God, Help Us!

We must help ourselves, if we are to save society. Unfortunately, from all that I have read, and researched on my own, I am quite pessimistic.

of Which Matter is a Concretization. Not everyone believes in a figment of their imagination that they put up in the clouds. Understanding the experience of the transcendence throughout our lives has occupied the minds of philosophers for tens of thousands of years. The Earth will survive, but there is no such guarantee for humanity, regardless of our conception of a symbol that transcends all human cogitation.

Is there any link to an original source besides the geniuses who build YouTube poop?
What does the color change represent? Temps? So the highest temperatures are originating from the north and moving south?
When the advocates to do something about climate change have caterwauling nincompoops like the folks thinking this is how it is going to unfold make me despair we will ever actually deal with the crap coming down the pike.
The morans, they are everywhere.

Looks like the color change represents *increase* in temperature. The darker the color the greater the change. Temperatures are changing fastest near the North Pole. As time goes by, these changes spread to lower latitudes -- thus the darker colors spread downward on the video.

Yes, all this and more needs to be explained. That does not make anyone a nincompoop.

Last edited Sat Jul 27, 2013, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1)

this poster said NASA. Go there and you'll find a lot on what damage human beings are doing to our spaceship. Wake up. There are plenty of bonified models by reputable source pointing to our eventual extinction if we stay on the fossil fuel path. And guess what, despairing one, the big oil corporation(s) will always deflect any real attempt at change. Profit is king. They feel if enough of us die off from this problem, then problem solved. Less people using fossil fuels, better for the earth and they will still make bank(big profit). I wish a klatu-barada-nikto would show up and put things in perspective for the 'elites'.

The evidence is overwhelming that humans are causing global warming, but this looks like unnecessary misinformation to stir up people who are more concerned about being scared and ignorant than they are about doing anything about the real problems.

can agree with that line of astute observation. Keep working at it, you'll be fine. Ignore the brainless who call others brainless names instead of trying to encourage, further study. per my above edit: I wish a klatu-barada-nikto would show up and put things in perspective for all the so-called top of the food chain.

We're too hardy for quite that, even if Co2 were to hit 2000ppm and about 10-12*C of global warming above today's levels happened.

But you are right about one thing: less people by itself, probably wouldn't do a damn thing to slow fossil extraction.

you would see that the source of the video is NASA.
As far as I am concerned there are NO nincompoops at NASA, their researchers are scientists, who use smart methods for getting this data.
Also, if you look at the video in detail, you would know that the color change represents CHANGE in temperature. So, the highest changes are originating from the north, and moving south.

Yeah, the morans are everywhere, they are the ones who deny that climate change is upon us, and want to do nothing, but add to it.

And I guess some of the morans don't understand what a legend is. It's right there in the video.

You will see that it is from YouTube and somebody put four letters, N-A-S-A, on top of it. You might as well click on those emails from Nigeria claiming to be government officials.
I'm sorry, but the gullibility expressed so far on this thread has been comical. I'm a strong believer in climate change (as if climate change relies upon my belief in it..ha!), and I need no more convincing. What we do need, however, is people who sound more like knowledgeable concerned citizens alerting folks to the coming chnages rather than shrill knuckleheads waving an unreferenced video clip and spouting nonsense.

that is referenced in the OP, you will see that it comes from the Goddard Space Flight Center. The same place where Dr. James Hansen was the head of from 1981 to 2013.

You may think that we are knuckleheads, but some of us need only to look in the mirror to see one.

As far as I am concerned the video is quite well referenced, if one does the proper small bit of research to verify it. Personally, I do not take things like this on face value, but have done some research myself into climate change, and find this to be an accurate depiction of what will occur, in some cases, even if we attempt to change our behavior, and pollute the environment with no more carbon dioxide.

If you like, Dr. Hansen. and the Goddard Center are not far from me, I can call him, or write him for you, and verify it IN PERSON. Just tell me what your requirements are for a source to be bona fide, and I will attempt to get hold of the source, since it is quite near to me, and get it. Then again, you may want to do this for yourself, because I may be too much of a "knucklehead" for you to ever believe... The address of the Goddard Center can be found on their website: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index.html

I suppose that some also still believe that the moon landing was fake, because it is not well referenced, too.

...be careful with the name calling, bub. Look at the scale in the bottom left corner. The colors represent temp CHANGE from historical average NOT average temp! That's not caterwauling, that's physics, you "moranic" nincompoop.

For us in the northern hemisphere, all climate models show vastly higher temp change towards the high latitudes. During the PETM (Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55m years ago) Earth had no ice caps and forests and grassland could be found in northern Greenland and Ellesmere Island. Mid-latitude North America was much warmer than now, but the most extreme variance from modern averages was in the high latitudes. The causes of the PETM were probably similar to current climate change, ie. greenhouse gases, except we, humans are doing it at a far, far faster rate. Instead of the climate shifting over 10 to 20K years, we might see PETM level warming early in the next century or earlier. But, as historical climate has shown, it doesn't take PETM level warming to turn the central plains into a vast desert. Nebraska's sandhills were most likely sand dunes during the medieval warm period.

So much for the "bread basket of the world." Or would you rather just stick your head back in the sand?

That normally remains frozen is thawing and millions of acres of methane gas is being released and speeding up the warming. Add overpopulation and mix. Deadly cocktail.

Is the video showing change in Celsius or Fahrenheit? Are the separations in the isotherms (the edges of the red blobby things in the video) based on percentages, specific temperature differences, or what?
I don't need convincing. I see it happening.
But this so-called NASA clip is just plain ignorance.
Here. Try this one. It's better quality, lacks the ominous music, and is actually from NASA.
Sheesh.
Temperature data 1880-2011

The (ºF) in the legend means farenheit

And near the opening of the video it states that the temperature differences shown are degrees above the 1970-1999 annual average.

Ominous music is courtesy of (who else?) Al Gore.

At the bottom of http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011200/a011280/index.html are email links of the ignoramuses

Or you can leave a comment for the ignoramuses at https://www.facebook.com/NASA.GSFC/posts/10152031218165898

Okay. I was wrong.
It was a friggen' YouTube video.

Sure, it was a little helpful.
After I watched the Olive garden commercials, I still couldn't help notice that there is no source linking it to a NASA video. This is still self-referencing and does not prove the pedigree of the video. Additionally, the OP puts this video on a post with little or no context or referencing.
I'm sorry, but that is a silly way to make decisions.
I don't doubt the video is a simulation. I question the OPs use of it.
It may even be a NASA sim, but I haven't seen anything yet that links it to NASA.

Title: "NASA | Projected U.S. Temperature Changes by 2100" ????

NO WAY!!!! THEY'VE BEEN HACKED. NASA HAS BEEN HACKED, I TELL YOU. AFTER ALL THIS WARMING, WE'RE DUE FOR A COOLING!!!

[font size=1]sarcasm[/font]

And 2012 = 10th warmest year globally since 1880, and the 36th in a row above the 20th century average.

-- the first decade of the twenty-first century was the hottest since the start of modern measurements in 1850, per the World Meteorological Organization . The hottest. In 160 years!

-- Since mid 1800's, temperatures have risen about 1.5 deg F. - AP 3/5/13

-- Sea levels have already risen on average about 18 centimeters (5.1" 0.59 feet) since 1900. Globally, the rate of sea level rise has accelerated in recent decades to reach about 3.5 millimeters a year (that's 1.38 inches /decade = 0.115 feet/decade) , with more than half coming from thermal expansion of the oceans. - Reuters 2/8/12
"Since the 1920s, the global average sea level has risen about 9", mostly from thermal expansion of the oceans. But the pace is accelerating with the melting of Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets. The latest research, including an assessment by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, suggests that sea level could rise more than six feet by the end of the century." - Goodbye Miami, Rolling Stone, July 2013

-- Greenland glaciers are dumping ice into the ocean at 2X the rate of 10 years ago. Previously estimated sea level would rise 1.6 feet from Greenland partial melt in 100 years, (news report didn't say what the new estimate is). Now expect Greenland to entirely melt in a few hundred years.-- BBC News 2/16/06

-- The past five years have had the five lowest summer Arctic sea ice levels on record - Federal government report involving 121 scientists worldwide, ~12/1/11 (newsA)

- The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Monday that the extent of Arctic sea ice shrank to 1.58 million square miles and is likely to melt more in the coming weeks. That breaks the old record of 1.61 million square miles set in 2007. Figures are based on satellite records dating back to 1979. - AP 8/27/12

-- Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Volumes on Map of New York 1979-2012 (volume of Arctic minimum sea ice in 2012 is 19.3% of the amount in 1979)
. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017123996

-- 40% phytoplankton decline - a study published in Nature in July found that global populations of phytoplankton have declined about 40% since 1950, linked with "increasing sea surface temperatures" -- Nation 1/31/11

-- Glaciers retreating and melting just about everywhere.

======================================================================

Yeah, I agree with you -- I think the NASA "morans" and "caterwauling nicompoops" and the "YouTube poopers" have got it all bass-ackward. Clearly, after all this warming, we're about due for a cooling spell.

[font size=1]{sarcasm}[/font]

I know all this. I am questioning this video in particular and the way shrill way the OP used it.

Humble won't cut it. People need to become assertive, rude and down right arrogant about this. Actions to mitigate global climate change should become as fundamental a doctrine of progressives as the longed for apocalypse is among religious conservatives.

Humble will not cut it, when those who do not believe the science are believers in charlatans only out to line their own pockets, bearing books of mythology to back their silly precognitions up.

#: Arctic methane - why the sea ice matters (video)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017134036

# Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Volumes 1979-2012 (video) http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017123996
(the summer minimum Arctic sea ice volume in 2012 is about 19% of what it was in 1979)

# Dr. Jennifer Francis, Top Climatologists Explain How Global Warming Wrecks the Jet Stream (video)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017133252

###### And, not having anything to do with Arctic warming specifically, but certainly part of the cause ####

# Population dot video - from Population Connection (video)
http://www.populationconnection.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_main

if you're used to financial calculations.

Posting this in response to someone up there saying this wasn't documented.
If you go to the Mauna Loa historical data site and download the data, you can figure out all kinds of things for yourself. For instance, the "normal" year over year rate of increase in CO2, which I define as the 8 year average (for my own nefarious purposes) is currently running at .00525 per year, or around half a percent per year.
To get what the CO2 will be in 2084, which is 71 years from now, you do the following:

396.96 * 1.00525^71 = 575.71

396.96 is the last weekly reading from Mauna Loa. That figure of 575.71 is pretty close to scenario number one in that video. I assume they used slightly different figures than mine to get at 580 or so ppm. Close enough.
For the second scenario they probably took account of the fact the rate has been increasing. In the seventies, about two to three tenths of a percent per year was normal. In the eighties and most of the nineties, four tenths per year was normal. Since the late nineties, five tenths has been normal.
The rate of increase in the rate of increase averages out to 1.75% per year. That second scenario is doubtless plugging in some number like this to arrive at the numbers in that second scenario.
All of this is publicly available info, and easily calculable if you have any sort of Google skills.

I.e., the increase in radiative forcing from an increase in CO2 is larger than a one-to-one relationship.
The formula (from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/) is as follows:

5.35 * LN( current CO2 / 278 )

where 5.35 is a constant, and 278 is the 1750 level of CO2 in the atmosphere. This formula is meant to give you the watts/square meter of forcing.
Plugging in the numbers from above you get the following:

5.35 * LN( 396.96 / 278 ) = 1.91
5.35 * LN( 575.71 / 278 ) = 3.9

Ratio between the two figures: 2.04, meaning at a projected 575.71, a figure which assumes a flat rate of increase between now and 2084, forcing from CO2 will roughly double.

Okay. I was wrong.
But in my defense, the OP was a friggen' YouTube video.