Maps and Graphs

USGS Recent Earthquakes

Atlantic Hurricanes

GISSUSTampering

USHCN2.5

GISS vs Scenarios A,B and C

Global Temperature
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

NSIDC Arctic Ice

NSIDC Antarctic Ice

US National Debt – refresh for latest

Europe Three Day Snow Forecast

USHCN Temperature Adjustments

States which had their hottest year below 350 ppm shown in blue.

USHCN daytime adjustments

USHCN nighttime adjustments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1e/Holocene_Sea_Level.png

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

http://www.ogc.doc.gov/

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wheat7.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wcstates.htm

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/state.html

States which had their hottest year prior to 1970

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/state.html

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.txt

ScreenHunter_19 May. 08 06.04

Chronological List of All Hurricanes

15 Responses to Maps and Graphs

  1. Pingback: New Page – Maps and Graphs | Real Science

  2. Neven says:

    Steven, I’ve compiled a list of Arctic sea ice maps and graphs here.

  3. John Stevenson says:

    I noticed a lot of your data stops at the year 2000. Things have changed quite a bit in the last 10 years. The newest data & the past 10 years have proven clearly where were headed globally.

  4. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/

    What about the 800 year lags.

    Curiously, so when the temperature did drop, so did CO2. They say this is because of the CO2 but the CO2 follows, so what is the mechanism of the CO2 drop as it gets colder if its not actually what it really is the decrease in biological activity due to warmer temperature with no connection to earth’s temperature?

  5. Don McCubbin says:

    Hi Scarlet Pumpernickel,
    Regarding CO2 following temperature:
    “The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming.”
    I pulled this from the Skeptical Science website. Is there some aspect that does not make sense? I am happy to clarify as needed.
    Best regards,
    Don

    • The radiative balance impact of additional CO2 is much, much lower than the impact of additional H2O.

      • Incognito says:

        The radiative impact of CO2 in comparison to H2O is minute and so is its direct affects on the global temperature.

        The Earth’s climate to which we are so accustomed however, is a delicate balance; an ebb and flow of heat on a planetary scale made possible by the atmosphere (jet stream, etc.) and powered by the oceanic currents. A good analogy would be that the atmosphere is the engine and the oceans are the batteries (climate is an Eco-friendly system and runs on batteries not gas, :-))

        The minute affect of CO2 (only a couple of degrees increase a year) is most felt in the polar regions, causing rapid polar ice melt down, which will in turn affect the oceanic currents in several ways(reduced salinity, Circumpolar Current, etc.)

        The change in temperature doesn’t need to be huge for it to have an impact on the climate.

        If the halocline, the current that in essence keeps the Antarctic ice from melting, should change in any way it will more than likely cause dramatic changes in the climate….

        Unlike other planetary processes which happen on a geologic time-scale , the climate change will be rapid and could very well reshape the map of our planet’s climate within a decade or two.

        And this excerpt from: U.S. Climate Action Report 2000, US Environmental Protection Agency, page 38.

        “Although estimates of the contribution from water vapor vary widely, most sources place it between 90 and 95% of the warming effect, or about 30-31 of the 33 degrees . Carbon dioxide, although present in much lower concentrations than water, absorbs more infrared radiation than water on a per-molecule basis and contributes about 84% of the total non-water greenhouse gas equivalents , or about 4.2-8.4% of the total greenhouse gas effect.”

  6. Ron Lammert says:

    Wow! It is unbearably hot and dry in South Texas. But here’s the news flash. It has been this hot and dry (or worse) here at least four times since 1900.

  7. Olaf Koenders says:

    There’s a reason cacti evolved in Texas as well as other arid regions of the world.

  8. Josik says:

    From this Warmist-site, abandoned about 10 years ago, you may wonder why they no longer show Arctic sea ice extent from about 1960 instead of 1979. But there might possibly be a reason for that.

    http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/Ice/Ice_no_sat/XX_Arctic.htm

    A lot of interesting “old” information anyhow: http://nwpi.krc.karelia.ru/e/climas/

  9. This is one chart that you might want to consider. It strikes at the very heart of the AGW theory. CO2 simply doesn’t absorb at the wavelength the earth emits.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s