Science & Climate Change

Where does the scientific data confirming Climate Change and Global Warming come from?

NASA’S Goddard Institute for Space Studies

The decade from 2000 to 2009 was the warmest in the modern record. “Piecing Together the Temperature Puzzle” illustrates how NASA satellites enable us to study possible causes of climate change. The video explains what role fluctuations in the solar cycle, changes in snow and cloud cover, and rising levels of heat-trapping gases may play in contributing to climate change.

Each year, scientists at NASA’S Goddard Institute for Space Studies analyze global temperature data. The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year since global instrumental temperature records began 130 years ago. Worldwide, the mean temperature was 0.57°C (1.03°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period. And January 2000 to December 2009 came out as the warmest decade on record.

Take a look below at NASA’s collection of videos, articles and imagery designed to help tell the story of our warming world.

Our warmest decade! NASA scientists unveil their latest findings on our warming world: 2009 is tied as the second warmest year since modern record keeping began, and 2000-2009 is the hottest decade ever:

Just 5 questions! On the record….about the temperature record. NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt talks about the Earth’s surface temperature record and the data behind it:

Sea change! The world’s oceans are a mighty force. Their natural rhythms can sometimes hide global warming and sometimes accentuate it. NASA scientists say that ocean effects currently at play could well help make 2010 the warmest year ever:

Do local bouts of cold weather mean global warming is over? No. Read more to learn why cold snaps + global warming do add up:

To read more articles, watch more videos, check interactive graphics and visualizations, you can go here:

Credit for this video: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

Hat tip to Best0fScience for pointing me towards this clip. Go subscribe:

You can watch an excellent series debunking Climate Change denialists here:

Climate Crock of the Week with Peter Sinclair produced here (go subscribe):

Duration : 0:5:46

[youtube lVQY2zuENls]

Other Data visualization Resources

    25 thoughts on “Science & Climate Change
    1. @spamvigilante …
      @spamvigilante Sadly, it is true that the planet IS cooling–in some places. The overall AVERAGE is increasing, but that is far too reasonable and boring for the wingnuts who drive this pseudo-scientific shouting match. The enviro-libs have the edge here, just because their position is CLOSER to the truth than their polar opposites’. The conservo-critics are just insanely wrong on this issue. Still, I think Al Gore and his ilk are merely using the issue as a political tool.

    2. Something seems off …
      Something seems off here. The audio voiceover quality is not consistent and the intercuts between voiceovers are poorly transitioned, if transitioned at all. Can you provide a direct link to this video from Goddard. By the way, who are YOU, marcellojun? One is led to believe that you are personally affiliated with the production of this video, yet your profile shows no such affiliation. I’m not a GW critic, by the way.

    3. @bfpccbm Time to …
      @bfpccbm Time to get your head out of the sand (unlike you, I can keep the conversation civil).
      What is your source that the planet is cooling? That 30,000 scientists who have signed a petition? Not one of them were climate specialists; the vast bulk of them not even with an undergraduate degree. Some experts.
      Why is it that not a single one of you who who have assertions that the planet is cooling refuse to pay attention to fact and reality? Why do you persist in residing in a fantasy world?

    4. You know who …
      You know who controls NASA’s mission………OBAMA…..and it’s all about control and a huge tax issue…….be prepared to be screwed while the temperatures continue to cool………………….

    5. Meditation, …
      Meditation, something that Einstein and Isaac Newton (invented gravity discovered cat flaps) had in common, apart from all that other stuff

      You don’t need to set in the Lotus position with your legs behind your head
      Simply sit comfortably or lie down, and concentrate on one thing, that’s it, it’s that simple, focusing your mind on one thing releases lots of wonderful brain drugs, focus on one thing and keep that one thing foremost in your mind, like why did that Apple fall on my head ? try it

    6. It’s just a bout of …
      It’s just a bout of insomnia, really annoying, but nothing serious.

      I know you’re joking and being sarcastic, but my brain has trouble processing it (curse this sleep deprived brain of mine ;) ).

    7. Hope your feeling …
      Hope your feeling better this should cheer you up ;-)
      “What’s your point with this? ”
      No point, just one of those curious things
      “growing zones for example”
      growing zones ? would this be the magnetic field and its possible already started collapse and it’s eventual flip which will certainly upset the climate ? (probably man-made magnetic flip)
      Or supernovas and their effect on our climate ?(man-made supernovas)
      Or Something to do with the sun’s output ? (man-made solar change)

    8. Not the tree-ring …
      Not the tree-ring thing again..
      Correlation between tree-rings and temperature has broken down in higher latitudes. However in the lower latitudes this correlation is still there between temperature and tree-rings. They’re not entirely sure what’s the cause. There’s a study by cook 2004 that delves into this:
      ldeo. Columbia. edu/res/fac/trl/downloads/Publications/%20cook2004. Pdf

      What’s your point with this?

    9. However, again, …
      However, again, even if you ignore the fact that their data and research says the same as all the other relevant datasets and research out there. You can just ignore them if you don’t trust the dataset they have. Still leaves all the other datasets and research based on atmospheric temperature measurements. And not to forget all the other stuff out there that’s not even temperature based (growing zones for example).

    10. I wouldn’t be …
      I wouldn’t be surprised if it was common that other fields lose their IPR documents or data. With CRU it’s just that it was thrown in the spotlight. Not making excuses, already went into the details surrounding this, consequences and their improvements. And I’ll be glad when they have implemented their improvements so this mess can be sorted out.
      ‘Non-disclosure agreements are a pain – no ifs or buts about it.’
      Gavin A. Schmidt (on IPR)

    11. Sorry for my …
      Sorry for my belated response, not feeling to hot at the moment (so please forgive any sentence that are not entirely coherent).

      CRU’s go back to 1850, GISTEMP for example goes back to 1880 (GISTEMP is public domain). And the graphs on the websites for both datasets are really similar (they don’t use the same layout and scale, but if you start comparing dates it’s there).
      So they do show a similar trend from where you can pick up in the GISTEMP data.

    12. “NASA, NOAA indeed …
      “NASA, NOAA indeed use CRU datasets. But they also have their own”
      CRU datasets go back further than anybody else’s

      “and again, combined or not, they show a similar trend. If there was a mistake in the homogenized data of CRU it would show”

      Only towards the end

      And it doesn’t match tree ring data towards the end, and nobody knows why ? curious isn’t it ?

    13. “Plus you …
      “Plus you completely ignored my remark”

      As a rule with intellectual property rights parties tend to have agreements in place covering all eventualities, one would look into these carefully before embarking upon any project, problems should only be forthcoming, if a audit trail is not completely transparent and unambiguous

      CRU lost or deleted parts of there audit trail
      Is this common in DNA research ?
      Otherwise if you can’t get the agreement, the project wouldn’t be funded

    14. NASA, NOAA indeed …
      NASA, NOAA indeed use CRU datasets. But they also have their own. And again, combined or not, they show a similar trend. If there was a mistake in the homogenized data of CRU it would show.

      Plus you completely ignored my remark that this is a problem not only plaguing climate research. And you are suggesting these IPR issues invalidate climate research, then following your suggestion, this would mean it would invalidate a lot of research in other fields.

    15. I’m not suffering …
      I’m not suffering from cognitive dissonance.

      I’ve told you over and over the raw data is there. The owners of those measurement stations still have the data. CRU doesn’t in some cases, or may not disclose them due to IPR. They can, and have, disclosed the combined, and corrected dataset of that raw data.
      I’ve gone into this in extensive detail in to the how, why, the consequences and the improvements they are implementing, so I’m not going to repeat myself.

    16. NASA, NOAA (and …
      NASA, NOAA (and many more) use CRU data sets, therefore one would expect similar trends would one not ?
      Do you believe the harsh and unforgiving standards required in scientific methodology, have been met if one uses plausible excuses ?”no”
      Then you seem to be suffering from cognitive dissonance ;-)

      Because you’ve just made a bunch of excuses for why CRU data set should be considered valid, despite raw data loss and IPR problems, CollinMaessen you cannot have your cake and eat it

    17. Secondly, and this …
      Secondly, and this is important, climate research is not the only scientific field that can have problems with IPR. Cryptography, DNA research, Medical Research, Physics, Astronomy and many many more need to be very careful with IPR, Patents and laws in different countries (cryptography and US export law is fun). Not to mention the problems when you use any dataset for any sort of statistical research whatsoever. Most likely someone owns it, you have to pay for it, and you can’t disclose it.

    18. Is it better to …
      Is it better to have a full set of raw data freely available for further research and/or confirmation? Duh. I never said it wasn’t. It makes further research significantly easier for people who need slightly different homogenized datasets from the same raw data.

    19. To answer you: yes, …
      To answer you: yes, no, no.

      However, this is not the case with the CRU raw data. They have the complete set of homogenized data. Which shows a similar trend as NASA, ESA, NOAA (and many more). Their research based on that homogenized data gives results that can be confirmed by research on different datasets. Their results are valid.
      If this wouldn’t be the case, then something would be wrong in the CRU homogenized data. And would invalidate their research. And this has not happened.

    20. CollinMaessen
      Are …

      Are you unaware of the harsh and unforgiving standards required in scientific methodology ?
      Do you believe the harsh and unforgiving standards required in scientific methodology, have been met if one uses plausible excuses ?
      Do you believe that the term sound science, should apply when rigorous and unforgiving standards have not been met ?
      Could you explain why you think the term sound science, is applicable in this circumstance despite raw data loss and IPR problems ?

    21. That’s part of the …
      That’s part of the IPR problem they have. They cannot pass it as they aren’t the owners of the original data. And they have problems with tracking what data came from whom and what the agreements are. If they aren’t careful it could result in a lawsuit if they release data with an IPR on it.

      That’s the reason they released that statement with those specific goals in it which I mentioned earlier. To just prevent these kinds of messes and headaches for researchers.

    22. also
      “organizations …

      “organizations and scientists and the original station data are not passed onto third parties. Below we list the agreements that we still hold. We know that there were others, but cannot locate them, possibly as we’ve moved offices several times during the 1980s. Some date back at least 20 years”
      cru(dot)uea(dot)ac(dot)uk/cru/ data/availability/
      My apologies for not providing a source previously but youtube make it such a pain

    23. RevDevilin,

      That …

      That link from the National post refers to a letter from 2007.

      It is VERY revealing.

      See the story behind that letter here:
      tinyurl . c o m / yej4pom

    24. And it actually …
      And it actually says:
      [because of IPR restriction and] Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.

      It’s again the IPR issue around the raw data from the weather stations I talked about. The document explains perfectly well what happened.

    Leave a Reply

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

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>