Here’s the data on global warming
The chart on the left — from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies — traces the annual mean global temperature from 1880 to 2008. The line marked “0″ represents the mean for the base years of 1951-80.
That’s pretty compelling evidence of what is happening to the Earth. Some individual years might be cooler than the previous year, just as some individual days each spring are cooler than the previous day, but as in spring, the overall trend is crystal clear.
However, I also want to use that data to make an additional point.
Given the extremely complex nature of climate, it is impossible to “prove” that a specific factor caused a specific climatic effect. Even if the climate changes exactly as the computer models now predict, scientists 100 years from now won’t be able to state beyond a shadow of a doubt that greenhouse gases caused that change. All they will be able to say with scientific honesty and certainty is that the change was consistent with greenhouse theory.
In other words, if you’re waiting for absolute proof of global warming, it will never come. And that’s the opening that the deniers and pooh-poohers try to manipulate.
But I want to point you to the late ’70s on the chart. That’s about the time that leading scientists began to warn pretty consistently that climate change was a danger. They didn’t know for absolute certain what was going to happen. But they thought they had a pretty good idea, and they said so in public.
And indeed, look what happened. Over the next 25-30 years, the climate behaved just as they predicted it would. Global temperatures began to rise, and as the Goddard folks point out, “the ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008.”
Personally, I think that buys the experts a lot of credibility. If I’m watching a baseball game and the guy in the next seat says “He’s gonna hit to shortstop,” and then the player hits it to shortstop, I’m intrigued. If he gets it right batter after batter, I’m really impressed. And that’s pretty much what climate scientists have achieved.
The chart on the right, by the way, shows those portions of the Earth that were warmer (red) or cooler (blue) than normal in 2008, which was the ninth warmest of the last 128 years.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
245 comments Add your comment
George American
May 22nd, 2009
8:31 am
Put this in the same bucket as the “theory” of evolution.
It’s in the barn with the rest of the academic elite and liberal media made-up crap.
BDAtlanta
May 22nd, 2009
8:31 am
If I’m watching a baseball game and the guy in the next seat says “He’s gonna hit to shortstop,” and then the player hits it to shortstop, I’m intrigued.
I read that Greg Maddux could do that. He was in the dugout with Penny in LA and he told Penny “Watch this, we might have to take the 1st base coach to the hospital.” Sure enough, the batter practically beaned the 1st base coach. He could tell just by how the batter was standing in the box.
I Rule You :-) / You Whine :-(
May 22nd, 2009
8:33 am
We all have our charts-
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
It’s all according to which one you decide to get hysterical about.
See mine, where we are still in the “Cool” cycle of world history?
duh.
BDAtlanta
May 22nd, 2009
8:33 am
On the right, America looks ok, temp wise. What the hell is going on in Russia? or over Russia?
Davo
May 22nd, 2009
8:35 am
In the 70’s it was the ‘Population Bomb’….now it’s global warming.
In the 80’s it was ‘Nuclear Winter’…now it’s global warming.
The only thing that scares me anymore is these idiots like Bookman who believe all this junk. Carbon credits, sequestered carbon dioxide, cow-gas inhibitors…one volcano pretty much balances that equation.
Fools.
RW-(the original)
May 22nd, 2009
8:38 am
I guess if you make the shift points on the graph small enough and the time frame short enough you can make anything look the way you want it to. Send me my trillion dollar grant and I’ll get right on plotting the next hoax of a “man caused disaster.”
mike
May 22nd, 2009
8:41 am
“Given the extremely complex nature of climate, it is impossible to “prove” that a specific factor caused a specific climatic effect. Even if the climate changes exactly as the computer models now predict, scientists 100 years from now won’t be able to state beyond a shadow of a doubt that greenhouse gases caused that change. All they will be able to say with scientific honesty and certainty is that the change was consistent with greenhouse theory.”
Fair enough, but yesterday Jay claimed that Cheney was a liar because there was no evidence to support that waterboarding helped keep America safe. If it is good enough to say that climate change was consistent with greenhouse theory, why is one a liar for stating that the lack of a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 is consistent with Cheney’s policies?
As Jay says: “In other words, if you’re waiting for absolute proof, it will never come. And that’s the opening that the deniers and pooh-poohers try to manipulate.”
Joey
May 22nd, 2009
8:45 am
Jay, I am convinced.
Clearly we must immediately follow Dubai and France. We must convert to generating all of our electrical power in Nuclear Facilities.
Think we can depend on the Obama administration to provide us, US, as much support and aide in this pursuit as they provide to Dubai and the UAE.
Dan
May 22nd, 2009
8:47 am
Actually in the 70’s “leading scientists were warning of an impending ice age
Ron
May 22nd, 2009
8:49 am
You mock “the academic elite,” otherwise known as people a lot smarter than you. You also don’t believe in evolution.
Yes, they’re the stupid ones. Right.
RW-(the original)
May 22nd, 2009
8:50 am
In other words, if you’re waiting for absolute proof of global warming, it will never come. And that’s the opening that the
deniers and pooh-poohers try to manipulateproponents that hope to make billions playing on your fears of anthropogenic global warming exploitNow that that’s fixed how about a rudimentary understanding of professional sports? Anybody that studies a game and its matchups can tell you what is likely to happen once they see the setup for the next play and it doesn’t have a thing in the world to do with science or their predictive powers.
Doggone/GA
May 22nd, 2009
8:53 am
“Actually in the 70’s “leading scientists were warning of an impending ice age”
You DO know the 2 theories are not incompatable, don’t you? If average global temperatures rise, more water is held in the atmosphere – because warmer air can hold more water than cold air can. The more water in the air, the more is available to fall as snow when seasonal temperatures get low enough.
An “ice age” is not necessarily a sign of overall cooler temperatures…all it takes is enough snow on the ground to NOT MELT during the warmer seasons. If the snow doesn’t melt for more than 2 years, that area is on it’s way to an “ice age” because the unmelted snow will be compacted by subsequent snow falls, that also don’t melt.
And when enough snow has fallen, and not melted, that it begins to compact into ice…then you have the makings of an ice sheet, and THAT is what makes an “ice age”
George American
May 22nd, 2009
8:53 am
Ron,
Your another cranky too sensitive liberal. Your stupid, you know it?
Bosch
May 22nd, 2009
8:55 am
Hey! Good news! We are in the white/light yellow zone – so we’re okay. Who cares about the rest of the world! Let ‘em burn.
Hehehe. That was my wingnut impression for the day – what’d ya’ think?
In my personal opinion, one would have to be rather moronic to think that the way we are living on this planet and polluting it is not effecting it (or is that affecting it – I could never get those straight in my head).
Citizen of the World
May 22nd, 2009
8:55 am
As a layperson with no empirical evidence of my own to the contrary, I feel I’m bound to act on the advice and evidence offered by the vast majority of climatologists: The planet is warming up, human behavior is very likely the cause, and we need to reduce our carbon emissions to stop this trend. I’m taking steps personally to reduce my carbon footprint and buying products and voting for leaders who I trust are committed to working for solutions to this problem.
It’s worth noting, too, from the map, that the greatest increases in temperature are not occurring in the temperate zones where weather fluctuates a lot anyway, but in the planet’s extremities. I saw something on TV a while back where someone poked a hole in a frozen lake in the Arctic, lit a match and poof!, big flames shot up, burning methane gas that was trapped in the air bubbles. If it warms up so much that that trapped methane gas the world over is released, God help us.
Ben
May 22nd, 2009
8:56 am
Jay doesn’t bother to mention that those models his scientists rely on don’t accurately predict the past, so the idea that we should trust them at all for the future is simply assinine.
Dan
May 22nd, 2009
8:57 am
Another fact is water vapor accounts for 95% of the “greenhouse” gasses
Co2 only 3.6% and mans contribution to the 3.6? 3.2% of the 3.6% of GH gasses or in total 0.12% of all “greenhouse” gasses are caused by man, pretty much a rounding error and with just a wee bit of common sense enough to debunk the Henny Pennys out there. Hey I am all for living cleaner but to say we are causing warming is utter nonsense
RW-(the original)
May 22nd, 2009
8:57 am
So the surface temperatures of the earth are going to get so warm that snow never melts? It’s too early for a drink so I think I’ll go to work.
See y’all upstairs for happy hour.
Brad Steel
May 22nd, 2009
8:57 am
Davo,
Thank you Dr. Science.
Doggone/GA
May 22nd, 2009
8:58 am
“it is not effecting it (or is that affecting it – I could never get those straight in my head).”
It’s “affecting” – there is no “effecting” – an “effect” is the result of someting “affecting” (changing) the conditions.
the “affect” is the agent of change, the “effect” is the end result of that change.
Doggone/GA
May 22nd, 2009
8:59 am
“planet is warming up, human behavior is very likely the cause”
This isn’t entirely true. The planet is warming, human behavior is ACCELERATING that warming…not causing it.
Doggone/GA
May 22nd, 2009
9:02 am
“So the surface temperatures of the earth are going to get so warm that snow never melts?”
It’s not the warmth of the surface, it’s the amount of snow that falls. If enough snow falls, it insulates the ground from the effects of warmer air. If the air is not warm ENOUGH, LONG ENOUGH to melt all the snow then the “groundwork” is set for a POSSIBLE ice sheet. Every hear that goes by with the previous winter’s snow not melting completely INCREASES the chances that an ice sheet will develop.
Kamchak
May 22nd, 2009
9:02 am
Climate change = waterboarding?
Citizen of the World
May 22nd, 2009
9:03 am
George American @8:53, when you learn the difference between “your” and “you’re” maybe you’ll have earned the right to call someone else stupid.
Doggone/GA
May 22nd, 2009
9:03 am
“Every hear that goes by ”
Ooops! Should be “Every YEAR”
So very weary.....
May 22nd, 2009
9:05 am
“planet is warming up, human behavior is very likely the cause”
This isn’t entirely true. The planet is warming, human behavior is ACCELERATING that warming…not causing it.
So I guess it is partly our fault but we shouldn’t do anything to change it?
Bosch
May 22nd, 2009
9:05 am
Citizen,
I saw that too – I can’t remember what it was, and it might not have been the same show. It’s been a while, but wasn’t the premise that the polar ice caps are full of frozen life forms and since the ice is melting more rapidly than usual, the methane is being released quicker and the end result is, as you wrote, God help us.
As you can tell, I’m no scientist, nor do I play one on TV.
jewcowboy
May 22nd, 2009
9:05 am
George American,
“Your stupid, you know it?”
When you are calling someone stupid please, perhaps, you should make sure you are grammatically correct. The word is “you’re” not “your.” It is the conjunction of “you” and “are.” Otherwise, you may appear stupid
getalife
May 22nd, 2009
9:06 am
cons whine that debt will harm the future generations but want to keep destroying their planet.
It could create jobs.
For China.
Joey
May 22nd, 2009
9:07 am
1. “Here’s the data on global warming.” Using Jay’s Cheney-lied-gauge, we must conclude that the header is a lie. Honest and accurate wording would be:
Here’s some data that I carefully selected from the available pro-warming data so that I could proof of my position that the Global Warming threat is real.
2. “In other words, if you’re waiting for absolute proof of global warming, it will never come. And that’s the opening that the deniers and pooh-poohers try to manipulate.” This one is not so clealy a lie. It is more of a spin. Spin is dishonest but not a clear lie. Correctly stated the second sentence would read:
And that is the opening that the Global Warming Advocates and their Propagandist use to minipulate gullible people. Especially media types who love to cry wolf and prey on those who are easily influenced.
GeorgianByGeographyOnly
May 22nd, 2009
9:07 am
Jay: As you well know after living and writing in Georgia for many years: You can show ‘em a book (or a map), but you can’t make a moron learn! Give it up — and go read yer BIBLE, if you know what’s good fer ye!
Bosch
May 22nd, 2009
9:07 am
Doggone/GA@ 8:58
Thanks! I’m gonna write that down and keep it in my desk for future reference
Doggone/GA
May 22nd, 2009
9:09 am
“So I guess it is partly our fault but we shouldn’t do anything to change it?”
If you got that out of anything *I* said, you have a “read between the lines” ability out of ALL proportion to reality.
Bosch
May 22nd, 2009
9:09 am
Doggone/GA,
Another thing – can you help me out with inductive and deductive reasoning?
Chris
May 22nd, 2009
9:11 am
Whether or not you believe in global warming or climate change, I think the central issue is at times lost in translation. Numbers are thrown around by believers and deniers alike, and little to no action is taken to reduce pollution. I personally believe the climate is changing, but I also understand taking draconian measures to try and reduce human pollution could be damaging to our society and progress. That be said, we need to do something.
Pollution is a problem because it is cumulative. While we may not see the immediate effects right now, we will eventually. I think one of our first responsibilities is to be good stewards of the environment, not only for our own needs, but to.give future generations the same benefits that we enjoy. More investment is needed in cleaner technologies, not because of temperature change, but because we still rely on technologies that hundreds on years old to produce most of our energy.
This is 2009…we should be making every effort to replace old technologies with new, but not at the expense of our population or economy. Our political environment has not been friendly in the past to finding new technologies, and part of that is cost related; but our government seems to find money for everything else including programs that liberals and conservatives view with a “WTF?” attitude. Why can’t we spend spend money on something that will not only benefit humans, but the environment as well?
America still has a chance to be the world leader in clean energy technologies and to set an example for the rest of the world in the area of environmental stewardship. Until we correct our own problems, we really can’t expect other nations to do the same. On a final note, I would much prefer the US develop the clean energy technology and sell it to the rest of the world, rather than waiting for Japan or some other nation to develop it and sell it to us.
ty webb
May 22nd, 2009
9:14 am
Come on guys. We all make grammatical mistakes. In my haste to always post an informative, well thought out comment, I too sometimes mix up “your” and “you’re”.
jimbob
May 22nd, 2009
9:15 am
the fools and chumps calling for carbon taxes are the same chumps that have always shilled for every ‘international community’ scam, including eugenics.
Bookman is nothing if not a shill for whatever scam the UN is trying to pull.
George American
May 22nd, 2009
9:17 am
Citizen and jewcowboy,
Thank you grammar queens. Please check my speling and puctuation use too.
Your much better at grammar than knowledge about phony “therories”.
And jewcowboy, have you been served by Kinky Friedman’s attorney? Like Woody Allen and American apparel, I hear you guys like to sue whenever possible.
Doggone/GA
May 22nd, 2009
9:20 am
“Another thing – can you help me out with inductive and deductive reasoning?”
Well, to be honest…I had to look up “effect” and “affect” at http://www.dictionary.com !
Doggone/GA
May 22nd, 2009
9:23 am
“Your much better at grammar than knowledge about phony “therories”.”
There’s no such thing as a “phony” scientific theory. Don’t confuse the generic term “theory” with “scientific theory” Scientific theories can only be good theories (for which supporting data exists AND which can be used to make predictions based on that data) and bad theories (which don’t hold up when tested against the data available and/or which do not make predictions that hold up against the data either)
Chris
May 22nd, 2009
9:23 am
So we have 120 or so years of data on a planet that is billions of years old. Sound pretty insignificant to me. What about those years in the 900-1000 BCE timeframe where the temps were hotter than they are now. It just goes to prove that maybe the Sun, and its variations, might be more to blame than anything man or nature has caused in our short window of data.
Taxpayer
May 22nd, 2009
9:25 am
Then, there are the temperature cycles that are more relevant to we the people as opposed to the ‘week’ that God created the heavens and the earth.
You got any charts with a little better resolution, Andy. After all, I do recall that you were proclaiming that the temperature had cooled significantly this year versus a time scale of only hundreds of years — not billions. Try to stay on topic.
Jay Rules — Andy Loses, again.
Citizen of the World
May 22nd, 2009
9:25 am
ty webb, it wasn’t really the grammatical error with which I was taking issue. I, too, make grammatical errors — for instance, I used “who” in my post when I should have used “whom.” But, then, I wasn’t using incorrect grammar in the course of calling someone else stupid. That was my main point.
Price
May 22nd, 2009
9:25 am
Since all this is happening on Jupiter and Mars as well, we better try and tax those little green men…It’s the sun…check your history…it’s been happening off and on since the world began, before cars and industry…Should be try and be wise and stop pollution, sure. Should we tax companies for output who then just turn around and pass the cost on to the consumers? Please, that’s not a solution to anything. Oh, and I guess China will go along with it, huh?
@@
May 22nd, 2009
9:26 am
…but Ida (Darwinius masillae) told you the earth’s temperatures were warmer 47 million years ago than they are today. I don’t know how many people, if any, were around back then but it’s safe to say the dinosaur farts were probably HUGE blowouts.
Old Physics Teacher
May 22nd, 2009
9:29 am
Just an off-hand comment ’speling’ is actually spelled “spelling.”
williebkind
May 22nd, 2009
9:30 am
GeorgianByGeographyOnl: Yeah you got it! We have a saying too,”Education dont cure stupid.”
md
May 22nd, 2009
9:30 am
Jay,
Thats decent data for 128 years, would you mind providing the chart for the other 4+ billion years, assuming the 4+ billion is anywhere near correct.
Fractional science based on assumptions. We all know about assumptions don’t we?
Can you explain to all of us where the scientists came up with their original numbers to put into their models. I really want to understand how those numbers are not ASSumed.
Mort Merkel
May 22nd, 2009
9:33 am
When I was a kid, even Republican national leaders supported reducing pollution. Why do the wingnutters want more pollution? Does it get them high or something?
Citizen of the World
May 22nd, 2009
9:33 am
Bosch @ 9:09, deductive reasoning is when you go from the general to the specific; inductive reasoning is when you go from the specific to the general.
The trick I use for keeping it straight is that one is “inducted” into the army, where generals are.