investigation into East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that has been at the center of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) controversy.”
“Buried deep within the report is a compelling piece of evidence. In volume two, there is a memorandum submitted as evidence from Lord Lawson of Blaby, chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was in response to four very significant questions from the investigating committee. This memo confirms the claims by many global warming skeptics that the scientists at CRU were trying to hide data and silence the skeptics.”
“[T]here are, in fact, four (not two) other international data sets,”…”The third, and fourth, which — unlike CRU, NASA and NOAA – use not surface weather stations but satellite observations, are compiled by the University of Alabama at Hunstville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS). They are entirely independent of the CRU. They use the same satellite data as each other but different methodology and produce similar results to each other, which differ from those of the CRU.”
“It seems that the only reliable data sets are satellite-derived data.”
To recap, the aforementioned “only reliable data sets” are those data maintained by the University of Alabama at Huntsville, which is the home of Dr. Roy Spencer. Since – at first glance – it appears that none of the collected graphs reference any of those “reliable data sets” or any of Dr. Spencer’s work, one can only determine them to be incomplete and misleading.
As most of you know, Dr. Spencer is not well liked in AGW circles. However, being shunned by any establishment is often triggered by being correct in your analysis (i.e. Columbus, John Harrison, Galileo, etc.). Enjoy the source story:
americanthinker.com/2010/04/the_climategate_investigation.html
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
Bob — This is a really problematic article because they base all of their evidence on Lord Lawson’s statements, and he’s just doesn’t have the bona fides to make the claims he does (he’s also an avowed skeptic, but I don’t want to get into ad hominem attacks… he’s welcome to his position). Got any evidence from an actual climate scientist that “Climategate” undermined the science in any way?
Bobby B.
Got any evidence that Dr. Spencer’s work is illegitimate?
You know as well as I that the leaked emails revealed that a wall had been erected by the establishment. If one was out of the loop, his research was excluded from peer-reviewed publications. Science is undermined when the free exchange of data and/or ideas is thwarted.
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
I did read the emails concerning publications, and didn’t see anything like “a wall by the establishment.” What I saw was a group of scientists saying they wouldn’t submit their work to a journal with unstated biases. I’d wouldn’t have done that either when I was in the academic world…
I can’t judge the scientific validity of the work he’s done… but I also can’t accept AT’s blanket statement that “…the only reliable data sets are satellite-derived data,” since it’s derived from claims made by someone with no training in climate science. Could be Dr. Spencer’s been “shut out”; could also be that his work’s not worthy of publication. I can’t make that judgment, but I also don’t recall anything in those emails suggesting he and others have been excluded simply because of their views. If I’m remembering wrong, please, point me to the emails in question.
Bobby B.
“I also can’t accept AT’s blanket statement that “…the only reliable data sets are satellite-derived data,” since it’s derived from claims made by someone with no training in climate science.”
Isn’t it a bit arrogant to require that climate skeptics possess certain pedigrees when the same is not required of AGW’s proponents? Examples to follow:
It is most interesting that you, and so many others, eagerly accept Al Gore as a climate expert when he has absolutely no training in science whatsoever. Wikipedia lists his only college degree as a Bachelor of Arts in Government. It also states that he left law school to run for Congress in 1976. Despite any amount of wishful thinking, a Nobel Prize and a few honorary degrees do not make him a scientist. What he does possess is probably more important. He has the uncanny ability to deliver speeches and produce propaganda that sways the masses. This well-developed skill has propelled him from Al Gore – Politician to Al Gore – Pop Icon. With his iconic status, he can roam the globe on his private jets, ride in limousines and electrify as many mansions as he chooses to own. All he has to do to pacify the environmental establishment is buy a few carbon offset credits from…himself. It is common knowledge that he does most of his carbon offset business with companies that he owns either outright or in part. Additionally, he stands to make billions off of the pending cap-and-trade scheme as he has positioned himself to take full economic advantage of the legislation he vehemently supports.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/the_problems_with_al_gore.html
It is also interesting that Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chair of the IPCC, is considered a climate expert. According to Wikipedia, his degrees are in Industrial Engineering and Economics. Most classical engineers refer to IE’s as “incomplete engineers”. This is because most IE degree programs do not require courses in thermodynamics and heat transfer. IE’s actually study things like inventory control, statistics, safety and industrial management. These are important topics and deserving of respect, but they are not exactly the types of courses that most would consider relevant in the realm of climate science. He has also made a considerable amount of money hawking the global warming phenomenon, and stands to make more should global legislation become law.
I will stop now.
amanda563567
This is good try to change the climate. I think it was so hard to collection 29 Graphs Demonstrate and i hope more of them are be useful to change the climate.