NASA Visualization Shows Global Temperature Changes (VIDEO)

Where did 2011 stand in comparison to global temperatures from past years?

NASA recently released a visualization that depicts global temperature changes since 1880. Although nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000, 2011 was only the ninth warmest year on record, according to NASA.

The world's average temperature in 2011 was 0.92 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the mid-20th century baseline period of 1951 to 1980, NASA's press release explained.

James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, said, "We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting. So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record."

There is some disagreement over 2011's ranking, however. NOAA scientists arrived at the same temperature data, but have ranked 2011 as the 11th warmest year on record.

According to the Associated Press, 2011, which was slightly cooler because of La Niña, was still "hotter than every year last century except 1998."

Tom Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, explained that a cooler year did not mean overall trends of rising temperatures would necessarily change. "It would be premature to make any conclusion that we would see any hiatus of the longer-term warming trend," he said. "Global temperatures are continuing to increase."

Earlier this month, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the symbolic "Doomsday Clock" one minute closer to midnight. The decision to move the clock to five minutes to midnight reflects, among other things, growing global disruptions due to climate change.

Below, see NASA's visualizations of global temperature differences since 1880. Scroll down for video. Image and video courtesy of NASA.

WATCH:

Comments

[Andrew Harvey]

04:42 AM on 02/21/2012

They should re-do this graphic starting about 1,000 years ago. That will give some perspective on the matter.

[wanderthewest]

10:19 AM on 02/26/2012

but there weren't weather stations all over the globe then to give spatial resolution. One can find global averages going back thousands to hundreds of thousands of years reconstructed by various means, and yes, there are other warm periods, but they are generally not so abrupt, and they also track CO2. Unless you think that the physical properties of CO2 change over time, CO2, particularly the huge man-made spike in CO2, is a pretty reasonable explanation, unless, one also doesn't think it is safe to assume the chemical realities of combustion have changed also.

[Andrew Harvey]

07:00 PM on 02/26/2012

Yes, and as we all know, those CO2 increases lagged Temperature increases by hundreds of years. And while were at it, the Mercator projection makes this map look worse than it is.

[maxwells]

07:35 PM on 02/10/2012

U.S. Corporate Responses to global warming:

https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-G500-2011-Report.pdf

"While federal legislation is moribund and climate change regulatory developments have slowed, voluntary corporate action is moving forward. The Carbon Disclosure Project’s recently published survey of 396 of the 500 largest companies (based on market capitalization) found that:

73 percent of the companies surveyed had GHG emission targets;
45 percent had reduced their GHG emissions in 2011;
97 percent implemented other emission reduction activities (e.g., energy efficiency, building fabric, building services and processes), low carbon energy installations and behavioral changes);

direct emissions from GHG sources owned or controlled by CDP respondents fell by over 1 billion tons carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e) in 2011 from 2010. Reductions of indirect emissions decreased although by a smaller amount;

93 percent of the companies have given their boards or senior executives “responsibility” for their climate change programs;
68% companies are “integrating” climate change initiatives into their overall business strategy;
65 percent provided employee incentives to reduce GHG emissions;
37 percent verified their emissions using standards considered acceptable by CDP;
each of these percentages were significant increases from 2010. CDP Global 500 Report

2011: Accelerating Low Carbon Growth).
http://sustainability-counsel.com/2011/10/07/corporations-moving-ahead-on-climate-change-efforts-2/

[sunsetter]

08:55 AM on 02/09/2012

That's funny. They use the Miller Cylindrical Map increases the size of the Arctic so the red areas are presented as larger than they should be. There is a scientific expression for this effect, it is called enHANSENication.

This is not science.

[BlackbirdHighway]

09:48 AM on 02/12/2012

If the Arctic got colder then the Miller Cylindrica­l Map would make that appear larger as well. But that is not what happened, is it?

[alteredstory]

11:12 PM on 02/14/2012

That's entirely irrelevant to the purpose of the map.

Also, stop making up words - you're not very good at it.

[maxwells]

08:40 PM on 02/08/2012

What does Conoco-Phillips Petroleum say about about climate change?

Jim Mulva, Chairman & CEO, ConocoPhillips

New York, September 22, 2008

Our Position on Energy and Climate Security

"Last year we became the only U.S. integrated energy company to call for a mandatory national framework to address greenhouse gas emissions.

"... we are making strides to manage our own emissions. This year we developed a comprehensive climate change plan with four action items:

Building organizational capability in the form of processes, people, tools and technologies;
Pursuing new opportunities in low- or zero-carbon businesses;
Leveraging carbon trading and technology;
And engaging externally.

We now regularly measure and forecast our emissions. We are improving the energy efficiency of our refining, conducting R&D on carbon capture and storage, and producing renewable fuels. We were already a leading producer of natural gas, which is clean-burning and low in carbon.

We also belong to the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. ..."It calls for strong national legislation that would slow, stop and then reverse the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

"... ConocoPhillips urges the incoming presidential administration to work with congress to pass effective legislation. And further, to exercise world leadership in negotiating an international climate agreement.

http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/newsroom/other_resources/pages/cdp_speech_text.aspx

[maxwells]

08:34 PM on 02/08/2012

How about Shell and BP?

SHELL:

“Global population growth and economic development may double energy demand by 2050. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of people’s needs. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2 emissions, governments and industry will need to work together. As Shell increases its gas and oil production to help meet growing demand, we believe the best way to help secure a sustainable energy future is by focusing on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency in our operations.”

http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/environment/climate_change/

BP (BRITISH PETROLEUM)

on Climate Change

1.Accepts findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
2.Requires global collaboration of all parts of society
3.Governments will need to make tough decisions, balancing with growth and energy security issues
4.Policies will be required to drive emission reduction and low carbon technology investment
5.Energy efficiency will reduce use of energy and emission of CO2
6.Innovation required for advanced technologies

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/china/bpchina_english/STAGING/local_assets/downloads_pdfs/press_share_0427_EN.pdf

[maxwells]

08:32 PM on 02/08/2012

Here's what Exxon Mobil says about GHGs (greenhouse gas emissions) and climate change:

"EXXON:

The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) provides an update of scientific understanding regarding GHG emissions, global warming and the risks of climate change, and the way changes could unfold in the future. Emissions scenarios and results from climate models (see Figure 1) estimate that, without policy intervention, temperatures could increase 1 to 5 º C by 2100.

Figure 1. Combining results from both emissions scenarios and climate models, the colored lines show projected warming from 2000 through 2100 for a range of scenarios. The colored bars indicate the range of warming for each scenario resulting from the uncertainty of converting emissions to global temperature change. The blue line shows historical changes over the past century. (IPCC 2007)

The IPCC also examined a number of stabilization scenarios in which global emissions grow more slowly, peak and then decline in coming decades. In these scenarios GHG concentrations and projected warming stabilize at levels lower than would be expected without policy intervention. Stabilization scenarios rely on policies that place added costs on GHG emissions to reduce future energy use and stimulate the deployment of more efficient technologies. Scenarios resulting in lower concentrations result in reduced climate risks, but, as described below, they require stronger policy intervention."

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/safety_climate_mgmt_report.aspx

[SteveC114]

04:24 PM on 02/06/2012

WTF is wrong with people who think 'global warming' is a fabrication? Think about it....If someone drinks 2 gallons of liquid, will they 'maybe' need to use the bathroom a couple hours later??? Man has dumped millions of tons of carbon dioxide [CO2] into earth's atmosphere, whether from factories, vehicles, and airplanes (just to name three). Adding CO2 into the atmosphere will eventually trap more sunlight onto the earth, and make things progressively warmer - Just ask Venus.

[wanderthewest]

10:23 AM on 02/26/2012

People must not be willing to assume the physical and chemical properties of things like CO2 are constant.

[TYRANNASAURUS]

10:32 AM on 02/02/2012

NASA Tracks Global Temperature Changes Since 1880.........

That sure looks like global warming to me.....and moving fast enough to make this planet unlivable by the end of this century....anything speeding downward picks up momentum as it progresses.

[William A]

10:39 PM on 02/04/2012

0.72 deg F over 130 years.

Well within normal.

Fossil fuels will run out before CO2 concentration even becomes a serious issue.

[TYRANNASAURUS]

10:27 AM on 02/05/2012

It's not just about the climate Willian A... everything is on a downward trend.

[trumphent]

02:34 PM on 02/05/2012

You've got a Nobel Prize waiting for you. Dr Hansen claims the last time atmospheric CO2 was at 450ppm for even a short time, there was no ice at the poles or on mountain tops. Let's see, we are currently very nearly 400ppm and increasing at above 2ppm per year. If, you are correct, and you have to be or you wouldn't have posted the claim, we can keep right on up to over 1000ppm.

[Dodgers1]

04:57 PM on 02/01/2012

Gallon said, "As a rule, the closer you get to the science, the closer you get to the truth. As for the constant calls of hoax and scam, consider the source".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with much of what you said in your earlier post. Nasty comments, name calling, creating facts that don't exist are a part of any forum of this type. I have a preference for reasonable discussion of issues. I do disagree with you that the closer you get to science, the closer you get to the truth. Humans are imperfect and flawed. Theories can be proven, but unproven theories are subject to failure, just as we are everyday. I have a skepical view of the world only because humans are always tempted by money and power. Some can resist; but, most are unable to resist.

[Publicola]

07:17 PM on 02/01/2012

Dodgers1: "Theories can be proven"

Scientific theories can *never* be proven.

As Dr. Stephen Hawking explains:

"Any physical theory is always provisiona­l... you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiment­s agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory."

Or as the National Academy of Sciences puts it:

"[S]cience is fundamentally based on observations. Any scientific theory is thus, in principle, subject to being refined or overturned by new observations."

Dodgers1: "unproven theories are subject to failure"

Which is to say, all scientific theories are "subject to failure". However, and as the National Academy of Sciences explains:

"In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782

[gallon]

04:01 PM on 02/03/2012

Why didn't you reply under my comment dodgers? It would have maintained continuity of discussion.

dodgers1: "I have a skepical view of the world only because humans are always tempted by money and power. Some can resist; but, most are unable to resist."

Well then you must be highly fearful of the vast fossil fuel industry, right?

[Counterintuitive]

11:51 PM on 01/31/2012

Yet another round of underestimating Climate Change.
Bad news is continually showing up much earlier than predicted.
Constant understatement added to understatement creates a massive cumulative error of understanding. We are now behind the curve. To get back to a pro-active stance, we need the IPCC to deliver a strong dose of the truly bad news.
I demand to know the worst case scenario for the climate of 2212.
Following that, I want an annual update of this 100 year worst case forecast.

[alteredstory]

12:20 AM on 02/01/2012

It's hard to know what the worst-case is for 2212, but by then 10-20 degrees is not out of the question, no more ice, higher sea levels, and so on.

I've talked about worst-case scenarios here a little (http://oceanoxia.wordpress.com/category/worst-case-scenarios/), but it's hard to put a date on things.

[alteredstory]

12:21 AM on 02/01/2012

I am, incidentally, interested in discussing this farther, if only to put the IPCC's soothing predictions in perspective.

[Counterintuitive]

01:48 AM on 02/01/2012

As an occassional provoquer, my intent is merely to move the football (ie the baseline) ahead a few yards. I understand that this is not how most of the Climate Defenders see their role, but I think this is how the Climate Deniers look at the situation.

As wonderful, dedicated, intelligent, kind hearted and noble as the Defenders may be, they haven't noticed that the Deniers have managed to move the baseline again and again. The initiative in this campaign has been ceded to the cut and paste crowd.

What started out as an enterprise to anticipate the future has morphed into a debate about observing the present. Thus attention to the future has been cleverly eliminated. Thus despite increased climate evidence, the debate itself has moved backward from where it was 20 years ago

[redhead55]

05:33 PM on 01/31/2012

If only we could get the dim bulbs in this country to "take a leadership role" An excerpt from Think Progress ---

'..yesterday’s speech by Saudi Arabia’s Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi...In a speech at the Middle East and North Africa energy conference in London yesterday, Al-Naimi — who once called renewable energy a “nightmare” — hailed energy efficiency and solar as important investments, global warming “real” and “pressing,” and explained that drilling for oil “does not create many jobs.”

“We know that pumping oil out of the ground does not create many jobs. It does not foster an entrepreneurial spirit, nor does it sharpen critical faculties.”

...

“Greenhouse gas emissions and global warming are among humanity’s most pressing concerns. Societal expectations on climate change are real, and our industry is expected to take a leadership role.”

[Genders]

11:36 PM on 01/31/2012

FF. rooftop solar. offshore wind, efficiency and waste bio char bio fuels are the solution. forever, clean, safe and cheaper that war and ecosystem destruction.

[Protocolor]

12:09 AM on 02/01/2012

Rooftop solar? Sure, photovoltaic shingles and roofing tiles are great, but the real answer is orbital solar. Tons of high tech jobs, tremendous motivation for the kids to study hard to enter science and engineering, and countless entirely new industrial opportunities. Furthermore, the infrastructure to support orbital solar opens the possibility of moving other industrial activities out of the biosphere.

Of course, orbital solar will cost almost as much as a war, but it will create more good-paying jobs than any war and open dramatic new possibilities for the species. The effort to build the orbital infrastructure to develop orbital solar would be like the Pacific Railway Act, the Interstate Highway Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Apollo Program, the Works Progress Administration, and mom's apple pie all rolled into one.

Ambitious and optimistic? Sure, but isn't America due for something like that right about now?

[Andrew Harvey]

04:40 AM on 02/21/2012

Aside from the empty rhetoric, what has he done?

[maslin]

05:27 PM on 01/31/2012

Terrifying.

[Angel Ciudad]

04:44 PM on 01/31/2012

The increase in the last few decades is the most disturbing as it shoots temps way up.

[flower-power]

03:38 PM on 01/31/2012

By some Cognac of France if you really believe it will be desappear,
french producters will be happy,
but in 100 years you will not be alive to see if Nasa was right or not !
And before your choose was oriented to make x or Y in your own life ! It's very hard to explain all in small words, and not in my language currently , excuse for my frenglish ^^...)

[flower-power]

03:47 PM on 01/31/2012

(suite) :
We saw the same video, but we can analyse in also many ways !
At the end of the Permian era, 80 % of the alive sorts(species) on Earth had already disappeared since everything is the nonsense (in french i prefer use the word : carabistouille )
Climate change, or not ...
about the global warming, i say to my children ,
everything you decide now to change, the future can't be change ,
it's too late, or too early to say the really truth, and it may be coming soon a glaciation too.
human life si too short, our computer are not enough bigger, and we have no idea of exactly what happening in Permian ,because nobody use petrol in this times ,
so why 80 % of alive / species disappear in this times without using petrol, house, computer, industry, chimical company, ...? Nasa can show us everything they want, show us everything they decide, but nasa never answer to my simple question ? why before it has been , and now the reason will change with only human activity ? Sincerrely, before, I believe in all, now I prefer ask me before to accept all, in a perfect concept, just in one way, one mind, all together ! maybe other explication ? natural evolution of the Earth ? so what ? only to be afraid and after ? We are still alive, the human survive, it's not a miracle, it's evolution ! We must adapt

[flower-power]

03:50 PM on 01/31/2012

.. or desappear !

[SonOfUgh]

08:03 PM on 01/31/2012

You wrote: "We are still alive, the human survive, it's not a miracle, it's evolution ! We must adapt "

The problem with relying on evolution is that evolution of species occurs at the generational rate - at best there will be small adaptations each generation. Human generations are approximately 20 years. The rise in temperatures and the effect they are having on our environment are occurring at a significantly more rapid rate. Evolution will be too slow to adapt us to changes in our environment - the species will perish.

[alteredstory]

11:57 PM on 01/31/2012

It's not about 100 years from now. Things are changing NOW, and the changes are increasing in speed. It's about 10 years from now, it's about 20, or 50 years from now.

[flower-power]

05:05 AM on 02/01/2012

thanks to all , i'm happy , read here so many respons,
in France if we speak about change, and climate, and our futur,
they put on us the stamp of only Ecologist, only excentric mind, or Alarmist of Global Warning.
In America, certainly, all can appropriate to is own life, the notion of change in the present for Global Warning, more than in France, I hope ?

[Kenz300]

01:17 PM on 01/31/2012

Green energy is growing every year. The cost of oil coal and nuclear keep rising while the cost of wind and solar are dropping.

Renewable energy investment is surpassing fossil fuels in new power plants.

Electricit­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­y from sun power, wind energy, wave energy and biomass had an investment of $187 billion last year compared with $157 billion for natural gas, coal and oil, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The Investment in renewable power will grow even more this year

[Hans Littooy]

01:23 PM on 01/31/2012

Agree. So have you invested in Solar for your roof? I'm a conservative and have - but for the right reasons - makes economic sense! Next, buying an electric car and I will reduce my energy costs by over $500/mo! Let's see you all do the same....

[Yota Daga]

03:01 PM on 01/31/2012

we want to build a base on the moon, an American base!

[SonOfUgh]

08:06 PM on 01/31/2012

I applaud you for investing in solar for your home and electric for your car. However, there is no RIGHT reason for such investments.

My family purchased a hybrid vehicle even though the financial savings in fuel would never cover the increased cost of purchasing that vehicle over a conventional vehicle. Had we stuck to the "right reason" as you suggest, we would not have made that purchase. Simply helping to reduce emissions was enough of a reason to satisfy us, even though we will not likely recoup the cost.

[Yota Daga]

03:04 PM on 01/31/2012

Yet we spent $4 Trillion dollars and counting over the last 9 years fighting for Oil we did not get in Iraq!

[Genders]

11:42 PM on 01/31/2012

We got the high oil prices the multinationals wanted. The war cost us trillions more in more expensive oil.

For that money we can eliminate the need for 90% of our oil using rooftop solar to charge plug in hybrids.