previous ecostory 06/2009 next
"Global average temperatures from 1958 to 2008"
and
"The World 4 degrees Centigrade warmer"
back | home | climate | energy | sustainability | water
Further down is a representation of the world's Temperatures from 1958 till 2008.

It was taken from an online debate on the New Scientist's website about "The World: 4°C warmer" interactive map, from their article "How to survive the coming century".
  1. "The world: 4°C warmer"
    "No one knows exactly what this world will look like, but models provide insights into forced human migrations and our future power generation"
    ecoglobe considers these "insights" to human migration and power generation being unscientific. IF or WHEN only one or two of the disastrous environmental changes take place, as described in the New Scientist article, collapse, and even die-off of the biosphere could eventuate in a few years time only.
  1. "Greenland"
    "Greenland's ice sheet will be melting rapidly"
  2. "Scandinavia/UK/Norther Russia/Greenland"
    "Compact high-rise cities would provide shelter for much of the world's population" [ecoglobe Humanity may collapse because of lacking resources and ensuing riots and universal wars. No agriculture will be possible in the morasses of former tundras. Nobody will live in de-glaciated Antarctica. Desert regions will not be covered by solar panels. And so on. The resources for all that will simply not be available, we believe.]
  3. "Siberia"
    "Reliable precipitation and warmer temperatures provide ideal growing conditions for most of the world's subsistence crops"
  4. "Arctic passage"
    "With no sea-ice, this valuable shipping route is open all year, providing transportation links between habitable zones in Canada and Russia"
  5. "Southern Europe"
    "Deserts have encroached on the continent, rivers have dried up and the Alps are snow-free. Goats and other hardy animals are kept at the fringes"
  6. "Canada"
    "Reliable precipitation and warmer temperatures provide ideal growing conditions for most of the world's subsistence crops"
  7. "North Africa/Midddle East/Souther US"
    "Solar Energy Belt stretches for thousands of kilometres, employing a mixture of photovoltaic and solar thermal energy. At frequent intervals a high voltage direct-current substation sends power north"
  8. "Southern China"
    "Dried rivers and aquifers mean this region has been abandoned. Intense monsoons have helped erode the land, leaving a dustbowl"
  9. "South-west US"
    "Desertification led to the last inhabitants of this region migrating north. The Colorado river is a mere trickle. The land is used for solar farming and geothermal energy"
  10. "Amazon"
    "Desert"
  11. Africa"
    "Mostly desert, though some models show greening of the Sahel"
  12. "Asia"
    "Most of Himalayan glaciers have melted, with repercussions for many of the major rivers in the region. Bangladesh is largely abandoned, as is south India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Isolated communities remain in pockets"
  13. "Polynesia"
    "Vanished beneath the sea"
  14. "Peru"
    "Deglaciation means this area is dry and uninhabitable"
  15. "Patagonia"
    "Melted glaciers revealed a new arable zone, although the poor soils needed preparation"
  16. "Australia"
    "In the far north and Tasmania, compact cities house people and crops are grown. The rest of the continent is given to solar energy productionand uranium mining for nuclear power"
  17. "New Zealand"
    "Unrecognisable. This densely populated island state has high-rise cities and intensive farming"
  18. "Western Antarctica"
    "Unrecognisable now. Densely populated with high-rise cities"
[Archived copy of the article in the New Scientist (for scientific non-commercial use only. Source: www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126971.700-how-to-survive-the-coming-century.html")]
home | a-z site map | write to writing for change... halt  | ecostory | feedback
zurück - retour - backback ecoglobe realitysince 1997 top
9226-9307
Source=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126971.700-how-to-survive-the-coming-century.html

"Can we get a companion article about how to survive the coming century if the temperature Drops 4 °C?" - James.

Ah, the perpetual fantasy of Conservative Wing Nuts. Didn't you losers get enough mileage out of YOUR 1970's predictions of imminent glaciation?

Idiots.

"I think that is far more likely given the current decade long temperature trend." - James

You mean this one? Looks up Up UP to me.

Maybe you should get a grade 4 student to explain to you how to read a graph.

(long URL - click here)

Here are the global average temperatures from 1958 to 2008.

"o" = trend line.

"=" = left white space border=0 align=middle>

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

And most recently the rate of increase is about 2°C per century.

View with mono spaced font.

1958 14.08 *******o***************

1959 14.06 ********o************

1960 13.99 *********o******

1961 14.08 **********o************

1962 14.04 ***********o********

1963 14.08 ************o**********

1964 13.79 **===========o

1965 13.89 *********====o

1966 13.97 **************o

1967 14.00 ***************o*

1968 13.96 **************==o

1969 14.08 *****************o*****

1970 14.03 ******************o

1971 13.90 **********=========o

1972 14.00 *****************===o

1973 14.14 ********************o******

1974 13.92 ***********==========o

1975 13.95 *************=========o

1976 13.84 ******=================o

1977 14.13 ************************o*

1978 14.02 ******************=======o

1979 14.09 ***********************===o

1980 14.18 ***************************o**

1981 14.27 ****************************o*******

1982 14.05 ********************========o

1983 14.26 *****************************o*****

1984 14.09 ***********************=======o

1985 14.06 *********************==========o

1986 14.13 **************************======o

1987 14.27 *********************************o**

1988 14.31 **********************************o****

1989 14.19 ******************************=====o

1990 14.38 ************************************o*******

1991 14.35 ************************************o****

1992 14.12 *************************============o

1993 14.14 ****************************===========o

1994 14.24 **********************************=====o

1995 14.38 ****************************************o***

1996 14.30 **************************************===o

1997 14.40 ******************************************o**

1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************

1999 14.33 ****************************************===o

2000 14.33 ****************************************====o

2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****

2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********

2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******

2004 14.49 ************************************************o**

2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********

2006 14.54 **************************************************o****

2007 14.56 ***************************************************o*****

2008 14.44 ************************************************====o

Temperature Correlation Coefficient .8529209

Source NASAS -> http://data.giss.nasa.gov:80/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs

some comments from New scientist on-line:

Can We Get A Companion Article
Wed Feb 25 19:41:05 GMT 2009 by James

Vendicar, The graph is getting old. Nobody studies it because it is not real and besides it is too cluttered to be readable. Please give me the source of your data. I can't find any past 2006. Also curious is the lack of data prior to 1880. You know what was happening before 1880? Yep, the little ice age. Can't have those low temps cluttering up a good power grab can we?

reply report this comment
Can We Get A Companion Article
Wed Feb 25 21:43:40 GMT 2009 by Vendicar Decarian

"Vendicar, The graph is getting old." - James

And you think that is relevant because????

"Nobody studies it because it is not real" - James

Further illustrating the Conservative denialists like James, do not exist in a reality based community.

"it is too cluttered to be readable." - James

Bar charts are too complex for the advanced denialist.

"Also curious is the lack of data prior to 1880." - James

The graph starts in 1958, not 1880.

Self delusion is the hallmark of the Denialist.

"Can't have those low temps cluttering up a good power grab can we?" - James

I see, so you think that extending the record back into history to a cooler era would enhance your claim that there hasn't been warming?

Wouldn't it do the exact opposite?

Ahahahahaahah... Moron.

[back]