Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

NASA Graphic Shows Six Terrifying Decades Of Global Warming, Also, Swedish Marines Dance Video


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 hsedin33

hsedin33

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,277 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 10

Posted 26 January 2014 - 11:11 AM

http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000009


NASA Graphic Shows Six Terrifying Decades Of Global Warming (VIDEO)




The Huffington Post | Posted: 01/25/2014 5:20 pm EST | Updated: 01/25/2014 5:59 pm EST




Despite the recent polar vortex and the efforts of some to suggest otherwise, global warming is happening. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA have both said that the 10 warmest years in history happened since 2000. 97 percent of working climate scientists believe climate change is due to the actions of humans. And the risk to the planet is even greater than some scientists thought.
A visualization released Tuesday by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which monitors global surface temperatures, shows how much warmer the Earth is in comparison to a 1951-1980 baseline. But be warned, it's not comforting to watch.
---
Oh and Also:
http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000009



Swedish Marines Lip-Sync 'Greased Lightning' And Change Your Life



The Huffington Post | Posted: 01/25/2014 11:58 am EST | Updated: 01/25/2014 11:59 am EST

Edited by hsedin33, 26 January 2014 - 11:14 AM.

  • 0

#2 Absent Canuck

Absent Canuck

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 13

Posted 26 January 2014 - 11:14 AM

lol
  • 0

Another great sig by Vintage Canuck

 


#3 Wheels22

Wheels22

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,128 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 26 January 2014 - 11:16 AM

Bring on global warming.. I've had such high hopes for that
  • 0

#4 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,222 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:32 PM

Colours are pretty.. Wow i'm terrified.... Not.
  • 0

#5 mrawfull

mrawfull

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Joined: 13-November 11

Posted 26 January 2014 - 12:49 PM

You do realize that NASA and NOAA are both government agencies right?

Now, what business are government agencies in again? Very good, they're in the business of getting more funding.
  • 0

#6 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,561 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 26 January 2014 - 01:19 PM


  • 1
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#7 KoreanHockeyFan

KoreanHockeyFan

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,794 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 07

Posted 26 January 2014 - 09:39 PM

So according to the video...in 2013, the Arctic is blazing hot in comparison to California? I mean, red does mean hot right?
  • 0

#8 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,758 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 26 January 2014 - 10:15 PM

So according to the video...in 2013, the Arctic is blazing hot in comparison to California? I mean, red does mean hot right?


Its change in temperature.

Edited by Red Light Racicot, 26 January 2014 - 10:18 PM.

  • 0

#9 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 613 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 26 January 2014 - 10:16 PM

So according to the video...in 2013, the Arctic is blazing hot in comparison to California? I mean, red does mean hot right?


What is begin shown is not the absolute temperature, but the temperature anomaly (i.e. how much warmer/colder a particular region is relative to the average of 1951-1980).

In 2013, the Arctic is a lot warmer than what it used to be, whereas California is warmer but not by as much.
  • 0

#10 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,758 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 26 January 2014 - 10:30 PM

You do realize that NASA and NOAA are both government agencies right?

Now, what business are government agencies in again? Very good, they're in the business of getting more funding.


Its not like 97% of all scientists are suddenly going to forego science for no good reason.

The scientific method dictates that science absolutely must be 100% objective or its useless.
  • 0

#11 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,023 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 26 January 2014 - 11:01 PM

Just look at the scale and use it as a reference point. One degree change makes the colour change all the way from neutral to orange or neutral to blue.

Nothing saying there's absolutely no need for concern, but if they changed it to 2 degrees, the colours wouldn't have changed much and the exaggeration would be minimal.
  • 0

#12 hsedin33

hsedin33

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,277 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 10

Posted 26 January 2014 - 11:54 PM

Just look at the scale and use it as a reference point. One degree change makes the colour change all the way from neutral to orange or neutral to blue.

Nothing saying there's absolutely no need for concern, but if they changed it to 2 degrees, the colours wouldn't have changed much and the exaggeration would be minimal.


I dunno man, raising the entire Earth's temperature by one or two degree's in 60 years seems kind of significant.
  • 0

#13 Standing_Tall#37

Standing_Tall#37

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,511 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 09

Posted 27 January 2014 - 12:30 AM

I dunno man, raising the entire Earth's temperature by one or two degree's in 60 years seems kind of significant.

So 60 years? About the same time Nukes started getting tested on a regular basis. The same time when cancer started becoming more predominant. Something tells me there is more to this story.
  • 0

#14 Brick Tamland

Brick Tamland

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,489 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 06

Posted 27 January 2014 - 04:13 AM

Warmer summers and winters, count me in...


  • 0
I Love Lamp...

#15 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,238 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 27 January 2014 - 07:40 AM

Its not like 97% of all scientists are suddenly going to forego science for no good reason.

The scientific method dictates that science absolutely must be 100% objective or its useless.

and yet most reports and studies are completely biased going in, hunting for a certain viewpoint, and when that viewpoint is not proved either the data is manipulated , dropped, or explained away.

saying scientists are 100% objective is just foolish.

Edited by avelanch, 27 January 2014 - 08:08 AM.

  • 0

#16 literaphile

literaphile

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 06

Posted 27 January 2014 - 08:01 AM

You do realize that NASA and NOAA are both government agencies right?

Now, what business are government agencies in again? Very good, they're in the business of getting more funding.


OK, now present some evidence that actually shows that NASA and NOAA are fabricating evidence to get more funding.
  • 0

#17 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,125 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 27 January 2014 - 11:13 AM

Artificial Atmospheric Renewers need to start being produced on a global scale. Since we cut down vast sections of the natural ones.

Technology has gotten us into this mess, it seems fitting that it should also be the solution.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Actually some of the Technology already implemented is far superior to the Carbon storing ability of trees. NASA and NOAA should be receiving vast sums of funds (directly out of the pockets of major Oil Corporations and logging interests) to implement these Carbon sinks on a global level.


The scariest part of this is that they release a Video like this with no viable plan to alter it. Obviously they have known that this is going on for decades. We are still going to use Carbon fuels for the foreseeable future so we must work within these parameters to solve the situation.
  • 1
Posted Image

#18 Papayas

Papayas

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,646 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 09

Posted 27 January 2014 - 11:14 AM

You do realize that NASA and NOAA are both government agencies right?

Now, what business are government agencies in again? Very good, they're in the business of getting more funding.


err what? isn't it the opposite? the government is trying to deny that global warming exist because it would cost them a lot of money and changes to fix the problem. They had been trying to preach to idiots that global warming doesn't exist and people are buying it for years.
  • 0

#19 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,219 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 27 January 2014 - 11:23 AM

The responses in the thread are just as terrifying


Ayyupp
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#20 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,898 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 27 January 2014 - 11:25 AM

Warmer summers and winters, count me in...


The ignorance is strong in you.
  • 0

#21 nucklehead

nucklehead

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,996 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 03

Posted 27 January 2014 - 12:12 PM

The responses in the thread are just as terrifying


Not as scary as your sig!!!!
  • 0

 


#22 Papayas

Papayas

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,646 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 09

Posted 27 January 2014 - 12:56 PM

and yet most reports and studies are completely biased going in, hunting for a certain viewpoint, and when that viewpoint is not proved either the data is manipulated , dropped, or explained away.

saying scientists are 100% objective is just foolish.


scientists aren't 100% objective, but the scientific method is. It's just that it's human nature not to follow the scientific method 100% of the time. It doesn't mean we should abandon the principle itself.

maybe some scientists are biased, but as a normal citizen the best we can do is to follow the scientific method as much as possible and the only way we can do that is either you are a scientist yourself or you sometimes have to trust or hope that the data from those scientist are right.

What you don't do tho, is to assume that all those data from scientists and labs are biased and unworthy to trust without any source to back you up.
  • 1

#23 stawns

stawns

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,872 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 27 January 2014 - 01:43 PM

Its not like 97% of all scientists are suddenly going to forego science for no good reason.

The scientific method dictates that science absolutely must be 100% objective or its useless.


however, what isn't usually mentioned is that we are still in the last stages of the last ice age. Of course the planet is going to be in a warming trend.
  • 0

#24 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,125 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 27 January 2014 - 01:58 PM

however, what isn't usually mentioned is that we are still in the last stages of the last ice age. Of course the planet is going to be in a warming trend.

However what is generally mentioned and often ignored is the amount of Carbon in our atmosphere due to burning of fossil fuels.

Even if these Carbon emissions are not the causative factor for the steady increase in temperatures across the globe, they still pose a serious health risk to human beings on this planet.

Not to mention it is pretty naive to think that the amount of Carbon being pumped into our atmosphere daily will not have some sort of repercussion on our weather patterns, air quality, various biomes, global temperatures etc.

The solution is so simple, it just takes money. Since money is something that is controlled by human beings, this problem is far from unsolvable. Unfortunately it seems that it will have to get really bad before solutions are implemented on a global scale.

Edited by Aladeen, 27 January 2014 - 01:59 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#25 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 613 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 27 January 2014 - 04:56 PM

however, what isn't usually mentioned is that we are still in the last stages of the last ice age. Of course the planet is going to be in a warming trend.


That's incorrect. The last glacial period ended about 12,000 years ago, the global temperature peaked 8,000 years ago and has been declining gradually since, until sharp reversal in 1900.

Posted Image
(Note there is a temperature projection until 2100 embedded into the graphics)

Here's what the past 10,000 or so years looked like (black is a temperature reconstruction. Blue is modern instrumental record)
Posted Image

You are also forgetting the fact that the planet doesn't warm spontaneously, and any temperature change has to be driven by a forcing. The overwhelm evidence is that the current warming is driven by an increase in green house gases.
  • 4

#26 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 613 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 27 January 2014 - 05:44 PM

scientists aren't 100% objective, but the scientific method is. It's just that it's human nature not to follow the scientific method 100% of the time. It doesn't mean we should abandon the principle itself.


I think a more accurate characterization is an individual scientist can often be subjective, but collectively the scientific community is largely objective. This is for two reasons

1) Peer review: before a paper is published in a reputable journal it is reviewed by at least 2 (often 3) experts in your field. If your conclusion is not adequately supported by your data the reviewers will usually pick up on it. It also happens very often that at least one reviewer will hold a very different view than you do ( I experienced that personally), so the end product is usually far more objective.

2) Scientific discovery (other than perhaps theoretical physics and math) is not one person's work, but is a collection of hundreds of papers on the subject. Even in the case where lapses and frauds slip through peer review, they do not survive in the long run because people will attempt to reproduce your results.

Another issue is that determining the level of objectivity itself is a rather subjective exercise, and what is objective to scientists may appear subjective to an outsider. Perhaps an example is that a recent paper by Cowtan and Way (2013) showed that the HadCRUT4 data set underestimated the recent warming due to the lack of sampling in the arctic regions. An outsider/skeptic may interpret this as a biased study attempting to explain away the "pause" in global warming, but what they don't realize is that the motivation of the study itself is very much objective: the study is an attempt to understand how much bias can be introduced by inadequate sampling of the arctic region, it just so happens that the bias is quite significant.
  • 1

#27 Jimayo

Jimayo

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,948 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 03

Posted 28 January 2014 - 04:38 AM

You do realize that NASA and NOAA are both government agencies right?

Now, what business are government agencies in again? Very good, they're in the business of getting more funding.


Yes, and the billion dollar businesses are above board and totally trustworthy. :rolleyes:
  • 0
QUOTE("stuckinontario")
QUOTE("Rommsey")
If they can we don't agree then. Do you really try this hard to be this stupid?


I do what I can to come down to your level.


QUOTE("captainkirk")
QUOTE(Wings_Imagery")
Micro evolution doesn't prove Macro evolution...It only proves that species can adapt to new environments, it doesn't prove that they morph into completely different species. i.e. a fish does not turn into a dog.


I guess the drooling football players must have distracted you during the part where the professor told you that you were in anthropology class, not cellular biology.

#28 Jimayo

Jimayo

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,948 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 03

Posted 28 January 2014 - 04:40 AM

The responses in the thread are just as terrifying


The responses in this thread tell you nothing will be done, and to move away from the coast.

Edited by Jimayo, 28 January 2014 - 04:41 AM.

  • 0
QUOTE("stuckinontario")
QUOTE("Rommsey")
If they can we don't agree then. Do you really try this hard to be this stupid?


I do what I can to come down to your level.


QUOTE("captainkirk")
QUOTE(Wings_Imagery")
Micro evolution doesn't prove Macro evolution...It only proves that species can adapt to new environments, it doesn't prove that they morph into completely different species. i.e. a fish does not turn into a dog.


I guess the drooling football players must have distracted you during the part where the professor told you that you were in anthropology class, not cellular biology.

#29 Standing_Tall#37

Standing_Tall#37

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,511 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 09

Posted 28 January 2014 - 07:58 AM

You are also forgetting the fact that the planet doesn't warm spontaneously, and any temperature change has to be driven by a forcing. The overwhelm evidence is that the current warming is driven by an increase in green house gases.

My Question I was hinting at earlier is this;

Could 2400 or so nuclear bombs that have been tested since 1951 play into this? I just wonder why the governments all of a sudden quit testing around 1994. I would imagine that much radiation and such would not be good for the environment.
  • 0

#30 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 613 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 28 January 2014 - 10:55 AM

My Question I was hinting at earlier is this;

Could 2400 or so nuclear bombs that have been tested since 1951 play into this? I just wonder why the governments all of a sudden quit testing around 1994. I would imagine that much radiation and such would not be good for the environment.


In terms of warming probably the energy released is trivial I think.

In order to permanently change the temperature of the earth, one has to change either the energy received or energy radiated back to space, both of which are measured in terms of watts per square meter. As of 2011, the estimated anthropogenic effect to the energy budget is at 2.2 W/m2.

According to wikipedia, the largest nuclear bomb detonated had energy of 50 megatons of TNT, or 2.1x1017 Joules of energy. Assume the 2400 bombs all have such yield (a gross exaggeration of course) gives 5x1020 J total energy. This energy is released over a period of 43 years (or 3.15x107 seconds). Averaging this over Earth's surface area of 5x1014m gives 0.03 W/m2, or 1% of the anthropogenic effect on climate.

Most nuclear devices are a lot smaller, so probably in reality it is closer to 0.1%.
  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.