PaulSpoerry.com

Social Media, technology, and geeky stuff for your brain.

You are here: Home / Google+ Posts / Animated visualization of the rising temperature of the planet

Animated visualization of the rising temperature of the planet

by 99 Comments

 

Last week, NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 was the hottest year in Earth's recorded history. Bloomberg animated it to show the monthly records for each year overlaid on top of each other with a new time series in each frame. The dotted line which represents the year's average moves each year too, while old records fade into the background (it's cooler looking on their site which you can find here: http://goo.gl/mcYwzd).

In short, it shows the Earth’s warming climate, recorded in monthly measurements from land and sea over 135 years. Temperatures are displayed in degrees above or below the 20th-century average. Thirteen of the 14 hottest years are in the 21st century.

Bloomberg: http://goo.gl/mcYwzd
NASA: http://goo.gl/urHTFw
NOAA: http://goo.gl/3tQTXs

Check this out on Google+

Comments

  3. Those are both opinion pieces +carey g. butler, so thanks for playing but come back when you have anything remotely as heavy hitting as NASA or NOAA. Also… this didn't make a statement as to WHY, it's only showing that it is in fact happening so the climate change deniers can go stick their head back in the sand if they want but it is in fact happening.

  4. +Paul Spoerry How about I just leave you in peace. If you don't see the scam, I'm not going to try to convince you. We are entering a new Dark Age with the neo-indulgences for a global tax system.

    I do have papers on this, but I doubt you would take them seriously.

  10. +paul campagna there is… it was funded by the oil and coal industries. :O)'

    +carey g. butler Yes, that's true about the sun. Climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth's orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives…. and then you get to our recent history and it skyrockets: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    +Mike Kerwin The above link shows a chart of atmospheric carbon dioxide level from the last ice age, about 7,000 years ago, through today. As +Rust Cohle points out we see typical heating and cooling until about the last 50 or so years. After that we we see a massive spike.

  11. +Paul Spoerry I sure hope so, because the polar caps on the other planets in our solar system have notice the Sun's life cycle too.

    You didn't ask for those papers, so I'll just leave you in peace. Please don't forget this conversation; I won't.

  13. +carey g. butler Yes, but nothing stops the sun doing what its doing. If the sun varies temperatures in a arbitrary range of 0-10 in its various cycles (day,year etc) and we start getting 3-13 we can clearly see something else has effected temp.
    It doesnt mean the sun isnt still a big effect, but it does mean there are other variables at play we can pick out.

  15. I still think that the most ignored fact in this discussion is that the history of mankind is way way to short compared to the history of the earth to make any statement about the significance oft the warmth. Or: what are 135 Years of climate record in comparison to 4.54 billions of years read: 454000000000. 135 years make 0,0000295% of the age oft the earth. That is less than one second in a month. You cant make an absolute statement like "the climate is changing" from looking at just one second in a month. Where is the context? Earth has Been inhabitable for humans during ice ages and periods of hot climate and it will happen again no matter what we will do or not do for the rest of our second we have on this planet.

  16. I am constantly amazed people think there's a conspiracy by people making money of climate change while the fossil fuel industry make up most of the biggest earning company's on earth;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

    I can buy people lie to make money – absolutely. But the fossil fuel industry is like a train compared to the gnat which is the renewable market. How can the gnat be the one pushing an agenda more then the train?

  17. +Christian Kosmowski We have tools, we have knowledge, data, predictions, testing. We have science. We know Co2 traps heat. Its repeatable on relatively cheap equipment.
    Yes, there are changes and effects we dont understand thoughout a lot of earths history. But we can only work to protect ourselfs from what we understand – and currently knowledge all points to Co2 increasing temperature. Why make it worse for ourselves, or even take the chance, because it might be natural?
    Unless, counter to all evidence, Co2 reduces the temperature and the natural effect overwealms it, it makes sense to stop releasing so much Co2.
    Else your effectively arguing "Smokeing is fine because I might die from cancer anyway"

  18. +Thomas Wrobel That's simple. The banksters jamming the premature globalism down our throats, without regard to the sovereignty of individual countries, have needed the artificial scarcity to control markets and people's willingness to be coerced into decisions based upon false information and context.

  19. +Thomas Wrobel All of that data paid for by banksters who are putting their money where their interests lie. Premature globalism desperately needs global problems in order to provide global solutions.

    Science has become a whore run by the bankster-led corporations which fund it. Our time is a disgrace to the history of mankind. There will come a day when we look back in shame to what our science has allowed happen to itself.

  22. Nothing get's people stirred up like "facts" cough, that have a margin of error that makes the entire graph moot. You can't argue with people who already have their minds made up and won't change, even if you prove them wrong. – Good click bait though.

  26. Rising temp of the planet? Compared to what? and where? Some areas were experiencing the coldest winter they have seen in ages, and last summer was mild. This is all a bunch of shit. the Earth's climate has been changing for millions of years, as I type this I am sitting on top of limestone! lol That means there was an ocean where I am in the past, this tells me there could be one here int he future as well, only common sense. All this crap is fear porn, I have more respect for Larry Flint that people like you.

  29. +Paul Spoerry Fact check the Banks created the entire "Global Warming" oops that is not flying any more, now it is "Climate Change" scam, they have been promoting it since the 80's and 90's in some shape or form, now they have created a market to tax the air we breathe, what a joke. You're level of gullibility and culpability are tragic and sad.

  30. +Red Feather 1970's Global Cooling (I remember it clearly in the news)… after Nixon took our money temporarily away from the Gold Standard (was supposed to be only 40 days, yet never revoked!). After Nixon set up new environmental policies (that masked the collateralization of public lands to the UN).

    In the 1980's then it became Global Warming around the time Maurice Strong became one of the commissioners of the World Commission on Environment that all of the Presidents continued after Nixon (debts on US-Notes must have some form of collateral backing them).

    Through to 2010 (Bilderberg) where they changed the name to 'Climate Change'.

  32. +Red Feather

    Mild summer? Where? Local to you? Ok then!

    The only places that didn't see their highest average temperatures were the poles and the eastern United States.

    It was ridiculously warm where I was, does that mean global warming is definitely happening because of that fact? No

    It has to do with global averages.

  33. +Rust Cohle You bring nothing but the obvious to the discussion.
    Your facts are wrong though. It's about either the Sun being the driver of our climate and temperature or AGW Climate Change (to get any change now, but it once was warming).
    Carl Sagan's Greenhouse Effect was the template for them to do the switch. Maurice Strong and the Rockefellers who financed it took that science and ran with it. Look up Agenda 21 and ICLEI. They want to eventually track, trace and inventory every resource on the planet – including humans.

    They will step up the game with the coming privatization of water, as well. They only need time to create the markets and perform the necessary social engineering as they have done so many times in the past.

  35. So what you are both trying to say is there is a massive conspiracy, by hundreds and thousands of scientists, all over the world and no one knows about it?

  37. +Rust Cohle It isn't the first time either! The Manhattan Project was completely so secret that even those serving in the military didn't know about it until the bombs were dropped (unnecessarily) over Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

    The bankster park their money in philanthropy (tax free) and dominate our education and science.

  38. It's slightly different than a group of scientists in a secret base working on a top secret project though, this stuff is peer reviewed.

    If we can put a hole in the ozone layer, I am sure we can increase the world's temperature.

  39. +Rust Cohle Budding scientists know (and are taught) where the money is in research right now. Naturally they'll do anything right now to get work. That's one of the reasons why the banksters like us all poor.

  40. So all this data is either made up or natural, everyone's in on it and it is all just so they can monetise everything, I can't prove what you're saying is wrong but I don't believe it is right.

  41. +Rust Cohle If you don't get it now, you'll never get it. Stay in your denial or vested interest. I'm not trying to convince you anyway. You're on the wrong side of science and history. Just remember that. It's one of the reasons you're here – to decide who you are and what you stand for.

    The really tragic thing is that science (and technology, actually) is whoring itself off and making a disgrace of itself. The scientists who are part of this additional artificial scarcity type psyence will someday regret the damage they have done to their profession and calling.

    Humanity's trust and faith in itself is diminished with these actions. What a sad shame it is! In the end we all must suffer for the greed of the few.

  45. +carey g. butler You can freely share here.
    As for Mars warming: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

    +Christian Kosmowski You do realize that we are able to look at CO2 concentrations beyond just the time when humans had tools to record them that day right? It's like… nobody has seen a dinosaur but we certainly have ways of knowing they existed… millions of years ago.

    I think I'm with +Rust Cohle on this one. What's more likely, the worlds scientists, across a wide array of specialties, all got together and plotted to create a way for them to have a grant money train… or… coal, oil, etc is creating the argument that it's all made up? I mean… it's not like they've never lied before (um lead poisoning cover ups anyone?).

  47. Believe what you need to. Both of you. But you're wrong. I have a question though:

    If there's so much debt in the world, where did all the money go?

    Think of me when you see NASA trying to convince you that we're running out of water and need to conserve it (privatize it).

    We are the living Earth, but before the banksters get through, we'll all be renters on our own birthright and home.

  49. +Rust Cohle It's become obvious to me that either you're intentionally naive or genuinely so. In either case I'm done with you. However, I'm not done getting the word out to those who are ready to open their eyes.

    If it is intentional, which I do suspect; remember that the snake you work for eats its own tail.

    When the parasites feeding upon all of us are done using their 'helpers', they eat them too. They can't help it, it's their nature. All the while they'll say: "not with you, my friend."

    If it's unintentional then I'm truly disgusted with your ignorance and, while happy I got to share a bit of what I know, look forward to trying to reach someone else who is ready.

    The ultimate form of cowardice is to deny your own conscience. Have fun living with that.

    If you think you're on the winning team, you're badly mistaken. You are only the white piece on the grand chessboard and when the chess game's through; I wonder how you'll fare?

    Even God's chosen people in Israel have had their water fluoridated and are being exposed to social engineering. No one is safe.

  50. Debates over. It doesn't matter because war is coming and it's going to kill everyone before we even need to worry about anything warming or not or having water or land or not.

  63. +carey g. butler i turn my back to the truth? I think you got me wrong. I was recommending the movie to +Pamela Lude because her comment reminded me of a character from the movie. A patriotic american crearionist who cannot deal with the fact (in the movie) that there is live on other planets. She also says things like "…cannot be proven" while things has been proven hundreds of times. So bottomline.. you cannot win with creationists.

  65. +carey g. butler no offense taken. And none intended. Just the truth. And it's very simple to explain. Their measuring technique, though sophisticated and sincere, is based at least in part, on theory and probability. This does not come to a firm conclusion. It's always open to new discovery and new method. It's ever changing. What isn't changing is the measurable historical record. There is no one from millions or billions of years ago to confirm these hypotheses. However we do have the written records from about 8,000 years ago. And those written records are provable. I'm only talking about the age of the earth here. And since neither you, nor I, nor Christian Kosmowski were there to testify to the validity of modern theories and hypotheses spruiked in schools and universities world-wide, it cannot be definitely state that the earth is millions or billions of years old. But if I'm not mistaken, the original post was about the rising of temperatures. It cannot be said that the temperatures have been going up for 7,000 years. We don't know that.

  67. +Pamela Lude i do live in an area with lots of black coal around. Mining black coal used to be the most important idustry around for decades. If you visit those mining museums they'll tell you (and they're pretty convincing) that it takes carbon (from Trees…), pressure (from alternating water and sediments) and lots of time (a few hundred millions of years) to produce black coal. So for example the existence of black coal is as good as the written word of someone from millions of years ago. Because you CAN prove that there was a tree that left its carbon inside the black coal some kilometers deep down inside the earth. Proof enough for me at least.

  69. +Christian Kosmowski as convincing as they may be it doesn't prove anything. For example, there was a man by the name of Fran Abignale, Jr. who convinced people for decades that he was: a doctor, a lawyer and even a co-pilot for a major airline. The man wasn't even 18 years old when he was taken credibly as those professionals but he never received any formal education for any of them. The jig with all the gobbledygook will soon be up. You can believe whatever you choose to believe but there is really only one truth in the end and it will be revealed soon enough.

  70. +Rust Cohle it's a bit naïve to believe everything you read. Unless I do the studies myself, and I do, I tend to be very sceptical of what has been 'discovered' by modern scientists. They've lied about other things, therefore they are up for scrutiny on their methods and hypotheses. And 'building up the truth', or adding pieces of made up 'evidence' to help fill the gaps is tantamount to lying. They've done it. And they do it every time they put together pieces of bone they've found somewhere that do not make a complete skeleton and hypothesize about what the creature ate and drank and how it lived. They might be close, they might even be right about some things but I do not believe they know or accurately report all of the details and facts. So making something up to fill gaps is irresponsible.

  71. +Pamela Lude

    Are you a scientist?

    It's very presumptuous to assume or imply I believe everything I read, I'm going to stick with 100 years of peer reviewed science again, radiometric dating is pretty accurate I hear.

  79. +Pamela Lude

    30 years study, that's fine.

    The reason I am agnostic is because it is the most logical conclusion regarding the question of why, I was also born without faith or belief.

    Do you mind if I ask what denomination you follow?

  82. +Pamela Lude First of all, you're flat our wrong about the duration of recorded history that we have. We do not have 8,000 years of recorded history. The earliest coherent recorded texts are from 2600BCE (http://goo.gl/nl9cv2); so a little over 4600 years. And no… "a high degree" isn't complete certainty . That said, considering 4,600 years is equal to 8,000 years in your eyes I don't think any comment you can make regarding the validity of the calculated age of the Earth. Beyond that, the total age of the Earth has little to no bearing on the topic at hand.

    +Nayana Williams The ozone layer is rebounding (http://goo.gl/xGdF73). It's doing so because scientists determined the primary causes of it's deterioration (chlorofluorocarbons), and we curtailed their use.

  83. +Rust Cohle I see. Please allow me to answer your question and then I'll come back to yours. I am a sinner saved by the grace of God in Christ. I am a Christian. I do not observe a denomination.

    What, if anything, have you heard or learned about Christianity. If you don't mind my asking.

  84. +Paul Spoerry it's a fair call about the 8,000 years. My mistake. But suffice to say that the earth is not provably millions or billions of years old. And you are right, that is not the topic here. But thank you for setting me straight on recorded history. I'll be more careful about stating statistics as facts from here out.

  87. +Pamela Lude Are you then saying that dinosaurs aren't real? Because dinosaurs came about… and the Earth had already been trucking along at this point… over 250 million years ago.

    "The earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates at least from 3.5 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean Era after a geological crust started to solidify following the earlier molten Hadean Eon. There are microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone discovered in Western Australia." http://goo.gl/gZx2GJ

    So explain to me how we cannot say that the Earth is millions or billions of years old when we have fossils from millions and billions of years ago?

  88. +Paul Spoerry God planted them there to trick us silly. He also arranged the continents to look like they were once one continent, faked 10,000 years of tree rings, messed with radi active decays and DNA mutation rates and finally, to top it off, set the light from galaxy's all around us nearly at earth already because they would travel far too slow to reach us by now otherwise.
    He's such a practical joker.

  91. +Thomas Wrobel you are a very foolish man calling God a liar and accusing Him of tricking us. You are the trickster. Who gave you the authority to speak for or about God? I suggest you read the book of Job. You might (if you would be honest about it) learn something. I pray you do.

  92. +Pamela Lude I dont speak for God. I am pointing out that believing in a young earth means you ALSO believe in a God that did all this.
    I do not believe in a trickster god, because I do believe the earth is exactly as old as it seems to be, and any god worthy of the name would not grant us a brain,eyes and senses only to make them useless.
    People study their whole lives and have deduced this by a lot of hard work. Many,many,many different completely separate sources reach the same conclusion.
    You, meanwhile, believe all that all these people are wrong. That their lives are a lie. That studying nature is useless.
    That all of them are delusional…..because a old book tells you.
    (or, rather, very selective compositions of older manuscripts where certain people have picked and choose what books stay)

  93. I have authority to speak for god; I am an ordained minister after all. I also have authority to speak for unicorns, and pasta (as I'm an ordained Pastafarian as well).

    I've read the bible, multiple times, along with many other religious texts. The bible is a steaming pile of crap. It's poorly written and disjointed. You point out Job as if that should somehow sway Thomas as proof of, and that god is a "good" guy. But the story is essentially a setup to show that god is THE dude in charge and there is nothing we can do about it (never mind the fact that in the story he asks satan where he was… uh… how is he "God" but doesn't know where satan is?). In the story god sets up Job as a patsy to win a bet with the devil that Job is such the uber nice dude that he'd never curse god. In order to truly test it god allows the devil to take away all of Job's possessions… even his kids. That's just the first two chapters. The rest is typical bible rambling until finally Job asks why god has done this to him. When god finally decides to comes to explain the answer is simple: he's god, he makes the rules, Job could never actually comprehend, blah blah blah blah. In the end he rewards Job by giving him twice as many possessions as he had before and the same number of kids. As if that wasn't messed up enough… the big G never explains why he would let such bad shit happen to a good person (I suppose a bet with the devil is good enough the for the lord). So the actual thing you walk away from in that story is that the only reason you're walking the earth right now is because god is mercifully allowing you to live. I mean, keep in mind though that he can take that away at any whim… like a bet with satan. If that's what you wanna put YOUR value system on be my guest but personally I think that's kinda fucked up.

  95. +Thomas Wrobel Apparently you struggle with the meanings of English words. You say you don’t speak for God then explain this:

    "+Paul Spoerry God planted them there to trick us silly. He also arranged the continents to look like they were once one continent, faked 10,000 years of tree rings, messed with radi active decays and DNA mutation rates and finally, to top it off, set the light from galaxy's all around us nearly at earth already because they would travel far too slow to reach us by now otherwise.
    He's such a practical joker."

    Looks an awful lot like speaking for God to me and hasn’t got a thing to do with what you just said you were pointing out. You are right about one thing though. I do believe in the Creator God Who in fact, made everything that is. You said you don’t believe in a trickster god, yes you do. Only a trickster god would do the things you say the God of Heaven has done. And the trickster you believe in is Satan, not almighty God. You have been duped. You don’t know God and apparently you don’t want to, yet you call Him a liar. You are a very foolish man. This is not an argument nor a debate to be won, you have been given the truth but you reject it. God has already said you would say and do just exactly what you are now saying and doing. I believe Him.
    wipes dust off of shoes

  96. +Paul Spoerry Ordained by whom? Certainly not the God of Heaven. But I am pretty convinced you might be speaking for unicorns and pasta.
    If you have read the Bible even once, and understood its meaning, and still reject the truth and reject, ridicule and accuse God, you are in serious trouble. You are accusing God of being a liar and treating Him with contempt He does not deserve. God is not a man that He would lie. Unlike you. You have been given the truth and you have rejected it. You have no understanding at all.shakes dust off of feet.

  97. Its sarcasm to make a point. But I cant believe you didnt honestly spot that so I am not sure what your really doing with the above reply 😕

    So to make it clear; I am not calling god a liar. I am saying you have to believe god is a liar to do have done those things.

    I admit, however, that it did not accore to me you think Satan did all that stuff. Thats another possibility fair enough.
    But you are assigning a lot of power to Satan.
    Not just the power to plant bones in the ground, but the power to change physics or set all the light from the stars in the sky.

    "God has already said you would say and do just exactly what you are now saying and doing."

    To you personally? Dont you think that's a little arrogant.
    Arnt you even acknowledging the possibility that its you yourself thinking these things and not the creator of the universe?

  98. +Pamela Lude An example of the power you are saying Satan has;

    Do you believe in trigonometry That you can tell the distance of something by measuring two angles?
    Do you believe the earth takes roughly a year to go around the sun?

    I am going to assume "yes".
    Because with those facts alone we can tell the rough distance to stars. And some are very very far away. Hundreds of thousands of light years or more. Thats all you need – measuring stars and very basic maths.

    Do you not believe thats true? Do you think trignometry is wrong or the earth takes a different time around the sun?

    Or maybe you dont believe in the speed of light? Thats harder to test at home, but youve probably used nuclear power or a GPS in your life.

    Because either you dont believe in one of those things OR a Satan placed the light carefully arranged from those galaxys and stars to fake the distance….and your creator of the universe let him.

    Personally, I am going for option 3. We live in a very old universe.
    It means there isn't a trickster god, maths works, there isn't a power evil force that can manipulate the universe on such scale – and nuclear power isn't magic.

  99. Oh hell, I should have peeped her profile long ago and just blocked the moron. Her page is filled with god shit, calling Obama evil, and one post that that is so homophobic and ignorant that… basically, fuck off Pamela, you're a horrible person.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.